I know Christians (of various sorts) who do believe that abortion is wrong but have no wish to control other people’s lives, simply being content not to receive abortions themselves.

Of course, Obama will not get the extreme pro-life crowd to vote for him. They’re not his constituency and he should be able to win without them. Where he can get folks is the people who disagree with abortion but for whom that is not the top issue.

And Reagan got more people than conservatives to vote for him because he had the charisma to convince the folks who didn’t accept every single position for which he stood.

Obviously, a strongly pro-life individual isn’t going to vote for Obama if that is their deal breaker–and that’s fine and it’s great if their faith informs that position. You have no argument from me on that.

My real complaint is the notion that press often picks up on that all religious folks are monolithically conservative on social issues–that’s not true and it hinders the discussion more than dealing with fairly complex issues of faith and policy.

I stand humbly corrected. Perhaps Mr. Obama is faithfully adhering to his church’s teachings, and am I wrong to question his devoutness. My apologies to him and his family.

Nevertheless, I think what Allen meant was that to many Evangelicals, Obama’s rhetoric on abortion will be seen as “nice, but…” in light of their inability to reconcile their “truth” with Obama’s high ratings from a decidedly extreme pro-choice lobby. To that end, Obama’s rhetoric is a defense of his own party’s piety that is unlikely to win over many people who didn’t previously identify with them already.

Slightly off topic, but sort of to the point: I wouldn’t necessarily view this as “imposing” one religion over another. Individuals in a democracy are all equally entitled to their various opinions, and the way in which those opinions are informed neither enhances nor negates them. Even as a Catholic, whose faith informs my position on abortion, I can make arguements in favor of banning abortion that are not exclusive to my faith. That is what the pro-life movement should strive for.

This is simply false. And while I understand some people think this is true, the ignorance of Mike Allen saying it when many denominations don’t hold to that view is the problem. And that’s why Allen is a dolt. He gets on national tv and represents all Christians as holding a belief we do not all hold.

http://www.pcusa.org/ga216/news/backgrounder-abortion.htm

GA backgrounder: Abortion

by Evan Silverstein
Presbyterian News Service

Abortion is a perennial issue sure to generate impassioned debate at this year’s 216th General Assembly. Three presbyteries (district governing bodies) have submitted abortion-related resolutions to this year’s Assembly.

The topic has been on the Assembly agenda almost every year since 1983, when that year’s Assembly established the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s first basic policy on abortion, which supported a woman’s right to choose with virtually no reservations.

Over the years, pro-life Presbyterians have persuaded Assemblies to modify the church’s policy on several occasions. While the policy remains pro-choice, the church opposes abortion as a means of birth control and gender selection; affirms adoption as a preferable alternative in cases of unwanted children; and says the “intact dilation and extraction” procedure — commonly known as “partial-birth abortion” — is a “matter of grave moral concern.”

The policy holds that abortion should be the last resort in problem pregnancies. The denomination’s Board of Pensions has established a “relief of conscience” program, in which the Major Medical Plan dues paid by congregations conscientiously opposed to abortion are set apart so that they cannot be used to pay for abortions.

Last year’s 215th Assembly in Denver, CO, affirmed language stipulating four circumstances under which post-viability abortion can be an acceptable moral choice: “when necessary to save the life of the woman, to preserve the woman’s health in circumstances of a serious risk … to avoid fetal suffering as a result of untreatable life-threatening medical anomalies, and in cases of incest or rape.” The 2003 Assembly also added a new expression of concern for the unborn.

Beaver-Butler Presbytery in Pennsylvania and the Presbytery of Charlotte in North Carolina have submitted overtures calling on PC(USA) members to affirm the protection of urborn babies well enough developed to survive outside the womb. The Presbytery of Upper Ohio Valley is urging commissioners to declare that the 2002 and 2003 Assemblies “erred in supporting abortion, especially late term partial-birth abortion,” and that the Board of Pensions “errs in providing abortions” except in pregnancies that clearly endanger the life of the mother. It also asks that a pro-life position on abortion be codified in the church’s constitution.

Matters related to abortion will be considered in Assembly Committee 11 — Health Issues.

Remember, Planned Parenthood is an all-or-nothing interest group that believes females of any age should have unrestricted access to abortion whenever they want, and attacks anyone who doesn’t agree with them as “anti-woman.” Meanwhile, all denominations and sects of Christianity teach that the miracle of life begins at conception. As Allen suggestions, you cannot easily reconcile a 100% rating from the former with expressions of faith in the later.

I’ve always been troubled by politicians who claim to be against abortion personally but for the continued legalization of it. When I call myself a “person of faith,” I mean that I believe what my faith teaches me is the truth, not simply an opinion. Suggesting that ‘just because I think abortion is wrong doesn’t mean I should force that on everyone else through the law’ requires one to reject that their faith’s teaching are ‘the truth.’

Obviously, this raises a lot of questions. Does this mean that I am questioning whether or not Obama is truly a man of faith? Well, I suppose yes, yes it does. Does this mean that I would support a federal law mandating that everyone observe the Sabbath and criminalize adultery? No. Doesn’t that make me just a disingenuous in my expressions of faith? Perhaps. But I would submit to you that abortion is – quite literally – a matter of life and death, and thus is slightly more important. One thing I’ve come to learn about politics is that everyone – myself included – is, in some way and to some extent, a hypocrite…..it’s all a matter of degree. To me, Obama’s rejection of his faith’s espoused ‘truth’ about abortion is more troublesomely hypocritical.

Of course, respectable people of intellect, honor, and faith might disagree. But I wouldn’t call anyone a “dolt” if they did.

I’m not so sure. After all, Obama was a keynote speaker at the Democratic convention, so people have at least some idea of where he stands. Moreover, I keep thinking of Senator Paul Simon and his success in Illinois politics. People knew he took liberal positions. Nevertheless, a lot of moderates and even conservatives voted for him because they trusted him. They knew his general ideology; it didn’t matter.

I think that’s what’s happening here. No one thinks Obama is a conservative — he doesn’t run from his record. But he’s not knee-jerk about it. And I think what people project on him is that he will take their values — their hopes and dreams — into account when making policy, even if the specific policy position is one they oppose.

And I don’t think the voters are wrong. Obama has a vision for America and American politics that fits nicely into the idea most Americans have about our country.