f The Wittenberg Door

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
My Photo
Name:

Commenting on Christendom, culture, history, and other oddities of life from an historic Protestant perspective.

Thursday, November 06, 2014

Moral Confusion—Slavery vs. Abortion

Most people’s moral reasoning has been crippled by Relativism. Because of this, it can be very difficult to get people to think deeply about any issue—and it’s almost impossible to get them to reflect seriously upon the most important moral issue of our day—abortion.

When discussing this matter, it helps get people thinking when you replace abortion with an already-settled moral issue. Here’s an example using Rudy Giuliani’s remarks during the 2008 Republican presidential debates. But, in order to make the analogy more clear, we’ll move the debate back to the year 1860, and swap Giuliani for Lincoln.

Moderator: Let me ask Mr. Lincoln, do you want to respond to this? Because it seems like across the room here, this strong, unrelenting anti-slavery position. You seem to have a nuanced position on this. Many people think you're pro-slavery. Could you define it in a couple of seconds?

Abraham Lincoln: Sure. This is a very, very difficult issue of conscience for many, many people. In my case, I hate slavery. I would encourage someone to not take that option and enslave Africans. When I was a member of the House of Representatives, I encouraged emancipations.

But ultimately, since it is an issue of conscience, I would respect a slaveholder’s or slave-trader’s right to make a different choice.

But ultimately, I think when you come down to that choice, you have to respect a slaveholder’s or slave-trader’s right to make that choice differently than my conscience.

We cannot even conceive of Abraham Lincoln being this morally confused. When it came to the issue of slavery, the greatest moral issue of his time, Lincoln understood that there was only one question that needed to be answered: Are black folks human beings?

And when this new principle [that African Americans were not covered by the phrase "all men are created equal"] -- this new proposition that no human being ever thought of three years ago, -- is brought forward, I combat it as having an evil tendency, if not an evil design; I combat it as having a tendency to dehumanize the negro -- to take away from him the right of ever striving to be a man. I combat it as being one of the thousand things constantly done in these days to prepare the public mind to make property, and nothing but property of the negro in all the States of the Union.

From Abraham Lincoln’s last debate with Stephen Douglas, 1858

What makes the analogy work is the question of humanity: for Lincoln, as mentioned, Are blacks human beings? If so, then there is no justification for their enslavement. If not, then do with them what you will—no justification needed.

For us, Are the unborn human beings? If so, then there is no justification for abortion. If not, then do with them what you will. This is the question with which we must press those in favor of abortion. All others are secondary.

--The Catechizer

Labels: ,

Friday, December 27, 2013

Don’t Like Abortion? Don’t Have One!

Recently, at a stop light, I was sitting behind a car with the bumper sticker, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" I'm sure the car's owner thought this sticker very cleaver. But cleverness is often a shallow substitute for thought. Consider these alternatives:

Don't like theft? Don't steal!

Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave!

Don't like rape? Don't commit one!

As you can see, the bumper sticker's logic can be applied to any moral issue. As with any of these, the question is not whether I like them, but rather if they're moral. Thus the question in the abortion debate is whether what is being killed is a human being. If it's not, then do with it what you will. If it is, then there is no justification for abortion. This is the question the sticker's owner should have considered before defacing his car.

--The Catechizer

Labels:

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Jane Russell : Pro-Life Advocate

Earlier this month, screen legend Jane Russell was laid to rest. Featured in such classic films as Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953), The Paleface (1948), and Son of Paleface (1952), Russell is best remembered for her first film, The Outlaw (1943), which launched her into stardom. But what most people didn’t know—what I didn’t know—is that she was a Christian, and that she was very active in the Pro-Life movement. Russell’s daughter-in-law provides a moving account of Ms. Russell’s true passion over at LifeSiteNews.com. Here’s some excerpts . . .

But according to Waterfield, Jane’s true legacy lies in her deep devotion to the Bible as a born-again Christian, and her tenacity living out that faith as a pro-life advocate following a tragic botched abortion at the age of eighteen. . . .

Russell’s story began in the San Fernando Valley of Southern California where she grew up as the eldest and only girl in a deeply Christian family of five children. The loss of a child - Jane’s older brother, who died at 18 months old - was what inspired her own mother’s zeal for reading the Bible, a hunger she passed on to her daughter.

The death of a child would also later exert a powerful effect on Jane’s life: when the eighteen-year-old star was already well on her way to a successful career in film, an illegal abortion took the life of her unborn child, and left her unable to bear children ever again.

According to Waterfield, the young Jane already “felt horrible” about the moral evil committed in the abortion, which was so badly botched she nearly died. “She knew it was wrong,” she said. “But she as a young teenager, she felt she was trapped and her career starting to take off, and it was an inconvenience, and she thought that was the best solution, knowing all along that it wasn’t.” . . .

Jane carried on, she said, bearing courageously the responsibility of an abortion that wound up giving her “a heart for children,” particularly those who were difficult to place in adoptions, such as older and disabled children. Russell was to found the World Adoption International Fund (WAIF) in 1955. According to Waterfield, through Russell’s efforts at adoption advocacy, she helped find a place for over 40,000 children in permanent homes who may otherwise never have found them.

You can read the entire article here.

HT: Pro-Existence

Labels: ,

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Abortion and the Next Presidential Election


In a New York Times opinion piece, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family writes of a recent meeting of 50 Christian “leaders.” Dr. Dobson describes the outcome:

After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.

In other words, if Rudy Giuliani, or someone like him, gets the Republican nomination, Dr. Dobson and his fellow icons of modern Evangelicalism will march their flocks to the third-party Promised Land.

The Candidates

Assuming Hilary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is no doubt that she’ll fight not only to ease any restriction on abortion but also to make abortion more common. Malinda the Enforcer at Stand to Reason’s blog quotes Hillary-biographer Paul Kengor:

If you’re a pro-lifer, and if no issue is more important to you than the right of an unborn child to have life, then nothing could be more calamitous than a President Hillary Clinton. I don’t know of any politician who is more uncompromising and extreme on abortion rights than Hillary Clinton. I know this well and don’t state it with anger or hyperbole. Her extremism on abortion rights was the single most shocking, inexplicable find in my research on her faith and politics. I couldn’t understand it. No question. It is truly extraordinary. Nothing, no political issue, impassions her like abortion rights. For Mrs. Clinton, abortion-rights is sacred ground.

Like Dr. Dobson, I’m troubled by the mayor’s position on abortion (you can read my critique of it in the post, Moral Confusion—Giuliani vs. Lincoln). Although Mr. Giuliani claims to be personally opposed to abortion, he thinks that ultimately it’s a state’s issue and thus should not be settled by the federal government. Because of this, Giuliani pledges to not expand abortion rights, but, instead, to do everything he can to decrease the number of abortions. He says that he’ll do so by enforcing the current ban on Federally funded abortions, requiring parental notifications, and encouraging adoptions (such as he did in New York).

The President’s Impact

What significant impact does a president have on the abortion issue? The appointment of Supreme Court justices. For this reason, the judicial philosophy of the next president is very important. In this regard we find a great divide between Giuliani and Clinton. Clinton believes that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document that must be interpreted based upon the times in which we live, a sort of wax nose philosophy. It was judges with this philosophy that gave us Roe vs. Wade, and it is this type of judge that she’ll nominate in order to protect abortion.

Giuliani is of a different mind. He holds to the philosophy of original intent—what did the founders have in mind when they drafted the Constitution? Because of this, Giuliani has pledged to appoint “strict constructionists,” such as Scalia and Thomas. It is justices of this sort who will most likely overturn Roe vs. Wade.

The Question

The goal of the pro-life movement is to end abortion because we want to save as many innocent lives as possible. I’m sure this includes Dr. Dobson and his followers. My fear is, however, that they’ve lost site of this goal. They seem more interested in punishing the Republican Party than actually saving children’s lives. If Evangelicals vote for a third party, or simply stay home, they’ll guarantee a Clinton presidency. The result will be the loss of ground gained, such as the ban on partial-birth abortion, and the death of many more children. Reason being, Clinton has pledged to overturn the ban, and she’s promised to appoint pro-abortion justices who will secure abortion rights for the foreseeable future—and she’ll have Evangelicals to thank for it.

The other question has to do with the morality of voting for someone who is not, strictly speaking, pro-life. For this question I ask you to consider an excellent article by Stand to Reason president, Greg Koukl, titled, Statements vs. Impacts.

Since there is no middle ground on abortion—“choice” always means a dead child—then it’s critically important we make decisions at the polls that go beyond token moral gestures (something that looks right, but has no impact). We must make choices that have the greatest chance of actually saving children.

The question we’re faced with is this: If we were forced to choose between looking virtuous but having no further effect, or appearing ignoble but accomplishing some good, which path should we take? When we must choose one or the other, are we obliged by God to make a moral statement or to have a moral impact?

Jesus condemned Jews who abused the practice of Corban (Mark 7:11), a pledge to God that appeared righteousness, but helped no one. Admittedly, the motives of pro-lifers voting “consistently pro-life” are different from those who used the practice of Corban as a religious cloak for avarice, but the result is the same: moral statements with no moral impact.

You can read the rest here.

Labels: ,

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Stay Out of My Uterus! - How Not to Argue (Conclusion)


In my last post, Part 1, we learned not to name call, and not to make charges for which we could likewise be charged. In this post, we'll pick-up where we left off:

3. Back up your claims with evidence and sound reasoning

4. Be consistent and consider the implications of your view

3. Back up your claims with evidence and sound reasoning

Apparently, the pro-life group displayed images of aborted children. Zoe took issue with this and referred to them, the images, as having “questionable validity.”

The charge she’s making is that the photos might not be real. The problem is Zoe gives us no reason to question the validity of the photos; she simply makes the charge.

People who resort to the “liar, liar pants on fire” tactic show that they are devoid of arguments. This is also another form of name calling. It’s childish, dishonest, and embarrassing, and we as servants of the Most High God must never behave in such a way. Instead, we must honor our Lord by carefully crafting our arguments and being clear about the reasons we hold the positions we do.

Zoe also implied that the pro-life group’s “fetus-fest” violated the “essence of their [women associated with the college] freedom” and that there “is an ever-present violation of the privacy and liberty of women that is found in the media, politics, religion, entertainment and social interaction.”

Again, no evidence follows the proclamation.

Remember: When anyone makes a claim, ask him for his supporting evidence and/or reasons for making the claim. We likewise must be ready to answer such questions. (Inventory your arguments to make sure you’re ready!)

4. Be consistent and consider the implications of your view

This one is related to number two (making charges), as you will see. Zoe is opposed to . . .

  • Oppression and violations of peoples’ self-determination
    What about the determination of the pre-natal? Why are they excluded? And, who gets to decide who’s “in” and who’s “out”? Isn’t unjustly killing a human being the greatest act of oppression?

    War Wow! I’m sure that the antebellum slave holders would be happy to hear that! And could you imagine Hitler’s glee! Okay, okay—I’m being sarcastic. Please forgive this flight of fancy! We must always take what our opponent says seriously and treat him respectfully. That means we don’t scoff when he says something really stupid.

    Instead, ask if he thought that fighting to end slavery was wrong; or if stopping Hitler through war was immoral. Chances are he’ll say that those acts were okay, and then you’ll have found the chink in his armor. If he says, however, that those wars were wrong, then paint for him a picture of a world were evil always triumphs. (Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Prv. 26:25)
  • Death penalty
    This is a great opportunity to ask a clarifying question, all the while pointing out the foolishness of his thinking: So, let me make sure I understand you. Those who’ve committed the most diabolical of crimes should be spared, but those who’ve committed no crimes should be killed?

    Now, prepare yourself. Every time I’ve asked this question, the person answers with something like, “We’ll the criminal is a human being (or person), and that thing is just ‘cellular growths’ (to use Zoe’s term).” First, stay away from the term “person.” Pro-abortion folks have loaded it with all kinds of strange meanings.

    Instead, use the term “human being.” (If he has a problem with that, ask him why? Aren’t persons human beings?) Now, ask him, “If it’s not a human being, what kind of being is it?” Recounting a few examples of beings reproducing after their kind might help clear things up for him (e.g., cats have kittens, dogs have puppies, human beings have . . . what are those things called?).
  • Killing animals (she’s a vegan)
    Believe me, there are people out there who value animal over human life. Sometimes, though, it might just be that he hasn’t thought-out the implications of his position. Ask a clarifying question like the one we discussed under “death penalty.” Remember: Be charitable and give him the benefit of the doubt (i.e., maybe he just hasn’t considered thoroughly what he is saying).

Okay, okay! I hear your screams of “uncle.” This started out as a quick post, and turned into a monster! Read Zoe’s column yourself and you’ll see that I left a lot out! Remember: Take stock of your arguments, only using the good ones; be charitable in your discourse; treat your opponent with respect; and always remember, to God alone the glory!

Oh, I almost forgot. Zoe would like to say goodbye too:

“If you cut off my reproductive choice, can I cut off yours?” Ouch!

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Stay Out of My Uterus! - How Not to Argue - Part 1


In an editorial on the student-run Metropolitan State College of Denver Met Online, Justice for All, stay out of my uterus, Zoe Williams provides us a great example of how not to argue.

Before we get to Zoe's comments, though, let’s consider a few helpful hints for engaging a person’s ideas in the market place:

1. Don’t name call

2. Don’t make charges for which you could likewise be charged

3. Back up your claims with evidence and sound reasoning

4. Be consistent and consider the implications of your view

Now, since we have some rules to play by, let’s take a look at how Zoe comported herself and see what we can learn:

1. Don’t name call

Zoe doesn’t like pro-lifers, and she lets us know it by calling them “cultish” (twice), “right wing whack-jobs,” and “magalomanical religious fundamentalist privileged males.” She also implied that they are misogynistic.

Now, to be honest with you, I don’t typically like “pro-deathers” either. But, because I’m a Christian, I’m called to be “salt and light” (Matt. 5:13), and name calling or misrepresenting someone’s views doesn’t fit the bill; besides, it’s bad tactics. People of good will stop listening to you if you start acting like a school-yard bully. We must seek to persuade, not offend. (Remember, the gospel is offensive enough; we mustn’t add our own offensiveness to it.)

2. Don’t make charges for which you could be likewise charged

Zoe tells us that the presence of the pro-life group that visited her campus resulted in “complete and utter disrespect.”

It sounds as if Zoe thinks it wrong to be disrespectful. If she truly believes that people ought to be treated with respect, why does she name call? Is that respectful? Likewise, is it respectful to misrepresent your opponent's views?

Remember: Double standards hurt your creditability, and leave you open to the charge of hypocrisy. If your opponent catches you in a double standard, be gracious and honest, admit your fault, thank him for pointing it out, and amend your argument (or ditch it if it’s a bad one).

Stay Tuned!

In my next post on this topic, will finish up with the following:

3. Back up your claims with evidence and sound reasoning

4. Be consistent and consider the implications of your view

Labels: , , ,