What if Democrats Were Pro-Life?

For many evangelicals, abortion remains the central issue in our society. And we vote accordingly. Many of us voted for Bush mainly because of his pro-life stance. The Republican Party did a masterful job of claiming the pro-life issue, and Christians responded in kind.

What would happen if Democrats changed their tune on abortion? A group called Democrats for Life claims that if the Democratic Party altered its pro-abortion rights stance, it would help Democrats win future elections. Kristin Day, Executive Director of Democrats for Life said, "I think we really need to look at our strong pro-abortion stance and really come out and say that we want to truly make abortion rare."

But Jenny Backus, a spokeswoman at the Democratic National Committee has said Day is out of touch with the party's position: "We're proudly pro-choice. It doesn't mean you're for or against abortion. It means that you believe people should have the choice."

But the anti-abortion Democrats say that it comes down to two choices — Democrats either have to be more tolerant of anti-abortion Democrats or they have to accept more Republican victories in future elections.

I find it very interesting that the new Senate Minority Leader for the Democratic Party, Harry Reid, has voted mostly pro-life!

For more from the "donkey's mouth" on this, read this editorial by Kristen Day published in National Review:
A Pro-Choice Party No More:
If every vote counts, why does the Democratic party ignore pro-life Democrats?


Byron said...

This'll probably rumple yer feathers, Bob, but it seems to me that this post suggests that positions on subjects can be chosen almost at random in an attempt to win elections. Now, we've been around the barn a few times on the fact that Christians ought not dismiss some of the concerns that Dems raise, the fact that Republicans miss the mark here and there, and all of that. Still, the fact remains that, with some variations/exceptions, you see two different worldviews underlying the philosophy of the two political parties. BY AND LARGE, the Republican party acts in keeping with a core belief that man is a created, rather than chance-evolved, being, who has a sin nature. I'm not suggesting that the theology of the Republicans is correct at all points; I'm saying that the core philosophy of Republicanism--limited government, strong defense, respect for life, accountability for one's actions, "if a man won't work, neither shall he eat"; all of these and more are philosophically in line with the core worldview.

The core worldview of the Democrat party is secular. That doesn't mean that Democrats are unconcerned about people; it just means that the solutions they offer are not grounded in the same philosophical base. Darwinism is at the core of Democrat philosophy, and a pro-choice stance is consistent with Darwinism and inconsistent with creation.

I grant that I'm oversimplifying by a good bit, but I believe that I could demonstrate this in greater detail if called upon (don't call upon me; I haven't the time right now!). The reason Democrats will not change from their pro-choice position is that it is in keeping with their core beliefs, and if they were to change, it would be a la Kerry and Algore and the like--obvious pandering to get votes, seen through by many voters.

I've probably opened a huge can of worms. I think I'll end by going back to our ongoing discussion with a comment that might clarify what I think about your concerns on issues that you believe aren't typically on the "values voters'" radar screen: it seems to me that there is value in admitting "into play" the SUBJECTS that Democrats/liberals want to talk about, even tweaking/changing our position now and again when something raised by these involve issues we really haven't been thinking strongly about. I think that's valuable. What I don't see as valuable is adopting the party line of the Democrats on these issues. Sometimes, I'm saying, they raise valuable issues, but rarely, it seems to me, do they come up with the right solutions...

Bob Robinson said...

Thanks Byron. Your post is very enlightening.

I realize that you had to oversimplify in your answer. And that there ARE indeed plenty of examples of the secular worldview within the Democratic ranks.

What this post is intended to show is that there are Democrats who do not possess the worldview of national Democratic party leadership. They are vying for a voice. There have been plenty of Democrats who are remarkable examples of the Christian worldview, and we do everyone a disservice by lumping all of them into the "secularist" category.

I also submit that a great amount of the Republican leadership are secular in their worldview as well. They believe in a "social darwinism" of survival of the economical fittest. And since they are on the top of society's economic food chain, they fight tooth and nail against anything that might change that.

My point is as it has always been: God is not a Republican or a Democrat. Neither party has the corner on religious piety, for both have their fallen ideas about the world (and their selfish ways of fighting for supremecy).

A Christian need to rise above party politics and FIRST define what are the moral issues (not based on the "talking points" restated again and again by the party pundits), THEN decide what we must do to cooperate with Christ to bring His Kingdom Values into that moral issue. Sometimes it will entail who we vote for, sometimes it will entail pushing a political party to redefine what they are calling the important issues and call them out when their policies are contrary to Christ's Kingdom Values.

Abortion is the number one issue among evangelical Christians, so it struck me as a real interesting twist if indeed the Democrats were to change their platform on this. I suspect many Christians would then feel the freedom to again consider a Democrat for office.

Byron said...

I doubt it. I, for one, would not, because I see so many other evidences of a secularist worldview pervading the Democrat Party. Yes, there are plenty of secularist, survival-of-the-fittest types within the Republican Party as well, but take the issue of economics as an example, since that's where a lot of the Republican social Darwinists would focus. Democrat Party policy is to take from the haves and redistribute that wealth, unearned, to the have-nots, who often (of course not always) are impoverished because of their own vices. Envy is enshrined as a social good, rather than the evil that the Bible says it is. The "rich" are great targets because they have the money--never mind how they made it--and because the Democrat Party has a secular worldview, based upon understanding man as a basically good being, rather than a sinner, hey, we can cure social ills if we just give people more money. That's oversimplification, of course, but I think it's on the right track.

The Republican position is to ensure as much economic freedom as possible for the individual; Republicans are agnostic when it comes to what that individual should actually DO with that money. Properly, they leave that to churches, etc. to instruct people regarding benevolence. Interestingly, the 80's, the Reagan era, long ridiculed by the media as a decade of greed, was a decade of unparalleled generosity. As the oppressive tax code was relaxed, people were free to keep more of their money. Sure, some of the greedy lavished it on themselves, but many others shared the wealth--with people whom they saw as worthy recipients, not lazy bums.

There are a lot of ways this discussion can go; it's fun having it, though. But I maintain that, while of course there are exceptions--and I'm not a Republican, by the way--it is no accident that the Democrat Party attracts an ecletic assortment of liberals, while conservatives are generally Republicans. Liberals see the world through one lens, and conservatives see it through a different one diametrically opposed.