Pagan nations of old might offer one person a year as a sacrifice on a pile of burning wood to try and prevent the deaths of–or insure the prosperity of–others. They had many ideas on who this should be. Sometimes it would the most beautiful maiden, other places it might be the most virile male. It could be someone who lost a race, or someone chosen by lottery.
Thankfully, we are not pagans in the U.S.A. We don’t believe such stuff.
Yet, in America, pro-lifers are much more willing to offer up some to save others. Whenever we defend the killing of, or ignore the 2%* Mitt Romney would kill in hopes of getting legislation that will save millions, we have made a decision to offer up sacrifices of some to save the others. We are no different than the pagans. In fact, we are worse. We claim to be Christians. We claim the Love of God. But we are deceived. We are blind. We have the blood of murdered children on our hands. We need the Jesus of the Bible to save us. Not Mitt Romney or Barack Obama (or Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul).
*About 25,000 a year in America. The actual number is totally irrelevant to the argument. It would not matter if it were only one.
David Shedlock
His wife also ows a business selling antique and collectible postcards on eBay since 1999. David was an activist with Operation Rescue in the early 1990s. He is a member of Trinity Presbyterian Reformed Church in Johnston, Iowa.
David suffered a stroke in 2012, but has begun to recover after almost four years of complications.To God be the Glory, I believe he is continuing a work in me, that he began when I was a child (Philippians 1:6)
Latest posts by David Shedlock (see all)
- Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump: To Vote or Not to Vote - July 27, 2016
- Reagan and the Black Panthers - June 20, 2016
- Why Do We Trust Them? - June 13, 2016
Problem with this analogy is that the unborn are already dying across all brackets. If abortion were illegal except to save the life of the mother and we were facing an Obama-Romney race and Romney were going to actually legalize abortions in the case of rape and incest,there would be a dilemma.
However, the fact is that abortion is already legal and every life we saved is precious. A Romney presidency would save hundreds of thousands of lives that would otherwise be lost.
In addition, Romney’s support for the rape and incest exception will be unlikely to have any impact on public policy. The most likely way that abortion will be banned during the next eight years is by the overturning of Roe and a vote of the state legislature. A President Romney will not be involved in such deliberations at the State Capitol.
Far from being pagans sacrificing parts of the family, I tend to think of the pro-life community being like Oskar Schindler, who saved 1100 Jews during World War II. He could not save them all. Like him, we face a choice not between saving some and saving all but between saving some and saving none.
You don’t understand Romney’s position. It is not that he only accepts the exceptions because he thinks he must do it in order to get the whole enchilada. Romney has promised to reject (in essence, veto) any legislation that would ban the killing of these babies. HE WANTS THEM DEAD!
“A Romney presidency would save hundreds of thousands of lives that would otherwise be lost.”
You know this, how? Why do you think Romney will appoint judges who are pro-life? Did he do so as governor? Because he has promised? Because he has great convictions on this issue?
I am not saying that all pro-lifers are like pagans, I am saying that a willingness to sacrifice some to save the rest is paganism. Only a sinless one can die for another.
First of all, the President of the United States has no power to sign legislation like you’re mentioning. Any sort of ban on abortion would come through State legislatures based on an overturning of Roe v. Wade or if we were to have an outright ban, it would come through a Constitutional Amendment which a President has no says over. The vast majority Pro-life legal scholars that that these are the only ways to approach the issue
In effect, it seems what you’re arguing is that we should be upset that Romney would not sign a bill that would never reach his desk anyway and we should withhold our support for Mitt Romney over this hypothetical and improbable bill so that Barack Obama gets re-elected and his free reign to support abortion on demand.
Second, Governor Romney has pledged to restore the Mexico City ban which will stop the abortion missionaries of Planned Parenthood which will save thousands of life. He also said he’d support defunding Planned Parenthood. The first is doable by the President immediately. The second will require some congressional action and is more dicey. But implementing the Mexico City Policy is a significant blow to the pro-abortion forces and their efforts to spread the curse of abortion to the entire globe. Implementing Mexico City will help stymie the pro-aborts.
As to judges, I look at the people advising Romney on the type of people he’ll appoint to the court and the support he’s gained from people like Jay Sekulow. While we cannot be 100 percent certain that the judges he appoints will be solid constitutionalists, we do know the type of judges Obama will appoint and up and down the line, every judge will be a radical leftist.
I’d rather take a chance on Romney not being perfect on judges than giving Obama another chance to keep his word on judges.
Se we ignore the 25,000 babies a year that Romney wants dead?
I’ve been watching this conversation… I am not defending Romney’s record on this, but I think it is a far cry from being in favor of exceptions and wanting kids dead.
Back to the top….
I kind of thought so too. I know a lot of good-hearted people. who struggle with this exception. In fact Henry Hyde who led the pro-life charge for many years in the House believed in it. It doesn’t make sense, and it’s not logical or right but there are many people who’ve done great service to the pro-life cause who have nevertheless believed in it.
The prime difference is that Hyde accepted the exceptions that were promoted by men like Romney. The difference is between a hostage and a hold-up man.
He certainly has the power to do so, should the opportunity arise. Suppose it becomes clear that the Supreme Court has a change of heart (not impossible, but highly unlikely), then there is no reason to not pass a federal personhood law while waiting on a possible personhood amendment.
Regardless, the question is not what laws will pass, it is what kind of president do we want. Do we want a president who approves of the killing of 25,000 Americans per year or not.
And what evidence is there that Romney is truly pro-life? Promises?
David, there are many conservatives who are very hesitant about this approach, particularly those who believe in federalism.
It’ll suffice to say though that politically should such a bill pass during the past eight years it would require such a massive change in public support to create a groundswell for its passage and I tend to believe that such a tidal wave would probably carry Governor Romney along.
As for Romney’s fealty to the pro-life movement, I believe that these issues are not particularly important to him. However, he understands how politically devastating it would be should he flip flop/waffle.It would be a huge distraction, far more than any cost of doing what he’s promised. He quickly will find himself without friends and powerless should he insert the knife deeply on that point.
However, the whole question of Romney’s trustworthiness on abortion calls to mind a story in 2 Kings 7:3 and when four lepers found themselves sitting outside the gates of Samaria with it under siege by Syria.
They reach a remarkable conclusion:
“Why sit we here until we die?4 If we say, ‘We will enter into the city,’ then the famine is in the city, and we shall die there; and if we sit still here, we die also. Now therefore come, and let us fall unto the host of the Syrians. If they save us alive, we shall live; and if they kill us, we shall but die.”
Perhaps applicable to our election in 2012. We know what will happen to the unborn should Obama win re-election, with Romney we’re not sure, but it couldn’t be worse.
Adam, this is so much more important than elections. When we focus only on elections, we put political solutions over moral or gospel ones. I would be much more patient with pro-lifers and Christians who planned on voting for Romney, even though I might disagree with them, if…:
If they did not suddenly get silent about Romney’s exceptions and his Mormonism.
if they expressed trust in God, and did not so fret, worry and fear Obama that they run into the arms of Romney, acting like the world will end if he is not our next president.
I named made exceptions a big deal and never made Romney’s mormonism a big deal. For me the issue is trust and Romney’s establishmentarism and I’ve explained where I’m at.
I would say the world will not end. I trust in God but I also believe we’re responsible to God for how we use our franchise.
If it’s not used to thwart the most anti-Christian pro-abortion administration in American history. If we choose to by our acquiescence allow Barack Obama to go in for a 2nd term, that’s not acceptable to me.
It may be to you and I guess everyone has to make up their own minds, but to me the best choice for both religious liberty is Mitt Romney. I wish he weren’t the nominee, but that is the choice we have been given.
And we’ll all have to decide in our own way how to make the best of it.
1. Romney says he believes in personhood from conception.
2. He says he believes in exceptions.
3. This doesn’t mean that he will accept legislation if it has exceptions (Many pro-lifers have made that deal, including Henry Hyde), it means that he has promised to fight for the right to kill certain babies even if the Congress or the legislature says stop.Here is a summary.1. He understands that all babies are people.
2. He not only thinks it is politically acceptable that some babies will die, but.
3. He is willing to actively DO something that will ensure that those babies will die.
If he doesn’t want those babies dead, why would do something that makes sure they die?
I know I am seen as a fuddyduddy judgmental person for thinking no one is “pro-life” enough. But Romney is not your typical “exceptions” person. Few of those folks have promised to fight legislation that would save those babies.
Ergo, I do no think I am overstating the case one whit.
I personally don’t think you’re being judgmental on this issue. As you said, Romney is not your typical “exceptions” person–many of them are indeed sincere IMO. And even if Romney doesn’t actually want certain babies dead, he seems incredibly callous on the matter. For me, it all boils down to:
Why would anyone trust Romney on anything? How can we have any idea about what he would or wouldn’t do? The man seems to be a pathological liar.