Reconciliation

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” Matt 5: 21-24

Jesus was a radical thinker. He confronted the conservative fundamentalism of his time with some very difficult concepts. One of the most difficult concepts for the Jews to accept was reconciliation. They believed that God was vengeful and visited His wrath on sinners in the form of illness, poverty, and misfortune. So it was easy for the Jews to identify sinners and they treated them accordingly.

Jesus rejected that way of thinking. He taught that we are all God’s children. We all need saving, and it was God’s job to judge, not ours. In fact, withholding judgment isn’t nearly enough, we have to figure out how to love everyone – particularly those that we feel were sinners. In this passage from Matthew, Jesus is saying that if any of us are guilty of harboring ANY unkind thoughts about our brother, we are in MORE spiritual danger than murderers.

In other words, as He did through out this chapter, He is expanding the definition of what it means to be a disciple. It’s not enough to just follow the commandments. We have to love our brothers, even if we think they are murderers. That love by the way goes way beyond the simplistic “I love the man but hate the act”. Later in this same chapter He says we have to “walk” with them until we understand them. We have to embrace them, even when we think they have injured us. We have to trust them even when we feel they have stolen from us. In fact, it is so important that we sincerely resolve any differences with our brothers, that we should make that a higher priority than going to church and asking for our own forgiveness.

This is radical thinking that I don’t see many Christians practicing today.

Here’s just one example.

I’ve been corresponding with a handful of different people who felt that a vote for Obama was immoral because President-elect Obama is Pro-Choice. The news last week carried a piece about a Catholic priest in South Carolina who went so far as to suggest that a vote for Obama was a sinful act. As a result, those who committed that act needed to confess that sin before they could receive communion.

This may seem well beyond the pale for many, but I can confirm that there are some who feel that our country is going to suffer the wrath of God because of our failure to elect a Pro-Life Presidential candidate.

I’ve already posted a couple of things on abortion. I won’t repeat those posts here, but just provide a summary and link if anyone wants to do any more research.

http://www.blogsmonroe.com/christianpolitics/category/abortion/

Good ideas bad results – Practical ways to reduce the number of abortions
Eternal Life – Practical reasons why “life begins at conception” doesn’t work
Unto Us a Child is Born – God respects choice
Greater Good – Which is worse, abortion or sin

What I did want to spend some time on is this question of Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice as a political issue.

First a quick summary of the issues.

Pro-Life folks feel that there is Biblical evidence that life begins at conception, so abortion is the equivalent to murder. As a result, they feel it should be treated as murder by our legal system.

Pro-Choice folks are more concerned about the rights of women and the control that women should have over their own bodies.

Roe v. Wade is the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision prohibiting states from enacting legislation prohibiting abortion.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey is the 1992 Supreme Court decision where the court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade using the principle of stare decisis. Essentially, when something has been law for a long time and has become part of the fabric of society, it is beyond the scope of the courts to change it.

The bottom line is that the past thirty years have polarized the voting public and made a lot of money for politicians on both sides of the issue.

So let’s dig a little deeper into the claim that a a vote for a Pro-life candidate is a moral issue.

First an easy one. If a Pro-Life stance is just a moral litmus test of the character of candidates, I suggest that it is faulty because there have been plenty of Pro-life senators and congressmen over the past eight years who fell far short of the mark as ethical lawmakers. So there it has to be more than that.

If it’s not just a moral litmus test and Pro-Life supporters are looking for real practical change, then shouldn’t those candidates who deliver real change be the ones who earn their vote regardless of whether or not they pass the litmus test?

In other words, since it is unlikely that Roe v. Wade is going to get overturned anytime soon, and the longer it stands the more difficult it will be to overturn, then shouldn’t Pro-Life voters be demanding more substantive practical progress in reducing the number of abortions from their candidates?

Well as you might imagine, I’ve done a little research on the subject. Here are the statistics (abortions per 1000 women of child bearing age) for the last couple Presidents through 2005.

Reagan –  29.28 – 27.37
Bush I –     27.37 – 25.89
Clinton –    25.89 – 21.30
Bush II –     21.30 – 19.41

What is interesting is that the President who had the most dramatic affect on reducing the number of abortions was the only one of the bunch who was Pro-Choice – Bill Clinton.

Here’s the bottom line from what I have learned so far from those single issue Pro-Life voters. They are unconcerned about whether or not the person they voted for actually does anything substantive to change the status quo. They view their vote as a moral imperative that goes beyond any practical measure. They feel that when they vote Pro-Life, they are voting Pro-God.

My concern, at this particular point is time, is that we don’t have the luxury of this sort of debate anymore. We can’t have folks sitting on the sidelines self-righteously predicting God’s wrath for our moral weakness. Our country is in tough shape. Right after 9-11, a call went out to the American people and they responded as one, even though a lot of us thought the wrong person with questionable morals was in the White House then too.

 I think that the situation is even more serious now. We all need to be in the same boat rowing in the same direction because our ship of state is perilously close to the falls. We don’t have time to argue about the details. On some things we are just going to have to agree to disagree at least until we are in a safer place. Hopefully, we CAN all agree that we care enough about each other to put aside partisanship, pick up an oar, and start rowing. 

12 Responses to “Reconciliation”

  1. keith says:

    Hey Jeff,
    Abortion is a single issue for many, many people, it is for me.
    Our view on Life is at the very foundation of our beliefs. This is not an issue
    to be taken lightly or just brushed off. Lets view life in this context.

    Psalm 139 1 – 18

    1) O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me.

    2) Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou
    understandest my thought afar off.

    3) Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted
    with all my ways.

    4) For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou
    knowest it altogather.

    5) Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon
    me.

    6) Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannnot attain
    unto it.

    7) Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy
    pressence?

    8) If I ascend up to into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell,
    behold, thou art there.

    9) If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts
    of the sea;

    10) Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold
    me.

    11) If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall
    be light about me.

    12) Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

    13) For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my
    mother’s womb.

    14) I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made:
    marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

    15) My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secert,
    and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

    16) Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy
    book all my members were written, which in continuance were
    fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

    17) How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is
    the sum of them.

    18) If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand:
    when I awake, I am still with thee.

    This is a starting place for me when it comes to this issue Jeff. If we
    are to believe the scriptures and this one in particular, then we as Christians believe that God is the creator of life, verses 13, 14 & 15 and also Gen 1:1. For context I’d refer you to the rest of the Bible.

    So Obama vs McCain. I really don’t care for McCain and really don’t think he represented my posistions as a concervitive very well. He ran a campain worthy of the outcome. Obama I do like. However, his position on life are dramaticly oppossed to mine and this disquailifies him for me.

    He defended, by himself I might add, the right for a baby, who excapes the attempted exacution, or abortion if you will, the right to treatment now that he/she fought for their life, litteraly ran the guantlet and survived. His position was that the mother intended for the baby be killed and not live. To help the surviving child by way of treatment would be to overturn the womans decision to kill her child, or have an abortion if you prefer. That would lead to chips in the fence around roe v wade potentially resulting in it being overturned. As he saw it, that simply could not be allowed to happen. Now you tell me wheather or not Obama is a single issue voter?
    So much so that the child, BORN ALIVE, should die to protect the “right of the mother.” (If I have misunderstood this case, and the way I have presented it is incorrect, then I am willing to be corrected. In the months leading up to the election I NEVER heard, saw, or read anyone from the Obama team clear this one up. And believe me, I was looking for it.)

    Look at all the Supreme court nomination votes in congress since the 80’s you will find ALL Clinton judges getting voted in by near unanimous decisions. Maybe two or three republicans would oppose. Look then at Reagan/Bush/Bush appointee’s. You will find 30 – 40 senators opposing them, democrats!!!!! Jeff, there really is only one issue in play during that process. I’d suggest when it comes to single issues for Democrats this is the issue….That simply can not be denied.

    Care to look further? Who was the one group President Clinton NEVER opposed? The womens rights groups. He threw every other democratic group under the bus starting with “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Tax and spenders, OUT!!!

    That is an extreme case I pointed out but it does point out an extreme candidate. I simply can not vote for that guy because of his belief on life. It disquailifies him completely. Jeff, he said “let the baby die.” This was a considered agruement he made. Not in a meeting and giving thoughts off the top of his head, but a considered arguement.

    Now that Obama has won, I am praying for him, we all need to. (Read John Piippo’s “discovering the real Jesus in Monroe” post on how to pray for President Obama.) I will support him and I really hope he does well. We need solutions to big problems and this is no time to be playing politics.

    Your comments about this issue being a single voter issue involving only Christians and Republicans is wrong and heavily biased, again, but you are very correct to say it is a single voter issue!!!!!! With that I am in total agreement. Your blog title is “Spiritual wickedness in high places.” In light of Psalm 139 I be interested in knowing how the President-elect Obama and the democrats aren’t in your cross hairs. THE BABY WAS STILL ALIVE!!!!!!!!!!!

    May God have His way with us.

  2. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Keith,

    I’ll try to post a more detailed answer over the weekend, but I wanted to address this “Born Alive” myth that has spread through the Internet.

    The claims are just not true.

    Here’s a link from Politifact with the details (as you asked).

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/oct/09/illinois-born-alive-abortion-law-becomes-campaign-/

  3. keith says:

    Jeff,
    Read papagraph nine of the link you provided…what you’ve supplied is a continued condemnation of Obama and democrats. Also read further about what he said about “nutrality clause” being absent in the case in IL senate. He appears to have distorted the truth as it was in fact included.

    Jeff, there is only one vote here, help the child in every way possible if the child excapes the exacution. Wouldn’t you agree? Obama has failed to vote correctly, repeatedly, and your link supports that contention.

  4. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Keith

    Yes, Obama and many others voted against Born Alive legislation in IL, not because they oppose the concept, but because the particular bill itself was flawed. He said that he supported the wording of the federal bill which did the same thing. I agree that it isn’t clear whether or not he had that opportunity in 2003. Clearly, he didn’t say “let the baby die”. Nor did he publically defend, as you’ve suggested, witholding medical care from babies. You asked for documentation. I’ve given it to you from an unbiased source. If you have anything from an unbiased source to refute that, bring it on.

    I don’t agree that there is only one vote here. That’s obviously why I posted what I did.

    What you and many others caught up in the emotion and self-righteousness of this issue appear to miss is that NO ONE is suggesting that abortion is good thing. Everyone wants to figure out how to reduce it to at least the level of medical necessity.

    But here’s the hang and it is what I was trying to get at in my post.

    For Pro-Life folks like you, this is a moral issue. As a result, you immediately distrust anyone who doesn’t view this issue in the same way that you do. This twisted slam on President-Elect Obama is just one example.

    Here’s a quick test. Let’s say President Obama successfully reduces abortions in the next four years to what we both can agree is the “medical necessity” level, so the only abortions that are occuring are those where a physician has recommended the procedure in order to protect the life of the woman. He does this through an aggressive campaign of sex education, easy access to birth control, jobs for the poor, and government support which makes it easier for women to raise their children.

    I submit that many if not most Pro-Life voters four years from now would still vote against President Obama because he doesn’t view abortion as a sin.

    I’ll post something after this regarding the bible quote. Just didn’t want this particular post to get too big.

  5. Jeff Beamsley says:

    OK on to the Bible quote.

    I love this particular passage in Psalms. It reveals a tender loving God who is also all knowing and all seeing. He is in control of all His creation. But He loves us so much, that He is willing to let us find our own way to Him.

    I have no doubt that God created all of us in His image and likeness. Since God is spiritual, that means that we have to be spiritual.

    We are His thoughts, His ideas, and we are His children in whom He delights.

    I don’t agree that this passage suggests that we are created when sperm fertilizes egg. I think it, and many other passages in the bible, suggest that we exist in spiritual form that transcends the body. God created us as spirit and we continue as spirit eternally. From the context of eternity, we deal with the flesh for only the blink of an eye.

    So I can’t say what the process is when this spiritual idea which the scripture suggest exist before conception, begins to react to the physical senses rather than the spiritual ones.

    What I can say is that our time in this material world is short, whether it is measured in hours or years, and is best spent working on our own salvation.

    God doesn’t need our help. We need His. So, as Jesus said, let those who have overcome all of their sins take up the task of pointing out the sinners. All the rest of us best get back to working for forgiveness.

  6. Keith says:

    He did defend with holding medical treatmeant for the child. Correct me if I’m wrong and I will be willing to be corrected but; The nurse, who brought the case our testified before the State Senate commitee where this controversy and also held the dying baby in her arms for 45 mins, occured said Obama, andthe ONLY one to do so, dismissed the notion of caring for the child as this was not the intention of the mother that the child shoudls live and that if this were allowed it would eroad rove v wade. I heard no one dispute this. Your article does not advance your position. Sorry.

    “Pro-life folks like you.” “Emotional and self rightous? “Jeff, that’s not good table manners. (that should have drawn a laugh) Yes, it is a moral issue. If this one isn’t then I don’t know which one is. However you may have missed one of my larger points…

    It is even more so for the Liberals. It is absolutely a litmus test for a supreme court nominee from there persective and most all court appointees. It’s a test for anyone in politics for lib’s as well. Period! Are you really going to debate that this is only a moral cause for Republican “Pro-Life Folk?” Also, I don’t think this is a twisted slam on Obama.

    Jeff, stay with me here for a moment. The bible speaks about the end times and says something along the lines of this. This those days there will be a form of godliness but know acknowledgement of Him. If we reduce abortions not by turning from our evil ways but by encouraging them, then we have not advanced the Kingdom. If there are fewer abortions, with more teens and unmarried “folk” are having sex, due to the provision of advanced birth control methods and plentiful supply what have we accomplished. The Kingdom is not advance but we have fewer abortions. Not the point at all. I would perferr to have a leader who does not want to agree to the support the act and cover up the responsiblity.

    Obama is not opposed to abortion. Bill Clinton struggled with this issue to some extent. He always said it should be legal but rare. I believe he also said many times, he is not in favor of it. Jimmy Carter siad he oppesed it but allowed for the choice of it. Obama flat out supports it.

    Obama has wom and He will be may president. I hope and pray he is the best president we’ve EVER had. I truely do Jeff. I’ll be the first guy to Mt. Rushmore with a chesile when he’s no longer Pres.

    Jeff, On display currently is the biggest different between Republicans and Democrates. The marrige thing in Calf is telling. The issue was put to the voters and they decided. The Gay communitee is taking it to the supeme court of Calf and they have agreed to hear the case. WHY??? The voters have already decided? That is proper process though and they are legally entitled to do so.

    How many recounts or disruptions are conservetives causing in their big losing moment? None to my knowledge. Your side needs to accept our way of electing officals and making law. Our country will be torn from within if the left doesn’t come to their senses in this regrad in the next down cycle for them. Al Gore if he were a republican would be in Minn, Alaska, and Georgia SCREAMING at the top of there lungs the second the voting stopped in those three states. (tight senate races)

    I write that last bit to say this; Jeff can you imagine what will happen if roe v wade were to be overturned? You’ll see then just how single an issue this can be, if you aren’t already aware of the lefts blind love affair with this procedure. so far, at last count, the score is well over 45,000,000 – 2 or 3 or 4… a few doctors to my knowledge. How many lives will be taken if this is over turned? Will it be an orderly process/ Will the left simply regroup and in a lawful way try and reclaim the turf? Or will there be total anarchy?

    Want a pre-curser? The Gay communitee has protested at the saddleback church…why. African-American voters in Calf voted 70% against this marrige thing and they are the cause of defeat…. why are they protesting a white surburban church? What mis-directed Christian haters they are….It’s on full display my friend.

  7. Jeff Beamsley says:

    The nurse is Jill Stanek. She has become a very public Pro-Life figure because of an experience she had at a hospital that you reference. She has a website (jillstanek.com) with a link “Audio of Obama arguing against giving medical care to abortion survivors”. What it takes you to is a portion of a transcript from April 4, 2002 where Obama is commenting on the wording in a proposed bill. There is NOTHING in the transcript to suggest he is advocating witholding care from a newborn. All he was questioning is the requirement of the bill to have a second physician present. He in fact said in the transcript that if the state didn’t trust attending physicians to follow the existing law and provide care for the newborn, then “maybe the bill makes sense”. He then expressed his skepticism that this bill was really about just making the whole procedure harder to obtain and not about care at all.

    Here’s a link to the unbiased FactCheck site where this same text is discussed.

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

    Their conclusion is “Obama’s critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies’ welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing “born-alive” bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.”

    I wasn’t able to find anything else on her site or any other credible site referencing the discussion you posted with some publically verifiable record. Given the very aggressive anti-Obama nature of the site, I’m certain that if she had anything substantive to support this story, she would have posted it. If you can find a credible reference to this story, I’m happy to look into it further, but for the moment, I would add this to the long list of Internet inventions. In other words, IT NEVER HAPPENED.

    Don’t have much more time this evening to respond to your larger issues, but I will try to get back to you tomorrow.

  8. Keith says:

    Jeff,
    I’ll go to the links when time permits.

    also looking forward to your comments on the large issue of this being a single voter issue on BOTH sides…(i suggested its a greater issue for the dems then it is for repub’s least you forget)

    You posed a thought above that pro-life folk would oppose obama even if the measures he takes to reduce abortion worked. you are correct in that statement and i gave my reasons why i would. so conversly and in the spirit of “lets all agree that the goal should be only abortions where the mothers life is threatened;”

    if the supreme court were to over-turn roe v wade, thereby not making abortion ilegal but merely kicking it back to the states for a vote which is all i want, and in doing so 50% of the states outlawed the proceedure thereby reducing abortions from the current 1.8 – 2.0 million a year to 750,000 but 20 women died from unsafe tries, would you be against the overtunr of it. Jeff we reduced abortions by well over 1 million.

  9. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Keith,

    Thanks for the reply.

    Let’s follow that though experiment a little further.

    First the likelyhood of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade grows more remote every year. If it didn’t happen on the watch of President Bush who brought the number of conservative justices to six with his two appointments, it’s not going to happen.

    The second assumption is that simply making abortion illegal will make it rare. The most stark evidence comes from Romania where Ceausescu made abortion illegal in 1966. Deaths from illegal abortions climbed to roughly 150/100,000 live births. When he was overthrown and abortion again became legal, the mortality rate dropped back down in 1996 to 20/100,000 live births (the same level it was in 1966). In 2005 we had 4.1M live births in the US. Using your simple example applied to the states that outlaw abortion and we’re not talking about 20 women, we’re talking thousands.

    So no I wouldn’t agree because making abortion illegal doesn’t answer the basic question, which is why do women seek abortions to begin with. Instead it simply assumes that those who do seek abortions are immoral and as a result should be punished. The reality is that no women wants an abortion and all would prefer that there was an alternative.

    Here’s a link that tries to answer the question of why women seek abortions.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_why.htm

    If you notice, “a convenient form of birth control” is not on the list.

    What this list does suggest, however, is that better sex education and availability of contraception, particularly for fertile women under 25, could reduce the number of abortions by as much as 50%.

    If women had better choices which made it easier for them to raise a child on their own, that could reduce abortions by as much as 37%.

    If we were able to deal with all of the social issues surrounding unwanted pregnancies and all we were left with was medical necessity and abuse, abortions could be reduced by 90%.

    Instead of doing that, we are bashing each other over the head trying to bludgen each other into submission.

    I haven’t done the math, but I suspect that if we took the combined budgets of all of the “choice” organizations and all of the “life” organizations and throw in political contributions that this issue generates from both sides, you could probably easily fund most of the contraception/social support program which would truly make abortion rare.

    And that’s my bottom line.

    It is much more profitable for both sides to prolong this controversy rather than solve it. It may require the death of the current generation of militants before our children realize how insane this is.

  10. keith says:

    You completely missed my point. I asked a question, a hypothetical, which may or may not ever happen. You refused the question saying it would never happen and then went in another direction.

    You stated, and I 100% agree with, the concept of only abortions where the life of the mother, and I’ll even add rape and incest, are preferred. (This issue would go away if your side would just really agree with that and put it into pratice. That would be reasoning together.)

    The question I asked was if Roe v Wade were over-turned and sent back to the states, where it belonged in the first place, and 50% of the states made abortion illegal and this reduced abortions from 1.8 – 2.0 million to 750,000 and 20 women died in unsafe attempts, would you be in favor of that.

    Jeff this is a hypothetical. I don’t care if it ever would or wouldn’t happen. You said republicans would still oppose Obama even if he reduced abortions but in ways that were not of the rights choosing, sex ed, issueing condems, etc..(I gave my answer to your hypothetical.)

    Your refusal to answer the hypothetical leads me to believe that if Bush had the opportunity to replace Ginsberg, you would have opposed him. This could have happened and abortions been greatly reduced. So what am I to conclude from your lack of any answer other then, “yes, I would support this being overturned because it reduces abortions and gets us closer to “life saving abortions only.” Any other answer and you are lumping yourself with the “pro life folk” who would oppose Obama even if he reduces the number of abortions. I am confussed.

    If you truely believe that the only wanted abortions are the ones where the life of the mother is in danger then why are you not opposed to abortion in any other form? For 35 years, I think (1973?) and over 45,000,000 deaths later, nothing is being done to curtail this genocide. The number raises and falls per 1,000 slightly, but no change that leads me to conclude that ANYTHING is going to bring this to an end so long as it’s legal. (I only want it kicked back to the states where it belonged all along. Over turning Roe v Wade will not make abortion illegal. If the people of a state want it then let them vote on it and “let it be on their hands.”)

    The good news here is you are more conservitive on this isuue then I am. My libral thinking would allow for abortion in the cases of rape and incest as well as the life of the mother. You how ever are only interested in the life of the mother. I will examine my position in light of you conservitive thinking to see if I can be persuaded by your influence. I’ll be open minded.

    In the end Jeff, only God changing lives and hearts will effect this out come. “The thief comes only to steal, and kill, and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.” John 10:10

  11. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Keith,

    Sorry it took a little while to respond. It has been a busy week.

    I didn’t miss your point. I answered your question in more or less the same spirit in which you answered mine.

    You posed one of those impossible situational choices similar to those used to justify torture. Here’s a simple version. If you could be sure that you would save thousands of lives, would you kill one person?

    My sense is that the answer is to reject the premise rather than pull the trigger, because there are never choices that are so simple and more importantly the Bible says thou shalt not kill, not thou shalt not kill except when you think you can save a bunch of other lives.

    I am happy to see that there may be a glimmer of some common ground. If we can, through other means, reduce the demand for abortions to the point where we are talking only about the health of the mother or abuse (my catch phrase for rape, incest, etc.), then you would be willing to compromise.

    That said, no I don’t think that we should withhold abortions from women who are healthy and became pregnant as the result of consentual intercourse. I think that we should provide women (and men) with better education and better choices so that pregnancies are expected and welcome. I also think that we should make it easier for those women who do experience an unexpected pregnancy, to raise their children with the support of the community so that they can continue their education and get good paying jobs. Finally I believe that, more than anything else, eliminating poverty and providing a high standard of living for everyone will prove our most effective tool to reduce the demand for abortions.

    As far a supreme court appointments, I’m not happy with where the court is now, but those who supported the Bush administration for the past eight years had every right expect him to appoint conservative judges. Since they were successful electing their candidate, they earned the right to influence the makeup of the court. Now we will have at least four and maybe more years where more liberal judges will get appointed. As I’ve said before, most who would otherwise be qualified to sit on the bench are going to view Roe as established law regardless of their political persuasion.

    As far as the John 10:10 quote, it is beautiful. But it has nothing to do with life here on earth. Read the 1-9 and you’ll see that Jesus is talking about eternal life and the fact that He is the door to that eternal life.

    It’s that promise of eternal life for everyone that leads me to the conclusion that those worried about the precise moment when life starts may be disappointed when they actually meet God. The Bible’s instructions are pretty clear. So what are they going to say when God asks them how they fed the hungry, provided water for the thirsty, housed the stranger and the homelss, clothed the naked, comforted the sick, and visited those who were imprisonned? I would not want to be in that position with the only answer that I was so busy trying to overturn Roe that I didn’t have time to think about the least of my brothers.

  12. Keith says:

    Anyone who’s only objective is to overturn roe v wade is a fanatic!!!!!!
    Their attitude and position so extreme it could be understood as the following;

    Bill wants to lead persons to Christ and has a very strong heart for the lost. He wants to reach out to those who are in bondage to alcohl. So he starts a program in which he brings them in and show points them to God and helps with their addiction. three years latter his program is to help as many people recover but it no longer pointing them to Jesus. He is still getting a result but not the one intended. After three years all he ends up doing is sobering people up before they go the Hell….This is a fanatic!!!!! The cause becomes greater then the purpose.

    The flip side is the person who does nothing……They are much the same in the end..

Leave a Reply