Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Andrew Tallman :: Townhall.com Columnist
A Reminder to Pro-Life Christians
by Andrew Tallman
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Today is the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling which essentially decriminalized abortion for our entire country. Those who endorse Roe are holding celebrations, while those who condemn it are holding protest rallies. Yet, like so many other issues, there are valid warnings for people on both sides.

For the moment, however, I want to speak exclusively to those of you who consider yourselves pro-life and Christian. The rest of you may follow along as you see fit.

For starters, we live in a country that is made up largely of self-identified Christians. This means that most pro-lifers follow Christ (though not all, importantly). But it also means that most pro-choicers identify themselves as Christians as well. Though many of us would prefer to marginalize their faith by claiming that they are merely nominal Christians or some other derisive comment, we should be very careful about implying that saving faith can only reside in members of our own political persuasion.

Now, lest you worry that this will degrade into an argument for moral equivalence or even for keeping silent, I want to assure you that I agree with you that abortion is the single greatest moral evil of our day. Nothing else even comes close. Yet, precisely because of our zeal to save babies, we run the very real risk of forgetting that Christ is more important than our cause. And though correcting our pro-choice brothers and sisters is appropriate, condemning them is not.

See, just like any atrocity, a serious view of abortion’s awfulness can easily jeopardize our Christian joy and happiness. “How dare you smile in a country where over a million defenseless lives are extinguished every year!” Furthermore, we can feel extra guilt over enjoying anything frivolous while age-based genocide surrounds us. “How dare you enjoy sushi or ‘American Idol’?”

But we must strive to remember that our joy comes—or ought to come—from being loved by Christ, not from making the world a more desirable place, including the prevention of abortion. And it is vital to maintain some humility in the midst of this particular evil.

Such humility comes from remembering that God cares more about the unborn than we do … infinitely more. After all, is there any one of us who has been humiliated, flogged and crucified on a cross in order to save them?

Furthermore, God knows the awfulness of this practice far more deeply than we do. Your pain at the destruction of life is but a passing whim compared with the deep grief felt by God any time one of His children loses their lives.

And yet, God smiles. He rejoices. He dances. He sings. He is radiant in happiness over the reclamation of any one sinner, and He is overjoyed to see those so recovered live out the simple joy of deriving every ounce of their identity, satisfaction and significance from Him. God smiles.

But how could He?

How dare He?

Does He not know?

Does He not care?

Oh, yes. Far more than either you or I do.

And one of the subsequent pains He experiences at the very real evil of abortion is the compounded evil of allowing our own interest in this issue to interfere with the joy we should have in Him and in Him alone. If we are not extremely careful, we can (almost without noticing the transaction) allow our passion for this very right and noble cause to fuel a bitterness over the death of children which will poison our passion for God … a God who is capable of smiling in the midst of the very thing we both ferociously despise.

If we act as if only the ending of abortion will allow us to be joyful, we are essentially acting as though Christ is inadequate for us—telling God that He is not enough. We must have our way as well.

Thus, we must be diligent daily to not let our pro-lifeism become an idol which we worship by seeking our real delight from what it can never deliver and has never done for us.

God loves abortionists. God loves women who abort. And God loves pro-choice politicians. And God even loves pro-choice Christians … just as He loves you in the midst of whatever known and secret sins He has paid to forgive.

How dare we hate whom God loves? And how dare we put our own judgment above His by allowing this particular issue to acquire more importance than the real Love of your life. 

“But I’ve never done anything so awful as those people ...”

Ahhhh. Now we see the real issue. Maybe you think that you are saved in part by Christ and in part by your own righteousness. And so maybe we are humble, grateful, loving and forgiving to the extent that we think we owe Him—but no further. The real problem is not in how much better than them we are. The real problem is not recognizing that, in and of ourselves, we are not better than them.

Until we realize that we are absolutely no better than anyone and that Christ still absolutely loved each of us enough to give up everything and come rescue us by His own sacrifice, we will always treat with contempt those who violate the rules we think are out of reach of our own depravity. And even if we succeed at getting this particular abomination stopped, we will have done two even more awful things in the process.

First, you will have alienated from Christ anyone who encounters your wrath. And second, you will have failed to heal the alienation from Christ in you which is the only malignancy that can produce such wrath.

And lest I be misunderstood, I should re-state something very simple: It would be the worst of all shames if you read this article and somehow sought to simply stifle your anger and behave more decently in your fight to end abortion.

You can’t.

But even if you could, that would be worse because then you would be oh so proud of yourself for fixing this heretofore unexamined sin.

Just as with every other element of your salvation, it is Christ alone and our pondering of just how much He has loved us that will transform us into the kind of people who can safely be entrusted with carrying the pro-life message and honoring God at the same time.

Take this to Him. Ponder His love for you. Allow Him to heal you. And from that, watch as your actions become completely different—finally running the risk of winning souls in addition to merely winning lives.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Andrew Tallman is host of The Andrew Tallman Show on AM 1360 KPXQ from 5-7PM weekdays in Phoenix, AZ.

Be the first to read Andrew Tallman's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

My Thoughts
Overall, a well written and thoughtful column.

I do have a question though, and it's probably more about religious theory than abortion specifically. In the column, the author says:

"...the deep grief felt by God any time one of His children loses their lives."

The way this is written gives the impression that God did not have a hand in the death of those children. This goes against the theory that "god has a plan for all of us" which I've heard many times from religious people. If he has a plan, if it is "God's will", than the abortions that occur in this country are included in that plan. Years ago I saw a story about a church in one of the great plains states, which is also in the area called tornado alley, that was struck by a tornado killing adults and children alike. Part of the building collapsed on the nursery killing a number of children that were there. It was an awful tragedy. If this occurrence was God's will, his plan, than why should he grieve over the death's of those children he planned. Why put a child on this earth only to take them away after they've only lived for a few years? It broke my heart while watching the news coverage as they interviewed some of the survivors and some were saying that the children were in God's hands.

Now I know you're not supposed to question the will of God, and it's not like you'd get an answer anyway, but it strikes me as silly that we would assume God has a plan for all of us and then assume that we have free will. Either he has a plan and our lives follow that plan and thus, we're not really deciding anything, or he doesn't have a plan, we are free to choose our own destiny's, and thus, believing that things are in God's hands is ignoring the responsibility that we have to handle our earthly affairs and not trust that God will.

I could quible over some small details..
But I won't.

I think you brush up against something that many Christians overlook. It is fine to be engaged in our country's political process or to voice protest over wicked practices such as abortion.

However, we show a lack of faith in Christ when we run to the secular Government to usher in the Kingdom of God. Fundamental change in this country will not come with getting the right politician, or the right law passed, or bad laws overturned. It will only come as we engage those around us and share the Gospel of Christ. Even more so that we are no longer complacent, allowing the government to do those things we should be doing - feeding the poor, caring for the homeless, lifting up the downcast. Only then will we effectively pave the way for change in our city, states, country and world.

my understanding
John 3:16 in the NASB (regarded as extremely accurate)says "God so LOVED the world...". This means His love was extended to sinful mankind at that point in history when His Son was crucified for our redemption and salvation. His love is poured out now on those who ACCEPT His Son as their propitiation and submit to His rule and become part of His eternal kingdom. God has a plan for each of us who are now His children and can make all things work for our good if we choose His plan for our life. If we choose to go our own way we are on our own. As Ravi Zacharias has said that the most likely theme song for those in eternal punishment will be those who sing "I did it My way". So free will is the issue. We can choose whose plan we want implemented in our lives. His love (which now fills our hearts) constrains us to reach out to others in love and to defend those who cannot defend themselves and enables us to love those who are humanly unloveable.

David
"Keep the government our of any of my personal decisions, be it my choice to own a gun, my choice to speak my mind freely, my choice to imbibe any intoxicant I choose, and my choice to carry through on an accidental pregnancy"
------------
Some things are necessary for freedom. Law being one of them. There must be a balance between the two. Would you not want the government stepping in on your neighbor if he made the personal decision to rob your home, or perhaps point a gun and shoot holes in your house. The law is there to protect your freedoms AND your neighbor's freedoms.

Unborn children are not granted this freedom and thus the law does not step in to protect them. They can be killed all the way up to birth.

Look at it this way. If you were walking down an alley and found a dead newborn baby in a dumpster, the police would come to investigate the murder. That baby might get some justice. However if the baby was a partial birth (same size, same age) abortion, no justice for the baby. The doctor can legally kill him at the request of his parents.

David
Don't you think it is somewhat strange that people can be fined, arrested, and jailed for minor offenses like swearing in public or throwing trash along the highway, or even lessor offenses like crossing jaywalking or riding a bicycle without the proper headgear but abortions can happen 24/7 with no fear of any punishment from the law.

"It's wrong to cuss in public, but go ahead, killing your unborn child is A-OKAY"

Did you know that a city in California passed a law that has a punishable fine of up to $500 for detonating a nuclear bomb within the city limits. This is actually on their books. Not for posessing a nuclear bomb mind you, but for detonating it. No jailtime, just a fine. At least they get fined. Abortion providers don't even get that. They actually get paid for it.

Misunderstanding God's will
There are two aspects to His will - His secret will and His revealed will. His secret will cannot be thwarted, but His revealed will can be by our choices. He has commanded, "No murder", but we disobey. To put that on God is incorrect.

It was Adam's original disobedience that placed the world into a fallen state.

David
It's not really apples to oranges comparison because context is everything when it comes to life liberty etc... When ones pursuit of happiness involves taking another life...either you, I or the unborn....then government should step in to protect us....again, either you, I or the unborn.

Our pursuit of happiness should not infringe upon the rights of others, including the unborn. This is why some killers get tried for a double homocide when a pregnant woman is murdered.

David
"It is not bound to protect me from the consequences of my actions, nor is it exempt from protecting other citizens from the actions of others that would infringe on their right to life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness."
------------
Can you know see the oontradiction here? The government is not bound to protect YOU from the consequences of YOUR actions, but they are bound to protect OTHERS from the consequences of YOUR actions. Do not the unborn count as OTHERS to you?

pro-choice pseudo-Christians
I honestly hate no one. I pray virtually every day for the conversion of hearts and the salvation of souls, including the heart and soul of our new president. However, the term, "pro-choice Christian" is simply an oxymoron. Calling oneself such no more makes it so than calling a dog a cat makes it one. These people are our sisters and brothers, deserving of our love and prayers, but they are no more Christian than was Thomas Jefferson, who claimed to be a Christian while denying the divinity of Christ and the existence of the Trinity.

a
'If you still feel the need to fight abortion, try convincing someone that there are other choices through outreach and fellowship."
--------------
You have a good point here. While my disagreement with David might appear to be a fight to overturn Roe V Wade, I merely present that Roe V Wade is simply a bad decision. Murder laws are already on the books so the unborn should already be protected under those laws. This is why killers who murder pregnent women can sometimes be charged with a double homocide.

My point though is that RVW (as bad as that decision is) should really become obsolete. Not because it gets overturned, but because people choose to no longer get abortions. A moral population needs less governemnt intrustion and less laws. They also enjoy more freedom. An immoral population requires more laws and government to intrude in their lives and thus enjoy less freedom.

Roe made abortion legal
it did not make it mandatory. If you folks think you are in the majority, then answer me this: Last November, supposed Christian conservatives passed Prop 8 in CA, making gay marriage illegal. But the initiative imposing parental notification rules failed outright.

And you think people want Roe to be overturned? No, they don't. They let you nutters run on and on, but they want the option there for their kids. Most of us wouldn't have an abortion, but we refuse to let you nutters impose your religious beliefs on our Constitution.

Tallman as talisman to the lost
You have to love this! Yet another "conservative" flogs his own for the sin(s) that HE(Tallman) perceives to be running rampant in all of us hate filled, Christ offending, "extremist" fundamentalists.

What in the hell is going on!?! Liberty is under siege and those who should be sounding the clarion call to resist, are instead under the spell of some wicked form of Stockholm syndrome.

Abortion is evil. If it was ever outlawed, millions of followers in Christ would fall to our knees, sobbing the tears of gratitude and joy, that we all have shared, at the realization that our God is a good God. Why does the author assume it would be otherwise?

Maybe he ought grab ahold of himself, as the lefties now praising him surely are, and wish really hard for some common sense.WOW!

mike dead-cred
Hugh Hewitt
little billy crystal
peg noonan
And now add Andrew Tallman to the list of sellouts to the cause using ones God given brains.

Will the list ever start to shrink?

David
You are one to whom abortion is a clear benefit. You don't have to pay child support, you don't have to marry the mother, you can have your fun and then just walk away. I'm not saying you personally would do this but it is absolutely true that thanks to easy abortion you are not legally obligated to any children you sire if you re not married to the mother of same.

Government's first obligation is to protect the lives of its citizens. Yet with abortion on demand what we have now is a through-the-looking-glass intellectual and legal schizophrenia that allows the humanity of the unborn to be determined merely upon a woman's whim.

Are we then to believe that all the marching, screeching and brassiere-burning of yore was for naught, then? That a woman is a helpless creature after all if a baby comes along as the result of her own careless and/or selfish behavior?

So which is it, ladies? You can be strong only when it suits you to be so?

David
So the government is good when it protects your rights, but not good if it protects the rights of the unborn?

Government can protect rights of animals. They can protect rights of plants. People. Property etc...all at the expense of somebody elses rights (greater good for oil rights, greater public use laws for private property etc) but somehow the rights of an unborn go unprotected...unless a pregnant woman is murdered. Then they get the killer for a double homocide.

Government can and should be able to protect the unborn. The thing is....they shouldn't really have to.

Sorry to post and run but I am off the thread for the night. Will check back later on though.

Cheers.

Conservatives are NOT in favor of
government intrusion where abortion is concerned, and no rational argument could make the case that that we are. On the contrary, we consider the protection of life to be of paramount importance to our government because it is explicitly stated in our founding documents. The Declaration of Independence states as self-evident that all are endowed by their creator with the inalienable right to life. The preamble of the Constitution states that it was ordained for the purpose of establishing justice and promoting the general welfare. Abortion is the ultimate injustice: it takes those basic rights from the silent, helpless segment of our society.

Find me the clause that says we should ensure banks don't fail.

Nate,

where did you get the idea that humans must follow God's plan for them. I have never heard any thing like that in a Christian Church.

Would humans be well-advised to follow God's plan for their lives? They most certainly would be so advised. However, God forces no one to follow His plans. That is where all of the evil comes from, people who choose not to follow God's plans.

David's "rights"
"Keep the government our of any of my personal decisions, be it my choice to own a gun, my choice to speak my mind freely, my choice to imbibe any intoxicant I choose, and my choice to carry through on an accidental pregnancy."

The problem is David, when you get to the "accidental pregnancy" part, the decision was already made when the woman chose to engage in sexual intercourse. If a pregancy results (which kinda tends to go with the territory), the woman is not making a choice for herself any longer but is deciding whether or not another human being lives or dies all because it might inconvenient.

You do have the right to own a gun but you misuse that right if you use it to kill another person without just cause

You have the right to speak freely unless you misuse that right by slandering another.

You have the right to imbibe whatever intoxicating beverage you choose unless you misuse that right and over indulge to the point that you are unsafe to others whether intentionally or negeligently.

A woman may has the right to engage in sexual intercourse or not, but she misuses that right when she becomes neglegent and infringes on another's right, namely her unborn child's, when she chooses to end that child's life becuase it isn't convenient.

It was our founding father's intent that we live in a country where ALL are acknowledged to have been created equal and that ALL have been given inalienable rights by our creator of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our constitution guarntees these rights are protected but not at the expense of inhibiting another's rights.

Unless you believe that a lump of tissue magically becomes a human as it passes through the birth canal, you are being intellectually dishonest if you believe that a woman's right to choose anything at all extends to whether her child lives or dies.

Wrong again David
"The only place that it can be determined scientifically that life actually begins with any certainty or basis in fact, not emotion, is at birth. "

I'm guessing you didn't pay attention in Biology class. Life is generally held to mean that an organism that is "alive" displays certain characteristics - growth, metabolism, ability to respond to stimuli etc. So by definition a child is alive at conception. No emotion there, only scientific fact

No, the emotionalism comes in when there are those who make this decision of life or death one of a woman's right over her own body without taking into consideration the still forming woman (or man) alive in her womb.




President Obama or King Herod?
The 21st Century slaughter of the innocents will soon begin by a man who admits that knowing when life begins is, "above my paygrade." This is the man who says that his grandchild would be a "punishment" to his daughter. This is the man who doesn't want to "burden the original descision" of killing the baby even when the baby survives.

Enjoy your infanticide hero libs, your soul is not above God's paygrade.

Matthew 23:33

for One more comment David
"a fetus is an independant human being scientifically"

Actually, a child is an independent human being while in the womb with his or her own genetic makeup that is unique from the mother.

My hair color, eye color, gender, height, blood type, etc are different from my mother's and this was established long before I left my mother's womb.

So again David, your argument falls short. The only thing standing in the way of an unborn child being considered a human being are those who refuse to recognize them as such

Obama/Biden
Like Jesus
only pro-abortion

Apples and oranges
sorry but they all start from seeds.

Funny how one can be jailed for destroying wheat, corn, etc. seeds yet the human seed can be destroyed without a thought. That is the problem with accepting one who supports abortion as a Christian.

Mr. Tallman, Perhaps you should look to the Scriptures a little bit more before chiding fellow Christians. Yes, we are called to love God then love neighbor (regardless of Christian status) however we are also called to hold to the truth, proclaim the truth, and follow the truth.

Exodus 20:1-6 God spoke all these words:
"I, the Lord, am your God, who brought you from the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water below. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, responding to the transgression of fathers by dealing with children to the third and fourth generations of those who reject me, and showing covenant faithfulness to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Abortion supporters are no different than followers of Baal (aka pagan, idol worship) and we, as followers of the Messiah are not to fall into their idol worship.

Andrew Tallman
"And yet, God smiles. He rejoices. He dances. He sings."


Oh, how nice! A Sesame Street God.


Not when the Israelites offered their sons and daughters to Molech and not when a formerly Christian nation elevates the killing of the unborn to the level of a national pastime, with no more social sanction than an apendectomy.

God weeps and turns His back on such a nation.

Go back and re-read Jeremiah and while you're at it, get another pastor.


More Heat Than Light from that Flame
Followers of the Messiah think it's OK to own slaves, and that people who wear clothing made from two different materials or who eat cheeseburgers should be stoned, so if they happen to oppose abortion I don't think that confers on them any special wisdom or pull with the Lord. This is the problem you get when you accept someone who believes that our lives should be controlled by a collection of Middle Eastern folk myths.

The same words in our Constitution that some today interpret as demanding protection for the unborn used to be interpreted to mean that black people counted for 3/5ths of a white person, that slavery was OK, and that women couldn't vote or own property. Someday soon that same document will be interpreted to mean that gay people have the right to marry.

People will use whatever justification they can trump up to oppose or favor whatever they want. In the end, the problem with those who oppose abortion is that the rest of us sense that their opposition is a foil for something else, and it ruins their argument. It's not about abortion, its about control. It's not about protecting the unborn, it's about wanting to win and feel superior. If it was really about reducing abortions, you'd see contraception availability and education grow by leaps and bounds. But since they oppose that too, you can tell what the real agenda is. It gets cloaked in religion and morality in a wide range of ways, but that's false (and we see that even if you don't), so it doesn't sell.

Thankful to Christ
I am a Christian and before I became a Christian, I had an abortion. At the time I was unaware of my selfish, feminist ways - until Jesus set me straight. He didn't condemn me with with that sin, because he took away ALL my sins on the cross at Calvary. BUT, when we commit certain types of sins, they have consequences. Some sins have more dire consequences. You are right, the joy of the Lord is our strength. The Lord hates revenge and loves everyone the same. Having said that, to minimize the slaughter of 45 million people in a self-proclaimed "Christian nation" is simplistic at best and dangerous at the very least. I wish someone "Christian or otherwise" would have tried to stop me from making that terrible decision. But it is legal and very easy. The Christians who believe abortion is fine, are either not properly educated or in denial. The Bible says Christians must be salt and light, and when we lose that, our world starts to decay and become dark. Sounds like where we are today, doesn't it. So I don't think the church (myself included) has done enough to educate and implement the truth of the gospel in our lifetime. Jesus always told it like it is, but even He wasn't always happy. I urge anyone who reads this, to look up Gianna Jessen and her website. She is a 30 yr. old woman who survived her mother's botched abortion. The saline solution injected into her mom at 7 months pregnant left her with cerebral palsy. She is now living life to the fullest, but she bears the mark of attempted murder. And she has forgiven her mom. By the way, the Lord gave me another daughter, as He is more merciful than men.

So what do Americans want?

So what do most Americans including Christians want.

They don't want taxpayers paying or other people's abortions.

Liberals oppose this.

They don't want abortion on demand. They want reasonable restrictions on abortions.

Liberals oppose this.

They don't want postpartum abortions where a doctor sucks a babies brain out through a tube.

Liberals oppose this.

Liberals use smoke and mirrors and demogogue the issue by talking about womens rights, choice, freedom and a host of other BS reasons why this medical procedure should not be regulated as any other medical procedure is regulated.

good article
it's weird, libs want the protection of terrorists and call water boarding horrible, 'making us look bad and against what we believe in' yet partial birth abortion' jamming a scissors to open the skull and suck the brains out' is okay.

anyone care for a slice of hypocritical pie?

Why Is It?....
An illegal alien can have a baby in this country and that baby automatically becomes a US citizen with guaranteed rights and privileges under the Constitution. A baby born alive to an American citizen, in spite of an abortion procedure, is NOT guaranteed those same rights. Are we crazy?

More consideration and respect is given to the illegal alien's baby than to the baby of a US citizen born on American soil? I'm sure the Founding Fathers never imagined this in their wildest dreams.

he is right
Initially my reaction was the same outrage and then I read it again and realized that I agree. That said I forwarded it and risk people believing that I'm now 'light' on anti-abortion if they do not 'get it' too.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin."

A young, frightened girl or an older, jaded woman are both going to resist being called a murderess and it is not going to bring about any converts.

Christ did not condemn Mary Magdalene who theoretically could have dispensed with a few babies herself. Christ counseled with love, one of the only exceptions being when he was angry and lashed out at the merchants selling their wares in His Father's synagogue.

Mother Theresa assuredly wept at abortion and at birth control. Both Pope John Paul II and Benedict did/do as well and yet in their VEHEMENT opposition to abortion you do not find in them the ringing denunciations and strident condemnations that some of hte pro-life activists choose as their methods.

Ultimately God wants all to be brought back to him, both unborn babies AND those who abort. If we save the babies and ultimately alienate the parents away from belief it is as tragic.

Andrew gets that this is not an easy road. Every day, every story we read incites rage and despair and yet that is why we are called to pray, so that the Serenity Prayer of St. Francis can be enacted in our hearts and souls.

Jeannie - continuing on he is right
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change (those babies lost)
The courage to change the things I can (everyone we meet we can POSSIBLY change if we allow God to channel through us using peace and love - of the mature and reasoned variety, not the hippie variety of 'free love')
And the wisdom to know the difference (choose your opponent, people. As old fashioned as it is to remind you, God won the war, our battle here on earth is with "Scratch", "Beezlebub" and "Lucifer" (is this really any more outlandish than New Age or paganism or the province that man contains all power within him?). Evil has always had the traits of charisma, false kindness and fawning admiration. A screaming pro-life advocate will get nowhere. Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul II knew that. They never pulled their punches about how they felt, however they only offered the 'why' in such a way that a person was drawn to listen since it was evident that THEIR soul was as important to Mother THeresa and Pope John Paul II as that of the unborn babies.

We live in fast food, instant gratification, superficiality and the thinnest skins imaginable. It is too easy to react to this article and hear 'condescension' or weakness. In fact it's a courageous reminder by an author who no doubt knows full well that most will not 'get' the true humility of intent.

our abortion rate
Is much higher than in countries like France, Belguim and the Netherlands. Yet, these countries are often considered "liberal" or "leftists." There are some people in the pro-life movement who are taking advantage of American stupidity -- they profit from the horrible number of abortions in this country. These same people want to restrict the "morning after pill" but they are not in favor or making the birth control pill (which is essentially the same thing) illegal. Have you heard of any great movement to save the extra embryos from destruction that are created during the process of infertility treatment? An abortion after 6 weeks is barbaric -- the failure of a zygote to implant in the womb is not the same thing.

Jesus says
Our actions are very important. In fact, Jesus states our failure to act may condemn us. Matthew 25:31-46.

Jesus is asked by a lawyer what is to be done to inherit eternal life. Jesus says that a Samaritan can inheret eternal life. Luke 10: 25. Many Christians are unaware that Samaritans, while being an ethnicity, are also a religion. It is a similar religion to Judiasm -- but it has significant differences too. There are a few thousand Samaritans left.

How would a Samaritan (who by his very nature does not recognize Jesus as the messiah) inherit eternal life? Is Jesus wrong here?

While Paul certainly discusses faith, Jesus spoke of actions.

Shame and forgiveness.
I don't believe I am capable of winning souls. Only God can work that miracle. I don't believe that telling the truth is ever against God's will.

Sin covers this world like a thick layer of mud. Joy comes from our undeserved salvation from this mud even if our very nature still longs to wallow in it.

I don't know any Christians that believe if abortion ends today that suddenly tulips and daffodils will bloom. I do know that The Nazi Concentration Camps needed to be denounced and Christians should have been brave enough to denounce them even if it meant being thrown in themselves. I know that anyone calling themselves a Christian would not have supported them.

Any church that did not take a stand against abortion before this election day should be filled with shame and pray for forgiveness.

If the church does not take a stand our sons and daughter will not know the difference between right and wrong and will not know what value a human life has.

Lastly I don't remember Paul being nice. He told the Truth and the Truth is love.

FeargalX
You cannot use a parable in that way.

Jesus said I am the Way the Truth and the Life no man comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

James tells us Chapter 1 verse 22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

Joycey
Aside from your circular reasoning, why not? From Jesus there is a passage which says unless you eat of the flesh and drink of the blood of Jesus you will not be saved. John 6:53.

So, what Jesus says has no authority? The passage you cite is not as clear as when Jesus is asked what do you need to do to gain eternal life. Nor is it as clear as when Jesus says that those who do not treat others well will be rejected.

So, you obtain eternal life "through Jesus" -- that is pretty vague. Saying that you will not be saved if you do not treat others well, saying that a Samaritan who treats others well can be saved and pushing a very strong case for transubtantiation are at least sort of straightfoward.

Many purported Christains act the same way the Supreme Court acted in Roe v. Wade -- the claim to divine very detailed specifics has to what salvation entails from pretty vague passages in the bible. At the same time, parables with some specificity do not matter. So, should Jesus have said when he was asked about having eternal life "Of course, a Samaritan could never be saved since he does not accept me as the Messiah, but if someone who was ethnically a Samaritan converted to Christianity, and he made sure that he aided those in need, he will obtain eternal life."

Mr. Tallman is right
about one thing--our relationship with Christ is paramount and our salvation is not from government whether that government is righteous or wicked. However, as believers we are called to hate what is evil. Psalms 97:10:
"Ye that love the LORD, hate evil..." Proverbs 8:13: "The fear of the LORD is to hate evil..."

Someone wrote:
"Unborn children are not granted this freedom and thus the law does not step in to protect them. They can be killed all the way up to birth.

Look at it this way. If you were walking down an alley and found a dead newborn baby in a dumpster, the police would come to investigate the murder. That baby might get some justice. However if the baby was a partial birth (same size, same age) abortion, no justice for the baby. The doctor can legally kill him at the request of his parents."

Okay, so let's say abortion is illegal in all stages of pregnancy and a woman is able to obtain a dangerous illegal abortion by a non-medical professional, and somehow she is found out and turned into authorities for obtaining an abortion.

What do you think the punishment for the woman should be? Serious jail time or what?

Jennie wrote:
"I am a Christian and before I became a Christian, I had an abortion. At the time I was unaware of my selfish, feminist ways - until Jesus set me straight. He didn't condemn me with with that sin, because he took away ALL my sins on the cross at Calvary."

Your hypocritical, pompous and self-righteous attitude is stunning and I am embarrassed for you.

How convenient that you had an abortion and then were magically “born again” or “saved” or whatever BS you tell yourself, and viola, your “sins” have been washed away! And now, your morally superior smarmy, holier than thou attitude you want to restrict other women from the very reproductive freedom that you at one time enjoyed. Pathetic.

Billy wrote this:
"Liberals use smoke and mirrors and demogogue the issue by talking about womens rights, choice, freedom and a host of other BS reasons why this medical procedure should not be regulated as any other medical procedure is regulated."

What?
Abortion is an extremely regulated procedure.


Chuck wrote this:
Go and learn what it means to be "self-righteous" and then come back and tell us how humble and genuine you are and why we should take anything you say seriously.

I could give a crap whether you take what I say seriously, Chuck.

And I do know that the commenter's on townhall are a small majority of people who are scared, ill-informed and dogmatic and that nothing I say will change your opinion-so posting here to irritate you is just fun for me.

Listen Tallman: Arrogant liar(1)
Insipid “moderates” now are trying to play “theologians.” Andrew Tallman needs to go back to his Sunday school and learn the basics about salvation and will of God. He said:

“God loves abortionists. God loves women who abort. And God loves pro-choice politicians. And God even loves pro-choice Christians ….”

Jesus said, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

However, abortion is evil and Jesus said in the same passage:
“Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.”(John 3:21)

He may love sinners, but it does not change the fact that evil doers love darkness instead of the light: “Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19)

“How dare we hate whom God loves?”
False argument. Pro-lifers do not hate advocates of killing unborn babies. Pro lifers defend the life of the unborn because it is a moral imperative based on the biblical teaching to choose life instead of death: “This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live” (Deut. 30:19)

“And how dare we put our own judgment above His by allowing this particular issue to acquire more importance than the real Love of your life.”

Another false argument. Tallman is basically saying that defending the life of the unborn is not important. Why? Because Tallman has a deficit understanding of the will of God.

“Maybe you think that you are saved in part by Christ and in part by your own righteousness.”

Straw man argument. The defense of the unborn is an ethical and moral position based on the Christian teaching of life.

Listen Tallman: Arrogant liar(2)
“The real problem is not in how much better than them we are. The real problem is not recognizing that, in and of ourselves, we are not better than them.”

Wrong. The real problem is that unborn babies are being killed and people like you are trying to convince pro-lifers that there is not moral difference between supporting the killing of the unborn and defending the unborn its right to life.

“Until we realize that we are absolutely no better than anyone”
Another straw man argument. The truth is that those who defend the life of the unborn know that God does not approve the indiscriminately killing of the unborn, no matter how legal it is.

“First, you will have alienated from Christ anyone who encounters your wrath”.

The bible says that the one who causes alienation is Satan, the devil: “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2 Cor. 4:4). Tallman is wrong.

“And second, you will have failed to heal the alienation from Christ in you which is the only malignancy that can produce such wrath.”

The bible says that it is Christ who heals the alienation and nothing will separate us from the love of Christ: “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death…Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.” (Romans 8:1,2-33,34).

Tallman is an arrogant liar.


Abortion
I got to see my baby when I was eleven weeks pregnant. The doctor said "she" (yes they told me she was a girl) was approximately three inches long. She was in her own right a perfect little human being. She was beautiful. No one could ever tell me my rights came before hers. It's time for change.(Obama fans) Take responsibility for your body. Don't get pregnant if you don't want to carry the child. There are all kinds of ways to prevent pregnancy. We don't kill a child after it's born because it is murder. It's a no brainer. Killing a child before it is born is murder. And to the person that said women die giving birth, women die having "legal" abortions. Also sometimes the "abortion" lives. Try telling the live abortion "mom" has a right to her own body.

Abortion is not a "mother's" right. It is the murder of innocent child. Abortion is the abuse of a women's womb.

Abortion is hiddeous and evil.
It will never be stopped with laws.
I am pro-life and pro-choice. It is not a conflict.
For those of us who see the baby in the womb as a human being, the very thought of abortion is repulsive. But our society has been lying to us for 40 years and the girls and women who are likely to get pregnant and seek an abortion believe the lie. To them, those who want abortion to be illegal are infringing on their rights.
The battle should be taken out of the legislatures and the courts and taken where it will have a chance of winning, the streets. Those who believe the lie need to hear the Truth delivered with Love. It is the only way to defeat the evil which is abortion.

s
"I could give a crap whether you take what I say seriously, Chuck.

And I do know that the commenter's on townhall are a small majority of people who are scared, ill-informed and dogmatic and that nothing I say will change your opinion-so posting here to irritate you is just fun for me."

Do you knock the canes out from under crippled men, too, and push old ladies into the street just for "fun"?

Maybe there's a sign in your front yard calling by name your neighbor a Papist. Or you park your car precisely between two driveways so that there are two unusable half spaces left. It's your constitutional right, you know. I am glad not to be a member of your family or to even know you.

What a stunning revelation of a depraved individual! You could look up the Hebrew word "luwts" - no, never mind - if you are one, it wouldn't help.

Manuel
I have reread the article and your responses several times, and think that you are incorrect and too harsh.

Also, your use of the word "liar" is quite inappropriate here just to describe a difference of opinion. One can say that a statement is false without resorting to personal attacks agaist the speaker. You need to look up how Paul says to treat a brother with whom you have a disagreement, and read Matthew's perscriptions also.

If I get the time, I might respond point by point.

In Christ,

Rich

Manuel - Point One
I see no theological differences between Tallman (AT) and you.

First, AT is not arrogant in his post, as he puts himself at the same level as other sinners. He speaks in several paragraphs about the need for humility and NOT having a save-the-world attitude to sin. You are in error to interpret that as being "moderate".

Second, you seem to agree that God loves sinners, although it's not clear from either AT's article or your response whether he loves ALL sinners. Remember Esau? (Mal. 1:3, Rom. 9:13) But, so what? That is not relevant to the argument that either of you are making.

I qoute you both:

AT: “How dare we hate whom God loves?”
M: False argument. Pro-lifers do not hate advocates of killing unborn babies.

In the context of the article, AT is warning against a hatred that would consume us. Therefore, it appears that YOU are the one making a non sequitur here. AT doesn't say that all or even most of us hate, or are acting out of it.

$
"Okay, so let's say abortion is illegal in all stages of pregnancy and a woman is able to obtain a dangerous illegal abortion by a non-medical professional, and somehow she is found out and turned into authorities for obtaining an abortion.

What do you think the punishment for the woman should be? Serious jail time or what?"
-------------------
I am the one who made the dead baby in the alley comment.

The punishement should fit the crime of preplanned murder. Likely though if evidence was apparent to send her to trial, many will simply plead guilty by reason of insanity; like many of the mothers who drown their children in a bathtub after birth. She might get off fairly quickly.

Let me present the dead alley baby another way. A partial birth abortion baby is a full living person that happened to be snuffed just seconds before being born. Doctors have to be very careful not to accidently let the baby complete the birth before aborting him/her.

What happens though, if the baby accidently slips all the way out before they had the chance to shove in the scissors? Does he give the nurse a funny look and do the deed, not telling anyone that the baby actually was birthed? Do you think this is now murder and if so, what should the punishment be?

What if somebody made a mistake in the disposal part and that dead baby did actually end up in the trash in the back alley and someone found him? Do police come and investigate it as a murder? There is a body with severe head trama after all. They do not know it was an abortion.

Once they discover through autopsy that the baby was indeed an abortion, what if they somehow conclude that the baby was fully birthed when the abortion was performed? Do you think they can legally go after the Doctor for murder?

Manuel - Point Two
AT: “And how dare we put our own judgment above His by allowing this particular issue to acquire more importance than the real Love of your life.”

M: Another false argument. Tallman is basically saying that defending the life of the unborn is not important.

AT is saying that our focus should be on our devotion to God and not on our works. The works are secondary. What's wrong with that? We are human beings, not human doings. You are off base with you claim that AT thinks it unimportant to defend ALL life. Again, he is cautioning us not to make it end in itself.

"Why? Because Tallman has a deficit understanding of the will of God."

Well, you provide an accusation without a substantive argument. If it is God's will that the lives of the unborn be preserved, and God is omnipotent, then why are they not? What do you mean by His will, and how do you know it?

Manuel - Point Three
AT: “Maybe you think that you are saved in part by Christ and in part by your own righteousness.”

M: Straw man argument. The defense of the unborn is an ethical and moral position based on the Christian teaching of life.

Here you a guilty of another non sequitur. Many Christian DO (incorrectly) think that they are saved by works. What is wrong with AT's warning?

Your response implies that AT does not agree that defense of the unborn is "ethical and moral". Where does he state that?

Manuel - Point Four
AT: “The real problem is not in how much better than them we are. The real problem is not recognizing that, in and of ourselves, we are not better than them.”

M: Wrong.

No, RIGHT! We are NOT better than anyone else - all have sinned and fallen short, and the wages of ANY sin is death. Think about this.

M: The real problem is that unborn babies are being killed..."

Wrong again, and another non sequitur. That is an ADDITIONAL problem. In AT's context, he is talking about a subgroup who say, “But I’ve never done anything so awful as those people ...”

Can't you see the topic of that whole paragraph?

M: "...and people like you are trying to convince pro-lifers that there is not moral difference between supporting the killing of the unborn and defending the unborn its right to life."

Now, that is just too silly to respond to!

s

Let's review, shall we?:

You come into the thread and your contribution is a personal attack on a member who has made a difficult decision, then later regrets it and finds peace and solace in being able to forgive herself because of God's forgiveneness freely extended to her...

but you just KNOW "that the commenter's on townhall are a small majority of people who are scared, ill-informed and dogmatic and that nothing I say will change your opinion-so posting here to irritate you is just fun for me"

And SHE's self-righteous?!

On the Murder of Born Babies
One thing that troubles me about the anti-abortion people is their simplistic belief that if only a baby can be brought to term and get born, he or she will then live happily ever after. My newspaper, I promise at least once a week, informs me that a baby or toddler has been killed by its mother, father, or (I think most often) mother's boyfriend. Why? Usual reason given is the adult was frustrated and angered by the infant's crying or the toddler's wetting or soiling or "No!". A reasonable person could argue that many of these people have no business being parents in the first place. Many do not live any aspect of their lives in a responsible way, so their sexual behavior is no different---they CANNOT be stopped from having sex and it's unrealistic to say they can be persuaded not to do so. But conservatives fight tooth and nail to withhold contraception---just yesterday I read about a nurse in New Mexico who habitually removes patients' IUDs "by accident" then counsels them against IUDs, which she tells them are abortifacient. And the fight goes on to withhold emergency contraception and even the sale of condoms as "a matter of conscience". Conservatives do not want sex education or readily available contraception, so pregnancy ensues, then abortion is not available either, so a lot of irresponsible and truly awful people are having unwanted babies. And conservatives do not wish to fund the social programs that might educate and support inadequate parents. While anti-abortion people hate abortion, please let me put in a word for hating beating a baby to death, or throwing him against the wall, or punching her in the stomach, or stomping him to death, or scalding her in the bathtub, or drowning him in a bucket, or just disposing of very tiny him in a plastic bag in the dumpster.

lily
Do you think it's a coincidence that prior to the 60's when, in most states, abortion was illegal, there were less incidents of these social pathologies?

You really think that their increase is because conservatives oppose abortion on moral grounds and that if we simply kept our opinions to ourselves they would decrease?

no thanks
You don't need to remind us about what our priority should be. It is very pretentious of you to think that having a pro-life stance means compromising or forgetting about our prime directive.

We all put up a good fight in the last election and in the 36 previous years to rid our nation of that abomination. Evil has won and is victorious so let's quit and put our money and efforts entirely in our prime directive. Obama is not a Christian and anybody, after confronted with the truth of abortion yet does not embrace life, that "Christian" too is NOT a Christian but a wolf. Let God judge them and give them their justice upon their death.

lilly
states: While anti-abortion people hate abortion, please let me put in a word for hating beating a baby to death, or throwing him against the wall, or punching her in the stomach, or stomping him to death, or scalding her in the bathtub, or drowning him in a bucket, or just disposing of very tiny him in a plastic bag in the dumpster.

Let me just remind you that anti-life people do all those things to the baby without even believing it's a baby. You're being too simplistic. And you're also speaking in a totally oh so modern, morally relativistic manner. Babies are babies--no matter what size they are. You also sound like one.

Lilly
By your "logic" we should abort all babies because, after they are born, they could possibly be beaten, or raped, or shot, or get cancer, or have any number of horrible things happen to them. Let's just play it safe and kill them in utero so they never have to endure any hardships outside the womb.

Go to Catholicvote.org and view the great ad they've put together showing a baby in the womb whose father will abandon him, whose single mother will struggle to raise him, etc. and who is now our first "African American" (not really) President. It's very powerful.

One more thing...
Why is it that the so-called President's wife had her 2 kids? Why did she allow herself to be punished in such a way? In his speech on Tuesday, Hussein implied that women who have children are burdened and hampered by them and have difficulty advancing in their careers, etc. Seems to me that Michelle had no problem getting a six-figure salary even though she was burdened and hampered by her children. I really feel for those girls. Talk about child abuse...

A Question
I would like to hear your answers to one question. If abortion was illegal, what should happen to the women that have illegal abortions?

MikeH
They should be forgiven, but the doctors ahould be prosecuted.

Try to keep in mind that the issue with us Christian pro-lifers isn't legality; it's morality.

Mike H
A question:
If murder was illegal, what should happen to the people who pay for illegal murders?

Answer: Prosecute them just like the one who pulls the trigger or dismembers the living baby or drills a hole in its head and sucks its brains out.

I see no reason why murder for hire should be treated any differently when it's mothers who are doing the hiring.

Matthew
Let's not forget that it's usually the fathers, boyfriends and husbands who do the "hiring" for the "hit" on the babies.

Chuck
"They should be forgiven, but the doctors ahould be prosecuted."

Can you think any other law where, if broken, all parties involved are not punished?

"Try to keep in mind that the issue with us Christian pro-lifers isn't legality; it's morality."

For me, as a "pro-choicer", its the same. Mind mind is certainly not set that abortion is moral. I would like to see the number of abortions in this country drop to zero. But the question I posed is one that has to be answered if we were to make abortion illegal, and, to be honest, I don't think that your answer is sufficient.

Take a look at this and tell me who, had the abortion happened, should be punished (the man? his wife? the doctor?) and what the punishment should be.

http://disgustedbeyondbelief.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-views- on-abortion.html

Confronting apostacy
"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock." Acts 20:29

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;" 1 Timothy 4:1-2

Paul understood that there would be people, both in and out of the faith, who would lead away many. It is imperitive that we call out blatant heresies when they are being taught as acceptable. Yes, we must do so with love and not ill-will, but we must still do it.

Christ loved us more than anyone else possibly can, but this did not stop him from cleansing the temple of the moneychangers. As those who follow His example, we are required to stand for truth above being liked or accepted.

If somebody is teaching a doctrine that is obviously contrary to any teaching of the Bible (such as abortion or same-sex marriage) we are REQUIRED to lovingly reprove them, so that they may learn the errors of their way and reconcile themselves with God.

This has two purposes. 1- It gives them a chance to correct the errors of their faith so that they may be one with God's revealed teachings. 2- It prevents other unsuspecting people from following after a way of life which will lead them away from God.

If we turn our backs on what God has revealed to us, we turn our backs on Him. He does not force his saving grace upon any of us. When we reject His commandments and guidance, we reject His grace as well. (No matter how many "I accept Jesus and am now saved" cards you may have signed at a revival, He wants your whole heart, not just lip service)

False to Life
You say "Let's not forget that it's usually the fathers, boyfriends and husbands who do the "hiring" for the "hit" on the babies."

It never ceases to amaze me what people will say when they have no idea what they're talking about.

Truetolife
"Let's not forget that it's usually the fathers, boyfriends and husbands who do the "hiring" for the "hit" on the babies."

I agree. And if abortion was illegal, such people should be prosecuted as well. All members of a criminal conspiracy are equally guilty.

MikeH
Well, if you recognize its immorality then raising the issue of what happens to the women is a red herring.

The problem of prosecuting them or not prosecuting them, and anyone else in the decision making process, is not a good enough reason to make it legal and easily accessible.

That simply exacerbates the problem. We now have over 45 million aborted babies since Roe v. Wade in this country alone. You think that's BETTER than possibly prosecuting those women who would still attempt to do it if it were outlawed?

Chuck
"Well, if you recognize its immorality then raising the issue of what happens to the women is a red herring."

Not at all. If something is made illegal, then there has to be punishment for violating the law. It is entirely appropriate to ask what the punishment should be if it were to be made illegal.

And just because something is immoral does not necessarily mean that it should be illegal.

Let me state, too, that the moral problems for me arise with the viability of the fetus. Most of those 45 million "babies" had never reached the point of viability. But even then, as you can see if you read the testimonial that I linked, who should make the decision concerning whether or not to abort the pregnancy. The mother? The doctor? the father? The *gasp* government? How many Townhall columns and comments have there been decrying the evils of government and saying that "government is the source of all the problems" and wanting "government out of our lives?" Yet, on this issue "conservatives" fall all over themselves to get the government involved in what is a very personal matter.

Mike H
The problem with your argument is that it is not a personal matter. When a woman has an abortion, she is killing a child. Abortion is no more personal than killing a todler.

As for the government's involvement, protecting lives and property is one of the few areas where conservatives do see a role for government. Conservatives don't want anarchy. We don't say that prosecuting burglars and rapists is an unnecessary intrusion on our personal freedom. Protecting life should be an agreed upon acceptable role for our government.

Morality vs. Legality
Chuck,

I have to take real exception to your idea that asking about the punishment is a red herring. To the contrary, it is the real nuts and bolts of this issue. I don't think that it would take anyone of us long to put together a list of things that are immoral and legal or illegal but not immoral. There may be some connection to morality and legality, but one certainly does not necessitate the other.

As for abortion, the argument for its illegality and the argument for its immorality are not one and the same.

proclamation
obama announced yesterday, come one, come all. git yo abortion right hear-uh. free abortions fo everyone. shout it from the roof tops. his daughters will not be burdened with a pregnacy. so say i, obama, god of all things

Pious Hypocrites?

It's a new administration, maybe pro-life Chritianity will actually be forced to address the question of when Humanity begins, instead of putting words in God's mouth.

How can any reasonable person believe that a newly-fertilized human egg cell is a human being, just like you reading this, when well over half such embryo's do not implant and are thrown away in the trash or flushed down the toilet like any other bit of menstrual tissue? Is it not the height of hypocrisy to do this while simultaneously demanding that a woman seeking an abortion cannot choose to do likewise?

With the sole exception of when we use the Abortion issue as a messianic rallying point for conservative political causes, do we not obviously live our lives, and conduct all of our dealings with the unbon, according to the philosophy that their humanity is a gradually increasing thing that comes to full fruition at or shortly before birth?

Should a woman's pregnancy last long enough to be noticed as a pregnancy, and then end prematurely in miscarriage, do we act the same way as we do when (God forbid) a little baby or a young child tragically dies? Do we always have funerals, do we always have graves? OTOH, does not the sadness that we DO feel increase according to how far along the pregnancy was?

At the far end of pregnancy, the passage from inside to outside the womb does not make a newborn baby the human being he/she obviously is, so he/she must have been just as human inside the womb. There must be an interval during which it would be murder to pull the unborn embryo from the mother's womb and allow it to die.

Is it not obvious that on the one hand, it's nobody's business but the woman's in question should she choose to take the morning-after pill or have a D&C a few weeks after last making love, while on the other hand it'd be murder to have an Abortion while in Labor or at the end of term?

Matthew
"Protecting life should be an agreed upon acceptable role for our government."

Agreed. But what happens and who makes the decision when the decision to be made concerns the life of the mother or the life of the child?

A house on sand
MikeH

"For me, as a "pro-choicer", its the same. Mind mind is certainly not set that abortion is moral. I would like to see the number of abortions in this country drop to zero."

Well, why? I've heard this sentiment from pro-choicers or none-of-my-business folks before. I think that it's a cop-out to say you haven't decided on the morality of the issue. If it isn't a moral issue to you, then on what basis are you for a reduction in the number? If it is a moral issue, then what is your moral standard?

Rich D.
"If it isn't a moral issue to you, then on what basis are you for a reduction in the number?"

I don't have to think something is immoral to want to reduce the number of it. I don't think root canals are immoral, but I would like to see less people have to have them.

Mike H. - that's no answer
Why do you want to see fewer root canals? Just a whim? Feeling? No reason? Why should we care about your feelings or whims, and what is the point of expressing them?

You are dodging the issue because you know that you are on sand.

Rich D.
"Why do you want to see fewer root canals? Just a whim? Feeling? No reason?"

They're costly both in time and money. They have to be done because of teeth that are decayed and infected and I wouldn't want someone to have that problem. They're painful. People don't seek out root canals; they have them only when they have to have them. Since people don't want them, I would like to see the number of root canals diminish.

"Why should we care about your feelings or whims, and what is the point of expressing them?"

Why should we care about yours?

"You are dodging the issue because you know that you are on sand."

I'm not dodging anything. You seemed to claim that I could not be in favor of reducing something unless I was morally opposed to it. If you had thought for a few minutes before writing that question you yourself should have seen that one doesn't have to be related to the other.

Rich D
If a majority of Americans wanted there to be fewer root canals, it wouldn't matter why they wanted it, you'd see fewer root canals. A majority of Americans want abortion to be available under certain circumstances, and so it is.

If people who "claimed" to want there to be fewer root canals knew that you could reduce the number by promoting better dental health overall but they worked to prevent that, you'd know that they were lying about really wanting fewer root canals. That's how we know that people who claim to want fewer abortions really want something else--because they fight to prevent those things that could reduce the number of abortions. It's about control, not about the unborn, and we know that's what it's about for you, even if you don't know it or won't admit it. It would be easier for you to get what you say you want if that's what you really wanted. As long as what it's really about is control over others, then you're not going to get what you say you want.

Sorry MikeH
but Rich D has got you on this one. You can't wish abortions to be zero without a standard to back up that statement. It would be like saying I wish there was no starvation in the world and also by the way, no root canals too. This isn't a beauty pagent question in which you can throw in some vague statement without backing it up with a genuine standard.


western bandbeam
"Sorry MikeH but Rich D has got you on this one. You can't wish abortions to be zero without a standard to back up that statement."

It should be obvious that I certainly can. I wish the number of obese people wearing short shorts with words written across the butt would drop to zero. I wish the number of Dave Matthews concerts would drop to zero as well. (I think I have standards to back up those statements, but they don't seem to be universally shared.)

I only need to elucidate my standards, in this case of abortion, when I'm making an argument for governmental policy or societal behavior. I haven't done that, yet.

Besides, when I first made that statement in this thread it was to establish some common ground with Chuck so that we could have a meaningful debate. If we did things your way, people have to go through and explain everything they agree on in a debate. If so, debates would last for months. Much longer than a typical beauty pageant answer.

Now let us lovingly
talk about how the United States is going to promote the death of millions of premature babies all over the world. Babies whom God loves. Babies created in His image. How are we believers to be obedient, to be salt in this situation? NICENESS? Are we called to NICENESS?
CAlled to be wimps? CAlled to sit on the sidelines and watch?

Niceness is not love.
Lovingkindness involves reality and truth. God had the Israelites roam the dessert with great discomfort for 40 years. This was a punishment for unbelief. It was loving because He kept His promises and at the same time disciplined His people but it was not nice.

MikeH
"As for abortion, the argument for its illegality and the argument for its immorality are not one and the same."

That is exactly my point.

Your question regarding the punishment meeted out reduces the issue to one of legality alone and as long as you attempt to frame the issue in those terms alone, the morality aspect gets short shrift.

The law, unfortunately, is one way in which a nation signals to its progeny what is moral and what is not. It is for this reason alone that we oppose Roe v. Wade.

MikeH
Well, check that. It is the MAJOR reason. The others are that it is bad law and that it was decided on the basis of untruth.

new stats.
At a prayer meeting yesterday, we were told some new racial statistics.
For many years, the negro population of America has hovered around 15%. Today, because of abortion, it is 11%.

Laura Led Astray
Laura says "At a prayer meeting yesterday, we were told some new racial statistics.
For many years, the negro population of America has hovered around 15%. Today, because of abortion, it is 11%."

Prayer meetings may be great to build/renew faith, but decisions about public policy work better with facts. Whoever told you that lie about the percentage of African-Americans in the population was more interested in pushing an agenda than giving you the truth--and won't the truth set you free? If so, you're a praying slave.

From the 2000 Census: "African Americans comprise the United States' largest racial minority, accounting for 12.1 percent of the total population in 2000." That is the same percentage as in 1990, and slightly higher than the 11.7% in 1980. The 12.1% figure is the highest ever in US history.

Definition of terms in order here...
There's nothing wrong with "choice", in and of itself. The question here is when?

Is it the time for "choice" when pregnancy is discovered?

Or when the new life is conceived?

The woman --the mother-- made her choice when she got horizontal with her sexual partner.

"Choice" stops there. Beyond that, it's consequences. Why does the baby have to pay (with his/her life) for mother's bad choices?

Pastor Luke Robinson...
...a black pastor, called on his 'brother' Obama yesterday at the March for Life to end the genocide perpetrated against his fellow black brethren by the atrocity of abortion. He said it is the number one killer of blacks in this country. You would think Obama would want to keep his own peeps alive, but not so, eh?

IN Catholic High School
We were shown actual footage of an abortion.
At that point I knew abortion was murder.
The elite were trying to tell us at this time that fetuses were just masses of cells.
Anyway years later I had a crisis pregnancy and I knew immediately that my son was a human being created in God's image.
He came at an inconvenient time for our marriage but he came and was a blessing nonthe less.

So I guess it wasn't nice of The School to show me such a disturbing film but it was loving. The Truth is Good.

Bruce
Maybe so, but it remains a fact that the highest percentage of abortions occur in the black community. I also believe the highest rate of HIV infections do as well. Couple that with the increase in black on black homicides and single parent households with their attendant social pathologies and you've got less than a winning combination.

Would have been better for a black baby in 1950's America than 2009's.

Roe v Wade
Roe v Wade should not be overturned, but instead it should be amended.

There are certain instances where abortion should be an option; In the cases of:
1)rape
2)incest
3)molestation
4)If the pregnancy could be detrimental to the Mothers health

Abortion Should NOT be used as Birth Control. That is what condoms, diaphragms, and the pill is for. If an unwanted pregnancy happens Adoption is better than Abortion.


Chuck
Based on the attitudes and perspectives of most of those who post on Townhall, which were more widespread in the 1950's than in 2009, it would most certainly not have been better for a black child to be born in the 1950s than 2009.


In the cases of...
rape, incest, molestation, and danger to a mother's health (who makes this decision, anyway?), an abortion would still be the taking of an innocent human life. Two wrongs don't make a right. Talk to a mother who was raped, got pregnant, and gave birth to the child. I've talked to many and they all love their children despite what happened to them.

Jennifer
That is where choice would come in...I do not like abortion i think it is wrong...But in cases that i mentioned i feel are the only legit reasons for abortion.

I would prefer adoption to abortion...My wife and I have been unable to conceive a child and have been trying for 14 years. But that does not change my stance.

as far as who would make the decision would be
the rape kit collected when the rape is reported, Incest and molestation would need to be proven, and as far as the mothers health, the personal Physician of the mother would let her know if the pregnancy posed a risk to the her.

I'm just saying...
that YOU are saying it's OK to take an innocent life in certain circumstances. Are you really OK with that? A life is a life is a life...

MikeH
Well certainly you are free to make the statement without backing it up with a standard, but in doing so, you are standing in sand.

If a beauty pagent contestant simply stated in her answer to the abortion question....

"As a "pro-choicer" my mind is certainly not set that abortion is moral. I would like to see the number of abortions in this country drop to zero."

....wouldn't you take that answer as somewhat...I don't know....maybe unsubstantial as a response to abortion.

It's like answering the question with two mouths. Your mind says abortion might or might not be moral, but your conscience is screaming "ITS IMMORAL" and you don't know how to answer it. So you convince yourself that by wishing the number to be zero while at the same time calling yourself pro choice, you have determined this to be the best spot on the sandy beach to be standing.

Birth Control
Charles, you list those instances in which you would allow a woman to use abortion as birth control--instances in which you think she shouldn't be forced to deliver.

So, it's OK to use abortion as birth control, but only in the instances you decide are OK.

So, you're saying it's not about morality, it's about control. You're OK with using abortion as birth control as long as you can control when/what a woman does with her life.

I can only speak for me and my wife, but we're not going to give you or anyone else that kind of power over our lives.

Jennifer
Yes i believe abortion is ok in the instances i mentioned.

Bruce: I do not have any power over anyone. In the end it is the choice of the Mother. all i am saying is oops i had unprotected sex and now i am pregnant is NOT a reason for an abortion. The cases in which i think it is ok in the first three a pregnancy that was forced through criminal activities upon the woman, in the last could save a life...the life of the mother.

Bruce
Are you pro-choice?

Charles
Why do you ask?

Bruce
couldn't tell which side of the debate you are on, that is all. and if you are what side of the death penalty are you on for or against.

western bondbeam
I know trying to get me in some sort of "gotcha" contradiction, but its not going to work.

Abortion is either immoral or it is not.

If it is immoral, then people would certainly want to keep the number of abortions as low as possible.

If abortion not immoral, and its nothing more than medical procedure, we would still want the number of them to remain low as we would any medical procedure.

At no point am I compelled by my "pro-choice" stance to wish the number of abortions remain the same or increase.

(Even this is too simplistic. Abortion could be immoral in one scenario and moral in another.)

Now, why don't you offer up an argument as to why one must adopt the "pro-life" position of making abortion illegal as the only coherent stance if they want to reduce the number of abortions.

Charles
I believe in a variation of the line sometimes given about abortion--I believe they should be safe, legal, and that there should be fewer of them than there are now. I think there should be fewer because it's a medical procedure with some risks, and with proper and more consistent use of birth control you'd need fewer of those more dangerous and expensive medical procedures.

"Mike" the mope was giving "Rich" a senseless hard time about his wanting to reduce the number of root canals--it makes perfect sense to want to reduce the number of them--they are expensive and have dangers to the patient, and in some cases could be avoided with prior action. I wouldn't presume, however, to punish someone who hadn't brushed his teeth and now needed a root canal by denying it to him.

I'm in favor of the death penalty as long as we're more certain than we are now that the person we've sentenced to death hasn't been wrongly convicted. I think it's not too hard to do that--I don't envision some impossible standard--but we have to want to have a better record than we have. It's a little like the issue of birth control and abortion--if those who oppose abortion really wanted to reduce the number of them, they'd be in favor of better birth control instead of opposed to it.

Bruce
"Based on the attitudes and perspectives of most of those who post on Townhall, which were more widespread in the 1950's than in 2009, it would most certainly not have been better for a black child to be born in the 1950s than 2009."

Based on real world effects of Liberal social policies, I wouldn't worry about some words posted on a glorified internet chatroom, if I were a black person today.

HEY Andrew...

Do you think God is smiling at these NEW White House web-pages ?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/women/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/

It is folks like you Andrew, who smile all the way to the bank while calling on the Religious Right to avoid tipping over the money changer's tables or standing up to the forces of evil with something more than a smile.

Chuck
"Your question regarding the punishment meeted out reduces the issue to one of legality alone and as long as you attempt to frame the issue in those terms alone, the morality aspect gets short shrift."

I don't mean to reduce this debate to this one question, but it is an incredibly important question. There are many things for that we could wish would be illegal, but in the actuality of passing a law questions like this have to be answered.

We also have to think about how we would enforce such laws. Albert Einstein once said, "Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced."

If both the woman and her husband and her doctor are in agreement, how can any law preventing abortion hold any authority.

Bruce
I see that our views are not all that different, i would also like to see a decrease in abortions. Death penalty i fully support for the most heinous of crimes: Murder Rape Child Molestation and Treason. I do not want to see abortion made illegal, this would be the worst thing that could happen in this issue. Women seeking an illegal abortion would be forced into back ally unclean clinics. This i feel would cause more problems.

I just do not believe that an abortion is a viable option for an OOPS pregnancy...I feel adoption would be a better choice

It has been wonderful
chatting with you all. Hope you all have a safe and wonderful weekend.

time for me to go

MikeH
"If both the woman and her husband and her doctor are in agreement, how can any law preventing abortion hold any authority."

Mike, that is probably the main reason we hold Roe v. Wade in such contempt, because it opened Pandora's box and we can never get those problems set right again.

Don't you understand that? It is not the fault of the pro-lifers that there has now been more than 45 million abortions that have been performed since Roe, with all of the attendant emotional, psychic, and physical problems associated with them.

How many would not have been performed and how many would not be straddled with the consequences if that travesty had not been enacted?

Baby killing for convenience is murder

Anyone wishing to reduce the number of Abortions should support the showing of this new movie in every high-school sex-ed class in America.

22 weeks tells the the true story of a baby aborted alive in an Orlando, FL abortion mill in 2005.

Movie Trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaefcprW9Mg

information at: http://www.BornAliveTruth.org

Killing babies for convenience is murder and it matters not how many participants in these murders agree on doing it...

IT”S STILL MURDER and that should be a crime!

western bondbeam
You know it and I know it, but MikeH can't admit to it without disclosing that he is a moral relativist. You can tell from his dancing around the question that he is a summa kum laude graduate of the Authur Murray School of Debate.

Once they paint themselves into a logical corner, there's nothing further to say or do - let's just enjoy watching the paint dry.

Very insightfull article
The author is right. To hate someone is not of God. We can detest someone's policies, i.e. President Obama's dedication to abortion, but hating only hurts the hater. We should pray that God will heal him. And then leave the rest in God's hands.

George Bush is the most hated president ever in history. Those who hate him were unrelentless in their criticism. But he never let it bother him, and he never struck back. He didn't lose any sleep over it. He probably prayed for his detractors which is what enabled him to bear the criticism with such grace. If you'll notice even when the journalist threw both of his shoes at him, Bush still has a slight smile on his face. He did not respond in kind. Does that remind you of anyone?

Alcoholics Anonymous has a very simple yet profound motto, "Let go and let God." That is the message of Mr. Tallman's article.

Proclaim the Truth
Baby killers are baby killers no matter if they attach the term "Christian" to their names. They will not take the joy and peace that Jesus gives me, but they will not avoid my proclamation that abortion is murder. To do any less would be shirking my duty to God. It would also be the utmost of hypocrisy to know that babies are being murdered and yet keep quiet to keep the peace and avoid being spiritual discomfort into the lives of those guilty of aiding and abetting the murder.

The problem of law, Mike H
MikeH wrote:

'If both the woman and her husband and her doctor are in agreement, how can any law preventing abortion hold any authority.'

ME: Mike, this is good logical point of practicality. This is part of the argument for raising the interstate speed limit. If no one obeys the speed limit then the law is discredited, likewise federal taxation. If we ALL refused to pay our taxes, what could the IRS do?

So, I would say, practically speaking, pro-lifers are in minority position of advocating laws which the majority do not wish to obey, or at least do not wish to put in place so that everyone has to obey uncomfortable, morally and intellectually vexing (for some) laws.

to be cont...

The simple minds of "pro-lifers"
As summed up by Michael W.:
"IT”S STILL MURDER and that should be a crime!"

Wonderful!...Except murder isn't that simple. Should it be 1st degree murder? 2nd degree? 3rd? Some form of manslaughter?

Overturning Roe v. Wade does nothing but send these decisions back to the states. I have yet to hear any pro-lifer in this thread clearly spell out what law they would like to see written if Roe v. Wade were overturned.

Rich D.
"You know it and I know it, but MikeH can't admit to it without disclosing that he is a moral relativist."

I am probably much more of a moral absolutist than you, my friend.

"You can tell from his dancing around the question that he is a summa kum laude graduate of the Authur Murray School of Debate."

I don't even know what that means, but all that have a written today only demonstrates that I have read an introductory logic book at some point in my life. You might try it sometime. It will show you the real difference between a moral relativist and an absolutist.

Chuck wrote:
"Let's review, shall we?:

You come into the thread and your contribution is a personal attack on a member who has made a difficult decision, then later regrets it and finds peace and solace in being able to forgive herself because of God's forgiveneness freely extended to her...

but you just KNOW "that the commenter's on townhall are a small majority of people who are scared, ill-informed and dogmatic and that nothing I say will change your opinion-so posting here to irritate you is just fun for me"

And SHE's self-righteous?!"

Yes, Chuck you are correct. She is self-righteous.

Abortion and chattel slavery
Here's the situation for us pro-lifers. This is a question of utmost moral gravity --a matter of first importance. In the Declaration we take the unalienable rights to be in hierarchical and logical order.

The right to the pursuit of happiness (or right to property, as originally conceived) depends upon the right to liberty, which depends upon the right to life (of course).

Now, we cannot compromise on this matter. There is a moral "duty to rescue". This puts us --by historical analogy-- in the abolitionist position.

Likewise, the "pro choice" side of this question is (essentially) the slaveholder's position. The slaves were property with no rights and no protection in law, as the Dred Scott decision said.

The abolitionists were seen as extremist in their day. Impractical, and unrealistic. But, they had the moral imperative to not relent, even if the majority viewed their position as "not able to hold any authority".

Someone wrote:
"Do you knock the canes out from under crippled men, too, and push old ladies into the street just for "fun"? Maybe there's a sign in your front yard calling by name your neighbor a Papist. Or you park your car precisely between two driveways so that there are two unusable half spaces left. It's your constitutional right, you know. I am glad not to be a member of your family or to even know you.
What a stunning revelation of a depraved individual! You could look up the Hebrew word "luwts" - no, never mind - if you are one, it wouldn't help."

Yea, right, I am the depraved one. This group is ready to imprison women for abortion, and I am the "mean" one. And please keep up that fight. Because studies have revealed that Christian women have abortions in high numbers. So I am sure your mothers, daughters, sisters, wives and all the millions of women who have safe abortions every day while you no nothing about it, will gladly hear that you are ready to turn them in to authorities for imprisonment. Because make no mistake, if abortion is illegal across the board, women will still get abortions, only illegal, dangerous and unsanitary abortions. And that includes your mothers, wives, daughters, etc. Yet, that should not concern anyone here, because you are so morally superior and you have that fundamental disdain for women anyway.

And let me clear up that when I say that the commenters here are self-righteous, I mean that you are dogmatic, anti-democratic, aggressive, mean-spirited, moralistic, anti-equality, enemies of freedom and highly predjudiced ON TOP of being self-righteous. But any one can tell you those are the adjectives that describe contemporary right wing authoritarian conservative followers.

Don't get me wrong, as I said, you folks are only a small majority of people who have infiltrated the Republican party. They will get their party back without you.

Chuck wrote:
"Try to keep in mind that the issue with us Christian pro-lifers isn't legality; it's morality"

No one is asking you to compromise your morals; however, morals are not ground for law.

Pro puts Pro-Aborts in their Place

Way to go Pro... and for my name-sake
from hell (Mike H) and that S-chip
I would say this:

Take a look at the Trailer to the movie
22 weeks, in which a mother (who asked
for help) was denied 911 responders help
by the abortion mill. Go ahead watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaefcprW9Mg

NO QUESTION... 1st Degree Murder.
Now tell us about “Safe” and clean?

The Law is man's attempt to establish the
“Principles” of Decency. There is NOTHING
DECENT about an Abortion Mill.

Just ask the women who went through
this terrible ordeal, as opposed to some
egocentric LIBERAL twit like the S-chip.

information at: http://www.BornAliveTruth.org

saving the embryos
If a genocide is happening as a result of the creation of extra embryos due to fertility treatments, why is there not a massive movement to voluntarily save these "children" from death and destruction by adopting them and agreeing to implant them? My only conclusion is that people really do not believe this (or they simply are stupid). Similarly, why is there no movement to replace birth control pills with sugar pills so that implantation is not prevented? It might sound easy to simply say that humanity begins at the point of sperm and egg joining, does it not make more sense to conclude that you inherently need implantation and a heart beat? Some so-called prolifers would rather live in a dreamworld than reality. The reversal of Roe v. Wade would not end abortion. Many states had legal (birth control abortion) before Roe -- and if it were reversed they would continue to have legal abortion.

Facts are what they are. Our abortion rate is is very high -- much higher than Germany, Belgium, Finland or the Netherlands (but much lower than Cuba). Can we not learn something from countries with much lower abortion rates than the U.S. Many of you who post here would say "no" out of pure ignorance. How many of you are going to beg people who receive fertility treatment to donate their embryos to you? How many of you will conspire with doctors to save these embryos? How many of you will protest pharmacies that prescribe birth control pills?

Rich D
Paint drying indeed.

Mike H
Mike H "I know trying to get me in some sort of "gotcha" contradiction, but its not going to work."
-------------
I didn't try to get you into a contradiction. I merely pointed it out to you. You backed yourself into the corner not me. You did it again in this very post. See...

You stated the following..."Abortion is either immoral or it is not."

....and then a few sentences later this little gem appears...

"(Even this is too simplistic. Abortion could be immoral in one scenario and moral in another.)"

...hmmm? Can you say moral relativism?

Mike H
Mike H "If it is immoral, then people would certainly want to keep the number of abortions as low as possible.

If abortion not immoral, and its nothing more than medical procedure, we would still want the number of them to remain low as we would any medical procedure.

At no point am I compelled by my "pro-choice" stance to wish the number of abortions remain the same or increase"
-------------------
This is just more dancing. You present two scenarios here but refuse to choose either one. (As if anyone would ever really believe that they want abortions to be zero because they don't want people to go through an unnecessary medical procedure...thats a hoot...the flip side being of course that if they don't get the abortion, guess what? They have a baby and go through...you guessed it....a medical procedure that includes a side dish of pain and discomfort)

Mike H
Since we established the absurdity of the medical procedure scenario as being a legitimate excuse (as I said, if they don't have an abortion, logic tells us that they still go through a medical procedure called "giving birth". So this argument doesn't float or fly.) for lowering abortions to zero...unless you have something different to offer, I am guessing that the truth is you want abortions to be zero because your conscience tells you so. You don't have to be told murder is wrong, you just know it is. This is your conscience at work.



Mike H
"Now, why don't you offer up an argument as to why one must adopt the "pro-life" position of making abortion illegal as the only coherent stance if they want to reduce the number of abortions"
------------
I admit this is concern. I don't have a problem with pro-choicers who are legitimate in wanting to reduce abortions as we have the same goal.

I have been called names etc... from pro lifers for presenting the "free will" aspect of pregnancy. For me, this argument says that there is legitimate VALUE in having women CHOOSE to have their children. I'll use rape as an example of this. A woman who chooses to birth her child from a rape IS setting a very good example for the rest of us because she CHOSE to birth her child in bad circumstances. Under a FORCED birthing situation...she loses that. The child loses that knowledge that they were chosen. There is value in that.
The trick is training women to make right choices so that THEY reduce the number of abortions themselves.

Now we can help in a number of ways. We can stop shaming teenage pregnant girls with negative labels. We pass parental consent laws. We can put ultrasound machines in planned parenthoods. Parental training instead of TV training. Just a few off the top of my head.

I do not think overturning RVW is THE answer.


MikeH
"I am probably much more of a moral absolutist than you, my friend."

Not proven - you give no basis for any of your positions.

RD: "You can tell from his dancing around the question that he is a summa kum laude graduate of the Authur Murray School of Debate."

MH: I don't even know what that means, but all that have a written today only demonstrates that I have read an introductory logic book at some point in my life.

You could google him, young kid. Also, re-read your sentence - I don't know what IT means!

what would we do?
I am going to ask a question here that I have thought about many times.I wonder if as Christians we even do ENOUGH against abortion! Think about this. If we condsider the unborn as much of a human being as the born, what would we as Christians do if there was sites across our nation where you could take your one year old in to have him destroyed. Would we be more fervent to rid this nation of that atrocity? What would we do then, just let it go on for 36 years? This article is very good, but I take issue with the line pro-choice Christians. I don't think the Lord takes seriously those who claim to be His yet condone murder of the unborn. Obama is no more a Born-Again Christian than Hitler or Stalin. I would like to see comments on my question though.

Criminal sanctions and abortion
The question of "what should the penalty be", when posed in these broad general debates is usually disingenuous. It is often employed as distraction so as to avoid the weight of the the more basic question.

The answer about sanction, for anything, falls to the venues of the court, and the legislatures. The street is not suited to deliberation of these more technical matters.

I suspect the gut sentiment of a majority of persons familiar with the Charles Manson case would be he deserved the gas chamber. But, the law, at the time, didn't provide for it, and we respected the decision of the legal process, and did not storm the jail to lynch him.

So, it would be with this question. We have the sophisticated varied penalties for similar crimes because we have come to recognize over time that there should be distinctions, 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree, manslaughter, etc.

We don't merely talk about stealing. We distinguish robbery, burglary, embezzlement, etc. These are fruits, for better or worse, of the democratic process. Sometimes the penalties have to be made stricter, sometimes less harsh, because we learn.

western bondbeam
"You stated the following..."Abortion is either immoral or it is not."
....and then a few sentences later this little gem appears...
"(Even this is too simplistic. Abortion could be immoral in one scenario and moral in another.)"
...hmmm? Can you say moral relativism?"

You have a misconception of what moral relativism is. I fall more into the category of moral objectivism. (I mistakenly said moral absolutism in an earlier post.)

Picture two scenarios. The first, a woman has almost come full term with her pregnancy. The baby at this stage is fully viable outside of the womb. Now, the mother decides to abort the pregnancy for no reason except that she has decided that she doesn't want the baby. I think that it is fair to say that anyone would think that to be immoral.

In the second scenario we have a woman in some stage of pregnancy that has developed a serious medical problem (hemorrhaging or loss of consciousness or some such thing). Performing surgery would mean terminating the pregnancy. In this case, I think that the doctor would be morally compelled to save the woman's life thus aborting the pregnancy.

But, I'd like to hear what you think.

western bondbeam
"This is just more dancing."

I find it a bit disconcerting the both you and Rich D. consider complex thought and logic to be dancing.

"You present two scenarios here but refuse to choose either one. (As if anyone would ever really believe that they want abortions to be zero because they don't want people to go through an unnecessary medical procedure...thats a hoot...the flip side being of course that if they don't get the abortion, guess what? They have a baby and go through...you guessed it....a medical procedure that includes a side dish of pain and discomfort)"

Now there's some fancy dancing, but you're not going to slip that one by me. You want to compare an abortion as a medical procedure with birth as a medical procedure, but you changed a very important word in the analogy. (hint: It's "unnecessary." Though, I might use the term "unwanted" or "undesired.") Leaving out that one word completely destroys your analogy.

MikeH
I see little evidence that you have put complex thought into this. You never did explain that last sentence in your post to me, and you new analogies present problems.

How can you compare an abortion to childbirth with labor and pain? They do take the "thing" apart into little pieces. You can watch one on the internet if you search.

I find your medical problem scenario a bit disingenuous. You changed the stage of the pregnancy. There is little evidence that a partial birth abortion is ever necessary to save the life of the mother. At the very late stages, they can save both by doing a C-section. Any woman who lets the pregnancy go that long and decides to abort is nuts and or cruel. Half of ectopic pregnancies resolve themselves - the other half require intervention. For a baby with no chance of survival, the moral issues are clearly different, so you are comparing peanuts and grapes.

BTW, which of the three classes of moral objectivist are you? I'm having a hard time reading your position.

Answers not Zealotry

Why is no one willing to answer Terry's question, which I thought was rather direct and to the point:

“If we consider the unborn as much of a human being as the born, what would we as Christians do if there was sites across our nation where you could take your one year old in to have him destroyed?”

Answer: Nothing, if Planed Parenthood were making our laws, instead of donating to the campaigns of our liberal congressmen.

The Zealotry of the “Eugenics” crowd can not permit pre-born babies to have the same rights as those outside the womb, for if they do, their argument FOR abortion goes right out the window. Abortion should be illegal because (except for saving the LIFE of the mother) it is Murder (period, end of story).

Will abortions continue just as other crimes against society do? YES, but more egocentric people will think twice about doing it and all the Planed Parenthood Abortion mills like the one in Orlando, FL. Will be closed down. Of course the Pro-Aborts do not want anyone going to the following links, because that might start people thinking, as opposed to being intellectual morons.

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/11/24/edlt1124.htm

http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/keeping_abortion_safe. asp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaefcprW9Mg

http://www.BornAliveTruth.org


First scenario
Mike H wrote:

'...a woman has almost come full term with her pregnancy. The baby at this stage is fully viable outside of the womb. Now, the mother decides to abort the pregnancy for no reason except that she has decided that she doesn't want the baby. I think that it is fair to say that anyone would think that to be immoral.'

ME: The problem is, a significant number of influential people do NOT think this is immoral --the current President of the United States being the prime example.

And, anyway, the general point of the pro choice position is that legal viability of the baby doesn't begin until that baby is fully disconnected and out of contact with the mother's body --biological viability notwithstanding.

Why? Because, the mother is thought to have absolute autonomy "over her own body", which is based on the fiction that the baby is part of *her* body, when in fact the baby is like a tenant.

Here's an more apt analogy of abortion.

The baby in the womb is like a medically distressed person on the sidewalk whom the woman encounters, and the woman begins to render care to that person in need, and then the woman wearies of giving care, and decides to euthanize that helpless victim.

Finally a balanced article..
I am a Christian. I studied the Bible, yet I believe that limited abortion (in the first trimester) should stay legal.
I am a product of an unwanted pregnancy. The reason was not that a Christin national leader illegalized abortion in Romania, but politics of the majority in a divided nation like Romania. I am not sure if God took joy in me being born in an oppressive regime like Ceausescu's Romania. All I know is that I only sufferd in that nation. I wish my mother's wish would have succeeded and I would have been aborted through attempted chemical abortion my mother undertook twice to get rid of a 4th pregnanacy shoul could no longer afford in those dire economic circumstances in Romania. Where were you Christians when my family went hungry and I just added to the shortage of food? Sometimes I questioned where God's mercy was for us? God helped my family escape that horror when I was 20 years old, by exiling me and my mother.
I don't know for sure even today, whether I was a product of God's will or the Communist Romanian totalitarian power over the individual's right to choose. I tend to believe it was God's will, however, so far I am not quite sure why? I only trust that God knows better.
God always knows better. If He wants a child to be born, He will move "mountians" to happen so. If He does not, an abortion will succed.
Pro-life Christians are not more powerful than the will of God, and most certainly have no right ove my God-given FREE WILL!
Remeber this: Satan was the one who most opposed God's blessing of FREE WILL for lowly humans. And you know what? God didn't listen to Satan either. You, who besmirch good Christians who think abortion should stay legal (in early pregnancy) are the "sons" of the original serpent.

Pro
"The problem is, a significant number of influential people do NOT think this is immoral --the current President of the United States being the prime example."

I don't know what the current President thinks of the morality of late stage abortions. I do know what he thinks about the legality of them. As we've been talking in this thread morality and legality are not necessarily the same thing.

Rich D.
"I see little evidence that you have put complex thought into this."

I'm not surprised.

"You never did explain that last sentence in your post to me, and you new analogies present problems."

Re-read your sentence - YOUR new analogies.


"How can you compare an abortion to childbirth with labor and pain?"

It doesn't have anything to do with labor and pain. It has to do with whether it is desired or not. People work on giving birth to a child. No one wants to have an abortion. Abortions come as a result of unintended pregnancies or even complications with intended ones.

"I find your medical problem scenario a bit disingenuous. You changed the stage of the pregnancy."

There are different stages of pregnancy, and many of the "pro-life" crowd want to outlaw abortion from day one of the pregnancy. (Some even before that.) The point of my two scenarios was to show that abortions could be considered moral and immoral.

"There is little evidence that a partial birth abortion is ever necessary to save the life of the mother. At the very late stages, they can save both by doing a C-section."

Now who's being disingenuous? We've gone from abortion in general to "partial-birth" abortion in particular.

Rich D. cont.
"Any woman who lets the pregnancy go that long and decides to abort is nuts and or cruel."

Or bound up and delayed by "pro-life" state laws designed to make it hard for a women to get an abortion.

"Half of ectopic pregnancies resolve themselves - the other half require intervention. For a baby with no chance of survival, the moral issues are clearly different, so you are comparing peanuts and grapes."

Now your starting to make my point for me. Moral issue are different under different scenarios. You're not becoming a moral relativist are you? :-) Anyway, I see this as a much more complex issue than "abortion is murder" and should be completely illegal. I don't have all the answers, but this issue needs to be discussed much more in depth on both sides.

"BTW, which of the three classes of moral objectivist are you? I'm having a hard time reading your position."

I'm not sure what three classes there are.

Aniko: A First
I've never come across a person who wished he or she had been aborted. And a Christian yet! I thought we were supposed to celebrate our lives as God-given,even if said life is not perfect. God did not promise we would have great lives, but that He would be with us no matter what. As for the Christians who think abortion should be legal early (and I am one, as long as it's VERY early on, before the baby is sensate), I don't know that the Christians who disagree are the sons of Satan! My, that does seem a bit over the top. I think they believe very strongly that abortion is murder from the moment of conception, and it probably is, but practically speaking (and one does have to be practical when dealing with politics)I don't see that it will ever be completely eliminated. People are fallible and will always find a way to abort unwanted babies. I would rather see the law allow abortion only up to 8 or at the very latest 12 weeks, and then ask for forgiveness, which I'm not sure will come, but whatever. It is possible to know one is pregnant within a very short time after intercourse. Make up your mind then, woman, or forget it and adopt your little baby out to what will be a very grateful couple. This seems like a compromise which might mitigate the hysteria on BOTH sides. I know the left will probably be unhappy if abortion is restricted after the first trimester, but they are always unhappy anyway due to their perpetual feeling of victimhood, so let's not worry about that. I don't see any other way that we can reach a compromise. Obama signing the FOCA may be one of the most evil acts by a national "leader" ever performed.

One thing Obama is absolute on
MikeH wrote:
'I don't know what the current President thinks of the morality of late stage abortions. I do know what he thinks about the legality of them. As we've been talking in this thread morality and legality are not necessarily the same thing.'

ME: Well, let's see. We know what he thinks about the question: "when does life begin"? He says, it is "um, ya know, uhh..., above my pay grade".

Now, to my mind, this answer demonstrates not the level of humility it feigns, but ambivalence. It looks the cop-out of an incurious individual, an individual whom we are supposed to believe is an intellectual of the first caliber --being a Harvard law grad., former editor of the Harvard Law Review, and University of Chicago law school lecturer, and fifteen year legislator.

The question isn't really theological, so much, as it is philosophical/legal. We can't regulate abortion with respect to its impact on the baby until we know WHEN we as a society owe duties to that baby as an individual.

What we know from the record is that Mr. Obama saw no duties owed a baby delivered live whom was the target of an abortion. Even an individual completely physically free of its mother still cannot receive the right of medical assistance owed to other individuals of its same age, who weren't marked for abortion.

The evidence is against Mr. Obama. He has numerous votes which speak to him being for unlimited abortion for any reason, and at any time --including those who are no longer *in utero*. Votes speak loud.

MikeH
"Now your starting to make my point for me. Moral issue are different under different scenarios. You're not becoming a moral relativist are you? :-)"

No, they are not. In one case the life of the fetus cannot be preserved no matter how har you try. You blew it here.

"I'm not sure what three classes there are."

Then just tells us what kind you are, and we will take it from there.

Shocking Honesty, Exceptional Rebuttal

Pro-IL, It is so refreshing to read such articulate “Pro-Life” thoughts of someone from Obama's home state in: Pro : IL, Jan 25, 2009 - 4:58 PM EST

After reading your last two paragraphs, I thought “WOW,” what an Exceptional Rebuttal! In fact I think I will quote you on future threads regarding the NEW White House Agenda.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/women/


In “Aniko: A First” by Jan@Oasis :AZ Jan 25, 2009 - 3:07 PM EST, we find CINO's struggling with (in Aniko's case) Abortion on Demand and (in the case of Jan@Oasis) a women seeking some compromise with the taking of innocent life?

OK... Here is MY compromise. You support the saving of the 98% of abortions for convenience and I will surrender (and take upon my soul) the deaths of the 2% of Abortions done to save the Life of the mother, rape or incest? In any event we must avoid the following at ALL costs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaefcprW9Mg

I actually met Mother Teresa and remember the story of her being accosted by seculars demanding to know: If there is a God, why hasn't he sent us a cure for cancer? Her reported response was “He did, but they were aborted.” The Seculars and Christians in Name Only had no further questions.

One of her best quotes is:

"The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion
because if a mother can kill her own child,
what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me?
There is nothing between."

Mother Teresa

MR. TALLMAN:
Your statement that we should correct but not condemn those who murder innocent babies clearly contradicts the attitude and actions of Christ himself. Furthermore, those murderers are not in fact our spiritual “brothers and sisters,” so, to fail to condemn them for their egregious wickedness amounts to treason most foul against the Kingdom of God and makes war against the witness of Scripture.

Abortion is fundamentally a moral rather than political issue. So, in saying that pro abortionists are not Christian, we are simply agreeing with Scripture in affirming that the Christian salvation commitment has a profoundly moral element (Luke 9:23). This means that they cannot choose the terms of the covenant of salvation, (first, repentance from the principle and practice of sin and, second, embracing unselfish, holy love--divine love--as their core principle of life) while simultaneously promoting or approving of any degree of evil whatsoever. They are opposites and therefore mutually exclusive.

My Christian joy is in more than the knowledge that God loves me--as mind blowing as that is. The heart of my joy is in going into a life and death spiritual battle yoked in tandem with God for his highest good and against the depths of Satan's evil and that with thorough competence based in his grace and power. For the spiritual warrior, that is “joy unspeakable and full of glory.” Real spiritual warfare reminds me of when I sprint at full speed on the track and when I lift heavy weights in the gym. Both are fun but also require that I make a supremely death defying effort. High intensity physical training at the absolute limits of my human ability is the best way for me