Alan Maricle \\Back to the "Hyper-Calvinist" smear\\
Yeesh, you sound like Sye. Please quit with the "smear" verbiage.
You misrepresented my position.
\\when Toby appeals to God's activity in human affairs, that must be counterbalanced by God's inactivity vis-a-vis abolishing abortion. That's not "Hyper-Calvinistic" or fatalistic–that's just responding to Tony on his own grounds. \\
What you're leaving out is God's standing commands to His people to correct oppression.
You're confusing our activity with God's activity.
\\But not doing more than I could do is not a moral compromise.\\
Sure, I agree.
\\If I settle for less because it's not within my power to do more, that's not a moral compromise\\
As long as we don't equivocate on the meaning of "within my power".
\\He did as much as he could, under the circumstances, even if it falls far short of the ideal.\\
In the case of incrementalist legislation about when it's OK to murder babies,
Alan, that's the way critics attack the Bible. Unless the Bible forbids something (e.g. "slavery"), then the Bible must be "OK" with what it didn't prohibit.
If we can't successfully ban abortion across-the-board, that doesn't make murdering babies "OK." There are many moral evils in the world which God hasn't given Christians the power to eradicate.
1) you never know whether you can pass abolition until you try
I don't object to trying to do more.
2) with that in mind, why try for anything less?
You're assuming that doing more hasn't been tried before.
3) when you pass laws that say "fulfill conditions X, Y, and Z, and then it's OK to murder babies", you educate the culture that babies are actually expendable and not made in God's image.
Once again, laws that ban abortion in some cases don't mean it's okay to murder babies in other cases. You can only pass a law you have enough votes for. Or in some cases, enough extra votes to override a presidential veto. That's the nature of the legislative process.
4) abortion is sin, and the answer to sin is the Gospel. The Gospel does not command us to taper off an adulterous relationship, sleeping with the mistress 4 times a week instead of 5.
Not doing what can't be done isn't equivalent to doing wrong. You keep resorting to manifest fallacies.
\\Is (your goal) to save babies, or is it to be "uncompromising"? \\
It is to glorify Jesus Christ in all things. I don't see how He is glorified by saying "just make sure your needles are clean and then it's OK to murder babies."
Alan, are you so dug into your position that you can't bring yourself to argue in good faith?
\\Should lawmakers not attempt to save any baby unless they can save every baby?\\
Common canard.blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/search/label/incrementalism
Alan, it's not a common canard when you keep hurling accusations of "compromise" and "worldly pragmatism."
\\. The Amish are very uncompromising.\\
Obviously one can be uncompromising on wrong things in wrong ways.
\\you're failing to distinguish between civil disobedience and the duties of a civll magistrate. A private citizen can disobey the law. \\
So can a civil magistrate, and what's more, he OUGHT to obey God's law, which is higher than man's. He can do what is right. The "or else" is that he MIGHT lose his job. Oh well.
If a Christian magistrate loses his job, he can't do the things for good that only someone in a position of authority can do. If he loses his job, he can't use his lawful authority as a civil magistrate to mitigate evil.
On the one hand you say a civil magistrate should break the law to do good. On the other hand, you say he should be prepared to lose his job. Well, which is it? If he loses his job, he can't take advantage of his job to do the kind of good that only someone in authority can do.
\\If he breaks the law, he delegitimates his own authority.\\
That happens all over the country and I don't see people rising up to call that out. The people are so apathetic that you might as well be talking in the abstract, but the problem is that in the abstract he ought to disregard sinful laws in order to obey higher ones.
You're admitting that there's a lack of popular will to make things better. But in that case the abolitionist movement is a pipe dream. You can't propose a very ambitious social agenda while you simultaneously say there's no public support for your agenda. Your cynicism cancels your optimism.
\\Why should private citizens obey a lawless magistrate?\\
He should obey the highest law available on the given issue.
Alan, you chronically miss the point. You think a civil magistrate should issue extralegal orders to ban abortion or "send military to padlock and guard murder facilities." The question is, why should soldiers or civilians obey unlawful orders? The only authority a civil magistrate has to tell other people what to do is lawful authority. When he exceeds his lawful authority, he has no more authority to order people around than one private citizen has to order another private citizen around.
\\"And he can send military to padlock and guard murder facilities."i) He has no legal authority to do that. \\
So?
i) Alan, you keep missing the point. What's the difference between a civil magistrate and a private citizen? A magistrate has the legal authority to make other people (under him) do things. The moment he steps outside his legal mandate, he's in no position to tell them what they must do.
ii) You confuse doing the right thing with obeying civil authorities. If you just do the right thing, that's not because you were obeying orders. You were doing the right thing because it was the right thing to do.
By contrast, the only reason to obey an order is either because the magistrate has lawful authority over you, or because he can resort to brute force to compel compliance. The power of gov't derives from the implicit threat of coercive force, viz. fines, imprisonment, the military, police powers, confiscation of property.
\\ii) That would create a backlash which would sweep all conservatives out of power in the next two or three election cycles\\
How do you know that? Maybe God would honor the man's faithfulness.
"Maybe"? There's no biblical promise that if we do the right thing, God will back us up (in this life). Scripture is rife with examples of faithful Jews and Christians who are cut down for doing the right thing. We should always to the right thing, but not with the expectation that God will back us up (in this life).
He needs to do the right thing and let God sort out the future consequences.
You keep begging the question of what's the right thing to do in that situation.
\\And they'd use that to strike down any restrictions on abortion, nationalize voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, revoke religious liberty, revoke parental rights, ban guns, &c. \
You're dealing according to worldly wisdom here.
That's one of your favorite tropes, Alan. An intellectual shortcut.
A basic problem is that your position is self-contradictory. On the one hand you say you want to abolish abortion. Nothing short of wholesale abolition will suffice. And you think strategy and tactics of the prolife movement are too ineffective to achieve the goal. On the other hand, when people raise practical questions about the effectiveness of your alternative methods, you dismiss that as "worldly wisdom" or "pragmatism."
Well, which is it, Alan? Do you or don't you care about effective methods? You seem to care about effective methods when you attack the mainstream prolife movement, but when we evaluate the effectiveness of AHA, that's suddenly verboten.
\\For instance, Planned Parenthood refuses to notify the authorities of statutory rape allegations. That's a huge legal liability. And that's hard for liberals to defend. \\
That's been known about for like 6 years, and look at the effect it's had. Virtually none.
Alan, your'e not arguing in good faith. The question is not whether it's been known about. The question at issue is not the effect of it's being known about. The question, as I framed it, is what would happen if DOJ or state attorneys general launched criminal investigations.
\\iv) I'm sure abortion clinics cover up botched abortions. That should be investigated. \\
Don't be naive.
Alan, you're not wiser than I am. You need to drop the spiritual pride and condescension.
Those have been known about without doubt for decades. And look at the effect it's had. Virtually none.
Once again, Alan, you're not arguing in good faith. The question at issue is what would happen if that was subject to criminal investigation–and prosecution.
\\To take a comparison, how many babies are saved by picketing abortion clinics?\\
1) Quite a few.2) "Saving babies" is not my primary concern. Glorifying and obeying Jesus is.
Well, Alan, that says it all. It lucidly and painfully illustrates my limiting case. Your ultimate objective isn't to save babies but to be uncompromising. If that's representative, then AHA could hardly be more self-contradictory. On the one hand it takes an ultraist position on abortion. It "demands" the abolition of abortion (as if demanding something will make it happen). On the other hand, the real priority is ideological purity, even at the expense of saving fewer babies or (in principle) no babies at all.
\\Why is that legit, but legal restrictions on abortion constitute an unacceptable compromise?\\
For one thing, I don't say to people entering the abortion mill "it's fine if you murder your baby b/c it looks like you don't have very much money".
Alan, you constantly defame pro-lifers who are doing as much as they can.
There are many moral evils in the world which God hasn't given Christians the power to eradicate.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone is in a position to say that. When the American church is in the state it's in, what power God has given to the church is mostly left unused.
You're assuming that doing more hasn't been tried before.
Got some examples?
Once again, laws that ban abortion in some cases don't mean it's okay to murder babies in other cases.
Sure they do, when they're laws like
"It's OK to murder babies if they're younger than 20 weeks."
"It's OK to murder babies if the abortionist has admitting privileges in a hospital."
"It's OK to murder babies if the instruments you use are clean and up to spec."
That's precisely what those laws are.
You can only pass a law you have enough votes for.
And wasting time passing laws that educate the culture that it's OK to kill babies when ___ are counterproductive to getting the votes needed for abolition.
Not doing what can't be done isn't equivalent to doing wrong
You need to prove it can't be done. "It can't be done" is not the same as "it hasn't been done".
are you so dug into your position that you can't bring yourself to argue in good faith?
You complained earlier about smears, but the one smearing is you.
If a Christian magistrate loses his job, he can't do the things for good that only someone in a position of authority can do
1) He may not lose his job.
2) Shall we do evil that good (ie, keeping his job) may result? No.
3) If he compromises to keep his job, in what way can anyone be confident he won't compromise when things get tough in the future as well?
On the one hand you say a civil magistrate should break the law to do good.
DeleteBreak the LOWER law.
You're admitting that there's a lack of popular will to make things better.
Which is why I'm an abolitionist rather than a mere holder of an opinion that abortion is bad. I am actually out confronting and engaging the culture and calling others to do the same.
But in that case the abolitionist movement is a pipe dream.
Yes, the same was said to abolitionists of generations ago. The answer is the same now, too.
You think a civil magistrate should issue extralegal orders to ban abortion or "send military to padlock and guard murder facilities."
Specifically I said the President could send the military to padlock.
The question is, why should soldiers or civilians obey unlawful orders?
Why SHOULD they? Because those orders in particular would be righteous.
Whether they WOULD or not depends on a lot of things. But I'm contending the President should try things like that, and I bet he'd succeed b/c the Presidency has a lot of power and influence.
The moment he steps outside his legal mandate, he's in no position to tell them what they must do.
No, YOU'RE missing the point. He has every authority to tell them to obey the law of God, just as a private citizen does. But a magistrate has pre-existing prestige in people's eyes by virtue of the office he holds. He can use that influence to do good and obey God's law even if that means breaking man's lower law.
"Maybe"? There's no biblical promise that if we do the right thing, God will back us up (in this life).
I guess we shouldn't do the right thing, then. You got me.
Scripture is rife with examples of faithful Jews and Christians who are cut down for doing the right thing.
Yep.
Let God be true though every man be a liar.
You keep begging the question of what's the right thing to do in that situation.
DeleteRight! How dare I act as if abortion is a tremendous evil, that it is rampant murder of image-bearers of God!
On the one hand you say you want to abolish abortion. Nothing short of wholesale abolition will suffice.
True, nothing short of abolition will suffice, but don't equivocate or strawman my position.
And you think strategy and tactics of the prolife movement are too ineffective to achieve the goal.
B/c they disobey God.
when people raise practical questions about the effectiveness of your alternative methods, you dismiss that as "worldly wisdom" or "pragmatism."
B/c the objections disobey God too.
The question, as I framed it, is what would happen if DOJ or state attorneys general launched criminal investigations.
And I'm asking why it hasn't happened yet, and since it hasn't happened yet, why you think it might happen in the future, why we should place our trust in such a thing.
\\iv) I'm sure abortion clinics cover up botched abortions. That should be investigated. \\
Don't be naive.
Alan, you're not wiser than I am. You need to drop the spiritual pride and condescension.
Seriously, let the reader judge here. I am not being condescending. I am telling you not to be naive, b/c you are saying naive things. Do you have any idea how many botched abortions have been covered up in 41 years? Just go on YouTube and you can see ambulance after ambulance.
The point is that these things you suggest have already been happening, and nothing is coming of it. You're still on the pro-life treadmill. Treadmills don't lead anywhere.
Your ultimate objective isn't to save babies but to be uncompromising.
Well, what I said was:
"Saving babies" is not my primary concern. Glorifying and obeying Jesus is.
Let the reader judge if you're faithfully representing my position.
you constantly defame pro-lifers who are doing as much as they can.
1) You should know that criticism of a position or behavior is not "defaming". You do it all the time. I'm surprised to see you level this accusation. It makes no sense and it is hypocritical.
2) There are some pro-lifers who are probably at capacity, yes. But they're going about things the wrong way, and we want to help them see the truth.
3) But that's only part of what we talk about anyway. Of far more concern is the vast mass of churchgoers who don't do ANYTHING to correct oppression.
Rhology "I don't think anyone is in a position to say that."
DeleteOf course I'm in a position to say that. Until Jesus returns, some evils are ineradicable.
"When the American church is in the state it's in, what power God has given to the church is mostly left unused."
You're doing a bait-n-switch. The question at issue isn't whether we are sometimes in a position to eradicate some evils, but whether there are some evils we are in no position to eradicate.
You keep arguing in bad faith by attacking something I didn't say or imply.
"Got some examples?"
Anti-abortion laws struck down by judges.
"Sure they do, when they're laws like "
Alan, a law doesn't condone what it doesn't forbid. There are prolife legislators who would frame more expansive laws if they had the votes. They settle for more modest restrictions, not because they think "it's okay to murder babies in other cases," but because they can't pass more expansive bans.
"And wasting time passing laws that educate the culture that it's OK to kill babies…"
Aside from your persistent misrepresentation, do you think it was a waste of time to pass the Hyde Amendment or PBA Ban? Would you rather have more babies die absent those laws?
"You need to prove it can't be done."
You keep tilting at windmills. I don't object to pushing for more. But you dodge the issue: If we press for more and fail, should we take what we can get or not pass any restrictions at all?
"Shall we do evil that good (ie, keeping his job) may result?"
Mitigating evil is not the same thing as doing evil that good may result. You keep taking glib, intellectual shortcuts.
"If he compromises to keep his job…"
Alan, as I explained before, not every compromise is a moral compromise. You're not arguing in good faith. You keep falling back on your push botton responses rather than engaging the actual argument.
"Yes, the same was said to abolitionists of generations ago."
DeleteAlan, that isn't what I'm saying to you. Rather, I'm drawing attention to the implications of your own admission.
"Why SHOULD they? Because those orders in particular would be righteous."
Alan, I already explained to you what that's illogical. They wouldn't obey the order because it's righteous. If they are doing it because it's the righteous thing to do, then that's why they are doing it, and not because they were ordered to do so.
The reason to obey a magistrate is not because his order is righteous, but because he has legal authority over you.
"He has every authority to tell them to obey the law of God, just as a private citizen does. But a magistrate has pre-existing prestige in people's eyes by virtue of the office he holds."
You just admitted that he has no more or less authority to tell people to obey God's law than a private citizen.
You keep playing this shell game about authority. What authority does a civil magistrate have? His distinctive authority as a civil magistrate is his legal authority.
You conflate that with moral authority. But he has no more moral authority than a private citizen. Indeed, he may have less moral authority than a private citizen.
He has no more authority to order soldiers to violate the law than a private citizen has the authority to issue orders to soldiers.
A private citizen has no legal authority to issue orders to soldiers. By the same token, a magistrate has no legal authority to issue unlawful orders to soldiers.
Both a magistrate and a private citizen can have moral authority, but acting on moral authority is distinct from acting under orders.
"I guess we shouldn't do the right thing, then. You got me."
Alan, that's a contemptible reply. I went on to say that "we should always to the right thing, but not with the expectation that God will back us up (in this life). "
You omit that, then pretend that I suggested we shouldn't do the right thing.
You're becoming a demagogue.
"Yep. Let God be true though every man be a liar."
You're shifting ground. Your original argument appealed to God to back us up if we do the right thing.
"Right! How dare I act as if abortion is a tremendous evil, that it is rampant murder of image-bearers of God!"
DeleteAlan, you're just playing the demagogue. You're not even attempting to honestly represent my argument.
It's ironic that in the name of uncompromising morality, you resort to these willful misrepresentations to gain polemical advantage. If you can't defend your position by honest means, do you even have an honest position to defend?
"And I'm asking why it hasn't happened yet, and since it hasn't happened yet, why you think it might happen in the future, why we should place our trust in such a thing."
Did I suggest it was a matter of placing our trust in such a thing? No. I'm offering some strategies.
These are strategies which the prolife movement should drill into candidates.
"You should know that criticism of a position or behavior is not 'defaming.'"
Your treatment of prolifers goes well beyond "criticism."
Don't leave any more comments unless you're prepared to accurately represent my argument and engage my argument. I don't have time to waste on correcting willful distortions or diversions.
"I am telling you not to be naive, b/c you are saying naive things. Do you have any idea how many botched abortions have been covered up in 41 years? Just go on YouTube and you can see ambulance after ambulance. The point is that these things you suggest have already been happening, and nothing is coming of it. You're still on the pro-life treadmill. Treadmills don't lead anywhere."
Deletei) Alan, you contradict yourself. On the one hand you say we should push the envelop. Attempt things that haven't been done before.
Well, Alan, that's precisely what I'm proposing. Prolifers should lobby Republican candidates (if elected) and/or Republican officeholders to conduct criminal investigations of abortion clinics that cover up botched abortions and statutory rape allegations. That, in turn, would lay the foundation for prosecuting abortion clinics, or Planned Parenthood et al.
You dismiss it because it hasn't happened.
Well that's the point. That's why we should try doing something new. Attempt something that hasn't been done before. So which is it, Alan? Are you going to say it can't happen because it hasn't happened thus far? But you keep telling us we don't know what will work until we give it a try.
ii) BTW, you're criticizing the prolife movement on "pragmatic" grounds. To say it's a treadmill, to say treadmills don't lead anywhere, is a pragmatic criticism. Judging it by the results. So we can't we judge abolitionism the same way?
"Depends on how many people demand it, and their unwillingness to compromise."
ReplyDeleteNaturally. And if the US was dominated by Christian conservatives, many things would be different. But you can only work with what you've got.
"It won't happen if people act like you are saying they should act, Steve. You're helping keep abortion legal."
"Demanding" the abolition of abortion doesn't make it happen. That's just bravado. The Establishment is unimpressed. Business as usual.
"You are championing bending to the will of the voters, which is actually wickedness."
Frankly, you're playacting. You're swept up in a swashbuckling role. All very inspirational. Looks good in tights. Dashing mustache. Very Errolesque. Doesn't change a thing. Just rhetorical posturing.
i) To begin with, if a majority of Americans want abortion, a Christian minority can't stop it. We can protest. We can do things to limit the evil.
ii) To the extent that we work within the democratic process, then yes, the electorate does matter. Our system of gov't is based on majority rule–for better or worse.
iii) The legislative process is not the only venue. There are ways to influence the culture.
But short to guerilla warfare (e.g. sabotaging abortion clinics), you're not going to stop it in the foreseeable future. Moreover, that would give the liberal establishment the pretext it's spoiling for to outlaw Christian expression. That won't save babies.
iv) It's good to do whatever we reasonably can, but you can't dictate the outcome. That's not within your power.
Until Jesus returns, some evils are ineradicable.
DeleteBut neither you nor I know that abortion is on that list. People used to say Negro slavery was on that list.
The question at issue isn't whether we are sometimes in a position to eradicate some evils, but whether there are some evils we are in no position to eradicate.
We can't know the latter, so might as well do what the Scripture says and correct oppression, love good and hate evil.
"Got some examples?"
Anti-abortion laws struck down by judges.
The original context was the meaning of "trying for anything less" and you respond with anti-abortion laws being stricken. That's precisely my point. Since that happens with regularity, we shouldn't waste time with a strictly legislative approach to the sin of abortion. The resources we used to try to sway corrupt lawmakers we could have been putting into confronting the culture with its sin and calling it to repent and believe.
There are prolife legislators who would frame more expansive laws if they had the votes.
You're speculating here. You leave out the powerful influence of the fact that pro-lifery is the job and livelihood of so many people. It's a huge business. Besides, what is needed is not "more expansive laws" but actual recognition of sin and abolition of sin thru the Gospel. But lawmakers and pro-life leaders never frame the question in those terms. Why? Bad for business. Can't get votes (in the short term). Can't continue to team up with Rome and get Rome's funding. Etc etc.
do you think it was a waste of time to pass the Hyde Amendment
Yes. It included the exceptions for rape and incest. It was actually a bad thing b/c it doesn't call abortion sin. Rather, in the eyes of everyone now, it's a political issue, which is a constant misunderstanding that we have to continually correct when engaging the culture.
Seriously, how hard is it for someone who is about to murder their baby to claim they were raped? All the resources that went into the Hyde Amendment were better used elsewhere. And it didn't actually save any babies, but it did contribute to their dehumanisation in the culture.
Would you rather have more babies die absent those laws?
Prove it saved some babies, and let's talk.
If we press for more and fail, should we take what we can get or not pass any restrictions at all?
How do we know what we can get?
And you keep neglecting the many reasons I've already given for not doing that.
Mitigating evil is not the same thing as doing evil that good may result.
DeleteYou're not actually interacting with my points. I've explained the ways in which these laws actually do evil, and the "mitigation of evil" is always the excuse.
You're not arguing in good faith.
You have said that many times, but I just disagree. I don't think you're really engaged in the topic quite yet.
They wouldn't obey the order because it's righteous.
1) How do you know that?
2) They SHOULD.
If they are doing it because it's the righteous thing to do, then that's why they are doing it, and not because they were ordered to do so.
One wonders then why God bothered giving the Law.
The reason to obey a magistrate is not because his order is righteous, but because he has legal authority over you.
That's one pragmatic reason, I suppose, for those who don't fear God.
I obey the magistrate b/c God told me to unless he disobeys God's law.
You just admitted that he has no more or less authority to tell people to obey God's law than a private citizen.
That's not what I said. I'm speaking of what is the right action to take in a given situation. Of course he can throw someone into prison for breaking man's laws over which he has jurisdiction. That doesn't mean he is necessarily right to do so.
What authority does a civil magistrate have? His distinctive authority as a civil magistrate is his legal authority.
Yes, of course. And I'm pointing out the distinction between his legal authority and what is right, whereas you are clouding that issue.
He has no more authority to order soldiers to violate the law than a private citizen has the authority to issue orders to soldiers.
You're equivocating here, though. Whether, say, the President has LEGAL authority to send the Army to padlock abortuaries is certainly up for debate. Whether he would be right to do so is not. What I'm saying is that he should do the right thing and try to make it happen, and then if he gets impeached or something, oh well. He did the right thing. God was pleased. And he stopped abortion in the country for however long he was able to maintain control over the Army's actions. And he taught the culture that he meant no compromise, thus becoming a preacher of righteousness to the nation.
If you can't defend your position by honest means, do you even have an honest position to defend?
All the time you spent complaining about the way I'm arguing would have been better spent reading the www.abolishhumanabortion.com website so you could understand better what I'm talking about.
I'm offering some strategies.
Delete1) Incrementalist strategies.
2) There are people who are paid a lot of money to be pro-life leaders and attorneys and such. I'm pretty sure they've thought of all that before. But they're not doing them, and there's a reason.
Your treatment of prolifers goes well beyond "criticism."
Such as? Do you have some sort of evidence that we intimidate them and beat them up, slash their tires, menace them at home, threaten their families? Please. Speaking of demagoguery...
I don't have time to waste on correcting willful distortions or diversions.
Then let me have the last word and let the reader judge.
You dismiss it because it hasn't happened.
No, I dismiss it b/c it's not original and b/c it's been on the table all this time and most importantly b/c you are not saying "and/and" but rather "either/or". You are pushing back against abolition, and your alternative is these weaksauce remedies.
All things being equal, sure, investigate aborticians. You'll find many skeletons in closets. Then the media will make a big deal out of them like they did about Gosnell, and everyone will shake their heads, "How awful! He kept heads in jars!"
Meanwhile, "respectable" aborticians will go about their business murdering babies quietly, while the culture imbibes the age-ist discrimination that you served up to them and ignores the guy who is murdering only young babies. This is age-ism.
Then, let's say you shut down an abortician b/c he did something criminal. When you could have been talking about how the law is unjust that allows humans to be slaughtered, you talked about how bad it was that this man injured women in his care. The hypocrisy of the culture is not confronted. Then let's say you close him down. Then Planned Parenthood will finance the building of a shiny new state of the art facility (like they have done a few times recently, like in San Antonio) that has hospital admitting privileges and best practices and a doctor who has no pockmarks on his record. Then what do you do? You already taught the culture that it's OK to murder babies if someone checks all the boxes; when they check all the boxes, how do you go back on what you said before? God doesn't honor hypocrisy. God is not a respecter of persons according to age.
That's why your strategy is counterproductive. We don't treat other sins that way. You don't say "it's OK to rape as long as you use a condom and are within 300 feet of a hospital".
To say it's a treadmill, to say treadmills don't lead anywhere, is a pragmatic criticism.
Just answering you on your own grounds there.
And if the US was dominated by Christian conservatives, many things would be different. But you can only work with what you've got.
Whole states are dominated by "Christian conservatives". What we've got is a country full of people lulled to sleep. Farming out Christians' responsibility to love their neighbor to third party professionals doesn't improve matters. It makes them worse.
"Demanding" the abolition of abortion doesn't make it happen.
It does when 50 million people refuse to pay their taxes until abortion is abolished.
i) To begin with, if a majority of Americans want abortion, a Christian minority can't stop it. We can protest. We can do things to limit the evil.
So you're saying we ought to protest? Preach the Gospel? Call sin sin? Like what abolitionists do?
ii) To the extent that we work within the democratic process, then yes, the electorate does matter
Of course it matters, but how we respond to the electorate's current position is the question.
The legislative process is not the only venue. There are ways to influence the culture.
Agreed there, but that weakens the rest of what you've said.
Rhology
Delete"But neither you nor I know that abortion is on that list. People used to say Negro slavery was on that list."
What makes you think that's even analogous?
i) It took a civil war to effectively end slavery.
ii) It also took a Constitutional amendment to formally end slavery. Yet you keep expressing your cynicism about the legislative process. Well, that's how slavery was abolished. First by war, then by law.
iii) What makes you think abortion is analogous to abolition rather than Prohibition or the "war on drugs"?
Most Americans never owned slaves. They didn't have a personal stake in the "institution." It was an upper-class thing.
By contrast, many single women (as well as single men who impregnate them) feel they do have a personal stake in access to abortion. And many of them are voters.
"We can't know the latter, so might as well do what the Scripture says and correct oppression…"
You can't just "correct" oppression by fiat. The Roman Empire was very depraved. But the Apostles weren't abolitionists. That wasn't feasible in the 1C.
"That's precisely my point. Since that happens with regularity, we shouldn't waste time with a strictly legislative approach to the sin of abortion."
i) You're shifting ground. You asked me to give examples where more expansive measures to restrict abortion have been tried in the past. When I give examples, you say that proves your point.
No it doesn't. You implied that more expansive efforts haven't been tried in the past. I cited examples to the contrary.
ii) How do you proposed to "abolish" abortion if not by law?
"You're speculating here."
No I'm not. Take the Human Life Amendment. A Constitutional amendment to abolish abortion nationwide (with maybe a few exceptions). But it always stalls in Congress for lack of votes.
"The resources we used to try to sway corrupt lawmakers we could have been putting into confronting the culture with its sin and calling it to repent and believe."
Like what? Picketing abortion clinics? Has that abolished abortion?
Campus ministry? Campus ministries are being booted off campus.
"Besides, what is needed is not 'more expansive laws' but actual recognition of sin and abolition of sin thru the Gospel."
So your objective is not to outlaw abortion? Then what does the "abolitionist" rhetoric mean? A honor system? Self-policing?
"Yes. It included the exceptions for rape and incest. It was actually a bad thing b/c it doesn't call abortion sin."
So you'd rather have more babies die in the absence of the Hyde Amendment because it doesn't call abortion "sin."
That's the reductio ad absurdum of the ideological purist. On the one hand, an abolitionist is too pure for the prolife movement. That's way too compromising. Nothing short of "demanding" the total abolition of abortion will do.
On the other hand, he's so uncompromising that saving babies is not his primary concern. Sacrifice babies in the short-term for the hoped-for abolition in the long-term.
"Seriously, how hard is it for someone who is about to murder their baby to claim they were raped?"
What makes you think that's not an insurmountable obstacle for the abolitionist movement? What makes you think you can abolish rape/incest exceptions? What makes you think that's a realistic prospect?
"And it didn't actually save any babies…"
And you know that…how?
"Prove it saved some babies, and let's talk."
Talk about what?
"How do we know what we can get?"
Because we have pressed for more and failed. Like the Human Life Amendment.
Or attempts to require parental notification, which get watered down with judicial pass clauses.
More expansive efforts have been tried before. Now, it's fine with me if every two years a member of Congress reintroduces the Human Life Amendment.
Rhology
Delete"You're not actually interacting with my points. I've explained the ways in which these laws actually do evil…"
I specifically responded to your points.
"and the 'mitigation of evil' is always the excuse."
You give no reason I why should accept your tendentious, counterintuitive assertion.
"1) How do you know that? 2) They SHOULD."
One of your habits, which is either sloppy or intellectually dishonest, is to comment on my sentences in isolation, ignoring the supporting argument that follows.
"One wonders then why God bothered giving the Law."
Once again, Alan, you're arguing in bad faith.
The question at issue isn't obedience to a divine command, but obedience to a civil magistrate.
If a private citizen is acting on a divine command, then he's not obeying the civil magistrate (except in the generic sense that gov't is ordained by God). At best, that would be a coincidence, where the order of a civil magistrate happens to correspond to a divine command.
"That's one pragmatic reason, I suppose, for those who don't fear God."
No, Alan, it's not "pragmatic." What makes civil authority authoritative is law. That's what distinguishes a civil magistrate from a private citizen–or military dictator.
"I'm speaking of what is the right action to take in a given situation."
Which doesn't distinguish a civil magistrate from a private citizen. If, however, you talk about a civil magistrate issuing orders, that's a legal exercise. An exercise of the authority conferred on him by law.
That's different that "what is the right action to take in a given situation."
"And I'm pointing out the distinction between his legal authority and what is right, whereas you are clouding that issue."
You cloud the issue when you say he has the authority to issue unlawful commands.
"You're equivocating here, though."
No, Alan, that would be you.
"What I'm saying is that he should do the right thing and try to make it happen."
Alan, the only authority he has to order soldiers around is his presidential authority. His official authority. His legal authority. He doesn't have the presidential authority to break the law.
You keep contradicting yourself. You think that in his capacity as president, with the powers vested in him by virtue of his office, he should "do the right thing."
If "doing the right thing" is against the law, then he can't break the law in his official capacity as president.
He can't simultaneously commit civil disobedience and issue lawless executive decrees.
He can act like a private citizen. He can commit civil disobedience. But he doesn't have the authority to order soldiers to break the law. He doesn't have the authority to order soldiers to commit civil disobedience. He only has authority over the military insofar as he's acting within the law. His presidential powers are conferred by law and circumscribed by law. He's not a military dictator.
If "doing the right thing" is against the law, then he can't break the law in his official capacity as president.
DeleteHe can't simultaneously commit civil disobedience and issue lawless executive decrees.
Tell that to Barry Soetoro.
Rhology "1) Incrementalist strategies."
DeleteSo what?
"2) There are people who are paid a lot of money to be pro-life leaders and attorneys and such. I'm pretty sure they've thought of all that before. But they're not doing them, and there's a reason."
i) So if we're not doing it, we shouldn't even try. That contradicts your argument for abolitionism.
You keep saying we don't know what's effective unless and until we do it. Be consistent.
ii) It's not as if your tactics haven't been tried before. Demonstrators have picketed abortion clinics for decades. That hasn't ended abortion. Christian bioethicists have been making the prolife case for decades. That hasn't ended abortion. Evangelism has been happening for centuries.
Alternative approaches to opposing abortion, outside the legislative process, have been tried and failed–if you define "failure" any anything short of total abolition. Indeed, these tactics haven't come anywhere close to that objective.
So your objections are circular. They rebound on your own position.
"Do you have some sort of evidence that we intimidate them and beat them up, slash their tires, menace them at home, threaten their families? Please. Speaking of demagoguery..."
Your comment is demagogical.
"Then let me have the last word and let the reader judge."
How does letting the reader judge mean you get the last word?
"No, I dismiss it b/c it's not original…"
You mean there have been criminal state and Federal investigations of what I mentioned? Or that the idea is not original?
"and b/c it's been on the table all this time…"
You're equivocating. What has been on the table? Knowledge of cover-ups?
The question at issue is taking it to the next level.
"You are pushing back against abolition…"
The rhetoric of abolition doesn't abolish abortion.
"…and your alternative is these weaksauce remedies."
Criminal investigations would be very aggressive strategies. Much stronger than "weaksauce remedies" like picketing abortion clinics
"Then the media will make a big deal out of them like they did about Gosnell, and everyone will shake their heads."
There's a cumulative effect on public opinion the more investigations of wrongdoing you have.
"Meanwhile, 'respectable' aborticians will go about their business murdering babies quietly"
Abortionists go about their business as usual all the while AHA demands its abolition.
Cont. "When you could have been talking about how the law is unjust that allows humans to be slaughtered, you talked about how bad it was that this man injured women in his care. The hypocrisy of the culture is not confronted."
DeleteOnce again, that goes to a fault-line in your position. So it's really not about saving babies. It's really about ideological purity.
"Then let's say you close him down. Then Planned Parenthood will finance the building of a shiny new state of the art facility…"
Alan, Planned Parenthood is a franchise. If there's a pattern of covering up illegality (i.e. refusing to report statuary rape allegations to the authorities), then the entire corporation is legally liable, not just this or that clinic.
Likewise, enough malpractice suits can spike insurance premiums on doctors in general who perform abortion.
"You already taught the culture that it's OK to murder babies if someone checks all the boxes; when they check all the boxes, how do you go back on what you said before? "
That's part of your schtick, Alan. Supposedly the prolife movement is telling people it's "OK" to murder babies.
Laws which restrict or outlaw abortion don't prevent us from saying abortion is murder. Whether or not that's written into law doesn't prevent me from saying abortion is murder.
What is your priority, Alan? To save babies? Or is it better that more babies die unless the law says "murder"?
If laws target doctors who perform abortion, or target Planned Parenthood, rather than targeting the mother, do you oppose those laws even if they save babies who would otherwise die?
You're falling into the classic definition of a fanatic who's forgotten his aim, but redoubles his efforts to get there.
"God doesn't honor hypocrisy. God is not a respecter of persons according to age."
What do you mean by that, Alan? Is this about saving babies, or cosmic justice? Are you saying that unless every party to the abortion is legally targeted, you don't care how many babies are saved by that law. You'd still oppose it?
Alan, it's not as if the guilty will escape in the long run. Leave that to eschatological justice.
"That's why your strategy is counterproductive. We don't treat other sins that way."
Alan, not every sin is a crime.
"It does when 50 million people refuse to pay their taxes until abortion is abolished."
And "demanding" that 50 million Americans refuse to pay their taxes doesn't make it happen.
Rhology
Delete"Tell that to Barry Soetoro."
Alan, you're incorrigible. You can't resist the impulse to twist my words to gain polemic advantage.
In context, the question at issue isn't whether the Chief Executive is technically able to issue lawless orders, but whether his subordinates are obligated to carry those out.
One of your problems is that you think that because your cause is just, it's okay for you to misrepresent your opponent. Win the debate by any means necessary, however dishonest, because the righteousness of your cause suspends your duty to be fair and accurate.
That's not something I will tolerate on my blog. Since you refuse to conduct yourself as a honorable opponent, further comments will be deleted.
..... I don't have time to waste on correcting willful distortions or diversions......
ReplyDeleteI don't believe you have wasted your time. Thanks.
"Tell that to Barry Soetoro."
ReplyDeleteI read through both threads and comboxes, and thought this was one of the best exchanges I've seen in awhile. I've liked and read Rho for quite some time (before I knew about T-blogue actually), and these days T-blogue is typically daily reading for me.
All this is to say I think it's too bad the conversation ended up this way. Just sad.
I had wanted to ask Rho a question given his quote above, but given the restriction in the final comment above I won't ask it.