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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Because I believe that abortion is a much worse evil. More on this soon.

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?”