There are many reasons to look forward to the day of resurrection. The foremost of course will be to be with the Lord Jesus, and then after that to be with all the saints — with those I have longed to meet but especially those who will make that day a wonderful day of reunion. Now when faithful Christians make lists of their top ten reasons for looking forward to that day of resurrection, the chances are pretty good that the top five will be very similar to one another. There will be a lot of commonality. But after that, things will trail off a bit. For example, my number 7 is that nobody will be trying to establish a single payer health care system. Just think about luxuriating in that for about five hundred years.
Now hold that thought, because I am actually wanting to talk about the Planned Parenthood debacle. Planned Parenthood is now officially toxic, and our very straightforward and simple task is to keep them toxic. Twenty years from now the two words Planned Parenthood should conjure up the same emotional responses that the one word Chernobyl does. We are not there yet, but it has been a good start. This whole thing has been a Grade-A PR disaster for them and, through them, a disaster for abortion rights and for Roe. And by disaster, I mean ruination, calamity, debacle, catastrophe, fiasco, crash, and cataclysm. In short, they have had a bad couple of weeks.
And as I have already mentioned, the pro-life Christian response has been stupendous. Despite Twitter and Facebook doing their level cussed best to keep this thing from trending, the pressure from our side has nonetheless been relentless and effective. Weeks of #DefundPP and #PPSellsBabyParts and #AnotherBoy and what I get at the top of my feed tonight is #BachelorinParadise. Really? But even though the keepers of the new media are trying to lie about what is happening, it is obviously happening anyway, and politicians are taking notice, and corporations are backing away.
Now the need of the hour is for us to keep this stupendous response just as focused and forceful and effective as it has been up to this point. Hard pursuit is the name of the game.
So here is the caution. I have recently seen two (so far slight) tendencies in the Christian responses that threaten, if tolerated, to derail us. And I would plead with everyone to not let that happen. The two responses are these — one acknowledges the potency of the moment and the momentum, and then tries to hitch that momentum to other issues. The other tendency tries to be a worldly-wise cynicism, trying to explain that this moment will change nothing in the long run, that it is all just a flash in the pan.
So let us deal with these in order. Kristen Powers is an evangelical Christian, and a pro-life Democrat. This means she says things about health care, and defends things in the same realm, that would interfere with my resurrection joy, number 7-wise. But on the Kermit Gosnell case she was magnificent, and she has been the same on this Planned Parenthood fiasco. In short, she is an ally, and an important one. We all agree on this. Let us therefore act in concert so that we can accomplish something worthwhile at this crucial point where we all agree. That’s the principle applied to my left.
To my right, I would say to my Christian libertarian friends that this is not the time to connect Planned Parenthood to foreign policy issues. Leave the CIA out of it. We have broken through the culture of death’s line, and are in a position to actually get something done at this point. Again, we are getting something done where every pro-lifer agrees. Allowing PP chop shops to exist, funding them with hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, and doing it all in the name of women’s reproductive health is a moral and ethical farce. Everyone in the country who agrees with that as a stand-alone issue should be taking full advantage of it as a stand-alone issue. Make it stand alone, and why? So that it can fall.
Planned Parenthood has been caught in an egregious position, and they are on the hook trying to defend the indefensible. Our solitary occupation, until they go down, should be to demand that they continue to be required to defend their indefensible behavior. When that turns out to be impossible, as it is impossible, then the undefended point may be taken.
Note that I am not saying that we should abandon integrated worldview thinking. There is a time and place to discuss how all these issues relate together, and there is a place to debate them. But that time and place is not the moment when this city is about to fall. Let’s take it, and then debate what the next city ought to be. Trying to get agreement on these other issues now will only disrupt this alliance. Arguing about the next city now will only prevent the taking of this city.
What is the second distraction? Other Christians are disillusioned. They think that nothing ever changes, and they believe that this episode is no exception. There will be an uproar, they say, and then everything will return to normal — normal being a relative term. Calm down, everybody. It would be wonderful if you succeeded, but there is no way you are going to succeed. Besides, winning a major cultural battle like this would mess with my eschatology.
But there are many reasons to believe that this moment is different. There really has been a true momentum shift. And a central part of the reason for this is the new media environment.
Twitter started in 2006, less than ten years ago. Facebook was launched in 2004, just over a decade ago. That was 30 years after Roe. YouTube started in 2005. GoPro started right about that same time. The introduction of iPhones, which led to every other person in the country having a movie studio in his pocket, happened in 2007. So I personally think it would be the coolest thing in the world if we arranged for the first great social media reformation to be the pro-life reformation. Thanks bunches, you techie pagans!
When Roe was first decided, the national dialog was dominated and controlled by the big three television networks, and by the old guard print media. If they wanted to bottle up a groundswell opposition movement to anything, it was the easiest thing in the world for them to do so. This is what they successfully did with the annual pro-life marches on Washington, every year in January. If those same media conditions were in place now, the chances would be excellent that you never would have heard anything about PP and these dirty deeds of theirs. How many babies were dissected and shopped out in the late seventies? How would you ever know?
We are living in a time that is remarkably, strikingly different. A cynical and world-weary response on the basis of how it used to go for us back in the dinosaur days is a remarkably short-sighted response. In some ways, we have stumbled into this. The Center for Medical Progress produced the videos, but our ability to run with it after the fact was not part of any master plan. It was more like a simultaneous recognition on the part of hundreds of thousands of Christians — “Hey. Look what we can do.”
So let’s continue do it. Let’s see what happens.
“What is the second distraction? Other Christians are disillusioned. They think that nothing ever changes, and they believe that this episode is no exception. There will be an uproar, they say, and then everything will return to normal — normal being a relative term. Calm down, everybody. It would be wonderful if you succeeded, but there is no way you are going to succeed. Besides, winning a major cultural battle like this would mess with my eschatology.” Gandalf said it best: “It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in… Read more »
“This whole thing has been a Grade-A PR disaster for them and, through them, a disaster for abortion rights and for Roe. And by disaster, I mean ruination, calamity, debacle, catastrophe, fiasco, crash, and cataclysm.” “Twitter started in 2006, less than ten years ago. Facebook was launched in 2004, just over a decade ago. That was 30 years after Roe. YouTube started in 2005. GoPro started right about that same time. The introduction of iPhones, which led to every other person in the country having a movie studio in his pocket, happened in 2007. So I personally think it would… Read more »
And your debbiedownerism fails to take into account three very important facts about divine nature:
1) God is bigger than human nature.
2) Human nature is neither a surprise nor an obstacle to the God who created it.
3) God can redeem human nature so that those who once rebelled against Him in every possible way can become lovingly submissive to Him.
Personally, I’m betting on His matchless might rather than on your nambypamby naysaying.
If you really want to end abortion, you should be working to abolish welfare and child support laws.
And I’m going to put you in charge of strategy…why, exactly?
The battle is hot and a strategic victory is viable now. Carpe modem!
Lotsa luck. Check back in a week, a month, a year from now, and tell me how viable that “victory” turned out to be.
So, believe in Gregory? Or believe in Jesus? Tough choice, tough choice.
That’s great, Jon. Check back in a week, a month, a year from now, and tell me I was wrong, and that abortion has been outlawed, or the number of legal abortions has been reduced. I dare ya.
Gauntlet much, Gregory?
There is a lion in the road! There is a lion in the streets! May as well turn over and go back to sleep. Great strategy, McDivitt.
It’s not a strategy. If Rev. Wilson told you that he was going to drive to Washington DC and overthrow the government with his SuperSoaker, and you said, “Frankly, I don’t think that’s going to be successful”, you wouldn’t be providing a “strategy”; you’d be providing a realistic assessment of the likelihood of success of his strategy.
“So I don’t expect legalized abortion to go anywhere” sounds like a (lame) strategy to me. I don’t know what your alternative is, but this sounds like you just hit the snooze button.
Oh grant us help against the foe,
for vain is the salvation of man!
With God we shall do valiantly;
it is he who will tread down our foes.
You really need to look up the definition of “strategy.”
While I was in the dictionary I flipped over to “infer.” Throwing in the towel is a strategy, albeit one that often does not lead to victory.
Ah, I’m on the wrong side of history. The oracle speaks!
I said nothing of the kind.
First, abortion rates are dropping. Go read Douthat’s latest.
Along the same lines, fewer and fewer OB’s are being trained how to abort humans.
Second, Patton essentially said a good plan executed violently now is better than the perfect plan two weeks from now. Making and keeping pp toxic is something we should pursue with reckless abandon now.
Third, don’t be scared to lose – or die. That’s no way to fight.
Gregory, even if this strategy isn’t as successful as possible, at least I’ll know I’ve been faithful with it. What satisfaction will you have? “Toldjaso”? Lamesauce.
What if it’s not successful at all? Wouldn’t that just mean you wasted your time?
What if it is successful? Wouldn’t that mean that people who pooh-poohed it were being unfaithful with the opportunity?
Unfaithful? Valerie, I’m probably the only person on here who still orders “freedom fries.”
Seriously? “Freedom fries” is your defense?
Semper fry.
I’ve spoken out vehemently against what PP does, but somehow I’m being unfaithful if I don’t seek a solution by way of politics? Have I not given good reasons why I believe that going the political route is a hopeless, even laughable endeavor?
If it turns out I’m wrong, does that mean I’ve been unfaithful simply because I used the wrong strategy? If it does, then that applies to you as well.
Reread Doug’s post. The point it not “seeking a solution by way of politics,” but pursuing a cultural revolution using the means of social media. It will, Lord willing, help effect political action to change the laws, but the main point isn’t to get politicians involved; it’s to get eyes opened so that the tide turns on this wicked practice. When the Senate vote failed last night, I was disappointed, of course, but I didn’t feel defeated. God’s got more twists to this story. And whichever way He turns the tale, I want to have been on the Hero’s side… Read more »
Not at all, you have fought the good fight. And you get to hear your Father say, “Well done good and faithful servant.” Anything is worth hearing that even if there is no obvious temporal change.
Gregory McDivitt, you’re a stitch. Thanks for rushing in and providing two comments that precisely illustrate what Doug is talking about. Carry on!
As long as people are allowed to vote, abortion won’t be outlawed until welfare is abolished.
Gregory, don’t you have somewhere else to be?
Not that I know of. Why? What have you heard?
Gregory, I appreciate the reasonableness of your tone and I think your points are valid observations. My primary concern is that the effort to impose morality on a secular society is a questionable one from an orthodox, historic Christian perspective. I think the Faith lights up the darkness best when it is not enmeshed in “the system”. In any case, I think you are right that victory has been prematurely declared. Abortion is an inevitable function of the sexual revolution, and that in turn is a result of a new moral landscape that normalises extramarital relations. In turn, those extramarital… Read more »
I think getting significant numbers of people to abhor selling chopped up baby parts may actually be more likely than getting significant numbers of people to vote to repeal welfare programs. Since we’re talking strategy.
You can get everybody and his brother and his brother’s gay lover to abhor selling chopped up baby parts, and abortion is not going to be outlawed. Nor is welfare going to be repealed. There is no “strategy” that saves a culture that has decided to commit suicide, and has been pursuing it pell-mell for the last 50 years.
I dont see the victory here being the ending of abortion. Victory is the dismembering of Planned Barrenhood and a proper stigmatizing of abortion, which will result in fewer abortions and more saved lives. Even with a groundswell of opposition to abortion, it will remain legal until the SC overturns Roe v Wade, which will not happen until there are more Scalias and Thomas’ on the court than Kennedys and Ginsbergs. I would also urge Christians to be proactive as well, if you are not already, in providing services and care for single and expectant mothers through your Churches, your… Read more »
Then you agree with me. Rev. Wilson said that this PP kerfluffle would be “a disaster for abortion rights and for Roe. And by disaster, I mean ruination, calamity, debacle, catastrophe, fiasco, crash, and cataclysm.” You and I agree that that’s not the case at all.
(And, yes, Valerie, I know the word is kerfuffle, but I like kerfluffle better, so that’s what I use.)
I do believe its a disaster for abortion rights in that it has changed the dialog from “war on women” and a “woman’s right to choose”, to what abortion actually is, which is the dismembering and crushing of a baby, and the selling of its parts for profit. It becomes much harder to defend abortion when people see eyeballs, brains, and little feet being rooted through while the doctors laugh, jest, and sip Chianti.
Roe is the legal side of the equation and one that will only change when the ideological makeup of the SC changes.
As the bumper sticker says, “It’s not a choice. It’s a child.” Who can now deny that?
Most people are well aware that a fetus is a baby, and that abortion tears a fetus apart. I can’t get over how many Christians seem to think that abortion is only legal because most people don’t understand what it is, and once they do, they’ll be outraged and it will be outlawed by popular demand. That’s not going to happen, as most adults are already well aware of what an abortion involves.
Well, I disagree with you on that. I have talked to a lot of young women who need to believe that, until 5 or 6 months, there is nothing but a clump of tissue. Some believe that until the baby is kicking, it does not really have a heart, a brain, and fingers and toes. Why do you think abortion clinics are so adamant about not letting their customers see ultrasounds? I think the human capacity for denial is so great that only the most graphic representations can overcome it.
Anyone who denied the truth of that saying before, but who now accepts it only because of these videos, is an imbecile. Does one have to actually see the charred bodies of Hitler’s victims in the concentration camps before condemning Hitler?
Winning over idiots is a tricky business. Idiots tend to be fickle and easily distracted. Yeah, we pro-lifers may be soaring high on the current trendiness of the topic, but this trendiness is only being propped up by those who have, thus far, shown themselves quite adept at putting their heads in the sand.
Apparently a lot of people needed to see the charred bodies. I think of all the good citizens who lived around the death camps and didn’t see or hear (or smell) a thing. If graphic evidence were not so effective, prosecutors wouldn’t make juries look at pictures of dismembered corpses. I think that all of us can be imbeciles when recognizing the truth might mean actually having to do something about it. When Abraham Lincoln met Harriet Beecher Stowe, he said something like, So you are the little lady who started this great war. I don’t imagine Stowe had any… Read more »
“I would also urge Christians to be proactive as well, if you are not already, in providing services and care for single and expectant mothers through your Churches, your time, and your treasure.” Which is another reason abortion will never be outlawed. As long as women know they can count on people’s sympathy and compassion when they get pregnant out of wedlock, they’re going to continue to have sex outside of marriage. In order to end abortion, you would have to bring back the stigma and ostracism that unwed motherhood used to result in. Christians aren’t going to do that,… Read more »
I respectfully disagree with your assessment. History and experience have shown it to be incorrect. Christians ministries working with these women have prevented countless abortions, prevented future pregnancies outside of wedlock, and have brought many to Christ. Your view seems to be that the message of the Gospel is powerless unless sinners stop sinning.
As my grandfather put it: “‘Never’ is a long time.” We’re in a good position for American Christians to move away from pathological altruism and remember that “niceness” isn’t in the Bible.
The church has millennia of culture and tradition to draw from; no reason to believe the past 75-100 years in America are the only cultural frame possible for the future.
When I say “never”, I mean in the current political setup. Which won’t go on forever. Things are going to start coming apart at some point, and collapsing, and going to hell. Only then will it be possible to rebuild things. And many of our problems are a result of too much prosperity. When the bills come due, and we can no longer pay women to have kids out of wedlock, things will change, and fast. When having a baby to feed without a man to provide for it is once again a matter of life and death, slut shaming… Read more »
Oh. Well, that’s a rather Humpty Dumpty way to put things.
I’m talking in the context that everyone on here seems to be operating under. If that’s too hard for you to understand, no worries. Just start asking really stupid questions like “will no more welfare mean no more gleaning???” and you’ll fit right in.
I don’t think Jesus partook in slut shaming, FWIW.
On further reflection on this passage, I have to agree with you, Bugs. The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. When Jesus, who knew she wasn’t married but was actually shacking up with a man, told… Read more »
The difference between a physician and a critic is laid out for all to see. Jesus certainly identified the woman’s current state, in order that she might have an opportunity to be freed and forgiven – which did happen, I believe, along with the woman involved in the sand-writing incident…
As for the critic…’nuff said.
Jesus certainly identified the woman’s current state
And, pray tell, Bugs, what was her current state?
Wasn’t it that she was sexually promiscuous? You know – a slut?
And Jesus didn’t just “identify” her state. He called attention to it, as blatantly as possible, by telling her to call her husband when he knew very well she wasn’t married to the man she lived with.
As is clear in the text. But the term “slut shaming” does not really suggest that the goal is to help her overcome her sin; rather it is more of a “you don’t belong in decent society, begone!” Reminds me of a sermon I heard decades ago about how she was out to get water when she would be least likely to run into decent folks.
Jesus told her the truth, and offered her living water anyway.
Thanks for the warm welcome! :)
Go call your husband. Have him check the site out.
My wife and I got a chuckle out of that one!
But the term “slut shaming” does not really suggest that the goal is to help her overcome her sin
Unwed mothers were never stigmatized and ostracized in order to help them overcome their sin. They were treated like pariahs to deter other women from becoming unwed mothers, in order to keep society from collapsing. Since unwed mothers are no longer treated as pariahs, women now become unwed mothers by the millions, and our country is at death’s door.
While true that they draw a lot of resources, are you suggesting that the quantity of unwed mothers alone is the reason we are in the fix we are in?
No; they’re a huge factor in how we got here, but far from the only factor. But they are certainly one of the main factors in why we’ll never get out of it. Very few never-married men are going to marry a woman with one or more kids by another man, let alone a woman with kids from more than one man. The majority of all births to women under 30 are now to unmarried women. That’s a tipping point, a Rubicon, that no society ever recovers from.
As it stands now, short of the Holy Spirit touching legions of hearts, this is more of a rescue evac mission anyway. America is the dude playing in the sand while a tsunami is bearing down on him and he had ignored the warning of the locals telling him to run for his life (you can find it on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuUygn7BZis) That is *my opinion* and I certainly could be wrong. However, only God really knows how this is going to go down, and perhaps if we repent and put our evil practices behind us, perhaps he will spare… Read more »
The last sermon I heard on the woman at the well – – by a re-married female minister, FWIW – – made several points. 1. She was an outcast (fallen) among outcasts (Samarians). That’s why she was there at noon. That puts her doubly outside the scope of “society.” But such petty, human gradations are irrelevant to Jesus. 2. Jesus as a Jew should have gone around Samaria. Instead He went into the middle of it. 3. She was the first outsider to whom He revealed His actual role. 4. Note the pacing and contrast. In John 3:16 He speaks… Read more »
The last sermon I heard on the woman at the well – – by a re-married female minister,
Oh, good Lord…
She supports SSM and was just promoted to District Superintendent. (Our bishop is female, FWIW.) OTOH, she strongly opposes such things as fining the Kleins in OR.
More FWIW: last time (Gen Conf meets every 4 years) SSM lost by a few points. Most folks think it will fail next
year by a wider margin.
Hi Kelly. So just to be clear, in saying “just as valid”, you are saying that the D’s are correct in saying that the R’s are guilty as charged of “slut shaming”?
Sorry for the confusion; I meant the exact opposite. The “war on women” is as much a crock as the bogus claim that pro-lifers engage in slut-shaming. Or the claim that PP is really about women’s health. Crock x 2. BTW, any honest law prof will – – at least privately – – tell you that social controls are FAR more effective at regulating behavior than laws and regs ever will be. Q: What’s the difference between a law and a custom? Ans: Takes a LOT more nerve to break a custom. The dentist from MN being put through the… Read more »
I was thinking of that passage in the midst of this issue; “One hump or two?” Explains why the two-humped camels are so rare these days – we like to go big! Thanks for clarifying!
It isn’t Christ like to stigmatize and ostrasize unwed mothers.
In fact His design for motherhood is marriage.
I watched you get your ass handed to you on the Obergefell debate.
That wasn’t very nice.
That’s odd, Tom. I don’t remember the Obergefell debate that way at all. If I recall, my main three points were 1) that Obergefell is largely based on Loving vs VA, which Christians have been praising for decades and and thereby walked right into Obergefell 2) Christian business owners and parachurch groups that oppose same sex marriage are going to be treated the same way business owners and parachurch groups that oppose interracial marriage are treated and 3) because of #2, and based on past history, most church groups in America will eventually embrace gay marriage. I certainly don’t remember… Read more »
The only way to break the bastard curse was capital punishment. Christ took care of that. Now all are free to enter.
Tom, you forgot to post the link to where I was supposedly soundly trounced in the Obergefell discussion.
Secular progressives and evangelicals agree that it would be unkind for anyone to have to live with the consequences of sin. The pleasures of sin are private while the costs are socialized. The responsible bear the burden for the irresponsible. Such a system can only continue to gather free riders until collapse.
Tom,
Ignore Gregory when he speaks to law.
Besides, it doesn’t matter if he thinks he won that debate. It only matters (if it matters) if the majority of the thread thinks he “won” that debate.
kmh
There will be no more Scalias or Thomas’s appointed to the court, in part because it would be ‘not nice’ for Christians to object to rigging the game through massive levels of immigration.
These three facts have been present for all of human history; ritual infant murder has been a relatively rare feature of civilizations.
So, how did Western civilization get along without this convenience for so long? I’m no rocket scientist, but giving fathers and husbands control of and responsibility for the sexual (and other) behaviour of their women seems to be a common feature. We might try that again.
See my other posts.
Why? You’re not saying anything interesting or useful.
Actually, exposing unwanted infants on hillsides has a long and storied history, even in the kind of societies your’e thinking of.
By “Western civilization” I meant “Christendom”. Obviously the pagan Romans, etc. had different ideas — but even then, the practice ended without changing human nature.
The practice ended (and here, we won’t mention the ways in which women dealt with “changelings”, that persisted well into the 19th century) because Christians rescued and adopted the exposed children.
it still doesn’t support your assertion that the change in practice had to do with greater control over their women.
I’m saying the change in the other direction (increased promiscuity, abortions, illegitimate births, etc) is a result of the removal of that control.
A legitimate discussion could be had about the long term viability (or lack of it, depending on one’s view) – of such cultural reactions as what we’re seeing now. But your three points don’t seem to offer much of pertinence in relation to that particular discussion. They are certainly relevant insofar as they identify the obstacle. But that is merely of a sort of “threshold” relevance. Okay, yes, we have an obstacle here – and you have accurately articulated some of it’s principle elements. But the very discussion of the worthiness of battle tactics presumes the existence of an enemy… Read more »
OK. Thanks Matt!
You are most welcome, ole chap.
Defunding PP is the first step. Much easier to do than outright banning abortion. The elephant has to be eaten one bite at a time!!!
On the “Twitter and Facebook are doing their darnedest….” point, a repeat of a comment I made to a friend on Facebook. To be fair: we are in a sort of echo chamber; if you looked at the tweet counts for #AnotherBoy, it had about 23k total tweets. Most other trending topics had upwards of 50 or 75k tweets on their subject (#CecilTheLion actually had 70k+). Social media algorithms also prioritize the switfness of a topic’s appearance as well as the number of individual *people* making the posts. That means that a long simmer of posts on a topic, with… Read more »
I find Doug’s unrestrained optimism to be just as near-sighted as my old-school dispy brothers’ unrestrained pessimism. Maybe things will work out just like he’s predicting. I really hope so and pray so, and I’m doing my part to help make it so. But I’ve been burned before, on both sides. Thankfully, those things happened after I was far enough along in my sanctification that it didn’t rattle my faith. I pray now that immature believers don’t get caught up in a premature declaration of victory OR defeat. What I’ve settled on a realistic and restrained optimism of the “If… Read more »
Doug, I would definitely fall in the worldly-wise cynic category, but it’s not because I don’t think social media campaigns can’t change the hearts and minds of people. Rather, it’s because the PTB have the guns. You can’t debate with people who have guns. And as I said before, the interests of PP and the PTB are too intermingled to allow for any public flipflop on the issue. Expect the republicans to condemn PP while the issue is hot, and then watch as a new war is started or some other major news story steals the spotlight. These thugs have… Read more »
I hope they do try to distract from it. The further they seek to deny reality the more people will become disillusioned with the system as it stands now. America as a single political unit only has a few decades left anyway.
If it’s any consolation, Ben, the people are becoming disillusioned with the military and police. When the bottom falls out of the economy the government might not have the resources to wage war abroad or maintain legitimacy at home.
Abortion isn’t going anywhere until all forms of welfare are ended. As long as people are allowed to vote, abortion won’t be outlawed until welfare is abolished.
Mc Dimunitive,
Why not post where people laud your myopic, pessimistic brilliance?
I admit my labors here are not untroubled. But I count it all joy, because I know that one day I shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing my sheaves with me.
You misspelled “shivs.”
*giggle*
Having a moderately alternative view should not attract the kind of hostility and lack of charity that I have noted so far. I recognise that some people enjoy walking on the sunshine of imminent victory; and feeling, as Doug does, that plausible change is in the air, but is that bubble of good feeling so important that people who do not share the same view – and put a rational and reasonable case to the contrary – must be told to go somewhere else?
If this were a battle, and the general pro-life movement were a company making a very slow march across the field, then these videos are a sudden, unexpected and devastating air bombardment on the enemy’s position.
McDivitt and Ben are the guys in the trench saying “Air strikes aren’t going to do anything, the other guys are too well fortified and they have bigger guns! Just stay here and have a cig. Don’t stick your neck out”
Is it any wonder that those who want to press on and secure more territory are telling them to shut up?
That is not my perception of their perspective. They are making what I feel is a reasonable observation that abortion is “necessary” – at least as far as the unbelieving society goes – because there are underlying moral and structural forces that feed the behaviours that produce a desire to abort children. They rightly point out that shutting down PP (which is itself unlikely) is not ultimately going to end abortion. An immoral society “needs” abortion to rid itself of the consequences of its immorality. Abortion can be attacked, but never defeated so long as the moral and social conditions… Read more »
An immoral society “needs” abortion to rid itself of the consequences of its immorality. Abortion is certainly handier in that respect, in that it allows people to pretend that they are not killing their own children, but it is not necessary. Birthing children and leaving them on the hillsides for the coyotes is just as effective in “ridding society of the consequences of its immorality.” However, since we – as a secular society – have societal practices such as no-questions-asked baby-abandonment sites at hospitals and foster-to-adopt systems, there is no reason at all why a child should be killed just… Read more »
McDivitt wrote: Abortion isn’t going anywhere until all forms of welfare are ended. Has McDivitt ever fleshed out his theory on welfare and abortion? It seems to me that generous welfare could just as easily lead to a reduction in abortions as unwed mothers got increasing welfare checks for each child they didn’t abort. If there is no welfare incentive to bring the child to term, what is the motivation not to abort? Also, what does he mean by “all forms of welfare”? Does he really mean “all forms” including the charity of the Church for the truly needy? As… Read more »
“McDivitt doesn’t strike me as a man of principle.”
Yeah, I’m more of a lust of the flesh lust of the eyes and the pride of life kinda guy, younomesayin’?
I think your last remark is unfair and unkind. As for welfare, I think you are right to a certain extent. Welfare has certainly enabled the rise of the single-parent model of “family” because women are now able to receive support for the children they give birth to. In essence, the state occupies the role of the traditional father: a bread-winner, and provider. In the past, of course, those children would have been born in a family setting and actually had a father that looks after them. Welfare has been pivotal in the rise of male irresponsibility toward their children.… Read more »
McDivitt seems to be saying, repeatedly, that he isn’t interested in a fight on the side of good, unless he thinks he can win. I simply don’t find that very principled. Sure, we need to be smart about how we fight, but if something really is worth fighting for, it is still worth fighting for even if you lose. What is worse is that McDivitt seems to be actively discouraging others from fighting for good as well. That, to me, seems like fighting for the other side. It may sound unkind for me to say such things, but Jesus’ example… Read more »
My guess is McDivitt doesn’t like us trying to rebuild the wall. “17 Then I said to them, “You see the trouble we are in: Jerusalem lies in ruins, and its gates have been burned with fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, and we will no longer be in disgrace.” 18 I also told them about the gracious hand of my God on me and what the king had said to me. They replied, “Let us start rebuilding.” So they began this good work. 19 But when Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite official and Geshemthe Arab… Read more »
The Book of Nehemiah. LOL. Too funny.
Hmm, got a chuckle out of that. Fond memories?
Oh, yeah. Me and the Neemster go way back. He’s a trip, man.
Seriously. Dude’s ate up.
It’s not real hard to figure out, katecho. As I’ve said repeatedly, as long as people are allowed to vote, legalized abortion isn’t going away until welfare is abolished. That’s because welfare spending is funded by taxes. Which come from taxpayers. Who generally prefer not to spend money to raise other people’s kids. And who tend to vote. Given your logic, we should raise welfare spending dramatically. If every unwed mother who went on welfare got a nice McMansion of her own free and clear, plus $100,000 cash per child per year, plus $5000 a month per child in food… Read more »
McDivitt’s reasoning is that people vote with the goal of keeping their taxes low, and therefore would vote to keep abortion legal because it leads to fewer welfare babies to partake in the system. Not sure where to even begin with this argument. McDivitt may not be aware that we are in the condition in which almost 45% of citizens do not even pay federal income tax at all. As such, these are not motivated to vote to reduce taxation and welfare, but to increase them. McDivitt seems to forget that tax money is spent on the abortions themselves, muting… Read more »
Semper fry, katecho.
I happen to think it’s the wrong fight in the wrong way. Once again, we have Christians seeking to use political means to achieve a temporal moral victory. Let us suppose that PP is shut down. Will there be any fewer abortions? Other abortion clinics will just be more busy. And even if all abortion were ended, what evil will replace it? Massed abandonment of unwanted children? An explosion in the number of orphanages? But, of course, such a victory will never eventuate, because the moral and social forces that have normalised extramarital relations (and thus make abortion “necessary” to… Read more »
Neither abortion nor welfare will be outlawed by the current regime. I do believe that the end to both will come at roughly the same time, which will be when the regime collapses due to insolvency. In the end, it’s just about money.
I agree that neither abortion or welfare will be outlawed by the current regime. But I don’t believe that it’s just about money.
Yes, so you’ve said, numerous times in this combox… why do you feel the need to repeat yourself?
Klock, don’t know if you’ve heard, but abortion isn’t going anywhere until all forms of welfare are ended.
You keep saying that, but I think we can stop the murder of the unborn without stopping “all forms of welfare”. I wonder, would that include gleaning?
Well, for 40 years your idea that you can ban abortion while welfare for unwed mothers and their offspring remains legal has proven spectacularly unsuccessful. I see no reason to believe that’s going to change.
How many welfare moms engage in gleaning where you’re at, Klock?
And here come the libertarian peeps with the foreign policy stuff. Did you guys even READ the post?
Hey, that PP logo looks great as my Facebook profile photo! And the link to this article looks great beside it.
Thanks, Doug!
You stole my thunder! I was just about to borrow that hellish new logo for my avatar. Hmmm…what to do…
I haven’t seen a Defund Planned Parenthood avatar so I decided to create a simple one. Feel free to download it here:
That was all nice and exhorty except for the really, really cheap and unnecessary shot at your premillennial brothers. Let’s keep down the fratricide, shall we? We’re on your side here, pushing where you have asked us to push. So don’t tase me, bro!
So it looks like the vote in the senate did not pass, but now we will have a list of who in the senate at this moment is willing to stand where, and can begin the process of persuading/removing those who voted wrongly while encouraging and strengthening those who voted rightly. No one said this part would be easy. If we fall to discouragement and defeat after being repelled in the first skirmish, then we have no sense that this is a war, not a mere month long media campaign. We have a clearer map of the enemies position, and… Read more »
Hi Luke,
Thank you for the information.
Is this one of those “we don’t have enough votes to break a filibuster, so we aren’t going to make them actually filibuster” scenarios the senate employs? Or is this a straight up/down vote?
thx.
Here are the details:
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/03/democrats-defeat-senate-effort-to-de-fund-planned-parenthood-after-it-sells-aborted-babies/
Thank you.
The Senate voted 53-46 on the cloture motion — failing to get the 60
votes needed to stop the Democratic filibuster against the de-funding
measure.
Now, for you political types. Is it realistic to insist that those voting ‘yea’ force the ‘nay’s to actually filibuster?
From my experience, most ‘filibusters’ are nothing of the sort. They just give up and move on.
Yes, the filibuster has long been turned into a sort of auto-victory for the opposition that requires no actual effort, which is a shame.
Failure Theater on the part of the Republicans. I am one of those cynical Christians. The R-e never wanted to have a part of this. Now they’ll furrow their brow, wring their hands and say that’s all they could do.
When of course there is much more they could do. But my cynicism is getting the best of me. I’d like to think of it as leaning on the splintered shaft called Egypt.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting “leaning” on the republican party. We are striving to be a prophetic voice for righteousness to those governing us in both parties. There were democrats who voted in favor of this bill and there were republicans who didn’t. Neither party can be trusted and party affiliation isn’t the issue. This isn’t about turning to a political party to fix our problems, it is about calling on our political leaders to do what’s right (not to mention caring enough about the innocent victims to exhaust every morally permissible means in protecting and delivering them.)
“Our solitary occupation, until they go down, should be to demand that they continue to be required to defend their indefensible behavior.”
YES! Thanks for keeping us focused, Douglas.
Doug,
In this article you wrote ‘Kristen’, but were you actually meaning to refer to Kirsten (Powers)?
I received this from Progressive and Nike. Excerpts below. My thought is to now respond in a coordinated way to them after you get the initial response I received. How does this sound (please use a similar question if you receive the initial reply)? Hello Mr. Sibel, I’m glad to know Progressive does not support Planned Parenthood directly, but I also asked if Progressive is comfortable with their matching funds going to a organization like Planned Parenthood in light of what these videos have revealed about their practices? “We do, however, through our foundation match the charitable giving of our… Read more »
From a purely tactical standpoint, I think the biggest obstacle to banning abortion is the Republican Party. They know full well that if abortion ever is actually outlawed, they’re not going to win another national election for fifty years. So other than the relatively few Republicans who actually are pro-life on principle, they’re the ones you’re actually going to have to overcome. I’m still agnostic on what the long term effects of these videos will be, if any. I think we’ll know more in six months. And of course on the merits I disagree with Doug. But my purely tactical… Read more »
A prolifer is a hardcore conservative who thinks that what this country needs is 50 million more Democrats.
Here’s a good argument that the political divide is not between Ds and Rs but instead between the “Ruling Class” and the “Country Class:”
America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution
by Angelo M. Codevilla – From the July 2010 – August 2010 issue
The only serious opposition to this arrogant Ruling Party is coming not from feckless Republicans but from what might be called the Country Party — and its vision is revolutionary. Our special Summer Issue cover story.
http://spectator.org/articles/39326/americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution
good argument indeed…I finally found some quiet so I could settle into this article (and it deserved to be settled into)…um…I have something to say about almost every paragraph…
and there are like 80 paragraphs…I’ll try to narrow it down before making you go down a rabbit hole with my rambling…
Keep it up. The world is watching.
Hey folks,
A friend showed me that my logo design got shared on this blog, and I want to come invite anyone interested to use the original design and others from this Facebook album: https://www.facebook.com/mrof4343/media_set?set=a.854924724587481.1073741832.100002098845196&type=3
Thanks, everyone!
I read her summary. I think it is a strong call to say the author is lying. Not that I would trust her take on the issue, but the summary points at the beginning of her post have the seeds of a moderate summary. She needs to use words like “some”, “most”, “can” to give the nuance required. Rather than say she is lying it may be better to identify areas where her summary is lacks adequate accuracy.
>>It was more like a simultaneous recognition on the part of hundreds of thousands of Christians — “Hey. Look what we can do.” This is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it’s great for the Christian community to see that we can actually present a unified front and get something accomplished. We need this motivation. It’s something that has been lacking for quite some time. However, on the other hand, the secularists are also taking notice and it has made them fearful. That’s not entirely a good thing for us because fearful people engage in drastic activities in order… Read more »
What Reactions to the Undercover Planned Parenthood Video Tell Us About Our Values August 5, 2015 by Sherry F. Colb https://verdict.justia.com/2015/08/05/what-reactions-to-the-undercover-planned-parenthood-video-tell-us-about-our-values Is “Cows deserve protection but the unborn don’t.” a fair summary of her column? If not, what would be a fair one-liner summary? Consider the C.V. of the author (given further below); this is the thinking of a top graduate of the top law school in the world. This column is the first string of law in action. Me, I’m stunned. Just plain “Wow!” As George Orwell almost said, “The first duty of intellectuals is to state the obvious.”… Read more »