Aug
13

Christians Needle Shuler

By

theocracy-nowcsm.pngRep. Shuler billed himself as unequivocally “pro-life” during his campaign. While he didn’t really focus on any specifics, Shuler’s rhetoric on the subject was far from inflammatory. A recent interview with Christianity Today illustrates Shuler’s approach to the issue:

“What is the best way to handle abortion politically?

I’m pro-life. We can talk about how we’re going to vote and what we’re going to do, and so many people are activists. Far too often it’s about Democrats and Republicans and their views on that issue. We need to spend more time as Christians being part of the solution to make sure that women know there’s someone here for you financially, there’s someone here who will support you, and someone telling you they love you.

What legal measures do you support to reduce the number of abortions?

I don’t think it’s as much about legal measures. Our communities have to do better. Our churches have to do better. I think that’s part of growing up in a community like I did. It was a small, very [tightly] knit group, and you knew people in your community and your church whom you could lean on and [who] would help you make these difficult decisions. Everyone wants to talk to us about legislation.”

As I read it, Shuler wants society, not government, to address the complex problem of unwanted pregnancies. Since no one is pro-abortion, only pro-choice, it’s easy to find comfort and inspiration in Shuler’s words. We can all work together to support people and educate people to minimize the number of abortions without having to legislate anything.

Christianity Today isn’t going to let it slide that easily,

“Rep. Shuler seems to think he was elected to be a pastor and not a legislator. We don’t need more sentiments and promises, but more actions. It’s time for some pro-life deeds to back up the pro-life words, Democrats. You received a good number of evangelical votes in the last election, which helped you to regain control of Congress. Don’t presume those votes are now yours forever.”

Anti-choice advocates are going to vote for Heath under any circumstances short of a Reverse Romney. But the folks at Christianity Today don’t just want pro-life Congressman, they want Roe v. Wade overturned. Anyone not working towards overturning the law of the land just isn’t Christian enough.

Comments

  1. Drama Queen says:

    I love you dearly, Screwy, but I did a post on this Friday.

    But we do need to discuss the issues in depth. All true conservatives face this dilemma. How can they be conservative about limitations of legal intrusions (a truly conservative stance I can respect) while that very viewpoint endangers their chances of receiving the votes of religious “conservatives.”

  2. Jerimee says:

    I can respect a belief system that is ideologically consistent. It sounds like Shuler understands that life extends beyond delivery. He should spread the word.

    I really don’t understand how the anti-choice crowd can stomach all these “family values” policians who would sooner praise Allah than allow government funds to be spent on pre or post natal healthcare.

    How can you force a woman to bare a child on the grounds of being pro-life, but then refuse that child food or health assistance the minute it is born?

    The theocracies of the dark ages did believe what is now a radical concept within the “religious” right: that people had a right to live regardless of income. I hope that concept experiences a revival.

  3. Gray Newman says:

    Screwy and Jerimee have it right: these people are not pro life, they are anti choice. I am pretty sure most of us are pro life, I don’t know too many people who are pro death (maybe Bush and his crowd).

  4. DQ – I knew that, then forgot it. Consider this an encore performance.

  5. Drama Queen says:

    It’s worth many discussions. We need to understand what’s going on.

    Did you see this http://patgobyebye.blogspot.com/2007/08/independent-bryan-greene-runs-for-10th.html” rel=”nofollow”>dude running in the 10th? Bryan Greene, endorsed by the Constitution Party.

    In his own words (and capitalizations) these are his proud stands on the issues (I can only hope he’ll suck some votes from Pat):

    • Recognize the Unborn Childs’ right to life and to deem that life begins from conception.
    • Illegalize abortion of any kind, because abortion for any reason is murder.
    • Ensure the individual’s right to keep and bear arms without unconstitutional governmental restrictions.
    • Enforce current border security laws and prevent the government from granting amnesty to illegal aliens.
    • Bring our troops home, and end the unconstitutionally declared war in Iraq.
    • Encourage the US to re-adopt a non-interventionalist foreign policy as the founders demanded.
    • Attempt to help lower, and eventually, entirely abolish the income, estate and gift taxes.
    • Preserve the US Citizens’ right to free speech and oppose all attempts to enact hate crime bills.
  6. Senator No says:

    Actually, the party of death would be you guys:

    “Public support for abortion-on-demand is dropping, while euthanasia and cloning have also become part of controversial debates. Political journalist Ramesh Ponnuru explains how these issues represent the creeping advance of the party of death – it wants to narrow the circle of human beings with a right to life by excluding the unborn, the seriously disabled – and maybe even infants. Ponnuru details how the party of death took over the Democratic party, and how it has corrupted the law, politics, and even the teaching of history.”

    http://www.amazon.com/Party-Death-Democrats-Courts-Disregard/dp/1596980044

    All facts aside, I think Shuler’s choice is logical. No matter what laws are passed, there will always be abortion. There will always be people who for their own personal reasons seek out abortion. We may as well continue to provide that option in a safe and legal environment so that women’s lives are not put at risk with back ally abortions. I concur that the federal government should not over reach and that society should be able to settle it’s own problems.

  7. Oh don’t even get me started on that party-of-death nonsense… Want to talk about reducing the discourse to a subhuman level…

  8. Drama Queen says:

    But, Screwy, did you note the Senator’s other comments?

    I think Shuler’s choice is logical. No matter what laws are passed, there will always be abortion. There will always be people who for their own personal reasons seek out abortion. We may as well continue to provide that option in a safe and legal environment so that women’s lives are not put at risk with back ally abortions. I concur that the federal government should not over reach and that society should be able to settle it’s own problems.

    Pretty darn reasonable for someone we met defending Pat, No?

  9. Senator No says:

    Screwy,

    I hope your skin didn’t go soft. I threw in the Party of Death comments to draw comparison to the absurdity of Gray Newman’s comments.

    Half the problem of abotion is the Roe v. Wade. I’m not saying repeal it, but it’s legal foundations are shaky; it was a quick jump in judicial logic and a large step in federal overreach.

    I honestly think the abortion battle would be best served by having an honest debate in Congress. Politicians are too frightened to really do this, but right now there’s a murky legal status that has never had the credibility of being debated in Congress.

    If Congress were debate this, I feel they would come to a conclusion that is not dissimilar to what we have now. Bans on late term abortions (I have trouble sympathizing with people who want abortions for non-health reasons past a certain point in the pregnancy), yet abortion would by and large remain legal.

    This would serve both movements, in that abortions legal status would be much more credible as pro-choicers could point to a bill that says they are allowed to do this. Pro lifers (anti-choice, as some call them) would have the satisfaction of a battle in the law making body that they have been looking for. My feelings are that abortion can be gruesome, and I hope I am never in a situation where someone I am involved with requires such a service, but their life should be protected in a clean and legal health center should an abortion be required. I feel many politicians on the right side of the aisle and libertarians would follow similar paths in a congressional debate.

    So, in a twisted way, I think Shuler is sort of wrong; legislation is needed. But it needs to be the “ultimate” legislation. I think tit for tat bans on certain forms of abortion just create a more bizarre legal picture. The only way abortion will ever truly be solved is when no one decides they want an abortion; and that day is not today.

  10. syntax says:

    TP: Little early for mixed metaphors, doncha think?

    And you misspelled “Democratic”. ::jab::

  11. Drama Queen says:

    TP: yeah, what exactly do you want with this argument making abortion illegal? Why would mothers (whose pregnancies could kill them) have to choose between a jail term (or at least criminal charges) and death? That makes no sense.