Pages

Sunday, November 09, 2014

Reducing abortion


i) This post is in reference to "abolitionists" who regard any prolife legislation that falls short of demanding total prohibition as a moral compromise. In context, I'm referring to a situation in which a Christian lawmaker proposes less sweeping legislation because that's all that will pass in Congress or a state legislature–with a veto proof margin, if necessary.

ii) Are laws that merely reduce abortion, or aim to reduce abortion, morally compromised? On the face of it, the answer is no. I daresay there's hardly any law that eliminates the crime it prohibits. What lawmaker expects his law to eradicate the crime in question? Although he might wish that to be the case, the law is not a failure if merely reduces rather than eliminates the crime it bans.

Take laws against murder. Outlawing murder don't eliminate murder. Rather, their function is twofold: (a) to deter murder, and (b) to punish murder when it occurs. A law against murder isn't morally compromised because it merely reduces the rate of murder. That's all the law can do. It can't prevent people from committing murder. 

To say that laws which merely reduce the incidence of abortion are morally compromised is to say that any law which merely reduces the incidence of some crime is morally compromised. But if that's where we set the bar, then we should abolish every law. 

iii) Moreover, there are situations in which it's permissible to allow wrongdoing which you could prevent. Take D.U.I. Drunk drivers are dangerous and culpable. It's wrong to endanger pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers by driving under the influence. That's why it's against the law.

Consequently, some police think that justifies random checkpoints. By setting up random checkpoints, they nab some drunk drivers. That's a way of enforcing the law. A way of making the law more effective. 

Yet random checkpoints are very controversial because they treat every driver as a suspect, without probable cause. You can support D.U.I laws, but oppose random checkpoints. There are tradeoffs in a free society. Even if a police state is safer (which is disputable), freedom is a value, too. All things being equal, there's the right to be left alone.

iv) I'd also like to make a point about abortion exceptions. Are these a moral compromise? As I've already pointed out, it's not morally compromising if a lawmaker fails to do more than he was able to do.

But there's another distinction. There are Christians who think the rape/incest/life-of-the-mother exceptions are principled exception. Not just concessions to political reality, but something that laws against abortion ought to exempt. Likewise, there are Christians who reject the rape/incest exception, but think the life-of-the-mother is a morally permissible exception in its own right. That's not an exception to get the bill passed and signed into law. Rather, that exception should be in the bill even if there were the votes to ban abortion in toto.

Now, you can disagree with them. I myself disagree with them. But you can't attack it because it's pragmatic, for proponents who take this view don't justify it on pragmatic grounds. Rather, they regard this as a matter of principle. Therefore, you have to attack the principle. But that's a different argument.

v) Finally, there's a difference between what we think is wrong, and what we should outlaw. I think abortion to save the life of the mother is wrong. That doesn't mean I necessary think it should be outlawed. It's dubious to think we should legislate every hard case in ethics. Sometime we have to give individuals the freedom to be wrong. Are you going to punish someone for making a tough call? 

To take a comparison: suppose you have a family member on life support who's been declared brain dead. If you take him off life support, he may die. Indeed, that's the likely outcome. And, for all you know, it's possible that he will miraculously regain consciousness in 5 years. 

Pulling the plug (in that situation) is an agonizing decision. Suppose I think it's wrong for you to pull the plug (in that situation). Does that mean I should criminalize your decision? Even if you made the wrong call, should that be a felony? 

It isn't our responsibility to craft laws that achieve perfect justice in this life. We couldn't achieve that objective even if we tried. Ultimately, the day of judgment will right the scales of justice. The basic function of law is to establish a moral floor, not a moral ceiling. 

25 comments:

  1. Hello Steve, I must say that I'm surprised (not in a positive or negative way) by your posts that are critical of AHA. I was under the impression that you and the triablogue guys are 100% supportive of AHA's methods and activities. Was I mistaken? Have you changed your mind? Am I missing something here? Thanks in advance for any explanation that you may provide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the past I offered a qualified defense of AHA in response to some of its critics. I've always had some reservations, which I expressed at the time, but I was interacting specific criticisms, a number of which I thought were invalid. You have some people who attack AHA because they dislike it on other grounds.

      In addition, it seems to me, although I could be wrong about this, that AHA has stepped up some of its rhetoric. It's gotten worse in areas I already had misgivings about. At least that's my impression. But maybe it was always that way.

      Finally, there seem to be some alarming developments. Assuming this report is basically correct, AHA needs to conduct background checks on its members, to screen out the criminal element:

      http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/11/burleson_man_who_tried_to_blow.php

      It's striking that even though Alan Maricle left a comment on that article, he didn't refute the charge that AHA includes convicted church arsonists.

      Perhaps the article is inaccurate. But, if so, I'd expect Alan to correct it. Perhaps he's not in a position to know if the allegation is correct. But that, of itself, is problematic.

      Delete
    2. Steve, seriously, why in the world would CHRISTIANS (ie, abolitionists) want to "screen" our members so that we exclude convicted felons ****WHO HAVE REPENTED OF THEIR SINS AND HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING JESUS AS LORD AND SAVIOR****?

      This comment is way off. Shockingly way off. What in the world are you talking about, man?

      Delete
    3. Alan,

      Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt for purposes of church membership or Christian fellowship, that isn't a license to be gullible or foolhardy.

      If a convicted embezzler said he got religion in prison, would you make him the church treasurer? If a convicted pedophile said he got religion in prison, would you make him the youth minister?

      Up to a point, giving a person a second chance can be commendable, but it depends on the job. It's not commendable to put yourself (or others) in a position to be conned.

      To allow convicted terrorists to join AHA makes AHA a magnet for the most unstable and dangerous individuals. Drifters who are drawn to radical movements. You might as well carry around a live grenade with a loose pin in your pocket. It's an explosion just waiting to happen.

      It will only take one incident by a "former" terrorist to destroy AHA overnight. That's a reckless gamble.

      Delete
    4. Is that going to be the game plan Steve? Hire someone to put on an AHA symbol and pay them to do something wicked and get caught so that you can keep the church culture puke-warm about child-sacrifice? Go and do what you must do.

      Delete
    5. Actually, it's a setup of your own devising.

      Look, I don't have a stake in the reputation or credibility of AHA. It's yours to torch.

      Delete
    6. Say a former child molester has truly repented and put his trust in Christ alone. Nevertheless, it wouldn't necessarily be wise to have him in charge of teaching the Sunday school kids. Not only for the kids' sake, but also for his own sake, since it might cause him to be tempted to molest children again.

      Similarly, if it's true AHA is so radical, and if it's true there are ex-convicted arsonists at AHA, even if they are genuine Christians, then not only would it put AHA members and AHA as an organization at risk but it could potentially put the Christian who was a former arsonist at risk of being tempted to commit arson again.

      Delete
    7. You guys. God actually changes people. He transforms them. He gives them new hearts and enables them to walk in the light as children of light.

      What precisely is it about Ragon's attempt at church building arson that makes you think it's unwise to count him a brother in the service of the King? Perhaps you think abolition is some sort of special calling; you're mistaken about that. Do you think that abolitionists sit around and play with matches when we're not out sharing the Gospel? That we all go out on the street with a Molotov cocktail in our back pockets?

      Since we're all suddenly so concerned with whether Ragon might relapse into his former evil ways, maybe we should tell him to stay away from any and all church buildings! That makes a lot more sense than what you are suggesting, because there's an actual logical connection. He wanted to burn a church building, therefore to keep the name of Christ from possibly being besmirched, we should tell him he's not welcome at any church building ever again. It's for his own good, as well as everyone else's good. I mean, you never know when he might light the place on fire!

      AHA is not an organisation. Abolition is a movement, an ideology. Individual abolitionist societies and churches are organisations. If an abolitionist sins, we rebuke them and seek their repentance and restoration. There are former arsonists, former drug dealers, former adulterers, former pr0n addicts, former cheaters and liars and atheists and blasphemers within the ranks of abolition. Why? Because we are all part of the church of Jesus Christ.

      This comment about my dear brother Jered Ragon reflects the unbiblical way that colors all of your thinking about AHA that you have expressed this past week. You are operating according to worldly wisdom. You ought to operate according to biblical, godly wisdom, and deal with sin the way the Bible says to - immediately. You also ought to deal with former sinNERS the way the Bible says to - treat them like they're actually new creations. You're not doing that. You're operating (or more precisely, recommending that we operate) according to fear and the "art of the possible". We will not be unfaithful to our Lord, however.

      Look, Steve, brother, I can't even tell you how much I've learned from you. You have corrected me in many ways of bad thinking and I truly appreciate your work in so many areas, sharpening brethren. I hope you will take the opportunity to receive sharpening from me in this.

      Delete
    8. Rhology

      "You guys. God actually changes people. He transforms them. He gives them new hearts and enables them to walk in the light as children of light."

      Burning a straw man. That's not the issue.

      It's a question of prudence. A question of what we're in a position to know. Not what you'd like to believe about someone.

      Credulity is not a Christian duty or virtue. Just taking someone's word for something is not advisable. When I'm my own character-witness, that's hardly impartial.

      For instance, the charismatic movement has many con men who claim to be saved, sanctified, and filled with the Holy Ghost. They go into religion because it gives them better cover.

      "What precisely is it about Ragon's attempt at church building arson that makes you think it's unwise to count him a brother in the service of the King?"

      The very fact that you ask that question shows how you've lost perspective. The Establishment already tries to classify anti-abortion activism as "Christian terrorism." You're playing right into the hands of your enemies. And if the gov't wanted to frame AHA, you've made it far more plausible.

      Moreover, this isn't just a question of image. You are tempting the reality.

      "Do you think that abolitionists sit around and play with matches when we're not out sharing the Gospel? That we all go out on the street with a Molotov cocktail in our back pockets?"

      You try to deflect the issue through hyperbole. Keep in mind, though, that this isn't just a comparison. This involves bringing actual known terrorists into your ranks.

      "Since we're all suddenly so concerned with whether Ragon might relapse into his former evil ways…"

      Why do you tut-tut that legitimate, rational concern?

      "That makes a lot more sense than what you are suggesting…"

      What I'm suggesting is that putting someone with a track-record of violent "radical Christian activism" back in the field is asking for trouble.

      "AHA is not an organisation. Abolition is a movement, an ideology. Individual abolitionist societies and churches are organizations."

      That elusive distinction makes it harder for you to claim that your critics misrepresent AHA. If it's not an organization, then it lacks official spokesmen who can say what it truly represents. No one leader or set of people are in a position to speak for the movement. That also means you will lose control of the message.

      Delete
    9. cont. "If an abolitionist sins, we rebuke them and seek their repentance and restoration."

      And return them to whatever they were doing before?

      "Because we are all part of the church of Jesus Christ."

      You're accepting whatever a person says about himself at face value.

      "This comment about my dear brother Jered Ragon reflects the unbiblical way that colors all of your thinking about AHA that you have expressed this past week. You are operating according to worldly wisdom."

      Yes, that's your standard trope. An intellectual shortcut.

      Actually, prudence is a key ingredient of Biblical wisdom. You need to brush up on Proverbs.

      You also need to brush up on the Biblical doctrine of sin. Appearances are deceptive.

      At the time of his arrest, Ragon was a "self-described 'radical Christian activist' who told police that he was in a group that believed society had become too focused on self-improvement and self-gratification and had lost focus on the glorification of God."
      http://www.star-telegram.com/2008/06/03/680468/3-sentenced-in-failed-burleson.html

      So what does he do after he's released from prison? He joins a movement of radical Christian activists! Hmm. See a pattern? He hasn't changed. His mentality is the same. He's going back to doing what he was before. That's what he's drawn to.

      This isn't just a question of how the church should minister to felons, but returning felons to the same type of activity they were convicted of in the first place.

      This isn't my problem. It's a problem for AHA. The fact that you and others defend this folly, oblivious to the evident danger, shows how isolated AHA is becoming. When you spend most of your time living with, working with, and fellowshipping with members of the same movement, it disarms critical discernment. Fosters a dualistic outlook, where you cast yourself in the noble role of the righteous remnant. No Christians outside your movement are good enough. They are too impure, too worldly. Indeed, they're not even real Christians. Ordinary Christian virtues are not enough. Only heroic service will suffice.

      Delete
    10. Prudence... what you've said has a lot more to do with whether he ought to go to a church building than whether he ought to do the work of abolition.


      The Establishment already tries to classify anti-abortion activism as "Christian terrorism."

      And they're wrong.
      And you're moving the goalposts. First it was "Ragon might relapse". Now it's "What if people say 'What if Ragon relapses?'"


      You're playing right into the hands of your enemies

      You're just being unnecessarily melodramatic.
      Plus, Peter thought the Cross of Christ played right into the devil's hands. But who was Peter in fact speaking for? The devil. This is another example of you dealing according to worldly, not godly, wisdom.


      You are tempting the reality.

      But how?


      This involves bringing actual known terrorists into your ranks.

      Like Saul of Tarsus.


      What I'm suggesting is that putting someone with a track-record of violent "radical Christian activism" back in the field

      I have no idea what "back in the field" means. I suppose he ought to stay home and keep quiet and not bother anyone with the Gospel outside the walls of his house. Not his church building, because we've already established he can't go to a church building, b/c he might burn it down.
      Why "back"? Church arsonists are not building the kingdom of God. He's demonstrating REPENTANCE thru his life right now, not "going back" to where he was.


      That elusive distinction makes it harder for you to claim that your critics misrepresent AHA.

      In theory, but in practice such has not yet been the case.
      You're not in a position to say that one way or the other, b/c you don't really understand the ideology that well. No offense intended; I'm just stating a fact. Whereas I have spent many hundreds of hours helping to formulate and defend it.


      If it's not an organization, then it lacks official spokesmen who can say what it truly represents

      1) I don't agree. What's your argument?
      2) We have an ideology. The ideology doesn't need an organisation.
      3) There are lots of organisations that adhere to the ideology, so let them/us speak for it. And that's in fact what happens.
      4) And yet the societies are teaming up in a coalition, and so that also should help allay your concern here.


      And return them to whatever they were doing before?

      Sorry, what do you mean? Return them to building the kingdom of God and sharing the Gospel with people? Ideally, yes. The road back to obedience is paved with... obedience. That's not the ONLY thing, but it's one thing.


      You're accepting whatever a person says about himself at face value.

      You don't have any idea how well I know this man and how well others whom I know know him. Please don't speak presumptuously about things about which you are actually ignorant.


      prudence is a key ingredient of Biblical wisdom. You need to brush up on Proverbs.

      Yep. Godly prudence, not the kind you've been presenting here.


      You also need to brush up on the Biblical doctrine of sin. Appearances are deceptive.

      Thank you for the helpful reminder that sin exists.
      When's the last time someone spit their sinful hatred of God in your face while you were sharing the Gospel with them, Steve?

      Delete

    11. At the time of his arrest, Ragon was a "self-described 'radical Christian activist'

      You of all people should know that tons of people don't know what the word "Christian" means.
      Maybe you should talk to Ragon before you ignorantly make false judgments about him, yeah? See what he says about his former life, yeah?


      So what does he do after he's released from prison? He joins a movement of radical Christian activists! Hmm. See a pattern? He hasn't changed.

      This is so ridiculous. So absurdly ridiculous. You're looking like a fool right now.
      He went from attempted arson to a bunch of people who explicitly eschew violence. What are you even talking about, Steve?


      This isn't just a question of how the church should minister to felons, but returning felons to the same type of activity they were convicted of in the first place.

      Nobody has handed Ragon a Molotov cocktail and dared him NOT to burn down a church building, I promise. The man is married with three small children. What is wrong with you?


      This isn't my problem. It's a problem for AHA

      It exists in the imagination of people who hate Jesus, and also in your mind. It's just weird to see you say the same things as radical atheists and pro-aborts.


      oblivious to the evident danger,

      You assert there's danger, but you give no reason to think there actually is any.


      where you cast yourself in the noble role of the righteous remnant. No Christians outside your movement are good enough. They are too impure, too worldly. Indeed, they're not even real Christians. Ordinary Christian virtues are not enough. Only heroic service will suffice.

      Your words, not mine.
      Let the reader take note of how fairly you've dealt with this smaller topic when they consider how fair you've been with AHA in a more general sense this week.

      Delete
    12. A few quick points:

      "And they're wrong."

      If you invite convicted terrorists into your ranks, you're inviting an initially scurrilous charge to come true.

      "And you're moving the goalposts. First it was…"

      Don't be simplistic. It was never just one thing. There are multiple problems–from bad to worse.

      "Like Saul of Tarsus."

      To begin with, Saul was not a terrorist. He was acting in an official capacity.

      More to the point, he had a divine commission. And he spent the rest of his life in Christian ministry. We know how that story ends. We know what he actually did with his life.

      "I suppose he ought to stay home and keep quiet and not bother anyone with the Gospel outside the walls of his house."

      This is one of the problems with AHA. Your scorn for ordinary Christians who lead quiet, unassuming lives as faithful fathers and mothers, husbands and wives.

      "Not his church building, because we've already established he can't go to a church building, b/c he might burn it down."

      Don't impute to me what another commenter said. That's a shifty tactic.

      "He's demonstrating REPENTANCE thru his life right now"

      There are lots of different ways to demonstrate repentance. Moreover, it's best to avoid ostentatious demonstrations of repentance

      "You're not in a position to say that one way or the other, b/c you don't really understand the ideology that well. No offense intended; I'm just stating a fact. Whereas I have spent many hundreds of hours helping to formulate and defend it."

      But if it's not an organization, it has no official ideology. You play this shell game. But if it's not an organization, then you're in no more or less of a position to speak on behalf of the movement than any other member.

      "You don't have any idea how well I know this man and how well others whom I know know him. Please don't speak presumptuously about things about which you are actually ignorant."

      That's ironic given how spiritually prideful you are in presuming to know another man's heart.

      "When's the last time someone spit their sinful hatred of God in your face while you were sharing the Gospel with them, Steve?"

      That's not the first time you've said something like that to me. And that's another one of your problems.

      It's good to suffer for righteousness' sake. It's not good to boast about suffering for righteousness' sake. You're turning hostile reaction to your activism into bragging rights. You're using that as a confirmation to show how righteous you are. That's a recipe for spiritual self-deception.

      Delete
    13. Rhology
      
"Maybe you should talk to Ragon before you ignorantly make false judgments about him, yeah?"

      Maybe you shouldn't be so trusting.

      "You're looking like a fool right now."

      Only from the crooked sight-lines of an AHA partisan.

      "He went from attempted arson to a bunch of people who explicitly eschew violence. What are you even talking about, Steve?"

      By accepting convicted terrorists into AHA, you are radicalizing the movement.

      "You assert there's danger, but you give no reason to think there actually is any."

      Should a recovering drug addict be a pharmacist?

      Delete
    14. If you invite convicted terrorists into your ranks, you're inviting an initially scurrilous charge to come true.

      Nah.
      I'm more interested in not sinning against God or other Christians, and in walking by faith in Jesus who forgives sinners.
      This objection would have prevented Saul of Tarsus from joining in any kingdom work of any kind.


      To begin with, Saul was not a terrorist. He was acting in an official capacity.

      Please. He went from house to house dragging Christians off to be slaughtered.
      Let's be clear here - the Saul example breaks your objection's back.


      More to the point, he had a divine commission

      So do Christians, to build the kingdom of God and preach the Gospel and stuff.


      And he spent the rest of his life in Christian ministry. We know how that story ends

      Nobody knew how his story would end two weeks after he got saved.


      Your scorn for ordinary Christians who lead quiet, unassuming lives as faithful fathers and mothers, husbands and wives.

      "Scorn" is your word, not mine. I'm glad we had this talk, if for no other reason than to expose your ignorant prejudice.
      There are more commands in the NT than just living quiet lives and never talking to people about the Gospel or being leaven in the culture. There are commands against such, such as "be salt and light" and "don't cover your light under a bushel", etc.


      Don't impute to me what another commenter said. That's a shifty tactic.

      You've quite misunderstood. I'm saying that since he tried to burn down a church building, your argument would prevent him from going back to a church building.


      There are lots of different ways to demonstrate repentance. Moreover, it's best to avoid ostentatious demonstrations of repentance

      Ostentatious demonstrations? You don't know this man, Steve.
      Stop saying sinful things.


      But if it's not an organization, it has no official ideology

      Shrug. You can assert such. Doesn't make it true by your fiat.


      then you're in no more or less of a position to speak on behalf of the movement than any other member.

      If I know the ideology better, I am.
      If others think that I am a voice to listen to, I am. If they think that I say things that are worth paying attention to, I have persuasive influence.


      That's ironic given how spiritually prideful you are in presuming to know another man's heart.

      I have no idea what you're talking about.


      "When's the last time someone spit their sinful hatred of God in your face while you were sharing the Gospel with them, Steve?"

      That's not the first time you've said something like that to me. And that's another one of your problems.


      Should I understand your answer to be "not anytime recently"?


      It's not good to boast about suffering for righteousness' sake.

      True enough.


      You're turning hostile reaction to your activism into bragging rights

      May God protect me from such. I truly think you are mistaken.


      You're using that as a confirmation to show how righteous you are.

      1) Again, may God protect me from such. I truly think you are mistaken.
      2) Your accusation strikes against the Apostle Paul, again. 2 Corinthians 11.


      "Maybe you should talk to Ragon before you ignorantly make false judgments about him, yeah?"

      Maybe you shouldn't be so trusting.


      Maybe you should talk to Ragon before you ignorantly make false judgments about him, yeah?


      By accepting convicted terrorists into AHA, you are radicalizing the movement.

      REPENTANT ones. What's your evidence that Ragon has had any such effect?
      Right, you don't have any. I honestly have no idea what you're getting at.


      Should a recovering drug addict be a pharmacist?

      Should someone who burned down a church building go near a church building?
      OOORRRRR maybe you're trading on a disanalogy.

      Delete
    15. Alan, among other things you're conveniently ignoring the miraculous attestation of Paul's mission, viz. he's blinded until God tells Ananias in a vision to restore his sight by laying hands on him–as well as Pauline miracles in Acts. There's no epistemic parity in your comparison.

      Delete
    16. Once again, this isn't my problem. It's your high-stakes gamble, not mine. AHA has everything to lose if it bets on the wrong man (i.e. allowing convicted terrorists to join the movement), and that blows up in its face.

      Delete
    17. One more thing: you're confused about the argument. The question at issue isn't will a church arsonist become a repeat offender by burning down more churches. The question at issue is terrorism, not any particular method thereof.

      Delete
    18. among other things you're conveniently ignoring the miraculous attestation of Paul's mission

      But other people couldn't know that. You still haven't gotten anywhere. Paul saw the vision; the other Christians didn't.


      Once again, this isn't my problem. It's your high-stakes gamble, not mine

      True, it's not your problem. Because it's not a problem.


      AHA has everything to lose if it bets on the wrong man

      1) "AHA" is not a thing. I keep telling you that you could stand to learn here, if you want to accurately critique.
      2) We bet on Jesus, not on Jered Ragon.


      The question at issue is terrorism, not any particular method thereof.

      At least we now also know that you think of some of abolitionists' activities as terrorism. Everyone should now feel even more secure in ignoring your assessment of abolition.

      Delete
    19. "But other people couldn't know that. You still haven't gotten anywhere. Paul saw the vision; the other Christians didn't."

      I didn't refer to his vision. I referred to the vision of Ananias, as well as the public miracles of Paul (in Acts).

      Are you intentionally misrepresenting the argument?

      "We bet on Jesus, not on Jered Ragon."

      i) That's such a shallow remark. You yourself keep vouching for him.

      ii) Moreover, my warning was never confined to one person. As I pointed out, AHA's open-door policy is makes it a drawing card for terrorists.

      "At least we now also know that you think of some of abolitionists' activities as terrorism."

      Yet another example of why you disqualify yourself from commenting on this blog. You are so wrapped up in your attachment to AHA that you just can't bring yourself to honestly represent what critics say.

      i) I didn't accuse AHA of engaging in terrorism. I was responding to you on your own terms. You impute to me an argument I didn't make in the first place, viz. a convicted church arsonist should never step inside another church.

      That was never the level of the comparison. It wasn't "arsonists only commit arson" but "terrorists commit terrorism."

      Burning down a church is just one type of terrorism. It's not as if terrorists only commit arson.

      ii) Furthermore, I didn't say that, as a matter of fact, some AHA activities constitute terrorism. Rather, I said you're taking a gratuitous risk by admitting convicted terrorists into your ranks.

      Since you chronically argue in bad faith, don't come back–ever.

      "Everyone should now feel even more secure in ignoring your assessment of abolition."

      Alan, the only people who feel that way are members of AHA. You're really not committed to ending abortion. Rather, your committed to your "movement." That's become your defining identity. Your "brothers" in the movement.

      You're angling for a pretext to be dismiss constructive criticism by pretending that I said or implied something which I didn't, then feigning disapproval. You're pretty far gone, sad to say.

      Delete
    20. Steve, I'm really confused here and hope you can help.

      I used to be a thief. When will I be able to go back into a store to get diapers for my child?

      I used to be a sex addict, an adulterer & a cheater. When can I start speaking with women other than my wife?

      I used to be a satanist. When do I get the right to publicly renounce and work against what I once worked for?

      When I was first born again, I was totally convinced by, what I can only assume from your comments here, a couple of 'con men", that my old self was dead and Christ had raised a new one in his place. When I read the Scriptures I saw Paul talk about men JUST LIKE ME, and then he said, "but that is what some of you WERE..." I thought I was not only a new creation but supposed to actually act like one. I thought I was supposed to go back out into the world and tell them about what Christ did for me on the cross and how He did it for them too. I thought I was supposed to demonstrate to the world what this whole "new creation" thing looks like. When I read your words, I can only see myself as the old evil man.

      Which one is it Steve, am I still a sinner or a saint?

      Delete
    21. It's a question of prudence.

      i) A former sex addict shouldn't be witnessing to streetwalkers or going into strip joints to evangelize the clientele.

      A recovering alcoholic shouldn't be a bartender.

      A compulsive gambler who got religion shouldn't return to the casino for lunch.

      ii) A man with a background in terrorism shouldn't be an agitator. Given his background, that's an enticement. The fact that he gravitated to terrorism in the first place, and is now returning to radical activism, reflects an unhealthy appetite.

      He needs to learn how to be an ordinary, garden-variety Christian. Hang out with regular Christians. Not get caught up in a new, edgy cause.

      iii) Proving his repentance through ostentatious demonstrations is suspect.

      iv) There's lots of Christian work that needs to be done. Neglected work. Thankless work. Boring work.

      v) Not only is it bad for the individual, it's bad for the "movement." It's sending a signal to restless malcontents to infiltrate the movement and take it over–or use it to their own ends.

      vi) A Christian is both saint and sinner. Indeed, that's a classic Protestant motto.

      Delete
  2. "the life-of-the-mother is a morally permissible exception in its own right" … "I myself disagree with them.".

    Steve, could you clarify this? For example, if there is a clear and present danger to the mother (e.g. risk of internal haemorrhaging), I think it's a good thing for doctors to decide that baby needs to come out NOW, even if baby ends up dying as a side effect. But then that is different to aborting baby for being an inconvenience or health-risk, or for baby's death to be an intentional rather than consequential effect of the surgery.

    This might simply be my ignorance of what is normally covered in a "life of the mother" exception.

    That said, I very much agree with you that it is better to have restricted abortion with some exceptions we think are less-than-good, than unrestricted abortion. One also needs to be realistic about the role of Law in such situations. Law models good priorities and implements checks on evil; it does not in and of itself bring about good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Either the baby is viable or not. If the baby isn't viable, and the mother dies, the baby dies. It's better to save one than lose both. Even if medical intervention has the side-effect of killing the baby, that's justifiable in this situation. Death is unavoidable, but you can prevent two deaths.

      Moreover, it's possible that the baby is viable, but it can't survive inside a dead mother. So, once again, medical intervention is justifiable.

      In both scenarios, both mother and child have nothing to lose and something (or everything) to gain.

      Delete
  3. Evidently Rho can no longer distinguish friend from foe, that's a sad, lonely and dangerous place to be.

    ReplyDelete