What if abortion were viewed not as an evil (or immoral act) but instead as a challenge or a puzzle to be solved? I suppose first one would have to assume that an unborn baby is not a child with intrinsic value and accept abortion as one of many possible "solutions". Then we could cooperate to reduce abortion through social policy the same way the government attempts to solve any number of other public woes through its organizational efficiency and highly compassionate programs. Wait, is this still "pro-life"? Well, the Wall Street Journal reports that some "pro-lifers" advocate this route:
After making significant gains during the Bush administration, the anti-abortion movement was dealt sharp setbacks in last week's election with the defeat of three state ballot measures restricting abortion.Now, strategists are debating whether the way forward should be based on confrontation or cooperation with the incoming Democratic administration.
[snip]
President-elect Barack Obama and other Democrats have promised to work to make abortion rare, so long as it remains legal. "Maybe it's time to take them up on the offer" instead of "bashing our heads over and over again against the same wall," writes Paul Strand, a blogger for the Christian Broadcasting Network.
The Rev. Joel Hunter, an influential megachurch pastor in Florida, sees a new willingness among pro-life activists to cooperate with pro-choice forces in search of a middle ground. He traces that openness in part to the flourishing of crisis pregnancy centers. As volunteers meet women struggling with unplanned pregnancies, they begin to view abortion less as an absolute evil and more as a practical challenge: How do we get this single mother a job, or help that college student with child care so she doesn't feel as though abortion is her only option?
This certainly is an effective way to take the meaning out of the debate and solidify the holocaust of abortion as an American icon. Let me give you another view posted by George Grant shortly after the election:
America has voted for change with the choice of the most extreme pro-abortion and pro-infanticide president in history--to go with solid pro-abortion and pro-infanticide majorities in both the House and the Senate. As Gradgrind asserted, "These are facts, facts, facts. Cold hard facts."
In light of these facts, "How should we then live?"
The answer is simple: we too must change. We must stand for the sanctity of life as never before, with more courage than ever before, with more compassion than ever before, with more commitment than ever before, with more grace than ever before, with more resolve than ever before, with more creativity than ever before, and with more wisdom than ever before.
Please, spread the word.
i totally agree. i agreed with obama on so many issues but did not vote for him because of his stand on abortion.
that comment was ment for plb
Is there any reason it can't be both?
The Holocaust was an absolute evil.
So should Oskar Schindler, the ten Boom family, and the people who hid Anne Frank and her family have not made any efforts to save as many lives as they could while they waited for God's just hand to sweep the evil out of power?
What do the powerless do in the face of great evil? Isn't to roll over and die also to let evil triumph?
Just to clarify: I'm AGREEING that we must fight for life as never before. But sometimes that means working within the boundaries of a heinous status quo. The South Dakota ban was defeated by PROLIFERS taking an absolutist, "I'd rather feel smugly moral than save over 800 babies' lives a year" stand.
Eight hundred REAL babies a year that will continue to be put to death, because we couldn't get the majority to agree to save eight hundred and two.
Which is akin to refusing to let any of the passengers of the Titanic board the lifeboats, since there wasn't room for everybody.
Sometimes all WE can do is mitigate the evil, while we pray that God move His hand and drive it utterly away. And this November 4 a lot of Christians refused to do that. It was all or nothing. And next year 800 South Dakota babies will die needlessly, sacrifices on the altar of self-righteousness.
To clarify, this post focuses on those who have decided the abortion debate (legality and/or morality) are over and am criticizing the statement "abortion is not evil". Not, the work we do to save those who can be saved (such as the SD ban) or to provide CPCs and other support for women.
Abortion is not the most important issue. If you agree with Oboma whole heartedly, why not vote for him.
If there were two canidates left and one was an astounding bright man who had great views that appealed to both parties, but was pro choice and a man who chose a terrible VP wanted to solve everything with war was not for the middle class but was pro life who would you vote for.
Even thought the second canidate had more than 23 years in the senate and could not ban abortion.
I wonder?