Random thoughts after the divisive Alabama Senate race and the tragic story about Judge Pressler.
1. It is time that character becomes an issue once again in American politics.
The truth is that sin, hypocrisy, and all kinds of darkness have always been a part of the American political landscape.
But not too many years ago, Christians held politicians to a certain lifestyle standard if they were going to gain broad support. A thrice-divorced man who boasted of bedding multitudes of women, many married, or a man accused by 9 women of sexual assault would not have gotten an evangelical majority. They just wouldn’t. No, we aren’t electing pastors and the standards of Timothy and Titus do not apply, but a basic character test once did.
And it should again.
Christians, when we line up to support those whose lives undermine what we claim to promote, it gives us a black eye in this world that already instinctively views us as hypocrites. When partisanship trumps character and Christians are willing to vote for scoundrels so the GOP wins, it does not help our moral claims.
Philip Nation had a Facebook post, which I will reference again in a moment, and I saw this meme on it, created by a man I don’t know, Matthew Lee Smith
To me, that says it all. I think we’ve allowed partisan politics to let us forget who we work for and have become way too invested in the love of the world. When we compromise heavenly values for earthly gain (the very definition of politics) it is treacherous ground.
2. The fact that everyone is a sinner does not mean no one is virtuous.
One of the tropes that the apologists for the morally compromised (but GOP) candidates say is some variation on, “There are no perfect candidates. Everyone is a sinner. We all have skeletons in our closets.” That is using a biblical truth to speak a moral lie.
Yes, we are all sinners. Yes, we have all done things in our past we aren’t proud of. I’m glad we didn’t have cell phones and Facebook in my college days or I’d be seeking how to delete and scrub a lot of stupidity out of the interwebs. But just because we’ve all done things we regret doesn’t mean there are no moral standards to be observed. We need a higher moral standard than “R” behind your name on the ballot.
Each of us has to decide what those moral standards are – your vote is your own. But to argue that because no one is perfect there is no moral standard for anyone – that’s ridiculous. I must make moral decisions and have moral and ethical standards.
- I voted for the divorced Ronald Reagan. I would not vote for the thrice-divorced, enthusiastically adulterous, and sexually abusive Donald Trump. I drew a line.
- I would vote for a moral Mormon (some of my closest friends disagree) because I am not voting for America’s Pastor-in-chief but I will not vote for openly immoral or hypocritical Christian.
- I refuse to cast my vote for anyone who is either pro-choice (in any way, shape, or form) or anyone (and this is a newer commitment) who smacks of racism, alt-rightism, or anything like that.
You don’t have to agree 100% with my standards but you should strive for excellence. Don’t let the presence of sin cause you to abandon the concept of nobility. Yes, all have sinned but that doesn’t mean that everyone is equally degraded. There are some men and women of noble character out there – a few of them may even run for office from time to time.
And that leads me to point 3…
3. Back to Philip Nation’s Facebook Post!
He posed a simple dilemma.
Raise your hand if you feel politically homeless.
I am a lifelong and once loyal Republican who has filed for divorce from the GOP. No sense going over the reasons – I’ve cataloged them before – but I have realized that the GOP is not committed to the things I’m committed to. It is a “say one thing, do another” party. And I certainly cannot join the party of perversion and death, the Democratic Party. I will no longer stay in one party just because, “they aren’t as bad as the Democrats.”
If we continue to vote Republican because they aren’t as bad as the Democrats, that is what we’ll get, Republicans who are marginally better than Democrats, and massive hypocrites.
I’ve explored third parties and haven’t found one yet. Some appeal to me in one area, but not another. None strike me as worth membership.
For the first time in my life, I am a man without a political home. The 2018 election will be a new experience for me.
4. Stop with the “Innocent until proven guilty” thing.
The presumption of innocence is a wonderful LEGAL concept. We are blessed to live in a country in which the government is required to prove your guilt and you are not required to prove your innocence. Thank God for that system.
But if I had a dollar for every weak defense of Judge Moore based on “he’s innocent until proven guilty” I’d retire tomorrow. People, the presumption of innocence is a legal concept, not a moral or biblical one. We are not required to withhold judgment until the secular courts decide his guilt or innocence. The Bible tells us a matter should be established by two or three witnesses but never order us to wait for a legal verdict.
Yes, we should not immediately believe every accusation. Dwight McKissic shared an accusation made against him that was false. Sometimes, the accused are innocent. But when a multitude of witnesses steps forward to speak to an issue, we need not wait, as churches or as voters, for a legal determination.
5. In fact, pastors and other public officials, the presumption of innocence is ONLY legal!
Let’s get real.
I have never been accused of any sexual misconduct (because I’ve never committed any – before marriage or since). But if a young lady stands up at church and speaks a word of accusation against me, I have a legal presumption of innocence, but in the eyes of the world, and even in the eyes of my church, I have a burden of proof. If I sit back and say, “prove it” I will likely be looking for employment. AND I SHOULD BE! If I am accused of moral sin I should defend myself.
One of my closest friends was accused of a heinous sin – the very worst. He was not guilty. His family knew it, the church knew it, even the authorities knew it. But he still had to answer the charges. Fortunately, he was able to show that the charges were false and was completely exonerated. But he couldn’t hide behind the presumption of innocence.
When you are in a position of trust, the presumption of innocence is only a legal concept. Your character is at issue in leadership and you get no presumption there. You have to be tested and approved, not presumed!
6. Yes, there are liars, but most of them are NOT.
I just mentioned a false accusation against Dwight (a misunderstanding, not a lie) and a lie told against a close friend. Divorcing parties have leveled false accusations in custody hearings to gain an advantage. People have lied to humiliate someone else. Yes, it happens. But every time someone makes an accusation against a conservative religious or political figure, we cannot assume that they are lying.
The simple fact is that in the end, the vast majority of those who speak up are TELLING THE TRUTH.
7. Thank God women (and men) are speaking up.
If you silence someone who speaks up about abuse with shame, recrimination, or hate, you are part of the problem.
I do not know if the allegations against Judge Pressler are true and the lawsuit against him is perhaps the worst written thing in legal history (not written pro se). But please, Baptist friends, let us not go on the attack against Mr. Rollins and treat him like a bug to be squashed. Maybe he is a liar. If he is, I hope he is exposed and then the Judge and the other defendants sue the pants off him and his lawyer. But maybe he is telling the truth. Almost every one of these allegations shocks the family and friends of the accused. “No way he could have done that.”
Christian circles have a notorious history of pressuring victims to remain silent and of making them feel guilty instead of ministering to them. This must stop.
Thank God that people are finally finding the courage to stand and speak, to shine the light of truth on this ugly thing. It may be painful because we may find out some things that we don’t want to know about ourselves and our heroes. It has happened in Hollywood. It has happened on the left and the right in the Beltway. We have no idea where this trend will take us as Christians and as Southern Baptists.
But for the love of God, let us be the friend of the victims!
8. The cover-up is as bad as the crime.
As certain offenses come to light we may also find out that people knew about these offenses and kept quiet. Hearing a rumor is one thing. I never act on gossip. A rumor is a rumor and we are not obligated to act on rumors. But if anyone in any leadership position in the SBC can be shown to have been made aware of accusations of molestation or other abuse, and helped to hide that abuse, that is a serious thing and should be taken seriously.
To aid and abet an abuser by helping him keep his sin hidden should not be excused.
That’s all I’ve got for now. This is one of those “William Thornton” specials – random thoughts. But I like his stuff so imitation is flattery and all. Of course, his posts are about half as long as mine, so….
Like congressmen, I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks. The edit function is a wonderful thing.
Hey Dave, clarifying question about this portion:
“if a young lady stands up at church and speaks a word of accusation against me, I have a legal presumption of innocence, but in the eyes of the world, and even in the eyes of my church, I have a burden of proof.”
How would you square that with 1 Timothy 5:19…
“Don’t accept an accusation against an elder unless it is supported by two or three witnesses.” (CSB)
I think Dave is referencing reality here. I wish churches would follow scripture in that case, but we all know if such a situation occurred, all eyes would turn to the Pastor in a “what do you have to say for yourself” moment
And Tony, just to clarify…
A church had better NOT wait for 2 accusers before it reports to legal authorities.
If one person (and only one person) makes an accusation, it should be immediately reported to proper legal authorities. Then call your insurance company and your church lawyer. and pray.
I don’t know exactly how to square that – other than Romans 13, but you’d better not hold off on reporting. I know that isn’t what you were advocating – just dotting an i and crossing a t.
Too often, the church has used passages like that (and ones on submission and such) to keep the darkness hidden instead of shining the light. Let the light shine. (Again, I know that wasn’t your point.)
I wasn’t thinking legal responsibility. I was just thinking about what the reality would be within the congregation. Of course we’d better follow legal requirements. I remember about 10 years ago a prominent minister in Arkansas was accused and his deacons met with the Executive Director that night. They asked what they should do and the ED’s response was “take his keys tonight.”
Ben, I am not speaking about what is right or wrong, necessarily, but what is real.
But if you apply a strict “two witnesses” standard, then a man can always get away with his sin if he hides it well and only sins with one person.
But, my comment is not speaking to the theoretical or theological, but to the real. And to the moral, I suppose. My leadership in my church is based on my character, having been tested and approved. If such an accusation is lodged, I hope after 12+ years people will be at least questioning and give me a chance to answer.
But answer I must.
If I am accused and I stand on the principle, “Only one person accused me, therefore I need not answer,” I may comfort myself in the justice of my cause as I seek a new job far away where no one has heard of the accusation.
Thanks Dave. I’m not suggesting it’d be inappropriate to answer the accusation, and obviously clamming up and hiding behind the principle isn’t going to help anyone. I think my question comes from your statement that the accused bears a “burden of proof” anytime there’s an accusation.
It’s just not hard to imagine all sorts of scenarios where it comes down to one person’s word against another’s—where neither can meet any real burden of proof. What then? Is the (innocent) accused obligated to resign for the “greater good”? That seems contrary to the biblical principle, IMO. But at the same time, it’d be pastoral malpractice to assume the accuser is dishonest.
At the very least, may God give us all fellow-leaders who have the character and biblical competence to lead the church and care for all involved when conundrum scenarios inevitably arise.
If it comes down to that, the church will just have to make a choice.
We can look at scenarios.
If I am (falsely) accused but the accuser is convincing enough that the accusation is not easily refuted, I may unjustly lose my job as pastor. God hasn’t promised us a fair world and I’d have to trust him (I am sure I would have more trouble DOING that than SAYING that).
I hope that my church would tend to believe me, but honestly, if there are accusations flying around, how likely is it that visitors will show up, that people will join? Just the accusation hurts.
I’ve made it nearly 40 years. I pray I’ll make it the next however many without having to play that scenario out. But if the accusation is made, unless I can prove myself innocent, there are few good outcomes.
All very true. Thanks.
I was having lunch with a friend about two weeks ago, and we both thought that the glut of sexual harassment allegations would reach into Southern Baptist leadership at some point. I hope the allegations against Judge Pressler are false.
Well written. I find myself without s political home anymore as well. I say, if the Republican Party wants my. vote, field better candidates.
Yeah…you have a brilliant sentence in this one. Modesty prevents me from pointing it out but it is third from the last paragraph.
Moore lost because he was a terrible candidate. He deserved to lose for a number of reasons.
Sometime it the idea of making abortion the one above all position in regard to political candidates should be explored. All any candidate needs to do is the pro life dog whistle and nothing else matters.
I suppose I get what the facebook quip says but I plan to be invested in politics in this country until I die. I’m just not invested in one party regardless of the candidate or position.
Thought you might like that.
And I think that the assumption of that FB meme was partisan politics, not just public involvement.
How do you square voting for one candidate with awful morals or a candidate who’s election might ensure that more innocent babies will die? I’m curious because this is the dilemma I found myself in with Trump.
CB and I discussed this once and the SCOTUS argument was the thing that came closest to giving me moral permission to vote for Trump.
But I just couldn’t go there.
The idea of President Hillary was so awful it would give us all nightmares. But was she a reason to vote for him? Many said yes, I could not.
Here’s the thing. Abortion is best stopped at the heart level. Yes, legislative efforts are helpful and can make a difference, but I don’t know people who love God and his word who also think abortion is a great idea. The heart-change Jesus works inside is the best anti-abortion force in the world.
When we as Christians support men like Trump, when public figures like Jeffress and Falwell degrade the faith for political gain, it makes the task of evangelism harder, not easier – it is a stain on the church. So, to me, voting for Trump and Moore and others like that may seem politically advantageous but in the long run the spiritual compromise costs us too much.
Caveat – again, that’s my reasoning. You reason through it yourself under the Lordship of Christ. But an immoral, amoral, dishonest man like Trump was just a bridge too far for me.
The question should include not voting for the candidate. If pro life is the issue that matters above all others then it’s disingenuous to insist that character matters. This probably isn’t a great place for the discussion but if the question is which candidate “might ensure that more innocent babies die” the answer would include more than the candidates’ abortion position.
Dave can solve this one later.
For me, it’s layers.
I will only vote for pro-life candidates.
I will only vote for pro-life candidates who are not racists or alt-right types.
I will only vote for pro-life, non-racists whose lives are not a moral embarrassment.
The first is more cut-and-dry. The second and third are judgment calls that I must make for myself.
Recently, the end result is leaving a lot of blanks empty on the ballot.
I’m with Dave on the layering effect…
I’m not going to vote for a person who is pro-choice; so in the last election that cut out Hillary, the Libertarian party candidate (or was that his VP–one of them was pro-choice, I believe… I know for sure one was pro SSM), and the Green party. But I’m also not going to vote for a person that I find morally reprehensible, that again cut out Hillary but also Trump.
Then the question is like what Tony asked above–what do you do in a mostly 2-party system when one candidate is pro-abortion and the other morally unfit?
In my case, I went with Psalm 20:7–my trust isn’t in chariots and horses (politicians). I knew that not voting for the main pro-life candidate could possibly put a pro-abortion person in office, but I also know that it’s a sin to violate my conscience and I could in no way vote for the main pro-life candidate. So, I went with: My trust is in God, I’m going to do what I believe is right, I’m going to vote a 3rd party, and know that no matter what the story ends with “Jesus wins.”
I have found a party for me–the American Solidarity Party. Honestly, on health care and immigration they’re probably too moderate for a lot of hard core conservative evangelicals, but so are my views. On marriage, they’re pro-traditional marriage; on abortion, they’re pro-life; on ethics, they’re pro-getting-the-most-ethical-person-you-can-in-a-fallen-world… I don’t fit with everything 100% on their platform; but they are much much closer than present day Dems or Repubs for me.
So here’s to the 3rd parties!
I think both the Libertarians were pro-choice – one was pretty actively pro-marijuana too. If you know what I mean!
I checked out that party, but there were a few things I didn’t click with. I guess if I am going to join another party, it’s going to have to be a perfect fit. David Rogers mentioned one – don’t think it was this one – that had a lot of appeal. But there were some areas where I just couldn’t buy in.
I think it’s time to start the Millerites. Wait, someone did that already, didn’t they?
Rogers mentioned it… It was seeing his first mention that piqued my interest and I did research.
First of all, it isn’t the leadership of either party who chooses their respective candidates, it is the voters. So, it’s a stretch to blame the Alabama GOP for a candidate like Roy Moore when Mitch McConnell spent millions trying to get Luther Strange elected as the party’s nominee.
Specifically, the reality on the ground is that there are a lot of voters who tell pollsters that they are “Evangelicals” when they have no involvement with a local church. Peter Beinart, a liberal writer for The Atlantic provides statistical data to show that Donald Trump was chosen as the Republican Party nominee due to the fact that true evangelicals are a decreasing percentage of the Republican Party Primary voters in his article called, “America’s Empty Church Problem” https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/breaking-faith/517785/
True, Bible believing voters are going to face a lot of “lesser of two evils” choices as we are almost 60 years into the Sexual Revolution and all of the recent disclosures of sexual harassment which were begun by Ronan Farrow’s article on Harvey Weinstein testify that we live in a sex soaked culture. One thing to note is that the majority of the men who have been exposed for harassment are either single or estranged from their wives. The Sexual Revolution reduced the need for marriage, as it became acceptable to have sex outside of marriage and as a result, there has been an increase in the single adult population in this country and these individuals have (from what we are seeing so far) a greater likelihood to engage in sexual harassment.
The influence of the sexual revolution is having its impact on the church, too, as can be seen by Christian Sociology Professor Mark Regnerus’ article called “Christians are part of the same dating pool as everyone else. That’s bad for the Church.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/09/05/christians-are-part-of-the-same-dating-pool-as-everyone-else-thats-bad-for-the-church/?utm_term=.158ec748d5ad
In the article, Regnerus sites data from a study in which he asked 15,000 Americans who attend religious services at least one a week and these were some of the results: 23% are unsure about the wisdom of cohabiting before marriage; 21% don’t know what they think about no-strings-attached sex; and 17% don’t know if consensual polyamorous unions are okay.
I’m not intentionally trying to be mr. gloom and doom, but if there is a declining number of evangelicals with weekly church attendance voting in primaries, and if the beliefs of a fair portion of them aren’t much different from those of the secular culture, is it any wonder that we are seeing the candidate choices we have?
If you are waiting for candidates who profess pro-life beliefs and check all of the other boxes, their may be a good number of races where you might not vote for either candidate or do a write in. I think a lot of evangelical voters have chosen to vote for the lesser of two evils who profess pro-life beliefs because they know that the secular voters will vote for the pro-choice candidate regardless of other short comings they may have. I think this was apparent in the last Presidential election and Neil Gorsuch wouldn’t be on the Supreme Court now, if these evangelicals had not voted.
It is true that Donald Trump was the choice of about 35% or so of the GOP, but with 17 candidates, that was a plurality. The GOP was cursed by having so many candidates, none of whom would drop out until the damage was done and the worst candidate was the nominee.
“I’m not intentionally trying to be mr. gloom and doom, but if there is a declining number of evangelicals with weekly church attendance voting in primaries, and if the beliefs of a fair portion of them aren’t much different from those of the secular culture, is it any wonder that we are seeing the candidate choices we have?
If you are waiting for candidates who profess pro-life beliefs and check all of the other boxes, their may be a good number of races where you might not vote for either candidate or do a write in. I think a lot of evangelical voters have chosen to vote for the lesser of two evils who profess pro-life beliefs because they know that the secular voters will vote for the pro-choice candidate regardless of other short comings they may have. I think this was apparent in the last Presidential election and Neil Gorsuch wouldn’t be on the Supreme Court now, if these evangelicals had not voted.”
Yet it was Democrats that pressured those who have allegations against them to drop out or resign. So I have to disagree. It seems those who are not church affiliated or secular have better morals except for the abortion issue, than we do.
Good post Dave and I agree with all you have written.
My first paragraph should add those from their own party. Dems pressured Dem senators etc. to resign when allegations came to light. It’s the secular who are firing those who have made them quite a bit of money.
Debbie, a bit more context is helpful here. Yes, the Democrats pressured people like Franken to quit, when they know a Democratic governor will replace them with another Democrat. But when it counted with President Clinton and others, they made excuses and tried to keep them in power. Furthermore, the Republicans have pressured a number of leaders to quit with scandals hanging over them (Newt Gingrich, Trent Franks–last week, Wes Goodman–last month or so, etc.) The Democrats are calculating that they can perhaps go after Trump on such charges if the Russian collusion thing falls through. This isn’t an issue where either side has the moral high ground. I say this as someone in Alabama who couldn’t support Roy Moore (or Doug Jones). I’m not trying defend a political party or secular versus religious. I just want to point out that it doesn’t fall out as neatly as you indicate.
Steve: I don’t agree with your assessment and I have been following as closely as you have. Many dems also were against Clinton and not all made excuses for him. And I won’t mention who is President now based on evangelical votes, but I am also with Bill in that last night I saw that tide turning as I have read through reputable sources that a record number of Christian voters in Alabama either did not vote and stayed home, or voted for a write in or Jones. If true, that too gives me a lot more faith than I have had in 2 years or longer.
Debbie,
Christians voting for a leftist (Jones) who, among other atrocious leanings, supports abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy, gives you hope for evangelical voters???
It doesn’t me. Not at all.
Writing in a pro life candidate gives me hope….but voting for Jones? ….Nope.
I understand and agree with your contention against voting for Moore/Trump …. but I also feel just as strongly about Jones in the Alabama election ir Clinton in the Presidential.
Yeah, Republicans defecting to become Democrats is not the answer. We need to demand better than both. Yes, abandoning the Republican party may temporarily help Democrats, but I think we need to be strategic rather than tactical. Tactical pragmatism gave us the man who is currently infecting the oval office. We need better.
Dave Cline: I totally agree. But I also realize that abortion is down now more than any time since Roe Vs. Wade. I don’t think for some it’s the holy grail of subjects if the candidate is not morally sound. As you know I am not a lesser of the two evils voter and it seems this type of voting is gaining momentum. But this is what is going to happen. This is reality. Some and I think many will vote Democrat as long as their is a two party system. Others as was seen in Alabama will abstain or write in. Either way the Republican party will lose. And lose big as long as they give us candidates and cabinets that are like we have now.
that should be there not their.
I’ll confess that the recent election restored a little bit of my faith in human nature. I’m not thrilled with another Democrat in the Senate but if the Republican party is going to be saved, then Republicans have to set the bar a whole lot higher than it has been of late. The Trump, Sanders, Bannon, Moore quartet of deception was dragging us right into the toilet of moral relevancy. When Republicans with a shred of decency and conscience are reviled as traitors and losers, then the party is in trouble.
I think the big difference in the Alabama election was the write in vote. I suspect these were largely Republicans who couldn’t stomach voting for either candidate. This sends a powerful message to the spineless party leaders who kept switching sides when the wind changed direction.
And I sincerely hope that the charges against Judge Pressler are not true. My heart sank and I could not comment when I read the charges and lawsuit on social media. I still can’t quite comment I am so saddened that the charges were made.
I too hope the charges aren’t true. The lawsuit is very questionable in some of its assertions (Paige Patterson a secret Calvinist!). It would seem to be rare for someone to do this kind of horrible thing to only one person. If several more individuals come forward with similar allegations, that will be significant. But at this point, great caution and much prayer would be wise.
I am as pro-life as they come. Womb to tomb. An adopted child and an adoptive father. I wear my pro-life position loudly and proudly.
I want to point out that in the last twenty years abortion as decreased to a level we haven’t seen since RvW. And it decreased more under Obama than it did under W.
There are a lot of reasons for this. Some have to do with contraception. Some with education. But here’s another interesting factoid- millennials are increasingly pro-life- both secular and religious.
So when someone starts to say to any of us that we need to elect someone like Roy Moore to stop abortion it’s a load of garbage. We don’t have to hold our noses and vote for someone who supposedly cares about babies in the womb, but takes advantage of the young women they become.
The tide is changing on abortion and it’s not because of the GOP or SC justices or legislation. It’s because people’s hearts and minds are changing. And that’s a good thing.
I agree with all you have written Absalom.
Absalom,
I would add a couple of caveats.
1. The reason the number of abortions is decreasing is in spite of Barak Obama being in office – It’s not that he wanted to see a decrease. In fact, anytime there is a legal right to do something but it is controversial to the larger American public, there is a constant threat that that particular right will be taken away. For example, the reason that the NRA is constantly encouraging more people to own guns is that they know if only 5% of the population owns guns and gun ownership is seen as being a detriment to society, particularly after mass shootings like Sandy Hook, there will be little political will to preserve that right by the 95% of the population who don’t exercise that right – in this case own guns. By the same token, NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League) would be happy if 75% of American women at some point in their lives had and abortion, then they would be confident that the political sentiment would be to protect that right. Also, when it comes to the economics of operating a Planned Parenthood facility which performs abortions, I have read that there is a certain number of abortions which need to be performed each month in order to keep an individual PP facility open. Therefore, they absolutely are not content with seeing a decline in the number of abortions and by the same token, President Obama, the staunches defender of abortion to ever be in the White House, wasn’t happy either.
2. Technology advancements has enabled premature babies to survive at earlier points in the term and this has raised a lot more ethical questions about late term abortions. If a baby is born at 26 weeks and is able to live, how can you say it was ok to abort it a week or two earlier? Also, sonograms giving pictures of babies in the womb has had an impact – this technology was not as advanced in the 1970’s.
3. A number of State Legislatures controlled by the GOP have placed restrictions on abortion providers and this has led to a large number of abortion facilities closing. Texas, in particular has seen a dramatic reduction in the number of abortion facilities as a result of state legislation.
4. Even though the number of abortions has been declining, the Democratic Party is not sitting by passively content to see this happen. Remember the controversy about Obamacare having coverage of abortion and more recently, the Democratic Party for the first time in its history had in its Platform the repeal of the Hyde Amendment and advocated tax payer funding of abortions – Hillary Clinton was an enthusiastic supporter of this change.
So, I will disagree that there is no impact of elected officials on the number of abortions performed in America. The decline in abortions occurred in spite of the fact that Obama was in office and wasn’t happy about it.
This is the dilemma Christians have faced. They don’t want abortion and they don’t want people having sex before they are married. So historically they were just as opposed to non-abstinence pregnancy prevention education as they were abortion. Well, people are having sex. They just are. I’d rather neither happen, but if I can only get one, I’d rather people were using contraception than aborting babies. I’m not going to vote pro-choice, but the reality is that a pro-choice person who works hard to get contraception and education out to people may actually prevent more abortions than the pro life candidate who supports no-exception laws that have no chance of holding up in court.
I’ve made this claim before. The Republican party has ZERO interest in ending abortion. ZERO. The only thing that keeps a lot of Christians in the Republican fold is their appearance of opposition to abortion. If that plank goes away, so does Christian loyalty to the party, and without that, they are done. By the way, I think the same is true for Democrats and race relations.
Absalom…lol
I don’t know how much to trust the numbers regarding reduced abortions since some of the forms of “contraception” being used result in chemically induced abortions.
Right on…..Adam, right on.
I will say though that I believe one of the reasons for the reduction of abortions has to do with the advancement of ultrasounds and state laws mandating that abortion clinics meet the same medical standards as other surgical clinics, the requiring showing them along with honest education as one is considering an abortion. (As much grief as we all like to give the Republicans… We’ve got to give them credit on those fronts.)
Adam: Most women are not pregnant when they use the birth control pill and frankly as of today I know of no pill that induces abortions. The pill that most women used and I know I did, simply prevents the sperm and egg from joining. That is not abortion. There are always those who (mostly men, I say as clearing my throat) use this bad information that you have given.
I don’t think Adam is talking about the birth control pill Debbie… I think he’s referring to the morning after pills and such…
Debbie, I realize you’ve never met anyone who knows as much as you do about anything, but I have studied this topic quite a bit. I do not need a lesson on who takes the birth control pill when. Perhaps you need a lesson on how it actually works.
Perhaps this paragraph on WebMD will help you out: “This combination hormone medication is used to prevent pregnancy. It contains 2 hormones: a progestin and an estrogen. It works mainly by preventing the release of an egg (ovulation) during your menstrual cycle. It also makes vaginal fluid thicker to help prevent sperm from reaching an egg (fertilization) and changes the lining of the uterus (womb) to prevent attachment of a fertilized egg. If a fertilized egg does not attach to the uterus, it passes out of the body.”
The idea that only women are able to understand this stuff is absurd and is used by people (mostly women) who want to silence any man who raises legitimate concerns regarding the birth control pill.
Lol! Although I thought Adam was referring mainly to morning after pills and pills taken after potential fertilization end a pregnancy…..
He’s right in his response to you about the birth control pill….the birth control pill does in fact sometimes (as he’s demonstrated above) chemically cause the expulsion of a fertilized egg….this is, in fact, a chemically induced abortion.
Fellas: I won’t speak a lot on this subject since it’s not the topic of this thread, but oh brother. There is so much information you are not saying. So much. And I do know quite a bit, even on this subject. I’m pretty well rounded in my education and knowledge and as a woman don’t apologize for it. Nor am I ashamed of it. The days of women holding back what they know so a man can feel smarter ended a long time ago, but I was never one to follow rules so I never held back. Fortunately I had parents who didn’t try to get us girls to hold back winning or knowledge. Just sayin for future references.
Geewhiz… You don’t have to try so hard you already have victim of the thread.
I’ll just point out that you started with the men just don’t understand crap…. and when you’re shown to be wrong you fall back into the well I’m a smart woman to… No one said anything about you not being smart… And no one said anything about you being a woman… These off on the victim playing please.
Debbie, you can’t have it both ways.
If you want to join in the discussion, you can’t act like disagreeing with you or challenging your ideas is sexist or is somehow “the man keeping you down.”
You are given free rein around here. That also means that others have the freedom to say that your ideas are awful.
It isn’t sexist. It’s blogging.
It was my communication and not reading comprehension that is at fault.
What I said was that Adam and David C were giving false information. The Morning after pill is not an abortion pill. Most contraceptives, and there are many and of that many they are not abortion pills. There is an abortion pill out there that is clearly marketed and labeled as such. Actually it is 2 separate pills and it is given directly to you and guided by a nurse. She or he gives you one pill first which blocks a woman’s progesterone which is needed for the baby to grow. You also receive antibiotics. The next day you receive the second pill under a nurse’s guidance which completes the abortion process. It kills the baby. It’s murder in my opinion.
But you cannot just go to the doctor and get a 30 day pack of abortion pills. This is a medical procedure although you return home after the first dose, coming back the next day for the second dose. Thus the difference in what Adam was saying and what is true.
Night and day difference between birth control pills which prevent and abortion pills which end pregnancy.
Debbie,
You are (as usual) ignoring what is being said.
What we are saying is that the birth control pill does in fact have the effect of altering the uterus by chemical means causing the expulsion from the body of a FERTILIZED egg.
Sure the BC pill’s first course is to PREVENT fertilization (thickening baginal fluid to impede semen and prevent fertilization) but it also alters the lining of the uterus so that should an egg be FERTILIZED it cannot attach – this causes the FERTILIZED egg to be expelled from the body thus aborting the pregnancy.
That is not misinformation – it’s facts.
Heel, what you call fact is indeed theory. Even Randy Alcorn chooses his words carefully saying OCP’s may be abortifacients. I remember a large number of pro-life ob/gyns wrote a response to Dr. Alcorn refuting his conclusions in his book, “Does the Pill Cause Abortions.”
You do not have to do much studying on this issue to realize this is not a settled issue. It had not been proven by science that OCP’s are abortifacients. They “may” be some of the time but it is “fact” they are not all of the time.
Ok dean –
Do you agree with this:
When a *fertilized* egg is prevented (as an affect of medication) from implanting and subsequently expelled from the body this meets the definition of an induced abortion.
Both I and Adam have acknowledged that part of the design and intent of the pill is to prevent fertilization (pregnancy) – that’s not abortion that’s contraception – but it’s undeniable that the meditional affect on the uterus is the “failsafe” and that failsafe is abortive as it actively works to prevent FERTILIZED egg implantation…thus ending a pregnancy.
Not saying the pill ALWAYS aborts a pregnancy – but to say it’s at minimum potentially abortive (as the scientific community purports it to work) is a fact.
Now if we disagree that pregnancy begins at fertilization… That may be where this issue really lies.
Heel, Any Christian ethicist with a pro-life view would see a fertilized egg being expelled as an abortion.
You say, “but it’s undeniable that the meditional affect on the uterus is the “failsafe” and that failsafe is abortive as it actively works to prevent FERTILIZED egg implantation…thus ending a pregnancy.”
I’m saying it is deniable that the “failsafe” does what you claim. It is theory and has not been proven. If you want to call OCP’s abortifacients based on theory fine but it is not fact.
To claim someone who uses the pill is less pro-life or having an abortion is unfair because a number of pro-life ethicists, researchers and OB/gyns have stated that the OCP’s do not do what the theory claims.
Heel, Adam agreed there is uncertainty surrounding the Hostile Endometrium Theory.
Dean,
But certainly you agree that many of the “expert OB/GYN‘s and scientist” do not affirm that pregnancy begins at fertilization.
So for them to be uncertain that an abortion occurs (if prevention fails)… Is not surprising.
The designers and manufacturers of the birth control pill contend that this is what it does… If this is not what it does then Why is the FDA allowing them to say that it does – doesn’t there have to be some proof that medicine does what they claim?
Heel, I disagree completely with your assessment of the “expert OB/GYN’s and scientist.” (I would love to know who you are quoting there.) All the people worth reading on this subject believe life begins at conception. They have spent their careers being pro-life. You speak of this as a matter of settled science and that is not true even among pro lifers who believe life begins at conception.
The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, The Christian Medical and Dental Association, The Center of Bioetchics and Human Dignity as well as countless Christian ethicists who believe life begins as conception have written extensively on this subject and say the research is inconclusive. They call for Christian physicians to prescribe or not prescribe OCP’s based on conscience.
As to the FDA and the pill, it does exactly what the manufactors claims but the results are debated. It is not universally accepted a thinner endometrium is less receptive to a fertilized egg. It is more debated as to what happens if the rare breakthrough ovulation takes place for the woman on the pill. There are huge changes made to the endometrium when ovulation occurs to make it more receptive of the fertilized egg.
You can state “fact” if you want to. I was trying to share with you it is not fact and indeed it is nowhere near a fact.
Love ya, Dean. Guess we will remain at odds on this.
I stand by what I have Asserted.
I will continue to encourage all pro life persons to choose birth control that is not an abortificiant (or might be – or potentially be – is that better?).
There are such options.
Let me spell this out and then I am done. I am respectful of topics on threads and don’t wish to create the rabbit trails others make and which I am non to fond of. But you have not proven anything.
Even Web MD’s statement is not abortion. The morning after pill prevents pregnancy. Abortion pills end pregnancy. Huge difference. Anatomy 101. Thank you. My book will be available in hard back or Kindle on Amazon in July.(no book. JK) 🙂
I’ll admit to some confusion here. Isn’t there a pill that prevents a fertilized egg from attaching?
And, Debbie, one line I’ve used over the years particularly when talking to a woman in the church about men and doctors is, “Do you think men are stubborn?” Always gets an ‘amen’. Of course, not me…all those other men.
Taking a pill for the purpose of altering ones uterus so that FERTILIZED eggs are expelled from the body equals chemically inducing at abortion.
It matters not when one takes the pill.
Chemically induced abortions are abortions.
Debbie, as has been said, you brought gender into this by suggesting that my argument was about me trying to hold women down. I happen to think that both men and women can understand biology just as well as the other.
William, yes the birth control pill’s primary mechanism is to prevent fertilization. That’s contraception. But if that fails, it will also prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. That’s abortion. Surely some have argued that life begins at implantation, but that’s logically and scientifically silly.
Sorry to lead things so far off track.
I was looking for Debbie’s view on this. Perhaps definitions differ and I’d like to know why.
It is far from proven science that OCP’s are abortifacients. I suspect that Randy Alcorn has studied this matter as much as anyone and concludes OCP’s are indeed abortifacients. However, Roberto Rivera, Irene Yacobson, and David Grimes, respected researchers reject that OCP’s reject the hostile endometrium theory. My ethics professor from MBST, Dr. Alan Branch, declared the proof that OCP’s are abortifacients was inconclusive. Believe me, Dr. Branch has no problem making clear tough stances.
Here are the issues with declaring OCP’s are abortifacients. Failed implantations of fertilized eggs happen often without OCP’s being used. If OCP’s cause abortions no researcher has witnessed this abortifacient process. The final issue is the many cases of babies being brought to full term while conceived with a mother using OCP’s. If OCP’s are abortifacients they are not all the time.
Respect should be given to both sides on this issue who have strong opinions. No one can say their side is 100% certain for Christian scientist and ethicists do no agree.
Well, I admit to taking the drug manufacturers’ word for it regarding how the birth control pill works. Because there is so much uncertainty regarding the third mechanism, my advice to pro-life couples is to use another form of contraception, but I do not make it a rest of orthodoxy.
William: There is indeed an abortion pill.
OK, I’m missing something, Debbie. I thought you said above that there is not an abortion pill. it’s not all that important. I’ll leave this by saying that the single issue pro life voter, seems to me, will eventually end up with a Roy Moore/Doug Jones scenario and ignore character.
William,
To vote in that election was to ignore character.
Voting for a pro-murder of-babies or Moore means you were disregarding character.
William: I replied to you placing it above. Sorry, pushed wrong reply button. I might add, that as far as I know those who use this pill are counted in the numbers that Absalom mentioned above.
Dave: And here we go again. It is sexist when again…I am a woman and men are speaking of women’s issues, mostly with misinformation. It is sexist when every time I point this out, which unfortunately is frequently, this is the response I get. But that’s ok……Baptist men are not sexist. 🙂
BTW Dave: You do give me pretty free reign here and for that I am grateful.
BINGO! mike…
“William,
To vote in that election was to ignore character.
Voting for a pro-murder of-babies or Moore means you were disregarding character.“
Debbie Kaufman,
For many years I have wanted to let you know this. Now that you have stated to Dave Miller, “BTW Dave: You do give me pretty free reign here and for that I am grateful.” I think it is time for you to know the truth.
It is me you should be thanking for allowing you so much “free reign” here on Voices. The reason you should be thanking me is because every time you comment on this blog since January of 2009, Dave Miller calls me and asks me if I think your comments should be allowed to stand or be deleted. I always tell him to let them stand. So your thanks goes to me. I accept and say to you, “You are welcome, Sister.”
However, if you make one single comment about the Oklahoma Sooners being in the playoffs (which they do not deserve even an honorable mention and certainly not playing an SEC team), I will tell Dave Miller to delete your comments for the next six months without exception.
Have a Merry Christmas, Sister Debbie and remember: ROLL TIDE ROLL!!!!!
🙂
It’s OK Debbie. I will handle Boomer Sooners so that CB will stay kindly to you!
Cmon CB! Bama didn’t even win their own division much less their conference and by Saban’s own definition they don’t belong in the playoff.
The Dawgs are going down and Bama is going to get rolled by Clemson setting up the Baker man for a title on his way out the door!
BOOMER SOONER!
Haha. Thanks Absalom. What the Oklahoman/ Rabid Sooner fan in me wanted to say.
This shows you how sick a world we live in.
I am forced to cheer FOR the Oklahoma Sooners and their pretty-boy, no-sportsmanship quarterback.
What a world we live in.
President Miller,
If the Sooners are a bridge too far for ya …. There’s UGA and Clemson you could choose to pull for and still avoid the evil empire built upon tides of crimson colored elephant dung.
(Once one is duly elected to an office of President – I think it’s proper to refer to him as President henceforth. 🙂 )
Yeah, yeah. We know, we know. Haha.
Ryan Abernathy,
I did not want BAMA to go to the playoffs. I had hoped they would go home and heal up for next year and pick up a few more bull elephants and fine tune the Tide. However, others saw it differently.
That means I gotta dance with the girl that brought me to the dance. So, now I say ROLL TIDE ROLL!!!!!
Now, as for Oklahoma. The “sooner” they lose and leave from where they should have never been invited, the better.
Now, I will give you this. They should have gotten to play this past Saturday in the Las Vegas Bowl against Boise State, another loser team that has always thought to highly of themselves.
CB,
The SEC is the most overrated and overblown conference in college football. We have heard this before. OU will lose to Auburn. Blew them out. OU will lose to Bama. Crushed them. In fact, it’s been over a decade I believe since OU lost to an SEC team. You guys are big, but slow. And OU eats that kind of D for breakfast.
Do you think you can score every possession? Because you better. We are going to. Crowd the box to stop the run, we will go over the top and eat yardage in chunks. Drop a LB back to help cover, we will run the ball down your throat.
Georgia has no chance.
Ryan Abernathy,
The SEC has nine (9) teams in Bowl Games. Every game on January 1 has an SEC team in it. Yes, that’s right, all five Bowl Games on January 1 has a representative of the SEC playing.
“Overrated” you say? Maybe the right word “overextended” because the entire Football Universe can’t seem to get enough of the SEC.
Funny how we hear the “overrated” thing all year long….and then 50% of the playoff teams end up SEC teams.
If that’s “overrated,” then I think we can take it every year.
Especially if the Hogs get their act together and remember how to tackle, throw, and run next year.
Doug Hibbard,
You are right as the rain.
Also, you can be assured Arkansas will be back. They had some rough road. That’s all, but they will come back. They are the SEC. For that matter, Tennessee will rise up again also and for the same reason. They are the SEC.
10 Years?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aSBmk044W_Q
The fact that Roy Moore was a viable candidate for the senate made me ashamed to admit I am from Alabama. One accuser or even two, that can be overlooked. But the number who came out? I find that hard to refute; and based on counseling I have done AND from my wife and her family of origin (which includes abuse of several different kinds), I find it quite plausible that these women waited many years before going public with their accusations. It is very human. But not only that: also his twice removal from the state Supreme Court for refusing to obey a federal order, and ascribing it to Christian faith? Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Bible says something about obeying the authorities as having been placed there by God (Romans 13:1 ff).
Now that Alabama voters have rejected Moore–albeit by a slender margin–I can admit I am from there again. If I still loved there, I am not sure if I could have voted for Jones or not, but I KNOW I could not have voted for Mr. Moore.
Whoops, that should be “lived” rather than “loved.” Well, maybe both. I think I’ll make up a new word, “lioved” to cover all my bases.
John, the accusations about his pursuit of teenage girls were not revealed until well after the runoff election had occurred. By then, according to the Alabama Constitution, Secretary of State John Merrill said it was impossible for the Republican Party to remove his name from the ballot. Various party officials asked for him to voluntarily step down – he could have said, “If I receive the most votes, I will not serve and will allow the Governor to appoint another person and later another special election.” However, Moore was obstinate. His interview on Sean Hannity was a disaster in which he said that he didn’t any teen girls without their mother’s permission.
One has to wonder how long The Washington Post sat on this story and decided to release it after the runoff election and the Alabama Republican Party couldn’t legally get Moore’s name off the ballot.
I meant to say he said on Hannity, “I didn’t date any teen girls without their mother’s permission.
That Hannity interview was ( as Charles Barkley would say… Turrrabull (Terrible)) but in fairness The context of that comment was referring to a question from Hannity about older teenage girls not minors.
A small but important distinction.
Not defending Moore – it’s still very creepy – but context is important.
I am aware of all that. It does not change anything for me, because I am talking about a visceral, emotional reaction. Mr. Moore’s decisions and actions sat those of us who are Alabama expatriates and are concerned with character over politics up for that. I have no idea how long the Post sat on the story, or if they did at all. I fail to see how that plays into the reality of his actions, only of political timing–and that is something that is used as a deflection from truth.
My response was to David, not to Tarheel.
Hannity and Fox News have become so toxically partisan and deceptive it’s astounding. The more abhorrent the person they are promoting, the lower they will sink to defend them. You can take the leftward bias of all the other media outlets combined, triple it, and it doesn’t even come close to what we are seeing from Fox. That FNC is the favored network for Christians is extremely troubling. No wonder Moore came as close to winning as he did.
Men are wrong at times speaking to other men. Sometimes they are wrong speaking you women. Sometimes they are wrong about women’s issues speaking to other men. And sometimes are wrong about women’s issues speaking to women.
But being wrong or even thought as being wrong when speaking to women’s issues doesn’t make them sexist, – even if they are speaking to a woman, it just makes them wrong or uninformed or misinformed or possibly even right.
Do you Gentlemen really believe Oklahoma can beat Georgia? Really?
No. The National Champion will most likely be the Georgia Bulldogs this year. I hate to even have to state that in public, but it is true. Georgia is hot as a two dollar pistol shootin’ Plus P ammo.
Now, facts are facts and if BAMA can by some miracle get by Clemson, well, fellows, it might be number 17 for the CRIMSON TIDE.
Sometimes even the great CB Scott can be wrong.
Boomer Sooner.
Rob
Rob Ayers,
It is a known fact that you are a great theological thinker and your wisdom is famous in Baptist circles and beyond. No doubt you are well read and widely informed on may subjects.
However, I must speak to you regarding this football fan failure you have of cheering for Oklahoma as did Festus to the great theologian, Paul:
“Rob, you are insane. Too much study has made you crazy!”
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Rarely do I ever ask favors of you. However, I do beseech you, one and all to cheer for SMU to decimate Louisiana Tech tonight in the Frisco Bowl.
I remember with great horror back in 1999 when Louisiana Tech took advantage of BAMA when we were lame, maimed, broken, and down, and had a terrible coach. They beat us and caused stress and heartbreak throughout the great state of Alabama and shamed us before the entire SEC.
Thank you all in advance for standing with me in cheering for SMU against these swamp living Vandals and Visigoths. It is greatly appreciated.
Shouldn’t they be honored for that?
One word for you, Dave Miler: Infidel.
Sorry, CB. Mama graduated from La Tech.
You never go against Mama.
That is the only acceptable excuse from a fellow SEC guy, ’cause no respectable Arkansas Fan would ever go against his Momma.
As an SEC Arkansas fan, I will be cheering for SMU because I do not like LaTech and because the former SMU coach is not at Arkansas. Otherwise as an old Southwest Conference guy who hated any Texas school I would be for LaTech.
I think CB should offer thanks to all us Arkansas fans for saving Alabama football. We first sent Bear Bryant to build the Alabama program and more recently sent you Gus Malzahn to resurrect Auburn football. You would think out of appreciation you would not run up the score on the Razorbacks while we are experiencing a temporary down swing in our program.