David:

You imply something in my response that I believe was not there nor intended. I was not suggesting that a person had to choose between these, as if to be for one was to be against the other automatically. In fact, I know that is not the case for people. The point I was trying to make is that sometimes our policy choices work out that way (not as a matter necessarily of intention, but of effect.) I was not suggesting that the one asking the question had to be there in that position (as your remark seems to read me as saying), but that sometimes the result of the political emphases can create such a split. (In fact, the Bush adminstration tired hard and commendably to offer a great deal of help to serious situations in Africa). I think I mentioned genocide, social injustice, AND use of resources that leaves millions starving to death (this latter one is especially important because millions are dying from such a lack of basic resources results in a number like the number of aborted babies). You are right to make the point you do through Proverbs 24:11-12. My point was yours in the post in pointing to that text. That if we care about life across the board (and treat all of life as sacred, something I said several times in the evening), then all of these issues matter and deserve affirmation by a church that cares about life issues (though the choice may not be seen consistently in a specific vote we make when the policies fall on ooposiite sides of the aisle). So then, when and if policies and emphases lead to a split between these concerns, we all have difficult choices to make, in terms of a vote, but what is crucial is that we speak to both (or all) sets of life issues beyond how we vote in the midst of such tensions.

My point was not that we have to choose between one or the other (except in deciding how we might vote), but that we might be placed in that situation in voting and when that is the case, then the call might be more difficult than simply looking at the one issue to which we may be drawn or most aware of. (Now someone might say that the babies issue matters most and vote accordingly. I respect that. But I was responding to suggest that if another cause exists that is also responsible for a large number of deaths on another point,then the issue can become more complex. Thus my response of it is not so simple.).

I believe what I stressed more than anything else was that the church needs to maintain its voice to speak across the board and to both parties when each is wrong as we move from one issue to another. I believe I also said that the concern the man had over these millions of deaths was something I absolutely share. The question I was raising is what do we do, should policies divide in practice in a way where a split does exist (not by our choice or because it must be that way, but by what the effect of the practices of government policies end up being). One does not have to advocate genocide to have policies that might allow it to exist. One may also be against starvation of millions but may support policies or have priorities in the use of resources that make it more likely. If that split exists, then what do we do? That possibility is what I was raising. You will notice that at no point in the evening did I express an endorsement of either party (and actually criticized during the night something each party had done or does), but said repeatedly that the church operates best when it supports life issues consistently across the board. When such divided situations exist, then this circumstance makes our choice of a vote where we do pull a lever for a single choice more agonizing-- something else I also stated might cause equally sensitive people to make a different selection, leaning one way or the other with their vote). 

I hope the clarifies what I was intending to say in my response.