The Confessions of a Pro-Life, Right Wing Conservative, Part 1by Valorie Delp | More from this Blogger 02 Nov 2008 06:11 AM The other day Pattie wrote an article asking (or really telling us) that there are Christians on both sides of the fence and being liberal or conservative doesn't a Christian make. What has ensued is an interesting conversations therein in her comments section. I'm actually going to address her article in two parts. However, the right to life debate is often at the forefront of election debates and it is, arguably one of the first things many conservative Christians want to know when choosing a candidate. Dare I say it? Many of you conservative Christians out there vote based on who is pro-life/anti-abortion with minimal regard to other issues. After all, is there anything more important than a defenseless baby? Well actually, yes there is. Confession #1: Why Abortion is Not the Most Important Issue in This (or any) Election Many of you already know some of my views from the forums. I don't think I'm shocking anyone to confess that I'm a conservative Christian. I'm again abortion and in favor of protecting the sanctity of life. Just to spell it out a little more though: *I am against birth control unless medically necessary. *I am against fertility treatments that create unwanted embryos or post significant health risks to the fetuses by creating a multiple pregnancy. In most cases, this means that I'm against fertility treatments in general. *I am against euthanasia. *I am against abortion in ALL circumstances. *Along with that, I'm against the death penalty--which I also consider a "sanctity of life issue." In all issues of policy matters, I vote pro-life. But this, folks is not the most important issue out there and I won't ever base my vote on which candidate is pro-life. It's important to me, but it's not at the highest of my priorities. Confession #2: Christians Need to Focus on Affecting Change, Not Creating Pro-Life Drama First of all, I hate the way that Christians in general focus on the abortion issue without focusing on all sanctity of life issues. Why not focus on blood cord donation which will save and improve lives? Why not focus on fertility and stem cell research issues? Or how about promoting adoption? Being anti-abortion but not pro-life in every single circumstance is nothing short of hypocritical. Secondly, as Christians we need to look at what might affect change to reduce abortion rates, not only laws that might prevent them. As Pattie pointed out, the abortion rates went down under the Clinton administration. The pattern (and as Pattie points out this can be checked with the CDC) is that when the economy is good abortion rates go down. If you really want to affect change--vote for the candidate who you believe will affect our economy more positively. THAT will lower the abortion rate. Want to know another way to affect change? Vote for the candidate whose policies will make it easier for couples to adopt. Vote for the candidate whose policies will give more funding for community services to counsel and offer real help to organizations (including faith based organizations) that will in turn help pregnant women. THAT will affect abortion. And frankly, it will go much farther to decrease abortion than will any pro-life banter. I know that many of you who are pro-life may point out that one important role of the President is to appoint Supreme Court Justices. My next blog will deal with why I don't think it's important for Supreme Court Justices to be pro-life. Learn more about Valorie Delp ![]() Hello everybody! My name is Valorie and I am one busy lady! When I'm not writing or editing for families, I am busy trying to get my brood of 5 in line. Relevantpolitics tags mccain | democrats | Barack Obama | economy | taxes | Obama | election | delegate votes | politics | democratic primary User Comments mcmama (51978) 02 Nov 2008 01:33 PMWhat? No comments yet??? or is everyone taking a very DEEP breath before exhaling.... mimigrandma (445) 02 Nov 2008 03:20 PMYesterday I made quite a few comments about pro-life candidates, but I agree there are other issues that are important, too. I am amazed at the number of people I talk to that don't understand the basics of economics. I live in Indiana and when I was in high school government and economics were required courses. If you choose a candidate that will raise taxes on corporations consumers will pay more for goods and services as taxes are figured in to the prices. As a Christian I am not concerned a lot about the economy as I know that God is my provider not the government. He has taken very good care of me. I would rather have His favor in my life than anything either candidate has to offer. As far as the war in Iraq, I would rather our troops fight the terrorists over there than here. My daughter has a friend that works at the Pentagon and he said if we pull out our troops too soon that is exactly what will happen. The terrorists will follow our troops home and we will have war here. This election is extremely important and now more than ever all Christians must pray and ask to hear from God as to the direction He would like us to go. We can't go by what we see or how we feel we must use the Word of God for direction our future depends on it. Pattie Hughes (7652) 02 Nov 2008 07:45 PMThat was the warning the Republicans used when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and it just didn't happen. There was greater job growth during the Clinton years than at any time since the end of WWII. Trickle down economics does not work. It has now been tried twice and both times has led to recession. Economists tend to favor Obama's plan. A strong middle class makes America strong, not the top five percent. We were never at risk from Iraq. It is a lie. There was not one Iraqi involved in 911 and there was no threat to this country from Iraq. Walking away from hunting down bin Laden to go into Iraq was a giant mistake and there is no end in sight, particularly if Mr. We'll stay in Iraq for 100 years is elected. The hawkish foreign policy of this administration has made us less safe and McCain is even more hawkish. Saying that we are only safe with a Republican is nothing less than fearmongering and is simply not true. Good blog Val! mcmama (51978) 02 Nov 2008 07:57 PMIt appears that Al Quaeda has set their sites on Pakistan, and will try to bring down the new government there. It ain't over. Al Quaeda with nukes. Now that's an international crisis. Melissa J (13710) 02 Nov 2008 08:14 PMHi Val! I am one of "those" who look at the candidate's position on unborn life. I'm undecided on the death penalty issue but believe in protecting the lives of unborn? Why the difference? Because, an unborn child is innocent and helpless; without voice and it should be natural that we as humans wish to help the defenseless. Just my opinion of course--and like I said I'm not decided with the death penalty. It makes me uncomfortable though. I have little respect for a candidate who doesn't value the life of a human yet to take their first breath; a citizen in the making. I have NO respect for a candidate who supports partial birth abortion as it is nothing short of infantcide in my opinion. I agree there is more to consider in a candidate than whether they're prolife or not. After all, if we had 2 candidates who supported the right to terminate unborn babies, what would we do? To me, where a candidate stands on life is important, but whether they believe they are accountable by the God of the Bible is more important to me. A candidate with no fear of God would be the most detestible. Valorie Delp (49340) 03 Nov 2008 02:29 AMYes--I agree--a candidate with no fear of God would be most detestible. And I do think that the sanctity of life issues are important. . .but I think that simply being "pro-life" doesn't affect the abortion rate. And MJ--you are right--my 'pro-life' stance happens to also include capital punishment but I recognize that that's not the same for most Christians. However, if we say that we believe life begins at conception--we DO have to look at issues like stem cell research, fertility treatments and birth control. ruthann8 (6378) 03 Nov 2008 07:11 AMI have only participated in the last 3 elections and I really only remember the last two, so please correct me if I am wrong. I would assume that (major candidates) Republican is always pro-life and Democrat is always pro-choice. Would a candidate get its parties support if it wasn't? Will it always be that way. It seems like we won't ever get a major candidate that mixes it up. It seems as if we have this set of ideals that is strictly Republican or Democrat. To a politician it is a career. I almost feel as if they don't always believe what the are saying. Sometimes I get the feeling that politicians say certain things or votes a certain way b/c it is there job and are always looking to get re-elected. My mom has always been a Democrat and raised me that way (or so I thought) I have recently found out she is a registered republican and has voted that way for the last 15+ years. She is county deputy treasure, and she has been doing this b/c when her boss retires she may run for treasure. Why? This was very very disappointing. She is a hypocrite and I think a lot of politicians may be. But I still love her! I wonder how many politicians set aside there ideas for there career? Valorie Delp (49340) 03 Nov 2008 09:36 AMNo. . .not all Republicans are pro-life. Guiliani is not. . .Bloomberg (who is now technically independent) is not and there are others. There are many Republicans who feel that the abortion question should be left to the states and so while not all are pro-life, many will consistently vote pro-life or reject pro-choice legislation at the federal level bc they feel it should be a state issue. There is also an organization called Democratsforlife.org which is, as the name implies, a pro-life organization of Democrats. However, with that said, I think a pro-choice Republican could have a hard time getting elected and your assessment is certainly correct in the last several elections that I can remember. Pattie Hughes (7652) 03 Nov 2008 10:05 AMMcCain has said he thinks its a state issue. Do you consider him pro life, since he is in favor of stem cell research? How is he on capital punishment? I completely agree that they should all go hand in hand. I noticed that he didn't tout his pro lifeness as much as Bush did in the past elections. It really wasn't talked about much until Palin started bringing it up. I haven't heard much of that from McCain this time around, other than one question in one debate. I agree that a pro life Republican would have a hard time getting elected, or probably even past the primaries. He'd have about as much luck as a pro life democrat! These issues are tied to each party, but not exclusively. There are many pro life democrat voters, but they just can't head the ticket. I think the same is true of Republicans. To get past the primaries, they each have to get past the base of the party. Valorie Delp (49340) 03 Nov 2008 10:13 AMNo--I don't consider McCain "pro-life" although he has consistently leaned towards pro-life. . .but again, he thinks it should be a state issue. I think this was part of his choice of Palin--although I don't know why he couldn't have chosen Romney or Huckabee or. . .and the list goes on. But that's another discussion. I think this is also part of the reason you see a lot of Republicans voting Democrat this time around. mcmama (51978) 03 Nov 2008 08:00 PMThere was a big fuss after the democratic fracas of the late 60s and the constitutional crisis in a Republican presidency in the 70s about each party's "platform". Abortion was a huge plank in the platform. And all the good candidates are supposed to support the party and the platform on which it is built. Abortion seems to be the one issue where you are not allowed to be a moderate or dissent from the "platform" if you want the support of the party. Seems like they can dissent on just about anything else. Oh, and gun control too. That seems to be a biggie. I think this is about party politics, and how the power bases are constructed more than the actual issue. Pam Connell |
Politics categories
More politics tagsmccain | democrats | Barack Obama | economy | taxes | Obama | election | delegate votes | politics | democratic primary |