Replies

I am working to change one heart and one mind at a time, both through the pulpit and the local Crisis Pregnancy Center. You win some and you lose some.

How will neglecting the government/political policies help personal "one person at a time" efforts?

If the Supreme Court had not "invented" a right to abortion, there would not be 40,000,000 babies killed at their mother's hands with the help of greedy abortionists.

Some would have gotten illegal abortions, but not 40 million.

Arnold Schwarzenegger would do nothing to prevent the ongoing slaughter on the unborn, only exacerbate the problem (dead babies) by ignoring it. He would probably further worsen the problem by appointing pro-killing judges.

Major wars are not usually won on one front, but many.

If all were Christian in America, following the commands to "love God" and "love your neighbor as yourself", there would be no need for domestic police, justice departments, or judges. It is incredibly simple. But in the interim, what are we to do? And historically, when has this happened (no need for government)?

If the abolition of slavery (and the other issues involved in the Civil War era) took bloodshed, what do you think the abolition of legalized abortion in this country will take?

By the way, the casualty count in the Abortion War is already over 60 times as many killed in the Civil War. The government started and perpetuated this legalized personal bloodshed that takes place on a daily basis in America.

Or don't dead babies count as bloodshed?

How will neglecting the government/political policies help personal "one person at a time" efforts?

These two things are not necessarily related. And casting a vote based on one issue is certainly everyone's right. However, en masse such voting behavior tends to relegate those who hold that single position to irrelevancy. There are not enough people who vote solely on the abortion to have an impact in California elections. So the "harmless as a dove, wiley as a serpent" postion would be to take small political gains wherever one might achieve them -- even if those gains are on other issues -- in order to slowly advance your cause through the election of people who will at least listen to you, even if it is on other issues.

Arnold Schwarzenegger would do nothing to prevent the ongoing slaughter on the unborn.

Nope. And neither have Reagan, Bush or Bush II. Can't be done that way. There is no one who can be elected who will appoint such judges in California. And if one ever did manage that, you'd simply get in California what we have in Washington: An initiative passed by over 70% positive vote that puts abortion-on-demand (and fully funded by the state) in our state Constitution as an inalienable right.

But in the interim, what are we to do?

Fight guerilla warfare. Take small wins. Deny offices to those who are furthest from you...or those who will never count as allies people you support. If Arnold supports Bush, as he says he does, can you not see an opening there, a possibility, that impact can be made?

what do you think the abolition of legalized abortion in this country will take?

Honestly, I don't know. I don't see it within the realm of possibility, really. The best I can see happening...and we're a long way from this...is to see Roe v. Wade over-turned and the whole issue tossed back to the states -- where abortion law would vary state by state with no Federal input. Then many states, where majorities do exist, could ban abortion in all but extreme circumstance. However, many states, like California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Maryland, Vermont etc. etc. would still have state laws authorizing abortion-on-demand.

I think that is the absolute best that can be achieved on this issue, short of a complete dismemberment of the country and Balkanization of North America (in which case, abortion-on-demand would still be the law of the land in those areas that support it. On this earth, you cannot force people to accept things they will not accept.