One week before a new law imposes stricter regulations on Missouri abortion providers, Planned Parenthood wants a federal judge to keep it from being enforced.
Planned Parenthood on Monday asked for an injunction to stall enforcement until the court decides whether the new law is constitutional. Without the injunction, the law will take effect a week from today.
The requirements for a clinic to be licensed under the new law are so costly that the group may be forced to shut down abortion centers in Kansas City and Columbia, said Peter Brownlie, chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri.
Women in central Missouri would be forced to travel to St. Louis for abortions, Brownlie said. Services would also continue to be provided in Overland Park, he said.
“This is a blatant attempt to close down clinics and deny women their right to health care,” Brownlie said at a news conference Monday. “”¦ The regulations would have no impact on family planning services or the quality of care that patients receive.”
“Planned Parenthood”.
I sit here pondering what it would be like to have my whole life devoted to killing babies and shaking my fist at God, telling Him that MY morality is better than His……..
May the God of Heaven open their eyes.
May the God of Heaven open our eyes.
Let us thank God for openning the eyes of a few government servants.
Let us thank God that killing one’s own is going to be less convenient.
And don’t forget that ECUSA is associated with this practice as well, being an official member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice -http://innocentdoves.blogspot.com/
To DonGander:
As a lifelong Christian (first a Southern Baptist, now an Episcopalian) and as an ongoing member of Planned Parenthood, I assure you that I don’t “have my whole life devoted to killing babies and shaking my fist at God.”
(How many babies has the United States killed when bombing civilians in Iraq?)
Ember,
Peace be with you.
The killing of one baby is wrong no matter who does it. So your logic makes it OK to be a member of a group that regulalry kills thousands just because the US government bombs another country?
A major victory of the pro-abortion movement is not so much in the killing of babies, but the fact that they have made it an “issue.”
Murder is no “issue” and should never be up for debate. Period.
“How many babies has the United States killed when bombing civilians in Iraq?”
If one is evil, isn’t the other evil? One is intentional, the other is a part of addressing evil. But both are a result of evil.
Do you know which is which?
Would God have condoned the abortion of a fetal Adolf Hitler?
No, but you would have, apparently…
“Would God have condoned the abortion of a fetal Adolf Hitler? ”
I would flee from the idea that I should be so presumptuous to sort fetuses by future evil. How would I know a “Hitler” from a “Canon Harmon”?
Marty the Baptist, I nominate your comment for “line of the week”.
Sweet! ; > )
If murder is murder, was the United States wrong in killing so many Nazis?
(Marty the Baptist, unless you have ESP, then you cannot know what I would or wouldn’t condone—agreed?)
Please. “as an ongoing member of Planned Parenthood” you condone any and all abortions. It was Ms. Hitlers civil right, was it not?
Ember,
Murder is murder, yes. But not all killing is murder. Please explain how war and abortion are similar.
Marty the Baptist,
As a member of Planned Parenthood, I condone unhampered access to preconception birth control as a means of reducing the number of abortions worldwide. I also condone access to abortion for any woman in any situation, without governments or males other than the father having a single moment’s power over her choice. Neither of these statements requires that I “condone any and all abortions.”
Saint Dumb Ox,
Both war and abortion arise from the belief that sometimes death can prevent a greater tragedy.
That’s doublespeak, ember.
“I also condone access to abortion for any woman in any situation”
cannot mean anything other than that you condone any abortion in any situation. After all who are you to judge another person’s choice? Hmmm?
RE: “I also condone access to abortion for any woman in any situation . . . ”
Yep, Marty — you were right . . . “It was Ms. Hitlers civil right, was it not?”
“I condone ACCESS to abortion in any situation” can and does mean something other than “I condone ABORTION in any situation.” And I don’t intend to commit doublespeak; I intend them as two different statements with distinct and separate meanings. In a very similar vein, just because I condone a person’s right to speak does not require that I condone what that person says.
Ember,
The Church has never condoned the unjustifiable practice of killing babies before. Can you please explain your rationale for the changing of that teaching? I disagree with you and as far as I know I have scripture, tradition and reason agreeing with me. So where am I wrong?
ember, regardless of how you may try to rationalize your statement as being a matter of semantics, the fact remains that you have chosen to associate yourself with an organization that supports the guilt-free killing of unwanted innocents.
Remember, choices have consequences (in this world or the next). My mother-in-law has always maintained “I would rather pay for my sins in this life than the next one”.
I will pray for your soul tonight.
samh,
The church used to condone the Scripturally quite justifiable practice of slavery before. Can you please explain the rationale for the changing of that teaching? And the church used to condone the Scripturally clear teachings that the sun orbits the Earth, and that the Earth is flat—can you please explain the rationale for the changing of that teaching?
Patrick in Jax,
Thank you for your prayers; I will pray the same for you. Choices do have consequences, which makes me glad that Jesus has paid for my sins in this life so that I can enter the next life as an innocent.
Thank you ember. Just remember that Jesus didn’t shed his blood for our sins so we could sin all we want and still have a Heavenly safety net. Accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior doesn’t mean that are immune to sin. If you continue to sin and do not repent, you can still die in your sins and suffer God’s wrath. Condoning sinful acts is the same as participating in them.
God’s Peace.
“Patrick in Jax,
Thank you for your prayers; I will pray the same for you. Choices do have consequences, which makes me glad that Jesus has paid for my sins in this life so that I can enter the next life as an innocent.”
Beware of presumption.
The Gordian,
The statement “Beware of presumption” confuses me. Does it make me presumptive if I believe that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life?
Ok ember, who condones ACCESS to any abortion.
Which abortions would you specifically condemn? And you might want to explain how you can simultaneously condone access to an abortion that you would condemn, if performed…
And I dunno about Gordian, but I’d say it’s pretty darned presumptive to think that “Thou Shalt Not Kill” doesn’t apply to pregnant women…
Because I do not think God grants anyone the power to decide when someone else should bear children, then I must condone access to abortion. But that doesn’t require me to condone a woman’s choice to have an abortion, in the same way that passionately condoning a person’s right to free speech doesn’t require me to condone what that person chooses to say. Nor does condoning access to abortion without condoning abortion itself require me to condemn any specific instance of abortion.
Triplespeak.
Logic plus a passionate belief in individual freedom, with the power of judgment and condemnation held only by God, does not constitute triplespeak.
No, but this sure as heck does 😛
“Nor does condoning access to abortion without condoning abortion itself require me to condemn any specific instance of abortion. “
Gah. I have to make the argument.
Marty, Patrick, Gordian, [i]et al[/i],
If condoning sinful acts is the same as participating in them, as Patrick said, and condoning legal access is the same as condoning each and every instance of that access being used to sin, as Marty said, then if I’m an advocate of free speech, and someone uses that free speech to convince another to become an atheist/universalist/Nazi/NAMBLA member, does that mean that I’m going to hell? Does that mean that I’m in favor of NAMBLA, and that I’m shaking my fist at God and his sexual mores?
Look, it’s great that you all are committed to your cause. And I know it arouses strong emotions. But basically consigning someone to hell for not agreeing with you (which seemed to me the implication of posts #20 and #21) doesn’t seem like a good way to help people see your point of view. Of course, maybe condemning is more the order of the day…
Ember,
Do you condone women having access to late term abortions, including abortions where the baby may be viable ? And if you do please explain why that is ok and not infanticide.
Why should a woman have power over whether another human lives or dies just because that human is dependent on her? Science shows us that the preborn child has his own DNA so you are talking about the willfull killing another human being. Why should a brief trip down the vaginal canal make a difference.
Jesus came so we could have life and have it abundantly not so we could chop and suck it out of us. Wrap it in biohazard bags and toss it into the incinerator.
Adam, the free speech comparison is cute and all, but it’s not what you think it is.
Because all speech is NOT free. Speech which threatens, and/or puts lives in danger is completely illegal.
Comparing free speech to support for abortion is like supporting the shouting of FIRE in a theatre — a theatre full of small children in fact, many of which will certainly be trampled to death.
Surely you don’t support that kind of speech, do you?
Dont get me wrong — I support free speech, even speech that advocates murder. Speaking out in favor of murder is legal. Committing it is not. Aiding and abetting it is not.
Abortion is murder, and many members of planned parenthood are guilty of committing it. The rest are guilty of aiding and abetting. In my opinion.
You guys might ASK Ember a lot of well-crafted questions, but you won’t get her to ANSWER any of them. Waste of time.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
There are few issues in the modern arena that arouse as much anger as this one does, so I’m probably going to regret speaking up here.
I think the key question in the abortion debate is not, “Is it a good idea to kill babies?” The key question is, “Is the embryo a human being?” Because if it is, then yes, abortion is murder; and if it isn’t, then it’s not.
The question really can’t be answered in a rigorous sense, because we don’t have a universally agreed-upon definition of what makes a human being. (Whether it “has its own DNA” is clearly irrelevant, though. Plants have their own DNA too, but few people feel guilty about weeding their gardens.)
Speaking only for myself, I will say that to me, a fertilized ovum moments after conception is clearly not a person, but a fetus moments before birth clearly is. I don’t necessarily have a defensible basis for that view, but it seems self-evident to me. If you ask at what point between the two stages it becomes a person, then I can’t answer you. Early-term abortions don’t bother me, late-term abortions do. In the middle, I’m uncertain.
In an ideal world there would be no abortions because all conceptions would be desired ones. I support Planned Parenthood more for their promotion of birth control than for their advocacy for abortion rights — although I do think that, in this definitely non-ideal world we live in, that’s important too.
It’s a baby at conception.
1) If you leave it alone, it will be born a human being, grow up, grow old, and die a human being.
2) There’s no point at which you can say it is/isn’t a baby.
Even using the “morning after” pill is the murder of a human being.
Whether the baby is desired or not, or whether the baby will have a hard time or not, is beside the point. Killing it is killing a human being. The situation of the mother is not the baby’s fault.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
“In an ideal world there would be no abortions because all conceptions would be desired ones.”
I suspect that in God’s eyes, all conceptions are desired ones.
#34 – Ross said: [blockquote]I think the key question in the abortion debate is not, “Is it a good idea to kill babies?†The key question is, “Is the embryo a human being?†Because if it is, then yes, abortion is murder; and if it isn’t, then it’s not. . . If you ask at what point between the two stages it becomes a person, then I can’t answer you. Early-term abortions don’t bother me, late-term abortions do. In the middle, I’m uncertain. [/blockquote]
So since no one can agree on when life begins, we should be very careful in deciding that an embryo is NOT life. Don’t forget, a 9-week-old fetus has all internal organs present and functioning and the body is nearly complete – changes after the 9th week are primarily changes in size, rather than appearance or function.
Oh, and Ross: Plants don’t have human DNA. Only humans have human DNA. When the ovum is penetrated by a sperm, an organism is created which has human DNA. If it has human DNA it’s human.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
Good point, Dave #33. I also came to that conclusion when she started to dance.
Adam: I don’t converse with trolls.
Ross: so tell me, what came first, the chicken or the egg?
The church used to condone the Scripturally quite justifiable practice of slavery before. Can you please explain the rationale for the changing of that teaching? And the church used to condone the Scripturally clear teachings that the sun orbits the Earth, and that the Earth is flat—can you please explain the rationale for the changing of that teaching?
This is an intellectually indefensible piece of claptrap.
In the first place, the Church qua Church never – NEVER – officially produced theologies or canons defending slavery. In fact, in the undivided Church of the first millenium, the moral presumption was generally against slavery (see, for example, St Patrick’s letter to Coroticus). After the Great Schism the Church continued to inveigh against the practice of slavery, culminating (in the West) in Sicut dudum, a bull issued by Pope Eugene IV in 1435, commanding the faithful to release from slavery those taken into slavery from the Canary Islands, under pain of immediate excommunication; and in Sublimis Deus, a bull issued by Pope Paul III in 1537, condemning slavery, selecting for especial condemnation the enslavement of people outside the faith, and ascribing to Satan the avarice that led to the practice of slavery. In fact, it is not until the rise of the lucrative practice of the chattel enslavement of Native Americans and West Africans that any defenses of slavery were produced by Christian theologians, and that not until the 18th and 19th centuries and in a situation of a Western Church divided by protestant schism.
The simple fact is that there was no “teaching” of the Church that promoted slavery, apostolic admonitions to slaves to be obedient to their masters (probably more a matter of witness than social economics anyway) notwithstanding. And those admonitions are radically relativized by the epistle to Philemon in any event.
As to teaching a geocentric solar system, that came not so much from Scripture as from the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, a model supported by the Aristolelianism adopted by the Church through the Scholastics in the medieval period. In point of fact, several Churchmen, prominent ecclesiastics in Rome at the time of Galileo among them (don’t forget that Copernicus was a cathedral canon, and Tycho Brahe was a devout Lutheran Christian), were willing to reconsider the geocentric model in favor of a heliocentric one.
And the flat-earth business is utter foolishness. Pretty much no educated person in the Middle Ages and afterward believed that the earth was flat, and the Church never taught anything like on any official or authoritative basis.
RE: “In an ideal world there would be no abortions because all conceptions would be desired ones.”
Yes. In an ideal world, there would be no aging, no death, no disabilities, and no crime.
That is, of course, why I support 100% the killing of all people, whenever my vision of the “ideal world” is not met.
In an ideal world, there would be no need to kill all of these folks — but oh well . . . c’est la vie!
dpeirce, although I’ve not mentioned it before now, I’m a him not a her.
Ross,
Thanks for trying to bring this one back to reason. Though a very emotional issue for myself, I think reason ultimately trumps support of abortion as a right.
Potential. It is always the potential life of anyone killed that is what makes murder wrong. If I kill a 90 year old very ill grandfather because I think he is about to write me out of his will, this is of course wrong, but the killing of a man with only weeks to live is not a tragedy. If I kill a 40 year old mother of three while drunken and driving this is clearly a tragedy because of all the potential I have removed from her life and her children’s lives. If a 16 year old kid kills himself and his buddy while driving recklessly a whole community is up in arms at the loss of future for these boys and their families together. When a 10 year old girl falls down the stairs and breaks neck resulting in her primary functions ceasing, they tragedy is deep because she has barely begun to know who she is. When an infant goes from SIDS, a ghost fills that household. All that that child had and had to give was potential. When we get to the zygote we have naked potential. It is always the potential that death takes from us that makes it tragic.
Whether by some definition we say an embryo is human or not is irrelevant. It is becoming human. To willfully end this potential is to cause the tragedy of its loss. That is why abortion is a poor way for Christians to actively deal with the moral problem of unwanted pregnancies.
PS.
I have a six month old grandson in my house often. The conditions of his conception could have led to his termination. He can smile laugh cry poop and get his leg stuck in the slats of his crib. He is not auto-viable. He will not be so for many years. He is helpless potential.
William Scott, #43: What potential did a poor 33 year old social misfit, rebel, and rabble-rouser of no good family have when he was ignomoniously nailed up on a Cross and killed? Would he agree that the murder of a 90 year old used up grampa isn’t a tragedy? I wonder how he ranked those sinners that he was dying for on the Cross? And I wonder what he who said “Judge not, the measure you give is the measure you will get” would think about your judgements?
Take all the time you want in answering.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
#39 Patrick in Jax, your posting seems to attack both me and #29 Adam. Attacking us won’t change our positions or make abortion go away—so why do it?
Ember,
How can killing a baby prevent any tragedy? What tragedy is there in children? You can’t possibly know the future do you?
Did it ever occur to you that the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancy is not to have sex in the first place?
In post 25 you state that God does not give anyone a say in who bears children. Are you forgetting that God himself creates each life? Are you arguing with God about who gets to be born? How the pregnancy happens is irrelevant. Life is God’s creation not ours.
Let ember rejoice in the death of children.
I would just like to know his name, face, and postion upfront, so me and mine can cross on the other side of the street. We must be ever vigilant about those who advocate for and support the murder of children. If this is what they proudly proclaim in public, we can only guess at what they reveal in private.
I shudder to think.
Dave,
Assuming we are on the same side of the abortion tragedy, and knowing we may use different arguments or have different convictions for believing abortion is sin, I still am confused by your aggressive response, but apologize for the offence.
I did not mean that the death of the 90 year old was not a tragedy in absolute terms. And it certainly is more than wrong. So I will gladly retract that part of my illustration. I was over zealous to make a point about the beginning of life and failed to maintain that all life is to be protected t its natural end. And any end of it prematurely, no matter how little time left places the guilt for that tragedy in our hands. Who knows what unfinished business my Grandfather could have accomplished in forgiving or being forgiven? Or any other thing. Not to mention what better things he may have done with his money than giving it to a lout like me.
I assure you I was making no judgments, but was only trying, too sloppily, to make a point about why terminating life is always about removing potential, so the idea of justifying abortion on the grounds that life does not start until ‘Week A’ of a pregnancy is defeated. This is a philosophical move that allows us to avoid disproving someone’s premise, which can be very difficult, and still show a way that they are wrong even by their own assumptions.
Killing is also wrong in absolute terms. This is why I am opposed to abortion. In it we put our selves in God’s place. To assume we know we are making a bad situation better in abortion is to assume far more than we can humanly know. To place a normative right in front of the empirical fact of killing is diabolical deception.
Your question about Jesus’ potential life is a question that has sat at the back of my mind for years. I suppose “The Last Temptation of Christ†deals with this fancifully. But that would not be the kind of potential Jesus would have lost on the Cross. I will have to give this more thought.
I can only say His death has brought all potential.
Nobody has yet responded to the actual article posted. The issue in Missouri is that the state law now requires abortion clinics to meet the same licensing and medical standards as other ambulatory surgical clinics. A woman seeking an abortion, under this plan, would have the procedure performed in a facility just as clean and well-prepared for eventualities as the one where she would go to have any minor surgery not requiring an overnight stay. Planned Parenthood objects to providing this level of cleanliness and medical safety to its abortion clients. Does this not, by itself, tell us something about Planned Parenthood’s opinion of its clients (the ones who survive, that is) and their value?
Many people fail to realize that the whole wanted/unwanted issue simply plays into the commodification of human life because it makes a human beings worth less than intrinsic and dependent upon someone else’s good graces.
The fact is that the limited approval of contraception given by the Anglican Communion–a first for any Christian Church–has to this point proven the slippery slope argument. (Of course there were other factors in there, including two world wars and the practice of issuing contraception to soldiers to prevent them from bringing home STD’s as war souvenirs.)
There’s no doubt that the original argument that contraception would make “every child a wanted child” and mean their parents would be able to care for them–an argument later extended to abortion–has been proven false.
People might legitimately differ in what medical instances might call for the tough moral choice of abortion–but the history of planned parenthood which is laced with eugenics and racism–is something every Christian should steer clear of regardless of what they think about other issues relating to abortion.
Katherine,
Very good. I’m not surrprised.
Considering that the majority of planned parenthood’s clinics are in minority areas, it wouldn’t surprise me to find that the clinics in question are as well.
William Scott: Yes, we’re on the same side ^_^. I got the impression you thought a life which is almost over is worth less than one which is just beginning. Since I fall under that “almost over” category, and since I disagree strongly with that idea in the first place, I got more upset than was justified. Apologies.
But you’ve stated it better than I: The potential of a human life begins at the moment the life itself begins. There’s no point in week A, or any point in the physical development of a fetus, where we can say, “*Now* it’s a baby”. It’s a continuum of development starting with conception and ending with death. Killing the person at any point along that continuum denies their potential. There are only a very few circumstances where killing can be justified. Abortion isn’t one of them.
The question on the potential of Jesus’ life might be complicated by the fact that his potential is realized in his death more than in his life, and that isn’t true for us. It’s tempting to imagine what he would have done if he had lived, until I realise that there would have been no salvation.
Sorry I got upset. I hope that your grandson proves to be a blessing.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
Jody, #50: Thank you for your comment on contraception. I’ve tried to make that point with many of my Protestant friends and hit a stone wall.
The fact is, contraception isn’t about preventing unwanted pregnancies, or even about preventing disease. It’s about making sex more fun by removing the possible consequences. It’s a tiny step from preventing the consequences before they occur to aborting them *after* they occur. Then, since the object of sex is fun, we begin realizing other kinds of sex are fun too; hence, homosexuality, polyandry, ploygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, sex changes, and who knows what. Also, if life is less important than fun, than taking care of sick or elderly people isn’t fun, so we need euthanasia.
And it all began with taking the consequences from sex.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
To Ember,
I’m sure your happy your mom didn’t exercise her “right” to abortion. Pedophiles use abortion clinics to hide there deeds and the abortion clinics seem happy to accomodate them. Abortion clinics aid these evil people. So you are supporting pedophiles?Acess to
sorry I didn’t mean to leave Acess to on. Need to pre read before I post
Ember #45, you’re quite right, evil will not go away. That said, I find your proclamation that you are a Christian AND a supporter of abortion to be quite incompatible.
#56 Patrick in Jax—The number of clergy on the board of directors of my local Planned Parenthood division suggests full compatibility between Christianity and support for access to abortion.
#54 Dave B—If you think condoning access to abortion means supporting pedophilia, I doubt I can keep up with wisdom like that, so I will bow out of this discussion now.
Ember,
Though you have gone, and I cannot blame you (Can’t we make a point without lobbing great gooey blobs of vitriol?), how does the presence of clergy make a thing Christian? There are clergy on the protest lines outside the clinics as well. The argument goes like this: “If some Christians are doing A then A must be acceptable to Christ.†I think the weakness in this argument is apparent.
I can’t speak for Dave B., but I suppose he may be referring to investigative efforts in which girls claiming to be under 16 ask for abortions, and Planned Parenthood personnel tell them to lie about their ages to get one. When a 15-or-under girl turns up pregnant, she is by definition the victim of statutory rape in most states, and the people at the clinic have a moral imperative and in many states legal requirement to report the abuse to authorities. These girls may be pregnant by 17-year-old boyfriends, but on the other hand, it often happens that the father is a much older guy or a family member.
#40,
Excellent response as to why the oft-repeated (but rarely critically examined) assertion that the church somehow “supported slavery” is a load of nonsense. I am sure some regional jurisdictions of some churches supported it, and some Protestant denominations broke off to support the issue, but saying “the Church” condoned it is nonsense. First off, it begs the question “what is the church.” An argument that simplistic isn’t going to fly on a blog frequented by so many students of history.
“#56 Patrick in Jax—The number of clergy on the board of directors of my local Planned Parenthood division suggests full compatibility between Christianity and support for access to abortion.”
I think the more accurate statement would be :
The number of clergy on the board of directors of my local Planned Parenthood division suggests full compatibility [i]between certain brands of Protestant Christianity[/i] and support for access to abortion.”
Excellent response as to why the oft-repeated (but rarely critically examined) assertion that the church somehow “supported slavery†is a load of nonsense.
Indeed, I was glad to read Todd’s post (#40).
I am sure some regional jurisdictions of some churches supported it, and some Protestant denominations broke off to support the issue,
You might well say that those regional congregations who supported slavery were bowing to their cultural milieu instead of holding to their faith.
#59 Correct, also in many states there is no need for parental notification for abortion. Young girls (underage) are taken to a clinics and told to lie. Planned parenthood refuses to notify authorities. There is a case in Kansas where prosecutors are trying to obtain the records and Planned parenthood refuses. I really do believe that that is aiding sexual abuse of children weither Ember wants to believe it or not.
Lot to catch up on…
Marty,
[blockquote]Dont get me wrong—I support free speech, even speech that advocates murder. Speaking out in favor of murder is legal. Committing it is not. Aiding and abetting it is not.
Abortion is murder, and many members of planned parenthood are guilty of committing it. The rest are guilty of aiding and abetting. In my opinion. [/blockquote]
OK, this is an argument we can have. Aiding and abetting is different than allowing. That was my point with the free speech issue. The argument was that ember, by believing in free access to abortion, is therefore responsible for the choice [i]everyone[/i] makes with that access. The same argument could be said that believing in free speech makes one responsible for [i]everything[/i] someone says.
Now you’re saying that ember’s membership in Planned Parenthood actually aids and abets the abortions which happen. That is a different argument than the one I perceived from everyone before, and one that makes sense.
I just wish people had taken the time to understand my point before dismissing me as a troll. I wasn’t saying what I said to be “cute;” I was actually making the point that if you put responsibility on the advocates of a given freedom for all of the actions of those who use the freedom, then we’re all in trouble.
Patrick,
[blockquote]Adam: I don’t converse with trolls.[/blockquote]
Oh, because I question your tactics, I’m a “troll.” Thanks.
Are you praying for my soul tonight? Am I going to hell as well? Not worthy of even discussing the issue?
[blockquote]Patrick in Jax, your posting seems to attack both me and #29 Adam. Attacking us won’t change our positions or make abortion go away—so why do it?[/blockquote]
Actually, my position isn’t even in favor of abortion. I’m not going to demonize those with whom I disagree, on either side. I just thought the argument some were making was flawed, and I also thought there was more venom than was necessary to make the point. I’m more likely to keep an open mind about someone’s point when they’re not attacking me personally. I assume it’s the same way for others.
There are some Christians who don’t believe that abortion is murder. I’m not one of them, but telling these people that they must delight in the deaths of innocent babies is not an effective way to have a dialogue. I also think the death penalty is wrong (as some posting here can attest), as do a [b]lot[/b] of Christians, but I’m not going to demonize those who disagree with me or suggest that their salvation is in jeopardy.
My post was a bit snarky, and if that offended people, I apologize for it. But there are a lot of posts with the same, or worse, tenors to them on this article. I appreciate Marty for at least responding to what I said, even if I’m not sure he even gave serious weight to it.
I never thought you were a troll Adam, and appreciated your followup response.
Sorry to post so much, but I forgot to mention something…
[blockquote]Abortion is murder, and many members of planned parenthood are guilty of committing it. The rest are guilty of aiding and abetting. In my opinion.[/blockquote]
Thanks for adding that little bit on the end. That’s the point; we have some differing opinions on the issue. I believe morally that life begins at conception. However, that’s my belief; whether we agree with them or not, the government doesn’t share that opinion. And we still don’t always think of, or treat, all human life the same.
I’ll give you an example. My mother had two miscarriages between my birth and that of my younger brother. Now most of us would agree that these were human beings that died. However, when people ask me if I have any brothers or sisters, I don’t tell them that I have a living brother and a living sister, plus two siblings who are no longer with us (have no idea whether they would have been brothers or sisters). I don’t feel a huge sense of loss, and neither does the rest of my family. It doesn’t emotionally register the same way.
What is my point? We register unborn children (especially early term unborn children) differently. Does that mean they aren’t human? Not in my opinion. But there is no consensus in the scientific community, nor the secular world in general, and there is even dissent among Christians.
So should we, as Christians, oppose abortion? Sure. But should we say that those who don’t oppose abortion must “rejoice in the death of children?” Well, if we say that, then we must say I’m a cold-hearted b*****d because I didn’t grieve the loss of my siblings. My parents didn’t even have a funeral for them; what kind of sick person doesn’t have a funeral when their child dies? Heck, the police didn’t even investigate to rule out foul play. Etc.
And I’m sure many of you will find my argument to be “trolling.” I hope some will at least try to understand where I’m coming from. I don’t believe this issue is as simple as we want to think.
I don’t feel a huge sense of loss, and neither does the rest of my family.
I’m pretty sure your Mother would disagree. Or at least I’m betting that at the time, her sense of loss was indeed huge. Speaking from personal experience…
Marty re: #67 – thanks.
One more thing, and I promise I’ll try to quit posting for a while…
Jody+ (my vicar, BTW) says:
[blockquote]People might legitimately differ in what medical instances might call for the tough moral choice of abortion[/blockquote]
Which acknowledges what we all know, that many Christians disagree about whether abortion is permissible in cases of rape, incest, and/or a high risk of the mother not surviving childbirth. I know many Christians who find abortion permissible in any of those cases.
But dpierce (who I respect a lot, despite frequent disagreement) says:
[blockquote]There are only a very few circumstances where killing can be justified. Abortion isn’t one of them.[/blockquote]
Thus implying that abortion is [b]never[/b] permissible, even in the case of any of the above situations. Now I tend to agree with Dave on this one; I don’t think abortion is morally right under any circumstance. However, I’m not willing to say my Christian brothers and sisters who disagree are wrong, immoral, etc. And I don’t believe that the law of the land should prohibit abortion even in the case of rape, incest, or significant risk of maternal death in childbirth.
If my wife were pregnant again, and we were told that she would almost surely die in childbirth if she didn’t abort the child, I’m not sure she would agree with me regarding the immorality of abortion there. (I’m also not sure I wouldn’t be willing to compromise my own morals in that situation, but that’s completely beyond the point). Should I impose my will on her in that situation? Would she be evil for having an abortion?
Dangit, Marty, you’ve enticed me to break my promise (well, I am trying)…
[blockquote][i]I don’t feel a huge sense of loss, and neither does the rest of my family.[/i]
I’m pretty sure your Mother would disagree. Or at least I’m betting that at the time, her sense of loss was indeed huge. Speaking from personal experience…[/blockquote]
Yeah, I should clarify this; it sounds more insensitive than I meant it. From what I’m told (I don’t remember it; I’m sure my parents didn’t tell me about them at the time) my mother was very sad when she miscarried, as anyone would be. I would imagine my dad was too, though we’ve never talked about it. My point is, my mom can talk about it today without emotion. Not that she’s cold, just that it happened and it’s ok now. However, she can’t even talk about my grandfather or my uncle (who have both gone on to be with the Lord) without tearing up; she will never be over that grief. If she were to live long enough to see one of her now-living children die, and I’m praying that doesn’t happen, then I can’t even imagine the grief she would go through. I can’t imagine the grief I would have if my brother or sister died.
That’s my only point. The level of grief, and even the way we think of them is different for children who are never born. That’s not to say there’s no grief, no feeling; and I certainly say they are [b]children[/b] who are never born, not embryos or zygotes of fetuses (feti?).
Having seen Adam from TN on several consecutive Sundays, I can attest to the fact that he is not, in fact a Troll. Far from it; a troll would no doubt find it difficult to be blessed with such a wonderful family or to ring the sanctus bells with such acumen ;-).
My personal opinion is that abortion is a tragedy and in many of the cases it is perpetrated in the US it is nothing less than murder. At the same time I am a traditional conservative who thinks it is completely stupid to ask either Judges or legislatures to parse some of the medical minutia that can go into determining situations in which abortion may be a tragic, but legitimate option (I’m thinking here of such instances as tubal pregnancies etc…)
But I happen to think that the majority of the situations that may call for a difficult choice to be made by a family and their doctor (their actual doctor who has a relationship with them, not an abortionist at a planned parenthood clinic) don’t require the existence of planned parenthood clinics which are devoted solely to the destruction of life, and are built upon a philosophy that our entire country needs to repent of, but most people aren’t even aware, i.e. eugenics. The repentance is especially required of the old-line protestant churches, many of which great supported these heinous movements because of a screwed up eschatology. (Check out the book [i]Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement [/i] by Christine Rosen, for a good overview of the history)
If a medical procedure is called for, which may be tragic, it should be done in the midst of a system that actually adheres to the Hippocratic oath. While I think there can be legitimate differences on the situations Adam mentioned in his last post, I would caution against Christians supporting planned parenthood for a number of moral reasons which I think have been pretty well outlined.
I believe that the same moral test can be used for difficult cases relating to abortion as can be used in the case of absolute triage, which I wrote about here:
[url=http://adamantius.net/?p=490]”The Christian Apprehension of Tragedy”[/url]
Adam,
I can attest that the grief of a miscarriage can indeed be great. I have friends who have needed counseling to deal with their greif because of miscarriage. The Silent no more campaign of Anglicans for Life and Priests for Life has brought the struggles of women who have had abortions to light…and if people grieve over a miscarriage which is a natural occurance (most of the time, baring abuse), then how much more might someone grieve over the ending of a life that they had a hand in?
I guess to summarize my feelings–we know much more about biology today than ever before. We know, for instance, that there are times when a woman’s life can be saved by abortion–such as the tubal pregnancy I mentioned earlier–but we also live in an age where abortion should be becoming more and more rare, not only for moral reasons (through the preaching and living of the Gospel), but also for medical reasons–treatments are developed everyday that make more and more of the old justifications of abortion moot, whether it be the performing of surgery on children in the womb to repair spina bifida or any number of other medical problems.
My thanks to David Bennett and Sherri for their approving assessments of my response in #40.
What strikes me by my having omitted it is the comment that the equation of the early Church’s condemnation of abortion and infanticide with theological defenses of slavery is nothing other than moral imbecility.