No I want to talk about how you are so adamantly opposed to "controlling" someone else's life. We have laws that do that; we have unions that do that. We have lots of artifices that do that, in fact-- even ones that affect moral issues... like whether someone lives or dies.
Your analogy is a strawman meant to deflect the conversation. Rationalize all you want, make up all kinds of absurd arguments; abortion will remain legal. Deal with it. Why are you doing everything to deflect the conversation away from the thread topic? The murder of an innocent man.
That is just plain ridiculous. The discussion naturally turned toward abortion because there is little to discuss when someone is murdered in cold blood. There is not one person in this thread that has claimed otherwise--- talk about strawmen! If there was a time when abortion was not illegal, it's naive to claim that it will always remain legal. The best way for it to remain legal is for people to delude themselves about what the real issues are and what's really at stake. You are really good at that! I think you are afraid of the discussion because you won't discuss... you keep cutting the discussion off with your "certainty." What's up with that?
In their mind, this is along the lines of killing Hitler. Is the murder of 1 better those who murder many? Remember that abortion - while legal in this country - is consisdered murder to many Christians. That is their logic behind this because they will freely admit that murder is wrong and that is what this is. Now on the terrorist title...Terrorism is to cause terror in the masses. Flying planes full of innocent civilians into building full of innocent civilians. Blowing up bombs in market places full of innocent civilians. These kinds of acts cause fear amongst the regular people for their own lives, safety and freedom to move around normally. I don't think any civilians are living more in fear today because of the murder of this 1 man. If this was a terrorist act, then they failed.
Hey I have a right to an opinion... which you won't allow me to express. That's where the arrogance lies. Your first two posts were essentially: ~"There's nothing to talk about here. Shut up. You're wasting bandwidth." I can go find and cite them if you want me to...
Giddyup: I'm a bit surprised at this about-face. I thought it was plainly obvious from earlier in this thread that 1) There was a general consensus that abortion can be justified in certain cases. 2) Additionally, that the prospect of illegality really means nothing in regards to stopping abortions, other than making it more difficult and dangerous for the woman in question. These two points make it perfectly clear that 1) Abortion should remain legal. 2) Abortion opponents would be idiots to focus on legality, instead of the far more fundamental issues of contraceptives, education, and support. You seem to have glossed right over madmax's excellent post on the christian perspective in this debate. I find that poignant. And not in a good way. Carry on.
"I feel sorrow for the Tiller family. I respect the sanctity of life and the tragedy that took place today in Kansas clearly violates respect for life. This murder also damages the positive message of life, for the unborn, and for those living. Ask yourself, 'What will those who have not yet decided personally where they stand on this issue take away from today's event in Kansas?' Regardless of my strong objection to Dr. Tiller's abortion practices, violence is never an answer in advancing the pro-life message." Spoiler
Abortion should remain legal under limited circumstances, but that's a different message from simply saying that abortion should remain legal. I have said in this thread that abortion should remain legal but with very specific and limited provisions. How could you miss that? How concerned can I be if someone wants to do something dangerous to themselves rather than honor the life they've created. That's their choice-- it is a powerful word. It's fine to be concerned with "contraception, education and support" and people do do that as has been pointed out, but that doesn't dismiss the discussion about when abortion should be available. Regarding Max, he's a great and loving guy and it's at great risk that I criticize him, but I don't think he challenges people with his truth enough. If you disagree with him, you love him for that because you feel safe in that exchange. He's the good cop. He is Christianity in action. That's great, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth challenging people's thinking about great issues of life and death. Nor does it mean that I don't live out my faith either. This board is just this board. It's not life. I don't go with the Jesus/Mr. Rogers comparison. Jesus overturned the moneychanger's tables in the Temple. He confronted his disciples on the way to His Death over their naive and selfish bickering about which of them would be The Next Greatest. Sometimes you have to kick butt.
Yay! Palin's statement (probably written by a staffer) does not suggest she is some wingnut whackjob who reads the Turner Diaries, refuses to pay taxes and whose identity is wrapped up in the warped idea of a violent Christian crusade for the unborn. That's a high bar and I guess what your post is trying to tell us is that since Palin the Pure can reach it, this is somehow news. Or a a surprise. Or something. Whatever.
He challenged the religious. He challenged Temple authorities...rabbis and priests....he challenged his own disciples. What we would call "church people" today. He didn't point a finger outside of that circle to criticize or to hold people to a standard they never asked to be held to. I'm all about kicking the collective butt of the Church to have them turn their attention back to Jesus.
http://jesustheradicalpastor.blogspot.com/2006/10/can-compassion-be-angry-too.html "... We know that strong emotion was riffling through Jesus because in verse 43, Jesus with a note of harshness and exasperation ("snorting with anger") strongly warns the now healed leper to be silent about his healing and go to the priest for the ritual certification of health. Later, in Mark 3:5 Jesus looks with anger at the hardened Pharisees. Some Christians wrongly believe all anger is sin. We certainly want also a sweet, gentle Jesus, not a "snorting-with-anger" Jesus. We want so badly for Jesus to be a "nice guy" because aren't all Christian men supposed to be "nice guys"? Isn't Christianity about being nice? Alas, Jesus breaks the mold. He does make a practice of getting angry. Anger is a trait of God as a matter of fact. God isn't a "nice" God. So, can compassion be angry? Or, can anger be compassionate? Regardless of reading Mark 1:41 as "anger," I cannot imagine Jesus' heart being untouched by compassion as well. The leper was an isolated, lonely creature. His body became alien and dangerous to him; his family viewed him as untouchable; his community exiled him outside the city; God, as popular belief held, "struck with leprosy" those who flagrantly sinned. Sadly the leper was cut off from himself, his family, his community, and his God. Mother Teresa said the worst condition of the human being is "loneliness." I can imagine, then, this deplorable condition of the man made Jesus really angry. His anger was at the fallenness of the human race that created the extreme, painful situation of this human being. Since Genesis 3 things are "not the way they are supposed to be." What if anger is an indicator of what we really care about? What if anger is a major energy behind serious engagement with all that thwarts the will of God for people? What if the decision not to be angry is the trait of someone who doesn't know or care about God's deep and amazing grace??
I did not miss it, you just seem to be backtracking on it. I don't agree with your "limitations". It requires a level of absolute control that it is objectively, pragmatically, and biologically impossible. You will never stop all elective abortions, ergo fighting for a rule change to that effect just makes you look callous and silly, rather than righteous and wise. I know you won't agree, which is why I am thankful we live in a secular democracy that enables reasonably prompt overrides of short-sighted and narrow-minded ideologies born out of pseudo-religious idealism instead of observed reality.
Hey, thanks for straightening me out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's good to know that there is no problem. I didn't back-track. What I said in this thread is what I've said for all the years we have been discussing this topic-- since even before I became a Christian. I just didn't know it was callous to want to save innocent lives; I might need you to explain that one to me.
It is callous to put your personal religious beliefs and impose them on people you don't know or associate with. What if I came to your house and said your wife had to donate each egg she wasn't going to use because it's a potential life. So if she's not having a baby, we will take the egg from her and create babies from it. It's a potential life after all. That is what an embryo is, a potential life. And to dictate what a woman can or can not do with her body because of religious beliefs is tyranny.
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: I was pro-Life before I was any kind of religious person. It was common sense. It's a Life Principle that humans don't give birth to toasters or ipods or kittens. So you want to play God and make the grand determination about when humanity is attained. How can that be anything but an uncertain and arrogant position to take? Your analogy is just plain ridiculous and in no way intersects reality. You can't convince me of your argument by thinking I operate under your assumptions. Let's discuss the assumptions...
Because that's not what you want. If it were, you would spend less time demonizing women and abortion providers, and more time discussing why there is high demand for abortion in the first place. Criminalizing abortion doesn't save lives--quite the opposite. Actually, it's you that's trying to make that determination for everybody else. Earlier you were talking about how if you could remain abstinent , anybody could. It seems as if your egocentricism is clouding your ability to empathize with women making the very difficult, complex decision of whether or not they should terminate a pregnancy.
Once again you resort to deflection. *sigh* No, wanting to save innocent lives is not callous. However, wanting to save innocent lives via an impossible to attain prohibition is silly. Endangering lives to that effect is callous. This has been said repeatedly. You just can't acknowledge it as true like Max. Yet you have the gall to criticize him for it under the guise of "challenging" people. You're not challenging anyone, giddyup. You're just irrationally sermonizing.
