951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


  

First of all, here is a video which contains a section of a sermon by John Piper given around the anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision and seems to be a direct response to some of President Obama’s statements made at that time. I thought it was very powerful and was very blessed to view it.

Second, a bit of very interesting news, is that there was some sort of decision made recently in Sweden where you cannot forbid abortions based on Gender selection. I know I’m operating outside my worldview, but why would it matter if someone used gender as apposed to any other reason as a reason to abort? Click here to read the article.

Last bit, that I find the most exciting, is that the latest Gallup poll shows that for the first time since 1995, when gallup started conducting polls on the subject, that there are more pro-life than pro-choice Americans. Click here to read the article.

Lets continue to pray that this nation can continue to see the light and end what will surely be looked on as a dark time in its history, despite the current administration.

27 Responses to “Powerful Gains, Losses, & Message on the Abortion Issue”

  1. on 19 May 2009 at 2:36 amJoseph

    Anyone who supports abortion is against God, plain and simple. This includes the man named Barak Obama. And you thought money changers were bad???…

    “and whoever may cause to stumble one of those little ones who are believing in me, it is better for him that a weighty millstone may be hanged upon his neck, and he may be sunk in the depth of the sea.”

  2. on 19 May 2009 at 5:52 amMark C.

    I’m probably going to regret posting here, as this is one of the hottest, most emotionally charged issues of the day. But here goes…

    The fact is, the debate is not plain and simple. There are many and various factors that must be considered. That’s why walking by the spirit is superior to the letter of the law – but that’s another debate on another thread. We as Christians are not called on to change the world. That will happen when Christ returns. We are called on to preach the good news that a better world is coming.

    In the meantime, we must live in a world that contains both Christians and non-Christians, and for both to live peaceably as much as possible (Rom. 12:18) it will take cooperation and communication. For more on this, see my blog.

    To say that Barack Obama “supports” abortion is oversimplifying, and to paraphrase Jesus’ words about those who cause the little ones to stumble and comparing Obama with the moneychangers is misusing Scripture. Jesus was talking to and about religious leaders who lead God’s people astray when they should be teaching them God’s Word. He was not talking about civil leaders, government officials, or politicians. That is not their job.

    The job of the president of the United States is not to promote any religious ideologies. President Obama is neither “promoting” nor “outlawing” abortion, but is trying to inspire people on both sides to take an honest look at what the other side believes. He does not believe the government should mandate moral issues, or that moral issues should be politicized, and I agree.

    The following is from his commencement address at Notre Dame. (The entire text of the address can be seen here.)

    The question, then — the question then is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

    And of course, nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

    As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called “The Audacity of Hope.” A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life — but that was not what was preventing him potentially from voting for me.

    What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website — an entry that said I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.” The doctor said he had assumed I was a reasonable person, he supported my policy initiatives to help the poor and to lift up our educational system, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, “I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.” Fair-minded words.

    After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and I thanked him. And I didn’t change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that — when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe — that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

    That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.

    So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. Let’s make adoption more available. Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.” Those are things we can do.

    Now, understand — understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

    John Piper’s address at the top of this thread was, to me, preaching to the choir. It may elicit a lot of praise from those who already agree with him, and criticism from those who don’t, but such emotionalism will not convince anyone, since those of the opposing side are just as emotional. The fact is, we live in a world of sin, and outlawing sinful acts will not change it. That is why Christians are called to speak the Word, which is the only thing that will change the hearts of the people who sin. Politics is not the answer.

  3. on 19 May 2009 at 5:57 amMark C.

    The link to my blog didn’t come out right in the above post. Here it is again:

    http://remarksblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/religion-and-politics.html

  4. on 19 May 2009 at 7:12 amRay

    I was watching the news as they showed an angry mother talking
    to some who held a large picture of an abortion as they protested
    the government’s allowance of the act.

    The mother asked the protesters how she is going to explain what
    an abortion is to her very young child.

    I thought about that for a bit. I suppose she could tell her child
    that an abortion is like when an adult steps on a bug when they
    are walking on the sidewalk except that a bug is just a bug, not
    a baby.

    I suppose the child might have some other questions but I think
    that would be a good start.

    It seems strange how the government would allow such a thing as
    abortions. I was swimming in a designated swimming area once
    and was being harrassed by waterfowl, so with one hand I splashed some water at it hoping that it would move out of the roped off swiming area, but the lifeguard blew the whistle at me
    because I was apparently in violaton of the law which protected
    waterfowl from harrassment.

    I was thinking that swimmers should be allowed to swim in the designated swimming area and the waterfowl could learn to swim
    outside the area that was designated for humans.

    Some laws I think, are not just. There were more ducks in the swimming area than there were on the whole lake and they seemed to enjoy bothering the swimmers. I remember all the floating featers on the water and how the ducks seemed to own
    the inside of the roped off area. They seemed to be saying, “This
    is ours, and we can do as we want here. You are tresspassing.”

    Fifty million babies lost by abortion in America…somebody’s been
    tresspassing and it seems the government doesn’t care. It seems
    they think, “We have the power to stop the innocent killing, but it’s
    not up to us. We wash our hands of the innocent blood and deliver
    those who can not speak on behalf of themselves to the people to
    decide for themselves what should become of them. Besides, being
    diverse on such matters means the nation will be somehow stronger.”

    Crazy, isn’t it?

  5. on 19 May 2009 at 7:20 amRay

    Now I’m thinking along these lines:

    Who has the greater sin?

    1. The doctor who aborts.
    2. The mother who brought the unborn to the doctor who aborts.
    3. The government who gave the mother the power to abort.
    4. The people who allowed the government the power to allow abortion.

  6. on 19 May 2009 at 4:34 pmJoseph

    Mark C.,

    If Obama doesn’t necessarily support abortion as you say, then why did he lift a funding ban on money in support of carrying out these abortions? The fact that this was one of the first moves he made as president shows his overwhelming support for the killing of the unborn. Sorry man, you need to rethink your position and stop falling for Obama’s double talk but rather look at his actions (fruit).

  7. on 19 May 2009 at 5:15 pmMark C.

    Joseph,

    Notice I said he is “neither supporting nor outlawing” abortion. Lifting a funding ban is not the same as actively supporting it. The ban was the government saying you can’t do this. He believes it’s not the government’s position to make such decisions, so he lifted the ban.

    Actually, I have been rethinking my position. For years I went along with the religious/political choir-preaching, but now I have come to realize that in the context of this sinful world which includes Christians and non-Christians, to demand that everyone follows the moral tenets of Christianity (or to expect the government to do so) is simply unrealistic. And to continue to portray those on the “pro-choice” side as wanting to kill babies is self-defeating, because that’s not where they’re coming from. If you really want sin to be done away with, demanding it by laws is not the way to do it. Only God can change the hearts of those who sin.

  8. on 19 May 2009 at 6:59 pmRay

    I believe that many lives of the unborn would be saved if the government would make abortions illegal. I believe it would be
    within their responsibility as a government and also within the
    constitutional rights of the people because of the abuses we have
    seen that they have done with their right to choose overall. How
    can this nation justify 50 million? We simply can not explain it in
    any moral sense.

    Certainly if the government were to outlaw abortion and the numbers of deaths of unborn babies went way, way down, people
    would find other ways to sin, but at least many more babies in the
    womb of the mothers in this nation could be brought to full term
    and born, and hopefully grow up and mature into healthy, happy,
    sons and daughters of God.

    Certainly there are other sins that we can not control by making
    every kind of law. Even the holy and perfect law of God could not
    do that because of the nature of the flesh, yet I do not believe
    that reason makes a case for the United States government to not
    make any laws to protect the rights of people under it’s authority.

    I belive it’s time that the government changed the abortion laws
    and should make it illegal to abort because of the abuses of so called liberty that we have seen.

    I think it would be wonderful if a nation had no laws about abortion
    at all especially if there never were abortions happening in that nation, but when ‘freedom’ becomes abused, I think laws are in order.

  9. on 19 May 2009 at 7:26 pmJoseph

    Mark C,

    Notice I said he is “neither supporting nor outlawing” abortion. Lifting a funding ban is not the same as actively supporting it. The ban was the government saying you can’t do this. He believes it’s not the government’s position to make such decisions, so he lifted the ban.

    The ban was prohibiting money going out to foreign nations from the US to perform abortions, how is that not supporting abortion by lifting that ban? I’m confused as to your position.

    Actually, I have been rethinking my position. For years I went along with the religious/political choir-preaching, but now I have come to realize that in the context of this sinful world which includes Christians and non-Christians, to demand that everyone follows the moral tenets of Christianity (or to expect the government to do so) is simply unrealistic. And to continue to portray those on the “pro-choice” side as wanting to kill babies is self-defeating, because that’s not where they’re coming from. If you really want sin to be done away with, demanding it by laws is not the way to do it. Only God can change the hearts of those who sin.

    Who said that I or any pro-lifer are going to force one to not get a abortion? People can do what they want, and they will if they want if enough. But to take a double talk stance like Obama does, you may as well say that you support abortion. It is a Christians obligation to speak out against abortion and those who support it. God’s law is unwavering and has no room for shades of gray.

  10. on 19 May 2009 at 7:37 pmMark C.

    If abortions were illegal, many women would still get them, and under much more dangerous conditions, as it used to be years ago.

    But I’m not saying abortion is a good thing, and neither do most of the “pro-choice” people. It’s not so much about whether the procedure should be done, as whether it is the right of the government to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her body. If they can tell you that, what would be next? Telling you when you can conceive? Telling you how many children you can have? Telling you when you can have sex? I’m not exaggerating; some of these thing have been laws in other countries.

    I agree, it would be wonderful if there were no abortion. It would be wonderful if there were no war. It would be wonderful if there were no murder, suicide, rape, or other violent crime. And that day is coming. But in the meantime, a government “of, by, and for the people” has to respect the wishes of all, whether Christian or non-Christian. God changing people’s hearts is the solution, not government.

  11. on 19 May 2009 at 8:00 pmMark C.

    The ban was prohibiting money going out to foreign nations from the US to perform abortions, how is that not supporting abortion by lifting that ban? I’m confused as to your position.

    Actually the money was for international groups which, in addition to performing abortions, also offer counseling and family planning. The ban was, according to the AP report, “an inflammatory policy that has bounced in and out of law for the past quarter-century.” And as I said, there is a difference between “supporting abortion” and saying you don’t believe the government should take those choices away from the people involved.

    Who said that I or any pro-lifer are going to force one to not get a abortion?

    That’s what many of them want to try to do by making it illegal.

    People can do what they want, and they will if they want if enough.

    Then why make it illegal? Wouldn’t the end goal be better served by counseling and especially teaching the Gospel which can change people’s hearts?

    But to take a double talk stance like Obama does, you may as well say that you support abortion. It is a Christians obligation to speak out against abortion and those who support it. God’s law is unwavering and has no room for shades of gray.

    You’re mixing two different arenas here. You’re right about God’s Law, but that’s not the point. God’s Law will prevail when Christ rules the world, but until then we are dealing with man’s laws, and specifically the laws of this country.

    You are absolutely correct that Christians (or any other religion) that disagree with abortion should speak out against it (preferably in a well-informed and compassionate way). But it is the government’s job to take all viewpoints into account, not just Christians. It’s not double-talk, it’s an attempt to unify, which may not even work considering how emotionally charged both sides of the debate are. Which is why I keep saying that government is not the solution.

  12. on 19 May 2009 at 8:19 pmJoseph

    Any program that supports the choice of abortion is not of God. This is what Obama supports, pretty simple. Not only that, tax payers that are against this position are forced to give tax dollars to support the murderers.

    I guess this is where me and you part ways. I’m not going to lay down and wait for the Kingdom rule. I’m going to exercise righteousness whenever I can no matter if the outcome doesn’t effect ones fate.

    Mark, if everyone had the same opinion, which would be better, to not have a opinion on abortion whether it is right or wrong, or to condemn the act of abortion? Obama is trying to mix water with oil and the only way he can do this is to give us the double talk.

  13. on 19 May 2009 at 8:59 pmSean

    Hey Mark,

    Good stuff to bring up. You can’t legislate morality, etc. But, I think when we want to have the conversation about civil government we are of necessity drawn out from our unique kingdom testimony to the world to ask the question: “How should the world function in the here and now given the plurality of religious and non-religious moralities present in the USA?” When it comes to this sort of thinking, I admit up front that I am not qualified and the whole conversation is a bit like me giving my opinion of how ballerinas should execute a dance move.

    Be that as it may, is it not the case that murder of adults is illegal? Should that be something that we should not care if the society legislates? Obviously some legislation certainly does affect behavior. So, I think if you and I agree that murdering humans outside of the womb is wrong and society does well to punish murder (also cp. Torah and God’s opinion on such matters), then why should society not also outlaw the killing of unborn humans?

    just my two cents

  14. on 19 May 2009 at 9:01 pmRay

    If this nation outlaws abortions then those who refuse to come
    under the God given authority might also put themselves in danger
    by going to clinics that are dangerous.

    So often men put themselves in harm by resisting the powers that
    be.

    That is one effect of rebellion. Illegal clinics might emerge which also function outside the will of God and the powers that be, yet
    should that be good reason to not make abortions illegal?

    I suppose we could say that if we have stop lights some people
    are going to run them anyway and put their life in danger, but I
    think if they obey the traffic laws they will be a safer driver.

    We can not make people abide by the laws. There will always be
    lawbreakers. Still we need laws because we live in a fallen world
    and the offences abound.

  15. on 19 May 2009 at 9:04 pmMark C.

    Joseph,

    I never said anything about laying down and waiting. We as Christians should speak out. But we can’t expect a worldly government to enforce our (or God’s) standards. Jesus taught us that it is the heart that God looks at, and without a change of heart laws accomplish very little.

    You propose only two choices: to not have an opinion on abortion, or to condemn the act of abortion. What about the opinion of those who think it’s a woman’s choice? I’m not arguing that it is, or that they are right. I’m simply saying that when it comes to the government of the US, all opinions have to be considered.

    You’re right, it is like trying to mix oil and water, which is what Obama said. But without God, that’s all they have, and the best they can do is try to get each side to honestly look at the other, and seeing beyond the stereotypes that each side has of the other. To label it as double talk breaks down any hope of communication, and makes Christians appear bigoted and insensitive. And frankly, we have more chance of reaching the “other side” with the gospel if we have such open dialog too.

  16. on 19 May 2009 at 9:24 pmMark C.

    Sean,

    Good point. That’s why abortion in most cases is wrong. But it’s those “gray areas” that cause trouble.

    Regarding murder outside the womb, killing in self defense is acceptable by man’s laws, but we’ve seen the debate about whether it’s justified by God. Killing in war is also legal, but there’s much debate about whether a Christian should participate, not to mention the debates about whether a given war is justified.

    Regarding abortion, then, it’s usually agreed that just randomly killing a fetus is wrong. But what if there are dangerous complications either to the baby or the mother? And what about the complications involved with rape, incest, and so on? It’s easy to say “just put it up for adoption” but is the grief that the mother goes through that easy to blow off? Does the government have the right to make that decision for her?

    My main point is that there are no easy answers to these problems, and they should not be made political issues.

  17. on 20 May 2009 at 7:10 amRay

    I believe America could live with the abolishment of abortion by
    law.

    I’ve heard that it’s never necessary to abort to save the live of a
    mother.

    There have been people who have ministered to people born with
    all kinds of medical problems for sometimes a very long time and
    they will be greatly rewarded for so doing.

    Some have had to sacrifice so much for some who have been born
    with some kind of abnormality. I do believe any government who would outlaw abortions should also put in place assistance for those who have found themselves in such a condition. I think that’s a part of being responsible.

    I wish every church made it clear that they are willing to support
    mothers who are carrying if they need assistance, and that they
    discourage the ending of life by abortion. I wish they made it known so all mothers who find themselves in such a condition
    could find help. Sometimes things are too much for one person to
    bear alone. God is close to such and I believe the church should be
    also.

  18. on 20 May 2009 at 10:36 amSean

    Mark,

    Thanks for replying. You said,

    Good point. That’s why abortion in most cases is wrong. But it’s those “gray areas” that cause trouble.

    Regarding murder outside the womb, killing in self defense is acceptable by man’s laws, but we’ve seen the debate about whether it’s justified by God. Killing in war is also legal, but there’s much debate about whether a Christian should participate, not to mention the debates about whether a given war is justified.

    Murder is not defined as killing people by civil law. It is much more narrow than that as you point out. Furthermore, we are not speaking as Christians, we are speaking as people trying to figure out civil law for a worldly system in a pluralistic society. Ya know? So, obviously for us, considering the advent of the holy spirit, things are taken to a much higher level.

    Regarding abortion, then, it’s usually agreed that just randomly killing a fetus is wrong.

    I think this is unfortunate terminology. I think you meant to say when someone kills their baby because of convenience.

    But what if there are dangerous complications either to the baby or the mother? And what about the complications involved with rape, incest, and so on? It’s easy to say “just put it up for adoption” but is the grief that the mother goes through that easy to blow off? Does the government have the right to make that decision for her?

    In the case of ectopic pregnancies where both mother and child will die, obviously this would be an exception. In the case of rape and incest, it does not follow to kill the baby because her conception was caused by crime. The old saying goes: two wrongs don’t make a right. For example, if someone rapes me and then I see them a week later in the grocery store and murder them is that permissible by law? Furthermore, no one is saying we should blow off the grief of a mother who suffers because of a tragedy like rape or incest. The government’s job at a bare minimum is to protect the innocent from being murdered. No one has the right to decide to kill for the sake of convenience.

  19. on 21 May 2009 at 6:59 amMark C.

    I too wish churches did more of what Ray says, but sadly they don’t yet. I also wish abortion wasn’t an issue, but sadly it is. It would be great if it were done away with, but in this world, with its pluralistic society, the best way to accomplish that is for both sides to have open communication. When emotionalism and political rhetoric dominate either side’s argument, it is counterproductive and just engenders more division. To say “End abortion now!” is as unrealistic as “End war now!” The world’s systems move slowly, and in small steps, but that’s all there is in that context. Christians should focus on teaching people how God can change their hearts, rather than arguing politics.

  20. on 21 May 2009 at 7:25 amMark C.

    Here is a very well articulated position by a Baptist minister. I’m not sure I agree with all of his arguments, but it is definitely food for thought from the “other side” of the argument:

    http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=200

  21. on 21 May 2009 at 9:42 amRay

    I would rather that people were either hot or cold on
    the abortion issue.

  22. on 21 May 2009 at 12:44 pmMark C.

    Ray,

    Why? Do you think arguing and fighting are good?

  23. on 21 May 2009 at 7:20 pmMark C.

    Here is a well thought out, articulate piece by a Baptist minister. I don’t know if I agree with all his points, but it is certainly food for thought about the “other side” –

    http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=200

    (The page also has a link to a counterargument by a Catholic priest.)

  24. on 23 May 2009 at 3:29 amMark C.

    Sorry about the duplicate post; had some problems with posting.

    I’ve been researching this and considering both sides of the argument, and was surprised to find that not all religious groups assume abortion is murder, due to differences of opinion on when life and/or personhood begin. The political right tends to portray it that way, as if it were a foregone conclusion and those who disagree are simply evil and ungodly. Here are two links that show the differences of opinion among religious groups.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist1.htm

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1442381/posts

  25. on 25 May 2009 at 2:57 pmJohn Paul

    Wow I had sean post this a while ago on my behalf and I forgot about it. The whole conversation happened while I was looking the other way.

    I think something that is worth noting, after reading a few comments and thinking about the resent polling sited on my original post is that public opinion has been shift despite the legal stance on this issue. I think that shows that alot of the one on one interaction that has been called for by some of the posts. The people are being moved somehow to see the light on this issue and praise be to God for that.

    That being said, I still think this nation should start recognizing the not yet born child as a life and someone who is a citizen (ie: the government should grant them rights.) While I do agree with mark about the “causing little ones to stumble” section in scripture not being appropriate to the subject, I believe what is appropriate would be biblical references to orphans. The situation for the aborted and orphan is the same, they are both forsaken children, and I believe the any blessings, cursing and what have you’s in scripture on the subject can be applied here.

    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

    No, we are not to try and “change the world” but we don’t (yet) live in a tyrannical nation where we will be killed for acting/speaking out against atrocities and calling on the government (that says it represents you) to adopt and “legislate” moral principals. Abortion does not have to be a religious principal, it’s a humanitarian one that transcends religion. It’s looked at by both sides often because of the mischaracterization of the “Soul” and its involvement in life. You do not have to appeal to religion to be against abortion as long as the non religious person is willing to grant that there are moral absolutes. President Obama is promoting his ideologies, and very forcibly, pushing through spending and programs that even members of his own party are now calling on him to slow down so a dialogue can happen with healthcare and this cap and trade stuff, he kicked desenting reporters off a plane.

    What does it mean to politicize a moral issue? I’m sorry but when he lifted the ban on funding clinics that performed abortions, he made that statement about how this isn’t a political issue, and I got the impression that with that statement, he was pretty much saying: I don’t want to talk about this, im just going to do it.

    Mark in response to comment #7, the Government was not saying you can’t do this, the government was saying, if you do this, we aren’t going to support you. Thats the nature of the ban. And I think the government that claims to represent the people should and does take moral stances. If the U.S. decides to support a government coup, siding with somebody who turns out to be a benevolent and violent dictator, is pulling our support a “moral” decision that the government shouldn’t make. I’m sorry im not buying it. Coming at it from the other side, is taking a stand for against the prevention of women to have privacy about there body not a moral stance? How is that any less “legislating morality.”

    I do agree that we shouldn’t expect, nor be surprised when the nation (gov or people) does not follow christian or biblical or even moral humanist principals. There aren’t to many people that view the pro-choise side as “wanting to kill babies” as you have said. We all know that most of them don’t view them as babies or even as a living being ( mainly because that position isn’t challenged.) The alcohol age laws/ drunk driving laws and prostitution I think are the best examples of how legislation will not eradicate sin, but can curb it.

    I think also importantly there the judgement of God mess to take into consideration and wether or not God will judge the nation as a whole on how we took care of our orphans.

    Mark your statements in comment 10 leave out a fundamental and important point,
    You said”

    It’s not so much about whether the procedure should be done, as whether it is the right of the government to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her body. If they can tell you that, what would be next? Telling you when you can conceive? Telling you how many children you can have? Telling you when you can have sex? I’m not exaggerating; some of these thing have been laws in other countries.

    Now, when I take political stands they are often very libertarian and lean towards Government power and control kept to a bare minimum. But, your statement hear ignores the child completely. I think the government (and more importantly the church) should stand up for the rights of those who cannot stand for stand for themselves. Whats going to happen next? are we going to say that a parent has to take care of their child?
    Or how about some peoples rights are more important than others, which is where your argument leads. A government that stands for civil rights of individuals does not lead to tyranny. We are talking about preventing murder here not eugenics.

    As sean points out, Should the government force people to not kill other people?

    Lastly, Mark with regards to your last post, its also interesting that not everybody who argues pro-life is religious, here are a few links…

    http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/index.shtml

  26. on 25 May 2009 at 3:03 pmJohn Paul

    Wow I had sean post this a while ago on my behalf and I forgot about it. The whole conversation happened while I was looking the other way.

    I think something that is worth noting, after reading a few comments and thinking about the resent polling sited on my original post is that public opinion has been shift despite the legal stance on this issue. I think that shows that alot of the one on one interaction that has been called for by some of the posts. The people are being moved somehow to see the light on this issue and praise be to God for that.

    That being said, I still think this nation should start recognizing the not yet born child as a life and someone who is a citizen (ie: the government should grant them rights.) While I do agree with mark about the “causing little ones to stumble” section in scripture not being appropriate to the subject, I believe what is appropriate would be biblical references to orphans. The situation for the aborted and orphan is the same, they are both forsaken children, and I believe the any blessings, cursing and what have you’s in scripture on the subject can be applied here.

    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

    No, we are not to try and “change the world” but we don’t (yet) live in a tyrannical nation where we will be killed for acting/speaking out against atrocities and calling on the government (that says it represents you) to adopt and “legislate” moral principals. Abortion does not have to be a religious principal, it’s a humanitarian one that transcends religion. It’s looked at by both sides often because of the mischaracterization of the “Soul” and its involvement in life. You do not have to appeal to religion to be against abortion as long as the non religious person is willing to grant that there are moral absolutes. President Obama is promoting his ideologies, and very forcibly, pushing through spending and programs that even members of his own party are now calling on him to slow down so a dialogue can happen with healthcare and this cap and trade stuff, he kicked desenting reporters off a plane.

    What does it mean to politicize a moral issue? I’m sorry but when he lifted the ban on funding clinics that performed abortions, he made that statement about how this isn’t a political issue, and I got the impression that with that statement, he was pretty much saying: I don’t want to talk about this, im just going to do it.

    Mark in response to comment #7, the Government was not saying you can’t do this, the government was saying, if you do this, we aren’t going to support you. Thats the nature of the ban. And I think the government that claims to represent the people should and does take moral stances. If the U.S. decides to support a government coup, siding with somebody who turns out to be a benevolent and violent dictator, is pulling our support a “moral” decision that the government shouldn’t make. I’m sorry im not buying it. Coming at it from the other side, is taking a stand for against the prevention of women to have privacy about there body not a moral stance? How is that any less “legislating morality.”

    I do agree that we shouldn’t expect, nor be surprised when the nation (gov or people) does not follow christian or biblical or even moral humanist principals. There aren’t to many people that view the pro-choise side as “wanting to kill babies” as you have said. We all know that most of them don’t view them as babies or even as a living being ( mainly because that position isn’t challenged.) The alcohol age laws/ drunk driving laws and prostitution I think are the best examples of how legislation will not eradicate sin, but can curb it.

    I think also importantly there the judgement of God mess to take into consideration and weither or not God will judge the nation as a whole on how we took care of our orphans.

    Mark your statements in comment 10 leave out a fundamental and important point,
    You said”

    It’s not so much about whether the procedure should be done, as whether it is the right of the government to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her body. If they can tell you that, what would be next? Telling you when you can conceive? Telling you how many children you can have? Telling you when you can have sex? I’m not exaggerating; some of these thing have been laws in other countries.

    Now, when I take political stands they are often very libertarian and lean towards Government power and control kept to a bare minimum. But, your statement hear ignores the child completely. I think the government (and more importantly the church) should stand up for the rights of those who cannot stand for stand for themselves. Whats going to happen next? are we going to say that a parent has to take care of their child?
    Or how about some peoples rights are more important than others, which is where your argument leads. A government that stands for civil rights of individuals does not lead to tyranny. We are talking about preventing murder here not eugenics.

    As sean points out, Should the government force people to not kill other people?

    On last thing with regards to the previous post by mark. conversely there are non-religious prolife groups as well. Here is an excellent secular debate on abortion
    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/index.shtml

    also this I found this interesting.
    http://www.godlessprolifers.org/links/linkback.html

  27. on 25 May 2009 at 4:56 pmRay

    I read today in an article on the subject of abortion by a man who
    said
    that he had not seen anyone who did not change their opinion on
    abortion after they became educated on what an abortion really is
    and what it looks like, or something to that effect.

    This was said by someone I think knows what he’s talking about.

    That’s a powerful statement and if it is true, then that may be the
    light the church should be walking in.

    The scripture says that whatever makes manifest is light, and that
    all things are reproved by the light, and that light is far greater than the power of darkness.

    To expose the ugliness of abortion will be something not everyone
    wants to be a part of, but I do agree that they would not be the
    same after getting educated on what it really is.

    I believe that posters that show what an aborted baby looks like
    is a powerful message. Though it’s not something that I might want
    to see. I do believe it would change me and for the better.

    If I was not on fire about the subject, I think I should be thereafter.
    I myself believe it to be better for me that I be either hot or cold
    on such matters because Jesus doesn’t care for luke warm.

    That’s a decision I make for myself and if I become hot or cold on
    the matter those there will be those that will be against me. If I
    am hot on the matter I will be against those opinions that are either lukewarm or cold.

    It’s simply the nature of things. Those that have protested against
    abortion that have held those large graphic pictures have come under fire from others. I don’t know what that’s like. I never became involved that way.

    Just hearing about some that have done that causes a change in
    me and I think for the better. It can be a hard thing to look at the
    works of darkness and for that reason and perhaps others, people
    have reacted harshly in return.

    I find it encouraging to hear that people have been against abortion once becoming educated on what it is and that the change
    was not becoming hard of heart, or becoming cold or unfeeling about abortions or becoming apathetic, for if they did, would we
    ever have hope that needless abortions would cease?

    I know there is more to education of what an abortion really is than
    simply seeing pictures of what an abortion looks like.

    I remember seeing pictures once of diseased lungs in a brochure
    that was made to discourage young people to smoke cigarettes.
    I didn’t like seeing the pictures but it did cause me to think differently and eventualy I did quit smoking. I wished I had quit
    sooner, but I did quit.

    I know there’s more than seeing pictures of diseased lungs to the
    subject of education concerning smoking and the problems associated with it, but the pictures I saw seemed to have perhaps
    the strongest effect on me. I can not say I have been through any
    in depth program of education on the effects of cigarette smoking
    so I’m no expert on the subject of such education.

    When we begin to love God we begin to hate evil, and when we
    begin to hate evil we find at times that we will do somethings to
    go against it, to “fight” against it if you will. At times we fight in
    wrong ways against people out of the carnality of our souls, and
    at times we do so in ways that are godly and productive and may
    even save some from falling into the traps of the flesh and the evil
    powers of this world’s ways which are not according to Christ.

    I think the education matter is the well that the church needs to
    tap for the good of us all. If we will do that we will find ourselves
    in a battle. I believe there are battles coming where all of us will
    have to “fight” on one side or the other.

    Haven’t we been told that the big battle is coming? In a battle, what do people do but fight? I suppose they also die.

  

Leave a Reply