In either case, I never disputed that Sen. Obama seems to be adamantly pro-choice. I merely brought up the point that Sen. McCain does not appear to be adamantly pro-life.

That was my point as well. It’s not that Obama is pro-choice, he is aggressively pro-abortion. You (correctly, perhaps?) frame McCain as a passive pro-life guy. Obama is an aggressive pro-abortion guy. This isn’t Clinton, for instance, who at the bare minimum opposed late-term abortions (if my memory serves me correctly). Obama is a candidate who seeks to eradicate what little movement has been made in the law (again, see FOCA). McCain continues to seek faith-based initiatives, which would include efforts such as crisis pregnancy centers, of course, it could be that nothing gets promoted. Obama’s camp has already said no to supporting continued funding for crisis pregnancy centers. So, yes, it could be that McCain would nominate a center SC. At worst, he simply continues the court as we see it today (I disagree, however). But Obama is aggressively seeking to solidify and expand abortion. He’s a rabid pro-abortion fellow.

And, BTW, …while at the same time petitioning the current Supreme Court with intellectual, well-reasoned arguments for life, petitioning state lawmakers to present a law challenging Roe v. Wade…

With FOCA, the state law would not be allowed. With a left leaning (at best, ultra-liberal at worst) SC, the arguments never make it.

Did you read Weigel’s piece (and the corresponding rejoinder and surrejoinder)?

Thank you for the response. I have to apologize. I read the quote:

I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications.

And I was thinking that (though the quote written is a bit confusing) his indication was not to submit an RvW supporter (but I did not get the opportunity to watch that debate). I truly apologize for getting that quote wrong.

Of course, given his disagreement with RvW based on his federalist stance, if a potential nominee agreed with RvW, then that would not meet his qualiications (simply from the fact that he not only disagrees with the abortion aspect, but the decision itself that took the decision out of the hands of the state). Again, I apologize for anything I wrote that was wrong or misleading (sigh).

My question still stands: what is your next course of action to fight Roe v. Wade if Sen. Obama is elected?
I didn’t realize that you had a question about that, wasn’t trying to avoid it, if so. Some things would be to continue our support of crisis pregnancy centers (this one especially since Obama seeks to cut federal funding unless support for abortion is included), single mother outreach, outreach to those around us (I live in a college-centered city). But all of that continues whether McCain or Obama (well, sans the parenthetical statement). Especially the last part. One of the fantastically detrimental aspects of secular thought is the teaching of how best to ignore repercussions. Meaning, teach kids how to have sex and pretend that you can prevent repercussions (or act as though they aren’t there). Even outside of a biblical framework, this seems obvious. I think, in the end, what happens is that the center of the issue is human life. We see this in terms of human life and it undoes the idea of sex without consequences.

The thing about what we do is very important. How we impact our community is important. How we speak to our neighbors (well, actually, just that we should speak to our neighbors ) is vital. Demonstrating (and speaking) the gospel to those with whom we interact is not just important, it is our defining action (of being a Christian). That’s local. What we have an opportunity to do now is to affect a national level. The vast majority of us are not called to stir a national organization such as Focus on the Family, NRL, etc. But our vote has a national affect. And every aspect that Obama touts is denied of the most unprotected of us all.

Can you direct me to where Sen. McCain stated that he “wouldn’t nominate someone who agreed with the RvW decision”? Just curious, as in my previous comment I quoted from the third debate, where he stated that he would “not impose any litmus test [in nominating a justice].”

In either case, I never disputed that Sen. Obama seems to be adamantly pro-choice. I merely brought up the point that Sen. McCain does not appear to be adamantly pro-life.

My question still stands: what is your next course of action to fight Roe v. Wade if Sen. Obama is elected?

I think Dr. Burk posted a response in general to your question. Additionally, though, taking the argument you pose about SC nominations, I think you point out a specific “great divide” between the two candidates. Taking Obama at his word, he will actively seek to expand RvW. His “first order of business” would be to sign FOCA. This is an aggressively pro-abortion candidate. And, Sen. McCain also stated that he wouldn’t nominate someone who agreed with the RvW decision.

Further, Obama stated “Now I would not provide a litmus test. But I am somebody who believes that Roe versus Wade was rightly decided. I think that abortion is a very difficult issue and it is a moral issue and one that I think good people on both sides can disagree on.” Both candidates would agree that the next presidency will have a great impact on that (judicial nominations and RvW).

You are right about actively pursuing ways to help single mothers. Again, though, Obama wants to cut funding from crisis pregnancy centers. FOCA would force pro-llife organizations to “support”* abortion (if federal funding involved). So yes, we should actively seek to help, nurture and care for those mothers. But until the presidency is decided, we should also resist the urge to “back burner” an infant’s right to life because we find it unpalatable to vote for somebody who doesn’t socially reform the way we see fit.

* – at least they would have to present it to those they are counseling, if I understand it correctly.

I found it odd that, although Mr. (Dr.?) Burk wrote a post espousing the evils of Sen. Obama for his comments about abortion, he neglected to comment on the fact that Sen. McCain stated that he would not necessarily appoint Supreme Court justices that would fight to overturn Roe v. Wade. He stated, “I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test” (from http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/third-presidential-debate.html). He also stated in the debate that he voted to confirm Ginsberg and Breyer’s nominations to the Supreme Court.

Sen. McCain has certainly not impressed me as being pro-life himself, in any case. Sen. Obama, on the other hand, has stated his commitment to reducing the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies due to other circumstances, such as poverty and a lack of sex education.

I respect the commitment to life that many readers of this website have expressed here in the comments section. I, too, am concerned for the rights of the unborn, and believe that they should have the same right to life that all Americans have. However, I am no less of a follower of Jesus than you for voting a different way for the president. Focusing on who we are voting into the presidency has not yet overturned Roe v. Wade. I believe that a different tack may be necessary, namely, trying to reduce the number of abortions by fighting the causes of unwanted pregnancies, while at the same time petitioning the current Supreme Court with intellectual, well-reasoned arguments for life, petitioning state lawmakers to present a law challenging Roe v. Wade, and, I think most importantly, to work in our own communities to come alongside women who have unwanted pregnancies and provide them with the means necessary to carry their children to term, whether they then give them up for adoption, or choose to raise them themselves.

As Mr./Dr. Burk pointed out, Sen. Obama will most likely be our next president. In that case, we can not afford to sit idly by for the next four years while women continue to choose abortion. We must take a different approach, and be the hope of the unborn, as well as the world, that we are called to be.

“Paul, Your statement is accurate, but herein lies the misconception by many on this issue. There is NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY in the US Constitution. This is a court created fiat and that is why this issue will not go away.”

Oh, I agree. But, it’s more than a court created fiat. There are also federal statutes enacted by congress into US Code in the 80’s which also guarantee a right to privacy now. Not to mention, overturning Roe v. Wade, on the privacy issue, might not be enough, considering that Casey v. Planned Parenthood went the way that it did based on the assumption that privacy is a part of constitutional law. Same with Texas v. Lawrence.

It is because of Texas v. Lawrence though, that even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, another case will have to be the litmus test for a newly enshrined right to privacy. Hopefully a better written establishment for the right of privacy of the US citizen will also allow for the overturn of the Alabama sex toy ban, quite possibly the most painfully STUPID enforced law on the books in the entire country.

As for your comments on Prop. 8, I will roll my eyes at you. You can make a very good case for calling denial of gay marriage a civil rights issue, and you can make an airtight case for saying that it’s an issue of contractual law and nothing more. No matter what, we live in a secular country, and you cannot make a single secular argument that makes any sense against gay marriage.

Sure, in California, the case is a little different because of the domestic partnership laws that are already in place, so I’m slightly more inclined to agree with you, but not by much.

1) Derek: “You’re seriously asking people who equate abortion to murder to pursue some kind of pragmatic withdrawal just because we can’t win all the marbles over night?”

I sure am. You’re advocating playing the biggest card in the pro-life deck FIRST. At which point, where do you go from there? You’re left with the entire east and west coasts and the most populous states in the midwest remaining pro-choice states, as well as all but the reddest of the red states.

Now, I have heard the theory that more abortions happen in red states than in blue states. If that’s true, then this will get much more interesting. But you can bet that if that is the case, you’re going to see a lot of people screaming pro-life everywhere BUT the voting booth and a whole bunch of faux-confused looking people in the pews the Sunday after the vote.

So, yeah, better to pick and whittle away at Roe v. Wade than to attempt a straight up overturning of it.

You know, I’m beginning to understand something that never made sense to me in school – that is, how politicians in an earlier age decided that a pragmatic response to slavery was to reach a compromise whereby people with black skin could be designated a 3/5ths person – because we have exactly this same thinking today, within the evangelical community.

Paul, Your statement is accurate, but herein lies the misconception by many on this issue. There is NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY in the US Constitution. This is a court created fiat and that is why this issue will not go away.

I do agree with you that this election will not be decided on this issue. However, Christians must stand on this issue over and against all others. That was the point of the fictitious article to begin with.

Obama is a radical abortionist; his record cannot be refuted. While McCain is, in my opinion, pathetic on embryonic research, he is not the vicious abortionist Obama is.

As far what the states would do should Roe be repealed, it is anybody’s guess. Prop 8 in California will be a good barometer for how a liberal state feels about court imposed beliefs. Maybe California has moved more radical in the last couple of years, but it took a judicial fiat to bring Prop 8 to a vote. The people had already previously spoken.

Additionally, while you or I couldn’t give a sure prognostication on what would happen to the abortion numbers in the event of RvW being repealed, my hedge would be solidly in the camp that it would significantly reduce the numbers. Which would begin to return the idea that children are a gift, not a disease.

And, though I know that you will vainly not cast your vote for Obama, this isn’t a pro-choice supporter. This is a rabid pro-abortion candidate. At least that’s what his rhetoric would indicate.