I wanted to test the waters a bit on this "hot button" issue and get a sense for the opinions of those of us voting for Sen Obama. I had an email fight with a friend about this the other day. She plainly states that she won't vote for Obama because of his stance on the abortion issue.
The voting record of the two candidates on the issue is not unclear. Click here for a voting history.
They're on opposite sides of the issue.
I think this is an issue my right wing friends feel like they have me on. They feel like they're on the moral high ground and in an inarguable position. They've even insinuated that I can't be a good Mormon and vote for someone who supports abortion rights.
Personally, I think this issue is somewhat of a distraction. But I also think the debate about abortion focuses on the wrong thing. I think that whether or not abortion is legal has little bearing on the issue. It's legal in certain circumstances now. What will changing that do? On the other hand, we can look at what I think is a more significant cause of babies dying - teen pregnancy and unwed mothers. The rate of teen pregnancy in our country is among the highest in the civilized world. These women who get pregnant are most often poor, uneducated, and without access to basic health care. The fact that these women don't get prenatal care contributes significantly to the fact that America ranks 41st in the world in infant mortality.
When you look at the voting records you'll see that Sen Obama voted against every piece of legislation that would restrict abortion and that he voted for legislation aimed at increasing education, including abstinence education, and access to pregnancy prevention. Sen McCain voted for every restriction on abortion and against education and prevention.
In my mind, the way to reduce abortion is not to make it illegal, it's to educate and prevent. As with all other issues, we have a clear choice in vision.
I fully recognize and am seriously pained by the moral quandary. Can I really support a man who supports abortion? What I have not seen from my republican friends is an acknowledgement of the moral quandaries presented by their own candidate. How can they support a man who promotes tax decreases for the super-wealthy and a spending freeze on programs that help the super-poor?
I see the moral issues presented by Sen Obama's positions. I would appreciate an acknowledgement of the moral issues presented by Sen McCain's positions.
15 comments:
First let me say, I appreciate that you legitimately understand the issues that are at stake in this election. It's refreshing to know someone who supports the Obama camp has actually done a mild amount of research into the policies of both candidates, research, which I have to admit, surpasses my own.
I must respond (and might I interject that I plan to respond to your posts more often, time permitting, though this is but my first response) to the line of this post which says, "They've even insinuated that I can't be a good Mormon and vote for someone who supports abortion rights."
I understand your comment, and the follow-up is quite good, stating that there are, in fact, larger issues at stake than just the individual legality of abortion, but I think that it's not just some of your friends who are insinuating. It is, in fact, the leaders of the Church, and also the revealed word which clearly indicates that you cannot support a pro-choice candidate and not be obliged to seek repentance.
In 1999, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, in a devotion given to BYU Students, gave an address entitled Weightier Matters. He began early on to say, "Few concepts have more potential to mislead us than the idea that choice, or agency, is an ultimate goal. For Latter-day Saints, this potential confusion is partly a product of the fact that moral agency—the right to choose—is a fundamental condition of mortal life. Without this precious gift of God, the purpose of mortal life could not be realized. To secure our agency in mortality we fought a mighty contest the book of Revelation calls a 'war in heaven.' This premortal contest ended with the devil and his angels being cast out of heaven and being denied the opportunity of having a body in mortal life."
This, I think, is one of the issues that we first must isolate. It is, in fact, choice, that truly defines who we are, and the value that we place upon the gifts that the Lord has provided for us. Elder Oaks followed this statement with the declaration that, "Our leaders have taught that the only possible exceptions [for abortion] are when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when a competent physician has determined that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy or that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically." He then goes on to say that, "More than 95 percent of the millions of abortions performed each year extinguish the life of a fetus conceived by consensual relations. Thus the effect in over 95 percent of abortions is not to vindicate choice but to avoid its consequences." Yes, choice is, indeed, what we strive for, but we cannot be immune from, nor deny, the consequences of choices that have already been made.
In the October 2008 issue of the Ensign (that's this month's issue), Elder Russel M. Nelson wrote an article entitled Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless. Take into consideration Elder Oaks' previous statement that in over 95% of abortions performed the pregnancy was the result of a consenting relationship, and compare it to Elder Nelson's statistics:
"...We deplore the loss of life associated with warfare. The data are appalling. In World War I, more than 8 million military fatalities occurred. In World War II, more than 22 million servicemen and women died (See The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed. (1998), “World Wars, The.”).
"These data, however, are dwarfed by the toll of another war that claims more casualties annually than did World War I and World War II combined. Worldwide reports indicate that more than 40 million abortions are performed per year (See Maria Cheng, “Abortion Just as Common in Nations Where It’s Illegal,” Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 12, 2007, p. A7. In the United States the number of live births per year is in the range of three to four million. The number of abortions during that same period of time exceeds one million. Thus, in that country, one of every three to four pregnancies ends in abortion)."
I agree with you that we need to educate, preach abstinence, and prenatal care. But in the case of a moral standing, as Latter-day Saints, we have an obligation to the Lord to vote on behalf of pro-life candidates, because, as Elder Oaks said, there are indeed weightier matters.
The argument that I've found pervading the pro-Obama populous is that under John McCain's tax plan, the rich would become richer, and the poor, in fact, poorer. Although at first glimpse it would seem accurate because of tax breaks aimed at entrepreneurs and corporations, and not at the impoverished, it is actually pro-growth for everyone. Over 30% of Americans don't pay income tax, a large majority of that number populated by the very poor, either because their income level is below the threshold that would require them to pay, or their total deductions leave them with no income-tax liability. If you read Brad O'Leary in Investor's Business Daily, you'll see this fun little article:
"First, I found that 60% of likely voters among non-taxpaying Americans favor Obama for president, whereas only 31% favor John McCain. In addition, a majority of the 30% of Americans who don't pay federal income taxes agree with Obama's $65 billion plan to institute taxpayer-funded, universal health coverage. On the other side, a majority of the 70% of Americans who pay federal income taxes are opposed to Obama's health care plan.
"A majority of non-taxpayers (57%) also favor raising the individual income-tax rate for those in the highest bracket to 54% from 35%. A majority of non-taxpayers (59%) also favor raising Social Security taxes by 4% for any individual or business that makes at least $250,000. Non-taxpayers support Obama's plans for increased tax deductions for lower-income Americans along with higher overall tax rates levied against middle- and upper-income households as well. They also want to expand their ranks from 30% of all Americans to 40%. Obama's tax plan, with its smorgasbord of deductions and credits aimed at lower-income households, would do exactly that. Today, 70% of Americans shoulder the majority of the federal budgetary burden for all Americans."
Now I know that this isn't a response to your tax post, and is a response to abortion, but since we're on the topic of moral issues, I don't see anything wrong with helping those who carry the burden of the unproductive (now, a lot of them are unproductive because they're unable to work, I understand this, but unproductive nonetheless). If we're going to compare supporting bills to have the brains sucked out of live infants vs tax breaks that will help out the work horses of America, I think we've truly lost sight of what the weightier issues really are.
One final quote from Elder Nelson from this month's Ensign:
"Abortion has been legalized by governing entities without regard for God and His commandments. Scriptures state repeatedly that people will prosper only if they obey the commandments of God (See Leviticus 26:3–13; Joshua 1:7–8; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 18:5–7; 2 Chronicles 24:20; 26:5; 31:21; Job 36:11–12; 1 Nephi 2:20–21; 4:14; 2 Nephi 1:9, 20, 31; 4:4; 5:10–11; Jarom 1:9; Omni 1:6; Mosiah 1:7; 2:22, 31; Alma 9:13; 36:1, 30; 37:13; 38:1; 45:6–8; 48:15, 25; 50:20; Helaman 3:20; 3 Nephi 5:22; D&C 9:13.). Individuals will prosper only when they walk in faith and obedience to God, who said:
'I, the Lord, … built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine.
'And it is my purpose to provide. …
'But it must needs be done in mine own way. …
'For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare (D&C 104:14–17.)'."
WOW ! I would comment also, but I think P.Cross has done a GREAT job ! Also Jed, you CANNOT compare taxes and abortion.
This post was authored by me, Matt, Jed's brother.
To Jed - I'm sorry if this post detracted from the spirit or intention of your blog. I guess I should have known better.
To p.cross - Your comment is thought provoking. You did what all my friends do...that is quote scripture then refuse to acknowledge the moral quandary on your side.
I'll throw a scripture your way. Mosiah 4:21-23. "And now, if God, who has created you, on whom you are dependent for your lives and for all that ye have and are, doth grant unto you whatsoever ye ask that is right, in faith, believing that ye shall receive, O then, how ye ought to impart of the substance that ye have one to another. And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth no belong to you but to God, to whom also your life belongeth; and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done. I say unto you, wo be unto that man, for his substance perish with him; and now, I say these things unto those who are rich as pertaining to things of this world."
You basically just told me that I'm being disobedient and that I should repent for my intentions.
Under the Bush administration the inequality gap between rich and poor has grown more than under any previous administration. If you refuse to acknowledge the immorality of that, then you should repent. To suggest that our treatment of the poor is less weighty than abortion is scripturally wrong.
I wrote this post with the intention of sharing my struggles and in the hope that I could encourage both sides to seriously consider the morality of their positions. All I got is an arrogant sermon and a call to repentance.
Believe me, I can already hear your counter arguments to what I just wrote so maybe save yourself the trouble.
Matt if you haven't seen this, you should and then reconsider your comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcGj78YoOHk
No one is denying the fact that the classes are more spread out than ever, but you set yourself up when you compare murder with poverty. Both are critical, but completely unrelated. I'll respond in greater detail when I have more time, and not limit myself to a trite heated response as you have done. 45 hours a week of lower class impoverished work awaits me.
To me, the only way that the abortion debate should be approached in politics is from a legal standpoint. The essence of the abortion debate on a political stage should be about the right to bodily privacy: a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body (and whether or not a fetus is her own body). That is where I think the argument should begin. Our interpretation of God's will is a debate for another venue.
The church that I belong to has been persecuted by the citizens of its country in the past: the laws that were meant to protect its freedom to worship were ignored or modified to be used against it. This is what happens when our country tries to mix religion and law.
I understand the desire to vote so that our country reflects our religious beliefs, but when we make a practice of it we create the risk that later, when we are not as powerful, someone else will come along and legislate away our freedom to believe what we wish.
As Americans, we should look to the US Constitution, not the Bible to make these decisions. And if we really want to affect change in our country, we will remember that what we teach our children will have a far more powerful effect than any legislation.
To P Cross. This is Eric Eastman, father of Matt and Jed, staunch republican, thoroughly opposed to abortion, believer in honest thoughtful dialogue. Your sanctimony is insufferable. You have turned this attempt at thoughtful discussion into a shouting match. Shame on you.
Although taxes are an important matter and providing for the poor is an ethical issue can you really overlook the greater moral issue at hand? You are pro Obama because of his standpoint on taxes yet choose to ignore his point of view on abortion? If P Cross' attitude is in fact the same that crucified Christ then what would have happened under Obama's presidential leadership, referring to the statistics of 40 million abortions a year, Christ may have never been born at all. When did tax cuts become a more important moral issue than the murder of children? I am not denying the problems of the Bush administration or those that may arise if McCain is elected but how can you even compare the two, abortion (murder) and taxes? The "moral quandaries" of the McCain candidacy, although they certainly exist, pale in comparison to those of the Obama camp.
I'm sorry. I knew better than to jump into this issue here. I apologize to any I might have offended, and especially to Jed for putting him in a bad light with some of his friends.
Wow, what happened?
Matt...I hesitate to answer to any of this because I am not very well-informed on most of these issues. I did watch a good portion of the last debate and I would have to agree that when McCain said he wanted to freeze the programs I cringed. I don't think that is the answer at all. And I also noticed that he avoided responding to Obama's points about McCain supporting the super-wealthy. Yes, I agree totally that it is a big problem.
It is hard (impossible?) to find a candidate where you would support absolutely 100% of their views. I don't fault you or anybody for supporting Obama. In your opinion he is the better candidate and frankly, I am happy for you and your brothers that you feel passionately about a candidate that is running for president. I wish I had that same feeling about a candidate.
I am not for abortion but I think you make a very valid argument about teen/underprivileged/unwed mothers...which then puts me in a moral quandary as well. It is a point that I have thought of before and my husband and I have discussed...
I feel badly that people have told you or made you feel like you are a bad mormon for supporting Obama. That is really sad. I am not a preachy person, and this is going out on a limb for me (and I don't have any scripture to back it up) but it is no one's job to tell you or anybody else if they are being a 'bad' mormon. How judgmental is that? Piety/arrogance in religion is one of my biggest pet peeves.
For as long as I can remember, in election years, there is a letter read from the pulpit about how the church does not tell you who to vote for.
My answer to you about McCain is this: I don't really care for either candidate. I think they both have issues that I struggle with/don't agree with. I think the last debate was bad for both of them and didn't make it any better for me (just my opinion). But in the end I want to vote and these are the two choices I am presented with. And so I have to pick the one I MOST (not 100%) align with as far as their ideas/promises, etc. Which I believe (and I am desperately trying not to step on any feet here) is what you would be doing when you vote for Obama.
Jenny - I really appreciate what you wrote. Your post shows an intelligence and humility that transcends the bitter arguments. What you said about me picking the one I MOST align with is exactly right. I never intended to defend or support abortion. My intent was to share my own introspective struggle and highlight another viewpoint. I very much appreciate that you understood what I was trying to say. Because I now know that you understand my struggle and that you are having your own, I completely and totally respect the decision you make.
I appreciate Jenny's comments and her acknowledgment of the quandary that results from the fact that none of us ever agree 100% will all of a candidates positions. Thank you.
About Oh Yeah's video link, the accusations and innuendos that video makes have already been refuted. See here.
About the first comment's suggestion that "you cannot support a pro-choice candidate and not be obliged to seek repentance," none of the quotes or references you offered support your claim. Yes, the church has spoken out against abortion, but none of your references suggest that members should decide which candidates they support based solely upon that single issue. Keep in mind that James E. Faust served as a state representative as a Democrat and was once the chairman of the Utah State Democratic Party. Marion G. Romney was also a Democrat.
I agree with Matt and personally feel that other issues on which I support Obama will have more of an impact on me, my family, and my community than the question of abortion.
The Book of Mormon warns us about societies that neglect their poor, aggrandize the rich, are overly aggressive militarily, and espouse pride and vanity. Those generations and societies that prospered were those that championed equality.
You can ignore those other issues if you would like. I carefully consider them and weigh them against the issue of abortion. And I conclude that on balance Obama's policies are more consistent with my beliefs and values than are McCain's policies.
I'd like to hear p.cross comment on the First Presidency message read from the pulpit yesterday. Apparently it's okay for me to choose between either candidate.
I grew up in a ward with a sunday school teacher (Harry Reid) and a pro-choice bishop who was a leading democratic party member. Although I disagreed with their viewpoints and politics, they were good men that the Lord saw fit to run His Kingdom even with their political views. And thankfully they never used scripture to cram their political opinions down my throat.
P.S. Speaking of free agency, Palin opposes abortion for girls who are victims of rape and incest. Everything is a two-way street, my friend.
Post a Comment