|
|
January 22, 2008, Matthew Cochrane, Roe v. Wade: The 35th Anniversary of Legalized Abortion
Today marks the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court. Since the decision infamously overruled prohibitions on abortion in all fifty states, almost fifty million babies have been legally aborted in the United States. To put that number in perspective in all of America's major and minor wars since 1775, the total dead is 1,329,991 - or an amount equal to just one year of Roe’s infernal tally. This monstrous evil must be fought on all fronts relentlessly until one day the killing of our nation’s most helpless and defenseless citizens is stopped. Here are some links to articles and pieces that I found to be particularly insightful on this matter:
In the summer of 2006, I wrote that the scientific evidence so overwhelmingly supported the pro-life position that those who favored legalized abortion had completely shifted the argument to philosophical terms, abandoning the medical and scientific contexts of the debate. Apparently, the debate has become so one-sided that abortion advocates are now complaining about the pro-life camp “pushing scientific evidence” on the pro-choice crowd. They even accuse those who oppose abortion of "hiding behind science." And I thought Christians were the ones who were supposed to be afraid of science!
The legal problem with Roe v. Wade is simple: The Supreme Court's decision to invalidate state laws prohibiting or restricting abortion lacks any basis in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution of the United States. The late John Hart Ely, a famous legal scholar who himself supported legal abortion as a matter of public policy, said that Roe v. Wade "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." The justices who manufactured a right to abortion in Roe violated and dishonored the very Constitution they purported to interpret by substituting their own moral and political judgments for those of the elected representatives of the people. Their ruling was a gross usurpation by the judiciary of the authority vested by the Constitution in the people themselves, acting through the constitutionally prescribed institutions of republican democracy. As dissenting Justice Byron White put it, Roe was nothing more than an exercise of "raw judicial power." It was not merely an incorrect decision, but an anti-constitutional one.
I would venture to say that most constitutional scholars who support legal abortion basically (if all-too-quietly) agree with Professor Ely. Roe is an embarrassingly poorly reasoned opinion. Of course, some pro-abortion scholars believe that the result in Roe could be justified by a different form of constitutional argument, and there is something of an industry among them in "re-writing Roe." Justice Harry Blackmun, in his opinion for the Court in Roe itself, claimed that restrictions on abortion for the sake of protecting fetal life violate the provision of the 14th Amendment forbidding any state from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Frankly, that's ridiculous, and almost all legal scholars know that (even if some won't say it publicly). The most notable effort to place the holding in Roe on a more plausible constitutional footing involves the claim that abortion restrictions deprive women of "the equal protection of the laws" (another 14th Amendment guarantee). There are various reasons why that approach fails, too, but many of Roe's supporters at least find it less embarrassing.
I found myself wondering how abortion will be viewed by museum curators, teachers, historians and moralists 200 years from now.
As the slavery exhibition shows, something that one generation accepts readily enough is often seen as abhorrent by its descendants – so abhorrent, in fact, that people find it almost impossible to understand how it could have been countenanced in a supposedly civilised society.
How could people not see that Africans should not be bought and sold for the convenience of our trade or our domestic life? We reserve particular scorn for those who sought to justify slavery on moral grounds. We look at the moral blindness of the past, and tut-tut, rather complacently.
It is not hard to imagine how a future Museum of London exhibition about abortion could go. It could buy up a 20th-century hospital building as its space, and take visitors round, showing them how, in one ward, staff were trying to save the lives of premature babies while, in the next, they were killing them.
It could compare the procedure by which the corpse of a baby who had died after or during premature birth was presented by the hospital to the mother to assist with grieving, with the way a similar corpse, if aborted, was thrown away.
It could display the various instruments that were used to remove and kill the foetus, rather as the manacles and collars of slaves can be seen today.
It could make a telling show of the propaganda that was used to promote abortion – the language of choice, control of a woman over her own body – and compare it with less happy information about the infertility caused by abortion, or depression or about the link between breast cancer and having an abortion before the birth of the first child.
It could show how women, vulnerable and often alone, came under pressure from the medical authorities to have an abortion without being offered help with the alternative.
The museum could make a pretty devastating contrast between the huge growth of rights for the disabled, which began in the late-20th century, and the fact that the disability (or even mild deformity) of a child was always grounds for abortion.
More research on the devastating health side effects of having abortions on women and future children those women might have. According to Science Daily, “The more miscarriages or abortions a woman has, the greater are her chances of giving birth to a child that is underweight or premature in the future.”
Silver and those like him are just plain wrong that pro-life advocates provide no reasonable defense for their views. Sure they do. The problem is, many secularists take no time to actually engage pro-life arguments; they simply dismiss them as "religious ideology." However, this dismissal does not constitute an argument and it ignores the sophisticated case pro-life apologists present in support of their position. Scientifically, pro-lifers contend the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human organisms. Unlike standard bodily cells that function as parts of an existing organism, embryos are whole human beings directing their own internal development.
True, they have yet to mature, but they are whole human organisms nonetheless.
Philosophically, pro-lifers argue there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today. Differences of size, development, and location are not relevant in the way that abortion advocates need them to be. For example, everyone agrees that embryos are small-perhaps smaller than the dot at the end of this sentence. But since when do rights depend on how large we are? Men are generally larger than women, but that hardly means they deserve more rights. Size does not equal value. Pro-lifers don't need Scripture to tell them these things. They are truths even atheists and secular libertarians can, and sometimes do, recognize. Yet rarely do strict secularists present principled arguments explaining why pro-life advocates are mistaken on these points.
Moreover, the pro-life position has more explanatory power than the abortion-choice and pro-embryonic research ones. For example, advocates of elective abortion and embryonic stem cell research cannot account for basic human equality. If humans have value only because of some acquired property like consciousness, it follows that since this acquired property comes in varying degrees, basic human rights come in varying degrees. It's far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely in their respective degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.
|
| Comments |
| Wow! I have always been pro-life but after watching the video and then some others that were attatched underneath I am at a loss for words right now but what are we doing to help the situation? - mo3 |
|
| "Wow! I have always been pro-life but after watching the video and then some others that were attatched underneath I am at a loss for words right now but what are we doing to help the situation? - mo3" Do you have any concrete suggestions? Does anybody have any ideas of things we should be doing that haven't been tried as yet? Just wondering . . . - verbatim |
|
| We all sit around saying you shouldnt have an abortion and give the reasons why and wait for other people to do the work to save them but what are we doing to help these single mothers, teenage moms, etc.? - mo3 |
|
| the money is in the groups that get all this emotional, heart wrenching info out there so they can generate charitable giving because they are doing everything they can to lobby congressmen to wag their heads and get others to make campaign contributions and vote for them; there's some money in the ministry side but not so much - cdl |
|
| There's more money on the abortion side of it, cdl. - Stephen |
|
| CDL said, "the money is in the groups that get all this emotional, heart wrenching info out there so they can generate charitable giving because they are doing everything they can to lobby congressmen to wag their heads and get others to make campaign contributions and vote for them; there's some money in the ministry side but not so much" - To which I would reply crisis pregnancy centers cost a lot of money to run...There are currently over 2,200 in the United States. There's no way that more money goes to pro-life groups that fight the political battles than money that goes to ministry-oriented pro-life charities. Especially when one factors in the countless volunteer hours spent by the mostly volunteer staffs of pregnancy centers. That being said it is definitely a battle we must fight on two fronts: the political side, to attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade, and the front where pregnant women must be provided with needs that the crisis pregnancy centers offer. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| So MO3, the short answer to your question is: 1)Pray; 2) Vote pro-life; and 3) Get involved with your local crisis pregnancy center to help the "single mothers, teenage moms, etc." With over 2,200 in the country there is bound to be at least one in your area. These centers are the frontline of the abortion battle. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Outreach is the shortest answer and the only answer. "our struggle is not against flesh and blood..." "I evangelize all day long and sometimes I use words." St Francis of Assisi. - cdl |
|
| "I evangelize all day long and sometimes I use words." St Francis of Assisi. - cdl" That's a great quote and very descriptive. - Verbatim |
|
| There's more money on the abortion side of it, cdl. - Stephen You're certainly right about that. The money generated by abortion clinics and related services is staggering. It's a huge business and the main players in it are getting very rich. - Steamboat Willie |
|
| I'm actually referring to the money on both sides to be gained by wonks, politicians, lobbyists who like status quo of tension because it's job security and keeps the donations rolling in. And some christians think that is God's work and that since the other side does it (Stephen), it's okay. - cdl |
|
| Matthew,
Although I think all of your posts are worthwhile, these posts are the most important in my eyes.
Mo3,
Something has to be done. Something should have been done a long time ago...
Cdl,
I say bring on the "tension." Abortion is an issue too many Americans try to ignore. It needs to be in the media, it needs to be talked about. I personally can't put a price on getting this issue out in the open more, even if it means giving money to the "undeserving." - Jamers |
|
| "And some christians think that is God's work and that since the other side does it (Stephen), it's okay. - cdl" cdl, are you saying that people who are pro-life shouldn't be trying to influence legislators about their side of the abortion issue? Are you saying that they shouldn't be trying to educate the public at large on the issue? That's fine if that is what you are saying; I'm just trying to clarify what you mean. I do agree with what I think is your overall point, which is that a lot of people of both sides of the debate earn their livings from the abortion debate. However, what is your alternative to all these efforts? Do we stay home and hope things get better or do we continue the present tactics or do you have something else entirely in mind and, if so, what? - Verbatim |
|
| everyone has the constitutional right to vote, assemble, speak out as they see fit BUT "bullying" those that don't share our foundational beliefs to obey GOd's law will not communicate God's grace. I don't know how it might be done, but the current message is laced with hate and condemnation and there are ministries who benefit from inciting the EC base. - cdl |
|
| Cdl, Of course we always need to try as Christians to distinguish between hating the sin and hating the sinner, BUT (and this is a biiig BUT) this isn't the kind of issue Christians should be getting all soft over (I personally think we've sacrificed too much already in order to make ourselves less threatening to the secular world). On life and death issues, such as abortion, we need to toughen-up, you could say we need more “tough love.” Sure there are some issues we need to be empathetic about but this isn’t one of them. - Jamers |
|
| I think the louder we shout, the more they don't listen. - cdl |
|
| But all evidence is to the contrary of that statement...Public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position in general, and the younger generation is overwhelmingly pro-life. The abolition movement had to shout for generations before slavery was outlawed. The civil rights movement had to be willing to die, to be imprisoned, and face intimidating consequences for their every move before they won their rights. Its sad to see Christians these days be willing to give up such a worthy fight over something as trivial as public opinion (Matt. 10:22). - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| "Cdl, Of course we always need to try as Christians to distinguish between hating the sin and hating the sinner, BUT (and this is a biiig BUT) this isn't the kind of issue Christians should be getting all soft over (I personally think we've sacrificed too much already in order to make ourselves less threatening to the secular world). On life and death issues, such as abortion, we need to toughen-up, you could say we need more “tough love.” Sure there are some issues we need to be empathetic about but this isn’t one of them. - Jamers"
Jamers, what exactly do you mean? how would what you wrote translate in to real actions? - tennis pro |
|
| "We all sit around saying you shouldnt have an abortion and give the reasons why and wait for other people to do the work to save them but what are we doing to help these single mothers, teenage moms, etc.? - mo3"
I agree. there must be more ways to save babies, one baby at a time. Out of the box thinking is needed. education is big (how many mainstream people see the videos or get the info that matthew posted?)its almost simple logic to explain to a woman considering abortion that requires giving birt to wait a few more weeks/months and give birth to a live baby instead of a dying one. Pay them. Offer to support them in any way they need it. I believe these mothers think there is no hope, and there should be someone telling them there is hope and a way to do this. - tennis pro |
|
| "Pay them." The problem with paying women to not have an abortion is then anyone can get pregnant, claim they're going to have an abortion, take your money and not have an abortion, even though they were not planning on having one anyway. No offense to women, but I believe they would do this just to take my money. TP, then you said, "I believe these mothers think there is no hope, and there should be someone telling them there is hope and a way to do this." Now you're suggesting to these women that the hope is in the money you offer not in the love of Christ. Fact is, there are already a ton of Hope Pregnancy Centers out there. Women looking for hope can easily find it. Alternative options are not hard to find. It's not hope women want, it's a quick fix. I agree with Jamers - no more Mr. Nice Guy. - Stephen |
|
| There are groups that pay women not to have an abortion - seriously...Stephen, there are plenty of women who panic when they get pregnant thinking that their only solution is abortion. These women need to hear a message of hope. These women need to be dealt with lovingly and patiently with understanding. Praise God that there are so many centers that provide these kinds of services to women looking for answers. These mothers are not the people to direct your anger towards about the horrors of abortion. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Sorry, I didn't mean all women want a quick fix. But most of the ones who actually go through with having an abortion are. It's just that it's so easy (especially today with the internet) to find alternative solutions. How can we make it any easier? All I know is that money is a short term solution to a very long term problem. We want to change people's hearts right? Well how is giving them money going to do that? It almost seems like it would have the opposite effect since, in my experience, money makes people more corrupt, not more compassionate. Do I believe in preaching hope to troubled mothers? Of course I do. But before we go too far with this whole "these mothers are not the people to direct your anger towards about the horrors of abortion" think for a second if there were mothers that wanted to kill their two year old babies and the best thing we could think of to do was offer them more money to not do it (isn't that along the lines of throwing pearls before swine?). Sorry. Not going to change a heart that way. Maybe you're a better man than I am but I, for one, couldn't do it. Abortion is the same caliber murder as murdering a two year old or anyone else. It's serious. We should be loving. And after an abortion has already been committed we should be forgiving. But at the end of the day a nickel is still a nickel and abortion is still murder. There is such a thing as righteous anger. - Stephen |
|
| I don't think anyone would say that the money offered changes a heart - just that it saves a life. If that's what it takes, well, that's what it takes. That being said, it's definiteyl not the long-term solution or, even, the best short term solution. Just a desperate measure to save a life. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Unbiblical: how is money going to change people's hearts...DUH! And a lie: Abortion is murder. It is constitutionally legal according to the supremes, and the citizenry has not amended it to the contrary. Jesus had the authority and the scripture and a theocracy to challenge the Jews. - cdl |
|
| Maybe you should learn all the definitions of murder before you speak so hastily, CDL. One of the many definitions of murder, as listed by dictionary.com, is "to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously." I think abortion easily falls under that definition and thus can accurately be described as murder. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Stephen...your anger is directed at the wrong people. I know there are women who treat abortion as just another form of birth control, but that is not the majority. Go to the Jan 26th posting of videos by Mathew on this site. One of the videos had testimony of a girl who had an abortion and regretted it while still at the abortionist's office. She was met with "hate" (tough love?) out side the ddr's office and even says something to the effect that if she had been approached differently perhaps she wouldn't have gone in. (this is not verbatim so don't quibble if I have the verbiage wrong) but I can tell you that love and understanding is what these women need. and sometimes financial help. They really feel they have no choice. Plus, if anyone on this website was truly shocked at those graphic videos, that means you really didn't know how gruesome it is. The average young woman has grown up thinking its not as gruesome as it is. Who is telling her otherwise? - tennis pro |
|
| And now with the "MORNING AFTER PILL" these girls are feeling like it is really not such a harmful thing to do. - mo3 |
|
| Stephen...no more mr nice guy? I missed that portion of history. When was it, and how "nice" was it? I am not talking about changing these women's hearts, I am talking about saving babies one at a time. All the talk I've heard lately abotu abortion involves actually giving birth. How hard could it be to convince a women to wait till the baby is viable and THEN go thru the same experience but withjoug the guilt or pain most suffer with afterwards from killing a baby. Once the woman is pregnant, its about the baby, not the women. I am talking about saving babies. Thre should be more pregnancy centers that do what some of them do, almost like what I am saying. Laws alone won't do it. Thre's always going to be some place whre you can go and get one...or they will go illegally. You want to make it an option they don't feel they need to take. Since I assume you have never been a single pregnant woman, its difficult for you to be empathetic I suppose, but try. Its about the BABY...not the mother. If you really want to save babies, you would do whatever you could to save them...one at a time..and that involves making the mother agree to saving her baby. So, real material and financial help is needed, and conservatives should start worming their way in to mainstream media outlets at the level where they can start to make a difference with these issues, not just have conservative outlets to compete with the mainstream media...we should BE the mainstream media. - tennis pro |
|
| whatever Matt, but telling people that what they do is murder eventhough it's legal is a non starter. You need a new saw. - cdl |
|
| I guess you haven't read your own title - cdl |
|
| cdl, so if our country suddenly made a law stating that it was OK to kill Jews (because we declare they are not "human" and thus are not protected by the consitution) your saying... let me get this straight...your saying doing this isn't MURDER?!? - Jamers |
|
| Tennis Pro,you said to me, “your anger is directed at the wrong people. I know there are women who treat abortion as just another form of birth control, but that is not the majority.” According to the CDC, in 2004, 46% of the women who had abortions had had previous abortions. That’s what I consider using abortion as a form of birth control. Granted, 46% is not technically a majority, but that number is way too high. And it also doesn’t count the women who had an abortion for the first time and who used it as a form of birth control, so the number may very well be in the majority. So how is my anger directed at the wrong people? These women are the ones that I was talking about who aren’t looking for answers or hope, just a quick fix. But you say I shouldn’t be angry that half the babies aborted weren’t saved because their mothers were caught in an inconvenient situation? You said, “I am not talking about changing these women's hearts, I am talking about saving babies one at a time.” Look, that’s all fine and dandy except for one thing. Abortion is a double edged sword. You have the supply and the demand. There will always be a supply as long as there is a demand. You can always save babies in onesies and twosies (I believe we should when we can) but it will not help your objective if you can’t change women’s hearts and get rid of the demand. I hate abortion as much as the next guy. I think the industry itself is a lot at blame for the horrors of abortion. And yeah, they make me angry too. But they’re only one side of the sword. Both sides of the sword are wrong. Both sides are guilty. Both sides of the sword are bloody. Both sides make me angry. How am I wrong by being angry at women who murder babies for their convenience? Answer that. - Stephen |
|
| This is what I meant when I said no more Mr Nice Guy. The biggest problem facing our nation today isn’t abortion. The biggest problem facing our nation today is political correctness (pc), because pc is what keeps us from speaking the truth and speaking about the truth. I’ve heard people (like cdl) accuse Christians of “bullying” those who have different OPINIONS in the abortion debate. And when I look around, I’m in the abortion debate, I’m at churches, I have friends who have had abortions, and I don’t see what I would call “bullying”. What I do see instead of hating on people who have a different OPINION, I see a lot of Christians with a lot of FACTS. And yes, the pro-abortion crowd gets very emotional and very defensive when we bring them the FACTS. And that’s when I see the accusations that we’re not being loving, we’re hating on people because they have a different opinion than us, and if only we were more understanding and compassionate then maybe we could have reached out to them. Then it becomes our fault that the woman went ahead and had an abortion because we weren’t loving enough or we didn’t give them enough money. It’s the most asinine thing ever! Ever! No, seriously. Ever. Fact is, we need to present the facts whether they are pretty or not. Whether people want to hear them or not. Whether it is pc or not. Martin Luther worked his butt off to get the facts to the people. He took some tough manuscripts and church documents that were in technical theological mumble jumble (latin) and he translated them into the language that the people could understand (German). And he risked his life to do it. Today we’re trying to do the exact opposite. Abortionists are taking the vernacular (like saying a baby is in the womb or saying abortion is murder) and turning it into a lot of technical medical jargon. Therefore, it’s not a baby in the womb, it’s an embryo. It’s not murder, it’s a terminated pregnancy. And this is all a part of the same problem. This is why Martin Luthe and the reformation went forward and why we’re going backwards. Because we’re all too careful to be politically correct. We’re all too quick to call those who present the facts names and send them into exile. So when I said no more Mr. Nice Guy, the portion of history I was referring to is now. Because right now pc is hurting us everywhere (abortion, war on terror, homosexuality, illegal immigration, whatever). I was responding that we should present the facts no matter how we come across. It was in response to cdl who said we need to stop shouting. Babies are dying out there. Him saying that makes me want to shout louder. - Stephen |
|
| That's why God made Bose QuietComfort 2 Acoustic Noise Cancelling Headphones AND writes:
1Cr 13:1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
1Cr 13:2 If I have {the gift of} prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. - cdl |
|
| Stephen, nobody says you are wrong to be angry over abortions. What you are suggesting however is wrong, which is to dump your anger on the women who are considering to have abortions. You say forgive them afterwards, but yell and shout at them during one of the most stressful times of their lives? That's not showing God's love, its giving in to what YOU want. YOU want to be angry and let them have it. Its not about YOU. Its about the baby, Stephen! The control over whether this baby lives or dies lies with the mother. How badly do you want to save the baby? You won't do it by yelling at the mother. Talk to her. Find out why she feels she needs to have an abortion and address each reason she comes up with until she has no more reasons. That might take money, help of some kind, whatever, but it will definitely take love and a non judgemental attitude. You can be angry, and should be angry about all the dead babies, but yelling when angry solves nothing in saving babies or in most other areas of life. It's self defeating. People don't hear the words, they just feel the anger and the natural response is to turn away from anger directed at you. So do ou want to save a baby? Or do you want to do what you want to do? (yell in anger) - tennis pro |
|
| Somehow, money always seems to come into these discussions, particularly about a sin such as abortion. There are people who advocate paying women not to have an abortion and those who respond by saying that doesn't change hearts. Then there are those who say pro-life people are stingy and should be more willing to save a life no matter what it takes. Good stuff. In my experience as a really really old guy, I have generally observed that, whenever a practice is subsidized, there will be more of it; not less. For example, we have spent TRILLIONS for the War on Poverty and we have more of it than when we started. In effect, we have subsidized (enabled) poverty and we have more of it. That's inevitable. There are Christian groups operating here in the United States who collect money to "rescue" people in Africa who have been captured and sold as slaves. These groups actually pay the slavers to "free" these enslaved people and set them free. What has that accomplished? The Africans, themselves, have pleaded with such groups for years to stop doing that as it only increases the profits of the slave traders. In other words, these Christian groups pay the slavers to set the slaves free, which they do. But, since they're in the business of slavery, they take their profits and go out and get more and more slaves, thus perpetuating the very act that they're trying to eliminate. How this applies to abortion is obvious. If we adopt the practice of paying women not to have abortions, more and more women will pop up and ask for their money not to have one and, sooner or later, all the pro-life money will be spent in this way and there won't be anything left over for anything else. It's a law of economics; if there's money to be made in this way, people will "earn" it. Having said that, however, I do agree that a considerable sum of money must be spent; I just do not advocate paying women to not have abortions. Already, pro-life groups are spending tons of money on crisis pregnancy centers as well as all manner of assistance with rent, housing, job referrals, job training, etc. Does more need to be done? Sure, but not cash payments for keeping a baby. Remember that it is only the pro-life side of the equation that donates anything at all to the cause. The so-called pro-choice people all seem to be making money, and lots of it. They get paid for the abortions, they get government money and all manner of access to schools and the public square that we, the pro-life people, have to pay dearly for. It's by no means a level playing field but, yet, we keep playing. Our success is clearly unnerving the pro-choice people. As somebody above pointed out, the younger generation is very much pro-life and that scares the stuffing out of the pro-choicers as they know they are eventually headed for the dust bin of history, so to speak. Still, this is a long and protracted battle and I clearly line up with those people here who say that more and more different tactics must be used. The civil rights leaders back in the 60s asked for years for access to this or that venue and were pretty much stonewalled. It wasn't until they took to the streets in massive marches and boycotted bus lines and businesses that refused them equality that they made any serious gains. And nobody who was alive back then can forget seeing Bull Connor fight the civil rights marchers with fire hoses and vicious dogs. They risked their very lives and got everything they were fighting for; legally speaking. Pro-lifers should do no less. - Steamboat Willie |
|
| thanks Tennis Pro and Steamboat Willie. I was starting to think nobody here has any sense at all. - cdl |
|
| CDL, I would think you would disagree with much of what Steamboat Willie just said, which I wholeheartedlyy agree with. It seems to me someone unwilling to even vote for a pro-life candidate would hardly be inclined to make any kind of sacrifice for the unborn. Indeed, Giuliani, who you have publicly supported on this blog, has a history of appointing pro-choice judges and the use of taxpayer money to fund abortions. Voting for someone like that makes no sense for someone claiming to be pro-life. Also, I wish you would answer Jamers question from above. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| First of all, that was a great point Steamboat. I theorized that paying money to people so they won’t have an abortion would have the opposite effect we want it to, and now you have articulated exactly how. I agree 100%! - Stephen |
|
| Second of all, Tp, you said, "the control over whether this baby lives or dies lies with the mother.” This is why I thoroughly disagree with the statement you made earlier when you said, “Laws alone won't do it. There's always going to be some place where you can go and get one...or they will go illegally.” THAT’S WHAT LAWS DO! They are there for no other reason except for “control.” If we had laws prohibiting abortion then the “control” wouldn’t lie with the mothers. All laws are there because we humans need control. Also, you say they will go illegally. First of all, this is your opinion and hasn’t been proven. So not only is it doubtful (why would a mother of two or three kids take the risks of going to jail so she can be more convenient?) but even if it was true, this goes along with what I said earlier about getting rid of the demand. If you change women’s hearts and get rid of the demand, then you wouldn’t have anybody to supply because there wouldn’t be any demand and no one would be having illegal procedures done. Dang, I’m good. - Stephen |
|
| Third of all, TP, maybe I’m not making myself clear. “What you are suggesting however is wrong, which is to dump your anger on the women who are considering to have abortions. You say forgive them afterwards, but yell and shout at them during one of the most stressful times of their lives?” If I knew a woman who got pregnant but was caught in a jam and didn’t know what to do, and if she came to me for answers I wouldn’t sit there and yell at her through one of the most stressful times of her life. I just wanted to clear that up. I wouldn’t do that. And I don’t remember saying that I would. Also there is something else I want to clear up. I didn’t know we were talking about shouting literally. When I said it “makes me want to shout louder” I was speaking figuratively, not literally. I meant shouting the same way I feel the feminist movement shouts from the rooftops on behalf of the “woman’s rights.” And I believe if they can shout what they believe from the rooftops then so can we, even if it isn’t politically correct and even if what we say offends many. I didn’t mean in a conversation, yelling at a woman who was considering abortion and wanted answers. If your point is that we shouldn’t be yelling at troubled single women then point taken. I believe we should support these women . . . at least . . . at first. But what about the second time they have an abortion? Do you support them through three abortions? Five abortions? At some point you become guilty as well. If you support (financially or emotionally) a woman who kills babies are you not an accessory to murder as well? All I’m saying is that there comes a point when being there for them isn’t enough, and when being there for them (at least what the world defines as being there for them) is wrong. Talking to them “nicely” isn’t always “enough.” If you really love the woman then you will show them some tough love. Grow a back bone. Have some balls. Stop being afraid to do what the world says is unloving and do what actually is loving. Speak the truth at all times. It isn’t always considered the “nice,” politically correct thing to do. But it’s always the right thing to do. What is love without truth? Soft? Indifferent? Hateful? Love without truth is a love with lies. And a love with lies is a love with an agenda. And a love with an agenda isn’t really love, is it? My wife sent me a chilling testimony the other day from a woman who works at an abortion clinic. The testimony can be found at http://www.operationrescue.org/?p=178. I really recommend you read it. She talks about how she hardly ever saw any young women at all and how most of the women who came through were already mothers of two or three kids and just didn’t want any more babies. This goes back to my point that the “quick fix” women are at a majority. It should make us angry. 50 million human lives is mass genocide. We should be angry about it. We should be speaking out about it. And we should speak to the women about it with love. And if you agree with what I’ve just said then you and I don’t disagree about most of this. My point originally was that if we are speaking plainly about it and by speaking about it boldly to these women, then we are the ones who in the end that are the most loving. Remember, a good friend will always stab you in the front. - Stephen |
|
| In case my last statement needed further clarification, the statement that a good friend will always stab you in the front was also not meant to be taken literally. It too was a figure of speech. I promise I do not advocate stabbing your friends. Or most of your enemies! - Stephen |
|
| “I see almost all of them come in as if they were getting a facial. They’re very selfish. One 38-year-old woman told me, ‘It’s either the baby, or it’s my daughter’s quincea (A traditional Mexican debutant party for 15-year-old girls). It’s not my daughter’s fault that I got pregnant.’ Some of them have gotten mad at us because they’re seven months pregnant, and we can no longer do it. We have had women who come in as patients and later bring their daughter. We have patients who come back here in three months. There’s one patient who has had eight abortions. Even the doctor said the tenth one will be free...You see how, when a patient has made up her mind, there’s not much you can do. According to me, I was providing them with therapy. That has passed in me. I don’t feel sorry for them, as I did at first. Now they make me angry...In most of the cases we handle there is no really pressing need. We used to ask them what their situation was, but I don’t ask them any more because they’re the same dumb responses. I’m angry that they come to get an abortion so unashamed, joking, and laughing. One that was in the reception area told me, clowning around, ‘Kick me, why don’t you, so it comes out."
http://www.operationrescue.org/?p=178 - Yenni -a medical assistant at an abortion clinic |
|
| keep wishin' - cdl |
|
| I don't have to agree with someone 100% to realize they make good sense, have the ability to articulate a point, as well as share some common ground - cdl |
|
| Stephen, re: the post that started "second of all tp"...laws against abortion don't bring it to a grinding halt, and maybe you are too young to remember the horror stories of years ago, but women did get abortions before Roe VS Wade. In fact it was legal in some places in the US all you had to do is "work" the system, go to a shrink, and get it declared you were going to kill yourself or something. I really don't know detail, but you could search it up I am sure. Also I never heard of a woman going to jail for an illegal abortioon, I don't think that entered her mind ...the issue was would she survive the abortion...not would she go to jail. The doctor would go to jail, if anyone would. So, the perceived impossibility of going ahead with a pregnancy far outweighed the risk a woman felt of going to jail. And the ones with a couple children were the ones who knew they couldn't afford one more, and there fore more determined to abort. Also, back then, nobody knew there was a "baby" inside. People really believed it was a mass of cells for a very long time. People were very very uneducated about the development of the baby in the womb. It wasn't till ultrasound and technical stuff came along that everyone got educated about it - tennis pro |
|
| re "third of all"....I never pictured you or anyone yelling literally at a pregnant woman. I know you were talking figuratively. But there is no point in it, other than to show your disgust and how you feel. It serves no purpose. There are far more effective ways to help stop abortions, and I can't say it enough..you have to do it one baby at a time, and you have to think outside the box if necessary. - tennis pro |
|
| and you are right. many women, too many, use it for convenience. It IS disgusting. But its about the baby we have to keep reminding ourselves. And each woman has a different reason. Even the ones who want to abort for basically convenience reasons can be educated and their minds changed. I know a Christian who was asked by a friend where she should go to get an abortion. She was married, two kids, and her marriage was shaky and it was not the "right time". So my Christian friend told her she knew just the place to go for that, and sent her to one of the crisis pregnancy centers operated by prolifers. She just told her this is the place for you to go, didn't tell her anything else. This friend came back from her visit to the clinic actually mad at my Christian friend because now she "could never have the abortion" after seeing and hearing what they told her. She had the baby. So, in her case, it just took education. No lecture, no judgement, no money, just education.
But there are women who are morally bankrupt or just low lifes and yes, they are on their third fourth or whatever abortion. Does that make the baby less worthy of being saved? I once overheard a woman saying she had just had an abortion "last week" in front of her two childres who were about ten and twelve. What a lowlife and imagine the effect it must have had on those kids. No amount of education would have stopped her, and your anger wouldn't have stopped her. So how far would you go to save that one baby? - tennis pro |
|
| But what cannot be argued is that laws outlawing abortion would SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the number of abortions in the U.S. and would be the single best way to save babies' lives. That is why the political and legal battle is so important. Yes, talking to individuals who are pregnant is a vital and necessary duty of a Christian, but the best way to save a massive number of babies is to outlaw the procedure. Laws are effective - if they weren't there wouldn't be any. Abortions increased dramatically the year after Roe v. Wade passed because the procedure was legalized. So, yes, lovingly counsel and educate women going through pregnancies considering this terrible option, but also we must continue to fight to outlaw the barbaric procedure. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| I do see the potential problem with giving a woman money, but I believe there are times it would save a baby that otherwise would not be saved. Or, how about paying an abortionist the same amount of money he would get for the abortion if he sent a woman to a prolife clinic instead of doing the abortion? (take away his financial motive.) families pay thousands of dollars to adopt out of country babies when they could just stop an abortion and get one here. I know there are problems with this, but if you really care about each baby...you come up with strange ideas. I am just saying if the law changes, women won't just stop getting abortions. There will always be some place and some one who will do it, and that's why you really have to connect with the mother, like it or not. If laws stopped certain behaviours, jails would be empty. - tennis pro |
|
| CDL, according to your own words, "silence is assent." See: http://www.notconformedthoughts.com/displayone.cfm?docid=2654 By your own logic, if you can't answer my question I win! - Jamers |
|
| “Also I never heard of a woman going to jail for an illegal abortion” POINT 1. Yes, TP, laws banning something does not mean it will come to a screeching halt. HOWEVER, if there were no consequences for stealing candy bars, I would probably have stolen several in my life time. The fact that the law is there coupled with the penalties for people who break that law have kept me from stealing candy bars. And even though I know people who have suffered the consequences for stealing candy bars, I’m sure there are also other people just like me who have never stolen one because there is a law against it and there is a punishment for those who disobey it. So you are wrong to think making laws prohibiting abortion is a waste of time. You didn’t say it was a waste of time. But you are arguing against it like there is something about it you disagree with or something about it you don’t like. Why is that? POINT 2. When I said women wouldn’t want to risk going to jail for having an illegal abortion, I wasn’t talking out of ignorance in reference to the past. I was talking about what should happen in the future. If abortion becomes illegal on the grounds that a baby in the womb is a live human being, then it is not far fetched to believe that those who have an abortion would be punished just the same as other people who kill the baby outside of the womb. Already, if I were to kill a pregnant woman, and both her and her baby die then in most states I would be guilty of two murders, not one. Laws need to be enforced with both the doctor and the so-called mother. That’s what I was referring to. The supplier and the demander. Should we just punish people who make child pornography, or do you think we should punish those who buy it as well? This is easy. The same thing could be said about those who deal drugs and those who use drugs. And if you mix point 1 with point 2 you get women who are not having illegal abortions because there would be steep consequences. You saying that women had abortions illegally way back when there were no punishments for those who did it proves my point. If there are punishments in the future, why would they put themselves at risk? Also, you say you knew I was speaking metaphorically when I was talking about shouting. If that’s true, and if you know that all I want to do is speak the truth to people, then why do you have such a problem with that? What’s your beef with the truth? You said women need to be educated. I agree. Would you still agree if that education is appalling to the woman being educated? At what point do you think the education needs to stop? The first time she says she doesn’t wanna hear it? The second? I say speaking the truth will change hearts and passing/enforcing laws will scare the rest. You say pay everybody money. This is a hard one to figure out. - Stephen |
|
| Jamers, I'm sorry. You may win if it makes you happy. I just don't think you'll like my answer. What I'm saying is that the Constitution says it isn't murder and that as we all know the Constitution is The Law of the Land. - cdl |
|
| Well the Bible says it is murder and that's the law of God! - Jamers |
|
| Jamers, I certainly appreciate your concern for the yet born, and we know "'vengeance is Mine' says the LORD." Vengeance is not mine or yours. God left us here to make a difference. IMHO, the difference we might make is by communicating God's grace. We certainly are told, "Don't be like the gentiles." Their thoughts are continually on sin (of course). And the Galatians (and we by extension) are told not to be like the judaizers (Gal 5:4), "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." So, if believers such as the Galatians are cut off by the law, then we should, therefore, reach out to gentiles with grace, ie not law (whether of God or of man). So something that's murder according to "the law of God" is still not grace. (I am not an antinomian, btw). A gentile does not recognize God and won't appreciate the law set down by one who is not recognized. But, gentiles do have an innate knowledge of general revelation and that they stand condemned. Reminding them they are condemned leads to defensiveness, but grace is always a sweet sound. Once, a person believes, "There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus," the defensiveness may subside and submission to God's Law and man's law may follow (since 1 Peter 2:17 says, "Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.") Nothing harder to do than love a baby killer, a most repulsive act, but that's what we are called to do. US has no king per se but ex-military that I am, I know that I honored the king of man made documents when I swore I "will support and defend the constitution of the US of America against all enemies foreign and domestic and bear true faith and allegiance to the same." It's ironic that the gentile, baby killers honor the constitution iaw 1 Peter but you don't and you should imho. Theoretically, some day, if we can stay on message, there are one of two possibilities. Enough believers will be able to pass an amendment or enough believers plus enough positively influenced by believers, sort of a combined critical mass, will be able to pass an amendment. In the meantime we can pray for a republican pres. to appoint justices who apply the constitution (which would only take care of several states who might ban abortion and not those who will go out of state). Incrementalism, such as anti-smoking, does work overtime. Prohibition, such as anti-alcohol, not so effective. The King Peter referred to btw of all emperors was Nero who was as vile a villain in history as there is and Peter told believers to honor him. Only by God's Spirit is this sort of love -- a high and worthy calling in light of "His thoughts are higher than my thoughts." And so are His ways. - cdl |
|
| speaking of prohibitionists, an impatient group, what good they did is unclear; they could have done more by changing hearts by grace, rather than forcing lawbreaking. - cdl |
|
| and, oh yeah, you draw a lot more flies with honey than you do with vinegar - cdl |
|
| Yenni, so women aren't sugar and spice and everything nice. Shocking. - cdl |
|
| Jamers said, "CDL, according to your own words, 'silence is assent.' See: http://www.notconformedthoughts.com/displayone.cfm?docid=2654 By your own logic, if you can't answer my question I win!" - Jamers, you should have known better than to try to use logic against CDL. It has yet to work thus far. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| "What I'm saying is that the Constitution says it isn't murder and that as we all know the Constitution is The Law of the Land. - cdl" Where does the Constitution say that abortion is not murder? - Wilson |
|
| “ It's ironic that the gentile, baby killers honor the constitution iaw 1 Peter but you don't and you should imho” First off, I agree with Wilson. The constitution does protect the unborn, liberals just won’t admit that the unborn child is a human life. Second, when the law of men opposes the law of God, who then are we required to follow? And even more so, what are we required to do? (refer to my question about Jews above).
“A gentile does not recognize God and won't appreciate the law set down by one who is not recognized.” This country was once considered to be a Christian country. We should fight to keep our laws in accordance with God’s laws. And if you haven't figured it out yet, plenty of the women having abortions call themselves Christians (whole denominations give abortion a big thumbs up). So we are not just talking about gentiles.
“Theoretically, some day, if we can stay on message, there are one of two possibilities.” Cdl, this is by far the most depressing statement you have made. How long should we wait for “some day” to come? How many innocent lives should we allow to be taken before “some day” has arrived? Your making it seem like we should all back off from this issue because Christians are required to be loving and full of grace, but getting out there and speaking the truth doesn’t contradict the former. Your saying people won’t listen to us if we speak the truth because it doesn’t apply to them, since when are we only required to speak the truth when everyone agrees with it? This picture of love is turning very quickly into a picture of tolerance and acceptance.
- Jamers |
|
| This thread is so silly that maybe not a 10 y/o but an 8th grade civics lesson can clarify it. Ever since Roe v Wade and Doe v xxxx, the supremes established a constitutional right to abortion. No amendment or subsequent court has overruled (though it has been modified). Even if the Christian country concept ever was true, it's invalid now and it always was. It's the constitution that protects our faith rather than establishes it. You'll be glad of that when the imams take over. You have my permission to talk to Christians who support inerrancy all you care to. We wait...and pray and love. "How many...should we allow?" You so silly. Pretty heavy load to bear, eh. As heavy as a cross even. What you guys propose will just slow it down even more since we probably can't stay on message, ie the word of Christ. I didn't say btw that it doesn't apply to them. They don't recognize that it does. - cdl |
|
| "It's the constitution that protects our faith rather than establishes it." CDL, you say the constitution protects our religion. I say the constitution is your religion. Your country right or wrong. - Jamers |
|
| Wrong. But you are either an enemy of the constitution, ie the USA or you never finished the 8th grade. End of argument. - cdl |
|
| There you go Matt. Jamers, a walkin talkin theocrat - cdl |
|
| CDL, your grasp on 8th grade civics is as loose as your grasp on history. 1) The Supreme Court never established a constitutional right to abortion. In fact, they never established a constitutional right to anything. They interpreted the Constitution to already include a Constitutional right to abortion. Big difference - something even a good eighth grade student should be able to grasp; 2) Since the Roe v. Wade decision the judges have come under near universal criticism from legal experts for the shoddy reasoning they gave for their decision. See this above post for just some examples of this legal criticism. 3) It is not theocracy to suggest America is a Christian nation. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the United States was a Christian nation in The Church of the Holy Trinity vs. The United States. I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court was not suggesting we were a theocracy though! In fact, I know they weren't since I read their decision. That might be a little advanced for your eighth grade civics class, but I think its safe to suggest you try to move past your fascination with middle school education; 4) This spring/summer I will write on the whole Christian in the civic and political sphere, theocracy/Christian nation thing. There's a lot of confusion about it and it should be addressed. I need to do a little more research though before starting. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Stephen - re: point 1 - yes, laws work of course, but many will still get abortions. They will just work the system and the built in exceptions that are bound to be there. I am just saying that if R v W was repealed tomorrow, people would still be gettig abortions somewhere. It still goes back to the mother. Not the "so called" mother...the mother. The legal mother. The only woman who can save the baby. Re Point 2 - if you advocate sending a woman to jail for getting an abortion, you are heading for failure. Is this what you mean with "tough love" talk, etc? Your message will then perceived as one of hate and intolerance, and not one of concern for the baby. Cdl is right, you get more flies with honey than with vinegar. How you present your message to someone, whatever it is, makes a big difference about how it is perceived. Like I said before, you can be right and still be wrong. In the public forum debating this issue, any prochoice advocate could tear you apart with that attitude. Your entire argument would be reduced to ridicule at best, I can just see the cartoons and hear the jokes about jailing pregnant women, etc. YOu say why would a woman put herself at risk for jail by getting an abortion and that shows me you really don't understand the mental condition of the majority of women who go for one. You just don't understand. I am old enough to know that you can't understand someone else's experiences unless you have actully been there also. You think you can, but you can't. You also say "What’s your beef with the truth?" I have no beef with the truth, its the way you want to convey it that bothers me. You also said "Would you still agree if that education is appalling to the woman being educated?" This education is always appalling to anyone who gets it...I really don't understand your question...or I can't understand under what circumstances you are imagining this "education" to take place. Describe to me an instance of what you are talking about where you have to repeat this "education". Obviously there are women who will learn exactly what abortion is and does and still won't care. These are the low lifes I refer to, and they are the ones that you have to think outside the box about when trying to disuade them. Not everyone will be persuaded by the horrors of abortion. But thier baby is still as worthy of saving as anyone else's...that's why I say how badly do you want to save each baby? You can be tough as you want to the mother, but you will end up with another dead baby. What is more important? To be "right" or to save the baby? Also, I never said pay everyone money. I meant don't take that option off the table. I still say it. I am not talking about "I won the lottery money"...I am talking about an incentive to make the woman stay pregnant another couple months and go thru the same type of birthing procedure then when the baby will live. I don't see women lining up to get this "windfall" by getting pregnant. I am not talking about that kind of money and I certainly don't mean do it for all. I am just saying be flexible and think of each case as unique and see what it takes to save that one baby. If you really have a burden in your heart about these babies, you have to focus on them, not on directing your anger on the mother, the one who has the life and death decision in her hands. Anger really has no place in saving a baby, except it can motivate you to get involved and do something, but when dealing with women who feel they need an abortion, anger will get you nowhere. - tennis pro |
|
| Sorry Matt but like HAW, I'm not interested in talking to you when you are using that tone. - cdl |
|
| Sheesh, but I'm the overly sensitive one! - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| "Your message will then perceived as one of hate and intolerance, and not one of concern for the baby. Cdl is right, you get more flies with honey than with vinegar. How you present your message to someone, whatever it is, makes a big difference about how it is perceived." This is the main difference between me and you. You let what other people think about you determine what actions you take. I take the right actions to take, and how people think of me is irrelevant. I believe you have to stand up for what is right, even if you're sanding alone. What's right isn't always popular. What's popular isn't always right. If what I've just said sounds like a bumper sticker, that's because it is. But it's a true one. - Stephen |
|
| "In the public forum debating this issue, any prochoice advocate could tear you apart with that attitude. Your entire argument would be reduced to ridicule at best, I can just see the cartoons and hear the jokes about jailing pregnant women, etc." TP, I never said to throw pregnant women in jail. I said they should serve time if they've had an illegal abortion, and obviously if they've had an abortion they are no longer pregnant. What I like about all your arguments is that not once do you ever try to debate with them, you just tell me they would be ridiculed and that they would come across as unloving. Maybe try to explain to me how I would get shot down in the public debate forum when the logic I'm using is flawless. - Stephen |
|
| "YOu say why would a woman put herself at risk for jail by getting an abortion and that shows me you really don't understand the mental condition of the majority of women who go for one." This is the first thing you've said with which I strongly agree. Women who get pregnant and go and kill their own babies must have a pretty serious mental condition. Funny, I would think you saying that in a public debate forum would be more ridiculed and come across as more unloving than anything I've said here so far. - Stephen |
|
| Stephen!Listen carefully. Please pay attention, and listen to what I am saying. My desire to approach women who are contemplating abortion with kindness and a non judgemental attitude is NOT so they will like me!!!!!!!!!! Where did you ever get that??? The reason to be nice to these women is to.....SAVE BABIES. period. Like I said, you can be right but still be wrong. DO you not understand what I mean by that? If you don't then tell me and I will expound... - tennis pro |
|
| "Also, I never said pay everyone money." TP, so far you've recommended offering money to women who want to kill their babies and to the doctors that would actually kill the babies. That's offering money to both sides of the sword. You sound like a liberal who thinks that if we just throw in enough money then maybe we could solve poverty or become the next president of the United States. Hey maybe we can start paying terrorist cells vast sums of money to not attack us. According to you it might save one of us at a time. - Stephen |
|
| Stephen...oh..you want to throw women in jail who recently had abortions? You will wait till after the abortion? And then put her on trial and jail her? Why not advocate "stings", and get them before the abortion?! That will be a "two fer"...save the baby and jail the mother? Sorry, but the last person in this action of abortion who should go to jail is the mother. It will serve no purpose after the abortion as the baby died...and it will not benefit society or the woman or the dead baby to jail the mother. Jail the dr if you want, but, the mother?? That's about the least effective deterent you could come up with, as no jury is going to send a women to jail anyway for this. In case you haven't heard, jails are overcrowded and few believe jail is appropriate for a desparate woman who got an abortion. That's just the way it is. If you can't come up with practical solutions, "idealistic" ones won't help the cause. You must be practical, and this is just not realistic or practical or effective, especially "after the fact". - tennis pro |
|
| You want me to be something that I'm not or not be something that I am. You say I can be angry, but I can't show it and I can only be so as long as it inspires me to take what you consider more loving actions. Sorry. There is such a thing as righteous anger. Jesus did things all the time that rubbed people the wrong way. He whipped people out of a temple. He called them dirty names. But he always spoke the truth no matter what people thought of him. And as a result they murdered him. But even there on the cross he spoke the truth in tough love. If what you're saying is correct, how come Christ did all these things that were considered by the people of his time wrong? Couldn't he have saved more souls, wouldn't more people have been drawn to him if he had just been "nice?" - Stephen |
|
| "the last person in this action of abortion who should go to jail is the mother. It will serve no purpose after the abortion as the baby died." Let me get this straight. Are you saying that tough penalties for disobeying the law aren't effective? Theoretically, if women did go to jail for having an illegal abortion, are you saying it wouldn't act as a deterrence at all? What about the candy bars? - Stephen |
|
| you are starting to be silly. come back with something serious. You just don't sound like a man desparate to save babies. Maybe my ideas sound crazy, but you got someting better than to throw women in jail? That's really all you got, along with a good dose of righteous anger. You seem to rather be "right" than save babies. You don't like the idea of saving one baby at a time? Not dramatic enough? Its everyone or nobody? I guess its good to have high hopes, but you are saving no babies by threatening the mothers with jail later on. You and I are supposedly both Christians, and both supposedly want to save babies...yet you find humor in ridiculing my ideas. And you can't believe you would be ridiculed to death by the "other side" with your ideas?? Wake up!!! - tennis pro |
|
| if you don't get a candy bar, nobody thinks their life is over. there's not a lot of motivation for the candy bar. If you don't get an abortion, there are women who feel their life is over. Big difference between a candy bar and a pregnant womam. I had to tell you ths??? - tennis pro |
|
| Yet there is a punishment for people who steal a candy bar and no punishment for killing a baby in the womb. Hmm. You're right there is a big difference. - Stephen |
|
| And btw, people will feel like their life is over if they are sitting in jail. This proves my point that it would act as a deterrence - Stephen |
|
| Hiring a doctor to kill your baby is a lot like hiring a hit-man to whack your wife. The last time I checked if a husband hires a hit-man to kill his wife, he wil serve the same sentence as the hit-man himself. I mean, I know guys who feel like if they stay with their wives their lives are going to be over. But according to you this should not be spoken out against, and if I hire a hit-man to kill my wife I shouldn't go to jail at all for doing so. Are you sure you're being totally consistent with your own logic? - Stephen |
|
| Maybe the penalty I pay for stealing a candy bar should be greater than the penalty I pay to have my wife taken out. - Stephen |
|
| "speaking of prohibitionists, an impatient group, what good they did is unclear; they could have done more by changing hearts by grace, rather than forcing lawbreaking. - cdl" Interesting comment ; but probably wrong . . . FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES, which is not known for being conservative . . . The death rate from alcoholism was cut by 80 percent by 1921 from pre-war levels, while alcohol-related crime dropped markedly.
What everyone ''knows'' about Prohibition is that it was a failure. . . . But the conventional view of Prohibition is not supported by the facts.
. . . alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.
Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. . . .
- Steamboat Willie |
|
| Thanks for a good quote, SW. I have to wonder why prohibition was ended if it was a success. - cdl |
|
| Also, TP, you keep talking about me being too young to remember this or that or too young to know how things truly are, but by being born after 1973 I have an advantage that you don't have. I know what it's like to have a price on my head. I know what it's like to come from a generation where the generation before mine didn't value the sanctity of life. When I was born one out of every three pregnancies was aborted. I came that close! You don't know what it's like to have your parents' generation treat you like the Nazi's treated the jews - like cockroaches! You don't know what it's like to survive a holocaust! I do! - Stephen |
|
| One day I will be held accountable for what I did here on this earth. one day I will die and be in Heaven. I imagine that one day I will meet the souls of those babies who were aborted. I don't want to be the one they ask, "How come you didn't shout louder?" I don't want to be the one to tell them, "Because I wanted to be nice." - Stephen |
|
| One day I will be held accountable BY GOD and He will ask me, "Why didn't you bear more fruit? Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, goodness, self control. Why didn't you share Jesus more?" And He'll know the answer and so will I. Because, Lord, I didn't abide in You. I have observed that overemphasis of the doctrine of predestination leads to attitudes like yours Steve. You figure you'll do no harm cuz those people are or aren't predestined anyway so it doesn't matter how you treat them. But armenians do it too. - cdl |
|
| An abortee probably won't be bugging you cause he/she will be glad to be there. I wonder what the miscarriages will say. - cdl |
|
| "Thanks for a good quote, SW. I have to wonder why prohibition was ended if it was a success. - cdl Success is defined in many different ways. Yes, it was successful in that it greatly reduced many of the problems associated with alcohol but it was ultimately unsuccessful because, to put it simply, mmost people wanted access to alcoholic beverages. The point is that, even though prohibition was the law of the land and written into the US Constitution, there were hard-working people who worked within the political system to change people's minds and, ultimately, they were successful. They changed enough minds that prohibition was voted on again, politically, and it became NOT the law of the land. That's really all pro-lifers are doing. They're working within the political system to get Roe V Wade overturned by atempting to get a pro-life amendment added to the Constitution. I'm not sure why you find that so objectionable. - Steamboat Willie |
|
| Thank you again, SW. My objection is with the way pro lifers go about it, ie in an offensive way. Just look at the comments above for example. It's out of whack. I have acknowledged our right to free speech, to participate in the political process. But as Christians, let's use it wisely for example acknowledging that non-christians don't have to acknowledge God or His law. - cdl |
|
| "Also, TP, you keep talking about me being too young to remember this or that or too young to know how things truly are, but by being born after 1973 I have an advantage that you don't have. I know what it's like to have a price on my head. I know what it's like to come from a generation where the generation before mine didn't value the sanctity of life. When I was born one out of every three pregnancies was aborted. I came that close! You don't know what it's like to have your parents' generation treat you like the Nazi's treated the jews - like cockroaches! You don't know what it's like to survive a holocaust! I do! - Stephen" You should learn when to "quit" while someone might conceivably think you are "ahead"...your above statemets are ridiculously offensive...to people who have actually escaped the Holocaust or their families. You have NO idea what its like to have a price on your head. You had as much chance of being aborted as you have of waking up tomorrow with two heads. You had NOOOOOO chance of being aborted. If you don't keep your comments within the scope of reality, none of your comments will be taken seriously, which is a shame cause some of what you say makes sense, but you just went way over the edge. To LIVE thru something is different than being told about something years after the fact. If you feel you were treated the way Nazi's treated the Jews, you better read up on the Holocaust. Your lack of knowledge in this area is appalling, and so is comparing yourself to a Holocaust survivor. I have known quite a few survivors, tatooed with their number on their wrists...all I can say is read up. How about 8th grade literature class and read Ann Frank for a starter. You are getting too cocky with your answers and too impressed with your own thinking. Reel it back, Stephen, and stay in the realm of reality. You know, "keep it real" as you "young" people like to say!! - tennis pro |
|
| cdl said "My objection is with the way pro lifers go about it, ie in an offensive way."
that's my whole beef also. - tennis pro |
|
| "cdl said "My objection is with the way pro lifers go about it, ie in an offensive way. that's my whole beef also. - tennis pro " I'm going strictly on memory, here, but all this Christianity-must-be-nicer-or-we'll-lose-the-chance-to-spread-the-Gospel makes me wonder. It seems to me that Jesus used very powerful and "earthy" expressions when speaking in public. He angered people to such an extent that they tried to stone him. They talked against him and, eventually, they killed him after a sham trial. Virtually all the desciples were imprisoned, tortured and killed for speaking "not nicely" to people in the public square as was Paul, himself. Everywhere the apostles spoke there were riots and demonstrations and all manner of violent and vehement opposition against them and this was NOT because they were polite and speaking nicely to everyone so they could befriend all the people. Hardly! In fact, we are told a couple of things very clearly in the scriptures about these foundational Christians. They were bold and brash and fearless and very, very politically incorrect to the point that they angered virtually everyone in authority and many of the hoi polloi as well. Hey, let's face it, these Christians were anything but polite. Now, the interesting part of this is that the Bible is also pretty clear about the results of their preaching in this manner. The Bible records that the church spread rapidly throughout the whole known world. The Bible records that thousands at a time came to know Jesus as their savior. The Bible records that the church grew into an unstoppable force as a result of their style of preaching. So, now, we should say to ourselves that, if only we could be nicer than they were, we could make things happen more quickly than they did? I just cannot believe that God has given us a model from the early church (and recorded it forever in the Bible) that was defective in any way. It just seems so out of character of Him. - Verbatim |
|
| Well then God bless you, TP. I sincerely hope that all works out for you. This is all I’m going to say and after this if you want the last word you can have it. Sorry if you thought I was being cocky. I don’t claim to know a lot of things or have a high level of education. I don’t typically like engaging in contests of who knows more about what because that wouldn’t be an honest debate, that would be more like a pissing contest. I never wanted it to seem like I justified walking up to single women and calling them “baby killers” or anything like that. I simply just want people to know the only thing I’ve found that, without it, real life and real love can’t really exist – the truth. This was all my original point was. I believe we have a responsibility to speak it even when people who have a responsibility to learn it and hear it don’t want to. Sometimes that truth isn’t pretty. But I believe it was the truth that Christ used to save us. I believe it was the truth that Pontius Pilate longed for and you can sometimes read his words and hear in his voice that he was incredibly lost without it. I believe it was the truth that set the reformers free in the sixteenth century. When people had the Bible in their own language for the first time, it was very common for people to just stand in a town hall, in a church, or even on the street corner and just read scriptures out loud. People do that now, but back then people stopped to listen to it. Large crowds gathered around because they knew what it was. It fell on their ears like water on dry lips and quenched the thirst their soul had been longing for. I don’t believe Abraham Lincoln had a very high education level, but I do believe he knew what the truth was and I do believe it was the truth that allowed him to accomplish what he did. There’s a reason why to this day we still call him honest Abe. See what’s funny about all of this, is that even though I have never once had a history class in my life (at least one that I attended), I know enough to know that every time people are willing to stand up and fight for the truth, they succeed. It was true with Moses, Esther, David, Solomon, Jesus, Paul, Constantine, Luther, Patrick Henry, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr. and it would still be true today if we just had enough faith and stopped being afraid to walk in the foot steps of the heroes of our past. The road has already been paved for us by these great giants. The Bible doesn’t say we can accomplish all things if we do what other people want us to do or don’t do what they don’t want us to do. The Bible says we can do all things through Christ. The Bible defines Christ as the truth. What do you think Christ meant when he said in Matthew 5 that we have to be a light in the darkness? He meant that the world lives in darkness. It’s kind of like when you sit outside in the dark for a long time. Eventually your eyes will adjust to the darkness. And I bet if I came up to you with a bright light while you were sitting out there and turned it on in front of you it would hurt you at first. And I bet you wouldn’t like me at first. See, we live in a world where everyone around us has their eyes adjusted to the darkness. We Christians are the ones carrying the light of Christ. We shouldn’t expect them to like us at first. Christ said they would hate us because they hated him first. But you have to keep shining it even when they hate you for it, even when they cuss you under their breath. Because if enough time passes their eyes will learn to adjust to the light – the light that is the truth – the light that is Christ. 1 John 2:10 says “whoever loves his brother lives in the light.” When I had my daughter baptized I took an oath in front of the church to raise my daughter up in the truth. The only way I know how to do that is to live by example, lead her by example, and when she is old enough introduce her to He that is the truth. But at all times I have to try to be there for her to follow. And hopefully I will be one of those people that when she is my age and looks to the past, she will recognize me as one of those people in history that stood up for the truth and helped paved the road for her, the same way I look up to my parents today. And honestly, I’ve never once in my life met someone who was a Jewish Holocaust survivor, I’ve seen the movie about Anne Frank (though never read the book), and like I said before I’ve never had a world history class. But I do know a thing or two about history (The beauty about being my age is having grown up with the internet when one does not need a formal class to learn about history. On the contrary, as much revisionism as there is today one can learn more truth on the internet than in the public school system). What I do know is that dictionary.com defines a holocaust as “any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life.” I know that 6 million innocent Jews were recklessly slaughtered under Hitler’s reign. And I know that 50 million innocent babies have been recklessly slaughtered in this country since 1973 (more than eight times that of the Jewish Holocaust). I repeat, when I was born, one out of every three babies that were conceived were brutally murdered under the guise of “constitutional rights.” One-third of my generation is missing because of abortion. I had a one-in-three chance of being conceived by a woman who either wanted a quick fix or was looking for answers and couldn’t find anyone to tell them the TRUTH. So yes, I consider myself a survivor. I may not have known it at the time. And yes, someone had to “tell me about it later.” But I came that close to not being someone who can speak the truth to people who are thirsting for it, people who need it, people like you. - Stephen |
|
| "…all this Christianity-must-be-nicer-or-we'll-lose-the-chance-to-spread-the-Gospel makes me wonder" -Verbatim. YES! It makes me wonder also. This is a big LIE that my generation and the generations after mine are buying into. They seem to think that if we don't "dull-down" The Christian message (or any message from the Bible), people will reject it. I have heard people say this, especially those who don't understand why a God of "love" says gays shouldn’t marry. And the BIG one: “good” people are actually going to hell. They just can't believe it. And in my opinion, that is why the emerging church is becoming so popular. This is why so many denominations are falling away from the pure word of God. They have relied for so long on just using a message of “love,” they have forgotten that we must rely on truth just as much. Our tactics of “love” have become an open door to tolerance. See it is one thing to judge one another and it is another thing to uphold justice. Stephen is not saying we should use a message of hate, but a message of TRUTH (which so many today erroneously label a message of hate). The worst thing we can do as Christians at this point is wait…wait in silence for women…the courts…the people of America to realize that abortion should be stopped. - Jamers |
|
| "The worst thing we can do as Christians at this point is wait…wait in silence for women…the courts…the people of America to realize that abortion should be stopped. - Jamers" Amen and amen! - Verbatim |
|
| Verb'm, I think you will find that Jesus was offensive to Jews. In a theocracy, the Son of God is the acknowledged authority and they didn't want to acknowledge Him. Paul almost entirely got in trouble with....the Jews. Christianity was an economical problem for idol sellers and psychic handlers but that's an indirect issue. Paul didn't force his philosophy on anyone. Check out Mars Hill and King what's his name. You guys refuse to understand that you will gain much more by winning the right to be heard. By seeking to understand before seeking to be understood. Btw, abortion is a significant problem but it's a problem or a challenge and with every challenge there is an oppportunity. History sure sounds funny on this blog. - cdl |
|
| "Paul almost entirely got in trouble with....the Jews." - Paul got in trouble with just about everybody. The ROmans, Jews, pagans, etc..."Paul didn't force his philosophy on anyone." - CDL, every single law, ever, has forced some kind of philosophy on somebody. We can either choose to have laws that force murder of innocent babies or laws that force others to not murder their babies. Every law in the books though "forces" a philosophy of one kind or another. Of course Paul never forced his philosophy on anyone though! Duh! He was an evangelist, writer, and tentmaker. Those who hold those occupations in our society don't force their philosophy on anyone either! However, because we live in a democratic republic, we are charged with electing those who will make laws. These laws will all force a philosophy on society, like it or not. It is only a question of whose philosophy will be forced. So stop making crazy comparisons to our situation and Paul's! Being a Christian - and being a voter - I will choose to vote for those who will work to end the genocide taking place in our country. Indeed, I can do no less. That's how our democratic society works. These pro-life laws will "force" a philosophy on others though - duh. Just like the pro-choice laws have forced a philosophy on us (and millions of innocent babies who have died as a result). - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| BTW, CDL, HAW never refused to interact with me because of my "tone" - that was only you buddy. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| TP, what gets me is that you apparently have no problem punishing people who steal candy bars but when it comes to women who illegally kill their babies you throw an immature hissy fit at the very suggestion of punishment and act like it’s the stupidest idea ever. Maybe your logic makes sense on planet earth, but in the alternate universe we apparently live in it doesn’t make any sense at all. But what I really, really don’t get is how your preaching all this “love” and tolerance when it comes to women who kill babies, but when it comes to people like Stephen, people who want to show others the truth, you have no problem painting him out to be an ignorant jack-ass, knowing nothing about anything and being too young to know how things really are. This compared to your much more mature generation, the ones who let abortion happen in the first place. You preach against shouting truth from the rooftops, but you have used more exclamation points in this comment thread than everyone else combined. Your own hypocrisy proves the point he made when he said that love without truth isn’t love. Oh and Stephen isn’t the only one who feels like he’s a survivor of this horrible blood bath (have you ever read the testimonies from people who survived the abortion procedure and are alive to talk about it now?). I know quite a few people my age who feel the same way and, for the record, I do too. We're survivors, and you're acting like one of those punks who claim the Holocaust never really happened. You're the one who needs to wake up. Not us. Maybe we’re too young to know some things, but we’re old enough to know it was your generation that dropped the ball on abortion, not ours. And it will be our generation that fixes it . . . one way or another, not yours. - Jamers |
|
| "how our democratic society works...we live in a democratic republic, we are charged with electing those who will make laws. These laws will all force a philosophy on society, like it or not." - cdl |
|
| I guess its true what they say about the internet...communication can get nutty. People go off on tangents and say things they wouldn't say in person.
So...let me try to reiterate what I really have said, and not what I'm being quoted as saying. Strange that all the talents you have for researching facts on the internet can't be applied to what I have actually written in these posts. - tennis pro |
|
| lets start with verbatims quote "all this Christianity-must-be-nicer-or-we'll-lose-the-chance-to-spread-the-Gospel makes me wonder"
My writings on this post is NOT about spreading the gospel. I have made that abundantly clear I am saying we must approach the idea of saving babies differently, not spreading the gospel.
If you remember Mo3 asked "what else can we do" or something like that. THAT is what I have been addressing. Period. SAVING BABIES. I was under the apparent misunderstanding that is why we are all wanting to stop abortion. to save babies. PERIOD. not to save the mothers, or bring them to Christ, but to save a baby. - tennis pro |
|
| Xnis pro (X as in ten), "cdl said "My objection is with the way pro lifers go about it, ie in an offensive way." that's my whole beef also. - tennis pro" Could you explain how what you say above and here in quotes compliment each other? I saw a picture on the net yesterday of a victim in Asia whose two kidneys had been stolen for financial gain with a huge scar across his stomach. Imho that's worse than abortion but I'll be surprised if there is much outrage over it (after all there are people in the US who will justify it cuz they need a good kidney more than someone else needed it) just as I am not surprised how sinners commit things like that and like abortion and... Christ is the answer and we have that answer and we are entrusted to communicate it. The twelve steps groups such as AA have a good tradition (#IX): We have "no opinion on outside issues; hence [our] name ought never be drawn into public controversy." Christians should take much care in which of our behaviors might be attached to God's name. Ref: "Hallowed be Thy Name." - cdl |
|
| Stephen, when you intersperse your comments with things like "dang, I'm good" then you ask for comments on whether you are or are not and yes, that was cocky. Cute, but cocky just the same. Dont dish it out if you cant take it. I also said a lot of what you wrtie makes sense. You just went too far comparing yourself to a holocaust survivor. YOU never came close to abortion. Why? becasue YOUR parents wouldn't have done that. YOU could not be born to other mother and father because then...YOU would not be YOU. YOU are a unique result of your parents and even the day and time you were conceived. Had they conceived a baby on another day...it still wouldn't have been YOU. So, YOU never were a candidate for abortion. So you had no chance of being conceived by anyone else, who believed in abortion or not. Sorry. Also, just a word to the wise, never end your comments with nasty little asides to someone. It doesn't help make your point ("people like you") It makes you look angry, not secure in your beliefs and certainly it wasn't showing the love you proclaim to want to show. One third of your generation si missing due to abortion. Part of my generation is missing due to the vietnam war, now what? A large percentage of the Jewish population is missing due to the holocaust. I don't get your "survivor" theory...that you survived so you "know" ....what? I am still confused on that, especially since you didn't survive. To survive indicates you were in danger. YOU were not in danger at any time in your prenatal life. - tennis pro |
|
| Jamers..nice to finally hear back from you. I asked you a question awhile ago about how you would put your "tough love" in to practical action and got no response. Perhaps you could now answer that I have you back. - tennis pro |
|
| Jamers, to further answer you...what are you talking about?!!! Did I say to punish candy bar thieves somewhere? But I have no problem with it. A candy bar is something some store paid for to make a profit by selling it. His family and livlihood depend on it. Because the item is seemingly frivilous, nobody should have to pay for it? I don't get your problem witih that anyway. As far as an "imature hissy fit"?! I haven't heard that term since...oh, I remember, since I was a kid! Anyway, I don't feel throwing women who had an abortion in jail as practical or a tactic that will briing mainstream americans in line with our thinking. You have to have mainstream support if you want to pass laws. You must be practical, and you are talking about after the baby is already dead...I think they call that closing the barn door after the horse ran off! Remember, I was addressing SAVING babies. Some other questions about your post...when did I even mention "Paul"? I don'[t preach against shouting from the rooftops...I didn't take that literally, although now I am beginning to wonder. Since I never got any answer from you, and Stephen's answer seemed to be to threaten them with jail...I am against it because its not effective. To compare a woman contemplating abortion to a person stealing a candybar is ludicrous. Maybe, if by some strange chance the law was passed, I really don't think it would be much of a deterrent, like many laws on the books now are not much deterentn, (drugs, child porn). Although, sure...maybe it would change some minds. Some. Is that good enough for you? And you say I'm acting like a "punk"
(loving term, is that in the Bible?) who claimed the Holocaust never happened? Did you miss the part about me knowing people who were tatooed in concentration camps? I have a special feeling for those people. I have tears in my eyes remembering them and what they went thru. I think they suffered more than babies who were aborted, but that's another story. So when someone compares themselves to one of those people, they better really have a comparable story, and not just pulling drama out of their hat for the sake of argument. The people who actually survived an abortion?? That's another story, and yes, THEY are survivors. How in the world can you compare yourself to them, unless you yourself had been thru an abortion attempt and lived. Otherwise, you have no argument there. That is like me calling my self a vietnam vet cause I "could" have been drafted. Also did I call Stephen an "ignorant jack ass"? Strange, I don't even talk like that...I find it unseemly. My vocabulary is greater than that. Oh..maybe I am so old and unaware of internet communication that I wasn't aware that use of exclamation points violated some rule. I apologize if it means something of which I am unaware. Maybe you could tell me what's wrong with that. But, I certainly don't understand you counting my punctuation marks on a post of such importance. Talk about changing the subject...next are you going to insult my mother?!! - tennis pro |
|
| cdl...I am not sure of your question? Is it that I said its not about bringing the mother to Christ and its just about the baby? Please let me know so I can answer what you are asking. If that's what you are asking, I just mean the immediate thing is to save the baby. Then...we can work on the mother, but the amount of time to save the baby is limited, the mother, supposedly will have more time to be worked on.And what could show the love of Christ more than helping a woman make the worst mistake of her life? At some point she will realize that, and remember the love and non judgement with which she was treated by teh Christians who reached out to her and want to know more about why these people are different and didnt' judge her harshly but just helped her. There is too much holier than thou going on adn that turns people away. But someone asked how to save babies, and I stressed throughout my postings that I was talking about saving babies...IF that's the real concern here. Let me know exactly waht you meant, though so I can answer you. - tennis pro |
|
| Tp, your question was already answered by Me, Stephen and Matthew. Neither of us said we were answering your question but we all did indirectly. Generally "tough love" is speaking the truth (you may call it “shouting”): not censoring our words in order to seem "nicer" to others, and ultimately making tougher laws. Cdl is right about some people not wanting to hear it. Heck, I didn't want to hear it when I was growing up, but because of the "shouting" from pro-lifers, I eventually woke up to what was really going on. As Christians we are required to say things that people don't want to hear (Matthew made this point in talking about Jesus and his disciples). Your making it seem like we should be willing to do ANYTHING to save one baby at a time, but what you are arguing against doing would in the end save millions of babies at a time : speaking louder, getting tougher, making the laws tougher (a.k.a. putting a woman in jail who kills her baby). This has historically worked (refer to what was said about slavery). And saying that women are going to get abortions anyway illegally is a mute point. READ THE FACTS. Women will not treat abortion like a facial if jail is a possibility. They will take it much more seriously. This is obvious. The rare few who go through with it will be just that... a rare... few. I read cases in the news where a mother abandons or physically kills her newly born child. What happens when they catch the mother? She goes to jail. We are not being consistent. To suggest that women should not be punished for aborting a real live child, is to suggest that a women should not be punished for physically strangling, drowning, etc. her real live newborn. - Jamers |
|
| sorry Jamers, us old people need direct answers. So you are saying the jail thing is the way to go? That's your answer to how to put "tough love" in action? In the old days they said never put all your eggs in one basket. And all this was my answer to mo3 who said " what ELSE can we do?". I believe your ansewr was "we need to do somethihg" which was a non answer. I was waiting for real words about real solutions. For each woman pregnant and contemplating an abortion...there is something different that will persuade HER. You don't agree? When you were counting my punctuation marks, you might have seen how I said education of what abortion actually IS will definitely work for some...thre are many ways to skin a cat. Or to save a baby. I WAS ANSWERING THE QUESTION FROM MO3. Maby jail will work for some. Maybe it is well deserved by some. But I still think if you put the drs willing to perform abortions in jail, that would be more effective and likely to happen than putting the mothers in jail, but I could be wrong. Whatever. If a non Christian read these posts, how many would think we are loving and only wanting to save babies? Or would they think we are a bunch of nuts? Think about it, cause how you are perceived by others affects how God himself is perceived by others. Be grateful you ARE from the current generation. Imagine coming from my generation, when during our child bearing years, the knowledge changed from "the baby is just a mass of cells during the early part of the pregnancy" to "the baby is a baby from a matter of weeks on". Imagine the women who really thought they weren't killing a baby, who then got the news that medical knowledge caught up with reality and these women of my generation had to live with what they had done. They have a life sentence that no jail could compete with. The women of my generation know more about the effects of abortion than you realize. They dropped the ball because of lack of medical knowledge available at that time. Its sad, not worthy of your disdain towards them. - tennis pro |
|
| “So you are saying the jail thing is the way to go? That's your answer to how to put "tough love" in action? In the old days they said never put all your eggs in one basket.” Tp, your not following me at all. If you read my last comment carefully you would notice that I said “Generally "tough love" is speaking the truth (you may call it “shouting”): not censoring our words in order to seem "nicer" to others, and ultimately making tougher laws”. I never said the only way to fight abortion is through law. Law is just one way (though the most effective) to handle both the abortionists and the mothers who abort their babies. Stephen stated this point earlier when he talked about supply and demand. Also, another effective way to fight abortion is with truth. The least effective way to fight abortion is with being “nice” and trying to use persuasion. This goes along with giving abortionists money... you are relying too much on persuading others to do what you want them to do by being nice and offering them a motive. Sure you might get a few women to go for the cash or maybe an abortionist too, but in the long run this will never change America. The big picture will never change if we say we have to handle every case of abortion differently. I’m sorry but that just isn’t realistic. Passing laws making abortion illegal and educating (speaking the truth) is exactly how the slave trade was stopped. Oh and some blood was shed as well. Do you really believe the slave trade would have come to a halt by the methods you described? - Jamers |
|
| "If a non Christian read these posts, how many would think we are loving and only wanting to save babies? Or would they think we are a bunch of nuts? Think about it, cause how you are perceived by others affects how God himself is perceived by others."-tp. I don’t know about you, but I really don't care what the secular world thinks of me. That will never be my motivation for what I speak and what I do. That is the opposite of what we are called to do as Christians. I don’t expect the secular world to nod at my beliefs and say “Oh yes...what loving opinions you have” because I try my best everyday to speak the truth. Evil will always hate the truth. As Christians we are called to set light on the truth. We should be persecuted and disliked for it. - Jamers |
|
| If I may jump in real quick...First, my comments about Paul were addressed to CDL who did bring him up, not Tennis Pro...Second, I think it is unwise and completely futile to argue who has suffered more between abortion victims and Holocaust victims, or what action is worse between stealing someone's kidneys or performing an abortion. They are all reprehensible actions and I am quite sure they all suffered greatly. Any argument to draw great distinctions between the two are ultimately silly and meaningless...I really don't think Tennis Pro and Jamers and Stephen are too far off: I think Tennis Pro is just saying that it would be a better political strategy to not push for jail time for women having abortions right away. I think Tennis Pro is not saying that these women whouldn't go to jail, just that public opinion right now would not support such a measure. If that is what she's saying then I agree with her. Pro-lifers can revisit that topic once abortion is made illegal but right now jail time for women is not the top priority - stopping abortions is. I actually think if abortion is made illegal it should be a felony crime for doctors to perform one and a misdemeanor for women to get one. That way there is punishment for both parties(and at least a little bit of a deterrence for women to seek one) but the overwhelming emphasis of the law would be on the doctors performing them. Either way it seems that to me that Jamers, Stephen and Tennis Pro are not that far off on the positions they're taking. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| "I think Tennis Pro is not saying that these women shouldn't go to jail" Matthew Cochrane, TP is the one that said, "Sorry, but the last person in this action of abortion who should go to jail is the mother. It will serve no purpose after the abortion as the baby died...and it will not benefit society or the woman or the dead baby to jail the mother. Jail the dr if you want, but, the mother?? That's about the least effective deterent you could come up with." This statement was ignorant. I don't think Stephen and I ever said jailing mothers was realistic or that we should be pushing for it right now at this moment. Just that it is what should be done, and that if it were done it would deter illegal abortions. MC, I agree with you, let’s make abortion illegal first and then cross that bridge when we get there. I agree with you that we some of our positions are probably not too far off, but be advised how ignorant it is to not see a comparison between the Jewish Holocaust and what is going on today. To say we're not survivors because our parents didn't try to actually abort us is like saying Jesus didn't survive Herod's little infanticide escapade because his family fled before the murders took place. There was no way in the world God would have let Jesus die as a baby. Be that as it may, he survived a terrible conquest from a terrible tyrant (a holocaust?). One third of our generation is missing because of abortion. TP said, “Part of my generation is missing due to the vietnam war.” How smart is that? I’m not going to argue about whether or not the war was a just war (though I believe a war against communism is a just war, and I believe we could’ve won), but soldiers are not innocent in the way that they are actually combatants and they fight knowing it’s possible they will die. That’s what made 9/11 so horrible – that so many innocent people were murdered. At least when Japan invaded Pearl Harbor it was a military base. When the terrorists attacked the WTC or the Pentagon it was innocent civilians. That’s why the Vietnam analogy doesn’t work. And another irony – many who protested the war called the soldiers baby killers, and then ended up being the actual baby killers after 1973. - Jamers |
|
| Jamers, apparently young adults in the 60s/70s were able to use angry tactics to put an end to a just war, but that same generation is against us using the same tactics to end an unjust genocide. Makes you wonder what they're afraid will happen if we do. - Stephen |
|
| "Part of my generation is missing due to the vietnam war, now what?" You losing a "part" of your generation to the war is not nearly as scary to you as us losing a third of our generation to abortion. 1. Islamic families in the Middle East have an average of 8 babies. We are somewhere around an average of 2. 2. Also, soon the baby boomers are going to be collecting social security, so maybe you can try to guess how it might be a little scary that a third of our generation is already dead. In one way or another we will majorly feel the ramifications of this sin (but probably my generation more than yours and my children's generation more than mine). - Jamers |
|
| Mathew...yes, you are exactly right. I am not that far off from what STephen and Jamers are saying, if I understand what they are saying. Thanks for reading my posts and actually seeing where I am coming from and what I am actually saying. - tennis pro |
|
| Stephen said - "Jamers, apparently young adults in the 60s/70s were able to use angry tactics to put an end to a just war, but that same generation is against us using the same tactics to end an unjust genocide. Makes you wonder what they're afraid will happen if we do."
Angry voters showing anger against ruling politicians is not the same thing as individuals showing anger towards a woman contemplating abortion. In one case, anger works cause the VOTERS are in control of whether the politicians keep their jobs. In the latter case, the MOTHER is in control of whether the baby lives or dies. If you approach anyone with anger on a personal level, it is less likely you will get them to see your side of an issue than if you approach them in a kinder, less confrontational way. You are more likely to just push them away from you and anything you have to say. AGain, I was talking about SAVING BABIES down at the "one by one" level. Anger can be used effectively, as voters, on this abortion issue, but not on a personal level towards a mother standing outside an abortion clinic. Anger can be good when used effectively, but you have to know when and where to let it loose. Otherwise, it works against you. Remember, mo3 said "what else can we do" and I was throwing out other ideas. If even ONE baby gets saved by different and unorthodox methods while we wait for laws to change...is that not a good thing? That's what I meant about you can be right and still be wrong. - tennis pro |
|
| Saving a baby here or there is not good if the methods themselves make it take longer to get the laws changed. Also, I don't think anyone condones walking up to a single woman and calling her a baby killer through the most stressful time in her life, but I think you'd have to admit that it's not more cruel than when people walked up to soldiers coming home from the war, spit on them, and called them baby killers in what was one of the most stressful times in a soldier's life, and it was an action that was condoned by many in its day. I think we can be right and you still be wrong. - Jamers |
|
| self-righteous Main Entry: self–righ·teous
Pronunciation: \-?r?-ch?s\ Function: adjective
Date: circa 1680 : convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others : narrow-mindedly moralistic - cdl |
|
| But cdl "And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?" Matthew 7:3 - BMS |
|
| beadwindow - cdl |
|
| Perhaps we could all use a little common sense here. Agreeing with Matthew, I think TP and Jamers and Stephen are on different sides of the same coin. Maybe,this is just a thought here, we could look at young women who have had abortions themselves, only later to repent of it and start anew. OR, maybe we could look at statistics of women who went to have an abortion only to change their minds at close to the last second. What changed their hearts? People shouting "baby killers" at them? Not likely. People just being nice and treating them with kid gloves? Probably not. I dont think either extreme is very useful. Here's what we do know works. Life centers with trained technicians to do ultrasounds on expectant mothers. Charts depicting growth during different stages of pregnancy. Even something as simple as sending expectant mothers newborn baby booties has been shown effective. All these teach the mother about the baby, making the baby become real and alive not just some random cell arrangement. We know these tactics work. Should we continue to fight against legalized abortion? Without a doubt, and we should never give up. But all that we do - the good, the bad, the ugly, the fights, the whatever, must be done in love, though. Love for the baby and the mother. Without love, everything we do is futile. Do not be mistaken : I am NOT advocating a weak, pansy Christianity. I think of Jesus showing mercy to the adultress when the men were ready to stone her to death. Which was more effective? Which actions made her change her ways? - Concerned Citizen |
|
| Concerned Citizen, it’s almost completely useless to bring up the adulteress woman that Jesus forgave and kept from being stoned if you’re not also going to bring up the fact that He commanded her to never sin again. But that being said, I agree with you that your method of bringing up the scientific evidence would be a good technique to reach out to women. Just don’t think for one second that they will like us for it. Just like Matthew pointed out, “In the summer of 2006, I wrote that the scientific evidence so overwhelmingly supported the pro-life position that those who favored legalized abortion had completely shifted the argument to philosophical terms, abandoning the medical and scientific contexts of the debate. Apparently, the debate has become so one-sided that abortion advocates are now complaining about the pro-life camp “pushing scientific evidence” on the pro-choice crowd. They even accuse those who oppose abortion of "hiding behind science." And I thought Christians were the ones who were supposed to be afraid of science!” - Stephen |
|
| Agreed. I never said that I wanted to be liked, though. Ironically, loving others often brings out hate. - C.C. |
|
| Secularists are winning the cultural war because they have been more dedicated and courageous than Christians. Most issues and activities Christians engage in are defensive in nature. Most who call themselves Christian or conservative are not involved with the struggle to maintain our Constitutional freedoms and our Christian culture and many Christians who respond do so on a very limited basis. We spend a great deal of time, energy and money on issues that, even if we prevail, will not make a great deal of difference to reverse the increasing irrelevance of the church and loss of American freedom. For over 45 years we have lost ground to the Secular Humanists. Christian researcher, George Barna states that we are losing 96% of school age children to the world - an average of 9,000 children per day 365 days/year. Every year fewer Christians are working to make a difference and we’re losing many elderly Christian activists. It’s a sign of insanity if we keep on doing over and over what we’ve been doing and expect a different result. The reason we’ve been losing the culture is that most of the battles in which Christians engage are defensive in nature and even those battles in which we prevail the end result is generally only the preservation of the status quo. An example is the current battle to maintain the definition of the family as a man and a woman. It’s not that this issue isn’t important, but even if we prevail it only reinforces a premise that society has acknowledged for thousands of years. It doesn’t gain any ground. We have ignored the most important issue which is the devastation of our children spiritually, morally and academically. Ninety percent of Christian parents give their children to the state to be educated and indoctrinated in the religion of Secular Humanism. Consequently these children upon reaching maturity live out a secular socialist worldview in the way they vote, raise children and conduct their lives. We need to conduct offensive battles to regain lost territory. The primary offensive battle in which we can engage is the salvation of our children’s souls and preparing them to become spiritual champions so that they can labor with Christ to reclaim the world. When will Christians begin to see the consequences of ignoring this issue which impacts almost every other issue that matters? It is nearly impossible to convince an uneducated citizenry or one that has a secular worldview that abortion is wrong. I pray that Christians will have the courage to address this issue and start a dialogue on how the church can best do this. If we fail to act swiftly, we will complete our cultural suicide. Helping children become spiritual Daniels who will contend for the culture will not only save their souls, but have the potential to eliminate many of the problems in our nation and the world. Unless you do something about the situation now to regain our Christian culture your freedoms and everything else you cherish will be lost. I encourage you, no I beg you, to join in the fight to help restore this nation. - Robert Dreyfus |
|
| Robert, I agree with you wholeheartedly that Christians need to do a better job of raising their children to "spiritual Daniels." Sending our kids to state institutions where they will be taught contrary messages to everything their Christian parents taught them growing up is not a good strategy - to say the least. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| That being said, it appears you might be creating a false dichotomy here. Just because we need to raise our kids better, does not mean we should not continue fighting the same battles in the culture. I have an issue witha few things you said: 1) "It’s a sign of insanity if we keep on doing over and over what we’ve been doing and expect a different result." - Well, I'm sure glad that the abolitionists and civil rights movement did not give up as easily as you seem to want to. These are long, hard battles we're fighting. Indeed, we might never win these battles in our lifetime. That does not give us license to give up though; 2) "The primary offensive battle in which we can engage is the salvation of our children’s souls...When will Christians begin to see the consequences of ignoring this issue which impacts almost every other issue that matters" - I guess I just don't see to many Christian parents ignoring this issue. I know I sure don't and would implore all Christian parents to take this matter seriously. Again, I don't see why this strategy would exclude the battles of our culture though. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| 1. When Robert Dreyfus was said, "It’s a sign of insanity if we keep on doing over and over what we’ve been doing and expect a different result," I don't think he meant we should just give up on the cultural battle. I think he was saying we need to fight it harder and stronger. His point was, "We need to conduct offensive battles to regain lost territory." It was in reference to the fact that we send our kids to get a humanist education and act surprised when they vote that way and raise their kids to be humanists. And he's right. Think of public schools as government funded youth propaganda camps. That's all they are. 2. You say you don't see parents ignoring the issue of the children's salvation, but how many Christian parents send their children to secular seminary for 30-40 hours a week and make them do homework, but then we send them to church for a few hours (at most) a week where no homework is required. A home school education or even a Christian one is ideal. Abortion is bad because it destroys children's lives. Public school is bad because it destroys children's souls. - Stephen |
|
| Well, like I said I do not disagree at all about sending our children to receive agenda-driven educations from state-run institutions. If that's his point, and he doesn't mean to exclude the current work being done, then I agree with him 100%. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| I could be wrong, but this sure sounds like an overgeneralization (which btw is a tool of propagandists) "Public school is bad because it destroys children's souls." - cdl |
|
| Overgeneralization? No. Hyperbole? Yes. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Steve, "Public school is bad because it destroys children's souls" No big thing. It's predestined. - cdl |
|
| CDL, I didn't realize you were such a fatalist. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Something like nine times out of ten, the values a child has when he/she is 13 will be the same core values they have in later years. That makes the education of a child very important. We're raising them in schools that teach there is no God and that it's okay for boys to wear dresses (http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=85989). It's sickening. Would you say it's not destructive? Not hyperbole. Not an overgeneralization. What's sad is that you find it more unattractive that I use an attitude with an angry tone, than you do that our taxes pay for all this crap. When public schools destroy childrens' souls they're destroying our future. This is what real Christian education should look like: http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles/critiquemodyouthministeries.htm - Stephen |
|
| christian education in a public school; I'm not following that line of (word unknown) - cdl |
|
| "that line of thought"?? http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html - Stephen |
|
| thanks; thought works for me; I can't call it a line of logic - cdl |
|
| That's actually a pretty good article. There are lots of things that could be said about our public educational system and few of them are good. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Steve, I know a wonderful Christian public school teacher. She absolutely can't stand NCLB. It creates an unmanageable work load and no additional resourcing federally or via her state (Maryland). You get what you pay for. It's the best "get out the liberal vote" campaign yet from the GOP. - cdl |
|
| My beef isn't with teachers. - Stephen |
|
| man, dude, you need to clarify that in big handwriting - cdl |
|
| Well I don't see why I would need to spell that out if I never said that I had a problem with them to begin with - Stephen |
|
| Of course not. That would be introspective. - cdl |
|
As tragic as abortion is, it is a moral issue now. Roe v Wade was decided 7-2. 80% of the Republican appointees were in favor of it, 5-1 to be exact. There were only three dem appointees. Two by JFK and one by LBJ. 66% of them supported it. It is simple constitutionally. Amendment XIV explains that citizens are protected equally by the constitution and due process. To become a citizen one must be born not conceived and one must be a person. I don't like it either, but until it's amended, that's what it says. It is the law of the land and the supremes are it's interpreters as the constitution states. Unfortunately also, an amendment process is started one of two ways. The more likely is by congress and then goes to the state legislatures. Probably not going to happen unless the hearts of the people change. That should be the focus. Ironically, if the hearts are changed, an amendment isn't needed. How to word an amendment that grants citizenship or special rights to a fetus without limitation seems unwise. - c |
|
I just found at least one error in my logic in the Amendment XIV argument that may be an opening for those who favor legal means to protect at least some unborn humans. Anybody else see it? - c |
|
|
|
|
| |
©2009 Matthew Cochrane
| |
|
Recent Activity:
Top 5 Posts of the Month:
Recently Viewed Posts:
Top Ten Most Commented
A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 8: Commonly Held Objections and Their Fallacies (378)
Roe v. Wade: The 35th Anniversary of Legalized Abortion (147)
In Defense of My Church and Pastor: A Followup (108)
In Defense of My Church and Pastor: On the Recent Controversy Surrounding Tullian Tchividjian and Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (106)
A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 3: The Proper Mode of Baptism (79)
Friday Political Roundup VI: Thoughts on New Hampshire's Primary (Special Wednesday Edition) (78)
Why I Like Mike, Part 2: Responding to the Conservative Establishment's Attacks (75)
In Defense of My Church and Pastor: Congregational Meeting Announcement (69)
From the Depths of the Web 2, June 2008 (65)
Can the Church Compromise on Baptism? Part 1 (60)
Top Ten Hits All-Time
- Abortion, America's Greatest Sin, Part 4: Defining Personhood
- Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban
- A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 7: The Sign of the Covenant
- A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 8: Commonly Held Objections and Their Fallacies
- Mentorship Program for Incarcerated Young Men Gives Christians Opportunity to Witness, Offer Guidance
- Abortion, America's Greatest Sin, Part 3: The Beginning of Life
- Book Review: Love and Respect
- Book Review: Velvet Elvis
- The True Meaning of Christmas: Wrath, Judgment, Hope, and Grace
- In Defense of My Church and Pastor: On the Recent Controversy Surrounding Tullian Tchividjian and Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church
Add your Feeds:
Blogs I read:
Fave Five
Religious and Cultural
Friends and Family
See what my readers are saying…
“this website should be named NotConsistentThought or NotCompleteThought”
“I would say you are too sensitive”
“you just twist and spin”
“you just bloviate and pontificate”
“you are legalistic”
|
|