In his blog entry today, Jim Wallis finally comes clean and admits what many have long suspected: he is now offically pro-choice on abortion, which means that he supports legalized private killing - so far only in the case of abortion. He writes:
"I support the president’s call for a new dialogue on the best ways to achieve abortion reduction while retaining his position on choice." For the whole post, see: http://www.sojo.net/blog/godspolitics/?p=5627
I suppose he may try to wiggle out of the implications of his statement here and claim that he supports the president, but not legalized abortion, but that kind of distinction simply does not hold up. You would never catch him saying he supports John McCain but not McCain's position on the war. Any such twisting of the obvious truth is simply not credible.
Ironically, this story appears on the day Obama frees up US government funding for programs that push abortion on the poor of the third world. So all this talk about "justice" and "mercy" and "care for the poor" really means: "If you are too poor (unlike us rich Westerners) then you should kill your children." Somehow, I would have thought that real, biblical compassion would not drive mothers to choose between food and shelter, on the one hand, and killing their children, on the other. But perhaps I misunderstand what Sojourners means by compassion.
As for "abortion reduction," does Jim Wallis only care about abortion reduction in America? The implications of Obama's decision to fund abortion-pushing programs in the Third World will undoubtedly have the effect of pushing up numbers of abortions there. Do third world children count? Do they each perhaps count as 2/3 of a Western fetus? With a single stroke of the pen, Obama has just pulled the rug out from under all the froth and fuss about "abortion reduction," something the Democratic Party platform never endorsed and something to which Obama is not really committed. "Abortion reduction" is nothing more than the fevered imagination of Wallis and co. working overtime trying to manufacture reasons (well, excuses) to support the culture of death candidate. If he ever actually comes up with a candidate who is really committed to abortion reduction, I'll be open to consider him or her. In the last election, however, it was the other guy who was actually in favor of abortion reduction.
Jim Wallis has been a Democrat and an Obama supporter for some time now and it is good to see the pretence dropped and the truth out there in front of everyone. He is pro-choice on abortion' I am not. I am anti-choice on abortion, just as I am anti-choice on murder and rape. Choice does not make intrinsically evil acts any less evil. I don't believe a society can long survive making the killing of the young, the disabled and the elderly a matter of private choice. This is an attack on the dignity of human life and the God in whose image we are all created.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Craig:
Thanks for this. I have suspected for some time what you say in this post. I will be posting something to the same effect on my blog early next week.
Please keep up the prophetic work.
I think you've completely misrepresented Jim Wallis on this one. I was shocked to read your headline and frankly I think shock and fruitless argument is all you are trying to achieve with this post.
Jim Wallis in no way makes any statement about his own stance on abortion and merely indicates his favor at Obama's statement that he wishes to reduce abortions. If a pro-choice person saying that he wishes to reduce abortions is not a positive statement that is worth supporting then I think you are truly missing the progress that is being made.
Of course your last caveat reveals that you are insecure enough about your post that you believe Jim Wallis can defend himself from your allegation by saying he is supporting Obama. That is because that is exactly what he is doing and your sensationalism is misinformed.
Read Wallis' own words carefully again, Phillip, and note the last 5words of the sentence.
"I support the president’s call for a new dialogue on the best ways to achieve abortion reduction while retaining his position on choice."
Wallis did not need to add the last 5 words if all he was talking about was abortion reduction. He could have said: ". . . although I wish he would change his pro-choice position."
Wallis is an Obama supporter. Obama supports abortion. The logic has been there all along. I just haven't seen Wallis come right out with it before. Wallis was pretty strong that you can't say you are against the Iraq war and vote Republican. It seems the logic of being an Obama supporter has dawned on him.
I respect his new-found honesty because I always thought it was dishonest to give his supporters the mistaken impression that he was going to be working behind the scenes to convert Obama to a pro-life position.
I disagree that those five words consititute Jim Wallis clearly stating his position on Abortion and his attitude to the President. As I stated before I think he is supporting a presidential statement that he wishes to reduce Abortion. If anything I think he's emphasizing that somebody who supports pro-choice as a final resort may still be pro-life in every other respect in terms of prevention.
I think ultimately it's a weak position from which to extrapolate your whole argument and a clearer statement from him or a dialogue between the two of you would provide a firmer basis for such a polarised accusation. As it stands while you may have questions as the extent of his ability to compromise his pro-life position, to state that he has "officially declared himself pro-choice" his unfair.
Phillip,
You write:
"If anything I think he's emphasizing that somebody who supports pro-choice as a final resort may still be pro-life in every other respect in terms of prevention."
I think this statement is muddled and sadly incoherent. This is obviously your interpretation read into Wallis' statement. He says nothing about final resort.
But the main problem is that one cannot be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. One cannot be pro-legalized abortion and anti-legalized abortion simultaneously. To allow individuals the legal right to kill others by their own choice is to make a determination that the human life being killed is not worthy of protection in law as is other human life. There is no way to straddle this fence. It does not matter how much fancy rhetoric you muster; either you allow murder or you forbid it. There is no middle ground for the one being murdered.
We might as well face the fact that "abortion reduction" language, as it is currently being employed by Wallis and co. is merely a rhetorical strategy designed by Democratic supporters to make it easier for people who know better to move to a pro-abortion position while overcoming the objections of their own consciences by sophistry and slogans that, in the end, mean nothing.
If Obama really was in favor of reducing abortion, would he be on record as supporting expanded public funding for abortion? Would he be on record as wanting to remove all state laws involving waiting periods, counselling, parental notification etc. (the effect of FOCA)? Would he be acting as if "choice" was a good thing in and of itself, even when it is a choice to kill? His policies will increase the number of abortions and we should pay attention to his policies, not his rhetoric, unless we actually want to be taken in.
Wallis has supported Obama without qualification on this matter. Even if the number of abortions does go down, Wallis is now on record as supporting "choice" and that has been the crux of the matter all along. There should be no choice to kill.
Post a Comment