 |
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/4/2003 9:22 AM (GMT -6) |   | I posted this a while back and changed its name to reflect its general content...
This coming Saturday, I am going to get a chance to meet the newly elected Democratic Gov'r of New Mexico, Bill Richardson. He is listed as Catholic. I hope to share with him my idea for a gradualist redefinition of when legally human life begins, in hopes that he will champion it. Please join me in praying that he will be receptive of the idea.
I also have submitted my posting "The Political Economy of Abortion" to the Association of Christian Economists journal. Pray that they will also publish it.
I believe that if enough evangelical Christians could join the band-wagon on this pragmatic political strategy that we could get bi-partisan support, influence the selection of the Democratic Presidential candidate and make this upcoming election quite a bit more interesting.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 06/10/2003 8:14:10 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/4/2003 8:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear Lord, I pray that you shut down this murderous philosophy that DLW is advocating. Grant him no favor with anyone. In Jesus' name, AMEN!!!
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/5/2003 4:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Well,
I don't suppose you have any better ideas for making some real changes in the abortion law in the US?
My pragmatic strategy is born from a frustration over how much time and energy has been put into the pro-life cause the past two decades with next to nothing to show for it. I also have Church-State autonomy issues that keep me from advocating making the gov't laws what I believe should be ecclesiastical teaching regarding abortion.
So please join me(I am fasting for 06-05-03)in praying that Gov'r Richardson may be open to hearing my idea and helping us build a bipartisan support(It will only be through finding a compromise position that change will be possible) for making some concrete changes in the abortion laws of our country.
dlw
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 06/05/2003 10:08:38 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 6/5/2003 8:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear Lord, I pray that you shut down this murderous philosophy that DLW is advocating. Grant him no favor with anyone. In Jesus' name, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/5/2003 8:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear lord,
convict us all of our hubris and grant us wisdom on how we may best use our political capital to serve you.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/5/2003 9:01 AM (GMT -6) | | DLW,
Except in a few very extreme cases (physical death of the mother would be a very strong possibilty) I don't see how abortion of a fetus can be anything BUT morally unjustified taking of human life; that is, murder.
I have some hope that we are now seeing progress in this issue with the passage of the partial birth abortion ban, though I tend to be pessimistic with regard to human society's ability to choose morally right options.
As your approach appears to me to be nothing more than a caving in to the demands of the pro-abortion side, and would essentially just excuse the current practice of wholesale slaughter of unborn human beings in the U.S., I must emphatically denounce it.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/5/2003 9:20 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DLW,
Except in a few very extreme cases (physical death of the mother would be a very strong possibilty) I don't see how abortion of a fetus can be anything BUT morally unjustified taking of human life; that is, murder.
So you don't accept the ambiguity surrounding when human life begins as discussed in the other link?
quote:
I have some hope that we are now seeing progress in this issue with the passage of the partial birth abortion ban, though I tend to be pessimistic with regard to human society's ability to choose morally right options.
The PBA ban will only make a very small fraction of abortions illegal and consider how difficult it was to pass.
quote:
As your approach appears to me to be nothing more than a caving in to the demands of the pro-abortion side, and would essentially just excuse the current practice of wholesale slaughter of unborn human beings in the U.S., I must emphatically denounce it.
Prolifers have tried to compromise with pro-choicers in the past and they were completely unwilling to do so, because they did not trust us to keep on going and pressing for further and further restrictions to abortion.
The reason my idea will work is because it sets a precedent that makes it unlikely that the legal definition of when human life begins will be redefined as at conception.
It does accept some serious restrictions in our ability to politically alter abortion law in the US, but this is done on the basis of the futility of our past actions that have accomplished very very little and had a price of being the most ideologically divisive issue in our country since Slavery and served to impair our democracy.
I am just saying that we should focus on changing hearts, not Roe-V-Wade. Politics is the art of the possible and I still believe my idea will make possible a reduction of abortions(of the most serious kind those taking place in the third trimester) and clear the way for more serious studies on the risks associated with abortions(so as to better inform a woman's choice) and to install regulations of the abortion industry so as to remove any perverse incentives it may have to try and drum up more business than otherwise would be the case.
I would finally add that in the Baptist tradition, if a child dies before the age of accountability, they do go to heaven. The same would be true for human fetuses so, in my view, while all abortions are tragic, they are not the greatest tragedy, for someone to turn their back on God and God's teachings. If our focus on trying to repeal Roe-V-Wade, neglecting other areas where lives are at stake, encourages others to do the latter then I think it is imperative that we consider other political strategies.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 06/05/2003 3:03:02 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/5/2003 11:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DLW
This coming Saturday, I am going to get a chance to meet the newly elected Democratic Gov'r of New Mexico, Bill Richardson. He is listed as Catholic. I hope to share with him my idea for a gradualist redefinition of when legally human life begins, in hopes that he will champion it. Please join me in praying that he will be receptive of the idea.
I also have submitted my posting "The Political Economy of Abortion" to the Association of Christian Economists journal. Pray that they will also publish it.
I believe that if enough evangelical Christians could join the band-wagon on this pragmatic political strategy that we could get bi-partisan support, influence the selection of the Democratic Presidential candidate and make this upcoming election quite a bit more interesting.
DAVE, BEFORE YOU GO PECKING AROUND IN SOMEONE ELSE'S SHEEP PEN, YOU MUST CONSULT THEM FIRST. YOU LIKE TO VIEW EVERYTHING AS MERELY A POLITICAL OR ECONOMIC THING, AND NOT SPIRITUAL. THAT'S A FAULT OF YOUR EDUCATION. BUT YOU OUGHT TO BE TAKEN ASIDE STEARNLY AND GIVEN A "TALKING TO." GO SEE THE CATHOLIC BISHOP OF THE AREA YOU ARE SPEAKING OF, OR THE ARCH-BISHOP, AND ASK THEIR PERMISSION. CERTAINLY GOD HOLDS THEM TO HIGHER ACCOUNT THAN LAYMEN (who are members of the "Royal-priesthood by virtue of their Baptism). YOU WILL SURELY TAKE ON THE MANTLE OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ANY THAT YOU INFLUENCE TO TAKE A LOW VIEW OF THE SANCTITY OF, AND ESPECIALLY THE BASIS-OF OUR HUMANITY.
THE BISHOP ALREADY IS MORE PROFOUNDLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE INJUSTICE OF THE DEADLY HARM TO THE UNBORN. BUT LET HIM FILL YOU IN ON THE OTHER ISSUES MADE "AT STAKE" BY YOUR BLUNDEROUS, SOPHMORIC "ESCAPADE."
I WILL JOIN JOHN EARP AND CHRISTIAN: "Dear Lord, I pray that you shut down this murderous philosophy that DLW is advocating. Grant him no favor with anyone. In Jesus' name, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!!"
SPECIFICALLY, THIS POST IS NOT ABOUT THE HARM THAT CAN RESULT, ALONG THE LINES I OUTLINED (INFLUENCE TO TAKE A LOW VIEW OF THE SANCTITY OF, AND ESPECIALLY THE BASIS-OF OUR HUMANITY). THIS POST IS ABOUT THE RECKLASNESS OF STICKING YOUR NOSE INTO AN AREA OF SOMEONE ELSE'S RESPONSIBILITY. GOD APPOINTED THEM TO THEIR POST. FOLLOW YOUR CEO's CORPORATE STUCTURE AND GIVE THE BISHOP(S) A CALL.
(Seriously. Evangelicals have hubris enough. Individualist "heros" in their own minds.)
quote:
DLW
So you don't accept the ambiguity surrounding when human life begins as discussed in the other link?
DLW, What I DO KNOW is that God speaks to make a human "human." Are you seriously suggesting that God speaks at some point to turn the non-human into human. It looks to me that you have an ATHEISTIC view, even as you try to mimick "Christian Ethics." Does God need you help that much??? The focus has to be--in order to escape cripto-atheism--on God's logos in establishing the humanity of the individual(s) in question. To loose sight of that is to cross the line of atheism. (Hidden though it may seem.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/5/2003 11:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DAVE, BEFORE YOU GO PECKING AROUND IN SOMEONE ELSE'S SHEEP PEN, YOU MUST CONSULT THEM FIRST. YOU LIKE TO VIEW EVERYTHING AS MERELY A POLITICAL OR ECONOMIC THING, AND NOT SPIRITUAL. THAT'S A FAULT OF YOUR EDUCATION. BUT YOU OUGHT TO BE TAKEN ASIDE STEARNLY AND GIVEN A "TALKING TO." GO SEE THE CATHOLIC BISHOP OF THE AREA YOU ARE SPEAKING OF, OR THE ARCH-BISHOP, AND ASK THEIR PERMISSION. CERTAINLY GOD HOLDS THEM TO HIGHER ACCOUNT THAN LAYMEN (who are members of the "Royal-priesthood by virtue of their Baptism). YOU WILL SURELY TAKE ON THE MANTLE OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ANY THAT YOU INFLUENCE TO TAKE A LOW VIEW OF THE SANCTITY OF, AND ESPECIALLY THE BASIS-OF OUR HUMANITY.
Gov'r Richardson can get his notion of when human life begins from his bishop. However, I would be loath to say he should get the correct strategy for making the laws of the US more correct from the Bishop. If there is pragmatic value then after I share the idea with him, he will talk to others about it and they will decide whether it is worth pursuing...
quote:
THE BISHOP ALREADY IS MORE PROFOUNDLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE INJUSTICE OF THE DEADLY HARM TO THE UNBORN. BUT LET HIM FILL YOU IN ON THE OTHER ISSUES MADE "AT STAKE" BY YOUR BLUNDEROUS, SOPHMORIC "ESCAPADE."
The Bishop and I do not disagree that there is injustice. We disagree regarding the specifics of when human life begins, but, in practice, we are far closer than we are apart.
quote:
I WILL JOIN JOHN EARP AND CHRISTIAN: "Dear Lord, I pray that you shut down this murderous philosophy that DLW is advocating. Grant him no favor with anyone. In Jesus' name, AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!!"
Dear God, guard us from hubris and grant us all wisdom on how best we should spend our political capital so as to render our laws more just.
quote:
SPECIFICALLY, THIS POST IS NOT ABOUT THE HARM THAT CAN RESULT, ALONG THE LINES I OUTLINED (INFLUENCE TO TAKE A LOW VIEW OF THE SANCTITY OF, AND ESPECIALLY THE BASIS-OF OUR HUMANITY). THIS POST IS ABOUT THE RECKLASNESS OF STICKING YOUR NOSE INTO AN AREA OF SOMEONE ELSE'S RESPONSIBILITY. GOD APPOINTED THEM TO THEIR POST. FOLLOW YOUR CEO's CORPORATE STUCTURE AND GIVE THE BISHOP(S) A CALL.
Huh? I do not take a low view of the sanctity or basis of our humanity. He with funny post-name speaks with crooked tongue! I question the epistemological certainty we can have regarding when human life begins.
quote:
(Seriously. Evangelicals have hubris enough. Individualist "heros" in their own minds.)
quote:
DLW
So you don't accept the ambiguity surrounding when human life begins as discussed in the other link?
DLW, What I DO KNOW is that God speaks to make a human "human." Are you seriously suggesting that God speaks at some point to turn the non-human into human. It looks to me that you have an ATHEISTIC view, even as you try to mimick "Christian Ethics." Does God need you help that much??? The focus has to be--in order to escape cripto-atheism--on God's logos in establishing the humanity of the individual(s) in question. To loose sight of that is to cross the line of atheism. (Hidden though it may seem.)
What on earth gives you the notion that I have an atheist view? Because I don't see God as having given us a complete answer as to when human life begins. Having human DNA does not make one a human life. Review your post you made in the other link. My view is consistent with the priesthood of believer approach. It is through the observation and deliberation over when human life begins (and the convictions being made in our hearts by the Holy Spirit) that we collectively determine our fallible answers to this question.
I am saying that there are ecclesiastical guidelines and there are national laws. Yet, the communities that determine these are different and it will be futile and probably not a good idea to force the national laws to be exactly what we determine is right conduct for our religious communities.
So we will see what comes of it.
And don't call me an atheist, Pow! Yes, my religious beliefs were affected by my interaction with an atheist/agnostic's beliefs, but the same can be said for Boyd wrt his interaction with Bertrand Russell's beliefs and similarly with all that theology he learned at Yale and Princeton.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/6/2003 11:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, I didn't get a chance to talk with him about my idea, but I did get his card and will continue to press the subject.
I would challenge my counter prayers to prove me wrong, bearing in mind that we are talking about political strategy, not whether we should actually abort fetuses, ourselves.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/6/2003 1:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Well though I didn't get to speak with Gov'r Richardson I did get the email address of the head of planned parenthood federation of America. I sent her my idea for a gradualist referendum-based approach to the legal redefinition of when human life begins.
So I think God does move in mysterious ways.
dlw
p.s., there are two positive facts why such extensive activism by prolifers over the past twenty plus years has primarily resulted in a ban on partial-birth abortions. The first reason is that the US Gov't is very dispersed and hard to take control of. The second reason is that all the activism by pro-lifers have been confronted by equal reactivism by pro-choicers; who have generally won out because it is easier to defend the status quo than to change the laws of our country for the reasons mentioned earlier.
As such, a change in political strategy is in order and the acceptance of limitations on political activism should merely refocus energies on changing hearts, not Roe-V-Wade.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/6/2003 1:34 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
DLW
I am saying that there are ecclesiastical guidelines and there are national laws. Yet, the communities that determine these are different and it will be futile and probably not a good idea to force the national laws to be exactly what we determine is right conduct for our religious communities.
THAT, finally, is something that I can AGREE with you on.
About the most intelligent thing I've heard you say is this: ...the communities that determine these are different... Why have I been trying to pass you the Kuyper bottle? Its "sphere sovereignty." Theology is NOT economics, and it is not politics!!! (SHOULD I SAY THAT IN CAPS?) By admitting that these are different you are on the first step towards recovery!!! 
And "ecclesiastical guidelines" must be based on theology and worship, whereas national laws are the messy and imperfect result of a contest between unreconcilable enemies.
But you loose much more than the political battle and the societal trend if you give away your witness to truth by compromising it.
Never say less than the truth.
quote:
The Bishop and I do not disagree that there is injustice. We disagree regarding the specifics of when human life begins, but, in practice, we are far closer than we are apart.
But here you probably have less than the truth. And I'm guessing that your urge for political compromise clouds your eyesight. (Many here seem to agree. Disagree with all of us; but don't think its just me!)
quote:
PoW: ABOUT THE HARM THAT CAN RESULT, ALONG THE LINES I OUTLINED (INFLUENCE TO TAKE A LOW VIEW OF THE SANCTITY OF, AND ESPECIALLY THE BASIS-OF OUR HUMANITY). THIS POST IS ABOUT THE RECKLASNESS OF STICKING YOUR NOSE INTO AN AREA OF SOMEONE ELSE'S RESPONSIBILITY. GOD APPOINTED THEM TO THEIR POST. FOLLOW YOUR CEO's CORPORATE STUCTURE AND GIVE THE BISHOP(S) A CALL.
-----------------------------------
DLW: Huh? I do not take a low view of the sanctity or basis of our humanity.
THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID. Notice more closely:
The HARM THAT CAN RESULT (in others, which is why the word "influence" is coming up) ALONG THE LINES I OUTLINED: INFLUENCE TO TAKE A LOW VIEW OF THE SANCTITY OF, AND ESPECIALLY THE BASIS-OF OUR HUMANITY
I'm saying that the Arch-Pastor is responsibile in his preaching to see that the view of the sanctity of humanity is venerated, lifted up as the image-bearer of God.
You are concerned with politics and statistical results. As you say, "do not disagree that there is injustice. We (the Bishop and I/DLW) disagree regarding the specifics of when human life begins." The reason is that you are determining this by different means and for reasons that differ. It is not that you are interpreting the same data and getting a right and a wrong answer.
ASK THE ARCH-BISHOP HOW HE IS DETERMINING HIS INTERPRETATION.
quote:
And don't call me an atheist, Pow!
I'm not calling YOU an atheist. I said: "It looks to me that you have an ATHEISTIC view..." There is a clear differnce. But I did wish to make you uncomfortable--as well you should.
quote:
My view is consistent with the priesthood of believer approach.
The "royal priesthood" is linked to one's Baptismal entry into the Church. (Hmm... Then can you "abort" atheists?  )
quote:
The focus has to be--in order to escape cripto-atheism--on God's logos in establishing the humanity of the individual(s) in question.
I wrote: "DLW, What I DO KNOW is that God speaks to make a human "human." What that means is that I'm focusing on the actions of the Creator and Sustainer. If the Lord of Providence wants to bring life to an end, that is the Lord's business. But we, mere creatures should not. How dare we?
And I wrote: "Are you seriously suggesting that God speaks at some point to turn the non-human into human." Again, the emphasis is on God speaking. Does God change his mind, and is there a change. You clam:
Having human DNA does not make one a human life.
Huh? Creation is an incarnation of God's word. It teaches, if we listen.
quote:
Romans 1: 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Instead of killing what is inconvenient, we are called upon, AS PRIESTS, to "give thanks" (vs.21).
DLW, in all seriousness, you admit: "Because I don't see God as having given us a complete answer as to when human life begins." THEN "why the heck" do you insist on taking action without knowing???
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/6/2003 2:11 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
DLW
I am saying that there are ecclesiastical guidelines and there are national laws. Yet, the communities that determine these are different and it will be futile and probably not a good idea to force the national laws to be exactly what we determine is right conduct for our religious communities.
THAT, finally, is something that I can AGREE with you on.
About the most intelligent thing I've heard you say is this: ...the communities that determine these are different... Why have I been trying to pass you the Kuyper bottle? Its "sphere sovereignty." Theology is NOT economics, and it is not politics!!! (SHOULD I SAY THAT IN CAPS?) By admitting that these are different you are on the first step towards recovery!!!
Oh Pow, your so sweet when you bestow compliments. However, a lot more is political(as in needing to be worked out without regard to a complete infallible standard) than you admit. And Intelligence and Rightness are too very separate things. One can be very intelligent in spreading mistruths(like as you see me doing.).
quote:
And "ecclesiastical guidelines" must be based on theology and worship, whereas national laws are the messy and imperfect result of a contest between unreconcilable enemies.
But you loose much more than the political battle and the societal trend if you give away your witness to truth by compromising it.
Never say less than the truth.
What is the truth that I am compromising? The workings of the Holy Spirit in the Eastern Orthodox(or Roman Catholic) Church's tradition regarding when human life begins?
quote:
quote:
The Bishop and I do not disagree that there is injustice. We disagree regarding the specifics of when human life begins, but, in practice, we are far closer than we are apart.
But here you probably have less than the truth. And I'm guessing that your urge for political compromise clouds your eyesight. (Many here seem to agree. Disagree with all of us; but don't think its just me!)
Probably? Um, well I think my willingness to disagree with many Christians on issues like this and abortion is due to the information assymetry. I.e., Scripture does indicate human life begins before birth, but little else. So I feel I have the right to question why we believe what we believe some(and my beliefs are rather close to others on this) and as someone who understands the political system in the US I certainly have the right to question our political tactics or to provide prophetic criticism of just how much political capital will be required to bring about whole-scale changes in Roe-V-Wade and how even then the battle will be far from over. Yes, people may still feel it is worth it, but they need to be made to consider all of the opportunity costs of single-mindedly pursuing this particular goal.
quote:
quote:
PoW: ABOUT THE HARM THAT CAN RESULT, ALONG THE LINES I OUTLINED (INFLUENCE TO TAKE A LOW VIEW OF THE SANCTITY OF, AND ESPECIALLY THE BASIS-OF OUR HUMANITY). THIS POST IS ABOUT THE RECKLASNESS OF STICKING YOUR NOSE INTO AN AREA OF SOMEONE ELSE'S RESPONSIBILITY. GOD APPOINTED THEM TO THEIR POST. FOLLOW YOUR CEO's CORPORATE STUCTURE AND GIVE THE BISHOP(S) A CALL.
-----------------------------------
DLW: Huh? I do not take a low view of the sanctity or basis of our humanity.
THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID. Notice more closely:
The HARM THAT CAN RESULT (in others, which is why the word "influence" is coming up) ALONG THE LINES I OUTLINED: INFLUENCE TO TAKE A LOW VIEW OF THE SANCTITY OF, AND ESPECIALLY THE BASIS-OF OUR HUMANITY
I'm saying that the Arch-Pastor is responsibile in his preaching to see that the view of the sanctity of humanity is venerated, lifted up as the image-bearer of God.
Yes, but they do not provide the end-all-be-all answer regarding when human life begins. DNA does not determine humanity. A newly fertilized zygote is not a human life, it contains the potential to become a human life.
quote:
You are concerned with politics and statistical results. As you say, "do not disagree that there is injustice. We (the Bishop and I/DLW) disagree regarding the specifics of when human life begins." The reason is that you are determining this by different means and for reasons that differ. It is not that you are interpreting the same data and getting a right and a wrong answer.
ASK THE ARCH-BISHOP HOW HE IS DETERMINING HIS INTERPRETATION.
The Arch-bishop stuff concerns Bill Richardson who is catholic. I am not catholic. I am more than willing to learn from RCatholics regarding their deliberations concerning the culture of death. I am saying that the culture of death needs to be confronted in other ways than trying to reverse Roe-V-Wade.
quote:
quote:
And don't call me an atheist, Pow!
I'm not calling YOU an atheist. I said: "It looks to me that you have an ATHEISTIC view..." There is a clear differnce. But I did wish to make you uncomfortable--as well you should.
What is an atheistic view? One that does not take a teleological view of Christian tradition? If that is the case then I guess the label is applicable, but I think it would be poorly chosen. My views do fit with much Christian thought on the need to continually be active to ensure that there will be an autonomy between the Church and the State. I see the way we have unquestioningly pursued our political strategy regarding abortion as having resulted in an extreme lack of autonomy between Church and State.
quote:
quote:
My view is consistent with the priesthood of believer approach.
The "royal priesthood" is linked to one's Baptismal entry into the Church. (Hmm... Then can you "abort" atheists? )
It is more than that. It has to do with the non-ordained members of the church playing a serious role in the answering of the problems of ecclesiastical order. If extended to the USA writ large, it says that our legal rules regarding when human life begins shouldn't reflect the views of solely a minority of USCitizens, regardless of their religious beliefs. This reflects the different communities notion that you complimented me earlier on about.
quote:
quote:
The focus has to be--in order to escape cripto-atheism--on God's logos in establishing the humanity of the individual(s) in question.
I wrote: "DLW, What I DO KNOW is that God speaks to make a human "human." What that means is that I'm focusing on the actions of the Creator and Sustainer. If the Lord of Providence wants to bring life to an end, that is the Lord's business. But we, mere creatures should not. How dare we?
We bring "life" to an end all the time. You mean human lives to an end. I believe that abortions only during the first month should be accepted by the church. At that stage there is no or next-to-no brain-activity in the fetus. An abortion should also be accompanied with a memorial service and a period of grieving. I.e., we shouldn't gloss over the sinfulness of ending a life, even if we do not accept that it was a human life.
quote:
And I wrote: "Are you seriously suggesting that God speaks at some point to turn the non-human into human." Again, the emphasis is on God speaking. Does God change his mind, and is there a change. You clam:
Having human DNA does not make one a human life.
Huh? Creation is an incarnation of God's word. It teaches, if we listen.
quote:
Romans 1: 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Instead of killing what is inconvenient, we are called upon, AS PRIESTS, to "give thanks" (vs.21).
Pow, in all seriousness, this verse is being taken way out of context. Yes we were made, but that doesn't imply an ahistorical notion of when human life begins or ends. As I argued below, much has changed since OT and NT times regarding our ability to observe and abort the human fetus. As such, our past notions of when human life began(and I listed the views of both Augustine and Aquinas) may be revised, but we did not receive on a stone tablet the notion that human life begins at conception.
quote:
DLW, in all seriousness, you admit: "Because I don't see God as having given us a complete answer as to when human life begins." THEN "why the heck" do you insist on taking action without knowing???
Because I am partaking in the process of stirring up debate on this issue so that we can work out more informed answers regarding when human life begins, both at the level of our churches and at the level of our country.
God Bless America,
Vote for George Bush,
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/6/2003 2:31 PM (GMT -6) | | HOW does a life become human. The answer to that is it becomes human by the cooperative actions of both his/her parents and God.
DLW says: but we did not receive on a stone tablet the notion that human life begins at conception. But that is only a "when" question. If he asks the "how" question, then the answer has to be "at conception."
Then DLW makes the conflicted (or compromized) co-statments tha: (1) "abortions only during the first month should be accepted by the church" and "abortion should also be accompanied with a memorial service and a period of grieving. I.e., we shouldn't gloss over the sinfulness of ending a life." So, the church should "accept" the sin of ending a life.
This parallels how DLW wants to say BOTH that homosexual sex is sin, but that it should be allowed for pragmatic reasons.
As the the Bishop, I was thinking at first that you were writing about a politician in Mexico. Since such a vast percentage of his constituents are under the pastoral care of the RCC Bishop THAT is why I said that it was your duty to see him first. If you work in a complicated organization, DLW, you might know that what one person does for a set of reasons fitting to her responsibilities can greatly affect the exercise of responsibilities by another person on quite another area of duty. THAT I thought I was making plain.
Don't short-circuit the clergy'e calling. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/6/2003 2:46 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
HOW does a life become human. The answer to that is it becomes human by the cooperative actions of both his/her parents and God.
Amen
quote:
DLW says: but we did not receive on a stone tablet the notion that human life begins at conception. But that is only a "when" question. If he asks the "how" question, then the answer has to be "at conception."
Why? No other point is apparent? It cannot be a process
quote:
Then DLW makes the conflicted (or compromized) co-statments tha: (1) "abortions only during the first month should be accepted by the church" and "abortion should also be accompanied with a memorial service and a period of grieving. I.e., we shouldn't gloss over the sinfulness of ending a life." So, the church should "accept" the sin of ending a life.
We should accept that in this fallen world, the aborting of a first-month fetus can be the lesser of two evils.
quote:
This parallels how DLW wants to say BOTH that homosexual sex is sin, but that it should be allowed for pragmatic reasons.
It takes for granted that there are other ideals that conflict with our desire to treat all life as sacred.
quote:
As the the Bishop, I was thinking at first that you were writing about a politician in Mexico. Since such a vast percentage of his constituents are under the pastoral care of the RCC Bishop THAT is why I said that it was your duty to see him first. If you work in a complicated organization, DLW, you might know that what one person does for a set of reasons fitting to her responsibilities can greatly affect the exercise of responsibilities by another person on quite another area of duty. THAT I thought I was making plain.
Don't short-circuit the clergy'e calling.
No, he is the gov'r of New Mexico. A clergy's calling should be to understand and teach scripture and christian tradition to their congregation. We believers are all called to point to what is holy and bear witness to the need for daily renewal in our walks with God and to participate in the determination of how the Church should shine its light in the world we live in.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 06/06/2003 7:47:51 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/6/2003 4:42 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
HOW does a life become human. The answer to that is it becomes human by the cooperative actions of both his/her parents and God.
Amen
quote:
DLW says: but we did not receive on a stone tablet the notion that human life begins at conception. But that is only a "when" question. If he asks the "how" question, then the answer has to be "at conception."
Why? No other point is apparent? It cannot be a process
First you said "amen" and now you are taking it back.
The conception was a synergy between both parents and God. (Amen.) And the growth of the unique human being is a synergy between what the parents began, what God did and continues to do, and the individual being that proceeds to grow and develop and fulfill its God-given task. Point being that that too is a synergy, and it "contains" part of the conceptionary synergy that we both say "amen" to. If you want to talk "process" then so be it. But not in abstractions. After conception you mainly have the parent's genes, the individual life, the symbiotic interaction with the mother, and the Lord Creator. If you want to talk "process" you must recognize the actors in that process. ONLY they can act. If THEY act at one poinr or another, then that is their calling. If the mother's body reabsorbs the zigot, that is her calling. But if someone outside acts upon the new being without a calling from God to do so, they usurp.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 06/06/2003 10:05:32 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/6/2003 5:00 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
Then DLW makes the conflicted (or compromized) co-statments tha: (1) "abortions only during the first month should be accepted by the church" and "abortion should also be accompanied with a memorial service and a period of grieving. I.e., we shouldn't gloss over the sinfulness of ending a life." So, the church should "accept" the sin of ending a life.
We should accept that in this fallen world, the aborting of a first-month fetus can be the lesser of two evils.
I can accept the concept of "lesser of two evils" as war is sometimes that. But "aborting of a first-month fetus" may seem like it is best to someone but actually NOT be the best--NOT be "the lesser of two evils." (And when you say "accepted only" you differentiate one sin from another. Do you intend to do that?)
quote:
quote:
This parallels how DLW wants to say BOTH that homosexual sex is sin, but that it should be allowed for pragmatic reasons.
It takes for granted that there are other ideals that conflict with our desire to treat all life as sacred.
And that begs the question of who decides. And who decides later when thoughts rearrange. And later...
quote:
quote:
As the the Bishop, I was thinking at first that you were writing about a politician in Mexico. Since such a vast percentage of his constituents are under the pastoral care of the RCC Bishop THAT is why I said that it was your duty to see him first. If you work in a complicated organization, DLW, you might know that what one person does for a set of reasons fitting to her responsibilities can greatly affect the exercise of responsibilities by another person on quite another area of duty. THAT I thought I was making plain.
Don't short-circuit the clergy'e calling.
No, he is the gov'r of New Mexico. A clergy's calling should be to understand and teach scripture and christian tradition to their congregation. We believers are all called to point to what is holy and bear witness to the need for daily renewal in our walks with God and to participate in the determination of how the Church should shine its light in the world we live in.
dlw
So, you see the clergy as an employee of the congregation? Don't you? Further, you confine clergy to the role of "professionals" -- which is not in line with lots of history. Many times the Bishop or the Priest are not the most educated, nor the most talented. But by your definition you proscribe them from the task that God gave them, and limit them to talent and utility. That does not stack up with reality.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/7/2003 7:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
quote:
HOW does a life become human. The answer to that is it becomes human by the cooperative actions of both his/her parents and God.
Amen
quote:
DLW says: but we did not receive on a stone tablet the notion that human life begins at conception. But that is only a "when" question. If he asks the "how" question, then the answer has to be "at conception."
Why? No other point is apparent? It cannot be a process
First you said "amen" and now you are taking it back.
Well, just what cooperative actions make human life is subject to different interpretation.
quote:
The conception was a synergy between both parents and God. (Amen.) And the growth of the unique human being is a synergy between what the parents began, what God did and continues to do, and the individual being that proceeds to grow and develop and fulfill its God-given task. Point being that that too is a synergy, and it "contains" part of the conceptionary synergy that we both say "amen" to. If you want to talk "process" then so be it. But not in abstractions. After conception you mainly have the parent's genes, the individual life, the symbiotic interaction with the mother, and the Lord Creator. If you want to talk "process" you must recognize the actors in that process. ONLY they can act. If THEY act at one poinr or another, then that is their calling. If the mother's body reabsorbs the zigot, that is her calling. But if someone outside acts upon the new being without a calling from God to do so, they usurp.
Okay, so then the actors in the process have yet to complete the formation of a human life at conception, in my view,(and of course, we are all still striving to become more human/christ-like for the rest of our lives). I think its messy to speculate. Like, say God knows someone isn't ready for a child and so the holy spirit guides the fetus to the side of the womb too early and the woman's body absorbs the fetus(It would be good to know more about what determines the likelihood that a fetus gets absorbed or implanted in the woman's womb.).
So we do have a dilemma and as illustrated by Alan and I's debate below, a careful discussion of fetal development does not tend to produce consensus on when human life begins. So my answer is that we as Christians should practice conservativism regarding when human life begins(after the first month, in my view), but not seek to use political means to make everyone else legally compelled to do the same. Instead, informal witnessing, which is of far more importance in the long run wrt sharing our faith, is in order.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/7/2003 7:21 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
quote:
Then DLW makes the conflicted (or compromized) co-statments tha: (1) "abortions only during the first month should be accepted by the church" and "abortion should also be accompanied with a memorial service and a period of grieving. I.e., we shouldn't gloss over the sinfulness of ending a life." So, the church should "accept" the sin of ending a life.
We should accept that in this fallen world, the aborting of a first-month fetus can be the lesser of two evils.
I can accept the concept of "lesser of two evils" as war is sometimes that. But "aborting of a first-month fetus" may seem like it is best to someone but actually NOT be the best--NOT be "the lesser of two evils." (And when you say "accepted only" you differentiate one sin from another. Do you intend to do that?)
Yes, but by what criterion? For example, my mother had her fourth child nine years, exactly 18 years after me. We were extatic in my family, but when my parents first told me and my sisters, we weren't allowed to tell anyone else. The reason was that some years earlier my mother had had a miscarriage, without my sisters or I knowing about it and we wanted to wait til the pregnancy progressed further to tell others about it. After, my mother gave birth, she had her fallopian tubes tied to ensure that she wouldn't get pregnant again. If the earlier fetus that was miscarried hadn't died then my current sister, who is the joy of my life, wouldn't be with me. So given there are limits to how many children a family can afford to have, it wouldn't surprise me that some children who were born later, would never have been conceived if an earlier fetus had not been aborted.
So I am wary of saying what is best, but do think it is essential for us to affirm the sanctity of human life both before and after birth. As for the period early in the pregnancy, I think the woman(and hopefully her husband) can deliberate and pray over what is best.
quote:
quote:
quote:
This parallels how DLW wants to say BOTH that homosexual sex is sin, but that it should be allowed for pragmatic reasons.
It takes for granted that there are other ideals that conflict with our desire to treat all life as sacred.
And that begs the question of who decides. And who decides later when thoughts rearrange. And later...
Hence, the need for a time of mourning and memorial service and forgiveness...
quote:
quote:
quote:
As the the Bishop, I was thinking at first that you were writing about a politician in Mexico. Since such a vast percentage of his constituents are under the pastoral care of the RCC Bishop THAT is why I said that it was your duty to see him first. If you work in a complicated organization, DLW, you might know that what one person does for a set of reasons fitting to her responsibilities can greatly affect the exercise of responsibilities by another person on quite another area of duty. THAT I thought I was making plain.
Don't short-circuit the clergy'e calling.
No, he is the gov'r of New Mexico. A clergy's calling should be to understand and teach scripture and christian tradition to their congregation. We believers are all called to point to what is holy and bear witness to the need for daily renewal in our walks with God and to participate in the determination of how the Church should shine its light in the world we live in.
dlw
So, you see the clergy as an employee of the congregation? Don't you? Further, you confine clergy to the role of "professionals" -- which is not in line with lots of history. Many times the Bishop or the Priest are not the most educated, nor the most talented. But by your definition you proscribe them from the task that God gave them, and limit them to talent and utility. That does not stack up with reality.
Well there are competing traditions on this and of course there is heterogeneity in gifts. But, my view is more akin to what is practiced by Orthodox Jewish synagogues, who, undoubtably, have a good deal of continuity with the world-view of Yeshua of Nazareth.
So I make my leap of faith regarding my proclivity in answering the ecclesiastical problem of order in that direction.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/13/2003 8:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's a crazy idea. To be able to abort a life, one must save a life. It doesn't cost an incredible amount of money to reduce infant-mortality in under-developed countries. Perhaps, a fruitful campaign approach would be to increase the cost of abortions to all but the poor by requiring that they contribute to a fund destined to reduce infant mortality.
What do you think? Raising the cost of abortion should reduce the number of abortions and it will raise more funds for saving other lives.
This would work well in conjunction with my other strategy for focusing on a gradualist referendum-based approach to the redefinition of when human life begins.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/18/2003 6:13 AM (GMT -6) | | "In this fallen world, we should accept abortion as sometimes the lesser of two evils."
Why then, do we not accept rape, theft, cheating on taxes, and any other form of selfishness as "the lesser of two evils, given our fallen world?" A slippery slope indeed, this idea that just because we live in a fallen world we should not take a stand for biblical morality.
When we were lost and without Christ in this world, did God just throw up his holy hands and say, "Well, they ARE just fallen humans. They really can't be expected to be anything but sinners. Jesus, we should just accept the fact that the Devil has won. This whole redemption idea was far too optimistic of me."
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/18/2003 6:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey DLW, did you see that "Jane Roe", Norma McCorvey, is suing to have Roe v Wade overturned? Her testimony is an interesting one, she who was a pawn of the liberal elite.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/927939.asp
Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?
Edited by - Laika on 06/18/2003 11:21:55 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 6/18/2003 7:06 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"In this fallen world, we should accept abortion as sometimes the lesser of two evils."
Why then, do we not accept rape, theft, cheating on taxes, and any other form of selfishness as "the lesser of two evils, given our fallen world?" A slippery slope indeed, this idea that just because we live in a fallen world we should not take a stand for biblical morality.
There is no circumstance where rape is justified. As for theft, cheating on taxes, it is clear that we are not to steal, and to render unto Cesar that which is Cesars.
As for "Thou shall not kill", this has required interpretation from the very beginning... . The Israelites did kill people and they did have a death penalty for several sins. My point is that its not a question of biblical morality, since it does depend on when human life begins and that is not set out in the Bible. My view is that human life begins between the first month and 20th week of gestation(This is somewhat similar to Roe's views), but that we should be conservative and not abort after the first month and if we do abort it should be accompanied with a period of mourning and atonement.
There also is a question of political pragmatism. Given our experience with trying to repeal Roe-V-Wade and how 20 plus years of activism have resulted in a partial-birth-abortion ban, it may be time to focus on accepting limitations in the political sphere and work at changing hearts rather than repealing Roe-V-Wade.
quote:
When we were lost and without Christ in this world, did God just throw up his holy hands and say, "Well, they ARE just fallen humans. They really can't be expected to be anything but sinners. Jesus, we should just accept the fact that the Devil has won. This whole redemption idea was far too optimistic of me."
No, the idea here is to learn from experience and to remember that ultimately it is the saving of souls not the prohibition of all abortions that matter. If Roe-V-Wade were overturned then the battle would go to the State-level and chances are abortions would be made illegal starting in the 2nd or Third trimesters, but there likely would be a number of doctors practicing civil disobedience(minus the voluntary going to jail part). So, in spite of the large amount of political capital required, the reduction in the number of abortions will still be quite small...
And what of the opportunity costs of how we spend our political capital? How about pressing for religious freedom abroad, even when it doesn't fit our national intere$t$? How about taxing porn? How about pressing for restrictions on alcohol advertising? How about reforming the state-finances so as to ensure better quality schooling for youth in lower-income areas? How about taking away some of social liberal Hollywood's ability to propagate its views world-wide by adopting a progressive tax on movie advertising that would encourage independent film-makers? How about taking a stand against the abuses of human rights abroad(this is particularly bad here in Latin America where torture is commonly used to keep people in their places)?
Part of the problem of order is that how we allocate our energy and time and political capital is not self-evident. Inspiration from scripture should be sought out, but will not be determinative regarding what we should do. And it is easier to say what is wrong rather than what should be the case, but we do have some serious options...
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 8/26/2003 12:00 PM (GMT -6) | | this is an exchange from another Christian discussion-board, where someone asked me why we shd compromise politically on abortion.
quote:
In compromising on our laws we would be setting a example showing we are flexable on any issue. Personaly I would not like to have a politican that says they are againts somethings and finding out that they are voting to do the opposite. One of the reasons I voted for that person is they were in line with my views. As for being seen as one that does not bend to the whims of power should be seen as a strength. I myself would be willing to give respect and loyality to someone who stands there ground than to someone who compromises an issue just to get some of what they wanted.
When it comes to right and wrong why compromise at all. Its just like the saying about good intentions.
DLW:Right conduct should be judged on the basis of the consequences of the actions, not the action's intentions. Passing the prohibition on alcohol was not right conduct because of the crime it fostered and the legality of alcohol was not the base problem the US was facing. There were alternative policy instruments that could have been passed to reduce alcoholism and there were opportunity costs to the resources that had to be spent enforcing the law and defending its legality and ultimately leading to the legality of alcohol being reinstated. Likewise, the abolitionists failed the African-Americans by failing to engage in the grays of the political process to fight for establishing further rights for African-Americans after they were freed by the Civil War. They refused to compromise with the enemy, the white southerners, but ultimately the well-being of many African-Americans depended on them being able to peaceably strike a compromise with white former-slave-holding-authorities that would permit them some access to the gov’t to establish and protect their rights. The Republicans of the north did not provide them this, though they did consolidate their control over the federal gov’t by excluding the southern states from participating in it for a good number of years…
The problem with how you pose the question is that it fails to take into account an understanding of the political process and the limitations it imposes on all of us with regard to how we pursue changes in the law therein and the inevitability of us having to make fallible choices regarding our political priorities and of us having to strategize over how our political opponents will likely react to our actions.
There is a huge difference between us compromising in our personal ethics over abortion and us accepting the inevitability of restrictions in our ability to change the laws of our country. It is because we realize from experience that some restrictions are unlikely to change dramatically in the near future that compromising politically to achieve something is right conduct. This also comes with realizing how in our pursuit of radical change in the abortion laws at the national level has required compromising in the form of forming an alliance with the economic conservatives of the Republican Party. Now, economic conservatism is by no means never in conflict with religious conservatism. Consider the vote some years ago about granting China a perpetual most favored nation-status (thus permitting their products to enter into our country with next to no tariffs/taxes). In the past, the yearly renewal of the Most-Favored-Nation Status for China was the biggest instrument the US had to make the Chinese Gov’t not persecute its religious minorities, many of whom are Christians. However, economic conservatives did not want to risk having the free-trade between our countries disrupted and so they renewed the MFN status perpetually. As a result, the persecution of Christians who do not register with the Chinese Gov’t has increased. And the list of areas of "tension" between economic conservatives, who often are somewhat libertarian, and religious conservatives can go on. The point is that we are already compromising on areas that may be politically of significance to us.
The simple point is that there are limits as to what we can do as Christians to change the laws of our country. However, there also is potential to make some changes that affect the laws of our country. But to make a difference requires counting the cost and judging what sorts of changes may be feasible and important. In my view, wrt abortion, a gradualist referendum-based approach, whereby a supra-majority may vote to extend when legally human life begins to during pregnancy, may be able to generate bipartisan support since it sets a legal precedent that makes establishing conception as when legally human life begins unlikely. This approach would require a constitutional amendment but, since it doesn't go after pro-choice activists' "sacred cow", it may generate more bipartisan support; as would a push to reform our country's adoption system. Compromising politically on these past extremely, ideologically divisive issues will free up the activism cultivated in the pro-life movements to press on in other areas, such as pressing for religious freedom abroad, combating cigarette advertising abroad, stopping the spread of Aids, and the list could go on.
To compromise on a particular issue may be justified if it permits us to accomplish something on that issue and to further accomplish more on other issues. Also, bear in mind that wrt abortion, our goal is and should always be ultimately to change hearts not laws. Sometimes how we use our political capital can serve as a barrier to our ability to share about our faith with our political rivals. John Perkins in his book, "Let Justice Roll Down" described how Jesus set a precedent for us in his ministry to the woman at the well. He first approached her through her felt need for water but then transitioned on, once he had her full attention, to her true spiritual need for salvation. This may be a model that we can follow today through how we selectively use our political capital autonomously from the existing two main parties in our country.
dlw
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 9/5/2003 1:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Pro-life legislation
2003 Saw Major Pro-Life Advances in State Legislatures
Excerpt:
Here's a thumb-nail sketch of the major pro-life legislation that passed victoriously through statehouses this year:
Human cloning bans: Arkansas and North Dakota prohibited human cloning for any purpose. Missouri created a special trust fund and Life Sciences Board banning public funding for research involving human cloning, as well as research involving abortion or fetal tissue.
Crimes against the unborn child: Arkansas made the battering of a pregnant woman a Class A felony. Colorado created the crime of "wrongful termination of pregnancy." Connecticut increased the penalty for assault against a pregnant woman if it results in the loss of her baby. Nebraska recognized that a wrongful death case could be pursued following the killing of an unborn child. North Dakota required medical professionals, counselors, police, and clergy to report cases in which a pregnant woman abused alcohol or drugs during pregnancy. Texas revised its definition of death to include "for an individual who is an unborn child, the failure to be born alive."
Women's Right to Know: Arkansas required abortionists to tell women that they may see an ultrasound image of their unborn child prior to an abortion. Minnesota enacted a law offering women the right to know about the risks of abortion, alternatives to abortion, facts about fetal pain and human development, an abortion-breast cancer warning "when appropriate," and a 24-hour "reflection period" prior to an abortion. South Dakota required that the state develop a website containing information on abortion. Texas required that a woman be offered information from a doctor by telephone or in person at least 24 hours before an abortion. Virginia amended its informed consent law to ensure that, if a woman chooses to review the state's materials, that they be provided "in a respectful and understandable manner, without prejudice." Adoption must also be presented as a "positive alternative" to abortion. West Virginia required information on medical risks, abortion alternatives, and a 24-hour reflection period prior to an abortion.
Clinic regulations: Indiana required that abortion centers be regulated by the Department of Health. Texas required that abortions be performed by licensed physicians; that an abortion facility may not be located within 1,500 feet of the property where a church or school is located; and that centers performing 50 or more abortions a year be licensed.
Parental involvement: New Hampshire required 48-hour parental notice before an abortion unless the abortion is needed to prevent a minor's death. Virginia required parental consent for abortions for minors.
Funding of alternatives to abortion: Colorado passed a resolution honoring the state's 54 crisis pregnancy centers and encouraging the government to provide money for medical equipment and abstinence education at crisis pregnancy centers. Louisiana appropriated $1.5 million in federal funds for abortion alternatives programs. Mississippi extended federal funding of a state program rewarding the top five counties with the greatest reduction in out-of-wedlock births without an increase in abortions. Pennsylvania appropriated $4.3 million in state funding and $1 million in federal funds for alternatives-to-abortion agencies.
Limits on abortion funding: Alaska passed a law reiterating the ban on public funds for abortions not mandated by federal Medicaid rules. Colorado banned public funds from being used to pay for abortion. Kansas prohibited funding to “promote, refer, or educate” in favor of abortion. Kentucky banned state funds or state insurance coverage from being used for abortions for state and local government employees. Michigan prohibited funds for pregnancy prevention programs from being used for abortion
counseling, referrals, or services. North Dakota urged Congress to allow states to enact prohibitions on the use of federal family planning funds by public and private agencies within the state. Tennessee banned state funds from being used to perform abortions, with certain exceptions. Texas prohibited funds from being used to pay for abortions.
Abortion reporting requirements: Iowa required the reporting of information about the type of abortion method used, including whether RU-486 was used. Louisiana passed a resolution directing the Department of Health and Hospitals to comply with current law by compiling a statistical report on number of abortions and complications by parish and municipality. West Virginia's new informed consent law also required abortion facilities to provide statistics to the state Department of Health.
"Choose Life" license plates/adoption promotion: Arkansas and Tennessee permitted the establishment of "choose life" license plates. Louisiana expanded the "choose life" plates to include motorcycle plates. Virginia created an adoption awareness campaign.
Late term/partial-birth abortion bans: Virginia adopted a ban on partial-birth abortions.
Abandoned infant protection: Illinois required sex education materials to advise students about the Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act. Virginia offered an affirmative defense to a parent who leaves a baby with a hospital, rescue squad, or ER within two weeks of birth.
Assisted suicide/palliative care: New Hampshire established an end-of-life study commission. Ohio outlawed assisted suicide and created a task force to study the treatment of intractable pain.
Stillbirth certificates for miscarriages/burial of children born dead: Florida required health care facilities and doctors to inform women of the right to bury or cremate an unborn child following a miscarriage. The Illinois legislature called for still birth certificates for unborn children 26 weeks or older. Louisiana required still birth certificates for unborn children 20 weeks or older. Maryland required still birth records for children 20 weeks or older. Mississippi amended the death reporting law to require the reporting of still births caused by a mother's drug use. Montana required fetal death records. Nebraska amended existing law to allow relatives of a dead unborn child to control the disposition of the remains. Virginia required the state registrar to issue still birth certificates upon request for parents of unborn children 20 weeks and older.
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
| 26 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:12 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 |
|
|