faith, politics, and why I am still undecided

A week or two ago, NPR's Morning Edition called up the pastor of Graystone Presbyterian Church, and asked if he would be willing to put together a panel of people to talk about faith and politics in America. I was privileged to be a part of the panel, and was happy to share my thoughts about the current election, as well as how I understand politics in the light of Christianity. While I may not have been quoted much, the experience was priceless.

If I brought you into my process of discernment for how I will vote, it would be pages, so I will move to my latest thinking... Abortion is a key issue, not only of life and death, but of social justice. As Christ calls people to care for the widow and the orphan, he is calling us to care for the weaker and disadvantaged people in society. If there is anyone weaker in society or anyone less protected by law, it is the unborn baby. Clearly, I think that abortion is wrong, so what next, a Bush vote instantly? It is not that easy.

Over the past eight years, abortion rates have been declining. In the past 8 years, we have had both William J. Clinton and George W. Bush in the White house, and they hold different views on the legislation of abortion. Clinton did not pass any legislation limiting abortions even thought he said it should be "safe, legal, and rare." By not passing limitations on partial birth abortions, I find inconsistency, but statistics show that while he was president, the number of legal abortions in America decreased, which any person with a conscience should say is a good thing. If Clinton passed no legislation limiting abortions, why did the rate decrease?

Many times we treat abortion as only a moral issue. Is it in fact also economic. Of course it is with the effects. Anyone should be able to see that if abortion is outlawed, we will have more teen pregnancy, resulting in more possibilities for adoption, which will cost us more tax money. I have no problem paying more taxes to keep children alive. On the other side of economics, my question is this: Does a economic system that is beneficial to the poor and not increasing the income gap create a society that is more likely to bear children rather than aborting them? This unpacked- If people have less money and a pregnancy happens, I logically think that the pregnancy would cause more financial stress, and increase the likelihood of abortion being a viable option. On the other hand, if the economic status of America is one that is lifting people out of poverty, getting more resources into the hands of the poor, people may feel they have the potential to afford having a child, and abortion becomes less of an option. So what?

So, if we pass legislation outlawing abortion, we need to provide people with the means of supporting a child. If abortion is kept legal (which it may be regardless of who is appointed as chief justices), we still need an economic system that does not simply "trickle down" to the poor, but one that provides a river of jobs that pay sustainable income, an understanding of financial responsibility, and accountability to decisions.

Now, I admit that in all of this, I have done no research, and much of what I posit here depends on the demographics of abortions. What is the average age of women who have abortions? Is the primary factor financial? Is it convenience (which is the most selfish of any reason)? Are the majority performed in inner cities, suburbs, rural areas, et al?

Any way, these are my thoughts on the issue which continue to keep me undecided in this presidential election.
-DEW