Commentary

How hard did the Republicans fight to stop taxpayer-funding of abortions?

Leave a comment

Story from K-Lo at National Review.

Excerpt:

If one of those groups has a spare defender-of-life award lying around, they ought to give it to the man who could be the next speaker of the House of Representatives, House minority leader Rep. John Boehner (R., Ohio).

[…]In a speech to a conservative audience this winter, Boehner insisted that Republicans in the House wouldn’t “bend on . . . the issue of the sanctity of life.” He explained: “In November, Republican lawmakers joined with some Democrat lawmakers to stop them from using any federal taxpayer funds from being used to provide for abortions in America. . . . We got some flak for working with the other side.”

That’s what you call principled leadership. Even though he hated the bill, if it was going to pass, he wanted taxpayer funding of abortion out of it. After the Stupak language was included in the House bill that passed last year, Boehner went to the House floor three times and asked Democratic chairmen Charlie Rangel, Henry Waxman, and George Miller to pledge to support the Stupak language come time for conference negotiations with the Senate. Because abortion was a priority of theirs, they declined. (Too bad that Stupak, wanting the bill to pass, didn’t feel as strongly about the sanctity of the unborn when his moment for leadership arrived.) Recalling what went down late last year, Boehner said: “When it comes to protecting the unborn, we’ll take the votes wherever we can get them. . . . We did the right thing for the right reasons. And we’re showing . . . the American people that there’s a clear difference between the two parties.”

[…]Instead of complaining that Republicans don’t talk more about the issue, those who believe that the sanctity of unborn life is a central human-rights issue of our day should thank John Boehner. He has a zero rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, an arm of the abortion industry, and a 100 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee. In the face of so many powerful figures and influences arrayed against Boehner and a culture of life, it’s the right thing to do.

For the House Republicans, abortion was not a side-issue. Abortion was the main issue. They did everything they could to stop the funding of abortions by pro-life taxpayers. The Republicans just didn’t have enough people in the House and the Senate to stand against the pro-abortion Democrats. All the major pro-life leaders in the House, Trent Franks, Michele Bachmann, Paul Ryan, etc. are all Republicans.

You can listen to this podcast in which Scott Klusendorf explains why he will take time out from pro-life work from now on to get more and more Republicans elected. The way to slow down and reverse the abortion tide is by packing the House and Senate with Republicans.

Videos

William Lane Craig explains why God permits evil and suffering

17 Comments

The first video is from his debate with Dr. Bruce Russell at West Point. Dr. Russell asks why an all-powerful, all-good, all-loving God would allow his creatures to suffer. Dr. Craig responds to the argument in the two clips below.

Part 1:

This is one my favorite debates. You can buy it here.

And here’s a clip from the re-match with Austin Dacey.

Part 2:

Craig says something like this in the first clip: (paraphrase)

It is not God’s purpose to create a comfortable environment for His human pets.  On the Christian view, we are not God’s pets.  And the purpose of life is not happiness, as such, but rather the knowledge of God and His salvation––which will ultimately bring true happiness.  But many evils occur in life which are utterly pointless with respect to producing human happiness.  But they may not be pointless with respect to producing a deeper knowledge of God.

I have to confess that the argument from evil and suffering lost all force for me when I began to think of it as the argument from self-centered hedonism, or “the argument from whining”. We don’t have a right to happiness in this life. That’s not the point of life. I think that God expects us to rise above that sort of selfish pleasure-seeking and to look to his interests – defending his reputation, telling people the truth about him, and achieving his goals. And it doesn’t matter if it makes us unpopular or causes us to suffer. We have to do the right thing, and there are no promises. Sometimes you will do everything right that God wants you to do, and you may still face some kickback. And it happened to Jesus.

When I look at Jesus I do not see a man trying to make himself happy in his own way. I do not see a man who views his relationship with God as a means of achieving happiness in this life. I see a man who thinks that his service to God may cost him everything, including his own life. The normal Christian life is a life of self-denial and suffering. We ought to do what is necessary (study, charity, chastity, sobriety, fidelity, self-sacrificial love, etc.) regardless of whether we like it. We do what is best for God. I think that some of us twist Christianity into hedonism. We just add an imaginary old man with a white beard sort of standing back and wishing us to have a good time in our own way. That’s not Christianity.

Related posts

Videos

Watch two great intelligent design documentaries online for free!

Leave a comment

Here’s the first one, all about biological information in DNA and the origin of life.

Part 1 of 12:

The full playlist is here.

Here’s the second one, all about what it takes to have a habitable planet.

Part 1 of 12:

The full playlist here.

These are each about an hour long. The third one in the series is called “Darwin’s Dilemma”, and it covers the origin of new body plans and organ types in the Cambrian explosion. It’s the best of the series.

(H/T Apologetics 315)