The End Of Abortion

Abortion, Bioethics, Culture, Ethics, Philosophy — By on September 18, 2012 at 7:00 am

Evangelical Christians have lost  gay marriage. 

This is my humble yet controversial opinion.  I could be wrong, I’m no prophet, but when the social conservatives are also the party of unyielding individualism and liberty, it’s very hard to make the rhetorical pivot to being against what appears to most people to be a matter of individuals exercising their  liberty.  Beside that, in my opinion, we are still losing the narrative debate.  Traditional marriage defenders have been, so far, pretty lousy at providing the alternative positive story of marriage in contradistinction to the “I just want the equal right to marry whomever I love” story that resonates with most people of good will.

Here’s the good news, we’re winning abortion.

The positive story has been on our side for a long time now, and it resonates powerfully.  The striking parallels between the abolition of abortion and the abolition of slavery are also persuasive.  When abortion becomes a human rights issue, as it is, both right-wing individualism and left-wing concern for social justice meet in common cause.  To oppose that cause is to take up a fool’s errand.

Moreover, when the proponents of abortion are forced to continuously admit that abortion itself  is “tragic” and “should be rare”, well, it’s easy to see a lost cause.  Can you imagine gay activists admitting in solemn tones, “We all know gay marriage is tragic, and should be a rare occurance, but gay people should still be free to choose in those extreme instances when it’s necessary”?

One thing that always puzzles me about the Left is how they mock and deride those who argue that the shifting sands of their own moral foundation will eventually eradicate all standards of right and wrong.  They cry “Oh, that’s just a slippery slope!”  This is one of those moves that Facebook Philosophers like to make.  Look up a list of logical fallacies and throw a few out in an argument so that you appear educated and skilled at critical thinking.  What puzzles me about this, though, is that when, lo and behold, the sands start shifting a little too fast for the current tastes of the Leftist elite, they profess shock and disbelief, yet no hint of an apology to that wise man or woman whom they had accused of peddling hysterical logical fallacies just a few moments earlier (in fact, they may simply lash out and deride him or her even more).

This is just what’s happened over at Slate, where William Saletan begins with this lament:

Just when you thought the religious right couldn’t get any crazier, with its personhood amendments and its attacks on contraception, here comes the academic left with an even crazier idea: after-birth abortion.

Here is a man who clearly hasn’t been paying attention.  The Pro-Life movement has been arguing for a long time now that there is no substantial difference between an infant and a fetus.  And Peter Singer has argued for infanticide for years.  I suspect Mr. Saletan is merely nervous, and his nervousness leads him to open the article by reminding everyone how crazy the other side is.  This is important, because Mr. Saletan provides no answers for those Pro-choicers who are repulsed by infanticide, he merely raises unsettling questions. 

His article is actually quite insightful.  He goes straight to the assumptions, so often taken for granted without argument, that underpin the whole Pro-choice position.  He calls each of these assumptions into question because they seem to lead logically to the acceptability of infanticide.  This can’t be, however, because Mr. Saletan realizes that infanticide is “crazy.”  Here are the assumptions:

1. The moral significance of fetal development is arbitrary.
2. Prior to personhood, human life has no moral claims on us.
3. Any burden on the woman outweighs the value of the child.
4. The value of life depends on choice.
5. Discovery of a serious defect is grounds for termination.

Without these assumptions, the Pro-choice position completely collapses.  Mr. Saletan’s challenge in this article is for Pro-choicers to confront the logic of the “after-birth abortion” position head-on and explain how any of these assumptions can remain intact for an unborn fetus and yet not apply to the newborn baby.  He concludes:

The challenge posed to Furedi and other pro-choice absolutists by “after-birth abortion” is this: How do they answer the argument, advanced by Giubilini and Minerva, that any maternal interest, such as the burden of raising a gravely defective newborn, trumps the value of that freshly delivered nonperson? What value does the newborn have? At what point did it acquire that value? And why should the law step in to protect that value against the judgment of a woman and her doctor?

Unbeknownst (I assume) to Mr. Saletan, who is after all a Pro-choicer himself, he has just articulated the presuppositional argument against abortion.  And it is telling that he makes no attempt to provide any response.  I believe that’s called a deafening silence. 

All Mr. Saletan can do is nervously proclaim that he just knows (and after all, doesn’t everybody?) that infanticide is “crazy”, and remind us that the other side is just as crazy, so whatever we do we certainly can’t join up with them.  I don’t blame him, really.  I’d be nervous too if I felt myself slipping down the side of a steep slope I was quite sure wasn’t there.

Image via Slate.


Tags: ,
  • Pingback: The End Of Abortion — Evangelical Outpost « Think Biblically

  • http://whytheology.wordpress.com/ Trey Medley

    Finally, someone has said this. I’ve been thinking it ever since that first article came out. This is a huge opportunity for pro-lifers (myself included) to say “Of course there’s no difference of moral value between a fetus and a newborn” and then go on to give the (common sense) argument that “Killing a newborn is clearly immoral.” Therefore the only conclusion is that “Killing a fetus (abortion) is immoral.” Glad someone else has put the dots together.

  • Lily Jones

    Defining the fetus as a person and declaring that they should have rights does not change the fact that they are inside of another human being changing , their body and everything about their life against that persons will (if the person wants to have an abortion.) In no other case of murder is the victim inside the other human being growing…..You have a large battle in front of you yet.

  • Lily

    My main point is a person dying is never what constitutes murder in isolation. Abortion does have many other factors working within it and to ignore those is just as cruel and horrible as abortion itself. (to deny the implications that the woman desperately does not want another person inside of them for 9 months, doesnt want to go through with the physical risks of pregnancy which can still be very severe, and does not want to go through the inevitable torture of birth.) By completely denying where the carrier is in respect to the situation is the only way you can label it murder because no other instance of murder has these factors.

  • Lily

    In a way you aren’t winning the battle because the Pro-Choice movement has yet to utilize its most powerful moral and legal argument. So far it hasn’t had to.

  • Lily

    4. The value of life depends on choice.

    This is true already in many moral and legal instances. If you are being forced to undergo something without your consent directly by a person you are allowed to violently retaliate. Consent is what makes this distinction most of the time, and how severe what is being forced is. If someone forces their genitalia inside of you you are allowed to react violently (not because the person has malice intent but because the fact that it is not consensual) Our legal right to protect ourselves against another human being is based around the idea of consent not whether the other person is actually malicious in intent or even has intent. (That is why it will be difficult for you to give a fetus all the rights of a person without any of the legal responsibility.) The intention of the perpetrator or whether that person is even capable of intent in no way shape or form defines how you can act to protect yourself. When a person is growing inside of you and you don’t want them to this can easily be applied.

    I’m not arguing that it is the fetus’s fault or anything as idiotic as that. Im simply arguing that the idea of their “innocence” in thought and action in no way changes the reality that you have one person growing inside the other person without the other person’s consent.

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.nilsen David Nilsen

    Lily, two quick points. First, it is disingenuous at best to say that you have a baby “without your consent”. The vast majority of people learn what happens when a man and woman have sex at a very young age. Having unprotected (or even protected) sex is what we call implied consent.

    Second, you have already given up the argument. If it is in fact a person growing in the womb, such a person has rights and is protected, even from the whims of his or her parents.

  • Lily

    To call a woman whom desperately does not want a person inside of her a “whim” is precisely why you will not win this argument. You are not even addressing the reality of what its like to be pregnant and NOT WANT TO BE. You have no idea what that is like, how despair inducing it is, and what kind of psychological and physical toll it can be on a person. Second of all, you act as if all sex is consensual. What about rape (all too often) , coercion (that common occurrence where a person says no to sex and the partner says why not?) and what about the fact that PEOPLE DON’T KNOW HOW THEIR BODIES WORK?

    I went to high school in a a very nice upper middle class area and kids still thought pulling out was a method of birth control. It seems to me that the pro life movement also happens to be filled with people whom are against the most pragmatic things you can do in a state to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Teaching abstinence until marriage in a public school is a crime against humanity. Not teaching kids how their bodies work is a crime against humanity.

    But I see the huge difference here. I do not consider the act of sex as consent to pregnancy. Im sorry did they sign a legal contract stating so?

    But worst of all you are completely ignoring the fact that we still live in a patriarchal world where most women are not in charge of their own sex life. Women don’t have equality yet! Think about what that means for politics in the bedroom and whether this debate is really about stupid women whom just have this whim.

  • jamesfarnold

    I think David’s point is simply this: if we accept the personhood of the fetus, than we cannot abide ending its life. People all have a right to life, until they themselves act in a way to forfeit it (as in, a murderer may be put to death by the state, but they have already ended lives themselves).

    Sex may not be a legal document saying you agree to pregnancy, but people definitely know what they are getting into when they have sex. It isn’t like people are blind to it.

    There are cases where sex is not consensual: rape, coercion, even things like prostitution. These are all real, and have to be addressed. But here’s the thing: hardship does not rule out life, full stop. Having a difficult time of it, while likely tragic, should not be transferred to the action of ending a life. That seems far more tragic.

  • jack jones

    As a student nurse and one who takes the edice of do no harm, I am also aware that in my country (Australia) 90,000 children die every year. They are genreally killed through dismemberment, and often show signs of pain as the killing proceeds.
    Those 90,000 children are abortions. Thye are not from raped women or from seriously disformed pregancys, rahter from woman who ‘choose’ that they do not want the life within them. Thus choose to kill it. It is not aborted, it is killed. In Victoria a state in my country you can kill a baby (yes its a baby) at term. That means at 9 months. The difference it seems between the choice of life and murder is now less than one milimetre thick. That being the mebrane dividing the child entering the world as a livingbaby at 38 weeks or being killed behind the uteris membrane at the same period of labour.
    We have fallen so low that we are killing babys at 38 weeks. Thousands of them. And someone wants to advocate womans choice? Hitler did less atrocities than this.
    I suppose one can ask – “It os ik to kill a baby in the womb when….?”, whatever your answer its wrong. Twoo wrongs two evils do not make a good.
    an article of interest – http://www.thechristiannetwork.com/can-god-forgive-my-abortion/
    May God help us win the fight with all of His power.

  • Amy

    I just wanted to point out that the main factor here is still human life. The unborn child’s rights do not change with the situation of the mother’s. If you argue against this saying “what if it was rape? should the woman have to live with the pain of child birth?” the answer is no, she should not. But that does not mean she should have the choice to commit murder. Life is not perfect. We cannot control the actions of others, only ourselves. Why should the shameful acts of rape be followed by the horrid act of abortion? We don’t get to play “God.” We can’t know the future. Maybe the pregnancy could end badly, but maybe it could provide joy to a couple who is unable to concede!

  • Lily

    It does not fit the definition of murder. In what other instance of murder is the person growing inside of the other person whom does not want them there? Personhood has never defined murder.

  • Lily

    In life if someone else poses enough of a threat to you, you are allowed to take violent action. The woman in getting an abortion truly feels her body and life are at risk because she does not want them inside of her. You keep ignoring my main point and therefore are ignoring half the situation. I acknowledge personhood yet all of you refuse to understand that this is not simply about hardship. You refuse to acknowledge the vast implications for what it means when a woman does not want a person growing inside of her for 3 months. And the elephant in the room? Child birth is not some cake walk without complications and in some cases death. Your body is expanding against your will. Your hormones changing against your will. Torture at the end against your will. Your body may have permanent damage against your will. I don’t think the government should be able to force someone to go through this. It’s role has never been to protect all life at all costs.

  • Lily

    *9

  • jamesfarnold

    “The woman in getting an abortion truly feels her body and life are at risk because she does not want them inside of her.”

    This seems to be your main point. That the woman does not want the child inside of her. And I think that’s where I strongly disagree with you. I don’t think that anyone’s desire, even when it comes to someone living inside of you, should outweigh a person’s life. This is why the discussion comes back to personhood, because a person’s life is intrinsically valuable and worth protecting. Sometimes that includes discomfort, yes.

    “[The government's] role has never been to protect all life at all costs.”

    One of the government’s primary roles, however, is to protect her citizens; all of them. This includes the unborn, and sometimes protecting their citizens from themselves.

    Let me be exceedingly clear here: I don’t think pregnancy is a cakewalk; it is not free from complications; sometimes there is a risk of death; sometimes it comes about through terrible situations, like rape; and often a woman does not want to be pregnant when she certainly is. None of these are points on which I disagree with you. I affirm all of them.

    But here are other things I affirm: life is valuable and worth protecting. Persons have a right to live, until they actively and intentionally participate in ending another life. A fetus is a person. So is the mother. From this, however, I conclude that regardless of someone’s desire that they not have a person inside of them, the fetus should be allowed to live. To be brought to term.

    In cases where it is very likely (preferably a near guarantee) that both the mother and the child will die if the child is brought to term, I could understand choosing abortion as a tragic alternative.

  • jamesfarnold

    Personhood certainly defines murder; it isn’t murder when you kill a dog or a cow. It may be illegal and immoral, but it isn’t murder.

    When did location start defining murder?

  • Amy

    Well put. I just googled the definition of murder and the first hit is “The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.” Like James said, location does not determine murder.

  • Lily

    No my point is that there are a plethora of instances in which you can kill another human being without it being murder or even a crime. Most of those involve when you are at extreme risk. Ever been pregnant when you desperately didn’t want to be and every waking moment feels like you are being violated?

  • Lily

    ” I don’t think that anyone’s desire, even when it comes to someone living inside of you, should outweigh a person’s life. ”

    If I am being violated physically or raped (my consent defines those instances) then I have every right to weigh that against someone elses life and the law protects me in this regard. I can kill someone who is actively violating me.

    A person’s “intention” has never defined how a violated person is allowed to act in regard to the situation. By saying they are not actively inside the person against their consent you are basically denying that the pregnancy is even happening. If they are deemed a person, then they also have the legal responsibility that if they are doing something that IS actively harming another individual (their existence within the other person without that person’s consent defines that) action can be taken, even though they are not aware of the situation and don’t have malice intent. The intent and mental state of someone does not define what you can do in retaliation.

  • lily

    Btw if you seriously think that their life outweighs a woman’s consent when the fetus is in its say 3-5 weeks old I think THAT is criminal. I do think that as the fetus grows the government’s right to protect it at all cost increases. However, to say that their right exists at conception is madness considering the reality of the woman that I have outlined.

  • Amy

    In those cases (i.e. self defense) which you are probably referring to it, is the their fault that they end up dead. They did something wrong to deserve it. That is not the case with abortion. And no, I have not been pregnant and in that situation. My heart goes out to those who have. It is a terrible thing.

  • Lily

    The issue of “fault” has never decided what a person can do in retaliation either. Your right to kill that person has nothing to do with their fault and everything to do with the fact that they happen to be the one who is posing a threat (intentionally or not).

  • Lily

    Well thats an interesting definition your going by considering abortion isn’t unlawful….

  • Amy

    The intentions of the person posing the threat actually has everything to do with it.
    It seems to me that we can only agree to disagree because for me this subject comes down to moral obligations that not everyone agrees with. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this topic and for challenging me to think.

  • lily

    Thank you as well. The is that I think there are pragmatic ways to make abortion way less common, however those things are typically not things the Christian right is comfortable with. One of the biggest problems I have with many people whom are pro-life, is that they are also in favor of things that clearly and quantifiably increase the number of unwanted pregnancies. I don’t understand the concept of being vigilantly pro life and also for abstinence only education in schools. Proper sex education is a right (I think) that young people have. Having easy and free acces to contraceptives is another thing that provably WORKS in lowering the amount of unwanted pregnancies.

    I am not as harsh and cruel as I sound. That is why I do not agree with pro choice people saying the fetus is not a human or its own life etc. I do think as the pregnancy goes on the right of baby increases. But I also think that we have the same moral obligation to people whom are in the very early stages of their pregnancy.

    I think it is only sane that the nature of the argument should change when talking about the first few weeks in comparison to later just because of reality.

  • Amy

    I would love abortion to be way less common. Teaching sex ed in schools is something I am not against. Telling kids abstinence is how to not get pregnant doesn’t solve the problem that they will probably have sex. I don’t think getting pregnant is the only “downside” to sex before marriage or at a young age. So yes, educate them! I don’t agree that the right of the baby increases with it’s age because I wouldn’t apply that principle to other people.

  • lily

    If you think that its morally worse to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months than 3 weeks then you are basically agreeing with my point. I think not letting a mother terminate a pregnancy when they are 3 weeks in for instance very cruel considering everything I made a point of you know with the woman not wanting to give birth and be pregnant and all -_-……” I don’t agree that the right of the baby increases with it’s age because I wouldn’t apply that principle to other people.” Other people are not growing inside another person against their will…..

  • http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/ Mackman

    Where do you get this strange idea that the value or “rights” of a child increases as it grows older? As Christians, we have a basis: We say, “A human (whether in the womb or out of it) is inherently valuable as someone made in God’s image.” You throw that out, though.

    So my question: Where do you get the idea that a human has value or rights at all? How do you draw the line, and what prevents that line from being drawn elsewhere? That’s the point of the article, which you seem to have missed.

    YOU say, “it doesn’t have rights when it’s 3 weeks old, but it does when it’s 8 months old.” Why? How? And how do you argue against the people who say that if it doesn’t have rights when it’s 3 weeks old, it doesn’t have rights when it’s born?

  • Amy

    That’s just it, I don’t think its worse at 8 months. I think its just as horrible at any stage of the pregnancy because I believe the baby has value even before conception.
    I understand that other people are not growing inside a human, but I don’t think location has anything to do with it. This just takes us in a huge circle to things we have already discussed. I don’t think the baby deserves to be murdered because of the wrong doings of whomever got the woman pregnant. I’m not saying it would be easy to live through a pregnancy like that, I’m sure it would be “hell on earth.” I would rather bring justice upon the man who committed such an evil rather than the baby who doesn’t have a choice at all.

  • godwantsplastic

    I’m just curious, if u wanted a baby and couldn’t conceive would u want the child of a rapist? Also what r the moral implications of forcing irresponsible and morally lacking individuals to have children. Basically is the world a better place if it has more unwanted babies? Would u want to be an unwanted baby? Morals in regards to social stability require putting aside personal feelings for the benefit of all mankind. What most prolifers seem to miss is the fact that they r contributing to our moral decline by forcing morally questionable people to have children. I don’t want to live in a world of baby killers so I have to be patient and allow them to wipe themselves out by virtue of their choice. Let them choose, it will benefit everyone. What seems to be the case with most fanatics is a desire to control others actions and that is not morally or socially beneficial. U have to allow the bad people to make bad decisions its the only way to identify and exclude them from our gene pool.

  • godwantsplastic

    I agree with a lot of what u said but god gave us free will. He gave us some basic rules and none of them address the issue of one person imposing his will on another. If u truly believe then u will leave it up to the person to decide what is right for them and then have faith that god will sort it out. Honestly I would prefer to die in the womb than live as an unwanted child. U mention pain involved in abortion, a few moments of physical pain or a lifetime of suffering. Why would u want to force a child to live a life like that? Put down the sword and let god do his work!

  • godwantsplastic

    Taking away someone’s ability to choose is immoral. Imposing your will on another based on yur personal beliefs is immoral. God doesn’t need yur help. He needs u to love unconditionally and do what u can to make the world a better place. If that means allowing wicked people to do wicked things then god wants u to show faith in him and live yur own life. Controlling others is going against our god given free will. No amount of feelings and rhetoric can undo this universal truth. He gave us the right to do as we please and he reserves the right to judge us based on the life we live. It’s immoral to impose on anothers right to choose, based on yur arguments someone should stop u from doing this…

  • godwantsplastic

    I was trying to not mention this but u start off by bashing the left for their opinions about the right based on the idea that name calling is a bad thing but then u go on to do the same thing. This issue doesn’t need the bipartisan “our team is the best team because the other team isn’t our team” nonsense. U also memtion winning abortion like its a game… I think the worst thing our party does is indulge in this behavior and then try to pretend that we dont. I always felt that we represented maturity and self discipline and a stoic example of emotional strength and over the decades I have watched as we have become finger pointing children wildly expressing our opinions without the restraint that historically defined our party. We need to keep the left out of our mouths and show that we can be an example of personal responsibility and strength of character.

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.nilsen David Nilsen

    I’m afraid this argument does not hold water. We take away people’s choice all the time (that’s what laws do). By your reasoning, it would be immoral for me to stop a rapist or a thief because I should just let wicked people do wicked things.

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.nilsen David Nilsen

    I’m curious, are you suggesting that “god’s work” is allowing millions of unborn humans to die?

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.nilsen David Nilsen

    Thank you for the comment. I actually didn’t “bash” the Left for name-calling. I bashed them for being inconsistent and poor reasoners. And I didn’t really call them names, anyway (unless “nervous” is now name-calling).

    Second, I am not arguing as a representative of any political party, so this article is not about winning a political “game”. I am arguing as a Christian, and as Christians we most certainly do want to “win” hearts and minds from our enemy and give them over to our Lord, Jesus Christ. We are engaged in spiritual warfare, as Paul says, and having intellectual debates with those who want to defend evil practices like abortion (and now infanticide) is part of that warfare.

  • http://whytheology.wordpress.com/ Trey Medley

    I was going to say the same thing but you beat me to it. Cheers. :)

  • http://whytheology.wordpress.com/ Trey Medley

    First, as David pointed out, that argument isn’t valid. Selective reduction of choices to prevent serious injury to other persons is foundational to the nature of laws.

    Second, no God doesn’t need my help, but he does ask me to work with him to bring about his kingdom on earth. He doesn’t need me, but invites me to participate: to be a peacemaker, to make disciples, to teach, to proclaim, to show love (he doesn’t need me for that either). The fact is, God doesn’t *need* anything, but the foundation for him giving us any freedom/free will is that God invites us (indeed requires of us) to do things to make the world a better place and that means, I strongly believe, doing whatever I can to reduce the number of abortions that are performed each year. I’m not so naive as to limit this to political action (which teasing this conclusion out in a legal realm would lead to). I understand that there are bigger underlying issues which may be a root cause (lack of education, poverty, etc., etc.) and I am called to address those as well, but simply because we are called to address one does not negate our responsibility to the other.

  • godwantsplastic

    You sound like a jihadist. Fanaticism is not what Jesus is about. This sounds like something handed down from the antichrist. You need to rethink your approach to your faith and its relationship to the needs of our species. I’m not interested enough to retype portions of yur post but your totally in denial and might want to remember this next confession… Hasn’t waging war in the name of religion done enough harm? Is your intent spiritual and mental health or impunity?

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.nilsen David Nilsen

    godwantsplastic, I purposefully used the “spiritual warfare” language to see your reaction. Such language is Biblical after all. Your intense aversion to such language it telling. You should consider carefully whether you have unwittingly bought into a secular mindset that is opposed to Biblical standards.

    However, notice that it is SPIRITUAL warfare. I did not say we should wage literal war on anyone in the name of religion.

    And I hate to have to point out the obvious, but you and I are arguing right now. We disagree strongly about whether Christians have an obligation to protect the unborn. Are you a jihadist? Are you waging intellectual war on me right now in the name of…what? Non-religion perhaps? Just thoughts to consider.

  • godwantsplastic

    There r a few arguments here that r self contradictory. Some people seem to think that enacting laws to “force” someone to do what they see as gods work is fine yet they argue that being forced to do anything is means for violence. Showing people the way to Jesus and enacting laws to force people to live according to what we see as gods way r two entirely different things. Basically u can show people the bible but u cant force them to believe it. As a Christian and as an honest human I can’t deny that gods work does involve killing unborn and newly born and recently born and oh wait for it…everyone. he gave us free will. He gave us the right to choose. We need to be patient and allow things to play out according to his plan. On a larger scale forcing immoral and spiritually diseased people to have children will only bring more of these people into.the world. And if u want to win your “war” you’ll only be tipping the scales in their favor by increasing their numbers. Let them choose to wipe themselves out and allow god to sort them out. There is no extra credit for being a fanatic.

  • godwantsplastic

    My point is that we can make the world a better more spiritually healthy place if we focus on isolating and excluding evil people from our gene pool. Making abortion a criminal act won’t stop it from happening. Murder and rape are criminal acts and they still happen.

  • http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/ Mackman

    You’re being trolled hardcore, David. I’d say to let this one go.

  • godwantsplastic

    Laws do not reduce choices, they allow for punishment for choosing to violate them. The question is how far does this go? Lets say abortion is made illegal and violations include imprisonment, so now we need more prisons, now we need to allocate more resources toward incriminating those who perform and those who undergo abortions… We all know that the more control u try to exert on a person or on a people the more they will resist this control. Some will act violently, some will become devious and some will simply comply. You can’t fight human nature it will fight back, setting an example and showing the way is the only true calling of religious people. I understand that u want our government to reflect how u feel on this issue but that’s not the answer. Jesus is all about forgiving and helping people follow the path to salvation. Moses was the law giver, Jesus defied the commandments and many teachings that called for violence on behalf of god. Yur choice of words betrays yur intentions. Winning warfare calling… Yur taking on a huge burden and under its load yur heading in the wrong direction, put down the weight and look around and you’ll see there is a better way. Jesus’s way…

  • godwantsplastic

    I’m sad to say that intent is everything in the eyes of the law. Rape is not a justification for murderous action unless you can prove that the rapist intended to kill you. If someone breaks into yur home and u kill them without being able to prove their intent was that of murder the law will not protect you. There was a case where a man shot and killed an intruder entering through his basement window, turns out it was his son sneaking back into the house… Personally I think a woman should have the right to use deadly force to protect herself from rape even if there is no threat to her life, but that is an emotionally charged and wreckless opinion and despite my desire to live according to jesus i am not Jesus and I can’t argue myself out of this opinion. I am after all flawed and subject to my emotions occasionally winning out over my ability to discern right from wrong. Jesus forgive me!

  • godwantsplastic

    My aversion to yur choice of language and my entire point of view here is based on a very simple thing, you get more with honey than with vinagar. The publics view of evangelicals has made it extremely difficult for us to spread the word of god. In no way did I ever imply that we shouldnt protect uborn fetuses, my point in this case is based on the need to find a new approach to changing peoples mind about abortion. We would all like to see an end to killing babies but the instant gratification approach is never going to work. We need to start thinking long term. We need to change the publics opinion of ourselves. We are perceived as desperate and maniacal and generally viewed on a par with Muslim extremists and terrorists. I’m not blaming u David so don’t try to imply that I am… It’s funny how u admitted to trolling me and then someonelse called me a troll… If u read through my comments you’ll see a very clear and consistant approach finding a way for us to achieve our goals in a way that doesn’t scare people. Even though the truth is on our side if we collectively behave in a way that scares people we will lose. I’m not trolling BTW I’m challenging and trying to get people to see the long term results that are possible if we are more patient and less demanding. Like for example the idea of biblical standards, that implies a number of things that are not acceptable in a literal sense to our society and when u try to argue against murder while touting strict bible standards then yur being hypocritical. What u said about spiritual warfare was frightening to me for very good reasons. I mean our religious institution has waged war before and it is not a crazy idea to believe that u mean actual warfare…again I think yur trolling me further by questioning my faith. Honestly I think most evangelicals are caught up in the idea of losing some sort of control and feel like if they simply regroup and reapply their efforts then they’re letting the bad guys win, this is pride and by biblical standards… I truly appreciate the attention u have given me and pray that I have made a dent… Also I read your comment about form and content and think you were spot on!

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.nilsen David Nilsen

    Wise counsel, my friend. ;)

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.nilsen David Nilsen

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts and being gracious.

  • jamesfarnold

    I would love to hear this one, honestly.

  • http://imperfectfornow.blogspot.com/ Mackman

    I believe she was referring to the “legal self-defense” argument (but I could be wrong).

  • Lily

    @amy. Okay you are completely misunderstanding every aspect of my argument. This is not about bringing justice down on anyone. You refuse to simply acknowledge the reality of the woman. You keep framing the woman’s womb as nothing but a location, and that terminating her pregnancy has something to do with justice. You refuse to acknowledge that they literally DO NOT WANT TO BE PREGNANT and are having an abortion because THEY DO NOT WANT A PERSON INSIDE OF THEM. Also “I believe the baby has value even before conception. ” BEFORE? What are you talking about?

    @disqus_8UBgBA51xq:disqus

    “How do you draw the line, and what prevents that line from being drawn elsewhere? ”

    I draw the line when a person is growing inside of another person against their will or posing some other sort of direct threat.

    Also my whole argument is framed around the reality of the pregnancy and the fact that they are inside a woman whom does not want them there.

    ” And how do you argue against the people who say that if it doesn’t have rights when it’s 3 weeks old, it doesn’t have rights when it’s born?”

    BECAUSE AT THAT POINT IT IS NO LONGER INSIDE ANOTHER PERSON WHOM DOES NOT WANT THEM INSIDE OF THEM.

    A fetus does have rights at 3 weeks. I am saying that their right to live is not more important than my right to choose whether I want to grow a person inside of me because I believe in self defense as causation for termination.

  • Lily

    “I don’t think the baby deserves to be murdered because of the wrong doings of whomever got the woman pregnant.”

    Gah. This is not about ambiguous concepts about justice and what is deserved. It is about the reality of the situation. For instance, if a person under gun point is forced to rape me against their will, I have every right to terminate them for the sake of my own body, safety and consent regardless of the fact that they are not at fault. That is the the point that I am presenting. Do they deserve to die? No and that has nothing to do with the argument I am making.

  • lily

    I am

  • Lily

    Their life is entirely dependent on the person they are inside, and if that wasn’t the case I would agree with you. I do not think anyone has the right to force me to be a lifeline for someone else for 9 months, legally. And I don’t think that they should. They are not brought to term, they are carried 100% by someone whom does not want to carry them because you say they have to.

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.nilsen David Nilsen

    Lily, a newborn is 100% dependent on the mother even after birth, so this argument does not hold water, unless you embrace infanticide.

    Moreover, you still have not addressed the central problem, that the fetus is a person with rights. Simply repeating that you don’t “want” something does not amount to justification for ending the life of another human with rights.

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.nilsen David Nilsen

    In that case, your “most powerful” argument is extremely weak. There is no plausible case to be made that murdering a fetus is “self-defense” except in those rare cases where carrying the baby to term actually threatens the life of the mother, but I don’t think that’s what you have in mind.

  • Amy

    “Do they deserve to die? No and that has nothing to do with the argument I am making.” -If the baby does not deserve death then you can’t justify killing it.

    And I believe every life was planned out in advance by the Creator God and He assigns value to each child. What I meant by “before conception” is that God knew of the child’s existence before it happened and because He loves them regardless of who else does or does not, I cannot bring myself to abort them.