“Faithfulness to the Lordship of Christ means using the constitutional processes while we still have them. …. The Lordship of Christ means using these processes to speak and to act on the basis of the principles set forth in the Bible. …. We implore those of you who are Christians to exert all your influence to fight against the increasing loss of humanness–through legislation, social action, and other means at your disposal, both privately and publicly, individually and collectively, in all areas of your lives. …. On the basis of an unweakened Bible, we must teach and act, in our individual lives and as citizens, on the fact that every individual has unique value as made in the image of God. This is so from a child just conceived in the womb to the old with their last gasping breath and beyond . . . .”

C. Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer, Whatever Happened to the Human Race, pgs. 132-34.

I think, as much as people try to reframe the question as one of choice, it really comes down to your degree of certainty that life begins at the moment of conception. If you are fairly convinced that it does, then abortion is murder, and the state must try to protect the unborn against it (even though, of course, murders will still occur). Maybe if murder wasn’t illegal, vigilantism would make murder so unattractive that the actual number of killings would go down, but most agree that it’s better to live in a more ordered society in which the rule of law dispenses justice and protection.

That said, I agree with Danny that there are other pro-life issues which we must consider. If an Obama administration would better protect life (as I currently believe it would), then he’s the best choice. Roe Vs Wade would probably not be overturned under McCain, I doubt McCain could (or even really wants to) enact a federal ban on abortion (a separate action as Danny points out). But Obama seems more passionate about working for peace and justice (in the Old Testament rather than conservative Baptist sense) than McCain. Obama seems to me less likely to engage in unjust warfare. When I imagine “Acting justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly,” I can more easily imagine Obama rather than McCain. So, though I am more willing to assign personhood to the unborn than Obama seems to be, I believe he is ultimately the more “pro-life” candidate.

Per your question though, Barack Obama has done a fantastic job of framing this issue to his advantage. He is a very good politician…but Stephen Douglas was also.

Will an Obama administration lessen the number of abortions in this country? I’m sure that’s possible. You make some good points. I think they could very well decrease, which we can agree is a very good thing. I would hope that abortions would decrease either under him or McCain.

Regarding alcohol, the 18th amendment was a disaster, because no one wanted to enforce it. Regarding slavery, the 13th amendment was a success, because the US Army enforced it. But still, despite the 13th amendment, there is still an underground sex slave system in America.

The point I was trying to make is this: If genocide is the only issue you care about, you vote for the candidate most likely to declare it evil, condemn it, make it illegal, destroy it, and do anything in his power to stop it…even if it’s unrealistic. Anti-slavery folk felt the same way about slavery. It was unrealistic to get rid of it as a whole at the beginning of the abolition movement, but they still tried.

Hard-core pro-lifers also view it in this way. Appeasement will not work for them. I think what hard-core pro-lifers are REALLY worried about, is that Obama will nominate a Roger Taney to the Supreme Court…someone who will say that the “evil” of abortion isn’t evil enough to be illegal…or even further that it is a positive good. (By the way, I never claimed which side, if any, I was on)

However, from the utopian standpoint, I suppose we can all agree that the world would be much better off without drugs, abortion, alcohol, and slavery. At least we all, liberal and conservative alike, have that in common. Unrealistic, yes…but at least we can dream.

Even if you are convinced that abortion is evil, you should still be asking which strategy will prevent more abortions. I’ve made the case that education, contraception and economic assistance are more effective than prohibition. You didn’t respond to that case, but made the case that abortion is evil. My original post didn’t address that question except to say that there is no consensus about it.

Opponents of abortion have two choices in this election. They can vote for John McCain, who may have a chance to appoint more conservative Supreme Court justices. Those justices may have an opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade. In that event, abortion would remain legal in most states and it would be available to anybody willing to travel. John McCain is against requiring insurance companies to provide birth control to women. This position alone has probably increased the number of abortions.

Or, you can vote for Barack Obama, who will work to provide health care to all Americans. This type of economic assistance is scientifically proven to reduce the number of abortions performed.

Therein lies the problem. It’s the philosophical difference between pro-life and pro-choice folks. Both believe that abortions are not good. Both Obama and McCain have both said that abortions are not good. However, pro-lifers go a step further and believe that abortion is not just “not good,” but a terrible evil.

Thus, the divide:
Pro-choice=Abortion is not good, but necessary
Pro-life=Abortion is evil, and never acceptable.

Now, where and when in American history can we find an issue that is so polarizing, that people on both sides are SO passionate about? Let’s see. Ahh…yes! A question that has been discussed on this site quite a bit. Slavery!

Danny, you seem to make fun of single issue voters…particularly the millions of anti-abortion folks who vote based on abortion alone. However, going along that line of thinking, we should make fun of those who were single issue voters back in the 1830s and 1840s…i.e. the abolitionist voters, who believed that slavery was a bane upon this planet, and pushed everything else aside to vote for the most anti-slavery candidate…admittedly hard to find sometimes.

Now, there are a LOT more Pro-life folks today (real numbers and per capita) than there were abolitionist folks in the 1830s and 1840s. However, the goals of both are still the same. For this next section of my comment, just use the word abortion or slavery interchangeably.

________ is absolutely horrible. ________ is not a matter of politics/policy or even the Constitution. ________ is a matter of human life and human rights. In 100 years, people will look back and judge America because they allowed ________ to go on for that long.

This is how anti-slavery and anti-abortion folks view themselves.

In both cases, actually, the Republican Party has generally been against both slavery and abortion, so there’s another connection, for the non-history buffs out there. In both times, the Republicans counted on those who were anti-slavery and anti-abortion, respectively.

So, to sum up:
For an abolitionist, slavery= evil. For a pro-lifer, abortion=evil.

For a pro-slavery person, slavery= necessary evil. For a pro-choicer, abortion= necessary evil.

This is why the issue is not going away. Much like slavery didn’t go away, abortion will not go away either. Simply because anti-slavery and anti-abortion folks are similar in one way: They are passionate about their view on human life and its value, whether it be enslaving or destroying an innocent human.

The real question I have is this:

Which is worse? Abortion or Slavery? Which is more evil? Equally evil?

For the moment, I can’t attach either label to my view of the issue without following it with several qualifiers. I want there to be fewer abortions. I don’t think abortion should be against the law. I don’t think humans have an immortal soul, but I do think that all human life is valuable.

Thanks for the link to the study.

Speaking of new studies, here’s a recent one by a Catholic group: http://go.sojo.net/ct/J1XV2v91oYuz/.

Danny, are you still pro-life? Why/why not? Did becoming an atheist change that, or change the reason for being pro-life?