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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.