Sarah Palin is the first woman to run in this Presidential election cycle.
That is, she's the first major candidate to run as a woman.
Some female candidates are successful in spite of their femininity. Others, like Hilary Clinton, are successful at the expense of it. Sarah Palin is successful because of it. She's one of those rare women who knows how to be a wife and mother while also excelling in the public sphere--without forsaking any of the unique strengths granted to womankind.
She's exactly the sort of role model my generation needs: living proof that a woman can be smart, savvy, formidable, and womanly all at once. Proof that our place need not be only in the home, but also proof that we can and should be happy there. We've been told too many times that motherhood will restrict us, that the home will swallow us whole. Hilary Clinton tried to show us that women can wield power in the public square. Good--but that success has too often come with a price. Too many women have paid for it with empty wombs, empty homes, and a loss of those unfathomable qualities that separate us from men. We have entered the public arena at the expense of our womanhood. Sarah Palin shows us that we can have the best of both worlds in abundance. Motherhood and statesmanship need not collide. The home does not have to crumble to give way to the state.
Many women have been politicians, but not many of these politicians have been Ladies. Women should certainly strive to be just as successful as men in the public square, but they should do so while retaining the best of their womanhood--they should be Ladies, in the old sense of the word. Success by any other means is more costly than it is worth. Too many women have realized this too late.
Sarah Palin is nothing if not a Lady. And she'll burst through the glass ceiling without so much as breaking a nail.
You are certainly correct that Palin has been "successful" because of being female. A man with the same qualifications would never have been considered and would not have generated this level of excitement among Republicans.
I am curious what you mean when you say that Hillary Clinton has been successful at the expense of her femininity. How exactly is she no longer feminine? Has she been a bad mother?
Finally, please define "Lady."
On this morning’s news, I heard a popular celebrity complaining that the cause of this country’s problems is that 60% of the population believe religious “mythology,” which is preposterous and dangerous. He calls religion “a pile of comedy."
He said this “childish thinking” is ruining the country, and we need to follow the example of other countries, enter the 21st century and give up our ridiculous religious ideas. While I already knew that many liberals felt this way, I was shocked to hear the sentiment spoken on the morning news.
Another shock came when I heard a female candidate criticized for a personal decision she had made. People called her an uncaring, uncompassionate person because she chose to give birth to her Down’s Syndrome baby rather than abort him.
Just the other day, I heard someone who’d been asked about his views on abortion state, “I value freedom to do what I want more than I value life.”
I’m disturbed when I hear sentiments like the one from a candidate who said he was against abortion, but he supports the right of individuals to choose. What he was actually saying was power is more important than life. People love power, and what greater power is there than to decide who should live and who should die?
This reminds me of the religious leaders of Jesus’ time. They enjoyed having the power to make decisions for everyone. They believed they had the right to judge whether a life had value. Mark 4 tells the story of a deformed man whom Jesus chose to heal, but the leaders opposed the son of God because they cared more about power than life. They considered the man worthless and undeserving of compassion. Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” They didn’t answer, and Jesus was “deeply disturbed at their stubborn hearts.”
Revelation 4:11 says God (not man) is worthy of power, because He is the creator of life.1 Timothy 4:4 says everything God created is good and not to be rejected; but opponents of Christian values seek the power to decide what and whom will be considered good or if it should be rejected.
We Christians are not to allow what is good to be spoken of as evil. We may disagree about some things, but what we do agree on is that God (not ungodly men) can decide what is good. No human should take the power that belongs to God alone. They cannot determine what is to be rejected, and we cannot remain silent when they call evil good.
Christians have a responsibility to seek, understand, and take a stand for the will of God.
Matthew 5:14 reminds us that we are the light of the world. Let’s stand up for what’s right and shine our lights in the darkness of this “crooked and perverse generation” (Philippians 2:15).
ex-preacher,
Good questions! I wondered who would be the first to bring those up.
When I say that I believe Mrs. Clinton has been successful at the expense of her femininity, I am thinking primarily of the descriptions I've read of her and of her work in Kathleen Willey's book and in Gary Aldrich's book. Unfortunately I've lent both of these fine books out to friends and so cannot quote for you the passages I had in mind... you'll just have to read them for yourself (they're both quick reads). I think you'll see what I mean.
The 'definition of a lady' question is much more difficult. Perhaps it would help if I say more about the thoughts I had that led to this post:
There is frequently a fairly sharp divide between women who live their lives centered in the home, and those who choose to pursue careers outside the home. Ask any stay-at-home mom with more than two children about the icy stares she has received when out with her kids. Then ask a career woman whether she's ever been subjected to awkward questions about her plans for marriage and motherhood. There are obviously exceptions, but I think most women have experienced--or at the very least observed--this snub in one form or another.
Women these days tend to choose one or the other--motherhood or career. (Again, I'm speaking very broadly and there are obviously huge exceptions.) The ironic thing about this is that women are champion integrators--it is out of character for us to segment ourselves in this way. Why not do both?
Some professional women attempt to tackle both career and family by relying on daycare services. I certainly sympathize with that decision, but I think too many of them are cheating themselves and will eventually come to regret that course. I had a conversation recently with a former boss who left an excellent job with a high-profile company because she realized the job was not worth the time away from her kids. I've also had many conversations with wonderful stay-at-home moms who are devoted to their children but long for the rewards (intellectual, creative, social, financial, etc.) that a career would offer. Again, why not do both?
I know very well that it's usually not that simple. Our society, which is so very different from many that have come before us, makes it extremely difficult for women to integrate these two spheres. That's not good. Women in the past have done it--think Queen Victoria, the loving mother, adoring wife, and effective ruler. It takes quite a woman to be able to manage her home and her profession well at same time, especially when her culture says it cannot and should not be done. I'm thinking here of the pictures I've seen of Governor Palin carrying her new baby as she meets with constituents. I think this ability to do what is necessary despite outside pressures is some of what was meant by the old term "Lady."
I hope that helps answer your question a little.
Rachel,
I think there are many women who for years have been more or less quietly doing what you are suggesting. I would also suggest that we haven’t heard a whole lot about it for a number of reasons, many of which are now coming out in the public sphere much more prominently than before.
I don’t think so much is being redefined for women as is finally being vindicated. Many evangelicals have painted feminists in terms of extremes, as militant, pro-abortion career women, and laughed at those who said they wanted to “have it all.” They are right that, in many ways, we can’t. But there have been women all along who’ve attempted to have “most of it,” by having husbands and extended family babysit (not that fathers are babysitters!), arranging flexible work situations, taking their babies to work, and otherwise doing their thing regardless of others' opinions.
It hasn’t been culturally acceptable for men to be homebodies, though, either in popular culture or certain parts of evangelical-dom. And women have been criticized, or worse, for wanting something other than being completely bound to home and children. (Trust me, the home can swallow you whole, if you let it!)
I think Hillary Clinton has been crafting her image in order to succeed. I haven’t particularly liked her image but will not go so far as to say that she’s betrayed her womanhood or femininity. Other things, perhaps, but not those. (I am wary of cultural definitions of either.)
First, I am a conservative, and far from a leftist Palin-basher.
Second, Palin is a politician, which we can see in her false starts, lies, and immature accusations against her opponent.
I've yet to see a public woman in office act like a lady, even if she does value the life of the unborn, grow out her hair, and prioritize her family.
Notice there's nothing of actual substance to this left over bit of Palin-mania? Yes you like her style and the twang in her voice. Very nice. If the right gets any more superficial it's going to end up in another dimension....if it hasn't already.
Rachel, no, I'm afraid your explanation isn't helpful. Your effort suffers due to:
1) your stupidity
2) your lack of integrity
First, you rely on authorities who are known to be dishonest smear merchants. Secondly, you don't tell us what you are relying on them for. You don't tell us any facts about Hillary Clinton, so your characterization of her doesn't tell us anything about her, it only tells us about you. You need to tell us what you define as femininity, what Hillary Clinton has done in the pursuit of success to degrade that femininity, and why we should agree with you that what Hillary Clinton has supposedly lost is something worth having.
But of course Hillary Clinton has not in fact done anything to degrade her status as a woman in anyone's estimation. She has not killed anyone, the way Laura Bush did. She didn't raise her daughter to be a drunken skank, the way Laura Bush raised her daughters to be drunken skanks. No, you dislike Hillary Clinton based on your desire to dislike her, and you accept claims and make judgments that support your view. I suppose one reason is jealousy; Hillary Clinton graduated from an Ivy League university and you went to a retard college.
Being a right-wing Palin-basher is so much better how? Your rant calls into question your initial disclaimer. Isn't that how a politician acts?
Is Palin qualified to assume the role of President of the United States should McCain pass away?
She is a real nice Lady, but that is just not enough. Nevertheless, I'm sure many will give her the benefit of the doubt because James Dobson, et al approves over her. The "I am a victim of gotcha journalism" and "I am being persecuted by the godless secular progressive far left american hating elitist latte sipping, limosine liberal, drive-by media" will go along way too.
Sarah Palin is "smart, savvy, formidable, and womanly all at once"? Have you even seen her interview performances? She is a bumbling buffoon with scanty knowledge of important national issues (she thought the bailout plan had something to do with healthcare reform and job creation), mediocre intelligence (she makes the most superficial and naive statements) and pathetic speaking skills (she can barely string together a coherent sentence). Her only strength seems to be her good looks.
I am ashamed to have my gender represented by this woman. She will only affirm the misogynistic view that women are dumb, irrational creatures who know nothing about world affairs and should stay in the kitchen and the bedroom.
And may I register my strongest exception at your sexist and backward views of the role of women. It seems as if to be a "lady" according to your definition, one must have babies and raise a family. That's outrageous. I'm childless and see no reason why I must raise children to become a true "lady". Nor do I accept your implication that raising a family is a uniquely female duty - what about men? They don't have an equal duty towards the family? Women have fought long enough for equality, and don't need writers like you to reinforce gender stereotypes.
To the Shirleys, John W.s, ex-preachers, and all other naysayers:
Let's look at History:
1. in the last 100 years, 6 of our presidents were governors
2. of all those who have run for president as governors, NONE of them were questioned as to whether or not they had enough executive experience, EVEN THOUGH many of them had the same resumes as Sarah Palin
3. Which is better prepared for president- gov or senator? Let's look at their responsibilities:
GOVERNORS
- Commanders-in-chief
- enforces the law
-appoints judges and heads of departments
- vetoes bills
- passes budget
(sounds pretty presidential to me- hmmm)
SENATORS
- write and pass legislation
-watchdogs of executive branch
- confirm presidential nominations
- override presidential vetoes
- power to try all impeachments
(sounds pretty much non-presidential to me- hmm)
So why have we not had more governors as presidents in the past? Who knows, but considering they actually have more executive experience, and we are actually looking for CHANGE in this country, maybe it would behoove us to look into this. However, Gov. Palin isn't running for President- but this gives a good justification as to why she would be prepared if she needed to step in.
Gov. Palin deserves respect, just like any other candidate, regardless of her sex, race, etc. HOWEVER, just because she is HOT, and has a family (that she chooses to keep BTW)does this mean she can't do a good job? Please. Her outward appearance is not a qualifying factor for her abilities, and her personal convictions should be applauded. Our country needs to stop its wide variety of prejudices- including against, age, race, sex, weight, sexual preference, right to life--- the list goes on and on.
And "bumbling bafoon" Shirley- honestly- look at Biden who can't seem to even get on the same page as his running mate! Also, he needs a history lesson, not be part of the executive leadership wanting to "improve" our educational systems in America. Everyone makes mistakes.
If Gov. Palin were a liberal democrat, we wouldn't be having these conversations. Liberals think feminism is exclusive to liberalism and exclusive to being left-wing. As a conservative woman, I am proud to be as strong as any liberal woman out there, have conservative beliefs about family, government, and religion, AND be beautiful, and I shouldn't have to hide who I am, and neither should Gov. Palin. She shows all the liberal woman that you can be who you want to be, hold down all the roles in your life, and still be gorgeous. She also shows that we can be feminine WITHOUT being liberal.Those of you out there knocking her down are jealous that you can't be like her.
So frankly- all of you can stuff it!
Go McCain, Go Palin, and Go Rachel! Be strong and be proud!
Rebekah,
I agree Governors can make good Presidents, just not this particular Governor. I don't want to mock or belittle her, and I don't think you can say that all the journalists asking legitimate questions of her are mocking her. Honestly, in some of her interviews she just seems to spouting buzz words without any substance. And why can't she name a few things she reads to keep up with the news when Couric asks her? Is it because she reads John Birch Society magazines? She can get the support of the hard right republican base, but she is not going to appeal to the independents/undecided voters.
I could be wrong about her though. Perhaps the African minister, Pastor Muthee, who prophetically prayed over her is on to something. Maybe that explains her rise to political prominence and the god-haters just can't stand it. Perhaps, the Lord thinks she is the right leader for a time such as this, should McCain pass away. Then America will finally have a Godly leader who can once and for all clean up the moral rot that is dragging our nation down and restore America to it's God given greatness.
Is Palin qualified to assume the role of President of the United States should McCain pass away?
Gee, is Obama qualified to assume the role of President of the United States should the voters of the US elect him? His resume is quite a bit thinner than Palin's and he sounds pretty incompetent when off the teleprompter. Other than good looks and a "James Earl Jones" voice, what are his qualifications?
It is pretty funny that your side has so little confidence in your guy that you have to resort to comparing him to the bottom of our ticket to make him look plausible as a candidate. Also what has Joe Biden done to show that he is qualified to be President? Other than warming a seat in Congress for most of his adult life and mounting numerous unsuccessful Presidential campaigns, what are his great accomplishments?
Have you even seen her interview performances? She is a bumbling buffoon with scanty knowledge of important national issues (she thought the bailout plan had something to do with healthcare reform and job creation), mediocre intelligence (she makes the most superficial and naive statements) and pathetic speaking skills (she can barely string together a coherent sentence).
This reminds me of the criticism of Bush. He's dumb, he's inarticulate, he was a C student, blah, blah, blah. Yet he consistently beats your guys, and generally gets what he wants to get done, done. Palin reminds me of Bush in that way. Bit of a hick, but she's got good instincts and she gets stuff done. She really cares about people (as opposed to "the people"). Contrast that with your guys who can talk, talk, talk, but never get any done and on the rare occasion they do get something it tends to screw the people is was ostensibly intended to help, like the current financial situation. Banks were mandated by Congress to lend money to people they would normally decline to. Fannie and Freddie bought the paper, taking the banks off the hook, which encouraged riskier lending. Then Fannie and Freddie packaged these loans as high-graded securities and sold them off, and kept some. Then the banks and Fannie/Freddie used these securities as assets to borrow against, which was loaned out to ever riskier borrowers and the cycle continued. The increase in buyers raised house prices, which in turn made loans even riskier, because now banks had to loosen their income requirements in order to keep the money going out. And so on, and so on. The upstart is that a lot of politicians got rich, but the poor homeowners and small stock holders in the banks, the people the program was intended to help, get shafted.
After re-reading this piece, I've decided that Rachel is actually an Obama supporter in disguise who wrote this to energize ex-Hillary supporters. I hope this receives a very wide circulation. I'm starting to suspect ucfengr is in on this too after he compared Palin to Bush. That would make a great Obama commercial.
I'm starting to suspect ucfengr is in on this too after he compared Palin to Bush.
Actually my comparison was more of leftist criticism of Bush and of Palin, and the way that, despite both being thought of as stupid, they are able to consistently beat "their betters", than it was a side by side comparison of the two.
ucfengr, I don't care how much you want to blame the problem on dark-skinned people, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is not responsible for the present financial crisis, which resulted from events occurring between 2004 and 2008. I admit this is what conservatives do, they take a problem caused by conservative policies, and reach back to find some liberal initiative, and try to blame the liberal initiative to the failure of conservative policies. In this case, it's particularly absurd because you have to reach back 31 years.
The present crisis was caused by conservative policies. Conservative policies fail. Conservative policies always lead to disaster. Quit taking refuge in trying to blame liberals; face up to your own inadequacies and try to address them.
Obama, is clearly more intelligent and educated than Palin. He has a law degree and is familiar with the constitution. I know for many Palin supporters these are not legitimate qualifications as being educated and articulate merely shows he is an elistist and out of touch with real/joe six-pack americans.
Not blinking and being a pit bull with lipstick are some good qualities in a politician though.
ucfengr, I don't care how much you want to blame the problem on dark-skinned people,
I know this will surprise the racists of the left, but there are also light-skinned people who are bad credit risks, who also got loaned money that they didn't merit.
the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is not responsible for the present financial crisis, which resulted from events occurring between 2004 and 2008.
I will concede that Democrat refusal to increase oversight on Freddie and Fannie, something the Bush administration proposed, also contributed to the present financial crisis.
The present crisis was caused by conservative policies.
Which "conservative policies"? It wasn't conservatives that were fighting against oversight and regulation of Fannie and Freddie, it was liberals.
Obama, is clearly more intelligent and educated than Palin. He has a law degree and is familiar with the constitution.
A law degree is not a priori evidence of intelligence. There are many intelligent people without law degrees and quite a few idiots with. I will concede that Obama appears to be smart, but what, other than he agrees with you, is your evidence of his superior intellect. That also begs the question, what level of intelligence is required to be a success as President. Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan where both considered "dim bulbs" by the elites of their day, but history as judged them to be among our most successful presidents. Woodrow Wilson, on the other hand, was probably our most intelligent and best educated Presidents, but his tenure is not considered great by anybody that I am aware of. Consider Jefferson Davis; on paper he should have been a much better President than Lincoln, but he is another of history's smart failures.while Lincoln is generally judged to be second only to Washington.
Yes, JohnW, in order to dishonor or rip the constitution to shreds a person would have to be somewhat familiar with it. We see it all the time, even in here by the self-appointed arbiters of enlightenment. I'd even go so far as to say that in order to twist its meaning around totally out of context the way some people do requires way more than just a passing familiarity with it. IOW, familiar enough with it to make sure they don't accidentally get it right.
Actually, that should be more like - The present manufactured crisis was caused by people hellbent on discrediting conservative policies. It seems just a little bit too convenient that this supposed crisis wanders out into the open when the energy independence issue was starting to give some traction to the Republican campaigns. Now everybody is being distracted by all the hyperventilating over an economy on the brink of disaster.
George Bush re the constitution, "...it's just a piece of paper....I'm a war time president...."
"Those of you out there knocking her down are jealous that you can't be like her."
Many women assumed that in order to be successful they had to carry water for the most radical in the feminist ranks -- like Clinton for example. Palin showed that you can have it all (or most of it), and still maintain your idenity as a Christian woman. This set off a jealous rage among those who will never possess her success, intelligence, independence, charm, beauty, or faith.
Jesus said, "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?"
Brand it you memory . . .
Successful politicians, male or female, allow us to project our values, concerns, and aspirations on them. Since most of us will never set foot in the political arena we look for politicians that we can identify with. Unfortunately we are disappointed more often than not.
Sara Palin's appeal is that conservative, evangelical, fly-over-country Americans feel that she is one of us. Rightly or wrongly we see in Gov. Palin a politician who reflects our values, shares our concerns, and understands our aspirations. We identify with her and she gives us the hope that she will represent us and champion our causes in the political arena. That's what elections are all about.
Time will tell if she is just another politician or not. The best evidence, however, is that she is one of us.
JohnW, you say that like it is self evident truth, and while I'm sure that you believe it, we both know that he has never really said or implied that. If he had been operating externally to the Constitution, a Congress in the control of the Democrat party for very nearly 2 years would have actually done something about it rather than bloviate about having impeachment hearings to cover for them sitting around doing nothing for the money they were paid. Not even your adored Republican in name only Ron Paul has done anything about it.
But by all means, carry on with your belief.
Symmtheory,
Bush may or may not have said, "the constitution...is just a piece of paper...", but the actions of the Bush administration clearly have been outside the bounds of the constitution. I agree with you, if the congress sees the administration acting outside the bounds of the constitution, impeachment is the remedy given to in the constitution. Unfortunately, neither the democrats or republicans in the congress have the integrity to impeach the president (except Kucinich and Wexler from Florida). The democrats gave into the president on the FISA bill and have refused to cut off funds to end the occupation of Iraq and bring the troops home.
Now if you are ok with a unitary chief executive with unchecked powers and rubber stamp congress, that's great. Myself, I don't see either party truly representing the interests of "we, the people". If you want to comfort yourself by keeping your head in the sand and thinking we have a fully functioning democracy, that's your perogative.
HOWEVER, just because she is HOT, and has a family (that she chooses to keep BTW)does this mean she can't do a good job? Please. Her outward appearance is not a qualifying factor for her abilities, and her personal convictions should be applauded.
Did anyone criticise Palin for her looks or her family? I criticised her for her utter stupidity and ignorance. I said that it was sad that her only strength seems to be good looks. And who cares about her "personal convictions" - you speak as if only Palin has personal convictions, or that all personal convictions should be applauded. The saying is true that the more ignorant a person, the stronger his/her convictions.
Yet he consistently beats your guys, and generally gets what he wants to get done, done. Palin reminds me of Bush in that way. Bit of a hick, but she's got good instincts and she gets stuff done.
Bush "consistently beats your guys"? Which alternate reality are you living in? Bush has the lowest approval ratings in memory and will go down in history as one of the worst presidents America has ever had. He has made a mockery of America, sullied our international reputation and alienated many other countries because of his arrogance.
And you say it as if it is a good thing that "Bush generally gets what he wants to get done, done". It is precisely because Bush gets his gut feelings translated into national policy too often that America is in the dire state that it is in right now.
Try again JohnW, we have a Democratic Republic not a fully functioning Democracy. Should we analyze why you thought you should use scare quotes around 'we, the people'? While I agree that the vast majority of Americans as Moderates are under represented by both the right wing and the left wing political parties that keep trying to drag their respective politicians farther toward the fringe than toward the middle, somehow I don't get the impression that you are a Moderate.
Unfortunately for you, you keep forgetting that in order to impeach the President, they would actually have to prove that he did something against the Constitution. That is the ultimate reason that most of the wishful Congresspersons only bloviate about it. The kooks that try to get it started are having their keisters covered by the people with shreds of common sense enough to realize that. But I digress, it seems to me that you would like to redefine the word integrity to mean kookiness. Good luck with that paradigm shift. I suspect that kind of topsy-turvy outlook influences all of your leftward leaning partisanship that you try to disguise as libertarian.
Why is it that people keep waving that about but forget to also mention that his approval rating is still almost if not altogether double digits higher than the approval rating for Congress? If he really goes down in history as the worst President ever, what does that say about Congress?
Bush "consistently beats your guys"? Which alternate reality are you living in?
Hmm, let's see...tax cuts, check...Iraq War, check...Continued Iraq war funding, check..."No Child Left Behind", check...Medicare Pt. D, check...Warrantless wiretapping of terrorists, check. I could go, but the list would get quite extensive. What has your side been able to deny him, even since you took control of Congress? Oh wait, I've got one. They denied him additional oversight and regulation over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That was probably not the best place for them to draw a line in the sand.
Bush has the lowest approval ratings in memory and will go down in history as one of the worst presidents America has ever had.
You mean like Truman? If you look at how history rates Presidents, what you find is that Presidents who were looked down on by the elites of their day are looked favorably on by history. Presidents like Reagan, Lincoln, Truman, and Eisenhower were all thought of has rubes or hicks by the elites, but all are now thought of as among our greatest Presidents. Bush may never be thought of in that group, but I suspect history will be much kinder to him than it will be to his predecessor.
He has made a mockery of America, sullied our international reputation and alienated many other countries because of his arrogance.
The people who think that Bush has made a "mockery of America" have never thought that highly of it in the first place. People who think this way view the President of the United States as a sort of global student body president, in which popularity is the primary currency. In the real world, popularity is worthless, respect and fear are the primary currencies that are traded. The reason 9/11 happened is because the bad guys stopped fearing the US. Bush has changed that dynamic.
Apologies in advance, but I am going to recycle some words from a prior discussion.
The reason I am doing so is that I believe that much of this adoration for Sarah Palin as a shining example of Christian motherhood seems to stem from her decision to bring her downs syndrome child to term and her conviction to produce an outright ban on abortion.
And the abortion issue is one that has been used to divide the GOP from the Dems, and to win the Christian vote.
Now I hate abortion, think it is preventable, barbaric, and no way to practice birth control, etc. etc. etc. And for a long time, I felt that my faith gave me no choice but to vote for those who promise to work to ban abortion. I thought voting for a pro-choice candidate was tantamount to supporting "murder". And I thought a woman that was pro-choice was less "feminine".
But a funny thing happened when I looked to the bible for answers.
Biblicaly, there is NO EXPLICIT passage regarding abortion, and according to the word of God, a fetus is not a living being and does not have life until God has given it it's first breath.
Thus, personally, I do not want people to have abortions, just like Obama (who does not "love" abortions like the GOP tries to claim), but I also cannot support an outright ban, both because of historical lessons and because the Bible gives no more life to a fetus than it gives to an inflamed appendix.
Specifically:
Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”.
In Job 33:4: “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”
Ezekiel 37:5&6, “Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live."
So I remain against abortion unless the life of the mother is at stake, or in cases of rape or incest. But biblicaly, I can find NO support for an outright ban (except for partial birth and late term, where the fetus may take a breath), and no support for the fetus being anything other than living tissue. According to God, it is NOT A PERSON until it breathes it's first breath.
So I have no issue voting for Obama, personally, and do not believe he wants people to have more abortions, as the GOP tries to scare you into believing. And McCain was pro choice before he flip flopped to win this election, so he has zero credibility on this issue.
In sum, I hate abortion, but can find no biblical grounds to support an outright ban or the criminalization of the practice. Since God didn't weigh in on this one, it must remain a personal decision, no matter how repellent I may find it to be.
So if you are for an outright ban on abortion, that is your choice, and your personal conviction. It is not God's demand. It is not God's law. It is not a Christian issue. It is YOUR belief.
I'm not trying to change your stance on abortion, just your justification of that stance. To cloak it in Christianity is to go against God's words on the matter. To call it murder is to disagree with the word of God. God does not call it murder. God does not call a fetus a living person.
You can disagree with God at your peril, but do not tell me Sarah Palin is a better Christian than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama because she wants to ban abortion. God will be sure to correct you for your blasphemy when you are at his side.
God Bless,
Daniel
" . . . according to the word of God, a fetus is not a living being and does not have life until God has given it it's first breath."
To say that a baby does not have life before its first breath is metaphysical nonsense. None scriptures cited in post #30 refers to babies.
" . . . the Bible gives no more life to a fetus than it gives to an inflamed appendi. "
Carefully read Psalm 139
1 O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me.
. . .
13For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
17How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!
18If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.
. . .
23Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
24And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.
The rant continues . . .
"You can disagree with God at your peril, but do not tell me Sarah Palin is a better Christian than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama because she wants to ban abortion. God will be sure to correct you for your blasphemy when you are at his side."
Blasphemy against the One? Is this the same one boasted that his 1st act as president would be to introduce the "Freedom of Choice Act" which would virtually remove all restrictions on abortion that exist today. . . The one who was the only Senator in history to speak on the House floor in opposition to saving the lives of infants who survive late term abortions. What a maverick! At least he is consistant -- consistantly and demonically opposed to preborn life.
Jeremiah 1:5
This verse indicates that everybody comes into being before even conception. If you are going to claim that God didn't weigh in on the abortion issue Daniel, you ought to at least be aware that the Bible contradicts your claim.
This remark from The Corner blog, a place where Palin has had more than her share of criticism lately.
"Palin's a star. Her instincts are practical and conservative, so I wish she weren't so bound to McCain. (McCain should wish that too — that's what's made her so popular and given him a shot.) Watching her is fun. It's like watching a rookie who's taken the league by storm and is hitting .290, and you just know that in two years, she'll be hitting .340 ... while Biden is hitting .210 and belongs back in Double A."
Personally, it bugs me that she is so gung ho about Rice's disasterous Mid-East policy. And that neither her, nor McCain, are as well versed in the arguments in support of their positions as most conservative pundits seem to be. But she is still a breath of fresh air.
Those who mock her intelligence only show their utter disdain for the far less educated and articulate multitudes, who disproportunetly are represented by liberal democrats.
The bias in the debate was not revealed in what was asked, but what was not asked.
Questions for Biden. . .
1. How will you two manage a tax break for 95% of the country when only 60% of the population pays any income taxes at all?
2. Do you support the presumed right of sex selction abortions in this country?
3. Do you think it fair that Obama has only been asked once in 2 years about his political associations
with a unrepentent terrorist
(Bill Ayers), and yet your opponent (Palin) has been cross examined in every interview she has had about her religious views? What is the more critical issue in this election?
4. Do you think it fair that a person (like me), who stands to make millions in book sales off the election of Obama, should be the only one writing the questions for this debate?
Back to the business at
hand . . .
1. If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?
Wrong Symtheory, we have neither a fully functioning Democracy or Democratic Republic. What we have is more like a coporate oligarchy. How else can you explain a $700 Billion bailout for Wall Street and during the same week almost $700 Billion defense was approved for defense (with very little reporting about it in the media)?
Let me be clear-neither the republicans or democrats are showing integrity or representing the interests of "we, the people".
I keep forgeting representing the interest of the middle class and poor is "class warfare".
Jawin',
If by 'representing the interest of the middle class and poor' you mean redistribution of wealth from those who earned it to those didn't, especially if those who earned it would have used it to provide jobs to the middle class and poor, yes that is Class Warfare.
Even as much as I disagree with the Bailout Bill being passed, you are talking out of your ear if you think you know it WASN'T representing the interests of We The People. In my estimation, the country is split 50-50 on whether or not the Bailout was needed. But by all means, don't let the fact that half the country is represented dissuade your belief.
Hey when old Bush got on the TV and said we had to do something and then Paulson went on the TV shows that Sunday, they almost had me believing their BS. Then I thought about it and noticed it was kind of like Bush and his we've got to invade Iraq before that smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud shows up routine back in 2002.
I suppose Wall Street deserved the bail-out and it's therefore right for our tax dollars to be re-distributed towards them...talk about your class warfare. It's ok when money goes towards the upper classes and away from the rest of us....
Wrong Symtheory, we have neither a fully functioning Democracy or Democratic Republic. What we have is more like a coporate oligarchy. How else can you explain a $700 Billion bailout for Wall Street and during the same week almost $700 Billion defense was approved for defense (with very little reporting about it in the media)?
Most of "the people" support a strong national defense and, for better or worse, the price tag ot that is about 4-5% of GDP per year. As to the bailout, I am skeptical that we need it, but I think the hesitation is causing more harm than anything. It needs to either be passed, or not. Otherwise the markets are going to freeze until they know the direction the government is going to take. Nobody is going to sell off a bunch of assets of questionable value if it looks like the government is going to step in and overpay, as appears to be the case.
Depending on who is talking about it, one side could say that it is not going to be given to Wall Street, but instead to all the foreign banks that bought all the crap bonds in the first place. So that should make you happier, it'll be going toward buying foreign good will!
I meant to mention this earlier Ucfengr, but if they ever start awarding quote of the day around here, that one would have had my vote!
This place is even more blatantly partisan Republican than it was when Joe was here. Why not just rename it The Republican Outpost?
"Why not just rename it The Republican Outpost?"
If you count them (as I have) you will find an even number of conservative/lib arguments in this thread. That, I think, is a shame for a place that presumes to be called an Evangelical Outpost. Mr. Ryan apparently thinks that the absolute domination of liberal opinion in the MSM is not enough. It must exist here as well.
I suspect that the reason that he others keep coming back to the well is that they are bored silly (as I am) with the liberal monopoly elsewhere, but at the same time they aren't comfortable without it.
Just a thought . . .
"If you count them (as I have) you will find an even number of conservative/lib arguments in this thread."
I'm talking about the posts themselves, the fawning, partisan posts, not the comments. One names a site for the content, not the commentary. I don't suppose that my intended meaning matters to you, though; you just took an opportunity to characterize the mainstream media as liberal. Bully for you!
"A man with the same qualifications would never have been considered and would not have generated this level of excitement among Republicans."
Perhaps. But a man with a lower level of qualifications generated even more excitement among Democrats and actually got the nomination. So maybe you're right that someone with the "same" qualifications wouldn't be taken seriously.
"I don't suppose that my intended meaning matters to you, though; you just took an opportunity to characterize the mainstream media as liberal. Bully for you!"
No one bothers to argue about this bias thing anymore. It’s assumed.
smmtheory writes:
Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you."
This verse indicates that everybody comes into being before even conception...
"This verse indicates" nothing of the sort. It merely indicates that God knows everything about us before we're created. It says absolutely nothing about when a piece of tissue becomes a "human life."
Daniel: thanks for the Bible quotes, which I just saved for future use.
Oops, sorry, the two paragraphs after "Jeremiah" should have been italicized.
Here's my question about Sarah Palin: of all the MILLIONS of Republicans in this huge country of ours, is she really the best running-mate John McCain could have picked? You can bend yourselves in any direction you want trying to pretend she's "qualified," but you still can't prove she's MORE qualified than any other Republican.
You say she was a mayor? Big deal -- so was Rudy Giuliani. And he was the mayor of a city I'd actually HEARD OF before; and on top of all that, he was, as mayor, directly involved in his city's initial response to 9/11 (which didn't touch Alaska at all). So what makes Palin better than him?
You say she's a governor of a state? Big deal -- so were George Allen (VA), Jim Gilmore (VA), Mitt Romney (MA), Bobby Jindahl (LA), and this blog's former endorsee, Mike Huckabee (AR). (And those are only the ones this Democrat can remember in one minute -- I'm sure there's more.) What makes Palin better than all of these Republican governors?
You say she's an evangelical Christian? Big deal -- so is Mike Huckabee, which makes him a "twofer." What makes Sarah Palin better than Huckabee?
You say she's a woman who can talk to ordinary women? Big deal -- so is Phyllis Shlafly, who, despite my contempt for her obvious stupidity, has been engaged with national and international issues for DECADES, and wouldn't have to pretend that looking at a piece of Siberia = "foreign policy experience."
So why did the "Christian" "right" pass over all of these experienced conservatives to pick an obvious airhead who reminds us all of the Miss South Carolina fiasco? Because the "Christian" "right" not only don't care about knowledge and experience, they actively despise it. And that is why they are totally untrustworthy and unfit to rule either the Republican party, or their country.
Oh, and one more thing: comparing Palin to Margaret Thatcher is a gross insult to Thatcher, who was knowledgeable, skilled, articulate, engaged with the rest of the world, and showed far more understanding than Sarah Palin will ever show. (And she didn't just whiningly question other people's manhood and patriotism, she actually WON A WAR.) I'm old enough to remember Thatcher's performance as UK PM, and I heard her eulogy to Reagan. Sarah Palin is no Margaret Thatcher. She's not even smart enough to compare to Imelda Marcos.
Presidents like Reagan, Lincoln, Truman, and Eisenhower were all thought of has rubes or hicks by the elites, but all are now thought of as among our greatest Presidents.
Reagan merely held down the fort while his country continued the task of outlasting and outperforming the USSR, which we had been doing since 1945. Lincoln went to school, valued what education he got, and NEVER tried to glorify willful ignorance as a virtue. And Truman built on the accomplishments -- and was assisted by the appointees -- of Ivy-Leaguer Franklin Roosevelt.
"smmtheory writes:
Jeremiah 1:5
'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you.'
This verse indicates that everybody comes into being before even conception."
By your logic, smmtheory, we should be working to ban menstruation! As, according to you, even an unfertilized egg has a soul!
"Raging Bee writes:
"This verse indicates" nothing of the sort. It merely indicates that God knows everything about us before we're created. It says absolutely nothing about when a piece of tissue becomes a "human life."
Exactly, Raging Bee. Any true biblical scholar would understand that this verse indicates that God is all knowing. OF COURSE God knows us before we are born, as he knows us after we have died. God knows every soul that will ever be born. He knows all that has, is, and will ever happen. That is why He is God!
What smmtheory chooses to ignore, as is custom among the folks that try to twist God's words to support their PERSONAL beliefs about abortion, is that God specifically explains in the passages that I quoted that the soul enters the body upon it's first breath. God doesn't mince words on the subject. So of course God knows your soul before you are born, but God doesn't pass the soul into the body until the first breath.
The fetus, according to God, is an empty shell. Just as a dead body is a shell that the soul has left, the fetus is a shell that a soul has not yet entered.
So please, Christians, I beg of you, STOP twisting the word of God to suit your personal beliefs. It makes us all look bad, and it makes the word of God seem trivial and flexible.
God Bless,
Daniel
God knowing everything about us implies existence, the act of being; we are meant to be; God intends us to be; so therefore we are a being before the flesh is formed. If our flesh is killed in the moment of creation (or gestation), we are no less a being than if our flesh had been born. Elective abortion stands athwart God's intention for an individual's being, their very existence.
That is not where my logic goes. If I had actually stated that an unfertilized egg had a soul then maybe your jumping to such a conclusion would have been appropriate. My logic is very simple and straight forward. There is no need to read over much into it. I've even explained in this very same comment.
God knowing everything about us implies existence, the act of being; we are meant to be; God intends us to be; so therefore we are a being before the flesh is formed.
Sorry, but that's utter nonsense. The bible verse in question merely says that God, being God and all, knows everything about everything, before it happens. There's nothing here about anything or anyone existing before it exists. That's like saying my novel is already written just because I've imagined writing it.
Here's my question about Sarah Palin: of all the MILLIONS of Republicans in this huge country of ours, is she really the best running-mate John McCain could have picked?
Who could John McCain have picked that would have enticed you to vote for him? Che Guevara, maybe?
If what makes someone the "best running-mate" is having spent several decades in Washington, warming a chair in a government office, then no, she is not the best qualified, but if the purpose of a running mate is to excite some constituency that the top of the ticket is having trouble attracting, then it's hard to imagine a better pick. That said, it's kind of silly for leftists to criticize Palin for a lack of resume when her's looks like a Manhattan phone book (Yellow and White Pages) compared to Obama's. I mean really, can you point to one significant accomplishment or a place where he has shown any leadership at all?
Reagan merely held down the fort while his country continued the task of outlasting and outperforming the USSR, which we had been doing since 1945.
It's really hard to debate someone who is so ignorant of history, or willing to lie about it. Those of us who actually lived through the Reagan years and the decade preceding it have different memories of those years.
And Truman built on the accomplishments -- and was assisted by the appointees -- of Ivy-Leaguer Franklin Roosevelt.
Funny you should mention this, a couple of UCLA economists just published an article purporting to show that FDR and his Ivy-league advisers implemented policies that likely prolonged the Great Depression by as many as 7 years. Maybe Truman succeeded in spite of FDR's Ivy-League appointees, not because of them.
ucfengr,
If your passage is proof that God is definitely against abortion, then why did God not explicitly forbid it in the Bible? God forbade many things. Or why not forbid it in the New Testament? As abortion was a well known medical practice hundreds (if not thousands) of years before the birth of Christ. It was well known to the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese... everyone. It is not a recent invention. It is not a modern thing at all. It is not some new menace that has just appeared to test our Christian values.
So why would God say that a person is not alive until he takes his first breath, if that is not true? And why would God not forbid abortion explicitly if it was, as it seems to be among Christians today, THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE we face. Why not? God forbade a lot of things. So why not something so important? And why would God contradict Himself, if the meaning you ascribe to the passage is really the correct one? God is behaving very strangely in your view indeed!
The answer to all these questions is simple: God simply does not see a fetus as alive. It is a soul-less shell. Yes I find abortion repellent. But this is not a Christian fight. It is a societal fight. Do not justify it with Christian teachings. You make us sound crazy, and you make the words of God sound confusing and contradictory.
God Bless,
Daniel
"I mean really, can you point to one significant accomplishment or a place where Obama has shown any leadership at all?"
Easy! It began in about early 1995 when Barack Obama became the chairman of the board of an education foundation that had ultimately more than $100 million dollars to dispense. Barack Obama became chairman of the board of something called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a foundation that was essentially founded by Bill Ayers. Now this foundation had two operating bodies, the board, which Obama chaired, and something called the collaborative, which Bill Ayers chaired. And so the two were effectively working together at this foundation, and what’s more, the foundation was giving a lot of money to Bill Ayers’ personal education projects, and the projects of his allies. And as, since the board was in charge of giving out that money, Obama effectively was funding Bill Ayers’ very education projects for years on end. These were not educational grants dealing with math and science, but focused on political awareness, so that together they could spawn a whole new generation of little Ayers.
If you wish to understand the greatest influences of Obama during that period where he used his executive experience, think (WARP) Wright Ayers, Resko, Pflueger.
ucfengr,
If your passage is proof that God is definitely against abortion, then why did God not explicitly forbid it in the Bible?
That wasn't my quote, but God does explicitly forbid murder; does he really have to specify each possible method of murder?
So why would God say that a person is not alive until he takes his first breath, if that is not true?
None of the Bible verses you quote support that assertion, nor do any I can think of.
Daniel asks:
"So why would God say that a person is not alive until he takes his first breath, if that is not true?"
I challenge you Daniel to cite one Bible verse that states the above proposition. Not inferences and conjecture-- but proof chapter and verse.
I challenge you Daniel to explain how Job could wish he had "given up the ghost" while still in his mother's womb, if he was not even alive in his mothers womb.
Job 10:18, "Wherefore then hast thou brought me forth out of the womb? Oh that I had given up the ghost, and no eye had seen me. "
No, I didn't think so . . .
The Presidential debate is long but boring. How can it even be called a debate when there is no rebutal time allowed? Brokaw interupts the allocated 1 minute rebutal time with more pedestrian questions.
Obama finally insisted on a follow up and McCain said, "If he gets to, I get to." Call it a joint press conference, not a debate. They repeated almost exactly what they said last debate and there was even less chance for them to respond to one another.
These shows principally benefit the Democrat. The candidate has to pass himself off as something other than what his record would suggest - tough on foreign policy issues, deeply personally passionately personally anguished on abortion, etc. (That comes 3rd debate) These non-debates assist the Dem in getting away with it. Direct challenges between candidates would not only make for better viewing, but diminish this liberal from passing himself off as a moderate centrist chomping at the bit to "kill" bin Laden and "destroy" al-Qaeda and defend Israel.
This debate was a horrible travesty.
Wormtongue wins.
Raging Bee, you don't have that power. God does.
If what makes someone the "best running-mate" is having spent several decades in Washington, warming a chair in a government office, then no, she is not the best qualified...
So you're saying that all the Republicans I've mentioned, by name, did nothing but warm their chairs? That's all the more reason not to vote Republican, isn't it?
It's really hard to debate someone who is so ignorant of history, or willing to lie about it.
So I'm lying when I say the US outperformed and outlasted the USSR?
Funny you should mention this, a couple of UCLA economists just published an article purporting to show that FDR and his Ivy-league advisers implemented policies that likely prolonged the Great Depression by as many as 7 years.
I wasn't talking about the Depression, which was during Roosevelt's term, but our postwar foreign policy, in which Truman had more of a hand. We're talking about Truman, remember?
I challenge you Daniel to cite one Bible verse that states the above proposition. Not inferences and conjecture-- but proof chapter and verse.
Daniel already did that.
I challenge you Daniel to explain how Job could wish he had "given up the ghost" while still in his mother's womb, if he was not even alive in his mothers womb.
That was Job, in a moment of hardship and despair, wishing (rhetorically, not literally) that he had never been born. Lots of people say things they don't LITERALLY mean when they're under stress or despair. It is NOT a specific statement of when life begins, just an expression of emotion.
But thanks for clarifying how thin and sparse the Biblical case against abortion really is -- I really had no idea. Hell, it's even thinner than the Biblical case against homosexuality.
It is only so thin for those who believe that mamas ought to be able to kill their babies.
I really don't want to bang my head against a wall here on this. I am happy to agree to disagree. I just wish my fellow Christians would stop twisting the words of God for their own purposes. It hurts my heart, and brings shame to our faith.
So one last thing... I'd like to present to you an "ethical dilemma". At Duke divinity school, our professors used these to help us tackle ethical problems. The answer to an "ethical dilemna" will really come down to your gut feeling, which I believe is God's little nudge in the right direction.
So here it is:
You are driving a van, and in the back of this van is a cooler containing 100 frozen, fertilized, human embryos. These embryos are smaller than the dot over an i, but if implanted into a suitable womb, they all have the potential to develop into a baby and be born. You are bringing them to a fertility clinic so that they can be used for this very purpose.
Now, here is the dilemma... you round a corner and are horrified to see that a baby girl is lying in the middle of the road ahead of you, crying and flailing. You are going too fast to stop, so you must make a choice, and quick:
You can either run over the baby and kill it, OR you can swerve to avoid it... BUT, if you swerve, you know the cooler will tip over and all 100 embryos will spill out and thaw and become unusable.
So, what do you do? Destroy one hundred "potential" babies, or splatter one "actual" baby?
My opponents here would, if I'm understanding them, run over the baby, since according to them it is better to kill one baby than 100 embryos (fetuses), as they are all equivalent and all living beings. One murder is less evil than one hundred murders. They are very confident in this, and have bible qoutes that back them up without question, and they would be eager to get to heaven and recieve their pats on the back from God for doing the right thing and saving those embryos. They are confident that God thinks those embryos are just as valuable as that living baby girl.
But I just don't feel that that is right, in my heart I really don't.
I would swerve. No question about it.
God Bless,
Daniel
It is only so thin for those who believe that mamas ought to be able to kill their babies.
So there's parts of the Bible that support your opinion, but they're only visible to people who oppose abortion? And you've quoted them here, but because I'm pro-choice, the text is invisible to me? Sorry, but that fish don't hunt -- if there's a strong Biblical case against abortion, then you have yet to describe it here. That's not my fault for being pro-choice, it's yours for not being able to back up your opinions using Bible verses.
I did not say that the text is invisible to you, Raging Bee. You can see it, but you often reject it. One of the Ten Commandments is Thou Shalt Not Kill, and yet you obviously reject the fact that abortion is killing.
I could spend days and days laying out the biblical and theological case against abortion as the Catholic Church has since its inception and you would still not be satisfied and would reject it. You have embraced the Culture of Death and pretend that it is not your fault.
So you're saying that all the Republicans I've mentioned, by name, did nothing but warm their chairs?
Well, of the people you mentioned, only one (George Allen) spent a lot of time in Washington, and even he had a real job (Governor of Virginia) before going there. Actually, I was contrasting Palin with Biden, you know, her actual opponent. I assume you think he is the most qualified person Obama could have picked (otherwise, why focus on Palin), but for the life of me, I can't think of anything really significant he has done in his 30+ years in Washington.
So I'm lying when I say the US outperformed and outlasted the USSR?
No; you're lying when you imply that the victory of the West was anything close to inevitable. If Carter had won the 1980 election, the likelihood is that the 1980s would have looked a lot like the 1970s. The Communist East in the ascendant, and the West in a slow decline.
I wasn't talking about the Depression, which was during Roosevelt's term, but our postwar foreign policy, in which Truman had more of a hand. We're talking about Truman, remember?
Silly me, I thought if was George Marshall who helped Truman design his postwar foreign policy. When did VMI become part of the Ivy League?
You are driving a van, and in the back of this van is a cooler containing 100 frozen, fertilized, human embryos....You can either run over the baby and kill it, OR you can swerve to avoid it... BUT, if you swerve, you know the cooler will tip over and all 100 embryos will spill out and thaw and become unusable.
Let's change that thought experiment a little. Suppose I am a firefighter going to a fire at a hospital. At the hospital I come into room that holds 100 end stage cancer patients and one newborn baby. Now because of some dues ex machina, I am able to save either the 100 cancer patients or the baby, but not both. If I choose to save the baby, does that mean that I don't think the cancer patients are humans?
Daniel states: "According to the word of God, a fetus is not a living being and does not have life until God has given it it's first breath."
To support this nonsense, he used three Bible verses. One had to do with life being breathed into a grown man, Adam, who never was a child (Genesis). The other was the dry bones prophecy regarding the restoration of the nation of Israel (Ezekiel) The third was again refering to a grown man (Job) None of the verses had anything to do with unborn babies.
I then quoted a specific reference to life in the womb : Job 10:18, "Wherefore then hast thou brought me forth out of the womb? Oh that I had given up the ghost, and no eye had seen me. "
The challenge was to to explain how Job could wish he had "given up the ghost" while still in his mother's womb, if he was not even alive in his mothers womb.
This hurt Daniel's heart, so Raging Bee took up the challenge saying that Job was speaking "rhetorically" about wishing that he had never been born.
This is the mother of all strawmen and completely misses the point. The point is that the unborn in the womb is referred to as having a SPIRIT. That has nothing to do with Job's state of mind at the time. You don't have to believe him, but if words have meaning, then you can not deny that according to scripture the unborn has a spirit, hence life.
You people who call yourselves Christians and become apologists for baby killers, should be ashamed. Not only is your understanding of Bible hermenutics as weak as ex-preacher's, you don't even have the guts to admit it when you are proven wrong.
Daniel, the ethical dilemma you propose is a poor example of an ethical delimma. It makes assumptions, such as that the cooler and cooler lid is not secured in anticipation of just such a common occurence such as a sudden swerve, that I would actually be participating in such an immoral activity as in-vitro fertilization in the first place, and lastly that I would be morally culpable for the outcome of an accident not of my own making.
Additionally, I'd like to point out that you've made some assumptions about your opponent's mindset with respect to ethical dilemmas, such as whether it would be 'better' to do one thing or the other as opposed to which is the lesser evil, and whether or not they would be congratulating themselves on performing the lesser evil.
Be all that as it may. If I were unethical enough to be participating in in-vitro fertilization in the first place, and if I were unethical enough to not have secured the cooler of embryos in case of accidental movement, and if were unethical enough to be driving around a corner too fast to be able to stop upon seeing the baby in the road, and if I were absolutely sure that the vehicle could not pass over the baby without harming it, then I would of course swerve to avoid the baby in the road.
And after all that, I would still recognize that abortion is killing.
Thank you, smmtheory, for your answer. Anyone else?
I don't know why you are thanking me Daniel. My answer did not in any way support your contention that there is no Biblical case against abortion. Nor did it help your contention that your opponents here view a hundred or so embryos as more important than one living breathing baby. If the choice had been between plowing down 100 pregnant women verses the one child, the child would be on the losing end. My answer also did not explain why I would have swerved (it would have been more automatic reaction than actual moral calculation), nor even that it would have been an underlying urge from God in the correct direction.
But if you choose to count it as a victory anyway, then by all means enjoy your somewhat Pyrrhic victory, and I'll thank you for conceding the point that abortion is killing, and there is Biblical evidence that supports that view.
smmtheory,
I was thanking you for taking the time to answer my question. I can appreciate an answer to a question I ask, regardless of whether the answer agrees with my own feelings. That is all it was, a simple thank you. Yeesh.
God Bless,
Daniel
The more I think about it though, if I carry your little thought experiment or ethical dilemma out to a conclusion based on the string of unethical decisions that would have brought me to such a precarious choice as you have proposed, perhaps instead I would have remained inclined toward an unethical conclusion and simply run over the kid hoping that nobody had seen me do it. Furthermore, having demonstrated such a rash of continuous unethical behaviour, maybe I wouldn't even stop and just pretend that I didn't even see the hapless brat and didn't even feel the slightest bump in the road. If perchance somebody did happen to see the unfortunate occurance and if eventually the police came beckoning at my door, I would stand there with a perplexed expression on my face and utter, "Say what?"
"Any one else?"
Here is a situational ethic for you, Daniel:
A man makes the indefensible claim that "the Bible gives no more life to a fetus than it gives to an inflamed appendi." And anyone who dissagrees with him is "blaspheming" God.
He is then challenged with one simple question:
"How is it that Job could wish that he had "given up the ghost" while still in his mother's womb, if he was not even alive in his mothers womb?" (See Job 10:18)
He quickly changes the subject
claiming this discussion "hurts" his "heart, and brings shame" to his "faith." He then recycles an old ethics canard involving fertilized eggs, a baby, and a car wreck in the making. The listener is expected to decide if "one murder is less evil than one hundred murders," notwithstanding the fact that this supposidly involves an accident.
The question is what does one do with such a man who claims to be a brother in Christ? Do you attack him like a pitbull on a poodle, or do you engage him in an absurd case of situational ethics, whose sole purpose is entrapment and compromise?
Like the dilemma you posed, Daniel, I find neither option
satisfactory.
That said, my flesh favors the pitbull. Remember Jesus' warning to those who would bring harm to a child?
Smmtheory, you have navigated well. And even though I am not an RC, I have always admired their
stalwart defense of the least among us.
Are you threatening violence against me, qwqe4rtyui? How terribly sad.
God Bless,
Daniel
"Are you threatening violence against me, qwqe4rtyui? How terribly sad."
That is risable!
And you might even make the case that my friend, Jesus, was an accomplice. Didn't he say:
"Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
Do you do harm to children when you
dehumanize them in the name of God? If so, a pitbull is the least of your worries.
By the way, Daniel, I was wondering, how is it that Job could wish that he had "given up the ghost" while still in his mother's womb, if he was not alive in his mothers womb?"
"By the way, Daniel, I was wondering, how is it that Job could wish that he had "given up the ghost" while still in his mother's womb, if he was not alive in his mothers womb?"
Job is a man. He is not God. He was mistaken. How do Job's words have any relation to God's? Is Job speaking for God in this passage? Am I missing something? There are plenty of men and women in the Bible that say things. Some of the things they say are awful awful things. Are all the things they say true and in agreement with God's words? Please explain.
Daniel asks: "How do Job's words have any relation to God's?"
Now I know who I am dealing with."Hath God said?" Yes, Daniel, God has said. In post #30 you quoted Job 33:4 and
followed it up with these words:
"According to God, it is NOT A PERSON until . . ." i
"To go against God's words . . ."
You can't have it both ways. When you quote Job, it is the word of God. When I quote Job, you ask, "Is Job speaking for God in this passage?" Unable to face the reality, you conclude, "He was mistaken."
Was the prophet Jeremiah also wrong to write:
"Because he slew me not from the womb; or that my mother might have been my grave, and her womb to be always great with me." (Jer 20:17)
How does one slay someone who isn't alive?
Maybe if Job and Jeremiah had the benefit of ultrasound they would have had your more enlightened approach and realized that that child sucking it's thumb in the mother's womb was really dead, eh Daniel?
I heard a doctor speak of a maternity patient who said that she could hear her baby crying from the womb. He told her that if she wanted it to stop, "just turn over," the baby had found an air pocket.
Would you consider that unborn child alive because it had already taken it's first breath?
Pslam 139 is like a prayer from the womb. It is beautiful beyond description and evicerates any notion that the unborn are anything less than marvelous in God's sight.
1 O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me.
. . .
13For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
17How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!
18If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.
. . .
23Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
24And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting
Daniel says . . . "God does not call a fetus a living person. You can disagree with God at your peril, but do not tell me Sarah Palin is a better Christian than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama because she wants to ban abortion. God will be sure to correct you for your blasphemy when you are at his side."
Although such weighty matters as to when life begins was "above his pay grade," Obama, has decided when it should end.
March 31, 2001, the bill protecting babies who survived abortion the came up on the Illinois senate floor. Only one member spoke against it: Obama. The official transcript validates this.
Obama said
"the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb."
Obama made three crucial concessions here: the legislation was about 1) a human being, who was 2) "alive" and 3) "outside the womb."
He also used an odd redundancy: "temporarily alive." Is there another type of human?
"And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period.
Here he made another crucial concession: The intention of the legislation was to make sure that 1) a human being, 2) alive and 3) outside the womb was 4) "properly cared for."
But to these specific temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb-human beings -- to these children who had survived a botched abortion, whose hearts were beating, whose muscles were moving, whose lungs were heaving -- to these specific children of God, Obama was not willing to concede any constitutional rights at all.
To explain his position, Obama came up with yet another term to describe the human being who would be protected by O'Malley's bills. The abortion survivor became a "pre-viable fetus."
By definition, however, a born baby cannot be a "fetus." Merriam-Webster Online defines "fetus" as an "unborn or unhatched vertebrate" or "a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth." Obama had already conceded these human beings were "alive outside the womb."
"No. 1," said Obama, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term."
Yes. In other words, a baby born alive at 37 weeks is just as much a human "person" as a baby born alive at 22 weeks.
Obama, however, saw a problem with calling abortion survivors "persons." "I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions," said Obama, "because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."
For Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her.
At least Obama is consistant in his determination to kill babies. Just don't expect me to believe him when he speaks of love, compassion, and concern for the "least of us."
Campare Obama with Palin who said:
“In this same spirit, as defenders of the culture of life, John McCain and I believe in the goodness and potential of every innocent life. I believe the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who are least able to defend and speak for themselves. And who is more vulnerable, or more innocent, than a child?
When I learned that my son Trig would have special needs, I had to prepare my heart for the challenges to come. At first I was scared, and Todd and I had to ask for strength and understanding. But I can tell you a few things I’ve learned already.
Yes, every innocent life matters. Everyone belongs in the circle of protection. Every child has something to contribute to the world, if we give them that chance. There are the world’s standards of perfection … and then there are God’s, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake.
As for our beautiful baby boy, for Todd and me, he is only more precious because he is vulnerable. In some ways, I think we stand to learn more from him than he does from us. When we hold Trig and care for him, we don’t feel scared anymore. We feel blessed.
It’s hard to think of many issues that could possibly be more important than who is protected in law and who isn’t – who is granted life and who is denied it. So when our opponent, Senator Obama, speaks about questions of life, I listen very carefully.
I listened when he defended his unconditional support for unlimited abortions. He said that a woman shouldn’t have to be – quote – “punished with a baby.” He said that right here in Johnstown –“punished with a baby” – and it’s about time we called him on it. The more I hear from Senator Obama, the more I understand why he is so vague and evasive on the subject. Americans need to see his record for what it is. It’s not negative or mean-spirited to talk to about his record. Whatever party you belong to, there are facts you need to know.
Senator Obama has voted against bills to end partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation against that practice. Senator Obama opposed that bill. He voted against it in committee, and voted “present” on the Senate floor. In that legislature, “present” is how you vote when you’re against something, but don’t want to be held to account.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, described partial-birth abortion as “too close to infanticide.” Barack Obama thinks it’s a constitutional right, but he is wrong.
Most troubling, as a state senator, Barack Obama wouldn’t even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion. These infants – often babies with special needs – are simply left to die.
In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for those babies who survive an abortion. They’re living, breathing babies, but Senator Obama describes them as “pre-viable.” This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Illinois had a version of the same law. Obama voted against it.
Asked about this vote, Senator Obama assured a reporter that he’d have voted “yes” on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Act. There’s just one little problem with that story: the language of both the state and federal bills was identical.
In short, Senator Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life. He has sided with those who won’t even protect a child born alive. And this exposes the emptiness of his promises to move beyond the “old politics.”
In both parties, Americans have many concerns to be weighed in the votes they cast on November fourth. In times like these, with wars and a financial crisis, it’s easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life. And it seems our opponent hopes that you will forget. Like so much else in his agenda, he hopes you won’t notice how radical his ideas and record are until it’s too late.
But let there be no misunderstanding about the stakes.
A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate we need on this issue, at both the state and federal level. A vote for Barack Obama would give the ultimate power over the issue of life to a politician who has never once done anything to protect the unborn. As Senator Obama told Pastor Rick Warren, it’s above his pay grade.
For a candidate who talks so often about “hope,” he offers no hope at all in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America. There is a growing consensus in our country that we can overcome narrow partisanship on this issue, and