(Prolifer)ations 3-2-10
by Susie Allen, TN pro-life activist
Rubio … subtly hit Crist on the issue of abortion. Without naming Crist, he criticized the argument of politicians who claim they are seeking to “change hearts” rather than overturn the controversial Roe v. Wade abortion decision.
“Senators can’t change hearts, only God can change hearts,” Rubio said. “But senators can change laws.”
Nancy Ann Deparle, Director of the White House Office of Health Care Reform, made the following statement on abortion.
The starting point is the Senate bill with the Nelson language. It’s not a perfect proposal, but it was crafted in a bipartisan manner. It’s different from the House, but our effort was to not change the status quo on abortion. I know it’s not ideal, but that’s the starting point we’re working from.
Her statement that the Senate abortion language was “crafted in a bipartisan manner” is inexplicable. In fact, the Senate abortion language was crafted behind closed doors without a Republican in the room and with no Republican votes.
The governor and other state officials are not at liberty to ignore the will of the people on this matter. CO voters amended the state constitution to prohibit tax dollar subsidies to abortion providers, so it’s the right decision to take this to the court of appeals,” [lead ADF alliance counsel Barry Arrington] said….
The complaint cited state payments of $18 million to Planned Parenthood and another abortionist, despite a CO constitutional ban on taxpayer funds being used “directly or indirectly” for abortions.
[Rubio photo: Republican Party of FL via Washington Examiner; Ritter photo: lesforlife.blogspot.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
As an African American woman, I know of many other black women who have abortions, including some in my own family. Contrary to the oft-stated statement that prolifers “hate women,” I still love them unconditionally. My daughter goes to an HBCU (historically black college or university) and she knows of at least two young women who have had abortions there, including one who had hers at six months. My daughter was very upset about this, because her friend had a “bump” and an ultrasound of her son (it was a boy) on her bulletin board, but she went ahead with it anyway.
I think there are many reasons for this high rate, including poverty, the lack of support by fathers, etc. Many would say that lack of access to contraceptives and/or sex education is a cause, and I am by no means anti-contraception, but in NYC contraceptives are readily available, and the rate of abortion is the highest in the country.
There’s no single answer to reducing the rate, just as there are no single causes.
Regarding the second story, I think it would be awesome if a pro-life organization sponsored the Special Olympics. It’s great that NBC is portraying people with special needs in a positive light, but major news networks aren’t going to talk about their aborted peers without some outside prompting.
Leaving God in or out of abortion is only half the issue. The other issue is how the pro-life movement makes non-Christians feel. If you think that having an ultra-religious movement won’t make people who consider themselves pro-life into pro-choicers just by frustrating the crap out of them, think again.
The younger generations are more secular than the older ones. Where is their place in the movement? If the pro-life movement doesn’t open up, they shall find themselves declining in numbers having insisted on continuing to be religious. It’s not enough to say, “Welcome! It’s cool you’re atheist, now sit through hours and hours of religious activity.”
Kelsey asks, “Should we leave God out of Pro-life?”
Reacting quickly–without having read her article–I say that we can’t. God is the reason that I am pro-life. Without God, I agree with the humanists (“man is the measure of all things”) who say that forced abortion is the most compassionate and responsible way to deal with the very real misery and suffering in this world.
As a Christian, I want to share the gospel, to be pro-life in a much more comprehensive sense of the word. Jesus Christ is the way and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Him. Christians can only see the beginnings of the kingdom of heaven while they live on the earth. So I do not expect a world without murder until my Lord returns. (Of course, I strive for it now already, as salt and light, but my hope is in Him and His kingdom, not the kingdoms of this world.)
Those are my quick thoughts. I am a Christian first, and then a pro-lifer.
I always sort of groan in frustration when I see religious pro-lifers trying to use religious arguments on pro-choicers who clearly don’t care and dismiss anything they have to say at the first mention of God or Jesus. I don’t think religion should be completely removed from the pro-life movement, but if we’re going to win this we’re going to win it through science. Pro-choicers who don’t have any religious beliefs think pro-life arguments are based on “superstition” or “some imaginary old man in the sky.”
Nate and Marauder make great points. I know Xalisae endures our relentless Christian point of view like quite the trooper.
Like Jon though, my Pro-life convictions are so integrally woven with my faith, I’m not sure I could separate them.
I appreciate non-faith based arguments for life. I’ve read all three of you guys make great points.
I don’t know if it’s possible that we can tolerate each others differences with respect to faith and unbelief and still work together to save babies.
It would be great if we could.
They need all of us.
As we all know, thousands more will die tomorrow.
“There’s no single answer to reducing the rate, just as there are no single causes.”
There is one single primary answer or cause: lack of respect for Christian moral values, including value of human life.
“Bryan Kemper discusses the question “Should we leave God out of Pro-Life?” Kelsey Hazzard of Secular Pro-Life (a frequent commenter to this site) gives her thoughts on the blog as well.”
Speaking of which, abortionist site RH Reality Chrck is now trying to blame famed evangelist Billy Graham for the murder of Tiller and on top of that compared Graham (despite admitting to good he has done) to Hitler, Pol Pot, Khomeni, etc., for according to them, being a preacher of “hate”:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/reader-diaries/2010/02/22/is-someone-like-billy-graham-responsible-death-dr-tiller
Is Someone Like
Billy Graham Responsible For The Death Of Dr. Tiller?
George Tiller was murdered by Scott Roeder on May 31, 2009. Roeder was convicted on January 29, 2010. Roeder is a professed anti abortion activist. This was written shortly after the murder took place. See more on the effect of religion and Roeder’s actions below in a piece written by Eric Fingerhut.
A preposterous headline or not? As the dust continues to settle around the death of Dr. Tiller, it is time to think beyond the passion of that moment, the death of a man. This not to diminish the great work of Dr. Tiller on behalf of women in need or the admirable character of the man. But after all, it could be any man; any doctor any person who was on the wrong side of opinion of someone else with a gun.
Christians everywhere have experience with their faith. They have beliefs. It goes beyond that. Doctrine, and the church, and each denomination lends its flavor to the teachings of Christ, the interpretation of scripture, which as we know is an interpretation or report of Christ’s life and teachings on earth.
To inflame the passions of people is part of the design of religion. Faith is the motivation the carries out the passions of that which is inflamed by the organized religion. Simply, if you preach your own interpretations whether they be slanted to good or evil, you can expect someone might follow you. Some of the “believers” out there look for an excuse to do harm in the name of religion or their beliefs. It gives them carte blanc. I think most thinking people can agree to that.
Along comes Billy Graham, he is sincere, pure in his faith, a great witness for his Christ. His Christ, not necessarily the Christ of all Christians. Certainly he is a great witness for the Evangelicals. He is prominent and foremost and catapulted by his beliefs and sincerity to a leadership position in this world of faith. He is the envy of almost every pope in his lifetime as he packs stadiums with the faithful to hear the words of his faith.
Certainly we cannot fault this great man for his leadership of his faithful. He is by far a man without sin, an ideal person; there are no skeletons in his closet to diminish his authority.
Enter the faithful. There are those who are stewards of the Word, and live it as best they can. There are those who take the nuances of the word to inflame their own hatred and passions and in the name of this word they work to further what they perceive to be the ends of Christ. Yes, Christ wants me to kill Dr. Tiller, because it is wrong to kill babies.
In the fifties we were repressed. In the sixties we discovered free love and got unrepressed in the process. In the seventies we women, broke out of the man’s world and catapulted forward the best ideas of feminism and equality. In 1979, the Rev. Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority to fight against what he perceived as the disintegration of the beliefs of the religious and social conservatives, the counter attack if you will of the right to the progress of the left, to the abandonment of what were long standing social norms. Women, as agents of their own???? Impossible. Abortion rights represented the absolute epitome, the height of what was genuinely unacceptable in that movement. Or maybe not, but that is what the focus was for some. It was certainly a rallying point for the right.
How does Billy Graham share the blame in Dr. Tiller’s death? Billy Graham can no more be responsible for the individual actions of any fanatic or lunatic with a gun who kills anyone in the name of Christ, just like the Ayatollah Khomeini might have controlled the actions of any individual terrorist, but he definitely represents the hothouse where the culture thrives which supports this kind of thought , behavior, jihad.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I understand the fervor.
It is important to understand the displacement of anger and hate which traveled into the women’s movement and organized to attack the 1973 legalization of abortion. In the brief decades before the women’s movement, and just before the entrance of Billy Graham on the scene, we experienced the fight for civil rights. This dialogue of change affects generations of people who were absolutely sure that God had put their race in charge of everyone else and certainly over the blacks. White leadership, as high as the governor in the state of Arkansas challenged the implementation of Brown vs. the Board of Education and the abolishment of the idea of separate but equal. What the heck did all those frustrated people turn their attention to??? Seems to me that some of them found some comfort in religion, the evangelical religion which traditionally does not support independent, powerful women, but rather male leadership, and male power. If you spend time within the evangelical movement, you see the pattern which inspires the beliefs that within the household, the man is the leader. Women are submissive to their husbands and I believe therein lies the problem.
Submission of one race over another, submission of one gender over another, submission of one religion over another, submission of one belief over another, all wrong if you believe in equality. If there is equality of the races, then there must be equality of the genders, certainly an equality of religions and equality of beliefs. This is the optimum. In reality the law has tried to create the platform for races to be equal, the work on gender equality if not as clearly defined by law, is making progress, the standard that one cannot discriminate based on religion, speaks to equal protection under the law of religions, not naming one superior over another or naming them all equal, so a work in progress, observably a process toward balance and equality is in place, arguably one which may not be completed in our lifetimes.
Reasonably how do we connect Graham to Tiller? Graham empowered a mass of people into his own brand of Christianity by empowering their beliefs along with the prejudices of evangelicals, fundamentalists. Buried in that movement is the distinctive anti feminist platform. As he unleashed his commanding rhetoric, his speaking style and presence prompted Time Magazine to call him “God’s machine-gun”. What a telling remark from the 60’s so prophetic to some of the followers of the movement. Guns, you betcha, violence in the name of Christ, those who “save babies” from the likes of a Dr. Tiller.
Hitler was a charismatic leader. He made sense to millions of frustrated Germans experiencing want and financial loss. He spearheaded numerous changes within the society of which not all were condemnable. But what he inspired, what transpired was. He was not responsible for all the evil done in his name, but he certainly was responsible for evil of his own, setting the machinery in place to commit evil and establishing the righteousness to do so. He provided the legitimacy for it, the argument that supported it, the platform which good people clung to as their justification for evil. So there you have it.
It is not the only the leaders of religious movements like Billy Graham or the Ayatollah Khomeini, it is the Idi Amins, the Adolph Hitlers, the Pol Pots, the Stalins, the unstable uncontrolled masses let loose with an ideology, a doctrine which inspires the hate, preserves the hate, justifies the hate.
It is not about a women’s right to choose or autonomy over her own body. It is a banner slapping in the breeze, an excuse to subjugate women, to kill and intimidate with violence those who do not share the same beliefs as you about the fetus, the concept of personhood in the unborn. It is inextricably tied to a religious dogma, to an interpretation of a writing in a book called the Bible which some do not even believe is the actual words of a man named Jesus Christ.
How to remedy all this? Do not preach hate. Do not donate to religious institutions that do not respect and encourage equality of the sexes, do not allow your baser self to be stirred up to hate. If the message of Jesus Christ to believers was anything, it was a message of love and caring, not hatred.
If we punish the killer of Dr. Tiller do we remedy the situation or make this person an underground martyr? Hard to tell, but if you are a thinking person, one who would live in peace and harmony, and focus on the good and well being of the world, how is it your responsibility or right to police the independent health needs of anyone one person? Focus on your own life, your own children, your faith, not on the righteousness of your beliefs against the facts of a medical diagnosis. Let this message finally be heard, you cannot hide behind your religion, or your politics to assemble your hate against any person, race, religion, you must think for yourself, accept responsibility for your own actions and follow the law as it has evolved for the benefit of the rights of all.
Sorry Billy. I felt really bad when you decided not to have the meeting with Obama because of his pro choice beliefs. I think that your righteousness might just land you a place outside the heaven that you imagine for yourself. As all men, all people are with flaws and we can neither speak for nor interpret the will or words of God, we are after all but frail creatures and not His public relations firm. I think people must discern what is right and wrong in their own heart, and not listen to the hate rhetoric and allow it to consume you. If you do, and commit violent acts, then you are no worse or better than the Muslim martyr who is a suicide bomber expecting to be greeted by a thousand virgins upon his death. By the way, do female Muslim martyrs expect the same???
Billy, remember, I respect all the good you have done, inspired by the good within you, but I do not respect any prejudices that you have encouraged, or any hate that may have been fostered by them.
As you go into that so called sweet goodnight, one might pray the Lord forgive you.
More about Scott Roeder and his religious beliefs:
Roeder’s religion
By Eric Fingerhut · June 3, 2009
Scott Roeder, the killer of abortion doctor George Tiller, observed Sabbath from Friday night through Saturday, according to his ex-wife. But he apparently was part of a church based on the Old Testament, and not Jewish. Here’s an AP story interviewing his ex-wife:
Scott Roeder’s family life began unraveling more than a decade ago when he got involved with anti-government groups, and then became “very religious in an Old Testament, eye-for-an-eye way,” his former wife said …
Lindsey Roeder said from her home in a Kansas City suburb that the early years of the marriage were good and that Scott Roeder worked in an envelope factory. But she said he moved out of their home after he became involved with the Freemen movement, an anti-government group that discouraged the paying of taxes.
He then became involved with a church based on the Old Testament, but she said she did not know much about its beliefs. She thought it was strange when he showed up Friday to take their son out to dinner and to see the movie “Star Trek.”
“That’s his Sabbath,” she said. “So we wouldn’t usually see him on a Friday or Saturday. … I think now, that he was saying goodbye.”
David Gibson, a Catholic blogger at Beliefnet, writes that Roeder was probably involved with a radical Christian movement:
Perilous to speculate of course but I won’t be surprised if it emerges that Roeder was involved in some kind of Christian Reconstructionist group, or the Christian Identity movement, or influenced by those beliefs. These groups rarely have “churches,” per se, or broader communities which could temper (or inflame, I suppose) extremist views. That’s problem: folks like Roeder keep it bottled up, for the most part, occasionally let off some steam. So friends and family express “shock” when they go off the deep end.
For good background on these radical Christian movements, read a 1998 Southern Poverty Law Center paper here:
“The militant anti-abortion movement is driven by three different but overlapping theologies that motivate violence: Christian Reconstructionism, Christian Identity and apocalyptic Catholicism. To understand this movement’s increased militancy and its goal of instituting a theocracy — a goal that by definition means ending democracy — it is necessary to examine these three ideological strands.”
I could not directly any longer into that site from link I give, so go into this link and click on link to article in there:
http://faithtard.com/2528/skeptical-atheist/is-someone-like-billy-graham-responsible-for-the-death-of-dr-tiller-rh-reality-check-blog/
“It is not about a women’s right to choose or autonomy over her own body. It is a banner slapping in the breeze, an excuse to subjugate women”
What a load of freaking crap. Yes it is about the “right to choose [to murder her own child]” I could not possibly care less about the decisions women make in their day to day lives. As long as they’re not killing any one, whatever. I am so sick of this. It’s about the babies, stupid.
Lauren,
Exacto.
Laws exist that restrict rights of men and women alike on what they can do or not do with their own bodies (not that abortion involves just the woman’s body, given there is the body of the unborn involved).
Pregnant women are not allowed to take substances that can harm the unborn.
No one of any gender, age, race, etc., is allowed to drink and drive drunk.
And obviously we don’t have the right to act on our choices of murdering, raping, assaulting, kidnapping, robbing someone violently, etc. All these choices also involve using our own bodies to get what we want as well.
By pro-abortionist logic, the law subjugates everyone for restricting us from doing these things!!!!!
It is a shame that you cannot believe what any politicians say any longer.
Who is responsible for George Tiller’s death?
Let me start off by saying I did not support George Tiller’s killing. He deserved life imprisonment for his crimes, not capital punishment.
First,Scott Roeder is responsible because he killed Tiller. He did it because he thought that the system was unjust and had allowed Tiller to destroy 60,000 innocent human beings. He believed Tiller would continue killing children unless he acted to stop him.
Second, Tiller himself is responsible. He would be alive today if he had not committed those unspeakable crimes against 60,000 helpless innocent children.
Third, former Governor Kathleen Sebelius and her corrupt Kansas government are responsible for failing to enforce the law, protect unborn children and bring Tiller to justice.
Finally, Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress are responsible, because all they had to do to save Tiller was to pass federal legislation to stop the killing of unborn children. Had they done so, George Tiller would most likely be alive today. So would hundreds of thousands of unborn children.
“Kelsey asks, “Should we leave God out of Pro-life?” Reacting quickly–without having read her article–I say that we can’t. God is the reason that I am pro-life. Without God, I agree with the humanists (“man is the measure of all things”) who say that forced abortion is the most compassionate and responsible way to deal with the very real misery and suffering in this world.”
Just to clarify, it was Bryan Kemper who asked. But I have to say, I’m shocked by your belief that, without God, abortion somehow becomes “compassionate and responsible.” I don’t want to sound mean, but it’s clear that you haven’t done enough research. Abortion is a violent act that, far from relieving suffering, causes many women to suffer significant physical and/or emotional trauma. The use of potential future suffering as a grounds for denying people their most basic human right–“I’m going to kill you, but it’s for your own good”–strikes me as a bizarre, paternalistic attempt to avoid responsibility for others’ welfare.
A huge portion of my generation has been lost because of pro-abortion “reasoning.” It makes me incredibly sad to hear it from a pro-lifer. Sure, you have your faith in God to keep you moral for now. But if you became an atheist tomorrow, would you become an ardent abortion advocate? If you do your homework and learn about the scientific/philosophical/legal basis for supporting the right to life, the answer should be NO.
“What a load of freaking crap. Yes it is about the ‘right to choose [to murder her own child]’ I could not possibly care less about the decisions women make in their day to day lives. As long as they’re not killing any one, whatever. I am so sick of this. It’s about the babies, stupid.”
Seriously. I don’t care if women want to have jobs, stay home with their kids, get married, not get married, be openly gay, have kids, not have kids – just as long as they don’t hurt or kill anyone else. If a woman never wants to have children, fine with me. Just don’t get pregnant with one and kill him/her. If a woman has three kids and decides she doesn’t want any more, fine with me. Just don’t get pregnant with one and kill him/her.
Nate and Maurauder are right. Here in Philadelphia, the majority of the active prolifers are conservative Catholics. Whenever I go to a prolife event here, it is heavily Catholic-oriented. I’m used to it by now, but those who aren’t Catholic, or not even religious at all, might be turned off.
If I said it once, I said it a thousand times — the prolife movement must use secular arguments whenever possible and become more inclusive.
A huge portion of my generation has been lost because of pro-abortion “reasoning.” It makes me incredibly sad to hear it from a pro-lifer. Sure, you have your faith in God to keep you moral for now. But if you became an atheist tomorrow, would you become an ardent abortion advocate? If you do your homework and learn about the scientific/philosophical/legal basis for supporting the right to life, the answer should be NO.
Posted by: Kelsey at March 3, 2010 6:58 AM
I agree, and to be clear, I am agreeing to this as a Christian.
It is our duty, as believers, to obey God’s word and commands. In that sense, Christianity is terribly uncomplicated. If we’re given clear instructions on an issue, then obviously we don’t need to pray about it or spend ages in philosophical debates about why we would or would not do or support something.
But–and it’s a big one–that is not, at all, license to just assume we now know everything there is to know so we don’t need to think about anything anymore.
James 3: 17 “But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.”
I Peter 3: 15,16 “But in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.”
II Peter 1: 5-7 “For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.”
We are commanded as Christians to be able to give reasoned, thoughtful, intelligent defense of our positions on exactly these sorts of things. It’s not enough simply to say, “Abortion is wrong because God says so.” He does, but people who don’t believe–and some who do–are quickly going to point out abortion is not mentioned in the Bible. Instead, by giving a reasoned, cogent defense of how abortion is morally wrong, both believers and unbelievers will–if they are honest with themselves–be forced to arrive at the same conclusion.
Grounding pro-life arguments in logic and reason is not “leaving God out of it.” Rather, it’s doing exactly what He has commanded: providing reason for what we believe.
Kelsey, thanks for your reply.
If there is no God, then I do think forced (induced) abortion becomes compassionate and responsible. Like Hal, I really don’t think a human zygote experiences much pain and suffering when it dies. So if statistically the adult will live a short and brutish life, then why not end the misery right away (soon after conception, perhaps by an abortifacient). And I think I can sympathize with any mother–if any exists–who has felt repelled by a horribly deformed new-born (and they do exist). Surely it would have been better for such an one if he had not been born.
Unlike Hal, I really do believe that human life is special because of its original resemblance to God. Genesis 9 is very clear on the reason for and implications of the sanctity of human life.
The reason that you as an atheist can still have a special regard for your human life probably has less to do with the logical conclusions of your religion (response to God) and more to do with an inherited morality and conscience. Many Americans are still living off the moral capital of the past; many more no longer even have that. We are in danger of proceeding to the status quo of every non-Christian civilization (can you give an exception?), an acceptance of infanticide and abortion.
Mark Steyn had a recent article on his website about abortion in China. The title was something like, “Throw It in the River,” and the article was specific about the attitudes of Chinese women toward their babies, especially girls. His point was the folly of the new Western ideal of multiculturalism, but my point here is that you and other Americans still seem to have something left of a Judeo-Christian conscience. And if Greece was a pinnacle of secular humanism, it was also a graveyard for unwanted children (by both infanticide and abortion).
Actually, I’m not an atheist. But I’m also not Catholic, so I admittedly have a stake in making the pro-life movement more open. And of course, SecularProLife.org has many atheist members.
If there is no God, then I do think forced (induced) abortion becomes compassionate and responsible. Like Hal, I really don’t think a human zygote experiences much pain and suffering when it dies. So if statistically the adult will live a short and brutish life, then why not end the misery right away (soon after conception, perhaps by an abortifacient).
I’ll tell you why: because I know many people whose murder would be justified by that analysis. Friends who have disabilities, dysfunctional family lives, financial difficulties, etc. I even know someone who survived a saline abortion and suffers from cerebral palsy as a result. Every one of them is glad to be alive. If a person decides that life is truly not worth living, then suicide is an option. But it is not up to parents to deny the human rights of their children. At least give them a CHANCE to live well. If we care about a person making their OWN CHOICES, then we should be pro-life!
Keli Hu said, “Grounding pro-life arguments in logic and reason is not ‘leaving God out of it.’ Rather, it’s doing exactly what He has commanded: providing reason for what we believe.”
Very true, but reason alone is not enough. An atheist through reason alone will conclude that abortion is the killing of a human being. (Duh!) However, as the godless Europeans have done, he will can also rationally conclude that such killing is justified. The Groningen Protocol, for example, justifies the euthanasia of new-borns by quality-of-life criteria.
God says abortion is wrong. There might not be a chapter and verse (although Lev. 21:22 is debatable), but theology also demands that reason be applied to the Scriptures, to interpret them rightly, according to principles found in the Scriptures themselves. I think that I can rightly say that there is much of Christian theology that is deduced. Still, in the end, I am accepting a revealed truth.
Hi Jon.
“If there is no God, then I do think forced (induced) abortion becomes compassionate and responsible. ”
Well, I guess I don’t see any inherent problems with an atheist holding to the philosophy of human exceptionalism- that is, that human beings (and of course for the scientifically literate ones this includes the embryo) have inherent dignity and worth simply because they are human. They could base this on evolutionary reasons or because humans are the only ones who have the natural potential for rational and moral thought, but the point is that an atheist does not have to hold to an ethic about suffering. Sure some do, but I think an atheist is able to transcend an ethic of “suffering=bad” and hold to a “human life is inherently sacred” as the universal starting point for morality. Now, it is true that I think it is more difficult to come up with a coherent grounding for that on an atheistic worldview than a Christian worldview, but I think that’s a moot point. The bottom line is that if an atheist starts with the assumption of human exceptionalism, it would not follow that they should hold pain and suffering as their paradigm for morality. God love you, my friend.
Jon, there is no rational arguement for abortion. I’ve yet to meet a single pro-choicer who can defend abortion using logic or reason. When we get down to the bottom of their slogans, it all boils down to “feeling.”
A solid secular pro-life argument can beat any secular pro-choice argument.
Kelsey said, “I know many people whose murder would [have been] justified by that analysis. Friends who have disabilities, dysfunctional family lives, financial difficulties, etc.”
Sure? Why not? If there is no God, that is…
And you’re counting happy (Christian) ones like Gianna. Perhaps the worst cases have already been culled out. Have you tried counting the unhappy ones? There seems to be a demand for euthanasia, even when it is used as its proponents say it should be.
An atheist through reason alone will conclude that abortion is the killing of a human being. (Duh!) However, as the godless Europeans have done, he will can also rationally conclude that such killing is justified. The Groningen Protocol, for example, justifies the euthanasia of new-borns by quality-of-life criteria.
Posted by: Jon at March 3, 2010 10:56 AM
I absolutely disagree with you there. Things like the Gronigen Protocol are where people allow their emotions to run without the check of reason. A group that beings with the very laudable goal of reducing suffering ends up in exactly that sort of horrifying place when they don’t apply rational thought to the methods used to achieve that end. The Gronigen Protocol is only proof that emotionality, untempered by reason, is absolute chaos. Which everybody already knew.
Don’t misunderstand me, Jon. I am not saying that Christianity is an insufficient ground for pro-life arguments. It’s a sufficient ground for everything. I am saying that knowing this does not get us off the hook of needing to present reasoned, logical arguments for our position, and that Scripture even orders us to be able to do so. Aside from the unfortunate fact that not everyone is going to accept the Bible as authoritative, it’s intellectually lazy not to reason out your faith. God did not give us our brains just so they could govern our breathing and heartbeats.
Without God, I agree with the humanists (“man is the measure of all things”) who say that forced abortion is the most compassionate and responsible way to deal with the very real misery and suffering in this world.”
First of all, I don’t think you’ll find a lot of humanists who aren’t made of straw saying forced abortion is compassionate. Second, I always think this kind of statement says more about the person who says it than it does about nonbelievers. If you can’t find reasons to be moral without resort to an ultimate lawgiver/punisher, then I guess I’m glad you have one, but not everyone is thus afflicted.
In addition to the excellent points already made, I would add that I never bring up religious arguments with non religious people.
An appropriate time to bring religion into the discussion would be to engage so called “pro-choice” Christians.
Science and reason are the best tools to use when debating abortion. This is not to say that my Catholic faith is void of either science or reason (quite the contrary) but religious arguments take the discussion to places that many people aren’t willing to go.
Also, abortion is an intrinsic moral evil. To delve deeper into this idea would eventually lead us to objective morality. I think some of the prior comments may have been heading toward the idea of objective morality.
Without God, there is no objective morality. Much has been written and debated on this issue and I am not trying to start up a debate about objective morality with atheist pro-lifers on this blog. I’m very glad to see atheists and Christians fighting this battle together.
Lauren, try Peter Singer, the Princeton professor, or SoMG, the former commenter on this site. Or try the feminist Camille Paglia. Or the National Post writer George Jonas in his June 2009 article “Where Killers and Abortionists Meet.”
George Jonas wrote the following: “The Spartan model has had a mixed press. Some people have used the word ‘brutal’ to describe it. I’m not pushing it myself, but then I push nothing except an abstinence from fuzzy thinking. I don’t particularly mind abortion on demand; I mind only the arguments used to support it.”
All rational arguments depend on presuppositions. Presuppositions are held by faith.
I’ve been thinking about this for a long time and looking at it from several ways including a theological one.
If seems to me that it is important to distinguish “God doesn’t exist period” and “God doesn’t exist to me”
We as Christians are constantly reminded of God’s Grace, but we forget that his Grace isn’t just for believers. He shows Grace even to those that persecute him. In this way God has shown Grace upon the world and given us “peace” and aspects of “morality” even among unbelievers.
So even if unbelievers don’t acknowledge God, it is still God who gives them their compassion and moral beliefs. So yes, you can be Pro-Life without the acknowledgment of God.
All human life has inherent value. Quality of life is a daily fluctuating value. Just because I’m paralyzed from the waist down doesn’t mean I can’t go enjoy a movie with friends on a Friday night. Just because I’m poor doesn’t mean I can’t go outside and take in a beautiful sunset at dusk. Everyone has pockets of happiness even in what a more privileged onlooker would call a sad and sorry existence, and it is NOBODY’S “right” to take even those opportunities away from someone else. Jon, is your life sunshine and lolipops every single day? If not, it’s a good thing you’re not an atheist, or you probably would’ve blown your brains out by now. Seriously…? Is this what you think of atheistic pro-lifers?
Thank you very much for your consummate intellectualism which only serves to compliment your faith, BB.
Bobby Bambino said, “If an atheist starts with the assumption of human exceptionalism, it would not follow that they should hold pain and suffering as their paradigm for morality.”
The if seems big to me. And the inference seems common, at least these days. Somewhere I once read something to the effect that Christianity, and perhaps its distortions of Judaism and Mohamedism, are the only religions that exalt man high above every other creature and yet manage to keep him a mere creature. The most amazing creation, of course, happened with the conception of Jesus Christ. In Him, the human and divine natures came together and actually meet each other in one being.
So while your statement is logically true, is it practically meaningful? The atheist is intrinsically pro-death. When Adam and Eve rejected God, they chose hell. To live apart from God is death. Their descendants became so violent that God killed everybody except Noah’s family, adding several controls to reduce the level of violence thereafter.
It is because of God’s restraints for the sake of His people, who themselves act as salt and light, that we have atheists such as Xalisae, who seek a reality without God, i.e. hell (of course, she wouldn’t say so), and yet are anti-abortion. That they seem inconsistent with our world-and-life view is the result of God’s restraining grace in their lives, also in the influence of His Church. One such atheist, C.S. Lewis, eventually became a Christian.
Keli Hu said, “Things like the Gronigen Protocol are where people allow their emotions to run without the check of reason. A group that beings with the very laudable goal of reducing suffering ends up in exactly that sort of horrifying place when they don’t apply rational thought to the methods used to achieve that end.”
But they are applying thought. The Groningen Protocol is evidence. For example, the authors logically conclude that some diseases can only be known with certainty after the patient has been born. Abortion may have killed him upon speculation only; infanticide (ostensibly) reduces the number of deaths.
And here again, we see reason being applied. For a natural mother might change her mind at the sight of her child, but the doctor’s recommendation is not based on such emotion. He merely (supposedly) rigorously and objectively applies the very rational criteria to the case at hand. Should the child die or live? Human reason becomes God.
I say supposedly because even a good and logical system is still subject to the imperfection of the people who administer it. We are sinners by nature.
God is the author of life. A believer cannot be “leave God out” of anything. We are also wiling and able to express humanistic and/or scientific reasons to not abort. Many non-believers spread lies and deceit about scripture (Violet comes to mind)and God and lead people of faith to being deceived that abortion does not go against God’s plan. We certainly need to speak our faith openly enough to silence those pro-abort lies and hypocrisy about God.
Jen R. wrote, “I don’t think you’ll find a lot of humanists who aren’t made of straw saying forced abortion is compassionate.”
Do you realize what I mean by forced abortion? I should have added induced as a parenthesis.
Jen R. also wrote, “If you can’t find reasons to be moral without resort to an ultimate lawgiver/punisher, then I guess I’m glad you have one, but not everyone is thus afflicted.”
My 1964 Concise Oxford Dictionary defines moral as “concerned with character or disposition, or with the distinction between right and wrong.” But when we talk about character or disposition, we are again talking about the difference between right and wrong. The relevant definitions for character in the same dictionary both use the word moral: (1) “characteristic (esp. of species etc. in Nat. Hist.); collective peculiarities, sort, style; person’s or race’s idiosyncrasy, mental or moral nature”; (2) “moral strength; backbone; reputation, good reputation; description of person’s qualities; testimonial; status.”
In a world without God, where do right and wrong come from? For example, why would it be wrong for me to kill somebody? The animals kill each other, and I am just a highly-developed animal. In fact, death is necessary for new life. From the humus of one forest, a new forest grows. Survival of the fittest!
I think all forms of government derive their authority from God. Take the most basic government, that of the family. Johnny obeys his parents both because he believes in them and because he is afraid of them. So I think most people are moral precisely because of law-givers and punishers, not because they naturally do what is right. As you say, Christians believe in an ultimate law-giver and judge.
Jon, you seem to be treating morality as something created by God, rather than something that is intrinsic to God’s nature. If morality is simply a list of rules that have binding force only because God wrote them, then of course, it would be irrational to disbelieve in God while believing in morality. On the other hand, if morality is an intrinsic part of God’s perfection, then just because someone does not believe in a being that fully embodies that perfection does not prevent that person from rationally believing in those objective moral principles.
Not having read the article on God and abortion… and not having read any comments (there are already a lot)… I’ll just throw in my disconnected two-cents.
For example, the US Declaration of Independence states that we are endowed with our rights by the Creator. If it is agreed that a Creator is irrelevant, then we must come to a new consensus on where we receive our right to life. If not from the Creator, it would really be a matter of majority rules because there is no power greater than the majority.
If majority rules and there is no Creator, then I, a pro-lifer, would actually feel inclined to be a pro-choicer. For various reasons (which I won’t take the time to present now) that’s my opinion and if I were called to vote on the subject, that’s how I would vote.
If you take God out of the equation, all bets are off. We’ve got a whole new question and a whole different set of criteria for evaluating the question.
For the record, I am a pro-lifer. But I am a pro-lifer because of who I know God to be.
@ Laurie
If the US simply ran under a majority rule, abortion would be a lot more restricted than it is today.
Michelle, you are assuming that the majority would still remain pro-life even if there were no God. I was making the point that I, for one, would switch sides if there actually were no God. I’ve read through some of the comments now and see that I am not the only one. If we take God out of the equation, it seems the pro-life side starts shrinking.
Not trying to say I think it’s right – I suppose I’m just saying that if there’s no God, it really doesn’t matter so much what’s right.
That is why I think it is important to qualifythe difference between there “being no God” and “those without God”
In a world without God, where do right and wrong come from?
Mostly from empathy, and from the ability to use reason to figure out what moral codes result in societies where people can best flourish.
For example, why would it be wrong for me to kill somebody?
If you really, honestly don’t know the answer to that, please remain a theist.
Johnny obeys his parents both because he believes in them and because he is afraid of them.
Sure (although I hope my daughter is not afraid of me), but that’s a pretty juvenile moral compass and one that adults should have progressed beyond.
Psalm, I liked what you said about objective morality and should have perhaps read it first before replying to Jen R.
However, you say that you would “never bring up religious arguments with non religious people,” and “religious arguments take the discussion to places that many people aren’t willing to go.”
What do you mean by religion? I think that everybody is religious. Religion is responding to God. He has revealed Himself to us in nature and in the Bible, and we cannot help but respond. Ignoring Him is still responding.
In talking with somebody of a different religion, I agree that as much as possible, we must use the same language. If I speak English, and he speaks Greek, we’re quickly going to give up on each other. However, as that former atheist C.S. Lewis pointed out so well in The Great Divorce, Christians and non-Christians do speak different languages, i.e. live in different realities. Communication is inevitably difficult, and only the Holy Spirit can cause effective communication and acceptance.
Ultimately I’m pro-life not just in the area of fetal development, and not even just in the area of physical life. I’m pro-life in that I want everyone to know about eternal life and have it. True, as you say, I might never get that far in a conversation. I might, though.
In reasoning with a pro-choicer about abortion, wouldn’t the type of argument I use also depend on his reasoning (or lack of it)? If he already believes that killing another human being is wrong, then I only need to help him realize this basic fact.
Sam wrote, “If morality is an intrinsic part of God’s perfection, then just because someone does not believe in a being that fully embodies that perfection does not prevent that person from rationally believing in those objective moral principles?”
But aren’t you also admitting that only to the extent that someone does believe in a being that embodies that perfection–only to that extent does he believe in those objective moral principles? Can you really separate God and morality? Can you give an example?
Posted by: Sam at March 3, 2010 1:07 PM
I think the difference is not morality as created by God vs. intrinsic to God. That argument, would essentially, require God to be subject to the outside force of morality or would at least set morality up as independent of Him. If we believe that God created all things, then morality is something that He also did create.
I think Jon goes wrong in forgetting that God created all things, atheists and nonbelievers included. Along with the world in which we all live and the laws that govern it. So, any argument about morality, if it is put together correctly, will end up in agreement with the moral principles along which God fashioned the universe, whether that argument mentions God by name or not. Failing to believe in God does not justify abortion all on its own. That is not how God created the universe to work.
I had asked Jen R., “In a world without God, where do right and wrong come from?”
She replied, “Mostly from empathy, and from the ability to use reason to figure out what moral codes result in societies where people can best flourish.
You seem to be a species-ist, Jen! Many environmentalists say people are the problem, so we need moral codes that don’t result in societies where people can best flourish.
For example, wasn’t there recently a family in which both parents first shot their two children and then shot themselves because of their guilt over their contribution to global warming? The daughter survived because the bullet missed her vital organs.
And many environmentalists view abortion as a effective way (with other means) to reduce the number of people on the planet.
There is one single primary answer or cause: lack of respect for Christian moral values, including value of human life.
Punisher, African Americans are the most “religious” people in the country, yet our women have the highest abortion rate in the country, and our communities are often the most violent. Something is not right here . . .
“Can you really separate God and morality? Can you give an example?”
Let’s see… The Platonic Forms, Aristotelian virtue theory, Kantian deontology, Benthamite utilitarianism, Millian utilitarianism, and Randian objectivism would be a few examples of moral theories that do not require belief in God as a prerequisite.
Religion was never about morality (at least not exclusively). Religion was always a part of culture- the collected beliefs of a group of people refined by generations and oral and musical traditions, as well as environment.
People can be moral without religion if you want peace and survival and to be happy, then you can be a good person.
Countries that are secular are known to have lower crime rates. Countries that are religious are known to have higher rates of giving and charity. The truth of the matter is that morality is not a creation of the Christian faith, nor is it necessary to be a Christian to be moral.
If you read the Qu’ran or study the teachings of the Buddha, learn the various spiritual beliefs of the Native Americans or find works by Confucius, then you will understand that the desire to do right is universal and is found in all people.
Keli Hu wrote, “Any argument about morality, if it is put together correctly, will end up in agreement with the moral principles along which God fashioned the universe, whether that argument mentions God by name or not.
I agree. Good point! Really, there is no such thing as a secular argument.
Keli Hu wrote, “God created all things, atheists and nonbelievers included.”
No, NO, NO! God did not create atheists and unbelievers. He created Adam and Eve, and He said that they were “very good.” They walked with Him in the garden of Eden. However, they sinned. How they could sin we do not know, but we know that they sinned. God is not the author of sin.
Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of first fruits of all he created. (James 1:16-18)
But I think Keli meant that God made Adam good but he became evil and had sinful descendants such as she and I and atheists and unbelievers are.
I do not believe that God can be left out of the pro-life message as He is the very core of the message it self. The reason abortion is wrong is because it is the killing of a human person.
The human person is unique from other living creatures because of one very important thing, a soul. The human person has a soul which is given to us by God and what separates our value from that of a dog, cow or kangaroo. Most pro-lifers have no problem with eating a steak because the cow does not have a soul.
We can argue scientifically that life begins at the moment of fertilization in a human being, but we can also argue the same thing for a cow. If there is no difference then all pro-lifers would have to be vegans. But there is a difference and that again is the soul.
As a Christian I have an obligation to spread the Gospel and be a witness for the hope of Christ. I can use Science and argue that the life of a human person spans from Zygote – Senior Citizen, but what is different then from the cows life from Zygote to Full grown Cow? If there is no soul, is there really a difference? If there is no soul then one of two things would be true.
1. Abortion would not matter
or
2. We should all be fighting for veganism as well.
For Christ I stand,
Bryan Kemper
Phillymiss at 1:57 PM, are African Americans showing “respect for Christian moral values, including value of human life”? Being religious isn’t the same as being repentant and becoming holy–unless you are referring to being truly religious.
“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” (James 1:27)
@ Bryan
I would actually agree. There is a secular equivalent of the soul and that is “human worth/value” which can be shown secularly.
Sam answered me, “The Platonic Forms, Aristotelian virtue theory, Kantian deontology, Benthamite utilitarianism, Millian utilitarianism, and Randian objectivism would be a few examples of moral theories that do not require belief in God as a prerequisite.”
That’s true, Sam, at least with regards to Plato. I know next to nothing about the others. While Plato certainly did not believe in God, didn’t he end up believing in a kind of god that embodied the ideals he set forth? It may have been more Eastern than Western–Hmm…–well, then, maybe that kind of god isn’t even very meaningful, eh? Maybe you’re right.
But Plato’s morality was incomplete, wasn’t it? If you were to correct and complete it, wouldn’t you come to a belief in God?
I’m a fan of Marquis’ “future like ours” argument. Cows don’t have a future like ours at ANY stage of their development. I agree with Mishy that human beings do have unique value, even to an atheist. I don’t consider that speciesist. If an alien species shows up that has that “human” quality, by all means they should have the right to life too– and they should have it from the moment of their biological beginning.
No, NO, NO! God did not create atheists and unbelievers. He created Adam and Eve, and He said that they were “very good.” They walked with Him in the garden of Eden. However, they sinned. How they could sin we do not know, but we know that they sinned. God is not the author of sin.
Posted by: Jon at March 3, 2010 2:16 PM
As you say, no, no, no. And please do not try to put words into my mouth again. Your argument makes God into a clockmaker who is only responsible for the first man and woman, and they are responsible for only their children, who are only responsible for theirs, and so on down until you get to the present day. I reject that utterly. God has made all human beings, even those of us who are living today. We would not be if He had not created us exactly as we are. The fact that you can scientifically explain the mechanism He used to do it as pregnancy and birth does not push Him out of the picture as creator, even of you. Our fallen nature prevents us, without His help, from truly understanding what He is. However, that is the fault in the created, not in the creator. Nor does the fact that God did, in fact, create those persons who are atheists and nonbelievers, mean that God created sin.
But you can not say that God only creates Christians and atheists may as well spring up out of holes in the ground. If you do, you undermine the pro-life position entirely. Either all humans are valuable and created in God’s image, or abortion is justified even from a Christian perspective, so long as the children being aborted are not Christians or likely to convert. Again, I reject this argument utterly. All human beings are valuable and made in God’s image by Him, whether they agree with that or not and whether they agree with me or not. Failing to recognize this is a failure to recognize God’s love even for those people who are not Christians.
These kinds of arguments are exactly why it is so desperately important to reason out morality and be able to cogently defend it, even as a Christian.
Correction to the last sentence of my last post: especially as a Christian.
Lauren said, “A solid secular pro-life argument can beat any secular pro-choice argument.
I commented already on this, Lauren, but I’ve thought a little more after writing my last comment to Keli. I think we agree, but we disagree on terminology.
I don’t like to divide the world into religious and secular. As Keli noted, all truth is God’s truth, whether I mention His name or not. For me, it all fits wonderfully together.
As a Christian, I want to give the credit to God. Of course, you do too. Love to God is a greater commandment than love to one’s neighbour. Still, Jesus did warn against throwing what is holy to dogs and pearls to swine. And He did advise us to be as wise as snakes and as innocent as doves.
Why not beat the unbeliever at his own game, right?
I think people are confusing having ideas about what is moral and objective morality.
The argument from objective morality is often misunderstood. It’s not about how you come to know to some degree an understanding of morality, rather it’s a question of objective morality. Why are some things right or wrong at all? By what standards are some things considered “immoral” without God?
In the debates I have seen, I have never seen the argument from objective morality refuted by an
atheist. Most atheist scholars I am aware of all but concede this argument.
Dr. William Lane Craig does a great job using this argument in debates against prominent atheists.
Anyway, like I said earlier, I am not looking to start a debate on objective morality. You can see how deviated a debate on abortion can become once you introduce concepts like objective morality or theological arguments.
This takes me back to my original comment about not using religious arguments in debates about abortion unless it is indicated such as with “pro-choice” Christians.
Keli at 2:44 p.m., I agree with you. And I’m not a deist. I don’t believe in God as the clock-maker or “first cause.” He continues to care for the universe and keeps all things together so that it and we do continue.
I just strenuously object to your language in the one statement, “God created all things, atheists and nonbelievers included.” Can you substitute the word people there instead of things? When you say things, then I’m led to think that you’re saying that God created the atheists as atheists and unbelievers as unbelievers. The potter has power over the clay, but God is not the author of sin. God has created some people in order to later destroy them, but He did not make them sin. He hardens them, but they are themselves choosing to defy Him.
Romans 1 tells us that God reveals Himself through creation. From the exact postion of the earth as relating to the sun, the mathematical perfection of creation, the incredible complexity of the cell, DNA, genetics, and the astonishing development of the unborn baby- God reveals Himself. I don’t find it in any way demeaning to discuss pro-life issues through science. Science itself points to a Creator.
I never intentionally leave my faith out of any issue, but I do try to use discernment about how much to say and how soon. Sometimes people reject everything you have to say if you start out with faith (for me, that would mean JESUS). Often,if we can intelligently defend our postitions and we prove our love by our behavior, then we may earn a ‘right’ to speak about our faith.
It probably should be handled case by case as the Spirit leads.
I also have a lot of respect for the non-christians on this blog and Xalisae, I have been to your website and may use your agruments if I ever get into a debate with a pro-choice atheist. Brillant girl!
“So even if unbelievers don’t acknowledge God, it is still God who gives them their compassion and moral beliefs. So yes, you can be Pro-Life without the acknowledgment of God.”
Agreed. There is a term for that: natural law.
Many environmentalists say people are the problem, so we need moral codes that don’t result in societies where people can best flourish.
If true, so? I’m not responsible for what they think, any more than you’re responsible for the people who are looking forward to the end times. If you want to argue with me, argue with me.
I thought that I was arguing with you, Jen. Remember that my question was about the origin of morality. You suggested, as one source, “the ability to use reason to figure out what moral codes result in societies where people can best flourish.” My example from environmentalism was intended to show that your morality is arbitrary. You believe in an objective morality–you say that if I don’t even know the reason that killing somebody is wrong, I’d best believe in God–but you have no basis for it. Your arguments lead to relativism, where ultimately every person determines right and wrong for himself. At least, that’s the situation as I see it.
That some people come to different conclusions about morality doesn’t make it arbitrary — it just means that we are still figuring it out, especially in situations on the boundaries, and we probably always will be.
We’ve made significant scientific progress over the centuries, but only someone who doesn’t understand science would consider it a valid criticism that science hasn’t figured everything out. I think the same is true of moral progress. That doesn’t mean we don’t know anything.
Gerard M. Nadal commented on Bryan Kemper’s blog (04:21:44). There Bryan Kemper and Kelsey Hazzard had given seemingly opposing answers to the question, “Should we leave God out of Pro-Life?” Mr. Nadal said the following (emphasis mine). I like especially the end of his second paragraph, and since he has expressed himself so well, I’ll adopt it as my final answer here too, though I say so as a Protestant.
The answer is obviously “Both”. Kelsey is quite correct in all that she says, especially in tailoring the message to one’s audience.
I run a pro-life science blog, Coming Home, which is also unapologetically Catholic. As a Ph.D. in molecular biology, I see no inherent conflict between the scientific contributions to the life issues and the truth as seen through the eyes of faith. They are quite complementary.
Beginning on Tuesday, March 16 on my blog (http://gerardnadal.com/) I will be cross-posting with Kelsey as we read one chapter per week from EMBRYO:A DEFENSE OF HUMAN LIFE, in my column “Pro-Life Academy”. The book is ny Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen, both bioethicists from Princeton and USC, respectively.
The book makes the argument for the human identity and status of the embryo in a commanding way from a secular perspective. Grab the book and join in every Tuesday.
Still, it is always a good thing to stand and witness one’s faith along with the rest of the pro-life apologetics package. Lives do get changed through faith, which is what many young people are desperately searching for. It’s not that we turn people off by our faith. It’s that we often don’t back those pretty words by concrete deeds and true compassion.
Responding to Jon:
“But Plato’s morality was incomplete, wasn’t it? If you were to correct and complete it, wouldn’t you come to a belief in God?”
Well, not necessarily. The theistic God has several attributes. In addition to moral perfection, God also has attributes like omnipotence, omniscience, etc. As a Christian, I believe that all these attributes in fact exist together, in the person of God.
But why is it a LOGICAL necessity that all these attributes exist TOGETHER in the same being? Why would it be INCONSISTENT to believe that moral perfection exists, but only as a platonic form, or as Kant’s categorical imperative, or some other form, without being embodied in a person, who also happens to be all-powerful and all-knowing?
Now, you are saying that, no, moral perfection does not in fact exist in the platonic forms. It exists in the person of Jesus Christ. And I agree with you. But that is an empirical question. I believe in God because I have tasted and seen; I have personally experienced His presence.
But as a question of logical reasoning, you are wrong. You cannot take the premise “Objective morality exists,” and draw the conclusion, “Therefore an all-powerful, all-knowing, creator being exists.” Your conclusion simply does not logically follow from your premise.
Lauren,there is no rational argument against abortion.I’ve yet to meet an anti-choicer who can defend making abortion illegal using logic or reason.
When we get doen to the bottom of their slogans,
it’s all about feeling. Touche.
You’ve just proved my point.
On the contrary, there are many compelling reasons why abortion should be legal.
Women die in large numbers when they are not permitted abortions. The abortions happen anyway, and many of the spouses are left widowed and their children motherless.
Many children who are born in such circumstances grow up in abject poverty and are doomed to lives of misery.
Making abortion illegal merely increases poverty,crime and unemployment. The argument that you never know whether such children will succeed is like saying that they might also win the lottery if they bought tickets when they are old enough to.
The world does not have unlimited sources of food,water,fuel and energy. There is only a limited amount of inhabitable space on earth.
Overpopulation may not be an immediate problem, but it will be one eventually if the world is not careful.
Yes, you never know who among those aborted might have become doctors,scientists,inventors, great composers,writers,painters,novelists, poets and playwrights, but the same could be said about all the miscarriages,stillbirths,and crib deaths etc.
But you also don’t know which of them might have become brutal dictators,serial killers, ruthless drug lords, dangerous psychotics, child molesters, etc.
You cannot stop abortion,period. Saying that allowing abortion is like allowing murder,rape,and stealing etc is ludicrous. It’s simply not the same thing. You cannot force women to bear children against their will. It does not work.It never has,and never will. No government has ever been able to stop abortion by making it illegal, because there is absolutely no way to enforce the law.
If abortion were to become illegal again and the government had thousands of agents constantly on the lookout for women having abortions, it would be a massive and egregious invasion of the privacy of millions of American citizens, including those who were not pregnant.
Abortion is a tragedy,not murder or a crime.
It is an unfortunate but necessary sacrifice for the greater good of mankind.
I’m not an atheist, but a non-observant secular Jew. I have no problem with people having their religious beliefs of whatever kind. However,I do have a decided problem with people using those beliefs as an excuse to impose their morality and social agenda on others.
All I ask is that each of us keep our religions to ourselves.
My argument for the legality of abortion is not based on my “feelings”, but having a realistic outlook on the abortion question. And many other people share my views.
Why is abortion a tragedy?
Robert,
“,there is no rational argument against abortion.I’ve yet to meet an anti-choicer who can defend making abortion illegal using logic or reason. ”
I am just simply amazed that you can make this statement, Robert. The problem is, Robert, I’ve never once seen you actually interact with a solid right-to-life argument. Not to mention that your post is chuck FULL of arguments that make the Philosophy 101 fallacy of begging the question. Robert, seriously, I have lost count of how many times I have done an in-depth critique of one of your posts and you have completely ignored it. The fact is, you continue to make the EXACT SAME CLAIMS despite the fact that people CONSTANTLY refute those claims. You simply don’t care. I am sometimes convinced that both your posts and responses to people are computer-generated. They constantly repeat all the same talking points and simply don’t interact with the points that right-to-lifers bring up. And if you refuse to engage in interaction, how are we supposed to convince you of anything? At least SS admits that he is completely closed off from any arguments. You have your a prioir belief that abortion is a good, and nothing will deter you from that. Honestly, I am REALLY not trying to be mean here, but after, what, 3 or 4 years of seeing you write like this, I simply have NO IDEA HOW TO TALK TO YOU OR GET YOU TO CONSIDER ANYTHING WE SAY. I have NO IDEA how to get through to you or have a discussion.
And honestly, your first line about there not being a rational argument infuriates me. It simply infuriates me because you don’t read what we have to say. You don’t listen, and even if you did, I don’t think you would ever admit that there was at least a rational argument. I can easily admit that there are logical arguments for things I disagree with. There are fairly reasonable arguments in favor of abortion, and there are logical and reasonable arguments for atheism. I think that they are flawed but I wouldn’t label someone irrational or illogical for holding to them. So it’s no shame to admit that there can be logical but flawed arguments on the other side. So I just don’t get this claim of yours.
But okay, I will try this ONE more time. Here is a syllogism defending the right to life of the unborn. Attack the premise you disagree with,and I would love, love, LOVE to discuss it with you and have those reading judge for themselves who is engaging in rational argumentation and who is full of logical fallacies. Here we are:
1. The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community.
2. It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community, and thus should be illegal to kill any member of that community.
3. Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community.
4. Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong and abortion should be illegal.
You threw down the gauntlet, Robert. I am prepared to defend each one of these points 1-3 in detail. This is a logically valid argument, so point 4 follows immediately given the truth of the first three hypotheses. Which one is incorrect and why? Show me that the above is neither logical nor reasonable, as you claimed.
Robert Berger,
You start out with this statement:
“I’ve yet to meet an anti-choicer who can defend making abortion illegal using logic or reason.”
I find it odd that you would make such a strong accusation considering you own comments are full of logical fallacies and poor arguments.
Have you taken the time to read through the previous threads of this story? Seems to me that if you did, you would realize that the same type of bad logic and arguments brought here by previous “pro-choice” advocates have been exposed and refuted time and time again.
Bobby Bambino, I’m quite familiar with philosophy, but it’s YOU who are begging the question, not me.
“Lauren,there is no rational argument against abortion.I’ve yet to meet an anti-choicer who can defend making abortion illegal using logic or reason. When we get doen to the bottom of their slogans, it’s all about feeling. Touche.”
In actuality, your post is self-descriptive there. The whole line you use like “anti-choicer” directed at us is purely based on feeling, not using logic or reason.
It is disingenous argument to claim we are anti-choice. We are no more anti-choice than you are. If anything you are more so than we. You deny choice of life to others.
Your argument basically says if we deny right to what we see as murder, it is anti-choice.
But let’s take your argument logical to its conclusion. So by your logic, you would be anti-choice in regards to acts done by choice, whether legal or not, if you oppose the right to do so legally. Pick any from this list: murder, rape, incest, slavery, assault, battery, child abuse, etc.
Guess what? Those things are done out of CHOICES too!
Merely relying on slogan you are “pro-choice” and we are “anti-choice” is purely shallow argumentation based on emotionalism. You yourself would be for laws that restrict choices of OTHERS if they encroach on what you see are your rights to your life or property.
Thanks Robert. EXACTLY what I’m talking about. Don’t interact with anything I’ve written, don’t critique any of my points, and don’t you DARE respond to any questions I’ve asked. Just blow off everything I have to say with the 3 year old response of “I’m stupid? No YOU’RE stupid!” and leave it at that.
I don’t know why I bothered. I don’t know why I bothered. I don’t know why I bothered. Shame on me. Shame on me. Shame on me.
Bobby Bambino,
Nice reply to Robert. I’m glad someone took up this challenge. I’m simply too busy to go over this yet again!
*Pro-choicers* It would be very beneficial to browse around a bit on this blog and read some of the interactions. Chances are that your particular arguments have been discussed.
“On the contrary, there are many compelling reasons why abortion should be legal. Women die in large numbers when they are not permitted abortions.”
And your argument there is preciely what you accused us of: being based on emotion, not logic. Guess what? A large part of the pro-life movement do believe there should be exception for the cases of mother’s life in danger.
“The abortions happen anyway, and many of the spouses are left widowed and their children motherless.”
You are now arguing with two mutually contradictory statements in same sentence.
If abortions happen anyway, how can that lead to spouses to being left widowed and children left motehrless if you claim abortion being restricted leads to deaths of mothers?
And your argument that abortions happen anyway is not compelling. Nor based on logic or reason. It is based on emotion.
If we take your argument and apply consistently all across the board, we should legalize all forms of murder, since even if we make those illegal, those would happen anyways. How about legalize abuse of women and children on grounds that even if those are illegal, they would happen anyway?
Not very compelling argument at all.
“Saying that allowing abortion is like allowing murder,rape,and stealing etc is ludicrous.”
If the unborn is human, then it is same as murder, period.
Besides, it is illustrates the absurdity of your own position where if making law against abortion cannot stop abortion, then we must must legalize it. After all, murder, rape, and stealing are forbidden by law, and people still do all of the above in large numbers worldwide where they are forbidden, even in the strictest, harshest of countries.
And guess what? Like I said, murder, rape, and stealing are done BY CHOICES.
So using your logic since you are for laws against those things, you are ANTI-CHOICE.
See how your own fallacies can be turned on you EASILY?
Choices are not all created equal and just because there are choices made does NOT mean we have to support them being legal.
And to suggest we are anti-choice in general just because we oppose what we believe is murder is ridiculous, self-serving, and hypocritical.
“You cannot force women to bear children against their will.”
Your argument there is not appeal to reason or logic, but to emotionalism and slogan used by pro-abortionists.
If we are into forcing women to bear children agaisnt their will, we would be for laws mandating they all have sex so they can have children, against their will.
The choice is made when the women and men decide to hook up, outside of cases of rape and incest.
“It does not work.It never has,and never will. No government has ever been able to stop abortion by making it illegal, because there is absolutely no way to enforce the law.”
There is no absolutely no way to enforce the law against murder and rape, yet we still have laws against them. Criminals still commit these heinous acts and the law does not stop those who want to do them and CHOOSE to do them. Yet, we still have laws against them.
Just because it cannot be absolutely enforced does not mean it should not be made law.
“If abortion were to become illegal again and the government had thousands of agents constantly on the lookout for women having abortions, it would be a massive and egregious invasion of the privacy of millions of American citizens, including those who were not pregnant.”
If it involves killing an unborn human being, then it is still a just law.
Using your logic, then we should have agents constantly on the look out whether guys will rape women in the privacy of their homes, or for fathers and mothers to physically abuse their kids, violating their privacy. By your logic, then to have laws against murder, rape, child abuse, spousal abuse, etc., etc., is a massive invasion of privacy of citizens including those who don’t engage in any of that.
Your argument don’t hold up at all.
By the way, I am Punisher and Daredevil. I keep forgetting which name I used in different boards. lol
Let me go on rebutting Robert:
“I’m not an atheist, but a non-observant secular Jew. I have no problem with people having their religious beliefs of whatever kind. However,I do have a decided problem with people using those beliefs as an excuse to impose their morality and social agenda on others.”
Then according to your logic, abolitionists were wrong for imposing their morality and social agenda on others, since a large part of abolitionist movement were evangelical Christians who believed slavery was immoral.
By your logic, Dietrich Boenhoeffer out of his own Christian principles was wrong to stand up to Hitler’s treatment of the Jews.
The fact of the matter is your side of the debate uses beliefs as to impose your own brand of morality on rest of us. Demanding abortion be legal in all cases is precisely imposing morality on the rest of us who disagree and feel it is murder. Demanding we pay for the choices of others to get rid of their unborn children is also trying to impose your side’s belief on the rest of us as well.
Make no mistake: all sides have beliefs on issues that they feel should be made into law for the greater good in their eyes.
Your own arguments reveal your views on what the law should be is driven by your own BELIEFS. Such as abortion cuts down on human population and prevent those from being born into this world where they would suffer.
So let’s not get hypocritical here.
“Many children who are born in such circumstances grow up in abject poverty and are doomed to lives of misery.”
First off, you don’t know which one will or will not have lives of misery. Your argument is no different than argument for eugenics and euthansia, where those considered unfit for society or consider to be worthy of “mercy killing” are to be eliminated. And it involves false concern for them. It is no different from saying what Susan Smith or Andrea Yates did is fine since their children may grow up to suffer misery anyways.
“Making abortion illegal merely increases poverty,crime and unemployment.”
NO different than argument for eugenics.
“The argument that you never know whether such children will succeed is like saying that they might also win the lottery if they bought tickets when they are old enough to.”
Not our place to decide who is worthy of being let live or worthy of being made to die before they get that chance.
“The world does not have unlimited sources of food,water,fuel and energy. There is only a limited amount of inhabitable space on earth.
Overpopulation may not be an immediate problem, but it will be one eventually if the world is not careful.”
Your arguments when apply consistently can be used to justify almost anything: genoicide, euthanasia, mercy killings, leaving the newborns to die, serial killings, etc. After all those things do cut down on the population, too!
“Abortion is a tragedy,not murder or a crime.”
How is it a tragedy if no human being is being murdered? If it is just a blob of tissue or parasite (as some pro-choicers claim the unborn is), then how is it a tragedy?
If abortion is no different from removing an organ that is damaging the body, where no death occur, why would it be traumatizing or be seen as tragedy?
But if the reason it is tragedy is because it involves taking human life, then you lose your argument that abortion does not involve murder.
You say I’m “denying” the unborn the right to be
born? That’s not what I’m doing. I don’t want to force any woman to have an abortion. That’s not my right. All I’m saying is that women MUST have the choice of an abbortion aailable to them.
And there you guys go with your ridiculous comparisons with abolitionists etc.
That’s the tired old specious comparison of abortion with slavery.
If anything,the REAL slavery is when the government tries to reduce women to baby-making machines. The real slavery is when women cannot obtain a safe,legal abortion. When the command goes out that by order of the state,all pregnant women must bear those children or else, not only
women’s freedom is lost, but a whole nation’s.
Abortion is NOT murder, nor is it rape. It’s not done for the same malicious reasons.
A fetus is potential life. All your comparisons with abolitionists and Dietrich Bonhoeffer are not only totally disingenuous, but insulting and self-serving. An insult to genuine heroes who strove for the betterment of mankind.
But making abortion illegal does absolutely nothing to better mankind. It is invariably a catastrophe for society. You are not pro-life. You are against abortion.Period.
“If anything,the REAL slavery is when the government tries to reduce women to baby-making machines.”
Yup Roburt, us dum wiminfoks is just 2 stoopid 2 kno wut we can doo 2 not get pregnunt an wut makes dem baybeez in tha furst plase. y, I just had my twunty-teenth baybee yesturday, wish i knew y! o well, time 2 go run arownd like a bich in heet, cuz i’m just a dum femail wut dont kno no betur! thanks 4 helpin us fite 4 wiminz rites, cuz we r 2 stoopid 2 get r rites rselves!
“You say I’m “denying” the unborn the right to be
born? That’s not what I’m doing.”
Empty denials. By saying the woman has the right no matter what to get rid of the unborn and not let the unborn get born, you are precisely taking away the right of the unborn to life.
Your denial is like saying you are not taking away the liberty of slaves, but affirming right of slaveowners to own slaves.
“I don’t want to force any woman to have an abortion. That’s not my right. All I’m saying is that women MUST have the choice of an abbortion aailable to them.”
No different from saying women must have choice to murder their newborn babies.
Using the term choice is empty claim, when it is based on false pleading and begging the question that we all must allow choices to exist.
The bottom line is even you don’t even believe your own spin, given you yourself hold to certain choices should and must be restricted, like say murdering folks like you, for example.
Appealing to the argument of choice is pure rubbish, when you don’t have anything of substance to back it up.
“And there you guys go with your ridiculous comparisons with abolitionists etc.
That’s the tired old specious comparison of abortion with slavery.”
Nice way to dodge what I really said. My response was to your claim religious folks should not let their views and beliefs guide them in regards to taking stands on issue of morality. I simply pointed out the fact those who made up the abolitionist movement were made of largely evangelical Christians who believed slavery was immoral and violated God’s will.
Your problem is with history, not me.
My point stands: by your logic, most of the abolitionists were wrong to take a stand on slavery because of their religious and moral beliefs.
Now try interacting with the points others actually made instead of ranting with nonsense.
“If anything,the REAL slavery is when the government tries to reduce women to baby-making machines.”
More appeal to emotionalism, not logic or reason.
If that’s the case we would be for women forced to have sex in order to get pregnant and make babies. We are not. It’s idiotic to make the claim you just did.
Now, we are for human life being respected.
If the fathers were the ones who demanded the abortions and the mothers don’t want the abortions, we would be taking the MOTHERS’ side.
That just shows how asinine your claims are.
By your logic, men become slaves if the women decide to keep the babies and they are legally bound to take care of their children, even though they have no say in whether their children gets aborted or not.
By your logic, men would be slaves now for being forced to become fathers and support their children, if the mothers want to keep their babies, thus reducing men to baby making factories. Yes, they don’t carry the babies in their bodies. But women don’t get pregnant by themselves.
“The real slavery is when women cannot obtain a safe,legal abortion.”
Mor cheap appeal to emotionalism, not logic or reason.
No different from wild claims that if it is real slavery if parents cannot kill their newborn babies or not.
“When the command goes out that by order of the state,all pregnant women must bear those children or else, not only
women’s freedom is lost, but a whole nation’s.”
The mother of all rights is right to life. Your atgument falls apart on that.
The choice is made BEFORE they get pregnant.
It is like saying freedom is lost if mothers cannot kill their babies just born since after all those babies right up to the point before birth is in your view their PROPERTIES.
“Abortion is NOT murder, nor is it rape. It’s not done for the same malicious reasons.”
Wrong. Most of the times it is done for convenience. Murder often is for that reason precisely.
“All your comparisons with abolitionists and Dietrich Bonhoeffer are not only totally disingenuous, but insulting and self-serving.”
Insulting to people ignorant of history, actually.
But hardly disingenuous and self-serving.
What is self-serving and disingenuous is for you on the one hand say religious Christian folks cannot let their beliefs moral guide their stances and calls for changes in the law, then protest at my points about abolitionists and Boenhoeffer were doing exactly the very thing you OPPOSED (letting their MORAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS guide their stance on the legal and moral issues of their day), but for the causes you agree with.
“An insult to genuine heroes who strove for the betterment of mankind. ”
GUIDED BY RELIGIOUS AND MORAL PRINCIPLES.
The very things you opposed right of Christians to ever do.
Go back to your argument: “However,I do have a decided problem with people using those beliefs as an excuse to impose their morality and social agenda on others.”
No, you only have a problem when those folks take stands you AGREE with, but if they take stands you DISAGREE with, you DISINGENOUSLY and SELF-SERVINVLY state how dare they let their beliefs be use as excuse to impose morality and social agenda on others.
You want it both ways, and you are called out on it.
And while I did NOT address comparisons between slavery and abortion CONTRARY to what Robert said (I mention slavery in regards to RELIGIOUS folks taking stands on the issue to show how ridiculous Robert’s claims are that folks are wrong to let their beliefs be reason for them to change things morally and legally), I will now, since Robert wants to mention that as ridiculous comparison (which I had yet to make before this post I am writing now).
Slavery and abortion both treated slaves and the unborn as PROPERTY of slaveowners AND mothers alke.
Slavery and abortion both are based on views of PRIVACY. How often did the Confederates relied on the argument of PRIVATE property? It was not just the argument slaves were their PROPERTY, but that they were their PRIVATE property.
Slavery and abortion also are based on views that deny humanity status to whole classes of humanity, be it blacks or be it the unborn.
The comparison is right on the money, now that it is made.
The fact that Robert claims the unborn are not human beings are the kind of argument the Dred Scott decision made (granted it does not deny blacks are humans but deny them as fully humans).
Like I said, Robert’s problem is with HISTORY.
Punisher, tearing it up like Dolph Lundgren did!
Many children who are born in such circumstances grow up in abject poverty and are doomed to lives of misery.
Making abortion illegal merely increases poverty,crime and unemployment. The argument that you never know whether such children will succeed is like saying that they might also win the lottery if they bought tickets when they are old enough to.
The world does not have unlimited sources of food,water,fuel and energy. There is only a limited amount of inhabitable space on earth.
Overpopulation may not be an immediate problem, but it will be one eventually if the world is not careful.
Posted by: Robert Berger at March 4, 2010 3:21 PM
Robert,
That is so sad. They feel so helpless that they actually decide to kill their baby’s before they are even born, “in order to protect them from society”. These mother’s need emotional counseling to help them understand that even “difficult” life is precious. We all go through difficult times in life and it is acting irresponsibly to project future difficulties as being a valid reason for killing a baby. Women have been known to kill their newborns after birth for that same type of reasoning. Do you consider them to be responsible also? lol
“In a world without God, where do right and wrong come from? For example, why would it be wrong for me to kill somebody? The animals kill each other, and I am just a highly-developed animal. In fact, death is necessary for new life. From the humus of one forest, a new forest grows. Survival of the fittest!”
Yes, animals kill each other. However, “x happens” and “x is morally acceptable” are two entirely different things. And animals don’t tend to kill their own kind indiscriminately.
Also, “survival of the fittest” is only really universal when it comes to environmental factors; it doesn’t say animals all just duke it out. In fact, “higher” organisms tend to form societies in which coöperation leads to mutual survival.
Most species are evolutionarily programmed against intraspecies aggression and for coöperation. Fundamentally, this is where morality/natural law and government comes from.
Hi Nulono.
“In fact, “higher” organisms tend to form societies in which coöperation leads to mutual survival. Most species are evolutionarily programmed against intraspecies aggression and for coöperation. Fundamentally, this is where morality/natural law and government comes from. ”
Wouldn’t this make morality not absolute? IN other words, had we evolved in such a way that say rape lead to mutual survival or such that lying helped to foster cooperation, wouldn’t that make rape and lying moral? Shouldn’t rape always and in every possible world be wrong, no matter how beneficial it could be for society?
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you.
Nulono said that “animals don’t tend to kill their own kind indiscriminately.” In a world without God, though, we are all said to have evolved from the same common ancestor. As many environmentalists note, ultimately we are then killing our own kind when we kill animals or any other form of life. They might label Nulono–they certainly label me–as a species-ist, by which they imply a moral wrong as serious as racism. Environmentalism would seem to lead to pantheism, in which life or the life force is worshiped.
Robert, if this is really about women’s rights, and women’s choices, and women’s wants, why do you refuse to accept the voices of women on this blog who disagree with you–who say that abortion is not something they want, does not empower or help women, and does not right any wrongs or foster true equality? As a man, how can you claim to know more about what is right for a woman than almost all of the regular commenters on this blog? Are you telling me that I don’t know what I need or what I want, that I can’t make my own determinations about what is best for me, and that I am incompetent to opine on what is right, what is necessary, and what should be legal? If so, what is the difference between you telling that to the women here, and an anti-choice-to-kill-babies man telling a pro-choice-to-kill-babies woman what women want and what is best for them? By your logic, as a man, when women enter the argument on abortion, you must always respect their superior reasoning. Please do.
In a word: NO! God is the reason I am pro life and the two cannot be separated IMO.