Pro-Life: More than Abortion Alone

[SpyridonOCA]

For many professing Christians, "pro-life" means "anti-abortion" alone. That one should care for human beings once they are born somehow alludes them. Therefore, they are willing to tolerate wars of imperialistic aggression that kill thousands of innocent people, economic policies that favor the rich at the expense of the poor, the torture of terrorism suspects, the death penalty in a legal system where many are wrongfully executed, and inequality in education and other basic services.

A well informed Orthodox Christian should look beyond the right vs. left political categories and divisive rhetoric of American politics and vote based upon which candidate would do the most good for the most people, upholding life in the most consistent way. Again, saving the unborn is meaningless if you don't care about those who are already born. It's not like the Republican Party has done enough to end the tragedy of abortion in this country to deserve our uncompromising loyalty. Orthodox Christians should be more intelligent than to fall in that trap.

[SpyridonOCA]

When one looks at what the Republican Party has done to our country, and to our world, in the past seven years, it's hard to imagine why one would consider them the "pro-life" party.

[Lukaris]

So the logical conclusion is to reject every US presidential candidate competing in the 2 party system and vote for a pro life 3rd party candidate in the 2008 fall election.

[SpyridonOCA]

The conclusion is that Ron Paul should have been given a chance.

[Xpycoctomos]

Choice 1 - Senator who will give a luke-war attempt at protecting the unborne

Choice 2 - Senator who will work hard to do everything possible to keep abortion as a "right" offering absolutely know chance for the rights of the unborn to be respected.

Choice 3 - Senator who will not only work hard to perserve the "rights" given to people to "dispose" of unborne humans, but work hard to further those rights beyond what our country has already been trained to mindlessly accept as normal.

As an Orthodox Christian I will... chooose... number 3 becuase he is an AWESOME speaker and reminds me of Regan who was, somehow, God's hope for America.

[Thekla]

I must agree with the OP, "pro-life" should be more than an 'anti-abortion' stamp. Pro-life should be that all humans are created in the image of God, and are deeply loved by their Creator.

(I personally think that if we "lived" a greater sense of the inherent value of all human beings that we can see
we would naturally learn the preciousness of the not-yet-born.)

[Xpycoctomos]

I must agree with the OP, "pro-life" should be more than an 'anti-abortion' stamp. Pro-life should be that all humans are created in the image of God, and are deeply loved by their Creator.

(I personally think that if we "lived" a greater sense of the inherent value of all human beings that we can see
we would naturally learn the preciousness of the not-yet-born.)
I agree, and I think it goes both ways. When we fail to see the inherent value of the unborne, that selfishness creates in us and supports a utilitarianism of appreciating quality of life over life itself.

Again, I think that while I can respect on voting on other issues that affect the inherent dignity of human life, we should be sure that whatever issues we vote on, we are doing our best to follow God's will and I don't think that puts the economy at the top of the priorities list. It MAY put the war at the top of the priorities list but that depends on exactly WHY one detests the war. Same with abortion. Is it just that the pro-life guy or girl wants to "show those liberals" or is it becuase they see the pro-choice movement as necessarily and consitiantly erroding the moral fabric (and humanity) of our society?

It's funny. If someone says, "I don't like Hillary/Obama but I am not voting for McCain becuase I think this war is wrong" they are never accused of being a one-issue voter? Not generally. But if they say "I don't like McCain, but I am not voting for Hillary/Obama becuase they support a veritable holocaust of human life" automatically we are viewed as being a one-issue voter... which may be fair, but is it any less or more absurd than the people making their decision based on the war?

I suppose that's the double-standard I detest.

[Thekla]

I agree, and I think it goes both ways. When we fail to see the inherent value of the unborne, that selfishness creates in us and supports a utilitarianism of appreciating quality of life over life itself.

Again, I think that while I can respect on voting on other issues that affect the inherent dignity of human life, we should be sure that whatever issues we vote on, we are doing our best to follow God's will and I don't think that puts the economy at the top of the priorities list. It MAY put the war at the top of the priorities list but that depends on exactly WHY one detests the war. Same with abortion. Is it just that the pro-life guy or girl wants to "show those liberals" or is it becuase they see the pro-choice movement as necessarily and consitiantly erroding the moral fabric (and humanity) of our society?

It's funny. If someone says, "I don't like Hillary/Obama but I am not voting for McCain becuase I think this war is wrong" they are never accused of being a one-issue voter? Not generally. But if they say "I don't like McCain, but I am not voting for Hillary/Obama becuase they support a veritable holocaust of human life" automatically we are viewed as being a one-issue voter... which may be fair, but is it any less or more absurd than the people making their decision based on the war?

I suppose that's the double-standard I detest.

I agree -

and I do think what you've described is evidence of the paucity of meaningful dialogue about political issues in this country. And the failure - of both sides - to engage in meaningful reflection about the issues. Which = politics as usual :(

[Dorothea]

I have heard that line before, and it's used very often from the liberal/democratic play book about we pro-lifers not caring about those already born, just the unborn. It is false and insulting. When one cares about the unborn, of course one would care about those outside the womb as well, for crying out loud. Ugh.

[Xpycoctomos]

I have heard that line before, and it's used very often from the liberal/democratic play book about we pro-lifers not caring about those already born, just the unborn. It is false and insulting. When one cares about the unborn, of course one would care about those outside the womb as well, for crying out loud. Ugh.
That's true, when one really cares about the unborn. But it is amazing what politicizing an issue can do. For many, it seems that just "being right" and being bitter about it is what fuels the pro-life movement (not on the whole, I just mean that this is sometimes the case). It's like the Baptist-ish cult that hates gays. They don't really care about morality. They care about being right and the world being like them. It's not about healing anyone. It's about feeling superior to others.

With pro-life, you and I know that it is about saving lives and that it is also a spiritual matter for the mother and the doctor. It infects all of them. And all of them need our love and prayers. It means that we realize that the political issue is only a small (but important) part of the problem. But that we also need to work to change the hearts of americans which may be the bigger issue at hand. If Roe V Wade were overturned tomorrow.. that's neat, but it wouldn't last becuase America is to its core solving issues through death (abortion, death penalty, etc) and rarely as a last option even though we tell ourselves otherwise.

[Thekla]

I have heard that line before, and it's used very often from the liberal/democratic play book about we pro-lifers not caring about those already born, just the unborn. It is false and insulting. When one cares about the unborn, of course one would care about those outside the womb as well, for crying out loud. Ugh.
hey, Dorothea :wave:

yeah, I think it is often used like that -- which cheapens it :(

but my exposure to this, (before joining the EO) is largely through Anabaptists; there is a commitment to a broad pro-life ethos among Anabaptists, especially evident among the Mennonites and Bruderhof (in my experience).

[PaladinGirl]

I personally fully agree with the OP and have found that most often pro-lifers are very much nothing more than anti-abortion. :|

[Xpycoctomos]

I personally fully agree with the OP and have found that most often pro-lifers are very much nothing more than anti-abortion. :|
But what does that have to do with whether or not it matters that Abortion (with all that that entails) is legal and defended by our nation. And that YOUR taxmoney supports that.

If you live in my state, for example, you can't claim that it doesn't becuase as a teacher, ALL of my health care is paid for by you (I don't think I deserve that, but I will take it while I can get it) and that includes any and all abortions. That means that MY hard earned money has DEFINITELY in some way supported the murdering of a life. And so, you and I have played a role in that.

Now, I am not saying that McCain is the guy to support. But can one at least understand why I and others would not want to support one in office that would not only support things as they are, but work to change this around the world (as Hillary so proudly stated the other night) and also to further new novelties into our brains as to what should be considered a "right" of ours.

It is true, the republican party is, at best, nominally pro-life and for most politians it is nothing but a political issue that they would leave in a heart beat were it not to help them get into office (I raise huckabee and Paul as exceptions) but that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter.

[Dorothea]

hey, Dorothea :wave:

yeah, I think it is often used like that -- which cheapens it :(

but my exposure to this, (before joining the EO) is largely through Anabaptists; there is a commitment to a broad pro-life ethos among Anabaptists, especially evident among the Mennonites and Bruderhof (in my experience).

Ah, well, I hadn't seen any Anabaptists or the others you named until I joined this site. lol Only read about them in historical religious books (well, except the Bruderhof...never even heard of that :blush: ).

In the political threads, that accusation is used a lot on the people who are pro-life. For me, personally, I just have never believed it was just babies inside the womb and not outside, let alone human life all together.

[Dorothea]

But what does that have to do with whether or not it matters that Abortion (with all that that entails) is legal and defended by our nation. And that YOUR taxmoney supports that.

If you live in my state, for example, you can't claim that it doesn't becuase as a teacher, ALL of my health care is paid for by you (I don't think I deserve that, but I will take it while I can get it) and that includes any and all abortions. That means that MY hard earned money has DEFINITELY in some way supported the murdering of a life. And so, you and I have played a role in that.

Now, I am not saying that McCain is the guy to support. But can one at least understand why I and others would not want to support one in office that would not only support things as they are, but work to change this around the world (as Hillary so proudly stated the other night) and also to further new novelties into our brains as to what should be considered a "right" of ours.

It is true, the republican party is, at best, nominally pro-life and for most politians it is nothing but a political issue that they would leave in a heart beat were it not to help them get into office (I raise huckabee and Paul as exceptions) but that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter.

The highlighted really breaks my heart, Xpy. :(

[nutroll]

As someone who tends to support pro-choice candidates, I thought I would share a little bit about my perspective. I should point out first of all that I consider myself very much pro-life, and I find the very notion of aborting a child repugnant.

First of all, I would like to call to mind one of Christ's parables. There were two sons, and their father asked them to go work for him. One said yes, and the other said no. The one who said yes didn't do what he had promised, and the one who said no thought better of it, and decided to go work after all. It is the one who said no but later did what he said he would not do that Christ praised.

In terms of the political scene, I see two parties, one which agrees to do the will of God, and the other which does not. For me, I would rather support the one that actually does the will of God, rather than the one who says he will and does not.

The Republican party has made pro-life one of their main issues, certainly one of the pillars of the party platform. And yet, I see very little that they have actually done on the matter. In my cynical mind, I suspect that they never will. The problem is that the Republican Party needs those voters to turn out time and again in order to get elected. They simply can't risk losing those voters. If abortion on demand were done away with, voter turnout would be greatly decreased on their side. And so they chip away at the fringes of abortion. They pass a partial birth abortion ban, they push for parental consent, or cut funds for Planned Parenthood. This convinces people that they are committed to the cause, and yet the voters still have good reason to get out and vote. Now while I think all of those actions are good and honorable, it really hasn't reduced the number of abortions overall.

As a matter of fact, every year under Bill Clinton, the number of abortions fell. Under Bush, they have gone up (although I couldn't find the most recent statistics last I looked) It would seem that the number of abortions correlates pretty strongly with the general state of the economy. And it makes some sense. There are a great many women who don't really want abortions but feel trapped, and feel like they have no alternative because they can't afford prenatal care, delivery of the child, or the raising of a child. They may lake health care coverage, or a decent job, or child care. Now I know that there are people who believe that the economy has nothing to do with who is president, or who is in congress, or that the economy is tied to the president and congress before the current one, but I think that a good economy and robust social programs will go a long way toward making sure that no one gets an abortion because they feel like they have no other choice.

I happen to think that Democratic economic policies are better for the economy than Republican economic policies. I would like to see universal health care, I would like to see tax breaks for the poor instead of the wealthy, and I happen to think that these changes would have a greater impact on the number of children slaughtered every year in this country than a bunch of Republicans who are talking the talk but not walking the walk.

I say all this, not to convince anyone of my enlightened position, but rather to try to show why someone who is a Christian might happen to vote Democrat. It is certainly not because I like the idea of killing babies, but because I believe that in this horrible, broken, and uncaring political system, sometimes the choice is not as black and white as just voting for the person who says the right things.

And as a final note, I was so pleased in the last election to be able to vote for a pro-life democrat for congress. I didn't have to feel like I was voting against my principles just to get the outcome I hoped for.

[Thekla]

It would seem that the number of abortions correlates pretty strongly with the general state of the economy. And it makes some sense. There are a great many women who don't really want abortions but feel trapped, and feel like they have no alternative because they can't afford prenatal care, delivery of the child, or the raising of a child. They may lack health care coverage, or a decent job, or child care.

I highlighted this portion, because I think its a point often overlooked. There is much you say that I agree with :thumbsup:

[Xpycoctomos]

As someone who tends to support pro-choice candidates, I thought I would share a little bit about my perspective. I should point out first of all that I consider myself very much pro-life, and I find the very notion of aborting a child repugnant.

First of all, I would like to call to mind one of Christ's parables. There were two sons, and their father asked them to go work for him. One said yes, and the other said no. The one who said yes didn't do what he had promised, and the one who said no thought better of it, and decided to go work after all. It is the one who said no but later did what he said he would not do that Christ praised.

In terms of the political scene, I see two parties, one which agrees to do the will of God, and the other which does not. For me, I would rather support the one that actually does the will of God, rather than the one who says he will and does not.

The Republican party has made pro-life one of their main issues, certainly one of the pillars of the party platform. And yet, I see very little that they have actually done on the matter. In my cynical mind, I suspect that they never will. The problem is that the Republican Party needs those voters to turn out time and again in order to get elected. They simply can't risk losing those voters. If abortion on demand were done away with, voter turnout would be greatly decreased on their side. And so they chip away at the fringes of abortion. They pass a partial birth abortion ban, they push for parental consent, or cut funds for Planned Parenthood. This convinces people that they are committed to the cause, and yet the voters still have good reason to get out and vote. Now while I think all of those actions are good and honorable, it really hasn't reduced the number of abortions overall.

As a matter of fact, every year under Bill Clinton, the number of abortions fell. Under Bush, they have gone up (although I couldn't find the most recent statistics last I looked) It would seem that the number of abortions correlates pretty strongly with the general state of the economy. And it makes some sense. There are a great many women who don't really want abortions but feel trapped, and feel like they have no alternative because they can't afford prenatal care, delivery of the child, or the raising of a child. They may lake health care coverage, or a decent job, or child care. Now I know that there are people who believe that the economy has nothing to do with who is president, or who is in congress, or that the economy is tied to the president and congress before the current one, but I think that a good economy and robust social programs will go a long way toward making sure that no one gets an abortion because they feel like they have no other choice.

I happen to think that Democratic economic policies are better for the economy than Republican economic policies. I would like to see universal health care, I would like to see tax breaks for the poor instead of the wealthy, and I happen to think that these changes would have a greater impact on the number of children slaughtered every year in this country than a bunch of Republicans who are talking the talk but not walking the walk.

I say all this, not to convince anyone of my enlightened position, but rather to try to show why someone who is a Christian might happen to vote Democrat. It is certainly not because I like the idea of killing babies, but because I believe that in this horrible, broken, and uncaring political system, sometimes the choice is not as black and white as just voting for the person who says the right things.

And as a final note, I was so pleased in the last election to be able to vote for a pro-life democrat for congress. I didn't have to feel like I was voting against my principles just to get the outcome I hoped for.
I see your point. The only thing that keeps me coming back is that Bush did put in two pro-life candidates which may never make Roe v Wade overturned, but it will make it less likely that we will "progress" to new forms of getting rid of children that the progressive leaders like Hillary and Barack preach about and actively work for.

If Bush put in an obvious liberal that the pro-choicers were happy with, I would at the very least not vote republican.

ALso, if giuliani had done anything, I would defintiely have not voted for him. I do beleive it will only be a matter of time until the Rep party goes completely to the darkside and puts in justices that have no record on the life issue. That very well amy be McCain.. but I don't think he will put a lunatic in like Barack or HIllary will if elected.

However, I respect your words and I do not doubt your dedication to the pro-life movement. It is certainly not mostly a political issue anymore.

[SpyridonOCA]

Republicans have been much too focused on intervening in matters of private morality, neglecting our obligations to uphold the common good. In fact, in the past seven years, the common good has been trampled upon. Exploiting the tragedy of abortion, at the expense of the social and economic well being of most Americans, is a moral outrage. Hopefully, Americans will begin to see past the culture wars that have divided us and realize that, ultimately, we share more in common than we think, and that what we really want is to uphold the public interest, for the Golden Rule to be upheld. Further, it's not like the Republicans have been the knight in shining armor for defending the lives of the unborn, of people overseas who happen to look different from us, and of those on death row who committed no crime other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Xpycoctomos]

Well, I do have to say that the fact that democrats felt it was there business to take money out of my pocket and pay for the the aborting of human lives brought forth by State workers is a private issue too.

[SpyridonOCA]

Well, I do have to say that the fact that democrats felt it was there business to take money out of my pocket and pay for the the aborting of human lives brought forth by State workers is a private issue too.

Oh, two can play at that game. How much funding has President Bush given to Planned Parenthood? You might be surprised. Please don't be duped by the "culture wars" strategy to win the votes of white, middle class voters. It worked for Richard Nixon, and it's worked for Republicans to this day. As long as abortion remains legal, Republicans can exploit it to win your vote. It was Republicans, after all, who supported legalized abortion in the first place. I'd recommend looking up "southern strategy" as well.

[Xpycoctomos]

Oh yeah, I'm not thinking Bush was the great white knight in all of this. Just don't pretend that all of these matters are matters of private morals. Even if it did ever make sense to legalize abortion, it is not just a private matter. You and I fund it.

[SpyridonOCA]

Oh yeah, I'm not thinking Bush was the great white knight in all of this. Just don't pretend that all of these matters are matters of private morals. Even if it did ever make sense to legalize abortion, it is not just a private matter. You and I fund it.

I have enough respect for traditionally Orthodox nations to believe that they've legalized abortion for reasons other than a betrayal of Orthodoxy. Do you remember what happened in Romania when abortion was criminalized? Thinking about abortion on demand makes me feel like I have a hole in my heart, that something is terribly wrong. But better the devil we know...

[Xpycoctomos]

Spyridon,

You are going down a very slipperly slope. Keep in mind what exactly abortion really is. This isn't just drug use. I don't say this to scold you but to warn you of the ideological path you are now wandering down.

Xpy

[SpyridonOCA]

Spyridon,

You are going down a very slipperly slope. Keep in mind what exactly abortion really is. This isn't just drug use. I don't say this to scold you but to warn you of the ideological path you are now wandering down.

Xpy

Look, it's obvious that I am opposed to abortion. But I'm also able to see through the smokescreens of the GOP. Can't you?

Ask yourself this question: Which political party, over the past seven years, has been the most destructive to the common good? Which has trampled upon the golden rule the most? Remember, in the Lord's prayer, we humbly request that God's kingdom will come on earth as it is in heaven.

[nutroll]

Jesus did not come to make a kingdom of this world. The Kingdom of God is within people, not to be instituted through a government, and no politician can create this Kingdom or destroy it.

[SpyridonOCA]

Jesus did not come to make a kingdom of this world. The Kingdom of God is within people, not to be instituted through a government, and no politician can create this Kingdom or destroy it.

Do you forget the history of the Orthodox Church? Do you not remember the Byzantine and Russian Empires, which were dedicated to building God's kingdom on earth, or at least emulating it? Do you remember that Christ came to make all things anew, to baptize all Creation, including public life? Why can't politicians dedicate their careers to upholding Christian principle?

[nutroll]

I am familiar with Orthodox history. If the Byzantine Empire was truly the Kingdom of God on earth, then that means God failed because as far as I can see, it no longer exists. Ditto with the Russian Empire. If you really think that Jesus came to build an earthly empire, you might want to reread the Gospels and take up the issue with Jesus. There is nothing wrong with a politician upholding Christian principles, but that is not synonymous with the Kingdom of God.

[SpyridonOCA]

I am familiar with Orthodox history. If the Byzantine Empire was truly the Kingdom of God on earth, then that means God failed because as far as I can see, it no longer exists. Ditto with the Russian Empire. If you really think that Jesus came to build an earthly empire, you might want to reread the Gospels and take up the issue with Jesus. There is nothing wrong with a politician upholding Christian principles, but that is not synonymous with the Kingdom of God.

I never said that it was. The Byzantine empire was dedicated, in the least, to emulating God's kingdom. And that is one of the reasons why we venerate Orthodox civil authorities in iconography and recognize them as saints. Rather than supporting an ideology or political party, I will vote for the presidential candidate who I believe will most follow the Sermon on the Mount.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if I convince anyone on this forum to vote for Obama. That is not something I need to do, since most people would recognize that Bush is a failed president and that, more likely than not, our next president will be a Democrat. What I do care about, however, is that the members of this forum refuse to accuse me of being any less of an Orthodox Christian for my support of a presidential candidate.


Barack Obama has received the endorsement of the Greek lobby, because of his pledge to defend the rights of Orthodox Christians:

Giannoulias Expands Reach of National Greeks for Obama Committee
http://www.greeknewsonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=8076