I noticed Andrew’s comment on Riley’s post and this is along the same line…
Let me preface this post (which happens to be my first on Mere Reflections) with a bold note that I am pro-life, and for that very reason, I am not a single issue voter, nor can I ever be. I know that “pro-life” has become rather synonymous with “anti-abortion,” and perhaps the term began that way; but literally, pro-life insinuates much more than an anti-abortionism. If you are pro-life, you are and must be a supporter of the promoting human life.
This must extend beyond simply abortion–abortion is not the only method of taking a life, or more generally, is not the only way to lose a life. Disease, crime, and terrorism are just like abortion in their threat to life.
Disease, whether in the developing or developed world, threatens and takes lives. Malaria is rampant in the tropics, but we have a vaccine. Infectious microbes flourish on the dirty grounds of Africa, but we can prevent that in a VERY simple way by providing shoes.
Walking is often the primary mode of transportation in developing countries. Children can walk for miles to get food, water, shelter and medical help. Wearing shoes literally enables them to walk distances that aren’t possible barefoot.
Wearing shoes prevents feet from getting cuts and sores on unsafe roads and from contaminated soil. Not only are these injuries painful, they also are dangerous when wounds become infected. The leading cause of disease in developing countries is soil-transmitted parasites which penetrate the skin through open sores. Wearing shoes can prevent this and the risk of amputation.
Many times children can’t attend school barefoot because shoes are a required part of their uniform. If they don’t have shoes, they don’t go to school. If they don’t receive an education, they don’t have the opportunity to realize their potential.
There is one simple solution…SHOES.
– tomsshoes.com
…or politically by improving or extending our health care system.
Crime is a pretty obvious threat to lives–murder, rape, human-trafficking, robbery, and drunk or reckless driving all endanger human lives as does abortion, but we can prevent that with improved law enforcement.
Terrorism has taken countless lives around the world. The attack of the World Trade Center is most notable, but there is also the Oklahoma City bombing and other weekly treacherous bombings worldwide. Domestically, we can defend against this with buffered intelligence operations, tighter border-security, and a strong military.
But what’s this to say about pro-life? If you are pro-life, then you have no choice but to support disease-prevention, meaning you must also support means of improving health-care and the health-care system. You have no choice but to support crime-prevention. You have no choice but to support our military. Just like you have no choice but to oppose abortion.
Improved health-care means life for the sick. Crime-prevention means life for the innocent. Military support means life for a nation thereby protected against threats and terrorism and supported in times of domestic strife. Opposing abortion means life for the unborn.
How can a pro-life ideology make you a single-issue voter (unless you use “pro-life” interchangeably with “anti-abortion”)? Shouldn’t we try to influence health care, crime-prevention, and the military the same way that we aim to stop abortion?
January 19th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Good post man and great points.
I think you’re missing my point. I don’t equate bad health care, hunger, etc. with the murder of children. So, yes, I’m pro-life, but that means for me anti-abortion. You could take the “if you were pro-life you should also be… [insert thing here]” argument everywhere and say that forcing people to listen to bad music encroaches on their life and so that I should be against that too. I don’t agree with that.
My point is that I put infanticide of innocent, unborn lives above most other issues. The miliary, health care, crime-prevention are secondary issues to me.
And when I say I’m a single-issue voter that doesn’t mean it’s the only thing I think about. I will consider all the other issues and how to best honor Christ through them. But my first concern is for the active, government-condoned murder of children.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Dude. Welcome on board–I’m glad you’ve joined us.
Well said. That’s some of the most eloquent argumentation writing I’ve ever read from you.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
You could take the “if you were pro-life you should also be… [insert thing here]” argument everywhere and say that forcing people to listen to bad music encroaches on their life and so that I should be against that too.
No, I don’t think so. Bad music doesn’t kill people. Terrorism does. Disease does. Crime does. I think you’ve misapplied the “let me take this argument to it’s extreme logical end to make it sound absurd” strategy.
Also, I’m not sure you answered his question completely. He’s also asking: “how can you justify making abortion your single issue, when so many other things lead to the equally heinous deaths of equally innocent people?”
January 19th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
How can you justify making abortion your single issue, when so many other things lead to the equally heinous deaths of equally innocent people?
Because I believe that abortion is a much worse evil. More on this soon.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
You believe in a degree of evil?
January 19th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Let me say that I’ve been considering this since several rather polarizing arguments on abortion during the 2008 presidential election season–I did not write this in direct response to your previous post, although it did encourage me to express my ideas.
In light of that, I think you’re missing my point. I was suggesting that pro-life is more than simply anti-abortion (as Andrew said). I think that there are many other ways we can promote life, as the term pro-life indicates.
I’m curious…if we could more easily prevent 1000 deaths by terminal diseases than we could 100 abortions, where would you stand? Wouldn’t governmental inaction in crime-prevention be the same as government-condoned murder of innocents?
January 19th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Eric, thank you for this post. You’ve made a point that I think is vital to this discussion: When does one life become more important than another life? Do we, as Christians who are charged to aid the “least of these,” need to have a much wider scope of the people who need help?
It seems to me that Eric is right is assuming that being pro-life is much larger than letting one issue be the deciding factor.
January 19th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
While I agree that pro-life is more than just being anti-abortion, I also don’t necessarily believe it’s an either/or thing. I’d like to see government action in crime-prevention or disease prevention as well as in curbing abortion (it should be noted that the Republican party is generally known as the party “tough on crime”).
I’m not a single-issue voter, because I think if I was, then I literally wouldn’t be able to vote. No one fits the bill. And anyone who does (Ron Paul, maybe) has a lot of other ideas that aren’t so great.
I don’t vote third party, because serious people rarely run third party. I will not vote for a fool.
I’m also not single-issue because I’m just too cynical about the ability to stop, or even effectively limit abortion through politics. I believe abortion is on a collision course with technology. The age of viability keeps getting lower and the sonogram technology keeps getting better, and abortions are going down. I’ve read some evidence that we may eventually be able to extract unborn babies from the womb and raise them artificially very early in the first trimester. I think this is the best hope, not politics.
As a side note, getting Roe v. Wade overturned would probably look something like this. A state passes a good, thorough law outlawing some abortions (say, for instance, abortions after the first trimester). The law would have to contain an exception for the life of the mother. As soon as it was passed, it would immediately be challenged. It would have to make its way through the courts and somehow end up in front of the Supreme Court (since most, if not all, of the lower courts would hold the law unconstitutional, the high court would have to see something very special in the case to allow it on their docket). The Court would then have to uphold the law, risking the 5-4 split and the overturning of a precedent. Then, it would be up to the states to decide.
So, you can see why I’m a bit skeptical of the political ability to change anything.
January 19th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
You’ve made a point that I think is vital to this discussion: When does one life become more important than another life? Do we, as Christians who are charged to aid the “least of these,” need to have a much wider scope of the people who need help?
I agree, somewhat, but who is saying that certain lives are more important than others? That’s like saying that anti-war folks think soldiers lives are more important than cancer patients.
January 19th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
I’m saying that only basing your vote on one issue is like saying that the lives that are affected in that one issue are more important that the lives that are affected by the other issue, when in reality (as it seems to me) all of the issues should be taken into account. I am basically arguing that, when taking into consideration all of the lives that are affected (including, but not limited to: abortion, poverty, terrorism, crime prevention) it is irresponsible to only vote based on one of these, because they all endanger/save lives depending on how they are legislated and what is actually done about them.
I believe this, but I must admit that it lends itself to your reasoning (Andrew) that in that case there is no candidate good enough. But I personally can’t not vote. To me that means that I’m letting everyone else make decisions that will affect me even if I don’t vote, and I have too strong of a personality to let myself do that.
This is just a thought: Should we be more concerned with the question of if The Church is doing anything about these issues?
January 20th, 2010 at 7:06 am
A couple quick hits real fast, before Riley defends himself.
1. He doesn’t think the lives of innocent babies are more important than disease patients. That’s not what he’s saying.
2. Y’all have “semantically hijacked” the term pro-life, which he meant simply in reference to abortion. Although you do pose a very good question, which I believe he’s going to answer soon.
3. This is a phenomenal discussion to be having.
January 20th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Chino!!!! So glad you posted. I did a double-take when I saw “Eric”
I’m trying to surmise whether or not I actually have anything to add to this discussion… Probably not, but I’ll just say this anyway so I can say it: Abortion is evil. Murder is evil. Divorce is evil. Sex trafficking is evil (for Chapel today, someone came in and talked to us about that. I’m pretty much now officially ashamed to be a human being). The list could go on. We live in a fallen, evil, broken world. A world that needs Jesus.
One person in office cannot change all of this, and the political system DEFINITELY can’t. But, if someone comes into office who really wants to stop abortion, don’t you think that’s a start? I mean, hey, if someone wants to be president who is really set on stopping murder, divorce, theft, sex trafficking, etc. in addition to abortion, all the better. But that would be putting a lot of faith in one person. The reason that one of the first things found out about politicians is whether or not they are pro-life is because the topic of abortion is so political. So I think that there should be a lot of grace for people who say that they are single-issue voters with abortion; just because they say that, doesn’t mean that they don’t think that those other things are evil or that we should stop them. Those other topics are just not as “politicized” – I mean, it’s not like we have terms like “pro-murder”, “pro-divorce”, etc. Maybe one day those topics will rise above the political surface. But for now, it’s abortion. And I say, Hey, it’s a heart thing, and we should be praying fervently for hearts to change, but God is also big enough to use even the government (Shocking, I know) to change this as well. Who knows how He’ll do it. But He will! One day His glory will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.
Alrighty! I’m out.