The AHA? I refer to the group, Abolish Human Abortion. They are a new, young, evangelical bunch who are doing a lot of neat pro-life stuff. I don’t know all that much about them, but you can check out their website here: http://abolishhumanabortion.com/
As I say, they seem to be doing a great job, and are very creative, especially in posters and the like which can be found on Facebook and other places. I have been eagerly sharing their great posters and other activities far and wide on FB, and have been a keen supporter of their work – at least until today.
Now I am not so sure. Today I discovered a position statement of theirs which was really most disappointing. It is a position statement on the upcoming American presidential election, and where they stand. This is what they have just posted in this regard:
“We would like to issue a clarification. The A//A admins do not endorse Mitt Romney and will not be voting for him. However, we realize that many members of our page do not share this conviction and will be voting for Romney in order to vote against Obama (the most radical pro-abort president in history).
“Both sides of this divide can agree on this: Regardless of who wins the presidency, we still need to change our pro-choice culture and we can work together to accomplish that. We realize that abolition probably won’t happen overnight, but that doesn’t mean we are going to stop calling for an immediate and total end to the practice of human abortion!
“Press on.”
Now, what is wrong with this position? Heaps. First of all, everything they said in their first paragraph basically undermines what they said in the second. If they really believe abortion is the great moral evil of our time which must be abolished, then they will not do something so very foolish. They should not be coming apart at the seams here, caving in to this unbiblical and just plain foolish thinking.
The truth is this: Barack Hussein Obama has been America’s most pro-abortion president ever. He has been horrendous in this respect, and if he gets back in for another four years, the damage he causes will be awful – perhaps irreversible.
To not vote for the only man who can dislodge BHO is the height of irresponsibility, and it seems to me AHA, in telling people this is their stance – and probably encouraging many other gullible Christians to follow suit – will in fact have blood on their hands.
They are doing this of course for one simple reason: Romney is a Mormon, and they don’t want to muddy their theological hands by voting for him. They think it is far more important to maintain some specious spiritual purity here than to concentrate on the most important task of this election: getting rid of BHO.
This is the height of irresponsibility and foolishness. We are not voting for a Theologian-In-Chief here, but the president. To believe that voting for this pro-life alternative to Obama is somehow going to defile you and your faith is just plain senseless.
But I have written in great detail about all this in at least three articles now, so I will not repeat myself here. Please consult these pieces for why I think this is such a silly, unhelpful and irresponsible position to hold:
By taking an almost Pharisaical stance here (“See, I am clean and pure – I did not vote for that Mormon”) they are doing one thing and one thing only: they are helping to ensure that BHO gets back in to office and does even more horrendous evils – not just on the abortion front but on so many other fronts.
But the folks at AHA will somehow think their conscience is clear here. Sorry, not in my books – as I said, I believe they will have blood on their hands – at least indirectly. All their pontificating about being abolitionists will appear to be more rhetoric than reality.
Now as I said, I don’t know much about these guys. Up till now I thought they were doing a great work, and in most respects I still do. They mean well and are zealous on the abortion issue. I will probably keep sharing their terrific posters far and wide.
And I have already made my thoughts known about this on their FB page. So I am saying nothing new here publically that I have not already told them privately.
So I hope they continue to grow, thrive and be effective in their great pro-life work. We need to pray for them and encourage them to keep up the good work, and to have sound wisdom and sense as they do so. But they really do need to reconsider this most unhelpful position they have rather foolishly latched on to. If they are serious about being abolitionists, then they really should rethink – and discard – this rather unfortunate position.
Press on AHA.
(Update – I have since been told that there is a different reason for their stance: Romney is not fully pro-life enough. In my eyes this does not change the heart of this article. It still means we have a “purist” mentality which will still result in the exact same outcome: more Obama and more abortion. But see my lengthy September 10, 12 pm comment on this below.)
62 Replies to “The AHA Needs To Think Much More Carefully Here”
We’ll never agree with anyone perfectly. I’m happy to support the good they do and try to help them through what seems a clear misunderstanding of reality here.
On this, I agree with you, Bill!
Grahame Gould
Thanks Grahame
Yes they are doing a great job – perhaps a bit young and naive however, at least on this matter. So we keep praying for them.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Christians are acting like leftists when they balk at voting for a President that is not theologically pure. They don’t realise that this is an imperfect world where one has to balance the good on the one hand with the bad consequences on the other. Doing good is often a tough balancing act and its no excuse to just cite pure motives or moral absolutes *without asking; what are the consequences of my actions?*
Acting pie-in-the-sky pure will usually result in something much worse than accepting reality as it is.
Damien Spillane
Yes exactly right Damien.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Did they give their reasons in any of the several posts?
Was one reason they gave “because he is a mormon”?
I searched the posts and the only AHA text mentioning mormonism was a comment that clarified to an earlier commenter that Rommey was a mormon which is not a Christian and then continued on with the issue that Rommey does (or did) support and promise support for abortion.
(The particular comment was Matthew Charles Martellus ?response to Jennifer Rose Kuechlin, a couple of pages above your comments on the “when we actually show no compromise, people get ticked” post. I saw no other *by AHA*)
Is there some other reason that you say their action is because he is a mormon? Perhaps a post was deleted or perhaps I overlooked something?
It looks at first glance like “one simple reason: Romney is a Mormon” is at best an exaggeration?
Dale Flannery
No, not an exaggeration Dale. I was told this by those who know AHA far better than I do. But if it bothers you so, why don’t you ask them yourself for a direct answer?
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Sorry, Bill, but I can’t agree with you here. Mormons worship a false god and ‘you shall have no other gods before Me’ is one of the Ten Commandments, a direct instruction from God. It wouldn’t matter if Romney was running against Satan himself, no true Christian could possibly vote for a Mormon. You can’t just blithely take these matters out of the hands of God. There is no ‘lesser of two evils’. Evil is evil is evil.
Geoff Daniels
Thanks Geoff
I have already dealt with these objections in my articles so no need to go over old ground here. I encourage you to go read them. But the day you stop shopping at Safeway (owned by Mormons); stop going to secular petrol stations (could be a JW selling your gas); stop buying bread at the local baker (could be a Satanist); stop watching TV (plenty of pagans and worse working there); stop driving cars (probably built by cultists and others); etc is the day I accept your advice here. “Evil is evil is evil.”
Voting for the Republican party does not make me a worshipper of false gods, and it is foolish and unbiblical to claim such. Others can just sit back and allow Obama to get back in, smugly pat themselves on the back for doing their “duty”, but not me. “Evil is evil is evil.”
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Sorry Bill but you don’t address the central question at all. The only biblical course of action here is to leave the issue in the hands of God, a God so pure that He turns His face away from all that is evil. And that includes the Mormon counterfeit religion.
Geoff Daniels
Thanks again Geoff
Sorry but it is you that is not addressing the central question here. Unless you spend the rest of your life hiding in a cave, with all due respect, you are simply being hypocritical here. You mingle big time with pagans, cultists, infidels, and unbelievers every single day of your life, yet you get on some misguided theological purity trip here when it is simply about voting out the most evil president we ever had.
And sorry but no thanks – I certainly won’t take your unhelpful and unbiblical advice to just “leave it all up to God”. That is the very same silly Pharisaical advice so many believers told William Wilberforce: “just leave it to God; don’t contaminate yourself with filthy politics, and all those unbelievers, etc”. Millions of blacks are so glad Wilberforce did not listen to that vacuous advice.
I will do all I can to see righteousness exalting a nation. And the first step in that is working as hard as I can to get rid of Obama. Let me know how that cave works out for ya!
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
And Bill, do you ever leave anything in the hands of God? It seems strange to me that someone as talented as yourself should spend so much time trying to determine which is ‘the lesser of two evils’. Do you realise that Jesus Himself spent absolutely no time on this at all. He knew it was a matter for God. Our task is to watch and pray.
Geoff Daniels
Thanks again Geoff
Respectfully your comments are becoming increasingly incoherent and nonsensical. What do you mean, ‘do I ever leave things in the hands of God’? Of course I do, but what in the world does that have to do with anything? When you read the command to make disciples of all nations for example, do you just say, ‘oh I will leave that in the hands of God’? Unless you are some kind of oddball, you obey that command and actually do something. Our walk with God is always a work of cooperation: his sovereignty in line with our responsibility. Deny either one of those truths and you are no longer being a biblical Christian.
And when did I ever talk about the “lesser of two evils”? You are the one going on about “evil is evil is evil”. So if you really believe that, why don’t you answer my questions instead of avoiding them? Why do you mingle intimately with unbelievers every day of your life, do business with them, trade with them, sup with them, etc., but don’t think that matters one bit, that it doesn’t contaminate you, yet you think you will lose your salvation or some such thing if you work to vote Obama out. Until you give us all a good answer to that, we can only say again; that is nothing about biblical purity and genuine holiness, but mere hypocritical pharisaism.
You remarks about Jesus are equally obtuse. He knew it was all ‘a matter for God’? And what is that supposed to mean? Why did he come to earth and die on a cross and do all this stuff if it was all just a matter of letting it up to God? And we are only to “watch and pray” – that’s it? So James was wrong to say we must put action to our faith? So in your view Wilberforce was living in sin to implement his Christian faith to love his neighbour and work for their abolition?
Sorry, there would be no church today if everyone took such strange advice and just lived in caves, unspotted from the world. Of course we pray and of course we trust a sovereign God, but that does not mean for one minute that we just sit on our bums and do nothing. We are called to be salt and light, to evangelise, to bring his righteousness into the world, and so on. That means we do stuff in cooperation with him. That is basic Christianity 101 – I am surprised any believer would have such a hard time with such elementary biblical truths.
But I think we have both said our pieces here plenty already, so we will leave it at that. We will have to agree to disagree. Blessings to you.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Geoff, I’m afraid you sound like the self-assured individuals who left a man beaten by the roadside, who was ultimately cared for by a heathen from Samaria.
Real lives are affected by politicians. Barack Obama is doing the devil’s work. Just as we work with Mormons and Muslims to oppose immoral laws being passed, so we must work with whatever candidates God has permitted to run for President and Vice President. In this case, no Christian who tries to act as Jesus would, could vote for Barack Obama. If they abstain from voting, then Obama will be re-elected. They must therefore vote for his opponent, then work with the new administration for the best outcomes once they are in power.
Francis Young
Geoff Daniels, if we are comparing voting for a cultist non-Christian with not voting at all, you have totally ignored the most glaring problem of all.
By failing to vote, you run the risk of allowing the election of a clearly anti-Christian, pro-islam, marxist, humanist to the highest office in the land.
How does that compare to a vote for a pro-conservative, anti-marxist, budget-restraining Mormon?
GET REAL!!
John Angelico
Bill, if you’re happy to go before the Throne of God with that threadbare, worldly, blustering argument, you go right ahead, brother. But blessed is he who can see the wood for the trees.
The Lord bless you.
Geoff Daniels
Thanks Geoff
I am completely happy to go to the throne of God thanks. And I will leave it to the readers to decide just who is relying on “threadbare, worldly, blustering argument” and “who can see the wood for the trees”.
But as I said, we should probably leave it at that.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I agree.
I am not a Mormon and not a Protestant. The Presidency is not a religious office. The abortion issue is not a religious issue.
On Abortion
Human existence contains only two defining instants, which are conception and death.
And this is not a matter of “religion” but of biology.
All other milestones, no matter how dramatically recognized in society, amount to transitional phases in the human life cycle.
So despite all of the grandiose but empty oratory, any individual who does not advocate the defense of all innocent human life between those two landmarks is an individual who holds no regard for the sanctity of human life on the whole.
THAT is the issue.
Chris Langan-Fox
@Bill, I think the “lesser of two evils” comes from one of your article you linked in this one, On Mormon Presidents. There you write the following: “Because we live in a fallen world, where nothing is perfect, we have to live with the fact that we will often have to choose between the lesser of two evils.”
I guess, taken out of context it could sound like that we, as Christians, should actively choose between the lesser of the evils, rather then choose the godly option.
However, in the correct context, the point is that there are times where we have no 100% biblical / godly option to choose from.
@Geoff, I guess, the question is what we are supposed to do, in such a case where we have no 100% biblical / godly choice? That, I believe, is what Bill means with the examples of our interaction in daily life. Say, we don’t have a Christian supermarket around but we need food. Are we to fast for until we find a Christian store where we can get food? Or do we buy at supermarket where we don’t know about the believes and practices of the owner and the employees?
If you have the choice between to shops and you know one shop owner is often speeding, the other shop owner is having an illegal side business. Where do you go shopping? Buying from the one who is known for speeding a lot doesn’t mean you support that.
In essence, I guess, what Bill wants to say is that God gave us brain to use, not to carry around in our skull. I bet Bill is OK if someone has a different conviction about who to vote for then he has. But saying that the election is in God’s hands and not vote at all is something we, as Christians should not do. We should be informed about politics and vote in an election.
Not voting can always result in the worst of options winning. Which one the worst option is might be a matter of opinion, political views, and personal convictions. But not voting, only because there is no devote Christian, and being confirmed by some churches as being that, is not an option.
So, what Bill is pointing out, according to his convictions, is that Obama is not an option as next president, Romney is by far not perfect and right and good in every way, but Romney the one more in line with Christian belief / biblical truth, then Obama is. So, the better option, while not being a first class Christian option, is to vote for Romney.
I hope what I’m trying to explain is correct and will give a bit understanding of was tried to communicate.
Cheers,
Steve Mask
You would think that AHA would be advocating a vote for Romney for at least one reason – that Romney’s VP Paul Ryan is a solid pro-lifer.
Ewan McDonald, Victoria.
“Sorry Bill but you don’t address the central question at all. The only biblical course of action here is to leave the issue in the hands of God, a God so pure that He turns His face away from all that is evil. And that includes the Mormon counterfeit religion.”
So by not voting for Romney and allowing Obama in does that mean that Obama is more pure than Romney? Is the secular leftism of Obama better than the Mormonism of Romney?
I can tell you this, the Mormon church at least has a better record on marital faithfulness and giving to charity than most of US Christendom. The Mormon values are closer to ours than Obama’s and that is what counts.
But naive Christians better learn pretty quickly that Obama has a religion too that is just at odds with Christianity or they will leave the US to rot with a second term from the Leftist-in-Chief.
Damien Spillane
I can’t agree with Chris Langan-Fox when he says that the “abortion issue is not a religious issue.”
It is very much a religious issue. If human life is not sacred then why shouldn’t we be allowed to terminate pre-born babies in the same way that we dispose of unwanted pets? In general terms, the abortion argument is between Christians (and other theists) who believe human life is sacred, and the secularists (and other heathen) who believe it is not.
Even Chris himself couldn’t avoid basing his argument on the “sanctity of human life.” That human life is sacred is not a matter of biology but of religion.
Ewan McDonald, Victoria.
Thanks Ewan
But that is not to say that there cannot be secular pro-lifers (they do exist of course), and secular arguments used for pro-life (they can be made of course). Thus to paraphrase you: ‘That human life begins at conception is not a matter of religion but of biology.’
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Americans have a choice between Obama who claims to be a Christian but whose policies are the antithesis of Christianity, and Romney who doesn’t claim to be a Christian but whose policies are mostly compatible with Christianity!
Ewan McDonald, Victoria.
Yes exactly right Ewan. And getting back to Steve’s earlier comment, there is no perfect anything in a fallen world. No perfect political party, no perfect politician, and not even a perfect voter! So if some believers are worried about “lesser of two evil” talk then just ignore it, and use words like “opting for the best we can in a fallen world” or “seeking to come closest to the biblical ideal is a less than perfect world” etc. Our choices will never be ideal. But here we have only one glaring choice: either allow the evil BHO to get back in, or work to see that this does not happen. Pretty much everything else is so much Phariseism and sloppy Christian thinking it seems to me.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Thanks guys
If people want to question my Christian convictions that is fine, but they would be hard pressed to challenge Al Mohler’s. He is 100% right here to argue that we have two different worldviews competing in this election. It is of course not just about Romney v Obama, but the Republican Party v the Democratic Party. We are not really voting for a Mormon or a Marxist, but one or other of the parties. That must not be lost sight of here. If Romney gets in, he of course is greatly restricted by his own party, by Congress, and so on. But this is a crucial election, and to allow Obama to get back in by default seems to me to be gross irresponsibility by any Christian. He or she will have to give an account for allowing him back in. But anyway, here is Al’s helpful piece:
‘Even Chris himself couldn’t avoid basing his argument on the “sanctity of human life.” That human life is sacred is not a matter of biology but of religion.’
Not sure if I completely agree with this. The sanctity of human life can be appreciated on the basis of biology alone. One doesn’t need religion to appreciate that human beings have far superior capacities to animals based on our rationality and moral capacities which is based in the inherent complexity of our biological make-up (this is as much an empirical matter as a religious one). This, in turn, is at least partly based on our genetic constitution which is what it is from conception.
Interestingly, it is usually the pro-aborts that base their arguments on religion or abstract principles because it is so scientifically well recognised that human life starts at conception.
If you play the religion card only then you significantly weaken the pro-life argument.
Damien Spillane
“It wouldn’t matter if Romney was running against Satan himself, no true Christian could possibly vote for a Mormon.”
I cannot believe someone actually wrote that. I once worked for a small computer company owned by Mormons and only a couple of times did it make any difference, and then only in minor ways easily avoided. I also had a handful of opportunities to witness to a young Mormon man myself, so it went both ways. And anyway, you are not just voting for Romney but for the party platforms, which transcend his Mormonism. And he also has a pretty good guy as his right hand man – possibly a great future president – Paul Ryan.
The totalitarian bent of the Obama/Biden/Reid brand of Democrats in 2012 is abundantly clear. And same-sex ‘marriage’ and unrestricted abortion are now open party platforms – clear anti-Christian ideas. But Geoff might take some time to read of which sympathetic Persian king it was who enabled Israel to return from exile – prophesied by Isaiah 150 years earlier! There are plenty of scriptural precedents for living for God in an imperfect fallen world.
It seems to me that Geoff is simply setting up a false dilemma here – that you cannot be involved in this issue and also pray that God’s will is done. But of course you can do both. The foundation of his argument is flawed.
And I think the way he writes about the mission of Jesus is missing the point – Jesus had a unique and clear mission to fulfil on this earth and no other person will have that mission again. But when Jesus was challenged about paying taxes He affirmed the authority of Caesar but elevated the point to remind people about God as well. (Mk 12:13-17) Jesus did not ignore Caesar. And Paul – as the appointed mouthpiece of Jesus (Acts 9:15) makes it clear what government is for in Romans 13, for the restraining of evil. Politicians are actually ministers of God, even if they do not acknowledge Him at all – since the authority they have comes from God.
Jesus told us clearly to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Mt 5:13-16). I do not understand how promoting false conflicts and ignoring clear instructions to be involved in the world (and precedents like Wilberforce too) is a good way forward. It seems to me John the Baptist also got involved in politics too and Jesus considered him pretty highly! (Luke 7:28)
“The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men” – Plato.
Complaining that the cup is half full and preferring the option of having the cup completely empty is ludicrous and not at all biblical. Can you imagine the exiles waiting for the perfect king before going back to the promised land? There is only One who can fill the cup anyway. We are not going to get the clear choice of Jesus v Obama, ok?
And that Albert Mohler article linked above by Bill makes it plain too.
“One party claims that no abortions should be legal and the other claims that all abortions should be legal. Each party is driven by their own moral logic. The Republicans are driven by the belief that, at every point of development, every individual human being is sacred and has a fundamental right to life. The Democrats are driven by the belief that the woman’s unfettered right to choose an abortion is paramount, and that a woman can demand an abortion at any time for any reason — or for no reason. As their language states, “We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.” The most revealing words there are “any” and “all.”
Mark Rabich
I agree with you fully on this, Bill. If I were an American I would have voted for Mr O last time – the alternatives were not very attractive – but I’m sure I would now be very sorry for having done so.
In Australia it has always been agreed among Christians that some would Labor and some Liberal or National, or even Greens before they left the realms of sanity, but it is becoming increasingly evident that it is only with Coalition governments that we can expect decent social policies, and even that fact is becoming more tenuous as time goes on.
Satan sometimes overreaches himself, and maybe there will be a strong reaction to blatantly ungodly and anti-human government here, in the US and Britain, New Zealand and elsewhere.
David Morrison
Hi Bill
It did bother me that what you said was not what they said so I messaged to AHA on Facebook (asking if the position on Rommey was due to “one simple reason: Romney is a Mormon”) and this was the response:
“We are not endorsing Mitt Romney because he allows for a rape/incest exception when speaking about ending abortion. If he were to be able to accomplish this it would mean approximately 54,000 abortions year. That is 54,000 too many. He wants to regulate abortion, not abolish it. We are well aware that many people who “like” our page will vote for Romney. Many of the A//A leaders have pledged not to vote for anyone who allows for rape/incest or other exceptions. We hold a position of no compromise with abortion and we will not go with the multitude to do evil. I hope this clears things up and feel free to share this where this lie about us is being spread.”
So your source was wrong. After stating their reasons the last sentence is an emphatic rejection of the “mormon reason”.
Kind regards
Dale Flannery
Many thanks for that Dale
If that is the case then it changes things only to a tiny degree. Simply substitute “We are too pure to vote for a Mormon” for “We are too pure to vote for someone who does not see things our way”. Both are the identical, Pharisaical attitude. And both will have exactly the same result: four more years of Obama and a whole lot more abortion. And these guys will still smugly feel good about themselves and still pat themsleves on the back and still think they have not contaminated themselves with evil.
“Either do things our way or we can’t work with you” seems to be their attitude. “Only we are pure enough in the abortion wars, while all others are evil compromisers.” “We are the last group left who has not caved in, and we will remain purists here, and who gives a rip about the results.” That is the sort of attitude that all the cults have. Not only that, but they are already putting up new posters to this very effect, glibly justifying themselves and mocking anyone who dares to differ. That I also find to be a worry.
With all due respect I see some rather ungodly arrogance and pride coming from these guys. Instead of a bit of godly humility which says, “Hey, this is where we are coming from, and we think this is the right path, but we’re open to correction. We are young, we are the new kids on the block, and we want to learn from those who have gone before. We may make mistakes along the way and we do want to learn and hear from others” – instead of that attitude we seem to get this cocksure attitude: “We are right and everyone else is wrong – so they can all jump in the lake. We will do this anyway”. That is the vibe I am picking up from this group at the moment and it is a worry. They of course will simply call this “holy boldness” or some such thing. But there is always a very fine line between that and just plain arrogance and pride. So we need to keep praying for these guys. We do not want to deter their zeal, but as Paul said about the Jews, ‘They have a zeal for God but not according to knowledge, and wisdom’ (Romans 10:2).
Thus I apologise if Mormonism is not the main reason (although I suspect it still is a factor in their thinking), but this new reason is really just the same. It still smacks of pharisaical hypocrisy, and it will still result in the exact same ugly outcome: more Obama and more abortion. But at least these guys can feel good about themselves, that they remain “pure”. Sorry, they still leave me quite disappointed.
And we must keep praying that their good intentions and good work continues, but any bad thinking or bad attitudes are weeded out along the way.
(BTW, I have added a postscript to my article in light of your new information. Thanks again.)
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Just to add my two cents worth.
Those who have pushed for more liberal abortion laws have done so stealthily and in a step by step process.
Back in the 1970’s, I doubt abortion would have become legal if its advocates had openly admitted that they would not stop pushing abortion until they see it legal for full term pregnancies , partial birth abortions etc
Similarly, it seems to me, I may be wrong, that the best strategy that pro life people should employ is to win back ground step by step.
Unfortunately most people fully accept abortion for some cases like rape, incest, disabilities. Given this, maybe it would be smarter to win back where we can, and especially where we can get majority support, and have a longer term plan to eventually see it eliminated altogether.
Personally, I think focusing on gruesome practices like partial birth abortion, and the lack of pain relief is a good place to start to win support.
Most people might agree with abortion, but how many would agree that babies should be tortured to death in doing so?
Pro lifers need to be smarter and shrewder if they really do want to turn this tide. Stop letting people consume them in debates about rare abortion cases like rape etc, and turn the conversation around to where we can garner majority support.
Just my opinion.
Annette Williams
Thanks Annette
Yes I am with you. The purists will tell us that it has to be all or nothing. They believe anything less is just ‘evil compromise’. Consider the remark above in Dale’s comment: “If he were to be able to accomplish this it would mean approximately 54,000 abortions year. That is 54,000 too many.”
Well of course it is 54,000 too many. But by their twisted reasoning, they seem to prefer 1.3 million abortion a year in America. That is exactly what they will get – and worse – if they allow Obama back in because of their silly purist position. If Romney and the Republicans could cut back most abortions, leaving just 54,000 (for the time being), that would be a tremendous gain. And the other 1.299 million babies would sure notice the difference as well. But these purists demand complete abolition, or nothing at all. This is misguided foolishness in the extreme.
As I have said elsewhere, this is really not just about Romney vs Obama. It is about the Republican Party vs the Democrats. Their official position is light years ahead of the Democrats. As Al Mohler states:
On the issue of abortion, the Republican platform states, “we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.” The Democratic platform states: “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.” The worldview clash could hardly be more dramatic.
Of course in a fallen world, we may well be disappointed by any pro-life party or platform. If the Republicans can get in office and cut even a percentage of abortions, that is a good start, that is something to be applauded, and that is something all those saved babies will certainly support. The aim ultimately is always the end of all abortion, but if some can be saved now by a Republican administration, that is certainly far better than none being saved under a Democrat administration. So I simply cannot support the ‘all or nothing’ purist position of AHA.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
And if I may say some more here:
The AHA is not the only purist group of course in the pro-life movement. There are others who spend their whole time whining about Romney and his poor track record here. But it is the same old story really: just throw your hands up in despair, allow Obama to get back in, abortion continues unabated, and think you somehow can have a clear conscience.
Sorry, I am not buying this cop out. Republicans have done much on state and federal levels to work against abortion – far more than the Democrats. If folks can see no difference here then we clearly are on different pages. I utterly reject the baloney moral equivalence being paraded by so many in this regard. And as I said, this is not just about Romney – it is also about his VP (what if Romney leaves office – will these guys also complain about Ryan?); his party; any possible opposition from Congress; and so on. So it is not at all just about Romney.
And I tire of having to say this, but Romney was never my first choice (or second, or third…). And I do not like all his flip-flopping either. That is why he was never my main choice. But he is the only choice we now have vs Obama.
Again, we live in a real, fallen, world, not a perfect one. So I will go any day of the week with an option which may reduce some abortion (for starters), and not with an option which will do nothing to reduce abortion. Purist positions which at the end of the day do nothing to slow down abortion are not in my eyes much of a pro-life stance at all.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
And I must say I really love the line of Mark Rabich, above:
“We are not going to get the clear choice of Jesus v Obama, ok?”
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I believe that political ethics is more of a teleological/practical area than a deontological one. The fact of the matter is that whatever motivations or convictions the respective candidates and parties hold, Romney in power will mean that millions less abortions will occur that if Obama is re-elected. Thus, if American Christians don’t do everything in their power to make sure Obama is out (which, unfortunately, means voting Romney in), then they are essentially putting millions of lives at risk. Also, those who would rather vote Obama because he claims to be a Christian are being ridiculous. Hitler once claimed to be a Christian, but, like Obama, his policies were completely opposed to the Bible. In reality, Romney’s Mormonism is a lot closer to real Christianity than Obama’s twisted views – whether Obama claims to be Christian or not. In fact, that leaves another reason to vote Romney: at least he is honest about his views. Frankly, I’m not sure Obama has an honest bone in his body.
Justin Nowland
Damien, I considered that argument when I wrote those comments. It depends on what is meant by “sanctity of life”. What you argue for is better described as “human exceptionalism” and I agree that this does not depend on any religious or philosophical concept. “Sanctity” however, is a religious term as most dictionaries will affirm.
And although human exceptionalism is easy to prove objectively, it is not a sufficient argument against abortion. A supporter of abortion may be easily persuaded that human life is exceptional, but unless they also accept that that life is of supreme value (i.e. sacred), then they could easily continue to support abortion on the basis of their belief that human life is not necessarily worthy of special protection.
And the belief that human life is not worthy of special protection (i.e. not sacred) is the default view of those who believe in naturalistic evolution (atheism). That’s why people like Peter Singer who undoubtedly agrees with the concept of human exceptionalism, can continue to promote abortion and even infanticide on the basis of his evolutionary worldview/religion.
So I maintain that arguments against abortion are not complete without reference to philosophical/religious concepts concerning the value of human life. And I nowhere said we should only use the “religion card” when arguing against abortion. Obviously we need to use all arguments but it is a mistake if we think we can or should avoid any reference to religious/philosophical arguments.
Ewan McDonald, Victoria.
Ewan
As long as you are not basing arguments on scripture. You can’t justify public policy or law on scriptural passages since many in today’s society don’t accept the authority of the bible or any other religious precepts.
But on the other hand one’s metaphysics should be in accord with natural law and that should carry moral weight and is informed by science (and this can be undermined by a neo-Darwinian worldview). This is why the scientific evidence for conception is so compelling and justifies the right to life.
Damien Spillane
I’m a presuppositionalist, not an evidentialist which might explain our differences here Damien.
Why is is OK for the secularist to base his public policy and law on his religion alone, and yet Christians cannot base our public policy and law on our worldview?
And I fail to see why the fact that biology proves human life begins at conception in any way justifies a right to life? All that proves is the point at which life begins, not that this life has any objective rights. Where do rights come from if not from God?
Ewan McDonald, Victoria.
Cardinal Burke said in the 2010 election campaign that if one candidate was less pro abortion than another, Catholics should vote for them.
Steve Gethin
A post I just put on the AHA page:
“Imagine you are a scientist and you have figured out that a meteor is heading for New York. If you fire a missile at it, you can knock it off its trajectory and it will only take out Washington. Do you therefore:
a) fire the missile; or
b) do nothing, because the meteor is still going to kill people if it lands in Washington.
The same thing applies to voting in elections. One candidate is going to win. As Christians we have a duty to try and see that that is the candidate who will wreak the least destruction on innocent life. According to the same principle, please reverse your failure to endorse Romney.”
Steve Gethin
Then I came up with a better version:
Imagine you are a scientist and you have figured out that a meteor is heading for New York. If you fire a missile at it, you can break it up so that it will kill less people. Do you therefore:
a) fire the missile; or
b) do nothing, because the meteor is still going to kill some people?
The same thing applies to voting in elections. One candidate is going to win. As Christians we have a duty to try and see that that is the candidate who will wreak the least destruction on innocent life. According to the same principle, please reverse your decision not to endorse Romney.
I must admit, I don’t have the patience of Bill, endlessly reiterating the obvious.
OK, so I can understand that some Christians were duped into voting for BHO last election due to ignorance. (well, laziness really). But next time around, if any Christian does not vote against BHO then perhaps there is no hope for these soldiers in the army of God.
So what happens when an army shoots their allies and votes for their enemies? They lose the war.
With BHO re-elected, maybe God would have no choice but to let the Titanic sink with captain BHO at the helm – just as He let Israel get taken to Babylon. It’s certainly looking precarious – we haven’t even mentioned the debt problem here. 16 trillion is a lot of debt. 50 million abortions is a lot of death.
When is God going to be too embarrassed to have the USA reputedly “Christian”?
Or perhaps, along with the rest of the humanistic western world, it will just keep fading away as the population shrinks into obscurity. Our sins are already finding us out, with negative “western” birthrates and crippling debt. Bye bye west. Better start training to be missionaries, because unless this ship turns around, before long there won’t be a west.
Tim Lovett
Steve – Re the meteorite on Washington..
Haha – I see why you changed it. We might realize we’d be a lot better off without the politicians, lobbyists and federal manipulators in Washington DC…
Tim Lovett
Yes quite right Steve and Tim
This election really is about the survival of America and the survival of the West. Yet these misguided and foolish purists seem quite happy to throw it all away. At least they have kept themselves “pure”. What will they tell their children and grandchildren when they are asked why they allowed all this evil to take over the land? They will have nothing to say. They are simply “useful idiots” to use Lenin’s phrase. Why do I keep being reminded of Jesus’ words of rebuke to the purists of his day – the Pharisees?
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Thanks guys
There are plenty of purists out there who will not do the right thing in November. They will have to answer to their children and grandchildren – and to God:
Ewan and Damien argue the toss over my words. Thanks guys for even considering my modest input.
I might have put the word ‘just’ or solely’ in there somewhere but chose to make a point.
‘Religion’ comes on the heels of Humanity which comes on the heels of Life itself. Of course there is a religious case but first there is ‘Life’.
Sanctification is a concept most often used in a religious context, but religion does not own it. Religion recognises the sacred; it does not cause it.
Chris
“Religion comes on the heels of humanity”.Surely not? Try John 1:1-4.
Bill
Are you saying, when arguing that conception is a matter of biology and not religion, that a human being lacks a soul?
Dunstan Hartley
Thanks Dunstan
Of course not. I was simply stating an obvious truth: biology (with or without religion) tells us that human life begins at conception. Thus a non-religious argument for the pro-life position can be made – in fact many non-Christians share a pro-life view. Sure, I believe the theistic worldview best explains and underlies the pro-life case, but nonetheless, one can argue on simply secular grounds against abortion.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Another post I put on AHA
Romney’s record on life is better, see for example: http://aboutmittromney.com/abortion.htm Voting is simply a choice between available options, where we rank them in order of preference. It is not an endorsement of everything a candidate stands for. Life is the most serious election issue, but we are voting pro life because abortion is against God’s law. There are many other positions that politicians take that are against Gods law as well so even if there was a candidate who was perfectly pro-life but did not follow God’s law in some other respect, what would be your justification for ignoring God’s law in that case and voting for them? It would seem that on your logic it would be difficult to ever justify voting, as you would in effect be endorsing some breach of God’s law. But to in effect advocate against voting in almost all circumstances is in effect advocating against democracy, and therefore in favor of an alternative, which is some kind of dictatorship. Government is ordained by God, even though that does not mean it has the right to do evil. Government, as opposed to chaos, is in fact a good thing, even though it may commit many crimes. Democracy has serious problems, as you are well aware. It is just that it is better than the alternatives. Christians need to support the best system of Government that God has ever provided for us. We can still make it very clear by our public statements that we are voting for the least worst candidate and we want them to do much better. Finally I would like to commend AHA for doing some of the best pro life advocacy I have come across, but please don’t be confused by a false argument into helping the most anti-life candidate ever win another term.
Steve Gethin
Another winner Steve. Well done again.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Like Paul said:
“What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.” Philippians 1:18
Paul was more pleased with the outcome of more of the gospel being preached than the intent behind that preaching, as we should also be pleased to see a reduction in the number of abortions, even if it takes voting for someone who doesn’t have the best track record in supporting the pro-life movement.
Mario Del Giudice
Steve: Here’s another analogy – or should I say inspiration;
Being Sept 11 and all, look at Flight 93.
On board were a bunch of passengers headed for their death and the death of thousands in the White House.
We all know what choice they made. They voted for the lesser of two evils.
Tim Lovett
Thanks guys
Rebecca Hagelin gets it right:
“Romney, while far from perfect, has got to win this election if we are going to have any hope of preserving biblical morality or the American dream. I never look for the best Christian to be President – I look for the one who best reflects a strong moral character, and who is most likely to preserve my rights as a Christian and freedom-loving American.”
I agree completely. I have been with AHA from their very beginning – when they hardly had any fans and I loved them… I loved the idea of them existing… but now….personally, I am a bit creeped out by their stance that they take on voting and I have distanced myself from them greatly. It breaks my heart to. I was called evil by AHA for saying I was going to vote for Romney and when I tried to explain why, I was further compared to a pro-slavery colonizationist… They have their great moments, I give them that, but I think they are going to be victims of their own demise if they continue to treat people how I was treated, and if they are going to continue this naive outlook on voting in America. I leave with this. http://defendpre-bornbabies.blogspot.com/2012/09/voting-for-romney-lesson.html
Katie Crossman
Thanks Katie
Yes they seem to have some issues unfortunately. Perhaps put it down to youthful exuberance and inexperience, and perhaps a lack of mature wisdom.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I know this is in the link I provided above.. but… I’d like to post it here. A good point to remember is: This is what Lincoln said after being elected president, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. . . . [¶] I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”[Roy P. Basler, ed. The collected works of Abraham Lincoln (Rutgers U.P., 1953) vol 5 p. 388]
You can’t wait around for Jesus or some sort of Savior, you’ve got to STAND at SOME POINT 😉
Katie Crossman
Yes quite right Katie
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Bill Whittle gets it quite right here. This 5-minute video is well worth watching:
This is a bit late, but hopefully you’ll still see it. I used to support AHA when I first learned about them. But after being with them for a little while, I started to see their true colors. They are a dangerous organization, one that we would do well to avoid.
Most glaringly, not only did they help contribute to Obama’s re-election by opposing Romney at the polls, but they also consistently vote against common sense pro-life legislation meant to help women but are not “pro-life enough” (this can be anything from an abortion ban on pain capable fetuses, to mandatory waiting periods, to bans on abortion except in the case of rape, all of which (and many more) have been opposed by AHA as not “pro-life enough”). With AHA fighting against the pro-life movement proper, it is much more difficult to end abortion. Incremental legislation has proven successful time and again, and has been proven to save lives, end the careers of abortionists, shut down abortion clinics, etc., but they still insist that we’re not really pro-life unless we support all-or-nothing legislation, which has never succeeded, and they will oppose common sense legislation in the mean time.
Here are a couple of articles I’ve written about AHA:
We’ll never agree with anyone perfectly. I’m happy to support the good they do and try to help them through what seems a clear misunderstanding of reality here.
On this, I agree with you, Bill!
Grahame Gould
Thanks Grahame
Yes they are doing a great job – perhaps a bit young and naive however, at least on this matter. So we keep praying for them.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Christians are acting like leftists when they balk at voting for a President that is not theologically pure. They don’t realise that this is an imperfect world where one has to balance the good on the one hand with the bad consequences on the other. Doing good is often a tough balancing act and its no excuse to just cite pure motives or moral absolutes *without asking; what are the consequences of my actions?*
Acting pie-in-the-sky pure will usually result in something much worse than accepting reality as it is.
Damien Spillane
Yes exactly right Damien.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Did they give their reasons in any of the several posts?
Was one reason they gave “because he is a mormon”?
I searched the posts and the only AHA text mentioning mormonism was a comment that clarified to an earlier commenter that Rommey was a mormon which is not a Christian and then continued on with the issue that Rommey does (or did) support and promise support for abortion.
(The particular comment was Matthew Charles Martellus ?response to Jennifer Rose Kuechlin, a couple of pages above your comments on the “when we actually show no compromise, people get ticked” post. I saw no other *by AHA*)
Is there some other reason that you say their action is because he is a mormon? Perhaps a post was deleted or perhaps I overlooked something?
It looks at first glance like “one simple reason: Romney is a Mormon” is at best an exaggeration?
Dale Flannery
No, not an exaggeration Dale. I was told this by those who know AHA far better than I do. But if it bothers you so, why don’t you ask them yourself for a direct answer?
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Sorry, Bill, but I can’t agree with you here. Mormons worship a false god and ‘you shall have no other gods before Me’ is one of the Ten Commandments, a direct instruction from God. It wouldn’t matter if Romney was running against Satan himself, no true Christian could possibly vote for a Mormon. You can’t just blithely take these matters out of the hands of God. There is no ‘lesser of two evils’. Evil is evil is evil.
Geoff Daniels
Thanks Geoff
I have already dealt with these objections in my articles so no need to go over old ground here. I encourage you to go read them. But the day you stop shopping at Safeway (owned by Mormons); stop going to secular petrol stations (could be a JW selling your gas); stop buying bread at the local baker (could be a Satanist); stop watching TV (plenty of pagans and worse working there); stop driving cars (probably built by cultists and others); etc is the day I accept your advice here. “Evil is evil is evil.”
Voting for the Republican party does not make me a worshipper of false gods, and it is foolish and unbiblical to claim such. Others can just sit back and allow Obama to get back in, smugly pat themselves on the back for doing their “duty”, but not me. “Evil is evil is evil.”
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Sorry Bill but you don’t address the central question at all. The only biblical course of action here is to leave the issue in the hands of God, a God so pure that He turns His face away from all that is evil. And that includes the Mormon counterfeit religion.
Geoff Daniels
Thanks again Geoff
Sorry but it is you that is not addressing the central question here. Unless you spend the rest of your life hiding in a cave, with all due respect, you are simply being hypocritical here. You mingle big time with pagans, cultists, infidels, and unbelievers every single day of your life, yet you get on some misguided theological purity trip here when it is simply about voting out the most evil president we ever had.
And sorry but no thanks – I certainly won’t take your unhelpful and unbiblical advice to just “leave it all up to God”. That is the very same silly Pharisaical advice so many believers told William Wilberforce: “just leave it to God; don’t contaminate yourself with filthy politics, and all those unbelievers, etc”. Millions of blacks are so glad Wilberforce did not listen to that vacuous advice.
I will do all I can to see righteousness exalting a nation. And the first step in that is working as hard as I can to get rid of Obama. Let me know how that cave works out for ya!
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
And Bill, do you ever leave anything in the hands of God? It seems strange to me that someone as talented as yourself should spend so much time trying to determine which is ‘the lesser of two evils’. Do you realise that Jesus Himself spent absolutely no time on this at all. He knew it was a matter for God. Our task is to watch and pray.
Geoff Daniels
Thanks again Geoff
Respectfully your comments are becoming increasingly incoherent and nonsensical. What do you mean, ‘do I ever leave things in the hands of God’? Of course I do, but what in the world does that have to do with anything? When you read the command to make disciples of all nations for example, do you just say, ‘oh I will leave that in the hands of God’? Unless you are some kind of oddball, you obey that command and actually do something. Our walk with God is always a work of cooperation: his sovereignty in line with our responsibility. Deny either one of those truths and you are no longer being a biblical Christian.
And when did I ever talk about the “lesser of two evils”? You are the one going on about “evil is evil is evil”. So if you really believe that, why don’t you answer my questions instead of avoiding them? Why do you mingle intimately with unbelievers every day of your life, do business with them, trade with them, sup with them, etc., but don’t think that matters one bit, that it doesn’t contaminate you, yet you think you will lose your salvation or some such thing if you work to vote Obama out. Until you give us all a good answer to that, we can only say again; that is nothing about biblical purity and genuine holiness, but mere hypocritical pharisaism.
You remarks about Jesus are equally obtuse. He knew it was all ‘a matter for God’? And what is that supposed to mean? Why did he come to earth and die on a cross and do all this stuff if it was all just a matter of letting it up to God? And we are only to “watch and pray” – that’s it? So James was wrong to say we must put action to our faith? So in your view Wilberforce was living in sin to implement his Christian faith to love his neighbour and work for their abolition?
Sorry, there would be no church today if everyone took such strange advice and just lived in caves, unspotted from the world. Of course we pray and of course we trust a sovereign God, but that does not mean for one minute that we just sit on our bums and do nothing. We are called to be salt and light, to evangelise, to bring his righteousness into the world, and so on. That means we do stuff in cooperation with him. That is basic Christianity 101 – I am surprised any believer would have such a hard time with such elementary biblical truths.
But I think we have both said our pieces here plenty already, so we will leave it at that. We will have to agree to disagree. Blessings to you.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Geoff, I’m afraid you sound like the self-assured individuals who left a man beaten by the roadside, who was ultimately cared for by a heathen from Samaria.
Real lives are affected by politicians. Barack Obama is doing the devil’s work. Just as we work with Mormons and Muslims to oppose immoral laws being passed, so we must work with whatever candidates God has permitted to run for President and Vice President. In this case, no Christian who tries to act as Jesus would, could vote for Barack Obama. If they abstain from voting, then Obama will be re-elected. They must therefore vote for his opponent, then work with the new administration for the best outcomes once they are in power.
Francis Young
Geoff Daniels, if we are comparing voting for a cultist non-Christian with not voting at all, you have totally ignored the most glaring problem of all.
By failing to vote, you run the risk of allowing the election of a clearly anti-Christian, pro-islam, marxist, humanist to the highest office in the land.
How does that compare to a vote for a pro-conservative, anti-marxist, budget-restraining Mormon?
GET REAL!!
John Angelico
Bill, if you’re happy to go before the Throne of God with that threadbare, worldly, blustering argument, you go right ahead, brother. But blessed is he who can see the wood for the trees.
The Lord bless you.
Geoff Daniels
Thanks Geoff
I am completely happy to go to the throne of God thanks. And I will leave it to the readers to decide just who is relying on “threadbare, worldly, blustering argument” and “who can see the wood for the trees”.
But as I said, we should probably leave it at that.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I agree.
I am not a Mormon and not a Protestant. The Presidency is not a religious office. The abortion issue is not a religious issue.
On Abortion
Human existence contains only two defining instants, which are conception and death.
And this is not a matter of “religion” but of biology.
All other milestones, no matter how dramatically recognized in society, amount to transitional phases in the human life cycle.
So despite all of the grandiose but empty oratory, any individual who does not advocate the defense of all innocent human life between those two landmarks is an individual who holds no regard for the sanctity of human life on the whole.
THAT is the issue.
Chris Langan-Fox
@Bill, I think the “lesser of two evils” comes from one of your article you linked in this one, On Mormon Presidents. There you write the following: “Because we live in a fallen world, where nothing is perfect, we have to live with the fact that we will often have to choose between the lesser of two evils.”
I guess, taken out of context it could sound like that we, as Christians, should actively choose between the lesser of the evils, rather then choose the godly option.
However, in the correct context, the point is that there are times where we have no 100% biblical / godly option to choose from.
@Geoff, I guess, the question is what we are supposed to do, in such a case where we have no 100% biblical / godly choice? That, I believe, is what Bill means with the examples of our interaction in daily life. Say, we don’t have a Christian supermarket around but we need food. Are we to fast for until we find a Christian store where we can get food? Or do we buy at supermarket where we don’t know about the believes and practices of the owner and the employees?
If you have the choice between to shops and you know one shop owner is often speeding, the other shop owner is having an illegal side business. Where do you go shopping? Buying from the one who is known for speeding a lot doesn’t mean you support that.
In essence, I guess, what Bill wants to say is that God gave us brain to use, not to carry around in our skull. I bet Bill is OK if someone has a different conviction about who to vote for then he has. But saying that the election is in God’s hands and not vote at all is something we, as Christians should not do. We should be informed about politics and vote in an election.
Not voting can always result in the worst of options winning. Which one the worst option is might be a matter of opinion, political views, and personal convictions. But not voting, only because there is no devote Christian, and being confirmed by some churches as being that, is not an option.
So, what Bill is pointing out, according to his convictions, is that Obama is not an option as next president, Romney is by far not perfect and right and good in every way, but Romney the one more in line with Christian belief / biblical truth, then Obama is. So, the better option, while not being a first class Christian option, is to vote for Romney.
I hope what I’m trying to explain is correct and will give a bit understanding of was tried to communicate.
Cheers,
Steve Mask
You would think that AHA would be advocating a vote for Romney for at least one reason – that Romney’s VP Paul Ryan is a solid pro-lifer.
Ewan McDonald, Victoria.
“Sorry Bill but you don’t address the central question at all. The only biblical course of action here is to leave the issue in the hands of God, a God so pure that He turns His face away from all that is evil. And that includes the Mormon counterfeit religion.”
So by not voting for Romney and allowing Obama in does that mean that Obama is more pure than Romney? Is the secular leftism of Obama better than the Mormonism of Romney?
I can tell you this, the Mormon church at least has a better record on marital faithfulness and giving to charity than most of US Christendom. The Mormon values are closer to ours than Obama’s and that is what counts.
But naive Christians better learn pretty quickly that Obama has a religion too that is just at odds with Christianity or they will leave the US to rot with a second term from the Leftist-in-Chief.
Damien Spillane
I can’t agree with Chris Langan-Fox when he says that the “abortion issue is not a religious issue.”
It is very much a religious issue. If human life is not sacred then why shouldn’t we be allowed to terminate pre-born babies in the same way that we dispose of unwanted pets? In general terms, the abortion argument is between Christians (and other theists) who believe human life is sacred, and the secularists (and other heathen) who believe it is not.
Even Chris himself couldn’t avoid basing his argument on the “sanctity of human life.” That human life is sacred is not a matter of biology but of religion.
Ewan McDonald, Victoria.
Thanks Ewan
But that is not to say that there cannot be secular pro-lifers (they do exist of course), and secular arguments used for pro-life (they can be made of course). Thus to paraphrase you: ‘That human life begins at conception is not a matter of religion but of biology.’
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Americans have a choice between Obama who claims to be a Christian but whose policies are the antithesis of Christianity, and Romney who doesn’t claim to be a Christian but whose policies are mostly compatible with Christianity!
Ewan McDonald, Victoria.
Yes exactly right Ewan. And getting back to Steve’s earlier comment, there is no perfect anything in a fallen world. No perfect political party, no perfect politician, and not even a perfect voter! So if some believers are worried about “lesser of two evil” talk then just ignore it, and use words like “opting for the best we can in a fallen world” or “seeking to come closest to the biblical ideal is a less than perfect world” etc. Our choices will never be ideal. But here we have only one glaring choice: either allow the evil BHO to get back in, or work to see that this does not happen. Pretty much everything else is so much Phariseism and sloppy Christian thinking it seems to me.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Thanks guys
If people want to question my Christian convictions that is fine, but they would be hard pressed to challenge Al Mohler’s. He is 100% right here to argue that we have two different worldviews competing in this election. It is of course not just about Romney v Obama, but the Republican Party v the Democratic Party. We are not really voting for a Mormon or a Marxist, but one or other of the parties. That must not be lost sight of here. If Romney gets in, he of course is greatly restricted by his own party, by Congress, and so on. But this is a crucial election, and to allow Obama to get back in by default seems to me to be gross irresponsibility by any Christian. He or she will have to give an account for allowing him back in. But anyway, here is Al’s helpful piece:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/09/06/the-great-american-worldview-exercise-the-2012-election/
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
‘Even Chris himself couldn’t avoid basing his argument on the “sanctity of human life.” That human life is sacred is not a matter of biology but of religion.’
Not sure if I completely agree with this. The sanctity of human life can be appreciated on the basis of biology alone. One doesn’t need religion to appreciate that human beings have far superior capacities to animals based on our rationality and moral capacities which is based in the inherent complexity of our biological make-up (this is as much an empirical matter as a religious one). This, in turn, is at least partly based on our genetic constitution which is what it is from conception.
Interestingly, it is usually the pro-aborts that base their arguments on religion or abstract principles because it is so scientifically well recognised that human life starts at conception.
If you play the religion card only then you significantly weaken the pro-life argument.
Damien Spillane
“It wouldn’t matter if Romney was running against Satan himself, no true Christian could possibly vote for a Mormon.”
I cannot believe someone actually wrote that. I once worked for a small computer company owned by Mormons and only a couple of times did it make any difference, and then only in minor ways easily avoided. I also had a handful of opportunities to witness to a young Mormon man myself, so it went both ways. And anyway, you are not just voting for Romney but for the party platforms, which transcend his Mormonism. And he also has a pretty good guy as his right hand man – possibly a great future president – Paul Ryan.
The totalitarian bent of the Obama/Biden/Reid brand of Democrats in 2012 is abundantly clear. And same-sex ‘marriage’ and unrestricted abortion are now open party platforms – clear anti-Christian ideas. But Geoff might take some time to read of which sympathetic Persian king it was who enabled Israel to return from exile – prophesied by Isaiah 150 years earlier! There are plenty of scriptural precedents for living for God in an imperfect fallen world.
It seems to me that Geoff is simply setting up a false dilemma here – that you cannot be involved in this issue and also pray that God’s will is done. But of course you can do both. The foundation of his argument is flawed.
And I think the way he writes about the mission of Jesus is missing the point – Jesus had a unique and clear mission to fulfil on this earth and no other person will have that mission again. But when Jesus was challenged about paying taxes He affirmed the authority of Caesar but elevated the point to remind people about God as well. (Mk 12:13-17) Jesus did not ignore Caesar. And Paul – as the appointed mouthpiece of Jesus (Acts 9:15) makes it clear what government is for in Romans 13, for the restraining of evil. Politicians are actually ministers of God, even if they do not acknowledge Him at all – since the authority they have comes from God.
Jesus told us clearly to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Mt 5:13-16). I do not understand how promoting false conflicts and ignoring clear instructions to be involved in the world (and precedents like Wilberforce too) is a good way forward. It seems to me John the Baptist also got involved in politics too and Jesus considered him pretty highly! (Luke 7:28)
“The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men” – Plato.
Complaining that the cup is half full and preferring the option of having the cup completely empty is ludicrous and not at all biblical. Can you imagine the exiles waiting for the perfect king before going back to the promised land? There is only One who can fill the cup anyway. We are not going to get the clear choice of Jesus v Obama, ok?
And that Albert Mohler article linked above by Bill makes it plain too.
“One party claims that no abortions should be legal and the other claims that all abortions should be legal. Each party is driven by their own moral logic. The Republicans are driven by the belief that, at every point of development, every individual human being is sacred and has a fundamental right to life. The Democrats are driven by the belief that the woman’s unfettered right to choose an abortion is paramount, and that a woman can demand an abortion at any time for any reason — or for no reason. As their language states, “We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.” The most revealing words there are “any” and “all.”
Mark Rabich
I agree with you fully on this, Bill. If I were an American I would have voted for Mr O last time – the alternatives were not very attractive – but I’m sure I would now be very sorry for having done so.
In Australia it has always been agreed among Christians that some would Labor and some Liberal or National, or even Greens before they left the realms of sanity, but it is becoming increasingly evident that it is only with Coalition governments that we can expect decent social policies, and even that fact is becoming more tenuous as time goes on.
Satan sometimes overreaches himself, and maybe there will be a strong reaction to blatantly ungodly and anti-human government here, in the US and Britain, New Zealand and elsewhere.
David Morrison
Hi Bill
It did bother me that what you said was not what they said so I messaged to AHA on Facebook (asking if the position on Rommey was due to “one simple reason: Romney is a Mormon”) and this was the response:
“We are not endorsing Mitt Romney because he allows for a rape/incest exception when speaking about ending abortion. If he were to be able to accomplish this it would mean approximately 54,000 abortions year. That is 54,000 too many. He wants to regulate abortion, not abolish it. We are well aware that many people who “like” our page will vote for Romney. Many of the A//A leaders have pledged not to vote for anyone who allows for rape/incest or other exceptions. We hold a position of no compromise with abortion and we will not go with the multitude to do evil. I hope this clears things up and feel free to share this where this lie about us is being spread.”
So your source was wrong. After stating their reasons the last sentence is an emphatic rejection of the “mormon reason”.
Kind regards
Dale Flannery
Many thanks for that Dale
If that is the case then it changes things only to a tiny degree. Simply substitute “We are too pure to vote for a Mormon” for “We are too pure to vote for someone who does not see things our way”. Both are the identical, Pharisaical attitude. And both will have exactly the same result: four more years of Obama and a whole lot more abortion. And these guys will still smugly feel good about themselves and still pat themsleves on the back and still think they have not contaminated themselves with evil.
“Either do things our way or we can’t work with you” seems to be their attitude. “Only we are pure enough in the abortion wars, while all others are evil compromisers.” “We are the last group left who has not caved in, and we will remain purists here, and who gives a rip about the results.” That is the sort of attitude that all the cults have. Not only that, but they are already putting up new posters to this very effect, glibly justifying themselves and mocking anyone who dares to differ. That I also find to be a worry.
With all due respect I see some rather ungodly arrogance and pride coming from these guys. Instead of a bit of godly humility which says, “Hey, this is where we are coming from, and we think this is the right path, but we’re open to correction. We are young, we are the new kids on the block, and we want to learn from those who have gone before. We may make mistakes along the way and we do want to learn and hear from others” – instead of that attitude we seem to get this cocksure attitude: “We are right and everyone else is wrong – so they can all jump in the lake. We will do this anyway”. That is the vibe I am picking up from this group at the moment and it is a worry. They of course will simply call this “holy boldness” or some such thing. But there is always a very fine line between that and just plain arrogance and pride. So we need to keep praying for these guys. We do not want to deter their zeal, but as Paul said about the Jews, ‘They have a zeal for God but not according to knowledge, and wisdom’ (Romans 10:2).
Thus I apologise if Mormonism is not the main reason (although I suspect it still is a factor in their thinking), but this new reason is really just the same. It still smacks of pharisaical hypocrisy, and it will still result in the exact same ugly outcome: more Obama and more abortion. But at least these guys can feel good about themselves, that they remain “pure”. Sorry, they still leave me quite disappointed.
And we must keep praying that their good intentions and good work continues, but any bad thinking or bad attitudes are weeded out along the way.
(BTW, I have added a postscript to my article in light of your new information. Thanks again.)
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Just to add my two cents worth.
Those who have pushed for more liberal abortion laws have done so stealthily and in a step by step process.
Back in the 1970’s, I doubt abortion would have become legal if its advocates had openly admitted that they would not stop pushing abortion until they see it legal for full term pregnancies , partial birth abortions etc
Similarly, it seems to me, I may be wrong, that the best strategy that pro life people should employ is to win back ground step by step.
Unfortunately most people fully accept abortion for some cases like rape, incest, disabilities. Given this, maybe it would be smarter to win back where we can, and especially where we can get majority support, and have a longer term plan to eventually see it eliminated altogether.
Personally, I think focusing on gruesome practices like partial birth abortion, and the lack of pain relief is a good place to start to win support.
Most people might agree with abortion, but how many would agree that babies should be tortured to death in doing so?
Pro lifers need to be smarter and shrewder if they really do want to turn this tide. Stop letting people consume them in debates about rare abortion cases like rape etc, and turn the conversation around to where we can garner majority support.
Just my opinion.
Annette Williams
Thanks Annette
Yes I am with you. The purists will tell us that it has to be all or nothing. They believe anything less is just ‘evil compromise’. Consider the remark above in Dale’s comment: “If he were to be able to accomplish this it would mean approximately 54,000 abortions year. That is 54,000 too many.”
Well of course it is 54,000 too many. But by their twisted reasoning, they seem to prefer 1.3 million abortion a year in America. That is exactly what they will get – and worse – if they allow Obama back in because of their silly purist position. If Romney and the Republicans could cut back most abortions, leaving just 54,000 (for the time being), that would be a tremendous gain. And the other 1.299 million babies would sure notice the difference as well. But these purists demand complete abolition, or nothing at all. This is misguided foolishness in the extreme.
As I have said elsewhere, this is really not just about Romney vs Obama. It is about the Republican Party vs the Democrats. Their official position is light years ahead of the Democrats. As Al Mohler states:
Of course in a fallen world, we may well be disappointed by any pro-life party or platform. If the Republicans can get in office and cut even a percentage of abortions, that is a good start, that is something to be applauded, and that is something all those saved babies will certainly support. The aim ultimately is always the end of all abortion, but if some can be saved now by a Republican administration, that is certainly far better than none being saved under a Democrat administration. So I simply cannot support the ‘all or nothing’ purist position of AHA.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
And if I may say some more here:
The AHA is not the only purist group of course in the pro-life movement. There are others who spend their whole time whining about Romney and his poor track record here. But it is the same old story really: just throw your hands up in despair, allow Obama to get back in, abortion continues unabated, and think you somehow can have a clear conscience.
Sorry, I am not buying this cop out. Republicans have done much on state and federal levels to work against abortion – far more than the Democrats. If folks can see no difference here then we clearly are on different pages. I utterly reject the baloney moral equivalence being paraded by so many in this regard. And as I said, this is not just about Romney – it is also about his VP (what if Romney leaves office – will these guys also complain about Ryan?); his party; any possible opposition from Congress; and so on. So it is not at all just about Romney.
And I tire of having to say this, but Romney was never my first choice (or second, or third…). And I do not like all his flip-flopping either. That is why he was never my main choice. But he is the only choice we now have vs Obama.
Again, we live in a real, fallen, world, not a perfect one. So I will go any day of the week with an option which may reduce some abortion (for starters), and not with an option which will do nothing to reduce abortion. Purist positions which at the end of the day do nothing to slow down abortion are not in my eyes much of a pro-life stance at all.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
And I must say I really love the line of Mark Rabich, above:
“We are not going to get the clear choice of Jesus v Obama, ok?”
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I believe that political ethics is more of a teleological/practical area than a deontological one. The fact of the matter is that whatever motivations or convictions the respective candidates and parties hold, Romney in power will mean that millions less abortions will occur that if Obama is re-elected. Thus, if American Christians don’t do everything in their power to make sure Obama is out (which, unfortunately, means voting Romney in), then they are essentially putting millions of lives at risk. Also, those who would rather vote Obama because he claims to be a Christian are being ridiculous. Hitler once claimed to be a Christian, but, like Obama, his policies were completely opposed to the Bible. In reality, Romney’s Mormonism is a lot closer to real Christianity than Obama’s twisted views – whether Obama claims to be Christian or not. In fact, that leaves another reason to vote Romney: at least he is honest about his views. Frankly, I’m not sure Obama has an honest bone in his body.
Justin Nowland
Damien, I considered that argument when I wrote those comments. It depends on what is meant by “sanctity of life”. What you argue for is better described as “human exceptionalism” and I agree that this does not depend on any religious or philosophical concept. “Sanctity” however, is a religious term as most dictionaries will affirm.
And although human exceptionalism is easy to prove objectively, it is not a sufficient argument against abortion. A supporter of abortion may be easily persuaded that human life is exceptional, but unless they also accept that that life is of supreme value (i.e. sacred), then they could easily continue to support abortion on the basis of their belief that human life is not necessarily worthy of special protection.
And the belief that human life is not worthy of special protection (i.e. not sacred) is the default view of those who believe in naturalistic evolution (atheism). That’s why people like Peter Singer who undoubtedly agrees with the concept of human exceptionalism, can continue to promote abortion and even infanticide on the basis of his evolutionary worldview/religion.
So I maintain that arguments against abortion are not complete without reference to philosophical/religious concepts concerning the value of human life. And I nowhere said we should only use the “religion card” when arguing against abortion. Obviously we need to use all arguments but it is a mistake if we think we can or should avoid any reference to religious/philosophical arguments.
Ewan McDonald, Victoria.
Ewan
As long as you are not basing arguments on scripture. You can’t justify public policy or law on scriptural passages since many in today’s society don’t accept the authority of the bible or any other religious precepts.
But on the other hand one’s metaphysics should be in accord with natural law and that should carry moral weight and is informed by science (and this can be undermined by a neo-Darwinian worldview). This is why the scientific evidence for conception is so compelling and justifies the right to life.
Damien Spillane
I’m a presuppositionalist, not an evidentialist which might explain our differences here Damien.
Why is is OK for the secularist to base his public policy and law on his religion alone, and yet Christians cannot base our public policy and law on our worldview?
And I fail to see why the fact that biology proves human life begins at conception in any way justifies a right to life? All that proves is the point at which life begins, not that this life has any objective rights. Where do rights come from if not from God?
Ewan McDonald, Victoria.
Cardinal Burke said in the 2010 election campaign that if one candidate was less pro abortion than another, Catholics should vote for them.
Steve Gethin
A post I just put on the AHA page:
“Imagine you are a scientist and you have figured out that a meteor is heading for New York. If you fire a missile at it, you can knock it off its trajectory and it will only take out Washington. Do you therefore:
a) fire the missile; or
b) do nothing, because the meteor is still going to kill people if it lands in Washington.
The same thing applies to voting in elections. One candidate is going to win. As Christians we have a duty to try and see that that is the candidate who will wreak the least destruction on innocent life. According to the same principle, please reverse your failure to endorse Romney.”
Steve Gethin
Then I came up with a better version:
Imagine you are a scientist and you have figured out that a meteor is heading for New York. If you fire a missile at it, you can break it up so that it will kill less people. Do you therefore:
a) fire the missile; or
b) do nothing, because the meteor is still going to kill some people?
The same thing applies to voting in elections. One candidate is going to win. As Christians we have a duty to try and see that that is the candidate who will wreak the least destruction on innocent life. According to the same principle, please reverse your decision not to endorse Romney.
Steve Gethin
Get this:
http://occupycorporatism.com/after-birth-abortion-eugenicists-say-babies-are-a-parasitic-burden-on-society/
David Skinner, UK
I must admit, I don’t have the patience of Bill, endlessly reiterating the obvious.
OK, so I can understand that some Christians were duped into voting for BHO last election due to ignorance. (well, laziness really). But next time around, if any Christian does not vote against BHO then perhaps there is no hope for these soldiers in the army of God.
So what happens when an army shoots their allies and votes for their enemies? They lose the war.
With BHO re-elected, maybe God would have no choice but to let the Titanic sink with captain BHO at the helm – just as He let Israel get taken to Babylon. It’s certainly looking precarious – we haven’t even mentioned the debt problem here. 16 trillion is a lot of debt. 50 million abortions is a lot of death.
When is God going to be too embarrassed to have the USA reputedly “Christian”?
Or perhaps, along with the rest of the humanistic western world, it will just keep fading away as the population shrinks into obscurity. Our sins are already finding us out, with negative “western” birthrates and crippling debt. Bye bye west. Better start training to be missionaries, because unless this ship turns around, before long there won’t be a west.
Tim Lovett
Steve – Re the meteorite on Washington..
Haha – I see why you changed it. We might realize we’d be a lot better off without the politicians, lobbyists and federal manipulators in Washington DC…
Tim Lovett
Yes quite right Steve and Tim
This election really is about the survival of America and the survival of the West. Yet these misguided and foolish purists seem quite happy to throw it all away. At least they have kept themselves “pure”. What will they tell their children and grandchildren when they are asked why they allowed all this evil to take over the land? They will have nothing to say. They are simply “useful idiots” to use Lenin’s phrase. Why do I keep being reminded of Jesus’ words of rebuke to the purists of his day – the Pharisees?
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Thanks guys
There are plenty of purists out there who will not do the right thing in November. They will have to answer to their children and grandchildren – and to God:
https://billmuehlenberg.com/2012/09/11/how-the-purists-can-destroy-america-and-the-west-and-still-feel-good-about-themsleves/
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Ewan and Damien argue the toss over my words. Thanks guys for even considering my modest input.
I might have put the word ‘just’ or solely’ in there somewhere but chose to make a point.
‘Religion’ comes on the heels of Humanity which comes on the heels of Life itself. Of course there is a religious case but first there is ‘Life’.
Sanctification is a concept most often used in a religious context, but religion does not own it. Religion recognises the sacred; it does not cause it.
Chris Langan-Fox
Thanks again guys
See more on all this here:
https://billmuehlenberg.com/2012/09/11/how-the-purists-can-destroy-america-and-the-west-and-still-feel-good-about-themsleves/
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Chris
“Religion comes on the heels of humanity”.Surely not? Try John 1:1-4.
Bill
Are you saying, when arguing that conception is a matter of biology and not religion, that a human being lacks a soul?
Dunstan Hartley
Thanks Dunstan
Of course not. I was simply stating an obvious truth: biology (with or without religion) tells us that human life begins at conception. Thus a non-religious argument for the pro-life position can be made – in fact many non-Christians share a pro-life view. Sure, I believe the theistic worldview best explains and underlies the pro-life case, but nonetheless, one can argue on simply secular grounds against abortion.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Another post I put on AHA
Romney’s record on life is better, see for example: http://aboutmittromney.com/abortion.htm Voting is simply a choice between available options, where we rank them in order of preference. It is not an endorsement of everything a candidate stands for. Life is the most serious election issue, but we are voting pro life because abortion is against God’s law. There are many other positions that politicians take that are against Gods law as well so even if there was a candidate who was perfectly pro-life but did not follow God’s law in some other respect, what would be your justification for ignoring God’s law in that case and voting for them? It would seem that on your logic it would be difficult to ever justify voting, as you would in effect be endorsing some breach of God’s law. But to in effect advocate against voting in almost all circumstances is in effect advocating against democracy, and therefore in favor of an alternative, which is some kind of dictatorship. Government is ordained by God, even though that does not mean it has the right to do evil. Government, as opposed to chaos, is in fact a good thing, even though it may commit many crimes. Democracy has serious problems, as you are well aware. It is just that it is better than the alternatives. Christians need to support the best system of Government that God has ever provided for us. We can still make it very clear by our public statements that we are voting for the least worst candidate and we want them to do much better. Finally I would like to commend AHA for doing some of the best pro life advocacy I have come across, but please don’t be confused by a false argument into helping the most anti-life candidate ever win another term.
Steve Gethin
Another winner Steve. Well done again.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Like Paul said:
“What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.” Philippians 1:18
Paul was more pleased with the outcome of more of the gospel being preached than the intent behind that preaching, as we should also be pleased to see a reduction in the number of abortions, even if it takes voting for someone who doesn’t have the best track record in supporting the pro-life movement.
Mario Del Giudice
Steve: Here’s another analogy – or should I say inspiration;
Being Sept 11 and all, look at Flight 93.
On board were a bunch of passengers headed for their death and the death of thousands in the White House.
We all know what choice they made. They voted for the lesser of two evils.
Tim Lovett
Thanks guys
Rebecca Hagelin gets it right:
“Romney, while far from perfect, has got to win this election if we are going to have any hope of preserving biblical morality or the American dream. I never look for the best Christian to be President – I look for the one who best reflects a strong moral character, and who is most likely to preserve my rights as a Christian and freedom-loving American.”
http://townhall.com/columnists/rebeccahagelin/2012/09/13/can_a_christian_vote_for_a_nonchristian_candidate
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I agree completely. I have been with AHA from their very beginning – when they hardly had any fans and I loved them… I loved the idea of them existing… but now….personally, I am a bit creeped out by their stance that they take on voting and I have distanced myself from them greatly. It breaks my heart to. I was called evil by AHA for saying I was going to vote for Romney and when I tried to explain why, I was further compared to a pro-slavery colonizationist… They have their great moments, I give them that, but I think they are going to be victims of their own demise if they continue to treat people how I was treated, and if they are going to continue this naive outlook on voting in America. I leave with this. http://defendpre-bornbabies.blogspot.com/2012/09/voting-for-romney-lesson.html
Katie Crossman
Thanks Katie
Yes they seem to have some issues unfortunately. Perhaps put it down to youthful exuberance and inexperience, and perhaps a lack of mature wisdom.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I know this is in the link I provided above.. but… I’d like to post it here. A good point to remember is: This is what Lincoln said after being elected president, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. . . . [¶] I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”[Roy P. Basler, ed. The collected works of Abraham Lincoln (Rutgers U.P., 1953) vol 5 p. 388]
You can’t wait around for Jesus or some sort of Savior, you’ve got to STAND at SOME POINT 😉
Katie Crossman
Yes quite right Katie
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Bill Whittle gets it quite right here. This 5-minute video is well worth watching:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5v7QQ5vQWg&feature=youtu.be
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Voting on the basis of principle is carefully discussed here by Bill Whittle – well worth watching:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPjBXufufUU&feature=youtu.be
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Hi, Bill:
This is a bit late, but hopefully you’ll still see it. I used to support AHA when I first learned about them. But after being with them for a little while, I started to see their true colors. They are a dangerous organization, one that we would do well to avoid.
Most glaringly, not only did they help contribute to Obama’s re-election by opposing Romney at the polls, but they also consistently vote against common sense pro-life legislation meant to help women but are not “pro-life enough” (this can be anything from an abortion ban on pain capable fetuses, to mandatory waiting periods, to bans on abortion except in the case of rape, all of which (and many more) have been opposed by AHA as not “pro-life enough”). With AHA fighting against the pro-life movement proper, it is much more difficult to end abortion. Incremental legislation has proven successful time and again, and has been proven to save lives, end the careers of abortionists, shut down abortion clinics, etc., but they still insist that we’re not really pro-life unless we support all-or-nothing legislation, which has never succeeded, and they will oppose common sense legislation in the mean time.
Here are a couple of articles I’ve written about AHA:
http://prolifephilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-fundamental-flaw-behind-abolish-human.html
http://prolifephilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-philosophical-response-to-abolish.html