n13.gif (5952 bytes)

[home] [Start Page] [wasted vote?] [results]

 

Saving Babies

Hello, Pro-lifers!  Hello anyone else!

We must each, individually, decide how we should try to save our nation from the evil of elective abortions.  How can we save people, including babies?  Is it not true that Roe v Wade was nearly 30 years ago and we have seen us move from discussions about "protoplasm" and first trimester abortions to the brazen, disgusting "partial birth abortion" and harvesting of parts.

Let's see.  As we keep chasing the carrot in front of our noses since 1973, we keep thinking we are inches away from achieving our goal.  We continue this wishful thinking to this day.  The facts show us otherwise.  The most limited winning on the pro-life front that is occurring today is not due to political wins but due to exposure of the horrors of abortion, as fewer women choose an abortion. 

Let us suppose G.W. Bush will do as he says, a fair assumption from a man with character.  If he becomes president, he will sign a law against partial birth abortion.  There is a slight problem, though.  Currently the Supreme Court is stacked against us with a narrow margin.  Without a 'litmus test', any justices G.W. would appoint have basically only a 50% chance (giving him the benefit of the doubt), based on his record in Texas, that they would declare the new law "unconstitutional".  We are back in despair.   (http://dutyisours.com/human_events.htm)

While many have been working to change the political climate, things really have worsened from the legislation standpoint.  The whole 'issue' has needlessly become partisan.  Murder isn't partisan.  Why is abortion?  Democrats currently are always on the wrong side.  Republicans have stood against this but only to the extent necessary (with few exceptions) since it is a 'devisive issue'.  By pro-lifers endorsing Republicans, the automatic response by Democrats becomes a fighting mode.

Suppose we chose to take the unimpressive, thoughtless, simple, silly Biblical approach.  Let's consider the possible outcome of simply standing firm and putting God's issues first as we vote (such as with Howard Phillips) and at the same time assuming that we lose the election (still isn't a "given").  Again, the Bible shows us no example of God's approval when we compromise. 

If there is a sizeable group of us who chose this route that should be automatic, the first thing that would occur is that the 'issue' receives the attention that it deserves.   Currently it appears that Christians have political agendas and we just think differently from others.  If we choose the route that likely leads to a loss, we find the world looking at us with wonder.  They do not understand since we don't think like they do.  Of course this is true of Biblical figures as well, such as Daniel refusing to eat meat and praying even though it is against the law.  That made no sense to the secular observers.  They will take notice, though.  Some will be affected.  Until then, it is simply a political opinion of ours verses their political opinion that can be bartered.

The world looks in with wonder and asks why?  We have the right answer, because it is against God's purpose and is the moral equivalent to murder.  When we refuse to compromise, the world looks at us much like the Sudanese people see the Sudanese Christians undergoing some of the worst persecution and martyrdom in all of history.  This is true of Cassie Bernall too.  Despite the cost, whatever the consequences, we who stand firm will turn heads.

William J. Murray Report- August 2000 (http://www.rfcnet.org)

However, amid all the devastation, reports out of Sudan give cause for hope and rejoicing also. For, just as it was in the early days of the persecuted church, the number of Christian converts is growing at a phenomenal rate. Twenty years ago, Christians in Sudan made up about 5% of the population. Today, that number stands at 20%, and in the South, where people are being so horribly persecuted, fully 80% of the population openly claims Christ, even though to do so means almost certain suffering or death. Moved by their example of faith, even many of their Muslim neighbors are coming to Christ.

It would make so much sense for these fellow believers to simply lie to their persecutors, to deny Christ, only to later claim Him again.  This would be the practical, expedient thing to do.  They might not lose their salvation but they keep their life.  Here we find that, despite reasonableness to the contrary, God's plan is better.  Many more are saved and those who undergo this pain and suffering look forward to great eternal rewards. 

This is in striking contrast to the demise of Christianity in America today.  Why?   Our witness is pathetic and compromising.  Why should anyone have any interest in what we have?

If we similarly refused to support anyone who will not put God's issues first, the world will then see how important these 'issues' really are.  If we show the Republicans that this is the case, they must try to win our vote.  If we take it out of partisan politics, it may even be possible that the Democrats see the larger group of individuals out there who voted for Howard Phillips and/or Buchanan, refusing to compromise for political gain.  They may see the divorce of the Republican 'infomercials' from the church 'leaders' and see that our group is much bigger than the radical feminists.  The Democrats might even see if they could attract us to their party.  This admittedly may take years but would be a lasting result with more significance to our society.   

If both of the major parties saw this as a serious, absolutely necessary goal, as God would agree, they may seize the opportunity to outdo the other major party in attracting us.  The legislation may begin.   At that point it probably would not be necessary due to the changed hearts of Americans.  Christians, by failing to stand firm, have unwittingly kept this from happening.  Our vote is our discretionary currency that speaks for or against our values.  Is it wasted?   Of course not. 

Is murder a 'partisan' issue?  Of course not.  Neither should abortion be considered that way. 

There is more that we could expect.

For us to stand firm, other Americans will think about why did we do this?   The answer becomes God centered and He gets the glory.  We show that we fear God and His ways are better than our ways (and ours have already proven themselves as failures).  More importantly, we find that our witness is enhanced.  We show that we believe what the Bible says, unreservedly.  We stop sending confusing signals to unbelievers, much like the idea of teaching abstinence and handing out condoms.   We confuse other Americans when we compromise our witness.  We must remove the leavening and purify our message and only then will God bless our efforts. 

As people see how important this cause is, how committed we are, we will find that they will reconsider their beliefs.  Our witness is strong and we find more come to know Christ.  The people in the "more" category include young women who otherwise may have opted for an abortion.  Abortions decrease.

We won't need legislation, we didn't need it in early America when God's values were strong.

As a 20th Century example of taking the practical approach to dealing with government, this was written by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, shortly before he was executed, as he was discussing the compromising German church and their relationship to Hitler (considered the "reasonable people"):


"The reasonable people's failure is obvious. With the best of intentions and a naive lack of realism, they think that with a little reason they can bend back into position the framework that has got out of joint. In their lack of vision they want to do justice to all sides, and so the conflicting forces wear them down with nothing achieved. Disappointed by the world's unreasonableness, they see themselves condemned to ineffectiveness; they step aside in resignation or collapse before the stronger party.

Still more pathetic is the total collapse of moral fanaticism. The fanatic thinks that his single-minded principles qualify him to do battle with the powers of evil; but like a bull he rushes at the red cloak instead of the person who is holding it; he exhausts himself and is beaten. He gets entangled in nonessentials and falls into the trap set by cleverer people. "

(Bonhoeffer goes into other 'types' of individuals doomed for failure and then concludes):

"Who stands fast? Only the man whose final standard is not his reason, his principles, his conscience, his freedom, or his virtue, but who is ready to sacrifice all this when he is called to obedient and responsible action in faith and in exclusive allegiance to God- the responsible man, who tries to make his whole life an answer to the question and call of God. Where are these responsible people?"


The appropriate approach is aimed at the ultimate goal and not aimed at a red cape. Saving the person holding the cape, then you save the babies.  Focusing on God instead of abortions is another parallel we should charge toward, the babies will then be saved.   As important as babies are, they are a worthy secondary goal that will be fixed when we put God first.  Until then, they are a distraction from our true goal.  As important as babies are, are we making them our god?  With this approach, many more are saved!

We, as Christians, are also at fault.  We neglect our God's instruction to endorse theoretical political gain.  We want a seat at the table of the Republicans at the cost of compromise.  Because of this error, instead of there being a short time of legal abortions since Roe v Wade, before the end of abortions, we have had a spigot open for ~30 years. 

Now, if we stand firm, we will find a much shorter time abortions are legal.  Many more babies would have been saved as compared to the 30 years of death!  To save them, we must put God, His instructions and His values first, otherwise we are also to blame.  Then will He listen to our prayers.   Where is our faith?

If Germany had thousands of ministers like Bonhoeffer (it really would not have required too many) then Hitler would not have been able to stand against them. As many people would not have died.

Sure, this may take some time with seemingly some initial worsening of the situation.   It cannot be worse than the holocaust since 1973, however, as well meaning Christians kept trying without success and babies continue to be killed.  Where was our walk?  Where is our faith? 

Put a nice G.W. Bush in there (if it should happen) and the killing will continue and the people see our compromise as evidence that abortion isn't so bad, unless God miraculously interferes, but we shouldn't count on that since we have failed Him.

Is it a silly approach expressed here? No. It is what we are called to do and with the historical examples such as above, we really would accomplish our goal at saving babies.

If we try to do it with laws, people look for loopholes or get illegal abortions. By our compromising approach, people fail to see the sin of abortion and will find a way. Babies die. Change the people by becoming examples of uncompromising walks (like Sudan), and we win. Babies win.

Copyright 2000, Dio, Inc.

P.S.    It was reported on a Christian radio news report that we had a "great pro-life victory" in Congress (9/26/00)!   The report said: 'They voted overwhelmingly for the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act", 380 votes for the act verses 15 votes against.'   

How low we have stooped.  Even Christians call this a "great" victory when it is embarassing that it required a vote.  We are talking about killing a baby that has been born and now we call this a victory? We now have a federal bill against what is currently murder.

Is this our great evidence that our approach for the last 30 years has been correct?  God forgive us, Christians first.   It is time for change, too many babies have died.

phillips4prez1bd.jpg (15112 bytes) 

 

mailto:diojqa@dutyisours.com