Liberal Like Me

The next video is up. No graphic images this time — just more chilling testimony.

I have been saying that one of our central tasks in the unfolding Planned Parenthood mess is to make defenders of the indefensible try to defend it. This can go one of two ways — either they back away from the position (or start to back away), or they double down.Liberal Like Me

An example of the former can be found here. This is something we welcome because it presents an opportunity to show that blood guilt cannot be removed with a long shower and lots of soap. It can be removed, but not that way.

But an example of the latter can be found here. What I would like to do is just take a moment to break out what this woman is actually saying, and take it apart. Hidden cameras are not necessary.

“Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”

Automatically. Always. The takeaway is that you can be human without having to be respected as a human.

First, if it is such a “complicated reality,” why does Mary Elizabeth Williams show such contempt for those who differ with her? Why are they “diabolically clever”? Why are their tactics “sneaky, dirty tricks”? Why does she dismiss them as “wingnuts” and “archconservatives,” and say that they urge “indefensible violations” of women with their mandatory ultrasounds? Is that indefensible in the same way that using ultrasound to make the process a little less crunchy is?

And these questions are even more pressing when you consider that she acknowledges that the pro-lifers are the ones being consistent — human life should be treated as human life — and she admits that the pro-choicers are being arbitrary and inconsistent.

She says this is “a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about.” I dare say. This is because this whole subject reveals her liberalism to be a sham — a high-flying name that sounds much better on the lips than raw selfishness does. Her liberalism is just another word for her selfishness. She is willing to surrender the facade of liberalism, but will not give up the right to have things just the way she wants — even if others must die.

God created the world, and He configured it in such a way that there are only two possible ways for persons to interact. They may follow the example of the Lord Jesus, and say “my life for yours,” or they may walk in the way of Cain, who slew his brother, saying “your life for mine.” Those are the only possible options, and for sinners the former way is closed to us and impossible unless the free grace of God intervenes. But when it intervenes, we are then able honestly (albeit imperfectly) to say “my life for yours.”

But which way does “the liberal” choose? Your life for mine.

Some human lives don’t have the same rights as other human lives. So this is liberalism? All creatures are equal, but some are more equal than others. Yes, this actually is liberalism — liberalism seen by hidden cameras. Some human rights are “automatically” trumped by the selfish person’s “circumstances.” The mother is “the boss.”

What circumstances might these be? Williams doesn’t say, but since human selfishness can trumps human life “automatically,” the circumstances would appear to be pretty broad. Might lose a season of wind-surfing. Might want to stay cute in a bikini. Might hate the father now.

In this set up, the reason the human life inside the woman in question has zero rights is that this life is “non-autonomous.” Note that she thinks she is giving us straight talk, but she still veers off at the last minute — she calls it a non-autonomous entity. The boss is always in charge of entities. They may be human entities, and I am very bold and courageous for saying so.

But this takes us right back to the videos. Entities apparently have livers, and legs. Entities have useful eyeballs that somebody at Berkeley might want.

Everyone in authority — like kings, or parents — has been placed in a position where they will use their authority in line with their fundamental creed. And remember, that creed is either grounded in the gospel, and is “my life for yours,” or it is grounded in self, and must therefore necessarily be “your life for mine.” Call it liberalism if it makes you feel better.

Herod ordered the head of John the Baptist to be chopped off. They brought it out to him in the midst of a banquet, and presented it to him on a serving dish (Mark 6:27-28). There is one kind of authority who devours (Ps. 14:4). But after Mark tells us about the episode where Herod received the Baptist’s head on a platter, immediately after that, a completely different kind of king gathered the people in the wilderness and He fed them (Mark 6:41).

That is how all authority works in this world. You must either feed those who are dependent upon you or you must devour them. We can now see what liberalism does, and we can see it without the hidden cameras.

182
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
17 Comment threads
165 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
40 Comment authors
Kelly M. HaggarAlex in WonderlandKyleMontana MarkBarnabas Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

It’s a complicated reality for the same reason it’s a complicated reality to argue that Loving v. Virginia was about states rights rather than racism. You understand that. I understand that. But there are vast masses of people who don’t understand nuance and who think that anyone who thinks Loving was wrongly decided must be a racist. And it’s far too easy for people who like Loving’s result to simply shut down the discussion by screaming “you’re a racist” at anyone who thinks states rights should have been the deciding issue. It’s the same type of people who accuse me… Read more »

Susan Gail
Member
Susan Gail

Red herring post. Nothing complicated about that.

adad0
Member

Freedom of conscience is about an individual’s thoughts and actions with regard to themselves. The boundary of Individual freedom of conscience ends at the adjacent individual. Where more than one individual is involved in any issue, social conscience begins and is required of all individuals. The mother has more rights than the child? Yes according to Williams. How is that a “legitimate distinction”? What is the middle ground between the “two alternatives” of a mother carrying or not carrying a baby to term? These realities are personal, long before they are political. The mother really only has more authority and… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Suppose a woman is pregnant, and there is a medical complication in which one or the other of them will die, and you have to choose which. If you don’t choose, both of them will die. Unless your answer is that you would flip a coin, you are necessarily going to say that one life is more valuable than the other; there is no getting around it. And that’s not a middle ground so much as a recognition of the unlovely fact that sometimes in life there is no real alternative to choosing one set of interests over another. There… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

We admire the woman who gives up her life for her child No, I do not have the link. Yes, it is hearsay, yes I believe it is true. You make God’s world smaller than it is with your small mind and smaller thoughts. We Christians see farther and clearer than you guys are capable, for these things are spiritually discerned and we discern them. You are spiritually blind, we are not. We do not care about the argument du-jour. It will change into something else next year and the accuser will still accuse and it will be more evil… Read more »

adad0
Member

“Yup, there it is again — we have winners and we have losers; all we get to do is (sometimes) decide who is which.” Well, …..sort of Krychek_2 . All the scenarios you present are scenarios of what are commonly social conscience, not individual conscience. Patient / Doctor decisions are social conscience decisions. Not to mention your “life or death” senario for the mother is a red herring compared to the admitted reality that most abortions are abortions of convenience. A.K.A “My life before yours”. The war situation you mention is more correctly described as “your life for the nation”,… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

What I think is that we don’t live in a black and white world, and attempts to make things black and white are doomed to failure. I also think that the more difficult a moral issue is, the greater the argument for leaving the state out of it and allowing people to be guided by their own consciences. Yes, mistakes will be made in individual cases, but not nearly as many as if the state imposes a one-size-fits-all. And while I agree with you that self-sacrifice is laudable (within limits), that still leaves the issue of whether it should be… Read more »

adad0
Member

Krychek_2, Thanks for your measured thoughts and comments, in response to Wilson’s post any my comments, which I think were the same in civility. In that spirit, I hope you will appreciate my departure in injecting a bit of humor into the dialogue. 1. I guess it’s “black and white”, that the world is not “Black and white”!? ; -) 2. Self sacrifice is mandated, it’s called taxation. 3. Mother and child is most often a “winning” combination for all, why “lose” it? 4. All law presumably compels us not to be indecent human beings, which sort of does compel… Read more »

holmegm
Guest
holmegm

When it comes to not chopping up babies, I for one am proudly black and white.

As simplistic as they come, and happy to be.

You can write as many paragraphs as you like, but if the conclusion is “sometimes chopping up babies is OK” then no thank you.

Monte Harmon
Guest
Monte Harmon

Nicely said.

A. James
Member

Can I get a little more detail on your “black and white” as it relates to abortion rather than specifically chopping?
Are you okay with abortion at any particular stage or exception?
Would you call someone who believes abortion is not okay only after a heartbeat as being pro-life or anti-abortion enough?

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

I don’t think it is misogynistic to expect a woman who has conceived a child to carry that child to term. I think it is misogynistic to assume that adult women are unwilling to subordinate their interests to the welfare of the new life they are carrying. The way you phrase it makes it sound as if the baby is an alien invader rather than the woman’s own flesh and blood. But, even so, if someone dropped a baby off at my house and told me I had to watch it for nine months, I would be startled and none… Read more »

Benjamin Polge
Guest
Benjamin Polge

ummm…. have you actually been paying attention to anything that pro-lifers are actually saying and/or writing? The scenarios you present are being talked about at length by those of us who see those situations as terrible, but unfortunately necessary, tragedies. This is because we are pro-life. Also, the idea that 40+ million babies murdered since Roe v. Wade were because of dire life and death decisions (like in your examples) is simply absurd on its face. To even bring this into this current debate shows that you actually have no idea what you’re talking about. Please let us know when… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Benjamin, did you miss the part where I said that most abortions are because people were too irresponsible to use birth control? I’m not arguing that most abortions are because of difficult medical issues, but the underlying principle is the same whether an abortion is being performed to save the woman’s life or just because she doesn’t want to have a child. That principle is that a woman’s body belongs to her, and if she doesn’t want it to be used by a fetus, that’s her choice, whether you approve of it or not. Legally, it does not and should… Read more »

immortalwombat10 .
Guest
immortalwombat10 .

The moral question is simple. Given the same scenario, who is in the right, the person who does one thing or another. Given the same life, permission from his wife to cheat, which man is in the right? The one who makes use of this permission and cheats, or the one who remains faithful to his wife instead? Given the same life, if a woman is with child by her choice, who is in the right? The woman who bears that child, or the one who will not? Given the same life, if a woman is with child not by… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

immortalwombat10, our dispute is not about the morality or ethics of abortion. I agree with everyone here that the overwhelming majority of abortions are morally problematic. Rather, we are in dispute as to the legality of abortion — whether a woman who makes a choice that you and I think is immoral should nevertheless be able to do so without state interference. And on the subject of abortion, I think the answer is yes; I just don’t see how a woman can be compelled to share her own body with someone she doesn’t want to share it with.

immortalwombat10 .
Guest
immortalwombat10 .

Legality is moot when the moral question is fully and completely answered. Unless morality is in and of itself worthless to that society.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

But not everything that is immoral is or should be illegal. There is some overlap between the two, but not a complete overlap. Gluttony and lying are immoral but not illegal, nor should they be (except for specific types of lies such as perjury).

immortalwombat10 .
Guest
immortalwombat10 .

When legality doesn’t use morality as its standard it has no authority. It cannot therefore stand on moral principles when it comes to the legalization of various “lesser murders”. As they become increasingly supported by a populous without moral restraint defined by legal limits.

A. James
Member

“When legality doesn’t use morality as its standard it has no authority.” If not, then at what point do we know when a secular legal system (or any) has no more Romans 13 authority over us? Or maybe I am misunderstanding you. This statement seems a bit pragmatic… “It cannot therefore stand on moral principles when it comes to the legalization of various “lesser murders”. ” It doesn’t mean we can’t try to affect them (as some are doing here with the PP affecting laws/Roe/one more saved life) on whatever principles they might have that we are in common agreement… Read more »

Matthew Schraud
Member

You are wrongly interpreting both of those situations. It is not a matter of whose life is more important, but whose life you are willing to sacrifice. If you are choosing between the mother or the child you are not saying which is more valuable (even if you think that’s what you’re asking) you are really making a moral decision about who is going to sacrifice their life for who. Either the mother sacrifices her life for her child or she sacrifices her child for her. That’s exactly the point this post made. It is either “my life for yours”… Read more »

A. James
Member

My take on why I agree with your sentences otherwise (“It’s a complicated reality” and “And that’s why the pure black-and-white “oh we’re pro-life” that I hear here is complete arrant nonsense.”) is because the “liberal like me” (or rather the critiquing of “their” liberalism) leaves me saying “what do we do about liberals like US”. If we were consistent on our “side” or in “our party” or cleaned it up or railed harder on ourselves, it might be we had more strength against some “liberal like them” opposition. As it is, which I plan to mention elsewhere with links,… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

I don’t even see it as valuing one life over another so much as the simple fact that only one set of interests can prevail. If I am a judge with two parties in front of me arguing about something, whichever way I rule doesn’t mean I value one of them as a person more than the other; it means I think that one had the better argument. It is possible to say that woman and fetus both have value as humans, but the woman has the better argument because it’s her body that she’s being asked to share against… Read more »

Jane
Member

But it is simply not trivial that one party’s “interests” fall short of life and death, and the other’s do not. One person’s life should always supersede the other’s non-life and death interests. The kidney analogy is flawed because a person in need of a kidney transplant 1) does not need *my* kidney, he needs *a* kidney (altering the circumstances of the analogy to defy any possible reality is cheating) and 2) does not need to be taken out and executed if I decline to give him my kidney. He will die naturally, as he would have prior to the… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

As a practical matter it may not be trivial to the fetus, but as a legal and philosophical point it’s completely irrelevant. In general, you are not required to offer aid to people who will die without your help. As I said earlier, if a nut with a gun is chasing you, I’m under no obligation to offer you sanctuary; legally I can munch on popcorn while watching from the safety of my window. If you climb into my house through an open window, I’m under no obligation to let you stay; I can draw my own gun and order… Read more »

A. James
Member

“You have something I need, therefore I’m entitled to it. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.” Yes, however, a mother (in most cases) is the one who made this potential or human life NEED her. All this still goes back to the rift of opinion of is the fetus a human life or not. As you said, if we could convince you, then you would change on much of your thoughts, and maybe even this. Or maybe you are speaking on the legal point of making it law or against the law to have any abortion, etc. In that… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

My comments have probably suffered from a lack of clarity because I think abortions fit into three categories, and I haven’t always been careful to clarify which I’m talking about. I don’t think the fetus is a human being until it acquires at least some human traits, such as consciousness, and prior to that point I do not see a moral issue; I think a woman may ethically abort to her heart’s content. After that point, there is a continuum during which the fetus becomes more and more human, and the further along in the process we are, the less… Read more »

A. James
Member

Just letting you know I saw this. I’d be interested in what equals “consciousness” to you. I’m starting to wonder if some of the reason is “shame” of people knowing they are pregnant plus the “trouble” and yes, the “inconvenience”–selfishness…however, if one is willing to place into adoption…it is 9 months, only 9 months “just in case”…but if one isn’t worried about God or guilt, I guess that doesn’t matter if it’s tissue or life. I’d be interested in the “some…are…infanticide”…why some and what meets your prefs. And how can someone’s value of interests not supersede your views but they… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

On the question of why don’t they just wait until the baby is born and then give it up for adoption, first, I think you underestimate just how difficult it is to be pregnant and to give birth. A lot of women are sick through most of the pregnancy, difficulty sleeping, plus you try strapping that additional weight around your mid-section and carry it around 24/7 and see how comfortable it is for you. If they already have children they’re caring for, or a full time job, it’s even worse. For many women the birth process is excruciatingly painful, and… Read more »

Jane
Member

Again, you are conflating with “will die without your active help” with “must actively kill in order to avoid passively helping.”

I am arguing that you already have something not essential to my existence that I am in a transitory state of continually giving you, simply by reason of our mutual existence, therefore I am not entitled to kill you in order to stop the temporary condition of giving it.

It is irrelevant as a philosophical point only in your philosophy, not in a philosophy that values the life of humans per se.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

All right, would it make you feel better if the fetus were removed from the womb without killing it, and then allowed to die once the abortion was over? I doubt it. The distinction you’re trying to draw has no practical difference.

My philosophy is a rights-based philosophy, and valuing humans is a necessary pre-requisite to recognizing rights. I just think the rights of an adult woman who is already here are of greater standing than the rights of a potential human being.

A. James
Member

Yet you have said that at some point, abortion becomes “infanticide” to you–meaning that you finally consider it human enough to make laws banning abortion. So really we are just at different places on the spectrum–because at some point you say the rights of a baby are “valid” enough for laws. Where I would say, if you are willing to make laws at some point protecting the baby, then I don’t really see anything that should be completely repulsive to you if we want to “err” on the side of not knowing exactly or agreeing when potential becomes reality and… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

There would have to be a huge sea change in the legal landscape for forced abortion to be even remotely plausible. The Supreme Court won’t allow procedures far less invasive than that against the wishes of the patient. And if the legal landscape were to change that drastically, you’d probably have far bigger fish to fry than forced abortion.

I’m in the middle of a work related meeting for another couple of hours; I’ll respond to the rest of your post then.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

OK, work is now over for the day. Alex, I candidly don’t think it’s crystal clear at what point the fetus becomes a baby. The analogy I’ve used before, and forgive me if I’m repeating myself, is that if you put batter in the oven, at some point it becomes a cake, but it’s not crystal clear at which point that is. There is no exact moment at which it ceases to be batter that’s in the process of solidifying and becomes an underdone cake. That happens at some point after it’s been put in the oven but probably well… Read more »

Jane
Member

No, it would make me feel better if the fetus were removed from the womb without killing it, and attempts were made to save it. If the fetus isn’t even close to being an age where saving it is even remotely possible, then the issue is moot — live babies don’t live in dead mothers anyway. If the issue is that the mother will die without the abortion, then I have no problem with the abortion, provided every possible attempt is made to save the child. But that’s a different issue from “I have a right not to have my… Read more »

A. James
Member

“I don’t even see it as valuing one life over another so much as the simple fact that only one set of interests can prevail.” Okay, I read back up and I misread this: “Whichever answer you pick means that you value one set of interests over the other,” I was taking it to mean “valuing one life over another” (and that would be something for where we left off on the other “convince me” conversation). Aside from that though, I do find “our side” hypocritical in “exception arguments” in valuing life all the while chiding others for making “value… Read more »

A. James
Member

Just thought of a helpful question or two (for me, at least)… 1. Given all you’ve said, why do you think “actually reducing the number of abortions is a good thing”? 2. How would you go about reducing the number of abortions? The services means only or combined with some other method or reasoning? 3. So if the mother’s values of interests can outweigh the potential human life…then so can mine? if I don’t feel beholden to pay tax dollars/support social services for mothers who believe it is in their interest to have the kid based on the fact that… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 is here to inform us that the slaughter of the unborn is a “complicated reality”. He is here to deliver the “vast masses of people who don’t understand nuance”. Cute. Krychek_2 seems to think that he can wave this one away if he nuances it with hand-picked instances of rape, or incest, or medical complications. Apparently he can’t see what just happened, and why it had to happen. Williams removed the “complexity” for Krychek_2, and he missed it. So here it is again: “Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman… Read more »

ashv
Guest
ashv

Furthermore this sort of thing reveals the poverty of rights-talk. Williams puts mother and baby on a moral scale and compares their rights. Christians in the West have accepted this unbiblical form of reasoning for much too long. Much better to start with questions about duty — parents have a duty to raise their children, moreover there’s the universal duty of the commandment to not murder. No need to bring notions of equality in at all.

Susan Gail
Member
Susan Gail

Right on target

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

K2 is making a valid point here. True story – prof one has a PhD in library science. Prof two’s is in music. The high school teacher from NJ I have no idea of any post grad work. All three start off with the “baking a cake is not participating in a wedding.” I cite Thomas (1981). The NJ teacher figures out he’s been had by some talking points, apologizes for being on the thread, and leaves. The music prof asks a follow up so I cite 2 progeny cases. Never hear from him again. The music prof hangs tough,… Read more »

A. James
Member

Okay, this “liberal like me” has to jump in somewhere this week since it’s finally Monday :) There’s so much in this bit of thread, can you clarify which point of K2 (and thanks for that abbreviation idea–I always have to go track down how to spell it :) you are saying is valid that goes with your true story? I want to talk Carson a bit more and be a rabble-rouser on the Isildur thread because I think if some are going to give K2 a hard time on his “when life begins”, then I want to see how… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

K2 is correct here: “To them, the only two options are to require bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings, or to be a vicious homophobic bigot. They just don’t see any middle ground.” K2 makes that point in several other sentences right before this one; any of them will suffice. However, on second thought, I slightly disagree with K2’s “middle ground” wording. We’re not “splitting the baby” here; this isn’t some sort of “compromise.” 1st Ad law – – properly understood – – tells us instead that a “balancing act” is what’s going on, not a compromise. One side… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

reposted in error; ignore this second one

A. James
Member

I have a rambling response drafted that’s been sitting here all day–trying to simplify my probably very legally disconnected thoughts and mixing up my faith and legal circles most dreadfully! Plus I’m very distressed over the Trump post/thread, so that’s messing with my focus. Anyway, maybe a little later or by morning I’ll be brave enough to let you see it… For now, this: http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/matt-barber/2015/08/17/the-gay-marriage-gauntlet-time-to-choose This guy has a habit of…overreacting…but this time, I wonder if he’s doing a decent more needed job on the potential bleakness–but I’m in that kind of mood so…do you think he is overreacting this… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Alex, Can’t decide if you’re about to be blessed or cursed, but I wrote on much of these issues a day or two after Obergefell was handed dpwn . . . . Kelly Post #1 about “Gov. Bobby Jindal’s lawyer says individuals don’t have to issue same sex marriage licenses,” by Mark Ballard| [email protected], June 29, 2015, URL: http://theadvocate.com/news/12785131-123/gov-bobby-jindal-says-state start I frankly don’t know the answer to the question actually presented here, but you first four (JJP, CK, BP, and BGLN) ought to make sure you understand the precise issue being raised here . . . because from your comments… Read more »

timbushong
Member

Excellent article, Doug. It reminds me that there’s a darn good reason that our side has used the term “right-to-life” all these years to describe at least part of what we’re up to.

Ben
Guest
Ben

I think it’s best for American evangelicals to stop using vague terms like “Pro-life” or “right to life” when describing what they believe. This is because most American evangelicals support the killing of innocent people in any country with whom we are fighting a war, even an unconstitutional one. By any reasonable standard this is antithetical to the term “pro-life.” I think a better term would be “anti-abortion.” This is more precise and less misleading.

Susan Gail
Member
Susan Gail

HEAR HEAR! or here here. I agree, I despise the term pro-life, it’s like saying you are pro-oxygen. Well no kidding!

Anti-abortion is right on the money.

David Trounce
Guest

The pro choice movement ( and I mean that in every sense of the word) also hate our use of the phrase, which is a good argument for its continued use. If you want to distinguish it from death in war, lets just use a biblical category and call it murder.

Ben
Guest
Ben

How is killing innocent people in an unjust and illegal war not murder? If you say it isn’t murder, then any sane person would put the burden of proof on you, not me.

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

Not the time Ben. You are anti-abortion, right? I prefer that term myself, because I agree it is more to the point, however, when we are on the subject we want to encourage other people who are anti-abortion, not pick fights with them. The cause is better served by staying on point. No, your comment was not asinine, but save that argument for another time, that’s all.

Ben
Guest
Ben

What makes you think I was picking a fight? The term pro-life, as far as I understand it, serves as the obverse of “pro-murder,” which is why I think evangelicals who support an unjust war are contradicting themselves by saying they’re “pro-life.” I was simply suggesting an alternative term to eliminate the contradiction.

A. James
Member

“save that argument for another time”…Are you the moderator? If some don’t want to discuss it, then they don’t have to engage…otherwise… It’s not “picking fights” to consider consistency and, because of that, maybe even broaden the number of those who understand our focus if we stick to “anti-abortion”. This “subject” of PP/abortion could go on as endlessly as war. And topics and life merge and meander as they will. “Stay on point”…how long? Why can’t both points be discussed, before issues of war take us by surprise and “abortion/infanticide of infidels” (rather than funding) is the next topic for… Read more »

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

Don’t need to be the moderator to make the point. But never mind. I can see the train has already left the station…and the rails.

David Trounce
Guest

Ben, what you describe its also murder. I don’t know of any Americans who claim to be Christian and also think the intentional killing of innocents not subject to a biblical ban in war is acceptable.

Here in Australia we would find the idea incompatible with a biblical faith.

Ben
Guest
Ben

Anyone who supports an unjust war supports murder. This should not even be debatable. In an unjust war, everyone killed by the aggressor nation is necessarily an innocent victim, regardless of whether they were taking up arms (and therefore fighting a just defensive war, mind you) or were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don’t see why this is so controversial. If Putin sends troops to the U.S. and starts killing Americans in the streets, is he fighting a just war? If not, then why does the U.S. get an exception to the rule?

David Trounce
Guest

Ben, your point is taken. Let’s stay on track.

Benjamin Polge
Guest
Benjamin Polge

of course its murder… assuming the war is actually unjust and illegal. The problem is, most American evangelicals don’t support unjust and illegal wars. period. full-stop. So stop bringing that up.

You may disagree with whether or not a particular war in question is just and legal, but to assert that the other side simply must agree with your opinion, ergo they support murder is indicative of simple, old-fashioned bigotry. I suspect you’re better than that.

Ben
Guest
Ben

“but to assert that the other side simply must agree with your opinion, ergo they support murder”

I think you meant to say “or they support murder,” since “ergo” means therefore. :)

But anyway, isn’t this exactly what anti-abortionists say? Don’t they say that if you disagree with them, you support murder? I know that’s what I say to pro-aborts. We can debate whether or not the wars actually were unjust, but the point is that if they were unjust, you must NECESSARILY conclude that anyone who supports them supports murder. This is not debatable, it is a logical conclusion.

Benjamin Polge
Guest
Benjamin Polge

disagree entirely… well… ok, not entirely. I think you’re making a category error here. Either that, or we have a different definition of ‘support’. so, let me switch to ‘willful agreement with’. Our tactic should not be to accuse pro-aborts of willfully agreeing with the murder of innocent lives, for of course they don’t agree with that (unless they do, and then we can switch back to your tactic). Our job in this fight is to go after those who know better, by revealing the awful truth to those who don’t. So, back to the war illustration… Christians do not… Read more »

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

You know, I’m not sure I even believe “just war” theory in that wars were traditionally fought to enlarge or maintain territory and grab resources and I’m not sure that I can condemn that scripturally. That being said, our wars have not gained anything other than some money for weapons manufacturers and war contractors and maybe a few oil service companies. (There may be some advantage to Americans through propping up the “petro-dollar” but that’s beyond my understanding.) I don’t know why any Christians support these fool-hardy projects that have lead to nothing but death, chaos and needless expense. I… Read more »

Ben
Guest
Ben

I think we have a natural tendency to want to be a part of something bigger than ourselves, to have a shared sense of unity and purpose with those around us. This may be why the suicide rate actually went down after 9/11. If God made us to glorify him forever in perfect community with others, then it would make sense that people would have that desire to “worship in community” even now. But of course, bad people take that inclination and twist it in order to get people to obsess over sports, politics, or a war. Like all sin,… Read more »

A. James
Member

Thinking of Kelly’s link to bin laden’s bookshelf…which mentioned our national sin of abortion…
He (Putin) and the Muslims and the Chinese do enjoy their taunting of our ‘godly’ nation…homosexuality and human rights…so mixing this with “just war” considerations…
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2014/04/04/vladimir-putin-christian-crusader/

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

“In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle, David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel. And they ravaged the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained at Jerusalem.” Thats not just what Hebrew kings did but Canaanites, Greeks, Persians, Mongols, Germanic barbarians, etc. Any kingdom that didn’t do this and didn’t to it well was wiped out. This is the truth of living in a world of limited resources and I don’t see that the Bible condemns it. A favorite sermon take on the scripture above is that David would… Read more »

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

To give another example from scripture, Jesus interacted positively with several Roman soldiers but there is no indication that he told them not to participate in the Roman conquest of Britain.

Ben
Guest
Ben

“Any kingdom that didn’t do this and didn’t to it well was wiped out.” That’s a pretty big assertion. Do you know your history well enough to be able to claim that with confidence? Moreover, even if it were true, would that necessarily make it right? All of those kingdoms you mentioned were run by hell-bound pagans except of course for Israel. David was fighting directly for God, who gave them direct orders under a theocracy. That seems to make it different, because when God commands that women and children be slaughtered, it is good and for his glory (no… Read more »

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

“What about the people from whom the oil well was originally stolen? Should they be relegated to a life of starvation, prostitution, slavery, etc.?” Who’d the Baathists steal them from? Who stole the land before them? They should be relegated to a tough but productive life working said oil rig instead of chopping off heads or moving to England and going on the dole. As for all the “prove it, prove it, prove it”, Ive got plenty of history on my side. Why don’t you produce some history or scripture to back up your assertions, hippie. If you want some… Read more »

A. James
Member

“The problem is, most American evangelicals don’t support unjust and illegal wars. period. full-stop. So stop bringing that up.” We’d have to first agree on what is “unjust and illegal” and give a recent example to prove your statement of fact. and if we aren’t willing to, then “period. full-stop. So stop bringing that up.” Except I disagree with that philosophy. It’s one thing to choose to not to engage someone’s topic, it’s another to show them the door or to hush up, it’s better to try to civilly present and explain our own view or work through other views… Read more »

Benjamin Polge
Guest
Benjamin Polge

your missing my point. Most Evangelicals are philosophically opposed to unjust and illegal wars. My facts are the multitude of articles written on the subject and the numerous conversations I’ve had with the, admittedly small, sub-section of Most Evangelicals that I have access to. You can confirm this by asking around… but no cheating. You cannot assert that a particular war is unjust and then ask them if they support that war. So stop bringing that up. It serves no purpose and is patently untrue. If you would like to convince us that there are wars in particular that are… Read more »

stanmccullars
Member
stanmccullars

“most American evangelicals support the killing of innocent people in any country with whom we are fighting a war”
Congrats on the most asinine comment of the day.

Ben
Guest
Ben

Way to provide a thoughtful and reasoned counterargument to my statement. :)

stanmccullars
Member
stanmccullars

I must have missed something. A counter argument requires that an argument be made in the first place. All I saw in your statement was an anti-evangelical, adolescent rant. I try to avoid responding to trolls. Clearly I need to try harder.

Ben
Guest
Ben

So then you’re saying that most American evangelicals do NOT support the killing of innocent people in countries our government is fighting an unjust war with? Why do you disagree with me? You don’t think the evidence leans heavily in my favor, especially since 9/11? Do you hear a lot of prominent evangelicals not towing the neoconservative party line on this issue?

I myself am an evangelical. I’m calling my fellow evangelicals out on their inappropriate use of a term. Also, I did provide an argument, and to ignore it is itself adolescent.

Tom
Guest
Tom

Assumption 1: Afghanistan and Iraq were unjust wars.
Assumption 2: The United States has deliberately targeted innocent civilians.

Disagreeing on those assumptions is Biblically and practically possible. Disagreeing on abortion is not.

Ben
Guest
Ben

Some sincere questions: 1) Can a war be just even if it is illegal according to the Constitution? 2) If you say that the wars were purely defensive (which they must be in order to be just), but I say that the evidence indicates there was some level of offensive aggression on the part of the U.S. ruling class (therefore making it unjust), upon whom should the burden of proof reasonably lie? Are you really ready to go to the mat on that, to declare that the U.S. fought these wars for purely defensive purposes, with no self-serving or nefarious… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Very good questions. Catholic teaching all the way back to St. Augustine says that four conditions must be met before a nation may justly declare war upon another: (1) the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; (2) all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; (3) there must be serious prospects of success; (4) the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. Once the war is underway, new rules… Read more »

Tom
Guest
Tom

Answers 1. No; however, neither war was illegal, according to the Constitution, so that point is moot. 2. I disagree with your statement that a war must be purely defensive in order to be just. Motives are never unmixed for, quite literally, anything. Even a “defensive” war will have people fighting in it who see it as a way to gain power for themselves and the devil take the hindmost. 3. That assumes the war was unjust. 4. No, I am not prepared to make that statement, mostly because I was not in the head of every single soldier who… Read more »

Benjamin Polge
Guest
Benjamin Polge

once again, let’s get back to your assertions:

1) I believe that war A was unjust and illegal
2) I believe that my belief in my belief makes my belief a fact
3) People who disagree with my belief must secretly really agree with my belief
4) Because I said so
THEREFORE: their apparent disagreement with my belief is necessarily invalid, so they support killing innocent people (you know, deep down in their heart) because their belief that a war is just and legal isn’t really real. because I said so.

Tom
Guest
Tom

I think you’re replying to the wrong person.

Benjamin Polge
Guest
Benjamin Polge

Oh, I think you’re right. my bad.

Ben
Guest
Ben

A war is only constitutional if there is a congressional declaration of war. Not that I’m saying that such a declaration makes a war legitimate (and I don’t really care about the Constitution at all), but most conservatives give lip service to the Constitution, so I’m exposing their inconsistency. “Even a ‘defensive’ war will have people fighting in it who see it as a way to gain power for themselves and the devil take the hindmost.” I don’t dispute this. There are always going to be bad apples. I’m referring to the overarching purpose of the war. Suppose, for example,… Read more »

Tom
Guest
Tom

Define “war”–legally speaking, Iraq was not a war. “To deny the aggressive nature of those wars is absurd and deranged.” So tell me, what was aggressive about Gulf War I? I mean, it’s not like Saddam was making a play to control a very large portion of the world’s energy supply by means of aggressive war or anything. Somalia? the Balkans? Yeah, right. Afghanistan? Yeah, there was no possible self-defense going on there. Nope, no sir. They most certainly did not harbor the people who attacked the United States of America that September morn. Iraq? Here’s where the grey area… Read more »

Ben
Guest
Ben

None of these wars were wars “legally speaking,” because they were all illegal! In none of them were we in imminent danger, except, it could be argued, Afghanistan (assuming you’re foolish enough to not even question the official 9/11 story.) And of course the neocon efforts in Afghanistan have long since shown to be corrupt and imperialistic.

immortalwombat10 .
Guest
immortalwombat10 .

You also have to address what you mean by a purely defensive position. Was Israels overtaking of the promised land defensive in nature? The problem with you’re argument is that you are relying on the presumption that people believe these wars to be unjust, not merely lacking a just defensive argument. If i shoot someone who is on my property, there is a pretty big line between that shoot being justified, and it being unjust. I may have rights to my property, i may have told him to get off my lawn, but he also may not have been any… Read more »

Ben
Guest
Ben

Israel was a theocracy and therefore the just war theory would not apply to them, as they were obeying direct orders from God. In my previous post I said that in all but perhaps one such war, there was no imminent danger. Your lawn analogy doesn’t work because in that situation the homeowner was not in danger even though he was being intruded upon, whereas the U.S. was not only not in danger, but was the one doing the intruding. “Whether a war, or a shooting, or any given situation is just in the mind of the individual, has no… Read more »

immortalwombat10 .
Guest
immortalwombat10 .

You refute my argument (in your mind) then use it to explain why you cant blame soldiers. But then somehow clergy in your mind are not equally capable of claiming this misinformation, believing the war to be just? I’m sorry but this seems like a lot of backpedaling and misinterpretation to work around a rather clear issue of you simply having bad judgement regarding how others see the state of war in our modern age. The entire point regarding intent is precisely what im getting at in the conclusion, that you presume if someone hears this man has no justification,… Read more »

Tom
Guest
Tom

How were they illegal? We haven’t managed yet to agree on that basic premise.

“In none of them were we in imminent danger”

Now see, that’s the sticking point. I don’t think you have to have a gun pointed at you to draw yours. You apparently do–I hope you’re quick.

“And of course the neocon efforts in Afghanistan have long since shown to be corrupt and imperialistic.”

If we were doing imperialism in Afghanistan, we would be doing a much, much better job.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

Gullibility is the Achilles heel of just war theory.

Tom
Guest
Tom

Fair enough. But it’s also the Achilles Heel of nearly everything that requires the use of human reason.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

IMHO, allowing the PP question to get dragged off into Just War, Gulf War I or II, etc, is a mistake. Those military questions are irrelevant to the morality of harvesting organs, which is irrelevant to the legality of harvesting organs.

Whether or not you get locked up in Sing-Sing doesn’t tell us anything about which circle of Hell may wind up holding you.

Ian Miller
Member

What happened with the restraining order? Is CMP ignoring it?

Jimmy
Guest
Jimmy

I think that prohibited showing current employes of StemExpress, not former ones.

Ian Miller
Member

Ah, I see. Well, I hope that it is overturned or shown to be illegal or something.

Susan Gail
Member
Susan Gail

Either that or it is time for some Christian disobedience

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

The second most famous thing MLK wrote was his “letter from the Birmingham jail.” Gandhi started out an attorney, which didn’t interfere with his civil disobedience. Thoreau marched enough to a different drummer to go to jail over a poll tax dispute; he objected to financing the war with Mexico.

Kyle
Guest
Kyle

What’s illegal is recording individuals without their knowledge and consent.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Kyle,

Depends on which state you’re in. LA, like many but not all states, is one party consent. TX prohibits taping in public only if the purpose is to arouse or satisfy sexual gratification. Haven’t looked up CA.

ID’s law against secret taping in feed lots and such was just struck down; the animal rights activists won (and should have).

So secret taping is not a non-brainer, plus of course this latest one was a two-party consent, which at least ends the argument on this tape.

A. James
Member

I keep trying to find more info. Yes, two-party consent in CA. The hearing for this is August 19 about the “The Los Angeles Superior Court order issued Tuesday prohibits the Center for Medical Progress from releasing any video of three high-ranking StemExpress officials taken at a restaurant in May.” So, in my non-expert imaginations I wonder what will come of “investigative journalism” that has been touted for CMP or company privacy as well as the interviewee privacy. I thought this particular order was just for segments including three officials where the consent was not there. Alas, I had all… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Do Federal Judges Protect Journalists Exposing Animal Abuse More Than Journalists Exposing the Abortion Industry?
by David French, NRO, August 5, 2015, at 3:20 pm

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/422082/do-federal-judges-protect-journalists-exposing-animal-abuse-more-journalists-exposing?target=author&tid=1048

He also covers the TRO from CA and gives an embedded link to it at:

http://prochoice.org/media/Order_Extending_TRO.pdf

P.S. Of course whether or not he or his wife are “horse-faced” only affects the dispute to the extent a reader realizes – – and it willing to admit – – that only the LOSING side brings up the appearance of a writer.

A. James
Member

So how can a case like this continue or progress or progress very far when there are investigations/hearings etc. going on. i.e. if the concept of “investigative/whistleblowing” works in anyone’s favor, doesn’t there need to be proof that they indeed uncovered something illegal or not… the stuff about signing confidentiality statements, etc…. i’m not so comfy in understanding all this “investigative journalism/whistleblowing” okay legally stuff, maybe I need to think about it more. anybody could have any opinion about what was “worthy” to uncover and get a break from the court. my pref would be to mind our own business…but… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Three (at least!) different worlds in progress at the same time. 1. civil suit; NSF v CPM. CPM owes us money, plus make them stop showing what we said and did. Might cause us personal problems. (Can’t resist; look at the organized campaign by gay activists against Prop 8 supporters in CA, even years later upon the [ex] CEO of Mozilla. Exposure to harassment and possible intimidation is only a bad thing when lefties are under the spotlight.) 2. political campaign to defund PP and/or make it an issue in the 2016 races. 3. possible criminal cases against PP, CPM,… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

You are a fan of Codevilla too?

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Big time; that’s why I’ve posted the URL of his July 2010 AmSpec Ruling Class article several times on various threads of this blog (among other places).

A. James
Member

while I’m here…say the court sided with StemExpress on this (not including segments of StemExpress employees), and CMP decided it was “time for some Christian disobedience” and showed the segments any way. What would be the punishment? A fine or ? Or maybe transcripts would be allowed but not video? And now states being warned about violations in defunding/Medicaid: http://www.wsj.com/articles/hhs-warns-states-of-possible-violation-in-ending-medicaid-funds-for-planned-parenthood-1439392786?mod=rss_Health It’s quite a legal jungle in all of this where I’m not so sure there’s enough “law” left on “our side”… (whispering to you so I don’t get thrown off the mountain or any pre-mill views get blamed: unless they… Read more »

Kyle
Guest
Kyle

I’ll save you some trouble: It’s two-party consent in CA. These videos (the surreptitious ones, that is) are clearly illegal, and expecting the courts to overturn privacy laws because you happen to like the subject matter is a bit of a fun twist.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

I’m not expecting “privacy” to be overturned. However, 1st Ad law is pretty deferential. The feedlot in ID had at least as much a privacy expectation but that law was struck down. It’s not like a “trade secret” is in play. Read French’s blog post on the two initial rulings and see if he doesn’t bring the whole picture into a clearer focus for you.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Let me go on record as quoting John Roberts. The law may be quite clear… “However” .I don’t care. As in take your laws and shove em you lawless scum.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Tim Dude! Chill a little bit here. Unless you’re ready to secede/start another Civil War, we have to find a way to work out a mutually acceptable social compact.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Kelly, the law is an honorable thing. However, it requires an agreement on first things. Those first things are what are in play here and no matter what the law says, I will honor those things first. The “supreme court” said that I must close my eyes to evil. Ain’t gonna happen It is my opinion we are already in the second civil war. In my neck of the woods it is common talk at the grocery store with perfect strangers. Women, with grand-kids are talking of it. Please continue your lawyer talk, it is useful in its own way,… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Believe what I’m telling you; I DO hear you. So does Scalia. It’s why he’s been talking about “taking sides in the culture wars” since Roemer (1996). It’s why I’ve repeatedly said “Law is downstream of culture.” It’s why Scaila tried to tell the Gang of Five in Obergefell that they were on the warning track and if they did not slow down it was going to hit when the Court hits the left field wall. That whole “consent of the governed” thing is in tension with Marbury and the Bill of Rights. It’s why Roberts sent up a warning… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

I see someone is typing but I’m out the door for the org mtg of my grandson’s Cub Scout pack. See y’all later tonight.

timothy
Guest
timothy

God Bless,

I look forward to your legal-beagle thinking on the federal judge over-ruling some california judge on the CMP thing.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/08/13/federal-judge-rules-in-favor-of-planned-parenthood-undercover-video-group-cmp-vs-stem-express/#more-104865

I do hope you legal types can pull this off. I do not think they will let it happen. They are already lawless……, but, to hope.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

The Alliance Defending Freedom folks are pretty sharp. (The David French I cited on this thread has worked them.) They won (and should have) the t-shirt case in KY this past May, beating a gay rights parade, the local Human Rights Comm, and a local ordinance banning discrimination in public accommodations. However, the 1st Ad outranks all that – – and should have – – so HandsOn Designs won, based on Wooley, a 1977 US Spm Ct case out of NH. “prior restraint” is a MAJOR hurdle in 1st Ad law. “The injunction Plaintiff seeks would prevent Defendants from disseminating… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Hi Kelly,

I do not think it will happen as “The Ruling Class” is now pagan and at war with God. Their moral compass has switched polarity. Unless that changes, no law can remedy what will flow from that evil.

You are doing important work with that lawyer stuff, but I am afraid it is a delay action only.

That said, I hope I am wrong and pray you are right.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

When I first saw your avatar, I thought it was a ventral shot of a Mig-25. Cool. But then I clicked on it and it turned out to be a wooden church rotated 90 deg. Strange? Hidden message?

Kyle
Guest
Kyle

Yep, the cleverly hidden message was that I thought it was funny.

Susan Gail
Member
Susan Gail

Illegal is not equivalent to immoral.

And no, it isn’t illegal in many cases.

Kyle
Guest
Kyle

It’s illegal in California to record a conversation (outside of the public domain) without the consent of both parties.
Illegal isn’t equivalent to immoral, but that’s a red herring. The post I responded to hoped the restraining order would be overturned or shown to be illegal – it clearly should not be.

timothy
Guest
timothy

If it saves just one baby’s life it is worth it and the filmmakers of CMP deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.

Kyle
Guest
Kyle

I wonder, would you feel the same way about unconstitutional or illegal social service programs? If illegal taxation saved even one homeless person, it’s worth it and the policymakers in question deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
Or how about a real-world example, health insurance? Suppose for the sake of argument Obamacare actually is illegal/unconstitutional (it’s not) – it indisputably saves lives. So I guess Obama gets another Peace Prize?

timothy
Guest
timothy

Man, you have the lamest and most pitiful red herrings, non-sequiturs and straw men ever bunched into so few comments; you have a talent for cramming a lot of nonsense into minimal words. Being homeless is not equivalent to being murdered by the state. Furthermore, if the state where evicting people from their homes and a filmmaker broke the law by filming a video showing this treachery by the state, then yes, it would be a good thing too. You need to up your game (if you have one) Kyle. You repeatedly discredit yourself and your “cause” with your stupidity.… Read more »

Kyle
Guest
Kyle

Goodness, I do seem to have upset you! Since you’re upset with my concision, I’ll try and be a bit wordier this time. I don’t see the non-sequiturs, nor the straw men. The parent comment I replied to hoped the restraining order would be shown to be illegal; I replied to the effect that that’s unlikely, since the videos themselves are illegal in the state of California. Seems on-topic so far, and straw-free as far as I can tell. You entered the conversation with an interesting comment: Essentially, damn the law if a single life can be saved (pardon the… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Fair enough. You stick to the irrelevancy of “the law” and I focus on an innocent child being murdered under color of your laws.

All is fair in war and we are at war. I applaud my side for revealing the evil that is your side. I don’t give a damn for your side’s “laws’ as your side doesn’t give a damn for my side’s people or our ways.

The hell with you, the hell with your people the hell with your laws. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Kyle
Guest
Kyle

You seem to know quite a lot about me! My apologies for sticking to the law in a discussion ostensibly about the law. When my evil “side” and I get to hell I’ll see if we can get you a postcard.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Do not apologize. We are not friends.

Save the postage. I will be in heaven I am saved by God’s grace., your postcard will not make it there. While I am here, I pray He grants me steadfastness against the evil that you sanction under color of ‘law’.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

But what if it exposes something really important like a racist basketball team owner?

Kyle
Guest
Kyle

Do you honestly expect that to throw off my argument?

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

Not at all. Have fun with that.

Jeff Wright
Guest
Jeff Wright

It isn’t just Williams being honest; Salon and NY Mag published honest pieces today from women who say (A) I had my abortion for convenience and (B) women have known all along what they were doing.

The links are mixed in among my commentary here:

http://jeffwright.exaltchrist.com/coming-clean-on-abortion-and-planned-parenthood/

Ben
Guest
Ben

“And remember, that creed is either grounded in the gospel, and is ‘my life for yours,’ or it is grounded in self, and must therefore necessarily be ‘your life for mine.'”

Are you saying that in order to be a legitimate authority figure, including in the government, you have to be a Christian? After all, how can someone’s authority be grounded in the Gospel if they hate God?

SRG
Guest
SRG

I think the key word here is “grounded”.

doug sayers
Guest
doug sayers

Thanks for this one, Doug. Your main point is well taken but hindered by this: “Those are the only possible options, and for sinners the former way is closed to us and impossible unless the free grace of God intervenes. But when it intervenes, we are then able honestly (albeit imperfectly) to say “my life for yours.”” Your Calvinistic determinism works against you as it tends to render all the cultural analysis and political/kingdom strategy pretty much moot. What some call “the means of grace” is a palatable term for “strings”. It’s better to understand that God gives enough free… Read more »

Jodi B.
Guest
Jodi B.

Trending on my FB today was a SPOOF video of the CMP videos. By an outfit called –get this — Funny or Die. I don’t want to link to it and drive traffic to them, but it is supposed to be funny and defend all the “good” things PP does for women. They are spoofing videos which show the grisly dismemberment of human babies in order to defend Planned Parenthood. So, there’s also that response, which I think falls in line with the Salon article posted here.

Justin Spencer
Guest
Justin Spencer

At what point does one become an autonomous entity, though? Seems humans up until about age 10 are non-autonomous in the classic sense (though one could argue the age should be around 25 for males of the species). Why stop where she does? Can moms opt to kill their kids up until the point where kid can take care of itself? The logical conclusion of this particular argument would seem the say yes. I hope, by all means, the hyper left keeps going in that direction. It will make our job a whole bunch easier.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Peter Singer, Bio-Ethicist at Princeton (and Utilitarian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia_and_infanticide) has argued that it begins after birth; So the intellectual groundwork is laid.

However, it will not stop there. The Progressives where a eugenicist movement–because Science(!)–and the evidence for a genetic basis for much of who we are and what our potential is is solid.

Since no life is precious before God with these damned men, their is no limiting factor on their depravity vis-a-vis their ‘other-man’.

Kyle
Guest
Kyle

“One bio-ethicist made a particular argument, therefore all pro-choice people are eugenicists.” Got it.

aztomt
Member

That’s a knee-jerk and baseless response, Kyle. Notice what Timothy said – “the intellectual groundwork is laid”, and “there is no limiting factor…”. He is not saying, nor is he suggesting, that all pro-choice people are eugenicists (though that is where the movement with Margaret Sanger started). He is simply highlighting the fact that when abortion was on the fringe, there were advocates who pushed it into the center via intellectual arguments that appealed to what many in the nation (selfishly) wanted. The position of Singer is certainly on the fringe now, but what hard-stop exists to keep it forever… Read more »

Kyle
Guest
Kyle

That’s preposterous. Sanger’s pro-contraption and pro-safe-abortion advocacy is completely separate from eugenics advocacy (she advocated mandatory sterilization, not forced abortions – she actually quite abhorred abortions, but was even more horrified that most of them were unsafe because of the legal circumstances).

aztomt
Member

What specifically is preposterous in what I said?

Kyle
Guest
Kyle

The notions that contraceptive or abortion rights “lay the intellectual groundwork” for eugenics, or that eugenics is “where the [pro-choice movement] started.” (Along with your lovely slippery slope argument at the end, and your assertion that the family-planning movement is somehow inherently selfish.)

aztomt
Member

I would like to encourage you to go back and read what Timothy wrote, and reread my response. The intellectual groundwork has been laid by Peter SINGER (not talking about Ms Sanger here) regarding INFANTICIDE. Mr SINGER has said that human life does NOT begin at birth, but sometime later when it acquires that which makes us human, and has suggested that an infant’s life could be ended BECAUSE IT ISN’T YET HUMAN. I didn’t argue that the intellectual groundwork is being laid for eugenics. So let’s take up the idea of eugenics, now. Ms SANGER was a eugenecist, correct?… Read more »

Kyle
Guest
Kyle

I don’t have time to reply to the whole comment at the moment (I plan to later), but in the meantime I’d like to apologize for misreading the name and responding to the wrong accusation. I’d been responding elsewhere re: Sanger and let that carry over to here. My mistake.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Margaret Sanger and the other founders were. Learn it.

Kyle
Guest
Kyle

And Luther was an anti-Semite, yes, I get it. I’d momentarily forgotten how anyone who ever held a single opinion in common with anyone else could transfer their entire philosophy by simple association.
Also, the notion that pro-choice arguments somehow began with Margaret Sanger and other “founders” (let alone that pro-choice individuals are somehow obligated to her entire philosophy) is delightful, given that abortion in various forms is as old as civilization itself.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Associational transfer has become a staple of debate; think Todd Akin. Even Justice Ginsburg bought into “Sangerism,” per her quote about abortion preventing us from having “too many of those people we didn’t want” (or words to that effect – – if it matters I will track down her 2009 NYT interview again for the exact quote). But you’ve raised a fair objection; my bad. As to the long history of abortion as an institution, has any society anywhere ever had the breadth and depth of organized, industrial scale application of it as the US since 1973? Someone recently posted… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Kyle, “A Musing” by Jay Nordlinger, was posted to NRO’s “The Corner” on August 15, 2015, at 1:11 pm; available at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/422598/musing-jay-nordlinger. He wrote, “I was just thinking: If I were an abortion guy, and a Planned Parenthood guy, I would be sick of having Margaret Sanger thrown in my face. Also, I would be keenly embarrassed by her. I wonder whether they are — the Planned Parenthood people. And whether they ever say so — either in public or in private, to one another. She was even a [ital] Republican! [ital stop] P.S. I wonder whether Margaret Sanger would… Read more »

Kyle
Guest
Kyle

Easy. 1. I think it’s entirely reasonable for PP to name an award after a major founding figure whose tireless advocacy for contraceptive rights and women’s health had a major impact on policy reforms which have saved lives, lifted millions out of poverty, and on balance probably prevented countless abortions. She’s hardly the first person to have an award named after her in honor of noble contributions to society, despite controversial personal politics. Most of our “founding fathers” are in a similar boat, not to mention ecclesiastical figures (like Luther, of “On the Jews and Their Lies” fame). 2. See… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

I see your point of view, and thanks also for the even tone of your reply. After I posted this, I discovered she had been asked about that exact quote and replied to the effect that she had a lot of respect for Thomas Jefferson but did not approve of everything in his life, either.

That was a few years back, before several state parties began re-naming their “Jefferson-Jackson” dinners. I dunno, perhaps Sanger will go through a period of being an “unperson?” Fashions change, even with icons.

Lights out now in my time zone.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

The veneration of heroes is an inherent feature of conservatism so attacking heroes is useful or at least entertaining for the left. The constant revolution that is leftism, however, must always be renouncing yesterday’s leftist as insufficiently leftist. Sanger is going to have to check her privilege at some point, perhaps replaced by an Elena Kagan Award. A bumbling attack on Sanger only helps the process along and shows the limitations of trying to use the tools of the left against the left.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

I didn’t see Nordlinger as making an attack. The-scribbler; yes. If I had dug around longer and found her rebuttal I would have included it in my question.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

I don’t mean this instance per se but the “Sanger was a eugenicist” meme is ubiquitous on social media and is met with a shrug from the left.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Where, specifically, did I argue that? State it or retract your charge.

Kyle
Guest
Kyle

I meant to do you a favor by summarizing your slippery slope for you. No refunds.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Your english sucks. Keep the change.

David Trounce
Guest

The American Auschwitz. I am not sure what troubles me more. The indifference or the infanticide.

Susan Gail
Member
Susan Gail

Worse than Auschwitz. Bigger appetite.

Rich Dailey
Guest

As a Christian for ten years, a former ardent atheist prior to that (forty-some years; I’m old), my burning questioning has always looked at the Anger, the Selfishness. And now with a laser focus we now have a silvered, polished concave mirror in which non-theism is brought into a focus. And now much is expected of us.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Rich, if you do not mind sharing, why did you decide Christianity is true?

Luke Pride
Guest

Doug “What circumstances might these be? Williams doesn’t say, but since human selfishness can trumps human life “automatically,” the circumstances would appear to be pretty broad”
I think either “selfishness trumps” or “selfishness can trump”

I continue to enjoy your blog

Everette Rice
Guest
Everette Rice

I have never seen so much writing, pontificating, judgment, and veiled hatred for anyone who thinks or feels differently that has very little to do with the true faith of Christianity stands for I see why Christ ordered us in His words to”Judge not lest Ye be judged”. So many who are so against the personal decisions some make will find themselves going to hell just as quick as those who feel those who murder go straight to hell. The God I love has enough love and forgiveness to make the difference in this difficult world and doesn’t need self… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Jane, you wanna take this one? I would, but I have to get up early tomorrow.

A. James
Member

or timothy/katecho…

adad0
Member

John 7:24 Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.” Jesus

Bugs
Guest
Bugs

I like the fact that you are speaking from a perspective not shared by most of the constituency here, even though I don’t agree with all of it. We (should) know that all of us will be judged for all that we say and do, and I will be the first to admit that I have no cause for smugness when that day comes. In this thread’s immediate context of abortion, had we (I speak collectively re. the USA) done a better job teaching our children (and living the same ourselves) that sex outside of marriage is wrong (not to… Read more »

David Trounce
Guest

Everette, who on earth are you referring to?

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

Suppose a mom decides she made a bad choice by not aborting her baby. She kills the now 5 year old child in what some would term an “after birth abortion” (http://www.lifenews.com/2014/10/29/after-birth-abortions-college-students-increasingly-support-infanticide/). What say you, Everette? How do you feel about her “personal decision”?

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

Be kind and don’t judge. Its working out great.comment image

aztomt
Member

Everette, There’s a lot here to address, so I’ll try to be brief. First, as “A” dad’s post suggests, the passage you cited, Matt 7:1, is not an absolute prohibition against judge. Read the following verses to understand the first better. It goes on to mention 2 important things, that we ourselves will be judged by the standard we judge, and that before we can remove a speck from a brother’s eye, we ought first remove the log from our own. Regarding the standard issue, I think that is referring to the standard by which other’s will judge us, not… Read more »

Benjamin Polge
Guest
Benjamin Polge

so are you saying that people who think or feel differently than you about this are going to hell? Do you judge them unfitting of the name of Christ follower? How much of this have you written and pontificated on in the past? just curious.

Chris Wooldridge
Guest

“Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a slave can be a human life without having the same rights as the person in whose household it resides. They’re the boss. Their life and what is right for their circumstances and the health of their household should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of that household. Always.”

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas
Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Color me skeptical that using the term “enemy” in this context will work out well for us.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

That’s a terse response, could you elaborate?

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

“Enemy” implies “war.” We may disagree with pro-choice/ pro-abortion folks but does not mean there might not be other areas where we could find common ground. Recall Rubio’s answer that agreeing to a 20 week bill does not means he favors 19 week abortions. It means a 20 week limit is better than a 35 week limit, which would be better than no limit at all. The author tried not to set up a “Catholics against the world” hypo but he didn’t quite get there. I didn’t save it, but one of the links a week or two back in… Read more »

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

The point was not a division of denominations but a division between the children of light and children of darkness. “Of course, the fate of the Roman Catholic Church is a matter of interest to most readers here, but I don’t think this weakness is unique to my Church. Since the point is particularist loyalty, I can be clearer if I continue to write below about this one ecclesial body, with the applications to Orthodox and Protestant bodies being direct and obvious analogies” “…Ecumenism is pointless….But there can be an alliance…” The link is somewhat out of context in that… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

I had that text in mind when I said he almost got there.

Additionally, those fence-sitters are not only necessary in the dispute within the secular/legal/human circle, but they are also squarely in the “mission field” of the faith circle. It’s common for churches down here to have signs at the exits, facing away from the street, back to the parking lot, reading something like, “Mission field ahead.”

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

“The takeaway is that you can be human without having to be respected as a human.” That’s why a week or two back I brought up the example of pirates in Roman law and Werewolves (English-speaking German soldiers wearing American uniforms in Dec 1944, Battle of the Bulge). It is now and has been for over 2,000 years both legal and moral in SOME circumstances for someone to be fully human yet have no rights. However, regardless of the legality or morality of abortion per se, I submit that it is highly likely that numerous PP employees have violated a… Read more »

Conserbatives_conserve_little
Guest
Conserbatives_conserve_little

My answer to that quote is, “No one completely owns their own body. That is why we have drug laws.” Law and Order the Original Series.

MitchT11
Guest
MitchT11

Speaking of “autonomous” life … when do babies become “autonomous”? When they are 6? 12? 18? Peter Singer, call your office.