I am so blessed to share the following letter with you. It was written by a good friend and co-worker, Ryan Campbell. Ryan is a younger guy (considerably younger than me;), and an outstanding athlete. He even played a couple of years of pro-am football after high school, without having played that sport in school! He very quite and unassuming; but as the letter demonstrates, he’s not afraid to speak the truth! Look forward with me to more from Ryan in the future!
Response to the 3/18 letter, “Abortion is about sparing lives pain.” Homer says, “The decision [to have an abortion] is made to save a child from a painful life.”
It is said that childbirth is the most painful experience a woman can have. If we could compare the pain of childbirth to that an aborted child experiences, there could be something much worse.
Put yourself in the child’s place, then even with a minute chance of being raised by a loving family—I being one whose upbringing was not ideal—whether it’s by the biological parents or not, anyone would have their fingers crossed for a chance at life, even a rough life, considering the alternative, no life at all.
There is no painless abortion method. Burning to death by saline solution, dismemberment by cutting and tearing and worse prevents abortion from being a way of saving a child from pain.
Homer ends with, “The debate is whether or not you want to save a child and mother from a pain-filled life.” The fact is that the debate is really over whether or not one wants to save the child from the excruciatingly pain-filled, intentional death.
Ryan Campbell
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Letter-writer low on O2!
Here is the most recent of my letter rallies at the Roanoke Times...
Re: "Christians must put Jesus first" and "Crosses represent murders by abortion," March 18 letters:
Two letters deserve special attention because they relate to one another. Darius McBride says, "Christians do not have the option of deciding which part of the Bible we want to accept."
That relates directly to what Aubrey and Linda Hicks had to say about the abortion issue. They declare, "The baby isn't cells or a mass or just a fetus. It is living, breathing and formed by God."
I have no problem with that last part, but biology says we are indeed a mass of cells. Many seem to confuse growth with living prior to birth.
Genesis says, "Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being." Other biblical passages reinforce the connection between life and breath.
We don't start living until we are born and start breathing. And we stop living when we take our last breath. It's God's plan, according to the Bible. McBride says Christians need to accept it all.
HERB DETWEILER
MY RESPONSE:
Although preborn children enjoy respiration from conception to birth, Herb Detweiler’s letter, “We’re alive once we’re breathing” (3/23), indicated that his oxygen count might be low.
Detweiler said, “Many seem to confuse growth with living...” arguing that living does not occur until “we are born and start breathing.” Biologically preposterous!
If the preborn child is growing, respiration is necessarily occurring. So, the child is living prior to birth. Detweiler’s outlandish argument doesn’t depend on the fact of the preborn’s respiration, but its mode of respiration, which is all that changes at birth. Detweiler is therefore arguing that one’s method of oxygen exchange should determine whether or not one may be killed.
Detweiler’s appeal to Genesis 2:7 was equally reckless. There is simply no analogy between the historically unique, extraordinary creation of Adam from inanimate material and the nine months of development in the womb under God’s superintending providence. To say otherwise is to neither think clearly nor take the Bible seriously.
I agree we must accept all what the Bible says, including, “For behold...the baby in my womb [John the Baptist] leaped for joy” (Luke 1:44). This verse alone knocks the breath out of Detweiler’s argument.
KEVIN STEVENSON
Re: "Christians must put Jesus first" and "Crosses represent murders by abortion," March 18 letters:
Two letters deserve special attention because they relate to one another. Darius McBride says, "Christians do not have the option of deciding which part of the Bible we want to accept."
That relates directly to what Aubrey and Linda Hicks had to say about the abortion issue. They declare, "The baby isn't cells or a mass or just a fetus. It is living, breathing and formed by God."
I have no problem with that last part, but biology says we are indeed a mass of cells. Many seem to confuse growth with living prior to birth.
Genesis says, "Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being." Other biblical passages reinforce the connection between life and breath.
We don't start living until we are born and start breathing. And we stop living when we take our last breath. It's God's plan, according to the Bible. McBride says Christians need to accept it all.
HERB DETWEILER
MY RESPONSE:
Although preborn children enjoy respiration from conception to birth, Herb Detweiler’s letter, “We’re alive once we’re breathing” (3/23), indicated that his oxygen count might be low.
Detweiler said, “Many seem to confuse growth with living...” arguing that living does not occur until “we are born and start breathing.” Biologically preposterous!
If the preborn child is growing, respiration is necessarily occurring. So, the child is living prior to birth. Detweiler’s outlandish argument doesn’t depend on the fact of the preborn’s respiration, but its mode of respiration, which is all that changes at birth. Detweiler is therefore arguing that one’s method of oxygen exchange should determine whether or not one may be killed.
Detweiler’s appeal to Genesis 2:7 was equally reckless. There is simply no analogy between the historically unique, extraordinary creation of Adam from inanimate material and the nine months of development in the womb under God’s superintending providence. To say otherwise is to neither think clearly nor take the Bible seriously.
I agree we must accept all what the Bible says, including, “For behold...the baby in my womb [John the Baptist] leaped for joy” (Luke 1:44). This verse alone knocks the breath out of Detweiler’s argument.
KEVIN STEVENSON
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
The EPC's Perspective on Abortion--Biblically Faithful!
I paid a recent visit to our denomination’s website, The Evangelical Presbyterian Church. I was struck by the clarity, cogency and compassion of our official positional paper regarding abortion. I couldn’t agree more, so thought it was well worth sharing. It reads as follows:
The Evangelical Presbyterian Church is convinced that the Bible strongly affirms the dignity and value of every human life.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)
"My frame was hidden from Thee when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth." (Psalm 139:15)
"Listen to me, O coastlands, and hearken, you peoples from afar. The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother He named me." (Isaiah 49:1)
"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb." (Luke 1:15)
"And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit." (Luke 1:41)
The Westminster Shorter Catechism, a confessional statement shared by most Reformed churches, forbids the taking of life while demanding the preservation of life:
"The Sixth Commandment requireth all lawful endeavors to preserve our own life, and the life of others." (Question 68)
"The Sixth Commandment forbiddeth the taking away of our own life, or the life of our neighbor unjustly, or whatsoever tendeth thereunto." (Question 69)
Scripture teaches that we are not merely to avoid involvement in injustice. God's people are called upon to speak for the oppressed and defenseless. The Scripture passages cited above are evidence that God accords human value and dignity to the unborn child.
The 6th General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church affirms that the Bible does not distinguish between prenatal and postnatal life. It attributes human personhood to the unborn child.
Because we hold these convictions concerning unborn children, we urge the promotion of legislation that brings our judicial and legal systems into line with the scriptural view on protecting the poor and weak.
Christians are called to be good citizens by impacting the state in positive ways. All citizens, Christians and non-Christians alike, must have freedom of conscience on all private moral and ethical issues, since God alone is Lord of the conscience. But the issue of equal protection of life under the laws of the state is not a private but a public matter.
The Bible teaches that all persons and nations are responsible before God for their ethical decisions, including those which relate to the preservation of human life.
In addition to prayers and general assistance, the General Assembly urges that the following steps be implemented by individuals, congregations, and judicatories in an effort to provide substantial support for those impacted by problem pregnancies:
1. Women facing problem or unwanted pregnancies should receive support, love, acceptance and counsel from pastors, counselors, physicians and Christian friends both during and after the decisions they face. The Church must provide compassionate biblical and spiritual guidance to these persons.
2. The men involved who respond with indifference must be confronted with their responsibilities and role in such crises.
3. The Church must support and nurture women who decide to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term.
4. The Church must seek ways to support and care for all children who result from unwanted pregnancies.
5. The Church must serve as a therapeutic community to those who have experienced physical, emotional, or spiritual wounds from abortion or giving up a child for adoption.
6. Both individual Christians and the Church should oppose abortion and do everything in their power to provide supportive communities and alternatives to abortion.
7. The Church should declare to the world and teach its members that abortion must never be used as a convenience or a means of birth control.
The purpose of this statement is pastoral. It is best proclaimed by those who are profoundly aware of their continuous need for the mercy and forgiveness of God. The Church must always follow the compassionate example of Christ who said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."
Adopted by the 6th General Assembly
June 1986
The Evangelical Presbyterian Church is convinced that the Bible strongly affirms the dignity and value of every human life.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)
"My frame was hidden from Thee when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth." (Psalm 139:15)
"Listen to me, O coastlands, and hearken, you peoples from afar. The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother He named me." (Isaiah 49:1)
"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb." (Luke 1:15)
"And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit." (Luke 1:41)
The Westminster Shorter Catechism, a confessional statement shared by most Reformed churches, forbids the taking of life while demanding the preservation of life:
"The Sixth Commandment requireth all lawful endeavors to preserve our own life, and the life of others." (Question 68)
"The Sixth Commandment forbiddeth the taking away of our own life, or the life of our neighbor unjustly, or whatsoever tendeth thereunto." (Question 69)
Scripture teaches that we are not merely to avoid involvement in injustice. God's people are called upon to speak for the oppressed and defenseless. The Scripture passages cited above are evidence that God accords human value and dignity to the unborn child.
The 6th General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church affirms that the Bible does not distinguish between prenatal and postnatal life. It attributes human personhood to the unborn child.
Because we hold these convictions concerning unborn children, we urge the promotion of legislation that brings our judicial and legal systems into line with the scriptural view on protecting the poor and weak.
Christians are called to be good citizens by impacting the state in positive ways. All citizens, Christians and non-Christians alike, must have freedom of conscience on all private moral and ethical issues, since God alone is Lord of the conscience. But the issue of equal protection of life under the laws of the state is not a private but a public matter.
The Bible teaches that all persons and nations are responsible before God for their ethical decisions, including those which relate to the preservation of human life.
In addition to prayers and general assistance, the General Assembly urges that the following steps be implemented by individuals, congregations, and judicatories in an effort to provide substantial support for those impacted by problem pregnancies:
1. Women facing problem or unwanted pregnancies should receive support, love, acceptance and counsel from pastors, counselors, physicians and Christian friends both during and after the decisions they face. The Church must provide compassionate biblical and spiritual guidance to these persons.
2. The men involved who respond with indifference must be confronted with their responsibilities and role in such crises.
3. The Church must support and nurture women who decide to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term.
4. The Church must seek ways to support and care for all children who result from unwanted pregnancies.
5. The Church must serve as a therapeutic community to those who have experienced physical, emotional, or spiritual wounds from abortion or giving up a child for adoption.
6. Both individual Christians and the Church should oppose abortion and do everything in their power to provide supportive communities and alternatives to abortion.
7. The Church should declare to the world and teach its members that abortion must never be used as a convenience or a means of birth control.
The purpose of this statement is pastoral. It is best proclaimed by those who are profoundly aware of their continuous need for the mercy and forgiveness of God. The Church must always follow the compassionate example of Christ who said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."
Adopted by the 6th General Assembly
June 1986
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Consistent Pro-Abortionists--Making Murder Moral
What follows is an editorial from the 02/09 Roanoke Times. Its author is transparently an exponent of the functional-person view, thus parroting ethicists such as Peter Singer. The down side is that Roanoke allows its letter-writers only 200 words, including the Re: title! This makes things very difficult for those of us who have a tendency for verbosity. My letter is below, attempting to answer Miller within the confines of 200 words. My letter is still forthcoming at this point.
Inconsistency in the abortion debate
Harlan B. Miller
Miller, of Blacksburg, is a member of the Voices of the Valley panel.
In his column, "Now grant personhood to fetuses" (Jan. 27), Cal Thomas argued that the Supreme Court, having extended the rights of artificial corporate persons, should recognize the personhood of unborn humans.
The headline added to the column was a bit misleading, for Thomas' position appears to be that while the personhood of corporations is something granted, that of unborn humans is not granted but recognized. That is, that unborn humans are full-fledged persons from which legal recognition has been wrongly withheld.
The claim that the human conceptus/embryo/fetus is a person with a right to life is basic to the arguments of those who would ban abortion. Those who would permit abortion often avoid responding to it directly. But the claim shouldn't be left unchallenged, for it is false. Fetuses (I'll follow custom and use this term for all gestational stages) aren't persons.
The word "human" is sometimes used as a synonym for person, but this is unwise. On the one hand, we have a biological category, the species Homo sapiens. On the other hand, is a moral/political category: a person is one that can act, can be held responsible, has interests that are deserving of consideration, is aware of itself and so on.
Not all members of the species Homo sapiens are persons. Anecephalic neonates, the very very severely intellectually impaired, and those in true irreversible comas are members of the species, but they cannot and will not be able to function as persons. Probably there are persons who are not members of our species. Christians believe in a Trinity of three persons, at most one of whom is a member of the species Homo sapiens. Probably there are nonhuman persons on other planets, and perhaps on this one.
It is very easy to take human and person as equivalent, since (theological exceptions aside) all the persons you know are probably humans, and almost all the humans are persons. A human fetus is a potential person. That is, if all goes well, that organism will develop into a person. But a potential person is not therefore a person. Acorns are potential oak trees, but that does not make them oak trees.
In late stages of gestation, the fetus probably possesses at least some sort of awareness and can experience pain and some sort of pleasure. But no human fetus is as aware of its environment or itself as a steer or a hog. We slaughter these animals for no more important reason than our preference for certain tastes.
Abortions, in contrast, are undertaken only for very serious reasons in the lives of real, unquestioned persons. A consistent opponent of abortion should also be a strict vegetarian.
Of course few of us are consistent all the time. In fact most American opponents of abortion do not really believe that fetuses are full persons with a right to life as strong as yours or mine. It is generally agreed that a ban on abortion must have exceptions. Usually these exceptions are when abortion is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman and when conception is the result of rape or incest.
The first of these exceptions makes sense only if the right to life of the fetus is weaker than that of the woman, and the second and third make sense only if the fetus effectively has no such right at all. Obviously the fetus is not responsible for the circumstances of its conception. A great wrong has been done, but not by the fetus.
Suppose a gang of thugs invades your house, steals and destroys your goods and horribly brutalizes you. Then as they leave they deposit one of their earlier victims, battered and bleeding, on your living room floor. You are responsible neither for her condition nor for her being in your house. But you can't just toss her out in the street. She's a person and you have to help, at the very least by calling 911.
If, in the analogous rape case, you think it is permissible to abort the fetus, then you cannot really believe that fetuses are persons. Your opposition to abortion must -- consciously or unconsciously -- be based on something else, perhaps a belief that sex is sin and women -- but not men -- deserve punishment for it.
My consistency argument does not touch those who insist on a prohibition of abortion with absolutely no exceptions. They are consistent. And they are wrong. Fortunately, they are also a decided minority.
Absolute Arbitrariness in the Abortion Debate
Re: “Inconsistency in the abortion debate” (Harlan Miller, Editorial, 02/09)
Miller admitted that his central argument is impotent against those he defined as consistent pro-lifers. As one so defined, I appreciated his demand for consistency.
Philosophically speaking, however, Miller’s position was perfectly capricious. He aborted common moral sense, insisting that not all humans are persons. The consequence? Answer: It’s never inherently wrong to kill human beings per se. Not until a human achieves or performs certain intellectual and psychological objectives, can killing him/her be morally relevant.
Humanness is a mode of personhood, however, despite there being non-human persons. For being a person is a necessary precondition for functioning as one.
Miller offers some arbitrary criteria for judging which humans he would allow person-ship. Why not skin color? There’s no consensus. Neither over how developed each function must be. Furthermore, how might we empirically test which “interests...are deserving of consideration”?!? Ad nauseam.
If Miller’s correct, then it would be morally irrelevant if your surgeon intentionally killed you while under anesthesia—you’d be a non-person. No one’s safe from being defined out of personhood, and thus killable.
Even granting that “consistent pro-lifers” are “a minority,” thankfully, we far outnumber those like Miller!
Kevin Stevenson
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Alcorn on Jenkins on Tebow
Please check out Randy Alcorn’s blog today. It is in regards to Sally Jenkins’ Washington Post article on Tim Tebow, his pro-life commercial spot and his critics. Great introductory observations by Randy; and at least some frank talk from Ms. Jenkins for the boisterous point-women of her own pro-abortion perspective.
Pro-Abortion insanity...A Roanoke Sampling
This post consists of some online debate I had yesterday with the opinion editor and some other pro-abortion readers of the Roanoke Times (Roanoke, VA). The Roanoke Times is fiercely liberal; it’s a spawn of the same group who publishes the Washington Post, so...
The original editorial article was with respect to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia considering to produce a “vanity plate” (a licenses plate design that in part supports a particular organization) that would read at the bottom: “Trust Women – Respect Choice.” A percentage of the funds fleeced from the plates would go to support Planned Parenthood.
As of (I think) November last year, they began offering pro-life “vanity plates,” with part of those funds going to support Crisis Pregnancy Centers.
The whole question, of course, was whether the General Assembly should pass the bill. Because I try to pick my battles carefully, I wasn’t involved in the conversation until the Editor made the first remark you’ll read (# 5). Up to this point, the topic had pretty well remained on the plate issue. An issue that seems trifle in light of the hubris back of the question—abortion itself.
So, what follows is midstream. And the abrupt end was the Editor again attempting to recover the topic, steering it away from abortion itself, a rabbit trail that he himself began with the first remark.
At very least, it gives us a prime example of the morosophic reasoning of the pro-abortion position.
My comments are in italics.
5. @3 Charlie, it's no secret that we stand by the constitution, legal precedent and their guarantee that a woman has a right to choose an abortion. We also stand by the right of anti-choice people not to choose an abortion.
Comment by C. Trejbal — February 5, 2010 @ 11:57 am (This guy is an opinion editor for the Roanoke Times)
23. @20...Charlie
Thanks for your response. I appreciate the articulate manner in which you answered.
I know that abortion will never be an issue that I personally will never have to deal with (for obvious reasons...stop laughing everyone!)
I've battled back and forth on the issue internally for years but have landed on the spot that there is no real clear cut position on it. Each case has to be weighed by the conditions of the individual situation. That being said, pregnancies just for the sake of pregnancies are wrong and aborting those pregnancies is equally wrong.
Additionally though, I worry about the child after its born and what happens to it should it find itself in a home that doesn't offer it the care and nurturing that we hope that it will find. I'm thinking in particular of the recent case in Roanoke where the child was murdered.
What happened to that child was horrible...I can't decide which would have been worse; to have aborted that pregnancy very early on or to have that poor child suffer the death it did. Our protective services while they probably do a great job...simply can't do it all and this is the consequence.
I don't believe the answers are as clear cut as many would like for them to be at least they aren't for me...but then again, that's me.
Comment by Will — February 5, 2010 @ 3:46 pm
@ 5: Christian Trejbal,
Do tell, how does the Constitution guarantee the libertine, autonomous choice of one human being to destroy another. I must have missed that.
Badger_Hoo warned in #13, “Most people throw out any rational thought” when debating abortion. No doubt he had this in mind when he typed that remark:
“We also stand by the right of anti-choice people not to choose an abortion.”
Oh, you mean like...
“We stand by the right of abolitionists not to choose to own slaves.”
Or...
“We stand by the right of anti-Nazis not to choose genocide.”
You're so progressive, Christian. It is little wonder that the pro-life camp has grown so much in the last decade.
Yours in only a more sophisticated (though barely) way of expressing the tired cliché, “Don’t like abortion, don’t have one!” You’ve got to be kidding us!!
@ #23: Will,
How is it that you cannot see that your position—“that there is no real clear cut position on it”—is a clear-cut position in itself? It’s pro-abortion.
You also said, “What happened to that child was horrible...I can't decide which would have been worse; to have aborted that pregnancy very early on or to have that poor child suffer the death it did.”
If we can agree that what happened to that little boy was horrible (i.e., morally wrong), then we must also agree that abortion is horrible. Because there is no principled difference in the suffering and death that the child experienced at the hands of his wicked murderer and what he would have received from the hands of an abortionist. The difference between the two situations is merely one of location. So, surely you pro-abortionists, whose innate sense of morality cries out for justice in the case of the little boy, yet, on the other hand, want to support another’s choice to do the same thing to their child, can understand how we find your special pleading utterly repugnant. Morally speaking, you are like the Roman god Janus, who has two faces, which look opposite directions. Absolute inconsistency!
“I can’t decide...” That’s right, and that is the pro-life thesis; neither you nor anyone can decide when it’s right for another human being to die. Not complex at all, is it?
32. @31 Right, Kevin, you have that right, too. Don't like logic? Then don't think logically!
Be aware, however, that illogical decisions have natural consequences, which we will not be responsible for.
Comment by Ed H — February 6, 2010 @ 10:35 am
33. @31...Mr. Stevenson
You obfuscate your position nicely.
I'm neither pro nor anti abortion but believe that each case must be measured on the individual circumstances that surround it.
Your position seems to indicate that you prefer to decide how to prolong misery and suffering of a child...a position that I think is even more distasteful and ethically wrong. By your position, you allowed that child to be tortured. I find that criminal myself.
I, fortunately, don't have a closed mind on the matter and have come to realize over the years that things aren't nearly as black and white as we would like them to be to save our own weak consciences.
Comment by Will — February 6, 2010 @ 10:39 am
@ #32, Ed H.,
Ed, thanks so much for the concession: That the pro-abortion rhetoric has one-to-one logical correspondence to the pro-Nazi propaganda that attempted to justify genocide and that of the pro-slavery rationale. I guess we pro-lifers must bear the stigma of being civilized...what shame, huh?
As for, “Be aware, however, that illogical decisions have natural consequences, which we will not be responsible for.” Exactly!
Your illogical decision to support abortion has the natural (and necessary) consequence of your sharing in the bloodguilt, something that none of you will take responsibility for.
@ #33: Will,
“[I] believe that each case must be measured on the individual circumstances that surround it.”
Once you posit these arbitrary criteria, and the measure has been weighed, who say you has the final decision over whether the child lives or dies? The mother, right? Well, that is the crux of the pro-abortion platform! If you cannot understand this, then you are both morally and perceptually handicapped.
“By your position, you allowed that child to be tortured. I find that criminal myself.”
Care to offer the slightest bit of reason for coming to such a conclusion?!?
By the way, granting your Fletcheresque situational ethics, please tell us how anything can be judged “ethically wrong” by anyone standing without the immediate circumstances. In other words, assuming your self-styled ethics, any value judgment that you might make about anything beyond your personal, immediate experience is objectively meaningless. It commensurate to saying, “YUCK! I don’t like how that tastes.” So, while your evaluation of your own experiences may feel significant to you personally, if your ethics are correct, no one else should really care. I like vanilla, you like chocolate...it’s personal tastes you’re talking about, not morality.
For you both: Does abortion intentional destroy another innocent human being? If so (and it does), you are going to have to come up with the impossible: An argument to morally justify such an act.
@ #36: Other John,
“...rather than a bunch of stodgy old men in DC who have no vested interest in pregnancy at hand.” Oh, you mean like all those “Justices” who presided over Roe v. Wade (all men, BTW).
@ #37, Sandi,
“IMO.” Exactly...And that alone.
@ #38, Will,
Answer the question...
--(per #35) Does abortion intentionally destroy another innocent human being? If so (and it does), you are going to have to come up with the impossible: An argument to morally justify such an act.
The original editorial article was with respect to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia considering to produce a “vanity plate” (a licenses plate design that in part supports a particular organization) that would read at the bottom: “Trust Women – Respect Choice.” A percentage of the funds fleeced from the plates would go to support Planned Parenthood.
As of (I think) November last year, they began offering pro-life “vanity plates,” with part of those funds going to support Crisis Pregnancy Centers.
The whole question, of course, was whether the General Assembly should pass the bill. Because I try to pick my battles carefully, I wasn’t involved in the conversation until the Editor made the first remark you’ll read (# 5). Up to this point, the topic had pretty well remained on the plate issue. An issue that seems trifle in light of the hubris back of the question—abortion itself.
So, what follows is midstream. And the abrupt end was the Editor again attempting to recover the topic, steering it away from abortion itself, a rabbit trail that he himself began with the first remark.
At very least, it gives us a prime example of the morosophic reasoning of the pro-abortion position.
My comments are in italics.
5. @3 Charlie, it's no secret that we stand by the constitution, legal precedent and their guarantee that a woman has a right to choose an abortion. We also stand by the right of anti-choice people not to choose an abortion.
Comment by C. Trejbal — February 5, 2010 @ 11:57 am (This guy is an opinion editor for the Roanoke Times)
23. @20...Charlie
Thanks for your response. I appreciate the articulate manner in which you answered.
I know that abortion will never be an issue that I personally will never have to deal with (for obvious reasons...stop laughing everyone!)
I've battled back and forth on the issue internally for years but have landed on the spot that there is no real clear cut position on it. Each case has to be weighed by the conditions of the individual situation. That being said, pregnancies just for the sake of pregnancies are wrong and aborting those pregnancies is equally wrong.
Additionally though, I worry about the child after its born and what happens to it should it find itself in a home that doesn't offer it the care and nurturing that we hope that it will find. I'm thinking in particular of the recent case in Roanoke where the child was murdered.
What happened to that child was horrible...I can't decide which would have been worse; to have aborted that pregnancy very early on or to have that poor child suffer the death it did. Our protective services while they probably do a great job...simply can't do it all and this is the consequence.
I don't believe the answers are as clear cut as many would like for them to be at least they aren't for me...but then again, that's me.
Comment by Will — February 5, 2010 @ 3:46 pm
@ 5: Christian Trejbal,
Do tell, how does the Constitution guarantee the libertine, autonomous choice of one human being to destroy another. I must have missed that.
Badger_Hoo warned in #13, “Most people throw out any rational thought” when debating abortion. No doubt he had this in mind when he typed that remark:
“We also stand by the right of anti-choice people not to choose an abortion.”
Oh, you mean like...
“We stand by the right of abolitionists not to choose to own slaves.”
Or...
“We stand by the right of anti-Nazis not to choose genocide.”
You're so progressive, Christian. It is little wonder that the pro-life camp has grown so much in the last decade.
Yours in only a more sophisticated (though barely) way of expressing the tired cliché, “Don’t like abortion, don’t have one!” You’ve got to be kidding us!!
@ #23: Will,
How is it that you cannot see that your position—“that there is no real clear cut position on it”—is a clear-cut position in itself? It’s pro-abortion.
You also said, “What happened to that child was horrible...I can't decide which would have been worse; to have aborted that pregnancy very early on or to have that poor child suffer the death it did.”
If we can agree that what happened to that little boy was horrible (i.e., morally wrong), then we must also agree that abortion is horrible. Because there is no principled difference in the suffering and death that the child experienced at the hands of his wicked murderer and what he would have received from the hands of an abortionist. The difference between the two situations is merely one of location. So, surely you pro-abortionists, whose innate sense of morality cries out for justice in the case of the little boy, yet, on the other hand, want to support another’s choice to do the same thing to their child, can understand how we find your special pleading utterly repugnant. Morally speaking, you are like the Roman god Janus, who has two faces, which look opposite directions. Absolute inconsistency!
“I can’t decide...” That’s right, and that is the pro-life thesis; neither you nor anyone can decide when it’s right for another human being to die. Not complex at all, is it?
32. @31 Right, Kevin, you have that right, too. Don't like logic? Then don't think logically!
Be aware, however, that illogical decisions have natural consequences, which we will not be responsible for.
Comment by Ed H — February 6, 2010 @ 10:35 am
33. @31...Mr. Stevenson
You obfuscate your position nicely.
I'm neither pro nor anti abortion but believe that each case must be measured on the individual circumstances that surround it.
Your position seems to indicate that you prefer to decide how to prolong misery and suffering of a child...a position that I think is even more distasteful and ethically wrong. By your position, you allowed that child to be tortured. I find that criminal myself.
I, fortunately, don't have a closed mind on the matter and have come to realize over the years that things aren't nearly as black and white as we would like them to be to save our own weak consciences.
Comment by Will — February 6, 2010 @ 10:39 am
@ #32, Ed H.,
Ed, thanks so much for the concession: That the pro-abortion rhetoric has one-to-one logical correspondence to the pro-Nazi propaganda that attempted to justify genocide and that of the pro-slavery rationale. I guess we pro-lifers must bear the stigma of being civilized...what shame, huh?
As for, “Be aware, however, that illogical decisions have natural consequences, which we will not be responsible for.” Exactly!
Your illogical decision to support abortion has the natural (and necessary) consequence of your sharing in the bloodguilt, something that none of you will take responsibility for.
@ #33: Will,
“[I] believe that each case must be measured on the individual circumstances that surround it.”
Once you posit these arbitrary criteria, and the measure has been weighed, who say you has the final decision over whether the child lives or dies? The mother, right? Well, that is the crux of the pro-abortion platform! If you cannot understand this, then you are both morally and perceptually handicapped.
“By your position, you allowed that child to be tortured. I find that criminal myself.”
Care to offer the slightest bit of reason for coming to such a conclusion?!?
By the way, granting your Fletcheresque situational ethics, please tell us how anything can be judged “ethically wrong” by anyone standing without the immediate circumstances. In other words, assuming your self-styled ethics, any value judgment that you might make about anything beyond your personal, immediate experience is objectively meaningless. It commensurate to saying, “YUCK! I don’t like how that tastes.” So, while your evaluation of your own experiences may feel significant to you personally, if your ethics are correct, no one else should really care. I like vanilla, you like chocolate...it’s personal tastes you’re talking about, not morality.
For you both: Does abortion intentional destroy another innocent human being? If so (and it does), you are going to have to come up with the impossible: An argument to morally justify such an act.
@ #36: Other John,
“...rather than a bunch of stodgy old men in DC who have no vested interest in pregnancy at hand.” Oh, you mean like all those “Justices” who presided over Roe v. Wade (all men, BTW).
@ #37, Sandi,
“IMO.” Exactly...And that alone.
@ #38, Will,
Answer the question...
--(per #35) Does abortion intentionally destroy another innocent human being? If so (and it does), you are going to have to come up with the impossible: An argument to morally justify such an act.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Virginians--Support Bob Marshall's HB 112
Virginia prolifers, it’s time to get busy! This is a great opportunity!
Would you call (or email) two or more of these lawmakers?
Delegate Bob Marshall’s bill, HB 112 (text below), guaranteeing civil rights for preborn children, has been assigned to the House Courts of Justice Committee. Please ask these Members of the Committee to report the bill to the full House. Unless a motion is made to report, and seconded, the bill will die in Committee. (Also remind them that the November 2009 elections were overwhelmingly won by candidates who took pro-life positions.)
Make it simple. Just say “Hi, my name is _______ and I’m calling to support HB 112.”
(Chair): Delegate Dave Albo: DelDAlbo@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1042 (Springfield)
Delegate Morgan Griffith: DelMGriffith@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1008 (Salem)
Delegate Terry Kilgore: DelTKilgore@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1001 (Gate City)
Delegate Clay Athey: DelCAthey@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1018 (Front Royal)
Delegate Bill Janis: DelBJanis@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1056 (Henrico County, Goochland)
Delegate Robert Bell: DelRBell@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1058 (Charlottesville)
Delegate Benjamin Cline: DelBCline@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1024 (Amherst)
Delegate Sal Iaquinto: DelSIaquinto@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1084 (Virginia Beach)
Delegate Todd Gilbert: DelTGilbert@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1015 (Shenandoah)
Delegate Chris Peace: DelCPeace@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1097 (Mechanicsville area)
Delegate Jackson Miller: DelJMiller@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1050 (Manassas)
Delegate Manoli Loupassi: DelMLoupassi@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1068 (Richmond)
Delegate Joseph Johnson: DelJJohnson@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1004 (Bristol)
Delegate Ward Armstrong: DelWArmstrong@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1010 (Martinsville)
Delegate William Barlow: DelWBarlow@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1064 (Isle of Wight)
Delegate Vivian Watts: DelVWatts@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1039 (Fairfax)
Delegate Dave Toscano: DelDToscano@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1057 (Charlottesville)
Delegate Charniele Herring: DelCHerring@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1046 (Alexandria)
Delegate Ron A. Villanueva: DelRvillanueva@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1021 (VA Beach)
Delegate William H. Cleaveland: DelWCleaveland@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1017 (Roanoke)
Delegate Jennifer McClellan: DelJMcClellan@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1071 (Richmond)
Delegate Patrick Hope: DelPHope@house.virginia.gov (703) 486-1010 (Arlington)
HOUSE BILL NO. 112
Offered January 13, 2010
Prefiled January 5, 2010
A BILL to extend the constitutionally guaranteed rights of unborn children.
----------
Patron-- Marshall, R.G.
----------
Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
----------
Whereas, the Constitution of Virginia provides in Article I, Section 1 that all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety; and Whereas, the Constitution of Virginia further provides in Article I, Section 11 that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; now, therefore, Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. § 1. That a human being is any organism, including an embryo, who possesses a genome specific for and consistent with a member of the species Homo sapiens. For the purposes of certain inherent and constitutionally guaranteed rights, every human being is deemed a legal person in the Commonwealth.
§ 2. Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being, and the natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn children.
§ 3. Subject to the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Virginia, the laws of the Commonwealth shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of all human beings, including unborn children at every stage of development, the equality and inherent rights guaranteed by Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia and the right to due process guaranteed by Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Virginia.
§4. Nothing herein shall be construed to expand, limit, or otherwise modify any determination of law regarding what constitutes appropriate medical services for pregnant women.
Thanks to Prolife Unity for the alert and list!
Would you call (or email) two or more of these lawmakers?
Delegate Bob Marshall’s bill, HB 112 (text below), guaranteeing civil rights for preborn children, has been assigned to the House Courts of Justice Committee. Please ask these Members of the Committee to report the bill to the full House. Unless a motion is made to report, and seconded, the bill will die in Committee. (Also remind them that the November 2009 elections were overwhelmingly won by candidates who took pro-life positions.)
Make it simple. Just say “Hi, my name is _______ and I’m calling to support HB 112.”
(Chair): Delegate Dave Albo: DelDAlbo@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1042 (Springfield)
Delegate Morgan Griffith: DelMGriffith@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1008 (Salem)
Delegate Terry Kilgore: DelTKilgore@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1001 (Gate City)
Delegate Clay Athey: DelCAthey@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1018 (Front Royal)
Delegate Bill Janis: DelBJanis@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1056 (Henrico County, Goochland)
Delegate Robert Bell: DelRBell@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1058 (Charlottesville)
Delegate Benjamin Cline: DelBCline@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1024 (Amherst)
Delegate Sal Iaquinto: DelSIaquinto@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1084 (Virginia Beach)
Delegate Todd Gilbert: DelTGilbert@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1015 (Shenandoah)
Delegate Chris Peace: DelCPeace@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1097 (Mechanicsville area)
Delegate Jackson Miller: DelJMiller@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1050 (Manassas)
Delegate Manoli Loupassi: DelMLoupassi@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1068 (Richmond)
Delegate Joseph Johnson: DelJJohnson@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1004 (Bristol)
Delegate Ward Armstrong: DelWArmstrong@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1010 (Martinsville)
Delegate William Barlow: DelWBarlow@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1064 (Isle of Wight)
Delegate Vivian Watts: DelVWatts@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1039 (Fairfax)
Delegate Dave Toscano: DelDToscano@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1057 (Charlottesville)
Delegate Charniele Herring: DelCHerring@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1046 (Alexandria)
Delegate Ron A. Villanueva: DelRvillanueva@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1021 (VA Beach)
Delegate William H. Cleaveland: DelWCleaveland@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1017 (Roanoke)
Delegate Jennifer McClellan: DelJMcClellan@house.virginia.gov (804) 698-1071 (Richmond)
Delegate Patrick Hope: DelPHope@house.virginia.gov (703) 486-1010 (Arlington)
HOUSE BILL NO. 112
Offered January 13, 2010
Prefiled January 5, 2010
A BILL to extend the constitutionally guaranteed rights of unborn children.
----------
Patron-- Marshall, R.G.
----------
Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
----------
Whereas, the Constitution of Virginia provides in Article I, Section 1 that all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety; and Whereas, the Constitution of Virginia further provides in Article I, Section 11 that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; now, therefore, Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. § 1. That a human being is any organism, including an embryo, who possesses a genome specific for and consistent with a member of the species Homo sapiens. For the purposes of certain inherent and constitutionally guaranteed rights, every human being is deemed a legal person in the Commonwealth.
§ 2. Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being, and the natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn children.
§ 3. Subject to the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Virginia, the laws of the Commonwealth shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of all human beings, including unborn children at every stage of development, the equality and inherent rights guaranteed by Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia and the right to due process guaranteed by Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Virginia.
§4. Nothing herein shall be construed to expand, limit, or otherwise modify any determination of law regarding what constitutes appropriate medical services for pregnant women.
Thanks to Prolife Unity for the alert and list!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
click here