Even now, supporters of Obama are running ads which picture “back alley butcher” shops where women will be forced to go for abortions if anything were to happen to the Roe v. Wade decision. The truth, however, is that back-alley butcher shops would be tame compared to the death unleashed on us by Roe v. Wade. This Fox News story is but one of many demonstrating the diminished value of human life in our culture after Roe. In the story, an unwanted baby is thrown out with the trash. (Haven’t we learned that every child should be a wanted child?)
Carolyn Garago writes about the fallacious argument that abortion prevents child abuse since it, supposedly, will make sure that every child is a wanted child. Garago says,
“Aside from the fact that killing someone because they might be abused isn’t very logical, child abuse has increased since the legalization of abortion. The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect indicates that the prevalence of child abuse is increasing, and the increases are “significant.” From 1986 to 1993, the incidence of physical abuse rose 42% (97% under the revised Endangerment Standard), physical neglect rose 102% (163% E.S.), sexual abuse rose 83% (125% E.S.) and emotional neglect rose 333% (188% E.S.).”
You can read the entire article here, but the point is well-taken. Abortion has not decreased child abuse. Given the fact that child abuse has increased fifty-fold since the Roe decision, one might argue that abortion has contributed to child abuse, as a result of its clear message that inconvenient people ought to never have been born in the first place.
Gregory C. Cochran 
What’s ironic is the fact that, if one were to defend abortion based on the “likely” negative outcome of the child’s birth – i.e. abuse, poverty, isolation, shame, crime – Obama as a half Black child of single White mother of supposedly very limited financial means in 1961 America would have been a prime candidate for the procedure.
LOL
LikeLike
Pastor Greg,
Thanks for continuing to harp on this issue. I think you’re right: we as evangelicals have a great opportunity, an “open window” as Schaeffer put it, to push back against the culture in this election. I know some evangelicals (in our church, for example) who would never vote for Obama, but who are also leery of voting for McCain for various reasons and are considering alternatives such as Ron Paul. What might you say to such a voter? Can you envision a time when voting for a third party candidate will be the only option left for evangelicals? Do you think third parties can work in a representative democracy such as ours? How close do you think we might be to having to pursue such an alternative? Big questions, I know, but that’s why you’re the doc!
LikeLike
The short answer to the question is that I think we will always have a predominately two party system. If you trace back the conservativism driving the Republican Party and the liberalism driving the Democratic Party, you will find Christian roots in both places. Neither party, obviously, has exclusive claims to the gospel. The gospel challenges each party in different ways. As for a third party system, I suppose at some point a third party might arise and take over one of the other two (still leaving a two party system). Somehow, I doubt it. The question of democracy and the answer of republicanism both seem to fit together like a hand in a glove. I tend to think we would disintegrate into various independent states before we would move away from a two party system. As far as this election is concerned, it is certain there will be no third party winner. Thus, it seems to me, there are only two choices in general, and, in particular, only one choice for those who are pro-life.
LikeLike