I am not a political guy. And although I think it is our duty to vote, I believe that voting for a candidate based on a single issue is a little shallow, Obama's stance on "life issues" has me deeply concerned. This statement was in the comments section of Justin Taylor's blog today:
Let me propose a thesis, and I'd be interested in your response. Evangelicals who support someone like Obama do not truly believe that the unborn are human persons deserving full human rights. I know that sounds both provocative and unfair. But imagine that we were not talking about the unborn but about toddlers. If 50 million--50,000,000!--toddlers had been brutally executed in our country, wouldn't it be utterly unthinkable to vote for a candidate who had a 100% record of voting for toddler execution and who never once in his career voted for a single restriction on toddler execution--and who promised that his first order of business as president would be to sign a bill that would codify the laws in favor of executing toddlers, and in fact would make sure that taxpayer money supported it?
If you object to the analogy, then you have to explain the morally relevant difference(s) between an unborn person and a toddler. Appearance? Stage of development? Size? Degree of dependency? Location?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I've been reading your blog since Carpe banana posted your penguin logic in her Bloggy theme park.
This article makes really good sense. Especially considering there are laws in place, that if you murder a pregnant mother and her unborn baby dies, you're responsible for 2 murders.
frankly, as a former fetus (surviving for 35 years now) I oppose abortion.
Good post.
Post a Comment