Last April, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ban on a heinous act euphemistically called partial birth abortion, which LBC readers know as infanticide or more precisely, murder.
In response, pro child-killing politicians went into action. They drafted a bill called the Freedom of Choice Act, which would nullify federal and state limitations on abortions. Read more about it at the National Right to Life Committee.
Partial birth abortion is a procedure in which “doctors” pull the baby down the birth canal, partially delivering him to avoid murder charges, and inserting a probe or scissors into his skull, killing him. (Update: Forgot to mention this. The “doctor” suctions out the dead baby’s brain to collapse the skull and make it easier for him to pull out the dead baby.)
I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying and blogging it until people are ready to run in the opposite direction, screaming with their ears covered. I just don’t see how someone who claims to follow Christ can believe women have the right to choose to kill their unborn babies. I just don’t get it. Listen to this guy, this Christ-professing man:
To fan-girl applause, Barack Obama, who voted for the Freedom of Choice Act last year, says the first thing he’ll do when he takes office is sign the bill into law.
“On this issue, I will not yield.”
In contrast, John McCain, a man I’ll reluctantly, with a strenuous effort, vote for in November, said this about partial birth abortion:
“I will do everything in my power to ban that horrible procedure.”
Now, it doesn’t matter to me whether McCain is a Christian or not. At the very least, he’s against so-called partial birth abortion, and that’s good enough for me. When it comes to unborn life, I will not yield. Any Obama supporter who claims to be a Christian ought to be ashamed. I hate it, man. But I’m not your judge, so what I say or think about you won’t really matter, will it?
(Hat tip: Dawn Eden)
Also see Pat Buchanan’s A Catholic Case Against Barack and also Obama Woos Abortion Foes With Platform Embracing Motherhood. Clever political move, eh?
Later…Oh brother. I think I’ll sleep Election Day away.
Related posts:
{ 7 trackbacks }
{ 75 comments }
Thanks. We’re sending some surfers your way today.
A lot of people (in my opinion) claim to follow Christ because it’s “in”; however, the inconvenient parts of his message (such as him being _LORD_ and all that) are left out of the equation. They like the love of God, but they don’t like the demands of God, so they pick and choose what they want to listen to. (I won’t even deign to say they really _obey_ anything except their feelings of the moment.)
I personally was not against abortion because I was uneducated. I preferred to think that it was an icky thing that would (I hope) go away as a topic of discussion. And then I had to sit down and study the issue, and came to the conclusion that I, as a Christian, could not claim to follow Christ _and_ simultaneously ignore the fact that we were killing humans in the name of convenience.
It wasn’t the logic of the situation: sure, we were killing humans, but in the grand scheme of things, so what? They were small and we were big. What led me to change my mind about it was that I believed in the Lord of the Universe who was Right and Just, and this killing of humans for convenience was wrong. Whether I liked having to follow his command wasn’t the issue. If people have value (and saying that implies that we believe in something transcendent about humans), then all humans have value. And killing someone because they are inconvenient, small, helpless, and devalued is never right.
Any Obama supporter who claims to be a Christian ought to be ashamed.
I would add that (assuming BHO actually wins) they also would have the blood of the slaughtered innocent unborn on their hands as well.
I don’t think Obama is saying that women should be forced to have an abortion they don’t want, a la communist China.
But if it damages his internal salvation, it’s between him and God, no?
Sorry, eternal salvation.
Curious slip there, Gus.
But if it damages his internal salvation, it’s between him and God, no?
Comment by GusB
Eternal salvation cannot be damaged by anything we do. If it could, then it ceases to be eternal and God-centered.
That being said, I would posit that Obama doesn’t have saving faith. The Spirit of God would compel him to repent of the pro-infanticide views he holds. That he is completely unwaivering in his pro-baby killing stance is very telling.
Yep, my eternal, er ah, internal spell checker didn’t work.
Is the Spirit of God for man to interpret? I don’t think so, but in any event, we go to heaven or hell alone, not based on public referendum. I might go to heaven and my parents or children will not, but it’s between God and the individual.
Is the Spirit of God for man to interpret?
Given that the Spirit of God doesn’t speak audibily, but rather speaks to us in a still-small voice, or through His Word, or through other believers, then yes, it is for man to interpret. Obviously, given that there are thousands of denominations, man has not always agreed on said interpretation.
but in any event, we go to heaven or hell alone, not based on public referendum. I might go to heaven and my parents or children will not, but it’s between God and the individual.
You do realize that nothing I have said contradicts this, yes? If BHO is saved, then I pray that he would repent. It isn’t like he can claim ignorance on this issue. Many bretheren have confronted him on this issue. This isn’t some personal sin that we are dealing with either. He shares a viewpoint that has opened the door for infanticide on a national scale. It is a door that needs to be slammed shut. Like I said before, that he is unwaivering in his commitment to keeping the slaughter of the unborn legal, with no restrictions whatsoever, is very telling of the condition of the man’s heart.
Abortion is murder – whenever and however it is performed. Period. That is my stance as a committed and lifelong Catholic and it is one that was not arrived at by rote but by careful consideration.
All the slippery justifications and “nuances” in the world cannot change the fact that the left has more reverence for the lives of cop killers than it does for the lives of their own unborn progeny. It’s despicable. It’s degenerate. It’s just plain WRONG.
The only consolation is that, between abortion and birth control, they’ll have disappeared entirely in another generation or two!
GusB,
You comment: “I don’t think Obama is saying that women should be forced to have an abortion they don’t want, a la communist China.”
OK. I agree with you. I have never heard Obama or any politician campaign for compulsory or state mandated abortion.
Is there some reason you made that observation? Because as it stands, you might just as well have noted that Obama is not saying that women should be forced to use lipstick.
The point is, a woman choosing an abortion is only your business if it’s your child she is aborting. She has to live with her decision and seek absolution with God, not you. Most women who have had abortions consider it a private matter. Leave the judgement to God; Only His opinion matters.
Gayle, lifelong Catholics have turned a blind eye to other atrocities that secular courts are addressing. If God couldn’t stop it, the people should have. Instead, the church is paying out large sums of money. But even the serial-raping preists face God alone, no matter what the rest of us think about it.
Marvin, you cannot insert yourself into someone else’s personal relationship with God.
“The point is, a woman choosing an abortion is only your business if it’s your child she is aborting. She has to live with her decision and seek absolution with God, not you. Most women who have had abortions consider it a private matter. Leave the judgement to God; Only His opinion matters.”
I don’t think the point is about judging the person who had the abortion. The point, in my mind at least, is that a woman’s choice to have an abortion and the fact that we allow that to go on in this country is my business and yours because it is a statement about our respect for life. What you believe in your heart is eveyone’s else’s business because it shapes how you behave. We either believe in life, preserving life, nurturing life, or we believe that life is expendable when it’s inconvient or perhaps not “normal” or “destined to have disabilities”.
That matters and I believe it is everyone’s business.
On a side note, I find it disturbing that Obama uses the term “choice” instead of “abortion” when talking about the issue. If there’s nothing wrong with it, call it what it is.
GG:What is sin?
OBAMA:Being out of alignment with my values.
So, BHO thinks sin is being out of alignment with HIS values. That my friends, is very telling.
I think arbortions should be legal, until the fetus is 18 years old. Why restrict the murders to the womb? And why does only the mother get to decide. If a woman can make a man pay child support, a man should be able to make a woman have an abortion. The laws make no sense and are based on sex discrimination! It is only fair… well, not to the fetus, but they can’t vote until they are 18, anyway, so why would Congress be worried?
Being facetious makes my brain ache :/
“Choice” comprehensively includes a womans decision to carry her baby to term, so when someone claims to be pro-choice, it means they would equally protect a woman’s decision to have an abortion or to carry her baby to term without being forced to have an abortion against her will.
What you believe in your heart is eveyone’s else’s business because it shapes how you behave.
That is borderline thought-police thinking. 300 million Americans all have their own minds. We have ways to deal with anti-social or criminal behavior, but we don’t have the technology to do it pre-emptively.
Marvin, you cannot insert yourself into someone else’s personal relationship with God.
I haven’t. I am merely judging the fruits. Please read and understand this.
The point is, a woman choosing an abortion is only your business if it’s your child she is aborting. She has to live with her decision and seek absolution with God, not you. Most women who have had abortions consider it a private matter. Leave the judgement to God; Only His opinion matters.
This is non-sense.
For example, lets reword this like so…
“The point is, a man choosing to molest a teenager is only your business if it’s your daughter being raped. He has to live with his “decision” and seek absolution with God, not you. Most men who have had intercourse with teenagers consider it a private matter. Leave the judgement to God; Only His opinion matters.”
We as a society have a responsibility and obligation to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Why are the most defenseless not given that same protection?
GusB, in reply to Gayle, you said:
“Gayle, lifelong Catholics have turned a blind eye to other atrocities that secular courts are addressing. If God couldn’t stop it, the people should have.”
But in the previous paragraph you stated the following:
“The point is, a woman choosing an abortion is only your business if it’s your child she is aborting.”
If I’m interpreting correctly it sounds as though you believe for one atrocity “the people” should have risen up it (the priest-child-abuse), but for another atrocity, abortion, it’s a private matter.
Salvation is a personal issue, but we’re not simply talking about salvation now. We’re talking about injustice and what our response should be as believers.
Isn’t “infanticide” technically more precise a word than “murder?”
Gus, you said, “We have ways to deal with anti-social or criminal behavior, but we don’t have the technology to do it pre-emptively.” Didn’t you see Minority Report? Kidding, of course, but you also said, “a woman choosing an abortion is only your business if it’s your child she is aborting.” Not exactly. It’s also the child’s business, don’t you think?
And since that child is your neighbor and mine, and because we should love our neighbors as ourselves, I think it is our business what that mother does to that child. I want my neighbors to defend my life against someone who would take it unjustly, and I should do the same for them.
I’m looking at it from this angle: Killing infants is infanticide. Murder is more precise a term for the act. – Admin
OK. How about this?
A woman choosing to sexually molest her own child is only your business if it’s your child she is sexually molesting. She has to live with her decision and seek absolution with God, not you.
Come on guys, I’m not using weasely language. “Fetus-cide” is more accurate than infanticide, truth be told. Infanticide is when babies are found in dumpsters.
We can exchange words in anybody’s passage and play that game all day long. I mentioned the Catholic Church thing to point out that the church has shown a greater interest in protecting a fetus than young parishioner, so God will judge the church leaders who shuffled offending priests from parish to parish despite their dangerous behavior, but not me.
If your next door neighbor had an abortion, would you be able to tell? No. And it’s not your business.
Infanticide is when babies are found in dumpsters.
Um…why don’t you go to an abortion clinic and dig around their dumpsters….It is infanticide. You won’t find pups or kittens in there, but you will find lots of heads severed from bodies, legs and arms severed, truly gruesome stuff.
Your callousness and continued justification of this abhorent procedure is appalling.
GusB,
If it is not born from the womb, it is the woman’s property and it is not a human life. Ergo, partial birth abortion is a neutral act and of no concern to anyone but the mother. The abortion itself is a private matter between the woman and God and the business of nobody else.
Have I correctly understood you?
If not, can you be more precise about your meaning?
Marvin, please. Aren’t we just discussing?
I don’t expect anyone who woke up this morning against abortion to have a change of heart based on what I post.
The majority of abortions are not third-trimester abortions of the type depicted in the illustration at the head of this article. I suspect that there are a lot more chemical abortions now that “morning after” kits are available at Walmart.
It has become frighteningly frequent that babies born live are found dead. Anecdotes abound, and I would imagine for every dead baby found dumped, there is at least one that was not found, probably more.
In a perfect world, the only women who would ever get pregnant are those prepared to be mothers, with their husbands prepared to be fathers. But that’s not the reality, and there aren’t enough families to adopt the babies in the system today.
The majority of abortions are not third-trimester abortions of the type depicted in the illustration at the head of this article. I suspect that there are a lot more chemical abortions now that “morning after” kits are available at Walmart.
It has become frighteningly frequent that babies born live are found dead. Anecdotes abound, and I would imagine for every dead baby found dumped, there is at least one that was not found, probably more.
In a perfect world, the only women who would ever get pregnant are those prepared to be mothers, with their husbands prepared to be fathers. But that’s not the reality, and there aren’t enough families to adopt the babies in the system today.
Comment by GusB
None of this justifies the practice of it or makes it morally acceptable.
BTW, even 2nd trimester abortions result in the kind of bloody mess that makes it very apparent that a human life was snuffed out.
I would also love for you to cite some evidence to support your assertion that there “aren’t enough families to adopt the babies that are in the system”.
Helio, from a legal standpoint, the law is unclear or inconsistent.
For example, Scott Peterson was convicted of two counts of murder in the death of his wife and their unborn son. On the other hand, a pregnant woman by herself cannot drive in the carpool lanes and an unborn child cannot be claimed on your taxes as a dependent.
Are you distinguishing partial birth abortions from other forms of abortion? I’ll have to give it more thought.
Marvin, according to this May 2008 newsletter from LA County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, there are over 8,000 kids in foster care, with 600 waiting to be adopted, in LA County. The County has billboards around town asking families to consider adopting.
GusB
2 points.
1. What you cite is for children (most between the ages of 5-15 according to the citation you give) who are in foster care. Meaning they come from either broken homes, or where child protective services had to come in due to abuse, or some other circumstance. These are not “babies in the system” who haven’t been adopted yet. It isn’t exactly disputed to say that a majority of people who are seeking to adopt would like to adopt a newborn baby, a child that (for lack of a better term) doesn’t have the kind of emotional baggage that the foster children more than likely carry. I would also posit that there is an extreme shortage of babies to offer for adoption, even though there are literally thousands of couples who would love to adopt them…a shortage most likely due to the fact that it is easier to abort than to carry to term.
2. It is a mistake to take data from very specific region and then extrapolate that to the entire country.
Marvin, if you wanted a fully researched and referenced report broken down by census tracts, you should have told me that in the first place. You’ll have to spell out all other the conditions and restrictions you are going to place on any data I collect.
Tell me again though, what would be the purpose of me going through that drill? To change your mind? Not my interest or my intent.
Scott Peterson should never have been charged with two murders, according to abortion advocates. The most he coud be charged with is one murder, and interfering with his victim’s right to choose how her fetus died.
GusB,
“The law” is a coward. You seem (clearly) to be fencing with when “personhood” begins under 14th amendment strictures. (”No person born or naturalized……”)
Unfortunately for those who want to hide behind a curtain of legalese, Roe v Wade screwed up the formula. The SCOTUS, in that case, played pseudo-scientific trimester games.
I am not apt to be convinced that carpool lanes and income tax deductions are the equivalency of abortion.
However, if the pregnant mother is the sole owner of the “mass of cells” in her womb, I would find an immediate “property” right between her legal claims and those under scrutiny in the Dred Scott case. That is to say, you may do what you wish (legally) with the property which you legally own. Later on, you can square it with God, if that even matters to you.
Why will you not give clear statement to your position?
The idea that a fetus in the womb is “the woman’s property and not a human life,” or is simply a collection of cells, may make sense from the standpoint of some people’s religion, but it has no basis in logic or science. From the standpoint of science, the being created by the union of egg and sperm is unique, with unique DNA. It is never a part of the mother’s body. And let’s be honest: the left is thrilled when the government tells you what to do with your body. They tell you to wear a seatbelt around your body, they tell you to put a motorcycle helmet on top of your body, and if you don’t like it they’ll throw your body in jail.
My opposition to abortion did not stem from my faith; I was a Christian for years before I became pro-life. It was actually the illogic of the pro-abortion arguments that convinced me.
GusB–the murder of a child is EVERYONE’S business. And “voluntary” abortion is in fact often forced or coerced abortion that the woman does not choose. Not to mention the fact that NO abortion is truly voluntary, because the unique being whose life is being terminated does not volunteer to die.
Amen Trish, amen.
Calm down, Helio. My language has been clear. Not every pregnancy should result in a live birth, and abortion should remain available for women who want that choice. Seems like you want to put words in my mouth, but that is not ambiguous.
I already know you disagree with this point of view. I get it. I’m pretty sure you have given this a lot of thought and cannot see how someone could feel this way. I’m sure you have a counter argument to anything I could posit, and obviously you are spoiling for a fight. If you are willing to adopt every unwanted child, I think that is very noble of you, and I wish you luck. But I don’t think it is your place to decide who is really a christian and who is not based on how they view abortion.
For the record, I reared my two children, who are now adults, and I hope to one day be a grandfather. But I would never demonize a woman for having an abortion, and neither should you. It’s not your place.
But I would never demonize a woman for having an abortion, and neither should you. It’s not your place.
I find it interesting where you decide to draw the line in the sand of moral judgments.
For the Christian, abortion raises two major issues upon which the argument turns. At what time does an individual human life begin and what does the Bible have to say about it?
Answering, definitively, the first question is the most important in my view. And because of the squishiness of the people’s minds, it is the question so quickly used as justification. Regardless of what arguments you use, once a person has come down squarely on one side or the other, their position can hardly be swayed.
If you believe the unification of sperm and egg is a human worthy of as much protection as a child born alive, then abortion is the unwarranted destruction of a human life the same as drowning your child in the bath tub (or perhaps hiring someone else to do it). There are no moral justifications that can square with that, particularly in light of Biblical ideals on life. The fact that the child may have a difficult life ahead of them is hardly an argument that would shake a pro-life Christian. The Bible calls us to take care of the widow and the orphan, not kill them all to spare them the pain of their existence. You might as well be suggesting the extermination of the severely handicapped.
If you have fallen to the “clump of cells” side, or some variation thereof, then the Christian is left without a guidepost. It becomes a surgical procedure no different than removing an appendix. And the Bible is silent on the integrity of bodily organs. Moral judgments don’t apply in this world.
It is quite a sad state of affairs that the brunt of the weight in the abortion debate rests on a question so many have been made ambiguous about. But I still hold to the Good Hunter’s rule. (I’m sure I’ve said it before.) If you are hunting deer, and think you see one in the distance, but you’re not sure – you hold fire. The mere possibility that what you have in your sights COULD be human is enough to stay your trigger finger. If you are right that it IS a deer and don’t fire, you are inconvenienced at best. If you are wrong, and take the shot,, you’ve killed someone.
As a society, I think it is a shame that amidst our collective doubts, we don’t have the will to deny ourselves so that we can be SURE we aren’t committing the worst atrocity in human history.
This quote is from Judith Warner’s opinion piece on the front page of the New York Times today discussing abortion and citing the proposed Democratic Party Platform.
“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right,” is, arguably, the most powerful statement in favor of abortion rights that the party has ever made.”
I suggest you read the entire opinion piece and remember that it is possible that the Democratic Party, if in total control the next four years, will work toward total federal control of abortion, even overturning all of the state laws that have set limits on abortion.
As for McCain, I sent his campaign an e-mail yesterday saying if he picks a pro-choice running mate, that is the last straw as far as I am concerned and I will also not vote for Presidentat all come election day.
I was about to bring up McCain’s pro-choice VP trial balloon too, dianne. He needs to pick a solid conservative running mate. I was already just trying to get my head around voting for him to begin with. But if he is basically promising not 8 possible, but 12 possible years of non-conservative leadership, I just MIGHT write in Fred Thompson or something come November.
Sorry — can’t trust McCain on this either. OK so he may stand in front of partial birth (only a small fraction of those performed), he is on record stating he will not try to overturn Roe v Wade. Why the “hate” for BHO and a pass for the man who agrees to a majority of the abortions performed?
GusB,
Thank you for finally making your opinions about abortion clear. Your last comment (#35) is a world away from your first (#5).
We disagree on abortion. Fair enough. I have no quarrel with your opinion, except for the part where I am supposed to stand aside and let the woman “privately” make a traumatic decision that she will later take up with God.
Whether you meant to have a two prong argument or not, you made one. Part “A” concerned abortion and Part “B” concerned the role of a Christian vis a vis abortion.
I, alone, am unwilling to adopt every “unwanted” child. I am quite willing, however, to help any woman deal with why her child is “unwanted.”
Obama was quite flippant about the prospect of one of his daughters being “punished” by having a baby from an accidental pregnancy. How would he feel if he had a son who caused an inconvenient pregnancy?
I suppose that Obama’s opinions are not really our business: they are between Obama and “his” God. But, guess what? I have made them my business and coupled with all the other mealy mouthed stuff he panders, he can not get my vote.
#40 Ralph,
I will vote for McCain. He is near the bottom of the list of people I wish I could vote for, but he is way above the alternative. I can not imagine any useful reason to “waste” my vote,
McCain is not going to make an issue of Roe v Wade. Fine. That is for the SCOTUS, anyway. He apparently won’t use Roe v Wade as a litmus test for his nominees to the SCOTUS. But he does say he will nominate people like Roberts and Scalia.
Not making Roe v Wade a campaign issue does not logically mean that McCain agrees to a majority of the abortions performed. That is pure gibberish. I doubt that Obama agrees to the majority of abortions performed.
Obama has been front and center, however, on protecting abortion as yet another form of birth control. He has made Roe v Wade a part of his campaign.
How does it logically follow that I would vote against McCain because he won’t go after the reversal of Roe v Wade and vote, instead, for Obama, because he wants to protect Roe v Wade?
Some folks on the left have the most amazing ways of posing their arguments.
Did you wish to support partial birth abortion? How about the abortion error where the live child is born and left to die unattended?
Afterall, Helio, the topic of the thread was whether one can be a christian AND support abortion rights. You say no, I say yes.
I wasn’t aware I had to show credentials to comment.
Amy, we all draw lines some place.
What “credentials” were you asked to show to comment?
I merely asked you to expand upon and clarify what seemed to me to be a “drive by” comment. You have proved that you are not a run of the mill troll. Good for you. However, in the process, you chose to take quite a few swipes as me which I have let pass. Perhaps you are not entirely comfortable expressing your basic belief system. If you are a moral relativist, that would be understandable.
GusB has made himself clear here. That is good. I apologize if GusB feels I have needled him.
Who is swiping whom? Your swipe skills appear to be finely hone.
By your own admission, you put me to the “troll test.” I suppose I should be grateful I passed.
I actually was drawn to the discussion not so much by the abortion question but the “who is a Christian?” litmus test. I’m personally not strong enough in my faith to judge other people’s worthiness. My pastor has asked my wife and me to join the deacon board, based on our track record of service at the church, but so far I have declined because I don’t feel I am in a position personally to be someone else’s spiritual assistant.
I’m open to the possibility that my faith may grow, and I really like the work my church does in the community, but someone telling me I should be ashamed of myself if I support abortion rights doesn’t seem very christian-like to me. This is why my earliest comments on this thread were about who but God can judge.
That’s when your waterboarding began.
GusB,
You ARE worthy of whatever you were called to be by your Undershepherd.
If a Deacon, then so be it.
And as it seems you have already BEEN doing it (”based on our track record of service at the church”) then you need to go on and accept your Pastor’s call in the official capacity, my brother.
Whatever OTHER gifts that are stirred up in you while you continue to serve in the official capacity is only going to be icing on the cake, and your local fellowship will be all the better for it.
Do your thing, man.
The problem, GusB, is the subject matter. It’s one thing to have a disagreement over whether a Christian can drink alcohol and another to call a fellow Christian on the carpet for their clear violation of Biblical ideals, particularly one so dire as the value of a human being.
I imagine there were many such discussions amid Christians as the question of slavery began to nag at America’s collective conscience. Someone surely stood up and said, “How can we call ourselves Christians and support the brutal subjugation of our fellow man?” Your argument sounds as though you would simply reply, “Well I don’t own a slave. Let those that do square it up with God on their own.”
In America today, the discussion is about the lives of the unborn. You answer the question whether one CAN be Christian and support abortion rights, but you do not address whether a Christian SHOULD.
We are called to aid the least of these among us – the abused, the downtrodden, the helpless. I’m not sure how much more helpless one can get than an unborn child.
King Ahab believed in God.
He still followed the ways of Baal, and the Israelites sacrificed their children in the Topeth, beating the drums to drown out the screams of the babies being burned to death.
The idea in that day was to sacrifice the children to insure the fertility of the land. They were human sacrifices to insure future economic success. We as a country have set up the Topeth, and my prayers of repentance for America go up to God regularly.
We cannot accept an Ahab, and every Christian is responsible to research the issue of the Topeth, and understand that this is the same question.
The bible tells us that God said: I did not tell them to pass their children through the fire, this is something that did not even enter my mind.
When God is surprised by the cruelty of man, we all must be frightened. If we allow this to stand, the Topeth will be the downfall of our nation.
Bob Kellum is on point..
the topic of the thread was whether one can be a christian AND support abortion rights. You say no, I say yes.
Let’s put this another way shall we….Can someone be a serial adulterer and porn watcher, and still be a Christian? The answer would depend upon the heart of the individual I suppose. If the individual despised themselves and their sin, but was trapped in the bondage of it (aka like an addiction), then more than likely, yes a Christian can have sin in their heart and still be saved.
But if the heart of this person justifies and excuses it with all sorts of sophistry, then it is reasonable to say that this person is deceiving themselves with regards to their profession of faith.
The analogy rings true with regards to abortion. Obama will give the usual liberal lip service to how he isn’t personally “for abortion”, that it is a terrible tragedy, etc. But his actions tell a decidedly different story. Obama has consistently fought and spoken against any and all legislation that would place any type of restrictions on “the right to choose”. It bears repeating, the fact that Obama wants zero restrictions on any type of abortion is very telling vis’ a vis’ the condition of his heart.
Question: IF one believes that abortion is an acceptable behavior, then why frame it as an issue of choice? Obviously, one doesn’t need the freedom to do something that is right.
The same goes for the red herring called privacy. NO ONE advocates choice to molest a young child EVEN in the privacy of the bedroom. In fact, there are any number of choices that are prohibited in the privacy of the bedroom.[eg. child porn or plotting insurrection]. In short, the deciding factor must be the behavior and it is quite obvious that privacy does not trump illegality.
Next…why are those who support abortion squeamish about being called pro-abortion? If one feels abortion is an acceptable activity in society, then one is pro-abortion.
Lastly, while religion has much to say about the sanctity of life, the issue of abortion is a civil rights issue concerning the right to life of a fellow human being.
JB, you are playing semantic games. I have donated money to NARAL, so what difference does it make that I use the precise term you think I should use? Afterall, are you really “pro-life” if you support executions or wars, both of which cause death? This is what I mean when I say we all draw lines in the sand.
Also, slavery, child molestation, or insurrection plotting are all red herrings, to borrow from you.
Abortion is a medical procedure. If your personal health isn’t a private matter, nothing is.
Abortion is a medical procedure.
Coming from the same person who says this…
you are playing semantic games
Unreal. Is this what you tell yourself so that you can sleep at night?
Abortion is a “medical procedure” which results in the mutilation of an unborn human.
You claim to be a Christian. Fine. Then I challenge you to prayerfully seek God regarding this. Read His word. Read books from Christian thinkers who write about this issue and what the proper biblically based view should be.
And for God’s sakes, quit giving money to organizations which perpetuate this atrocity. It is one thing to be a Christian who “wouldn’t personally get an abortion, but doesn’t feel like they can impose their will on others”, but it is an entirely different game to be an enabler of the practice. You sir should not be proud of giving money to NARAL.
Yes, I am pro-life as I believe that the taking of life can ONLY be justified in defense of life.
Most of the time, abortion is a fiscal matter…at least, according to the women who have abortions.
And, as far as NARAL goes, I once attended a conference by NARAL founder Bernanrd Nathanson who described the rhetorical manipulation that he and his cohorts indulged themselves in. He described their cacophany of glee as they realized how susceptible the average American woman was to buzz words like freedom of choice and so on. He also notes that he was sickened to the depths of his soul by The Silent Scream.
At the end of the day, no one has produced even mildly conclusive evidence that the child in the womb is not a life. I once asked a famous doctor in Holland when she thought that life began. She snickered and noted that the beginning of life had NEVER been up for debate among scientists as ALL acknowledge that life begins at conception. Rather, she said, the debate was about what stage of life do we agree to protect ……And, when ultrasounds became widely available, most Americans were shocked to see globs of tissue sucking their thumbs, responding to music, and frantically trying to avoid suction devices that were tearing them apart.
I am not playing any game with semantics. I am simply asking for the discussion to revolve around the truth of taking a human life.
Now, if YOU think it is OK to take a life for reasons other than defense of life, feel free to say so.
Just because you wouldn’t refer to it as a medical procedure, the fact that only a licensed physical can legally perform it means it is a medical procedure.
I suppose we are at the end of the line for this discussion, at the same point where we started: “real christians” are against abortion rights, and anyone for abortion rights is not really a christian.
I’m laying down my arms.
licensed physical = licensed physician
Correct:
Until euthanasia becomes the norm, what other medical procedure is the intentional killing of a human life?
Why won’t the hospital on whose board I serve provide abortions? And why won’t any of the hospitals in my state provide abortions? Why do we have abortion clinics in strip malls who provide only one type “service”? (Don’t show up there to get your broken arm set.)
A great majority of doctors and nurses take their oaths very seriously. I don’t expect to see an abortion clinic at Sears or Wal-Mart any time soon.
anyone for abortion rights is not really a christian
At the very best, they are clinging to a sinful opinion that needs to be repented from. To willfully cling to an opinion which the vast majority of Christian theological scholarship says doesn’t comport with scripture…
As I said in my earlier example, can someone who professes Christ go around living a gratuitously erotic lifestyle while thinking that there is nothing wrong with said lifestyle? Can that “Christian” simply say that “God loves me just as I am” and be done with it, continuing in their amorous ways?
I suppose we are at the end of the line for this discussion, at the same point where we started: “real christians” are against abortion rights, and anyone for abortion rights is not really a christian.[comment by GusB]
You could not be more wrong. I never waste my time deciding who is and who is not a christian as it has never struck me as a fruitful line of discourse. Further, I never approach this issue as merely a religious one.As I noted, while religion has much to say about the sanctity of life, the issue of abortion is a civil rights issue concerning the right to life of a fellow human being.
Trying to turn it into the silly “your-religious-beliefs-are-different-from-mine” rather than a reasoned discussion about why you think it is acceptable to destroy a human life is little more than a clever distraction.
Linking “liberal” and “Christian” usually ends up in a strange place.
A 2008 political liberal in the United States who is comfortable in calling himself a Christian has got a lot of things to work out among his fellow Christians. Obviously, life in the womb is one of them.
Personally, I can survive a Presidential race in which neither side makes abortion an issue. I accept that our “diverse” and “pluralistic” society has a significant number of people who will fight to keep abortion clinics available.
However, when a 2008 political liberal wants me to change my basic Christian beliefs and understandings to convenience the political liberal agenda, I refuse to play.
This business of knowing the Mind of God and facing Judgment as a “private” matter between the person and God is an escape clause that will never go away for those who depend upon it.
I recently sat stunned as a bishop in the Episcopal church explained to me why can believe the resurrection “story” or not as it is more of a symbolic statement than a fact.
If one takes that road, then church is a comfortable social place where people are friendly, the music is nice, the flowers are lovely and the coffee hour is a bonus. And, heck, as long as you are already awake and dressed, church is a good take off point for loading up on chlorestoral at the Groaning Board Buffet.
In the final analysis, I would rather have a political liberal scrapping with Christian values from within the arena than running around throwing stones at religion in general.
Finally everyone needs to have a good conversation with himself over what constitutes “privacy.” It is an amorphous concept that defies consistent definition. It is also the first resort for obscuring responsibility for a questionable act.
Helio, what does your hospital do in the extremely rare instance that the mother’s life is in danger and an abortion is one of the options to save her life?
The privacy issue strikes me as ludicrous. The list of legally criminal actions that one cannot commit in the PRIVACY of their own home/bedroom is as long as the list of crimes that can be committed in a bedroom.
Privacy has never trumped legality.
Ergo, either the action is deemed permissable or it is deemed impermissable. Privacy is simply a fluff screen. The weird part of it is that the folks using the term already think that abortion is an acceptable activity for society. Therefore, there is no need to rationalize a behavior that one finds acceptable.
I always find it curious that folks use “privacy” to shield abortion, but would never use it to shield rape of an eight year old [For those who persistently misconstrue my words,I wouldn't use it for either and I do not condone mistreating any human being.] Obviously, it is the act itself that determines whether it should be protected.
At the end of the day, for me, I cannot get past the fact that abortion takes the life of a human being.
BTW, I heard yesterday that Obama voted three times to allow [or refuse to prohibit] the murder of babies born alive following abortion procedures. I am trying to figure out how killing an infant born alive would accrue to the health of the mother. Even the great obfuscator, BO, would have difficulty twisting himself in enough pretzels to explain this one.
I remember reading over a decade ago about an equisite little girl named Rosa Anna. Her mother sought a late term abortion for financial reasons. While the doctor thought he had successfully killed the infant, he had merely managed to rip her arm off. I watched the mother give an interview on television when little Rosa Anna was three. The interviewer asked her how she would explain the missing arm to Rosa Anna. The mother said that she would advise Rosa that if she ever needed an abortion to FIND A BETTER DOCTOR. No one batted an eye.
GusB, you called the slavery example I gave a red herring, yet gave no indication why the analogy doesn’t work. In either case, the primary question is whether you believe an unborn child is an individual human being. At this point, I’m quite curious.
The real red herring here is this health-of-the-mother argument. If the mother is put in mortal danger by her pregnancy, at that point we’re talking about triage – the long tradition of medical professionals deciding which of two or more patients is the most likely to survive. Most people understand that, sometimes, one person must die that another can live. But as you said, it’s a rare condition. And as an exception, is hardly proves the rule you are advocating.
jb,
That reminds me of a story I heard about a young lady with severe handicaps who was brought before congress to tell her story. She told about her struggles and her great triumphs, overcoming her obstacles in order to become quite successful. She received a standing ovation by everyone. And once the applause died down, she went on to explain that she was an abortion survivor who’s handicaps were the direct result of the attempt. Not surprising, the previously delighted pro-abortion lawmakers were extremely angry.
You guys need to quit trying to ascribe to me all these arguments I am not making. Helio said his hospital and every hospital in his state does not perform abortions, but I’m sure once every blue moon, a mother is in a situation, so I was just curious if they farm the work out to a traditional abortion clinic or the actually perform the abortion.
This swarm is fascinating. You guys should go to the various pro-abortion blogs where people are willing to enter the octogon and have a death-match with you.
GusB
It never occurred to me that I was responding to anything you said or did not say. It is interesting how often folks infer stuff that simply isn’t there. Kudos for a great imagination!
In reality, my post was strictly in response to Helio’s musings about privacy. His comments are always worth reading.
The only reason I responded to you previously was that you had misread a statement I made.
JB, calm down. If you weren’t hit, don’t holler.
GusB,
Our hospital, to my knowledge, has not had the case you offer. However, when the mother’s life is at issue, the case is fairly clear. She can accept our best medical judgment to save her life or refuse treatment and die and her baby will die with her. If she is not able to make the choice, then we move to the living will or state law.
We do have experience with a mother who was kept on life support while the fetus developed to a point of safe delivery. The ACLU tried to intervene, but they gave in fairly quickly. After the delivery, she was allowed to die. It was not the hospital board that set that course of action, however. We do not make decisions of that nature for people.
Abortion is not specifically taught in medical schools. You might ask your own doctor if she or he knows the protocols for aborting babies at different points of development. Abortionists have produced their own literature, techniques and machinery.
Gabe is right about the triage aspect of your question. In ethics, when you are faced with two rotten choices, the preference is to opt for the lesser of the two evils.
I am on the board to keep track of medical ethics. I know of cases where mothers chose to die and take their otherwise viable fetus with them. That is a tough one, whether you are a Christian or an atheist.
I will try to ask other collegues next week about whether other hospitals have been confronted with this unique problem. I have read statistics that completely obliterate the “life of the mother” and “partial birth abortion” argument. That procedure is not a walk in the park and it would be some amazing set of circumstances that would prompt an operating room to be used for a woman in physical trauma to go through partial birth abortion. Partial birth abortions are scheduled and carried out like a tooth extraction. The life and death scenario is focused entirely on the infant.
Statistically, if partial birth abortion were a life or death matter for the mother, we would have cases of mothers who died in the process. I have not found any in the literature at hand.
Do you know of doctors and nurses who work part time in general practice and part time doing abortion work? I don’t. Do most abortionists consider their trade a natural extension of gynecology or obstetrics? I wonder what response you would get if you asked the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists about education, standards and policing of abortionists.
For my money, the state is correct to police abortion clinics for safety and cleanliness. If the state is going to permit the procedure, it has health and safety issues it must attend to. But of all the doctors I have met and attended meetings with, I never met one who specializes in abortion. I may have been behind one at the Wendy’s drive through, but I didn’t know it.
When the mother is in full blown eclampsia, I know that hospitals will deliver a precariously premature infant in order to save the life of the mother. Obviously, the life of the infant is at stake in such a medical situation, as well, However, hospitals do not consider this the same as aborting the infant, even if there is virtually no chance that the baby will survive. This may have a lot to do with the fact that the goal of the procedure is not a dead infant.
Interestingly, in 1992 in Ireland, the debate over abortion to save the life of the mother was raging. During the government hearings, the pro-abortion crowd was not able to find one doctor in the entire country who had actually encountered a case in which they had to make a decision about aborting an infant to save the life of the mother.
You guys should go to the various pro-abortion blogs where people are willing to enter the octogon and have a death-match with you.
“Pro-abortion” … “death match” … sounds redundant to me.
The subject of “the life of the mother” is a red herring, as pointed out in this thread. In these type of situations, you would deliver the baby and make every effort to keep both alive. Of that, there is no question what the “right” thing to do is. No change in the laws is necessary. Bad situation, doctor does what he is sworn to do, hopefully both live, but sometimes people die. That’s life, fitting and proper.
The more insidious lie that is often floated is “the health of the mother”. This can justify killing the baby, neat, clean and no pesky requirement that you try to save that life.
Those physicians who are fulfilling their proper and moral mandate, it’s another life and death decision. Those who seek to act immorally need to be prosecuted. Yup… It’s that clear. Roe v. Wade was wrong and it’s high time that we reverse the sinful choice. Before we find ourselves in the gate at Lachish.
I have a question. If abortion is not legal, then what do you we to reduce the number of abortions performed in the country? Wouldn’t be better to use birth control than using abortion as birth control? Also, what are going to do for these women who decide to have the baby? Do we provide them with adoption options, excellent pre-natal care that may not be able to afford because they may not have health insurance coverage? Unfortunately, if she decided to purchase health insurance on her own, she would be turned down because she has a pre-existing condition.
I can huff and puff about being for or against abortion, there are other some issues to consider. Partial-birth abortion is done in special cases where there is great medical risk other than that I do not see the point in the procedure. Sometimes it’s done when that child is still-born already dead. Should the mother continue to carry a still-born child to term? I think one should ask tough questions. It’s beyond our personal belief system quiet frankly and unfortunately life is not black and white. It’s not about how we think the ought to be, but how it is. Is anyone willing to adopt a child a woman is considering to abort?
Well, Medbob brings the second important word for the pro-choice crowd into play: “health”.
“Health” and “privacy” are catchall elastic words. If you push the issue just a little, you soon learn that “health of the mother” covers her mental composure, financial state, standing in the community, swimsuit size, childless status, wrong sex of the fetus, new love interest, morning sickness, etc.
I am aware that abortion decisions are not all trivial in nature. But the pro-choice crowd has painted itself into having to protect a lot of indefensible junk “medicine” while pretending to stand up for the greater cause of protecting privacy.
I marvel that pro-choice advocates will waffle about when life begins, toss sentience into the mix, and attempt to make “viability” an issue. They know darn well that abortion kills a human life.
They need the escape hatch of “privacy” and “health of the mother” to allow them to have a sense of noble cause about it all.
Obama clearly supports abortion as a cure for an “accidental” pregnancy. If one of his daughters had gotten pregnant in the 1950’s, he would have sent her off to “live with an aunt” for a year. She would have returned without a child, but not childless. Now he can just have the fetus that is “punishing” her sucked into pieces and flushed. It is so much more convenient for everyone.
Nova Healthcare now approximates a hospital and offers surgical abortions as part of its gynecological services. They will also prescribe Mifepristone or Mifeprex and send the mother home to start her miscarriage. This is purely a profit center for them and their services are not cheap. But Planned Parenthood will shop around and help fund abortions.
Here is the Nova Healthcare ad copy: “Our medical staff understands the sensitive nature of our patient’s needs. And because of the controversial nature of abortion, we understand that besides the very personal decision, there are external pressures that make the decision even more stressful. The goal of our staff is to respect our patient’s choice and privacy and to support our patient through a very personal event in their lives with dignity, confidentiality, compassion and care.”
If you want to have your left foot amputated because you are mad at it, I suggest Nova Healthcare. They will respect your choice and privacy with dignity, confidentiality, compassion and care. (Did you want to take the foot home with you or do want us to discard it?)
Have a nice day.
Here is the Nova Healthcare ad copy: “Our medical staff understands the sensitive nature of our patient’s needs. [comment by heliotrope]
Nova Healthcare pablum reflects the axis of the problem. They write “patient’s needs” which should more accurately be stated as “patients’ needs.” There are TWO individuals involved.
Once again, I am left with a question: Why is this such a monumental event in the life of a woman if the unborn is nothing more than a piece of tissue and not a life?
Last night at the Saddleback forum, Obama claimed that abortions had not gone down in the last eight years under a pro-life president. Hmmmmm, yet another lie/faux pas/mistake goes unchallenged by the msm.
The truth is that the number of abortions has gone down dramatically. Much of this, I think, is due to the blogosphere. When Americans finally began to realize that Roe v Eade/Doe v Bolton allowed abortion at any time for virtually any reason, they were shocked. They never heard this is their newspapers or their network news shows.
They were even more shocked to discover the barbarous procedure called partial birth abortion. Years ago, when I first read about Martin Haskell MD, inventor of the D & X procedure, people thought I was making it up. After all, they never read about this in their papers or heard it on their network news shows.
And, most are still having trouble wrapping their minds around the fact that a man running for president refused to prohibit infanticide. Of course, his votes will never be tallied in their newspapers or their network news shows.
To me, the framing of the abortion debate stands as one of the most clear examples of biased gate-keeping ever known to man.
http://townhall.com/columnists/GuyBenson/2008/08/17/obamas_infanticide_disgrace
Comments on this entry are closed.