 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Election 2004 | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 10/18/2004 1:24 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by scott_jorgenson
John Kerry does not support abortion or homosexual marriage. He is personally opposed to these things, but because there is no moral consensus across our secular nation on these things, he opposes legislating morality against liberty on those issues, at least at the federal level.
Kerry may not support abortion as such, but he sure supports taxpayer funding of abortion. He may not support same-sex marriage as such, but he won't vote for DOMA. Such points aside, however, I think his stance of "personally opposed but" which was first popularized by Mario Cuomo is a complete sham. One should ask him the question "Why, Senator, are you personally opposed to abortion?" If he truly is the faithful Catholic he professes to be, he will have to say, "because it unjustifiably ends an innocent human life and is therefore a serious moral evil". But this is morally incoherent. It's like saying c.a. 1840 "I'm personally opposed to slavery because I think it is a serious moral evil that denies the inherent dignity of numerous individuals, but because it's controversial I won't do anything to stop it and I want taxpayers to fund it." Not legislating morality in controversial matters makes sense only when the issues are minor and relatively inconsequential, but in matters of moral consequence it's a sign of moral weakness and insincerity.
For a good essay on the shallowness of Kerry's profession of faith:
www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200410150936.asp
Here's a short excerpt:
quote:
But what does offend me is the selective invocation of God. George Bush is basically consistent. He says God guides him in everything he does. John Kerry says that, too, but it's hard to see how he's not lying. His faith is clear on abortion. It's pretty darn murky on, say, affirmative action.
It seems to me that you shouldn't pick and choose at all. You shouldn't infringe on, say, the property rights of citizens out of religious convictions about a clean environment and then conveniently fall back on the argument that it would be outrageous to invoke religion when it comes to abortion. Either your faith informs your views or it doesn't.
I say you shouldn't pick and choose, but I understand that sometimes you have to — but in completely the opposite way John Kerry picks and chooses. Kerry invokes God's guidance on the little stuff, the easy stuff, the boilerplate. He turns his back to God on the big issue, abortion (and, with a wink, gay marriage).
It seems to me this is exactly backwards. God doesn't have a position on the minimum wage or Superfund, so politicians shouldn't feel the need to consult Him about that stuff. It's only on the grave fundamental questions in politics that God should speak to one's conscience. Thomas More didn't put his life on the line about how Henry VIII handled crop rotation.
And that's what I find a little galling about all of Kerry's God talk. Beyond the naked pandering of it, it's morally and religiously empty. He may talk about deeds backing up faith, but where his faith is unambiguous he wants no part of it. When it comes to the tough issues, what he really seems to want is grace on the cheap. It's as More said: "If honor were profitable, everybody would be honorable."
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
 |
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 10/18/2004 2:41 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Alan Rhoda
...Such points aside, however, I think his stance of "personally opposed but" which was first popularized by Mario Cuomo is a complete sham. One should ask him the question "Why, Senator, are you personally opposed to abortion?" If he truly is the faithful Catholic he professes to be, he will have to say, "because it unjustifiably ends an innocent human life and is therefore a serious moral evil". But this is morally incoherent. It's like saying c.a. 1840 "I'm personally opposed to slavery because I think it is a serious moral evil that denies the inherent dignity of numerous individuals, but because it's controversial I won't do anything to stop it and I want taxpayers to fund it."
Well, I agree with you, but not to the extent that I can't see the other side of the issue. Even in the depths of American slavery, the consensus even among slaveowners was that slaves were conscious people (this was what plainly made them capable of and valuable for doing useful work, after all), albeit greatly "inferior" ones. But it is hardly so clear-cut as to whether a fertilized human egg is a person.
So, what if one doesn't believe that a fertilized human egg is a person? What if one believes that personhood is an emergent phenomenon without any one particular starting point, anymore than the transition from yellow to orange has any one particular starting point? I personally would say even in that case that, because we don't know, we should err on the side of protecting "the least among these", and that is why I oppose abortion - and in fact, with most Americans being at least that "conservative" on the issue, if not more so, I think there would be reasonable justification to legislate abortion restrictions based on this sense of caution alone.
But I can understand those who, at least for those first several weeks in embryonic development when the situation is hardly clear-cut, would prefer to say that, because we just don't know, we should let the woman herself make the call. I would disagree with that, but respectfully; it would not be a litmus test for me. I say this as a father of three children, the last of whom was our beloved "surprise", or shall I say "shock", already having at the time our hands full with two other small children. Abortion never occured to my wife and I; but being at the receiving end of punches from fellow Christians on several other controversial issues makes me very reluctant to be dogmatic about any one such controversial issue: not out of oversensitivity for their feelings, but out of humility as regards my own convictions.
Scott | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/18/2004 6:40 PM (GMT -6) | | A response to Alan. Here is something from James Skillen.
Same-Sex "Marriage" is Not a Civil Right
by James W. Skillen
A gay-marriage advocate in Boston explained to a radio reporter that marriage is a civil matter, not a church affair. Those who want church weddings can have them, but marriage is a matter of civil law. And since it is unconstitutional to deny equal civil rights to citizens, it is unconstitutional to deny to homosexual couples the right to marry.
At this important moment in the U.S. debate over same-sex "marriage" and the likelihood of a long campaign to try to add a marriage amendment to the Constitution, it is important to evaluate the grounds of the arguments. In particular, we need to be clear about what constitutes a civil right.
It is certainly true that the contention over marriage is about civil law. Marriage law has long been a state matter, and in the United States that has meant, literally, a state rather than a federal matter. In any case, the law has until now taken for granted that marriage is an institutional bond between a man and a woman. Moreover, marriage is something people of all faiths and no faith engage in. Churches, synagogues, and mosques may bless marriages but they do not create the institution. In that sense the question of marriage is not first of all a religious matter in the sense in which most people use the word "religion."
However, to insist that the question of marriage is a matter of civil law and not first of all a religious matter does not take us very far. After all, the argument is about what government ought to do about keeping or changing the legal definition of marriage. The debate is not between husbands and wives within the bond of traditional marriage--like a court case over divorce and child custody. No, this debate is about whether the law that now defines marriage is itself good or bad, right or wrong. And to join that debate one must appeal, by moral argument, to grounds that transcend the law as it now exists. In that regard, the question of marriage is not about a civil right at all. It is about the nature of reality and interpretations of reality that precede the law.
Those who now argue that same-sex couples should be included, as a matter of civil right, within the legal definition of marriage are appealing to the constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment. But this is entirely inappropriate for making the case for same-sex "marriage." To argue that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all citizens, both men and women, does not say anything about what constitutes marriage, or a family, or a business enterprise, or a university, or a friendship. An appeal for equal treatment would certainly not lead a court to require that a small business enterprise be called a marriage just because two business partners prefer to think of their business that way. Nor would equal treatment of citizens before the law require a court to conclude that those of us who pray before the start of auto races should be allowed to redefine our auto clubs as churches.
The simple fact is that the civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social reality by declaration. Civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all about. Law that is just must begin by properly recognizing and distinguishing identities and differences in reality in order to be able to give each its legal due.
One kind of social relationship that government recognizes, for example, is a free contract by which two or more parties agree to carry out a transaction or engage in some kind of activity. Let's say you contract with me to paint your house. The law of contract does not define ahead of time what might be contracted; it simply clarifies the legal obligations of the contracting parties and the consequences if the contract is broken. Governments and lawyers and the law do not create the people, the house, the paint, and my desire to paint your house for a price that you want to pay. The point is that even in contract law, the law plays only a limited role in the relationship. The law encompasses the relationship only in a legal way.
If someone wants to argue that two people who have not in the past been recognized as marriage partners should now be recognized as marriage partners, one must demonstrate that marriage law (not civil rights law) has overlooked or misidentified something that it should not have overlooked or misidentified. For thousands of years, marriage law has concerned itself with a particular kind of enduring bond between a man and a woman that includes sexual intercourse--the kind of act that can (but does not always) lead to the woman's pregnancy. A homosexual relationship, regardless of how enduring it is as a bond of loving commitment, does not and cannot include sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. Thus it is not marriage.
The much disputed question of whether same-sex relationships are morally good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, is beside the point at this stage of legal consideration. The first question is about identity and difference. This is the material legal matter of properly recognizing and identifying what exists and distinguishing between marriages and auto clubs, between schools and banks, between friendships and multinational corporations. It has nothing to do with civil rights.
To recognize in law the distinct character of a marriage relationship, which entails sexual intercourse, involves no discrimination of a civil rights kind against those whose bonds do not include sexual intercourse. Those who choose to live together in life-long homosexual relationships; or brothers and sisters who live together and take care of one another; or two friends of the same sex who are not sexually involved but share life together in the same home--all of these may be free to live as they do, and they suffer no civil rights discrimination by not being identified as marriages. There is no civil rights discrimination against an eight-year-old youngster who is denied the right to enter into marriage. There is no civil rights discrimination being practiced against a youngster who is not allowed the identity of a college student because she is not qualified to enter college. There is no civil-rights discrimination involved when the law refuses to recognize my auto club as a church. A marriage and a homosexual relationship are two different kinds of relationships and it is a misuse of civil rights law to use that law to try to blot out the difference between two different kinds of things.
The question behind marriage, in other words, is a structural one that precedes lawmaking. The argument about the structural identity of marriage is not a legal argument about how people should be treated within the bonds of that structure. Rather, it is about whether homosexual relationships should be identified as having the structure of marriage, and only after that can civil rights considerations emerge about how citizens should be treated fairly with respect to marriage.
Those who want homosexual relationships to be redefined as marriages say that many aspects of their relationships are like marriage--having sexual play, living together, loving one another, etc.--and therefore they should be allowed to call their relationships marriages and should be recognized in the law as marriage partners. But this cannot be a proper legal matter until the empirical case has been made that a homosexual partnership and a marriage are indistinguishable. Otherwise, the appeal amounts to nothing more than a request that homosexual partners be allowed to call themselves what they want to call themselves regardless of the differences that exist in reality. The answer they want is for law making and adjudicating authorities to change the law based on the principle that reality is defined by the will and declarations of individuals, all of whom should be treated without discrimination.
But here, you see, is the slight of hand. The appeal now being made for homosexual marriage rights is not an appeal for judges and lawmakers to reconsider past empirical judgments about similarities and differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Rather, it is an appeal for judges and lawmakers to ignore those distinctions in order not to deny citizens the right to call things what they want to call them. It is a version of an appeal for the protection of free speech, and in this case it is a demand that the speech of particular persons carry the authority to define the structure of reality without regard to the basis of past legal judgments. The antidiscrimination principle is appealed to not in order to show that some married couples have previously been denied the recognition of their marriage. Rather the antidiscrimination principle is being used to ask that no citizen be denied the right to call something what he or she wants to call it.
If homosexual relationships are, in this manner, legally recognized as marriages, no realities will change. Heterosexual marriage partners will still be able to engage in sexual intercourse and potentially procreate children; homosexual partners will still not be able to engage in such intercourse. Pregnancy will still be possible only by implanting a male sperm in a female egg, whether that is done by sexual intercourse inside or outside of marriage, or by in vitro fertilization, or by implanting male sperm in the uterus of a woman not married to the man whose sperm are being used. The only thing that will change is that the law will mistakenly use the word "marriage" to refer to two different kinds of sexually intimate human relationships.
If this happens, we will need to pay close attention to the consequences. Judges and public officials will then be required to recognize as a marriage any sexually Intimate bond between two people who want to call themselves married. Which means that there will no longer be any basis for distinguishing legally between a heterosexual union and a homosexual relationship. Which means henceforth that there will be no legal basis for restrictions against a homosexual couple obtaining children in any way they choose, for such restrictions would constitute discrimination. And it will mean that when a mature mother and son, or father and daughter, or trio or quartet of partners come to the courts or to the marriage-license bureau to ask that their sexually active relationship be recognized as marriage, there will be no legal grounds of a non-arbitrary kind to reject the requests. Because if it is now arbitrary and unjust to recognize heterosexual marriage as something exclusive and different from homosexual relationships, then it will be arbitrary and unjust not to grant the request of other partners to call their sexually intimate and enduring relationships marriage.
But, of course, since legal declarations cannot turn reality into something it cannot become, a variety of conundrums, contradictions, and anomalies will inevitably arise. And the only way to resolve them will be to revise the law so it squares with, and does justice to, reality. If, that is, anyone is interested in crafting the law to do justice to reality.
quote:
But it is hardly so clear-cut as to whether a fertilized human egg is a person.
I find the question interesting. On another site I know of an acquaintance who bases his legals views on this question. That is to say that we should base our opposition to abortion in the category of "life and death." That is, that abortion is a life and death issue and not a religious issue at all. Why would a "secular" society be concerned with religious questions? And who are we to impose these on a non-Christian society?
However, one cannot quite so easily remove themselves from this question (the STATUS of the unborn). One, by default has automatically made a metaphysical statement concerning personhood. Roe v Wade (a legal decision instituting abortion on demand across the United States) was a metaphysical judgment on the unborn. Put simply, there can be no neutrality or agnosticism here.
I argued against the "gradualist" position here:
www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1551
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/18/2004 6:42 PM (GMT -6) | | I want to thank all who have shared opinions on this thread! One of the beautiful things of living in a democracy is freedom. I am thankful that we are able to freely share our opinions as citizens of the United States and as Christians -- I hope people will respect differences in opinion and priorities without passing judgment.
Through reading the thoughts put forth on this thread, listening to what the parties have to say, and through prayer I believe I am nailing my decision down to asking myself a few questions:
1.) As a Christian citizen, who is voting for representatives to lead the country, what is more important to consider sanctity of life OR quality of life?
2.) Are more lives being lost in abortion or war?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/18/2004 7:55 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by quest for truth
Did anyone take the quiz I posted on this thread? I found that I fit with the Bishops. What does that mean?
JEEquote:
1 John 3:17 But if any one has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love in word or speech but in deed and in truth.
IF they have the world's goods....I see so many needs but have so little funds.
Yes, "IF they have the world's goods" obviously means that one is NOT morally obligated to give what one doesn't have. 
One of the biggest reasons many people don't have funds is because government takes so much of it. But I'm guessing that it's okay with you if the government forcefully takes your money and gives some of it to the poor, instead of you voluntarily helping others (because you supposedly don't have the funds to give but do apparently have them to pay your taxes), right?
quote:
If I were a multi-millionaire I would find such pleasure in filling needs as I saw them but I have very little resources . Yet I do try to live in love the best I can . I believe this is true for others too.
If you truly believe everyone is doing the best they can, where's the problem, then?
quote:
Finances only go so far but that is not what God is seeking -- I am thinking of the woman with the one coin for the offering. Or the boy with the loaves and fishes. God’s not interested in our money but in our hearts.
Yes, of course that is true; but, respectfully, I must say that you were the one who has been saying that the social ("Robin Hood") policies of the Democrat Party are somehow more righteous than those of the Republican Party.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/18/2004 8:10 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by quest for truth
1.) As a Christian citizen, who is voting for representatives to lead the country, what is more important to consider sanctity of life OR quality of life?
I don't think it is necessarily an either/or proposition, QFT. It seems to me that as a Christian and an American citizen, my moral obligation in any election is to promote the highest good of all persons (with GOD of course being the most important person to consider in all this).
quote:
2.) Are more lives being lost in abortion or war?
First, as Scripture nowhere condemns war, and in some places endorses it, and as Scripture PLAINLY condemns the murder of the innocent as reprehensible and abominable in the sight of God, I honestly don't see what your problem is, except that you seem to have swallowed a very inconsistent critique of the Republican platform.
Respectfully,
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/19/2004 3:39 AM (GMT -6) | | JEEquote:
Yes, of course that is true; but, respectfully, I must say that you were the one who has been saying that the social ("Robin Hood") policies of the Democrat Party are somehow more righteous than those of the Republican Party.
I have been trying to look objectively at all the issues. I may be inconsistent but this would be due to my searching on this thread. The purpose for me opening this thread is that I needed more input --I am confused because the election isn't black/white. Does this make sense?
JEEquote:
First, as Scripture nowhere condemns war, and in some places endorses it, and as Scripture PLAINLY condemns the murder of the innocent as reprehensible and abominable in the sight of God, I honestly don't see what your problem is, except that you seem to have swallowed a very inconsistent critique of the Republican platform.
I don't have a problem with the Republican party but I do have a problem with what I learned about Bush through the movie 'Farenheit 911'. I know that some of the movie was fabricated but I also know that some of what was revealed were FACTS. I ended up leaving very angry at the injustice.
Anyway, I have been struggling to be open minded before making a decision. There are so many areas of concern for our society. In the past, due to my heart for children and the unborn, I have always voted for those who are prolife. This time I was going outside of my norm in looking at more issues. Anyway, after praying and thinking I have finally decided the unborn have NO voice. I want to be a voice for those who have no voice. Plus, in my opinion, abortion is an abusive measure since many of the women who end up aborting their unborn later end up feeling the scars that have replications on their lives.
After watching the movie, I am angry that we are at war with Iraq -- they weren't even the ones who attacked us on 911, yet I am equally angry at the deception that goes on in the abortion clinics. So, I have narrowed my decision down to deciding on which war has more victims: the war on Iraq OR abortion.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/19/2004 4:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by quest for truth
So, I have narrowed my decision down to deciding on which war has more victims: the war on Iraq OR abortion.
As of Thursday, Oct. 7, 2004, 1,064 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to the Defense Department. Of those, 809 died as a result of hostile action and 255 died of non-hostile causes.
UNITED STATES
Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700
Approximately two US soldiers die each day compared to three thousand seven hundred innocent unborn babies each day.
www.abortionno.com/Resources/fastfacts.html
www.spokesmanreview.com/iraq/blog.asp
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 10/19/2004 9:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by quest for truth
So, I have narrowed my decision down to deciding on which war has more victims: the war on Iraq OR abortion.
As of Thursday, Oct. 7, 2004, 1,064 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to the Defense Department. Of those, 809 died as a result of hostile action and 255 died of non-hostile causes.
UNITED STATES
Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700
This ledger has forgotten to include approximately 10,000-plus Iraqi civilian victims, as well as unknown Iraqi military, police, and terrorist/insurgent casualties (of course, nobody cares about the latter, including me - except Jesus). Nobody is sure exactly how many because no reliable agency has the right combination of capability and willingness to accurately track it. http://www.iraqbodycount.net has attempted to collate information from reliable point sources like Iraqi hospitals.
To this suffering must be further factored-in:
- the anguish of the tens of thousands of surviving loved ones left behind on all sides
- the suffering of the tens of thousands of severely wounded on all sides
- the life upheaval caused by destruction of property and livelihoods for tens of thousands in Iraq
And finally, one must consider the great risk to millions that our destabilization of Iraq, incitement to terrorism, and alienation of allied nations has caused.
Now, added all together in any way of your choosing, I grant that this will still not approach the toll of abortion in this country, if we consider every abortion to have certainly been the murder of a human person just like you and me, no matter how early the developmental stage. That is what "Quest for Truth" must decide. If a fertilized egg, zygote or first-trimester fetus is undisputably as much a person as the toddler lying in the rubble in Iraq, then your choice is clear: you should vote for George Bush. Otherwise - and this is where I find myself - the choice is less clear. Nobody can reasonably dispute the personhood of the toddler in Iraq, but the personhood of a 6-week-old developing human being is reasonably disputable.
Now, that said, I cannot condone abortion still, but not on grounds that it is murder. Rather, on secular grounds that it is reckless and dangerous given our lack of wisdom - and, on Christian grounds that it messes with the work-in-progress of God (scripture makes it clear that God knows us and forms us even back in the womb). Still, it is the comparative indisputability of the personhood of those suffering in Iraq, because of our unjustified and badly-handled war, that, in my mind, levels the playing field with the abortion tragedy beyond what the numbers themselves would at first seem to warrant. The cumulative effect of this and many other issues (eg poverty and the environment) then push me into the John Kerry camp.
But in any case, if what I've just written makes no sense to you, or even seems appalling to you, because you're convinced that the human person clearly begins at conception: there is no doubt, then, that you should vote for Bush over Kerry. And in general you should always use abortion as the litmus test for your vote - for what other issue could supersede in magnitude the modern holocaust that abortion would then, in your mind clearly, constitute? In addition, if I may be so bold, you and your spouse should avoid The Pill because of its low-but-real abortifacient effect. You and your spouse might also reflect upon your unborn child(ren) who, never known to you, died naturally when, as zygotes, they failed to implant in the uterine wall, or did implant but were miscarried very shortly thereafter. (Statistically-speaking, this happens at least once during the lifetime of a sexually-active couple occasionally not using birth control.) I mean this with no sarcasm at all, but as a genuine help :-)
Thanks for the dialog.
Scott | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/19/2004 10:12 AM (GMT -6) | | scott_jorgensonquote:
In addition, if I may be so bold, you and your spouse should avoid The Pill because of its low-but-real abortifacient effect. You and your spouse might also reflect upon your unborn child(ren) who, never known to you, died naturally when, as zygotes, they failed to implant in the uterine wall, or did implant but were miscarried very shortly thereafter. (Statistically-speaking, this happens at least once during the lifetime of a sexually-active couple occasionally not using birth control.) I mean this with no sarcasm at all, but as a genuine help :-)
Thanks Sparknheart and Scott for your responses.
In my understanding the pill prevents conception. The day-after pill aborts. As for the unborn child(ren) that never implanted on the uterine wall.... this is not messing with God's creation but rather nature taking it's course.
Abortion, on the other hand, is a purposeful act of destroying what God is creating. My personal problem with abortion is not this, however, it is that we are torturing the fetus through the destruction and leaving the woman with emotional scars. I DO NOT like war and I am ANGRY at the fact that we are at war with Iraq when we were told we were going after the terrorists. And to think it may all be about GREED! I do not like war for the same reason I do not like abortion -- it destroys innocent lives. When a soldier is killed in combat (on either side) the family is left with the loss and emotional scars. To me war and abortion are evil and to be avoided. They both rob, kill, and destroy -- guess who the bible tells us robs, kills, and destroys. My dilemma is which one is worst? That is the deciding factor.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/19/2004 11:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by scott_jorgenson
This ledger has forgotten to include approximately 10,000-plus Iraqi civilian victims, as well as unknown Iraqi military, police, and terrorist/insurgent casualties (of course, nobody cares about the latter, including me - except Jesus). Nobody is sure exactly how many because no reliable agency has the right combination of capability and willingness to accurately track it. http://www.iraqbodycount.net has attempted to collate information from reliable point sources like Iraqi hospitals.
To this suffering must be further factored-in:
- the anguish of the tens of thousands of surviving loved ones left behind on all sides
- the suffering of the tens of thousands of severely wounded on all sides
- the life upheaval caused by destruction of property and livelihoods for tens of thousands in Iraq
And finally, one must consider the great risk to millions that our destabilization of Iraq, incitement to terrorism, and alienation of allied nations has caused.
Now, added all together in any way of your choosing, I grant that this will still not approach the toll of abortion in this country, if we consider every abortion to have certainly been the murder of a human person just like you and me, no matter how early the developmental stage. That is what "Quest for Truth" must decide. If a fertilized egg, zygote or first-trimester fetus is undisputably as much a person as the toddler lying in the rubble in Iraq, then your choice is clear: you should vote for George Bush. Otherwise - and this is where I find myself - the choice is less clear. Nobody can reasonably dispute the personhood of the toddler in Iraq, but the personhood of a 6-week-old developing human being is reasonably disputable.
Now, that said, I cannot condone abortion still, but not on grounds that it is murder. Rather, on secular grounds that it is reckless and dangerous given our lack of wisdom - and, on Christian grounds that it messes with the work-in-progress of God (scripture makes it clear that God knows us and forms us even back in the womb). Still, it is the comparative indisputability of the personhood of those suffering in Iraq, because of our unjustified and badly-handled war, that, in my mind, levels the playing field with the abortion tragedy beyond what the numbers themselves would at first seem to warrant. The cumulative effect of this and many other issues (eg poverty and the environment) then push me into the John Kerry camp.
But in any case, if what I've just written makes no sense to you, or even seems appalling to you, because you're convinced that the human person clearly begins at conception: there is no doubt, then, that you should vote for Bush over Kerry. And in general you should always use abortion as the litmus test for your vote - for what other issue could supersede in magnitude the modern holocaust that abortion would then, in your mind clearly, constitute? In addition, if I may be so bold, you and your spouse should avoid The Pill because of its low-but-real abortifacient effect. You and your spouse might also reflect upon your unborn child(ren) who, never known to you, died naturally when, as zygotes, they failed to implant in the uterine wall, or did implant but were miscarried very shortly thereafter. (Statistically-speaking, this happens at least once during the lifetime of a sexually-active couple occasionally not using birth control.) I mean this with no sarcasm at all, but as a genuine help :-)
Thanks for the dialog.
Scott
Scott,
If you want to include numbers for those killed in Iraq who are not from the US, then it would only be appropriate to include numbers killed by abortions not from the US.
WORLDWIDE
Number of abortions per year: Approximately 46 Million
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 126,000
If we use these world wide numbers, it would only take 48 days for the number of babies killed to equal six million Jews killed in World War II.
In the fourteen days, from today until Super Tuesday, one million seven hundred and sixty four thousand babies will be killed in our world.
As far as being against contraceptives, any good Catholic would tell you that it's against their faith… I wonder if Kerry knows of any good Catholics.
http://www.mcjonline.com/news/04a/20041018a.shtml
1 Cor. 6:19
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own?
Thanks,
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 10/19/2004 12:32 PM (GMT -6) | | JEEquote:
I don't think it's sound reasoning to base one's political views on the propaganda of Michael Moore, any more than it would be sound reasoning to base one's vote on the claims of "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."
Hi John,
I don't base my political views on ANY person but rather listen to what are FACTS and Michael Moore did present some disturbing FACTS in the movie.
At any rate there are many variables to consider when making a decision. Thanks for you helpful feedback. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/19/2004 12:48 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by quest for truth
JEEquote:
I don't think it's sound reasoning to base one's political views on the propaganda of Michael Moore, any more than it would be sound reasoning to base one's vote on the claims of "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."
Hi John,
I don't base my political views on ANY person but rather listen to what are FACTS and Michael Moore did present some disturbing FACTS in the movie.
At any rate there are many variables to consider when making a decision. Thanks for you helpful feedback.
Hi QFT,
I've never seen the movie. Can you please present some of these facts?
Thanks
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 10/19/2004 1:51 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by quest for truth
In my understanding the pill prevents conception. The day-after pill aborts.
"The pill" boosts levels of certain hormones in the female body. This has multiple physical effects, some of which act to prevent conception, but another of which would act to abort an embryo should conception still occur in its presence.
Specifically, the boosted hormones caused by the pill alter the consistency of cervical mucus, making it more difficult for sperm to transport to the egg. And those same hormones also tend to suppress ovulation, so that the egg is less likely to be there waiting for the sperm in the first place.
But these effects which prevent conception are statistical in nature; as with most drugs, there can be a "breakthrough" response, meaning ovulation can still occur in some cases, and sperm can be transported in some cases. Should conception occur, then, the same boosted hormones also, at least theoretically, would alter the uterine lining, making it more difficult for the embryo to successfully implant in the uterine wall. Should this happen, the embryo would soon abort (unnoticed by the woman).
This abortifacient effect of the pill is controversial because nobody knows how often in practice it actually comes into play. From what I understand, some scientists feel that breakthrough responses to the pill are coupled together, and are not independent of one another; meaning that if an ovulation occured it would be very unlikely that an implantation would not occur, at least with the same probability as in the absence of the pill. But nobody knows because it is very difficult, if not impossible, to experiment realistically. What is known is that the uterine lining is affected by the boosted hormones such that, if it were in such a state when a fertilized egg wandered by, it would not be receptive to implantation.
Incidentally, the "morning after" pill has the same formulation and effect as some versions of the regular pill, just with extra wallop; of course, when used "the morning after", it is too late for the pre-conception effects to work. But since implantation can take a few days...from the above explanation, you can see how it works.
Incidentally, my wife and I no longer feel comfortable using the pill for this reason. Now, again, I think the question of when life begins (ie personhood, not just biologically) is genuinely disputable, and I am nearly certain in my own mind that a fertilized egg is not (yet) a person. But I still think it is close enough in trajectory toward personhood that we are unwise to mess with it, especially in an area (family planning) where other options are available. Everyone must make up his/her own mind. But, in any case, my point was that I cannot see how someone who did think life (personhood) begins at conception could conscionably risk the pill, except out of ignorance. Would such a person really want to chance it? But maybe I speak too strongly here, precisely because we are in the area of disputable matters :-)
quote:
As for the unborn child(ren) that never implanted on the uterine wall.... this is not messing with God's creation but rather nature taking it's course.
I agree, but I wonder if the fact that we don't think twice about it belies that we don't really believe that personhood truly begins at conception... That was my point in mentioning it; just a musing.
Scott | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 10/19/2004 2:12 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
Scott,
If you want to include numbers for those killed in Iraq who are not from the US, then it would only be appropriate to include numbers killed by abortions not from the US.
First: Shall we then also include numbers of innocents killed in all wars everywhere around the world? I don't think so. The point is regarding what we in the USA are primarily responsible for, namely what happens inside our own borders and what happens of our own doing outside of those borders.
Second: In any case, once the numbers get into the hundreds or thousands, trying to develop a sort of "balance sheet" of misery rapidly descends into exactly this kind of absurdity. "Whose suffering is greater? What has more victims?" Does it matter? Nineteenth-century pogroms in my state of California killed, by bullet and blade, thousands of native Americans who had never made war or violence on any scale against American settlers. Are we really willing to say this is less horrible, or more tolerable, than similar atrocities 10 times or 100 times greater in number?
Third and lastly: Again, what levels out the calculus - if anything can (see above point) - is the disputability over the personhood of the human embryo during the first couple of months. There is no such uncertainty regarding the victims of war.
Again, I actually am with you on the issue of abortion; but what you are saying is that I am not with you for the right reasons. Anyone who was with you for the right reasons, presumably, would be voting for George Bush because then abortion would trump all other concerns. I'm sorry to be unable to join you in your certainty and conviction.
Scott | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 10/19/2004 2:26 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
About the supposed "abortifacient" qualities of The Pill:
The following is a thorough examination of the issue by the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists:
http://www.aaplog.org/decook.htm
AAPLOG also has published a "dissenting" view: http://www.aaplog.org/collition.htm
I think I have fairly summarized the current state of the controversy in my posting above.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/19/2004 3:39 PM (GMT -6) | | HOW ABOUT ANOTHER TOPIC?
"WHAT SAY YOU" TO THE NOTION OF A DRASTIC REVAMPING OF THE TAX LAW STRUCTURE, LIKE MY CONGRESSMAN IS TALKING ABOUT?
(Of course, the other topics are never done being talked about; and that's OK.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/19/2004 3:41 PM (GMT -6) | | | (And then what about Bush praying but not going to church -- even before 9-11?) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/19/2004 4:10 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE: What prevents you from starting another topic, PoW?
PoW: <feels confused: either PoW DID begin another topic--if topic means area under discussion; or PoW is being told to get off this thread and take the tax issue to another thread--but if so, then JEE wouldn't have chimed in. So...confusion.>
JEE -- Who ever began the topic, who cares. What would YOU like to see different.
Personally, I'm skittish about the amount of time that it takes to shake out at least a few of the loopholes in anything. That's my main fear. So, when D. spoke about it I began wishing that someone was running against him (even though I've voted for him five times already) as an alternative to running unopposed.
What's your take; besides not liking taxes, and such.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 103 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:48 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|