Ok, so until now this has been a cute family blog. I am taking the initiative to add the dimension of politics to the heart warming flavor my wife has so effectively cultivated. I hope that it will compliment rather than conflict with what she has done, so here we go!
I am first of all a Christian, and don’t put my hope and trust either in the political process or the government. For this and many other reasons I find myself on the side of Republicans more often than not, but I am beholden to no political party- I serve a King and a Kingdom.
With that in mind I plan to write a series of posts on the issues that determine how I vote. My plan is to do them in order of importance, starting with the most important. My first post is on the issue of abortion.
This issue is, and I believe will be reflected upon as, the defining issue of our time. How we ultimately resolve this has massive implications for how we value (or devalue) life, and who we do (or do not) protect. If you believe that human beings have dignity and are to be valued above all other forms of life on Earth, and that our existence as distinct biological entities known as “persons” begins at conception then more than likely you fall into the category of “pro-life.” If you believe that women have the right to determine the value (or non-value) of their children in the womb, do not recognize “fetuses, babies…whatever you want to call them” as persons, then you probably fall into the category of “pro-choice”- that is- value is assigned by the mother giving her a choice as to whether or not, depending on her circumstances, she will carry the fetus to term.
Should this be legislated? The short answer is “yes.” The reason that abortion should be legislated is because it is the function of the government to protect its citizens. When we begin removing our protection from different segments of society and then systematically kill certain groups based on perceived weaknesses, challenges that they may have, or plain inconvenience, it becomes very difficult to know where to stop- think euthanasia (mercy killing). How long before you are seen as being a drain on society because of your handicap, your beliefs, or your ethnic background? When the strong majority use their influence to snuff out weaker minorities, dictatorship is the logical end.
In the coming election the two tickets are almost as divided on this issue as you can get. John McCain has had a consistent pro-life record, and lives it. He is an adoptive parent. Palin is crystal clear on this issue- she has a son with Down’s Syndrome in an atmosphere where 90% of his fellow 47ers are systematically killed for their perceived inconvenience. She also has a child who is pregnant and welcomes her grandchild when it would have been easier to abort in privacy. This kind of integrity and consistency is missing in much of politics.
On the other ticket you have Obama, who has admitted that the moral/ethical question of the status of the unborn is “above my paygrade.” It is incredible to me that someone who is not willing to take a stand on the foundational issue of whether or not the unborn are in fact distinct biological entities known as persons, is so willing to legislate allowing their slaughter. Another issue that is troublesome is his unwillingness to support the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
On this issue, the choice is clear.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Politics Time! By Jonathan
Posted by em at 12:04 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
Amen, Well said Jonathan
Thanks Jen! I love writing and hope to do more on here.
Can I get an AMEN???? Lets make a stand for the sanctity of Life. We are in total agreement. Bring on more politics and spice it up JB. - D&B
Is anybody still coming back this far to comment? Random thoughts from Mary F:
1. I'm going to have to call a technical foul on all you serious-minded Dems who are convulsing over the point guard comment. This is just R humor, give us a break!
2. OK, Dems, I’m gonna give you a freebie: The R’s have the clear beer-drinkers’ ticket. I’m not proud of that.
3. We could – and probably will – keep arguing on candidate’s qualifications. I’m voting primarily on the basic Republican principles.
4. Trickle down….it works, it can’t not work.
5. Free enterprise….it works too, ditto.
6. Another point for the Dems – I personally think Palin should be at home being a mommy.
7. Empty promises – who believes in Santa…I mean in what Obama promises. Who among us is going to pay for all that? He has the nerve…now who has the money?
8. I like and admire Obama as a person, but don’t agree with his platform.
9. McCain said it tonight, and we can all agree: “I hate war.” None of us R’s love war. And probably none of us civilians really know what the war is all about.
10. Killing babies – I’m against it. On the other hand, I support the choice of adults who want to end their own misery.
11. Don’t know why we allow the teaching of the THEORY of evolution. It’s such an impossible explanation but it’s now a tradition.
Enjoyed the pictures and, as always, your opinion on politics. If you want the "other side" of the issues posted as comments, then post this one. If not, I can just email you with random opinions.
With regard to abortion, I agree that it is, indeed, one of the tragedies of our time. As with war, no one is in favor of it. I must reject the notion that if you're not "Pro-life" then you are "for" abortion, as I was told recently by a pro-lifer.
If we can agree that unwanted or unintended pregnancy is a bad thing, then we can focus the discussion on how to prevent unwanted pregnancy, what to do and who should decide if that fails, and who should be responsible for the funding and raising of the child if the government criminalizes abortion once again.
I once wrote a rather long letter to the editor of the Ar Gazette espousing essentially the same argument you make in your blog regarding abortion. It was not published for unknown reasons, but since that time I have changed my position on the issue a bit for many reasons.
Equating a one-celled fertilized egg with a live child outside the womb is not established science nor is it agreed upon by a majority of the citizens in this country. For a minority of citizens to impose their view on this issue on the majority, especially given the religious origins of the argument is a problem. I understand how clear it is in your mind..that it's black and white...right and wrong, but most people just don't see it that way.
It is a bit odd for those who espouse smaller, less intrusive government and promote letting citizens decide important issues for themselves to be in favor of the government being the ultimate decider on this issue, forcing women to have children they cannot afford, do not want and often, sadly, do not care for properly. It is always a gut-wrenching decision, but I now favor letting the person who is most affected by it make the decision. It is a position which embraces freedom of choice and less government intervention...a position libertarians and conservatives alike should embrace. (Yes, I know you'll say the person most affected is the fetus)
I realize the logical difficulty of deciding at what point does the fetus become a "person" with a soul and rights etc.(At what point do you believe the life is given a soul?) It seems fair to me to make the debate about what that point is and make abortion illegal after that point, except in the case of the mother's life being forfeit should the pregnancy proceed. If that point is conception, then we can't agree. That argument would make many forms of birth control illegal and increase, not decrease, unwanted pregnancies even more. Repeal of RvW after all will not prevent abortion, it will only change those who can get it based on ability to pay and travel to places where it is legal.
Finally, the problem with the human population of this world is not too few children being born, it is too many. Millions of babies and children die each year of curable and preventable diseases and millions are born into certain childhood death due to poverty, which could have been prevented by proper education and birth control measures. If the time, energy and money spent by pro-life groups were being spent on these issues, rather than attempts at legislating their own personal morality, I think it would be time and money better spent.
We are doing something terribly wrong in this country. I'm not sure what it is, but other countries which are much less "religious", more permissive, and where abortion is safe and legal have a much lower incidence of unwanted pregnancies and lower rates of abortion than we do here. I can't quote you chapter or verse, but it's my impression that abstinance-only approaches to pregnancy are not effective. (See Sarah Palin's daughter and SP herself..she was apparently pregnant when she married...google her date of marriage and date of birth of her first child if you doubt)
I respect your opinion and know that it is informed by a desire to preserve life and to be a good Christian. I would hope that you can return the favor and understand those who agree with wanting to end unwanted pregnancy, but are not willing to empower the federal government to force this decision on those unfortunate enough to find themselves in trouble.
Love, CF
i feel obligated to also point out that SP is USING her personal situations to "prove" that she is "the real deal" and to collect more southern baptist votes...it's working...on YOU. while collecting votes where one can is a universal political thing, i cannot respect a person who would use her own children to do so. there are only three possibilites: 1) she didn't CARE that her daughter would be humiliated in front of the world because of her pregnancy, 2) she thought she DESERVED to be humiliated for it, or 3) she wanted to USE her to further her own career. any of the three is dispicable. if Christian Republicans would just put their money where their mouth is and pay for these crisis pregnancies (because they certainly wouldn't support raising taxes to have the government provide the help), not from conception to birth, but from birth to adulthood, then we would soon see a blessed change. until then...well, at the very least, i stand firm in not voting on any certain candidate based on their "views" on abortion. thanks for listening.
love,
your loveable, liberal cousin ashley
In the interest of free speech and debate, I will allow pretty much all comments, unless they get really personal and inflamatory. I expect everyone to deal with each other with dignity and respect. With that in mind go ahead and make comments that are helpful, reasonable, substantiated, courteous, and not defamatory. I will also post this on the front page of the blog.
Jon
CF-
Science- You say "Equating a one-celled fertilized egg with a live child outside the womb is not established science nor is it agreed upon by a majority of the citizens in this country."
Science cannot answer this question definitively. Your grounding for making your decision is no more solid than my grounding for making mine on this issue. Science cannot tell you when a united sperm and egg become a human being, who has the rights of the Constitution of the United States. Again you appeal to concensus on the issue, which is exactly why I fight for the rights of the unborn like I do. The majority of white guys back in the days of the slave trade thought black people were either not fully human or at least second rate enough for them to be owned by the white man. Majority concensus does not, nor will it ever determine rightness or wrongness. It may sway policy and laws which is why I seek to persuade and use that avenue, but it is unable to establish universal absolutes. Let's say I grant that you might be right about when personhood begins, you cannot claim that you are absolutely right about your own personal beliefs, as I can't prove with irrefutable, empirical evidence, that my position is correct. In this case, what should we do? If the concensus is that we don't know, then we have a responsibility to err on the side of caution. I would say that the scenario I just painted is the best possible situation that you could find yourself in, and you still should fight for the rights of the unborn.
Government intervention- Well this is where I think government should get involved (and I'm getting ahead of myself)- protecting its citizens. This is the job of the government, to preserve the life of its people. When the convenience of others results in the death of its people, the government should step in. People have the choice all day long whether or not to engage in activity that will create human life. We just need to be willing to take responsibility for our actions, that's all I'm saying. While government legislation and enforcement on this action will not end abortion, we cannot use that as an excuse to allow it. Making murder illegal does not prevent it, but no one is for making it legal. You say making abortion illegal will not stop it, but will make it harder to get and more costly. That is exactly why it ought to be illegal. Abortion shouldn't be easy to get, shouldn't be cheap, is not sanitary and should be pushed into the shadows where other criminal activities are done.
Legislating personal morality-
I find this incredible that the left harps on this point, when they have effectively enacted legislation that forces people with my views to pay for abortions through government funding of Planned Parenthood (to the tune of $330 million dollars per year!!!!)while our crisis pregnancy centers struggle to survive (we don't want government money by the way).
Abstinance- As I've said before, we cannot become so pragmatic that we accept bad behavior because it is rampant, we must fight. It is no different on this issue. Abstinence until marriage is the only way to completely prevent "unwanted pregnancies" STDs, and the other physical and psychological problems that come along with having premarital sex. I don't think it's the government's job to teach my kids about sex, but it should facilitate (or at least not prevent) abstinance teaching since it is the ONLY way to be safe. Everyone has a "personal morality" and everyone tries to legislate it.
Sarah Palin- She took responsibility for her choices, so is Bristol. No one is perfect, and the failure of anyone to live up to the ideal is no reason why we shouldn't expect it (even if the ones who haven't lived up to it are ourselves.)
As always, I respect your opinion and welcome the dialogue. I appreciate your truthfulness, and you always help me understand it from your and other's viewpoints.
Jon
Way to come out of the gate firing my friend. I must say I wish you wouldn't have answered your cousins post so efficiently because you really stole all my thunder for a first time commentator on your blog.
However, I do want to say this. I don't mean to disagree with the fine GOP nominee for President (or rather the soon to be President Elect) but I believe this issue, abortion is the Civil Rights issue of our day. The protection of the unborn must be seen as a necessity of Americans if we truly ever become a government that stands for LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. And it is really that simple. Trying to get into the scientific aspect of it just shows our need to justify a silent holocoust that has existed legally in our country since Roe v. Wade. Now I do not want to come across as a intellect hating, close minded conservative fundamentalist but there comes a time when science must not be our crutch for mitigating such despicable acts but I think that is what has happened.
I do think the other problem comes when the right of the women is heavily used as the right to abort a child. This is the hardest thing to rebut because no one wants to come across as being inconsiderate of a young women who has put herself in a difficult position because of poor choices, because any man who has seen their wife go through the difficulty of pregnancy knows what I am talking about. HOWEVER, unlike the Democtatic parties presidential candidate says, becoming pregnant should never be viewed as a burden nor a punishment. Remember Adam and Eve were commanded to "go forth and mulitply" before the fall so baring a child is never to be viewed as a sin. It is always a blessing of God as both testaments in the Holy Writ testify to. Yes being pregnant is hard on a woman, and that difficulty is multiplied during the birth of that child, but this in no way condones a woman's decision to abort a child. To take the life of an unborn child because someone didn't want the responsibility of being pregnant or having a child is not the solution. Yes we need to poor more of our money as Christians into supporting Pregnancy Crisis centers that affirm a woman's responsibility to carry the child to term, promote adoption in cases where the mother cannot provide for the child, and have the ability to provide the expecting mother with all her prenatal care. But we shouldn't use the lack of these much needed establishments as reasons to continue this appaling sin. Well I'm done. I like your blog and I appreciate your posting on my new site as well. Take care my friend and God bless.
Ashley-
I know the extreme left likes to paint us right wingers as sheepish and unable to think for ourselves. While that is true of some of us, it is equally true of some of the Democrats. I don't think you fall into that category of the Dems, but if you think I fall into that category of the Rs then I guess I have failed at proving my ability to think for myself.
I don't listen to O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingraham or any other right wing radio. I read what the candidates say themselves and don't rely on right wing commentary to come to my conclusions. I read transcripts of speeches, and primary sources when I can. I don't wait on my parents, pastors, theologians, to help form my opinions. I do listen to some commentary, but it is very limited and I always try to listen to both sides. I think through what the candidates say with my biblical worldview (which I will talk about later on).
As far as Palin and her daugther- You can't be serious. Do you think they could have kept that under wraps? No way, not in our age. The number 4 option that you should have included in your list is this- She decided it would be better to release that information on their terms rather than the vicious media's terms. I guarantee you it would have been much worse had the media uncovered that story before they came out and admitted it. Sarah made a very merciful decision to come out with it before the media found it out on their own.
Anyway, I guess you drove me to a "flip out" as well. We are 1 to 1 on that contest!!
Love ya cuz,
Jon
To JB:
Thanks for posting my comments. I know that you are smart, thoughtful and fair-minded.
I'll try to limit my comment today to two areas:
First, the issue of what to do when we can't be sure of the science or facts on an issue. To correct your impression of my position; I'm NOT saying that I know when human life, including an immortal soul, begins; I'm saying I do not know. Most people on your side of the issue are "certain" that it begins at conception and this informs their justification for their policy of illegalizing abortion all the way back to that point. You say that you are also uncertain about this, or at least cannot prove your position. Let's go ahead and agree on this, as I don't think either of us can state uniquivocal evidence to prove his point, and there are good points on both sides of the issue...at least I will concede yours.
Where we differ is that, after positing the inability to make the case that abortion is equivalent to murder, you find the solution is to make laws that force all persons to comply with your admittedly unproven theory about the status of the fetus back to fertiliaztion. Since your point of view is primarily influenced by your religion (may I take the liberty of this assumption?), then it amounts to forcing your religion on others who do not share your beliefs and who are forced to bear the brunt of the consequences of the restriction of their freedom and choice that such laws would force upon them. Since we can neither agree nor prove our respective points of view, it would seem most fair and logical to allow each individual to make the choice based on their own morality and circumstances, rather than having someone else's religion forced upon them and making them a criminal if they do not comply. There is no law forcing a woman to have an abortion she does not want. Your side is free to follow your religious and moral impulses to the max. You are not, however, apparently, willing to grant equality to the other side. This position can only be justified by the belief that the fertilized egg is, from the moment of conception, equivalent to a live person out of the womb with respect to all the protections of the law....a point you have conceded you cannot make with any certainty or objective evidence.
Therefore, is seems to me the best way to proceed is for your side and mine to continue to work towards areas in which we agree....reducing unwanted pregnancy, reducing the # of abortions etc. and not bring Big Brother Government in to take sides with the minority view until a consensus can be reached as to the ethical and moral issues involved.
You are absolutely correct in saying that the majority is not always right...but they are right at least as often as the minority.
Second: If JG thinks a sixteen year-old unmarried povery-stricken woman will not be burdened by an unwanted baby to raise, then I highly suspect he hasn't thought it through. And after that baby is born, many who championed the baby in the womb are nowhere to be found when it comes time to buy the food and diapers.
Take Care, CF
jon,
you misuderstood what i was talking about concerning SP. the point was not whether she should reveal it herself vs. waiting for the media to find out; the point was regarding her decision to accept the VP nomination with respect to what it would inevitably do to her daughter--of course she knew it would come out. by accepting the nomination, she made her daughter's situation public, when it could have been kept private, relatively speaking. given the fact that she knew it would come out, i stand by my three options she had for running anyway, none of which are very flattering to her.
with regard to abortion, it is not about the "inconvenience" of pregnancy or birth that is an issue...at all. although it is laughable that any man would venture to imagine what that is like for even an old-enough, married, financially secure woman. it's about the CHILD. who's going to pay for it? so the mother made a "bad choice". why does the child have to pay for it? i know i am wasting my breath here, but has anyone on the R actually dug deep and thought about this? my gosh, i worked at a juvenile detention center and, trust me, the pregnant girls were not hurting for attention...so much so that some of the girls who weren't pregant PRETENDED TO BE. pregnancy and birth is not the issue. question. have you ever known anyone who's had an abortion? the answer is yes. whether you know it or not, they are all around you (general you), but they may not have confided in you because your side presents a point of view they may consider insensitive. you have labeled this one "the unforgivable sin" and people are terrified that you won't like or love them anymore if you knew. this is sad. another question. does your wife (interesting that it seems i'm talking with men only about this subject) take birth control? if your answer is yes, how can you live with yourself? EVERY combination contraceptive pill aborts fertilized eggs (causes lining to "slough off" despite implanted embryos). the only one that doesn't is the "mini pill" which only works if a woman is also breastfeeding while taking it. if so, you cannot talk. (i know i'm preaching to the choir here, but for those who may be reading and do not know). W certianly doesn't know--his solution to abortion was to make the morning after pill more available...HAHA, poor little ol W (sorry, i digress). my pharmacist best friend just went to the mini pill, due to her knowledge and conviction, which i applaud her for...but it's interesting-- she waited until she was done with pharmacy school to make the switch. she's been happily married and financially stable for years (7 to be exact). so, if it doesn't work then fine. but back when it wasn't a good time to have a baby, she used a combination pill. go figure.
I feel once again like i'm beating my head against a brick wall. and i feel bad about polluting poor emily's family blog with all this crapola that is obviously unwanted, so i might be done here. come over to franz mania any time. love ya cuz.
ashley
Not to sound like an old foggie, but as far as concerns of cost go what is wrong with using cloth diapers and breast feeding for the first year of a baby's life. This cuts the cost of buying diapers and formula. However, you are right that many who champion the right to life are nowhere to be found once this mother has given birth and in doing so many churches and organizations miss out on a huge blessing by doing so. I have always thought that our association of baptist churches have failed in this area, too. We make resolutions in meetings to affirm the right to life but we don't put money or time into helping these mothers who take the responsibility of having this precious child. It is sad and neglectful on our part and we will be judged for it. The words of Christ ring true, "whoever has done this for the least of these, he has done it to me."
CF-
Is there a point at which you personally believe it should be illegal to terminate a child?
Ashley,
You said:
"it's about the CHILD. who's going to pay for it? so the mother made a "bad choice". why does the child have to pay for it?"
Exactly my point. Why should the child have to pay for the poor decision of the mother? The child is an innocent by-stander and deserves a chance at life.
I know that legislating abortion will not fix the problem. It is much deeper than the legality of abortion, but I have to deal with reality as it is not as I wish it were.
The reason we have so many illegitimate pregnancies is because people do not take personal responsibility for their actions. One of the reasons people don't take personal responsibility for their actions is that they think the government (i.e. taxpayers) will bail them out.
Granted, it is not an easy issue. I'm not so naive as to think that legislating it will fix everything. This will have to be a grassroots effort to instill the type of values and truth in people so that abortion becomes unthinkable like slavery.
You said:
"have you ever known anyone who's had an abortion? the answer is yes. whether you know it or not, they are all around you (general you), but they may not have confided in you because your side presents a point of view they may consider insensitive. you have labeled this one "the unforgivable sin" and people are terrified that you won't like or love them anymore if you knew. this is sad."
Ashley, I have never said or implied that this is the "unforgivable sin." I am on the board of the Hannah Medical Center which counsels women where they are, pre-abortion, post-abortion, with small children, anywhere. It is a very loving and accepting organization (if it weren't I wouldn't be a part of it). They deal with women all the time who have had abortions and a lot of the women who work there have had abortions, making them uniquely qualified to minister to women in that delicate situation. I've never had the privilege of counseling a post-abortive woman, but I would treat her with dignity, respect, mercy, and acceptance. I do not stand above women who have had abortions condemning them, in many cases they are mostly the victim.
Don't confuse my strong feelings about this issue with indifference or unmercifulness. I cannot perfectly empathize with anyone, much less women and the difficult situations that they may find themselves in. I can empathize with everyone as a human being, and I can empathize with everyone who has made mistakes. I take your criticism seriously that I do need to be careful and not pretend to be able to perfectly empathize with anyone. However, if discussing an issue like this requires perfect empathy, then no one can ever talk about any situation since discussing it presupposes a perfect understanding of the various situations people may find themselves in. In which case everyone is disqualified from discussion. I could strike back and say something like "Try to empathize with the child in the womb." But, I know you can't do that, and it's not fair of me to require that you do so.
As far as birth control- I realize that the abortion issue is related to birth control. I am not aware of any scientific findings conclusively showing the connection between combination pills and spontaneous abortion, please enlighten me. For the record, Emily is not on the pill and hasn't been for 5 years or so.
Thanks for your comments as always, and I hope this conversation is helpful to people on both sides of this debate to further inform and help us all understand one another more fully.
Love ya Ash,
Jon
I just read this in the ADG today and thought it to be of great importance on this topic. Joe Biden in an interview yesterday with NBC said, regarding on when life begins, "I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But this is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society."
Forgive me now for parsing his words but basically Sen. Biden is saying something very hypocritical in my opinion and that is. If he feels that life begins at conception and is still in support of a woman's right to choose then he IS supporting murder of the unborn and knowingly doing so. You cannot be truly convinced that life begins at conception and then go on to say that a woman still has the right to choose. That type of logic is contradictory and in my opinion even more problematic than Barry Obama saying on when life begins that is "above his paygrade." Of course yesterday on ABC he explained that answer as meaning, "Probably.....What I meant to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into...it's a pretty tough question."
So there you go. Have at it some more. I like reading the family bickering. HAHA!!!
Ashley,
You are right, I misunderstood you on your comments about Sarah Palin. I'm sorry I didn't read more carefully. In which case I will add a new number 4.
Sarah knew that this election was bigger than her and her family, and decided to make that sacrifice.
It's not that she didn't care, thought Bristol deserved it or wanted to use Bristol- this is all gross speculation and propaganda. The same could be said for any politician. I could say that Obama doesn't care about his brother in Kenya, who will likely be exploited because of his half brother's rise to power. It would be wrong of me to do so.
Jon
Man I must be moving up in the world, because Al Mohler took the same position on Biden's comment as I did. Read his blog here: www.almohler.com
See I'm not the only one that has a big problem with Biden's logic.
The problem with Biden and Obama's logic on this issue is that, as has already been pointed out elsewhere, it is hard to know where to draw the line once you start down that road.
If Biden says that his personal opinion is that life begins at conception, does that not mean that he believes it would be murderous of him to perform an abortion? How can he say with a straight face that it might be possible for someone else to perform the same act and it not be murder? Obama's logic is no better. He says he doesn't know when life begins, which begs the question, "Why wouldn't you want to err on the side of caution?" These two guys are unbelievably confused, and I can't imagine that the American people can buy this line of rhetoric that they are spewing.
Abortion is either murder or it is not. If you believe it is, why in the world would you not seek to end it? If it's not murder, then it is not a tragedy. This business of saying "as a matter of faith" it may be murder, but "in reality??" I cannot force my theological beliefs on anyone else!?!!? Where does it stop? Belief that murder is wrong is theological no matter how you slice it. Belief that it is wrong to steal is theological no matter how you slice it. This supposed divide between sacred and secular does not exist, except in the minds of politicians for whom it is convenient, and it is only in areas where there is not consensus. Notice, they have no problem legislating their "personal" or "theological" opinions about murder. I think it's a very politically calculating and duplicitous way of taking a stand on an issue if you asked me. Kind of like starting a war and not raising the money (or at least not cutting in other areas) to pay for it (which I think is a legitimate criticism of the Bush administration).
Jon, I like your thoughts. I am learning reading them. I do think, however, you are trying to argue your side instead of trying to understand where the other side is coming from and then responding. And that may be your goal, but I don't think it's fair. It's playing to the political game. "Who's right? Who's wrong?" It's not persuasive, it's antagonistic. Unless of course the folks reading already agree with you, and clearly many of them do. Honestly, I do too to an extent, but I don't necessarily think its fair to point fingers, make accusations, or base arguments on presuppositions. I know you won't be offended by my comment, but I fear that other people will so I'll just say that if you could hear my tone of voice it wouldn't sound nearly as mean as it does in writing. Sob. Sigh. That's me crying because politics makes my head (and heart) hurt.
Please understand I’m not trying to start an argument. I just want to get everyone thinking. Let’s use these “minds of Christ”, think inside the boundaries of Scripture, and think outside the big red right-wing box!
God Help Us!!
Kristen
Kristin,
I respect your opinion and certainly don't want to be unnecessarily contentious, and want the conversation we all have to be helpful and fair. I know you have pure motives in your constructive criticism so please help me see where I am going astray. You can email me in private if you want, or post them here, as it may be helpful to others who may tend to fall into my error. I can see where I may have used some needlessly inflammatory language in describing Biden and Obama's position on abortion. Perhaps I was too rough on them. I do tend to think in very linear categories of right and wrong, reasonable and unreasonable, good and bad, biblical and unbiblical (and rightly so). The problem is that it is very easy to fall into a kind of self-canonizing pride where everything I say is right because after all I press all my thoughts through my worldview weeding out any fabrications, exaggerations, unfair accusations, and wrongful imputations of bad motives (did you like my rhyme? I feel like a conservative Al Sharpton!!). I am certainly not above doing any of the things I just mentioned so please help me to see. I am in the dark without people shining the light on me.
Thanks,
Jon
Well, I may be a little late to the party, but I have only recently discovered Jonathan's blog. Johathan, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and I have enjoyed each post. The abortion dicussions have been particularly interesting. In my opinion you have been very gracious and logical in your defense of the pro-life position.
Ashley, I also appreciate your thoughtful responses and willingness to engage the issue. However, some of your positions seem odd to me. You made it clear that you do not know when life begins and seem to suggest that it is impossible for anyone to know definitively. While I believe scripture to be very clear on this issue; scientifically speaking I would agree with you. However, I believe the scientific evidence points to life beginnig at conception, while you have obviously settled on some other point.
Now here is where the problem begins. Most pro-lifers would suggest that since we can't know for sure; we should err on the side of caution. You suggest that since we can't know, each person should be allowed to decide for himself according to "his own morality." But what do we do when someone comes along, and they will, who decides that according to his morality, life does not begin until each person is conscience of his own existence. Thus eliminating infants, toddlers, some mentally handicapped, the comatose, and possibly others from being considered alive. According to this person's morality, it would not be unacceptable to eliminate these non lives. Now, obviously we have laws against this sort of thing, but my question to you is; based on your view, how can you support such laws? After all shouldn't each person be allowed to decide for himself when life begins and then act accordingly. That seems dangerous to me. At some point the United States government decided that it was immoral to kill infants, toddlers, and the rest of the aforementioned and then imposed that morality on we the people. Was the government wrong to do this?
Finally let me say that I appreciate your concern for the mothers and children caught in the middle of the abortion debate and it seems that you truly desire positive outcomes for all involved. Also, I can only speak for myself, but I would certainly admit that I could and should be doing much more to love and care for those considering abortion and those affected by it.
If I have misrepresented your views or if my logic is faulty, either of which is very possible, please point it out. Just thinking out loud about a complex issue.
Post a Comment