First and foremost, we support Ward because he is pro-life. While Voices for the Voiceless does not blindly support any candidate who claims to be pro-life, we also will absolutely not support any candidate who is not pro-life. Voices for the Voiceless also does not support candidates who are only superficially pro-life, and do not show the promise of action on the issue. Of the candidates running for office, only Ward and David Schweikert fulfill our criteria on this issue; however, Ward represents the best chance to defeat Harry Mitchell. For a brief summary of Ward’s views on life, we’ve included this video:

Our support for a candidate is not based purely on their position on the issue of abortion. Along with this criterion, we examine the general political philosophy of the candidate, his history, and his credentials.

On Ward’s website, he provides an excellent summary of his political philosophy, dividing “the issues” into three major categories–prosperity, liberty, and security. In the realm of prosperity, Ward discusses a wide realm of subjects, from technology to federalism (the governmental system), and advocates a simplified tax code, the divorce of the state budget from the federal, and the transformation of Arizona’s economy into an innovation powerhouse. In his discussion of liberty, Ward argues for victim’s rights, the sanctity of life, and strict Constitutionalism. In the third category, Security, Ward takes a fairly solid conservative stance, arguing for a strong defense and secure borders

When evaluating any politician, an investigation into their past is critical, as it supplies voters with information about the candidate’s character and credentials. Interestingly, when we turn our attention to the Ward of 30 years ago, we find him closer to where he is now than at any time in between—studying political science at Hanover College in Indiana. Once graduated, Ward moved on to the Thunderbird School of Global Management (located in Phoenix, Arizona) where he received a master’s degree in international marketing. For the next 25 years, he worked in marketing. From 1985 to 1994, he worked as the Apple Worldwide Account Director and was involved in every major Apple Product launch of that era—even receiving a major award from the American Marketing Association for his work on the PowerBook introduction—; from 1994 to 1997 he was the Worldwide Account Director for Microsoft and Nike; From 1997 to 2008 he acted as the Sr. Vice President of Marketing for Lucasfilm. In 2008, he returned to Arizona as a venture capitalist, and began work on his campaign in 2009.

Overlapping his work with Lucasfilm were four years (2004-2008) where Ward served as the president of LucasArts. In these four years we find an excellent display of character and leadership as Ward executed a successful turnaround of LucasArts (for a more in-depth look at Ward’s work at LucasArts, I recommend this great article on the New York Times). Throughout his entire career, Ward displayed successful leadership and a resolute will—two vital characteristics for a U.S. Congressman.

In Jim Ward, we see a candidate who is far more than a politician; rather, we see in his political philosophy and personal history a man who has great potential to do great things. And that’s why we support Jim Ward.

The incumbent is Harry Mitchell (http://mitchell.house.gov/), who voted in favor of the recently passed health-care bill. Removing this pro-abortion politician from office is a critical step in the retaking of Washington. Equally important, however, is the placement of a strong pro-life politician, which, unfortunately, is not as easy as merely electing a member of the opposition party.

Representing the Republican Party is a host of candidates, some pro-life, some otherwise. Even among the pro-life set there is a gradient of concern for the issue.

Two major candidates from the Republican Party are pro-abortion—Lee Gentry (http://www.leegentry.com/Home.html) and Susan Bitter Smith (http://susan10.com/). Smith seems more likely to gain the nomination than Gentry, but either victory would mean defeat for the pro-life cause. In the pro-life category, we find Dr. Chris Salvino (http://drchrisforcongress.com/home/), David Schweikert (http://www.david10.com/david-schweikert), Mark Spinks (http://www.votespinks.com/home), and Jim Ward. Of these four, only two (Schweikert and Ward) actually list “life” or “abortion” on their issues page, possibly signaling that the others would not take much action on that front if in office. Schweikert and Ward both seem very pro-life, though Schweikert is more likely to focus on fiscal issues than abortion while in office (see http://www.fhtimes.com/times/2010/063010/teaparty.html).

Though Voices for the Voiceless is working to support Jim Ward, a victory for David Schweikert would also be a victory for the pro-life cause.

Angle’s political views are consistently conservative, making no compromise; unfortunately, this may alienate those seeking to abandon Harry Reid. On life, her website makes the claim that “All human life is precious, regardless of location, age, infirmity, or degree of dependence.” (Sound a bit like SLED?) Also, in an interview with Bill Manders, she responded to a question concerning whether rape and incest would be valid reasons for abortion with this statement: “I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations.” While it seems to me that she is defending life on the basis of purpose, her comment has been skewed by some to make it seem that she believes the rapes were “God’s plan,” a classic ad hominem attack to divert attention from the real issue.

While her comments may garner scorn and ridicule from some and may endanger her election, we should be thankful for a politician who is not afraid to draw a hard line in defense of life—let’s pray she’s elected.

Since Roe v. Wade, the standard of choice has been viability, which is a measure of the probability that a fetus will survive if external to the womb. This standard, however, has no bearing on the personhood of the fetus, and is akin to saying that one could be disposed of for the simple reason that one could not survive outside of the atmosphere—in short, an excellent example of an arbitrary standard. A recently passed law in Nebraska looks to challenge this standard, choosing instead to restrict abortion based on the ability of the fetus to sense pain. This law, the Abortion Pain Prevention Act, is based on the premise that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, and prohibits most abortions after this point. While this will move back the bar by about four weeks (within which only about 1 percent of all abortions are performed), it is as arbitrary as viability and a strange punishment for those with less-developed nervous systems.

What the Nebraska law gives us, then, is not a victory for the pro-life cause, but a victory for materialism. In our age of rampant judicial review, it is inevitable that this law will be challenged in court. If the case comes into existence, then there are basically only two outcomes possible. First, the law could be overturned; second, the law could be upheld. If overturned, all that would be achieved is additional cementing of Roe v. Wade and viability as the de facto standard. If upheld, all that is achieved is the birth of a new standard, which is really an equal victory, since arbitrary standards are exactly what are wanted by the materialist faction. Interestingly, the bill’s sponsor, Mike Flood, was quoted as saying “My bill does not center around viability, it creates a new standard.”

Sadly, in the rush to defeat the pro-abortion party, lawmakers in Nebraska have confused the actual struggle for the first battle I described, and, in doing so, have compromised the pro-life position, handing the pro-abortion party a victory. If we truly wish to win the war for life, we must always consider the “why” behind our efforts, and never—never—compromise.

For more information, I would encourage readers to investigate these articles:

http://www.slate.com/id/2250803

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/us/14abortion.html

http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=9947268&pid=77

If I have despised the cause of my male or female servant
When they complained against me,
What then shall I do when God rises up?
When He punishes, how shall I answer Him?
Did not He who made me in the womb make them?
Did not the same one fashion us in the womb?

Job 31:13-15

The context of this verse provides insight into what Job meant in this passage.  Verses 13 and 14 give Job’s defense—he had listened to his servants when they complained to him.  Why couldn’t God do the same for Job?  What Job reveals in verse 15 is his acknowledgment of God’s sovereignty over us before we were even born; he makes the point that humans are created equal because the same creator has designed each individual in the womb.  While not a direct command to defend the unborn like we saw in Proverbs, Job 31:13-15 is a reminder that all humans, both born and unborn, are fashioned in His image and therefore carry a certain intrinsic worth.

Furthermore, Job notes that human beings are God’s handiwork even before birth.  In one of his yearly sermons on the subject of abortion, Reverend John Piper said, “This is God at work doing what he alone can do creating a person in his own image; and to attack this little person being completed by God is to attack God.¹”   When God designs a new being, we as humans have no right to interfere with His process.

Come back next Saturday for another verse and brief commentary.

¹ “God at work in every womb” from http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2001/45_God_at_Work_in_Every_Womb/

Note: Our apologies for not making this post Saturday as promised.

The first two questions, as far as I understand them, deal with the general question “does the probable quality of life (economically, emotionally, and physically) of a child have any bearing on whether that child should be brought into existence?” This question is really quite interesting, especially in that it does not bring into question the personhood of the fetus but rather extends to wherever it is that the child is brought into existence.  In fact, Peter Singer does not mention abortion at all in his article, and instead uses sterilization as his method for preventing reproduction.

To answer this question, it is profitable to ask another question: “why should it?”  But let me explain—essentially what I mean is this: if the child’s existence is temporal (confined to its life in the physical world) then the purpose for its existence is intrinsically connected to the physical world and its probable quality of life has definite bearing on whether the child should be brought into existence.  This conclusion, however, does not entirely answer the title question (“Should This Be the Last Generation?”), as one might reasonably claim that if the conditions are promising, then it would not be wrong to bring a child into existence, as the joy would outweigh the suffering.  It does, however, lean towards a positive answer (based on our general experiences with existence).

There is, though, another potential scenario, where the child’s existence is not temporal, and has an eternal, non-physical aspect.  In this case, the majority of the child’s existence is not in the material world, and suffering in the physical stage of life would have no bearing on whether the child should be brought into existence, as the purpose for it’s existence is most certainly related to it’s eternal, non-physical stage of existence.  Within a Biblical worldview, this scenario is enlarged to include details of this second stage, and it is clear that reproduction is commanded.  In the basic scenario, no definite answer to the title question is given, just as with the materialistic scenario; however, it embarks on a completely different path, leaning towards a negative answer to the title question.

The next question is rather specific, but hints at the general question, “What makes life worth living?” Peter Singer makes the assumption in his article that life is most worth living when there is as little suffering as possible. I would make the claim that life is most worth living when the greatest possible level of fulfillment is achieved.  In our first scenario, Singer’s condition of minimal suffering coincides with my requisite of fulfillment, as fulfillment in this scenario is found in optimizing one’s interaction with the physical world, and thus minimizing suffering.  Because of this condition, it appears that an answer to the title question is within reach.  If this were to be the last generation (or if the entirely non-sentient world described in Singer’s next question were achieved) then all suffering would be eliminated, so it would seem that the answer from this scenario is a yes.

Within our second scenario, purpose, and therefore fulfillment, is tied intrinsically to the eternal.  The Biblical worldview is a subset of this scenario, and the purpose for our existence is not tied to our desires, but rather to the Creator God.  In this sub-scenario, a firmly negative answer is given to the title question; in the general scenario, however, the answer is not as clear.  With existence eternal, but God removed, this is little more than an expansion of the first scenario, and when balanced with the answer to the previous question, provides only a slightly negative answer.

Why should this concern those of a pro-life persuasion?  Isn’t this all just esoteric fluff?  Actually, it isn’t.  If one is truly committed to life and not just opposed to its destruction, then their answer to Peter Singer’s question must always be a resolute “no.”  But rather than just tell you in about 10 words that Peter Singer wrote a neat article and that you should say “no,” I thought it valuable to explore the philosophical reasons behind the pro-life position, using the excellent questions provided at the end of Peter Singer’s opinion piece.  You can read this list below.

“If a child is likely to have a life full of pain and suffering is that a reason against bringing the child into existence?

If a child is likely to have a happy, healthy life, is that a reason for bringing the child into existence?

Is life worth living, for most people in developed nations today?

Is a world with people in it better than a world with no sentient beings at all?

Would it be wrong for us all to agree not to have children, so that we would be the last generation on Earth?”

So then, what does the Bible have to say about defending the unborn?  Interestingly, the Bible never explicitly talks about abortion.  Perhaps there was no term for it, or it simply did not occur to any notable degree.  (Civilizations in those times that did not want a newborn child would simply leave it out to die)  Regardless though, the Bible in no uncertain terms commands us to defend the defenseless. One instance of this is found in the following passage from Proverbs:

Open your mouth for the speechless,
In the cause of all who are appointed to die
Open your mouth, judge righteously,
And plead the cause of the poor and needy.

Proverbs 31:8-9

These verses have more or less been the motto for Voices for the Voiceless, mainly because of their direct relation to the core tenets of the pro-life movement.  The unborn clearly fall into the broad category of the speechless and the appointed to die.  And what are we to do?  In order to emphasize the importance of speaking out and being involved in the defense of the defenseless, the Bible mandates twice in this one passage that we should not be silent.  We are to plead the cause of the appointed to die.

God leaves no room for apathy towards the issue of abortion.  America’s unborn are currently being aborted at an astonishing rate of 1.3 million per year, and we, as Christians, should be continually seeking God’s purpose and asking Him to instill in us and in our peers a passion to protect the innocent.

Come back next Saturday for another verse and brief commentary.

Males:

1. They sleep a lot.
2. They eat a lot.
3. And they waste most of their free time.

Females:

1. All they can think about is how they look.
2. All they can talk about is how they look.
3. And they waste most of their free time.

This is a sad truth, and one that teens themselves seem to accept easily.  They are fine with doing the bare minimum and thinking that they will have time to change the world when they are not in school. But the reality is that right now is the one of the most opportune times they have to make a difference.  So why do they waste it?  They have succumbed to the low expectations of our culture.  And the even sadder thing is that, when asked, they probably would not say that it was wasted.  But I would pose a question to these guys and gals: how is playing a video game you have beaten a hundred times changing the world?  Is spending an entire day trying on clothes you probably will never buy changing the world?

Now we come to the good part: there is hope!  But it requires teens to do a very challenging thing: change.  This is a word that has been thrown out there recently, and, while some might consider it a bad thing, I think that, put into the right context, it is a very good thing.  The change that teens need to make is to break out of the low expectations that our society gives them and take action to change the world one little bit at a time.

But how are teens supposed to do this?  Well, there are many different ways, and it would take me a very long time to list all of them.  However, I will give one today.

One of my favorite places to look for great examples is history.  Over the eons, there have been many great men and women who have broken out of the mold and gone on to do great things.  Here, I would like to highlight one particular character from the time period of antiquity.  This is a young man you all have probably heard of, but really did not consider the fact that he did some of his most daring feats when he was a teenager.

When Alexander of Macedon (later known as Alexander the Great) was sixteen years old, his tutelage under Aristotle came to an abrupt end.  His father called him to step up and become regent of the Kingdom while he went to conquer a nearby land.  Alexander did as he was asked and was named regent over all Macedon.  Remember, he was only sixteen!  During his father’s absence, there was a revolt in one of the city-states. Alexander responded quickly, and crushed the rebellion before it started.

In the next couple of years Alexander showed great leadership skills on the battle fields and also a great loyalty to his country and family.  It is even said that, during a battle, he saved his father’s life even though he was ordered to retreat and save himself.  In the years to come, he was to see his father assassinated and then rise to become the king of all the territories belonging to Macedon.  Then, he began one of the largest conquests this world has ever seen in the shortest amount of time.  He was twenty when crowned king by his people.

Alexander is a marvelous example of a young man who rose to a calling and went above and beyond the call of duty to better his country and the world around him. Couldn’t he have just hung around his splendid palace, enjoying all the benefits of being a prince and then later a king? Couldn’t he have exercised his powers and forced all his subjects to bow down to him and become slaves for his own glory?

Let me tell you a little about what would have been different if he had:

1. The lands known as the Balkans would have remained colonized by barbarians.  The western people who lived there (known as the Romans who conquered Alexander’s kingdom later on) would not have gone on to colonize a little island to the west known as Britannia.
2. The great empire of Persia would have remained Persian, and there is no predicting what the differences would be.
3. Egypt would not have been conquered, and there would have been no Library at Alexandria and no Lighthouse at Alexandria, and one of the greatest Roman emperors (Julius Caesar) would not have been influenced by that very special woman Cleopatra.
4. And, most importantly, the Greek language would not have spread the way it did over all the corners of the known world.  Then – three hundred years later – the gospel would not have spread as it did.  Instead, it would have remained in the “west” because the apostles would not have been able to utilize the roads which he built.

Alexander the Great was a teenager who did not settle for an easy life of privilege, but chose to do hard things.  Would you say he made a difference?

I would.

I chose this title instead (after long deliberation) with emphasis on the word “movement:” it’s been discussed in the past how ideology that rejects personhood (and thus places no intrinsic value on humanity ) ”justifies” abortion on an intellectual level; however, it also forms the basis for the popular (cultural) pro-abortion movement and the arguments that are most frequently given by the members of this movement.

You see, when you meet a person on the street and discuss the issue of abortion with them, they are far more likely to defend abortion by discussing the pregnant woman than to simply say, “well, since humans have no value, I think that we can kill the unborn.” In their discussion of the woman, they will probably make a claim regarding reproductive freedom or the rights of the woman to decide what to do with her body and her life. While these assertions may seem to come from a sort of diverted conservatism, they actually spring from the same ideology that gives an intellectual justification to abortion.

The path of thought is this: if there is no core personhood, then each individual human has no defining self beyond physical characteristics and actions. Therefore, a human is a different person from event to event (personhood, or their equivalent of it, deriving itself from actions). When a woman becomes pregnant, however, there is now something always there that threatens to impose unity upon the life of that woman. In order to protect the ideal of a-personhood (or in some bizarre way, to protect the woman’s infinitely many “persons”), it is perfectly acceptable to eliminate this ultimate threat. (It is the life based on this ideal of a-personhood that I originally considered duplicitous living; however, two is far too limiting, and I therefore discarded that title.)

For a practical example, the woman must terminate her pregnancy in order to protect the person who had sex from the mother-person who would be created.

What it comes down to is this: not only does the pro-abortion position gain intellectual justification from an ideology that denies personhood, but it gains popular (or cultural) justification from the same ideology. In the end, this second justification is more dangerous, because such a justification is one where people act on an ideology, and don’t just talk about it.

The New York Times provides this incredible, interactive graphic, in which it details 6 states as toss-up states, and 3 others as leaning democratic. Even if the Republican party were to seize all of the Republican leaning seats (8), and the 6 toss-up seats, it would still need to gain two of the Democratic leaning seats in order to gain a majority in the Senate. However bleak this may seem, encouragement may be found in examinations of the Pennsylvanian and Californian races.

In Pennsylvania, the Republican candidate is Pat Toomey (you can visit his campaign site here, and you should watch the introductory video), who seems to be a solid conservative, truly focused on sound ideology, rather than mere political safety. For the past 29 years, Pennsylvania has been the domain of Arlen Specter, but he has been defeated in the primaries, and it seems that Mr. Toomey has quite the chance to take this election; such a victory would be immensely encouraging.

In California, Barbara Boxer has held a seat for 17 years, and her staunch feminism and pro-abortion position were among the factors prompting Marjorie Dannenfelser to create the Susan B. Anthony List. This race, she faces a challenge from Carly Fiorina, her perfect antithesis. Obviously, a victory here would be incredible.

Examining these two critical races reveals not only that the upcoming Senate race is promising for the Republican party, but also for conservatism, which is far more important, and far more encouraging.