1

That's all so sick and twisted, it's hard to comprehend all at once.

2

In related news, Auschwitz Prison Guards Appreciation Month is in March. I'm sure they'd appreciate some muffins and juice, too.

3

interesting how it is shameful to many to kill the unborn, but it is ok to support bush's killing 500+ americans and 11,000 iraqis for oil. guess it is ok to kill people if they are born and have beliefs different than yours.

4

I am, for better or worse, one of those conservatives who believes that a woman's choice to abort her fetus should be between her, her husband, and her God, whomever it may be. I strongly believe that the govenment should not enter into this area of our personal lives. For religion to do so is to be expected, but I am against laws legistlating abortion.

That said, I am rather... disturbed by this "appreciation" for abortion providers, especially by attempting to assign it religious connotations. I fail to see a how a doctor could be described as a "prophet" ("A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prophet ). And if one wants to make the argument that doctors are "prophets", what makes abortion doctors any different from the general practitioner I see at my college's health center?

As for whether or not it is "right", I cannot comment. I can only revert back to my previous statement that I believe the choice to abort should only be between the parties affected and their respective God(s).

Of course, do not even get me started on how idiotically stupid it is to try and dumb down the second Iraqi war to a "war for oil"....

5

ok, what was it for then? power? money to halliburton? what? don't tell me it was for 'freeing the iraqi people' because that is ideological nonsense.

americas will leave and leave legacy of killing 11,000 civilians and a vacuum much like when americans left afganistan in the 80s, ripe for osama's recruiting camps.

6

I find it hard to believe that even those who generally consider themselves "prochoice" want to
go to an abortion clinic for any reason than to have an abortion. To look at the undoubtedly unhappy women sitting in the waiting room while you drop off a Pick-me-up Bouquet sounds... uncomfortable. And it is my general impression, having met many prochoice folks in my time, that even prochoicers they support legalized abortion, people are somewhat repelled by doctors who have chosen to make that their SOLE occupation. Could any job be more depressing or creepy?
As a prolifer, I think dropping off a note about how much you'd "appreciate" it if abortionists found a different line of work might be appropriate.

7

It's more interesting how our resident Fighting Quaker takes a thread on Infanticide Appreciation Month and turns it into a diatribe on the Iraq War.

8

Kevin,
Wow! (hahahaah) I thought I was the only one that noticed that. Personally, I think it's bone-chillingly repugnant to equate the two. Most (well believers anyway) have sorrowful, and repentant feelings for the tortured, and murdered unborn. But all he can muster up is disdain for Bush???

Dnb, correct me if I am misguided, is it fair to say your consuming hatred for President Bush far surpasses your outrage for the murdered unborn? Or any other abomination for that matter?

Regards.

9

killin is killin, unborn or not. There are plenty of politicians and despots that kill people for profit, not just bush. bush just happens to be the one supported by christians. hypocracy like this is why i left the traditional church.

Didn't know that god considered one sin any greater then the other. seem to remember from my evangelical days that it is all sin in god's eyes.

it is repugnant to kill the unborn. i do believe, however, that it is the choice of the woman. it is her burden to live with, and she deserves our compassion, not hate.

10

Abortion is holy, sodomy is holy, religious intolerance is a cardinal sin.

...the lions are getting hungy...

11

dnb,

"Didn't know that god considered one sin any greater then the other. seem to remember from my evangelical days that it is all sin in god's eyes"

Um, ok. Well now you do know. God does consider some sins greater than others. Although common sense should have alerted you to this fact. In a certain context you are correct, sin is sin in God's eyes.
In other posts of mine, I continually asked you if you were a Christian or not. you never answered. Strange. I find it strange that you routinely bash Christians (evangelicals in particular) and what Christians do or don't do. What they say or don't say. Why do you pay so much attention to them? Is your salvation dependent upon their behavior? No matter what apostates or immoral people I may run into from any church, there behavior is certainly not going to affect my relationship with Jesus Christ. And it certainly doesn't change the immutable truth of the Bible.

"bush just happens to be the one supported by christians. hypocracy like this is why i left the traditional church."

I am a Christian. I do not support Bush on almost everything. Hypocrisy huh? Well congratulations for leaving those hypocrites behind and finding a group of people that have never been hypocritical. Fantastic. I bet they don't even sin, huh?
Believe me, if your trying to find the perfect church, you'll be searching until Christ comes again. You'll find a vile offender to God in each and every place you go. The difference between a Christian and an unbeliever is, I am forgiven... they are not.

"it is repugnant to kill the unborn. i do believe, however, that it is the choice of the woman. it is her burden to live with, and she deserves our compassion, not hate."

Friend, no one, and I mean no one, that has the Spirit of God in them can defend the slaughter of a baby for any reason whatsoever. And under the guise of "choice"? Well, let's hope that one day the government that provides a murder option for a woman doesn't provide one for a man. Then will see how precious your "choice" really is!

Come Lord jesus!

12

Yeah, because abortion is precisely what the Jeremiah verse was talking about...

13

Come Lord Jesus is right! He will return like a thief in the night to judge those who refused to believe on Him. His wrath will be just and swift. I don't rejoice over punishment of the wicked; I rejoice because I will see Him face to face.

14

"Come Lord Jesus is right! He will return like a thief in the night to judge those who refused to believe on Him. His wrath will be just and swift. I don't rejoice over punishment of the wicked; I rejoice because I will see Him face to face."

Wow! I believe I've actually met a believer on this website! Indeed He will judge. It seems a good portion of the responses here don't believe that though....but:

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Cor. 2:14

15

dnb:

"killin is killin, unborn or not. "

Actually, not. The commandment is thou shalt not MURDER. There is a huge difference between 'killin' and murder.

And cdm is right. The only place you are going to be completely free from exposure to hypcrites is in Heaven, should you end up there.

Further, Bush, as an indiviual, is held to exactly the same standard as all of us. But Bush, as the leader of our government, has additional authority and responsibility granted by God himself to carry out that role. Don't believe me...read the bible.

16

What if I had posted the following:

I believe it is repugnant to kill the Jews. I do believe, however, that it is the choice of the Germans. it is their burden to live with, and they deserves our compassion, not hate.

Compare to:
it is repugnant to kill the unborn. i do believe, however, that it is the choice of the woman. it is her burden to live with, and she deserves our compassion, not hate.

Both cases, the law said it was okay to take innocent life. Would the dick in the post above stipulate that we should not attack Germany for the Holocaust. Actually, yes, he does do exactly that.

17

Kevin is right. In the course of history, individuals and governments (read groups of individuals) have given other humans second-class statuts and relegated them to objects of personal power and caprice.

GOVERNMENT INEVITABLY TAKES SIDES IN THE ABORTION DEBATE! By making laws against it unconstitutional, government is taking a stand that abortion should be protected and the unborn should not. There is no neutrality here. Also, saying you personally oppose it, but say it's up to the individual is specious reasoning. If it is morally wrong, no individual or group thereof can make it okay! Stephen Douglas made the same arguments about slavery in the south when he debated Lincoln. He said "leave it up to the states to decide; keep the federal government out of the state's business." That argument is popular among the mass public vis a vis abortion today because they don't like to think, to put it bluntly. Frankly, I get this sick feeling every time I hear it expressed.

18

"If it is morally wrong, no individual or group thereof can make it okay!"

Therein lies the slight problem with the entire debate.

I believe that abortion is morally wrong (at least I think I do... I kind of sway back and forth on the issue, and some of my more radical leanings in either direction would probably result in this devolving farther into a flamefest, so I shall leave them rest). However, does that mean I believe people should not be capable of having an abortion? No. Morally wrong and legally wrong are two entirely different animals.

Yes, a great deal of modern American laws are based upon the morals and ethics of religions (primarily Christianity, but others filtered in, either through similiarities or outright copying). But not all of them. Just go down through the Ten Commandments and see how many of them have been legislated into law. Of course, it depends upon which Commandments you use (Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Hebrew), but I only count five (as in half).

Laws have to exist within the natural world, and follow certain precepts to keep society running on an even keel and smoothly. The reason that anti-abortion legislation will never get passed is this simple fact - up to a certain point, a fetus cannot be defined as "alive". It cannot exist outside the womb, and is thus nothing more than a parasite. Yes, I am being rather cold and distancing myself from the emotional aspects of the topic, but that is what is sometimes necessary. If one assumes this theory, then how can one kill something that is not alive?

To answer the according question, yes, I am opposed to late-term abortions, in any form, excluding the possibility of extensive medical problems that could result in the death of both the mother and the child.

At any rate, the decision to make a moral or an immoral action is the individual's choice, and oftentimes the state has no say in the matter, nor should it.

19

Sins and Crimes

Linoge,

You're wrestling with important ideas. We do indeed need to distinguish between the larger category of sins and the subset we call crimes.

A helpful way for me has been to better understand what the Lord desires in the realm of politics. For us in the U.S. that means asking what is the task of the state. The short answer is justice. As Christians we work that out by

1. starting with our fundamental beliefs about the nature of created reality. God created the World, Jesus is Lord over every square inch. Basically what I mean is what John Stott called Basic Christianity and C.S. Lewis called Mere Christianity.

2. We then develop ethical maxims from that. These may be clearly mentioned in the Bible (such as the Ten Commandments) or may be inferred from the text (such as we need to care for the earth, as God entrusted it to us as stewards).

3. The next step is to understand who is most directly responsible for implementing particular ethical acts. We rightly read the ethical injuction to "teach your children" when we note that parents (not governments) are the primary ethical actors here.

4. Finally we need to figure out how Christians at a particular time and place can advance the whole cause. This is the realm of prudence where scientific evidence and political reality needs to be taken into account.

Linooge, I'm affraid that your rationale for abortion fails at a number of levels.

First, God did indeed create all uf us in His image. This is a teaching fundamental to historic Christianity. This fundamental identity has nothing to do with the ability to live independently (if my wife is stuck on a ventilator or feeding tube, she still shares in this identity).

Second, our Lord calls us to love our neighbors.

Third, the state is supposed to protect the weak.

Fourth, the claim that a fetus is not "alive" is flatly contradicted by modern science--witness the sonograms and other recording devices of even the smallest babes.

Nick

20

"First, God did indeed create all uf us in His image. This is a teaching fundamental to historic Christianity. This fundamental identity has nothing to do with the ability to live independently (if my wife is stuck on a ventilator or feeding tube, she still shares in this identity)."

The religion definition of "life" should not factor into the scientific definition of it. Again, the lines are being blurred, and one must maintain some nature of objectivity in the entire situation. I was approaching the definition of life rom the scientific aspect, not from the religious. We all know where the religious one weighs in, but that should not factor into lawmaking in this case. Instead, in the case of murder, it should be judged by current scientific definitions.

"Second, our Lord calls us to love our neighbors."

Again, religious, and moot.

"Third, the state is supposed to protect the weak."

Not exactly sure from whence you are getting that... the state is supposed to protect _all_ individuals, strength or weaknesses not withstanding. But, again, the state is supposed to protect all _individuals_, which again calls into question whether or not a fetus is alive in any sense we are aware of.

"Fourth, the claim that a fetus is not "alive" is flatly contradicted by modern science--witness the sonograms and other recording devices of even the smallest babes."

Reaction to stimuli is not the only requirement of life, and that is all a baby is doing in sonograms.

Do not get me wrong, religion has its place within the government quite often, but the government is there to make society run smoothly, not impose the religious beliefs of one particular sect. As I have said, in my own opinion, a fetus is not alive until such time as it can survive outside of the womb, which does not occur until the third trimester (hence my opposition to late term abortions). As such, it cannot be defined as an individual, or a citezen... a subset of the host mother would be a more apt definition. And if the host woman wants to do something with her own body, immoral or not, that is her decision and her decision alone - much like choosing to worship the one Christian god is one's own choice, immoral or not.

And much like choosing one god over another, or taking its name in vain, or honoring one's parents, or not eating pig, or offering up a certain, paritcular burnt offering to the Lord, the government should not enter into the issue. And passing legislation banning abortion would be the same thing as legislation banning or imposing any of the above examples, or other such rules within the Christian Bible.

Now, if you believe that abortion is immoral, as you evidently do, _do not get an abortion_. But your beliefs should not be imposed upon others for no other reason than one's own personal opinions. Laws such as the ones banning murder (as in the murder of living individuals) are designed to keep society running. Laws banning abortion would have no such purpose.

21

Linooge

You seemed to miss the main argument of my previous (if overlong) post. Contra Straussians and philosophical liberals, the historic tradition of Christians do not distinguish between "facts" and "values." You may follow Weber or Locke or any number of non-Christian thinkers, but this does not flow from the Christian worldview or any recognizably Christian perspective. Thus I not only blur this distinction, I utterly oppose it. Here I follow some of the most rigorous philosophers (also Christian) in epistemology: Al Plantinga (Notre Dame) and Nick Wolterstorff (Yale), among others.

Thus I reject completely your claim to sepparate out a religious viewpoint from a "factual" one. Even more than this, I doubt that you yourself can do it.

For example, I would counter that your claim that "government is there to make society run smoothly, not impose the religious beliefs of one particular sect" is internally contradictory. That is, your first claim re. government's purpose is ultimately grounded in religiously-based first principles. These principles would address things such as human nature, divine purpose, and so on. You would then develop from these premises a view of government which would then be imposed on others. Indeed, this is the case with every single law on the books--from zoning to taxes to international law.

Thus the question is not whether to impose or not to impose but rather which imposition is best for human flourishing.

One way to answer this question is by claiming (as you appear to do) that individuals are their own gods and therefore must be allowed to kill others, so long as nobody else objects. (This premise is no less religious than my first premise re. humanity created imago dei.)

In order that there is no objection, you make two additional rhetorical moves (i.e. additional to the attempt to marginalize dissent to the ghetto of sectarian religious opinion). I don't think either one advances your position.

First, you try to equate human life with one aspect of it and if someone is lacking in that quality you declare them non-human, or even more shocking, not alive. At a general level, the strategy of redefining what is clearly a life as not alive, has been tried before. For example, the Nazi's opperated with regard to the Jews: they too were "parasites" and "vermin," and therefore an inhuman form of "life unworthy of life."

Your particular take of this general move is to claim that human life is defined by autonomy--for example, "a fetus is not alive until such time as it can survive outside of the womb."

But what of children who cannot survive outside the womb? You apparently don't deem them to be human or even alive! Given that my 8 year old son would perish without the constant support of his parents, I suppose he's not alive either. Then again, I doubt that I could survive long without the help from farmers and policemen, and so on. I'm affraid your definition of "life" is just a bit too narrow.

The second move you make is to claim that unborn children who appear to be alive on sonograms, aren't because "reaction to stimuli is not the only requirement of life, and that is all a baby is doing in sonograms."

Here this strategy only works under scientific ignorance. Such persons are clearly alive in the sense that they share with all human life "the ability to function as an integrated whole" (from Maureen Condic in the May 03 issue of First Things). I now quote from that same article, p. 52:

"From the earliest stages of development, human embryos clearly function as organisms. Embryos are not merely collections of human cells, but living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance betweeen various organ systems, adapting to chainging circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances....Even within the fertilized egg itself there are distinct 'parts' that must work together...." The only way you can claim that the unborn child is not alive is by retreating from the reality within the womb. In other words, there is nothing scientific about your claim.

This post is now way longer than I had anticipated, so I withdraw (for now) the specifically political claims re. the purpose of the state.

I will conclude with another caution. There is a pernicious side-effect of your privatization of belief. That is, in the face of wickedness you would tell the Christian, "your beliefs should not be imposed upon others for no other reason than one's own personal opinions." Bonhoeffer not be concerned with the millions of Jews sent to the concentration camps; Martin Luther King Jr. should not be concerned with Jim Crow laws. After all, you are imposing your personal opinions on others.

I doubt that you would find this conducive to human flourishing.

Nick L

22

I apologize for my vagueness in my previous post... By "alive" I meant to imply that the fetus is not a "human life", as you put it. It is an invariable fact that the cells making up the fetus are alive, and that is not the issue of the debate. I was merely pointing out that the convenient conglomeration of living cells does not make a human life. I apologize for any confusion (of which there appears to be a lot).

At any rate, this is a topic that is not likely to be solved in a debate between the two of us... However, since you gave me a bit of light reading, I shall return the favor: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/fetusperson.html This woman did far more effort in her paper than I would be willing to put forward, and does a reasonable job presenting her case.

And, for the record, I am a Christian, since there appears to be some confusion on that fact as well. However, all of your counter-examples, and all of your attempts at guilt tripping, all relied upon the assumption that a fetus is a human life from the very moment the sperm combines with the egg, an assumption I do not share. Yes, the Bible appears to be rather clear on the subject... it is also clear that homosexuals should be stoned, witches (or poisoners, depending on the translation) should be killed, and children who taunt bald men should be fed to bears. Now, once laws are enacted concerning those issues, perhaps laws could, as well, be enacted concerning abortion... and I will be moving out of the country.

In the same manner that I believe what goes on in the bedroom should stay in the bedroom, I believe that if you do not want an abortion, do not have one. But, then, I have always been a relatively private individual. *shrug*

23

The article by Joyce Arthur to which you referred me was not convincing. At the end of her first paragraph she speaks of the assumption of a fetus as a human being as "deeply flawed" and yet never moves beyond the basic structure of the argument I refuted above. First, she explicity opperates from a religious paradigm or worldview that is clearly non-Christian. See, for example her concluding footnote where she asserts (she can't prove this because her claim, like the Christian claim that "God Created the Heavens and the Earth" is a religious first premise): "Human beings TAKE CONTROL of their destiny and manipulate nature...." Although Christians clearly understand human agency as a crucial facet of our humanity, but choice never trumps grace because Christians believe that God created and constantly sustains us all. Recall that it is Satan who declares in Paradise Lost that he would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven. For the Christian, agency does not entail control but rather response-participation with God within the norms established and gradually understood over time.

I introduced the discussion of the Nazis (I could have included a host of other modern movements) to make precisely this point: the proud assertion of control over existence is antithetical to the Christian perspective.

This plays out in Ms. Arthur's text as well. For example, because "Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue, and neither does society as a whole" that we can justify killing unborn children. This approach has already had absurd consequences in 1930's Germany. There a number of scholars in biology, medicine, law, philosophy and theology made horrific claims about Jews not being human (referred to above). Eventually the status of Jews was called into question in "society as a whole." But I think we agree that this claim is absurd. Further, its absurd because human beings declared something within their control which should not be: the killing of innocent and inconvenient human life.

But I would take the argument further (and I did do much of this alread). Ms. Arthur--and you as well--have no science to back up your claims. Where I cite advances in science which demonstrate the humanity of the fetus (see the quotes from Maureen Condic above), you two repair to non-scientific assertions and 18th century notions of a "quickening." What next, phrenology?

Then we have the constant repetition of facets of human life which are not fully developed in the fetus: they aren't social, don't look beautiful, and so on. I've already responded to that in the previous post. Indeed, every one of her arguments along these lines fails because many people that we all recognize as human beings even though impaired (anti-social, horribly disfigured, completely dependent on others, etc) are denied their very humanity.

Perhaps most shameful is her claim that she agrees with the laudible goal of the Supreme Court to protect fetal life after denying and then trivializing (a parasite) its existence. I doubt that she has any such beliefs.

As for her claims about the "real world" conditions in which women seek abortion, I would point out that abortion providers continue to decieve women and men about what they do and its necessity. For example, no reputable physician has ever justified partial birth abortion. And yet NARAL and co. continue to spout out myths and lies.

For theological, philosophical, historical, and scientific reasons, you should reject the pro-abortion position and embrace the culture of life.

24

EMAIL: bbtzp@sexmuch.com
IP: 12.222.181.130
URL: http://www.breast-gain-plus.com
DATE: 05/03/2004 10:47:02 AM
What's on your mind, if you will allow the overstatement?