One of the problems, politically speaking, is that Republicans are very good at using religious language to unify their base on issues that normally they would not come together on. Democrats by and large don't do this, because they represent a much larger coalition of people--there are Christians, yes, but there are also Buddhists, and Muslims, and Athiests, and Agnostics, and people who don't really care about religion at all, thank you very much.
Which means Democrats can't use religious language to unify their base without using language that is so watered-down it won't do anything but piss off anyone who any faith (or non-faith) who has put any amount of thought into their beliefs.
Still, that doesn't mean you can't talk back the Republicans in a language they can understand.
So this is what I, as a Christian who would have been considered a Fundamentalist 30 or 40 years ago,[1] want the Republicans to answer:
The basic argument I'm hearing from Republicans is that the method of conception is irrelevant to the conception itself: that if life is created, it is automatically a gift from God.
Here's what I want to know: when did Calvinism become the default definition for Christianity? And more importantly, When did Big Calvinism start funding the Political Right?
These are serious questions. The Southern Baptist Convention -- not a convention that I agree with very often these days, mind you -- recently issued a warning that "Calvinism" was dangerously worming its way into the congregation as a whole, and that churches needed to think very carefully about the ramifications of Calvinism when it takes hold. And for once, for once in a very, very long time, I can actually take something the SBC has said and apply it politically in a way that I agree with.
Calvinists believe in a lot of things, but the one thing they're well-known for believing is the idea of predestination -- that God is in control of everything, and that ultimately if something happens it happens a) because God willed it, and b) because God is using it to play a long-form game of 7d inter-dimensional chess with Himself in a way that will ultimately glorify Him.
If you say that life through pregnancy is a gift from God, you are stating the Calvinist view that God is willing life to exist in your body for some greater purpose. Which, OK, if you're a Calvinist you're free to believe that, but what makes you think you can put that forth as the only Christian perspective on the planet?
There are plenty of non-Calvinist Christians in the United States--people who believe that God created us and endowed us with this thing called "free will" and made us responsible for our own actions, and that evil men (and women!) can use that will in ways that God does not endorse or approve, and innocent humans can suffer from those acts in ways that God did not set in motion. We believe that humans can be victimized and suffer.
So I want those Republican politicians to explain why I, as an Arminian[2], should be obliged to accept a clearly Calvinist interpretation of pregnancy through rape. I further want to know what these deeply Calvinist Republicans feel about Arminians, and whether they feel Calvinism is the only true form of Christianity on the planet. Finally, I want to know whether they would consider non-Calvinists second class citizens, and whether we are entitled to religious freedom under the Constitution of the United States of America.
These are simple questions that I feel all Christians should know before we cast our votes come November 6. And if these politicians aren't willing to answer them, what are they trying to hide?
---------
[1]30 years ago I was 11. 40 years ago I was 1. So in one sense I wouldn't have been considered a Fundamentalist because I was just a kid. But Fundamentalism has tacked pretty hard to the right in 30-40 years, and what was considered "Conservative" then isn't even close to what it is now. That's the point I was making. Anyway, stop reading footnotes! You have better things to do with your time.
[2]Arminius was a former disciple of John Calvin who broke away and put forth a five point refutation of Calvinism. Are you reading footnotes again? See above footnote re. footnotes and the reading thereof.