The egg divided, and all of the genetic information that made up my father, and all of the genetic information that made up my mother combined to make up all of the genetic information that is me, Timmyjohn. And ever since that moment, I have been on a spiritual journey to become me. I have never for a moment stopped becoming me. And I had as much of a God given, unalienable right to the process of becoming me when I was composed of two cells as I do now, when I am composed of way too many cells. (Especially around my middle!)

This is because during gestation, regardless of which “trimester”, (HA! what a human word!), I was becoming Tim Hansen. I wasn't becoming a blowfish, or a gazelle, or a pollywog, or a bristle cone pine tree, or a bacterium, or an African gray parrot. To be sure, I am not today the man I was yesterday, or that I was last year, or that I was at the age of twenty, or even the person I was at six weeks in the womb. But it is inarguable that every nano-second from conception to this moment has been spent in the ineluctable continuum of my creation, and no one man or nation of men or especially my mother has the right to interrupt that continuum. To do so would be murder. How could it not be so?

It seems the modern feminist movement has pinned its idea of liberation to the realization of complete reproductive freedom. The argument goes that each and every woman must have the sole responsibility for her own body. The problem with this logic of course is that the supposed “need” for an abortion arises out of an utter abdication of that responsibility in favor of short term sexual gratification. At least, I've never heard of an orgasm lasting fifty-five years and some odd months!

I don't know what to make of this. I only know that the argument belongs right here, at the beginning. It does on absolutely no good to start demanding “reproductive rights” after one has reproduced! It's like screaming “Gravity isn't fair!!!” after you've deliberately jumped off a cliff!

My, how I do go on!

Thanks for letting me share!

The egg divided, and all of the genetic information that made up my father, and all of the genetic information that made up my mother combined to make up all of the genetic information that is me, Timmyjohn. And ever since that moment, I have been on a spiritual journey to become me. I have never for a moment stopped becoming me. And I had as much of a God given, unalienable right to the process of becoming me when I was composed of two cells as I do now, when I am composed of way too many cells. (Especially around my middle!)

This is because during gestation, regardless of which “trimester”, (HA! what a human word!), I was becoming Tim Hansen. I wasn't becoming a blowfish, or a gazelle, or a pollywog, or a bristle cone pine tree, or a bacterium, or an African gray parrot. To be sure, I am not today the man I was yesterday, or that I was last year, or that I was at the age of twenty, or even the person I was at six weeks in the womb. But it is inarguable that every nano-second from conception to this moment has been spent in the ineluctable continuum of my creation, and no one man or nation of men or especially my mother has the right to interrupt that continuum. To do so would be murder. How could it not be so?

It seems the modern feminist movement has pinned its idea of liberation to the realization of complete reproductive freedom. The argument goes that each and every woman must have the sole responsibility for her own body. The problem with this logic of course is that the supposed “need” for an abortion arises out of an utter abdication of that responsibility in favor of short term sexual gratification. At least, I've never heard of an orgasm lasting fifty-five years and some odd months!

I don't know what to make of this. I only know that the argument belongs right here, at the beginning. It does on absolutely no good to start demanding “reproductive rights” after one has reproduced! It's like screaming “Gravity isn't fair!!!” after you've deliberately jumped off a cliff!

My, how I do go on!

Thanks for letting me share!

I cannot begin to imagine the opinion one must have of one's self that would allow one to believe that he or she has the right to discuss a concept as demented as “common ground” where anything less than the immediate cessation of the slaughter of innocent, unborn humans could or even would be considered.

For one to be so ignorant in these modern times as to accept that a statement like “inherently moral content of the issues at hand” can be used in conjunction with a scientific matter like the beginning and ending of life, is incomprehensible.

Considering a concept like “common ground” reveals a deep-rooted insurgence of psychopathic tendencies into the general population. It should be a cause for alarm, not a cause for celebration.

My larger point (as opposed to pointing out some of the wild assertions you made), was that if you don't disagree with hammerud's view about abortion, why even respond to him by pointing out that there are “hypocrites” that agree with him? What's the point? I could point out that there are “hypocrites” who agree with just about any point made on this website. Guilt by association is a lame debate tool.

Also, your definition of hypocrisy is flawed.

You say the solution is not with fallen mankind, but the thing is,
God gave us the tools and expects us to use them. With God, all
things are possible. You say “can't do much now.” Are you saying
evil has taken over the world so much that you don't think there is
any point in trying to do anything about it? I don't think Jesus
would agree.

There is no common ground with willful ignorance and rebellion against
light and God, but I do share the gospel and do listen to those
outside of Christ. Jesus would listen to people to an extent, but
there comes a point when God even “throws up his hands.” Romans 1
says “God gave them over…..” In other words, He realized that they
would not respond to His offer of forgiveness. Also, Jesus said to the
Scribes and Pharisees in John 5:40, “Ye will not come to me that ye
might have life.” I think that is sort of what I perceive in much of
our culture, but you are right that God can do anything — I do pray.
I agree that I cannot see hearts so I cannot pass judgment on any
given individual. Jesus did call Herod a derogatory term though when
He said, “Go and tell that 'fox.” So, He was not always open and
loving to everyone. And John the Baptist confronted Herod to his face.

You have a compassionate heart and do make good points.

You say the solution is not with fallen mankind, but the thing is, God gave us the tools and expects us to use them. With God, all things are possible. You say “can't do much now.” Are you saying evil has taken over the world so much that you don't think there is any point in trying to do anything about it? I don't think Jesus would agree. The Kingdom of God is here, and it is growing like a mustard seed.

I think the picture Jesus gives us time after time is that we do not write someone off because they don't line up with the righteousness the Pharisees and religious leaders demanded of people. The example He gave us is of one who deeply cares about each individual, and recognizes each of those people has a life story full of hopes, dreams, hurts, and disappointments.

Which is why I believe, although refusing to come to the table with those who are pro-choice may be the “righteous” thing to do, I don't believe it is what Jesus would do. Jesus would listen. Jesus would get to the heart of the matter. Isn't that what we should do?

You say you don't have a solution. That's an honest answer. But what I don't understand is why, when you have nothing to offer, and seem to have accepted there is nothing that can be done, why do you denegrate those who would seek to find solutions?

You don't have a solution because you fail to listen. What if you learned that one reason a person is pro-choice is because of the sense of unfairness to women who have to bear the majority of the responsibility while the man, oftentimes, can just walk away? Are there no solutions that can be offered to that? If there were, would that not have the effect of stopping some people from having abortion?

I really think that what Jesus wants for us is not to tell people what they should do. What He really wants us to do is listen in the way He would listen. Listen to people's hearts. If we insist on demonizing people and saying there is no way their hearts can turn, no way that we can even sit down and talk with them, well, Jesus didn't do that, so I don't think we should either.

Anyway, the issue is not hammerud's belief that it's wrong; it often comes across as the only “life” issue worth fighting for. I would hope that someone who was consistently “pro-life” would have a well-developed sense of that; truth be told, however, that it's generally not the case. (I have known cases where anti-abortion politicians have actually secretly had their daughters get abortions, which didn't surprise me in the least for reasons I've already mentioned.)

Yes, there are a lot of hypocrites and people who fail to apply principles consistently out there – and they exist on all sides of the political aisle. I'll grant you it's easier to debate them than actual people here and I understand your desire to do so. But I still don't get how they relate to hammerud's specific, personal belief that abortion is wrong – unless, of course, you either know he's helped people obtain abortion or has supported slavery or opposed civil rights himself.

This is why I say that proving a specifically anti-abortion stance, though I personally agree with it, is not provable using Scripture — even the concept of “life” has to be taken as a whole. Besides that, Middle Eastern society even to this day is far, far more collective and “intrusive” than we would ever accept here in the West, especially the U.S., which values personal freedom and sovereignty above all else (even at the expense of the rights of others).

I believe Jim Wallis is so exuberant with Obama because he sees someone who talks, listens and has a strong dose of pragmatism. Someone willing to work beyond the labels.

I think many see Senator Obama.

What I mean by that is the Senate has this long history of cordial deliberation. They like each other. Mostly a club of good ole boys.

So why can't they appreciate opposing views, understand the complexity of issues, etc etc. Because at the end of the day, their voting life is not about solving problems. It is about political power. There votes are down party lines and ideological lines. The legislation they introduce is about playing to varying constituencies. It is not about common ground and problem solving. Smart people act as fools.

Is Obama about common ground and solving problems. Or is he about a cordial, deliberative, listen-to-all-sices, understand-the-complexity style that wins people to his side–and then exercising his power not in a way to solve problems but to build his own power?

I will grant him the benefit of the doubt. I will also note that a presidency facing many crises, with big ideas for what big government can do and be, who thinks he can walk, chew gum, talk, and text at the same time–will be naturally tempted to concentrate as much power as possible. Pray for wisdom.