Obama Is More Pro-Life Than Romney

This weekend, I’m going to do something I have never done before. I will travel to the neighboring “battleground state” of New Hampshire and knock on doors to get out the vote for President Obama.

My main reason is that I view him as more pro-life than Governor Romney.

To many people, being pro-life is synonymous with being against abortion. Those people are are fighting a battle that was lost years ago. If presidents Reagan and Bush could not overturn Roe vs. Wade during their 16 years in office, I’m ready to conclude that abortion will remain legal in the United States for the the next 8, regardless of who is President.

The real battle for life is the battle for accessible healthcare.

If people in my extended family had not had good preventive care, several of them would probably be dead by now. For example, thanks to regular check-ups, at least 2 cases of cancer  were caught in time to save lives. If those family members had had to wait until it was time to go to the emergency room, as many poor people do, they would have died. Being pro-life means saving those lives as well as saving the unborn.

Thanks to the Massachusetts system of universal insurance on which Obamacare is modeled (and from which Romney now distances himself), my immediate family was able to obtain much-needed help when I had no income — not because I was one of the 47% who would never take responsibility for their lives, but because I was an entrepreneur starting a business. Being pro-life means caring for people who have no income as well as those who are well-off.

In her early days, America was a land of small towns where people knew and cared for each other and where medical care was primitive and inexpensive. We have grown, and there are now large sections of our cities and rural areas where virtually everyone is poor. They simply don’t have the wherewithal to help each other, especially in light of the tremendous cost of modern medicine.

Thankfully, we have grown richer as well as larger. As a society, we can now afford to take care of each other on a larger scale. Private charities and churches can help, but a church will never be an intensive-care unit. To care for each other, we need everyone to pitch in. That’s one thing that modern government is uniquely equipped to organize, however imperfectly.

President Obama understands this. Now that Mr. Romney is no longer governor of Massachusetts, he seems to have forgotten it.

Those are the reasons I think President Obama is more pro-life than Governor Romney, and those are the reasons I will travel to New Hampshire this weekend.

I hope you will consider casting your vote to re-elect the President.

19 responses to “Obama Is More Pro-Life Than Romney

  1. I also think pro-life means not assassinating people (like 16 yo US citizens), and not drone striking multiple countries even after killing many innocent women and children. I also think pro-life means not indefinitely detaining folks without redress in the courts, and not torturing people in the STILL open Guantanamo. SO thanks for the pro-Obama pablum, but I’ll pass. A vote for Ron Paul, Jill Stein or Gary Johnson was the only PRO-LIFE vote that I saw in 2012. Everything else was partisan politics.

  2. Amen. Amen!
    But I do agree with theyellowdart. Even though President Obama was more pro-life than Romney, he wasn’t completely pro-life either. There really isn’t a pro-life party at all and even the people that yellowdart pointed out aren’t completely pro-life either with some opposing healthcare and care for the poor and elderly.
    We’ll just have to build another one. American’s Elect 2016!!!

    • Opposing government spending on healthcare or “care”? for poor and elderly or anyone else is not anti-life. Anti-life in gov’t is government killing or gov’t paying for killing or not prosecuting killers. Not spending(gov’t or otherwise) on healthcare is not killing anyone. Disease kills, injuries (not of malicious intent) kill, old age kills. There are none responsible for these aside from “nature” or the “fall of man” if you are so inclined. Those who wish to implement charity at the barrel of a gun are not pro-life! There is a consistent pro-life philosophy, and it is the philosophy of liberty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

      • >> Those who wish to implement charity at the barrel of a gun are not pro-life!

        I assume you refer to being taxed to support socialized medicine, on pain of imprisonment. And I suppose that if you try to avoid prison, the police will come after you with their guns. Fair enough.

        Do you support taxation for defense against criminals (i.e., for a police force)?

        If so, how does taxation for common defense against criminals differ from taxation for common defense against viruses (i.e., for healthcare)?

        • If the gov’t were only funding courts and police that were only involved in prosecution of transgressors of others’ liberty, a small excise tax could cover it. Sales taxes on non-ingested items could be considered voluntary in that choosing not to purchase something you could avoid the tax. —– And if you want to go a step further, there is really no reason why policing could not be done on a volunteer basis as many fire departments are run. Donations could supplement the equipment/labor costs. Many folks would be happy to chip in especially those in the community with the most to lose. This is how healthcare was delivered to the poor before gov’t inserted itself into the mix. Gov’t spending income tax money (and extra printed money) on healthcare drives up the cost forcing more and more people into the gov’t system – same with education and housing until almost everyone is forced to go thru gov’t for such things. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy empowering the few against the many. Sic Semper Tyrannis

      • Okay. Simmer down yellowdart. No one said it was anti-life. But if one has the ability to prevent a death and does not they participate in the death.

        Barrel of what gun? Taxes?

        I’ve heard Ron Paul speak very well about having a truly consistent ethic of life, even to the tune of changing some minds in an extremely liberal college campus. But nobody is 100% right. You have to know that.

        • No, I am not responsible for the planet, or a stranger’s healthcare on the other side of the American continent, or a meal for a poor starving African, or to clean up God’s/Nature’s handiwork in Japan or Haiti.

          I AM my brother’s keeper tho, and my neighbor, my friend, even my enemy, but NOT those far outside my immediate reach. It is arrogant to believe you can help those you don’t know. The choice was the good Samaritan’s to associate with the man beaten up in the ditch. Obedience to his social context would have restricted him from acting on the outsider’s behalf. He disregarded that social pressure and chose freely to help one he was near. Our aim should be to be near more people right in our on community. Government especially the more centralized naturally degrades that social situation by institutionalizing poverty, stupidity and sickness in welfare, schools, and gov’t run healthcare.

          Answers to your other questions:
          - You are right; nobody is 100% right. That is all the more reason we need to give each other grace to live our lives even if the other is doing things you disagree with so long as they are not impinging on your ability to live your life as you feel is best.
          - Income, Death, Capital Gains Taxes, etc are a gun to the head and anathema to property rights.
          - Ron Paul is only one of many to speak truth on the presidential scene recently. I would have been more comfortable with Dennis Kucinich, Gary Johnson, Mike Gravel, Ron Paul, or Jill Stein as President than Bush/McCain/Romney/Obama. Obama was Bush’s third term… and now fourth, ugh. We can save a trillion dollars a year in foreign policy alone by stopping all the killing of the Nobel Prize winning murderer.

  3. And also, people aren’t willing enough to chip in or we would put the government out of business. We wouldn’t have need of them. http://sacredstruggler.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/recommended-antibiotic-socialism/

  4. Gov’t crowds out the charitable market. People chipped in plenty before big gov’t came in.

    • I can see how you show grace to those who disagree with you *rolls eyes*

      It’s a real shame that you think you can’t make a difference in someone’s situation from far away, and that you feel you have no responsible to help others. I feel that you have cut Christ’s message out in many ways. But that is just my opinion.

      We cannot worship God and money.

      And I am making a difference in people’s lives far away. It’s not arrogant to think that you can. I’m really not even sure how you wold possibly come to that conclusion. Perhaps if you expanded your horizons, maybe too a humanitarian or missions trip somewhere else. Or if you had to actually something. Both of which I have done. But that’s not everyone’s calling. I understand that. Anyway, Thanks for being so gracious as to allow me to agree with you. I’ve learned my lesson. Ph.

      • *if you actually had to need something. Typo

      • “It’s a real shame that you think you can’t make a difference in someone’s situation from far away”

        I don’t think I can’t make a difference from far away. I actually have supported Indian orphanages for more than 20 years. But I help those I know. I know those running it. They have been guests in my home. I have friends and family who have visited the orphanages in India.

        “and that you feel you have no responsible to help others. ”

        Did you miss the entire “I AM my brother’s keeper” part of my last post?

        “I feel that you have cut Christ’s message out in many ways. ”

        I feel that you have added to it. Christ didn’t rally the masses to put political pressure on Rome or Herod to add healthcare for the citizens or more bread and circuses for the poor. He didn’t call on the Jewish establishment to setup leprosy clinics and orphanages. He asked his disciples to help people, and it is critical that these things are done personally.

        I am all for helping people. I personally give of my time, talent, and treasure to all kinds of very worthy causes. I have given up to 25% of my gross income to charity some years. But what I feel is very worthy may not be what another feels is worthy. They may have a different opinion about what causes they should support. And they should be free do that NOT hamstrung by a centralized gov’t dictating to every one what the causes will be (and do it in an incredibly inefficient manner). The fact that I do not agree with forced charity by the gov’t does not mean that I am anti-charity. This is either an intellectually bankrupt assumption or really disingenuous in discussion on this topic. That is like saying I’m for alcoholic’s abusing their children because I am not for prohibition. This is a poisonous context in which to have a discussion.

        I grew up very poor. I am the son, grandson, and nephew of laid off steel mill workers who weren’t the only ones who couldn’t find work in a city full of unemployed. We had no Christmas many years, but we were helped out by folks who had made it to retirement in the steel business. So I was volunteering last night with Toys for Tots in my town and give them money because they do essentially what was done for me when I was a kid and my parents had no resources for Christmas dinner let alone presents. I give money and volunteer with some folks that really spend time with teens mentoring them and giving them alternatives to more destructive endeavors. I give money to orphanages like I mentioned. I also give to those I see in need in my daily life. And I would have more to give if 50% of what I earn was not confiscated for killing kids in Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya…, confusing children in our public schools, and putting teens in prison for smoking pot. It is madness!

  5. “It is arrogant to believe you can help those you don’t know. ” Then why say that?

    And I totally agree. However, I just think about it differently. I think people’s giving diminished and we need to support the people who lose until we can get everyone else doing what you and I are doing. I think you would understand what I was saying better if you read that post I linked to. We both want the same things we just have different ways of getting about to it. Means difference instead of ends difference.

    And I 100% Agree with you about war. I don’t want to pay for it. And I don’t want to pay for abortions either. That’s why I rooted for Ron Paul, but didn’t vote for Romney. Sadly, we are going to have to pay for things with taxes that we don’t want to. We just get to choose (kind of) what we’d rather pay for. I feel that no president, republican or democrat or other is going to overthrow abortion. It’s not going to happen, so I vote weighing how many lives I think can be saved in other ways. Honestly, I don’t know why you were so upset with my comments because I said I agree with you, just not you complete first statement. We both want the same things to happen.
    Seriously, I would love your thoughts on the post. I know you won’t 100% agree, but that’s where I am coming from.

    http://sacredstruggler.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/recommended-antibiotic-socialism/

    • I have read the article referenced.

      Socialism is not bad. In fact Socialism is how disciples of Christ are called to live – personally – relationally. And I have striven to live this way in several spurts and starts… sometimes doing better, sometimes not as well. Having others live with us many times–sharing vehicles, resources, food etc. We have had other families stay with us, single folks, relatives, young people,etc.

      However, Impersonal Socialism (Centralized Gov’t) is a totally different philosophy. This philosophy once embarked upon will envelop everything. There is no fine line to walk – only how far along the path a country is. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The US gov’t started on this path during the Progressive Era and has gotten progressively more Socialist which will eventually be all encompassing banishing all wealth and productive capacity. Everyone will be poor all together except those running the gov’t. This is just a fact of life (and every socialist country in history). It is a ploy by the totalitarians to rule all of life. It is not Christlike. It is driven by pride more than greed really. They want to remake the world in their image, and most of all they want to control. They may even espouse good intentions like taking care of the poor needy, and provide healthcare etc… as if they are God. They are peddling ensurance. I know ensurance is not a word. But it is exactly what these supposed do-gooders are peddling. They are saying they will ensure good outcomes and longer healthier life. They are snake oil salesmen. None can ensure but God.

      I believe Jesus is the only legitimate King, and His Kingdom the only legitimate principality or power. The Kingdom of Heaven is a realm rather than a place, and those who owe all allegiance to the King are the subjects of His Kingdom where ever they exist geographically. They are NOT loyal to the kingdoms of this world. As long as attention is divided between earthly gov’ts and the true Kingdom, we will flounder. All eyes must shift to Christ – voluntarily of course. That is the job of a follower as I see it – draw attention away from the earthly kingdoms and to the Way. Jesus taught how to be loving, charitable, etc. It always occurred in every circumstance to be personal and relational. Once the scale of an organization exceeds relationship, it is the enemy of true charity. This goes for corporations, unions, governments, even non-profit charities, and especially churches. Relational scale is the foundational condition for transmission of the gospel virus.

      “Honestly, I don’t know why you were so upset with my comments ”
      I was not upset. This is just me having a conversation :)

      • I think man is just simply inclined to greed. No matter what system of gov’t we have we’ll end up being ruled by those with money. In fact, in my opinion, we are right now. That’s the way everything works with us, we want more and more and since there isn’t a limitless supply, we have to take it from others who are left with nothing.

        I understand what you’re saying relationally. It’s the only way to have true charity. I just think that the sufferers shouldn’t have to pay for our moral deficit. They do, but I don’t want them to.

        Honestly, so much would be fixed if we could revert back to when insurance companies were non-profit. They are greedy, non-relational, and take a major part in ruling our gov’t with money. When will someone purpose that??

        That’s really the whole problem. We get degrees so we can skip into the head of organizations and corporations and so when we look at budgets instead of seeing lives, we see numbers. Same with gov’t. It sad really.

        Gotcha!

        • Just read some other posts from your blog. I think we have a whole lot in common as far as our faith is concerned. The institutional church has many issues that you rightly poke at :)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s