Moving the Abortion Debate Beyond Partisan Purists

Rick, you just seem determined to give me a good belly-laugh once a day.

I'm smirking as I write this -- if you knew what I knew you certainly wouldn't laugh at all.

Tony,
You cannot sit on the fence any longer. Even Newsweek is laughing at you "new evangelicals" now. You are no longer salt and light, but good for nothing except to be "speculated about" by Newsweek. "What will the new evangelicals do, the ones who don't care about abortion and homosexuality?" they cackle. You confuse people who are not born again. You have departed from God's ways by endorsing sin. You stand for nothing except politically correct garbage. Have you seen the YouTube of the nurse who spoke at Congress about Obama's bill on infanticide? I dare you to google it and watch it. Your hearts are hardened to sin. "New evangelicals" are nothing but lukewarm Christians who have departed from holiness. Get off the fence. You're a laughingstock to the secular world now.

--"Consider these questions: If 10 children are drowning in a swimming pool, and you can only save six of them, should you save the six? Or, should you wait until help arrives that can save them all, even if you know that the six you could save will be lost in the meantime?"--

Bad analogy.

How about this one...

Would you have favored the closing of Nazi extermination camps, or that they reduce the number of people they killed per month by half?

Would you have favored the closing of Nazi extermination camps, or that they reduce the number of people they killed per month by half?

Even worse of an analogy because in that case genocide was official policy. No one, least of all any government, is marching pregnant women to clinics and forcing them to undergo abortions.

Abortion. Abortion. Abortion. Paul claims Jesus said to him three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee." And the Christians I encounter cite this verse as an excuse not to do anything in terms of social justice.

Why is abortion a crime if Jesus told Paul three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee" ? Christians usually interpret (or misinterpret) this verse to mean they're free to do as they please, ignoring the rest of the New Testament.

Why are other pressing moral issues dismissed as "good works," while protecting the unborn is a Christian duty?

It's hard to take the pro-life movement seriously, when its members practice a double standard.

Dear Tony,

Thank you for sharing your views on abortion. Though I might not be smart enough to understand any inconsistencies that appear in the logic of your argument for compromise, I think yours is a very pragmatic approach to the problem of abortion in this country. As one who works on the front lines of a Christian based crisis pregnancy center in Camden County NJ, I have to agree that over 60 percent of abortions are economically driven. Far too often, during my counseling experience, I have had to turn desperate women away with meager referrals for social services and/or with an address of a home for unwed mothers located in another state or county. Most of these women will ultimately abort, even if they do have ultrasounds that show a tiny human being who resides in their womb; their economic situations are just that desperate. To ignore the reality that econimics plays in abortion is both a failure of the church and the government. We should be creating policies to help mothers and the unborn within our society and especially within our "mega-churches". Instead, abortion is argued as a political issue to garner votes, with no real solution for those who have to endure. Again, as one who is active in the struggle to save the unborn, I have never seen abortion in terms of politics, but rather as a battle for hearts and minds. Each woman has her own story and her own miserable situation that drives her to the door of an abortion clinic. Sometimes, she comes to our doors first; we offer her emotional and spiritual support, referrals, the chance to hear the gospel, free maternity clothes, a free ultrasound, a layette after she delivers and free childcare classes. Although we cannot offer her a safe place to live or healthcare for herself and her baby; we can't offer her a job or training, or childcare, or even a decent education, perhaps we can elect a president who is committed to affect change on her behalf and on behalf of all children, including the unborn.

Vasu Murti,

"My grace is sufficient for thee" was about Paul's thorn in the flesh. It had NOTHING to do with social justice. Nor have I ever, in my lifetime in churches, ever heard it used as an excuse to do nothing.

I've heard people use it to get through hard times, or as an excuse for a personal affliction that they could probably take care of themselves if they just stepped out of denial, but have never heard it in the abortion debate.

Please explain what you mean, for I truly do not understand.

As a sociologist, I would hope that you understand the science behind abortion. Rates would not go down if it were made illegal. The only thing that has clearly shown a decrease in rates of abortion is increased access to contraception. Abortion is illegal in many parts of the world and in those places where abortion is illegal, the rate of abortions per 1000 woman of reproductive age is the same or slightly higher. This is backed up by science. Yet, in those countries where it is illegal, there are numerous problems and complications from illegal abortion. It is however known that increased access to contraception lowers abortion rates significantly. It is also likely that increased social programs that prevent poverty help lower abortions, but hasn't been clearly proven.

Should be "the best of motives"

U TOO,

My disagreement appears to be with persons who are "Christian" in name only. I meant no disrespect towards true believers who are sincerely trying to follow the Bible and the tenets of Christianity.

With regard to Christians, the apostle Paul taught his followers to bless their persecutors and not curse them (Romans 12:14), to care for their enemies by providing them with food and drink (12:20), and to pay their taxes and obey all earthly governments (13:1-7). He mentioned giving all his belongings to feed the hungry (I Corinthians 13:3), and taught giving to the person in need (Ephesians 4:23). He told his followers it was wrong to take their conflicts before non-Christian courts rather than before the saints. (I Corinthians 6:1)

Paul taught that "it is good for a man not to touch a woman," i.e., it is best to be celibate, but because of prevailing immoralities, marriage is acceptable. Divorce is allowed in the case of an unbeliever demanding separation. (I Corinthians 7)

Paul repeatedly attacked sexual immorality.

"This is God's will--your sanctification, that you keep yourselves from sexual immorality, that each of you learn how to take his own wife in purity and honor, not in lustful passion like the gentiles who have no knowledge of God." (I Thessalonians 4:3-5)

Paul told his followers not to associate with sexually immoral people (I Corinthians 5:9-12, 6:15,18). He condemned homosexuality (Romans 1:24-27) and incest (I Corinthians 5:1).

"Make no mistake," warned Paul, "no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God." (I Corinthians 6:9-10 [NEB])

Paul condemned wickedness, immorality, depravity, greed, envy, murder, quarreling, deceit, malignity, gossip, slander, insolence, pride (Romans 1:29-30), drunkenness, carousing, debauchery, jealousy (Romans 13:13), sensuality, magic arts, animosities, bad temper, selfishness, dissensions, envy (Galatians 5:19-21; greediness (Ephesians 4:19; Colossians 3:5), foul speech, anger, clamor, abusive language, malice (Ephesians 4:29-32), dishonesty (Colossians 3:13), materialism (I Timothy 6:6-11), conceit, avarice, boasting and treachery. (II Timothy 3:2-4)

Paul told the gentiles to train themselves for godliness, to practice self-control and lead upright, godly lives (Galatians 5:23; I Timothy 4:7; II Timothy 1:7; Titus 2:11-12). He instructed them to ALWAYS pray constantly. (I Thessalonians 5:17)

Paul praised love, joy, peace, kindness, generosity, fidelity and gentleness (Galatians 5:22-23). He told his followers to conduct themselves with humility and gentleness (Ephesians 4:2), to speak to one another in psalms and hymns; to sing heartily and make music to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16)

Paul wrote further that women should cover their heads while worshiping, and that long hair on males is dishonorable. (I Corinthians 11:5-14) According to Paul, Christian women are to dress modestly and prudently, and are not to be adorned with braided hair, gold or pearls or expensive clothes. (I Timothy 2:9)

Paul claims Jesus said to him three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee" (II Corinthians 12:8-9), and the "Christians" I encounter ignore the New Testament as a whole, and focus only on one of Paul's statements to justify their hedonism.

Reverend J.R. Hyland, an evangelical minister, and author of God's Covenant with Animals (it's available through PETA), told me they're taking Paul out of context. Paul, she noted, was very strict with himself:

"But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (I Corinthians 9:27)

My friend Ruth Enero, a Catholic peace activist whom I very much respect, also says they're quoting Pual out of context. Paul, she says, had a "thorn" in his side, and asked the Lord what to do about it. The response was simple: "My grace is sufficient for thee." This was a response to a specific problem, not a license to do as one pleases, or why else would Paul himself have given so many other moral instructions?

They MUST be quoting Paul out of context, because otherwise, Paul's teachings don't' make any sense: On the one hand, Paul is warning that drunkards, thieves, idolaters, homosexuals, etc...will not inherit the Kingdom of God, and on the other hand he's saying that if you call on Jesus three times you can do whatever you want?!"

I'm not sure if I'm facing secular persons who are "Christian" in name only, or true believers. My friend Tim Parks, a Protestant missionary (now preaching in China), told me to distinguish between the two.

Again, I meant no disrespect towards Christians who are sincerely trying to follow the Bible and the tenets of Christianity.

In response to the Sociologist(Stephen)...

In what other case do we choose not to establish a sound law because it won't be followed?

Behaviors aren't made illegal because they will decrease if they become illegal. Abortion is either the killing of an innocent human being or it is not. If it is then it must be made illegal regardless of whether or not rates would increase or decrease.

Do you think abortion kills a human being?

Jonathan

Thank you, Donna Master:
"Each woman has her own story and her own miserable situation that drives her to the door of an abortion clinic
"
and another poster, who said that mega-churches should be promoting practical help for women in crisis. This should be a call to both conservatives and liberals to sacrifice their personal convenience. Liberals can't just say "I voted for the other guy" and then blame Republicans for an abortion that happened because they were unwilling to share a room in their own home. "A call to renewal" should go to BOTH sides, not just to the religious right.

Valerie, I'll think about some of the good points you made. But I really wish you could've been around to hear an older, and wiser, black man tell me something when I was in my youthful, far left stage: Creating jobs is often the best way to help the poor. The Democrats need to see that their obstacles to job creation undo much of the good they hope to do through the government. Obama's plan to raise the capital gains tax by 33 or even SIXTY-SIX percent is not only vague, but poorly thought out and irresponsible. It will be a burden on ordinary folks that need real jobs, not welfare.

Hose...

[

Tony

I am willing to pray for you and see what happens. I will forever be a person that is Pro-life and against abortion. I see many chinks in the armor of the other side and maybe this is the time for talk. (be there - done that - got the T-shirt) But maybe it is your time. I know that the only way that we will be able to end abortion is one heart at a time - I am still working towards that end. I would like to see that even if abortion is still legal - no one is doing it and all those clinic doctors have to get another job. I will be following your progress and even if I am Pro-life - I will not step in the way of progress, as long as there is progress.

Here's to the day when abortions are no longer being done!

Blessings to all -

Creating jobs is often the best way to help the poor. The Democrats need to see that their obstacles to job creation undo much of the good they hope to do through the government. Obama's plan to raise the capital gains tax by 33 or even SIXTY-SIX percent is not only vague, but poorly thought out and irresponsible.

Pul-leeze -- the ultimate goal of cutting or eliminating the capital-gains tax was never job creation but wealth concentration, which is always spiritually corrosive. Today we live in an economic culture that demands an immediate return on financial investment with as little risk as possible. As such, making money often entails reaching people who already have it, so in that case there's little financial incentive to deal with the poor equitably (which is one reason you don't see too many stores located or even advertising in poorer neighborhoods).

But I don't think you can fairly judge this one issue on the basis of his entire history. In this case he is engaging in inoffensive behavior, and he has a plausible explanation for why he does it.

This is a case of behavior you may not recognize as offensive but that I and others do. You remember that thread on which I brought up the idea of "racist code words"? They weren't obvious if you took them literally as people often do, but if you understand the history and thus underlying meanings of such words and phrases (and, by inference, the target audience), the insults become as clear as the nose on your face. That's why blacks who complain about racist behavior are often told to "chill" without understanding why they react. (Which is part of the strategy.)

urgh - that should have been "strong disagreement"

I reject the idea of "code words", and when the one using someone has a plausible and legitimate rationale for his use of some word or other, I accept his explanation. I prefer to take people at their word and to think the best of them unless I have clear evidence to the contrary; you apparently prefer to believe the worst.

You prove my point succinctly. When sin becomes embarrassing it often tries to change the language to make it acceptable, and (getting back on topic) abortion is one of those situations. Consider the term "choice" -- of course we who are "pro-life" know what abortion-rights defenders are really saying when they use it and reject that out-of-hand.

Well, Rick, you say I prove your point, but I don't see how.

Assuming that you're "pro-life," as I believe you have said you are, "choice" represents a "code word."

Gordon,

"If Big Guy asserts a plausible and innocent reason for using Obama's middle initial, I see no reason to impute any other motive. '

The thing is, he used to refer to him as Barack Hussein Obama, and given the e-mails we have all gotten that have attacked Obama's character trying to link him to Islamic fundamentalism through the use of his middle name, together with Big Guy's sarcastic, disrespectful, and generally unloving way of referring to all things and all people liberal, it is not a stretch to impugn motive behind his use of BHO.

Sorry Big Guy, I like you, really I do. And I defend your right to post here in spite of you being blocked by the moderators, and have said as much before. But I'm not fooled by the "who, me?" act.

If you want to show me you sincerely mean nothing behind BHO, I need to see a change in the style of your discourse. You can disagree with others without the snide attacks and still make your point. And I'd really like to see you develop that ability.

Posted by: Gordon | September 12, 2008 11:58 AM

'"Choice" is indeed a term that pro-abortion people selected to disguise the nature of their enterprise.'

Is that sort of like when people call themselves "pro-life", when what they really are is "pro-fetal-life"?

Let me repeat myself from previous threads. Nobody is pro-abortion as a general policy (except for in China), although they may be in favor of a woman's right to make her own decision on the matter.

I vowed I would not get involved in this thread because it is same-old same-old. But the whole terminology thing infuriates me. Words mean things.

With that, I am done with this thread. If anybody wants to know what I think, please refer to the recent threads on this topic.

Jane

Posted by: Jane | September 12, 2008 12:22 PM

To me abortion and execution are two different topic to me but I think that they might be the same for you - correct me if I am wrong.

I will only talk about one or the other.

Abortion terminates an innocent life and I would like to know when that fetus is given human rights and protected by the law.

Execution terminates a persons life and they were found quilty by there peers. The evidence was presented and challenged in a court of law and the person was found quilty.

Now I will give in on the execution if the person that is found quilty and sentenced can be sentenced to death so they know their fate. Then and only then can the judge pass sentence and commute it to life in prison without parrole. They can be housed in a facility and not have any contact with their family or friends for the rest of their life.

Will you give in on 3rd tri abortions so that they are not allowed? (life of the mother is always in play)

Blessings to all -
.

big guy--as I tried to explain, it is the HISTORY of your posts--the sarcasm, cynicism, disrespect--that leads me to think you are using his initials as a means to tie him to radical Islam. Were that not your history, I would not think twice about you using BHO.

If you don't want me to get that from that reference, then stop with the sarcasm, cynicism, and disrespect.

It's that simple.

But I am taken to the wood shed for some of my opinions or my character is mocked when I have respected them as humans and citizens.

If you had actually "respected them as humans and citizens," no one here would be on your case; your opinions have nothing to do with it. But the accusations that other people have made about your posts have proven true by your responses. In the past you've accused me of calling you a liar when in fact you have said stuff I knew to be false.