Live-birth abortions, they’re everywhere!

And pink ponies and unicorns and Gargamel and Snuffleupagus and Dragons and Fozzy Bear wocka wocka, all of these things are real because I say they are!

I think it one of the most demonic arguments – the argument for killing someone out of mere convenience.

Neil

In my daughter’s first pregnancy, they diagnosed that the little girl she was carrying was Trisomy 18. If anyone isn’t aware of what that is, it’s a LOT more severe than Downs Syndrome. And these babies have MANY issues.

My daughter got a LOT pressure from the health care professionals involved to abort the baby. As it turned out she miscarried, as that is the case in a lot of Trisomy 18 babies.

She was to far in her term by the time they figured it all out, it would have ultimately ended up one of those gruesome late term abortions. Fortunately she did not have to make that decision, if one can indeed call that fortunate. It was really hard watching my child got through that kind of pain! And the pressure that was applied on her to abort made everything even worse.

The way our culture stores up money on this earth for themselves when they are in full knowledge of already born babies dying of starvation around the world is callous and complicit.

Sending men and women into war without a well thought out defensive reason is on some level a disdain for human life, both the 4000 Americans and the tens of thousands of Iraq lives that do not even merit a spot on the American news.

Looking the other way while 1oo,ooo lives are lost in Darfur because of a murderous regime when we had the power to intervene is a disdain for human life as well.

So the disdain of human life is more pervasive than just abortion. And the culpability of the American evangelical church cannot be overestimated. While we spend billions of mortgae payments for fancy buildings people die. While we spend huge amounts on frivolity and cruises people still die.

I could not agree more. And I’d roll my eyes a little less if the Christian church showed a little more interest in the lives of the born, including the women who find themselves in the harrowing position of contemplating abortion, due to poverty, fear, miseducation, societal pressures, rape, incest, abusive relationships, fetuses which aren’t even viable (which account for a plurality, if not an outright majority of IDX procedures), and if the so-called “pro-life” businesses weren’t adamantly opposed, across the board, to widely available contraception, covered by health plans or free, real life sex education, family planning services, economic aid to address the actual problems that lead to the prevalence of abortion, because abortion is indeed a symptom, not the problem. Instead they petulantly refuse to look at real facts, demonize the majority of women who don’t believe white men like Tom DeLay and George W. Bush should have a say in what they do with their bodies, construct emotionally-laden “political footballs” to entrap politicians who actually are capable of thinking with a little more nuance and a little less blind ideology based on far-fetched rantings of discredited people, and try to ram bans down peoples’ throats that interfere with good medical care. There is a reason that, to date, the medical community (you know, the actual experts) has failed to endorse any of the so-called “right-to-life” movements insane legislative actions.

Until a few of those things start to change, I will continue to scoff at the ridiculous self-branding of the “pro-life” movement.

It’s not about whether it’s “all right.”

It’s about whether one accepts reality and works to address the problem, as opposed to clinging to some fake utopian reality that never existed and pretending the problem can be “fixed” with lots of prayers and bans that only kill more people.

“It’s about whether one accepts reality and works to address the problem, as opposed to clinging to some fake utopian reality that never existed and pretending the problem can be “fixed” with lots of prayers and bans that only kill more people.”

Huh? I am calling the garbled police since I fell off at “accepts reality” and completely lost sight of the train at “clinging to some fake utopian reality that never existed”. At the end I am at a loss to identify a logic core.

Again, huh?

It’s about whether one accepts reality and works to address the problem, as opposed to clinging to some fake utopian reality that never existed and pretending the problem can be “fixed” with lots of prayers and bans that only kill more people.

Who knew legalising abortion actually dropped the mortality rate… I was unaware that millions of women died every year due to illegal abortions.

And the issue of fixing problems is legit, but moot to the morality of convenience killing…

Japan is already set for a the first major meltdown – with low immigration, a birth rate that is not even self-sustaining, and a longer-than-average life expectancy. Look west across the water in the coming years to see the potential future of America – particularly if the government moves toward more socialization. Why? Because each socialist takeover of key government systems will basically create a ballooning Ponzi scheme that, when it bursts, will make the current Wall Street situation seem like small potatoes.

So true, but that is what we have to look forward to in an OBAMA regime.

More abortions. Socialized health care. Euthanasia. More taxes. Government takeover of home loans. All because we have been on this slippery slope since before ‘73

Pesky facts — they mess up your ideology.

Ya made me blow powerade outta my nose!! That’s one of the funniest things you’ve said in quite a while!!

Evan I love you!

Personally, I’m a libertarian at heart… I opposse the governments involvement in the boardroom as much as the bedroom.

But let’s not kill the baby because the mother lives on poverty.

In a country where we still have the death penalty, abortion is legal and the numbers of deaths we accept in a war (collatoral or otherwise), it’s no surprise that the pressure to kill the infirm could be on the rise.

I guess it’s just with all of the other deaths we baptise in our country being shocked or alarmed at pressure for the infirm to die is like being shocked water comes out of a faucet.

We’re a death as solution culture and we’ve got a very, very long road ahead of us to reverse that in any sort of whole way.

Break the Terror,

Sorry if my previous points were overly snarky – I think I was suffering a Chris R. hangover.

Issues of the legality of abortion on others countries… issues of poverty and health care in our country… issues of availability of contraception – these are all moot the the question of the “oughtness” of abortion.

Neil

Speaking of pesky facts… it was Democratic policies that forced and encouraged loans to people without means to pay that started this ball rolling… feel-good policies with no basis in economic reality.

Oh, that’s a radical interpretation of the text.

But given the reality that we’re not even close to seeing abortion banned outright, the question really is not one of ‘oughtness’, but of how can we reduce the number of abortions as much as possible. Then those questions become very important.

Yeah, that’s kind of the point I’m making. It may feel morally upright to spend time talking about “oughtness” or “ought-not-ness,” but it does nothing to address the situation, and issues such as these require a dose of reality.

Here’s my question on this issue: With all the education out there about how much a baby costs to raise, how much responsibility does the Mother have? I never hear this addressed, it’s always about how much those mean protesters haven’t done. How many people in this country would adopt that baby that she can’t afford? Thousands. The problem is that mom can have an abortion and not have to brush up against the consequences of actually meeting the baby that is being killed. To give the baby up for adoption she must go through the hell of meeting and then giving the baby up.
And yes, I believe there are physical and emotional consequences for every mother who goes through an abortion but many are told that there will not be before they actually have one.
And don’t even go play the “what about rape and incest?” card with me. Let’s deal with the abortions for convenience sake first. Most abortions have nothing to do with rape/incest/ not enough money to raise the kid, most have to do with convenience and not wanting to give up a lifestyle or a potential lifestyle.

And yes, I believe there are physical and emotional consequences for every mother who goes through an abortion but many are told that there will not be before they actually have one.

Actually, though, studies prove otherwise.

With all the education out there about how much a baby costs to raise, how much responsibility does the Mother have?

Except that there’s not “all that education out there” for people who don’t have access to it. Also, since abortion is heavily over-represented by the poorest among us, most of whom do not have health insurance or access to good prenatal care, first she must deal with the prospect of paying for the pregnancy. A lot of this could change very quickly if contraceptives were provided at little to no cost. Unfortunately, no “pro-life” group is fighting for that, because they think contraception is eeeeeeeeeeevil.

most have to do with convenience and not wanting to give up a lifestyle or a potential lifestyle.

Spoken by somebody who truly needs to believe his narrative to justify his opinions.

The average woman who seeks an
abortion is 24 years old, unwed, earns a
yearly income of about $25,000, and
already is a mother.

Are you s***ing me?

Seriously.

Perhaps you should cite papers that prove your point, rather than mine.

Perhaps you should cite papers that prove your point, rather than mine.

Perhaps you should read the whole paper…

$25K isn’t a lot, but it isn’t below poverty level either. It’s not welfare moms, like you’re painting them to be. It isn’t something that is just affecting uneducated, poor mothers. It could just as likely be the daughters of upper-middle class families. Incomes of those having abortion could be a secondary cause, rather than a primary. Look at this:

57% of women who seek an abortion have incomes that are below twice the federal poverty level. However, the portrait that it paints of them as poor could be misleading. 52% of women who have an abortion are under the age of 25. Young people simply earn less than older people and single people earn far less than married people. For example, a 2003 census bureau study found that those under 25 with a bachelor’sdegree earned on average $22,000 while those between 25 and 29 with the same degree earned $39,000.x Thus, these women could have low incomes, but they could also have wealthy or middle class parents.

And if you look deeper at the stats, only 22% of those who’ve had an abortion list “inadequate fincances” as the reason. The majority of other reasons pretty much boil down to the fact that the woman didn’t want the baby.

Phil – of course the issue of social strata and demographics is moot. It is like suggesting some murders are justified.

$25K isn’t a lot, but it isn’t below poverty level either. It’s not welfare moms, like you’re painting them to be. It isn’t something that is just affecting uneducated, poor mothers.

$25K isn’t much for a single mother who already has a child.

No need to indict yourself here. I’ve done my homework here. Cited numerous research projects done by Princeton, Yale, Harvard and Stanford.
I’ve met many women who have abortions and have had to deal with the stress.

And where are these Ivy League studies? Because pretty much everything I’ve seen acknowledges that some women go through this, but that it’s not the rampant “post abortion syndrome” crap that right-wingers spew.

The poorest people in downtown Baltimore all know what a baby is going to cost, many of them had access to contraceptives and they just didn’t care. They were horny and they wanted to have an orgasm, then they got pregnant. I’m not judging them, I’m quoting them.

That’s right. Blame the sluts. Did they have birth-control provided to them? Did they have health insurance that covers it? Did they go to a pharmacy and find some rabid right-to-lifer who shouldn’t be allowed to hold a medical job who refused to fill a prescription for birth control? God, this is why women are repelled by this crap. This is why every Republican pro-life president of the past 30 years has had a pro-choice wife, and Cindy McCain would make four.

Did they have birth-control provided to them?

Yes. Evan. Take a debate class. I said, “I’m not judging them, I’m quoting them.” See, Evan I’ve done interventions with them. So don’t bring your piss poor logic, nonsensical attack program to me. Condoms are cheaper than cigarettes. No one made them get naked and have sex, Evan.

Oh and Evan,
You called them sluts. Not me.

You called them sluts. Not me.

Give me a break.

Ok Evan,
Good luck. Fight your battles man. You sure showed us.

amen to the personal responsiblity, Joe.

It is a proven fact statistically that most abortions are in fact post sex birth control and do in fact affect the health of the mother negatively. I think that it should be outlawed.

I am finding myself agreeing with Phil, Joe, and Chris L simotaneously. Its the end of the world as we know it and I am feeling fine.

I just love how you throw around term “majority”, Evan. Of course the majority believes what you do in your mind, but unfortunately for you, wishing doesn’t make it so.

No, Phil, I’m talking about EVERY POLL on the issue. Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to the repeal of Roe. That’s just how it is.

If abortion were not an option, people would think twice about sleeping around.

Wrong. Based on all the the worldwide statistics that show that the legality of abortion has less than nothing to do with a nation’s abortion rate.

yeah that’s because liberal psychological types live in a fantasy world.

yeah that’s because liberal psychological types live in a fantasy world.

Read: “Any expert who excelled in school.”

TeamAmerica! Don’t study!

Why don’t we help the poverty-stricken mother who doesn’t know if she has a bedroom for the baby, much less whether she can afford healthcare for the child?! – BtT

Red-herring… of course we should. But this is a different issue… it may be related, there may be cause and effect, white-male-Christian have been remiss in addressing this – BUT the fact remains that killing for convenience is still wrong.

Red-herring… of course we should. But this is a different issue… it may be related, there may be cause and effect, white-male-Christian have been remiss in addressing this – BUT the fact remains that killing for convenience is still wrong.

It’s not a red herring because while so-called “pro-lifers” are wasting their time on trying to ram ineffective bans down peoples’ throats, the pro-choice advocacy groups, and other non-profits are left with all of the real world burden of addressing these issues.

Evan, since you’re so “open” and so enjoy “deep analysis” can you kindly inform of just one significant position you’ve changed on since interacting on Christian blogs? Perhaps abortion? gay marriage? falsity of other religions? the exclusivity of Christ?

No, see, no one here has ever told me anything new.

I used to BE you.

I used to BE you.

I take it that’s why you go to such great and sacrificial lengths to enlighten the mere mortals among you.

No, see, no one here has ever told me anything new.

How can they when you already know everything? Omnipotence must be awesome. Thanks for sharing.

While you may have used to drink the right-wing Kool-aid, your choice of drinks hasn’t changed, just the side of the spectrum that supplies it.

Yes, I went from mixing emotion and talking points in my Kool-aid to mixing facts and reality.

The problem, though, with academia is a bias against action and a tolerance for deviancy – forgetting to ask “should we?” before asking “can we?”

What? “Deviancy.” By whose definition? But I understand the narrative of “the academics are against us.” It’s very powerful in conservative circles, apparently. All those meanies with their books and their scientific methods and their unwillingness to cling to ideology and their quote-unquote studies. Liberal deviants, all of them.

I can most likely find one with the opposite conclusions.

Find me one, without the word “Christian” on it, plz.

so if your thesis is to make theology irrelevant, you’re in the wrong place.

Actually, though, as to the specific issue being debated, I would argue that I’m looking at the big picture, rather than a surface interpretation that basically goes “God say no kill human. Baby are in Mommy tum-tum. God say no kill baby. I win prize?”

And, to point out that pesky Jesus with all his “least of these” teachings, which he seemed to apply across the board to the “born,” I would argue that addressing the issues that lead to abortion, rather than the symptom of abortion, is much more in line with Christ-ianity than the “Tradishnul valyews” interpretation that currently passes for Christianity.

This blog happens to be focused on application of theology, so if your thesis is to make theology irrelevant, you’re in the wrong place.

Of course, if you are unable to argue your position without theology, you probably don’t have much of a position. And you definitely will never be able to convince anyone outside of your specific theological box.

How can they when you already know everything? Omnipotence must be awesome.

Huh? Where did Evan say that he already knew everything? Of course, this comment was made by the same person who said this:

Just a basic rule of thumb for interactions here: if you find yourself agreeing with Evan on almost any point, be assured you are in the wrong.

Amazing how you can attack Evan (in such a Christian manner, I might add) for “knowing everything” when you arrogantly attack Evan, and anyone that agrees with him, as being wrong on “almost any point.”

Stay classy.

Show me your proof. I could imagine it being a majority, as in over 50%, but not an overwhelming majority

Here is a good look at polls related to abortion.

Recent polls have 63% agreeing with Roe v Wade, 33% disagreeing, and 5% being unsure.

I would say that would come pretty close to an “overwelming majority.”

Here is a good look at polls related to abortion.

Recent polls have 63% agreeing with Roe v Wade, 33% disagreeing, and 5% being unsure.

I would say that would come pretty close to an “overwelming majority.”

Polls on that same page say 45-47% people say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases. About the same say legal always or most of the time. 4-5% are unsure.

Again, though, what does it matter when it comes down to it being a moral issue?

Of course, if you are unable to argue your position without theology, you probably don’t have much of a position.

Ouch, but true.

Polls on that same page say 45-47% people say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases. About the same say legal always or most of the time. 4-5% are unsure.

Yes… I know. Abortion polls tend to be all over the place, depending on how the questions are framed.

Again, though, what does it matter when it comes down to it being a moral issue?

Well… first, you asked for proof, and I showed it to you.

Second, it shows that it is clearly not a black and white moral issue.

You and I may agree on a lot of the peripheral issues… but they are just that, and since you will not address the “oughtness” question without continually bringing up tangential (albeit related and very important) “What about” questions – I guess I’ll just give up.

I would argue that the questions are anything but tangential, and that’s why common ground can’t be found on this issue.

See, “ought” is for dreamers.

Realists start from…reality. Abortion has existed for a VERY long time. It will always exist. There will always be pregnancies that women choose to terminate, for whatever reason. This is the reality. We cannot make moral decisions in a free country based on “ought” when “ought” isn’t ever going to happen.

Second, it shows that it is clearly not a black and white moral issue.

The fact that people are so split on this, and that people often have conflicting emotions about it, shows that the issue is, in reality, 100% gray.

“facts” and sociology (which is, at best pseudoscience) are slippery things.

Sociology is “pseudoscience?” Interesting…

Dave,
I guess God is irrelevant, then…

WTF? Where did I say that? Don’t put words in my mouth.

I don’t buy the socialist line that we’re all idiots who need government to take of us.

OOH…. scary socialism!!!! What does socialism have to do with the conversation?

You act as if poor are being forced to make babies by someone.

Nice… you are good at pretending people say things that they never say.

I have my masters degree from a large secular institution, and my wife has a PhD from that same institution – in Microbiology.

Why are we trotting out this information? It’s not relevant when ideology trumps knowledge.

I don’t see Evangelicalism suggesting that we not take care of the already born “least-of-these”.

Except that, in practice, that’s how Evangelicalism works.

So, no strawman. It would be one thing if the Southern Baptist Convention was leading the charge to encourage foster care and universal healthcare or something…

See, “ought” is for dreamers.

Apparently you have no kids…

Realists start from…reality. Abortion has existed for a VERY long time. It will always exist. There will always be pregnancies that women choose to terminate, for whatever reason. This is the reality. We cannot make moral decisions in a free country based on “ought” when “ought” isn’t ever going to happen.

So to be consistent; murder, stealing, rape, etc… should also not be banned… since people are gonna do it anyway.

Most all laws are moral decisions.

Why are we trotting out this information? It’s not relevant when ideology trumps knowledge.

How ironic coming from someone who’s whole argument is based on talking points issued by the Huffington Post…

So, no strawman. It would be one thing if the Southern Baptist Convention was leading the charge to encourage foster care and universal healthcare or something…

Actually a lot of different Evangelical groups are doing a lot in the way of helping people who want to adopt. They are also doing a lot for poor kids in other countries. Compassion International is one of the best agencies around.

Another straw-man. Nobody’s arguing for a theocracy. Just a respect for human life.

Yet you only want to argue with theology…

This is a false dichotomy. One need not argue without theology to avoid theocracy. Everyone has a theology, even the Atheist.

Shoot…I mostly agree with Evan so I guess my salvation is mostly in jeopardy

Well, maybe…

Seriously, I just cannot for the life of me understand how a Christian can justify having abortion as a legal alternative. What is the reasoning for keeping it legal?

I never said you can’t argue with a certain point of view. Everyone has a certain point of view. But you are not going to be able to use the Bible to convince people that don’t believe in the Bible.

True.

I’d say that’s different than not having an argument to make.

The essence of your argument, though, is to render God irrelevant if your position is not supported by atheistic reasoning.

Ugh. I guess it is easier to paint me as someone who wants to make God irrelevant rather than deal with what I am talking about.

I am not rendering God irrelevant. I am saying that if you can only argue a position based on theology, you need a better argument. Especially when that position exists outside of the theological realm.

Seriously, I just cannot for the life of me understand how a Christian can justify having abortion as a legal alternative. What is the reasoning for keeping it legal?

I say the same except exchange “human” for “Christian.” How can any human justify killing another human for the convenience of it?

The fact that people are still going to have them, and it will start killing the mothers as well, like in the Third World?

*shrug*

Shrug is right… again, we are talking “oughtness” in general and American law in particular… Third World mothers are a differnt issue. Call it the lesser of two evils, but they are both still evil and the one does not justify the other.

Third World mothers are a differnt issue. Call it the lesser of two evils, but they are both still evil and the one does not justify the other.

No, you missed the thrust of my point. If we ban it in America, to satisfy the “ought” desires of the Christian right, American women will start going to Canada, to Mexico, or to the inevitable black market practitioners for abortions, or the coathanger days will come back.

I say the same except exchange “human” for “Christian.” How can any human justify killing another human for the convenience of it?

“Convenience” again. I swear to god, you people must have this image in your minds of girls’ palm pilots that read “1:00 mani-pedi, 2:00 meet Kelli for Starbucks, 3:00 haw haw abortion, 4:00 hair appointment, 5:00 cocktails with Katelyn, now that I can drink again!”

Phenomenal.

Powerful narrative, though.

The fact that people are still going to have them, and it will start killing the mothers as well, like in the Third World?

*shrug*

Again, the fact that people are going to do it is irrelevant.

As far as the mother’s health – it’s rarely an issue when it comes down to it. The vast majority (use your terminology) o f abortions are done out of convenience, not necessity.

Apparently up to but not including what to do with their own damned bodies, in your worldview.

As I said before, I’m pretty much a Libertarian at heart… so I would oppose laws that prohibit homosexuality, drug use, tobacco, etc… what you do with/to your body is your business.

The line is drawn thought when it endangers someone else. That is why getting drunk drunk is legal, but driving drunk is not.

Same for abortion. Women have the complete right to reproduce if/when they want… right up to the point they become pregnant.

Then (like drunk driving laws) the protection of the innocent trumps the rights of the individual.

More myth and narrative. “People can’t make right/wrong decisions without a concept of God.”

Powerful narrative.

Untrue, though.

Oh, people can make decisions based on a concept of right and wrong, but that concept of right and wrong is based a huge meta-narrative that has its roots in someone’s theology.

The vast majority (use your terminology) o f abortions are done out of convenience, not necessity.

Oh, my god, you all believe this.

Absolutely insane.

Question, for all of you? In the Old Testament, there’s a law that states that if a man beats a pregnant woman and it results in the death of her fetus, he will be fined, which is a far lesser penalty, obviously, than for taking a life.

Why doesn’t God value the unborn as much as the born?

Evan,

What are the reasons that necessitate an abortion?

Neil

Basically, in other cultures, women were seen as little more than property. Men could beat them without recourse at all. So when God gives the Torah, he’s giving some guidelines to strat limiting the violence, not justify it.

There it is: the convoluted explanation. Um, HEBREW culture treated women as property as well.

It is a convenience killing if:
someone has an abortion because the time of life is wrong (not married, want to go to college, want to keep a career) or,
someone wants to avoid embarresment (too young, raped, etc.) or,
somone cannot afford a baby (too poor, too young, too old)

These are all convenience killings…

No, they’re not.

Having an abortion because you can’t afford to feed the child isn’t “convenience.”

Having an abortion because you can’t emotionally handle bearing your rapist’s child is not “convenience.”

You people have absolutely zero compassion for the women who find themselves in these situations.

Answer me this: Do you support contraception?

Having an abortion because you can’t afford to feed the child isn’t “convenience.”

Yes it is, there are plenty of willing couples (even gay couples) waiting to adopt – it’s just too much work to carry the baby to term then put it up for adoption so let’s kill it…

Having an abortion because you can’t emotionally handle bearing your rapist’s child is not “convenience.”

Yes it is, killing the child because his father was a rapist is not justice. Killing your child because the thought of it causes you emotional pain is convenience… very attractive convenience, but convenience nontheless.

You people have absolutely zero compassion for the women who find themselves in these situations.

Another false dichotomy! Having compassion for the unborn is not tantamouint to not having compassion on the woman is a situation. They ARE NOT mutually exclusive… I’d say counseling a woman to kill her child as a means to avoid emotional turmoil lacks compassion for the woman.

Really? Then why are there thousands of orphans in both this country and the world that have not been adopted?

mostly bureaucracy

Really? Then why are there thousands of orphans in both this country and the world that have not been adopted?

It is bureaucracy, but I’ve also read that a lot of countries have started having to really restrict adoptions to foreigners because of the child sex trade. It’s very sad, actually.

Adoption is something my wife and I have been looking into recently…

Lack of compassion, money, hedonism, inconvenience, and most churches are anti-abortion which doesn’t seem to be proprtionately mirrored with an adoption crusade.

I agree.

Lack of compassion, money, hedonism, inconvenience, and most churches are anti-abortion which doesn’t seem to be proprtionately mirrored with an adoption crusade.

I agree, Rick. It would be an awesome thing to see. I have actually seen some movement in this area recently.

I know Steven Curtis Chapman has started an organization for this purpose. Hopefully others will follow suit.

I don’t think in terms, really, of a strict right and wrong, because, most of the time, those kinds of ideas are kind of useless in real-life application.

I agree, most of the time, but there times – like abortion on demand, or drunk-driving, where right and wrong kick in rather plainly.

Evan, that is a reasonable argument. Now, if only we can show that it is true. But you did use the word ‘try’ which at least demonstrates that ‘we’ don’t always (ever?) ’succeed.’ I think that so-called ‘gay’ couples can adopt all they want, they just need enough money to do so. Look at Rosie O’ for example. She seems to have no trouble adopting.

I’m not trying to share the gospel or convert you or anything like that Evan, but do you really have an argument or a line of reasoning that hasn’t first been uttered by like every single liberal politician who has ever dared to utter a single syllable?

Or do you disagree because you have nothing better to do? Can you point me in the direction of the data that demonstrates “all the available data shows that the only difference in the children of gays and straights is that it’s near impossible for a gay couple to raise a bigot”

I’d like to read that data. Thanks in advance for pointing my browser to it!

jerry

I never should have mentioned gay couples…

I look at it from the perspective of “Okay, this is always going to exist, but what actually minimizes it?” From all the available data, it’s not bans. All the available data shows that in many if not the majority of circumstances, abortion is a symptom of a larger root cause, and that the best way to minimize abortion is to address those root causes.

Yet, it is available “on-demand” w/o cause other than wantng too. Which common sense will tell you makes them more prevelant.

Let’s ban ‘em – that will reduce them automatically. AND address the issues that cause them in the first place…

Evan, that is a reasonable argument. Now, if only we can show that it is true. But you did use the word ‘try’ which at least demonstrates that ‘we’ don’t always (ever?) ’succeed.’ I think that so-called ‘gay’ couples can adopt all they want, they just need enough money to do so. Look at Rosie O’ for example. She seems to have no trouble adopting.

Well, an article came out today in the Chicago Tribune that stated specifically that a study has been done and gay couples are necessary to address the adoption crisis in this country. http://breaktheterror.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/according-to-a-new-study-gay-adoption-is-necessary/

However, in many states adoption by gay couples is illegal, mostly because of the efforts of Christianists. There’s an awful ban on the Arkansas ballot this year. The Florida ban was just overturned by their Supreme Court. If you’ll remember, the reason Rosie O’Donnell came out in the first place was because a gay couple had been fostering five kids or so, all children living with HIV, the throwaways of the system, and they wanted to adopt them, and Florida would not let them. In Utah, because of the obscene influence of the Mormon church, only married straight people can adopt.

And don’t use the term “so-called gay.” It’s stupid. It’s like American Family Association stupid.

Uh, did you really use the word ‘bigot’ in this conversation with reference to Christians? Seriously?

Yes.

Or do you disagree because you have nothing better to do? Can you point me in the direction of the data that demonstrates “all the available data shows that the only difference in the children of gays and straights is that it’s near impossible for a gay couple to raise a bigot”

Yeah, I’ll find it. Several studies have been done, and the results across the board have shown that kids in two-parent homes fare pretty equally, regardless of the genders of their parents. Christianists misuse studies that analyze children of two married parents vs. children of single or divorced parents, and then casually use them against gay people, but they’re lying, as per usual. And the latest study did, indeed, study social attitudes of children of gay parents and found that the only difference was on that issue.

I agree, most of the time, but there times – like abortion on demand, or drunk-driving, where right and wrong kick in rather plainly.

Except that they don’t.

For whom?

Living human beings.

Justice for: Living human beings.

My point exactly.

WRONG! If you ban them, the rate will go down for about 10 minutes while a black market develops.

I’m sure if there were a ban, the number of illegal abortions would go up. But I still think the number of total abortions would decrease. Illegal abortions would likely be more expensive, and more inconvenient.

It’s like the Prohibition of alchol (which I’m not for). Everyone seems to think that people drank more when it was in effect because of the way it’s portrayed in movies and the like. The truth is they didn’t. The majority of people actually obeyed the law. The total number of people who drank decreased.

How that would address the underlying problems is beyond me. Your suggestion is akin to putting a bandaid on pancreatic cancer.

It’s funny to me that we keep on coming back to this “root causes” thing. It’s like you think it’s a mystery why people get pregnant. It’s really not that complicated of an issue. People have sex. They generally know about birth control, but they choose not to use it. What do you want to do? State-mandated sterilization?

Um, no it doesn’t! Also, the data says differently!

Go play at the Guttmacher Institute. They have scads and scads of papers and studies done on this subject.

I did, but didn’t see the data… not saying it’s not there. But it sure seems counter-intuitive that a service anyone can get legally, easily, and without stigma would not be reduced once it’s illegal, unavailable (on a store front sense) and stigmatized.

That said, you last post this:

If you ban them, the rate will go down for about 10 minutes while a black market develops. How that would address the underlying problems is beyond me.

You have chosen to ignore the “AND” which ties my points together – instead you chose to address a point I never made – I do not know (or care) if you intentionally misrepresented what I said.

It is too difficult and time consuming to make a point, then be expected to defend a position never made.

A Klauss Barbie sighting. Wow!

Sorry to offend you dave…

Well… hypocrisy is one of the things that offends me. Don’t apologize for offending though. Just don’t be hypocritical.

still, I can’t really hear what you’re saying over the racket of your tirade in comment #85. Stay classy.

A tirade? Where?

This is the section at Guttmacher devoted to abortion:

http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/abortion.php

There are about eleventy billion reports to peruse.

I find it interesting that “pro-life” Christians have such a hard time imagining that other Christians, even, might have a different opinion. So here’s a perspective of a Christian woman who thinks all of you are quite wrong, Anne Lamott, from one of her essays:

I like Anne Lamott, but I still think she’s wrong in this case. I understand people have different opinions, but I try to base my opinion on what I see best fits the facts.

I have yet to see convincing evidence that there is a good excuse to allow the killing of a fetus in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Another false dichotomy! Having compassion for the unborn is not tantamouint to not having compassion on the woman is a situation. They ARE NOT mutually exclusive… I’d say counseling a woman to kill her child as a means to avoid emotional turmoil lacks compassion for the woman.

That only works if you have a patriarchal view of sex that says that procreation should always be a desired result.

The rest of us say, “Like hell!”

So we come back to convenience… I wanna have sex without worrying about having kids… Like Hell I’m gonna live with consequences to my behavior

I believe in basic rights for all… even the right to choose to reproduce. But once a person chooses to have sex, they have chosen an option that has reproduction as a possible outcome.

That only works if you have a patriarchal view of sex that says that procreation should always be a desired result.

The rest of us say, “Like hell!”

That’s not what Neil’s saying at all. If someone chooses to have unprotected sex, they take upon themselves the risk that entails. It has nothing to do with seeing procreation as the purpose of sex. Procreation, however, is definitely one of the possible outcomes.

This gets back to the more fundamental issues of ideology. It seems that liberals would rather spend time and energy trying to insulate people from poor decisions, or take away the freedom of people to make poor decisions than actually just let people have the freedom to make the decision. I’d rather have a system that gives all equal opportunity than equal experience. If you try to equalize experience, it is bound to lower everyone’s.

dave – here’s my point. Please point me to one interaction with Evan where he has ever argued from a Biblical perspective. That’s why this is a waste of time: he doesn’t have one.

When he said that no one here has ever said anything “new” that he could learn from or perhaps cause him to reconsider his stance on issues (ie: homo lifestyle, abortion, etc)… that just highlights wilful blindness. When he said he “used to BE me” (note the caps) that was a little more arrogant that what I said, don’t you think? (yes, I know 2 wrongs don’t make a right).

All this interaction would be fine if a person wasn’t so cock-sure there were always right on every issue.

I wasn’t trying to be hypocritical.

That’s not what Neil’s saying at all.

Thanks Phil, I have given up addressing responses that alter or ignore the point I was making.

Evan,

The Chicago Tribune–a stalwart of reliable educational material and THE standard for 2000 years of scholarly study! Thanks for the link.

PS–I don’t care how ‘necessary’ people think ‘gay couples’ are to alleviating some perceived crisis in the field of adoption. The fact is, and I know we are not supposed to talk about God here or what God says or what God’s word says or what Christians think, but, having dismissed all the god talk, i can safely say that there is no such thing as a ‘gay couple solution’ to the problem. that is merely liberal pablum. the reason rosie came out is because she could and she has the money to do so. i note that she didn’t come out until after she had money to support herself.

I know I shouldn’t say this because i’m not supposed to hurt people’s feelings or to make ‘judgments’ about lifestyle choices, but homosexuality is just wrong and it cannot, will not, benefit parent-less children in any way, shape, form or otherwise.

Now, Evan, rest assured, i’m not trying to convert you and i don’t have any studies to direct your browser to, but nature–just the nature of things– the nature we have supposedly evolved from, has determined that homosexual people should not be raising children, otherwise, they could have their own. This is the only data that I have. No homosexual couple on the planet in the history of the world can naturally reproduce. That should tell you quite a lot about what God thinks or evolution thinks, about homosexuality and children.

i’m sorry that i have offended all the homosexuals or those of you with latent homosexual tendencies or those of you living celibate homosexual lives or those of you…whatever…i stand by this assessment despite the fact that I run the risk of becoming a joke and a byword at BTT’s blog.

jerry

Do you believe that sex is only for procreation?

No

Also, no one ever answered whether or not they believe in contraception.

I’m fine with it.

“Oh good lord. As I stated before, the arguments against the “homo lifestyle” as you uneducated-ly call it, are basically confined to “We don’t like it and we think our book says so, so nyah!” It’s not intelligent discourse…”

I don’t need the Bible to demonstrate that homosexuality is not natural. Nature demonstrates that it is not natural. Evolution itself has determined that the homosexual should not reproduce which demonstrates, btw, that the homosexual should not raise children. left to its own, without any ‘recruiting’, homosexuality would ‘die’ a natural death through the process of survival of the fittest, or, in this case, un-survival because cannot pass along the necessary genetic codes to keep it alive in the next generation.

The Chicago Tribune–a stalwart of reliable educational material and THE standard for 2000 years of scholarly study!

Did you even read it? It was an article about a study. The Chicago Tribune did not do the study.

i note that she didn’t come out until after she had money to support herself.

You know, that is a great point. And why is that she did not come out? Don’t worry – I will answer my own question. Our society still treats homosexuals as second class citizens, which means that it can be difficult to support one’s self as an out homosexual, especially one who, like Rosie, is reliant on public support for her living.

As soon as we can get rid of the second class citizenship of homosexuals, the money factor will be much less of an issue.

homosexuality is just wrong and it cannot, will not, benefit parent-less children in any way, shape, form or otherwise.

Yup… you are right. Orphans will be some much better off in an orphanage than with two loving parents.

i’m sorry that i have offended all the homosexuals or those of you with latent homosexual tendencies or those of you living celibate homosexual lives or those of you…whatever…i stand by this assessment despite the fact that I run the risk of becoming a joke and a byword at BTT’s blog.

Well… when you speak with that much condescension about homosexuals, you kind of deserve to become a joke.

dave – I fail to see how I am being hypocritical here.

Evan suggests the homo lifestyle is a-OK, other religions might be equally valid to Christianity, Jesus is not necessarily exclusive… Abortion? that discussions ongoing.

Evan is definitely wrong on all these issues, though he is convinced his brand of thinking has evolved far beyond those who still actually think the bible has some validity. What is so difficult to understand about that from a biblical standpoint?

Dave,

I am not an animal. and animals are not created in the image of God. humans are. That argument holds no water because it assumes that what animals do is normative for what humans do.

jerry

dave – I fail to see how I am being hypocritical here.

It is pretty simple. You attack Evan for thinking he knows everything while you, at the same time, attack Evan for always being wrong.

You don’t get how that is hypocritcal? You clearly are “cocks-sure” that Evan is always wrong, while you attack Evan for being “cock-sure” he knows everything.

Why is it okay for you to be so sure that you are right, but it is not okay for Evan to be the same?

Whether something is “natural” or not is just an odd way to base an argument.

I didn’t base the argument on it, Jerry did.

I am not an animal.

Actually, yea you are.

The Chicago Tribune–a stalwart of reliable educational material and THE standard for 2000 years of scholarly study! Thanks for the link.

Um, well they were reporting on a new study that wasn’t done by the Chicago Trib…

*headdesk*

the reason rosie came out is because she could and she has the money to do so. i note that she didn’t come out until after she had money to support herself.

Uh. Okay. In case you want to check the historical record, rather than your own predetermined notions, you’d find that Rosie explicitly said that she came out was because of this specific case in Florida. But believe what you need to believe…

but homosexuality is just wrong and it cannot, will not, benefit parent-less children in any way, shape, form or otherwise.

Again, believe what you need to believe, all evidence be damned. Wouldn’t want to hurt the fragile narrative with facts.

but nature–just the nature of things– the nature we have supposedly evolved from, has determined that homosexual people should not be raising children, otherwise, they could have their own.

Actually, no, but again, it’s outside your narrative, so…

Neil and Phil, I’m glad you’re fine with contraception. Now would you spread the word that EVERY pro-life organization actively campaigns against it? It’s quite counter-productive.

Outside of marriage, I believe it is. If you aren’t willing to accept that children are a possible outcome of sexual intercourse, you shouldn’t be having sex.

But that’s your personal belief, which has no real world application from a policy perspective.

Nature demonstrates that it is not natural.

Fundamentalists don’t do science well, so don’t try. Homosexuality is present in over 1,500 animal species that we know of so far.

Evolution itself has determined that the homosexual should not reproduce which demonstrates, btw, that the homosexual should not raise children.

Um, I could drive a Mack truck through the holes in that statement, so let me back up and ram through it a few times. The rearing of young is done in all different ways in nature, some that have direct correlations to the reproductive process, some that don’t. Penguins are stay-at-home dads, the mothers go on long journeys to find food, and sometimes they die. The dads have even been known to hook up!

left to its own, without any ‘recruiting’, homosexuality would ‘die’ a natural death through the process of survival of the fittest, or, in this case, un-survival because cannot pass along the necessary genetic codes to keep it alive in the next generation.

Again, fundamentalists don’t do science well, so…

First of all, “recruiting” is the silliest myth you people tell yourselves at Promise Keepers. Sexual antagonism works like this: A gene may express itself differently depending on whether the child is a male or a female. The latest studies are showing that there is a high correlation between male homosexuals and fecund female siblings, that there is a gene/s present which makes her more fecund and him gay. In layman’s terms, there’s a correlation between excessively fertile women with lots of kids and gay brothers. In one gender, it contributes to the very perpetuation of the species. This also explains why the gene would not disappear.

But once a baby is in the picture, that kid deserves a chance to live.

This pretty much sums it up. Once a kid has been conceived… all the other issues, scenarios, tagic circumstance, and “yeah, but what about’s” just serve to clutter this one truth.

Neil and Phil, I’m glad you’re fine with contraception. Now would you spread the word that EVERY pro-life organization actively campaigns against it? It’s quite counter-productive.

Moot.

Barney Frank and Sarah Palin attend the same church.

Evan is definitely wrong on all these issues, though he is convinced his brand of thinking has evolved far beyond those who still actually think the bible has some validity.

That’s right, it’s always the fundamentalists who are more “evolved.” History bears that one out.

Heh.

no, i do not believe in contraception

Then you are not pro-life, because you believe in policies which result in millions of abortions. Deal with it.

I am not an animal. and animals are not created in the image of God. humans are. That argument holds no water because it assumes that what animals do is normative for what humans do.

Except that Teh Science says you are an animal, a mammal specifically. You have a genus, a species, and EVERYTHING! You share most of your genetic code with chimpanzees, and you’re gonna like it!

furthermore, if it is natural, then one would assume that ALL animals would participate in such activity and not all, by any percentage of the imagination, do. besides, they are animals.

Over 1,500 species so far! That’s just the ones where they’ve specifically observed it. It seems that homosexuality is EVERYWHERE in this world. They’re comin’ to get you! Gay dolphins! They are going to recruit you into their “lifestyle!” And have you heard about the transgendered sea anemone? It, too, is coming to get you with its filthy cross-dressing ways.

If being left-handed unnatural? Because on a small percentage of people are left-handed. Does that mean that they are unnatural?

Hey Dave, did you know there’s actually a correlation between left-handedness and some gay people? Also, there’s a thing with the length of men’s index and ring fingers.

That’s the worst part of being “recruited” into the “homosexual lifestyle,” when they shave off the bone on your ring finger.

Evan isn’t always wrong, he said he liked me once, that proves good taste!

I’ve come to the end of my patience with Evan on this one… I will not engage any further since he has taken to being condescending and insists on building up straw men just to warm himself as they burn.

It has been interesting and I’ll part with one final thought.

It is ontologically wrong to kill a human being because that human is inconvenient or their life is seen as less valuable.

No, we’ve grown beyond that, into a place where grown-ups should be able to choose whether or not they want to have sex with each other, and whether or not they want that sex to result in a child, without needing your input, or Your Version of God’s input.

I agree. And this just illustrates why I am bowing out at this point – we have repeatedly said we do not want to legislate sexual relationship between adults – yet you insist on bringing this up as if we do…

I agree, Evan, but once the child is conceived this argument no longer stands. Unless you are willing to say it is ought to kill a human for being inconvenient.

“I don’t like facts that don’t fit my narrative, and I don’t know what to say anymore, so, I’m checking out.”

In reality, everyone should recognize that when people are not on the same page then there is no “engagement”, just regurgitated redundancies. That is why I choose detached snarkyism, it keeps me entertained.

From abortion to homosexuality in one thread. Hmm…is that reflective of an agenda? Naaa…

Neil: “I don’t like facts that don’t fit my narrative, and I don’t know what to say anymore, so, I’m checking out.”

Thanks Evan, you have illustrated by point by blatantly disregarding my argument and, instead, putting words in my mouth which I did not, would not utter…

I’m sure we’ll meet again, thanks.

dave – I’ll bite, which comment was first?

Paul C was the first and the second to bring up anything related to homosexuality.

This is why liberals make statements like “Fundamentalists sadly seem to think that the only problem facing America is gay abortions.”

In the fundamentalist’s mind, and nowhere else, they are inextricably linked.

Anyone know why?

I do. It relates to my statement about “pro-life” organizations not actually caring about unborn babies at the end of the day.

dave – I believe comment #144 by Evan was much more topic pointed than the two you mentioned which contained asides rather than a direct reference.

I disagree with your viewpoints and your reasoning on these issues completely,
BUT!!!
You do bring up a very valid and important point. Many people are blind to the link between abortion and contraception.

Ta-da!

Common ground.

I do. It relates to my statement about “pro-life” organizations not actually caring about unborn babies at the end of the day.

Well, I don’t think any of us are part of any “pro-life” organizations. I’m not. I don’t contribute to any political organization. I don’t think that’s the way to solve the issue.

Even though I think abortion should be illegal, I don’t think it is going to happen anytime soon. I don’t think much that happens in Washington has the chance of making things better, actually. I suppose there is a small chance of a mass revival breaking out in Congress, but I’m not holding my breath.

I think the best chance for abortion to become illegal is something akin to the civil rights movement – a grassroots led effort where people eventually see what a great injustice is being perpetrated against the unborn, and the demand for abortions goes down, and abortion clinics go out of business. Eventually the law will catch up.

So I guess I’m an idealist in some sense, but a realist in others. I think it will take hard work and patience on the part of the church. Christians need to show love for the unwanted of society. We need to adopt babies that no one else will. We need to offer people love without judgment. We need to show them hope.

Rick,

Contraception is defenitely not murder, but some people could be right in believing that artificial contraception is sin. And acceptance of it can lead to other sins.

In using the word sin, I mean (a wrong choice that people ought not make)

Brett – thanks for noticing me (Eeyore). My comment was meant to showcase some of the more ridiculous and unproductive comments.

I wrestled with all the biblical/theological and moral issues of contraception a few years ago, but Flannery O’Conner finally made sense of it for me:

“The Church’s stand on birth control is the most absolutely spiritual of all her stands and with all of us being materialists at heart, there is little wonder that it causes unease. I wish various fathers would quit trying to defend it by saying that the world can support forty billion. I will rejoice in the day when they say: This is right, whether we all rot on top of each other or not, dear children, as we certainly may. Either practice restraint or be prepared for crowding.” – Flannery O’Conner 1959

Evan,

the word ‘narrative’ is boring now. can you please find a new way to state your point?

Dave,

I am not an animal. You might be if you choose to allow animal behavior to dictate your standard of conduct. But there are many factors that distinguish humans from animals. I am not. I am a human being made in the image of God. That sets me apart from any and all animals.

Evan,

“It’s quite counter-productive.”

duh!

1,500 animals species? Well that certainly demonstrates conclusively that it is AOK! But considering there are millions of animal species…uh, maybe you don’t do math too well. (PS, I am not a ‘fundamentalist.’) Many animal species also practice infanticide; guess that makes it ok too.

“That’s the worst part of being “recruited” into the “homosexual lifestyle,” when they shave off the bone on your ring finger.”

Seinfeld is the one who convinced everyone that homosexuals recruit, not me. Remember the whole ‘you can double your wardrobe’ bit…?

I am not an animal. The words ‘genus,’ ’species,’ etc., are artificial constructs made up by people. My 9th grade biology teacher taught me that and Mrs Heasley was never wrong!!!!

I actually had a Catholic woman tell me one day, while our sons practiced for little league, that the current epidemic of abortion is the fault of the protestant church permitting contraceptives.

Your argument is full of folly because people who are not Christians (protestant or catholic) do not really care what the church has to say about contraceptives–that they do what they want is evident–and those who are Christians view contraception as a matter of conscience not related particularly to biblical law. There is no particular biblical thus sayeth the Lord on the matter because to the biblical people many children was a sign of the Lord’s particular blessing. I do recall one fella named Onan who got in some trouble for practicing contraception once though.

thanks for the polite conversation Evan and Dave, I appreciate your kindness!

yrrej

I actually had a Catholic woman tell me one day, while our sons practiced for little league, that the current epidemic of abortion is the fault of the protestant church permitting contraceptives.

What an insane woman.

Probably because, well, I’m the parent and I’m responsible for the upbringing of my child, and until they leave the house, what you want to give them is my business.

I agree…however: If your daughter came to you at 16 and said, “Dad, I need birth control, my boyfriend and I are having sex and he doesn’t like using condoms,” would you allow her to have it, or would you say “no” and give her a lecture about sex, and then expect her to go on her way and heed your advice? Because if so, that’s not how teenagers operate.

Bear in mind, also, that not every child has good parents who would react calmly.

And after the dust settled and the sound diminishes and the atmosphere dilutes, you are left with one constant:

Abortion is murder.

Evan – you are correct, I will not be convinced by science or argument or reason or evidence or anything else. Life begins at conception and a woman’s womb was meant to conceive and grow that human, not a cavern for destruction. I stand by God’s Word.

Stupid, shallow, unreasonable, but maybe a little respectful and gracious. That is my story and I’m stickin to it.

Probably neither extreme. In the end, I would most likely leave it to her decision – after a long discussion (in which morality would only be a fraction of the time).

That’s good. Bear in mind, though: Some parents would say no, and their kids would still traipse off and have sex. Which is why, bearing this in mind:

the side-effect profile of “the pill” (depending on which one you’re using) is not trivial.

Side effects really depend. For lots of people, there are side-effects, but bearing in mind that it’s a medical thing, I would absolutely support girls being able to get them from physicians, quietly, without parental consent, if parental consent wasn’t forthcoming.

This is Joe’s wife, Michelle, and I can’t help it. I have to put in my two cents. I’ve heard so many pro-choice women (Evan said this, too, at the end of comment 6) argue that no man should make these decisions. While I agree with many of you, that men have every right to stand up against killing unborn children, the fact still remains that no man will ever truly know what it is to face the reality of an unexpected pregnancy and the responsibility that comes along with it from a maternal standpoint. It is a frightening thing to realize that you are suddenly physically responsible for another life, and many women choose immediate denial, refusing to humanize the life inside of them for fear of getting attached. Some women eventually choose to accept it as a blessing, while others act swiftly and end the child’s life before they can comprehend the reality of it.

There are a number of low- or no-cost maternity care programs, and contraceptives are available at reduced costs in many places. I would think that paying a few hundred dollars (or more) out of pocket for an abortion would greatly exceed the more reasonable cost of contraceptives, which leads me to believe that irresponsibility and carelessness is a huge factor in all of this (big revelation, huh?). I think, too, that Christians will always be at odds over the idea of contraceptives (my own husband and I sometimes have differing opinions), so arguing over that is almost worthless.

When I found out I was pregnant with our son, even though Joe and I were married and earning a decent living, my parents pressured me throughout my entire first trimester to “end the pregnancy,” trying to convince me it was “too soon to settle down.” That kind of pressure is hard to deal with, and I can easily imagine someone without the support I had giving into it willingly. Although I still struggle against my parents’ opinions of my lifestyle, I have never once regretted the choices Joe and I made or the beautiful baby that we chase after every day.

Just thought I’d provide a (very) limited glimpse into the mind of a woman, considering most of this thread concerns us.

Thank you so much, Michelle, and God bless you. We love Joe.

It’s puzzling how genetic problems such as Downs syndrome can be found in “non-persons.” Can some pro-choice advocate explain that for me?

I agree with joe’s wife. i will just say this: it is a very, very different situation when you actually have a little life inside of you and you are very, very scared. When your hormones are going crazy and you are vomiting five times a day…

I think it is much easier early in pregnancy also to not feel attached to the baby.. most of the ‘cool stuff’ (the not throwing up as much & the kicking & hiccups etc) come so much later.

I also agree w/Chris L that we need to provide support for these women. When I was pregnant, without insurance, I wrote to the pregnancy care in town. I wrote them a scared, honest e-mail about how frightened I was. (Having no insurance & being 7 hours away from my parents.) They honestly wrote back ‘a baby is a blessing.’ I went down to their building and they pointed me to a Medicaid screen (which we didn’t qualify for.) That was it.

Am I saying that having the baby was not worth it? Of course not. Were there more complex issues then ‘a baby is a blessing’ covered? Of course.

Just my two cents.

I also agree w/Chris L that we need to provide support for these women. When I was pregnant, without insurance, I wrote to the pregnancy care in town. I wrote them a scared, honest e-mail about how frightened I was. (Having no insurance & being 7 hours away from my parents.) They honestly wrote back ‘a baby is a blessing.’ I went down to their building and they pointed me to a Medicaid screen (which we didn’t qualify for.) That was it.

I’m glad the girls are speaking up finally .

Some women are lucky enough to be able to find pre-natal care and pregnancy programs, some aren’t. Unfortunately, it’s not an across the board thing.

I would think that paying a few hundred dollars (or more) out of pocket for an abortion would greatly exceed the more reasonable cost of contraceptives, which leads me to believe that irresponsibility and carelessness is a huge factor in all of this (big revelation, huh?).

Theoretically. The problems that I’ve seen, again, are with availability. Birth control costs money on the front end, money which some people don’t have, and, especially with unmarried people, with teenagers, there’s the very real issue of guys not wanting to wear condoms, and girls not taught how to be equipped to handle that situation. I just think there are a lot of variables at play here.

Biblical “concepts” like sin, mercy, redemption, heaven and hell, and Jesus and satan take on a whole different level of “reality” when one becomes a parent.

I don’t see what that has to do with the subject at hand. At all.

One of the ways I could tell is by the way you throw around the word “teenager”; as if it were some alien life form.

A teenager (by default) was not created to be some undisciplined, undirected, person that has no understanding about why he exists in this world.

Yes, because they are hormonally controlled alien life forms. Perhaps it’s because I’m simultaneously old enough to have some distance, yet young enough to remember being a teenager vividly. I was raised in a very Evangelical environment, and I know there is a huge disconnect between what Christian parents think their kids are doing and what their kids are actually doing. In my Christian high school, let me tell you, I knew very few virgins. I watched another friend from a Bible study group get pregnant because she and her boyfriend were naive about what does and does not cause pregnancy. Obviously her parents didn’t get into much detail with her, and there wasn’t any kind of real sex ed class in school that addressed things in any detail.

And as I said before, I have close friends who have teenagers now, and they’re just the same. They tell me things they would never tell their parents, and they don’t have scary judgmental parents. The point is that teens need to have the correct information and, erm, supplies, available, because parents wear the most amazing rose-colored glasses when it comes to their kids, because the scenario I presented above, where the teen goes to the parent and asks for a birth control prescription, really isn’t much more than a hypothetical. The reality is that the kid would probably never go to her parents.

There need to be other options, and it doesn’t have anything to do with sin, mercy, redemption, heaven, hell, Jesus, or Satan.

Good post and I agree with much of it. I guess I have just a few comments.
First, it’s wildly anachronistic to say we are living in a culture that embraces death. It’s actually the opposite. Our culture hates death. Up until a couple hundred years ago, people (particularly women) recognized that death could happen at any moment. Men faced war, while women faced pregnancy. That, of course, is assuming you made it out of childhood. For a great deal of human history, the spectre of death has been an unwelcome but ever present reality. We used to accept it, begrudgingly, now we fear it.

Yet now we are finally escaping death, for a while at least, which we’re finding creates a whole new set of problems. I don’t think the direction we are heading is a particularly slippery slope, but rather more of a function of how to deal with the limits of technology in a highly regulated state. We are answering questions never posed before. What do we do with people in vegetative states? Should abortion be illegal? Granted, how individuals answer those questions questions will have profound moral implications. No doubt. But *society’s* answers to the regulatory questions will be a bit more complicated.
It’s simplistic to point to abortion and euthanasia from a legislative standpoint and cry “culture of death.”

Second,there is one sense in which I fear that our culture has gone from bad to worse. Most cultures across history have embraced courage as a basic and necessary virtue (for men that is). And taking part in the collective defense of society has at times been considered a necessary opportunity to display that virtue. Importantly, (nearly) everyone in society felt the cost of war. War was just another part of life, and you took your chances with everyone else.

Not so anymore. Serving in war is no longer a part of most people’s lives. And war is no longer a collective and risky enterprise. Rather, Americans have nearly perfected the art of unilateral war. War is now something where only one side bears the costs, and all at the push of a button.

This, to me at least, is profoundly immoral. It dulls our senses to the cost of war and puts our soldiers less in the role of warrior and more in the role of executioner. I find the cavalier attitude with which people talk about war, whether with Iraq or Iran, disturbing. How many of us know the number of Iraqi civilians that have died in this conflict? Why are we so eager to send others to war in our place? How can we can count the cost of war in a time of predator drones and B-2 bombers?

That, to me, is an attitude of death perhaps more worrisome than abortion and euthanasia (which worry me as well).

I know this may doom me if one likes to use the GBA view. I won’t editorialize what it says but only leave it here as a thought to ponder. Of course, this doesn’t apply to Rick!!

“…when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.” Richard Dawkins

After I hit the enter key, a thought came to me. I think that if I’m going to err, I would rather err of the side of caution.

you can’t deny that they’re hormonal, vulnerable people.

Agreed Terror, as am I.

a contingency plan for when some of them screw up

Isn’t that what the Bible is all about.

“It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.”

Usually in my dicussions I have looked at that not as a possibility, but as a probablility. And the more I engage others with my perspective against their’s, I have found that the other person being wrong has gone from a possibility to a probability and now is an absolute certainty.

I am contunally humbled by my track record of truth.

Hi, strawman, what language do YOU speak?

No one said they were “non-persons.” A distinction is being made between a fully formed human being and a fetus which forms into a human being.

This has been Simple Answers to Simple Questions

I think I got the term “non-persons” from one of Chris L’s comments.

Fact: Were my mom pregnant with me today there is a big chance, if she were a believer in abortion, she would have me aborted.

So, looking at this in a really personal way, when I consider the fact that there are internet discussions going on about whether or not babies who have my condition should be aborted, IT MATTERS NOT to me whether people or talking about aborting a “non-person” or “a fetus which forms into a human being.”

They are simply talking about someone like me being aborted.

If I ever go onto those discussions, I think I would simply begin by saying, “Hey, you are talking about someone like me. I happened to turn out with NONE of the effects that everyone is telling you are very likely to happen with your baby. But, hey, what if I had? What if I had a low IQ, challenged physical abilities? Wouldn’t I still be, underneath it all, ME, a person for whom Christ died?

I’m curious, what you thoughts are on “moral relativism”?

That’s a broad topic. But I do believe that there’s no such thing as moral certainty. Every situation is different and must be evaluated on its own, rather than by a strict set of laws. Jesus’s message talks about this, Buddhism addresses it more completely. In the world as it is, we have to make moral judgments on an individual basis.

Suppose you had an 8 yr old daughter (as I do). And suppose I decided that I wanted to have sex with your daughter. Would you really have a right to make a judgement that I am doing anything wrong, and deny me my choice?

there’s no such thing as moral certainty.

Why would you make a morally certain statement that there is NO moral certainty then ???

That’s a really extreme case, and it’s completely missing the point. I don’t know what you seem to be trying to prove here, but obviously, that would make you a predator, and that has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.

Because that’s not what moral relativism is.

If you’re hurting my child, I don’t need an old book to tell me why that’s wrong.

If you’re hurting my child, I don’t need an old book to tell me why that’s wrong.

Terror,
I agree; but what right do YOU have to keep me from doing it.

I agree; but what right do YOU have to keep me from doing it.

I still am not sure what on earth we’re talking about, honestly.

This conversation seems to be going nowhere.

But it’s my child, and I have a right to defend my child from a predator.

This is very different from my teenage child going behind my back, like they often do, and having sex with her boyfriend.

Why should your right to defend your child, deny a predators individual choice to be a predator?

Because someone is harmed.

Duh.

That’s not what “moral relativism” means. It means that not every situation is the same, that judging every situation by a list of rules and regulations without taking into account details, circumstances, pros and cons, greater good, lesser of two evils…everything has to be judged on its own merits. This is why slippery slope arguments are usually such an epic fail, as if “well if we legalize X, then what’s to stop them from legalizing Y”? Well, what’s to stop them is that Y’s circumstances and arguments have to be judged on their own merits, not based on X’s.

That’s only if you consider a cluster of cells to be equal to “someone.”

As I said above, I understand that there are two lives, but the fetus is not on equal footing with the already-born, the breathing human mother.

Look, I’m all for reducing the incidence of abortion, but as I’ve said this entire thread, so-called “pro-life” policies increase them and make them more dangerous, while “pro-choice” policies actually reduce the incidence and make them safer when they do occur.

And let’s stop fooling ourselves — abortion will always exist, will always be a reality. The fact that they occur in every nation, regardless of the legality, is a testament to that. The fact that they occur at much lower rates in nations where they are the most legal, but where family planning is available, contraceptive use is high, education isn’t dumbed-down and moralized, and economic assistance is available is a testament to the fact that “pro-choice” policies are the best way to go.

So, for the abortion issue, I consider both the mother and the unborn child my neighbor. How do I show love to both of them? For the mother there may be more than on right answer to that question, but for the child I see it as pretty black and white.

Except that the fetus is not “your situation.” The fetus is the mother’s situation, and she has to decide what is best for her AND for the fetus.

Again, I’d rather her not have to make that choice, by supporting policies that would address those issues on the front end, but that’s quite different from not wanting her to be able to make that choice.

But even situational ethics are based on some overarching moral ideas and concepts.

Even then, that’s not true. We’ve constructed a whole framework around killing in our society. Well, it’s okay if they’re brown and a high-functioning moron of a president says we have to preventively invade, even if it results in the murder of the innocents, women, children, and the brown unborn. In some states (the dumb southern ones, surprise), it’s okay if they’re stealing your lawnmower. It’s not as bad of a killing if it wasn’t premeditated, but if it was, then it’s okay for us to sink to the level of the murderer and kill them. In some states (again, backwards stupid ones), it’s okay to kill them, even if there’s a lot of evidence they didn’t commit the crime they’re accused of, or if they’re mentally infirm. Or it’s okay to let people die in a genocide if we’re currently busy pretending to fight “turrur.”

Far greater crimes are committed against the born every single day, and the screwed up thing is when people ignore those and instead focus on a cop-out idea of “the least of these,” and even then, support policies that actually add insult to the injury of the mothers who have to make these decisions.

The myopia runs deep.

What are we using to be the arbitor of truth? If there is no standard, regardless of interpretation, all we have is opinion badminton.

Where is the place we can measure our opinions?

Common sense?

One man’s common sense is another man’s nonsense. But your answer reveals that you have no universal standard with which we can test our opinions.

Fake stats?

Everyday there’s a new poll out telling you something. Who sponsors the polls? The ones who benefit from the results (ask any pharma company). 1,500 animals caught in the act of homosexuality? Who in the world is actually doing this research??? My goodness. Well, all you have to do is find out who benefits.

Reasoned, adult deliberation really can’t occur when one party runs back to “But the Bible says!” every five and a half minutes.

How dare the Bible have any validity in our moral evaluations! I agree – it’s an outrage Evan.

Far greater crimes are committed against the born every single day, and the screwed up thing is when people ignore those and instead focus on a cop-out idea of “the least of these,” and even then, support policies that actually add insult to the injury of the mothers who have to make these decisions.

These are all red herrings. I don’t think anyone is saying that we should address abortion at the expense of the other issues. I will grant you that some people have made it out to be the only issue worth fighting for, but the cure for that isn’t to swing to the oppostite extreme and deny that it’s an issue at all.

Reasoned, adult deliberation really can’t occur when one party runs back to “But the Bible says!” every five and a half minutes.

Terror,

I agree (especially if one party doesn’t accept the Bible). In fact the bible even speaks about “a law written on men’s hearts” [Romans 2:15]. A law of (wright and wrong)/common sense/natural law/moral certitude.

But faith and reason don’t contradict each other. Christians should not be expected to deny their faith in the ultimate “arbitor” of truth (namely Jesus Christ, the Word of God, as presented in the Bible.)

How dare the Bible have any validity in our moral evaluations! I agree – it’s an outrage Evan

I didn’t say it has no validity. What I’m saying is the same thing Dave said — when your only recourse is the Bible, but all the facts in the world go against that, you have little case indeed.

See, you have concluded that the Scriptures preclude “reasoned, adult deliberation”. Your view of common sense has cut me out of the process. By the way, how can I prove that the Bible obscures any reasoned dialogue?

That’s not what I’m saying. I just said it above, but when a person’s ONLY reason for believing in something or supporting a certain policy is their interpretation of the bible, then it’s not a reasonable position.

It’s different, on the other hand, when you say, “I believe in this policy, and here are the facts that back that up, and by the way, this also squares with my interpretation of Jesus’s exhortation and such-and-such…”

I will grant you that some people have made it out to be the only issue worth fighting for, but the cure for that isn’t to swing to the oppostite extreme and deny that it’s an issue at all.

But at no point have I said that. In fact, this entire thread I’ve been arguing for positions that actually would do something to combat abortion, rather than feel-good moral platforms.

An yet, one is supposed to endorse some of your junk science as valid, just because you say it is?

Um, I understand that, to fundamentalist Christians, all real science is “junk science,” and that creation “science” is the only real deal, but…

I mean, come on! And it’s not ME “believing” that scientific consensus is accurate, it’s scientific consensus that is! It’s not a “belief.” That’s pure Ray Comfort garbage that people convince themselves to make them believe their positions are stronger than they actually are.

But faith and reason don’t contradict each other. Christians should not be expected to deny their faith in the ultimate “arbitor” of truth (namely Jesus Christ, the Word of God, as presented in the Bible.)

Again, I’m not asking anyone to deny their faith. I’m asking that people come up with reasoned arguments that actually coincide with their faith, rather than ignoring all statistics and science they don’t like, and pretending that their interpretation of the Bible is a valid substitute for the facts on the ground.

I firmly believe that both are important, but for faith and reason to work together, both have to be subjected to scrutiny.

What I’m saying is the same thing Dave said — when your only recourse is the Bible, but all the facts in the world go against that, you have little case indeed

I seem to remember someone saying: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my word will stand forever.”‘ It’s a toss-up but I think this speaker trumps you Evan.

Wait…scientific studies aren’t…polls.

Evan, you seem like a smart guy. As such, you should realize that every time you turn on the radio or listen to evening news there is a new study out with some groundbreaking results, although it contradicts last month’s study, which happened to contradict the study before it.

So, if you want to prove any point in the world (ie: homosexuality is OK because 1500 animal species actually engage in sodomy) then you’ll find one. My greater concern would be for the poor sap who had to conduct this study. What a disaster.

And, how exactly does Pfizer benefit from gay animals, please?

Everyone knows that Pfizer benefits specifically from gay animals. Stop playing dumb Evan.

Just kidding – In hopes that you’re kidding also, let me clarify anyways. What I am alluding to is thesimple fact that pharma companies – as a case in point example – are notorious for “studies” that simply corroborate what’s in their best interests, all in the name of “science”.

I am a fundamentalist and do not believe the earth is round. I have proof.

Science really doesn’t exist to answer peoples’ “moral questions.”

Terror,
Since we agree that science is not all-powerful.
What does exist to answer people’s “moral questions”?

But that’s not a reason to mistrust scientific consensus. In fact, it strengthens the integrity of scientific consensus because they’re willing to openly call BS on things that don’t qualify as real science.

In all due respect, Evan. There isn’t a consensus on many issues like these(the 1500 animals). One can easily find conflicting evidence.

It’s easy to find the evidence.

It’s easy to find the evidence that in, especially the mammals, that the so called homosexual activity is nothing more than assertion of dominance. Anybody that has owned a dog can figure that one out without a scientist. Is just a matter of establishing a hierarchy and the positions(no pun) in that hierarchy.

So, spare me!

My dog has asserted dominance on my knee, unless my knee is gay.

Well, in that case you have to look at who’s funding it. Obviously big pharma and big oil have scientists with agendas, but that’s not the same as the great mass of scientists who study for the sake of studying.

OK Evan – so we’ll let you be the great arbiter of truth here. You can be the one to decipher between the “real” and “agenda-driven” scientists.

If you truly believe that God created the universe, then great, but don’t pretend that the overwhelming evidence of evolution…

Isn’t is still called the “theory of evolution”? If there’s so much evidence (like say with “the law of gravity” or the “law of thermodynamics”) why hasn’t it graduated beyond the title theory yet?

Evan, you’d be a fool to deny that you too have a worldview fashioned by all the blogs you whiz around on a daily basis. You have been shaped by all the junk out there that might strengthen your position still further.

But anything not built on the solid rock of Christ will come tumbling down with time. Again, heaven and earth will pass away, but His word will last forever. Stop banging your head against the wall – the Lord makes all the difference.

OK Evan – so we’ll let you be the great arbiter of truth here. You can be the one to decipher between the “real” and “agenda-driven” scientists.

Um, you really don’t need me for that. Scientists are pretty clear about what “consensus” means and what they consider non-science.

Isn’t is still called the “theory of evolution”?

OH MY GOD I CANNOT EXPLAIN THIS AGAIN. Why do fundamentalists not know the definition of “theory” and why certain things are called “laws”?

Stop banging your head against the wall – the Lord makes all the difference.

I’m not banging my head against the wall, trust me. And spare me.

I’m not banging my head against the wall, trust me. And spare me.

OK Evan. God bless you my friend. Peace.

Michelle,

Thanks for the kind words. I won’t go into the things I was doing at 18, but Ive learned the reality of making bad choices the hard way many times in my life (with absolute certitude). Thanks be to God for his Grace.
God bless you and your family!

…..I’ve read the studies.

“royally screwing American and the world one woman at a time!”

No, Evan, we are a democracy, not a monarchy!

Then why are you ignoring the ones you don’t like?

Again, making what people say not what they said. Who said I ignore them? You…..

You jump to a lot of conclusions. Oh that’s right, Evan is the only one here that is well read.
You forgot that some of us “fundamentalist” can actually read! You do your arguments a disservice when you always assume that the only reason that someone disagrees with you is because they haven’t read what you have read.

From all your points you made during this OP, I see YOU having a more narrow view than most that have offered their tidbits here.

I’m sure this will offend you. Your young, very young, Evan and have much to learn. There is a lot of wisdom being put forth on this site that you would do well to heed.

And playing the age/experience card doesn’t work.

You’ll see that in a little while when the presidential debate begins and the old candidate looks like a fool.

There’s logic there someplace……I don’t play cards, Evan

Before you jump to another conclusion, I’m not a republican.

As I said above, I understand that there are two lives, but the fetus is not on equal footing with the already-born, the breathing human mother.

(Evan)

This reminds me so much of thoughts such as, “Well, God created white men and black men. They ARE both human, but the black man isn’t on equal footing with the white man.”

Thinking that was at one time considered enlightened, and even accepted by Christians.

In reality, many babies are aborted based on who they will become, and who they will become is not seen as “good enough.” For example:

a child with physical challenges
a child with mental challenges
a child whose skin will be a different color than his mother
a child who is female rather than male

Evan, what if, someday, people begin to believe that it can be predicted from the womb that someone will be gay. (I’m not saying that I would ever believe such a thing, but from what I have heard it isn’t unrealistic to think that one day some pseudo-scientist will come up with something.) And what if some pregnant women, seeing that the babies in their wombs have that determining characteristic, decide that they want to get abort. Would you still be able to say

the fetus is not on equal footing with the already-born, the breathing human mother.

“I understand that there are two lives, but the fetus is not on equal footing with the already-born, the breathing human mother.”

So “breathing” is the litmus test about whether that life can be murdered.

Doesn’t history demonstrate, nay, prove, that government cannot solve problems? What is it with people who are so convinced that government can solve our problems?

That’s always intrigued me too!!

This will cheer you up. Ken Silva has a short post about today’s prophets. I’ve read a similar article elsewhere.

Kim Clemment says God told him Obama is going to win and yet….Elijah’s list says Sarah Palin. It’s seems Their god seems to be a little schizophrenic.

That’s right, Chris, I forgot about that scenario!! Maybe I should send Kim and the gang a check after all, eh?

Jerry,

I find your ignorance of history saddening. While the government is often inefficient and glaringly imperfect, it has also accomplished great things.

Who completely rebuilt Europe following the Second World War? (Marshall Plan)

Who ensured that every American child would receive a vaccination for polio? (Polio Vaccination Act of 1955)

Who ensured that black men and women could eat at the same counter as whites? (Civil Rights Act of 1964)

These are just a few things that jump to mind. I could go on.

Just because the government hasn’t solved any of *your* problems does not mean that it hasn’t solved any problems.

To argue otherwise is the height of foolishness.

MG,

It is not an ignorance of history that my reply betrays, just a disdain for government and, to a lesser extent, those who put their hope and trust in fragile human institutions that do little more than abuse their power and steal our money and create laws that they themselves are exempt from. If you want to put your hope in those few glorified moments you mentioned, go ahead. But I won’t. Government has been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

Rick is right: The only reason those ‘governments’ were there to clean up messes was because they made them in the first place. Your ignorance of such basic literary masterpieces such as 1984 and Brave New World and Animal Farm is equally saddening. (Oh, not to mention the book of Daniel, the book of Revelation, and the entire life of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels.)

jerry

PS–perhaps your recollection of history is not so swell either. I give as evidence: WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Naziism, Civil War, Taxes, Taxes, Taxes, Rwandan Genocide, Bosnia, China, The French Revolution (!), Korean War. These are just a few things. I could go on. Just because you are blind to the problems government has created for freedom and humanity doesn’t mean those things are imaginary nor does it mean that the government is the savior you have imagined it to be.

Jerry,

Wow. That was astonishingly hateful and insulting. I’m surprised.

For what’s worth, I’ve read the books you’ve mentioned and I place my hope in Christ. Please don’t assume otherwise.

I thought my argument was modest: namely, it’s wrong to say the government cannot solve any problems.

I will press the racism point. Before the Civil Rights Act, it was perfectly legal for a restaurant owner to refuse to serve blacks. That, in my mind, was a social problem that we have made tremendous progress with *in part* because of what the government did. Does that mean that I place my trust in government to provide us with a utopia? No, that’s a false dilemma. Instead, it just means I’m willing to call a spade a spade.

Jerry, based on your vitriol, I would surmise that you are an anarchist. That is fine. I don’t know if it is biblical, and it certainly strikes me as mistaken. But I wish you nothing but peace and shalom.

BTW – the history of the black minority in this country is a profound revelation of the depravity of mankind, and to suggest that the Civil Rights Act was a shining example of governmental moral action is to suggest a band aid cures AIDs. This government has acted recklessly and with malice toward minorities for two centuries, and to suggest moral courage when passing legislation after a long and protracted history of governmental blindness and even disregard for the plight of black people is hopelessly utopian.

Compare our government with others and you get a better picture, but that is not what you suggested. Our governemnt is not some bastardized form of a nationalistic moral compass. They do some good things but they are things that they should do and very, if ever, some sacrificial act of moral courage.

The concept of government was ordained of God, but most if not all are marionettes of the spirit of this world and are not seeking God spiritually or morally. It is a Christin’s duty to keep our eyes on Christ and point others to do the same. The worst thing we can do is to point people, regardless how partially, to view the government as the answer to anything. They are not and they never were.

Jerry,

The vitriol was taking a statement I made and implicitly arguing I’m not a Christian. That was wrong and insulting. You have no right to tell me where I place my hope. No right.

I’ve read everything you’ve read. I like Hauerwas especially and I agree with him on a number of issues.

I simply disagree with your statements that our government is a tyrant, once you balance the scales you find the government wanting, and the government creates more problems than it solves.

I suppose I don’t understand how that’s not anarchy. Isn’t it logical, from the statements you’ve made, to infer that you believe that the world would improve if we had a complete absence of government? That’s the very definition of anarchy.

You seem angry, Jerry. Peace. I don’t know if you were being sarcastic or not with the “have a nice day” but I do in fact wish you the best.

M.G.,
I didn’t see Jerry questioning whether or not you were a Christian anywhere, even implicitly. Where did you see that?

I think that describing the government as a tyrant is accurate. It’s rules by exhorting power over people, and that by definition is tyranny. It’s diametrically opposed to the principles of the Kingdom of God where we govern by serving and win by being vulnerable.

Now, I’m not saying that everything the government does is evil, or even that we shouldn’t have one. I think it’s consequence of the Fall, and it’s necessary to help minimize evil and disorder in a fallen world. But ultimately all governments fail. They can’t change people’s hearts. Only God can do that.

When God’s law is written on the hearts of His people as described in Jeremiah, the need for earthly governments will be gone for good. God will rule and we will be His people.

MG,

I said nothing about your faith even if I did question your implicit hope in a government that can supposedly solve our problems.

As for anarchy, well, I think you are confusing anarchy and revolution. I’m advocating neither. What I am advocating is, and you would know this if you read Hauerwas, the in breaking rule of God to be complete: Your Kingdom Come, Your will be done on earth, as it is in heaven (NT Wright is also a proponent of this). The definition of anarchy is the absence of rule and order or a time ‘when everyone does what is right in his own eyes.’ How is that different from how this world operates in the presence of Government? Still, I am no anarchist; I just advocate a different rule: The Rule of Christ in Love.

There will always be government; as I said, ‘on his shoulders the government will rest.’ I’m an advocate for the kingdom of God–nothing else.

Angry? Pshaw! I just hate giving my money to the government when i could be using it to help my neighbor instead. Instead, my money goes to pay for wars and liberal agendas. If that doesn’t make YOU angry, then I’m not sure what would. Still, I have a gorgeous wife, brilliant sons, and I am saved by grace. Angry? I think not friend.

I just have no confidence in the government regardless of how many stupid business deals they manage to bail out in my lifetime using my money.

jerry

Jerry – You’re such a government shill! There are two forms of governments in this world. The visible ones and the Invisible one.

I believe Wilberforce forced the slavery issue in England, and Charles Finney and others were voives against slavery here in America. It should be clear that in the last 40 years the church has become more and more enamored with democracy and we have taken our eyes off Christ.

One day all those visinle governments will crumble and the government that is upon His shoulders will stand alone!! Halleluiah!!!

As I’ve said throughout the thread, my issue isn’t that people should be able to abort at will for any reason, it’s that it pisses me off to see people hide behind the term “pro-life” while being petulantly unwilling to work toward the problems that actually result in unwanted pregnancies.

I saw the people protesting outside the Planned Parenthood again tonight.

God damn, and I do mean God damn, what if those people had been spending their time lobbying their congress critters to make sure every unwed mother had adequate healthcare?

Even though I live in the fantasy world that has ought-ness and ought-not-ness… that is still the point.

Killing an unborn child is wrong regardless of the precipitating causes…

Furthermore, you have no idea what those protesters do or do not do to help women. There are countless Christian ministries aimed at helping woman in these situations – but they are not controversial, so they get no press, and they don’t seek it.

Phil,

I think saying all governments are tyrants is an abuse of the word. It’s as valid as me accusing you of being a cruel, bitter, and heartless person, simply on the basis of you having ever exhibited those characteristics.

I favor precision over loose writing. Which brings me to my original point, how could anyone ever defend the statement, “governments cannot solve problems.”

That statement is false. The government cannot solve the *fundamental* problems (our hearts, for one), yes, but the government can and does solve *smaller* problems every day.

I find it the height of irony that this conversation is about the legalization of abortion. I’m getting yelled at by people who believe that making abortion illegal will, dare I say it, *solve* the problem (or make progress with the issue) of women having abortions.

If that does not betray a belief in the power of the government to make things better, I do not know what does.

“I favor precision over loose writing.”

I favor extremely loose writing that is confusing gibberish!

Phil,

You don’t seem terribly precise to me. For example, governments are not staffed simply with “politicians.” They are obviously a tiny minority of government employees.

In fact, I have spent time in the public sector.

Am I a tyrant? Was it sin for me to work for something under “the dominion of Satan?”

You don’t seem terribly precise to me. For example, governments are not staffed simply with “politicians.” They are obviously a tiny minority of government employees.

In fact, I have spent time in the public sector.

Am I a tyrant? Was it sin for me to work for something under “the dominion of Satan?”

If you read my earlier comment careful, you’ll see I made sure to note that people working in government weren’t doing the work of the devil. My parents both had positions in government agencies as well.

The whole earth is still in the grip of Satan to some extent. Now, the cross was the death blow to Satan, yes, but I think there are obviously still areas where his control is evident.

Evil still exists. I liken it to a war where the final truce has been signed with the major battle won, but small skirmishes are still being fought. Eventually all the evil in the world will be completely done away with, and to borrow a phrase from N.T. Wright, it will be “set to right”.

So all human institutions are under the dominion of satan in one way or another, in that the effects of the Fall are still at work. Even our well-intentioned plans go awry, and we can’t escape our falleness.

I could write a lot about this as it’s getting into the area theodicy, but some books that have really influenced my view on it are N.T. Wright’s Evil and the Justice of God, Walter Wink’s The Powers That Be, and Greg Boyd’s Myth of a Christian Nation.

I find it the height of irony that this conversation is about the legalization of abortion. I’m getting yelled at by people who believe that making abortion illegal will, dare I say it, *solve* the problem (or make progress with the issue) of women having abortions. – MG

Again, the issue is not so utilitarian as this. Abortion should be illegal because it kills a living human being… this is the basis regardless of whether or not such a ban has any effect on the numbers performed, the desire to kill, or the circumstances of the poor.

Those may be very very imprtant issues/problems that need addressing – but they are tangential to the question of abortions legality.

Neil

Well somebody please explain the logic behind it’s going to happen so we might as well make it legal?? I guess I’m just stupid!!!

It’s illegal to murder my neighbor, BUT because murder happens we might as well make it legal making it OK to kill my neighbor…….walks away shakin’ his head…..

Keep in mind that the entire world, for the time being, is in the hands of Satan, including the governments. I would be careful of government solutions and natural man’s solutions as they tend to breed new problems.

A reliance on government to solve everyone’s problems is like having that neighbor who insists on involving himself in every aspect of your family’s life because you asked for his help at some point.

The Scriptures say the governments are for the lawless. We as believers answer to and obey a higher government, and we are complete in Him. The government may sometimes provide a better atmosphere for life, but remember, God sometimes chooses to use persecution (China) to expand and purify His body.

So in general, the government to God’s kingdom is incidental and unremarkable to us, we are free from the tyranny of totalitarianism and the allurement of democracy. Christ is our all in all and we are pilgims of grace holding out light in the midst of darkness, the same light that we all were drawn to one day and by His Spirit we were consumed by that glorious light!!

Rick,

I do not know why you persist in trafficking in platitudes and irrelevant observations.

I just don’t see the point in mentioning Hitler, the crimes committed by elected officials, and the church of Satan.

I did everything I could to make the argument as modest as possible, and you come back with that?

At this point I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

Phil,

Again, I agree. I was not a part of the earlier abortion discussion. I merely stepped in when Jerry said that history proved that governments could not solve problems. I simply wished to point out that the statement wasn’t, well, true.

About abortion, I agree. The government will never solve abortion. But, at the same time, I think it is simplistic to compare abortion to something like lying, pride, or avarice. Those classical vices are seemingly in our DNA as a result of the fall. Abortion, though, for lack of a better word, is rather unnatural. Our culture does not glorify abortion. At least not yet.

And I think this is confirmed by the fact that rich states like Massachusetts have lower abortion rates (not to mention divorce rates) than poorer states like Alabama. So I think it makes sense to say that there is a connection between socio-economic status and abortion, something I wouldn’t say about lying, pride, or avarice. And if that’s the case, good governance will have an effect on the number of abortions performed.

My statements were meant to put “the government does some good things” in its proper perspective. :cool”