 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > Getting personal: Why this Pro-lifer is voting for Barack Obama | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/14/2008 12:02 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
TA I don't know what you disagreeing with. We both believe that government needs to be involved in strengthening families (including holding fathers responsible), providing SOUND sex education (I doubt that the Tim Ryan’s, “Access to contraceptive information and services is an important element of preventing pregnancy. In addition to several funding increases for programs that increase access to contraceptives” and some of his other supposedly morally neutral sex education), etc will in turn reduce abortions, but that right now is a different question. This is even what Third Way says (government can strengthen other life issues to reduce abortion). But when you have the Democratic Party saying that they will continue to hold to a woman’s right to have abortion on demand it’s a contradiction pure and simple. Do you see the point I’m making here? Third Way, you, me--we ALL agree that it is morally good to reduce abortions. As I said, once government chooses not to protect life, the degradation of life picks up steam and I wonder if your holding to the “overall policies will reduce pregnancies, but still keep abortion on demand legal” argument is not an implication of this degradation. I not only say that government can work to reduce abortions but should uphold life and life-generating and life sustaining institutions (meaning for example, families and marriages-- thus government can strengthen these institutions ie. Laws having children inform their parents before they get an abortion or laws that will not stand in the way of parents performing their duties). As a part of this, this will include both the other life issues, but it will consistently uphold the life of the unborn. You intuitively agree with this or else why would you argue for the reduction of abortion which is essentially upholding the life of those who would otherwise not be born?
By the way, yes, we can all agree that no external law will reduce all abortions, but that doesn’t mean to capitulate to not fundamentally upholding life and life sustaining institutions through the law. There will always be racism. Meaning there will always be private attitudes, habits and practices. But then there is legalized racism--public laws that represent and uphold those private attitudes, habits and practices. You still want to overturn bad law to uphold the equal treatment (and might I say life flourishing) treatment of all citizens. And you still want to overturn bad law that doesn’t consistently uphold life or uphold the life of those abortions you are seeking to reduce.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 10/14/2008 5:04 PM (GMT -6) | | TA: It looks like our next President will be either Barack Obama or John “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb-Iran” McCain. Who do you propose, Zach?
Zach: Who do I propose? Why do you propose that I should propose anyone? We already have a Lord. I propose sticking with him. I propose no other lord.
"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them."
"For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/15/2008 5:28 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Interestingly....Sojourners embraces two seemingly contradictory positions.
So how do they do it? How do two opposing positions coming from the same site bring these together? I'm not getting it.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 10/15/2008 5:31:57 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/17/2008 3:39 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
TA: It looks like our next President will be either Barack Obama or John “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb-Iran” McCain. Who do you propose, Zach?
Zach: Who do I propose? Why do you propose that I should propose anyone? We already have a Lord. I propose sticking with him. I propose no other lord.
"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them."
"For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them."
It sounds like you’re implying that it would be sinful for me to vote. It this right? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/17/2008 4:05 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Brandon: TA I don't know what you disagreeing with. We both believe that government needs to be involved in strengthening families (including holding fathers responsible), providing SOUND sex education (I doubt that the Tim Ryan’s, “Access to contraceptive information and services is an important element of preventing pregnancy. In addition to several funding increases for programs that increase access to contraceptives” and some of his other supposedly morally neutral sex education), etc will in turn reduce abortions, but that right now is a different question. This is even what Third Way says (government can strengthen other life issues to reduce abortion). But when you have the Democratic Party saying that they will continue to hold to a woman’s right to have abortion on demand it’s a contradiction pure and simple. Do you see the point I’m making here?
Mark: Yes, I see the “contradiction” and I’ve watched Obama, at Saddleback, struggle with his own cognitive dissonance while attempting to argue his position on abortion . But also overlooked is the “contradictions” found within the Christian arguments once they jump into the Pro-Life legal debate. This might be one good reason why Stand to Reason teaches their ambassadors not to use Scripture to argue their pro-life position, not to mention that the secular arguments make for a stronger judicial case. In any case, Obama was somewhat broadsided by the nature of the Saddleback forum, as he was clearly not prepared to argue from a theological prospective. While Obama did recognise the moral side of the argument, he still failed to reconcile it with the legal agruments. Is this at the heart of what you wish to flush out, Brandon? Post Edited (Truth Aficionado) : 10/17/2008 4:09:07 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 10/18/2008 10:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Mark: It sounds like you’re implying that it would be sinful for me to vote. It this right?
Zach: Idolatry is sin, yes. But you must follow the Spirit. If you feel the Spirit leading you to vote, then how can I argue otherwise? But if we keep it to theology, yeah, voting in this election I something that I believe to be sinful. There are people who are trying to use their vote as some sort of statement. Apparently Shane Clayborne is voting for Jesus. While I sympathize, I ultimately disagree that this is the best way of going about things. I'd put that sort of thing in the "I disagree" category, and genuine voting I'd put in the "sin" category. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/20/2008 8:27 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Mark: Yes, I see the “contradiction” and I’ve watched Obama, at Saddleback, struggle with his own cognitive dissonance while attempting to argue his position on abortion . But also overlooked is the “contradictions” found within the Christian arguments once they jump into the Pro-Life legal debate. This might be one good reason why Stand to Reason teaches their ambassadors not to use Scripture to argue their pro-life position, not to mention that the secular arguments make for a stronger judicial case. In any case, Obama was somewhat broadsided by the nature of the Saddleback forum, as he was clearly not prepared to argue from a theological prospective. While Obama did recognise the moral side of the argument, he still failed to reconcile it with the legal agruments. Is this at the heart of what you wish to flush out, Brandon?
Brandon: Sorry, I was writing something on this and then the computer froze because I opened up a video so I had to shut the whole thing down and lose everything. Anyhoo…what are those “contradictions” found in other “Christian arguments once they jump into the Pro-Life legal debate?” I’m thinking you are referring to, for example, capital punishment? Because of my views of government and political order, I’m simply saying that government’s responsibility should be toward life generating and life sustaining institutions. For example, think of it like this. Say someone murders someone else. Imagine if we had no police or legal systems in place. What would happen? Do you not think that loved ones (ie. family members) would seek vengeance on the killer(s) thus taking justice into their own hands? And would not vengeance breed more vengeance? It’s easy for us (Christians) to stand back and offer up the how we need to forgive those who wronged us but part of this is because of the social conditions of having that kind of political and legal system in place in the first place. It creates a space, and ease and distance for which people can make those kinds of "forgiveness statements." The point being that we intuitively recognize government’s role for sustaining life in that we take the political and legal system for granted.
As an aside, I don‘t doubt that we must come to the place of personally forgiving someone (if that is what we are suppose to do (can humans forgive a murderer? Should it not be the victim, but how can they?). Regardless, this is where we will come in, in that we will stand with those families and friends in support with the grieving process but also to ensure justice will be done, because justice is one of God‘s mandates.
But think of it. You recognize that there are a helluva lot of unneedful abortions taking place. I recognize that most abortions don’t need to take place. The Democratic Party with it’s platform seemingly thinks that most abortions aren’t needful. Obama APPARENTLY thinks they don’t need to take place. To say something like, “I don’t believe in the principle that life should be saved at all costs” seems rather irrelevant given 1.2 **MILLION** abortions a year. If, therefore, we agree on that, what would be problematic about ending Roe v Wade? Its hard to hear you argue about other so-called contradictions while at the same time we are agreeing that not only is it contradictory on Obama’s and the Democratic platform’s stance but that we shouldn’t have this many abortions!
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 10/20/2008 8:31:09 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/20/2008 1:53 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Brandon: Its hard to hear you argue about other so-called contradictions while at the same time we are agreeing that not only is it contradictory on Obama’s and the Democratic platform’s stance but that we shouldn’t have this many abortions!
Spot on! The deal is, we, as Christians, are under a new covenant with God, a covenant where we are suppose to recognize external law as stagnate. However, this does not mean we claim that the external law is abolished, it still has a vital function in steering our judgement and framing justice in this world. What we discover in Christ, is that law is brought to the highest level, a inner level that’s alive in us, alive in him. We, as regenerate believers, should possess a heighted consciousness, an awareness of this law of truth found dwelling inside us, this dynamic internal law is alive, and actively changing. And in this regard, we become conscientious objectors to all that is untrue, untruths found in the flaws of external law. Ironically, this means, under uncommon circumstances, an abortion can be the right choice of action, a choice for a greater good that factors in love. This is not a “contradiction”, but a paradoxical truth that many Christians are blind of. Can you think of such a case?
Well, if you can think of such a case, then bang, we just opened up the floodgates to many more subjective cases that entertain a host of unique circumstances. This is what Jesus teaches in the Sermon on the Mount as well as the rest of the Gospels. The point is, we could never keep up with external laws, it’s vanity to think so. Understandably so, this becomes very complicated and confusing because of the paradoxical nature to it, so we end up with what appears to be contractions. We end up with autonomous Christians advocating personal accountability that are often mistaken for some type of liberal anarchist that ascribe to immoral lawlessness, or on the other hand we see ruthless legalistic Pharisees types that lack true understanding of compassion, love, and mercy.
We see this theme repeated in the likes of Jesus healing on the Sabbath, or many other examples, one that comes to mind is the following verse: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel! -Matthew 23:23-24
What we have to conclude is that no external law is perfect. If we are searching for a bullet proof law then we should examine the following passages(and others) that directs us towards the only true “perfect law”.
Into the perfect law - Of love as established by faith. St. James here guards us against misunderstanding what St. Paul says concerning the "yoke and bondage of the law." He who keeps the law of love is free, John 8:31, etc. He that does not, is not free, but a slave to sin, and a criminal before God, James 2:10. —Wesley's Commentary
perfect law of liberty -- the Gospel rule of life, perfect and perfecting (as shown in the Sermon on the Mount, Mt 5:48), and making us truly walk at liberty (Ps 119:32, Church of England Prayer Book Version). Christians are to aim at a higher standard of holiness than was generally understood under the law. The principle of love takes the place of the letter of the law, so that by the Spirit they are free from the yoke of sin, and free to obey by spontaneous instinct (Jas 2:8, 10, 12 John 8:31-36 John 15:14, 15; compare 1Co 7:22 Ga 5:1, 13 1Pe 2:16). The law is thus not made void, but fulfilled. —Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
Furthermore, what makes all this clearer then mud is the fact that we are mixing spiritual moral arguments with worldly political arguments. We attempt to conflate a legal civil right with a god protected moral right. It becomes an endless push and pop, when one resolution button is pushed, boom, out pops a new problem button. So we end up with two differing sides just pushing each other’s political/spiritual hot buttons. What is to often overlooked, like Obama said in the last debate, “nobody is pro-abortion”…I would add some exceptions for non-believers in Christ.
Brandon: Third Way, you, me--we ALL agree that it is morally good to reduce abortions. As I said, once government chooses not to protect life, the degradation of life picks up steam and I wonder if your holding to the “overall policies will reduce pregnancies, but still keep abortion on demand legal” argument is not an implication of this degradation. I not only say that government can work to reduce abortions but should uphold life and life-generating and life sustaining institutions (meaning for example, families and marriages-- thus government can strengthen these institutions ie. Laws having children inform their parents before they get an abortion or laws that will not stand in the way of parents performing their duties). As a part of this, this will include both the other life issues, but it will consistently uphold the life of the unborn. You intuitively agree with this or else why would you argue for the reduction of abortion which is essentially upholding the life of those who would otherwise not be born? Yes, I agree, however, I’m trying to look at how the detail completes the picture, you know, taking into consideration all the leaves on the tree that’s being uprooted.
Brandon: By the way, yes, we can all agree that no external law will reduce all abortions, but that doesn’t mean to capitulate to not fundamentally upholding life and life sustaining institutions through the law. There will always be racism. Meaning there will always be private attitudes, habits and practices. But then there is legalized racism--public laws that represent and uphold those private attitudes, habits and practices. You still want to overturn bad law to uphold the equal treatment (and might I say life flourishing) treatment of all citizens. And you still want to overturn bad law that doesn’t consistently uphold life or uphold the life of those abortions you are seeking to reduce. Ok, it looks like what you call “racism” might fall under SDO or Social Dominance Orientation. This type of immorality falls under the oversights that Christian prolife advocates often neglect, or, are simply indifferent to. Check out the link and tell me what you think. Post Edited (Truth Aficionado) : 10/21/2008 8:31:16 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/21/2008 7:56 AM (GMT -6) | | I got a question for Brandon. Maybe two.
B, do you believe that there are ANY circumstances under which a woman should be able to have an abortion? If so, what are those circumstances?
Here's another. Do you believe that a woman should be put in jail if she were to have an abortion?
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 10/21/2008 12:29 PM (GMT -6) | | God allows abortion (and all other sorts of evil).
Why?
Is God's reason not good enough for us? Is it our job to be strict where God has been too lax? | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/21/2008 2:54 PM (GMT -6) | | I'll have to get on this later tonight. I'm taking my son and his girl...friend to go see Family Force 5 in downtown Detroit tonight.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/21/2008 2:57 PM (GMT -6) | | That's fair, homie. 
Have a good time! 
Holla atcha...
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/22/2008 2:39 PM (GMT -6) | |
TA, first, I think you might be confusing salvation by law with civil law and you seem to intuitively recognize this as for when you say: “ However, this does not mean we claim that the external law is abolished, it still has a vital function in steering our judgement and framing justice in this world.”
Now, I’m not suggesting that OT laws and especially modern days laws are salvific in nature, but I think you might be on to something when you say they function to help us in our judgements and framing justice in this world. Thus I think one can make a statement about say alleviating poverty through governmental means based in OT legalities. There’s enough there to help guide I think.
Second, it seems to me that you think that the Sermon on the Mount is concerned with exceptions to external laws in unique circumstances. But I have to say that I don’t think this has anything to do with exceptions. Rather, so far from providing exceptions to external laws, Jesus emphasized that the spirit of the law forbids more, not less, than the letter: not only murder, but also hatred; not only adultery, but also lust (adulterous desire, desire which if acted on would constitute adultery).
Now, if it is the case that, “We, as regenerate believers, should possess a heighted consciousness, an awareness of this law of truth found dwelling inside us, this dynamic internal law is alive, and actively changing. ... Ironically, this means, under uncommon circumstances, hatred, or adulterous desire, can be the right choice of action, a choice for a greater good that factors in love.”
It seems that we start to get into a warped view of justice. For example, apply this to many subjects that Jesus didn’t speak of: Equal rights for women. Equal rights for blacks. Equal rights for minorities. What about child abuse? What about rape? Slavery. Can you imagine simply killing someone in cold blood or having an affair on your spouse because you believe that it can be a right choice of action for a greater good that factors in love? Can you imagine, legally speaking on a corporate level, that government should not be concerned with some of the most basic necessities of life such as our water systems or police and legal services?
Now, I think its true (though not what Jesus was talking about in the Sermon on the Mount) that many moral norms are not absolute, and that this does include the norm against abortion, which can be allowed, for instance, in the case of a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy. It may even be the case that no law can "perfectly" govern all cases that could arise.
However, there are laws that are wholly good in excluding only evils and not preventing goods. Minimal laws against elective abortions would certainly fit this description. Any suggestion that an elective abortion could ever be "a choice for a greater good that factors in love" seems to me to be profoundly contrary to the gospel of life. Again, you might as well say the same of rape, or slavery, or child abuse. Can we set aside the Sermon on the Mount? Can we set aside looking out for the interests of the most vulnerable members among us?
It is the function and duty of civil society to defend the rights of citizens, particularly the more vulnerable among us. Thus the most fundamental right, and the source of all others, is the right to life. Laws that legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings, particularly the more vulnerable among us, erode the legitimacy of the whole legal system and exert a corrupting influence on civil society.
Have you read John Caputo’s “What would Jesus Deconstruct? I would say that your view is essentially the same as what he purports in there. I did some digging after I read it and found Jamie Smith’s article: What Jesus Did: The Incarnation as a More Radical Hermeneutics The key paragraphs for me were in 4-5. As much as you might not like to say that your view is “mistaken for some type of liberal anarchist that ascribe to immoral lawlessness” I think Smith’s position brings a helpful response to it.
Dwayne: B, do you believe that there are ANY circumstances under which a woman should be able to have an abortion? If so, what are those circumstances?
Brandon: Dwayne, let me ask you this. Do you think that there should be laws limiting at least some if not MOST of the 1.2 MILLION abortions that occur every year? Shouldn’t THIS be the first question? Surely you would agree that not every abortion that has happened was needful. What I would like to know is how some Christians argue against the death penalty because there is the chance of killing an innocent person (there’s that intuitive pro-life position again, killing an innocent person is consider unjust) but argue on the other hand to “keep abortion on demand” safe and legal giving no thought to the possibility that they are taking chances of ending a life which needn’t needlessly end (again, read that article by Smith above). I suppose we could ask, how many circumstances and the nature of those circumstances need to be in place to justify an abortion. And remember, I’m also saying that the first step is not to offer an abortion but rather to build and strengthen community such that life will continue (in other words so that there really is no need for abortion). We should ask if there is more that families, churches, voluntary organizations, and governments can do together to encourage positive alternatives to abortion that will strengthen the familial, social, and economic circumstances of at-risk families and children.
Dwayne: Do you believe that a woman should be put in jail if she were to have an abortion?
Brandon: No. But that doesn't mean that I don't think there should not be some penalty. But then this isn't just about punishment of the pregnant woman. One would have to consider the doctor and say the pregnancy center. What punishment should there be for them? Think of it like this. Say you had a crisis pregnancy in which there was no extended family members, supportive friends and neighbors, churches, social service organizations, and/or public authorities. Say the government was not supportive of, adequate health care for pregnant women and for infants, encouraging of pregnancy counseling, promoting of adoption, strengthening of foster care (of course this is unlike societal reality today at least in North America), then I would say that there really should not be any punishment for someone in such dire-straits. See, this is ALL about not just over-turning bad law like Roe v Wade, but it's about life at all levels. To think otherwise seems to be defeatist--given that we've got the power of God on our side.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 10/23/2008 7:41:12 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/22/2008 3:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
I suppose we could ask, how many circumstances and the nature of those circumstances need to be in place to justify an abortion. And remember, I’m also saying that the first step is not to offer an abortion but rather to build and strengthen community such that life will continue (in other words so that there really is no need for abortion). We should ask if there is more that families, churches, voluntary organizations, and governments can do together to encourage positive alternatives to abortion that will strengthen the familial, social, and economic circumstances of at-risk families and children.
That's what I'm asking you for, Brandon. That bolded part. I want YOUR take.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/22/2008 3:32 PM (GMT -6) | | If the mother's life is at stake. That's what I'm saying. Tell me. Do you think we need 1.2 MILLION abortions per year? Do you think that a woman should have an abortion because it stands in the way of her job promotion? How many of these could really have been prevented?
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/22/2008 6:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon: I suppose we could ask, how many circumstances and the nature of those circumstances need to be in place to justify an abortion.
OL: That's what I'm asking you for, Brandon. That bolded part. I want YOUR take.
Brandon: If the mother's life is at stake. That's what I'm saying. Tell me. Do you think we need 1.2 MILLION abortions per year? Do you think that a woman should have an abortion because it stands in the way of her job promotion? How many of these could really have been prevented?
Me first, dawg. Does having a life impacted by rape (this includes the sometimes nebulous "date rape" or "statutory rape" ) and/or incest constitute "a mother's life at stake" ? I want to get real specific here with you. God forbid this, but go with me. Your daughter has gotten date-raped and doesn't want the baby. (Easy to understand under the circumstances) Does she "qualify" for having a justified abortion?
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 10/22/2008 6:38 PM (GMT -6) | | I'll jump in, if you don't mind. The main question I need to get answered is whether or not the developing life in the womb qualifies as a human person. If it is, it should have rights to life. Despite an earlier hard-line position, I've come to the opinion over the years that personhood is emergent from brain activity. I think human personhood is more than merely having the genetic potential to develop humanly. So I'm open to things like the morning-after pill, even abortions up to the point where brain activity starts. This would handle the date-rape case.
The problem is, I may be wrong. God may consider the fetus a human person from the moment of conception. Anyway, I think it's not unsound to argue that if we don't know, then we should err in the side of assuming that it is a human person.
I'm still seeking his guidance, but at this point I'm relatively at peace with abortions before brain activity starts. I remain profoundly anti-abortion once the fetus can experience pain. There's a fuzzy boundary somewhere in the middle.
Not just a few countries prohibit abortion in the third trimester. I wish we could at least agree on something like that. It's not uncommon for premie's to survive from around the 26th week.
Post Edited (Corey) : 10/22/2008 6:46:39 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/23/2008 12:23 AM (GMT -6) | | |
OL: Me first, dawg. Does having a life impacted by rape (this includes the sometimes nebulous "date rape" or "statutory rape" ) and/or incest constitute "a mother's life at stake" ? I want to get real specific here with you. God forbid this, but go with me. Your daughter has gotten date-raped and doesn't want the baby. (Easy to understand under the circumstances) Does she "qualify" for having a justified abortion?
Brandon: Given the scope of the vision I’m speaking about, where we ought to start and the direction that we as a society ought to be moving in, what is important is the proper and healthy patterns that society should exemplify in which life will be nurtured and affirmed. Again, this will count for life at all levels of existence.
Having said that, I’ll make a couple of observations. First, there are many situations in which a person’s life is degraded. One can lose a job, have ill health, lack friends, have an accident that may cause a long term handicap. Part of the what is remedial for most of such degradations is, again, having help and support by various, people, organizations and governmental agencies. So even in the case of rape, which according to pro-life literature is a rarity accounting for, I believe, upwards to 6% of all pregnancies, one should be offered first, not an abortion but rather a helping hand of support.
Second, it may be that asking a woman to bear a child with whom she identifies as “a living emblem of the rape” is equivalent to torture. A woman having a child under such circumstances is for her to identify with the rape and the rapist through motherhood. However, such is not the case with many women. One survey showed that of 225 pregnant victims of rape or incest the vast majority of women actually wished to carry their children to term. Pressure to have an abortion had come primarily from, guess where? You’ve got it, friends, family and society in general with its prejudicial, discriminatory and even superstitious views against “tainted women” and their children who have been “conceived in sin.” Some women were actually able to re-establish their lives and their self-images better than those who did not carry to term. But that’s the thing, no woman should be faced with carrying a child alone. They need and deserve proper support and care.
And this is the problem. This prevailing autonomy and individualism has under-written a moral framework of abortion that isolates the pregnant woman from her usual social network of relations--spouse, children, siblings, parents, colleagues and close friends---and essentially reduces her decision-making partners to her physician alone. Women end up making a decision alone and are left to bear the consequences alone.
Does that help at all?
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/23/2008 5:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Maybe I'm dumb here...but I'm trying to get a straight answer and I don't seem like I'm getting one. Brandon, we're cool enough where you can just give me the straight answer, right? Enough with the generalities, please.
Look here, Brandon. I understand what you are talking about with regard to "proper and healthy" social patterns. I agree that true "pro-life" living is much, much broader than just the abortion issue. Heck, we could easily talk about ecological issues and cruelty to animals on that score, right? (I'm sure that you are applying your standards accross the board, yes?) Moreover, no one's arguing against the idea of social structures (familial and otherwise) offering a "helping hand of support" to any persons who find themselves in any kind of "life degradation" that you talk about. Again, I'm assuming that the "proper and healthy" social patterns would span all of our lives, including ecological and animal-related issues.
I am asking YOU, Brandon, with respect to YOUR DAUGHTER, sir. She's been date-raped. She so ashamed she doesn't say anything, because she's just glad it's "over"...that is, until she comes up late for her next period. For whatever the reason, she doesn't want to have the child...and she makes that very clear. What is your loving, socially responsible response?
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 10/23/2008 6:17 AM (GMT -6) | | D: I am asking YOU, Brandon, with respect to YOUR DAUGHTER, sir. She's been date-raped. She so ashamed she doesn't say anything, because she's just glad it's "over"...that is, until she comes up late for her next period. For whatever the reason, she doesn't want to have the child...and she makes that very clear. What is your loving, socially responsible response? T: If this were my daughter I would encourage her to have the baby and support her through her pregnacy. I would absolutely never recommend she kill her child. Never. To me THAT would cause her more suffering! As much as the child is a part of the rapist, it is a part of her... Moreover, GOD gives life. The child is a part of God, right?... It's never our right to take life away. Love, The church lady/Bible girl (just poking my nose where it doesn't belong again  )
"When one has once fully entered the realm of love, the world — no matter how imperfect — becomes rich and beautiful, it consists solely of opportunities for love."
~ Soren Kierkegaard
Post Edited (selah) : 10/23/2008 6:20:07 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/23/2008 6:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah:
T: If this were my daughter I would encourage her to have the baby and support her through her pregnacy. I would absolutely never recommend she kill her child. Never. To me THAT would cause her more suffering! As much as the child is a part of the rapist, it is a part of her... Moreover, GOD gives life. The child is a part of God, right?... It's never our right to take life away.
So, then you are FIRMLY and ABSOLUTELY against the "day after pill", right...even in the cases of rape and incest? You do believe that life begins at conception, right? So you would be against anything that would abridge or "abort" the post-fertilization implantation of an blastocyst...when it becomes an embryo. Is this right?
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." Post Edited (One Love) : 10/23/2008 6:45:57 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/23/2008 7:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Actually, let me raise the stakes a bit. Here's a true story I've heard somewhere.
A young woman around 23 has 3 children already, one of which is a newborn. She's been raped by her last ex-boyfriend (who is physically abusive)...and may be pregnant and is considering an abortion if her next period is late.
Is this a "case" for justified abortion? Selah? Brandon?
(Not ignoring you, Corey. I'm tracking with you, actually.)
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/23/2008 7:34 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Dwayne: Maybe I'm dumb here...but I'm trying to get a straight answer and I don't seem like I'm getting one. Brandon, we're cool enough where you can just give me the straight answer, right? Enough with the generalities, please.
Look here, Brandon. I understand what you are talking about with regard to "proper and healthy" social patterns. I agree that true "pro-life" living is much, much broader than just the abortion issue. Heck, we could easily talk about ecological issues and cruelty to animals on that score, right? (I'm sure that you are applying your standards accross the board, yes?) Moreover, no one's arguing against the idea of social structures (familial and otherwise) offering a "helping hand of support" to any persons who find themselves in any kind of "life degradation" that you talk about. Again, I'm assuming that the "proper and healthy" social patterns would span all of our lives, including ecological and animal-related issues.
I am asking YOU, Brandon, with respect to YOUR DAUGHTER, sir. She's been date-raped. She so ashamed she doesn't say anything, because she's just glad it's "over"...that is, until she comes up late for her next period. For whatever the reason, she doesn't want to have the child...and she makes that very clear. What is your loving, socially responsible response?
Brandon: I would think that that my response would’ve been clear. My loving response would be to encourage her to have the child. If she is insistent to have an abortion, we should all feel remorse, repent of it and mourn the life of that which never was.
You say, “For whatever reason” and this seems to me to be a very autonomist response. Should she get an abortion for "whatever reason?" Even if she believes that it is the lesser of two evils, which seems to me to be the most solid ground arising out of her rationale, I would say that our first response should be to encourage life for her reasoning may not be with the fullest clarity possible.
Let me also say something at this point. Even though I believe that law should affirm life, because politics is what it is, as a bud of mine says, “It may be necessary to settle for less than one would like out of the political process. I have little sympathy with those pro-lifers who would sooner bring down the entire political order than tolerate a single abortion.” And of course the Catholic Church has even taken this stance even though she strongly opposes abortion. But as someone else also said, “The pope is acknowledging human reality: rarely can any of us achieve our moral ends perfectly, or all at once. Integrity will at times require that we take what we can get." And at some point I think it would be good to eventually abolish it. Yes?
My point though D is that given the Democratic platform, it appears that it’s policy statement has hardened to hardened in its support for Roe vs. Wade ("strongly and unequivocally"), dropping the old language of wanting to make abortion "rare," consenting only to expand the number of choices available to pregnant women who might decide against abortion. This not only makes no dent in the party's pro-choice position as Wallis would have it, it is consistent with it. Don’t you think that Wallis and company have allowed themselves to be used for partisan purposes while gaining nothing of significance in the return? In this respect, his claim to have moved the party in a better direction rings hollow.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/23/2008 7:47 AM (GMT -6) | | It kinda scares me that you know the response to your question about the 23 year old woman above. It's this kind of "first response" issue that I find problematic. "Well what would you do? I know what I would do and that would be to encourage her to get an abortion." Like it's first off the bat. Maybe that's not what you're saying? But that's the signal I'm getting.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
| 103 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:52 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 |
|
|