Victor Reppert, tireless shill for the liberal establishment and the Democrat party, continues to live up to his well-earned reputation and a political flack and philosophical hack:
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2008/09/barack-biggest-baby-killer-of-them-all.html
Let’s look at some of the highlights—or should I say, lowlights?—of his latest post:
It also abrogated the rights of parents.
Let’s see: whose parents are we talking about, exactly? In context, this would have reference to the parents who tried to abort their own child!
Yes, Victor, conservatives do believe in removing the children from the custody of murderous parents.
In other words, there appear to have been various reasons for voting against this legislation besides wanting the accidental survivors of abortion dead.
Notice that Reppert doesn’t even attempt to establish that this was Obama’s reason for opposing the bill.
That assumes that we can naively assume that a bill does what its title says that it does. That's absurd, as No Child Left Behind demonstratively proves.
That’s really rich coming from an intellectual day-tripper like Reppert. Here’s a little experiment: just compare Reppert’s flyby piece with Jeremy Pierce’s painstaking analysis of Obama’s record on abortion, then ask yourself: which writer did the real spadework?
http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2008/08/obama-abortion.html
http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2008/08/obama-born-alive.html
One final point: although abortion is a very big issue, the stakes are even higher than abortion alone. Abortion is just one element of a eugenic agenda that encompasses abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, stem-cell research, organ-farms, &c.
If Reppert were a real Christian and a real philosopher, instead of a goose-stepping apparatchik for the liberal establishment, he would appreciate the moral dimensions of this debate. Perhaps we should start calling him the Red Philosopher, in honor of his Marxist philosophy—as well as all the innocent blood on his hands.
You might want to notice that I didn't in any way gainsay the claim that we ought not to vote for Obama because he's pro-choice. The question is whether there is a further reason to object based on this vote. I don't think there is.
ReplyDeleteSteve Hays: "If Reppert were a real Christian and a real philosopher, instead of a goose-stepping apparatchik for the liberal establishment..."
ReplyDeleteI too am not a politically correct nice Christian.
Liberal Christians voting for Barack Obama and who know full well of Barack Obama's militant pro-abortion position and voting record are ....
not good Christians on this morally transcendent issue.
So we are going for a one-issue vote here?
ReplyDeleteIf I were a "goose-stepping apparatchik for the liberal establishment" I would not criticize my own party for its "doctrinaire" response to the abortion issue.
I am not going to say that people who support the war in Iraq, who have no problem with "enhanced interrogation techniques," who think that trickle down really trickles, etc., are not Christians. Perhaps you think that the kind of secrecy, the
refusal to be held accountable for one's actions, the use of "executive privilege" to avoid even showing up when subpoeaned by Congress is OK. Perhaps you think that it's OK to tell lies about one's history in order to get elected, if you are on the right side of the abortion issue. I'm still not going to judge your Christianity on that basis.
If I recall correctly, Art Holmes, the longtime chairman of the philosophy department at Wheaton College, took a pro-choice position on abortion. As does Bill Hasker, who defended his position in a print debate in Human Life Review back in the 1970s.
Politically, I don't think a judicio-political solution to the abortion issue is feasible. Even with the overturning of Roe, I don't think there will be any states who pass anti-abortion statutes. So I'm certainly not going to one-issue-vote on something that can be affected by the President in only the most indirect of ways.
Truth Unites says that those Christians who support Obama are not good Christians on the abortion issue. I don't think Christians who support the Bush administration on waterboarding are good Christians on the waterboarding issue.
One more question. How can you be so strongly pro-life on abortion and also defend killing "babes in arms" as enjoined by I Samuel 15? Oh, wait, there's was a divine command there. I forgot.
Victor Reppert: "So we are going for a one-issue vote here?"
ReplyDeleteWe are going for morally transcendent issue voting here.
"... the one issue that most directly relates to justice is abortion. If you are a Christian, no other question should have more influence in your choice of candidates. Which candidate offers the greatest chance of securing justice for humanity’s most defenseless members, the unborn?
“That's one-issue voting,” you say. Yes it is, the one issue God is most concerned with when it comes to government. And on the issue of abortion there can be no compromise.
There are only two positions, no more. Either you hold that the unborn are not due protection and the government should allow women the choice to take the life of the fetus, or you believe the unborn should not be killed, but rather protected like any other human being. There is no middle ground. All “centrist,” “moderate,” “balanced,” “accommodating,” “conciliatory,” or “middle” approaches affirm the first view. They’re all pro-choice—every single one of them.
If you want to make your vote count for millions of unborn children, you have to face three very important facts. First, in the next four years you'll be governed by either a Democrat or Republican president. Second, the power to destroy human life in the womb lies not with the legislature, but with the courts. Third, the next president will likely appoint between two and five new justices to the Supreme Court and dozens of jurists to lower courts.
Let me state it plainly: If you are pro-life and intend on casting a “conscience vote” for a third party candidate, you might as well be voting for the “pro-choice party.” It will have the same ultimate impact on the safety of the unborn."
Read it all at When Compromising is Not a Compromise
Reppert: "Even with the overturning of Roe, I don't think there will be any states who pass anti-abortion statutes."
(1) Bad laws should be overturned on principle. Even liberals agree that Roe v. Wade was and is a bad law.
(2) Regardless of whether you think there will be any states passing pro-life statutes, it's still a state jurisdictional decision.
"So I'm certainly not going to one-issue-vote on something that can be affected by the President in only the most indirect of ways."
See what Koukl has to say above about the courts. (And rabid militant leftists and liberals are also keenly aware of the importance of SCOTUS decisions.)
It's certainly NOT the "most indirect of ways."
Forgive me for just leaving some html addresses, but it's such a contentious issue, I think some matters pertaining to it are being overlooked, and the pieces below explain a bit about what' being overlooked.
ReplyDeleteWho really is the pro-life candidate? By RICHARD R. GAILLARDETZ
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080927/OPINION04/809270299/-1/OPINIONIT
Another Catholic asks 'Where's the Beef?' when it comes to the pro-life movement (final letter bottom of page):
http://americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11087
Obama And The "Infanticide" Smear (Born Alive Infants Protection Act)
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/08/19/obama-and-the-infanticide-smear-born-alive-infants-protection-act/
Frankly, I'm going to disagree with Koukl on this idea that abortion is the one issue God is most concerned about when it comes to government.
ReplyDeleteFor starters, legislation isn't the answer to the problem of abortion in this country. That strikes me as myopic. One big problem here is that churches have lost the Gospel. Consequently, they seek to do by legislation what they have long failed to do by force of argument from the pulpit. Now, the problem we have is the sorry state of the church and it's visible manifestations.
As a Baptist I agree with a number of principles, the first of which is regenerate church membership. What I see is a nation full of credobaptist churches full of unregenerate Christians, ignorant Christians, and nominal Christians. I'm really tired of this narrative that if I don't make abortion the number one issue that sways my vote I'm somehow subbiblical or subChristian or that to be a "real" Christian I have to jump on the latest political bandwagon issue. I'm sorry, but abortion is a systemic issue, and at this point, I happen to believe that we are so far down the road in this nation that the best we can hope for in controlling and restricting abortion, and this will continue until (a) the Church gets the Gospel right and (b) the Church stops trying to legislate what it has failed to do on its own.
One of the reasons I say that is that the Bible portrays the peril of children as a product of idolatry. In the Garden, Adam may as well have sacrificed us to the Serpent. God seems have seen fit to suspend the image of our souls with respect to original sin upon the Covenant of Works. We, like the children and women killed in ANE wars, are the victims of his disobedience. In the history of Israel, the people feel into sacrificing their children to Molech as the fell further and further into idolatry. Indeed, it could well be argued that God punishes sin with sin, so that the aborted children in this nation are very much the victims of the wickedness of this nation in many areas, so they pile up more wrath for themselves...and at the same time, I think the real barometer of how God deals with a nation where the covenant community resides isn't the nation as a whole- rather it's the state of the covenant community - both visible and invisible. As we go, they go...so they are, in a real sense, the victims of our wickedness, and, just as Steve said a few threads back about us needing to own up to the racism in slavery that Christians supported 2 centuries ago, we need to own up to that today too.
The same is true of issues like gay marriage. I have seen church after church and Christian after Christian pass petitions against gay marriage through the pews and do nothing to understand the gay communities in their neighborhoods and reach out to them. The same is true with abortion. The people that line the pews will send money to Focus on the Family or cast a vote but when it comes to heading down to the local clinic and preaching the Gospel or volunteering (and not just writing checks) to the local Christian pregnancy support services, they won't lift a finger. I've seen this with persons with AIDS too. They'll call the National AIDS Hotline asking to volunteer and stipulate they want to help the AIDS babies, but the IV drug users..no, they don't want to touch them. We've become Pharisees. We don't want to get our hands dirty.
Women who are aged 18-29, unmarried, black or Hispanic, or economically disadvantaged—including those on Medicaid—have higher abortion rates, that means that abortion is a symptom of a larger social-justice issue - poverty, and another issue, race. That in turn reflects on another issue, access. Guess what, that means there are reasons behind abortion that aren't simply related to the legality of abortion, rather there are underlying causes. Government, by addressing those causes, can affect the abortion rate. Simply voting pro-life qua prolife just doesn't cut it, because that battle, which is ultimately a judicial battle, is going to be long and drawn out, and there is no guarantee that any judges that wind up on SCOTUS or any other court are going to overturn RvW anyway. If we really want to address abortion in the here and now, then we can expand our view to cast our votes relative to these underlying issues, not simply abortion qua abortion...and all of this is separate from what I said above about what the churches need to be doing themselves - namely a good house cleaning is in order. It doesn't help our cause to wag our collective fingers at the world when our own house is in disarray.
And let me say this, I think the number one issue that concerns God relative to Government is the character of the person/s in Government. Now, I do believe that, if they are Christians, that should directly influence their position on abortion.
The churches seem to have forgotten that while Christianity has historically been pro-life, it's also true that the Apostolic and Subapostolic churches fought "abortion" (in a very broad sense, inclusive of abandonment) by taking in those babies and abandoned children and by the spread of the Gospel itself - for they didn't have the power of the vote.
I'm not saying we should not vote for a prolife candidate whenever possible, but I am saying that abortion is not the issue qua issue that should concern us. I'd rather vote for a Christian individual with whom I have a principled disagreement over this issue than a pagan who'll sell us down the river elsewhere. Why? Because, as a voter, I was burned in the last election at the state level on that very issue. That representative is now in prison for political corruption in our state - and he happened to be a member of the local Baptist church.
How can you be so strongly pro-life on abortion and also defend killing "babes in arms" as enjoined by I Samuel 15?
ReplyDeleteYou, know, Dr. Reppert, here we have yet another example of you not engaging the biblical text on its own terms (and, in fact, agreeing with the atheist/skeptic on a biblical objection, for they love the "Slaughter of the Innocents" bit). For once, you might want to consider that we should begin and end our ethical stances with the Bible. I thought you are a "Christian" philosopher. Why is it you don't bother to consult the Bible before offering up objections?
1. How is 1 Samuel 15 parallel to abortion qua abortion where a mother voluntarily terminates here pregnancy? Where's the supporting argument?
2. The Amalekites, of course, had been doing the same to Israel for a long time...and for generations.
3. In ANE culture, these children are considered victims of their fathers' wickedness, causalities of war.
4. And it's not as if Israel under Saul's reign had a social service system to take in those children. Would you prefer they have left them to starve in the Wilderness or be enslaved by a neighboring band of people and probably used for sport or rape or turned into slaves?
Victor,
ReplyDelete*YOU* said that *YOU* were pro-life! So, I guess I would ask "How can *YOU* be so strongly pro-life on abortion and also defend killing "babes in arms" as enjoined by I Samuel 15?"
Perhaps you view the text as a merely human addition to God's inerrant word? Do you deny plenary inspiration, Victor?
That's the first land mine you stepped on.
Second, I find it odd that you would compare the *unjust* taking of life (abortion) with the *just* taking of life, viz. *GOD'S* command to kill the infants:
""I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "
Perhaps you think God can commit unjust acts?
That's the second landmine you just stepped on.
Oh, how would you square what *GOD* commanded be done with your "moral intuitions?" If reprobation is inconsistent with your intuitions, how can I Sam 15 be?
That's the third landmine you've stepped on...not much left of Reppert.
Do you now deny hell, Victor? What if God's judgment on the Amalekites is an intrusion into time of the final day of judgment?
Do you deny the federal headship of Adam and the covenant of works, Victor? If not, how can you claim the infants not subject to the effects of the fall?
Victor, why do you seem bent on offering objections that just "pop into your head" without giving your objections their due consideration? Is that what a "philosopher" does? Is that what a "Christian" thinker does? Are we to honor the Lord in our thinking? Love him with our *mind*? Then why the massive amount of sophomoric objections you seem to lob at conservative Christianity on a regular basis?
Dear Gene,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on some points you raised, and respectfully disagree with you on others. I won't go through it point by point, but I do like this sentence of yours:
"I think the real barometer of how God deals with a nation where the covenant community resides isn't the nation as a whole- rather it's the state of the covenant community - both visible and invisible. As we go, they go...so they are, in a real sense, the victims of our wickedness"
And I would ask you whether you think it's wicked that that there are LibRot churches/denominations and liberal Christians who support and affirm the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, and whether it's wicked or not for conservative Christians to not oppose these LibRots who support abortion.
On one hand, you say the Church should clean house; yet on the other hand, you seem to be saying that pro-life Christians should not be rebuking pro-abortion Christians. This is confusing. How can God's Bride become morally clean so as to be Salt and Light in a fallen world with your counsel for pro-life Christians to not oppose, rebuke, correct, reprove, and admonish pro-abortion Christians?
FWIW, if I were Victor Reppert, I'd happily concede your last comment to you Gene, while gleefully grabbing your first comment to justify my vote for Barack Obama, a pro-abortion Christian.
How can you be so strongly pro-life on abortion and also defend killing "babes in arms" as enjoined by I Samuel 15? Oh, wait, there's was a divine command there. I forgot.
ReplyDeleteThat comment could have been uttered by Touchstone.
Here's hoping Reppert will shape up.
I plead guilty, to making a bad joke. You will have noticed that i answered it immediately; there is a divine command in the case of Amalek, so there is no logical inconsistency to say that we shouldn't kill babies in the womb, unless God tells us to. So that objection was actually facetious.
ReplyDelete