I have been trying, so far unsuccessfully, to foment a profitable argument on this blog.
Many older evangelicals have concluded that a number of their younger brethren bailed out on the prolife issue in order to cast their vote for a candidate that they found attractive, though a self-declared prochoice-er.
Some of President Obama's actions since election have perhaps shown him to be even more enthusiastically prochoice than he appeared as a candidate.
The landslide democratic victory clearly handed the prochoice forces in the House, and only slightly less in the Senate a carte blanche to enact their agenda.
There is no doubt where the next Supreme Court appointment will be on the matter.
Maybe my younger readers (I flatter myself to think that there are some) fear that this is some kind of trap. I assure you it is not. I want to give you a place to seek to enlighten we oldsters. I'm not lobbying to have you thrown out of the Evangelical Club. I do sincerely hope that your choices were made on some other basis than the surface/image/cool-factor/celebrity-mindset that so dominates our culture.
I confess, on behalf of the gray-haired set, that we have not done a good job. While by-and-large remaining faithful to a couple of "litmus test" issues we have often behaved in an ungodly manner while claiming to stand for God. As long as your gripes are not profane or excessively hurtful, I'll be glad to publish them.
To add further fuel or fodder, here is a recent STTA, that speaks to the subject.
President Obama declared, during his campaign, that answering the question about when human life begins was above his pay-grade. Since then he has received a promotion. He is now "President of the United States," many would say, "Leader of the Free-World," and in many ways he is assuming the role of, "Decider for the Life-of-the-Unborn." The problem is he has yet to answer the question: "When does human life begin?"Yesterday I saw a picture of a lovely little girl, alive and well, who was once a frozen-embryo. When did her life begin?
If we honestly conclude that there is an age before which people aren't people, then we ought to say so, be prepared to defend our position and make decisions accordingly. If we conclude that life begins at conception (At the least, a very credible conclusion), then the implications are obvious--that is, if we are a civilized society.
If, as our president said a few months ago, we don't know, then do we not owe a benefit of the doubt to the ones about whom we are making decisions? And should we not stay on the ethically safe side of such a question?
Sometimes ignorance is way too convenient.
It's Something To Think About, at least I hope it is.
