Donny's Ramblings

Richard: TES doesn’t deserve the venom you’re spouting off. At least, the opinions were stated in a civil manner, unlike you.

Jean–thank you for reading my posts with an open mind. You’re getting what is and is NOT there…

For the record, nowhere in my post am I endorsing Republican or any other party as a fix to our problems as a nation. I have never believed that Republican-led government would bring about Christian consciences or leadership. However, I shudder at the idea of a president whose voting record is so openly anti-Christian trying to sucker us in with his pretense of being middle of the road and loving anything Christian other than our votes. Like just about any election, this one comes down to the lesser evil. AndI could never in good conscience endorse a candidate who is so openly mocking Christian values and concerns. I don’t expect McCain to overturn abortion or lead us into a golden era of Christian revival. But his values are definitely not as out there as Obama’s. I also believe that he represents his convictions a lot more openly and honestly. Other than that, my expectations remain limited.

Abby, you are so right about the failure of Christians to demonstrate their convictions in action in either issue that you are discussing. Our track record in marriage is shameful. There is no doubt about it. At the same time, legislating a much compromised form or marriage or “unions” is hardly an answer.

We don’t live in a Christian world. I am perfectly clear on the fact that this may mean having to endure ungodly government (believe me, I know, I live in CA). But I believe that as Christians we must vote our conscience according to clearly stated scriptural principles. Anybody opposed will certainly vote theirs. And the chips will fall as they may…

As to social issues, once again, I totally agree with your points. In fact, they say exactly what I was trying to express. We need to put our money where our mouth is. We are individually (and as churches) responsible for bringing about positive change in a messed up world, even if it hurts.

I am happy to say for my church and for myself as an individual (at least I can do so anonymously) that I strive to do exactly that. We/I are involved in numerous efforts to reach out to the hurting and abandoned.

We are only given that one option: to reach out and give of ourselves. If we fail to do so, it will show and we are held responsible.

What I am opposed to is delegating this responsibility to ungodly governements and anti-godly officials such as Mr. Obama. If we look to gov’t to step up for us, they just might. But along with that will come all kinds of other baggage and evils. As I see it, we can either sacrificially give or turn more of our pocketbooks over to the tax-and-spend representatives of social change. If we do the latter, we better be prepared for programs that will replace charity with entitlement and with creating folks who should be receiving freely and instead become dependents of gov’t (not because of charity in the hearts of their friendly officials; those merely trade our tax dollars for gov’t indoctrination and bought votes).

Nevertheless, your point is understood. We are to lead by example. Some of us do, some of us don’t. The church has stepped up throughout history in the cause of making a better world. We have no right to clamor for the gov’t to do it for us. Unless we’re willing to accept all that comes with it, including the gradual erosion of Christian freedom in this country.

Dear Richard,

Nevermind…

McCain said he would appoint judges who judge by the text of the Constitution. This usually infers judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade. Supreme Court judges used to be appointed on the basis of qualifications and experience rather than ideology; almost all of them ruled on the text of the law and stare decisis rather than the more subjective “intent” of the law. That was before we saw so much “legislation from the bench.” The court has changed, and, since Bork, the process for nominating judges has changed with it. That’s why we have stealthy picks like justice Alito (who is suspected to be in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade). Either way, McCain is strongly pro-life. It would be difficult for a person who legitimately has that stance to turn their back to it. Also, the presidents who appointed judges who would eventually rule on Roe v. Wade had a long history of a pro-life America with steady/predictable court rulings and probably never considered that the judges would overthrow that legislation. I’ve known pro-choice folks who agree that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision in terms of legal procedures.

At first, a Roe v. Wade overturn would put it to the states. However, after Roe v. Wade is overturned, Congress could make a law (if singed by the President, of course) banning abortion in the US.

Also, look at NARAL and Planned Parenthood, the premier pro-abortion groups in the US. Look at who they support and why.

If abortion is considered a cause of death, then it is the top cause of death in the US. Less than 5,000 Americans have been killed in Iraq (round 2). The US has over 16,000 homicides every year. Double that to get the approximate number of suicides. We have over 1,000,000 abortions every year. I’m not shortchanging death due to combat, but it pales in comparison to some other issues. Making abortion illegal won’t stop all of them. Other plans of action won’t either, but they’re worth doing, too, and they’re not mutually exclusive with making it illegal. Overturning Roe v. Wade is not a sufficient condition for making it illegal, but it’s a necessary one. Making abortion illegal won’t do enough. Relying on other methods wont’ do enough either. Do both.

Also, there’s an argument to be had that justice requires making abortion illegal even if it doesn’t result in a drop in how many are done. Murder is illegal (we still have over 16,000 of those in the US every year…), and we do a number of other programs to reduce homicides. We should keep it illegal because that’s what good government does. If the Democrats are so big on sticking up for people who can’t stick up for themselves, why the omission of the unborn? If anyone deserves our support, it’s defenseless children. Their quantity alone makes a compelling case. The Republicans are far from perfect on this criteria (helping the helpless), but can you claim the Democrats are so far superior as to just give up on a million dead children? I don’t believe the talk about reducing abortions because as long as I’ve watched, the vast majority of Democrats are against things like parental notification and disclosures aimed at reducing abortions (at least that’s how they were/are in MN). Know what would work wonders? A mandatory high-quality ultrasound with a disclosure on exactly how human that child is (own DNA, blood type, heart beat, etc.) before the child is killed. Think that’s more likely with self-declared pro-lifers in charge or self-declared pro-choicers in charge?

As a final note, the million figure doesn’t come directly from the CDC, but if you note on their figures the states that are excluded and assume that abortions take place there in proportion to the population of the state, we get estimates around a million. This doesn’t count things like RU-485, also, so a decline in measured abortions doesn’t necessarily mean a decline in abortions. Either way, it’s a lot of blood. When you look at a porn site, you contribute to porn production. When you vote, you contribute to policy, and that blood is on millions of hands.

McCain said he would appoint judges who judge by the text of the Constitution. This usually infers judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade. Supreme Court judges used to be appointed on the basis of qualifications and experience rather than ideology; almost all of them ruled on the text of the law and stare decisis rather than the more subjective “intent” of the law. That was before we saw so much “legislation from the bench.” The court has changed, and, since Bork, the process for nominating judges has changed with it. That’s why we have stealthy picks like justice Alito (who is suspected to be in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade). Either way, McCain is strongly pro-life. It would be difficult for a person who legitimately has that stance to turn their back to it. Also, the presidents who appointed judges who would eventually rule on Roe v. Wade had a long history of a pro-life America with steady/predictable court rulings and probably never considered that the judges would overthrow that legislation. I’ve known pro-choice folks who agree that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision in terms of legal procedures.

At first, a Roe v. Wade overturn would put it to the states. However, after Roe v. Wade is overturned, Congress could make a law (if singed by the President, of course) banning abortion in the US.

Also, look at NARAL and Planned Parenthood, the premier pro-abortion groups in the US. Look at who they support and why.

If abortion is considered a cause of death, then it is the top cause of death in the US. Less than 5,000 Americans have been killed in Iraq (round 2). The US has over 16,000 homicides every year. Double that to get the approximate number of suicides. We have over 1,000,000 abortions every year. I’m not shortchanging death due to combat, but it pales in comparison to some other issues. Making abortion illegal won’t stop all of them. Other plans of action won’t either, but they’re worth doing, too, and they’re not mutually exclusive with making it illegal. Overturning Roe v. Wade is not a sufficient condition for making it illegal, but it’s a necessary one. Making abortion illegal won’t do enough. Relying on other methods wont’ do enough either. Do both.

Also, there’s an argument to be had that justice requires making abortion illegal even if it doesn’t result in a drop in how many are done. Murder is illegal (we still have over 16,000 of those in the US every year…), and we do a number of other programs to reduce homicides. We should keep it illegal because that’s what good government does. If the Democrats are so big on sticking up for people who can’t stick up for themselves, why the omission of the unborn? If anyone deserves our support, it’s defenseless children. Their quantity alone makes a compelling case. The Republicans are far from perfect on this criteria (helping the helpless), but can you claim the Democrats are so far superior as to just give up on a million dead children? I don’t believe the talk about reducing abortions because as long as I’ve watched, the vast majority of Democrats are against things like parental notification and disclosures aimed at reducing abortions (at least that’s how they were/are in MN). Know what would work wonders? A mandatory high-quality ultrasound with a disclosure on exactly how human that child is (own DNA, blood type, heart beat, etc.) before the child is killed. Think that’s more likely with self-declared pro-lifers in charge or self-declared pro-choicers in charge?

As a final note, the million figure doesn’t come directly from the CDC, but if you note on their figures the states that are excluded and assume that abortions take place there in proportion to the population of the state, we get estimates around a million. This doesn’t count things like RU-485, also, so a decline in measured abortions doesn’t necessarily mean a decline in abortions. Either way, it’s a lot of blood. When you look at a porn site, you contribute to porn production. When you vote, you contribute to policy, and that blood is on millions of hands.

Jeremy,

As for you last statement, the same thing could be said for people who vote for those who are pro-war, pro-capital punishment, and so forth. Why are these not bigger discussions?

In a two-party system such as we have, it’s pretty much one choice or the other. We don’t have a party that’s anti-war (if that would even save lives), pro-life, anti-capital punishment, pro-reform for quality in health care, pro-enforcement for speed limits and the like (traffic fatalities are huge but overlooked), etc. Quantity matters for deciding which ones to elevate over the others; that’s the whole point of the numbers I put up. Should the US have bombed Auschwitz during WWII even though that would have killed hundreds (perhaps thousands) of innocent Jews? Visit the Holocaust museum in DC, and the displays point that direction. Why? It could have saved tens of thousands more. In God’s view, every life is precious. Unfortunately, human decisions aren’t always between life and death, but between death and death (given the chance, should we kill members of the Taliban? Would that save lives or ruin them?). Should get get involved in Darfur? Certainly, we’d have more death from wars/conflict. Is that worse than death from genocide? The numbers have a very important role.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index.html

I remember looking at at this a few years ago and an important trend caught my eye. The WHO splits it up by income now, but they used to be all together and a show a trend (maybe that’s on a different page now…). “Wars and conflict” was a top 10 cause of death worldwide in the 90′s but it reduced off the list when Bush became president. Did Bush cause that? I don’t think so. Look at the numbers now? Where do you see “wars and conflict”? Doesn’t even make the list. It’s gotten better from a macro view even though war is more on our radar now (it feels different when it’s our own country’s soldiers, but isn’t every life equally precious to God and shouldn’t we [and I'm in our armed forces] be willing to sacrifice our lives to save others especially if they’re still lost? When you think about “pro-war” and wars we’ve been involved in, it doesn’t usually mean “pro-death.” When you consider abortion, it’s highly preventable (all mom has to do is say “no”) and it’s unnecessary death.

As for capital punishment and so forth, it’s the numbers. Why spare 1,000 lives a year (it’s not even that high now for Iraq/Afghanistan) by voting Democrat at the potential expense of 1,000,000? When we pulled out of Vietnam, the communists killed more people in 3 years than we killed during the decade of war. Wars do not always mean more deaths. Often, they save lives. That’s really tough to measure, so I don’t claim that’s the case here. Hussein was a very bad guy and it’s good he’s gone. We found mass graves. People “disappeared” and never came back and there was a suspicious correlation with those Hussein disliked. Did we kill more than we saved or did we save more than we killed? I don’t think either side can make that claim because we don’t have enough info even after the fact. Even if you think we killed far more than we saved, it doesn’t point to one party being better than the other as clearly as abortion does. After all, most of the Democrats in Congress voted for the wars (back when opinion polls showed over 90% of Americans in favor of it — most anti-war Americans have changed their mind…), and then later to cut of funding for it (and if anyone tells you that cutting off those funds came without expense to American lives, they’re lying).

Now, Donny had some great points about how Republicans have been disappointing for pro-lifers in appointing judges who would make a difference on this issue. We don’t know for certain how many more will die (and be saved) when it comes to capital punishment, wars, etc. But we know cutting abortion in half (just in half!) would add up to more lives than all these other issues combined (that is, if an unborn child is human — if “it’s” rubbish, then I’m wrong).

But Jeremy, if the correlation between abortion rates and poverty exists — and I would say that they do, as this link suggests — then having a person in office who’s committed to raising people out of poverty will reduce the number of abortions. It’ll also have the effect of, well, raising people out of poverty.

I’d also like to see your source concerning the statement that the Communists killed more people after the Vietnam War than died during it. Looking at this, we’re talking about possibly as many as three million people being killed in that war.

Barack Obama spoke so very eloquently in his acceptance speech when he said that we must do much more to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies. I wrote here before that while parents need to do more to educate their children about using birth control along with abstinence, this must also be taught in the schools because many parents don’t teach this. Bush, McCain and his VP pick Palin and the Republicans tout outlawing abortion but they oppose all of what I wrote above. While the Republicans claim to be “pro-life” they really are not. They are simply PRO-BIRTH. They’re for spending our money to wage wars for the benefit of the oil and other corporations, and for the death penalty. They don’t care about people AFTER they are born. They oppose spending more money to re-build our infrastructure which will provide jobs for millions of unemployed people, more money for education, national health care. You name it and they oppose it. If you really care about LIFE, vote for Barack Obama in November.

That was exceptionally well said, Walter!

Re: Bonnie

Thanks for the citation question and counterpoint.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WSJ.ART.HTM
One source of many. Vietnam is addressed after the article’s midpoint, and there’s some dense prose to get through before the relevant numbers hit (i.e. patience is a fruit of the Spirit). I’ve had history teachers who thought the numbers were higher for Stalin, Mao, and communist SE Asia. There is no way to be sure with so many dead, but these are some conservative educated guesses.

Correlation does not prove causation. Does poverty cause abortion? Does something else (e.g. risky behavior) cause both abortion and poverty? Is it that young people who are students or starting their employment are more likely to get pregnant and be in poverty with no causal relationship?

Let us assume that poverty is a cause for abortion. I personally think it is, but I can’t prove it. For a strategy of voting for Democrats to reduce abortion better than the Republicans through poverty reduction, we need for their proposed poverty reduction to work better than the markets (the usual Republican favorite). I am too young to have lived through it, but history gave us President Johnson’s war on poverty. Did that end poverty? Not even close, but it made a dent in it. Most of the programs are alive today (even after Clinton’s welfare reform, which was also imperfectly successful), and have done a lot of good. We have generous social welfare programs; I was raised by a very broken family dependent on them. Western Europe’s are even more robust… and they have a higher abortion rates than the US (correlation does not prove causation but this casts some doubt). We would also need to have this method work better than making it illegal, the usual Republican position that most Democrats do not share. This seems unlikely. Further, adoption has always been an option. The choice is far easier on vulnerable and desperate moms when the death penalty for their child is off the table. My severely mentally ill and impoverished mom turned me over to my grandma who was not much better off. Dad disappeared after pushing mom & family HARD for an abortion. She was 18 & had every excuse to abort. On a personal level, poverty is not an excuse. It never has been. On a macro level, will poverty reduction attempts by increased government intervention do a better job than a legal ban and the welfare status quo? I doubt it. I only limited it to these choices because that is what we have to vote for/against (instead of addressing doing both an abortion ban and more welfare). Also, thousands of abortions are done at the order of people who are not impoverished.

At the end of the day, common sense tells me that pro-lifers will probably do a better job of reducing abortions than pro-choicers. If a person thinks a mom’s right over her child is stronger than the child’s right to live, it’s a good predictor that their policies will not be as targeted at reducing abortions as the person who believes that the unborn child is fully human with rights that trump mom’s. There are limitations to this idea (you’ll see some of it in my reply to Walter). Either way, I hope this helps further our understanding. Thanks again for the counterpoint.

Blake,

It’s interesting that you bring up that promise of support for faith-based initiatives. I have to be honest with you but I am not very optimistic about that for the following reasons.

1. I doubt the sincerity of the promise. As his own VP candidate, the Clintons and many others who should be in his corner will agree, here’s a candidate with an exceptionally scant set of qualifications. Of course, he promises to be everything to all people. But will he be able to follow through? Does he even have a clue how to?

2. If he is elected we can be assured that taxes will be raised. In turn, he’ll give some of that back to faith-based causes? That’s like saying: give me $100, and I’ll refund you $75. If you replay today, I’ll make it $80. Sounds like a deal? Churches and reputable private charities have proven track records that will always exceed the bang for the buck that actually reaches the needy. Why turn our hard earned money over to the government and in the process also not exercise the spiritual discipline of charity?

3. I doubt the quality of the causes that would be supported by someone whose idea of church is listening to 20 years’ worth of hate-filled, America-hating tirades.

4. Government (especially the liberal variety) support of charities always comes at a price. For example, in my hometown of San Francisco (regrettably a predictable haven of predictably liberal politics), one of the greatest charities if the Salvation Army. They feed the homeless, take in drug addicts, provide numerous programs to the community. However, their financial government support has been revoked since they refuse to extend partnership benefits to homosexuals in their employ. Are these the choices that faith-based initiatives should have to make? Thankfully, the Salvation Army did not fall for this and carries on without the public aid. Some of the other so-called churches and Christian charities have not been so wise…

Check out this guy’s voting record and you find a liberal extremist (by comparison to other liberal senators) masquerading as a man for all constituencies. But the truth becomes evident all too easily although the media chooses to ignore it. Why? Because the man may be an empty suit, but, boy, can he talk…

If talk would fix our country (and a lot fo fixing is needed at this juncture), I’d be the first in line to vote for Mr. Obama.

Tes,

Thanks for the response. I find this blog is very stimulating and definitely gives people something to think about. Though I disagree with you a bit, I respect what you have to say and I think it is great that you are someone who stands up for that. So, on to your points.

1) No, Obama doesn’t have the best qualifications in the world and everyone knows it. It is silly to even pretend he isn’t as qualified for certain things about the position that others may be, say McCain, or Bob Bahr. I don’t believe this means we can discount him though. We don’t know someone’s true potential till that person is put to the test. I promise I am not trying to be cliché, but the bible is full of people who were not ready to be in a position to do something and yet God choose them for the task. Also, did you know that Abraham Lincoln tried to be indifferent forms of government multiple times before he was elected president? He jumped from being a lawyer to the highest position in the country. I think we can all agree, though he had mistakes, he did a pretty damn good job. I think as Christians we have to be hopeful, but intelligent in decisions. So, with the promise of Rom. 13:1 that authorities exist because of God, we can know the one who wins is the one who is suppose to win. Now, I will point out on my point that that doesn’t mean the person will be good, I.E. Hitler, but I want to be hopeful about Obama.

2) Yeah, taxes will probably be raised. And he has promised to put some back into faith based initiatives. Again, I want to trust him. I don’t look at what he is saying like it is a late night infomercial. But, with that, I think we should, as the church, continue to work with what is available to us, and with open hearts. By no means do I think that we should stop just because the government is doing something. In all honesty, I believe the government should be more hands off on some issues and I think the church needs to be taking care of those in need, we are called to. But with the way things are going right now, I believe that the government needs to step in and fix some problems, granted many of them are made by them. But if the government doesn’t start doing something different, who is? People are just as guilty for getting things screwed up as the government is. Anyway, I digress. Bottom line, I want to believe in his promises, but the church still needs to be charitable.

3) I will admit I am still struggling with this one. I don’t know what to think about it. So, I am not really going to respond. It does trouble me though.

4) As for the supporting of the charities, yes it comes at a price. But it does with the Republicans too. Did you know many organizations who wanted to do work in Africa couldn’t get government support to help the quality of life because they would not commit to an abstinence only curriculum? Abstinence only education DOES NOT WORK! We see this in our own public schools. So, if we are even more educated here in America and this doesn’t work, can we expect it to work somewhere that has even less education? So, it is deciding. As for the Salvation Army, I think it is a shame that organizations can’t choose who they want to help… to some extent. Why is the Salvation Army not helping homosexuals? This is a shame and a waste. What better way to show God’s love to someone than by loving them and helping them? Homosexuality is not a sin. The act is. Plus, we are not supposed to judge people outside of the church. That is for God to do. We are supposed to love.

Yeah, he may be liberal, and inexperienced, but again, it all comes down to I want to hope in him. Without speaking for Donny, I think that is his point too. (Please correct me Donny if I am wrong). Talk is all we have right now from both parties, and we will see with action later. Either way, I know God is in control.

Hi Blake,

What a kind and thoughtful response. This certainly says a lot about you. If only I could be as hopeful as you are…

A couple of notes though.

On 1: I find your response interesting and thought-provoking although I have problems with two parts. Your observation that God chose totally unlikely people is dead on! In fact, those are indeed his favorite people for the job (this is not just a theory to me; as one whose life has been redeemed in many practical ways, I cannot help but agree). If only someone could convince me that the candidate in question is seeking God and were willing to submit to His guidance… That’s the tricky part. Unfortunately, he seems to have a very superficial and bent interpretation of Christianity which seems to include the idea that bitterness motivates people to cling to their Bible (and some other things). Also, let’s not forget that Lincoln was “failing forward.” While he was “failing” at several political efforts, he marked his time and gained useful experience. That’s very different from electing someone severely lacking in qualifications anyway, first time around.

As to 4: Your distinction between the area of temptation and the act is absolutely correct. I did NOT in any way mean to convey the impresion that the Salvation Army distinguishes whom they help in that way. I know for a fact that they provide wonderful ministry to people of all backgrounds and areas of fallenness (and I agree that we have no business judging non-believers by Christian standards–ever!. However, they should not be forced to EMPLOY people whose lifestyle and deliberate and continued unrepentant practices clearly disqualify them for Christian ministry as a prerequisite for receiving funds designed to help the less fortunate.

This brings me to the heart of the problem with government. In the Bible and thereafter, governments have often had no problem with Christians worshipping and obeying their God as long as they were also willing to bow down to the emperor of the times (and their false ideas and gods, eg Rome) or accept state regulations compromising their worship (eg. Soviet Union). The wise course of action has ALWAYS been (as Biblical examples demonstrate) not to fall for these compromises, worship God alone and uphold His principles.

Thanks again for a most thoughtful response.

Tes,

Thanks for the response.

I honestly haven’t decided what I think about that comment yet. I agree it was out of place from Obama. I once read a report somewhere, and unfortunately I don’t know where it is, but it talked about when he starts speaking outside of his preset speech, he seems to say the wrong things, this instance being one of them. That has given me cause to think about what he really thinks at time. Is he being real or is he simply speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

As for the bitter part though, him being a self-proclaimed progressive, I can see to some extent where he is coming from. I have a friend who is just so hard-headed and I really believe he clings to the bible but never really thinks through things, just a gut reaction. And I know for a fact he is bitter about how things have turned out in this country, i.e. feeling like he is becoming the minority in “his own country” instead of just embracing that things are going to change, and that the US is a melting pot. It is interesting to me how many people seem to forget this over time. It was happening back when the Irish were coming over, and it is happening now with Hispanics and others as well. (This is in no way a hit on you or anything, since I don’t even know where you stand, just more of me rambling on after my point was already made) My friend considers himself an evangelist and I have even brought up the point to him before that he should see immigrants as a good thing because that is just more people that are accessible to him to spread the love and word of God too, but he just doesn’t want to see it that way. It is very disheartening to me. And just to be straight, I don’t think we should let anyone and everyone in. There needs to be rules and restriction, but we should be more open to new foreigners coming in.

Also, nice comment about Lincoln, I liked the failing forward. Though, I don’t know if Obama is severely lacking in qualifications. He has been a lawyer, a community activist, a state legislator, as well a senator. Plus he and Lincoln are only about 8 years age difference from when Lincoln was elected compared to when Obama will potentially be elected. I think he may be under qualified in some areas, but I think it could also be argued that many presidents are under qualified in some area or another.

As for the Salvation Army part, I must apologize. I missed the part about employ. I am sorry. And I completely agree with you. They should be able to hire who they want and it is a shame that it is perceived as discrimination on their part when they are standing up for what they believe.

I completely agree with your last part. Maybe this is the time when Christianity is going to fall in America because hopefully good theologically minded groups of people will stand against. Now, I hope this isn’t the case, but I think we should really be prepared for anything. But, like you said, we should cling to God more than anything.

Also, just so you know, I read this on another blog I enjoy.

http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1370_abortion_is_about_god/

It really got me thinking about my stance on abortion with the Democratic Party.

Thanks for the good comments back. You make me think.

As a Christian, I often find myself doubting the sincerity in others’ pro-life rage targeted against Obama and his party. Are people who are against Obama mainly for abortion reasons serious about stopping abortion, or are they more concerned with having the law reflect their values regardless of whether abortions still occur?

We now have decades of data on women who seek abortion. We now know for sure that outlawing abortion doesn’t get rid of it — or even cut the rate of abortions by half. Like drug use, it’s just one of those behaviors that isn’t seriously deterred by laws. As we economists like to say, the demand for abortion is “inelastic.” It doesn’t lend itself to supply-side control (e.g., closing abortion clinics).

Thank God it is VERY easy to control with demand-side policies. (Denmark, which has a strong social security system, has the world’s lowest abortion rate despite its liberal abortion laws.), This is why I think Obama should be applauded for finally talking about reducing unwanted pregnancies. If women don’t have the healthcare and financial support they need to deliver a baby, they tend to seek abortion whether it’s legal or not. The un-Christian destruction of the welfare system and constant demonization of the poor by the Republicans have caused FAR more abortions that Roe vs. Wade.

If you’re inclined to think the gov’t can legislate morality, demand-side abortion reduction may be hard to understanding. But the reality is certain behaviors just do not go away when you outlaw them, and abortion is one of them. So do the pro-life opponents of Obama genuinely care about stopping abortion, or do they care more about having the laws of the state reflecting their values? Do worship God who would call on them to do whatever works to end abortion, or the nation-state? Do they worship God who would call on them to support social welfare, or do they worship money and capitalism? I am never quite sure.

how is it that the same amount of abortions were committed before roe vs wade as after.. and were did you get that data?
ive heard there was something like tens of millions of abortions SINCE RVW. so that would be alot of coat hangers my friend. i hear your point but it would be like my daughter having a heroin addiction and i supplying the needles. i think opposing laws do help in deterring an action..not that it would legislate morality by making people WANT to keep their children..but it sure as heck wouldnt make it any easier.

even though GRACE abounds, God is not any more lax on His law.