ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: RogerMartim on August 27, 2012, 07:49:24 PM

Title: Abortion and Politics
Post by: RogerMartim on August 27, 2012, 07:49:24 PM
I know that it is impossible to separate the issue of abortion from politics but I dearly wish it could be.

I am as pro-life as I can be, but I simply can't abide by the ignorance that is displayed by some politicians on this issue.

Of course, I am referring to the recent remarks made by Congressman Todd Akin from Missouri in which he said that a woman's body shuts down during a "legitimate" rape and her chances of becoming pregnant is minimized. (For the record, the pregnancy rate among women who are raped is the same as that of consensual coitus.)

Some might say that this is a deluded remark by one person, but unfortunately there are many who have expressed themselves in very uncharitable ways and these are used to garner votes.

I would not want Todd Akin to speak for me if he were running for senator in my state. If he can say something as stupid as that, in what other areas of life might he say or do that would impact on me and others which could be subversive? (A judge in Texas suggested that there will be a civil war if Obama is re-elected again. While perhaps not connected to the issue that I am talking about here, it is this same over-heated rhetoric by politicians that is further splitting us as a country.)

Of the pro-choicers, their arguments are distressing too but not any less than those of the pro-lifers. Both ends of the spectrum in this divide use emotional arguments and tactics which makes me want to say that it's time to take abortion out of politics. Roe v. Wade is not going to go away and the current SCOTUS will not touch it with a 10-foot pole.

I know I am being naive but the current modus operandi is not working and it is further dividing us as a people of these United States. We need to find areas of agreement rather than passing off anathemas every which way.

Where is faith in action, faith in love?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Terry W Culler on August 27, 2012, 09:31:18 PM
Please note the continuation of statement.  He went on to say that while rape must be punished whenever it occurs, that does not mean the child so conceived should be punished with death.  Not all that stupid really.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: J. Thomas Shelley on August 27, 2012, 09:40:17 PM
Also note that his remarks were in the context of discussing a rape/incest exception to a general prohibition of abortion and in the immediate context that if such were the only exception there might well be many women falsely alleging "rape" in order to obtain an abortion.

Then he said.....
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Jeremy Loesch on August 27, 2012, 09:46:59 PM
Nice comments Revs. Culled and Shelley.  I viewed the video on KTVI and didn't find his entire remarks to be that objectionable.  Rep. Akin has the temerity to want rapists punished.  Good for him!

My mom was right all those years ago, "Jeremy, two wrongs don't make a right."

Jeremy
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Paul O Malley on August 27, 2012, 09:55:19 PM
Both ends of the spectrum in this divide use emotional arguments and tactics which makes me want to say that it's time to take abortion out of politics. Roe v. Wade is not going to go away and the current SCOTUS will not touch it with a 10-foot pole.

I would suggest part of the problem was just that, thinking that that the issue could be removed from politics.  Justice Blackmun may well have thought that he would achieve that by finding a constitutional right to abortion.  But as a consequence of his opinion and the Supreme Court's decision politicians could now pander to their bases without any need to work with the other side to draft legislation relating to the issue. 

It also strikes me that the consequences of Roe v. Wade have some interesting parallels to the Dred Scott decision of a century earlier in terms of polarizing the country.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: J. Thomas Shelley on August 27, 2012, 10:07:45 PM
It also strikes me that the consequences of Roe v. Wade have some interesting parallels o the Dred Scott decision of a century earlier in terms of polarizing the country....
...as well as depersonalizing and objectifying the most vulnerable of the country's inhabitants.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: D. Engebretson on August 27, 2012, 10:08:31 PM
Both ends of the spectrum in this divide use emotional arguments and tactics which makes me want to say that it's time to take abortion out of politics. Roe v. Wade is not going to go away and the current SCOTUS will not touch it with a 10-foot pole.

I would suggest part of the problem was just that, thinking that that the issue could be removed from politics.  Justice Blackmun may well have thought that he would achieve that by finding a constitutional right to abortion.  But as a consequence of his opinion and the Supreme Court's decision politicians could now pander to their bases without any need to work with the other side to draft legislation relating to the issue. 

It also strikes me that the consequences of Roe v. Wade have some interesting parallels to the Dred Scott decision of a century earlier in terms of polarizing the country.

Part of the problem may also be the involvement of politics in law.  As I see it, abortion is one of those areas where the law could and should speak clearly and simply: Protect life.  Unfortunately, there are constituencies which have interests that would be curtailed if that principle were carried out that clearly.  For example, the idea that a woman has the right to determine the future of the unborn child.  The idea of choice is deeply ingrained as an inherent right.  Now that this 'right' has been embraced by a significant sector of the public, it becomes a political issue.  Justice can no longer be blindfolded.  It is forced to look out and see how people react to a given law.  We also believe in trading certain 'rights' for other 'rights.'  Not all are given the 'right' to life.  Some must surrender it to protect the 'right' of others to choose. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: RogerMartim on August 27, 2012, 10:37:11 PM
That's the problem with this whole issue.

Congressman Akin prefaced his observation with "legitimate rape" and that a woman's body shuts down to avoid pregnancy. That just doesn't happen. Congressman Akin's further observation that a rapist should be punished isn't an unreasonable statement but it got lost BIG TIME by his initial statements. So I am not sure why some of you are even taking him seriously. Heck, almost the whole Republican establishment wanted him out of the picture afterwards.

To be sure, there are some women who take advantage of a sexual indiscretion and call it rape, but that's not the issue. Rape is a very real issue for ALL victims of it and Congressman Akin did nothing but to marginalize them. A true rape victim doesn't want to hear some politician come forth and hear the word "legitimate."

We as Lutherans have a responsibility to truth. We should be correcting Congressman Akin as to his irresponsible statements and not defending his ignorance or who knows, he was doing it for political gain that he had hoped to garner against his opponent in the Senate race.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: J. Thomas Shelley on August 27, 2012, 10:56:59 PM
To be sure, there are some women who take advantage of a sexual indiscretion and call it rape, but that's not the issue.

It is very much part of the issue, particularly if one of the few exceptions to a prohibtion of abortion would be for rape.

If false accusation were not a serious problem it would not be one of the Ten Commandments.

Moses faced that in his personal life.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: RogerMartim on August 27, 2012, 11:27:44 PM
So, what you are saying essentially Pastor Shelley is that it is a woman's responsibility to prove that she had been raped in order not to break the 8th Commandment. In some cases the woman is at fault for bearing false witness. None of us would deny that. But let's not make light of this: Most rape victims are truly rape victims.

Women have had to face this distrust throughout human history in front of police, investigators, judges, etc. The burden of proof should be on the side of the perpetrator and not the woman. The truth comes out somehow if a woman is lying.

Rape victims are not regarded highly in Islamic countries; even the Mormon church in the US teaches that a woman did not fight off hard enough and so the blame isn't on him but on her.

Again, I say that there are some cases where a woman accuses a man of rape under pretenses, but for goodness sakes, in the large majority of cases the woman is truly a victim.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Jeremy Loesch on August 27, 2012, 11:31:29 PM
We as Lutherans do have a responsibility to the truth.  Truth is abortion is murder.  Truth is the rape exception is a farce.  The rape exception means that there should be no exception for abortions- any time, any reason.  Hard cases make bad law.

And. has anyone else noticed that it is no longer a discussion about the life of the mother?  It's now using the language of the health of the mother.  Not a small difference.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: J. Thomas Shelley on August 27, 2012, 11:37:47 PM
What I am saying is that; partly out of 30 years in emergency services/law enforcement, partly out of taking seriously what our Confessions say about sin and untruthfulness:  I absolutely refuse to accept the axiom postulated by various feminist/liberal organizations that "victims would never lie about something like that". 

People lie.  Desperate people lie even more frequently.  And a person desperate to obtain that which would be denied without being an alleged crime victim will say whatever it takes, no matter who else may be hurt.

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: J. Thomas Shelley on August 27, 2012, 11:40:31 PM
And. has anyone else noticed that it is no longer a discussion about the life of the mother?  It's now using the language of the health of the mother.  Not a small difference.

Jeremy

Aye, it is more about the quality of life of the mother or the mental health of the mother....very difficult to objectify, measured only by the "soft sciences".

Where else have we heard this in the past decade?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 27, 2012, 11:54:48 PM
Being accused of rape effectively ends a man's life. If he is convicted, then even if he eventually gets out of jail he wears the permanent scarlet letter of "registered sex offender" for the rest of his life. What this means is that rape accusations are as serious as rape. To say that women would never lie about rape is as absurd as to say men would never rape, as though somehow women were morally above such sin. And the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction from the days when women's accusations were routinely doubted that often a man can't recover even if he is acquitted. The woman having an affair who gets pregnant and now has to explain the pregnancy to her husband has a good reason to claim she was raped, as does the pregnant teenager facing her parents; she's totally innocent and desering of sympathy if she was raped, but mortifyingly guilty in a can't-look-dad-in-the-eye kind of way if she was consenting. The jilted lover also has a human motive for getting back at the man who hurt her. 

In any event, abortion solves absolutely nothing in the case of rape, and the heinous crime of the father does not determine whether the child is a human being or not.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on August 28, 2012, 01:23:47 AM

Of course, I am referring to the recent remarks made by Congressman Todd Akin from Missouri in which he said that a woman's body shuts down during a "legitimate" rape and her chances of becoming pregnant is minimized.

Our society's minions of death have successfully sucked you into the same Red Herring that Congressman Akin fell hook, line, and sinker for.  They will say and do anything to avoid serious conversation on the 1.2 million abortions committed annually in this nation.  Instead they have us focussing on the "difficult" cases of the 12,000 (according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which has a vested interest in reporting as high a figure as possible) performed annually on female victims of rape who, in addition to the trauma of being raped, will also bear the trauma of having killed their child. 

Christe eleison, Steven+
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on August 28, 2012, 07:28:07 AM
Instead they have us focussing on the "difficult" "cases" of the 12,000 (according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which has a vested interest in reporting as high a figure as possible) performed annually on female victims of rape who, in addition to the trauma of being raped, will also bear the trauma of having killed their child. 

I would also add quotes to the word "cases" above.  It's difficult to establish the accuracy of Planned Parenthood-founded Guttmacher's statistics.  After all, Planned Parenthood has a history of reporting rape inaccurately, you know.

http://www.gazette.com/articles/state-143700-penn-didn.html

If abortion shouldn't be politicized, then I suppose we should all just remain quiet about the use of our tax funds to support the nonsense that goes on at Planned Parenthood locations around the country.   :P
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Paul O Malley on August 28, 2012, 10:27:02 AM
Part of the problem may also be the involvement of politics in law.  As I see it, abortion is one of those areas where the law could and should speak clearly and simply: Protect life.  Unfortunately, there are constituencies which have interests that would be curtailed if that principle were carried out that clearly.  For example, the idea that a woman has the right to determine the future of the unborn child.  The idea of choice is deeply ingrained as an inherent right.  Now that this 'right' has been embraced by a significant sector of the public, it becomes a political issue.  Justice can no longer be blindfolded.  It is forced to look out and see how people react to a given law.  We also believe in trading certain 'rights' for other 'rights.'  Not all are given the 'right' to life.  Some must surrender it to protect the 'right' of others to choose.

I agree that the "idea of choice" has become deeply ingrained and it may be worth exploring the unthinking responses Americans have when told that their "choices" may have to be restricted.  I would observe that "Choice" is one of the "values" of an unrestricted belief in free markets.  Another "value" of the market seems to be unfettered "expressions of individuality" (especially when they can be shaped by marketing types).  The dominance of the "market" in much American thought also confers status on the wealthy.  A woman gains little in status today from being a mother.  Being in a position to earn money for herself is more important.  Becoming a mother gets in the way of that.  From that perspective it has long seemed a little odd to me that many of those who oppose abortion on demand so often seem to ally themselves with the American political right.  If society is to be pulled back from abortion on demand those of us who would work to that goal might do well to consider our response to the idolatry inherent in the unfettered free market first.  (I'm not advocating socialism here, but something of a nod to European style Christian Democracy.)  Before the community will persuade women to "give up their right to choose" the community must assure women that their status and well being will not be dumped by the wayside by choosing motherhood.

I can't say that I agree with the logic that because "choice" is now seen by many as a right it has become a political issue.  "Elevation" of the status of "a mother's right to choose" to "constitutional right" was and remains an effort to place the position above politics.  (I'd observe as an aside that there exists a heretical notion among some Christians that the Constitution of the United States was somehow divinely inspired.)  In any event returning the matter to the political arena would be a gain for those who oppose it.  Even if laws restricting or abolishing the practice couldn't be passed there would be some possibility of putting into place regimes which would encourage women to carry their babies to term and place them for adoption.

In closing I'll add that I emphatically do not equate "values" with "morals."

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: jtpless on August 28, 2012, 01:18:02 PM
Check out the LCMS Life Conference scheduled for January 25-26) in Washington, DC (www.lcmslifeconference.org) with Dr. Robert Benne as keynote speaker. If I were a parish pastor, I would certainly use Benne's little book, GOOD AND BAD WAYS TO THINK ABOUT RELIGION AND POLITICS (Eerdmans, 2010) for Bible Class this fall as we face a national election. There is a study guide to Benne's book posted on the LCMS Life Conference site. JTP+
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on August 28, 2012, 01:43:00 PM
That reminds me . . . as confirmation classes begin, consider using the Life catechism with your confirmation students, as well.  A hard cover edition (http://www.cph.org/p-6761-a-small-catechism-on-human-life.aspx?SearchTerm=life catechism) is available, or small insert editions (http://www.cph.org/p-6762-youth-catechism-packs-of-10.aspx?SearchTerm=life catechism) for the back of a Small Catechism are available.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: pearson on August 28, 2012, 02:04:06 PM

I would observe that "Choice" is one of the "values" of an unrestricted belief in free markets.  Another "value" of the market seems to be unfettered "expressions of individuality" (especially when they can be shaped by marketing types).  The dominance of the "market" in much American thought also confers status on the wealthy.  A woman gains little in status today from being a mother.  Being in a position to earn money for herself is more important.  Becoming a mother gets in the way of that.  From that perspective it has long seemed a little odd to me that many of those who oppose abortion on demand so often seem to ally themselves with the American political right.  If society is to be pulled back from abortion on demand those of us who would work to that goal might do well to consider our response to the idolatry inherent in the unfettered free market first. 


Unfortunately, a parallel argument is made by those who support the HHS mandate that certain religious institutions must participate in the arrangements that provide access for their employees to various contraceptive devices -- only in that case, it is not "free markets" that is the obstacle, but "religious liberty."  Some choices (those made possible by religious liberty) must be restricted as we seek a higher social good (i.e., equal access for all women to birth control devices).  If society is to be pulled back from discrmination against women emplyed by certain religious institutions those who would work to that goal might do well to consider our response to the idolatry inherent in unfettered religious liberty first.

If the logic of the latter argument fails, it seems to me that the logic of the former argument does as well.  In other words, "free markets" are no more a contributing cause of abortion on demand than is religious liberty a contributing cause of unequal access for all women to birth control devices.

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Scotty8284 on August 28, 2012, 08:44:55 PM
On the current topic, here is a video released today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwFIEprF_9Y&list=UUweaynfcfOijvB8icPqU3sQ&index=2&feature=plcp

Here is the description:

On August 28, 2012 the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) announced the launch of a $150,000 television ad campaign across Missouri highlighting President Obama's extreme record on abortion and featuring abortion survivor Melissa Ohden. Missouri has recently been at the center of the conversation on abortion.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Mike Gehlhausen on August 29, 2012, 01:30:12 PM
Concerning abortion and politics, Senator Rick Santorum spoke well on the subject in his speech last night at the Republican National Convention.

Quote
"I thank God that America still has one party that reaches out their hands in love to lift up all of God's children -- born and unborn, and says that each of us has dignity and all of us have the right to live the American Dream," Santorum said.

The line, met with deafening applause and one of the longest standing ovations of the night, was the culmination of Santorum's emotional telling of his daughter Bella's struggle with a rare genetic disorder that doctors predicted would leave her with a life not worth living.

"The doctors later told us Bella was incompatible with life and to prepare to let go," Santorum said. "They said, even if she did survive, her disabilities would be so severe that Bella would not have a life worth living."

"We didn't let go and today Bella is full of life and she has made our lives and countless others much more worth living," he added, his eyes welling with tears.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/rick-santorum-republican-convention-speech_n_1830080.html

Mike
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: cssml on August 29, 2012, 02:10:02 PM

I would observe that "Choice" is one of the "values" of an unrestricted belief in free markets.  Another "value" of the market seems to be unfettered "expressions of individuality" (especially when they can be shaped by marketing types).  The dominance of the "market" in much American thought also confers status on the wealthy.  A woman gains little in status today from being a mother.  Being in a position to earn money for herself is more important.  Becoming a mother gets in the way of that.  From that perspective it has long seemed a little odd to me that many of those who oppose abortion on demand so often seem to ally themselves with the American political right.  If society is to be pulled back from abortion on demand those of us who would work to that goal might do well to consider our response to the idolatry inherent in the unfettered free market first. 


... (i.e., equal access for all women to birth control devices).  If society is to be pulled back from discrmination against women emplyed by certain religious institutions.

... religious liberty a contributing cause of unequal access for all women to birth control devices.

I would just like to clarify that the religious institutions in question here serve the poor, heal the sick, and educate millions, and also hold it to be true that contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs are something intrinsically morally objectionable (evil).  They hold this to be true  irregardless of gender.  This is not a discrimination against a particular gender issue.  The Church loves women, and yet proclaims to them that contraception or sterilization closes the marital act entirely to to possibility of life.  The Church loves men, and yet proclaims the them that the act of artificial contraception or sterilization closes the marital act entirely to life, and is wrong.  The Church loves men and women, and yet proclaims to them that it is wrong for anyone to participate in, cooperate with, or fail to oppose, the destruction of human life.  The Church cannot directly cooperate with what it holds to be false, or cooperate with assisting anyone to do that which She believes to be *harmful* to the person, not matter how *helpful* society has discerned that action to be.

- They should not have to materially cooperate with purchasing condoms for men.
- They should not be forced to materially cooperate with vasectomies for men.

- In a similar way, they should not be forced to materially cooperate with with placing children
   in homes which lack the full complementarity of human sexuality, with a married mother and father.

The Church is not attempting to aggressively push anyone to adopt these ideas in their personal lives, but the state IS attempting to force the Church to act contrary to its conscience under the false argument of "women's health*care*".
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Virgil on August 29, 2012, 04:35:28 PM
That reminds me . . . as confirmation classes begin, consider using the Life catechism with your confirmation students, as well.  A hard cover edition (http://www.cph.org/p-6761-a-small-catechism-on-human-life.aspx?SearchTerm=life catechism) is available, or small insert editions (http://www.cph.org/p-6762-youth-catechism-packs-of-10.aspx?SearchTerm=life catechism) for the back of a Small Catechism are available.

Buckeye Deaconess: Any recap or excerpts available? Neither CPH nor Amazon lets you look inside. Thanks for recommending this.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: J.L. Precup on August 29, 2012, 04:54:21 PM
A question, please, regarding the beginning of human life.  Some say it begins at the moment of conception.  I argue in no way for or against that position for this discussion.

On other threads of a theological nature, we have been reminded again and again that if something is not crystal clear, then we look to the history of the church to see what was recommended/practiced.  Certainly, the Agenda books I am aware of have prayers for a stillborn and a committal.  I am not aware, however, of any prayers (perhaps other than for the mother) regarding miscarriages.  If a miscarriage is the death of a person because the person was human since the time of conception, I am unaware of any prayers or commendations of the church for this person.  I have no idea how many, or what percent, of pregnancies result in miscarriage (although I've read it could be as high as 30%, including conceptions that never implant), but my question then regards how is it that there is seemingly an omission here (and I could be wrong on that and would welcome correction).  Should the church be holding funerals/commemorations/prayers for each individual death of these people? 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on August 29, 2012, 04:57:26 PM
That reminds me . . . as confirmation classes begin, consider using the Life catechism with your confirmation students, as well.  A hard cover edition (http://www.cph.org/p-6761-a-small-catechism-on-human-life.aspx?SearchTerm=life catechism) is available, or small insert editions (http://www.cph.org/p-6762-youth-catechism-packs-of-10.aspx?SearchTerm=life catechism) for the back of a Small Catechism are available.

Buckeye Deaconess: Any recap or excerpts available? Neither CPH nor Amazon lets you look inside. Thanks for recommending this.

You are most welcome.  It's a wonderful resource.  I may have an extra copy of the insert version left over from my display table at my district convention.  (Most of the supply I had on hand got taken.)  If you want to message me privately with your address, I can send one your way for you to review.  The hard copy is a nice resource, as well, but my signed copy stays with me . . . it was instrumental in my work of starting a pregnancy resource center where Lutheranism was practically unheard of.   :D

Kim
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on August 29, 2012, 05:09:01 PM
A question, please, regarding the beginning of human life.  Some say it begins at the moment of conception.  I argue in no way for or against that position for this discussion.

On other threads of a theological nature, we have been reminded again and again that if something is not crystal clear, then we look to the history of the church to see what was recommended/practiced.  Certainly, the Agenda books I am aware of have prayers for a stillborn and a committal.  I am not aware, however, of any prayers (perhaps other than for the mother) regarding miscarriages.  If a miscarriage is the death of a person because the person was human since the time of conception, I am unaware of any prayers or commendations of the church for this person.  I have no idea how many, or what percent, of pregnancies result in miscarriage (although I've read it could be as high as 30%, including conceptions that never implant), but my question then regards how is it that there is seemingly an omission here (and I could be wrong on that and would welcome correction).  Should the church be holding funerals/commemorations/prayers for each individual death of these people?

This has been addressed by the church.  The LSB Agenda has a rite for the Burial of a Stillborn Child (sometimes a miscarried child's remains are available for burial) on p. 132 which can be used.

Some other resources from a paper I wrote a while back for a class at the sem.:

Funeral Service
1. Lutheran Worship Agenda, Burial of the Stillborn, p. 197
2. Rites and Resources for Pastoral Care (Lutheran Church of Australia), Stillbirth or Miscarriage, p. 101
3. Hymns: LW 264-269, 422, 428, 517

Prayers
• Heavenly Father, surround and , their family and friends with your love and grace. Comfort them in their sorrow and fill them with your peace. Strengthen their faith in you and bless them with confidence and courage to face the future; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. (From Service to follow the birth of a stillborn child or the death of a newly born child, Uniting Church in Australia, National Commission on Liturgy.)
• God of compassion, help us to believe that /this child, a lamb in your flock, is in your gentle care, through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. (As above). Amen.
• Heavenly Father, our hopes have been turned to sorrow. You gave, and you have taken away. Your ways are higher than our ways, and your thoughts than our thoughts. Help us, Father, also in this time of sadness, to trust in you. Reassure and that you care for them and that Jesus has taken their child into his arms. Take all of us at last into your heavenly home; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
• Lord of all life, thank you for your work in creation, for nourishing life in the womb, for your love even in death. Thank you for the life of this child , whom you gave to us and have taken to yourself. Thank you for the arms of your love, embracing both us and in your family. Thank you for your presence in our sorrow, your strength as our life goes on. Take our sadness, and fill us with your Spirit to serve you on earth, and join your saints in glory, through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Copyright 1995, The Anglican Church of Australia Trust Corporation. From the text of A Prayer Book for Australia, published under the imprint of Broughton Books.) Amen.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 29, 2012, 06:02:52 PM
A question, please, regarding the beginning of human life.  Some say it begins at the moment of conception.  I argue in no way for or against that position for this discussion.

On other threads of a theological nature, we have been reminded again and again that if something is not crystal clear, then we look to the history of the church to see what was recommended/practiced.  Certainly, the Agenda books I am aware of have prayers for a stillborn and a committal.  I am not aware, however, of any prayers (perhaps other than for the mother) regarding miscarriages.  If a miscarriage is the death of a person because the person was human since the time of conception, I am unaware of any prayers or commendations of the church for this person.  I have no idea how many, or what percent, of pregnancies result in miscarriage (although I've read it could be as high as 30%, including conceptions that never implant), but my question then regards how is it that there is seemingly an omission here (and I could be wrong on that and would welcome correction).  Should the church be holding funerals/commemorations/prayers for each individual death of these people?
Miscarriages differ from stillbirths in that one can have a proper funeral with the body present in the latter case, while in the former case typically that is not possible. Plus, the vast majority of miscarriages (if we're using the 30% number) happen before the women even knows she is pregnant, so one could not even have a memorial service, as there is nothing for anyone to remember. Thus, stillbirths generally are treated as normal deaths with a funeral, but miscarriages become more a matter of pastoral care-- the parents and those who knew about the pregnancy have no doubt it was a person.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: cssml on August 29, 2012, 07:27:24 PM
A question, please, regarding the beginning of human life.  Some say it begins at the moment of conception.  I argue in no way for or against that position for this discussion.

On other threads of a theological nature, we have been reminded again and again that if something is not crystal clear, then we look to the history of the church to see what was recommended/practiced.  Certainly, the Agenda books I am aware of have prayers for a stillborn and a committal.  I am not aware, however, of any prayers (perhaps other than for the mother) regarding miscarriages.  If a miscarriage is the death of a person because the person was human since the time of conception, I am unaware of any prayers or commendations of the church for this person.  I have no idea how many, or what percent, of pregnancies result in miscarriage (although I've read it could be as high as 30%, including conceptions that never implant), but my question then regards how is it that there is seemingly an omission here (and I could be wrong on that and would welcome correction).  Should the church be holding funerals/commemorations/prayers for each individual death of these people?

You ask a number of questions here.

On the question of what ancient sources say, Msgr. Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington recently compiled a wonderful list of ancient sources on the subject of abortion.  In it he has quotes the following sources (not exhaustive):

  - The Didache (“The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”) ca 110 AD.
  - Letter of Barnabas, (circa 125)
  - Athenagoras the Athenian (To Marcus Aurelius, ca 150 AD):
  - Clement of Alexandria: (circa 150 – 215 AD)
  - Tertullian circa 160-240 AD (3 quotes)
  - Hippolytus (circa 170-236 AD)
  - Minucius Felix (180 – 225 AD)
  - St. Basil the Great (330 – 379 AD)
  - St. Ambrose: (339 to 397 AD)
  - St. John Chrysostom (circa 340 – 407 AD)
  - St. Jerome (circa 342-420 AD)
  - The Synod of Elvira (306 AD)
  - The Synod of Ancyra (314 AD)
  - Council of Trullo (692 AD)

  http://blog.adw.org/2012/08/ancient-testimonies-against-abortion/

Msgr. Pope prefaces the ancient quotes with the following comments in his blog (my emphasis):
 
"As with many quotes from the ancient world, some of the quotes herein are perhaps quite harsh, and some may be critiqued at their focus essentially on the women who procure abortion, with little mention of the men involved. In our own time the Church is more careful to articulate and understand that abortion often occurs when women are under duress, or on account of family crisis, poverty and other social factors. Hence, we who speak against abortion must be ready and able, as I think the Church admirably is, to assist women and families in crisis to give birth. Yet the churchmen who are quoted below were men of their times, and, as my father was often heard to say of the “old days” Things were tough all over.

Whatever the tone, the teaching is not at all unclear, and for this we can be grateful."


On the issue of when does life begin, one of my favorite direct quotes on this subject of 'when life begins' comes from St. Gregory of Nyssa.  We read his "On the Soul and the Resurrection" in our parish reading group on the Church Fathers last year.  He wrote his treatise around 379 after an interchange he had with his sister, St. Macrina, following the death of their brother, St. Basil the Great.  In this treatise they reflect not only the state of the soul AFTER death, but on the life of the soul from its first moment of existence when God's image and likeness are imparted to it.  St. Gregory of Nyssa says:

"There remains the question of the when of the soul's commencement of existence: it follows immediately on that which we have already discussed....no one who can reflect will imagine an after-birth of the soul, i.e. that [the soul] is younger than the moulding of the body...It remains therefore that we must think that the point of commencement of existence is one and the same for body and soul...we grasp from these considerations the fact that in the compound which results from the joining of both (soul and body) there is a simultaneous passage of both into existence; the one does not come first, any more than the other comes after."


On how the issue of funerals etc, I can offer one example.  A couple priests from our archdiocese visited Vietnam last year.  On the blog documenting their trip, Fr. John shared the following entry from the day they visited the Motherhouse of the "Adorers of the Holy Cross of Da Lat" sisters.  These sisters have many ministries of service, but one is to help unwed mothers choose life.

  http://frjohninvietnam.blogspot.com/2011/02/bao-loc-february-3-2011.html

"First we were invited in for hospitality of traditional New Year’s candies and something to drink. We took the car to various locations. We visited their school for the blind. Then their home for unwed mothers and orphan children.

They have a unique way of finding the young mothers who need their help. Lay people who support the sisters’ ministry, go to abortion clinics incognito. They will sit in the waiting room and strike up a conversation with the pregnant women: “When did you find out you were pregnant?” “Did you think about other options?” Then, in a non-judgmental way they will tell the pregnant women that the sisters will house and feed them through their entire pregnancy and delivery, AND raise their child. Very often, then, the pregnant mother will go with this person to the sisters’ charity to learn more about it. This scenario was repeated in the other orphanages we visited."

"The sisters have friends who discreetly go to abortion clinics to talk expectant mothers into staying in the sister’s care during their pregnancy and keeping their children, or letting the sisters raise their baby. But for those babies who are aborted, the sisters ask the clinic doctors to let them bury the tiny infants on donated land. This cemetery holds 2000 aborted children from the last two years. Our driver is placing incense sticks around, a Vietnamese custom for honoring the dead."


  http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dOkItvtys88/TU2SluRpyII/AAAAAAAABhA/0wusAeWxMFA/s1600/07%2BSisters%2B%2528Large%2529.jpg
  <picture of Fr. John at the cemetery>

On prayers and Rites, for a Catholic priest, the following resource contains a summary discussion of the issues, and a list of Liturgical rites related to the death of a child.  It clearly states that "As a general principle, the Church encourages funeral rites for unbaptized infants and stillborn babies.".  It is not required, it is not always practiced, but it is certainly allowed and even encouraged.  This is in line with the consistent teaching of the Church that each human life is sacred, from the moment of conception, to natural death (and actually beyond).
 
  http://www.bostoncatholic.org/Offices-And-Services/Office-Detail.aspx?id=12540&pid=464
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: J.L. Precup on August 29, 2012, 07:51:22 PM
Thanks for all the information.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Jim Thacker on August 29, 2012, 09:50:55 PM
Reading through this paritcular thread reminds me of how important forums can be when we are able to share resources and thoughts without debating in print. This thread has been a blessing. Just saying.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Virgil on August 30, 2012, 09:11:42 AM
That reminds me . . . as confirmation classes begin, consider using the Life catechism with your confirmation students, as well.  A hard cover edition (http://www.cph.org/p-6761-a-small-catechism-on-human-life.aspx?SearchTerm=life catechism) is available, or small insert editions (http://www.cph.org/p-6762-youth-catechism-packs-of-10.aspx?SearchTerm=life catechism) for the back of a Small Catechism are available.

Thanks for the offer, but I'm going to order the hardcover version--good resource to have. Fight the good fight. Let's go and save some babies from Moloch.

Buckeye Deaconess: Any recap or excerpts available? Neither CPH nor Amazon lets you look inside. Thanks for recommending this.

You are most welcome.  It's a wonderful resource.  I may have an extra copy of the insert version left over from my display table at my district convention.  (Most of the supply I had on hand got taken.)  If you want to message me privately with your address, I can send one your way for you to review.  The hard copy is a nice resource, as well, but my signed copy stays with me . . . it was instrumental in my work of starting a pregnancy resource center where Lutheranism was practically unheard of.   :D

Kim
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: carlvehse on August 30, 2012, 03:26:59 PM
RogerMartim (#1) wrote on: August 27, 2012, 07:49:24 PM:

Quote
"I simply can't abide by the ignorance that is displayed by some politicians on this issue.

"Of course, I am referring to the recent remarks made by Congressman Todd Akin from Missouri in which he said that a woman's body shuts down during a 'legitimate' rape and her chances of becoming pregnant is minimized."

It would help increase your credibility, Roger, if you referred to the recent remarks ACTUALLY made by Congressman Todd Akin:
Quote
"It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, uh the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."

So even in his statement Akin admitted that women who are raped can get pregnant. He also reiterated that in his apology. And it is clear from the context of the statements that Akin intended “legitimate” to mean “actual,” not “acceptable."   Furthermore, Todd Akin probably got the assertion he expressed on pregnancy from rape based on one or more of the following articles:

“The Indications for Induced Abortion: A Physician’s Perspective,” by Dr. Fred Mecklenburg in Abortion and Social Justice (http://www.abebooks.com/Abortion-Social-Justice-Thomas-W-Hilger/3475918817/bd), an anthology compiled by Dr. Thomas W. Hilger in 1972. Dr. Mecklenburg was the former chairman of obstetrics at Inova Women’s Hospital in Falls Church, Va.

Handbook on Abortion (http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Abortion-J-C-Willke/dp/0910728127/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346097153&sr=1-1&keywords=handbook+on+abortion+willke), by Dr. John C. “Jack” Willke, founder of the National Right to Life Committee.

Willke also wrote an article, “Rape Pregnancies are rare (http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/rape-pregnancies-are-rare-461),” in the Christian Life Resources, April 1999.  According to Dr. Willke:
Quote
“Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy.”

So, while one can certainly say that Akin should have worded his statement differently to avoid misunderstanding, it hardly can be described as "ignorance,"

George Neumayr explains it well in these excerpts from his article, “Cowed by Political Correctness (http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/23/cowed-by-political-correctness)“:
Quote
Barack Obama hired as one of his top Department of Education officials a gay-rights activist named Kevin Jennings, who once glibly counseled a “15-year-old” student thought to have been statutorily raped by an older man: “I hope you knew to use a condom.”

Don’t expect Obama to receive any questions from the press about these views of his first “Safe Schools Czar.” No, outrage in this culture is restricted to those deemed unenlightened in the nuances of avant-garde morality. According to its porous scorecard, Christianity is bad for women while Islam is good for them. Pro-life countries receive scoldings from Hillary Clinton, while the one-child policy of China, which kills female infants, isn’t “second-guessed” by this administration, as Joe Biden put it on a visit.

Beneath all the hysterical extrapolations from his [Akin's] remark, which grew wilder and wilder as the days passed, lay that essential demand: approve of killing unborn children conceived under circumstances of rape or be deemed “anti-woman.”

This culture of hectoring explains why Mitt Romney rushed to the cameras upon hearing Akin’s remark to pronounce abortion in those cases “appropriate.” In a rotten culture, proof of one’s “civilized” bona fides comes from such shameless pandering.

An authentically conservative party would find Romney’s unprincipled position far more chilling than Akin’s gaffe. If unborn children gain or lose their right to life depending upon the circumstances of their conception, then the party has already conceded that that right doesn’t exist.
[Emphasis added]
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Mike Gehlhausen on September 06, 2012, 08:51:40 AM
Regarding abortion and politics...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/sandra-fluke-speech-text-_n_1852635.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

Mike
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: revjagow on September 06, 2012, 10:38:19 AM
Quote
Some of you may remember that earlier this year, Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception.

My recollection was that she was "shut out" of that hearing because her name was put forward at the last possible minute.  Then the Republicans on that committee were raked over the coals for not having any women present at the hearing.  Nice move, for politics, I suppose.

Meanwhile, over in the Senate, Mr. Akin sits on the Committee for Science and Technology.  News about his ignorance concerning how a woman's body works is what started the thread.

To me, these are two illustrations of why the way forward is not through Congress, or our elected leaders.  This is in God's hands.  I think that the more people that actually see an ultrasound and wonder at the complexity of what they see, the harder it will be to deny personhood to the unborn.

Remember that 2013 is a big anniversary year for the March for Life.  I'm going to see everyone here in D.C., at the end of January, right? 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on September 06, 2012, 11:44:39 AM
Remember that 2013 is a big anniversary year for the March for Life.  I'm going to see everyone here in D.C., at the end of January, right?

Let's hope!  Don't forget about the 2013 LCMS Life Conference  (http://www.lcmslifeconference.org/) to be held in conjunction with the March!  I'm hoping this is the year I finally make it to the March.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dave Likeness on September 06, 2012, 12:36:32 PM
Rev. Jagow will be marching in the streets of
Washington D.C. before 2013.  He will join a
big march through that city, when the Washington
Nationals win the National League Pennant and
hopefully the World Series.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Bergs on September 06, 2012, 11:30:59 PM
A few months back at a recent work meeting I had a conversation with the CFO of a Planned Parenthood clinic, (an ELCA member in good standing I might note).  He was lamenting how their providers are way too liberal with clinic supplies.  There is a standing practice that a client of the clinic gets 30 doses of morning after pills, 3 months supply of birth control pills and 3 dozen condoms per visit.  He was arguing that several of the clients were already on Implanon or even had IUD's.  So there was no indication they needed any birth control methods but the providers didn't care, the standard practice is to give out all three each visit.  He  was trying to save some money for the clinic but the providers insisted this is their job to hand out the freebies.  This has been their long standing practice and they are not about to change.  He tried to point out that they were not practicing medicine according to standards by dispensing "medicine" when no "medicine" was indicated in the medical record.    The providers did not change their medical practice.

So really there is no excuse for Sandra Fluke to make a big fuss except a desperate cry for attention.  She can get her "medical" supplies at a PP clinic or she can have a friend go there and pick them up for her.  Doesn't she have a boyfriend who would be happy to purchase her medical supplies and even conduct a no-cost random effectiveness test now and then?  How does this young lady get an invitation to speak at a nationally televised program?   

Brian J. Bergs
Minneapolis, MN
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on September 07, 2012, 02:59:36 AM
Teaching people about birth control is a way to prevent abortions.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: cssml on September 07, 2012, 03:20:52 AM
Teaching people about birth control is a way to prevent abortions.

The scientific data would argue the exact opposite, but I don't suspect you will change your view.

  http://www.amazon.com/Adam-Eve-After-Pill-Revolution/dp/1586176277
  http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/teensex.pdf
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Akerlof#Reproductive_technology_shock
 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 07, 2012, 06:52:41 AM
Teaching people about birth control is a way to prevent abortions.

And you know this how?

Please cite data that is non Guttmacher generated or funded.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on September 07, 2012, 07:07:37 AM
If knowledge about contraception prevents ONE abortion, wouldn't that be good? Or are there hidden agendas in you "pro -life " people?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 07, 2012, 09:06:38 AM
If knowledge about contraception prevents ONE abortion, wouldn't that be good? Or are there hidden agendas in you "pro -life " people?
The point is that such education prevents an abortion in one instance but causes abortions in other instances because it encourages promiscuity and gets women/girls comfortable with going to abortion providers for counsel. All the evidence suggests that where contraception is taught early, the number of abortions goes up, not down.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 07, 2012, 09:38:04 AM
If knowledge about contraception prevents ONE abortion, wouldn't that be good? Or are there hidden agendas in you "pro -life " people?

Well- Peter beat me to it.  But the point is the data show that even if the use of contraception prevents an abortion over here, it leads to multiple abortions over there.  So if there is a net increase in abortions, are you saying tha is a good thing?  And the PP business model is set up to get get young woman on contraception early, because they know the earleir they get them on contraception, the greater the likelihood they will get at least one, if not more, abortions out of them.

Ohhh! Hiden Agendas!  I got nothin' to hide.  My Church actually thinks about human sexuality as a gift and trust and has a coherent theology and pastoral practice to back it up.  We didn't cobble together something and vote on it after emotive declarations from people based on "What I feel."

And I note, you did answer my question.  You asked a rhetorical one.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Mike Gehlhausen on September 07, 2012, 09:48:58 AM
Well- Peter beat me to it.  But the point is the data show that even if the use of contraception prevents an abortion over here, it leads to multiple abortions over there.  So if there is a net increase in abortions, are you saying tha is a good thing?  And the PP business model is set up to get get young woman on contraception early, because they know the earleir they get them on contraception, the greater the likelihood they will get at least one, if not more, abortions out of them.

I'm sorry, but that fails best construction.  I doubt Planned Parenthood sees abortions as a good thing to work toward even though they do not see them as a bad thing.

That's like saying oncologists want to get patients hooked on smoking so they can get lung cancer treatment out of them later.

Mike
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 07, 2012, 09:58:48 AM
Well- Peter beat me to it.  But the point is the data show that even if the use of contraception prevents an abortion over here, it leads to multiple abortions over there.  So if there is a net increase in abortions, are you saying tha is a good thing?  And the PP business model is set up to get get young woman on contraception early, because they know the earleir they get them on contraception, the greater the likelihood they will get at least one, if not more, abortions out of them.

I'm sorry, but that fails best construction.  I doubt Planned Parenthood sees abortions as a good thing to work toward even though they do not see them as a bad thing.

That's like saying oncologists want to get patients hooked on smoking so they can get lung cancer treatment out of them later.

Mike

Mike-

Watch the documentary Blood Money and listen to a woman who left PP describing this business model.  Talk to folks who have left the abortion-industrial complex. 

Oncologists want to kill cancer.  Abortionists want to kill babies.  If those of you who persist in crying "peace, peace!" where there is no peace actually listened to the pro-abortion zealots, you might be surprised at the level of ideological commitment they have to the slaughter of innocents.

I am old enough to remember the start of this slaughter, and the statement, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament!"  I would change that to, "Since [ideological] Feminists get pregnant, abortion IS a sacrament."

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on September 07, 2012, 10:10:43 AM
Mike:

Planned Parenthood is an abortion mill and has a profit motive, pure and simple.  I've linked previously to documents which show that they're chomping at the bit to get their hands on insurance dollars now given the HHS mandate.  I've had multiple firsthand experiences dealing with PP.  It's all about the $.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Mike Gehlhausen on September 07, 2012, 10:17:28 AM
Mike:

Planned Parenthood is an abortion mill and has a profit motive, pure and simple.  I've linked previously to documents which show that they're chomping at the bit to get their hands on insurance dollars now given the HHS mandate.  I've had multiple firsthand experiences dealing with PP.  It's all about the $.

OK, I believe you two even though part of me still does not want to do so. 

I guess when I do hang out with liberals they must still be fairly moderate wine-and-brie ones who paint this as a regrettable choice that should be left to a woman.

Considering how fiery my conversations with them are, I doubt any relationship with a true liberal would last long.

Mike
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: George Erdner on September 07, 2012, 10:20:58 AM
Well- Peter beat me to it.  But the point is the data show that even if the use of contraception prevents an abortion over here, it leads to multiple abortions over there.  So if there is a net increase in abortions, are you saying tha is a good thing?  And the PP business model is set up to get get young woman on contraception early, because they know the earleir they get them on contraception, the greater the likelihood they will get at least one, if not more, abortions out of them.

I'm sorry, but that fails best construction.  I doubt Planned Parenthood sees abortions as a good thing to work toward even though they do not see them as a bad thing.

That's like saying oncologists want to get patients hooked on smoking so they can get lung cancer treatment out of them later.

Mike

That's an apples to oranges comparison. Oncologists are individual people. Planned Parenthood is an organization. Generally speaking, individual health care workers are motivated by personal reasons, usually altruistic. That's a broad, general statement, and there are plenty of exceptions, but overall, I think it's reasonably accurate. Generally speaking, institutions dedicated to health care services are motivated by obligations to shareholders and/or paid staff. The same disclaimers apply, but so does the assertion that my observation is reasonably accurate.
 
Mike:

Planned Parenthood is an abortion mill and has a profit motive, pure and simple.  I've linked previously to documents which show that they're chomping at the bit to get their hands on insurance dollars now given the HHS mandate.  I've had multiple firsthand experiences dealing with PP.  It's all about the $.

OK, I believe you two even though part of me still does not want to do so. 

I guess when I do hang out with liberals they must still be fairly moderate wine-and-brie ones who paint this as a regrettable choice that should be left to a woman.

Considering how fiery my conversations with them are, I doubt any relationship with a true liberal would last long.

Mike

And that's another example of confusing individuals' opinions and motivations with institutions' opinions and motivations, not to mention the assertions of lock-step, group-think on the part of people in a certain self-selected group.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Mike Gehlhausen on September 07, 2012, 10:26:25 AM
I'm sorry, but that fails best construction.  I doubt Planned Parenthood sees abortions as a good thing to work toward even though they do not see them as a bad thing.

That's like saying oncologists want to get patients hooked on smoking so they can get lung cancer treatment out of them later.

Mike

That's an apples to oranges comparison. Oncologists are individual people. Planned Parenthood is an organization. Generally speaking, individual health care workers are motivated by personal reasons, usually altruistic. That's a broad, general statement, and there are plenty of exceptions, but overall, I think it's reasonably accurate. Generally speaking, institutions dedicated to health care services are motivated by obligations to shareholders and/or paid staff. The same disclaimers apply, but so does the assertion that my observation is reasonably accurate.

Aren't you the one who complains about people nitpicking?

Fine. It's like the American Cancer Society pushing smoking so that have a reason to continue and thrive.

Better?  If anything, this makes the contrast even stronger.

Mike
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 07, 2012, 10:27:51 AM
I am in the postion of the oncologist trying to eradicate a cancer.

As for PP qua organization- if they did not receive $$$ from committed ideologues and/or duped individuals or yours and my tax dollars, then they would fail.  But underlying their actions is not an economic incentive.  Look at their founding mothers like Margaret Sanger and know what they really want.  And as an organization, they are the aggregate of the individuals who have some pretty extreme views.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 07, 2012, 10:27:57 AM
Teaching people about birth control is a way to prevent abortions.

And how's that idea actually working?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 07, 2012, 10:33:46 AM
Teaching people about birth control is a way to prevent abortions.

And how's that idea actually working?

Steve-

It's working just fine!  PP is making money hand over fist and they get those extra abortions.

They get to come to your childrens' schools and teach them all sorts of fun things without any input from you.  They cover the statutory rape of underaged girls.  They encourage the violation of federal law with the transport of minors across state lines.

They could borrow a motto from some SpecOp units- "Death is our business and business is GOOD!"

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 07, 2012, 10:37:16 AM
If knowledge about contraception prevents ONE abortion, wouldn't that be good? Or are there hidden agendas in you "pro -life " people?

You can get off your moral high horse, Charles.  Is preventing one abortion good?  Yes, it is.  The problem is that you have nothing to offer about the other 3200+ that will be, uh, performed today because the "knowledge" of contraception wasn't properly applied.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 07, 2012, 12:09:16 PM
Teaching people about birth control is a way to prevent abortions.

And how's that idea actually working?


Pretty well actually. Most of the people I know have gotten pregnant when they wanted to, and avoided pregnancies when they didn't want to -- including my wife and I; my brothers; my nephews.


How many people do you know have had contraceptives fail and then sought an abortion because of the unwanted pregnancy?


The one abortion that I know of there were no contraceptives involved and there was some misinformation about pregnancy - you can't get pregnant the first time. The use of contraceptives and better sex education would have prevented a pregnancy and an abortion.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: cssml on September 07, 2012, 12:21:46 PM
Teaching people about birth control is a way to prevent abortions.

And how's that idea actually working?


Pretty well actually. Most of the people I know have gotten pregnant when they wanted to, and avoided pregnancies when they didn't want to -- including my wife and I; my brothers; my nephews.


How many people do you know have had contraceptives fail and then sought an abortion because of the unwanted pregnancy?


The one abortion that I know of there were no contraceptives involved and there was some misinformation about pregnancy - you can't get pregnant the first time. The use of contraceptives and better sex education would have prevented a pregnancy and an abortion.

Since the "sexual revolution", and society's wholesale adoption of artificial contraception, abortion has increased, as has STDs.  The positive causal relationship is a scientific fact.  You might consider reading something that will challenge and broaden your views on this

  http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Naturel-What-Good-Marriage/dp/1931018588
  http://www.amazon.com/Adam-Eve-After-Pill-Revolution/dp/1586176277
  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/17/human-costs-of-sexual-liberation/

Quoting from the WT review of "Adam and Eve and The Pill:

“No single event since Eve took the apple has been as consequential for relations between the sexes as the arrival of modern contraception,” writes Mrs. Eberstadt. Great applause greeted the pill’s 50th anniversary in 2010, demonstrating the shift from the caution of early 20th century social observers to the full embrace of the technological progress that facilitated the sexual revolution. Oral contraceptives are heralded without reservation as the solution to social problems such as poverty and inequality between the sexes.

In a series of essays, most of which were published in earlier form in First Things and Policy Review, Mrs. Eberstadt challenges this rosy picture, arguing that the sexual revolution has proved disastrous for both sexes. She also contends that the burden of the sexual revolution has been borne by the weakest members of society, women and children, even as it strengthens the predators.

Read more: BOOK REVIEW: 'Adam and Eve After the Pill' - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/17/human-costs-of-sexual-liberation/#ixzz25nkeUDVB
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dave Likeness on September 07, 2012, 12:59:25 PM
Gloria Steinem, a vocal leader of the feminist
movement, said, "Marriage is a jail cell and women
need to get out of jail and assert their freedom
and independence."

The "Pill" gave women their independence and
in the process weakened the foundation of
marriage.  In 1970, 11 percent of children were
born to unwed mothers.  In 2008, 41 percent of
children were born to unwed mothers.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on September 07, 2012, 01:23:14 PM
Speaking of abortion and money . . .

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/09/07/abortion-clinics-shocking-sign-good-women-have-abortions/

Yeah, greed and death of the innocent . . . what church wants to get behind that?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 07, 2012, 02:24:26 PM
Gloria Steinem, a vocal leader of the feminist
movement, said, "Marriage is a jail cell and women
need to get out of jail and assert their freedom
and independence."

The "Pill" gave women their independence and
in the process weakened the foundation of
marriage.  In 1970, 11 percent of children were
born to unwed mothers.  In 2008, 41 percent of
children were born to unwed mothers.


Children born to unwed mothers has nothing to do with abortion. If you remember right, Jesus was conceived in an unwed mother.


The last two baptisms I had were to children of unwed parents. At least the fathers were part of the service. With my previous unwed parents baptism, the father was nowhere to be seen - and has had almost no contact with his daughter. In contrast to that, a couple of young friends were married when their children were born, but then the fathers decided they didn't want children and took off with another woman.


While being married increases the odds of a stable home life, it's no guarantee of it; and being unmarried (not having the state paper-work) does not mean that the couple will not stay together for the rest of their lives.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Jeremy Loesch on September 07, 2012, 02:48:23 PM
Gloria Steinem, a vocal leader of the feminist
movement, said, "Marriage is a jail cell and women
need to get out of jail and assert their freedom
and independence."

The "Pill" gave women their independence and
in the process weakened the foundation of
marriage.  In 1970, 11 percent of children were
born to unwed mothers.  In 2008, 41 percent of
children were born to unwed mothers.


Children born to unwed mothers has nothing to do with abortion. If you remember right, Jesus was conceived in an unwed mother.


The last two baptisms I had were to children of unwed parents. At least the fathers were part of the service. With my previous unwed parents baptism, the father was nowhere to be seen - and has had almost no contact with his daughter. In contrast to that, a couple of young friends were married when their children were born, but then the fathers decided they didn't want children and took off with another woman.


While being married increases the odds of a stable home life, it's no guarantee of it; and being unmarried (not having the state paper-work) does not mean that the couple will not stay together for the rest of their lives.

Mary was not an unwed mother!  She was betrothed to her husband Joseph.  She was wife to him in every way except that which leads to children.  And Joseph was husband to her in every way except that which leads to children.  I certainly hope you were attempting some humor, but if not, what's the matter with you that you make such a disrespectful comment about the mother of God?  Please!

Jeremy
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Chuck on September 07, 2012, 02:55:21 PM
Gloria Steinem, a vocal leader of the feminist
movement, said, "Marriage is a jail cell and women
need to get out of jail and assert their freedom
and independence."

The "Pill" gave women their independence and
in the process weakened the foundation of
marriage.  In 1970, 11 percent of children were
born to unwed mothers.  In 2008, 41 percent of
children were born to unwed mothers.

Jerry Pournelle reminds his readers today, "Arthur C. Clarke predicted in Childhood’s End [1953] that discovery of reliable means of preventing pregnancy and of determining paternity would bring about a cultural revolution, and he was entirely right, but even he didn’t predict that contraception means provided by taxpayers would become an absolute right, and anything less than that was a war on women."
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 07, 2012, 02:55:58 PM
Gloria Steinem, a vocal leader of the feminist
movement, said, "Marriage is a jail cell and women
need to get out of jail and assert their freedom
and independence."

The "Pill" gave women their independence and
in the process weakened the foundation of
marriage.  In 1970, 11 percent of children were
born to unwed mothers.  In 2008, 41 percent of
children were born to unwed mothers.


Children born to unwed mothers has nothing to do with abortion. If you remember right, Jesus was conceived in an unwed mother.


The last two baptisms I had were to children of unwed parents. At least the fathers were part of the service. With my previous unwed parents baptism, the father was nowhere to be seen - and has had almost no contact with his daughter. In contrast to that, a couple of young friends were married when their children were born, but then the fathers decided they didn't want children and took off with another woman.


While being married increases the odds of a stable home life, it's no guarantee of it; and being unmarried (not having the state paper-work) does not mean that the couple will not stay together for the rest of their lives.

Mary was not an unwed mother!  She was betrothed to her husband Joseph.  She was wife to him in every way except that which leads to children.  And Joseph was husband to her in every way except that which leads to children.  I certainly hope you were attempting some humor, but if not, what's the matter with you that you make such a disrespectful comment about the mother of God?  Please!


Was Mary married to Joseph when she became pregnant? That is the only question my statement raises.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: LCMS87 on September 07, 2012, 03:14:27 PM
Gloria Steinem, a vocal leader of the feminist
movement, said, "Marriage is a jail cell and women
need to get out of jail and assert their freedom
and independence."

The "Pill" gave women their independence and
in the process weakened the foundation of
marriage.  In 1970, 11 percent of children were
born to unwed mothers.  In 2008, 41 percent of
children were born to unwed mothers.


Children born to unwed mothers has nothing to do with abortion. If you remember right, Jesus was conceived in an unwed mother.


The last two baptisms I had were to children of unwed parents. At least the fathers were part of the service. With my previous unwed parents baptism, the father was nowhere to be seen - and has had almost no contact with his daughter. In contrast to that, a couple of young friends were married when their children were born, but then the fathers decided they didn't want children and took off with another woman.


While being married increases the odds of a stable home life, it's no guarantee of it; and being unmarried (not having the state paper-work) does not mean that the couple will not stay together for the rest of their lives.

Mary was not an unwed mother!  She was betrothed to her husband Joseph.  She was wife to him in every way except that which leads to children.  And Joseph was husband to her in every way except that which leads to children.  I certainly hope you were attempting some humor, but if not, what's the matter with you that you make such a disrespectful comment about the mother of God?  Please!


Was Mary married to Joseph when she became pregnant? That is the only question my statement raises.

Actually there's more than that involved in your statement:  "Jesus was conceived in an unwed mother." 

In fact, Jesus was conceived in an unwed virgin.  Mary was not a mother prior to the conception of Jesus.  That, of course, changed at the moment of conception, when she became the mother of God. 

She was, however, betrothed when she conceived, which is more than just the faint shadow we see in today's practice of engagement to be married. 

Of course the other issue your statement seems to suggest is that a woman becomes a mother when she becomes pregnant, not merely when the child is born.  That's a truth many of us who are pro-life have been asserting for decades, though it has not been embraced by those who elevate choice as the greatest good.  I'm glad to see that you recognize this truth.   
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: George Erdner on September 07, 2012, 03:40:08 PM
I'm sorry, but that fails best construction.  I doubt Planned Parenthood sees abortions as a good thing to work toward even though they do not see them as a bad thing.

That's like saying oncologists want to get patients hooked on smoking so they can get lung cancer treatment out of them later.

Mike

That's an apples to oranges comparison. Oncologists are individual people. Planned Parenthood is an organization. Generally speaking, individual health care workers are motivated by personal reasons, usually altruistic. That's a broad, general statement, and there are plenty of exceptions, but overall, I think it's reasonably accurate. Generally speaking, institutions dedicated to health care services are motivated by obligations to shareholders and/or paid staff. The same disclaimers apply, but so does the assertion that my observation is reasonably accurate.

Aren't you the one who complains about people nitpicking?

Fine. It's like the American Cancer Society pushing smoking so that have a reason to continue and thrive.

Better?  If anything, this makes the contrast even stronger.

Mike

I'm also the one who complains about invalid metaphors and other comparisons.
 
I think comparing individuals to organizations is larger than a mere nit. I'd also note that the American Cancer Society does not have a history of encouraging any activities that cause cancer, while Planned Parenthood does have a long history of getting involved in all aspects of reproduction issues. So, your revised comparison would hold water in theory except for the fact that it doesn't hold water in reality.
 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 08, 2012, 05:48:45 PM
Teaching people about birth control is a way to prevent abortions.

And how's that idea actually working?

Pretty well actually. Most of the people I know have gotten pregnant when they wanted to, and avoided pregnancies when they didn't want to -- including my wife and I; my brothers; my nephews.

How many people do you know have had contraceptives fail and then sought an abortion because of the unwanted pregnancy?

The one abortion that I know of there were no contraceptives involved and there was some misinformation about pregnancy - you can't get pregnant the first time. The use of contraceptives and better sex education would have prevented a pregnancy and an abortion.

Wow.  I really should save this for re-posting the next time someone here accuses a (sexuality) Traditionalist of living in an "Ozzie and Harriet world" or pastoring from some pristine ecclesiastical tower.

Despite your opening declaration, your anecdotes demonstrate your avoidance of my question.

To answer the question you carefully avoided, amongst those whom I have held dear, I know for certain of four abortions that being taught about birth control did not prevent.  Among them was someone I would have been proud to introduce to you as my 23-year-old son.*  This doesn't count the abortions I don't know about, whether they were procured by others I have held dear or others with whom I am acquianted, that abortion statistics suggest are not an insignificant number.  Even in your world.

Christe eleison, Steven+
* For anyone wondering, no, he wouldn't have shared my genes, but he would have been my son.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 08, 2012, 06:15:13 PM
I know for certain of four abortions that being taught about birth control did not prevent.


Being "taught about birth control" is not at all the same thing as properly using birth control. Are you saying that they were properly using the best method of birth control and they failed or that they had just attended classes about different contraceptives?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 08, 2012, 11:33:49 PM

Being "taught about birth control" is not at all the same thing as properly using birth control. Are you saying that they were properly using the best method of birth control and they failed or that they had just attended classes about different contraceptives?

I will remind you of how this train of thought began (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=4600.msg273583#msg273583), Brian. 

It is difficult to dialog when you insist upon riding a train of your own imagination.  Alas, it is also typical.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 09, 2012, 03:00:18 AM

Being "taught about birth control" is not at all the same thing as properly using birth control. Are you saying that they were properly using the best method of birth control and they failed or that they had just attended classes about different contraceptives?

I will remind you of how this train of thought began (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=4600.msg273583#msg273583), Brian. 

It is difficult to dialog when you insist upon riding a train of your own imagination.  Alas, it is also typical.


While Charles used "teaching about birth control," I did not. It's not a dialogue when you quote my post, but are really responding to what Charles has written.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 09, 2012, 01:46:39 PM

While Charles used "teaching about birth control," I did not. It's not a dialogue when you quote my post, but are really responding to what Charles has written.

Excuse me. Who changed the subject (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=4600.msg273623#msg273623)?

Fraternally, Steven+
Title: A Question for the "Just Teach Them More" people
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 25, 2012, 09:31:00 PM
ACOG (The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists  just released a statement that they are endorsing the use of IUDs as the preferred method of contraception for sexually active teens.

Given the fact that IUDs work by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg, it is a de facto abortifacient.  Just wondering what those who are so keen to get kids contracepting have to say about that.  Does it make a difference to you at all? [This is a serious, non-rhetorical question.]
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on September 26, 2012, 08:53:58 AM
That seems to be a stretch.  I don't think that very many people would agree with that.  Abortifacient seems to be a buzz word and should probably not be used in discourse.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on September 26, 2012, 09:01:00 AM
I found this on a source Medicinenet.com

Abortifacient: A medication or substance that causes pregnancy to end prematurely
Source: MedicineNet
Plan B
...the process of ovulation. It may also interfere with fertilization or implantation. It is not effective once implantation has begun. It is not an abortifacient. Common side effects include nausea,
Source: MedicineNet
Fire, St. Anthony's
...contract. The ergotamines have been much used (and been very useful) for the treatment of migraine. They have also been used (and misused) as abortifacients (agents of abortion). In excess,
Source: MedicineNet
Ergotism
...to contract. They have been much used and been very useful for the treatment of migraine. They have also been used and misused as abortifacients (agents of abortion). In excess, however,
Source: MedicineNet
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on September 26, 2012, 09:05:01 AM
It seems to me that if there has been  no fertilization, then there is no abortion.   

Might others agree that the term 'abortifacient' has been much misused in the long discussion of the Affordable Care Act?   I suggest that in the discussion abortifacient is a term that has been misapplied, misused, and used to stir up faithful Christians on a political crusade.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

I have just recently been authorized by the ELS to list myself as an official spokesman for the  little synod.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steverem on September 26, 2012, 09:13:01 AM

It seems to me that if there has been  no fertilization, then there is no abortion.   


The quote to which you're objecting says, "Given the fact that IUDs work by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. . . ."  If the egg is fertilized, pregnancy has begun, and any steps taken to end that process are in essence abortion.  Abortifacient is indeed the correct term for such a procedure.  It's not a "buzz word" - it is what it is.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on September 26, 2012, 09:26:23 AM
I am not a scientist.  I defer to others who know more about science and biology than I do.   
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: pearson on September 26, 2012, 09:30:43 AM

That seems to be a stretch.  I don't think that very many people would agree with that.  Abortifacient seems to be a buzz word and should probably not be used in discourse.


Which discourse?  Medical discourse and poltiical discourse are often incongruent.  While "abortifacient" might be used as an epithet to manipulate political discourse (as are terms like "choice" and "hate" and "racism"), it is the correct term in medical discourse when referring to the effect of IUDs on the zygote.

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 26, 2012, 09:33:34 AM
However one terms it and whatever the legal distinctions, there can be no question that we're a society that increasingly organizes itself around the assumption that sterile orgasms are the among the highest humanly achievable goods.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on September 26, 2012, 09:46:19 AM
That seems like a stretch.   
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on September 26, 2012, 10:08:58 AM
 Peter writes:
...assumption that sterile orgasms are the among the highest humanly achievable goods.

I comment:
So it is only baby-making orgasms that have value? Don't know where you are going or what is at stake here, for the physical act to which you refer is a - in terms of material "value" - a rather low-priced commodity.
Society seems to "organize itself" around the assumption that getting money for oneself and spending it on oneself is the "highest humanly achievable" good. I find that a greater threat than the presence of a natural God-given physical act of pleasure and relationship.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: resident episcopalian on September 26, 2012, 10:17:40 AM
Current research in reproductive medicine does not support the claim that the IUD is an abortifacient at all.  Studies done in the last 20 years demonstrate that its primary effect is to change the lining of the cervix and make it difficult for sperm to travel to the egg.  The IUD actually works much earlier in the reproductive process than was thought in the 1970s.  The IUD does not prevent implantation of a zygote, as evidenced by the fact that 1 in 100 IUD users does, in fact, get pregnant.

The idea that the IUD is an abortifacient has long been discredited.  Pro life professionals like yourself will make a better case for abstinence and against teen promiscuity (and abortion) when you are better informed about current medical research on the effects of contraception.

Perhaps the 1970s misconception that the IUD worked to prevent implantation was due to the very high number of fertilized eggs which naturally do not implant.  Depending upon which research you read, the number of fertilized eggs which fail to implant (in non contraceptive users) is between 48 and 80 percent.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Team Hesse on September 26, 2012, 10:35:01 AM
Peter writes:
...assumption that sterile orgasms are the among the highest humanly achievable goods.

I comment:
So it is only baby-making orgasms that have value? Don't know where you are going or what is at stake here, for the physical act to which you refer is a - in terms of material "value" - a rather low-priced commodity.
Society seems to "organize itself" around the assumption that getting money for oneself and spending it on oneself is the "highest humanly achievable" good. I find that a greater threat than the presence of a natural God-given physical act of pleasure and relationship.

These two topics are "intimately" related. A number of people are choosing to be childless precisely so they have more money to spend on themselves. I have very little comprehension of the value of that kind of purposefulness.

Lou
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: pearson on September 26, 2012, 10:36:01 AM

Current research in reproductive medicine does not support the claim that the IUD is an abortifacient at all.  Studies done in the last 20 years demonstrate that its primary effect is to change the lining of the cervix and make it difficult for sperm to travel to the egg. 


Yes, that's one way in which IUDs function, particularly when hormonal IUDs are involved.  Copper IUDs, which are far more common than hormonal IUDs, work to prevent implantation of the zygote when fertilization has taken place.

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steverem on September 26, 2012, 10:45:21 AM
I am not a scientist.  I defer to others who know more about science and biology than I do.

And yet you keep posting . . .
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: resident episcopalian on September 26, 2012, 11:39:26 AM
Tom,
Copper IUDs differ in function from hormonal IUDs but particularly inhibit sperm by creating a toxic environment for them, rather than by preventing implantation. 

Since copper IUDs are longer lasting and cheaper than hormonal they are indeed in wider use in the U.S.

This brief article references several studies done within the past twenty five years which confirm the copper IUD's effect on sperm:

http://www.reproline.jhu.edu/english/6read/6issues/6network/v20-1/nt2013.html

If you oppose contraception (for teens or anyone), you can certainly make a strong case against it. 
Calling IUDs abortifacients (when they are not) is not necessary.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 26, 2012, 11:46:10 AM
Current research in reproductive medicine does not support the claim that the IUD is an abortifacient at all.  Studies done in the last 20 years demonstrate that its primary effect is to change the lining of the cervix and make it difficult for sperm to travel to the egg.  The IUD actually works much earlier in the reproductive process than was thought in the 1970s.  The IUD does not prevent implantation of a zygote, as evidenced by the fact that 1 in 100 IUD users does, in fact, get pregnant.

The idea that the IUD is an abortifacient has long been discredited.  Pro life professionals like yourself will make a better case for abstinence and against teen promiscuity (and abortion) when you are better informed about current medical research on the effects of contraception.

Perhaps the 1970s misconception that the IUD worked to prevent implantation was due to the very high number of fertilized eggs which naturally do not implant.  Depending upon which research you read, the number of fertilized eggs which fail to implant (in non contraceptive users) is between 48 and 80 percent.

The same chemical/physiological reactions that make the uterine wall and cervix hostile to sperm  traveling up make it hostile to zygotes coming down.  An IUD may not have its primary purpose or function the disruption of implantation, but it does nonetheless therefore it is, as I stated a de facto abortifacient.

Just as the Pill, which was not developed to disrupt implantation, has been shown to do so. 

So my question is- given the fact that  some people claim education & ready access to contraception would decrease abortions, does the fact that some contraceptives actually cause abortions cause some people to rethink, at least with regards to some forms of contraception?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: resident episcopalian on September 26, 2012, 12:18:22 PM
Matt,
I have not found anything published since the 1970s to support your continued claim that the IUD prevents implantation. 
Implantation is a pretty miraculous event anyway, as I mentioned before, so it is pretty hard to claim that the IUD is having a discernible anti-implantation effect when it so efficiently prevents fertilization to begin with.

For whatever it's worth, I studied the abortifacient charge very carefully before rethinking my earlier rejection of the IUD.




Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 26, 2012, 12:50:51 PM
Matt,
For whatever it's worth, I studied the abortifacient charge very carefully before rethinking my earlier rejection of the IUD.

So the answer to my underlying question is "Yes- whether or not a contraceptive is an abortifacientwould affect my thoughts on its use."  Correct?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: resident episcopalian on September 26, 2012, 01:46:31 PM

Yes Matt, if I there had been good scientific evidence to believe the IUD was abortifacient, we would have selected another method.

My underlying question for you might be, do you suppose it is right to continue telling women that an IUD  is an abortifacient even when the research shows otherwise?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 26, 2012, 01:58:43 PM

Yes Matt, if I there had been good scientific evidence to believe the IUD was abortifacient, we would have selected another method.

My underlying question for you might be, do you suppose it is right to continue telling women that an IUD  is an abortifacient even when the research shows otherwise?

A fair question- if shown unequivocally that this is the case, then yes.  The Pro-Life cause's greatest asset that is denied to folks like Planned Parenthood and the the other supporters of the Abortion-Industrial Complex  is the truth.

Now- can you tell me that an IUD does not, in any way shape or form prevent implantation, or simply that in the majority of times it prevents fertilization?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: resident episcopalian on September 26, 2012, 02:43:03 PM
Matt,

That criteria is pretty stringent.  I cannot even make a conclusive case that my morning multi-vitamin pill does not, in any way shape or form, ever prevent implantation but I am not going to torture myself over the possibility that it might since current scientific evidence does not suggest that it is at all likely. 



Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on September 26, 2012, 03:46:30 PM
Now- can you tell me that an IUD does not, in any way shape or form prevent implantation, or simply that in the majority of times it prevents fertilization?

The LCMS supports your position, Matt.

Intrauterine Methods

The intrauterine device (IUD) is a small plastic or metal device placed inside a woman’s uterus by a doctor and is intended to remain in place for an extended length of time. There are two main types of IUDs in use, medicated and non-medicated.

Non-medicated IUDs are currently not being used in the U.S., but are available in other parts of the world.  Currently available in the U.S. are two medicated IUDs: the copper IUD (hormone-free, commonly known as ParaGard) and a progestin-releasing IUD (commonly known as Mirena Intrauterine System).  Any IUD, medicated or non-medicated, will trigger an inflammatory response of the uterus to a foreign body. This foreign body reaction produces tissue injury of a minor degree, but sufficient enough to be toxic to sperm.  A variety of studies demonstrate that IUD use diminishes both the number of sperm reaching the Fallopian tube and the capacity of sperm to fertilize the egg.

In addition to the spermicidal effects caused by the foreign body reaction, the medicated IUDs have additional contraceptive actions.  For instance, the copper IUD (ParaGard) works by releasing copper and copper salts that enhance the inflammatory action within the endometrium and stimulate the production of prostaglandins, chemicals that affect the hormones needed to support a pregnancy. Some scientists now think that the metal of the traditional copper IUD may have an intrinsic spermicidal effect as well.

On the other hand, the progestin-releasing IUD (Mirena) thickens the cervical mucus creating a barrier to sperm and inhibits sperm capacitation, impairing its ability to fertilize the egg. Although it partially inhibits follicular development, thus interfering with ovulation, up to 85 percent of the cycles may be ovulatory.  Therefore, Mirena can stop ovulation, but this is not typically the way it works. In addition, it may cause suppression of endometrial growth and hamper implantation. Scientists do not know which action is the primary method in which it operates. Most likely, all of them work together.

It is clear that IUDs do not primarily work by preventing ovulation. There does seem to be a predominant spermicidal effect of IUDs, but we cannot dismiss that it may also interfere with implantation. It is due to this reason that use of the IUD as a method of birth control would give cause for concern to Christian couples. Although newer types of IUDs are thought to be safer, many manufacturers have ceased production of the IUD in the past because of serious health risks, including infections and infertility. These health risks should be discussed with one’s personal physician.


From:  http://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=632
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 26, 2012, 04:44:18 PM
I loves me some Buckeye Deaconess and the LCMS.   ;D

I went back and checked, RE (Since I know not your name but don't get my nickers in a twist like some folks on that issue)

IUDs may not be listed as abortifacients, but if the package insert says they (may) inhibit nidation, guess what that means?

Big Pharma, a part of the Abortion-Industrial Complex especialy now that there is a move into "pharmacological" intervention with abortion, are going to skip the A word and use language that is not well known.

I have, with all due modesty, one of the most extensive working vocabularies of anyone I know.  And I had to be told by a former Drug Rep now turned Fertility Awareness Based Medicine practitioner about nidation.  She will be sending me links, but Google can do it for you.

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 26, 2012, 05:00:04 PM
Peter writes:
...assumption that sterile orgasms are the among the highest humanly achievable goods.

I comment:
So it is only baby-making orgasms that have value?
Once again, you attempt to restate something while entirely changing the meaning. Please show me where I said or even implied that an orgasm that produces no baby has no value. You can't. You simply leap to bogus conclusions, and you do so habitually. What I said was that we are organizing our society or culture, by which I mean much more than government and include television, fashion, lifestyles, music, marriage, etc., around the idea that sterile orgasms are among the highest humanly achievable goods. And I stand by that statement. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: George Erdner on September 26, 2012, 06:23:22 PM
Peter writes:
...assumption that sterile orgasms are the among the highest humanly achievable goods.

I comment:
So it is only baby-making orgasms that have value?
Once again, you attempt to restate something while entirely changing the meaning. Please show me where I said or even implied that an orgasm that produces no baby has no value. You can't. You simply leap to bogus conclusions, and you do so habitually. What I said was that we are organizing our society or culture, by which I mean much more than government and include television, fashion, lifestyles, music, marriage, etc., around the idea that sterile orgasms are among the highest humanly achievable goods. And I stand by that statement.

One might find that statement negative, and indicative of a degeneration of society. One might find that statement one to applaud as an indication of something positive for society. But no sensible person can argue that it is not a true and accurate observation.
 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on September 26, 2012, 06:31:17 PM
In "Manhattan" a fine 1979 Woody Allen movie, a trendy woman at a cocktail party says: “I finally had a orgasm, and my doctor said it was the wronge kind.”
Woody muses:
 “Oh, really? Cause I’ve never had the wrong kind. My worse one was… right on the money.”

I comment:
And perhaps that also applies to "sterile orgasms."
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: swbohler on September 26, 2012, 07:55:56 PM
It is not the "orgasm" part of the phrase that is the problem, Rev. Austin.  It is the "sterile" part (that is, the concept that orgasms specifically intended NOT to conceive a child to be the goal and desired aim) which give many pause.  I would assume you would object to a person who ate simply for the pleasure of eating, and then purged himself of the eaten food in order to consume more but NOT to nourish his body.  We eat to nourish the body, but we are blessed to enjoy the meal.  But to seek the one without the other is to pervert/misuse what God has given.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on September 26, 2012, 10:47:45 PM
Pastor Bohler writes:
I would assume you would object to a person who ate simply for the pleasure of eating, and then purged himself of the eaten food in order to consume more but NOT to nourish his body.

I comment:
Au contraire. I sometimes do eat "simply for the pleasure of eating," a good scone or biscuit with tea in the afternoon, some Swiss chocolate before bedtime; a cookie or three when I feel down. Nourishment of the body is not my goal; and - given the nature of some of my gustatory treats - there may be little nourishment given. (What is the nutritional value of two scoops of pistachio ice cream?)
Now, I do not "purge," but I am not at those times eating for nourishment, but for pleasure.
As for that other pleasure mentioned upstream; I am among those who believe that it does not exist only for making more people.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 26, 2012, 10:57:06 PM
Pastor Bohler writes:
I would assume you would object to a person who ate simply for the pleasure of eating, and then purged himself of the eaten food in order to consume more but NOT to nourish his body.

I comment:
Au contraire. I sometimes do eat "simply for the pleasure of eating," a good scone or biscuit with tea in the afternoon, some Swiss chocolate before bedtime; a cookie or three when I feel down. Nourishment of the body is not my goal; and - given the nature of some of my gustatory treats - there may be little nourishment given. (What is the nutritional value of two scoops of pistachio ice cream?)
Now, I do not "purge," but I am not at those times eating for nourishment, but for pleasure.
As for that other pleasure mentioned upstream; I am among those who believe that it does not exist only for making more people.
Nobody said it exists solely for making more people.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Michael Slusser on September 26, 2012, 11:00:54 PM
However one terms it and whatever the legal distinctions, there can be no question that we're a society that increasingly organizes itself around the assumption that sterile orgasms are the among the highest humanly achievable goods.

Pithy and accurate, unfortunately.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: swbohler on September 26, 2012, 11:12:13 PM
Rev. Austin,

You did not really address what I wrote.  I asked about a person who ate solely for the pleasure of eating and then intentionally purged himself so as not to nourish the body and/or to eat more.  You changed that to speak of a person who ate for the pleasure of eating (but who did not purge after eating).  Not the same thing.

God made sex to procreate.  God made sex enjoyable.  God made food to nourish us.  God made food taste good.  But to separate the first from the second (not to ignore, or forget, or such but to separate) is to pervert what God has given.  To do that with food is gluttony.  To do that with sex is ..... good? 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on September 27, 2012, 04:59:50 AM
Peter writes:
Nobody said it exists solely for making more people.

I comment:
Unless I misunderstood your postings some time ago, you oppose all forms of contraception and want every act of sexual intercourse to have the capability of bringing sperm and egg together for fertilization. This says to me that the act exists, if not solely, at least primarily for the purpose of creating more people.
Unless I misunderstood your postings some time ago and recently, you have a problem with engaging in sexual intercourse solely for the sake of the pleasurable relationship.
I do not have that problem, nor do I see anything inherently wrong with a couple choosing to limit the number of children they have or choosing not to have children at all.
How about this, Pastor Bohler? I enjoy eating some things that - given my general condition - do absolutely nothing to nourish my body. My body does not need them to grow, sustain itself or survive. Still good eating, they are, and the pleasure of eating them blessed by God, think I.
And BTW "gluttony" is excessive eating, it is not eating for pleasure.
But I sense we have - from our different worlds - entered the deep dark Tunnel of Nowhere. I think I'll turn around now and try not to go further into its darkness.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Mike Gehlhausen on September 27, 2012, 08:37:17 AM
Unless I misunderstood your postings some time ago, you oppose all forms of contraception and want every act of sexual intercourse to have the capability of bringing sperm and egg together for fertilization. This says to me that the act exists, if not solely, at least primarily for the purpose of creating more people.
Unless I misunderstood your postings some time ago and recently, you have a problem with engaging in sexual intercourse solely for the sake of the pleasurable relationship.
I do not have that problem, nor do I see anything inherently wrong with a couple choosing to limit the number of children they have or choosing not to have children at all.
How about this, Pastor Bohler? I enjoy eating some things that - given my general condition - do absolutely nothing to nourish my body. My body does not need them to grow, sustain itself or survive. Still good eating, they are, and the pleasure of eating them blessed by God, think I.
And BTW "gluttony" is excessive eating, it is not eating for pleasure.
But I sense we have - from our different worlds - entered the deep dark Tunnel of Nowhere. I think I'll turn around now and try not to go further into its darkness.

This is an excellent excursis, albeit in a negative sense, as to what Romans 16:17-18 means by serving the appetites -- both gustatory and sexual in this case -- of one's belly rather than our Lord Christ.

Mike
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 27, 2012, 08:39:04 AM
Peter writes:
Nobody said it exists solely for making more people.

I comment:
Unless I misunderstood your postings some time ago, you oppose all forms of contraception and want every act of sexual intercourse to have the capability of bringing sperm and egg together for fertilization. This says to me that the act exists, if not solely, at least primarily for the purpose of creating more people.

You do misunderstand me and you do use bad logic. First, I never said I want every act of sexual intercourse to be capable of fertilization. I don't think anyone on the planet thinks that except possibly the big family who sings in Monty Python's Meaning of Life. Rather, I think the people involved should be open to procreation. That makes a big difference. Secondly, even if you understood me correctly, your conclusion does not follow. To see why, all you have to do is apply your standard to some other important aspect of sexual intercourse such as physical pleasure or emotional bonding. I oppose all artificial efforts to remove physical pleasure from the act of intercourse as though it were somehow bad. But that doesn't mean I think intercourse exists primarily or solely for giving physical pleasure. Nor does it mean that I think someone who, perhaps due to a headache or some medical affliction, nevertheless engages in intercourse for the sake of the spouse because they're trying to conceive is doing something immoral by having sex without pleasure. It is the deliberate removal of pleasure, not the lack of pleasure, that perverts sex. Similarly, it is the deliberate prevention of procreation, not the lack of capability to procreate that perverts sex. Procreation doesn't have to be any more important that pleasure; it simply has to be inextricably entwined with the purpose of the act.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on September 27, 2012, 08:55:10 AM
Peter writes:
Similarly, it is the deliberate prevention of procreation, not the lack of capability to procreate that perverts sex.

I comment:
Then artificial contraception "perverts sex". I get that.
Done here.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: pearson on September 27, 2012, 09:50:03 AM

Similarly, it is the deliberate prevention of procreation, not the lack of capability to procreate that perverts sex.


Your entire argument here, Pr. Speckhard, is well spoken.  However, this particular sentence discourages one (of several) of the natural law arguments against homosexual sexual activity.  One of the arguments traditionally put forward by natural law is that homosexual sexual activity is morally wrong precisely because there is a "lack of capability to procreate" in such activity.  Unless one abandons this natural law argument, perhaps some nuance needs to be added to your claim above.

Tom Pearson 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Mike Gehlhausen on September 27, 2012, 10:19:21 AM

Similarly, it is the deliberate prevention of procreation, not the lack of capability to procreate that perverts sex.


Your entire argument here, Pr. Speckhard, is well spoken.  However, this particular sentence discourages one (of several) of the natural law arguments against homosexual sexual activity.  One of the arguments traditionally put forward by natural law is that homosexual sexual activity is morally wrong precisely because there is a "lack of capability to procreate" in such activity.  Unless one abandons this natural law argument, perhaps some nuance needs to be added to your claim above.

Tom Pearson

Are oral and anal sexual activity sinful within the case of a heterosexual marriage?  They too possess a lack of activity to procreate even though they may or may not be engaged in to deliberately prevent procreative activity.

Mike
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 27, 2012, 10:49:49 AM
Are oral and anal sexual activity sinful within the case of a heterosexual marriage?  They too possess a lack of activity to procreate even though they may or may not be engaged in to deliberately prevent procreative activity.

Mike

I suppose it depends upon your tradition.  As to the former, as a lovely sidetrip on the way to the final destination, no.  As an alternative destination, yes.

As to the latter, yes.  I can recall in Seminary reading Nelson's Embodiment and his paen to going up the down ramp as the "embrace of the unlovable" or some such claptrap and therefore an act of grace.  He obviously wrote before Gaetan Dugas.  I was reading this just about the time that the world was dealing with fallout from a great deal of such "embracing."  It was the start of my process of realizing that having a Ph.D. in such matters really didn't count for much if you could be so patently dumb.

It is fascinating to read about the increase in popularity of heterosexual anal sex (in both directions- I offer into evidence "pegging").  If one were given to a conspiritorial frame of mind, one would wonder if this is part of the move to define deviency downwards so as to overcome the "ick" factor that is the last hold out in the debates regarding the alleged equivalency between heterosexual and homosexual couples.

But the question that I would still like to hear answered by folks such as Charles and Brian is, "Would the knowledge that a contraceptive was also an abortifacient preclude your endorsement of it?"  Or is all that talk about contraception ooas an alternative to abortion just that, talk?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Coach-Rev on September 27, 2012, 11:11:51 AM
want a true-to-life perspective on Abortion?  Check out this new movie (http://octoberbabymovie.net/), just released.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on September 27, 2012, 12:16:44 PM
want a true-to-life perspective on Abortion?  Check out this new movie (http://octoberbabymovie.net/), just released.

This is a great movie.  Be sure to watch through the credits as the actress playing the birthmother shares her story of being post-abortive herself.  I think if more women like her were actually listened to in the ELCA and other abortion-supporting church bodies, pastors would understand the dire consequences of their inaction on this issue.  You're failing women when you don't speak up or simply point to a social statement that really says nothing to the issue.

And which Lutheran church body is accused of being anti-woman?   ::)
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Mike Gehlhausen on September 27, 2012, 12:21:10 PM
want a true-to-life perspective on Abortion?  Check out this new movie (http://octoberbabymovie.net/), just released.

This is a great movie.  Be sure to watch through the credits as the actress playing the birthmother shares her story of being post-abortive herself.  I think if more women like her were actually listened to in the ELCA and other abortion-supporting church bodies, pastors would understand the dire consequences of their inaction on this issue.  You're failing women when you don't speak up or simply point to a social statement that really says nothing to the issue.

This is the kind of entertainment I wish Hollywood made more of. 

Mike
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on September 27, 2012, 12:26:08 PM
This is the kind of entertainment I wish Hollywood made more of. 

Mike

Ha!  Fat chance . . . it is hard to be pro-life in Hollywood.  Patricia Heaton can attest to that (http://gopwomen.blogspot.com/2009/04/patricia-heaton-celebrity-voice-for-pro.html).

Lookie there . . . she plays the mom in my favorite show right now, The Middle, and is a graduate of THE Ohio State University.  You learn something new every day.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Mike Gehlhausen on September 27, 2012, 12:35:36 PM
This is the kind of entertainment I wish Hollywood made more of. 

Mike

Ha!  Fat chance . . . it is hard to be pro-life in Hollywood.  Patricia Heaton can attest to that (http://gopwomen.blogspot.com/2009/04/patricia-heaton-celebrity-voice-for-pro.html).

Lookie there . . . she plays the mom in my favorite show right now, The Middle, and is a graduate of THE Ohio State University.  You learn something new every day.

It's interesting that the comments on the article followed down the same path of discussing birth control which this thread did.

BTW, "The Middle" is also one of my favorites, and another example of the kind of entertainment I wish Hollywood made more of.   It is a refreshing difference from most sit-coms which seem to be in a contest to see how many sex jokes they can rattle off per minute.

Mike
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Coach-Rev on September 27, 2012, 01:03:06 PM
want a true-to-life perspective on Abortion?  Check out this new movie (http://octoberbabymovie.net/), just released.

This is a great movie.  Be sure to watch through the credits as the actress playing the birthmother shares her story of being post-abortive herself.  I think if more women like her were actually listened to in the ELCA and other abortion-supporting church bodies, pastors would understand the dire consequences of their inaction on this issue.  You're failing women when you don't speak up or simply point to a social statement that really says nothing to the issue.

And which Lutheran church body is accused of being anti-woman?   ::)

Good point on the credits - I think her words there might have been the most poignant moment of the entire movie.

Come to think of it - good point all around...
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on September 27, 2012, 03:37:56 PM
Matt Hummel writes (re some means of expressing sexual intimacy):
As to the former, as a lovely sidetrip on the way to the final destination, no.  As an alternative destination, yes.

I comment:
Why? What is the "final destination"?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 27, 2012, 04:20:29 PM
Matt Hummel writes (re some means of expressing sexual intimacy):
As to the former, as a lovely sidetrip on the way to the final destination, no.  As an alternative destination, yes.

I comment:
Why? What is the "final destination"?

If I have to draw you a map, Charles, I pity you...

So anyway- what about the question- would the knowledge that a contraceptive acts as an abortifacient affect your thoughts on its use?  Since you are a champion of the belief that the more information regarding contraception, the fewer the abortions, I would be interested in your thought.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on September 27, 2012, 09:48:02 PM
It was a serious question, Mr. Hummel, how about an answer?
You wrote (re some means of expressing sexual intimacy being wrong):
As to the former, as a lovely sidetrip on the way to the final destination, no.  As an alternative destination, yes.

I asked, Why? And "What is the final destination"?

No, you don't have to draw a map. But what is the "final destination" of sexual expression? And remember the issue here was whether sexuality is only or primarily for procreation and the matter under discussion was those forms of sexual intimacy that do not lead to procreation.
So let's say (for sake of argument) that the "final destination" is Duluth. And the couple decides that the "lovely sidetrip" (your words) to Mankato is enough; both are happy and tired and they decide not to go to Duluth that night.
Is that all right, or do they have to go to Duluth every time they get in the car? Is the purpose of the trip only or primarily to get to Duluth?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on September 28, 2012, 07:10:06 AM
An 8 hour (RT) sidetrip to Mankato?! No wonder you're too tired.

No, perhaps the "lovely sidetrip" is to Gooseberry Falls.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on September 28, 2012, 07:44:48 AM
Yes, Mankato.   Mankato is the site of the headquarters of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod.  A member of the ELS Doctrinal Committee is running for Congress in the First District.  This candidate, and his finance chairman, also a member of the ELS Doctrinal Committee,  have been successful in incorporating the candidate's political platform into the little synod's program.    Here is an update on the progress of Allen Quist's campaign as reported by the New Ulm Journal.  http://www.nujournal.com/page/content.detail/id/531419/Walz--Quist-clash-in-first-debate.html?nav=5009

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on September 28, 2012, 08:09:12 AM
O.k., make the lovely sidetrip to Gooseberry Falls. Is it all right to stop there and not go on to the "final destination" of Duluth?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on September 28, 2012, 08:42:56 AM
No, unless you're camping you'd have to go to Two Harbors to find a hotel. That's on the way to Duluth which is then only 22 miles away. Might as well go to where you planned to end up.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 28, 2012, 10:01:12 AM
It was a serious question, Mr. Hummel, how about an answer?
You wrote (re some means of expressing sexual intimacy being wrong):
As to the former, as a lovely sidetrip on the way to the final destination, no.  As an alternative destination, yes.

I asked, Why? And "What is the final destination"?

No, you don't have to draw a map. But what is the "final destination" of sexual expression? And remember the issue here was whether sexuality is only or primarily for procreation and the matter under discussion was those forms of sexual intimacy that do not lead to procreation.

Sigh...

50+ million dead and Charles wants to talk about oral sex.  Fine.

I am surprised that someone given to incesant name dropping of Catholic hierarchs knows so little about Catholic theology.  I am not saying "agrees with," but "knows."

Sexuality, which reaches its fullest expression in the love making between a husband and wife, has both a unitive and a procreative side.  To split off one from the other opens the relationship to a variety of evils. So willful engagement in behaviors that deliebrately seperate the one from the other are wrong.  I recommend for further edification:
Humanae Vitae (Paul VI prety much laid out what would happen.  And for that he was called a repressed hysteric.)
Bl. John Paul II's Theology of the Body
The Catechism of the Catholic Church

And so the question still stands- Given you position that the cure for the evil of abortion is more & better contraception, woul you cease to advocate the usage of a contraceptive that also funtioned as an abortifacient?

Or is it simply that you, like the ELCA National leadership, talk out of both sides of your mouth on the issue and really have no problems with abortion.  After all, the vast majority of children being killed are, from your demographic, "NOKD."
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on September 28, 2012, 10:33:36 AM
Mr. Hummel writes:
Sigh...
50+ million dead and Charles wants to talk about oral sex.  Fine.
I comment:
1. I did not bring up the topic. Others did.
2. And we are not only talking about that particular form of sexual expression. We are talking about sexual intimacies that are not capable of leading to a pregnancy.

Mr. Hummel writes:
I am surprised that someone given to incesant (sic) name dropping of Catholic hierarchs knows so little about Catholic theology.  I am not saying "agrees with," but "knows."
I comment:
"incesant (sic) name dropping"? I'm wondering just what names of "Catholic hierarchs" I have dropped. Maybe you can enlighten me.

Mr. Hummel writes:
Sexuality, which reaches its fullest expression in the love making between a husband and wife, has both a unitive and a procreative side.  To split off one from the other opens the relationship to a variety of evils. So willful engagement in behaviors that deliebrately (sic) seperate (sic) the one from the other are wrong.
I comment:
And there you go again, equating all of "love making" to that trip all the way to Duluth. I guess you think it is never ever right to stop at Gooseberry Falls.

Mr. Hummel writes:
I recommend for further edification:
Humanae Vitae (Paul VI prety much laid out what would happen.  And for that he was called a repressed hysteric.)
Bl. John Paul II's Theology of the Body
The Catechism of the Catholic Church

I comment:
News flash. I'm not Roman Catholic. There is no need for me to base my views on those documents. And it appears that as far as Humanae Vitae is concerned, Roman Catholics aren't basing their views on that document either.
News flash. The Roman Catholic Church does not dictate theology and ethics and morality for all of Christendom.

Mr. Hummel writes:
And so the question still stands- Given you (sic) position that the cure for the evil of abortion is more & better contraception, woul (sic) you cease to advocate the usage of a contraceptive that also funtioned (sic) as an abortifacient?
I comment:
I do not have the "position" that the "cure for the evil of abortion is more and better contraception." Where did you get that idea? I do believe that better birth control information can prevent pregnancies that might lead to abortions.
I have said before that I have considerable problems with abortion and some of the attitudes that people have toward abortion. That does not mean that I endorse the radical views of most so-called "pro-life" people any more than I endorse the radical views of some who favor permissive laws regarding abortion.

Mr. Hummel writes:
Or is it simply that you, like the ELCA National leadership, talk out of both sides of your mouth on the issue and really have no problems with abortion.  After all, the vast majority of children being killed are, from your demographic, "NOKD."
I comment:
Your views about the mendacity of "the ELCA National leadership" are your own. You state them here so broadly as to be most unfair and unhelpful.
What in the name of the gods of Acronymia is NOKD? I sincerely doubt that my demographic is responsible for the majority of abortions. I doubt that many white, middle-class couples in their 70s are having abortions. But maybe you know something that I don't. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: DeHall on September 28, 2012, 11:11:18 AM
What in the name of the gods of Acronymia is NOKD? I sincerely doubt that my demographic is responsible for the majority of abortions. I doubt that many white, middle-class couples in their 70s are having abortions. But maybe you know something that I don't.

Not our kind, Dear.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on September 28, 2012, 11:19:01 AM
And there you go again, equating all of "love making" to that trip all the way to Duluth. I guess you think it is never ever right to stop at Gooseberry Falls.

No, you are being intellectually dishonest. He never manifested such a thought. In fact, he wrote of a "lovely sidetrip."
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on September 28, 2012, 11:28:19 AM
Let Mr. Hummel answer for himself.
He (and others here) have declared that there is something wrong with forms of sexual intimacy that do not reach that "final destination," namely that place where the possibility of procreation exists.
I hear him (and others) saying that if you get in the car and turn on the engine, you'd better drive all the way to Duluth. Stopping at Gooseberry Falls is sinful.

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: cssml on September 28, 2012, 11:33:59 AM
No, unless you're camping you'd have to go to Two Harbors to find a hotel. That's on the way to Duluth which is then only 22 miles away. Might as well go to where you planned to end up.

I am confused here, when Charles mentioned Mankato as a side trip, I envisioned the origin being somewhere south of Duluth, but with Gooseberry Falls being North of Duluth, one would have to go out of there way to get around Duluth to get to Gooseberry Falls from the south (intentional avoidance of Duluth??).  :-)
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 28, 2012, 11:39:01 AM
Fine-

Make me eat my words-

I will ask for the umpteenth time for someone to name something the ELCA has done qua ELCA that directly contributes to the reduction of abortions in this or any country.  I mean a new program or intiative, and not the continuation of adoption programs by social service agencies or other programs that were in place before hand.  From 1 January 1998 to 30 June 2009 I know of none.  Since then?  Name one brand spanking new thing the ELCA has done and has publicized as helping to reduce (note- I did not say eliminate) the number of abortions.  Because isn't that what reasonable always say- "We can all agree that there are too many?"

Charles- I draw my thoughts about what you say from what you have written over the years- "When I was in Rome... When Richard John & I... When I was in Geneva... When the Cardinal said...."

And what is so hard about saying, "Yes- I would change" or "No- I would not" with regards to a contraceptive that functions as an abortifacient.  I posed the question generally in this forum because I am genuinely interested in the answer becaus it helps me determine which paths of conversation might be most useful.

So answer, or don't.  But you, in several threads, have implied that one way to get the abortion numbers down is to increase education and access to contraceptives.  Does knowledge about the effects change your thoughts on their use?

Why does this get you so hetted up?  Is there some part of your conscience that is struggling for release? And why keep redirecting to the difference in theologies on contraception qua contraception?  One of us is wrong.  One day we will both find out who.  Of course, the Lutheran position used to be pretty much the Catholic position before co-option by those lovely people at PP and the Eugenics movement.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on September 28, 2012, 11:45:00 AM
No, unless you're camping you'd have to go to Two Harbors to find a hotel. That's on the way to Duluth which is then only 22 miles away. Might as well go to where you planned to end up.

I am confused here, when Charles mentioned Mankato as a side trip, I envisioned the origin being somewhere south of Duluth, but with Gooseberry Falls being North of Duluth, one would have to go out of there way to get around Duluth to get to Gooseberry Falls from the south (intentional avoidance of Duluth??).  :-)

I suggested Gooseberry Falls as a lovely sidetrip. I'm in Bemidji, hence the context.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on September 28, 2012, 11:51:23 AM
Let Mr. Hummel answer for himself.

No, when you dishonestly twist things publicly, the reader may call you on it.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: cssml on September 28, 2012, 12:02:14 PM
Let Mr. Hummel answer for himself.
He (and others here) have declared that there is something wrong with forms of sexual intimacy that do not reach that "final destination," namely that place where the possibility of procreation exists.
I hear him (and others) saying that if you get in the car and turn on the engine, you'd better drive all the way to Duluth. Stopping at Gooseberry Falls is sinful.

Charles, human sexuality is beautiful, sacred, God's gift to us and and is not ours alone to do with what we will. As with any gift, He created it with distinct ends and purposes.  As has been stated many times here, the Catholic church (and all Christendom prior to 1930s) has always understood and taught that there are two distinct ends and purposes of human sexuality; the unitive purpose, in which the husband and wife give themselves to each other in totality, freely, and without reservation, and the procreative purpose, in which through this act of total self giving to each other, the possibility of God giving new life to the world is not intentionally denied.

The Catholic church holds it to be true that to deny either of these ends and purposes of God's gift of human sexuality is to fall short, to sin, to choose our own will over God's will and desire for us.

No matter how many times you falsely claim that those you disagree with hold the position that "it is ALL about procreation", it simply is not true.

Until 1930s, and the Lambeth conferences, this is something all Christians agreed on.  This is not a reformational dividing line.  Maybe you hold it to be true that the Holy Spirit has guided the many denominations to embrace the artificial denial of the procreative aspect for the sake of focusing entirely on the the unitive/loving/pleasure aspect.

If any "side" on this has a narrow view, it it this side which chooses to elevate the one end and purpose (unitive) to the only end by artificially denying the other.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on September 28, 2012, 12:36:57 PM
Mr. Hummel writes:
Charles- I draw my thoughts about what you say from what you have written over the years- "When I was in Rome... When Richard John & I... When I was in Geneva... When the Cardinal said...."

I muse:
O.k., but that's not quite "incessant name-dropping." And I make no apologies for using here what experiences and blessings my career has brought me. I still contend that I have been closer to a number of Lutheran ecumenical and ecclesial events than anyone else here.

Mr. Hummel writes:
And what is so hard about saying, "Yes- I would change" or "No- I would not" with regards to a contraceptive that functions as an abortifacient.  I posed the question generally in this forum because I am genuinely interested in the answer becaus it helps me determine which paths of conversation might be most useful.

I comment:
Nothing hard at all about changing. I have done it several times, even with regard to controversial issues. You?

Mr. Hummel writes:
So answer, or don't.  But you, in several threads, have implied that one way to get the abortion numbers down is to increase education and access to contraceptives.  Does knowledge about the effects change your thoughts on their use?
I comment:
Not yet. But you can keep trying.

Mr. Hummel writes:
Why does this get you so hetted up?  Is there some part of your conscience that is struggling for release? And why keep redirecting to the difference in theologies on contraception qua contraception?  One of us is wrong.
I comment:
Puh-leeze spare us the long-distance psychoanalysis. We have different views on what might help diminish the number of abortions or pregnancies that might lead to abortions. I feel no heat. As I have said here many times, I respond to questions put directly to my comments.

Mr. Hummel writes:
....  Of course, the Lutheran position used to be pretty much the Catholic position before co-option by those lovely people at PP and the Eugenics movement.
I comment:
And the burr under your saddle seems to be the paranoia that someone other that faithful Christians have set the agenda for and positions within Lutheranism. Again, your broad brush sarcasm and cynicism is not helpful.

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 28, 2012, 12:43:50 PM
One thing that has changed thatnks to this thread: my image of Duluth.

zip+
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on September 28, 2012, 12:46:29 PM
cssml writes:
Charles, human sexuality is beautiful, sacred, God's gift to us and and is not ours alone to do with what we will. As with any gift, He created it with distinct ends and purposes.  As has been stated many times here, the Catholic church (and all Christendom prior to 1930s) has always understood and taught that there are two distinct ends and purposes of human sexuality; the unitive purpose, in which the husband and wife give themselves to each other in totality, freely, and without reservation, and the procreative purpose, in which through this act of total self giving to each other, the possibility of God giving new life to the world is not intentionally denied.
I comment:
Where have I ever said I deny the unitive and procreative purpose of human sexuality? I fully affirm that. But you (and others) seem to say that if there is sexual intimacy that by its nature cannot be procreative, it is sinful. I think that is hogwash. A couple can fully affirm both aspects of sexuality and still say that not every expression of intimacy has to fully embrace both.

cssml writes:
The Catholic church holds it to be true that to deny either of these ends and purposes of God's gift of human sexuality is to fall short, to sin, to choose our own will over God's will and desire for us.
I comment:
See above. To repeat, every time the couple gets in the car and turns on the engine, do they have to go to Duluth? And if they don't, have they perverted the purpose of the automobile?

cssml writes:
No matter how many times you falsely claim that those you disagree with hold the position that "it is ALL about procreation", it simply is not true.
I comment:
Then prove it to me. Can there be sexual intimacy in which procreation is neither intended nor desired? Can there be sexual intimacy where steps are taken to prevent procreation?

cssml writes:
Until 1930s, and the Lambeth conferences, this is something all Christians agreed on.  This is not a reformational dividing line.
I muse:
Actually, I doubt we really know what "all Christians" agreed upon with regard to sex before the 1930s.

cssml writes:
Maybe you hold it to be true that the Holy Spirit has guided the many denominations to embrace the artificial denial of the procreative aspect for the sake of focusing entirely on the the unitive/loving/pleasure aspect.
I comment:
Now who is making assumptions? See above. I do not say the focus should be solely on the unitive aspect of sexuality.

cssml writes:
If any "side" on this has a narrow view, it it this side which chooses to elevate the one end and purpose (unitive) to the only end by artificially denying the other.
I muse:
And what of those who so elevate the procreative aspect that to say if it is not present, sexuality is perverted and sinful?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on September 28, 2012, 12:48:52 PM
One thing that has changed thatnks to this thread: my image of Duluth.

zip+

 ;D  Read Gore Vidal's novel, and your image will really change!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_(novel)
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 28, 2012, 01:13:39 PM
Will I still be in compliance with the (altered) Vision and Expectations?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 28, 2012, 01:38:57 PM
I simply note that Charles

1)  has finally answered the question re: those contraceptives that have have been shown to function as abortifacients.  He said such knowledge would not change his mind on their usage.  He, who has argued that contraception would decrease abortions  is apparently actually indifferent on the killing of children. Or am I misunderstanding? Please note- because I am talking with people who think differently from me on this issue, I am referring not to ALL contraceptives- but to those that inhibit/prevent implantation after conception.

2) when asked (yet again) to list one new thing the ELCA has done that has helped to reduce abortions has no answer.  Which is good.  Because there is none.


Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 28, 2012, 01:47:15 PM
I simply note that Charles

1)  has finally answered the question re: those contraceptives that have have been shown to function as abortifacients.  He said such knowledge would not change his mind on their usage.  He, who has argued that contraception would decrease abortions  is apparently actually indifferent on the killing of children. Or am I misunderstanding? Please note- because I am talking with people who think differently from me on this issue, I am referring not to ALL contraceptives- but to those that inhibit/prevent implantation after conception.


I don't consider inhibiting/preventing implantation to be the same thing as removing/destroying an implanted zygote.

Quote
2) when asked (yet again) to list one new thing the ELCA has done that has helped to reduce abortions has no answer.  Which is good.  Because there is none.


The purpose of the ELCA is not to reduce abortion, but to offer God's forgiveness to sinners.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 28, 2012, 01:57:29 PM
I simply note that Charles

1)  has finally answered the question re: those contraceptives that have have been shown to function as abortifacients.  He said such knowledge would not change his mind on their usage.  He, who has argued that contraception would decrease abortions  is apparently actually indifferent on the killing of children. Or am I misunderstanding? Please note- because I am talking with people who think differently from me on this issue, I am referring not to ALL contraceptives- but to those that inhibit/prevent implantation after conception.


I don't consider inhibiting/preventing implantation to be the same thing as removing/destroying an implanted zygote.

Quote
2) when asked (yet again) to list one new thing the ELCA has done that has helped to reduce abortions has no answer.  Which is good.  Because there is none.


The purpose of the ELCA is not to reduce abortion, but to offer God's forgiveness to sinners.

I was woried that this thread had gone on so long without any word from Brian.  I am glad you ar OK.

As to your first point, in the NATO phonetic alphabet, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.  I say again Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

As to the second point, does that mean I can tell friends in the ELCA that they can tell Mark & Co. to sod off with regards to the malaria project, since the purpose of the ELCA is not to reduce malaria, but to offer God's forgiveness to sinners?
Title: An apology
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 28, 2012, 02:06:28 PM
Several postings up, I used the phrase "incessant name dropping of Catholic heirarchs" with regards to Charles' posting.  Incessant was the wrong word to use in that instance.  Therefore I owe Charles an apology.  I was wrong.  No excuse.  No rationalization.  No hiding with a private note.

And we're moving on...
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on September 28, 2012, 02:17:43 PM
Mr. Hummel, your views on how certain contraceptives work and your views on the mechanics of human reproduction are yours. Some of them may be mine, some of them not.
But you still dodge my question. Is a form of sexual intimacy between a husband and wife which does not lead to the possibility of procreation right or wrong or sinful or indifferent? That very same husband and wife may have children or may have children in the future, but on this occasion....
And unless you are ELCA or even in one of the denominations in fellowship with us, I suggest you back off the snippy orders telling us what we should do.
I'm open to your views and would even commend you for your work in the "pro-life" movement, even as I think it is too often dominated by the fringe. But you seem to be obsessed with telling me how wrong I am.
Enough already.

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: readselerttoo on September 28, 2012, 02:18:29 PM
Let Mr. Hummel answer for himself.
He (and others here) have declared that there is something wrong with forms of sexual intimacy that do not reach that "final destination," namely that place where the possibility of procreation exists.
I hear him (and others) saying that if you get in the car and turn on the engine, you'd better drive all the way to Duluth. Stopping at Gooseberry Falls is sinful.

Charles, human sexuality is beautiful, sacred, God's gift to us and and is not ours alone to do with what we will. As with any gift, He created it with distinct ends and purposes.  As has been stated many times here, the Catholic church (and all Christendom prior to 1930s) has always understood and taught that there are two distinct ends and purposes of human sexuality; the unitive purpose, in which the husband and wife give themselves to each other in totality, freely, and without reservation, and the procreative purpose, in which through this act of total self giving to each other, the possibility of God giving new life to the world is not intentionally denied.

The Catholic church holds it to be true that to deny either of these ends and purposes of God's gift of human sexuality is to fall short, to sin, to choose our own will over God's will and desire for us.

No matter how many times you falsely claim that those you disagree with hold the position that "it is ALL about procreation", it simply is not true.

Until 1930s, and the Lambeth conferences, this is something all Christians agreed on.  This is not a reformational dividing line.  Maybe you hold it to be true that the Holy Spirit has guided the many denominations to embrace the artificial denial of the procreative aspect for the sake of focusing entirely on the the unitive/loving/pleasure aspect.

If any "side" on this has a narrow view, it it this side which chooses to elevate the one end and purpose (unitive) to the only end by artificially denying the other.



This statement is indicative of a presupposition that I believe is not consistent with the New Testament.  It seems from the sense of the statement and how I read it that there is an arena in which one can claim to be doing God's will and that one becomes a sinner only when one does something sinful.  Actually it is the other way around.  Because we are sinners we do sinful things.   First make the tree good and then the fruit will be good, as Jesus claims.  This speaks volumes to our confined human-to-human centered dialogues/arguments when we can convince ourselves and each other through presuppositions of our own making that our persons are neutrally valued by God until we do something.   God is not only creator and preserver in the way we understand the first article of the Apostles' Creed, but that God is also judge at the same time.  Since the fall of humanity God's judgment is always to the negative despite our own valuations which we create through systems of morality.

The second article of the Apostles' Creed talks about redemption exclusively through and in Jesus' person.   On the cross persons have been exchanged out and in.  "He (Jesus) was made to be sin who knew no sin so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (Jesus)." ala 2 Corinthians.  Jesus' relationship of redemption with the baptized is constant from God's side.  It is we sinners' who refuse God's forgiveness and the relationship that God has established with us in Jesus by choosing to "worship" our own opinions on political and social matters rahter than to trust God's act of redemption for us exclusively in Christ's person. (Galatians 2:19-20)


I continue to view the Lutheran relationship with Rome officially to have no real agreement on doctrine as long as Rome disagrees with the first article of contention in the Augsburg Confession regarding the nature and effect of sin.  This continues to be a stumbling block to unity as it was in the 16th century and has not changed even since JDDJ.  The issue of justification by faith is the article of contention even after JDDJ.  Our official "agencies" do not have agreement on this.  All this has to do with resultant issues which flow from the doctrine of sin including how morality is defined and used in public discourse.   Both Rome and Augsburg did not come to agreement and until this matter is resolved there can be no official harmony in doctrinal matters.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 28, 2012, 02:44:12 PM

But you still dodge my question. Is a form of sexual intimacy between a husband and wife which does not lead to the possibility of procreation right or wrong or sinful or indifferent? That very same husband and wife may have children or may have children in the future, but on this occasion....

Since holding hands can be a form of sexual intimacy...
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 28, 2012, 02:44:38 PM
Is a form of sexual intimacy between a husband and wife which does not lead to the possibility of procreation right or wrong or sinful or indifferent? That very same husband and wife may have children or may have children in the future, but on this occasion....

Charles- my lack of response at first was because I figured you knew the answer.  And then I suggested several sources that could give you the full overview.  But you dismissed that.

Deliberately breaking the unitive from the procreative  is dangerous and it is sinful.. Does all sexual intimacy between husband and wife have to be orgasmic or ejaculatory?  I would say, "no."  Some interesting studies on the strengthening of relationships in couples practicing fertility awareness based family planning and refraining when deemed necessary.

I would think that reasonable people could see that in attempting to grasp the unitive without the procreative, that our society has lost both. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: cssml on September 28, 2012, 05:18:00 PM
Both Rome and Augsburg did not come to agreement and until this matter is resolved there can be no official harmony in doctrinal matters.

I understand where your coming from.  We have placed our trust in different doctrinal authorities to authentically discern truth in questions of faith and morals.  My point in the discussion is that this issue was not a point of doctrinal difference in the first 400 years or so of after the reformation.  It has become so only since it was permitted by the Anglicans in 1930, beginning with the Lambeth conference.  The position of Rome on this pre-dates the reformation, and remains unchanged, and is indeed (in Rome's view) unchangeable as it is understood to be objectively true, a part of the magisterium.  Even if the Rome of today wanted to begin to teach that artificially denying the procreative aspect of human sexuality is good, or that discarding the natural results of human sexuality through abortion is good, she cannot.  She simply does not have the authority to redefine what she already holds to be truth any more than she can revisit what was discerned at Nicaea and rewrite the Nicaean Creed to deny the Virgin Birth.  It is simply a historical fact that Anglicans, Lutherans and others have discerned a new truth on this matter, and they have done so very recently.  Maybe time will show that the Holy Spirit is behind this.

Taken to the extreme, denying the procreative aspect of human sexuality results in ideas like this Hollywood director:

   http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/09/10/top-hollywood-director-believes-incest-is-acceptable/

In an interview with The Wrap, director Nick Cassavetes believes no one should judge a brother and sister being with each other if they are in love.

“I’m not saying this is an absolute but in a way, if you’re not having kids – who gives a damn? Love who you want.  Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage – love who you want?” Cassavetes told The Wrap. “If it’s your brother or sister it’s super-weird, but if you look at it, you’re not hurting anybody except every single person who freaks out because you’re in love with one another.

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 28, 2012, 05:29:45 PM
I simply note that Charles

1)  has finally answered the question re: those contraceptives that have have been shown to function as abortifacients.  He said such knowledge would not change his mind on their usage.  He, who has argued that contraception would decrease abortions  is apparently actually indifferent on the killing of children. Or am I misunderstanding? Please note- because I am talking with people who think differently from me on this issue, I am referring not to ALL contraceptives- but to those that inhibit/prevent implantation after conception.


I don't consider inhibiting/preventing implantation to be the same thing as removing/destroying an implanted zygote.

Quote
2) when asked (yet again) to list one new thing the ELCA has done that has helped to reduce abortions has no answer.  Which is good.  Because there is none.


The purpose of the ELCA is not to reduce abortion, but to offer God's forgiveness to sinners.

I was woried that this thread had gone on so long without any word from Brian.  I am glad you ar OK.

As to your first point, in the NATO phonetic alphabet, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.  I say again Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.


I didn't think you'd understand the difference.



Quote
As to the second point, does that mean I can tell friends in the ELCA that they can tell Mark & Co. to sod off with regards to the malaria project, since the purpose of the ELCA is not to reduce malaria, but to offer God's forgiveness to sinners?


The ELCA was not created to reduce malaria. It does not exist to reduce malaria, even though many see that as an important ministry at this time. Some congregations and many of our members will not support the Malaria campaign and they remain members in good standing of the ELCA.


A member who refuses to receive Holy Communion and its benefit of forgiving sins over a period of time, is not considered a member in good standing in the ELCA.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on September 28, 2012, 06:38:10 PM
Steven writes:
Since holding hands can be a form of sexual intimacy...

I chide:
Don't be intentionally dense. We are not talking about martinis and caviar in the dining car of the 20th Century Limited. We speak of that noble means of both pleasure and transportation entering the tunnel full speed and whistle blowing. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 28, 2012, 06:43:06 PM
Steven writes:
Since holding hands can be a form of sexual intimacy...

I chide:
Don't be intentionally dense. We are not talking about martinis and caviar in the dining car of the 20th Century Limited. We speak of that noble means of both pleasure and transportation entering the tunnel full speed and whistle blowing.
You mean those movies showing a train entering a tunnel were...double entendres? Euphemisms for...sex? I'm...I'm...I feel so...betrayed. Yes, a train entering a tunnel with the delibrate intent not to come out on the other side is not a good train to be on. Nor is it wise to ride a train that can't figure out which tunnels were designed to have trains enter them.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on September 28, 2012, 07:13:09 PM
 rather clever for you, Peter. But as usual it pushes the metaphor too far.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: George Erdner on September 28, 2012, 07:18:14 PM
Is there anything more annoying than listening with someone who whines like a little old lady if someone posts something sexually explicit in here instead of using a euphemism, and yet who acts like a character from the Beavis and Butthead TV cartoon if someone does use a euphemism, demanding to know what the euphemism is referring to? Such hypocrisy!
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 28, 2012, 07:34:24 PM
rather clever for you, Peter. But as usual it pushes the metaphor too far.
Thanks. But is was your metaphor. Perhaps for clarity's sake I should have specified that the train was somewhere in Minnesota.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 28, 2012, 11:28:33 PM
Steven writes:
Since holding hands can be a form of sexual intimacy...

I chide:
Don't be intentionally dense. We are not talking about martinis and caviar in the dining car of the 20th Century Limited. We speak of that noble means of both pleasure and transportation entering the tunnel full speed and whistle blowing.

Given the use of words on this forum, Charles, and the uses of sexuality in our society, I don't think I'm being dense at all.

Pax, Steven
Who'll match your 20th Century Limited, and raise you a Southwest Chief and the Daly City line on BART.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on September 29, 2012, 09:41:35 AM
rather clever for you, Peter. But as usual it pushes the metaphor too far.
Thanks. But is was your metaphor. Perhaps for clarity's sake I should have specified that the train was somewhere in Minnesota.

Nope, can't get from Mankato to Duluth via passenger train. But there is the North Shore Scenic Railroad from Duluth to Two Harbors for that lovely sidetrip to Gooseberry Falls. No tunnels, however.

http://www.northshorescenicrailroad.org/Home/history.asp

Beware, Rev. Austin. "Don't Go Chasing Waterfalls."
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Coach-Rev on September 29, 2012, 09:31:04 PM
Is there anything more annoying than listening with someone who whines like a little old lady if someone posts something sexually explicit in here instead of using a euphemism, and yet who acts like a character from the Beavis and Butthead TV cartoon if someone does use a euphemism, demanding to know what the euphemism is referring to? Such hypocrisy!

heh heh, he said "sex."  Heh heh. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on October 04, 2012, 08:58:01 AM
I thought that the perceptive and well read participants in this forum would find this piece from this morning's New York Times to be of interest.

I have felt for some time that the argument that the health care ruling constituted an assault on religious liberty to be a bogus argument.  Sadly, in my opinion,  many good Lutherans have joined into this almost unending chorus of fear mongering.  The President of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod unwittingly allied himself with an opportunistic Republican politician in a Washington congressional hearing.  The Indiana seminary of the same synod likened this leader and this appearance  to Martin Luther at Worms in 1521.  The Lutheran Hour tapped into the frenzy to fund a special on the Fox Business Network.  There was no end to this sort of thing.  Many conservative Lutherans were swept along, some, a few of us, spoke up.   

Now, a ruling by Judge Carol Jackson, from St. Louis coincidentally has put the issue into proper perspective.   The Times editorial states it well:  " The 1993 statute [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] 'is not a means to force one's religious practices upon others' and 'does not protect against the slight burden on religious exercise that arises when one's money circuitously flows to support the conduct of other free-exercise-wielding individuals who hold religious beliefs that differ from one's own.' "

The war is over.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/opinion/contraception-and-religious-liberty.html?ref=opinion

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 04, 2012, 09:16:21 AM
The "war," Mr. Teigen, never began. But as you note, there are many whose agendas are served by saying that it exists.
And for those, I do not think that an editorial in The New York Times will convince them of their error, or - if they know they are wrong (and some do) - dissuade them from the fear-mongering tactic.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on October 04, 2012, 09:21:54 AM
The funny thing is, Mr. Teigen, there is far more sweeping support among Lutherans for taking a stand against the HHS Mandate than your little old post on here would have people believe.  If you think the war is over, do a little digging in the Scriptures today about the great deceiver and father of lies.  That should jar you back to reality.  This war won't end until Christ comes again.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on October 04, 2012, 09:26:39 AM
You would impose a burden on one's conscience that is not supportable. 

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Michael Slusser on October 04, 2012, 09:34:53 AM
Buried toward the end of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch story on Judge Jackson's ruling is this:
Although there are several exemptions in the law, O’Brien’s company does not qualify. It has 87 employees (companies with fewer than 50 need not provide health insurance) and is not defined as a “religious” employer. Its existing health plan does cover contraception, something the company has said was inadvertently included several years ago, contrary to past practice and its intentions. (emphasis added)
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/judge-dismisses-st-louis-suit-challenging-health-care-law-s/article_23181cac-0c1b-11e2-b7a3-001a4bcf6878.html

Is it principle? Or is it politics? Surely there will be clearer cases of principled objection coming.

Peace,
Michael

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on October 04, 2012, 03:27:56 PM
You would impose a burden on one's conscience that is not supportable. 


Once again, Mr. Teigen, it is "our" government that is imposing such a burden.  That you personally (and the New York Times editorially) have no objection to that burden does not mean that it does not exist.

Sic semper tyrannis!

Steven+
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: GoCubsGo on October 04, 2012, 03:48:03 PM
I think that the "fat lady" won't be warming up for some time.  Several organizations have pending lawsuits.  What is interesting is that the Obama administration has shifted the language regarding religious freedom.  According to them freedom is freedom in "teaching, practice, worship, and observance."  Note that it does not include freedom to exercise or assert one's relgion in the public square.

Also interesting is that the administration has offered a great volume of expemptions to the mandate on financial grounds but offers no exemption on relgious grounds.  If the mandate survives the election and it's aftermath I will be very interested to see the Supreme Court's rulings on the number of lawsuits pending.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on October 04, 2012, 04:54:50 PM
I think that the "fat lady" won't be warming up for some time.  Several organizations have pending lawsuits. 

Totally agreed.  I suspect more than "several" have pending lawsuits; I just read of another business, Hobby Lobby, pursuing legal remedies in this regard.  Apparently only some of us are in touch with the reality of the situation . . . the war is hardly over, it's just beginning.  Of course, November could bring a quick end to it.  8)
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on October 04, 2012, 04:56:29 PM
The Lutheran Confessions teach,  Dear Pastor Tibbetts, Non igitur commiscendoe sunt potestates ecclesiastica et civilis:  ecclesiastica suum mandatum habet Evangelii docendi et administrandi Sacramenta.  Non irrumpat in alienum officium, non transferat regna mundi, non abroget leges magistratum, non tollat legitimam obedientum, non impediat judicia de ullis civilibus ordinationibus aut contractibus, non proescribat leges magistrabibus de forma rei publicoe; sicut dicit Christus (John xviii. 36): Regnum meum non est de noc mundo,' Item  (Luke xii.14): 'Quis constituit me judicem aut divisorem super vos?'  Et Paul ait (Phil. iii.20): 'Nostra politia in coelis est.'  2 Cor. x.4: 'Arma militia nostrae non sunt carnalia, sed potentia Dei, ad destruendas cogitationes,' etc.  Ad hunc modum discernunt nostri utriusque potestatis officia, et jubent utramque honore officere et agnoscere, utramque Dei donum et beneficium esse.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical LutheranSynod
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Coach-Rev on October 04, 2012, 06:01:30 PM
hmmmm, so do you know what you just said?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on October 04, 2012, 06:10:09 PM
hmmmm, so do you know what you just said?

 :) :D ;D  My sentiments exactly.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on October 05, 2012, 01:59:12 AM
Exegeting the Confessio Augustana to defend tyrants was first discredited by the Lutherans pastors of Magdeburg in 1550, Mr. Tiegen.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on October 05, 2012, 07:07:45 AM
Dear Pastor, I think that your use of the word 'tyrannis' and 'tyrant' is excessive.  I think that the point to be made here  is that well-meaning and sincere Christian people would have their views on this secular topic become binding in matters of faith and life.   The inclusion of secular matters into  an expression of Church doctrine and practice is a very serious matter. 

Tyranny?  Really, Pastor.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 05, 2012, 08:09:59 AM
I found Steven's use of the phrase shouted by John Wilkes Booth after he shot President Lincoln rather creepy.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 05, 2012, 08:37:49 AM
On the matter of abortion and politics, demanding laws against abortion is exactly parallel to demanding laws against theft. It is not parallel to Blue laws, blasphemy laws, or imposing some sort of state religion, but of recognizing people as people. As for freedom of religion, it is silly to think that my rights have been violated if my employer doesn't purchase condoms for me, but it is not silly to think that forcing the employers to do that against their own conscience... well, binds consciences to a secular matter, namely, that you must be okay with artificial birth control.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on October 05, 2012, 09:58:40 AM
So what is the emoticon for heavy sigh?

OK- so Norman is full of glee that the current regime is really getting the boot in against the anti-christ I mean the Roman Catholic Church, and Charles and the other (As Lenin would call them) useful idiots don't see the danger.

Of course the current regime is going after the RCC first.  Beat down us, and who else is going to do do anything?  At this point, of course the ELCA as a national entity pretty much endorses everything the current regime does.  I certainly am unaware of any condemnations.  But at some point somewhere the Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the ELCA and its mainline sisters are going to fall afoul of them and then it will be your turn.  The fact that neither denomination has any real influence nationally is prety much what spares you.

As to Steven's quoting the motto of the Commonwealth of Virginia, inscribed on my class ring from the University, and the motto of the seat of the Diocese for whom I work, what are you saying?  Are Allentown (chock full o' Lutherans!) and Virginia are creepy?  I think not.  That a crazed racist missappropriated the motto is to be lamented.  But the idea behind it is just.  In this country, every time we cast a vote, we can, if our minds are strong and our wills are too, turn over incipient tyranny. 

And demanding laws against abortion is actually exactly parallel to demanding laws against murder.

And one final thing.  As to the "War aganist women" 

Which side is it that wants to pump women full of Class I carcinogens?
Which side has said, "freedom of choice means freedom to abort because the child is female?"
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: cssml on October 05, 2012, 10:28:14 AM
Dear Pastor, I think that your use of the word 'tyrannis' and 'tyrant' is excessive.  I think that the point to be made here  is that well-meaning and sincere Christian people would have their views on this secular topic become binding in matters of faith and life.   The inclusion of secular matters into  an expression of Church doctrine and practice is a very serious matter. 

Tyranny?  Really, Pastor.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

At one time in this great nation we dehumanized an entire class of people and justified denying their 'right to freedom'.  Was that a secular issue?  We now dehumanize another class of human beings and deny them their God given 'right to life'.  Is it really a secular issue Norman?  Is eugenics? Is it a secular issue when people flock here to 'sex select' and 'have their boys' becuase it is illegal to do so in most other parts of the world?

  http://www.worldmag.com/2012/09/boy_crazy

I wonder, what are the issues which cries out for justice that you would consider to be anything other than 'secular issues'.  The Church must ever and always proclaim the truth (http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/abortion-contraception-and-the-church-fathers#ixzz1mYwqAoVG), popular or not, in season and out, and in every cultural context it finds itself.  One of those truths is that life is for God alone to give and take, and that it is a grave sin for us to take life, and that it a particular grave sin to take innocent life in the womb.  We may be hated for telling the truth, and we may end up like John the Baptist when he told the truth (was it a secular issue?), but we have no choice.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on October 05, 2012, 11:32:10 AM
Thank you for these great responses, gentlemen.  Care for the defenseless in the womb is what motivates the church to action in these instances.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Satis Est on October 05, 2012, 11:39:27 AM
The Lutheran Confessions teach,  Dear Pastor Tibbetts, Non igitur commiscendoe sunt potestates ecclesiastica et civilis:  ecclesiastica suum mandatum habet Evangelii docendi et administrandi Sacramenta.  Non irrumpat in alienum officium, non transferat regna mundi, non abroget leges magistratum, non tollat legitimam obedientum, non impediat judicia de ullis civilibus ordinationibus aut contractibus, non proescribat leges magistrabibus de forma rei publicoe; sicut dicit Christus (John xviii. 36): Regnum meum non est de noc mundo,' Item  (Luke xii.14): 'Quis constituit me judicem aut divisorem super vos?'  Et Paul ait (Phil. iii.20): 'Nostra politia in coelis est.'  2 Cor. x.4: 'Arma militia nostrae non sunt carnalia, sed potentia Dei, ad destruendas cogitationes,' etc.  Ad hunc modum discernunt nostri utriusque potestatis officia, et jubent utramque honore officere et agnoscere, utramque Dei donum et beneficium esse.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical LutheranSynod

For those of us without ready access to the Triglota, would you grace us with a citation so we who are more fluent in English could look this up?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steverem on October 05, 2012, 12:24:06 PM
The Lutheran Confessions teach,  Dear Pastor Tibbetts, Non igitur commiscendoe sunt potestates ecclesiastica et civilis:  ecclesiastica suum mandatum habet Evangelii docendi et administrandi Sacramenta.  Non irrumpat in alienum officium, non transferat regna mundi, non abroget leges magistratum, non tollat legitimam obedientum, non impediat judicia de ullis civilibus ordinationibus aut contractibus, non proescribat leges magistrabibus de forma rei publicoe; sicut dicit Christus (John xviii. 36): Regnum meum non est de noc mundo,' Item  (Luke xii.14): 'Quis constituit me judicem aut divisorem super vos?'  Et Paul ait (Phil. iii.20): 'Nostra politia in coelis est.'  2 Cor. x.4: 'Arma militia nostrae non sunt carnalia, sed potentia Dei, ad destruendas cogitationes,' etc.  Ad hunc modum discernunt nostri utriusque potestatis officia, et jubent utramque honore officere et agnoscere, utramque Dei donum et beneficium esse.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical LutheranSynod

For those of us without ready access to the Triglota, would you grace us with a citation so we who are more fluent in English could look this up?

No comment, apart from saying that I find this request kinda' funny coming from someone whose screen name is "Statis Est."  ;D
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Satis Est on October 05, 2012, 01:03:51 PM
The Lutheran Confessions teach,  Dear Pastor Tibbetts, Non igitur commiscendoe sunt potestates ecclesiastica et civilis:  ecclesiastica suum mandatum habet Evangelii docendi et administrandi Sacramenta.  Non irrumpat in alienum officium, non transferat regna mundi, non abroget leges magistratum, non tollat legitimam obedientum, non impediat judicia de ullis civilibus ordinationibus aut contractibus, non proescribat leges magistrabibus de forma rei publicoe; sicut dicit Christus (John xviii. 36): Regnum meum non est de noc mundo,' Item  (Luke xii.14): 'Quis constituit me judicem aut divisorem super vos?'  Et Paul ait (Phil. iii.20): 'Nostra politia in coelis est.'  2 Cor. x.4: 'Arma militia nostrae non sunt carnalia, sed potentia Dei, ad destruendas cogitationes,' etc.  Ad hunc modum discernunt nostri utriusque potestatis officia, et jubent utramque honore officere et agnoscere, utramque Dei donum et beneficium esse.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical LutheranSynod

For those of us without ready access to the Triglota, would you grace us with a citation so we who are more fluent in English could look this up?

No comment, apart from saying that I find this request kinda' funny coming from someone whose screen name is "Statis Est."  ;D

    My Triglota's at the office, and this is my day off.  It would be easier to read the passage in context if Mr. Teigen would just give the citation, as my English BofC is at home.  My Latin is passable these days, but admittedly rusty when it comes to translating larger chunks.  I felt it was a reasonable request, particularly as there are a number on this site with no command of Latin at all. 

   Of course, if Mr. Teigen is more interested in playing "one-upmanship" games, seeing Pr. Tibbetts' three word quotation with his own paragraph-length quote, then I can only refer us all to Paul's words in Corinthians regarding refraining from speaking in tongues if there is no translation available, lest the body not be built up but further divided. 

   But I am glad to provide humor of a non-political sort in this crazy season.   8) 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steverem on October 05, 2012, 01:30:47 PM
The Lutheran Confessions teach,  Dear Pastor Tibbetts, Non igitur commiscendoe sunt potestates ecclesiastica et civilis:  ecclesiastica suum mandatum habet Evangelii docendi et administrandi Sacramenta.  Non irrumpat in alienum officium, non transferat regna mundi, non abroget leges magistratum, non tollat legitimam obedientum, non impediat judicia de ullis civilibus ordinationibus aut contractibus, non proescribat leges magistrabibus de forma rei publicoe; sicut dicit Christus (John xviii. 36): Regnum meum non est de noc mundo,' Item  (Luke xii.14): 'Quis constituit me judicem aut divisorem super vos?'  Et Paul ait (Phil. iii.20): 'Nostra politia in coelis est.'  2 Cor. x.4: 'Arma militia nostrae non sunt carnalia, sed potentia Dei, ad destruendas cogitationes,' etc.  Ad hunc modum discernunt nostri utriusque potestatis officia, et jubent utramque honore officere et agnoscere, utramque Dei donum et beneficium esse.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical LutheranSynod

For those of us without ready access to the Triglota, would you grace us with a citation so we who are more fluent in English could look this up?

No comment, apart from saying that I find this request kinda' funny coming from someone whose screen name is "Statis Est."  ;D

    My Triglota's at the office, and this is my day off.  It would be easier to read the passage in context if Mr. Teigen would just give the citation, as my English BofC is at home.  My Latin is passable these days, but admittedly rusty when it comes to translating larger chunks.  I felt it was a reasonable request, particularly as there are a number on this site with no command of Latin at all. 

   Of course, if Mr. Teigen is more interested in playing "one-upmanship" games, seeing Pr. Tibbetts' three word quotation with his own paragraph-length quote, then I can only refer us all to Paul's words in Corinthians regarding refraining from speaking in tongues if there is no translation available, lest the body not be built up but further divided. 

   But I am glad to provide humor of a non-political sort in this crazy season.   8)

Considering I had to double-check to make sure I knew what "Statis Est" meant, I am in full agreement.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Satis Est on October 05, 2012, 02:52:09 PM

Considering I had to double-check to make sure I knew what "Statis Est" meant, I am in full agreement.

   So to be helpful myself, "Satis Est" means "It is enough."  It comes from the Augsburg Confession.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Richard Johnson on October 05, 2012, 04:00:19 PM
I found Steven's use of the phrase shouted by John Wilkes Booth after he shot President Lincoln rather creepy.

Oh, give me a break. Is it creepy that the same phrase is the state motto of Virginia? Or of the city of Allentown, PA? Oh, I see someone beat me to it.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 05, 2012, 04:17:34 PM
Yes, it's creepy. Those places should change their mottos. It's dim-witted anyway. To what does the sic refer? We know what the reference was as Booth leaped on to the stage of Ford's theater.
Title: Thus Always to Tyrants!
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on October 05, 2012, 04:53:17 PM
Charles, an appropriate response may have been, "Et tu, Brute?" for the saying (see the subject for an English translation) is first attributed to Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger regarding the assassination of Julius Caesar.

Mr. Tiegen's quote is the fourth paragraph (according to the Triglotta) of the Augustana, Art. XXVIII, which he offers denuded of any context.  How, for instance, to we translate the confession of princes into a republic?

Steven+
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Team Hesse on October 05, 2012, 04:53:52 PM
Yes, it's creepy. Those places should change their mottos. It's dim-witted anyway. To what does the sic refer? We know what the reference was as Booth leaped on to the stage of Ford's theater.


Shakespeare, I believe, from Julius Caesar. Out of the mouth of Brutus? ??? A classic of English Literature. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.


Lou


(I see Steven has given the fuller reference)
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 05, 2012, 05:03:10 PM
In every context, save for the Commonwealth of Virginia and a small city in Pennsylvania (and maybe there, who knows?) the reference is to assassination and/or terrorism. But no matter. A kerfuffle over a pretentious Latinism is not the worst dust-up in the world today.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Satis Est on October 05, 2012, 11:49:54 PM
    Julius Caesar was viewed as a tyrant who was subverting the Roman Republic; the state of Virginia adopted this as the motto on its Great Seal in 1776 and presumably was directed at the British, and particularly at George III, who according to the charges leveled against him in the Declaration of Independence had made himself a tyrant.  (And the Great Seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia depicts Virtue brandishing a sword over the prone body of a presumed tyrant.)  And while neither of us would agree with Booth's judgment that Pres. Lincoln had become a tyrant, it is in that vein that he shouted those words. 

   I don't believe for an instant that Pastor Tibbetts is advocating assassination.  But when someone fears that the republican form of government is being subverted in order to uphold legalized murder (infanticide), then perhaps it can be understood why the ancient cry against good governments gone bad would be invoked. 

   Or one can do as you have done, and voice your judgment that such warning cries are "Creepy."  :o
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on October 06, 2012, 10:55:01 AM
      I don't believe for an instant that Pastor Tibbetts is advocating assassination.  But when someone fears that the republican form of government is being subverted in order to uphold legalized murder (infanticide), then perhaps it can be understood why the ancient cry against good governments gone bad would be invoked. 

BINGO!
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on October 06, 2012, 01:27:50 PM
Many businesses/organizations are taking their cases to court with respect to the HHS mandate.  Contrary to the claim upthread, the battle is far from over.  Hobby Lobby is one of the recent companies to do so.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/05/date-set-for-hobby-lobby-to-battle-obama-hhs-mandate/
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on October 16, 2012, 06:35:35 AM
I am recommending the following story to the readers of this thread.  I recognize that many will be outraged by the analysis presented because it runs counter to what many here consider to be the absolute, binding truth.  Well, folks, it ain't necessarily so.   

I realize that opening minds on this subject is nearly hopeless, but there is always hope.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/opinion/paul-ryan-catholic-dissident.html?ref=opinion

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dadoo on October 16, 2012, 08:13:03 AM
I am recommending the following story to the readers of this thread.  I recognize that many will be outraged by the analysis presented because it runs counter to what many here consider to be the absolute, binding truth.  Well, folks, it ain't necessarily so.   

I realize that opening minds on this subject is nearly hopeless, but there is always hope.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/opinion/paul-ryan-catholic-dissident.html?ref=opinion

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

Norman,

Thank you for the article. Allow me to summarize its main points: 1. Ryan is just as bad a Catholic as Biden and if Biden is on "wafer watch" (exclusion from the sacrament; the phrase "wafer Watch" sounds derogatory BTW - just saying) then Ryan should be also. 2. Roman Catholic Church, aww, bless their hearts, their stand on human life is prophetic and not political (in other words, not practical) and look where it leads them. Well, they have excommunicated one of their own Sisters for saving a poor woman's life by authorizing a life saving abortion. 3. Abortion should just plain be legal, that is the most practical solution. why, look at all the real life possibilities that would not be covered if it weren't totally legal. 4. Don't vote Romney/ Ryan if your Catholic and think it matters in the abortion debate.

I accept all the arguments made in the article though I do not agree with them. I merely wish the author had just come out and said it plainly. It's an option piece after all.

I would counter with this: 1. At its best, politics is about compromise. To go in with an unbending attitude will lead to the imposition of values on those who plainly do not share them. Much of the Obama years to date imposed a liberal vision of life in America on many who reject it, so this cuts both ways. But, winner take all kind of attitudes mark the political process these days to the detriment of the country. A better argument for the author of this article would have been to say: "Catholics: don't have abortions. You know it is wrong. Catholic politicians: remember that we are America and not everyone is Catholic. Use your bully pulpit to make people realize the truth of the Catholic position on the sanctity of life (thank you Mr Ryan) but respect the freedom of those who disagree (thank you Mr Biden). And a shout out and thank you to the RC bishops for being pastoral and not ideological and heavy handed about this (with a few noted exceptions)."

2. the debate that is ignored really is about the beginning of life. That which is conceived is either a human life or it is just tissue inside a womb. If it is the former than abortion ought to be unthinkable, if the latter than it is merely a medical procedure. This country cannot have peace on this issue until this question is solved.

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: pearson on October 16, 2012, 08:31:29 AM

2. the debate that is ignored really is about the beginning of life. That which is conceived is either a human life or it is just tissue inside a womb. If it is the former than abortion ought to be unthinkable, if the latter than it is merely a medical procedure. This country cannot have peace on this issue until this question is solved.


I think this is exactly right.  Thank you, Pr. Kruse.  The insight here demonstrates that abortion is now fundamentally a metaphysical issue centered on the meaning of terms like "life" and "person" and "fetus," and not essentially a moral issue.  Once the metaphysical concerns are addressed (if they ever are), the moral questions are pretty simple to resolve.

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 16, 2012, 08:50:16 AM

2. the debate that is ignored really is about the beginning of life. That which is conceived is either a human life or it is just tissue inside a womb. If it is the former than abortion ought to be unthinkable, if the latter than it is merely a medical procedure. This country cannot have peace on this issue until this question is solved.


I think this is exactly right.  Thank you, Pr. Kruse.  The insight here demonstrates that abortion is now fundamentally a metaphysical issue centered on the meaning of terms like "life" and "person" and "fetus," and not essentially a moral issue.  Once the metaphysical concerns are addressed (if they ever are), the moral questions are pretty simple to resolve.

Tom Pearson
I've said before to Lutherans for Life and in Touchstone and in this forum: It is no religious intrusion into the domain of the state to insist that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people should know what a person is. At issue is whether somebody dies in every abortion. Joe Biden's incoherent mumbling (to his credit he laid off the maniacal grinning when the topic came up) about accepting the Catholic teaching on life while supporting the pro-choice position is simply that-- incoherent.

As for which of them is, in the big picture, the better Catholic, that is a non-issue to me. Nobody votes based on who missed the most days of obligation, prays the rosary regularly, or whatever. And just because the RC church is undeniably correct about the beginning of life and thankfully insistent about it despite being too often a lonely voice against abortion doesn't mean that the entire corpus of RC social teaching is correct or equally important. SNL captured it best when their Biden impersonator described his position as something like "I'm a 'real world' Catholic, the kind who believes what the Church teaches but then ignores it and does whatever he wants."
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: DeHall on October 16, 2012, 09:10:09 AM
I found Steven's use of the phrase shouted by John Wilkes Booth after he shot President Lincoln rather creepy.

It's also the state motto of Virginia. I was taught it meant "Get your foot off my neck".....
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on October 16, 2012, 09:34:35 AM
Thank you, Pastor Kruse.

 I found an old clipping from the New York Times, June 27, 2004 "The Bishops and the Bible." 

The distinguished Mr. Wills wrote:  "The command not to kill is directed at the killing of persons, and the issue in abortion is this:   When does the fetus become a person?  The answer to that is not given by church teaching.  Even St. Thomas Aquinas, who thought that a soul was infused into the body, could only guess when that infusion took place (and he did not guess at 'fertilization').  St. Augustine confessed an agnosticism about the human status of the fetus.

"Natural reason must use natural tools to deal with this question - philosophy, neurobiology, psychology, medicine.  When is the fetus 'viable,' and viable as what?  Does personality come only with responsibility, with personal communication?  On none of these do the bishops have special expertise.  John Henry Newman said, 'The pope, who comes of Revelation, has no jurisdiction over Nature.'

"The evidence from natural sources of knowledge has been interpreted in various ways by people of good intentions and good information.  If natural law teachings were clear on the matter, a consensus would have been formed by those with natural reason.  The fact that the problem is unsettled by them does not mean that a theological authority can be resorted to. An invalid authority (theology) does not become valid faute mieux."

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on October 16, 2012, 10:02:24 AM
So Mr. Teigen, at what point in a pregnancy do you believe life actually begins (and the church is obligated to defend an innocent child)?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 16, 2012, 10:38:59 AM
It matters little what any of us, as individuals, decide about the beginning of life. What matters, as far as the law is concerned, what the state determines is the best policy to serve the public good. This will not be in line with the views of some people. Some of us oppose capital punishment; but grant that the state has a right to impose that penalty.
The recent dust-up about the Republican vice presidential candidate, who would allow abortion in certain cases, underscores the fact that even those who agree on the "moment of conception," can disagree on whether abortion is always and in every place wrong.
I am among those who believe that abortion is "wrong," and that abortion as "birth control" is a great evil; yet one would not put me in the camp of most of those who call themselves "pro-life."
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Scott6 on October 16, 2012, 10:41:00 AM
It matters little what any of us, as individuals, decide about the beginning of life.

True.  What matters ultimately is what God thinks of the matter and of our tearing apart His gift of life.

There is cause to tremble here...
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Coach-Rev on October 16, 2012, 10:44:21 AM
I am recommending the following story to the readers of this thread.  I recognize that many will be outraged by the analysis presented because it runs counter to what many here consider to be the absolute, binding truth.  Well, folks, it ain't necessarily so.  

I realize that opening minds on this subject is nearly hopeless, but there is always hope.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/opinion/paul-ryan-catholic-dissident.html?ref=opinion

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

Careful there, Mr. Teigen,

With such pessimism and thinly veiled insults as these, you are starting to take after Charles.  So you are partisan.  Stick to your views rather than insult those who are opposite you.  Argue Your position, and present a challenge against theirs, rather than take potshots at them.    ::)
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 16, 2012, 12:37:37 PM
So Mr. Teigen, at what point in a pregnancy do you believe life actually begins (and the church is obligated to defend an innocent child)?


Note: medically there's a difference between conception (when a sperm fertilizes an egg) and pregnancy (when the zygote implants itself in the uterus). "Life" is another confusing word, because sperms and eggs are alive even if conception doesn't take place.


A question the church has wondered over the centuries is when does the soul enter into the life of the fetus -- and they have come up with different answers.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 16, 2012, 01:43:31 PM
So Mr. Teigen, at what point in a pregnancy do you believe life actually begins (and the church is obligated to defend an innocent child)?


Note: medically there's a difference between conception (when a sperm fertilizes an egg) and pregnancy (when the zygote implants itself in the uterus). "Life" is another confusing word, because sperms and eggs are alive even if conception doesn't take place.


A question the church has wondered over the centuries is when does the soul enter into the life of the fetus -- and they have come up with different answers.
So if a woman is, say, almost three months pregnant, is it still a mystery whether she is carrying a human life? If not-- if we can at least say that after a month or so of pregnancy we're sure it is human-- then can we at least agree that abortions in those circumstances should be prohibited?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on October 16, 2012, 01:47:26 PM
Coach-Rev:  Thank you for word of correction.  I deserved that and I thank you for pointing out my excess.  I should have not done that and I will not do it again. MEA CULPA to all.


Norman Teigen
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: George Erdner on October 16, 2012, 01:59:06 PM
I am recommending the following story to the readers of this thread.  I recognize that many will be outraged by the analysis presented because it runs counter to what many here consider to be the absolute, binding truth.  Well, folks, it ain't necessarily so.   

I realize that opening minds on this subject is nearly hopeless, but there is always hope.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/opinion/paul-ryan-catholic-dissident.html?ref=opinion (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/opinion/paul-ryan-catholic-dissident.html?ref=opinion)

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod


Apparently, some folks can't see the difference between someone being almost totally in agreement and someone being in total disagreement. How open of a mind does one need to see that one candidate's position is extremely close to the position of the Roman Catholic Church and the other candidate's position is in total opposition to that of the RCC?

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on October 16, 2012, 02:42:48 PM
From my recording of Prof. Robert W. Jenson during the extemporaneous Q&A after his Skype address during the latest STS General Retreat (emphasis added):

Quote from: Robert Jenson

I would say that the issue on which the church, part of the church, is breaking up is in fact the classical abortion and marriage. If we cannot say what it takes to make a marriage beyond affection, or if we cannot say why the person conceived in Mary's womb was at that moment the Logos of God, then we're out of luck.


Something to ponder, no?

Christe eleison, Steven+
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Linda on October 16, 2012, 04:43:58 PM
Is there a consensus on when fetuses feel pain?  If, scientifically, it can be shown at a certain stage of development that everything is present in the fetus to inform it of pain, shouldn't preborn life have legal protection from torture? Animals should not die piece by piece, and neither should humans.

Linda
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 16, 2012, 06:25:09 PM
So Mr. Teigen, at what point in a pregnancy do you believe life actually begins (and the church is obligated to defend an innocent child)?


Note: medically there's a difference between conception (when a sperm fertilizes an egg) and pregnancy (when the zygote implants itself in the uterus). "Life" is another confusing word, because sperms and eggs are alive even if conception doesn't take place.


A question the church has wondered over the centuries is when does the soul enter into the life of the fetus -- and they have come up with different answers.
So if a woman is, say, almost three months pregnant, is it still a mystery whether she is carrying a human life? If not-- if we can at least say that after a month or so of pregnancy we're sure it is human-- then can we at least agree that abortions in those circumstances should be prohibited?


Just like killing any human is prohibited, but sometimes we do it for justifiable reasons; e.g., self-defense, to protect others, and some even consider the peaceful ending of a life to avoid further pain and suffering to be justifiable, some don't. The US has justified being the only nation to ever drop atomic bombs on populated areas because a greater good came of killing thousands of human beings.


Since there are justifiable reasons for killing an infant in the womb, (such as what the ELCA has in it's Statement on Abortion) I don't believe that we should create laws to prohibit abortion, even though there are people who misuse the laws for abortions that are not justifiable.


Similarly, I don't believe firearms should be prohibited even though many people misuse them and unjustifiably kill other people.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matthew Voyer STS on October 16, 2012, 06:39:21 PM
Brian even if I agreed with the exceptions (which I don't) your logic would still be flawed. If we named rape, incest, and mother's health as justifiable reasons to kill the unborn we are still talking about no more than 7% of abortions being performed for justifiable reasons.  If 93% of people are procuring abortions for unjustifiable reasons isn't it time to create laws to prohibit infanticide. Rape and health of the mother comments strike me as being red herrings that do little to move the conversation along.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: pearson on October 16, 2012, 06:54:19 PM

Since there are justifiable reasons for killing an infant in the womb, (such as what the ELCA has in it's Statement on Abortion) I don't believe that we should create laws to prohibit abortion, even though there are people who misuse the laws for abortions that are not justifiable.


So if there are justifiable reasons for performing a certain action (say, killing an infant in the womb), then we should not create laws to prohibit that action.  Is that right?


Just like killing any human is prohibited, but sometimes we do it for justifiable reasons; e.g., self-defense, to protect others, and some even consider the peaceful ending of a life to avoid further pain and suffering to be justifiable, some don't.


And since there are justifiable reasons for "killing any human," then we should not create laws to prohibit the action of "killing any human."  Is that right?

I'm just trying to locate the consistency in the argument here.

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on October 16, 2012, 09:24:40 PM
So Mr. Teigen, at what point in a pregnancy do you believe life actually begins (and the church is obligated to defend an innocent child)?


Note: medically there's a difference between conception (when a sperm fertilizes an egg) and pregnancy (when the zygote implants itself in the uterus). "Life" is another confusing word, because sperms and eggs are alive even if conception doesn't take place.


A question the church has wondered over the centuries is when does the soul enter into the life of the fetus -- and they have come up with different answers.
So if a woman is, say, almost three months pregnant, is it still a mystery whether she is carrying a human life? If not-- if we can at least say that after a month or so of pregnancy we're sure it is human-- then can we at least agree that abortions in those circumstances should be prohibited?


Just like killing any human is prohibited, but sometimes we do it for justifiable reasons; e.g., self-defense, to protect others, and some even consider the peaceful ending of a life to avoid further pain and suffering to be justifiable, some don't. The US has justified being the only nation to ever drop atomic bombs on populated areas because a greater good came of killing thousands of human beings.


Since there are justifiable reasons for killing an infant in the womb, (such as what the ELCA has in it's Statement on Abortion) I don't believe that we should create laws to prohibit abortion, even though there are people who misuse the laws for abortions that are not justifiable.


Similarly, I don't believe firearms should be prohibited even though many people misuse them and unjustifiably kill other people.
Your analogy does not quite match up.  In the one case (abortion) you talk about laws  banning an activity.  In the other case (guns) you are talking about laws banning a tool.  If we were to parallel your position re laws concerning abortion to laws concerning guns, the apples to apples analogy would be that even though people at times missuse guns and use them to unjustifiable kill people that does not mean that there should be any laws prohibiting any use of guns.
 
Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 16, 2012, 10:25:21 PM

Since there are justifiable reasons for killing an infant in the womb, (such as what the ELCA has in it's Statement on Abortion) I don't believe that we should create laws to prohibit abortion, even though there are people who misuse the laws for abortions that are not justifiable.


So if there are justifiable reasons for performing a certain action (say, killing an infant in the womb), then we should not create laws to prohibit that action.  Is that right?


We should not create laws that prohibit all abortions that would eliminate the legality of the justifiable ones. (We are not likely to agree on the justifiable ones.)


Just like killing any human is prohibited, but sometimes we do it for justifiable reasons; e.g., self-defense, to protect others, and some even consider the peaceful ending of a life to avoid further pain and suffering to be justifiable, some don't.


And since there are justifiable reasons for "killing any human," then we should not create laws to prohibit the action of "killing any human."  Is that right?


We do not create laws that prohibit the manufacture and selling of all firearms or other weapons that are misused to kill others.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 16, 2012, 11:29:17 PM
Your analogy does not quite match up.  In the one case (abortion) you talk about laws  banning an activity.  In the other case (guns) you are talking about laws banning a tool.  If we were to parallel your position re laws concerning abortion to laws concerning guns, the apples to apples analogy would be that even though people at times missuse guns and use them to unjustifiable kill people that does not mean that there should be any laws prohibiting any use of guns.


You are right. I'll make the second activity killing a human being. We do not make laws that prohibit the killing of all other human beings. That is, we allow soliders in combat to kill others (even permit some collateral damage of the killing of non-combatants). We allow killing another human when one believes their own life or a that of a loved one is threatened, e.g., the "stand your ground" law. Oregon, my home state, permits physician assisted suicide ("death with dignity") under some stringent requirements.


I could even make the more general activity of taking a life. Only under certain circumstances do we prohibit the taking of life. Few people feel badly about taking the life of a mosquito. Many of my friends in Wyoming take the lives of moose, elk, deer, and antelope. There are limits on the killing of such game, but it is not completely prohibited.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dadoo on October 17, 2012, 09:25:11 AM
Thank you, Pastor Kruse.

 I found an old clipping from the New York Times, June 27, 2004 "The Bishops and the Bible." 

The distinguished Mr. Wills wrote:  "The command not to kill is directed at the killing of persons, and the issue in abortion is this:   When does the fetus become a person?  The answer to that is not given by church teaching.  Even St. Thomas Aquinas, who thought that a soul was infused into the body, could only guess when that infusion took place (and he did not guess at 'fertilization').  St. Augustine confessed an agnosticism about the human status of the fetus.

"Natural reason must use natural tools to deal with this question - philosophy, neurobiology, psychology, medicine.  When is the fetus 'viable,' and viable as what?  Does personality come only with responsibility, with personal communication?  On none of these do the bishops have special expertise.  John Henry Newman said, 'The pope, who comes of Revelation, has no jurisdiction over Nature.'

"The evidence from natural sources of knowledge has been interpreted in various ways by people of good intentions and good information.  If natural law teachings were clear on the matter, a consensus would have been formed by those with natural reason.  The fact that the problem is unsettled by them does not mean that a theological authority can be resorted to. An invalid authority (theology) does not become valid faute mieux."

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

On the first paragraph, the distinguished Mr. Wills should have read Humanae Vitae and remind himself that the issue is that the "life" is human, so regardless how and when "personhood arrives, human life is spoken of and as human life it is to be protected and cherished even if it is so helpless that questions of personhood arise. So the answer of "personhood" is really not relevant.
It is also not a matter of "thou shall not murder." By using that line he is embarking on a quest to discover the limits of the commandment and asks: "But if it is not a "person" then it is OK, right?"  He might have done better, again reading Humanae Vitae or stopping in at a good conservative Lutheran Church where he would have read that to ask the question: "When can I kill my neighbor?" is already a complete transgression of the commandments and a complete denial of hospitality or charity or concern for the "least of these."
Should the gentleman be RC he certainly must have sat through a mass on the day of Annunciation and have heard that the specific "personhood" of one Jesus of Nazareth was quite well known to the angle Gabriel and therefor also to God who sent said angel. The question of personhood might rest in the will of God. That should have occurred to Mr. Wills.
Does the distinguished gent understand how theology is done and how patristic sources are used in theology? Does he understand that saying: Augustine didn't say, or St Thomas does not speculate, is not normative? Does he accept the idea of a soul? When does it get there? He makes no argument himself but seems to suggest that St Thomas believed something he himself does not, namely that the soul was infused. If he does not believe in "the soul" or its infusion then what does he believe? If we are joined, soul and body, then the logical conclusion is that we are soul and body once we have an existence that is uniquely ourselves. That is at conception, even if St Thomas did not "guess" that, when a biological entity that is genetically similar but distinct from the host, the mother, is created. Had he though that through he would have not written that unless he is actually atheist or at minimum does not believe in the idea of a soul.

On the second paragraph: Yes, Newman said that. A quaint saying indeed. But is it relevant? No one is controlling anything in the debate on abortion. The debate is descriptive of what already is, not prescriptive on powers over which we have no control. It might, in this paragraph also have occurred to the writer, whose "distinguished - ness I am questioning, that, if we now want to talk about "natural reason" and physical science, that in the world of natural science the purpose of life is life. In other words, the reason there is human life is to reproduce and create more human life just like other mammals reptiles, fish and invertebrates do in their kind. If then the purpose of the individual in life is to replicate, then the idea to intentionally interfere with that process by the individual is to contradict its biological reason for being. The day that anyone claims that: "Its only natural . . . " is the day they have to accept that they are to reproduce and not stand in the way of the same. The idea that one should ask for "viability" is irrelevant. There is a developing fetus - the reproductive process is in motion and if natural reason must be obeyed then it must be left to take its course.
I further note that "these bishops" probably DO have expertise: If they are products of RC seminary and pre - seminary education, then they most definitely are expert enough on philosophy which Mr. Wills thinks should be applied.

The third paragraph is really a sly little attempt to marginalize theology, and therefore the church and her voices, and exclude the church from the debate. "An invalid authority (theology) does not become valid for lack of anything better?" Theology is invalid in the debate on human meaning, value, existence or issues of life and death? Surely you, Norman, see that that is absolutely ludicrous.
And theology is somehow the last resort? Does this man understand how human intellectual disciplines, philosophy, natural science, art, theology interact? Apparently not, since that paragraph is not indicative of such understanding or, alternately, suggests that he rejects theology as a discipline comparable to astrology.

It would appear to me that the distinguished-  ness of the gentleman rests solely in the fact that he was published by the NYT. I would not read him again if I was you. Maybe old clippings should finally go to waste, especially if they do not add to the debate.

To join with the deaconess from just South of me: When is human life human life and worthy of your respect?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on October 17, 2012, 10:14:13 AM
Sorry, Posted on wrong thread.
 
When people of faith struggled to enshrine their understanding of human dignity, worth and equality despite differences in race in civil rights legislation, were they improperly forcing their religion on others whose ideas, even religious ideas, differed?  When Roman Catholic priests and other people of faith spoke prophetically against the war in Vietnam, and other wars since, or speak in support of the poor and oppressed, is their public speaking improper because it is rooted in their faith?

Why then is it improper for a RC archbishop to support public legislation on marriage that his church supports and which they believe is for the good of society?  Can it be because civil rights, anti-war, and support for the poor are causes approved by progressives and they'll accept any support offered, but the marriage amendment is something they disapprove of and  will disallow anyone they can whose speech they dislike?

We have been told that within the ELCA conservatives and traditionalists are welcome and their voices are important as part of the discussion.  Does this op ed piece by Bishop Chilstrom support or contradict that idea?

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dadoo on October 17, 2012, 10:25:34 AM
When people of faith struggled to enshrine their understanding of human dignity, worth and equality despite differences in race in civil rights legislation, were they improperly forcing their religion on others whose ideas, even religious ideas, differed?  When Roman Catholic priests and other people of faith spoke prophetically against the war in Vietnam, and other wars since, or speak in support of the poor and oppressed, is their public speaking improper because it is rooted in their faith?

Why then is it improper for a RC archbishop to support public legislation on marriage that his church supports and which they believe is for the good of society?  Can it be because civil rights, anti-war, and support for the poor are causes approved by progressives and they'll accept any support offered, but the marriage amendment is something they disapprove of and  will disallow anyone they can whose speech they dislike?

We have been told that within the ELCA conservatives and traditionalists are welcome and their voices are important as part of the discussion.  Does this op ed piece by Bishop Chilstrom support or contradict that idea?

Dan

You might have just posted that on the wrong thread . . .  ::)

CHilstrom stuff is discussed here http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=4227.msg275835#msg275835
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 17, 2012, 10:28:16 AM
No one is cutting anyone off, Pastor Fienen, from expressing their views in whatever forum possible. What seems odd to me is the suggestion here that excoriates former bishop Chilstrom from even making his views known.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: George Erdner on October 17, 2012, 10:35:40 AM
Regarding making exceptions for situations where abortion might remain legal, this thread is Abortion AND Politics. We should not forget that politics is known as the art of the possible. It is how we puny, flawed, and sin-ridden humans handle our own affairs, and it is not perfect. It is a process through which we seek to improve, with the full knowledge that while we might take steps to make things a little better, we will not make them perfect.


In the political landscape of 2012, when confronted with a choice between two political parties and their plans for action over the next four years, we are not presented with a choice between one candidate who is totally wrong on the issue of abortion and another who is totally right. We are confronted with one who is mostly wrong and another who is mostly right. It is utter folly to reject the choice that is better just because it isn't perfect.



Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on October 17, 2012, 10:37:27 AM
OK- So we get that Norman hates the Great Whore of Babylon (from whom I draw a paycheck)

But some questions are still out there.  How many of us would claim to accept an orthodox Christology?

I am guessing everyone.

So the question is, if Adoptionism is a heresy, at what point did Christ become fully human?  I would guess that the answer the Church would give, synchronically and diachronically, is at Mary's "Yes!"  And if Christ is like us in all things except sin, and he was fully human from conception, then what else can we be?

So we have disposed of the issue theologically, contra Mr. Wills.

But the issue is also open to reason and the facts of science.  Before conception, you have two haploid cells that contain half the genetic information of their source.  From conception on, you have a unique, diploid entity.  And as for the idea of the zygote being a "potential" human, then by definition it has to be potentially non-human.  Tell you what, when Drudge posts the story of a woman, having conceived after intercourse with her husband, giving birth to an aardvark, I will graciously concede the point that zygotes are "potential."  Until then, I will take "Fully Human" for $500, Alex

This is where Biden [I was saddled with this guy as a Senator until he got kicked upstairs in a glittering example of the Peter Principle], blew it in the debate.  The Church arrives at its position on abortion via reason and science and so it is not something that is accepted or rejected de fidei. Abortion is not wrong because the Church opposes it.  The Church opposes it because it is wrong.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on October 17, 2012, 10:45:54 AM
Regarding making exceptions for situations where abortion might remain legal, this thread is Abortion AND Politics. We should not forget that politics is known as the art of the possible. It is how we puny, flawed, and sin-ridden humans handle our own affairs, and it is not perfect. It is a process through which we seek to improve, with the full knowledge that while we might take steps to make things a little better, we will not make them perfect.


In the political landscape of 2012, when confronted with a choice between two political parties and their plans for action over the next four years, we are not presented with a choice between one candidate who is totally wrong on the issue of abortion and another who is totally right. We are confronted with one who is mostly wrong and another who is mostly right. It is utter folly to reject the choice that is better just because it isn't perfect.

George- Interesting points and on the whole true.  Asking truly as a matter of curiosity, in what way could one see the current occupant of the Oval Office as being even partly right on this issue?  I will stipulate that from my perspective, Gov. Romney leaves much to be desired on Life issues.  But honest injun, from his days as Stae Senator to now, what has Obama done that even remotely smacks of being Pro-Life?  I ask because I want to hear.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: George Erdner on October 17, 2012, 11:03:13 AM
Regarding making exceptions for situations where abortion might remain legal, this thread is Abortion AND Politics. We should not forget that politics is known as the art of the possible. It is how we puny, flawed, and sin-ridden humans handle our own affairs, and it is not perfect. It is a process through which we seek to improve, with the full knowledge that while we might take steps to make things a little better, we will not make them perfect.


In the political landscape of 2012, when confronted with a choice between two political parties and their plans for action over the next four years, we are not presented with a choice between one candidate who is totally wrong on the issue of abortion and another who is totally right. We are confronted with one who is mostly wrong and another who is mostly right. It is utter folly to reject the choice that is better just because it isn't perfect.

George- Interesting points and on the whole true.  Asking truly as a matter of curiosity, in what way could one see the current occupant of the Oval Office as being even partly right on this issue?  I will stipulate that from my perspective, Gov. Romney leaves much to be desired on Life issues.  But honest injun, from his days as Stae Senator to now, what has Obama done that even remotely smacks of being Pro-Life?  I ask because I want to hear.


I don't know how one could see Obama as being right, but I attribute that to my lack of imagination. Perhaps he should get credit for his socialist agenda to favor government handouts and incentives to have children instead of aborting them in order to get more government largess.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on October 17, 2012, 11:11:29 AM
Regarding making exceptions for situations where abortion might remain legal, this thread is Abortion AND Politics. We should not forget that politics is known as the art of the possible. It is how we puny, flawed, and sin-ridden humans handle our own affairs, and it is not perfect. It is a process through which we seek to improve, with the full knowledge that while we might take steps to make things a little better, we will not make them perfect.


In the political landscape of 2012, when confronted with a choice between two political parties and their plans for action over the next four years, we are not presented with a choice between one candidate who is totally wrong on the issue of abortion and another who is totally right. We are confronted with one who is mostly wrong and another who is mostly right. It is utter folly to reject the choice that is better just because it isn't perfect.

George- Interesting points and on the whole true.  Asking truly as a matter of curiosity, in what way could one see the current occupant of the Oval Office as being even partly right on this issue?  I will stipulate that from my perspective, Gov. Romney leaves much to be desired on Life issues.  But honest injun, from his days as Stae Senator to now, what has Obama done that even remotely smacks of being Pro-Life?  I ask because I want to hear.


I don't know how one could see Obama as being right, but I attribute that to my lack of imagination. Perhaps he should get credit for his socialist agenda to favor government handouts and incentives to have children instead of aborting them in order to get more government largess.

George- Thank you.  An honest, but very sad and troubling answer when one considers it.  The best you could do is refer to a side effect of a policy put in place for other reasons.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on October 17, 2012, 11:26:24 AM

Since there are justifiable reasons for killing an infant in the womb, (such as what the ELCA has in it's Statement on Abortion) I don't believe that we should create laws to prohibit abortion, even though there are people who misuse the laws for abortions that are not justifiable.


Would you agree (with the ELCA's Statement on Abortion) that it is appropriate for government to regulate abortion?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Coach-Rev on October 17, 2012, 03:54:19 PM
No one is cutting anyone off, Pastor Fienen, from expressing their views in whatever forum possible. What seems odd to me is the suggestion here that excoriates former bishop Chilstrom from even making his views known.

But Charles, you fail to see that, as PB, he professes to speak in that capacity, thus speaking on behalf of all ELCA Lutherans, which he most definitely does not.  Moreover, he does not speak on behalf of Lutheranism in general, or for that matter, all of Christendom, at all.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 17, 2012, 05:10:23 PM
You are wrong again. No where does he professed to speak for anyone but himself.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matthew Voyer STS on October 17, 2012, 05:33:41 PM
As a PB or former PB unfortunately it matters not on whose behalf he professes to speak. His office carries weight and authority that he should reckon with before making any more public statements. Rodney Eberhardt at a STS General Retreat a few years ago said that as goes the office of holy ministry so goes the church. He meant as we destroy and discard the office of holy ministry the church suffers greatly. I imagine even moreso for the office of Bishop. The sad thing is that the office is often destroyed from within. In my experience lay people have so much more regard for the office than pastors and bishops.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 17, 2012, 06:49:01 PM
It is difficult to say someone speaks only for himself when the only reason anyone knows him is because of that office. For example, in emails with my family I'll sometimes be very political and (hopefully) humorous, but if I ever forget myself and do the same sort of thing on facebook or someplace with a more general audience, I'm reminded that I'm the pastor of people from both parties; it is no good saying I speak just for myself. To people who only know me as their pastor, it still seems as though I am speaking for the church.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: TravisW on October 17, 2012, 07:01:16 PM
Your analogy does not quite match up.  In the one case (abortion) you talk about laws  banning an activity.  In the other case (guns) you are talking about laws banning a tool.  If we were to parallel your position re laws concerning abortion to laws concerning guns, the apples to apples analogy would be that even though people at times missuse guns and use them to unjustifiable kill people that does not mean that there should be any laws prohibiting any use of guns.


You are right. I'll make the second activity killing a human being. We do not make laws that prohibit the killing of all other human beings. That is, we allow soliders in combat to kill others (even permit some collateral damage of the killing of non-combatants). We allow killing another human when one believes their own life or a that of a loved one is threatened, e.g., the "stand your ground" law. Oregon, my home state, permits physician assisted suicide ("death with dignity") under some stringent requirements.


I could even make the more general activity of taking a life. Only under certain circumstances do we prohibit the taking of life. Few people feel badly about taking the life of a mosquito. Many of my friends in Wyoming take the lives of moose, elk, deer, and antelope. There are limits on the killing of such game, but it is not completely prohibited.

It's generally illegal for me to stab somebody in my living room. If, in fact, I stab somebody in my living room in a manner that seems justifiable, that's an exception to the general law against murder. If I'm unable to demonstrate that my family or I were at the risk of death at the hands of the person I stabbed, I'm up for murder. The police can't shoot people higgledy-piggledy; they must provide substantial justifications for their having killed somebody. Even soldiers in a warzone are operating under a legal sanction when they kill enemy combatants - they have to operate under the general rules of war.  From a legal standpoint, the prohibition on killing is general, with allowable exceptions. 

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on October 17, 2012, 07:11:52 PM
Ah, you must have a legal background. That is exactly right and is the way most if not all statutes regarding killing are written. I.e., it is a crime to take the life of another person. Within the statute are exceptions to the general rule, such as self defense. In the same way, if charged with the crime of killing- taking the life of another person- it is an affirmative defense that must be raised to claim self-defense.

Which is why I never had a problem with the 5th commandment being "Thou shalt not kill." It is wrong to kill, but there are affirmative defenses/excuses to the general commandment.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 17, 2012, 08:37:21 PM

Since there are justifiable reasons for killing an infant in the womb, (such as what the ELCA has in it's Statement on Abortion) I don't believe that we should create laws to prohibit abortion, even though there are people who misuse the laws for abortions that are not justifiable.


Would you agree (with the ELCA's Statement on Abortion) that it is appropriate for government to regulate abortion?


Yes.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 17, 2012, 08:42:04 PM
Regarding making exceptions for situations where abortion might remain legal, this thread is Abortion AND Politics. We should not forget that politics is known as the art of the possible. It is how we puny, flawed, and sin-ridden humans handle our own affairs, and it is not perfect. It is a process through which we seek to improve, with the full knowledge that while we might take steps to make things a little better, we will not make them perfect.


In the political landscape of 2012, when confronted with a choice between two political parties and their plans for action over the next four years, we are not presented with a choice between one candidate who is totally wrong on the issue of abortion and another who is totally right. We are confronted with one who is mostly wrong and another who is mostly right. It is utter folly to reject the choice that is better just because it isn't perfect.


Ah, but I heard a legislature confess that he has voted against bills that contained 80% of stuff he favored, but the 20% was so bad, he couldn't vote for it. Conversely, there are times he votes for a bill because the 20% is so good, that he has to put up with the 80% that is horrible. Seldom are bills all black or all white.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 17, 2012, 08:56:27 PM
OK- So we get that Norman hates the Great Whore of Babylon (from whom I draw a paycheck)

But some questions are still out there.  How many of us would claim to accept an orthodox Christology?

I am guessing everyone.

So the question is, if Adoptionism is a heresy, at what point did Christ become fully human?  I would guess that the answer the Church would give, synchronically and diachronically, is at Mary's "Yes!"  And if Christ is like us in all things except sin, and he was fully human from conception, then what else can we be?


Christ's conception was unlike any other conception. Can we claim to be conceived of the Holy Spirit? While we might believe that the Spirit has something to do with helping the particular sperm reach the egg -- that's not the same thing.


John says, "The Word became flesh." From the Latin we say that Jesus is God incarnate. When in the womb does the fetus have flesh? It's not at conception.


So, church doctrine can also speak against the incarnation happening at the moment of conception.

So we have disposed of the issue theologically, contra Mr. Wills.

Quote
But the issue is also open to reason and the facts of science.  Before conception, you have two haploid cells that contain half the genetic information of their source.  From conception on, you have a unique, diploid entity.  And as for the idea of the zygote being a "potential" human, then by definition it has to be potentially non-human.  Tell you what, when Drudge posts the story of a woman, having conceived after intercourse with her husband, giving birth to an aardvark, I will graciously concede the point that zygotes are "potential."  Until then, I will take "Fully Human" for $500, Alex


It has the potential to become a human and it has the potential to become dead tissue. It has the potential to become something slightly less than fully human, e.g., genetic defects, missing or additional chromosome, deformed limbs, etc. It does not have the potential to become an aardvark.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 17, 2012, 08:58:14 PM
As a PB or former PB unfortunately it matters not on whose behalf he professes to speak. His office carries weight and authority that he should reckon with before making any more public statements. Rodney Eberhardt at a STS General Retreat a few years ago said that as goes the office of holy ministry so goes the church. He meant as we destroy and discard the office of holy ministry the church suffers greatly. I imagine even moreso for the office of Bishop. The sad thing is that the office is often destroyed from within. In my experience lay people have so much more regard for the office than pastors and bishops.


It sounds like no pastor and certainly no bishop can have any personal positions that are aired publicly, because that might destroy the office.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matthew Voyer STS on October 17, 2012, 11:00:57 PM
OK- So we get that Norman hates the Great Whore of Babylon (from whom I draw a paycheck)

But some questions are still out there.  How many of us would claim to accept an orthodox Christology?

I am guessing everyone.

So the question is, if Adoptionism is a heresy, at what point did Christ become fully human?  I would guess that the answer the Church would give, synchronically and diachronically, is at Mary's "Yes!"  And if Christ is like us in all things except sin, and he was fully human from conception, then what else can we be?


Christ's conception was unlike any other conception. Can we claim to be conceived of the Holy Spirit? While we might believe that the Spirit has something to do with helping the particular sperm reach the egg -- that's not the same thing.


John says, "The Word became flesh." From the Latin we say that Jesus is God incarnate. When in the womb does the fetus have flesh? It's not at conception.


So, church doctrine can also speak against the incarnation happening at the moment of conception.

So we have disposed of the issue theologically, contra Mr. Wills.

Quote
But the issue is also open to reason and the facts of science.  Before conception, you have two haploid cells that contain half the genetic information of their source.  From conception on, you have a unique, diploid entity.  And as for the idea of the zygote being a "potential" human, then by definition it has to be potentially non-human.  Tell you what, when Drudge posts the story of a woman, having conceived after intercourse with her husband, giving birth to an aardvark, I will graciously concede the point that zygotes are "potential."  Until then, I will take "Fully Human" for $500, Alex


It has the potential to become a human and it has the potential to become dead tissue. It has the potential to become something slightly less than fully human, e.g., genetic defects, missing or additional chromosome, deformed limbs, etc. It does not have the potential to become an aardvark.


genetic and other birth defects create something less than human? Brian do you care to rephrase that? It sounds heartless. Do you like the taste of foot?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 18, 2012, 02:17:40 AM
genetic and other birth defects create something less than human? Brian do you care to rephrase that? It sounds heartless. Do you like the taste of foot?


I struggled with what to call those who were different than normal. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes; but some people are born with three rather than two at chromosome 21.

Is this online statement about Down's Syndrom any better: Down syndrome is the most common chromosome abnormality in humans? Would you prefer "abnormal humans," which is an accurate description -- those who are different from normal. If we say that humans have two copies of chromosome 21; what do we call someone with three copies of chromosome 21 and all the differences from the norm it produces?

There are defects that produce people who are shorter than the normal range - or taller.


A friend was born with a defect that is sometimes referred to as "frog legs". (Doesn't that designation sound like "less than human"?) His legs were not properly attached. They would never work. They were amputated. He walks on his hands. I recently read that he climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro. Sometimes cases like that are called "differently abled" and he certainly is.


I was trying to point out three potential outcomes for a human fertilized egg: it can grow into a normal human being. Something can happen and it becomes dead cells, e.g., never attaches to the uterus; or defects from normalcy may happen as the human person develops and is born. ("Defective human" is also a problematic phrase.) Yes, what I said could seem heartless. Please offer better terms.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matthew Voyer STS on October 18, 2012, 08:54:51 AM
what about just different? The only problem with it is it doesn't do much to support your argument.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steverem on October 18, 2012, 09:24:30 AM

It has the potential to become a human and it has the potential to become dead tissue. It has the potential to become something slightly less than fully human, e.g., genetic defects, missing or additional chromosome, deformed limbs, etc. It does not have the potential to become an aardvark.


My "slightly less than fully human" son is grateful you are not his parent.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on October 18, 2012, 09:47:58 AM
Rev. Stoffregen,

Simply admit that it was a poor choice of words (I sincerely believe you did not intend anything demeaning by them) and apologize.

Yes, we can speak of how, since sin came into the world, all are less than fully human, that we are, as Dr. Kolb states, a dishumanity. Thanks be to God that on the Last Day you and I and all will be fully human. But then we fall into the trap of being accused of suggesting that some are worse sinners than others as manifested by something physical (I hesitate to use the words handicap or disability) which would not be the intent whatsoever.

So, simply say you're sorry and continue to ask for help in finding better terminology.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 18, 2012, 10:26:06 AM
Pastor Stoffregen has already said he is struggling with the terminology and asks for help in finding better ways to express things. So the quick call for an "apology" is a knee-jerk response that is out of line.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on October 18, 2012, 10:30:13 AM
RE Matt Hummel.  Whore of Babylon.  That's a good one.  I looked up some of the images on the internet, 1498, Luther Bible illustration.  Whore of Babylon.  I always liked that one.

You write persuasively.  I hope that your employer pays you enough.

You argue persuasively about the matter, although I am aware that not all of my Catholic friends would agree with you.  Certainly Garry Wills does not.

There is another angle to this matter.   What is the theory of jurisprudence involved here?  You argue that the issue is settled by reason.  I am aware that settling matters by reason isn't the way things have been determined.  It was Holmes who said that experience, not logic is the language of the law.

The issue is not a simple one.  It involves history, law and a lot more.   

I see much of value in what you have written but I also want to work through the questions of American jurisprudence and the history of the Supreme Court.

Whore of Babylon.  That's a good one.   Those late-medieval people knew how to throw around the insults.

Norman Teigen
Hopkins MN
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on October 18, 2012, 10:35:21 AM
Pastor Stoffregen has already said he is struggling with the terminology and asks for help in finding better ways to express things. So the quick call for an "apology" is a knee-jerk response that is out of line.

When one hurts another's feelings, even if unintentionally, one says one is sorry, Rev. Austin.

Perhaps not so much in New Jersey?  ::)
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on October 18, 2012, 10:35:44 AM
So Mr. Teigen, I ask again, when does life begin?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 18, 2012, 10:39:06 AM
And I note again, deaconess, that our personal theory on when life begins is not what matters. Those responsible for civil society and the public good need to come to their own conclusions.
If they reach decisions we do not like, we are obligated to attempt to change them, or if that fails and if we so wish, we can resist them and take the consequences.
But in a discussion about the civil realm, what an individual or a particular church body theorizes about when life begins is simply one of several theories on the table.
 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on October 18, 2012, 10:40:31 AM
Many businesses/organizations are taking their cases to court with respect to the HHS mandate.  Contrary to the claim upthread, the battle is far from over.  Hobby Lobby is one of the recent companies to do so.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/05/date-set-for-hobby-lobby-to-battle-obama-hhs-mandate/

Another business goes to court.

 http://www.worldmag.com/mobile/article.php?id=24105
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 18, 2012, 10:45:33 AM
Quakers and other peace churches believe that taxation for the purposes of military action violates their faith and conscience. Yet few become tax resisters.
I think that those who oppose certain regulations regarding contraception could benefit from looking at the peace churches.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on October 18, 2012, 10:47:04 AM
Brian-

I am not joking when I say this.  Nor am I attempting to demean or denigrate. Please get help.  I am not sure if I should be more concerned for your soul or your psyche, but reading these last answers of yours, you are very frightening.  As the sibling of a person with a profound disability, I shutter to think of how you look at people. 

That being said- help me out on an other matter.  You, who have spent thousands of bytes telling people that Scripture is not to be taken literally (with regards to homosexuality, etc.,), are telling me that we are to take things quite literally with regards to "flesh?"  Is that the best you can do?  Jesus ain't the Messiah until he had some meat on his bones?  What is flesh made of? Cells.  And Jesus, like every other human, started off as just one, from which all else is derived.  The potential to be flesh or sinew or bone or brain is inherrent in each cell.  Indeed look at the Noble prize for medicine this year. 

Do some zygotes not implant?  Yes.  Do some embryos die? Yes. Do some develop with flaws that lead to disabilities? Yes.  But all of these share with you and me an essential charateristic- full humanity.  That you are purblind in this are does not lesson the reality.

BTW- what you need to use is referred to as "People first" language.  People.  You know- Human beings.  Fully so.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on October 18, 2012, 11:09:46 AM
Thank you, Charles Austin, for your dignified reply to the Ohio woman.  I could not have answered her any better.

Norman Teigen
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 18, 2012, 11:28:25 AM
And I note again, deaconess, that our personal theory on when life begins is not what matters. Those responsible for civil society and the public good need to come to their own conclusions.
If they reach decisions we do not like, we are obligated to attempt to change them, or if that fails and if we so wish, we can resist them and take the consequences.
But in a discussion about the civil realm, what an individual or a particular church body theorizes about when life begins is simply one of several theories on the table.
Those responsible for civil society are in fact the citizens, who cannot possibly determine what serves the public good without knowing who counts as a person. If you believe black people are people, you MUST defend their rights, not comfort yourself with blather about how your own personal theory of race need not determine your input into public policy. And if you personally believe unborn human babies are unborn human babies, you must defend their right to life. This is, again, not a matter of private belief, but reason and science.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: pastorg1@aol.com on October 18, 2012, 11:40:11 AM
I agree- and note that reason is what makes me pro-life.
I was a "bonus baby" to my 40 year-old Mom; 10 years between me and my brother.
I'm glad she protected me and nurtured me so I could live my life.

My reasoning on life beginning at conception is that I once was me in my Mom at this (.) size- and now I'm me at my present size communicating with you all.

Glad she let me, ah, be.

I think blessed John Paul II said in Veritatis Splendor that life is a good. Not that life is good, but life is a good. We must protect life.

Peter (.) Garrison
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on October 18, 2012, 12:10:33 PM
Thank you, Charles Austin, for your dignified reply to the Ohio woman.  I could not have answered her any better.

Norman Teigen

"The Ohio Woman" gave me a good chuckle.  I forget at times to use my name.  It's Kim Schave.  I'm a Deaconess in the LCMS.  I'm also a mother who held her two one-pound babies while they gave up their last breath.  They were born at just 24 weeks' gestation and lived for only a day.  I'm also a woman who has counseled countless numbers of women through unplanned pregnancies and post-abortion syndrome through my work as a board member and counselor at a pregnancy center in Northwest Ohio as well as my work starting and directing a pregnancy resource center in middle Georgia.  I used to be pro-choice and bought all the lies that get touted in the political (and sadly, theological) realms.

That you had to rely on Charles Austin's answer to give your non-answer is very telling.  It shows me exactly where you stand.  It also shows me that you have bought into the lies on the issue of Life and personally contribute to the demise of women (both in the womb and out) in both the theological and political spheres.
 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 18, 2012, 12:21:33 PM
Do some zygotes not implant?  Yes.  Do some embryos die? Yes. Do some develop with flaws that lead to disabilities? Yes.  But all of these share with you and me an essential charateristic- full humanity.  That you are purblind in this are does not lesson the reality.


What do you mean by "full humanity"?
Humans are creatures with 23 pairs of chromosomes, but some don't.
Humans are bipeds, but some aren't.
Nearly all humans score between 50 and 150 on IQ tests, but a few are lower and higher.


Confessionally, as dgkirch posted none of us are fully human as God intended, except Jesus. We are fallen humans or Kolb's dishumanity.


Theologically, our essential characteristic is that we are all sinners (less than perfect humans) who are saved by God's grace. That's the reality we are to live with.


I am sorry if I hurt people with relatives who are persons with disabilities or handicapping conditions.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: TravisW on October 18, 2012, 12:23:35 PM
genetic and other birth defects create something less than human? Brian do you care to rephrase that? It sounds heartless. Do you like the taste of foot?


I struggled with what to call those who were different than normal. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes; but some people are born with three rather than two at chromosome 21.

Is this online statement about Down's Syndrom any better: Down syndrome is the most common chromosome abnormality in humans? Would you prefer "abnormal humans," which is an accurate description -- those who are different from normal. If we say that humans have two copies of chromosome 21; what do we call someone with three copies of chromosome 21 and all the differences from the norm it produces?

There are defects that produce people who are shorter than the normal range - or taller.


A friend was born with a defect that is sometimes referred to as "frog legs". (Doesn't that designation sound like "less than human"?) His legs were not properly attached. They would never work. They were amputated. He walks on his hands. I recently read that he climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro. Sometimes cases like that are called "differently abled" and he certainly is.


I was trying to point out three potential outcomes for a human fertilized egg: it can grow into a normal human being. Something can happen and it becomes dead cells, e.g., never attaches to the uterus; or defects from normalcy may happen as the human person develops and is born. ("Defective human" is also a problematic phrase.) Yes, what I said could seem heartless. Please offer better terms.

I'm not going to jump on the terminology bandwagon here, since others have obviously mentioned that. The potential outcomes for a fertilized egg are:

1. It dies

In some cases, it dies straight away. In others, it grows a bit but fails to thrive and dies. In others, it takes a few years and it dies. In some, it retires, and dies after a solid century. Every single combination of human genetic material assembled via sexual reproduction in the entirety of human history has died or will die (aside from situations in which there was external intervention). 

The question then isn't whether zygotes die - they do, and they eventually will. It's not whether those with genetic anomalies die - they do, and they will. It's not even whether fully developed, allegedly healthy adults die - they do.

Once you strip the notion of "Human-ness" from the remarkably clear notion of biology, it's a constant muddle. A zygote is alive - it has a metabolic process, it has distinct DNA, and it grows. Once we step away from that, we have to look at some point where that which is biologically human becomes an "actual" human in some remarkably undefinable way.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 18, 2012, 12:26:11 PM
So Mr. Teigen, I ask again, when does life begin?


That's too general a question. The egg and sperm are living cells even if they don't connect. Cattle, chicken, pigs, are living beings. The blades of grass in our yard are living as the vegetables in our gardens and fruit on the living trees.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 18, 2012, 12:28:23 PM
So Mr. Teigen, I ask again, when does life begin?


That's too general a question. The egg and sperm are living cells even if they don't connect. Cattle, chicken, pigs, are living beings. The blades of grass in our yard are living as the vegetables in our gardens and fruit on the living trees.
It isn't too general a question. But yours is too intentionally obtuse an answer.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 18, 2012, 12:31:47 PM
Peter wrotes:
Those responsible for civil society are in fact the citizens, who cannot possibly determine what serves the public good without knowing who counts as a person.
 
I comment:
Then it would appear, Peter, that your fellow citizens for the most part do not agree with you on "who counts as a person" when it comes to the issue of abortion. Now this raises the testy issue of "morality by majority" which, I think, we all oppose. On the other hand, it underlines my point: that one person's or one group's theory on when life begins is not the determining factor for legislation on abortion.
As for the other "personhood" issue, we do indeed place restrictions on persons whose "physical or mental personhood" does not meet some standard. Blind people cannot get drivers' licenses. Person's with Down's syndrome may not get drivers licenses, but both blind people and persons with Down's syndrome are allowed to vote.
This does not demean the essence of their "personhood." Those who say women cannot be ordained say that restriction does not demean their standing before God or the order of creation. I see some slight and tentative parallels in the argument.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 18, 2012, 01:41:19 PM
Peter wrotes:
Those responsible for civil society are in fact the citizens, who cannot possibly determine what serves the public good without knowing who counts as a person.
 
I comment:
Then it would appear, Peter, that your fellow citizens for the most part do not agree with you on "who counts as a person" when it comes to the issue of abortion. Now this raises the testy issue of "morality by majority" which, I think, we all oppose. On the other hand, it underlines my point: that one person's or one group's theory on when life begins is not the determining factor for legislation on abortion.
As for the other "personhood" issue, we do indeed place restrictions on persons whose "physical or mental personhood" does not meet some standard. Blind people cannot get drivers' licenses. Person's with Down's syndrome may not get drivers licenses, but both blind people and persons with Down's syndrome are allowed to vote.
This does not demean the essence of their "personhood." Those who say women cannot be ordained say that restriction does not demean their standing before God or the order of creation. I see some slight and tentative parallels in the argument.
This is where you are wrong and why politicians in your party are afraid to put it to a vote. If the nation votes on abortion, pro-lifers win. It is the pro-lifers who always work through elections and pro-choicers who always have to wok through the courts because their position is unpopular. The view that life begins at conception is actually also the government position when the fetus is wanted by the mother. I is just that we have tortured the constitutition and logic itself in order to claim that a wanted fetus is a person but an unwanted fetus is not or otherwise doesn't count.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on October 18, 2012, 02:51:13 PM

John says, "The Word became flesh." From the Latin we say that Jesus is God incarnate. When in the womb does the fetus have flesh? It's not at conception.


So, church doctrine can also speak against the incarnation happening at the moment of conception.


You appear to be placing your cards on the word "flesh" and some meaning for it that you have yet to reveal to us. I await enlightenment.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on October 18, 2012, 02:53:12 PM

I struggled with what to call those who were different than normal. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes; but some people are born with three rather than two at chromosome 21.


Given the Fall, we are all less than "fully human." Jesus being the exception.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on October 18, 2012, 03:04:59 PM

Then it would appear, Peter, that your fellow citizens for the most part do not agree with you on "who counts as a person" when it comes to the issue of abortion.

And you know this how?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: TravisW on October 18, 2012, 03:16:06 PM
So Mr. Teigen, I ask again, when does life begin?


That's too general a question. The egg and sperm are living cells even if they don't connect. Cattle, chicken, pigs, are living beings. The blades of grass in our yard are living as the vegetables in our gardens and fruit on the living trees.

Courtesy of biology-online.org:  Life:  (1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

Sperm and eggs don't grow, reproduce, etc...  All of the other living things you mentioned do.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 18, 2012, 04:16:58 PM
Party? What makes you think Peter that I have a party?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 18, 2012, 04:28:27 PM
Party? What makes you think Peter that I have a party?
Nothing. Nothing at all. I doubt you carry a card, if that's what you mean. I admit you are exactly as unbiased between Democrats and Republicans as most journalists.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 18, 2012, 04:55:22 PM
So Mr. Teigen, I ask again, when does life begin?


That's too general a question. The egg and sperm are living cells even if they don't connect. Cattle, chicken, pigs, are living beings. The blades of grass in our yard are living as the vegetables in our gardens and fruit on the living trees.
It isn't too general a question. But yours is too intentionally obtuse an answer.


Life began at creation -- when, through the power of God, inanimate things began to live that includes the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. Once life began, then life could produce life. Two dead cells cannot produce life.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 18, 2012, 04:57:22 PM

John says, "The Word became flesh." From the Latin we say that Jesus is God incarnate. When in the womb does the fetus have flesh? It's not at conception.


So, church doctrine can also speak against the incarnation happening at the moment of conception.


You appear to be placing your cards on the word "flesh" and some meaning for it that you have yet to reveal to us. I await enlightenment.


Flesh (as defined by the dictionary): the soft substance consisting of muscle and fat that is found between the skin and bones of an animal or a human. Equivalent to the Greek sarx and the Latin carnes. Do you want to offer another definition?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: readselerttoo on October 18, 2012, 05:06:45 PM
Party? What makes you think Peter that I have a party?
Nothing. Nothing at all. I doubt you carry a card, if that's what you mean. I admit you are exactly as unbiased between Democrats and Republicans as most journalists.


now THAT'S sarcasm!
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 18, 2012, 05:09:15 PM
So Mr. Teigen, I ask again, when does life begin?


That's too general a question. The egg and sperm are living cells even if they don't connect. Cattle, chicken, pigs, are living beings. The blades of grass in our yard are living as the vegetables in our gardens and fruit on the living trees.

Courtesy of biology-online.org:  Life:  (1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

Sperm and eggs don't grow, reproduce, etc...  All of the other living things you mentioned do.


Living sperm and eggs have the capacity to grow and reproduce. Dead ones do not. In addition, they have grown to become the living sperm and eggs.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: TravisW on October 18, 2012, 08:18:47 PM
So Mr. Teigen, I ask again, when does life begin?


That's too general a question. The egg and sperm are living cells even if they don't connect. Cattle, chicken, pigs, are living beings. The blades of grass in our yard are living as the vegetables in our gardens and fruit on the living trees.

Courtesy of biology-online.org:  Life:  (1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce

Sperm and eggs don't grow, reproduce, etc...  All of the other living things you mentioned do.


Living sperm and eggs have the capacity to grow and reproduce. Dead ones do not. In addition, they have grown to become the living sperm and eggs.

*high school biology facepalm*
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: George Erdner on October 18, 2012, 09:14:11 PM
Party? What makes you think Peter that I have a party?
Nothing. Nothing at all. I doubt you carry a card, if that's what you mean. I admit you are exactly as unbiased between Democrats and Republicans as most journalists.

Touché!

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 18, 2012, 10:52:20 PM
Peter writes:
I doubt you carry a card, if that's what you mean. I admit you are exactly as unbiased between Democrats and Republicans as most journalists.
I comment:
Including those on Fox News? The Wall Street Journal? The voices on 80 percent of "talk radio"? Rush Limbaugh, the Savage guy, Laura Ingraham and the Colter woman have audiences that I will bet are about six times the size of those of The New York Times or any other allegedly "liberal" media you care to name.
But we digress. With regard to "abortion and politics," one should consider very carefully what each party is saying and consider what they say they will do if they have the votes. My guess? the so-called "pro-life" folks will not get what they want. No matter who wins. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: cssml on October 19, 2012, 02:19:25 AM
The Al Smith dinner (http://www.alsmithfoundation.org/thedinner.html) was tonight.  Both politics and the dignity of human life were topics, so I guess this is sort of on topic for the thread :-)

  http://www.mediaite.com/tv/romney-roasts-president-obama-himself-at-the-al-smith-dinner/
  http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obama-roasts-himself-jabs-at-romney-and-even-elbows-chris-matthews-during-al-smith-dinner/
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Satis Est on October 19, 2012, 03:09:01 AM
  Rush Limbaugh is a journalist?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: George Erdner on October 19, 2012, 08:25:21 AM
  Rush Limbaugh is a journalist?


Not according to Rush Limbaugh. He doesn't claim to be a journalist.



Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 19, 2012, 08:32:01 AM
I was referring, not only to reporters, but to media voices; and the ones with the largest audiences are so far from the "liberal" side of things that they might as well be on the second moon of the fifth planet in the third solar system of a distant galaxy.
Those in the Fox lair, however, seem to intend to practice journalism.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: gerrybraunschweig on October 19, 2012, 10:05:40 AM
All I know is that killing babies is wrong.

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on October 19, 2012, 10:51:44 AM
All I know is that killing babies is wrong.
Satis est.  :)

Norman raised the question about judicial history.

So this one's for you Mr. Teigen- In 1973 using legal legerdemaine, SCOTUS developed a new "right." Of course, Roe was also prior to much that would happen in the field of embryology.  As many in the Abortion-Industrial complex baldly state, "It's those ****ing ultrasounds."  The blob of tissue/product of conception has been given lie to for most except for the ardent believers in abortion.

And now the Abortion-Industrial complex and their useful idiots have spent the past 40 years or so crying "Stare decis!"  People who spend a great deal of time scoffing at Fundamentalists for their risible reading of Inerrancy of Scripture or us Catholics for Papal Inerrancy get all hot & bothered that anyone dare to challenge the Wisdom of the Nine.

But the folks who gave us Roe also gave us Dredd Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson and Buck v. Bell (Now there's a fun glance at secret heart of Progressivism)

Is there anyone here, including you Norman, who thinks that Stare decis is a good doctrine in those three cases?

And now on to other matters- I love the expression "so called 'pro-lifers'"!  Maybe I can adapts its use in referring to "so called 'Presiding Bishop'" or  other circumstances.  It would seem to indicate that there was a knowledge of a hidden agenda.  So if anyone has details, let's hear them.

But be that as it may.  The folks I am working with who are both full time professionals and volunteers, some of whom have been in the struggle for 40 years, have no illusions about Mr. Romney.  We do know that the current occupant of the Oval Office is the singularly most ideologicaly committed pro-abortion president in our history. 

We know what type of judges he will appoint to the judicial benches, including the aforementioned SCOTUS.  We know how linked he is to NARAL and PP and the other major portions of the Abortion-Industrial complex. 

As for Romney, we stand a better chance for judges and justices and for cooperation with Congress when the Senate is freed from the grip of Nevadan tyrrany. But there will be no magic wand.  Even if when Roe is cast upon the ash heap of history along with the other decisons I referenced, all the pro-life people I know realize that it would be up to the states,and that the battle would be fought heart by individual heart.  But all we ask for is a fair fight and a level playing field.  Why? Because we come to the fight with two things that the pro-abortion side  does not: Truth and Love.  Tertullian said, "The soul is naturally Christian."  I would add, "and pro-Life."

That's what has the AIC so scared and hostile.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on October 19, 2012, 11:13:50 AM
But the folks who gave us Roe also gave us Dredd Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson and Buck v. Bell (Now there's a fun glance at secret heart of Progressivism)

Is there anyone here, including you Norman, who thinks that Stare decis is a good doctrine in those three cases?

I think that stare decisis is a good, bedrock legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedent established by prior court decisions (at the same or a higher court level.) Note that it does not bar the overturning of prior cases, as you point out took place with the three examples. The principle is that a court should not overturn its own precedent unless there is a strong reason to do so.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on October 19, 2012, 11:22:34 AM
But the folks who gave us Roe also gave us Dredd Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson and Buck v. Bell (Now there's a fun glance at secret heart of Progressivism)

Is there anyone here, including you Norman, who thinks that Stare decis is a good doctrine in those three cases?

I think that stare decisis is a good, bedrock legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedent established by prior court decisions (at the same or a higher court level.) Note that it does not bar the overturning of prior cases, as you point out took place with the three examples. The principle is that a court should not overturn its own precedent unless there is a strong reason to do so.

Don- You and I are in agreement. My point is that people who scoff openly about infallibility or inerrancy get downright fundamentalist, "'Roe' said it, I believe it, that settles it."  But then they go on to praise Brown v. Board of Education.  Stare decis is good when the decisons are not bone-headed and/or evil.  With Roe, you have a decision that bats a thousand in that regard.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on October 19, 2012, 11:28:09 AM
Stare decis is good when the decisons are not bone-headed and/or evil.  With Roe, you have a decision that bats a thousand in that regard.

Matt,

The principle is stare decisis, and it's not only good when we like the precedent.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on October 19, 2012, 11:59:16 AM
Stare decis is good when the decisons are not bone-headed and/or evil.  With Roe, you have a decision that bats a thousand in that regard.

Matt,

The principle is stare decisis, and it's not only good when we like the precedent.

Don- Just to be sure- Are you saying that under no circumstances ever should a decison, having been made, be overturned?  Or are you saying that all things being equal, that decisions should stand- that to overturn a decison is, to use the political expression, the "nuclear option" only to exercised when there is no other recourse?

If your point is the former, then I am afraid we are in disagreement.  If your point is the later, then we are in agreement.  The next step with regards to Roe is whether or not it is time to excercise that option.

And to paraphrase my Church, I don't call Roe evil because I don't like it.  I don't like it because it is evil.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on October 19, 2012, 12:09:31 PM
Don- Just to be sure- Are you saying that under no circumstances ever should a decison, having been made, be overturned? 

Matt,

I don't know where you ever came up with that idea. That's not stare decisis at all, and I don't know anyone who holds such a view. What I wrote was:

"Note that [stare decisis] does not bar the overturning of prior cases, as you point out took place with the three examples. The principle is that a court should not overturn its own precedent unless there is a strong reason to do so."
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on October 19, 2012, 01:02:29 PM
"Note that [stare decisis] does not bar the overturning of prior cases, as you point out took place with the three examples. The principle is that a court should not overturn its own precedent unless there is a strong reason to do so."

So we are in agreement as I thought.  My complaint is with those who hold up that laudable doctrine in defense of the indefensible.  They are SCOTUS fundamentalists at least with regards to this one particular case. That is what I am referring to.  Get them talking about  Citizen's United or Bush v. Gore and its "Burn baby burn!"
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steverem on October 25, 2012, 12:17:44 PM
Digging up this topic again in order to post this link: 10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate Is Never Asked By the Media (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2012/10/24/10-questions-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-never-asked-by-the-media/).

And I'll add a question myself to those individuals here on this board who in any way affiliate with the "pro-choice" moniker: Are you at any level uncomfortable with the direction and tone being taken by the Democratic Party in general, and the current administration specifically?  I know four years ago, the Obama campaign made a discernible effort to reach out to evangelicals, traditionally black denominations, Roman Catholics, and other Christians on matters such as poverty and environmental issues, while assuring them there was a place at the table for them on matters such as abortion, genetic research, and gay marriage.  The result was the best showing for a Democratic candidate among evangelicals since Jimmy Carter.  Now, the party has pretty much determined that there is no real place for a pro-life position in the upper reaches of the party, and that opposition to same-sex unions is tantamount to bigotry.  A number of prominent black church leaders have angrily recanted their support of Barack Obama, and even religious left cheerleaders like Jim Wallis seem to have cooled a bit.  If I'm a sincere, socially conservative Democrat, I would be feeling abandoned right now.  Is there still a place for a Bob Casey, Sr., or even someone like Sargent Shriver, in today's Democratic Party?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: George Erdner on October 25, 2012, 02:17:14 PM
Digging up this topic again in order to post this link: 10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate Is Never Asked By the Media (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2012/10/24/10-questions-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-never-asked-by-the-media/).

And I'll add a question myself to those individuals here on this board who in any way affiliate with the "pro-choice" moniker: Are you at any level uncomfortable with the direction and tone being taken by the Democratic Party in general, and the current administration specifically?  I know four years ago, the Obama campaign made a discernible effort to reach out to evangelicals, traditionally black denominations, Roman Catholics, and other Christians on matters such as poverty and environmental issues, while assuring them there was a place at the table for them on matters such as abortion, genetic research, and gay marriage.  The result was the best showing for a Democratic candidate among evangelicals since Jimmy Carter.  Now, the party has pretty much determined that there is no real place for a pro-life position in the upper reaches of the party, and that opposition to same-sex unions is tantamount to bigotry.  A number of prominent black church leaders have angrily recanted their support of Barack Obama, and even religious left cheerleaders like Jim Wallis seem to have cooled a bit.  If I'm a sincere, socially conservative Democrat, I would be feeling abandoned right now.  Is there still a place for a Bob Casey, Sr., or even someone like Sargent Shriver, in today's Democratic Party?


I learned a long time ago that only the politicians who are elected to office actually have an opportunity to accomplish much of anything through the political process. I also learned a long time ago that the interconnection of all aspects of the economy and government need to be taken into account when attempting to lead the people. Leading, from the perspective of a politician, is usually a matter of persuasion. When attempting to persuade people, if one is simply a single-issue candidate, and seen by the voters as only interested in one issue, then one will only get the votes of that minority of voters who care only about that single issue.


The Democrat Party seems to have a firmer grasp on the semi-parliamentary nature of the American system. We might not select a chief executive from among the members of the legislature, but the legislative branch at both the state and federal levels does function along party lines. Just as a subject of HRH Elizabeth must vote for the party in order to vote for the PM they might want, a citizen of the US must vote for the party for Congress and the State Legislature in order to vote in favor of the party's platform and agenda. That means that maverick candidates who won't toe the party line have little chance running against the party machine in the primary elections, and therefore won't become the candidate in November. That's why there is no spot for an anti-abortion, single-issue candidate in the Democrat Party, and there's also no spot for a pro-abortion, single-issue candidate in the Democrat Party. In fact, there doesn't seem to be much room for any candidate in the Democrat Party with a clearly defined, unambiguous position on any single issue.


I'm sure that there are many single-issue candidates in the Democrat Party who might be considering running for a legislative office in 2014. I'm also sure that unless their single-issue is something with very broad appeal across all demographic lines, they'll be defeated in the Spring primaries and won't be on the November ballot.


The GOP is a little different, but only because it lacks the entrenched "machine" leadership that the Democrat Party currently has. It used to have that sort of power, but no longer has it in any but a few, small areas.

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steverem on October 25, 2012, 03:26:44 PM
Digging up this topic again in order to post this link: 10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate Is Never Asked By the Media (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2012/10/24/10-questions-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-never-asked-by-the-media/).

And I'll add a question myself to those individuals here on this board who in any way affiliate with the "pro-choice" moniker: Are you at any level uncomfortable with the direction and tone being taken by the Democratic Party in general, and the current administration specifically?  I know four years ago, the Obama campaign made a discernible effort to reach out to evangelicals, traditionally black denominations, Roman Catholics, and other Christians on matters such as poverty and environmental issues, while assuring them there was a place at the table for them on matters such as abortion, genetic research, and gay marriage.  The result was the best showing for a Democratic candidate among evangelicals since Jimmy Carter.  Now, the party has pretty much determined that there is no real place for a pro-life position in the upper reaches of the party, and that opposition to same-sex unions is tantamount to bigotry.  A number of prominent black church leaders have angrily recanted their support of Barack Obama, and even religious left cheerleaders like Jim Wallis seem to have cooled a bit.  If I'm a sincere, socially conservative Democrat, I would be feeling abandoned right now.  Is there still a place for a Bob Casey, Sr., or even someone like Sargent Shriver, in today's Democratic Party?


I learned a long time ago that only the politicians who are elected to office actually have an opportunity to accomplish much of anything through the political process. I also learned a long time ago that the interconnection of all aspects of the economy and government need to be taken into account when attempting to lead the people. Leading, from the perspective of a politician, is usually a matter of persuasion. When attempting to persuade people, if one is simply a single-issue candidate, and seen by the voters as only interested in one issue, then one will only get the votes of that minority of voters who care only about that single issue.


The Democrat Party seems to have a firmer grasp on the semi-parliamentary nature of the American system. We might not select a chief executive from among the members of the legislature, but the legislative branch at both the state and federal levels does function along party lines. Just as a subject of HRH Elizabeth must vote for the party in order to vote for the PM they might want, a citizen of the US must vote for the party for Congress and the State Legislature in order to vote in favor of the party's platform and agenda. That means that maverick candidates who won't toe the party line have little chance running against the party machine in the primary elections, and therefore won't become the candidate in November. That's why there is no spot for an anti-abortion, single-issue candidate in the Democrat Party, and there's also no spot for a pro-abortion, single-issue candidate in the Democrat Party. In fact, there doesn't seem to be much room for any candidate in the Democrat Party with a clearly defined, unambiguous position on any single issue.


I'm sure that there are many single-issue candidates in the Democrat Party who might be considering running for a legislative office in 2014. I'm also sure that unless their single-issue is something with very broad appeal across all demographic lines, they'll be defeated in the Spring primaries and won't be on the November ballot.


The GOP is a little different, but only because it lacks the entrenched "machine" leadership that the Democrat Party currently has. It used to have that sort of power, but no longer has it in any but a few, small areas.

I'm not talking about single-issue voting.  The religious voters targeted by the Obama campaign four years ago were selected specifically because they were committed to other issues besides the hot-button issues of abortion and gay marriage (environmental issues, justice reform, and poverty, for example).  Several articles were written at the time about the growing diversity and breadth of the evangelical voting bloc.  There is no indication that evangelicals are any less diverse now than they were four years ago.

The difference is that since 2008, there has been a notable shift in policy on social issues within the Democratic Party, taking an approach that has alienated many of those evangelicals who supported the Obama ticket.  Commercials referring to pro-life positions as "extreme," and inferring that those who hold them are misogynists can not sit well with those who honestly felt they were going to have a voice within this administration.  I simply want to know if those here who supported Obama in the last election but claim to be concerned with the "abortion as birth control" mentality aren't at least a little distressed with the Democrats' hard tack to the left on this issue.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on October 28, 2012, 09:42:33 AM
I am pleased to recommend this piece by Thomas Friedman on what it means to be pro-life.   

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/why-i-am-pro-life.html?_r=0
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on October 28, 2012, 09:04:30 PM
I am pleased to recommend this piece by Thomas Friedman on what it means to be pro-life.   

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/why-i-am-pro-life.html?_r=0

Norman-

Thank you for posting what is exactly wrong with folks like Mr. Friedman and their Humpty Dumpty "liberalism."  I read it and the first thing I thought of was Lewis Carol and the great line- "When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean."

SO let me show you how it works.  As a pro-life director, I am actually very much in favor of strict gun control laws.  There is too much violence in this nation, and too much of that violence is perpetrated with fire arms.  That is why I think that this nation should adopt the policy of Switzerland and mandate that every household contain at least one automatic weapon so that it can be defended.  Furthermore, I also think that when one applies for a drivers' license, one should be asked to apply for a concealed carry permit.  For the most part, the same strictures regarding licenses apply to handguns.  A little more paperwork, a little closer scrutiny, and there you are.  Statistical evidence indicates that in localities with concealed carry, violent crimes decrease. 

Our schools can be part of the training.  Make firearm safety part of physical education.  If we can teach kids to use a condom, we can teach them to use a Colt.

One wonders if the extreme acts of violence such as Aurora, VA Tech, etc., would be perpetrated if the malefactor realized that at least 50% of the adults in their immediate vicinity were locked and loaded and able to accurately put lead on target.  There is a reason that in the West wolves attack sheep, but not bears.

So that is why I call myself a strong proponent  of gun control.  I think every American who is able should 1) know how to use and maintain a firearm and 2) hit the x-ring, or at least CBM on the appropriate targets..

50 Million dead Norman.  Fifty. Million. Dead. And Friedman has the moral indecency to compare The Emperor of Manhattan and surrounding dependencies Mayor of New York's overreaching dietary micro-management with the work of the Sisters of Life and others directly engaged in helping women find a way out from the hellish Hobson's Choice that the current administration and the Democrat party are so keen to embrace. Speaking of choices, do I laugh, or vomit?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: carlvehse on October 28, 2012, 09:06:34 PM
What Thomas Friedman claims is "pro-life" is not pro-life.

Furthermore Friedman pontificates: "I have no respect for someone who relies on voodoo science to declare that a woman’s body can distinguish a “legitimate” rape, but then declares — when 99 percent of all climate scientists conclude that climate change poses a danger to the sanctity of all life on the planet — that global warming is just a hoax."

First, no one, including Rep. Todd Akin (MO) claimed that "a woman’s body can distinguish a 'legitimate' rape."   That is only in delusion of Friedman and other liberals.

Second, science is not determined by a vote of scientists, but on confirmation of the reproducibility and predictability of experimental findings.

Third, there have been many times where a large majority of scientists have rejected the finding of some scientist, only to have it eventually recognized as valid.  There are the discoveries of Galileo, Thomas Young, Ole Roemer, Gregor Mendel,  Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Svante Arrhenius, and Victor Hess, to mention a few.  Of course, there have been other times when a claimed discovery fails to be substantiated; Pons and Fleischmann's "cold fusion" being one recent example.

More recently, concerning the so-called "global warming," there is this news article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml) on evidence that any global warming stopped 16 years ago.   Such a claim awaits further confirmation.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: MaddogLutheran on October 28, 2012, 09:53:39 PM
I am pleased to recommend this piece by Thomas Friedman on what it means to be pro-life.   

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/why-i-am-pro-life.html?_r=0
You may find that column pleasing, Mr. Teigen, but I find it dubious, bordering on insulting.  (Not you posting it here, because as others have already observed, it is useful to highlight such nonsense.)  Anytime a person such as Mr. Friedman has to resort to such re-definition, demagoguery is almost surely to follow.  He does not disappoint.  So much for civil discourse, if you rule "out of bounds" or illegitimate an opponent's sincerely held beliefs and cannot even fairly represent them when attempting to counter them.  Alinski rules remain in effect, I guess.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on October 28, 2012, 11:05:33 PM
I am pleased to recommend this piece by Thomas Friedman on what it means to be pro-life.   


How is it that someone who ridicules the idea that life is a gift from God gets to define what it means to be pro-life? 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: George Erdner on October 29, 2012, 12:25:52 AM
I am pleased to recommend this piece by Thomas Friedman on what it means to be pro-life.   


How is it that someone who ridicules the idea that life is a gift from God gets to define what it means to be pro-life?


All it takes is convincing the people at the New York Times to hire you to make the call.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on October 29, 2012, 10:35:21 AM
Norman-

I find this column by Wesley J. Smith (an estimable writer on Life issues) over at NRO as salutary palate cleanser after having swallowed the bilge that was Friedman's piece at the Times.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331835/tom-friedmans-ignorance-about-reproductive-biology-and-pro-lifers-wesley-j-smith#

Once more, Reagan's quote comes to mind “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.”
Title: Q
Post by: Marshall_Hahn on October 29, 2012, 12:31:36 PM
I am pleased to recommend this piece by Thomas Friedman on what it means to be pro-life.   

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/why-i-am-pro-life.html?_r=0

This is the same tired,old faulty argument that has been propagated for the last 40 years:
Thesis A:  "Pro-life" should mean supporting life at all stages, before birth AND after birth.
Thesis B:  Those who call themselves "pro-life" in the abortion debate are only interested in supporting life BEFORE birth and ignore the well-being of anyone after birth.
Conclusion:  Therefore "pro-life" advocates are hypocrites who have no moral standing to engage in the abortion debate.

There are so many holes in this argument that it is difficult to know where to start, but I would just point out two of the most glaring ones.
1)  Thesis B is demonstrably false.  The activities of the pro-life organizations such as Lutherans for Life, National Right to Life and others that advocate and work for the well-being of people at all stages of life put the lie to this accusation.
2)  If Friedman and others who put forth this argument truly believed Thesis A, then they would be opposing abortion every bit as much as the pro-life advocates they are arguing against. 

As I say, this argument is an old, tired one, which was never intended to bring any light to this controversy, but simply an attempt to score rhetorical points among those who wish to maintain their sense of moral superiortiy over the pro-life advocates.

Marshall Hahn
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: pearson on October 29, 2012, 01:02:16 PM

I am pleased to recommend this piece by Thomas Friedman on what it means to be pro-life.   


I've re-read Friedman's piece three times now.  I'm afraid I can't find anything that indicates "what it means to be pro-life."  What Friedman really seems to support is the impetus "to promote a whole set of policies," as he suggests Mayor Bloomberg is doing.  Friedman isn't pro-life; he's pro-public policy.  Everything he recommends starts and ends with some state-mandated regulation.  He certainly seems to know which public policies he prefers.  But I'm not sure he has a clue "what it means to be pro-life."

Tom Pearson 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Felix Culpepper on October 29, 2012, 03:01:35 PM
I am pleased to recommend this piece by Thomas Friedman on what it means to be pro-life.   

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/why-i-am-pro-life.html?_r=0

Perhaps Friedman is still trying to earn his way back into the good graces of the American left.  After all, if I recall correctly, Friedman was in favor of the invasion of Iraq when it was still the thing to do.  On the other hand, there were many pro-life people, including the Pope, who were had strong reservations about that decision.  So on either side, anti-abortion or anti-war, Friedman has shown little tendency to be pro-life.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on October 29, 2012, 03:14:01 PM
I am curious- after the Friedman piece has been shared, no one, not even the "usual suspects"  :) has entered into the lists in defense of his position.  The consensus seems to be that he has ht a new record in fatuity.

Norman- having shared it, care to respond to any of the criticisms?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: George Erdner on October 29, 2012, 03:16:45 PM
Why must everyone be so obsessed with the credentials of who wrote an article instead of just taking the words themselves at face value? Whether it was Friedman or someone else who wrote that article, the content is clearly bogus regardless of who wrote it.


"Pro-Life" is a slogan to describe those who are anti-abortion. There is no more reason for that slogan to be taken totally literally than there is for someone who self-describes as "Pro-Choice" to also be required to support choice in healthcare funding, choice in paying or not paying taxes, or choosing which people they will accept as customers, or choosing to treat homosexual couples as married or not. The Pro-Choice crowd doesn't fully support the concept of personal choice on issues other than the right to choose to murder an unborn baby. Therefore, they have no moral right to demand that the Pro-Life crowd must support all life.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dave_Poedel on October 29, 2012, 03:59:31 PM
I went to a pro-life seminar on Saturday and had the misfortune of watching a video of a surgical abortion.  I have assisted in surgery for many years in my previous vocation and I have never participated in the destruction of a human being as I witnessed in that video.

It seems that if we believe that God is the author of life, any procedure whose GOAL is the death of another human being is abhorrent and antithetical to the way that the Author of life has created.  That makes it sin.  To the "health care provider" who performs such an abominable procedure without fear and trembling is a person without a conscience.

Not my usual irenic self, I understand.  Sometimes I have to call it like I see it.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 29, 2012, 04:20:35 PM
This "unusual suspect" believes that:
1) Tom Friedman, a very smart man, does not need me to defend him;
2) It would be a waste of time to attempt to do so in this forum; and
3)  there is certainly no "consensus" that he "has hit a new record in fatuity," no, none at all.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: pearson on October 29, 2012, 05:26:49 PM

This "unusual suspect" believes that:
1) Tom Friedman, a very smart man, does not need me to defend him;
2) It would be a waste of time to attempt to do so in this forum; and
3)  there is certainly no "consensus" that he "has hit a new record in fatuity," no, none at all.


On the last day of February this year, Thomas Friedman was a guest speaker on our campus.  Two faculty colleagues and I took him to dinner before his presentation.  He is indeed a very smart man, as all journalists are.  But he did not give evidence of being a deep thinker, as some journalists are.  He clearly understands the political surface features of an assortment of popular public policy postures, but seems indifferent to what underlies them, or to what rises above them.  The cited column of his looks like more of the same.

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: David Garner on October 29, 2012, 05:29:10 PM
I am pleased to recommend this piece by Thomas Friedman on what it means to be pro-life.   

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/why-i-am-pro-life.html?_r=0

I'd like to think someone who had thought through the issue would know the difference between a semi-automatic weapon (more properly called a "self loader") and an automatic weapon (i.e., a machine gun), but Mr. Friedman appears not to.  Pray tell, when his premise is based on a complete falsehood in that instance, why I should listen to anything he has to say about any other issue?

Put another way, if he's too ill-informed, mis-informed, lazy or stupid to articulate a factual premise upon which to support his argument, why should I just not disregard anything he has to say?

Same question applies to the "fertilized egg in the ovary" crack, or pick another if those 2 are not sufficient.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on October 29, 2012, 08:59:15 PM
So that's one in the "Tempore locuta, causa finita" column.  And the rest still keep coming in with the various factual errors that this very smart man made on the editorial pages of a very prestigious paper. Sigh.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on October 30, 2012, 08:27:30 AM
I would recommend that readers here would also check out the Comments to Friedman's piece.  Yesterday afternoon there were some 300 comments and the Times had closed comments.

No, I am not going to defend Tom Friedman.   He has made his points well enough.  There are three kinds of people in this world:  those that can think original thoughts; those that understand the thoughts of others; and those who can neither think original thoughts nor understand the thoughts of others. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 30, 2012, 08:39:01 AM
I would recommend that readers here would also check out the Comments to Friedman's piece.  Yesterday afternoon there were some 300 comments and the Times had closed comments.

No, I am not going to defend Tom Friedman.   He has made his points well enough.  There are three kinds of people in this world:  those that can think original thoughts; those that understand the thoughts of others; and those who can neither think original thoughts nor understand the thoughts of others.
There are more sub-categories, because some in category three know it and are fine while others clearly think they are in one of the first two categories but aren't, which makes them seem condescending and annoying to others.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on October 30, 2012, 04:14:21 PM
I would recommend that readers here would also check out the Comments to Friedman's piece.  Yesterday afternoon there were some 300 comments and the Times had closed comments.

No, I am not going to defend Tom Friedman.   He has made his points well enough.  There are three kinds of people in this world:  those that can think original thoughts; those that understand the thoughts of others; and those who can neither think original thoughts nor understand the thoughts of others.

Norman- I too checked out the comm box and found it filled with the intellectually anesthetizedthoughts typical of the Culture of Death.  But then, they would have to deaden the pain of consciences that would scream in protest if they recognized their complicity in the support of the Abortion Industrial complex.

Tell me- your comment re: Friedman making his points.  What point did he make that has any basis in fact?

And as for commentary- read Helen Alvare as she schools Friedman: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2380/

Of course she is not a very smart man as is Friedman. She is only a woman.  And she believes all that Catholic clap-trap too.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: David Garner on October 31, 2012, 08:07:44 AM
Tell me- your comment re: Friedman making his points.  What point did he make that has any basis in fact?

That's the problem really.

I could make a whole lot of compelling points if I'm just willing to lie.  Rhetoric without logic is one of the most dangerous of things.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on November 03, 2012, 09:29:40 AM
There is an interesting series of letters in today's Times re Friedman's opinion piece.    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/opinion/on-labels-what-does-it-mean-to-be-pro-life.html

Informed people are willing to read about ideas that may not fit their predetermined modes of thought.  It is part of being an educated person.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on November 03, 2012, 09:39:33 AM
There is an interesting series of letters in today's Times re Friedman's opinion piece.    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/opinion/on-labels-what-does-it-mean-to-be-pro-life.html

Informed people are willing to read about ideas that may not fit their predetermined modes of thought.  It is part of being an educated person.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

You seem to fail to understand that the educated Christian person reads about ideas through the lens of Scripture and determines whether they align.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 03, 2012, 09:59:20 AM
The deaconess writes:
You seem to fail to understand that the educated Christian person reads about ideas through the lens of Scripture and determines whether they align.

I comment:
Deaconess, can you possibly understand, or begin to understand that your so-called "lens of scripture" is a phony construct? Scripture has never, ever, in the history of the Church, led everyone to precisely the same understanding of everything under the sun.
It is juvenile, not to mention fundamentalist, to say that anyone and everyone who looks through scripture comes to the same conclusion about everything.
Your LCMS confreres here - or at least some of them - are willing to admit that those of us in the ELCA are not minions of Satan or that our souls are lost forever. Can you do that?
Furthermore, every idea, not even every idea pertaining to health care or abortion, is not to be evaluated solely by your so-called imaginary "lens of scripture." Scripture has no word on whether government has to be federal, constitutional, representative, monarchial (though it seems to lean that way), socialist (another possible leaning), or anarchist. Scripture has no word on insurance (which Lutherans at one time opposed) or Medicare (although biblical directions about care for the needy might apply.)
Mr. Teigen offers a view point here and see what ensues. You accuse him of being an "uneducated Christian." Is it any wonder that some of us think the atmosphere here is toxic?

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on November 03, 2012, 10:05:18 AM
Is it any wonder that some of us think the atmosphere here is toxic?

Not at all.  You again proved why by completely mischaracterizing my comments as you so often do.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 03, 2012, 11:35:54 AM
Then explain how I have read you wrong, deaconess.

Editor's note: I modified this post to remove unnecessary insults.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on November 03, 2012, 12:08:02 PM
There is an interesting series of letters in today's Times re Friedman's opinion piece.    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/opinion/on-labels-what-does-it-mean-to-be-pro-life.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/opinion/on-labels-what-does-it-mean-to-be-pro-life.html)

Informed people are willing to read about ideas that may not fit their predetermined modes of thought.  It is part of being an educated person.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

You seem to fail to understand that the educated Christian person reads about ideas through the lens of Scripture and determines whether they align.


And throughout history very well-education Christians looking through "the lens of Scripture" have come to different views about many, many different things. The plethora of denominations that we now have is a clear illustration that this "lens" does not always offer clarity.


I've seen this posted on Facebook recently.


"If you don't want tax dollars helping the sick and poor, then it's time to stop saying you want a government based on Christian values." John Fugelsang. That is what many see when looking through "the lens of Scripture."
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on November 03, 2012, 12:46:24 PM
There is an interesting series of letters in today's Times re Friedman's opinion piece.    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/opinion/on-labels-what-does-it-mean-to-be-pro-life.html

Informed people are willing to read about ideas that may not fit their predetermined modes of thought.  It is part of being an educated person.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical L,utheran Synod

Norman- I read with interest the letters in response.  Some of them I agreed with. Some obviously are enthralled by the Abortion--Industrial Complex. Not sure of your point. 50+ million dead. Nothing in our history remotely compares to these numbers. But you r:ite in support of a man who thinks depriving people of a Big Gulp  and violating what ( actually in the Bill of Rights (2nd Amendment)  is pro-life. Wow.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on November 03, 2012, 01:58:24 PM
Interesting, forbidding people to drink large sugary drinks is applauded for being prolife, telling people/not to kill the unborn and not to have sex is they don't want a baby is to be scorned!

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on November 03, 2012, 02:52:42 PM

I comment:
Deaconess, can you possibly understand, or begin to understand that your so-called "lens of scripture" is a phony construct?


Just because you disagree with how Sister Kim uses or focusses through a "lens of scripture" does not make it "a phony construct."

You also falsely assume (apparently contra Pr. Stoffregen) that everyone looking through a particular lens will see exactly the same thing.

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on November 03, 2012, 03:18:03 PM
I've seen this posted on Facebook recently.

"If you don't want tax dollars helping the sick and poor, then it's time to stop saying you want a government based on Christian values." John Fugelsang. That is what many see when looking through "the lens of Scripture."

I have no idea who John Fugelsang is, what sort of authority he is, or whether he is a deep or shallow thinker. His quote, however, is unware of such things as subsidiarity, distinctions of the various estates, the differences between "society" and the various levels of civil "government" and the things which fall under their purview or responsibility, the difference between stewardship and taxation, and other such matters that one can find in both the Scriptures and Christian thought over the centuries.

Which suggests a lack of depth of thought -- a common trait of contemporary pundits.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on November 03, 2012, 03:33:26 PM
I've seen this posted on Facebook recently.

"If you don't want tax dollars helping the sick and poor, then it's time to stop saying you want a government based on Christian values." John Fugelsang. That is what many see when looking through "the lens of Scripture."

I have no idea who John Fugelsang is, what sort of authority he is, or whether he is a deep or shallow thinker. His quote, however, is unware of such things as subsidiarity, distinctions of the various estates, the differences between "society" and the various levels of civil "government" and the things which fall under their purview or responsibility, the difference between stewardship and taxation, and other such matters that one can find in both the Scriptures and Christian thought over the centuries.

Which suggests a lack of depth of thought -- a common trait of contemporary pundits.


You can Google him or look him up on Wiki to learn more about him.


Regardless of his authority (or lack thereof,) he presents what he -- and many who have posted his thought on facebook -- believe they see through "the lens of Scripture." Your critique of it having a "lack of depth of thought" I find pretty common among those who believe that "the lens of Scripture" has answers to all of society's problems.


Note: I did not say that I agreed with him (or that I disagreed with him). He is someone who uses "the lens of Scripture" to reach a conclusion that I figured some in this forum may not agree with.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: George Erdner on November 03, 2012, 03:42:14 PM
I've seen this posted on Facebook recently.

"If you don't want tax dollars helping the sick and poor, then it's time to stop saying you want a government based on Christian values." John Fugelsang. That is what many see when looking through "the lens of Scripture."

I have no idea who John Fugelsang is, what sort of authority he is, or whether he is a deep or shallow thinker. His quote, however, is unware of such things as subsidiarity, distinctions of the various estates, the differences between "society" and the various levels of civil "government" and the things which fall under their purview or responsibility, the difference between stewardship and taxation, and other such matters that one can find in both the Scriptures and Christian thought over the centuries.

Which suggests a lack of depth of thought -- a common trait of contemporary pundits.


What difference does it make who John Fugelsang is? Can you not evaluate the words based on what they say, and not have to drag the author of them into consideration? Do you or don't you agree with the idea expressed in the word? That's a simple enough decision. The identity of the author should be irrelevant.

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matthew Voyer STS on November 03, 2012, 04:02:49 PM
There is an interesting series of letters in today's Times re Friedman's opinion piece.    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/opinion/on-labels-what-does-it-mean-to-be-pro-life.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/opinion/on-labels-what-does-it-mean-to-be-pro-life.html)

Informed people are willing to read about ideas that may not fit their predetermined modes of thought.  It is part of being an educated person.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

You seem to fail to understand that the educated Christian person reads about ideas through the lens of Scripture and determines whether they align.


And throughout history very well-education Christians looking through "the lens of Scripture" have come to different views about many, many different things. The plethora of denominations that we now have is a clear illustration that this "lens" does not always offer clarity.


I've seen this posted on Facebook recently.


"If you don't want tax dollars helping the sick and poor, then it's time to stop saying you want a government based on Christian values." John Fugelsang. That is what many see when looking through "the lens of Scripture."


I don't think the deaconess would disagree that looking through her lens of scripture she sees a mandate to care for the sick and poor.  There are differing views however on how best to do that. In regards to the original topic of this thread our advocacy and protection of the preborn is an answer to that mandate. We speak up for the voiceless and protect the vulnerable.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dadoo on November 03, 2012, 05:41:28 PM
There is an interesting series of letters in today's Times re Friedman's opinion piece.    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/opinion/on-labels-what-does-it-mean-to-be-pro-life.html

Informed people are willing to read about ideas that may not fit their predetermined modes of thought.  It is part of being an educated person.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

Mr Teigen,

Informed people do indeed read. From what they read they make judgements, often preliminary or interim ones. After that, they are not surprised to read the kind of piece that Friedmann produced last week . It was predictable knowing who he is. It was dripping with liberal cliches known to everyone who is informed. The folks here DO read. They read Friedmann and they probably read the letters you linked to as well. It is not to their shame that they are not converted to Friedmann's or your cause. THey are doing the intellectual lifting. It is not for want of having read pop commentators that they are pro life. If you want to convert them, maybe you have  a plea of your own and a theological case. Feel free to share.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: cssml on November 03, 2012, 06:00:36 PM
Interesting, forbidding people to drink large sugary drinks is applauded for being prolife, telling people/not to kill the unborn and not to have sex is they don't want a baby is to be scorned!

Dan

Yes, but "It is part of being an educated person."   ;) , educated on matters of faith and morals from the NYT, I guess..
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: cssml on November 03, 2012, 06:03:46 PM
There is an interesting series of letters in today's Times re Friedman's opinion piece.    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/opinion/on-labels-what-does-it-mean-to-be-pro-life.html

Informed people are willing to read about ideas that may not fit their predetermined modes of thought.  It is part of being an educated person.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

And I am sure you, being an educated person, will be only too ready to read:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/love-and-life/upload/pastoral-letter-marriage-love-and-life-in-the-divine-plan.pdf
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/love-and-life/upload/Love-and-Life-Abridged-Version.pdf (Adbridged Version)

...even though based on your posting, I am guessing it "may not fit [your] predetermined modes of thought".
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John_Hannah on November 04, 2012, 08:38:59 AM
I am totally opposed to abortion on demand and consider it murder. I hope and pray that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

I see that Republican presidents have been no better than Democratic presidents with respect to Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade is 39 years old. 23 out of those 39 years have been under Republican presidents; only 16 were under Democratic.

When either of them can actually produce results I will consider abortion an issue to factor into my voting decision.

In the meantime, I am totally opposed to abortion on demand and consider it murder. I hope and pray that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.


Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on November 04, 2012, 09:44:05 AM
There is an interesting series of letters in today's Times re Friedman's opinion piece.    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/opinion/on-labels-what-does-it-mean-to-be-pro-life.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/opinion/on-labels-what-does-it-mean-to-be-pro-life.html)

Informed people are willing to read about ideas that may not fit their predetermined modes of thought.  It is part of being an educated person.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

You seem to fail to understand that the educated Christian person reads about ideas through the lens of Scripture and determines whether they align.


And throughout history very well-education Christians looking through "the lens of Scripture" have come to different views about many, many different things. The plethora of denominations that we now have is a clear illustration that this "lens" does not always offer clarity.


I've seen this posted on Facebook recently.


"If you don't want tax dollars helping the sick and poor, then it's time to stop saying you want a government based on Christian values." John Fugelsang. That is what many see when looking through "the lens of Scripture."


I don't think the deaconess would disagree that looking through her lens of scripture she sees a mandate to care for the sick and poor.  There are differing views however on how best to do that. In regards to the original topic of this thread our advocacy and protection of the preborn is an answer to that mandate. We speak up for the voiceless and protect the vulnerable.


Yes, the Bible talks about caring for the sick and poor, the voiceless and the vulnerable; but it's less clear about how to do that, e.g., through government mandates or through private companies or through the actions of individuals. I'm certain that a socialized medical system would bring affordable (or free) health care to many more people than our present system -- but would scriptures support a federal health plan or not? It's possible that a federal ban on abortions would decrease the number of abortions over individual counseling to make a better choice -- but does scripture support a federal mandate or not?


With the very recent destruction from hurricane Sandy, does scriptures indicate how we might best help the victims? Through federal and state programs funded by taxes? Through private charities funded by donations?


According to the Bible, adulterers, sabbath-breakers, and children who curse their parents are to be killed. Very harsh punishment, but did that deter to unwanted behaviors? Was it such a severe punishment that it was never actually used (as some commentators suggest)?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on November 04, 2012, 04:24:51 PM
I've seen this posted on Facebook recently.

"If you don't want tax dollars helping the sick and poor, then it's time to stop saying you want a government based on Christian values." John Fugelsang. That is what many see when looking through "the lens of Scripture."

I have no idea who John Fugelsang is,...


What difference does it make who John Fugelsang is? Can you not evaluate the words based on what they say, and not have to drag the author of them into consideration? Do you or don't you agree with the idea expressed in the word? That's a simple enough decision. The identity of the author should be irrelevant.

I did offer an evaluation of his quote.  You even quoted it, George.

I also 'googled' John Fugelsang, and quickly found this New York Times review (http://theater.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/theater/reviews/16reas.html?_r=0) from 2007 of his "stand-up memoir 'All the Wrong Reasons.'"

It includes this: "Mr. Fugelsang’s parents met when she was a nun and he a Franciscan brother; both left their orders to marry. As the offspring of this duo, Mr. Fugelsang was naturally more than usually susceptible to emotional blackmail trimmed in theology."

That pretty well describes the statement cited by Pr. Stoffregen: "emotional blackmail trimmed in theology."

Christe eleison, Steven+
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on November 04, 2012, 04:40:10 PM

I see that Republican presidents have been no better than Democratic presidents with respect to Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade is 39 years old. 23 out of those 39 years have been under Republican presidents; only 16 were under Democratic.

When either of them can actually produce results I will consider abortion an issue to factor into my voting decision.

Under Presidents Clinton and Obama, promoting (the right to) abortion and even direct financial providing for them has been a part of the nation's foreign policy. Under Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Bush, the nation's foreign policy has been to reject the promotion of abortion and to provide no direct financial support for them.  The president has the authority over the use of abortion in federal medical facilities, especially those of the armed forces.

Only the Congress or the Supreme Court can reverse Roe v. Wade.  (Though I suppose a President could take the approach of Gen'l Jackson's to Justice Marshall's ruling in Worcester v. Georgia and "let Justice Marshall enforce it.")

In the sea of over 50 million American dead, the President's legal authority in the light of Roe v. Wade has not made a large difference. But neither has it made no difference.  And I remember that when I cast my vote.

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on November 04, 2012, 05:06:35 PM
In the sea of over 50 million American dead, the President's legal authority in the light of Roe v. Wade has not made a large difference. But neither has it made no difference.  And I remember that when I cast my vote.

Well said.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on November 04, 2012, 08:12:25 PM
John, if it were even sort of true that presidential elections have no bearing on the fate of abortion on demand, both sides would not make it an issue. But such specious reasoning can be applied to any issue. How many wars since the dawn of the 20th century have been stated under Democrats? (Hint: all of them except the two smallest ones with the fewest casualties) Does that mean war isn't an issue or that anti-war people have reason to prefer Democrats? Of course not. On abortion, the issue was usurped by the judiciary. There is a zero percent chance President Obama would appoint a pro-life judge. That alone disqualifies him from serious consideration among people who think absorption is murder.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Scott7 on November 04, 2012, 08:23:32 PM
John, if it were even sort of true that presidential elections have no bearing on the fate of abortion on demand, both sides would not make it an issue. But such specious reasoning can be applied to any issue. How many wars since the dawn of the 20th century have been stated under Democrats? (Hint: all of them except the two smallest ones with the fewest casualties) Does that mean war isn't an issue or that anti-war people have reason to prefer Democrats? Of course not. On abortion, the issue was usurped by the judiciary. There is a zero percent chance President Obama would appoint a pro-life judge. That alone disqualifies him from serious consideration among people who think absorption is murder.

My cynical side says that both parties want to keep abortion in play in order to rally their base.

Like you, I think the issue of abortion will be decided by the judiciary, which means that I no longer consider it a major issue in elections of representatives to Congress.  It is a larger issue for me when it comes to senators as they have to approve judicial appointments, and it remains a major issue with the election of the president because the president nominates justices.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Paul O Malley on November 05, 2012, 07:59:15 AM
John, if it were even sort of true that presidential elections have no bearing on the fate of abortion on demand, both sides would not make it an issue. But such specious reasoning can be applied to any issue. How many wars since the dawn of the 20th century have been stated under Democrats? (Hint: all of them except the two smallest ones with the fewest casualties) Does that mean war isn't an issue or that anti-war people have reason to prefer Democrats? Of course not. On abortion, the issue was usurped by the judiciary. There is a zero percent chance President Obama would appoint a pro-life judge. That alone disqualifies him from serious consideration among people who think absorption is murder.

My cynical side says that both parties want to keep abortion in play in order to rally their base.

Like you, I think the issue of abortion will be decided by the judiciary, which means that I no longer consider it a major issue in elections of representatives to Congress.  It is a larger issue for me when it comes to senators as they have to approve judicial appointments, and it remains a major issue with the election of the president because the president nominates justices.

And as a consequence of Justice Blackmun's effort to place abortion outside politics, the politicization of the judiciary is completed.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John_Hannah on November 05, 2012, 08:57:03 AM
I think that ultimately any change in law regarding abortion will have to be a result of changing public opinion.

Ordinarily democracy is just and beneficial. In this case it is not just and is in fact abusive and tyranical as monarchies used to be.


Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: George Erdner on November 05, 2012, 01:47:35 PM
Ordinarily democracy is just and beneficial.

Ordinarily, democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on November 10, 2012, 09:54:08 AM
I posted this elsewhere on the Forum, but I thought that some additional readers might be found here.

I do this at some risk because previously I recommended an article by Tom Friedman of the NY Times.    A prominent Celebrity Lutheran Blogger, known on this forum and others, as an enforcer of doctrine and life, called into question my faith.   

This enforcer will read, I hope, this link.  The link explains how the religious conservatives fared in the election.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on November 10, 2012, 09:56:40 AM
Whoops.  I forgot to post the link on Christian conservatives failing to sway the voters.

Please, if interested, read the link.  Spare me any denunciations or protestations of wounded holiness.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/us/politics/christian-conservatives-failed-to-sway-voters.html?hp

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on November 10, 2012, 10:09:31 AM
Spare me any denunciations or protestations of wounded holiness.

Then spare us from the links.  ::)
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on November 10, 2012, 10:42:05 AM
It is certainly interesting to find that the true pro-life position cares deeply about the size and contents of drinks being offered for sale but much less about children who will never see the light of day because their mothers had them killed in the womb.  That so long as a group opposes the secular sacrament of holy abortion whatever else I the group does to help women counts for nothing.

It is also interesting that right of women to  choose abortion must never be impeded, but the right to choose what size and the contents of ones drink is just too important to be left to the individual but that choice of what to do with ones own body is properly made by the government.  People must be protected against choosing poorly!

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on November 10, 2012, 10:46:10 AM
It is certainly interesting to find that the true pro-life position cares deeply about the size and contents of drinks being offered for sale but much less about children who will never see the light of day because their mothers had them killed in the womb.  That so long as a group opposes the secular sacrament of holy abortion whatever else I the group does to help women counts for nothing.

It is also interesting that right of women to  choose abortion must never be impeded, but the right to choose what size and the contents of ones drink is just too important to be left to the individual but that choice of what to do with ones own body is properly made by the government.  People must be protected against choosing poorly!

Dan

And don't forget the right to free birth control at the hands of the government . . . because it is just SO necessary for women's health!  Check out what else we should be getting for free to benefit women's health:

http://doctormodel.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/i-want-free-birth-control-just-not-from-my-government/
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on November 17, 2012, 09:54:19 AM
Absurdity persists.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on November 17, 2012, 12:30:53 PM
Absurdity persists.


It's absurd to believe that the proper use of free contraceptions will not reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions. The research from Washington University Medical School indicates that free contraceptives could reduce unwanted teen pregnancies by 81% and abortions by 55-67%. Why would anyone opposing abortions not want to make use of a program that has been proven to reduce abortions?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Felix Culpepper on November 17, 2012, 12:54:18 PM
Absurdity persists.

It's absurd to believe that the proper use of free contraceptions will not reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions. The research from Washington University Medical School indicates that free contraceptives could reduce unwanted teen pregnancies by 81% and abortions by 55-67%.

You're making the assumption that the free contraceptives will be used.  Abstinence is also free and would reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions significantly. 

Quote
Why would anyone opposing abortions not want to make use of a program that has been proven to reduce abortions?

I guess you'd have to know something about Catholic theology to answer that question.

Likewise, even if you claimed that the torture would reduce terrorism by 55-67%, I would still oppose it.  Or how about forced sterilization?  That would reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions.  So why would anyone oppose it? 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on November 17, 2012, 01:27:15 PM
Likewise, even if you claimed that the torture would reduce terrorism by 55-67%, I would still oppose it.  Or how about forced sterilization?  That would reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions.  So why would anyone oppose it?


It would also eliminate wanted pregnancies.


I was on a task force to look at the sex education program at a Junior high school. The first statement on the page was something like: "The goal of this program is to reduce pregnancies among junior high youth." I suggested that if that was the goal, then sterilizing all the students would take care of it. My point was that their goal is poorly worded. I think that a better goal would be something like: "To increase the likelihood that these students will enter marriages that will be happy and last a lifetime."


Goals that include a positive outcome, e.g., a life-long happy marriage; are better than those that only have a negative outcome, e.g., reduce unwanted pregnancies. From folks I've talked to, that was also a problem with the "Just Say No" program against drugs. Unless they also gave students things to say "yes" to, it wasn't very effective.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Coach-Rev on November 17, 2012, 01:42:05 PM

 Abstinence is also free and would reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions significantly. 

Not to mention much more efficiently...
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Felix Culpepper on November 17, 2012, 01:55:40 PM
Likewise, even if you claimed that the torture would reduce terrorism by 55-67%, I would still oppose it.  Or how about forced sterilization?  That would reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions.  So why would anyone oppose it?

It would also eliminate wanted pregnancies.

True.  However, the point is that you and I are no more likely to accept any and all methods of reducing unwanted pregnancy than the RCC is.  That something achieves a desired result does not necessarily make it good.

Quote
I was on a task force to look at the sex education program at a Junior high school. The first statement on the page was something like: "The goal of this program is to reduce pregnancies among junior high youth." I suggested that if that was the goal, then sterilizing all the students would take care of it. My point was that their goal is poorly worded. I think that a better goal would be something like: "To increase the likelihood that these students will enter marriages that will be happy and last a lifetime."

Goals that include a positive outcome, e.g., a life-long happy marriage; are better than those that only have a negative outcome, e.g., reduce unwanted pregnancies. From folks I've talked to, that was also a problem with the "Just Say No" program against drugs. Unless they also gave students things to say "yes" to, it wasn't very effective.

Not unlike RC moral theology, which not only describes what evils one should avoid, the good to which one ought to aim.  The good to which human sexuality is ordered is the union of a man and woman in a relationship which is open to new life.  The message of the RCC is not, "Just say no to sexual pleasure."  It is to say "yes" to something greater.

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on November 17, 2012, 01:58:08 PM
Not unlike RC moral theology, which not only describes what evils one should avoid, the good to which one ought to aim.  The good to which human sexuality is ordered is the union of a man and woman in a relationship which is open to new life.  The message of the RCC is not, "Just say no to sexual pleasure."  It is to say "yes" to something greater.


Many, like us, temporarily said "no" to children while I was struggling through college and seminary; so that when we said "yes" we were better prepared to be good parents to our children.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Felix Culpepper on November 17, 2012, 01:58:48 PM

 Abstinence is also free and would reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions significantly. 

Not to mention much more efficiently...

Exactly.  The institution of marriage is the most efficient way to:

1.  reduce unwanted pregnancy
2.  reduce abortions
3.  reduce STDs
4.  reduce childhood hunger and poverty
5.  etc...

There are other measures that may be necessary, but marriage still achieves the desired goal with much less cost, and with much less need of government intervention.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Felix Culpepper on November 17, 2012, 02:01:26 PM
Not unlike RC moral theology, which not only describes what evils one should avoid, the good to which one ought to aim.  The good to which human sexuality is ordered is the union of a man and woman in a relationship which is open to new life.  The message of the RCC is not, "Just say no to sexual pleasure."  It is to say "yes" to something greater.


Many, like us, temporarily said "no" to children while I was struggling through college and seminary; so that when we said "yes" we were better prepared to be good parents to our children.

I think the RCC also permits people to say "no" for particular reasons and through natural means.  What one is not to do is say "no" the possibility of the gift of new life. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on November 17, 2012, 02:04:33 PM

 Abstinence is also free and would reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions significantly. 

Not to mention much more efficiently...


Most certainly. The first and best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies is abstinence. Unfortunately, not everyone listens to our good advice about abstaining from sexual behaviors.


The second way and highly effective way to avoid unwanted pregnancies for those who will not abstain is the proper use of contraceptives.


A third approach for when abstinence and contraceptives haven't worked is to help turn unwanted into wanted.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Felix Culpepper on November 17, 2012, 02:27:22 PM

The second way and highly effective way to avoid unwanted pregnancies for those who will not abstain is the proper use of contraceptives.


The question that I have is, "How many people today have no knowledge of or access to condoms and other contraceptives?"  Are there really people who don't know that vaginal intercourse can result in pregnancy?  Is it really true that people who can afford the latest 4G phones, computers and flat screen TVs, can't afford condoms?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on November 17, 2012, 04:32:08 PM
The research from Washington University Medical School indicates that free contraceptives could reduce unwanted teen pregnancies by 81% and abortions by 55-67%. Why would anyone opposing abortions not want to make use of a program that has been proven to reduce abortions?

"could" = "does"  ??
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on November 17, 2012, 04:39:28 PM

The second way and highly effective way to avoid unwanted pregnancies for those who will not abstain is the proper use of contraceptives.


Actually, for those who will not abstain yet wish to avoid pregnancies, homosexual sex is more effective than the proper use of contraceptives.
 8)
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on November 17, 2012, 06:30:47 PM
The research from Washington University Medical School indicates that free contraceptives could reduce unwanted teen pregnancies by 81% and abortions by 55-67%. Why would anyone opposing abortions not want to make use of a program that has been proven to reduce abortions?

"could" = "does"  ??


I used "could" because while this one study indicated that it does; it has been noted that there has not been peer review or corroborating studies to better "prove" the hypothesis.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dave Benke on November 29, 2012, 10:19:21 PM
I serve on the board of Pregnancy Help, Inc. in NYC and have since its inception.  At a PHI event this evening, I was told that there is a law on the books in Chicago/Illinois allowing the mother of a newborn child  with physical abnormalities to indicate that the baby should be smothered/put to death. I have never heard of this, but need to ask if there is any basis in truth.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: cssml on November 30, 2012, 02:17:32 AM
I serve on the board of Pregnancy Help, Inc. in NYC and have since its inception.  At a PHI event this evening, I was told that there is a law on the books in Chicago/Illinois allowing the mother of a newborn child  with physical abnormalities to indicate that the baby should be smothered/put to death. I have never heard of this, but need to ask if there is any basis in truth.

Dave Benke

I am not sure about Chicago, and I don't know about smothering, but if you have ever heard of the "Liverpool *Care* Pathway", it certainly is a reality in the UK.  In the UK, if the story is at all accurate, it is the Doctors who commonly try convince parents that this is the best thing for their children,  In today's news:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240075/Now-sick-babies-death-pathway-Doctors-haunting-testimony-reveals-children-end-life-plan.html?printingPage=true
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dave Benke on November 30, 2012, 08:04:17 AM
I serve on the board of Pregnancy Help, Inc. in NYC and have since its inception.  At a PHI event this evening, I was told that there is a law on the books in Chicago/Illinois allowing the mother of a newborn child  with physical abnormalities to indicate that the baby should be smothered/put to death. I have never heard of this, but need to ask if there is any basis in truth.

Dave Benke

I am not sure about Chicago, and I don't know about smothering, but if you have ever heard of the "Liverpool *Care* Pathway", it certainly is a reality in the UK.  In the UK, if the story is at all accurate, it is the Doctors who commonly try convince parents that this is the best thing for their children,  In today's news:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240075/Now-sick-babies-death-pathway-Doctors-haunting-testimony-reveals-children-end-life-plan.html?printingPage=true

Absolutely impossible to understand.  This is pretty much what was described to me as being the case in Chicago.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on November 30, 2012, 10:10:13 AM
I can understand how there might not be money available for everybody to have extraordinary care, but I can't imagine food, water, and oxygen are all that expensive. Being unable to care for a child who needs some drastically expensive procedure such as a transplant and having to watch him die is a great tragedy, and every health care system struggles with the issue of potentially unlimited costs. But not feeding babies and letting them starve to death is simply organized evil. Somewhere there is a very well-educated, earnest doctor being introduced as an expert to some governmental health care panel or hospital board of directors and saying, "Pleased to meet you. Won't you guess my name..." 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Satis Est on November 30, 2012, 10:21:57 AM
I can understand how there might not be money available for everybody to have extraordinary care, but I can't imagine food, water, and oxygen are all that expensive.

You don't have to imagine.  Food, water and oxygen aren't all that expensive for those who can feed themselves, who know how to swallow, and can breath on their own.  Having to be tube fed, taught how to suck and swallow (provided that is even possible), and provided oxygen to breath on a sustained basis is another matter altogether. 

Saying this should not be taken as agreeing with the abomination of killing or "allowing to die" anyone -- infants through centenarians -- because of physical infirmities or defects.  But check into the cost of caring for premies in neonatal intensive care hospital units for even one 24 hour period.  Your imaginative powers will be greatly expanded.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on November 30, 2012, 11:20:59 AM
I can understand how there might not be money available for everybody to have extraordinary care, but I can't imagine food, water, and oxygen are all that expensive.

You don't have to imagine.  Food, water and oxygen aren't all that expensive for those who can feed themselves, who know how to swallow, and can breath on their own.  Having to be tube fed, taught how to suck and swallow (provided that is even possible), and provided oxygen to breath on a sustained basis is another matter altogether. 

Saying this should not be taken as agreeing with the abomination of killing or "allowing to die" anyone -- infants through centenarians -- because of physical infirmities or defects.  But check into the cost of caring for premies in neonatal intensive care hospital units for even one 24 hour period.  Your imaginative powers will be greatly expanded.
Please. I am fully aware of the staggering costs involved in NICU stays. Been there. Done that. But many of those costs are related to the curative efforts of specialists, medicines, equipment, etc. trying to restore the child to health. If you essentially admit defeat on the curative front and say, no, we can't afford a pediatric cardiologist, brain surgeon, or the $100,000/mo. therapies necessary to keep this child alive, and we are not going to hold out hope that he or she develops normally, then much of the costs go away. That is sad but might be an economic reality. But we what we CAN afford, and and developed, civilized country can afford, in a humbler, less expesnive setting outside the NICU, is a nurse and IV nutrition. We don't have to say, "Because this child is never going to develop properly and is likely to die young and we can't afford the care it needs, therefore we're not even going to bother to feed the poor thing." Watching an infant die of dehydration and then blaming the death on whatever deformity or disease was going to kill it her anyway is not defensible at any level, nor can it be blamed on the high costs of hydrating a baby with an IV.   
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on November 30, 2012, 12:07:37 PM
I serve on the board of Pregnancy Help, Inc. in NYC and have since its inception.  At a PHI event this evening, I was told that there is a law on the books in Chicago/Illinois allowing the mother of a newborn child  with physical abnormalities to indicate that the baby should be smothered/put to death. I have never heard of this, but need to ask if there is any basis in truth.

Dave Benke

I am not sure about Chicago, and I don't know about smothering, but if you have ever heard of the "Liverpool *Care* Pathway", it certainly is a reality in the UK.  In the UK, if the story is at all accurate, it is the Doctors who commonly try convince parents that this is the best thing for their children,  In today's news:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240075/Now-sick-babies-death-pathway-Doctors-haunting-testimony-reveals-children-end-life-plan.html?printingPage=true

Absolutely impossible to understand.  This is pretty much what was described to me as being the case in Chicago.

Dave Benke

President Benke-

I am not sure that there is such a law, but it was the practice of at least one hospital that lead Jill Stanek to start her career speaking out against these horrors.  And the majority of our fellow citizens voted for a man who thinks this is pretty much OK.  Look at his votes in IL.   

The LCP for infants also makes one revisit the bizarrre opening to the Summer Olympics and the "salute to the NHS."  Yeah- they just love kids.

Anyhow- coming soon to an Affordable Care Act near you!
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Satis Est on November 30, 2012, 12:34:40 PM
Watching an infant die of dehydration and then blaming the death on whatever deformity or disease was going to kill it her anyway is not defensible at any level, nor can it be blamed on the high costs of hydrating a baby with an IV.

I have been there, done that also.  And with your last sentence, you and I have no disagreement whatever. There are some costs that any society that dares to call itself civilized must bear, one way or another.  Basic care and mercy for the helpless, especially for the dying of any age, is one of those costs.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on November 30, 2012, 12:44:56 PM
Watching an infant die of dehydration and then blaming the death on whatever deformity or disease was going to kill it her anyway is not defensible at any level, nor can it be blamed on the high costs of hydrating a baby with an IV.

I have been there, done that also.  And with your last sentence, you and I have no disagreement whatever. There are some costs that any society that dares to call itself civilized must bear, one way or another.  Basic care and mercy for the helpless, especially for the dying of any age, is one of those costs.


So you're recommending an increase in taxes and/or hospital costs which would make health insurance premiums go up so that hospitals can afford the extended (and often temporary) care needed by such infants?


I'm not disagreeing with your statement; but wondering how do you see our civilized society paying for it. Our president is trying to make health care affordable; many oppose his plan. Do you have something else to offer?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on November 30, 2012, 01:00:32 PM
how do you see our civilized society paying for it. Our president is trying to make health care affordable; many oppose his plan. Do you have something else to offer?

Oh- I don't know- maybe the Feds got step away from trying to control the RCC and how they do healthcare and monies could be freed up to cover the costs that way.

Maybe the tax burden of individuals could be lightened so that there was more discretionary income to ask for donations to care for those who are dying.

The fear that is not a phobia that many of us have is that the means of making care "affordable" is by limiting it.  The LCP is already being used to kill off the excess elderly in GB.  Now they are going after the other end of the age spectrum.

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Satis Est on November 30, 2012, 01:01:17 PM
Watching an infant die of dehydration and then blaming the death on whatever deformity or disease was going to kill it her anyway is not defensible at any level, nor can it be blamed on the high costs of hydrating a baby with an IV.

I have been there, done that also.  And with your last sentence, you and I have no disagreement whatever. There are some costs that any society that dares to call itself civilized must bear, one way or another.  Basic care and mercy for the helpless, especially for the dying of any age, is one of those costs.


So you're recommending an increase in taxes and/or hospital costs which would make health insurance premiums go up so that hospitals can afford the extended (and often temporary) care needed by such infants?


I'm not disagreeing with your statement; but wondering how do you see our civilized society paying for it. Our president is trying to make health care affordable; many oppose his plan. Do you have something else to offer?

Yes, I would support such an increase for such a purpose.

And any society that would decide to make health care affordable by denying basic hydration to infants, especially dying infants, does not deserve the descriptive "civilized," for it is not.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Kurt Weinelt on November 30, 2012, 03:48:19 PM
I was just made aware of this film featuring a former abortion clinic owner; a link to the excerpts is provided below.  There are no graphic images, but the first-hand account of how these murder factories operate is chilling. Note the lack of "choice" involved in this whole process. It is beyond evil. :'(  Of course, it would be politically inconvenient for accounts of botched abortions to be publicized, so somehow we are not confronted with these horrors in the mass media.

Former Abortion Provider Speaks
Carol Everett, former abortion provider and clinic operator, speaks about abortion in the film Blood Money.
[http://conservativevideos.com/2012/11/former-abortion-provider-speaks/][/url]
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on November 30, 2012, 04:45:37 PM
I was just made aware of this film featuring a former abortion clinic owner; a link to the excerpts is provided below.  There are no graphic images, but the first-hand account of how these murder factories operate is chilling. Note the lack of "choice" involved in this whole process. It is beyond evil. :'(  Of course, it would be politically inconvenient for accounts of botched abortions to be publicized, so somehow we are not confronted with these horrors in the mass media.

Former Abortion Provider Speaks
Carol Everett, former abortion provider and clinic operator, speaks about abortion in the film Blood Money.
[http://conservativevideos.com/2012/11/former-abortion-provider-speaks/][/url]

Kurt-

Thanks for sharing this.  Interetsing business model.  It seems that PP wants to get contraception into the girls' hands early, becasue then they can make their money in the abortions.

But that cannot be because caring broad pro-life people, who are ever so much smarter and kinder than narrow pro-life people, think the answer is to give out contraception like they were Tic-Tacs.

It is a puzzlement!
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: cssml on November 30, 2012, 09:16:20 PM
Watching an infant die of dehydration and then blaming the death on whatever deformity or disease was going to kill it her anyway is not defensible at any level, nor can it be blamed on the high costs of hydrating a baby with an IV.

I have been there, done that also.  And with your last sentence, you and I have no disagreement whatever. There are some costs that any society that dares to call itself civilized must bear, one way or another.  Basic care and mercy for the helpless, especially for the dying of any age, is one of those costs.


So you're recommending an increase in taxes and/or hospital costs which would make health insurance premiums go up so that hospitals can afford the extended (and often temporary) care needed by such infants?


I'm not disagreeing with your statement; but wondering how do you see our civilized society paying for it. Our president is trying to make health care affordable; many oppose his plan. Do you have something else to offer?

One might wonder if a society that devalues human life to such an extent that 'death as a solution' becomes the convenient and cheap option, as opposed to caring for and walking with the dying through to their natural death, can still be called "our civilized society".  This does not mean every life must be extended beyond its natural end through technology, but basic care (food, water), love, and compassion are deserved by all.  To sit and watch someone die of thirst/hunger when we have the means to help them makes us morally complicit in their death.

Jesus did not hold up to us the parable of the Good Samaritan  (which many Health Care institutions are named after) because the Samaritan walked by and said "tragic, I know you deserve help and care, but the rest of us living cannot afford it,  I'll pray for you and I love you, but your better off dying because your life has little value"
 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 01, 2012, 01:21:27 AM
Watching an infant die of dehydration and then blaming the death on whatever deformity or disease was going to kill it her anyway is not defensible at any level, nor can it be blamed on the high costs of hydrating a baby with an IV.

I have been there, done that also.  And with your last sentence, you and I have no disagreement whatever. There are some costs that any society that dares to call itself civilized must bear, one way or another.  Basic care and mercy for the helpless, especially for the dying of any age, is one of those costs.


So you're recommending an increase in taxes and/or hospital costs which would make health insurance premiums go up so that hospitals can afford the extended (and often temporary) care needed by such infants?


I'm not disagreeing with your statement; but wondering how do you see our civilized society paying for it. Our president is trying to make health care affordable; many oppose his plan. Do you have something else to offer?

One might wonder if a society that devalues human life to such an extent that 'death as a solution' becomes the convenient and cheap option, as opposed to caring for and walking with the dying through to their natural death, can still be called "our civilized society".  This does not mean every life must be extended beyond its natural end through technology, but basic care (food, water), love, and compassion are deserved by all.  To sit and watch someone die of thirst/hunger when we have the means to help them makes us morally complicit in their death.

Jesus did not hold up to us the parable of the Good Samaritan  (which many Health Care institutions are named after) because the Samaritan walked by and said "tragic, I know you deserve help and care, but the rest of us living cannot afford it,  I'll pray for you and I love you, but your better off dying because your life has little value"

Note that besides ministering to the man in the ditch, and transporting him to an inn; he gave the innkeeper two days wages and promised to cover any additional expenses he might incur (Luke 10:35). Who is promising our hospitals and nursing homes and home-health nurses, etc., that all their expenses will be paid?


A lady in our congregation whom I didn't know, died, and the pastor of the congregation was named executer of the estate. As I looked into her finances, there wasn't enough money to pay the bill for the home-health care she had received. So, on the advice of a lawyer and our congregation council, I refused to take the position and make the church liable for her past debts.


A relative recently moved into a memory care housing at $5500/month. How many families can afford that kind of payment for months or years? In other discussions it's been noted about the low pay so many of us clergy are receiving. At one of my earlier calls, a 30-something lady in the congregation had severe heart problems. They expected to have $100,000 in hospital expenses each year. With 20% co-pay, that's $20,000/year. That was more than I was making as a pastor at that time. And in addition, many insurance policies had a cap; after $1,000,000 they stop paying.


A large number of winter visitors to our town come from Canada. The once I've talked to are very happy with their socialized health care. That seems to be what civilized nations do.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on December 01, 2012, 09:05:39 AM



A large number of winter visitors to our town come from Canada. The once I've talked to are very happy with their socialized health care. That seems to be what civilized nations do.

Well, I suppose we could always ask Natasha Richardson her opinion on the salutary benefits of Canadian socialized medicine.  Oh...wait a minute... Never mind.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: cssml on December 01, 2012, 10:19:45 AM
Watching an infant die of dehydration and then blaming the death on whatever deformity or disease was going to kill it her anyway is not defensible at any level, nor can it be blamed on the high costs of hydrating a baby with an IV.

I have been there, done that also.  And with your last sentence, you and I have no disagreement whatever. There are some costs that any society that dares to call itself civilized must bear, one way or another.  Basic care and mercy for the helpless, especially for the dying of any age, is one of those costs.


So you're recommending an increase in taxes and/or hospital costs which would make health insurance premiums go up so that hospitals can afford the extended (and often temporary) care needed by such infants?


I'm not disagreeing with your statement; but wondering how do you see our civilized society paying for it. Our president is trying to make health care affordable; many oppose his plan. Do you have something else to offer?

One might wonder if a society that devalues human life to such an extent that 'death as a solution' becomes the convenient and cheap option, as opposed to caring for and walking with the dying through to their natural death, can still be called "our civilized society".  This does not mean every life must be extended beyond its natural end through technology, but basic care (food, water), love, and compassion are deserved by all.  To sit and watch someone die of thirst/hunger when we have the means to help them makes us morally complicit in their death.

Jesus did not hold up to us the parable of the Good Samaritan  (which many Health Care institutions are named after) because the Samaritan walked by and said "tragic, I know you deserve help and care, but the rest of us living cannot afford it,  I'll pray for you and I love you, but your better off dying because your life has little value"

Note that besides ministering to the man in the ditch, and transporting him to an inn; he gave the innkeeper two days wages and promised to cover any additional expenses he might incur (Luke 10:35). Who is promising our hospitals and nursing homes and home-health nurses, etc., that all their expenses will be paid?


A lady in our congregation whom I didn't know, died, and the pastor of the congregation was named executer of the estate. As I looked into her finances, there wasn't enough money to pay the bill for the home-health care she had received. So, on the advice of a lawyer and our congregation council, I refused to take the position and make the church liable for her past debts.


A relative recently moved into a memory care housing at $5500/month. How many families can afford that kind of payment for months or years? In other discussions it's been noted about the low pay so many of us clergy are receiving. At one of my earlier calls, a 30-something lady in the congregation had severe heart problems. They expected to have $100,000 in hospital expenses each year. With 20% co-pay, that's $20,000/year. That was more than I was making as a pastor at that time. And in addition, many insurance policies had a cap; after $1,000,000 they stop paying.


A large number of winter visitors to our town come from Canada. The once I've talked to are very happy with their socialized health care. That seems to be what civilized nations do.

Who is taking care of them?  In many cases it is agencies like Catholic Social Services and Health Care institutions started to care for the sick and the poor by small groups of brave sisters, called by bishops to remote and unknown territories (like Oregon) to care for the sick and the poor

http://www2.providence.org/phs/archives/history-online/Works/Pages/StVincent1.aspx

"In 1856, five Sisters of Providence, led by Mother Joseph of the Sacred Heart, traveled to Fort Vancouver at the request of the Most Reverend A.M.A. Blanchet, bishop of Nesqually (Washington Territory), who had long hoped for assistance in his diocese. On December 8, following a five-week stormy ocean voyage, the women arrived, exhausted but filled with a "truly apostolic zeal to work for the glory of Him to whom they had consecrated their lives."(1) They were assigned temporary quarters in the attic of Bishop Blanchet's house on the grounds of the original St. James Mission near the fort. Despite their crowded and harsh living conditions, they were enthusiastic about having their own mission, and within a few weeks they began visiting families and caring for the sick.(2)

The sisters also took a special interest in caring for orphaned and abandoned children. Within a few months, they opened Providence Academy,"


They are doing this in many cases without the promise of "all their expenses being paid".   

They could not even imagine being forced by the state to materially cooperate or directly provide abortion services, sterilization, or contraception.

They knew in their hearts what it meant to care for the sick, and they still know, to the degree that they remain connected to their founding missions, which for providence you can read here:

   http://www2.providence.org/phs/Pages/our-mission.aspx

MISSION

    As People of Providence
    we reveal God’s love for all,             
    especially the poor and vulnerable,   
    through our compassionate service. 

VISION

    Together, we answer the call of every person we serve:
    Know me, care for me, ease my way. ®

CORE VALUES

    Respect
    All people have been created in the image of God
    Genesis 1:27

    We welcome the uniqueness and honor the dignity of every person
    We communicate openly and we act with integrity
    We develop the talents and abilities of one another

    Compassion
    Jesus taught and healed with compassion for all
    Matthew 4:24
       :
   

I live in a very progressive state.  My daughter was born in the very hospital that the five Sisters of Providence, led by Mother Joseph of the Sacred Heart began.  I believe it is the state you come from Brian.  Then you of all people should be cautious of state run medicine, because as you probably know, state run medicine in OR practiced forced sterilization of 2600+ human beings from 1921-1983.  All this was done 'for their own good' and 'the good of us all', according of course to the state's discernment of 'good'.  This good was called eugenics, and thank God we can all now see clearly that it was no "good", but rather an incredible violation of dignity which God bestowed on these people.

  http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/OR/OR.html

Maybe you can find similar cases of Catholic Health care institutions going far off the rails and determining that eugenics, or death with dignity = *care*, I hope not.  However, I think it is all too clear that the state has frequently done so. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on December 11, 2012, 10:47:38 AM
I know that it is hard to change established patterns of thinking.    Perhaps it is even more difficult when faithful Christians become so involved in a social issue that they can see nothing else.  For those persons, I suggest this reading       http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/6614/four_changes_evangelicals_must_make

In the meantime, would someone get the word to the shapers of conservative Lutheran policy, the various presidents, the Indiana Seminary faculty, the publishing houses, to just stop.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on December 11, 2012, 10:55:32 AM
I know that it is hard to change established patterns of thinking.    Perhaps it is even more difficult when faithful Christians become so involved in a social issue that they can see nothing else.  For those persons, I suggest this reading       http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/6614/four_changes_evangelicals_must_make

In the meantime, would someone get the word to the shapers of conservative Lutheran policy, the various presidents, the Indiana Seminary faculty, the publishing houses, to just stop.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

That would be pleasing to both you and Satan, now wouldn't it?  Why don't you work on your own church body's issues instead of inserting yourself into ours?  Especially when you continue to demonstrate a lack of understanding of why we teach and take the action that we do.

Signed,

HaLO
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Felix Culpepper on December 11, 2012, 11:28:46 AM
I know that it is hard to change established patterns of thinking.    Perhaps it is even more difficult when faithful Christians become so involved in a social issue that they can see nothing else.  For those persons, I suggest this reading       http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/6614/four_changes_evangelicals_must_make

In the meantime, would someone get the word to the shapers of conservative Lutheran policy, the various presidents, the Indiana Seminary faculty, the publishing houses, to just stop.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

Since I'm not a member of the LCMS, WELS, or ELS, it wouldn't be my place to call on the "shapers of conservative Lutheran policy" to stop.  However, I have called for the "shapers of liberal Lutheran policy" to just stop for some time.  It has been to no effect. 

As many have commented, the politics of the left and the right have dominated the Lutheran denominations in America for over 40 years.  Those who have tried to offer a Evangelical, Confessional, and Catholic alternative to the "dogmatism and biblicism, whether of the right or the left" have had an uphill battle.   
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steverem on December 11, 2012, 11:32:02 AM

I know that it is hard to change established patterns of thinking.   
 

Very true.  We keep hoping that you'll come around, though.   ;D
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Jeremy Loesch on December 11, 2012, 11:46:21 AM
As a shaper of Lutheran policy, thank you for the invitation to stop being Lutheran.  But...no thanks.  I seriously appreciate your invitation, as I am all for proper manners, yet your invitation is not something that Christians could accept.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on December 11, 2012, 12:18:54 PM
In the meantime, would someone get the word to the shapers of conservative Lutheran policy, the various presidents, the Indiana Seminary faculty, the publishing houses, to just stop.

You know, I admittedly grow tired of your criticism of people who confess as I do, Mr. Teigen, especially when you can't back it up with solid arguments.  You want the seminary faculty who taught me theology to stop teaching from God's Word as they do?  You want some of these same faculty and other pastors they've trained to quit writing for CPH on this subject?  Tell me, what credentials do you bring to this discussion?  What theological pedigree do you possess?  How many hands of women broken from a decision to kill their child have you held?  How many women have you talked to who learned too late that their church failed them because it didn't speak the truth on what an abortion actually entails (hint:  it's plain and simple 5th commandment stuff--murder)?

Please, tell me, why I and others should just stop.  What do you know about abortion that we don't?  Have you had one?  Are you close to someone who has?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Charles_Austin on December 11, 2012, 01:07:37 PM
Careful, O halo-ed one. Some of your compadres here don't think "experience" counts for much when it comes to the lofty world of theology.
And FWIW, I find your put-down of Mr. Teigen, whose passion has always been moderate here, quite offensive. What happened to judging what person says here, rather than projecting on what one's credentials may or may not be? I've held the hands of a few women who have had abortions, but whose views on the matter you would reject.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on December 11, 2012, 01:22:04 PM
And FWIW, I find your put-down of Mr. Teigen, whose passion has always been moderate here, quite offensive. What happened to judging what person says here, rather than projecting on what one's credentials may or may not be?

That's rich coming from you.  The problem is, he hasn't said anything of any substance.  Constant putdowns without any arguments to back them up are all I seem to read from him on the topic of abortion and the HHS mandate.

When a layperson tries to instruct credentialed Lutheran faculty on what they should be teaching (for heaven's sake, he's not even in the LCMS), I find qualifications quite pertinent to the discussion.  So when he decides to put forth just what subject matter expertise he possesses, I'll take his commands to stop confessing as we do in the LCMS seriously.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on December 13, 2012, 09:19:21 AM
All of us who are Lutherans have a legitimate right to issue comments about the matters under discussion.  The LC-MS is the big dog in the arena.  The other conservative synodical leaders, the President of WELS and my own synodical president, John Moldstad,  follow in the footprints of the leader.  President Moldstad knows how I feel because I told him my opinions in a private meeting in my church.  Moldstad told me that it was no disservice to publicly say that I am an ELS Layman.   

There has been pushback in the little Norwegian synod and the synod has, for the most part, cooled down on the subject.  A recent exception was a devotional on the synod's site which compared the post-election situation, the situation where Barack Obama was re-elected POTUS, as being the same as the Israelites being carried off to captivity in Babylon.   How foolish are these expressions.

So, Holy Victimized Lady From Ohio, relent a bit and hold off on your righteous anger.  It is the time of Christmas when Christ Jesus came into the world to take away the sins of the world.  Individual Christians are not required to play the role of AGNUS DEI.  This is the comfort of the Christmas message.   Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod


Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on December 13, 2012, 09:43:59 AM
So, Holy Victimized Lady From Ohio, relent a bit and hold off on your righteous anger. 

Well, I have to tell you, you’re not doing a very good job of representing your church body nor your church body’s president when you resort to petty name calling (making a presumed intelligent grown man look rather foolish, I would add) instead of answering legitimate questions put forth to you.  So I’ll ask yet again and hope this time you might actually answer them:

Quote
So Mr. Teigen, at what point in a pregnancy do you believe life actually begins (and the church is obligated to defend an innocent child)?
http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=4600.msg275919#msg275919

Quote
Tell me, what credentials do you bring to this discussion?  What theological pedigree do you possess?  How many hands of women broken from a decision to kill their child have you held?  How many women have you talked to who learned too late that their church failed them because it didn't speak the truth on what an abortion actually entails (hint:  it's plain and simple 5th commandment stuff--murder)?

Please, tell me, why I and others should just stop.  What do you know about abortion that we don't?  Have you had one?  Are you close to someone who has?
http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=4600.msg281083#msg281083

As for my new “victimized” status . . . yep.  I have definitely been victimized by uninformed men like you trying to speak on behalf of women when you are clearly ignorant of the facts surrounding the abortion issue, especially as they relate to women.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on December 13, 2012, 01:32:30 PM
Here is an interesting take on what conservative Evangelicals must do:

http://standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/29845

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Buckeye Deaconess on February 17, 2013, 02:17:10 PM
I came across this article about women who are finding post-abortion healing if it's of any help to forum participants. 
http://liveactionnews.org/surrender-the-secret-tv-program-exposes-the-lies-of-abortion/

Here is a link to the online "show":
http://www.knocktv.com/surrenderthesecret/all-episodes/

Here is a link to Lutheran post-abortion healing services:
http://www.word-of-hope.org/
Title: I bet this is a proud moment for the Pastor at St. Andrew's
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 12, 2014, 05:40:11 PM
http://liveactionnews.org/iowa-legislator-we-need-abortion-because-babies-have-colic/

Yes, Beth Wessel-Kroeschell is Lutheran.  And I am betting not LCMS. Brian S.- Are colicky babies non-viable parasites?
Title: Re: I bet this is a proud moment for the Pastor at St. Andrew's
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on February 12, 2014, 09:38:38 PM
http://liveactionnews.org/iowa-legislator-we-need-abortion-because-babies-have-colic/ (http://liveactionnews.org/iowa-legislator-we-need-abortion-because-babies-have-colic/)

Yes, Beth Wessel-Kroeschell is Lutheran.  And I am betting not LCMS. Brian S.- Are colicky babies non-viable parasites?


That isn't what she is said. My mother said nearly the same thing when she was at the end of her rope in caring for my ill father. She put him in a nursing home, because he became more than she could handle. She knew her limits and sought help when she needed it.


Can a mother reach the end of her rope with a fussing baby, of course? Should she kill her child? No. Might she choose not to have any more children because she's already too stressed out with the ones she has? Yes.


In fact, my brother adopted twins from a mother who was unable to care for her two older children, but grandma did not want two more to care for. So they were adopted right after birth (although the legalities went on for a year because the birth mother kept changing her mind - and was in and out of mental hospitals). The mother was told by the courts not to have any more children. She did. Somebody else is taking care of them, too.


I have asked pro-life people, how many of the unwanted babies have you adopted? Are you willing to pay for and raise another dozen children perhaps all of them under the age of two? Could you do that? If not, why not? Why not take personal responsibility to save and raise as many children - especially those with birth defects - as you can? I think that it's quite possible that even the most pro-life people know that there is a limit to how many children they can adequate support.


Note well: choosing to have an abortion just because it would be too much of a strain on the parents is NOT an acceptable reason to have an abortion according to our Statement and my beliefs.
Title: Re: I bet this is a proud moment for the Pastor at St. Andrew's
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 12, 2014, 09:51:56 PM
http://liveactionnews.org/iowa-legislator-we-need-abortion-because-babies-have-colic/ (http://liveactionnews.org/iowa-legislator-we-need-abortion-because-babies-have-colic/)

Yes, Beth Wessel-Kroeschell is Lutheran.  And I am betting not LCMS. Brian S.- Are colicky babies non-viable parasites?


That isn't what she is said. My mother said nearly the same thing when she was at the end of her rope in caring for my ill father. She put him in a nursing home, because he became more than she could handle. She knew her limits and sought help when she needed it.


Can a mother reach the end of her rope with a fussing baby, of course? Should she kill her child? No. Might she choose not to have any more children because she's already too stressed out with the ones she has? Yes.


In fact, my brother adopted twins from a mother who was unable to care for her two older children, but grandma did not want two more to care for. So they were adopted right after birth (although the legalities went on for a year because the birth mother kept changing her mind - and was in and out of mental hospitals). The mother was told by the courts not to have any more children. She did. Somebody else is taking care of them, too.


I have asked pro-life people, how many of the unwanted babies have you adopted? Are you willing to pay for and raise another dozen children perhaps all of them under the age of two? Could you do that? If not, why not? Why not take personal responsibility to save and raise as many children - especially those with birth defects - as you can? I think that it's quite possible that even the most pro-life people know that there is a limit to how many children they can adequate support.


Note well: choosing to have an abortion just because it would be too much of a strain on the parents is NOT an acceptable reason to have an abortion according to our Statement and my beliefs.
An inability to adequately support someone is no justification for killing them, as you note. The woman in the article said that abortion is needed because women know how much they can handle, which justified killing someone for the reason that you can't care for them. That idea is monstrous and evil, and, according to you, unacceptable even by ELCA social statement standards.
Title: Re: I bet this is a proud moment for the Pastor at St. Andrew's
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 12, 2014, 10:25:01 PM

<<snip>>

I have asked pro-life people, how many of the unwanted babies have you adopted? Are you willing to pay for and raise another dozen children perhaps all of them under the age of two? Could you do that? If not, why not? Why not take personal responsibility to save and raise as many children - especially those with birth defects - as you can? I think that it's quite possible that even the most pro-life people know that there is a limit to how many children they can adequate support.

<<snip>>


How many progressives who advocate for the poor and the homeless are willing to take homeless  people into their homes and provide for them?  If not, why not?  Why not take personal responsibility to save and care for as many homeless, especially those with mental health issues as they can?  Or do they only care for these people when someone else takes responsibility and pays for the care?

Dan
Title: Re: I bet this is a proud moment for the Pastor at St. Andrew's
Post by: LutherMan on February 12, 2014, 10:41:33 PM



How many progressives who advocate for the poor and the homeless are willing to take homeless  people into their homes and provide for them?  If not, why not?  Why not take personal responsibility to save and care for as many homeless, especially those with mental health issues as they can?  Or do they only care for these people when someone else takes responsibility and pays for the care?

Dan
A local brother and sister did that the other night and the homeless guy stabbed the sister in the neck.  Thankfully, she was released from the hospital today...
Title: Re: I bet this is a proud moment for the Pastor at St. Andrew's
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on February 12, 2014, 10:47:14 PM



How many progressives who advocate for the poor and the homeless are willing to take homeless  people into their homes and provide for them?  If not, why not?  Why not take personal responsibility to save and care for as many homeless, especially those with mental health issues as they can?  Or do they only care for these people when someone else takes responsibility and pays for the care?

Dan
A local brother and sister did that the other night and the homeless guy stabbed the sister in the neck.  Thankfully, she was released from the hospital today...


That doesn't happen when taking in a new born.
Title: Re: I bet this is a proud moment for the Pastor at St. Andrew's
Post by: LutherMan on February 12, 2014, 10:58:24 PM



How many progressives who advocate for the poor and the homeless are willing to take homeless  people into their homes and provide for them?  If not, why not?  Why not take personal responsibility to save and care for as many homeless, especially those with mental health issues as they can?  Or do they only care for these people when someone else takes responsibility and pays for the care?

Dan
A local brother and sister did that the other night and the homeless guy stabbed the sister in the neck.  Thankfully, she was released from the hospital today...


That doesn't happen when taking in a new born.
Ahh, but colic does...
Title: Re: I bet this is a proud moment for the Pastor at St. Andrew's
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 13, 2014, 11:55:55 AM



How many progressives who advocate for the poor and the homeless are willing to take homeless  people into their homes and provide for them?  If not, why not?  Why not take personal responsibility to save and care for as many homeless, especially those with mental health issues as they can?  Or do they only care for these people when someone else takes responsibility and pays for the care?

Dan
A local brother and sister did that the other night and the homeless guy stabbed the sister in the neck.  Thankfully, she was released from the hospital today...


That doesn't happen when taking in a new born.
Ahh, but colic does...

Luther Man, you crack me up.  As an adoptive parent, I am heartily sick of the, "If you are anti-abortion, are you willing to adopt?"  The answer is, "Duh! Yeah!" 

And when as a member of the ELCA I worked to get them to change the BoP policy to assist in helping to adopt, much the same way that those eeevull capitalists do with their benefits package, I ran into some, shall we say, difficulties.
 

I have a stack of correspondence several inches thick on this.  Bottom line, ELCA Church Council said it was up to the BoP which said it was up to the Church Council which never allowed things to go to the floor of the National Assembly.   At the same time I was attempting to to get this done, Chilstrom, et al., were pushing for ecumenical relationships with pro-abortion denominations like TEC, and the Reformed.  Just a coincidence that something that was pro-life got shot down?  Yeah, I'm sure that's the case. Just an unfortunate coincidence.  In the meanwhile, it's nice to know that formation in ELCA parishes is such that colic is seen as a good reason for murder.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 13, 2014, 01:41:09 PM
As a matter of curiosity, how bad in the United States the issue of a lack of people willing to adopt babies?  Do we have such a shortage of adoptive families that families have to go overseas to adopt?

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John_Hannah on February 13, 2014, 02:18:46 PM
As a matter of curiosity, how bad in the United States the issue of a lack of people willing to adopt babies?  Do we have such a shortage of adoptive families that families have to go overseas to adopt?

Dan

In the case of Eastern European children for adoption, I suspect the motivation is a desire for a Caucasian baby. I bet there are available mixed race children. (Full disclosure: my wife and I adopted mixed [Afro-American] children.)


Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 13, 2014, 02:23:40 PM
As a matter of curiosity, how bad in the United States the issue of a lack of people willing to adopt babies?  Do we have such a shortage of adoptive families that families have to go overseas to adopt?

Dan

In the case of Eastern European children for adoption, I suspect the motivation is a desire for a Caucasian baby. I bet there are available mixed race children. (Full disclosure: my wife and I adopted mixed [Afro-American] children.)


Peace, JOHN
Except that a huge percentage of overseas adoptions are Asian babies. I suspect it is legal issues involved with domestic adoption.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 13, 2014, 02:24:11 PM
As a matter of curiosity, how bad in the United States the issue of a lack of people willing to adopt babies?  Do we have such a shortage of adoptive families that families have to go overseas to adopt?

Dan

Dan- at the point where we were making adoption decisions, there were several cases where adoptions had been disrupted by the biofathers. So we looked at international adoption. 

Also, some organizations and agencies have a history of raising objections/obstacles to interracial adoption, which slows the process for many and sends some looking elsewhere.  Clogging the pipeline means more kids in the Child Services pipeline, which means job security for the social workers objecting to the adoptions, so it's not like there's a conflict of interest between the children's best outcome and the social workers' economic interest.

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 13, 2014, 02:44:09 PM
My point was that to scold people for being against abortion and not simultaneously adopting scads of babies is a red herring because it is not as though there were a great shortage of people/families wanting to adopt.  The options are not or should not be to either abort these babies or have a glut of babies needing to clog up orphanages because so few people want to adopt babies.  That adoption has been made so difficult or that some have suggested that it would be better for babies to be aborted than born and adopted is a different issue.

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: LCMS87 on February 13, 2014, 03:07:19 PM
As a matter of curiosity, how bad in the United States the issue of a lack of people willing to adopt babies?  Do we have such a shortage of adoptive families that families have to go overseas to adopt?

Dan

I understand your question to be:  "In the United States, how bad is the issue of a lack of people willing to adopt babies?  Do we have such a shortage of babies that families have to go overseas to adopt?"

When we adopted 25 years ago, there were somewhere around 13 or 14 couples wanting to adopt for every "healthy white baby*" available.  At the time, in our state and county, adopting interracially through agencies had all sorts of roadblocks, e.g., a policy that a child with as much as a one great-grandparent of African American heritage would not be placed with a white couple.  (My wife and I were able to avoid those roadblocks to interracial placement through private adoption, but private adoption is not available everywhere.)

The shortage of people willing to adopt is primarily for older children, many of whom have profound physical and mental health special needs.  Unfortunately, not infrequently these are a result of the actions of their parents which became the reason parental rights were finally terminated and the children became available for adoption.  Sometimes they are congenital problems which the biological parents were simply not equipped to handle, so they surrendered custody.  As you know, parenting is always challenging.  Many couples are not equipped to take the responsibility for an older child with special needs.  Anyone who has not chosen to do so, has no standing to condemn others who don't.     

*Before anyone gets upset with the "healthy white baby" category, I didn't make it up.  For agencies, any baby that doesn't fit that category is in some sense a special needs adoption--e.g. a couple willing to adopt interracially.  When we adopted, like any parents, we were hoping for a healthy baby.  That, after all, is why a pregnant woman goes to her doctor regularly and avoids alcohol and various other substances that can affect the child growing in her womb.  Of course, adoptive parents don't have control of their baby's prenatal environment.  While my wife and I were hoping for a healthy baby, we told our lawyer that we wanted to adopt the child whose mother had tentatively decided to let her child be placed with us regardless of what complications might occur during pregnancy or delivery, just the same as if it had been our biological child whose delivery we were awaiting. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: DeHall on February 13, 2014, 03:32:29 PM

Dan- at the point where we were making adoption decisions, there were several cases where adoptions had been disrupted by the biofathers. So we looked at international adoption. 

Also, some organizations and agencies have a history of raising objections/obstacles to interracial adoption, which slows the process for many and sends some looking elsewhere.  Clogging the pipeline means more kids in the Child Services pipeline, which means job security for the social workers objecting to the adoptions, so it's not like there's a conflict of interest between the children's best outcome and the social workers' economic interest.

I couldn't help but think of Tilda Swinton's "Social Services" character in Moonrise Kingdom when I read this.
Sorry for the interruption.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: mariemeyer on February 13, 2014, 03:54:39 PM
Pro Life Professional states....

"Also, some organizations and agencies have a history of raising objections/obstacles to interracial adoption, which slows the process for many and sends some looking elsewhere.  Clogging the pipeline means more kids in the Child Services pipeline, which means job security for the social workers objecting to the adoptions, so it's not like there's a conflict of interest between the children's best outcome and the social workers' economic interest."

The above calls for a response.  Does anyone really think adoption social workers are more concerned about their economic interest than that of placing children in adoptive homes?

Many international adoptions, including those from Asia, have come to a trickle for a host of reasons.  China and Korea increasingly limit the number of children that may be adopted outside the country.  Political considerations stopped Russian adoptions while many children were in pipeline.  Ethiopia was the country of choice for many Americans when they were slowed down for unspecified reasons. (A nephew and his wife recently adopted a son from Ethiopia - a five year process.) The USA decided to limit adoptions from Guatemala due to poor controls there.

One reason why American couples consider costly overseas adoptions is fear that a mother in the United States has up to two weeks to change her mind and reclaim a child that went from the hospital to an adoptive home. On three occasions a daughter who is a social worker  had to go to adoptive parents and take the child away they have had in their home.  The experience is enough to make adoption social workers quit.  Another daughter and son-law opted for an international adoption to avoid just such an experience.

Bottom line, adoption from the perspective of children needing a home, or the perspective of parents seeking to adopt and or that of social workers is a difficult process emotionally, culturally and financially.

Marie Meyer

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: LCMS87 on February 13, 2014, 04:13:34 PM

<snip>

One reason why American couples consider costly overseas adoptions is fear that a mother in the United States has up to two weeks to change her mind and reclaim a child that went from the hospital to an adoptive home. On three occasions a daughter who is a social worker  had to go to adoptive parents and take the child away they have had in their home.  The experience is enough to make adoption social workers quit.  Another daughter and son-law opted for an international adoption to avoid just such an experience.

Just a quick note on this.  Adoption laws, at least generally speaking, are state laws.  The "two weeks to change her mind and reclaim a child" is not something that is law in every state.  When we adopted, the birth mothers couldn't make a binding legal decision to give up their children until 72 hours after the birth, to allow all medications connected with the delivery which might have affected their judgment to have left their bodies.  Then three different social workers separately asked the birth mother to make an irrevocable decision, using a variety of vocabulary to ensure that the she understood she would have no chance later to change her mind.  Unless all three social workers agreed that she had voluntarily made an irrevocable decision, her parental rights would not be terminated.  If they could testify she had, however, she had no legal claim she could later make.   

Bottom line, adoption from the perspective of children needing a home, or the perspective of parents seeking to adopt and or that of social workers is a difficult process emotionally, culturally and financially.

Marie Meyer

This bottom line is most certainly true. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Jeremy Loesch on February 13, 2014, 04:26:21 PM
Pro Life Professional states....

"Also, some organizations and agencies have a history of raising objections/obstacles to interracial adoption, which slows the process for many and sends some looking elsewhere.  Clogging the pipeline means more kids in the Child Services pipeline, which means job security for the social workers objecting to the adoptions, so it's not like there's a conflict of interest between the children's best outcome and the social workers' economic interest."

The above calls for a response.  Does anyone really think adoption social workers are more concerned about their economic interest than that of placing children in adoptive homes?


Marie Meyer

I think that Matt has good experience on his side, or in his case, bad experience. 

And I also think that social workers are more concerned about job security and their economic well-being than the well-being of the children.  My "Clergy Friend vs. State of Delaware" is a great case in point.  This was a messy, five+ year morass.  It cost my friend well over $100000 in legal costs.  The state of Delaware wanted the child to remain with the foster family.  The foster family was receiving monetary support and some of that support was finding its way into the pockets of social workers, home evaluators, and other workers that are supposed to be advocating for the children.

Sure, it's an anecdote but it'll take a long time for me to think that the state of Delaware is interested in the welfare of children. 

My wife and I have discussed adoption.  She and I are very blessed with the four children we have now and are excited about #5's arrival in mid-June.  (The family dynamics will be awesome and we think that our fourth child will make a great big brother!)  But we have thought about adoption and pursued it to a small degree.  And by small, I mean very small.  We don't have $70000 to apply to adopting any child.  If the cost were $7000, we'd be able to write a check without too much problem.  But there are a lot of strikes against us.

Our home would be considered inadequate.  The adoptive child would have to have his own room.  We are a family of seven in a 3bdrm townhouse.  My wife and I practice co-sleeping.  Strike two.  My wife and I homeschool our children.  Strike three.    There are several other strikes too.  We live in the People's Republic of Maryland.  It is not exactly family-friendly. 

We did very much consider adopting but it was too cost-prohibitive.  There is no need for all the repetitive home visits, multiple evaluations, and forms that have to be filled in quintuplicate thirteen different times.  An adoption should easily cost between $5000 and $10000.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 13, 2014, 04:40:42 PM

The above calls for a response.  Does anyone really think adoption social workers are more concerned about their economic interest than that of placing children in adoptive homes?



Marie Meyer

Marie- As I stated in my post, I am an adoptive parent, many of my friends are, and so I am aware of the ins and outs on what types of adoptions are made and why.

So yeah, in answer to your question, I do.  Or let me nuance that.  I am a child of New York, though now the Thug-in-Chief would not apparently allow me to move back.  So I am aware of the CSEA.  Do I hold suspect the motives of individual Social Workers? For the most part,, no.  I am sure that there are some bad actors, as there are in the ministry, or any other profession. But organizationally, I am not so sure.  I saw how much the unions did in helping with deinstitutionalization.  As a classmate, former colleague and friend is fond of saying, "I'm really not cynical, just experienced."
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 13, 2014, 04:51:42 PM
People of every profession have subconscious ways of putting their own survival ahead of the actual mission. It isn't necessarily malicious or even deliberate. Pastors and seminaries can start to think of the purpose of the church as employing church-workers. They would never say that, of course, or even recognize themselves as acting like they believe it. But outsiders looking in sometimes detect it. Surgeons tend to think that more surgery is the answer. Unions can act as though the purpose of a steel mill is to employ steel workers. Many professions put large and unnecessary educational or licensing barriers to entrance into the field, largely to create an artificial shortage of competition for themselves. Some have hinted that pastoral resistance in some quarters to less onerous ways of becoming a rostered pastor is motivated ostensibly by the desire for high standards but deep down by the threat of more people fighting for fewer calls. It is human nature. I don't think it should surprise us to hear about self-interested social workers any more than self-interested politicians, salesmen or any other kind of person.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 13, 2014, 05:44:48 PM
So shall we still buy into the argument that pro-life people who are against abortion are insincere or hypocritical if they don't go out a adopt bunches of kids?

Like any other human process or organization, the adoption process has a certain amount of brokenness about it in this country for a variety of reasons.  The need to exercise due diligence in looking after the interests and needs of the various parties in adoption can get bogged down with bureaucratic minutia and conflicting interests.

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 13, 2014, 05:47:37 PM
Peter-I am in agreement with that.  There is one sinister part of this discussion.  No amount of plugging one's ears and maintaining that "I can't hear you" stops the reality of the abortion-industrial complex.  There is big money in dead babies.  And anything that makes alternatives to abortion more difficult is in their interest.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on February 13, 2014, 06:46:17 PM
Peter-I am in agreement with that.  There is one sinister part of this discussion.  No amount of plugging one's ears and maintaining that "I can't hear you" stops the reality of the abortion-industrial complex.  There is big money in dead babies.  And anything that makes alternatives to abortion more difficult is in their interest.


From what has been reported, there may be even bigger money in adoptions.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 13, 2014, 07:04:59 PM
Peter-I am in agreement with that.  There is one sinister part of this discussion.  No amount of plugging one's ears and maintaining that "I can't hear you" stops the reality of the abortion-industrial complex.  There is big money in dead babies.  And anything that makes alternatives to abortion more difficult is in their interest.


From what has been reported, there may be even bigger money in adoptions.
Yes, but are those currently profiting from abortions set up to cash in on adoptions?

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 13, 2014, 08:15:10 PM
Peter-I am in agreement with that.  There is one sinister part of this discussion.  No amount of plugging one's ears and maintaining that "I can't hear you" stops the reality of the abortion-industrial complex.  There is big money in dead babies.  And anything that makes alternatives to abortion more difficult is in their interest.


From what has been reported, there may be even bigger money in adoptions.

Who is reporting what- and bottom line- Adoption is NOT murder. 

Do adoptions cost more? Yes.  Because killing is cheap & easy.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 13, 2014, 08:20:06 PM
Peter-I am in agreement with that.  There is one sinister part of this discussion.  No amount of plugging one's ears and maintaining that "I can't hear you" stops the reality of the abortion-industrial complex.  There is big money in dead babies.  And anything that makes alternatives to abortion more difficult is in their interest.


From what has been reported, there may be even bigger money in adoptions.
Yes, but are those currently profiting from abortions set up to cash in on adoptions?

Dan

Dan- when you really read what the movers & shakers in the Abortion-Industrial Complex have to say, they REALLY like abortion.  They have an ideological, if not spiritual, commitment to child murder, so they may well pass up the the money on adoptions to keep the abattoirs clinics open.  If you look at PP, the abortion to adoption ratio is several orders of magnitude in favor of abortion.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: LutherMan on February 14, 2014, 09:51:44 AM
Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards: Women Need Abortions for Valentine’s Day

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/12/Planned-Parenthood-President-Tweets-Women-Need-Abortions-for-Valentines-Day
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 14, 2014, 11:50:18 AM
Dan- when you really read what the movers & shakers in the Abortion-Industrial Complex have to say, they REALLY like abortion.  They have an ideological, if not spiritual, commitment to child murder, so they may well pass up the the money on adoptions to keep the abattoirs clinics open.  If you look at PP, the abortion to adoption ratio is several orders of magnitude in favor of abortion.

Matt - how many Planned Parenthood clinics around the country are also licensed adoption agencies?  I'm guessing that the answer is somewhere between very few and none.  And, if that is the case, how much money would they be eligible to receive for the purpose of doing adoptions?  And, if they are eligible to receive that adoption money, wouldn't they have to use the funds to refer women to agencies that are licensed to do adoptions?  And, if that is the case, how easy do you make it for Planned Parenthood clinics to coordinate with your agency if the above post is any indication of how well you would work with them to provide adoption, as an alternative to abortion, for women who first came to their clinic?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 14, 2014, 02:46:27 PM
Dan- when you really read what the movers & shakers in the Abortion-Industrial Complex have to say, they REALLY like abortion.  They have an ideological, if not spiritual, commitment to child murder, so they may well pass up the the money on adoptions to keep the abattoirs clinics open.  If you look at PP, the abortion to adoption ratio is several orders of magnitude in favor of abortion.

Matt - how many Planned Parenthood clinics around the country are also licensed adoption agencies?  I'm guessing that the answer is somewhere between very few and none.  And, if that is the case, how much money would they be eligible to receive for the purpose of doing adoptions?  And, if they are eligible to receive that adoption money, wouldn't they have to use the funds to refer women to agencies that are licensed to do adoptions?  And, if that is the case, how easy do you make it for Planned Parenthood clinics to coordinate with your agency if the above post is any indication of how well you would work with them to provide adoption, as an alternative to abortion, for women who first came to their clinic?

John- to answer your question directly- the moment I received, or Catholic Charities received, a call like that, we would act on it.  Doesn't matter from whom it comes.

But PP had abortion as part of their buusiness model for a long time, and they pushed to get it legalized.  They have ideological and spiritual commitments to child murder that transcend rational policy making.  That, and there really is good money in killing babies, especially those of minority women.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 14, 2014, 06:59:05 PM
Dan- when you really read what the movers & shakers in the Abortion-Industrial Complex have to say, they REALLY like abortion.  They have an ideological, if not spiritual, commitment to child murder, so they may well pass up the the money on adoptions to keep the abattoirs clinics open.  If you look at PP, the abortion to adoption ratio is several orders of magnitude in favor of abortion.

Matt - how many Planned Parenthood clinics around the country are also licensed adoption agencies?  I'm guessing that the answer is somewhere between very few and none.  And, if that is the case, how much money would they be eligible to receive for the purpose of doing adoptions?  And, if they are eligible to receive that adoption money, wouldn't they have to use the funds to refer women to agencies that are licensed to do adoptions?  And, if that is the case, how easy do you make it for Planned Parenthood clinics to coordinate with your agency if the above post is any indication of how well you would work with them to provide adoption, as an alternative to abortion, for women who first came to their clinic?

John- to answer your question directly- the moment I received, or Catholic Charities received, a call like that, we would act on it.  Doesn't matter from whom it comes.

But PP had abortion as part of their buusiness model for a long time, and they pushed to get it legalized.  They have ideological and spiritual commitments to child murder that transcend rational policy making.  That, and there really is good money in killing babies, especially those of minority women.

Matt - how many abortions could be prevented were Planned Parenthood to include in their counseling a strong encouragement that women who request abortion services first spend an hour with a social worker from Catholic Social Services or Lutheran Social services?  What would it take, on the part of CSS and LSS, to establish that kind of partnership with Planned Parenthood?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 14, 2014, 08:34:31 PM
Dan- when you really read what the movers & shakers in the Abortion-Industrial Complex have to say, they REALLY like abortion.  They have an ideological, if not spiritual, commitment to child murder, so they may well pass up the the money on adoptions to keep the abattoirs clinics open.  If you look at PP, the abortion to adoption ratio is several orders of magnitude in favor of abortion.

Matt - how many Planned Parenthood clinics around the country are also licensed adoption agencies?  I'm guessing that the answer is somewhere between very few and none.  And, if that is the case, how much money would they be eligible to receive for the purpose of doing adoptions?  And, if they are eligible to receive that adoption money, wouldn't they have to use the funds to refer women to agencies that are licensed to do adoptions?  And, if that is the case, how easy do you make it for Planned Parenthood clinics to coordinate with your agency if the above post is any indication of how well you would work with them to provide adoption, as an alternative to abortion, for women who first came to their clinic?

John- to answer your question directly- the moment I received, or Catholic Charities received, a call like that, we would act on it.  Doesn't matter from whom it comes.

But PP had abortion as part of their buusiness model for a long time, and they pushed to get it legalized.  They have ideological and spiritual commitments to child murder that transcend rational policy making.  That, and there really is good money in killing babies, especially those of minority women.

Matt - how many abortions could be prevented were Planned Parenthood to include in their counseling a strong encouragement that women who request abortion services first spend an hour with a social worker from Catholic Social Services or Lutheran Social services?  What would it take, on the part of CSS and LSS, to establish that kind of partnership with Planned Parenthood?

That would take a number of things including a willingness to work with and not simply denounce any group that does not support abortion on demand.  Is Planned Parenthood willing to work with any group that would not simply rubber stamp a decision to abort.  Is Planned Parenthood willing to accept that women might have second thoughts about the decision to abort, even recommend that they talk to someone who might suggest that abortion is not the preferred solution.  It would also mean that CSS and LSS would be willing to work with the number one abortion provider in the nation.

In ay case, the suggestion is becoming moot as the CSS and to a lesser degree LSS agencies are being put out of the adoption business by not being willing to change their beliefs to comply with state social engineering.

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 14, 2014, 09:04:08 PM
That would take a number of things including a willingness to work with and not simply denounce any group that does not support abortion on demand.  Is Planned Parenthood willing to work with any group that would not simply rubber stamp a decision to abort.  Is Planned Parenthood willing to accept that women might have second thoughts about the decision to abort, even recommend that they talk to someone who might suggest that abortion is not the preferred solution.  It would also mean that CSS and LSS would be willing to work with the number one abortion provider in the nation.

I understand that.  My question really relates to your last sentence.  Are CSS and LSS willing to make the first overture?


In ay case, the suggestion is becoming moot as the CSS and to a lesser degree LSS agencies are being put out of the adoption business by being willing to change their beliefs to comply with state social engineering.

That's really a different conversation.  However, I have two questions for clarification - did you mean to say "not willing"??  If not, who is putting those agencies out of the adoption business?  I also have a third question, if CSS and LSS go out of business, on whom will the pro-life advocates rely upon to assist women with the placement of children whom they might otherwise abort?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 14, 2014, 09:18:49 PM
That would take a number of things including a willingness to work with and not simply denounce any group that does not support abortion on demand.  Is Planned Parenthood willing to work with any group that would not simply rubber stamp a decision to abort.  Is Planned Parenthood willing to accept that women might have second thoughts about the decision to abort, even recommend that they talk to someone who might suggest that abortion is not the preferred solution.  It would also mean that CSS and LSS would be willing to work with the number one abortion provider in the nation.

I understand that.  My question really relates to your last sentence.  Are CSS and LSS willing to make the first overture?

What kind of an overture do you want them to make?  Suggest that Planned Parenthood send women who come to them for abortions go to CSS of LSS and allow them to try to talk them out of it?  What's in it for Planned Parenthood.  Or do you expect that CSS and LSS to agree to present that if the women still want an abortion that is perfectly OK and moral?

In ay case, the suggestion is becoming moot as the CSS and to a lesser degree LSS agencies are being put out of the adoption business by being willing to change their beliefs to comply with state social engineering.

That's really a different conversation.  However, I have two questions for clarification - did you mean to say "not willing"??  If not, who is putting those agencies out of the adoption business?  I also have a third question, if CSS and LSS go out of business, on whom will the pro-life advocates rely upon to assist women with the placement of children whom they might otherwise abort?

Yes, I meant not willing.  I'll correct my post.  In a few states now, and the tendency is growing, in order to assist the state in providing adoption services one must be willing to place children with same sex couples.  So do you suggest that CSS and LSS by their actions of placing children for adoption with same sex couples abandon the teaching of the Catholic Church and at least part of the Lutheran Church that same sex coupling is not in agreement with God's will?   What will the State decide churches should practice next, set up abortion clinics in church basements?  For the Festival of the Holy Innocents celebrate Holy Abortion Sunday?

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 14, 2014, 10:06:49 PM
What kind of an overture do you want them to make?  Suggest that Planned Parenthood send women who come to them for abortions go to CSS of LSS and allow them to try to talk them out of it?  What's in it for Planned Parenthood.  Or do you expect that CSS and LSS to agree to present that if the women still want an abortion that is perfectly OK and moral?

Open a respectful dialogue with them.

I have a difficult time coming to the conclusion that there is a measure of common ground - albeit a small piece of turf - between Planned Parenthood and the adoption agencies.  And, if so, that common ground ought to include a shared understanding that women contemplating abortion ought to be fully, honestly and objectively informed on options, consequences etc. related to the choices that they are contemplating.  I have some understanding for the credentials of LSS social workers and their training in providing counseling for women who are contemplating placing their children with adoptive families.  Presumably, CSS social workers have similar competency.  I doubt that Planned Parenthood employs comparable staff.  And, if LSS and CSS were willing to offer that service to Planned Parenthood clients - and doing so in confidence, without using such service for political purposes and without trying to make decisions for the women - I don't understand why Planned Parenthood would refuse the offer of cooperation.

The key is to being a respectful dialogue.


In a few states now, and the tendency is growing, in order to assist the state in providing adoption services one must be willing to place children with same sex couples.  So do you suggest that CSS and LSS by their actions of placing children for adoption with same sex couples abandon the teaching of the Catholic Church and at least part of the Lutheran Church that same sex coupling is not in agreement with God's will?

As I said above, that is a different conversation.  I think you misstated the issue a little bit.  I don't think it is a matter of the state requiring agencies to agree to place children with same sex couples in order to be licensed.  Rather, it is a matter of requiring the agencies to agree to place children with same sex couples in order to receive state/federal funding.  So, the state wouldn't be forcing CSS and LSS out of the adoption business.  Rather, CSS and LSS would be required to develop alternative funding sources to remain in business.  And, if the churches that sponsor CSS and LSS want faith-based adoption agencies to offer and alternative to abortion, why wouldn't those churches go the extra mile to keep the agencies in business?  And, as I asked in the previous post, if not CSS and LSS, then whom?

Side note, if you do not want same gender couples adopting children, recruit traditional couples to compete for the placements that would otherwise go to same gender couples.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on February 15, 2014, 01:43:01 AM

As I said above, that is a different conversation.  I think you misstated the issue a little bit.  I don't think it is a matter of the state requiring agencies to agree to place children with same sex couples in order to be licensed.  Rather, it is a matter of requiring the agencies to agree to place children with same sex couples in order to receive state/federal funding.  So, the state wouldn't be forcing CSS and LSS out of the adoption business.  Rather, CSS and LSS would be required to develop alternative funding sources to remain in business. 

It may be a different conversation, John, but Dan stated the issue precisely.  After the Illinois legislature passed same-sex unions, even though the chief sponsor of the legislation promised that such a thing could never happen, Catholic Social Services was required by the Dept. of Children and Family Services to place adoptive and/or foster children in such homes if it was going to continue providing that service within the state.  In Illinois, Catholic Social Services no longer provides foster care or adoption services.  The issue was not limited to state funding.  Here is a long thread on this forum (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=3839.0) regarding this very matter.

spt+
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 15, 2014, 08:32:26 AM

As I said above, that is a different conversation.  I think you misstated the issue a little bit.  I don't think it is a matter of the state requiring agencies to agree to place children with same sex couples in order to be licensed.  Rather, it is a matter of requiring the agencies to agree to place children with same sex couples in order to receive state/federal funding.  So, the state wouldn't be forcing CSS and LSS out of the adoption business.  Rather, CSS and LSS would be required to develop alternative funding sources to remain in business. 

It may be a different conversation, John, but Dan stated the issue precisely.  After the Illinois legislature passed same-sex unions, even though the chief sponsor of the legislation promised that such a thing could never happen, Catholic Social Services was required by the Dept. of Children and Family Services to place adoptive and/or foster children in such homes if it was going to continue providing that service within the state.  In Illinois, Catholic Social Services no longer provides foster care or adoption services.  The issue was not limited to state funding.  Here is a long thread on this forum (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=3839.0) regarding this very matter.

spt+

I found the following article from an issue of the National Catholic Reporter:

http://ncronline.org/news/people/catholic-services-adoptions-ends-illinois

Text from that article includes the following:  The separation was necessary, said a statement posted on the diocesan website, because the agency was no longer able to carry out its mission under the recently enacted Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, which requires state-funded adoption agencies to place adoptive children with same-sex couples.  The article also that the affected agency would continue to function, but with a different name and no longer affiliated with the diocese.  I presume, based on this article, that the critical issue was state funding and not the license to function as an adoption agency, independent of state funding.

I note that there is no language in the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act that is specific to adoptions.  However, I can understand how adoption regulations might have been revised pursuant to that statute.  I can understand how such regulations would make state-funding contingent on a willingness to place children with same-gender couples. I have difficulty thinking that the regulations would make that a requirement for the license.

I also note, based on the following link - http://www.adoptionservices.org/domestic_adoption_agencies/adoption_agencies_illinois.htm - that several faith based groups are still in the adoption business in Illinois, including both CSS and LSS.

If there is language in Illinois regulations that makes placement with same-gender couples a license requirement and not just a requirement for the agency to receive state funding, I would like to see it.  I would also be curious to know how many children have been placed with same gender couples since passage of the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act.  And, of those children, how many were newborns and how many were multi-agency children.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Eileen Smith on February 15, 2014, 08:47:40 AM
That would take a number of things including a willingness to work with and not simply denounce any group that does not support abortion on demand.  Is Planned Parenthood willing to work with any group that would not simply rubber stamp a decision to abort.  Is Planned Parenthood willing to accept that women might have second thoughts about the decision to abort, even recommend that they talk to someone who might suggest that abortion is not the preferred solution.  It would also mean that CSS and LSS would be willing to work with the number one abortion provider in the nation.

I understand that.  My question really relates to your last sentence.  Are CSS and LSS willing to make the first overture?

What kind of an overture do you want them to make?  Suggest that Planned Parenthood send women who come to them for abortions go to CSS of LSS and allow them to try to talk them out of it?  What's in it for Planned Parenthood.  Or do you expect that CSS and LSS to agree to present that if the women still want an abortion that is perfectly OK and moral?

In ay case, the suggestion is becoming moot as the CSS and to a lesser degree LSS agencies are being put out of the adoption business by being willing to change their beliefs to comply with state social engineering.

That's really a different conversation.  However, I have two questions for clarification - did you mean to say "not willing"??  If not, who is putting those agencies out of the adoption business?  I also have a third question, if CSS and LSS go out of business, on whom will the pro-life advocates rely upon to assist women with the placement of children whom they might otherwise abort?

Yes, I meant not willing.  I'll correct my post.  In a few states now, and the tendency is growing, in order to assist the state in providing adoption services one must be willing to place children with same sex couples.  So do you suggest that CSS and LSS by their actions of placing children for adoption with same sex couples abandon the teaching of the Catholic Church and at least part of the Lutheran Church that same sex coupling is not in agreement with God's will?   What will the State decide churches should practice next, set up abortion clinics in church basements?  For the Festival of the Holy Innocents celebrate Holy Abortion Sunday?

Dan

The pro-life group that I am involved with has set up sonogram centers directly across from abortion clinics.  Women aren't coerced but offered a free snnogram.   Volunteers have no more experience than caring for life at all stages.  The follow-up is to help these women who have made the choice to bring their child into the world (you'd be amazed how much a simple sonogram can do) counseling and even housing, if necessary. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on February 16, 2014, 12:44:14 AM
I presume, based on this article, that the critical issue was state funding and not the license to function as an adoption agency, independent of state funding.


You presume wrongly, John.  I will point you to the brief history in my post under the topic (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=3839.msg233144#msg233144) I mentioned above.

You might notice that the NCR article you cite conflicts with the list you cite at www.adoptionservices.org; the Catholic Social Services agencies that no longer provide any adoption services (as noted in the article) are the very same CSS agencies on the list.  Clearly the www.adoptionservices.org page is out of date.

spt+
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: LutherMan on February 17, 2014, 11:59:02 AM
Quote
February 14, 2014
‘I just want to right a wrong’
Former local Planned Parenthood nurse shares her story of walking away from evil

http://www.archindy.org/criterion/local/2014/02-14/nurse.html
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 17, 2014, 04:25:30 PM
Near as I can tell, from my time working with Catholic Charities, there was no need to to go to homosexual "couples" because there was a baby glut.

Rather, the state imposed the demand that organizations like CC allow homosexuals to adopt. 

Yes, organizations like CC or LCS receive money from the state to do the services.  but that is because the state has essentially outsourced the work. 

What grinds my gears on this are the numbers.  Maybe 6-8% of the population is in fact homosexual.  And I suspect that I am being generous, but I believe in overengineering.  Of that small percentage, only a fraction want to get "married," and of that small percent, how many want to adopt from agencies like CC when there are other alternatives out there?  So we hit the brakes on a system that was working well and serving children because a veritable handful of dogs wanted up in the manger.

Here's a thought.  We adopted our daughter from an agency that was started by a handful of parents who wanted to make adopting from Korea and Viet Nam easier.  So they set out to do so.  They were the first agency to be license for adoption in New York in something like a 100 years, since all the others had been in existence that long.  If the LGBTQ crowd thinks adoption is the next big cutting edge for sexual justice, why not have them set up an LGBTQ adoption agency?  Let the unwed mothers of America decide that they want to place their baby through Rainbow Initiative Inc. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: David Garner on February 17, 2014, 04:50:46 PM
About 12 min. in, and this is one of the most interesting presentations I've seen on life issues.  From an atheist perspective.

http://vimeo.com/86215979
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 18, 2014, 07:37:59 AM
I presume, based on this article, that the critical issue was state funding and not the license to function as an adoption agency, independent of state funding.


You presume wrongly, John.  I will point you to the brief history in my post under the topic (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=3839.msg233144#msg233144) I mentioned above.

Nothing in that post refers to Illinois' licensing requirements for adoption agencies.

If, as Matt points out, it is a question of which agencies the state is willing to contract with for adoption services, it is a matter of money.  If, however, it is a question of which agencies the state is willing to provide adoption services, irrespective of funding, it is a question of license requirements.  From everything posted, it would appear to be a contracting, i.e. funding, issue, not a licensing issue.  And, if that is the case, the state did not put any of the agencies out of business.  Rather, it is a matter that the agencies chose to go out of business because, absent the state contracts, they could not make cash flow. 

You have shown me the money.  If my conclusion is wrong, please show me the regulations.


Clearly the www.adoptionservices.org page is out of date.

That might be the case.  But, the article that I referenced suggested that at least one Catholic agency had reorganized in such a way that it put some distance between itself and the diocese so that it could still function under the revised funding requirements.

Near as I can tell, from my time working with Catholic Charities, there was no need to to go to homosexual "couples" because there was a baby glut.

If there is a "baby glut", why has the practice of adopting babies from other countries become so prevalent?

There is not a "baby glut".  Rather, there is a "child glut" and most of those children are multi-agency kids and unwanted by most heterosexual couples seeking to adopt a child.

Here's a thought...If the LGBTQ crowd thinks adoption is the next big cutting edge for sexual justice, why not have them set up an LGBTQ adoption agency?  Let the unwed mothers of America decide that they want to place their baby through Rainbow Initiative Inc.

Except, to function as a state-funded agency, Rainbow Initiative Inc. would have to agree to place children with heterosexual couples.

Here is a thought.  In the matter of adoptions, why don't we first ask the question "what is in the best interest of the child?"  The answer to that question is unique in every situation.

I'll re-ask a couple of questions that I posted above.  Since Illinois changed its policy, how many children have been placed with same gender couples and, of those, how many were new borns?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 18, 2014, 10:43:10 AM
John-

Some thoughts .  It gets a little complicated for me with the quotes features, so I will forego that for the moment.

First, you made a statement about opening a respectful dialogue with PP.

Just how does one do that with an organization that is committed to evil?  I cannot treat respectfully with the forces of Darkness.  And it is not that they are"sincere, but misguided."  They combine the ideology Mengele with the business practices Gotti.  Did you read the article from the former PP worker?  SHall I introduce you to a friend of mine here in Wilmington who was physically set upon by PP employees because she was recording the patients who had to be rushed to the ER because of botched abortions?

If I were to treat with them, I suspect it would be as the Swedes did in trading trucks for Jews. A real serious, respectful (of their humanity) dialogue would have to begin, "For the love of God, and for the sale of your soul, please stop.  Now."

As for your statement regarding the "best interests of the children."  Here, you and I agree on the language, but I suspect differ with regards to what it means.  A few thoughts on that.

A) Follow the homosexual "marriage" debate in France.  Not necessarily a land of mouth breathing, knuckle dragging reactionary Fundamentalists.  A majority oppose it.  And as one French Gay Rights activist whom I read has written, he opposes it too, because in the end it commodifies the children.  Instead of being the purpose around which a family is formed, they become accessories to a lifestyle.  Does this sound familiar? I would argue it is the outcome of the contraceptive culture as well, and what has happened here in the US.

B) I know NPR, the source of all information for right-thinking Lutherans (as opposed to Right, thinking Lutherans  ;)) amongst others has bandied about a "study that shows that children in homosexual "families" are just as happy & well adjusted as children in heterosexual families. I read an analysis of the study by a sociologist who pointed out that it was all a matter of self-reporting.  Basically a mail-in flyer, the gist of which was, "Hey, are your kids happy & well-adjusted?  Yes/No."  Yeah, that's real good science right there.  I do not think it is in the best interest of the children to place them in homosexual "families."

C) As for state funding, I would be perfectly happy with Rainbow Initiative placing only in LGBTQ households if Catholic Charities were granted the freedom to place only in heterosexual married households.  I am back to the fact that after the "rush," then what?  And I suspect that this all part and parcel of reducing the Catholic voice in the Public Square.  As an adoptive parent, I recall that there were any number of agencies from which to choose.  Is Illinois so different?  homosexuals had no choice but Catholic Charities? 

 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 18, 2014, 11:15:29 PM
Just how does one do that with an organization that is committed to evil?

Do unto others.....  You can treat a person with respect even if you do not respect what that person is doing.  If, by doing so, you could reduce the number of abortions by one, wouldn't the effort be worth it?  Keep your eye on the prize!

As for your statement regarding the "best interests of the children."  Here, you and I agree on the language, but I suspect differ with regards to what it means.  A few thoughts on that.

Back to my question regarding the number of children place with same gender couples and, of those, the number that were new born.

I would agree with you that the ideal would be to place children with a traditional married couple.  And, I suspect that is the outcome for most/all newborns who are placed with adoptive parents.  Typically, adoption by a traditional married couple is not an option for older children especially those which are "multi-agency kids".  I suspect that most adoptions by same gender couples involve those children.  My suspicion is based on anecdotal information - not firm statistics.  Thus, the reason for the question that I reposted.  For those children, I think a stable family - even if the parents are a same-gender couple - would be preferable to revolving forster care/institutional care.

As for state funding, I would be perfectly happy with Rainbow Initiative placing only in LGBTQ households if Catholic Charities were granted the freedom to place only in heterosexual married households.

My preference would be that the state license agencies based on professional standards, competency etc.  If the agencies choose to function independent of the state, except for licensing, they should be free to serve the clients whom they wish.  However, if the agencies choose to act as an agent of the state and take state money, they necessarily are obligated to serve the people whom the state, by statute, is obligated to serve.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 18, 2014, 11:54:18 PM
Working with Planned Parenthood is, as I see it, not much different from working with the Klan. "If we just worked together with the klan to keep the streets safe there wouldn't have to be so many lynchings, right? We all want fewer lynchings, so why not focus on areas of agreement, like safe streets, rather than areas of controversy and divisiveness, like race laws?" That whole line of thinking is abhorrent to me. There need be no lynchings and there need be no abortions and it is pointless to work together with groups that insist on having those options.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 19, 2014, 07:45:46 AM
Working with Planned Parenthood is, as I see it, not much different from working with the Klan.

Who is your neighbor?  What is your duty to your neighbor?  What is your duty to those who hate you?  What is your objective?  Is it to demonize Planned Parenthood or is it to reduce the frequency of abortions?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: David Garner on February 19, 2014, 08:08:27 AM
Working with Planned Parenthood is, as I see it, not much different from working with the Klan.

Who is your neighbor?  What is your duty to your neighbor?  What is your duty to those who hate you?  What is your objective?  Is it to demonize Planned Parenthood or is it to reduce the frequency of abortions?

Taking the analogy back to where we started, do you apply these questions to the Ku Klux Klan?

What is your objective?  Is it to demonize the Klan or is it to reduce racial tensions?  Why wouldn't you work with the Klan to reduce racial tensions?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Kurt Weinelt on February 19, 2014, 09:12:07 AM
"What is your objective? Is it to demonize Planned Parenthood or is it to reduce the frequency of abortions?"

Fallacy of the false dilemma
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/94-false-dilemma (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/94-false-dilemma)
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Michael Slusser on February 19, 2014, 09:30:42 AM
AP story: Unusual Iowa abortion law has surprising result, taking governor off the political hot seat
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/246006171.html (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/246006171.html)

The GOP-led House and the Democratic-controlled Senate, in a compromise, put Gov. Terry Branstad in charge of signing off on any payments for publicly funded abortions. Republicans believed the added scrutiny might be a brake on abortions under Medicaid. Democrats noted the measure applied only to reimbursements, not approval ahead of time.

But about seven months after the new rule took effect, the consequences have surprised everyone, and illustrated the trickiness of bipartisan lawmaking on the issue. Branstad, a Republican and abortion opponent, hasn't approved any payments. But the few patients who were eligible for Medicaid-funded abortions received them anyway.

Of course, this only applies to poor women; the well-to-do can do as they please without the governor.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 19, 2014, 10:28:14 AM
Do unto others begins in utero, John.  Just saying...

As for dialogue with respect, I am going to object to the image raised by others, of comparing PP to the KKK. I don't think it is apt.  I think a better comparison would be to the Medellin Cartel or the Russian Mafiya.  They all engage in ruthless racketeering and are willing to destroy those who cross them.  Look at the Komen debacle.  And all three operate under the cover of Law in their home countries.  So how does one show an organization like that respect?

How do you dialogue with people who want you powerless? You will no doubt point out that dialogue involves individuals, not organizations.  And I will point out that Pablo Escobar was a person, and so is Semion Mogilevich.

Also, on what do you base your statement that it is preferable for the children to be placed in homosexual households than foster-care or orphanages? Growing up, I always thought of orphanages in a Dickensian sense, or of the opening chapters of Jane Eyre.  But in my parish ministry, I actually talked with parishioners who grew up in orphanages and spoke of them in glowing terms.  When I started work for Catholic Charities, one of my supervisors was an individual who had worked his way up, having started in the orphanage that CC ran in this area.  It has been phased out.  I don't think your statement is anywhere near as obvious as you assert.

As for the state funding, the Golden Rule of Arts & Sciences would seem to apply: "Thems as has the gold makes the rules."  But what if we were to allow organizations to receive state funding and follow best prectices for licensing, etc., but operate under their rubrics.  CC, LCS, Rainbow Initiative, Klan Kidz, all.  And let market forces speak. 

And as for older children placements, same thing.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 19, 2014, 10:41:24 AM
What is your objective?  Is it to demonize the Klan or is it to reduce racial tensions?  Why wouldn't you work with the Klan to reduce racial tensions?

David - I don't recall that I have said anything about the Klan on this board.  But, since you asked, I certainly would advocate trying to establish a dialog with them for the purpose of reducing racial tensions.

"What is your objective? Is it to demonize Planned Parenthood or is it to reduce the frequency of abortions?"

Fallacy of the false dilemma
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/94-false-dilemma (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/94-false-dilemma)

I would have been a fallacy of false dilemma except that Planned Parenthood has been roundly demonized in this conversation, including the KKK analogy.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 19, 2014, 10:58:30 AM
Do unto others begins in utero, John.  Just saying...

I'm not disagreeing with that.  However, who is going to speak on their behalf in a dialog with Planned Parenthood if you won't.

As for dialogue with respect, I am going to object to the image raised by others, of comparing PP to the KKK. I don't think it is apt.  I think a better comparison would be to the Medellin Cartel or the Russian Mafiya.

Demonization, none the less.

How do you dialogue with people who want you powerless?

The Harvard Negotiation Project answered that question pretty well when considering an approach to dealing with the Soviets during the cold war.  All I am suggesting is that you consider reading some of their work product with the intent of reframing your approach to the issue.

And, as a footnote, I'd guess that the folks at Planned Parenthood would ask me the same question were I to recommend that they try to establish a respectful dialog with pro-life advocates.  The truth of the matter is that we live in a culture in which we would rather fight than win.  I think intelligent people, especially intelligent Christian people, are capable of better and smarter behavior than that.

Also, on what do you base your statement that it is preferable for the children to be placed in homosexual households than foster-care or orphanages? Growing up, I always thought of orphanages in a Dickensian sense, or of the opening chapters of Jane Eyre.  But in my parish ministry, I actually talked with parishioners who grew up in orphanages and spoke of them in glowing terms.  When I started work for Catholic Charities, one of my supervisors was an individual who had worked his way up, having started in the orphanage that CC ran in this area.  It has been phased out.  I don't think your statement is anywhere near as obvious as you assert.

Without raising the question whether the positive orphanage anecdotes that you cite are indicative of the universal experience of children in orphanages, you contradicted yourself with the sentence, "It has been phased out."  My assertion is based on the system that has replaced the orphanages.  What is the typical experience for children in foster care.  It would involved multiple, temporary placements with foster parents - some more caring than others; multiple encounters with law enforcement; failing educational experiences; placement in special education; and encounters with the public mental health system - hence the term "multi-agency kids".

As I said earlier in this conversation, if you want to put an end to adoptions by same-gender couples, recruit traditional families to adopt multi-agency kids.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on February 19, 2014, 11:50:17 AM
"It's not cocky or flip, in a secular, pluralistic democracy, to say that constitutional principles take precedence over a particular interpretation of the Bible. (In fact, the Constitution rejects the prospect of the government putting its imprimatur on a particular interpretation of the Bible.) The question of which parts of the Bible constitute involuble societal norms and which are obsolete artifacts are theological questions, not legal ones. The Constitution, in all its wonderfulness, ensures that we will continue to have those theological debates (freedom!), and that they won't be decided by the courts or the government. Secularism doesn't impose or reject a particular biblical interpretation; it ensures that the government or the courts won't decide it for us. That's real religious freedom — not the demand that your religious freedom compels the violation of other citizens' constitutional rights."

I agree with the writer, Sarah Posner, in this matter. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 19, 2014, 12:00:51 PM
"It's not cocky or flip, in a secular, pluralistic democracy, to say that constitutional principles take precedence over a particular interpretation of the Bible. (In fact, the Constitution rejects the prospect of the government putting its imprimatur on a particular interpretation of the Bible.) The question of which parts of the Bible constitute involuble societal norms and which are obsolete artifacts are theological questions, not legal ones. The Constitution, in all its wonderfulness, ensures that we will continue to have those theological debates (freedom!), and that they won't be decided by the courts or the government. Secularism doesn't impose or reject a particular biblical interpretation; it ensures that the government or the courts won't decide it for us. That's real religious freedom — not the demand that your religious freedom compels the violation of other citizens' constitutional rights."

I agree with the writer, Sarah Posner, in this matter.
But the laws of nature and nature's God do not only come to us through particular interpretations of the Bible.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: pearson on February 19, 2014, 12:06:30 PM

"That's real religious freedom — not the demand that your religious freedom compels the violation of other citizens' constitutional rights."

I agree with the writer, Sarah Posner, in this matter.


If I may ask, Norman: in the context of this thread, which specific "constitutional rights" possessed by "other citizens" do you think Sarah Posner is referring to?  May I assume from your comment that you agree with Posner that currently there are demands that such rights be violated?

Tom Pearson   
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 19, 2014, 12:15:11 PM
"It's not cocky or flip, in a secular, pluralistic democracy, to say that constitutional principles take precedence over a particular interpretation of the Bible. (In fact, the Constitution rejects the prospect of the government putting its imprimatur on a particular interpretation of the Bible.) The question of which parts of the Bible constitute involuble societal norms and which are obsolete artifacts are theological questions, not legal ones. The Constitution, in all its wonderfulness, ensures that we will continue to have those theological debates (freedom!), and that they won't be decided by the courts or the government. Secularism doesn't impose or reject a particular biblical interpretation; it ensures that the government or the courts won't decide it for us. That's real religious freedom — not the demand that your religious freedom compels the violation of other citizens' constitutional rights."

I agree with the writer, Sarah Posner, in this matter.
But does the Constitution demand that those with religious ideals be inherently disadvantaged in any public debate?  Does it demand that non-religious ideals be imposed on those with religious ideals?  Does one person's freedom from religion compel the violation of other citizens' constitutional rights to be religious and to act according to their religion?

Does the state have a compelling interest to mandate that those who because of their religion oppose contraceptives (as contraceptives, not as treatment for other health problems) and abortion provide those services for others in violation of their beliefs?  Does the state have a compelling interest to mandate that those who because of their religion oppose the recognition of same sex unions as the moral, social and legal equivalent of marriage to nonetheless act as though that were the case?

Have we reached the place where religion is reduced to a hobby that may be practiced in private but must not be allowed to influence public action and discourse?

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 19, 2014, 12:26:52 PM
The idea of Pro-Life organizations entering into respectful dialog and even some sort of partnership with Planned Parenthood has been suggested and advocated several times in this thread.  At a minimum, Pro-Life organizations are called upon to be respectful toward Planned Parenthood.  My question is just what does treating Planned Parenthood with respect mean in this context?  What kinds of actions or words would be called for to show that respect?

In any discussion, or even conversation, people should not have lies told about them, should not be gratuitously insulted, and should not be physically assaulted.  They should also not have ulterior motives attributed to them without evidence.  That kind of respect should be expected of Pro-Life advocates toward Planned Parenthood as well as Planned Parenthood advocates toward Pro-Life advocates.  Unfortunately, violations have happened on both sides.  Is this the kind of respect that is being advocated for Pro-Life groups?  What about Pro-Choice groups in speaking of Pro-Life groups?

It sounds good to call for respectful dialog, but I'm afraid that just what is expected of respectful treatment needs to be spelled out.  Far too often, the kind of respectful treatment expected by Planned Parenthood advocates is an acknowledgment that abortion is a good thing that they offer women and that no one should suggest otherwise.

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: LCMS87 on February 19, 2014, 12:38:51 PM
"It's not cocky or flip, in a secular, pluralistic democracy, to say that constitutional principles take precedence over a particular interpretation of the Bible. (In fact, the Constitution rejects the prospect of the government putting its imprimatur on a particular interpretation of the Bible.) The question of which parts of the Bible constitute involuble societal norms and which are obsolete artifacts are theological questions, not legal ones. The Constitution, in all its wonderfulness, ensures that we will continue to have those theological debates (freedom!), and that they won't be decided by the courts or the government. Secularism doesn't impose or reject a particular biblical interpretation; it ensures that the government or the courts won't decide it for us. That's real religious freedom — not the demand that your religious freedom compels the violation of other citizens' constitutional rights."

I agree with the writer, Sarah Posner, in this matter.

It would probably be helpful, Mr. Teigen, to provide the link (http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/7609/those_cocky_secular_liberals_/) for quotes such as this, so all of us can read the context of what you've excerpted.  This is particularly the case when the author you've quoted was speaking to the issue of so called homosexual rights and you've posted her thoughts in a discussion revolving around the issue of abortion. 

(It's also loving, as a matter of the seventh commandment, to let her benefit from the product of her writing by directing readers here where they can find the whole article, should they be interested, and thus be counted in the web traffic viewing her post.)
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 19, 2014, 12:50:13 PM
"It's not cocky or flip, in a secular, pluralistic democracy, to say that constitutional principles take precedence over a particular interpretation of the Bible. (In fact, the Constitution rejects the prospect of the government putting its imprimatur on a particular interpretation of the Bible.) The question of which parts of the Bible constitute involuble societal norms and which are obsolete artifacts are theological questions, not legal ones. The Constitution, in all its wonderfulness, ensures that we will continue to have those theological debates (freedom!), and that they won't be decided by the courts or the government. Secularism doesn't impose or reject a particular biblical interpretation; it ensures that the government or the courts won't decide it for us. That's real religious freedom — not the demand that your religious freedom compels the violation of other citizens' constitutional rights."

I agree with the writer, Sarah Posner, in this matter.

Just some thoughts.

One, actually, as written, the Constitution DOES allow the state(s) to place their imprimatur on a particular biblical interpretation.  It stops the Federal government from doing it.

Two, is not Ms. Posner's position a particular interpretation, and is not that view being forced on people like me in matters like the HHS mandate, etc?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on February 19, 2014, 01:28:25 PM
Yes, I should have, and I usually do, post these links. Here it is:   http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/7609/those_cocky_secular_liberals_/

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 19, 2014, 01:57:26 PM

I'm not disagreeing with that.  However, who is going to speak on their behalf in a dialog with Planned Parenthood if you won't.


Demonization, none the less.

So if this were the early 1940s and I were to object to treating with the NAZIs because of their vile policies, I would be guilty of demonization?

I don't demonize.  In part because I take the reality of demons for granted.  But I will state that PP and their goals and methods are diabolical. To paraphrase Peter Kreeft, do you think it is mere circumstance that the rallying cry of the Abortion-Industrial Complex is, "This is my body?" 
 

The Harvard Negotiation Project answered that question pretty well when considering an approach to dealing with the Soviets during the cold war.  All I am suggesting is that you consider reading some of their work product with the intent of reframing your approach to the issue.

So you are willing to stipulate that that PP is of the same moral caliber as the USSR?  OK, now we are making progress.  Stalin's body count makes Hitler seem like such a wannabe.  But the USSR was a rational actor. They were a nation of Chess players.  How well does this methodology work with folks like Al Qaeda or the Shi'ite regime currently installed in Iran?  Nuclear annihilation was something, that as chess players, the Russians sought to avoid.  For the Iranians, it's the entrance for the Mahdi.  This is not a digression.  It is my opinion that that PP has more in common, in its commitment to cause over reason, with Iran or AQ than the USSR.

And, given the fact that it is the Pro "Choicer's mantra that is "Safe, legal and rare," why is it that they are not seeking out people like me with which to dialogue?  And before you say "of course they won't, with an attitude like yours," let me share something.

I traveled from moderately pro-choice to adamantly pro-life. In large part based on the witness of the Abortion-Industrial Complex. The best way to make someone pro-Life is to expose them to primary source pro-Abortion material.

As to fighting vs. winning, one of my father's apothegms (similar to Churchill's "Jaw Jaw is better than War War.") was "Avoid a fight by any means possible, up to, and including running away.  But always remember, the only fair fight is the one you win."  I would rather win than fight.

I really think the difficulty is, John, that your assessment of PP and its goals and methods is not as realistic as perhaps it could be.  I am quite serious in using the term diabolical.  And nothing you have said addresses that reality, which we as Christians, are called to take seriously.


Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 19, 2014, 04:00:50 PM
But does the Constitution demand that those with religious ideals be inherently disadvantaged in any public debate?  Does it demand that non-religious ideals be imposed on those with religious ideals?  Does one person's freedom from religion compel the violation of other citizens' constitutional rights to be religious and to act according to their religion?

I'd be curious to see specific examples in which people with religious ideals have been so disadvantaged.  How have your rights to be religious been violated? 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 19, 2014, 04:12:55 PM
But does the Constitution demand that those with religious ideals be inherently disadvantaged in any public debate?  Does it demand that non-religious ideals be imposed on those with religious ideals?  Does one person's freedom from religion compel the violation of other citizens' constitutional rights to be religious and to act according to their religion?

I'd be curious to see specific examples in which people with religious ideals have been so disadvantaged.  How have your rights to be religious been violated?

Forced direct material cooperation with an intrinsic evil in the HHS mandates. (for the win)
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 19, 2014, 04:24:19 PM
But does the Constitution demand that those with religious ideals be inherently disadvantaged in any public debate?  Does it demand that non-religious ideals be imposed on those with religious ideals?  Does one person's freedom from religion compel the violation of other citizens' constitutional rights to be religious and to act according to their religion?

I'd be curious to see specific examples in which people with religious ideals have been so disadvantaged.  How have your rights to be religious been violated?
I would be curious to see specific examples where Christians try to impose their beliefs on others.

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 19, 2014, 04:30:42 PM
I don't demonize.  In part because I take the reality of demons for granted.  But I will state that PP and their goals and methods are diabolical. To paraphrase Peter Kreeft, do you think it is mere circumstance that the rallying cry of the Abortion-Industrial Complex is, "This is my body?" 

I'm curious to know when the catechism was amended to grant an exemption from the eighth commandment in conversations regarding Planned Parenthood.

So you are willing to stipulate that that PP is of the same moral caliber as the USSR?

I did not stipulate that.  But, I am willing to stipulate that talked about Planned Parenthood in such terms in the post to which I responded.

But the USSR was a rational actor. It is my opinion that that PP has more in common, in its commitment to cause over reason, with Iran or AQ than the USSR.

I have no reason to think that Planned Parenthood is not also a rational actor.  I have a pretty good understanding of what you think Planned Parenthood's cause might be.  In my opinion, your opinion includes hyperbole that might work well in talking with your supporters.  But, like much political speak, I question how much of that hyperbole is grounded in irrefutable facts.

And, given the fact that it is the Pro "Choicer's mantra that is "Safe, legal and rare," why is it that they are not seeking out people like me with which to dialogue?  And before you say "of course they won't, with an attitude like yours," let me share something.

Were I in your position, I would take the initiative and take advantage of the opening provided by the phrase "safe, legal and rare".  It is potentially a point of agreement.  The strategy advocated by the Harvard Negotiation Project is one of stepping aside from the issues in dispute, identify points of agreement and build upon those.  By the way, the approach also works with the notion of separating the people from the problem.  I sense a reluctance on your part to do the latter.


As to fighting vs. winning, one of my father's apothegms (similar to Churchill's "Jaw Jaw is better than War War.") was "Avoid a fight by any means possible, up to, and including running away.  But always remember, the only fair fight is the one you win."  I would rather win than fight.

That's ends justify means kind of thinking and I don't accept that as within the limits of "fair".  But, if you would rather win than fight, I'd suggest that you abandon the lose-lose tactics that you seem to be employing.

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on February 19, 2014, 04:53:40 PM
But does the Constitution demand that those with religious ideals be inherently disadvantaged in any public debate?  Does it demand that non-religious ideals be imposed on those with religious ideals?  Does one person's freedom from religion compel the violation of other citizens' constitutional rights to be religious and to act according to their religion?

I'd be curious to see specific examples in which people with religious ideals have been so disadvantaged.  How have your rights to be religious been violated?
I would be curious to see specific examples where Christians try to impose their beliefs on others.


Blue Laws, prohibition, school breaks over Christmas and Easter, adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, change the U.S. motto from e pluribus unum to In God we trust in 1956.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 19, 2014, 05:29:49 PM
I'm curious to know when the catechism was amended to grant an exemption from the eighth commandment in conversations regarding Planned Parenthood.

Well, as a Catholic, I am not necessarily concerned the Small Catechism.  That you refuse to see PP as nothing more than a maligned organization that does abortions, which are icky and all, but legal, is a puzzlement. What would you call an organization people by individuals who kill people for a living and who enjoy their work?  Have you read the accounts from former PP workers?

I did not stipulate that.  But, I am willing to stipulate that talked about Planned Parenthood in such terms in the post to which I responded.

I have no reason to think that Planned Parenthood is not also a rational actor.  I have a pretty good understanding of what you think Planned Parenthood's cause might be.  In my opinion, your opinion includes hyperbole that might work well in talking with your supporters.  But, like much political speak, I question how much of that hyperbole is grounded in irrefutable facts.

What you need to know is that when I talk with people, I am the voice of reason, calm, and prayer.  I would not speak this way to a pro-Life group.  One, it's preaching to the Choir.  Two, they are often more emotionally engaged than am I.  Here, to use Lutheran terms, I preach the Law to convict the sinner. As for irrefutable facts, read up, my friend.  Watch the Blood Money trailer.  Read the material on the PP website, including teenwire.  Jeez Louise, I thought it was "Progressive" types like you who were fond of saying, "If you are not outraged, you haven't been paying attention!"

Were I in your position, I would take the initiative and take advantage of the opening provided by the phrase "safe, legal and rare".  It is potentially a point of agreement.  The strategy advocated by the Harvard Negotiation Project is one of stepping aside from the issues in dispute, identify points of agreement and build upon those.  By the way, the approach also works with the notion of separating the people from the problem.  I sense a reluctance on your part to do the latter.
What makes you think that I and others haven't tried and been shot down?

That's ends justify means kind of thinking and I don't accept that as within the limits of "fair".  But, if you would rather win than fight, I'd suggest that you abandon the lose-lose tactics that you seem to be employing.

I don't seem to be loosing, at least the battle for the hearts and minds of this nation.  Pro-Lifers are getting younger.  NARAL, et al, not so much.  They have commandeered the levers of political power for the moment.  But not forever.   Just as folks like the Democrats supported chattel slavery in this country, predicated on the concept that one type of human wasn't as human as another, so too do their modern day descendants with abortion. And just as this nation bestirred itself to cast off that evil, so too, one day will we with abortion.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: James_Gale on February 19, 2014, 08:46:35 PM

Were I in your position, I would take the initiative and take advantage of the opening provided by the phrase "safe, legal and rare".  It is potentially a point of agreement.

On what do you base the assertion that such an "opening" exists?  A quick look at the PP web site establishes that it has no desire to make abortions "rare."  Quite the contrary.

First, PP tells women considering abortion that that option is not at all rare:  "What to do about an unplanned pregnancy is an important and common decision faced by women. In fact, about half of all women in the U.S. have an unplanned pregnancy at some point in their lives. About 4 out of 10 women with unplanned pregnancies decide to have abortions. Overall, 3 in 10 U.S. women will have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old."  Hey, everybody's having an abortion.  If you're worried about any stigma or shame, don't be. 

The web site goes on to warn women not to visit "pregnancy crisis centers."  Why?  Such centers, according to PP, "may not give you complete and correct information" about abortion, "may try to frighten you with misleading films," and "may lie to you about the medical and emotional side effects of abortion."  Maybe you need to talk to your PP friends about their 8th Commandment obligation not to demonize the Catholic Church and others.

In any event, how should a woman avoid pregnancy crisis centers?  PP advises that a woman pick a provider listed by the "National Abortion Federation" on its web site.  PP, of course, is a proud member of this organization, which lists as the three fundamental aspects of its mission that abortion be "safe," "legal," and "accessible." (http://www.prochoice.org/about_naf/mission.html)   Accessible, last I checked, means something quite different from "rare."  And indeed, neither PP nor NAF give any indication that they'd like to minimize the number of abortions.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: DCharlton on February 19, 2014, 08:49:59 PM
But does the Constitution demand that those with religious ideals be inherently disadvantaged in any public debate?  Does it demand that non-religious ideals be imposed on those with religious ideals?  Does one person's freedom from religion compel the violation of other citizens' constitutional rights to be religious and to act according to their religion?

I'd be curious to see specific examples in which people with religious ideals have been so disadvantaged.  How have your rights to be religious been violated?
I would be curious to see specific examples where Christians try to impose their beliefs on others.


Blue Laws, prohibition, school breaks over Christmas and Easter, adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, change the U.S. motto from e pluribus unum to In God we trust in 1956.

I have a question for Brian and John:

Will you buy me a handgun?  I'd like a classic Colt 45.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: cssml on February 20, 2014, 01:22:54 AM

Were I in your position, I would take the initiative and take advantage of the opening provided by the phrase "safe, legal and rare".  It is potentially a point of agreement.

The argument of "safe, legal and rare" reminds me of William Wilberforce's description of "Mr. Norris" in his famous abolition address to the House of Commons in 1789.  Mr Norris had been defending the manner in which the slaves (a perceived necessity at the time, which required the dehumanization of humans) were transported in the slave ships.  Mr. Norris suggested these humans, were indeed being treated humanely (as they were of course being denied their very humanity):

http://www.artofmanliness.com/abolition-speech-by-william-wilberforce/

"Mr. Norris, one of the Liverpool delegates, in a manner which, I am sure will convince the House how interest can draw a film across the eyes, so thick, that total blindness could do no more; and how it is our duty therefore to trust not to the reasonings of interested men, or to their way of colouring a transaction. “Their apartments,” says Mr. Norris, “are fitted up as much for their advantage as circumstances will admit. The right ancle of one, indeed is connected with the left ancle of another by a small iron fetter, and if they are turbulent, by another on their wrists. They have several meals a day; some of their own country provisions, with the best sauces of African cookery; and by way of variety, another meal of pulse, &c. according to European taste. After breakfast they have water to wash themselves, while their apartments are perfumed with frankincense and lime-juice. Before dinner, they are amused after the manner of their country. The song and dance are promoted,” and, as if the whole was really a scene of pleasure and dissipation it is added, that games of chance are furnished. “The men play and sing, while the women and girls make fanciful ornaments with beads, which they are plentifully supplied with.” Such is the sort of strain in which the Liverpool delegates, and particularly Mr. Norris, gave evidence before the privy council. What will the House think when, by the concurring testimony of other witnesses, the true history is laid open. "


(so I guess we all need to be a little more like Mr Norris, look on the bright side, and turn our eyes from the barbaric injustice that is being committed against the silent defenseless life in the womb.  We should 'take advantage' while we can and turn our eyes toward 'safe, legal, and rare' inhumane treatment.  I'll pass.)

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 20, 2014, 09:48:06 AM
But does the Constitution demand that those with religious ideals be inherently disadvantaged in any public debate?  Does it demand that non-religious ideals be imposed on those with religious ideals?  Does one person's freedom from religion compel the violation of other citizens' constitutional rights to be religious and to act according to their religion?

I'd be curious to see specific examples in which people with religious ideals have been so disadvantaged.  How have your rights to be religious been violated?
I would be curious to see specific examples where Christians try to impose their beliefs on others.

Dan

Prayer in public schools.
Ten Commandments in courthouses
"One nation under god"
gay marriage
teaching of creationism as "science" in public schools
Public displays of Christmas symbols at public expense
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 20, 2014, 09:50:57 AM

I have a question for Brian and John:

Will you buy me a handgun?  I'd like a classic Colt 45.

Why?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 20, 2014, 10:03:23 AM
The argument of "safe, legal and rare" reminds me of William Wilberforce's description of "Mr. Norris" in his famous abolition address to the House of Commons in 1789.

"Safe, legal and rare" would be a step in the right direction, not necessarily the end of the journey.

Given the current state of our society, outlawing abortion will put an end to legal abortions - it will not put an end to abortions.  Women who can afford to do so will travel to another country for the procedure - unless you also propose to restrict travel visas for pregnant women.  Women who cannot afford to travel will seek services from coat hanger clinics.  And, absent significant social change, the circumstances that result in high rates of unwanted children conceived and born into the cycle of poverty will persist and, with it, the persistence of unsafe and illegal abortion.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 20, 2014, 10:27:07 AM
"Safe, legal and rare" would be a step in the right direction, not necessarily the end of the journey.

Given the current state of our society, outlawing abortion will put an end to legal abortions - it will not put an end to abortions.  Women who can afford to do so will travel to another country for the procedure - unless you also propose to restrict travel visas for pregnant women.  Women who cannot afford to travel will seek services from coat hanger clinics.  And, absent significant social change, the circumstances that result in high rates of unwanted children conceived and born into the cycle of poverty will persist and, with it, the persistence of unsafe and illegal abortion.

John your concern for the women being forced to coat hanger clinics is touching. And, I suspect, is emblematic of the thinking in the ELCA.  So here is a thought, in keeping with the ELCA Social Statement on Abortion that Brian S. seems to think has some type of CWA Infallability.  Did you know that in many states, like DE, that there are stronger controls on your Vet and the standard s/he has to maintain to operate than on abortion providers (I will not dignify them with the term clinic.) So why not advocate for legislation that calls for greater control?  Why not advocate for it to be as difficult for a minor to obtain an abortion as it is for her to get her ears pierced?

The dirty (and in many instances, I really mean dirty) little secret of the Abortion-Industrial Complex in the US is the substandard care received by the women.  Gosnell may have been a moral monster, but he wasn't that many SDs of the mean for care shown to women.  These folks are like gangsters in that they run chop shops. 

So show me your care and concern now and advocate, if your state does not already have them in place, for some common sense controls on abortion.  Or are you just going to shut down this dialogue and demonize me?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 20, 2014, 11:44:00 AM
John your concern for the women being forced to coat hanger clinics is touching.

The fact that I am concerned about it does not discount the reality that illegal/unsafe abortions occur already and would be more prevalent were abortion, as a medical procedure, outlawed.

Did you know that in many states, like DE, that there are stronger controls on your Vet and the standard s/he has to maintain to operate than on abortion providers (I will not dignify them with the term clinic.)

Can you provide a few examples in which the woman's health was put at risk in DE as a consequence of those standards?

So why not advocate for legislation that calls for greater control?  Why not advocate for it to be as difficult for a minor to obtain an abortion as it is for her to get her ears pierced?

I agree with the concept of minor obtaining a court order in lieu of parental consent.  The reality is that, in too many situations, parental consent is tantamount to an invitation for child abuse.  Although my preference would be for parental consent, it is not the best option in every situation.

The dirty (and in many instances, I really mean dirty) little secret of the Abortion-Industrial Complex in the US is the substandard care received by the women.  Gosnell may have been a moral monster, but he wasn't that many SDs of the mean for care shown to women.  These folks are like gangsters in that they run chop shops.

It wouldn't have to be a dirty little secret were the pro-life movement to reveal the facts, including objective documentation.

Or are you just going to shut down this dialogue and demonize me?

You and I disagree on many things, Matt.  But, I have been careful to keep my comments focused on the issues in dispute and not on the person with whom I disagree.  If I have unintentionally crossed that line, I apologize.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: cssml on February 20, 2014, 11:58:21 AM
The reality is that, in too many situations, parental consent is tantamount to an invitation for child abuse.

And how about the many cases, where we have not parental consent, but parental (or spousal) coercion to make the right "choice" (to terminate a life to solve your 'problem').  Now that we as a culture have fully embraced this bold 'choice', there is in many, many, many cases, pressure to use the tools provided to commit child abuse in the most fundamental way.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 20, 2014, 12:12:45 PM
Many of thje "impositions" of Christianity on non-Christians only show up as such as the balance shifts away from Christian assumptions.

Christmas break? How is that an imposition? It is simply acknowledging that most people are celebrating and want to travel to see family so it makes sense not to schedule things at an inconvenient time for most people. You may as well say lunch break is imposing on people who don't eat lunch. Too bad for them-- do something else on your lunch break if you don't eat lunch. But since most people eat lunch, we're going to factor that into our scheduling of days, just as we're going to factor in popular holidays to our school calendar, which in some places includes hunting season.

As for what is taught in schools, remember that all schools serve in loco parentis, so a school that is not teaching what the parents would teach is not fulfilling its vocation as a school. The community gets to determine this, and as long as public schools are not compulsory the community gets to determine what is important and what gets taught. Chesterton had a great article about this in response to the Tennessee Monkey Trials. He said the real issue wasn't whether evolution or Creationism were true, but what is the nature and purpose of public education, and though he personally wasn't a Creationist in the Tennessee sense of the word he still thought that trial ended with an injustice. By removing prayer from the public schools, you are teaching the dogma that prayer isn't important or is a strictly personal thing.

Gay marriage is not a strictly Christian thing, it is basic human reason considering the design of humanity and the history, nature, and purpose of marriage and concluding that what two men do together is not the same thing as what a man and woman do together.   

The Ten Commandments in courthouses (why is that thought of as Christians and not Jews imposing their morality?) are not there to settle cases. Nobody goes down to the county courthouse and gets convicted of having false gods or coveting his neighbor's manservant. If they did, they'd have a legitimate complaint. The point of having those monuments is to say that justice is not arbirtary but is grounded in the eternal. Our founding documents say as much. The legitimacy of that court to impose penalties is not simply a sociological power grab, as in, "we can put you in jail because we're stronger that you," but a recognition of justice and government as transcendent, eternal things which we recognize rather than create. If we have statues of Greek goddesses nobody complains we're imposing Greek pagan worship.   

As for one nation "under God" what do you propose? A nation over God? A godless nation? The underpinnings of our government presuppose a divine mandate for human rights. Why do I have the right to free speech? Not because a bunch of guys in wigs said so a few hundred years ago, but because God says so, and that bunch of guys in wigs recognized that fact. In the face of the abject horror of the 20th Century's great statist regimes that operated as gods in themselves, it was quite prudent to remind ourselves and insist upon the idea that we are a nation under God, not a nation that is god. 

So nearly all of the objections are much trickier than simply removing mention of religious things from public places. The ramifications of doing so are far-flung and in some cases unjust and unconstitutional. This is why the "progressives" have such a hard time with history. There is so much that needs to be scrubbed out. So many names, synbols, institutions, holidays woven into the fabric of our culture that we have to unravel everything as though yesterday never happened.

I remember an old First Things blurb about a controversy over a cross on a flag or insignia. I think it was the University of Virginia that had a logo with a cross and crown on it. Since it was a public university, the cross was removed after hundreds of years of being there. But the crown stayed. RJN had a typically friendly but biting quip about the place being no longer Christian but remaining royalist.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 20, 2014, 12:41:19 PM
John-

The dirty little secret is a secret not becasue the pro-Life community is keeping quiet, but because the MSM and others don't want to be bothered.  Look at the lack of coverage on the Gosnell case. 

As for DE, google Delaware abortion problems.

Or I could introduce you to a friend who was knocked down when she recorded the uptick in ambulance removals from the downtown Wilmington PP abortion center.

Can we deal with the fact that PP is covering up human trafficking and statutory rape?  What is the actual incidence of young women beaten/killed by parents because of pregnancy?  What type of numbers are you talking about?

I know of school where now they inform the parents when they know that the girl is pregnant.  Because before they did, the parents would simply odrag the child to the the abortionist and "solve" the problem.  This school has also taken steps to make sure that pregnacy & childcare are not reasons to forgo obtaining one's HS diploma.

And what protections are in place for the child who does not want to abort but is coerced by adults, or the impregnator?  What do PP and the others in the Abortion-Industrial Complex, who have a vested financial and ideological commitment to to maximizing the number of abortions, do to protect the girl who does not want one?  Have you read any of the post-abortive stories to realize that this is a common problem?

And I am back to my challenge- As the ELCA Synod Assembly Season is soon to be upon us, will you work to get your Synod to encourage the ELCA lobbying efforts in each state to advocate for commonsense health regulations- Like corridors wide enough to allow ambulance gurneys, and elevators if located off the ground floor, and doctors will admitting privileges at local hospitals for when things go  wrong, as they do with a distressing regularity.  Oh yeah, the same standards for sterility that your vet has to maintain would be nice too.  Will you work to set up protections for vulnerable girls who are coerced into having abortions?

I've done my bit on this in two states. What have you & the ELCA done?  More importantly, what will you & the ELCA do?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 20, 2014, 12:51:18 PM
I remember an old First Things blurb about a controversy over a cross on a flag or insignia. I think it was the University of Virginia that had a logo with a cross and crown on it. Since it was a public university, the cross was removed after hundreds of years of being there. But the crown stayed. RJN had a typically friendly but biting quip about the place being no longer Christian but remaining royalist.

Peter- I can assure you it was not Mr. Jefferson's Academical Village.  The University has, for at least 125 years, used the seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia, showing Liberty standing upon the corpse of her enemy and the expression Sic Semper Tyrannis.  I recall that a former poster in these parts got his knickers in a knot over the horribly violent expression found upon my class ring. 

Matthew Hummel
College of Arts & Sciences 1982
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: DCharlton on February 20, 2014, 01:05:31 PM

I have a question for Brian and John:

Will you buy me a handgun?  I'd like a classic Colt 45.

Why?

Well, because of the Second Amendment.  I have the right to bear arms, but I cannot exercise that right unless you buy my guns for me.  I'm sure you wouldn't want to impose your values on me buy asking be to buy my own guns.  If you do not buy me a gun, you will have denied me my Second Amendment rights. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: pearson on February 20, 2014, 01:48:09 PM

Given the current state of our society, outlawing abortion will put an end to legal abortions - it will not put an end to abortions.  Women who can afford to do so will travel to another country for the procedure - unless you also propose to restrict travel visas for pregnant women.  Women who cannot afford to travel will seek services from coat hanger clinics.  And, absent significant social change, the circumstances that result in high rates of unwanted children conceived and born into the cycle of poverty will persist and, with it, the persistence of unsafe and illegal abortion.


"Outlawing" has never "put an end" to anything -- murder, child abuse, embezzlement, whatever.  "Outlawing" only indicates what a given society will not tolerate without penalty; it doesn't indicate that the society expects to eliminate the behavior completely.  So "outlawing" abortion simply announces what a community will not accept without penalty.  And the logic of your argument above works just as well when it comes to the issue of, say, corporate CEO salary packages that run to several millions of dollars.  "Outlawing" (and excessive regulation) of such salary packages is useless; it will just drive the practice into the underground jungle of creative bookkeeping.  The parallel with your argument on the consequences of "outlawing" abortion seems pretty exact.

Tom Pearson

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 20, 2014, 03:30:28 PM

I have a question for Brian and John:

Will you buy me a handgun?  I'd like a classic Colt 45.

Why?

Well, because of the Second Amendment.  I have the right to bear arms, but I cannot exercise that right unless you buy my guns for me.  I'm sure you wouldn't want to impose your values on me buy asking be to buy my own guns.  If you do not buy me a gun, you will have denied me my Second Amendment rights.

You made a very compelling argument that you are unable to exercise your first amendment rights unless the government imposes your religious practices upon the rest of society.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on February 20, 2014, 03:35:38 PM

I agree with the writer, Sarah Posner, in this matter.

Ms. Posner (whoever she is) apparently is unaware of Natural Law, something that 18th century Christians and non-Christians in North America -- i.e., the creators of the Constitution -- would have lived and breathed.

spt+
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 20, 2014, 03:36:16 PM
"Outlawing" has never "put an end" to anything -- murder, child abuse, embezzlement, whatever.  "Outlawing" only indicates what a given society will not tolerate without penalty; it doesn't indicate that the society expects to eliminate the behavior completely.  So "outlawing" abortion simply announces what a community will not accept without penalty.

I understand and agree with that logic, at least in the abstract.  However, to apply it, as you suggest, is to imply that society will tolerate the killing of fetuses as long as we are able to prosecute the practitioners and the mothers who seek their services.  If we really have no tolerance for the discretionary killing of unborns, we need to do more than simply outlaw the practice.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 20, 2014, 03:39:43 PM
"Outlawing" has never "put an end" to anything -- murder, child abuse, embezzlement, whatever.  "Outlawing" only indicates what a given society will not tolerate without penalty; it doesn't indicate that the society expects to eliminate the behavior completely.  So "outlawing" abortion simply announces what a community will not accept without penalty.

I understand and agree with that logic, at least in the abstract.  However, to apply it, as you suggest, is to imply that society will tolerate the killing of fetuses as long as we are able to prosecute the practitioners and the mothers who seek their services.  If we really have no tolerance for the discretionary killing of unborns, we need to do more than simply outlaw the practice.
True. But we can also do no less than outlaw the practice. Ending slavery didn't end racism. But certainly racism wasn't going to end until slavery ended. Start with square one.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: MaddogLutheran on February 20, 2014, 04:32:30 PM

I have a question for Brian and John:

Will you buy me a handgun?  I'd like a classic Colt 45.

Why?

Well, because of the Second Amendment.  I have the right to bear arms, but I cannot exercise that right unless you buy my guns for me.  I'm sure you wouldn't want to impose your values on me buy asking be to buy my own guns.  If you do not buy me a gun, you will have denied me my Second Amendment rights.

You made a very compelling argument that you are unable to exercise your first amendment rights unless the government imposes your religious practices upon the rest of society.
Actually, he did no such thing.  But it's no surprise you would say such a thing.  He's taking head-on the suggestion that one does not fully exercise one's constitutional right unless someone else is forced to pay for it.  There are some people (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/2/gr030208.html)*, for example, who believe that a constitutional right is not fully realized unless it available to all, regardless of financial considerations.  Is that imposing a religious belief?  As has already been noted, some pro-abortion quasi-religious types do treat abortion as their highest sacrament.

* "Declarations made this year [2000] in the course of the presidential campaign have given new hope to advocates who have long been frustrated in their attempts to ensure that women at all income levels have the ability to exercise their constitutional right to choose abortion. These advocates decry the practical impact of the so-called Hyde Amendment, measured both in the sacrifices of women who struggle to find another source of funds for an abortion and in the births to those unable to do so. "
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 20, 2014, 04:33:21 PM
"Outlawing" has never "put an end" to anything -- murder, child abuse, embezzlement, whatever.  "Outlawing" only indicates what a given society will not tolerate without penalty; it doesn't indicate that the society expects to eliminate the behavior completely.  So "outlawing" abortion simply announces what a community will not accept without penalty.

I understand and agree with that logic, at least in the abstract.  However, to apply it, as you suggest, is to imply that society will tolerate the killing of fetuses as long as we are able to prosecute the practitioners and the mothers who seek their services.  If we really have no tolerance for the discretionary killing of unborns, we need to do more than simply outlaw the practice.
True. But we can also do no less than outlaw the practice. Ending slavery didn't end racism. But certainly racism wasn't going to end until slavery ended. Start with square one.

Agreed.  And, we still have a lot of work to do to overcome the consequences of our history of racism and slavery.  And, by the way, if we were to focus more attention on doing just that, we might also significantly reduce the frequency of abortions.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 20, 2014, 04:34:59 PM
He's taking head-on the suggestion that one does not fully exercise one's constitutional right unless someone else is forced to pay for it.

Well, I never made any such suggestion.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: MaddogLutheran on February 20, 2014, 04:53:22 PM
He's taking head-on the suggestion that one does not fully exercise one's constitutional right unless someone else is forced to pay for it.

Well, I never made any such suggestion.
That's non-responsive to your prior assertion about imposing religious beliefs, which you introduced in reply.  But I can see why you'd want to continue to obfuscate, given your selectivity on the application of government coercion to right what you declare as injustice.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 20, 2014, 04:56:27 PM
There is an irreconcilable disagreement at the heart of the abortion debate.  Unless that disagreement can be resolved, I do not see how the abortion debate can be resolved.  It also undercuts any common ground that is sought or attempts to get Pro-Choice and Pro-Life groups to set aside differences and come to some working agreement. 

The irreconcilable disagreement is over whether homo sapiens  have rights that society and its members need to respect.  Another way to state this is as the disagreement over whether these rights are granted (and may be withdrawn) by society or are they inalienable, inherent in being homo sapiens.  I am avoiding the use of the term "human" because that has become a tool to grant or deny rights to something that biologically is homo sapiens but for various reasons we choose not to recognize as human.

One side has staked out the position that until some arbitrary point: birth, viability outside the womb, implantation, or perhaps some point after birth to give time to determine if there are congenital defects, etc. the developing genetically distinct but member of the species homo sapiens is nothing more than a clump of cells or a parasite that should have no rights that anyone needs to recognize other than those rights granted by those society has decided to give control over the life or death of the organism.  That point where the homo sapiens also becomes human is itself determined by the desires of society.

One danger of this position is that as soon as human rights are granted or withdrawn at the sole discretion of society - or whoever has control of the power in society to make those decisions - potentially no one is safe from being deemed not human or no longer human and therefor subject to disposal.  History provides a long list of such abuses, the effect of some of them (racism for example) we are still battling today.  The very idea that they are abuses is up for dispute, because who am I and my society to impose our values on another society.  We may object to denying rights to people because of the color of their skin, but do we have a right to impose that on others?  Is the whole hoopla over human rights just an example of Western Cultural Imperialism and insensitive to the needs of other societies in other parts of the world?

Do I want my society to agree with that last paragraph?  No.

The other position is that from the time when a developing homo sapiens becomes a genetically unique individual that is a human person with rights.  Those rights might clash with the rights of other individuals and that clash might have to be arbitrated.  That is not a position that is necessarily religious either.  The rights of individuals are a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of those who posses power.  Even without religious grounding, that can be recognized as a reason to hold against the consideration of the unborn as mere parasites to be disposed of arbitrarily and at will.

How can these two positions be reconciled?

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 20, 2014, 04:58:10 PM
"Outlawing" has never "put an end" to anything -- murder, child abuse, embezzlement, whatever.  "Outlawing" only indicates what a given society will not tolerate without penalty; it doesn't indicate that the society expects to eliminate the behavior completely.  So "outlawing" abortion simply announces what a community will not accept without penalty.

I understand and agree with that logic, at least in the abstract.  However, to apply it, as you suggest, is to imply that society will tolerate the killing of fetuses as long as we are able to prosecute the practitioners and the mothers who seek their services.  If we really have no tolerance for the discretionary killing of unborns, we need to do more than simply outlaw the practice.
True. But we can also do no less than outlaw the practice. Ending slavery didn't end racism. But certainly racism wasn't going to end until slavery ended. Start with square one.

Agreed.  And, we still have a lot of work to do to overcome the consequences of our history of racism and slavery.  And, by the way, if we were to focus more attention on doing just that, we might also significantly reduce the frequency of abortions.
How could we possibly be more focused on race than we already are? How could we possibly have made more progress on race than we have been? But I'm glad to know you're on board with the immediate illegalization of abortion.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: DCharlton on February 20, 2014, 05:11:21 PM
He's taking head-on the suggestion that one does not fully exercise one's constitutional right unless someone else is forced to pay for it.

Well, I never made any such suggestion.

Sure you did.  You have asserted numerous times that the desire not to pay is a)the desire to deny a right and b) the desire to impose one's belief.  If true, then it applies equally to contraceptives and guns.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 20, 2014, 05:31:12 PM
He's taking head-on the suggestion that one does not fully exercise one's constitutional right unless someone else is forced to pay for it.

Well, I never made any such suggestion.

Sure you did.  You have asserted numerous times that the desire not to pay is a)the desire to deny a right and b) the desire to impose one's belief.  If true, then it applies equally to contraceptives and guns.
All of which is still stipulating the bogus idea that one is endowed by one's Creator with an inalienable right to contraceptives.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: DCharlton on February 20, 2014, 06:45:11 PM
He's taking head-on the suggestion that one does not fully exercise one's constitutional right unless someone else is forced to pay for it.

Well, I never made any such suggestion.

Sure you did.  You have asserted numerous times that the desire not to pay is a)the desire to deny a right and b) the desire to impose one's belief.  If true, then it applies equally to contraceptives  and guns.wzn
All of which is still stipulating the bogus idea that one is endowed by one's Creator with an inalienable right to contraceptives.

Well, at the very least, that it's in the Bill of Rights. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on February 20, 2014, 11:42:55 PM

I have a question for Brian and John:

Will you buy me a handgun?  I'd like a classic Colt 45.

Why?

Well, because of the Second Amendment.  I have the right to bear arms, but I cannot exercise that right unless you buy my guns for me.  I'm sure you wouldn't want to impose your values on me buy asking be to buy my own guns.  If you do not buy me a gun, you will have denied me my Second Amendment rights.


We buy the guns for our well regulated military forces. If you want a government purchased handgun, join the military.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: James_Gale on February 21, 2014, 12:04:19 AM

I have a question for Brian and John:

Will you buy me a handgun?  I'd like a classic Colt 45.

Why?

Well, because of the Second Amendment.  I have the right to bear arms, but I cannot exercise that right unless you buy my guns for me.  I'm sure you wouldn't want to impose your values on me buy asking be to buy my own guns.  If you do not buy me a gun, you will have denied me my Second Amendment rights.


We buy the guns for our well regulated military forces. If you want a government purchased handgun, join the military.


Are you suggesting that the Second Amendment applies only to the military?  This would be a difficult position to maintain.


First, in keeping with widely accepted principles of interpretation, the Supreme Court has made clear that the precatory clause to the Second Amendment does not limit its scope.


And second, even this were not true, the Second Amendment says nothing of the "military."  Its precatory clause does mention the "militia," which under federal law (10 USC 311) includes "all able-bodied males" between 17 and 45. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 21, 2014, 07:51:17 AM
Sure you did.  You have asserted numerous times that the desire not to pay is a)the desire to deny a right and b) the desire to impose one's belief.  If true, then it applies equally to contraceptives and guns.

The only "desire not to pay" to which I referred in this conversation had to do with state-funded adoption agencies.  You have a right to own a firearm - you have no legitimate expectation that the state will buy it for you.  Church agencies which meet minimum professional standards have a right to offer adoption services - they have no legitimate expectation that the state will contract with them to be a state sponsored agency.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: David Garner on February 21, 2014, 08:05:05 AM

I have a question for Brian and John:

Will you buy me a handgun?  I'd like a classic Colt 45.

Why?

Well, because of the Second Amendment.  I have the right to bear arms, but I cannot exercise that right unless you buy my guns for me.  I'm sure you wouldn't want to impose your values on me buy asking be to buy my own guns.  If you do not buy me a gun, you will have denied me my Second Amendment rights.


We buy the guns for our well regulated military forces. If you want a government purchased handgun, join the military.


Are you suggesting that the Second Amendment applies only to the military?  This would be a difficult position to maintain.


First, in keeping with widely accepted principles of interpretation, the Supreme Court has made clear that the precatory clause to the Second Amendment does not limit its scope.


And second, even this were not true, the Second Amendment says nothing of the "military."  Its precatory clause does mention the "militia," which under federal law (10 USC 311) includes "all able-bodied males" between 17 and 45.

I would argue that the military (i.e., standing army) is precisely the reason the founders thought the militia (i.e., all able bodied males between 17 and 45") should not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.

History is fun, if often inconvenient for those who have not studied it.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Terry W Culler on February 21, 2014, 09:17:24 AM
I suspect the reference to money to buy firearms is a backhanded statement about Sandra Fluke's argument that female law students really, really NEED birth control bills and therefore the general public should make them available free of charge. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on February 21, 2014, 11:41:48 AM

I have a question for Brian and John:

Will you buy me a handgun?  I'd like a classic Colt 45.

Why?

Well, because of the Second Amendment.  I have the right to bear arms, but I cannot exercise that right unless you buy my guns for me.  I'm sure you wouldn't want to impose your values on me buy asking be to buy my own guns.  If you do not buy me a gun, you will have denied me my Second Amendment rights.


We buy the guns for our well regulated military forces. If you want a government purchased handgun, join the military.


Are you suggesting that the Second Amendment applies only to the military?  This would be a difficult position to maintain.


First, in keeping with widely accepted principles of interpretation, the Supreme Court has made clear that the precatory clause to the Second Amendment does not limit its scope.


And second, even this were not true, the Second Amendment says nothing of the "military."  Its precatory clause does mention the "militia," which under federal law (10 USC 311) includes "all able-bodied males" between 17 and 45.

I would argue that the military (i.e., standing army) is precisely the reason the founders thought the militia (i.e., all able bodied males between 17 and 45") should not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.

History is fun, if often inconvenient for those who have not studied it.


Ah, but California enacted strict gun control laws when they believed that the Black Panthers should have their right to keep and bear arms infringed because they were seen as threats to the legitimate law enforcement and military folks. Should terrorist have their right to keep and bear arms infringed?


I also believe that historically, the founders believed that the "whites" (or perhaps WASPs) should all be armed to protect themselves from the savage "Indians".
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 21, 2014, 11:50:25 AM

I have a question for Brian and John:

Will you buy me a handgun?  I'd like a classic Colt 45.

Why?

Well, because of the Second Amendment.  I have the right to bear arms, but I cannot exercise that right unless you buy my guns for me.  I'm sure you wouldn't want to impose your values on me buy asking be to buy my own guns.  If you do not buy me a gun, you will have denied me my Second Amendment rights.


We buy the guns for our well regulated military forces. If you want a government purchased handgun, join the military.


Are you suggesting that the Second Amendment applies only to the military?  This would be a difficult position to maintain.


First, in keeping with widely accepted principles of interpretation, the Supreme Court has made clear that the precatory clause to the Second Amendment does not limit its scope.


And second, even this were not true, the Second Amendment says nothing of the "military."  Its precatory clause does mention the "militia," which under federal law (10 USC 311) includes "all able-bodied males" between 17 and 45.

I would argue that the military (i.e., standing army) is precisely the reason the founders thought the militia (i.e., all able bodied males between 17 and 45") should not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.

History is fun, if often inconvenient for those who have not studied it.


Ah, but California enacted strict gun control laws when they believed that the Black Panthers should have their right to keep and bear arms infringed because they were seen as threats to the legitimate law enforcement and military folks. Should terrorist have their right to keep and bear arms infringed?


I also believe that historically, the founders believed that the "whites" (or perhaps WASPs) should all be armed to protect themselves from the savage "Indians".

Should the law attempt to keep heavy military weaponry out of the hands of white supremacist terrorist groups?  Yes, as they should any terrorist group, white, Black, Middle Eastern, Asian, etc.  Should every white who desires to own a gun be treated as a member of a white supremacist organization because he is white?

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on February 21, 2014, 12:00:58 PM

I have a question for Brian and John:

Will you buy me a handgun?  I'd like a classic Colt 45.

Why?

Well, because of the Second Amendment.  I have the right to bear arms, but I cannot exercise that right unless you buy my guns for me.  I'm sure you wouldn't want to impose your values on me buy asking be to buy my own guns.  If you do not buy me a gun, you will have denied me my Second Amendment rights.


We buy the guns for our well regulated military forces. If you want a government purchased handgun, join the military.


Are you suggesting that the Second Amendment applies only to the military?  This would be a difficult position to maintain.


First, in keeping with widely accepted principles of interpretation, the Supreme Court has made clear that the precatory clause to the Second Amendment does not limit its scope.


And second, even this were not true, the Second Amendment says nothing of the "military."  Its precatory clause does mention the "militia," which under federal law (10 USC 311) includes "all able-bodied males" between 17 and 45.

I would argue that the military (i.e., standing army) is precisely the reason the founders thought the militia (i.e., all able bodied males between 17 and 45") should not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.

History is fun, if often inconvenient for those who have not studied it.


Ah, but California enacted strict gun control laws when they believed that the Black Panthers should have their right to keep and bear arms infringed because they were seen as threats to the legitimate law enforcement and military folks. Should terrorist have their right to keep and bear arms infringed?


I also believe that historically, the founders believed that the "whites" (or perhaps WASPs) should all be armed to protect themselves from the savage "Indians".

Should the law attempt to keep heavy military weaponry out of the hands of white supremacist terrorist groups?  Yes, as they should any terrorist group, white, Black, Middle Eastern, Asian, etc.  Should every white who desires to own a gun be treated as a member of a white supremacist organization because he is white?


Our world is much different than that of the founders. They weren't fearful of white supremacist terrorist groups. They were fearful of Indian tribes that they were forcing off their lands, with whom they made treaties that they broke. They were fearful of arming black slaves, too, who might take out their anger against cruel masters. (Perhaps if they had firearms, that would have kept masters from being cruel.) I've argued before, there are some people in America who should not own guns - and it's not on the basis of race or economic status. The question is creating a process where it becomes difficult if not impossible for those people (however we end up defining them) from purchasing guns.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: David Garner on February 21, 2014, 02:57:26 PM
Ah, but California enacted strict gun control laws when they believed that the Black Panthers should have their right to keep and bear arms infringed because they were seen as threats to the legitimate law enforcement and military folks. Should terrorist have their right to keep and bear arms infringed?

Terrorists or black citizens?  I'm confused.

Quote
I also believe that historically, the founders believed that the "whites" (or perhaps WASPs) should all be armed to protect themselves from the savage "Indians".

Ironic, since Jim Crow laws were among the first gun control laws in the country.

If you really want to go down this road, you won't like where it ends up for your position.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 21, 2014, 03:06:16 PM
Ah, but California enacted strict gun control laws when they believed that the Black Panthers should have their right to keep and bear arms infringed because they were seen as threats to the legitimate law enforcement and military folks. Should terrorist have their right to keep and bear arms infringed?

Terrorists or black citizens?  I'm confused.

Quote
I also believe that historically, the founders believed that the "whites" (or perhaps WASPs) should all be armed to protect themselves from the savage "Indians".

Ironic, since Jim Crow laws were among the first gun control laws in the country.

If you really want to go down this road, you won't like where it ends up for your position.
Amen. The NRA was for arming African-Americans in the Jim Crow era. The progressive gun control crowd was for letting them rely on the civil government to protect their rights. Lynch-mobs are all about gun control.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Michael Slusser on February 21, 2014, 04:31:48 PM
Amen. The NRA was for arming African-Americans in the Jim Crow era. The progressive gun control crowd was for letting them rely on the civil government to protect their rights. Lynch-mobs are all about gun control.

In the 1950s, Robert F. Williams formed the Black Guard, chartered by the NRA and dedicated to the protection of the black population of Monroe, NC. He was opposed by the NAACP, which espoused non-violence, not by "the progressive gun control crowd" (which may not have formed back then).  In the 1960s he sought asylum in Cuba and then took his family to China, before returning to the US to advise the State Dept. http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html (http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html)

In the 1960s, when the Black Panthers began to carry unconcealed in California, a Republican assemblyman introduced a gun control act that Ronald Reagan (as governor) signed. Some say the NRA supported that act, but apparently that wasn't so out of character back then. http://blog.uwgb.edu/alltherage/fact-check-did-the-nra-supported-gun-control-when-the-black-panthers-advocated-that-minorities-arm-themselves/ (http://blog.uwgb.edu/alltherage/fact-check-did-the-nra-supported-gun-control-when-the-black-panthers-advocated-that-minorities-arm-themselves/)

The NRA's brief online history of itself http://www.nrahq.org/history.asp (http://www.nrahq.org/history.asp) doesn't highlight any activity against racism or for assisting black Americans in self-defense against the KKK. The claim has been made and contested http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/jun/05/harry-alford/nra-founded-fight-kkk-black-leader-says/ (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/jun/05/harry-alford/nra-founded-fight-kkk-black-leader-says/)

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: JoeEckman on February 21, 2014, 04:33:03 PM
Quote
I've argued before, there are some people in America who should not own guns - and it's not on the basis of race or economic status. The question is creating a process where it becomes difficult if not impossible for those people (however we end up defining them) from purchasing guns.

Bearing  firearms  and voting are both rights guaranteed by the United States of America Constitution.  There are some people who should not own guns, and there are some people who should not be allowed to vote.  I think that the two go hand in hand.  If we do not trust an individual to own a gun, wee should not trust her to vote.

 I also think modern day gun control efforts are as racist as the voting abuses that brought about the Voting Rights Act.

If you do not need an ID to vote, you should not need an ID to purchase a firearm.  If you do not need to register to own a firearm, you should not need to register to vote.

When someone misuses either of the above rights, they should be banned from exercising both, at least for a very long tims.

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: DCharlton on February 21, 2014, 06:13:50 PM
You have a right to own a firearm - you have no legitimate expectation that the state will buy it for you.

Agreed.  And.  You have a right to use contraceptives - you have no legitimate expectation that the state will buy them for you, or that your employer will buy them for you.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 28, 2014, 07:25:23 PM
John is always lambasting the Religious Right for inconsistency on the Life issue, so I am providing this link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/02/for-the-gop-prolife-means.html.  Mark Shea, as a Catholic, has some trenchant things to share.

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 28, 2014, 09:44:28 PM
John is always lambasting the Religious Right for inconsistency on the Life issue, so I am providing this link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/02/for-the-gop-prolife-means.html.  Mark Shea, as a Catholic, has some trenchant things to share.

???????? whatever it was I was supposed to be looking for, I don't think I found it, Matt.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on February 28, 2014, 09:49:51 PM
You have a right to own a firearm - you have no legitimate expectation that the state will buy it for you.

Agreed.  And.  You have a right to use contraceptives - you have no legitimate expectation that the state will buy them for you, or that your employer will buy them for you.

If the government had a program to provide firearms for qualifying citizens and you qualified, you would have a right to expect that state to provide you with a firearm.  The government has a program to provide prescription drug coverage for qualifying citizens, those who qualify have a right to coverage for their prescription medications.

Perhaps, you can answer a related question.  Why are the conservative Christians who are so exercised about the inclusion of birth control prescriptions in ACA silent about Cialis and Viagra?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 01, 2014, 12:01:25 AM
You have a right to own a firearm - you have no legitimate expectation that the state will buy it for you.

Agreed.  And.  You have a right to use contraceptives - you have no legitimate expectation that the state will buy them for you, or that your employer will buy them for you.

If the government had a program to provide firearms for qualifying citizens and you qualified, you would have a right to expect that state to provide you with a firearm.  The government has a program to provide prescription drug coverage for qualifying citizens, those who qualify have a right to coverage for their prescription medications.

Perhaps, you can answer a related question.  Why are the conservative Christians who are so exercised about the inclusion of birth control prescriptions in ACA silent about Cialis and Viagra?

Has there been an addition to the drug coverage mandate under the ACA to include that employers must provide free coverage for Cialis and Viagra?  I was not aware of that.

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: DCharlton on March 01, 2014, 12:02:26 AM
If the government had a program to provide firearms for qualifying citizens and you qualified, you would have a right to expect that state to provide you with a firearm.  The government has a program to provide prescription drug coverage for qualifying citizens, those who qualify have a right to coverage for their prescription medications.

No.  If the government had a program to provide free contraceptives to it's citizens, then individuals might be said to have a right.  That right would be for equal protection under the law.  The government has no program to provide free contraceptives to citizens.  It has a law requiring employers to provide free contraception. The Catholic Church is not trying to prevent individuals from receiving government funded contraceptives, abortifacents and sterilization.  It is asking not to be forced to pay for the same. 

You're argument is that by not wanting to pay for contraceptives, the Catholic Church is trying to take away a persons rights.  That right, according to your logic is "the right to have your employer provide free contraceptives."  My question is where this notion that a right is not a right unless it is fully funded by an individual's employer come from.  I've never heard that definition of a right before.   I have many rights, according the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, but most of these rights are not fully funded by my employer.  I have the right to own property, but nowhere is it implied that my employer has an obligation to purchase property for me.  If I want to purchase property I am free to use a portion of my salary to do so.  My employer is not required to purchase the property for me, at no expense to me.

It seems to me that you have invented a right, the "right to totally free employer funded contraception."  Doubtless, the courts will determine whether such a right exists. 

Quote
Perhaps, you can answer a related question.  Why are the conservative Christians who are so exercised about the inclusion of birth control prescriptions in ACA silent about Cialis and Viagra?

No idea.  I'm a registered Democrat who voted for Pres. Obama twice.  I don't have a problem with the Portico providing free contraception.  And if your employer provides you with free Cialis or Viagra, it doesn't bother me either.  However, if a religious group considered it sinful to purchase Cialis and Viagra, I would be reluctant to have the federal government force them to do it.  Would you, on the other hand, insist that there is a "right to totally free employer funded erectile dysfunction medication."  I don't think such a right exists.  Apparently you do.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on March 01, 2014, 07:57:23 AM
Has there been an addition to the drug coverage mandate under the ACA to include that employers must provide free coverage for Cialis and Viagra?  I was not aware of that.

Is there a provision under ACA that makes coverage for contraceptive prescriptions any different than coverage for any other prescriptions?  If so, please document.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Randy Bosch on March 01, 2014, 02:12:20 PM
Re: the subject of the thread.  Planned Parenthood President states she doesn't know that knowing when life begins is relevant to the discussion of abortion provision, but rather, everyone woman needs to make her own decision about it: http://twitchy.com/2014/02/27/cecile-richards-on-when-life-begins-i-dont-know-that-its-really-relevant/
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 01, 2014, 03:08:33 PM
Has there been an addition to the drug coverage mandate under the ACA to include that employers must provide free coverage for Cialis and Viagra?  I was not aware of that.

Is there a provision under ACA that makes coverage for contraceptive prescriptions any different than coverage for any other prescriptions?  If so, please document.
Are all prescriptions to be provided under ACA with no cost to the insured, or is a co-pay allowed for most prescriptions but contraceptives and abortifacients are to be free to the insured?  Is there any other class of prescriptions that must be covered and covered so as to be free to the insured under the ACA?  If not, then yes the ACA makes overage for contraceptive prescriptions different than coverage for any other prescription.

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 01, 2014, 03:14:33 PM
John is always lambasting the Religious Right for inconsistency on the Life issue, so I am providing this link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/02/for-the-gop-prolife-means.html.  Mark Shea, as a Catholic, has some trenchant things to share.

???????? whatever it was I was supposed to be looking for, I don't think I found it, Matt.

The link should take you to Mark Shea's excoriation of Sean Hannity for his malleability on abortion.  There is some hypocrisy on the Right on this issues.  As opposed to the left, which seems to have straightforwardly adopted the Beziers policy: Kill them all, God knows his own.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: David Garner on March 01, 2014, 03:44:23 PM
Re: the subject of the thread.  Planned Parenthood President states she doesn't know that knowing when life begins is relevant to the discussion of abortion provision, but rather, everyone woman needs to make her own decision about it: http://twitchy.com/2014/02/27/cecile-richards-on-when-life-begins-i-dont-know-that-its-really-relevant/

Such an utterly stupid response to a simple question.

Stupid not simply because it's relativist ("every woman needs to make their (sic, her?) own decision"), but also because anyone who has cracked a basic biology or embryology text knows that life begins when cells form and begin to take in nutrients and expel metabolic waste.  In humans, this is at conception.  If one wishes to make another argument (such as the odd argument that divorces "personhood" from existence), that's one thing.  But there is no doubt, scientifically speaking, that a human embryo is a separate, distinct and whole human organism, i.e., a living human being.

This isn't really hard, but they have to be dishonest to hide the monstrosity they condone.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 01, 2014, 05:55:34 PM
Has there been an addition to the drug coverage mandate under the ACA to include that employers must provide free coverage for Cialis and Viagra?  I was not aware of that.

Is there a provision under ACA that makes coverage for contraceptive prescriptions any different than coverage for any other prescriptions?  If so, please document.

And yet contraceptives are unlike any other prescription.  Other prescriptions are about taking something that is not working correctly and making it do so.  Contraceptives are all about taking something working as God intended and disrupting it.  It is not medicine as we have traditionally understood it.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on March 02, 2014, 09:22:01 AM
Are all prescriptions to be provided under ACA with no cost to the insured, or is a co-pay allowed for most prescriptions but contraceptives and abortifacients are to be free to the insured?

If ACA works like Medicare Part D, which I suspect that it does, the co-pays are based on a schedule and a schedule that is not necessarily in the best interest of the patient.  Are you sure that there is no co-pay for contraceptives?  I'm just asking because I there are co-pays for just about everything in my own prescription coverage except flu shots.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 02, 2014, 09:40:06 AM
Are all prescriptions to be provided under ACA with no cost to the insured, or is a co-pay allowed for most prescriptions but contraceptives and abortifacients are to be free to the insured?

If ACA works like Medicare Part D, which I suspect that it does, the co-pays are based on a schedule and a schedule that is not necessarily in the best interest of the patient.  Are you sure that there is no co-pay for contraceptives?  I'm just asking because I there are co-pays for just about everything in my own prescription coverage except flu shots.
The information I've seen is that prescription contraceptive is free under ACA.  What part of free includes a copay?

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on March 02, 2014, 10:07:23 AM
The information I've seen is that prescription contraceptive is free under ACA.  What part of free includes a copay?

Thanks for that clarification.  I was aware that it was a covered benefit and that most covered benefits have a copay. I was not aware that it was exempt from a co-pay.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on March 02, 2014, 10:13:01 AM
However, if a religious group considered it sinful to purchase Cialis and Viagra, I would be reluctant to have the federal government force them to do it.

The federal government is not forcing anyone to purchase anything under ACA and, if it did, I would be just as outraged as you. 

What the government was doing (it has since granted an exception) is "forcing" them to include coverage for those medications in their prescription drug plan for those employees who do not consider such purchases to be sinful.  That, it seems to me, is a very different matter from the way that it has been portrayed by some.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 02, 2014, 02:44:21 PM
However, if a religious group considered it sinful to purchase Cialis and Viagra, I would be reluctant to have the federal government force them to do it.

The federal government is not forcing anyone to purchase anything under ACA and, if it did, I would be just as outraged as you. 

What the government was doing (it has since granted an exception) is "forcing" them to include coverage for those medications in their prescription drug plan for those employees who do not consider such purchases to be sinful.  That, it seems to me, is a very different matter from the way that it has been portrayed by some.
What the government tried to do is to mandate that even religious employers include contraceptives as a free benefit in the health plan, the money to pay for those free benefits has to come from somewhere, and until objections were raised and alternatives were explored, the money was to come from the religious employer who had religious objections to contraceptives.  The employer was paying for it.  The alternative was ruinous fines and penalties.  One does not simply include more drugs in a prescription drug plan without somebody paying the cost of the addition.  Adding contraceptives to the drug plan results in the plan paying out additional in claims, especially since the contraceptives were to be covered in full, no deductible, no copay.  There was not the slightest hint that that extra was to come from the federal government out of tax revenue.

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: DCharlton on March 02, 2014, 02:50:53 PM
However, if a religious group considered it sinful to purchase Cialis and Viagra, I would be reluctant to have the federal government force them to do it.

The federal government is not forcing anyone to purchase anything under ACA and, if it did, I would be just as outraged as you. 

What the government was doing (it has since granted an exception) is "forcing" them to include coverage for those medications in their prescription drug plan for those employees who do not consider such purchases to be sinful.  That, it seems to me, is a very different matter from the way that it has been portrayed by some.

No.  It is exactly as it has been portrayed by opponents of the HHS mandate.  However, the Catholic Church believes it is complicit even if it uses the insurance company as a middle man.  That has been clearly articulated from the beginning.  You must be the only one who didn't know that.

The distortion has come from supporters like you who have claimed that the Catholic Church wants to takw away individual rights, impose its will on others, and prevent someone from buying contraceptives.  Perhaps you should stop distorting the Church's position.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on March 02, 2014, 04:29:31 PM
What you object to is not a distortion but a valid matter for concern.   
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: DCharlton on March 03, 2014, 09:39:21 AM
What you object to is not a distortion but a valid matter for concern.

No. In the case of ACA, the Catholic Church is not trying to take away rights, impose its values, or prevent anyone from buying contraceptives.  You may argue that that is their ultimate goal, but you cannot argue that an exemption related to ACA would do any of those things. 

You keep talking about how conservative Christians are paranoid about alleged loss of religious freedom, but what you are promoting is at least as paranoid. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: LutherMan on March 08, 2014, 10:42:59 AM
Interesting numbers here...

CNN poll: 58% oppose abortion in most or all cases
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/07/cnn-poll-58-oppose-abortion-in-most-or-all-cases/
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John_Hannah on March 08, 2014, 11:10:55 AM
Interesting numbers here...

CNN poll: 58% oppose abortion in most or all cases
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/07/cnn-poll-58-oppose-abortion-in-most-or-all-cases/

In our democracy, only a major shift in public opinion will change the law. Perhaps it is beginning to happen. Pray God that it will happen. I'd like to see more polls. If a successful overturn occurs, I think that the issue of pro-life will no longer belong to one of the political parties, much less a party within a party. In other words, when enough Democrats.... (Maybe it's a good sign that the Tea Party libertarians don't care.)

Peace, JOHN

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on March 11, 2014, 09:18:20 AM
I thought that this link from Reuters would be helpful in summarizing the various viewpoints on the subject.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/11/us-usa-court-contraception-analysis-idUSBREA2A07720140311
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 11, 2014, 11:01:56 AM
I thought that this link from Reuters would be helpful in summarizing the various viewpoints on the subject.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/11/us-usa-court-contraception-analysis-idUSBREA2A07720140311

Norman-

I hope you are not offereing up the article as one that neutrally lays out the case.  They show either their bias or their lack of scientific understanding (or perhaps both) with the statement:

"The Hobby Lobby and Conestoga families want to protect an egg from the moment of fertilization..."

An egg that has been fertilized is no longer an egg.  It is zygote, with its own unique and full genetic identity- not the mother's, not the father's, its own.

That some folks with MDs or PhDs wish to fandance around this reality and be supported by Reuters and other MSM outlets is not surprising.

Tell you what.  What would happen if you found yourself caught in a swift running stream headed towards the waterfall.  And I, on one side of the stream and some eeeevuullll Evangelical Conservative on the other, wandered down the banks ahead of you with cans of silicone spray, so that where ever you had an opportunity to grab hold, your fingers would slip.  We didn't stomp on your hands or push you back in.  We just made it impossible for you to save yourself. Are we guilty of any crime other tan perhaps water pollution for discharging all that silicone lubricant in a protected watershed?  Remember- your genetic makeup is pretty much exactly the same as a zygote- same number of genes, chromosomes, etc. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on March 14, 2014, 09:57:41 AM

Norman-

I hope you are not offereing up the article as one that neutrally lays out the case.  They show either their bias or their lack of scientific understanding (or perhaps both) with the statement:

"The Hobby Lobby and Conestoga families want to protect an egg from the moment of fertilization..."

An egg that has been fertilized is no longer an egg.  It is zygote, with its own unique and full genetic identity- not the mother's, not the father's, its own. r PhDs wish to fandance around this reality and be supported by Reuters and other MSM outlets is not surprising.


Matt - are you over-reacting a bit because the plaintiffs do not share your perspective that contraceptives that prevent fertilization by also preventing ovulation are abortifactants?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: MaddogLutheran on March 14, 2014, 12:38:11 PM

Norman-

I hope you are not offereing up the article as one that neutrally lays out the case.  They show either their bias or their lack of scientific understanding (or perhaps both) with the statement:

"The Hobby Lobby and Conestoga families want to protect an egg from the moment of fertilization..."

An egg that has been fertilized is no longer an egg.  It is zygote, with its own unique and full genetic identity- not the mother's, not the father's, its own. r PhDs wish to fandance around this reality and be supported by Reuters and other MSM outlets is not surprising.


Matt - are you over-reacting a bit because the plaintiffs do not share your perspective that contraceptives that prevent fertilization by also preventing ovulation are abortifactants?

Huh?  That's not what Matt said.  It sure sounds like Matt shares their perspective, according to the Greens' Supreme Court brief (http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/No-13-354-Brief-for-Respondents.pdf) (page 3-4):

In the same way, the Greens’ faith affects the insurance they offer in Hobby Lobby’s self-funded health plan.  The Greens believe that human beings deserve protection from the moment of conception, and that providing insurance coverage for items that risk killing an embryo makes them complicit in the practice of abortion. Hobby Lobby’s health plan therefore excludes drugs that can terminate a pregnancy, such as RU-486. The plan also excludes four drugs or devices that can prevent an embryo from implanting in the womb—namely, Plan B, Ella, and two types of intrauterine devices. Indeed, when the Greens discovered that two of these drugs had been included—without their knowledge in the plan formulary, they immediately removed them.

Matt's point remains true, that many people do not wish to talk about the particulars he (and the Greens) have raised.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 14, 2014, 12:45:33 PM
John-

I never said that I saw contraceptives that prevented ovulation were abortifacients.  What I point out repeatedly is that drugs that prevent ovulation also act as abortifacients if there is a fertilized egg. 

I realize that some folks of good conscience differentiate between abortion and contraception, and can be against one (abortion) and for the other (contraception).  For various reasons, the Catholic Church does not go that route.  And one of the reasons is the the fact that use of contraceptives can lead to (perhaps) unintended abortions.

My comment was just to point out that there was no such "thing" as a fertilized egg.  The moment of fertilization, or conception, is the moment a unique human being comes into existence.  Use of the term "fertilized egg" allows Pro-Abortion advocates to tap dance around the truth as they seek a final solution to the unwanted pregnancy question. 

As theologians of the Cross, we should call a thing what it is.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on March 14, 2014, 12:59:40 PM
I never said that I saw contraceptives that prevented ovulation were abortifacients.  What I point out repeatedly is that drugs that prevent ovulation also act as abortifacients if there is a fertilized egg. 

...which can't happen if ovulation does not occur.  I do agree that a fertilized egg is a zygote.  It is not yet a morula, blastula, embryo or fetus. 

The main point of my post is that the plaintiff's agenda is not the same as your agenda because the plaintiffs would be content to provide their employees with prescription coverage for oral contraceptives that function to prevent ovulation.

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 14, 2014, 01:13:14 PM
John-

I never said it was.  I was pointing out the agenda of Reuters and the author in using a term like fertilized egg.

You seem to think that contraceptives are 100% effective at prevention of ovulation.  They are not.  Even with the educated woman taking them right on schedule.  So if the ovulation occurs, and the egg is fertilized so that there is a zygote (aka human being) floating down the fallopian tubes into the uterus, the carcinogen drug that was supposed to stop ovulation will prevent implantation and that causes an abortion.  And some folks (even you, it would seem) think abortion is bad.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: MaddogLutheran on March 14, 2014, 01:17:37 PM
I never said that I saw contraceptives that prevented ovulation were abortifacients.  What I point out repeatedly is that drugs that prevent ovulation also act as abortifacients if there is a fertilized egg. 

...which can't happen if ovulation does not occur.  I do agree that a fertilized egg is a zygote.  It is not yet a morula, blastula, embryo or fetus. 

The main point of my post is that the plaintiff's agenda is not the same as your agenda because the plaintiffs would be content to provide their employees with prescription coverage for oral contraceptives that function to prevent ovulation.
Oh, I see you ignored my prior post--which demonstrates that you are wrong here.  Doubling down when you're wrong, by trying to impute some difference where none actually exists, and then attributing something to Matt he did not say (an agenda), is not dialog.   >:(

For my prior post, I started to write what I'm about to say now but discarded it in favor of quoting from the Hobby Lobby brief.  Since the ACA gives no discretion to only covering a subset of contraceptives, the distinction you wish to make is irrelevant to the legal case.  Regardless, medical contraceptives are not 100% effective.  A fertilized egg could still happen, and then the drug might prevent implantation, just as Matt describes and to which he and many object.  Or, one could only misuse some of these contraceptives as a morning after pill.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on March 14, 2014, 03:22:56 PM
Since the ACA gives no discretion to only covering a subset of contraceptives, the distinction you wish to make is irrelevant to the legal case.

...except that it was not a distinction that I wish to make, it was a distinction that the plaintiffs apparently made, as per the article that was posted above. 

Misreading posts and responding to projections from your own imagination don't qualify as dialog, either.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on March 14, 2014, 03:45:11 PM
Even with the educated woman taking them right on schedule.  So if the ovulation occurs, and the egg is fertilized so that there is a zygote (aka human being) floating down the fallopian tubes into the uterus, the carcinogen drug that was supposed to stop ovulation will prevent implantation and that causes an abortion.  And some folks (even you, it would seem) think abortion is bad.

Matt - I can understand how you might refer to RU-486 as an abortifactant because the drug acts post conception to prevent implantation in a uterus that otherwise might be physiologically prepared to receive it.  That, of course, assumes that conception actually occurred and we don't know that.  To the extent that conventional oral contraceptives "prevent" implantation - in the very unlikely event of both ovulation and subsequent fertilization occur - it is a result a physiological response that would have occurred prior to that unlikely actual conception - no zygote, no abortion and not an abortifactant.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: MaddogLutheran on March 14, 2014, 04:29:28 PM
Since the ACA gives no discretion to only covering a subset of contraceptives, the distinction you wish to make is irrelevant to the legal case.

...except that it was not a distinction that I wish to make, it was a distinction that the plaintiffs apparently made, as per the article that was posted above. 

Misreading posts and responding to projections from your own imagination don't qualify as dialog, either.
I'm sorry, John, but that doesn't cut it with me.  I didn't misread you--I recognized that you choose to highlight this is an attempt to discredit the position.  Otherwise why even mention it?  But as I said previously, and will repeat below, it is ultimately irrelevant to both the legal and moral arguments.  Matt was specifically taking issue with news reporting such as Reuters.  So no, I don't accept that sentence from the article as an authentic representation of the entirety of their position, enough that it gives you license to try and put some daylight between people such as Matt and the Greens.  I went to a primary source (their Supreme Court brief) and frankly I don't see any difference between Matt and the Greens on the legal merits. Perhaps you're trying to paint the anti-contraception people as "extreme" or something.  If you read their entire brief, you'll see that the Greens also avoid alcohol:

The Greens and their businesses also refrain from business activities forbidden by their religious beliefs. For example, avoid promoting alcohol, Hobby Lobby does not sell shot glasses. The Greens once declined a liquor store’s offer to take over one of their building leases, costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Similarly, the Greens do not allow their trucks to “back-haul” beer and so lose substantial profits by refusing offers from distributors


Does the fact that they don't believe in partaking of alcohol for religious reason, while I presume that Matt does not share that same objection, make them different?  Both Matt and the Greens share an opposition to abortion.  They agree that mandating contraceptives that can interfere with a fertilized egg's implantation is morally wrong and that it violates their religious beliefs to have to pay for it for others, I'd say you're trying to major in minors here.  You know what what else?  I bet the Greens would make common cause with Matt if the ACA was changed to eliminate their objections but he was still forced to provide non-abortive birth control to his employees.  That's how respect for other people's religious liberty works--not just if one personal sensibilities are offended, but consideration for one's neighbor.  The bottom line is that it does not matter what the religious objection is (abortion, or merely birth control)--the government should not be mandating that businesses pay for such insurance coverage if the owners have a well-founded religious objection.

That's why I have a real problem with people such as yourself, John--who talk a good game about finding common ground and suggesting everybody just getting along.  When often you are just as rigid and lack understanding for other points of view as the people who you accuse of being narrow-minded.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 14, 2014, 04:32:45 PM
[quote author=John Mundinger link=topic=4600.msg331488#msg331488

Matt - I can understand how you might refer to RU-486 as an abortifactant because the drug acts post conception to prevent implantation in a uterus that otherwise might be physiologically prepared to receive it.  That, of course, assumes that conception actually occurred and we don't know that.  To the extent that conventional oral contraceptives "prevent" implantation - in the very unlikely event of both ovulation and subsequent fertilization occur - it is a result a physiological response that would have occurred prior to that unlikely actual conception - no zygote, no abortion and not an abortifactant.
[/quote]

John-

Two things-

1) You need to remove the scare quotes from around prevent.  Read the information sheets on the various forms of The Pill.  When they say, "Inhibits nidation" or words to that effect, that means prevents implantation.  It is an acknowledged medical reality.

2) I am not sure, but I think you need to rework the sentence I have bolded in your response 'cause it left me goin' "Huh?"

To use an image that I know would mean something to you, the Pill is like a drone.  Yes, it targets the egg to prevent ovulation.  But sometimes it hits innocent targets.  If you are opposed to "collateral damage" in the War on Terror, why not here?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 14, 2014, 04:38:19 PM
I never said that I saw contraceptives that prevented ovulation were abortifacients.  What I point out repeatedly is that drugs that prevent ovulation also act as abortifacients if there is a fertilized egg. 

...which can't happen if ovulation does not occur.  I do agree that a fertilized egg is a zygote.  It is not yet a morula, blastula, embryo or fetus. 

The main point of my post is that the plaintiff's agenda is not the same as your agenda because the plaintiffs would be content to provide their employees with prescription coverage for oral contraceptives that function to prevent ovulation.


And a fertilized egg does not necessarily mean a pregnancy.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 14, 2014, 05:37:04 PM
If your point is that not every human life conceived is implanted, and that there are naturally occurring miscarriages quite near the moment of conception,  it is superfluous to the discussion John, Sterling, and I were having. 

If your point is that it is a moral loophole that allows you to kill an unimplanted zygote or whatever, or to preclude its implantation and it not be abortion because the woman was not pregnant, I am going to look at you aghast. 

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 14, 2014, 05:51:27 PM
If preventing implantation doesn't count as abortion because fertilized eggs don't always implant, then if someone prevents someone else from taking another breath or his heart from continuing to beat so that he dies should not be considered murder since sometimes people just stop breathing and hearts may suddenly stop so while blame the person doing it since it might have just happened anyway?

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 14, 2014, 07:35:07 PM
If your point is that not every human life conceived is implanted, and that there are naturally occurring miscarriages quite near the moment of conception,  it is superfluous to the discussion John, Sterling, and I were having. 

If your point is that it is a moral loophole that allows you to kill an unimplanted zygote or whatever, or to preclude its implantation and it not be abortion because the woman was not pregnant, I am going to look at you aghast.


An acorn has all the dna of an oak tree, but until it is planted in the ground and sprouts, it is just a nut - not an oak tree. Until a fertilized egg is implanted, it is just a zygote - it has no possibility of becoming a human being.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: David Garner on March 14, 2014, 08:03:24 PM
If the government had a program to provide firearms for qualifying citizens and you qualified, you would have a right to expect that state to provide you with a firearm.  The government has a program to provide prescription drug coverage for qualifying citizens, those who qualify have a right to coverage for their prescription medications.

Perhaps, you can answer a related question.  Why are the conservative Christians who are so exercised about the inclusion of birth control prescriptions in ACA silent about Cialis and Viagra?

In re-reading this, it seems you have a misunderstanding of our system of government.  Government doesn't create "rights" in our country.  You don't have positive rights created by government, such as we see in Canada or other countries.  You have negative liberties, meaning the Constitution constrains our government from stepping in and preventing you from having access to the same benefits others have.  And even the Constitution does not create rights, it simply recognizes pre-existing rights based on natural law.  You may disagree with the concept of negative liberty, but that doesn't change our system of government.  For example, under our system, you have a right to equal protection under the law.  That is an example of a negative liberty.  You do not have a right to contraception simply because the government passes a law saying others must provide it for you.  You simply have a legal benefit which may be altered at the whim of those in charge of the government.

Now, there is another negative liberty at issue in this instance, namely, freedom of religion. The government is not allowed to pass laws abridging the free exercise of religion.  When a law granting a legal benefit infringes upon a natural right (in the proper sense), for example, the right to free exercise of religion, the law must yield to the pre-existing right.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 14, 2014, 08:47:57 PM

An acorn has all the dna of an oak tree, but until it is planted in the ground and sprouts, it is just a nut - not an oak tree. Until a fertilized egg is implanted, it is just a zygote - it has no possibility of becoming a human being.

I take it back. I look not aghast at a statement like that.  I am amazed at the depth of its coldbloodedness.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on March 15, 2014, 08:21:07 AM
1) You need to remove the scare quotes from around prevent.  Read the information sheets on the various forms of The Pill.  When they say, "Inhibits nidation" or words to that effect, that means prevents implantation.  It is an acknowledged medical reality.

Matt - please understand that I did a google on your claim that oral contraceptives are an abortifactant.  Admittedly, that is cursory.  Yes, the claim is based in a plain read of the fine print that comes with birth control pills.  Missing from that claim is the fact that there is much that medicine does not know about the mystery of human reproduction and, therefore, the precise action of various methods of birth control really is not known. 

It would appear that the claim has more to do with the title of this thread - abortion and politics - than it does with abortion and the biology of human reproduction.   It was developed and has gone viral within the pro-life community and the legend is now "fact".  I acknowledge it makes for good hyperbole, especially among those who come to that hyperbole from a perspective that is predisposed to oppose all forms of artificial birth control.  We live in an environment in which hyperbole trumps reason.


I am not sure, but I think you need to rework the sentence I have bolded in your response 'cause it left me goin' "Huh?"

You should spend a little more time understanding your own hyperbole.  That sentence is based in the information that comes with birth control pills.  The birth control pill does not actively prevent implantation.  Rather, in those women who use the pill, the menstrual cycle is altered such that the uterus never undergoes the physiological changes necessary to receive a zygote, in the very unlikely event that a zygote forms during that cycle.   Conventional oral contraceptives do not act upon the zygote and, therefore, suggesting that they cause abortion is a stretch.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on March 15, 2014, 08:26:14 AM
Now, there is another negative liberty at issue in this instance, namely, freedom of religion. The government is not allowed to pass laws abridging the free exercise of religion.  When a law granting a legal benefit infringes upon a natural right (in the proper sense), for example, the right to free exercise of religion, the law must yield to the pre-existing right.

I don't have a problem with your logic, David.  I'd just suggest that you have not take it far enough.  The Obama administration has already conceded the point regarding birth control and those who religious freedom might be abridged by requiring coverage pursuant to ACA.  However, that still leaves open the question of the degree to which religious institutions may infringe the religious freedoms of those whom they employ.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on March 15, 2014, 10:29:04 AM

An acorn has all the dna of an oak tree, but until it is planted in the ground and sprouts, it is just a nut - not an oak tree. Until a fertilized egg is implanted, it is just a zygote - it has no possibility of becoming a human being.

No possibility? If that were the case, none of us would be here.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on March 15, 2014, 10:36:19 AM

An acorn has all the dna of an oak tree, but until it is planted in the ground and sprouts, it is just a nut - not an oak tree. Until a fertilized egg is implanted, it is just a zygote - it has no possibility of becoming a human being.

No possibility? If that were the case, none of us would be here.

Biologically incorrect.  Each of us was, at one time, a zygote.  We would not be here except that each of us was a zygote that successfully implanted.  The missing zygotes are those that failed to implant.  We might never know the number but, even under very natural circumstances, there are quite a few zygotes that form and fail to implant.  Also missing are those that formed, successfully implanted but then failed to develop normally and their further development was terminated by entirely natural methods.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 15, 2014, 11:25:51 AM

An acorn has all the dna of an oak tree, but until it is planted in the ground and sprouts, it is just a nut - not an oak tree. Until a fertilized egg is implanted, it is just a zygote - it has no possibility of becoming a human being.

No possibility? If that were the case, none of us would be here.

Biologically incorrect.  Each of us was, at one time, a zygote.  We would not be here except that each of us was a zygote that successfully implanted.  The missing zygotes are those that failed to implant.  We might never know the number but, even under very natural circumstances, there are quite a few zygotes that form and fail to implant.  Also missing are those that formed, successfully implanted but then failed to develop normally and their further development was terminated by entirely natural methods.
If the conclusion that we are supposed to draw from the fact that some zygotes naturally fail to implant and that even some who do implant fail to develop viably that therefor to intentionally prevent implantation should not be considered wrong.  Then it seems to me it would also follow that since people naturally die all the time, from many causes and at many ages, therefor we should not consider intentionally ending someone's life to be wrong since they would have died eventually anyway and nobody knows when that would be.

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 15, 2014, 11:30:04 AM

An acorn has all the dna of an oak tree, but until it is planted in the ground and sprouts, it is just a nut - not an oak tree. Until a fertilized egg is implanted, it is just a zygote - it has no possibility of becoming a human being.

No possibility? If that were the case, none of us would be here.

Biologically incorrect. 

Grammatically correct. I.e., if there was and is no possibility of a zygote becoming a human being none of us would be here.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on March 15, 2014, 11:33:09 AM

An acorn has all the dna of an oak tree, but until it is planted in the ground and sprouts, it is just a nut - not an oak tree. Until a fertilized egg is implanted, it is just a zygote - it has no possibility of becoming a human being.

No possibility? If that were the case, none of us would be here.

Biologically incorrect. 

Grammatically correct. I.e., if there was and is no possibility of a zygote becoming a human being none of us would be here.

Agreed.  However, I did not suggest that there is no possibility to a zygote becoming a human being nor did Pr. Stoffregen.  His post and mine only point to the biological fact that there is a lot more to the zygote's story than the union of ovum and sperm cell.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 15, 2014, 11:44:28 AM
However, I did not suggest that there is no possibility to a zygote becoming a human being nor did Pr. Stoffregen. 

You're making up things again, Mr. Mundinger. No one said that you or he did.

He said, "Until a fertilized egg is implanted, it is just a zygote - it has no possibility of becoming a human being," and you supported that statement.

That is incorrect. And creating a straw man doesn't help.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 15, 2014, 11:45:58 AM
Well- I suppose this is progress. 

Was a time when pro-abortion advocates were like Gen. CLark, who pretty much said, "Kill 'em in the birth canal, God knows his own."

So now we have moved home base back 9 months, from the delivery room to the uterine lining.

John, I think I know what you are saying with regards to Steven's post.  But the plain fact of the matter is at least some zygotes implant.  The fact that we are having this discussion is proof.

Thatt a zygote needs the uterine lining to continue life I will more than happily concede.   In the same way that you or I need oxygen, water, and a net positive inflow of calories and nutrients.  If I lock you in a room without continued access to any or all of those three, am I guiltless of murder?  After all, you walked into the room, I never actually touched you.  It's just that without the stuff of life, you, yaknow, kinda died and all. My B.


Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: DCharlton on March 15, 2014, 11:50:27 AM
However, that still leaves open the question of the degree to which religious institutions may infringe the religious freedoms of those whom they employ.

What religious freedoms have been or would be endangered.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on March 15, 2014, 12:01:34 PM
He said, "Until a fertilized egg is implanted, it is just a zygote - it has no possibility of becoming a human being," and you supported that statement."

That is incorrect. And creating a straw man doesn't help.

His statement is, in fact, biologically, correct.  The functional part of his sentence is "until a fertilized egg is implanted...".  Indeed, a healthy zygote has all the potential - Pr. Stoffregen's post noted that and I agreed with that, too.  However, except for successful implantation, there is no possibility for that potential to be realized.  That is not making stuff up...it is just Biology 101. 

In this conversation, I am not the creator of the straw man.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 15, 2014, 12:06:22 PM
However, that still leaves open the question of the degree to which religious institutions may infringe the religious freedoms of those whom they employ.

What religious freedoms have been or would be endangered.

Indeed, inquiring minds want to know.

Arguing from the a Diocesan employee point of view, we were never told, "You may not contracept!"  We were told that the diocesan healthplan does not pay for it.  So, I had the freedom to either pay for it myself, or seek employment where the healthplan did.  That is freedom of choice.  I thought this was all about a person's "right to choose."
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on March 15, 2014, 12:12:41 PM
However, that still leaves open the question of the degree to which religious institutions may infringe the religious freedoms of those whom they employ.

What religious freedoms have been or would be endangered.

It the employers imposes its convictions and the consequences of its convictions on its employees who do not share those convictions, the employer infringes on their religious freedoms.  If the employer, based on religious convictions, does not want to provide its employees with a prescription drug benefit that excludes birth control, the honest way to do it would be to make that religious conviction a condition of employment.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 15, 2014, 12:13:21 PM
He said, "Until a fertilized egg is implanted, it is just a zygote - it has no possibility of becoming a human being," and you supported that statement."

That is incorrect. And creating a straw man doesn't help.

His statement is, in fact, biologically, correct.  The functional part of his sentence is "until a fertilized egg is implanted...".  Indeed, a healthy zygote has all the potential - Pr. Stoffregen's post noted that and I agreed with that, too.  However, except for successful implantation, there is no possibility for that potential to be realized.  That is not making stuff up...it is just Biology 101. 

In this conversation, I am not the creator of the straw man.

I still want to know what conclusions you draw from this amazing insight.  Until a fetus is born it is still only a potential human being.  Until a child reaches puberty it is only potentially a fully functioning human being (being capable of reproduction is part of being a fully functioning human being).  Until a child can care for itself and effective provide for its own needs it is only potentially a fully functioning human being.  The list goes on.

So, what is your point?  Draw your conclusion.  Any milestone that you want to set up as the threshold of being a human being rather that only a potential human being has individuals that die before crossing.  Does that mean that if someone intentionally prevents them from crossing that threshold it is not killing a human being but only biological waste management?  If that is your point, make it.  And justify why that threshold is more significant than any other.

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 15, 2014, 12:18:06 PM
However, that still leaves open the question of the degree to which religious institutions may infringe the religious freedoms of those whom they employ.

What religious freedoms have been or would be endangered.

It the employers imposes its convictions and the consequences of its convictions on its employees who do not share those convictions, the employer infringes on their religious freedoms.  If the employer, based on religious convictions, does not want to provide its employees with a prescription drug benefit that excludes birth control, the honest way to do it would be to make that religious conviction a condition of employment.

What they are saying is they will not underwrite an employee's religious choices.  They have not said, "You may not."
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on March 15, 2014, 12:21:55 PM
I still want to know what conclusions you draw from this amazing insight.  Until a fetus is born it is still only a potential human being.

The post to which I responded when I first referenced Pr. Stoffregen's post was that following:

No possibility? If that were the case, none of us would be here.

The first conclusion that I would draw from this amazing insight is that the above post is biologically incorrect.  And, by the way, you already had opportunity to read that conclusion before you asked the question that I reposted above.

A second conclusion that could be drawn is that a lot of the pro-life political rhetoric is not well grounded in biological science.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 15, 2014, 12:38:26 PM

An acorn has all the dna of an oak tree, but until it is planted in the ground and sprouts, it is just a nut - not an oak tree. Until a fertilized egg is implanted, it is just a zygote - it has no possibility of becoming a human being.

I take it back. I look not aghast at a statement like that.  I am amazed at the depth of its coldbloodedness.


Have you ever eaten a fertilized chicken egg? Did it look or taste like chicken?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 15, 2014, 12:39:02 PM
No possibility? If that were the case, none of us would be here.

The first conclusion that I would draw from this amazing insight is that the above post is biologically incorrect.

How is it biologically incorrect?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 15, 2014, 12:41:40 PM

An acorn has all the dna of an oak tree, but until it is planted in the ground and sprouts, it is just a nut - not an oak tree. Until a fertilized egg is implanted, it is just a zygote - it has no possibility of becoming a human being.

No possibility? If that were the case, none of us would be here.


All of the zygotes that grew into us became implanted. Those that don't implant in the womb cannot grow into a fetus. That's we we don't grow fetus in the lab. While we can fertilize an egg in the lab, it needs to be implanted in a womb if there is any chance that it might continue to grow.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 15, 2014, 12:44:08 PM
However, I did not suggest that there is no possibility to a zygote becoming a human being nor did Pr. Stoffregen. 

You're making up things again, Mr. Mundinger. No one said that you or he did.

He said, "Until a fertilized egg is implanted, it is just a zygote - it has no possibility of becoming a human being," and you supported that statement.

That is incorrect. And creating a straw man doesn't help.


Explain how a zygote that never implants can grow into a human being?

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 15, 2014, 12:47:37 PM
However, I did not suggest that there is no possibility to a zygote becoming a human being nor did Pr. Stoffregen. 

You're making up things again, Mr. Mundinger. No one said that you or he did.

He said, "Until a fertilized egg is implanted, it is just a zygote - it has no possibility of becoming a human being," and you supported that statement.

That is incorrect. And creating a straw man doesn't help.


Explain how a zygote that never implants can grow into a human being?

It can't, and no one has stated that it can.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: DCharlton on March 15, 2014, 02:22:39 PM
However, that still leaves open the question of the degree to which religious institutions may infringe the religious freedoms of those whom they employ.

What religious freedoms have been or would be endangered.

It the employers imposes its convictions and the consequences of its convictions on its employees who do not share those convictions, the employer infringes on their religious freedoms.  If the employer, based on religious convictions, does not want to provide its employees with a prescription drug benefit that excludes birth control, the honest way to do it would be to make that religious conviction a condition of employment.

What they are saying is they will not underwrite an employee's religious choices.  They have not said, "You may not."

Sounds like John is using the inflammatory and hyperbolic rhetoric he accuses others of using.  The notion that the First Amenment requires my employer to fund my religious choices is new to me.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 15, 2014, 03:42:37 PM
However, I did not suggest that there is no possibility to a zygote becoming a human being nor did Pr. Stoffregen. 

You're making up things again, Mr. Mundinger. No one said that you or he did.

He said, "Until a fertilized egg is implanted, it is just a zygote - it has no possibility of becoming a human being," and you supported that statement.

That is incorrect. And creating a straw man doesn't help.


Explain how a zygote that never implants can grow into a human being?

Well, there's your problem...

A zygote doesn't grow into a human being, it is a human being, though not fully grown.

Up until the moment that entropy wins (i.e., death) it is a human being along a continuum.  But that which makes it uniquely human is there from the moment the gametes merge.  The problem with reality, to paraphrase others, is that it has a decidedly pro-Life bias.

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 15, 2014, 03:53:16 PM

An acorn has all the dna of an oak tree, but until it is planted in the ground and sprouts, it is just a nut - not an oak tree. Until a fertilized egg is implanted, it is just a zygote - it has no possibility of becoming a human being.

I take it back. I look not aghast at a statement like that.  I am amazed at the depth of its coldbloodedness.


Have you ever eaten a fertilized chicken egg? Did it look or taste like chicken?

By all means just keep digging

1) Both chicken and eggs are for eating

2) Some take a more Thomistic approach and can recognize the substance of the chicken within the accidents of the the fertilized egg

3) Your logic seems to say then if it doesn't look human, we get to kill it.  Indeed, elsewhere, you have used the term "fully".  So who gets to determine what fully human looks like.  Surely you know enough Lutheran Church history from the Mid 20th C. to realize that the use of that metric had some rather dire consequences.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 15, 2014, 04:48:41 PM
However, I did not suggest that there is no possibility to a zygote becoming a human being nor did Pr. Stoffregen. 

You're making up things again, Mr. Mundinger. No one said that you or he did.

He said, "Until a fertilized egg is implanted, it is just a zygote - it has no possibility of becoming a human being," and you supported that statement.

That is incorrect. And creating a straw man doesn't help.


Explain how a zygote that never implants can grow into a human being?

Well, there's your problem...

A zygote doesn't grow into a human being, it is a human being, though not fully grown.

Up until the moment that entropy wins (i.e., death) it is a human being a long a continuum.  But that which makes it uniquely human is there from the moment the gametes merge.  The problem with reality, to paraphrase others, is that it has a decidedly pro-Life bias.

Thank you, Mr. Hummel, for that indirect correction of my response to Rev. Stoffregen. Exactly right. Using Bonhoeffer's language, a nascent human being. Indeed, a lot of development going on before implantation- cleavage, blastulation.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 15, 2014, 05:55:59 PM
3) Your logic seems to say then if it doesn't look human, we get to kill it.


Nope. I've not said anything about killing it. You keep assuming it.


However, when scientists fertilize a human egg outside the womb, and they don't seek to implant it in a womb, have they killed a human being because they didn't do everything in their power to save its life?



I am saying that biologists have a number of technical terms to distinguish the different stages.: zygote (1-3 weeks); embryo (4-8 weeks); fetus (9 weeks). They all have human DNA, but the eggs, tadpole, and frog all have the same DNA, too; but they are quite different during its stages of development.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on March 15, 2014, 06:26:39 PM
Those that don't implant in the womb cannot grow into a fetus.


Those that don't implant do not grow into a fetus.  "Do" and "can" are not the same word.

Each of us here has been a zygote that has not implanted.  Yet. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: readselerttoo on March 15, 2014, 06:30:39 PM
3) Your logic seems to say then if it doesn't look human, we get to kill it.


Nope. I've not said anything about killing it. You keep assuming it.


However, when scientists fertilize a human egg outside the womb, and they don't seek to implant it in a womb, have they killed a human being because they didn't do everything in their power to save its life?



I am saying that biologists have a number of technical terms to distinguish the different stages.: zygote (1-3 weeks); embryo (4-8 weeks); fetus (9 weeks). They all have human DNA, but the eggs, tadpole, and frog all have the same DNA, too; but they are quite different during its stages of development.


To the emboldened only:  Yes.

comment:  The scientist is not somehow excused from any culpability in participating in objective "manipulation of data" simply done in the name of science.  The scientist may believe that he can remove himself from (God's) judgment but as long as he is God's creature he is in bondage to God's will no matter if the scientist seeks to remove himself from the effects of God's wrath already apparent in human guilt as a result of murder (see Cain and Abel story).
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 15, 2014, 06:48:15 PM
Those that don't implant in the womb cannot grow into a fetus.


Those that don't implant do not grow into a fetus.  "Do" and "can" are not the same word.

Each of us here has been a zygote that has not implanted.  Yet.


And it's a miracle when implantation takes place and the ball of 32 cells is fed and nourished and grows into an embryo and then into a fetus and then into you and me.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: DCharlton on March 15, 2014, 07:34:38 PM
And it's a miracle when implantation takes place and the ball of 32 cells is fed and nourished and grows into an embryo and then into a fetus and then into you and me.

So that every pregnancy is a miracle.  What does it mean then to terminate a miracle?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: pearson on March 15, 2014, 07:54:23 PM

It the employers imposes its convictions and the consequences of its convictions on its employees who do not share those convictions, the employer infringes on their religious freedoms.  If the employer, based on religious convictions, does not want to provide its employees with a prescription drug benefit that excludes birth control, the honest way to do it would be to make that religious conviction a condition of employment.


I may be misreading you here, John, but it sure sounds like you are confusing "freedoms" with "entitlements."  The fact that I have religious freedom does not entitle me to anything.  My religious freedom means no one (including the government) may prevent me from freely exercising my religion (there may be occasional exceptions, subject to legal scrutiny).  But my religious freedom does not entitle me to any service, product, or condition that someone else is required to provide.

Or are you arguing that religious freedom does include entitlements that others must supply?

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: David Garner on March 15, 2014, 09:35:13 PM
Now, there is another negative liberty at issue in this instance, namely, freedom of religion. The government is not allowed to pass laws abridging the free exercise of religion.  When a law granting a legal benefit infringes upon a natural right (in the proper sense), for example, the right to free exercise of religion, the law must yield to the pre-existing right.

I don't have a problem with your logic, David.  I'd just suggest that you have not take it far enough.  The Obama administration has already conceded the point regarding birth control and those who religious freedom might be abridged by requiring coverage pursuant to ACA.  However, that still leaves open the question of the degree to which religious institutions may infringe the religious freedoms of those whom they employ.

That isn't happening.  Me not paying for something for you doesn't imply that I stop you from obtaining it.  The whole premise is a flawed perception of how rights and government benefits (including government requiring employers to give benefits) interact.  No one is infringing upon anyone else's religious freedom by refusing to pay for things that violate their own religious consciences.  The employee is free to purchase his own contraception.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 16, 2014, 11:43:47 AM
Now, there is another negative liberty at issue in this instance, namely, freedom of religion. The government is not allowed to pass laws abridging the free exercise of religion.  When a law granting a legal benefit infringes upon a natural right (in the proper sense), for example, the right to free exercise of religion, the law must yield to the pre-existing right.

I don't have a problem with your logic, David.  I'd just suggest that you have not take it far enough.  The Obama administration has already conceded the point regarding birth control and those who religious freedom might be abridged by requiring coverage pursuant to ACA.  However, that still leaves open the question of the degree to which religious institutions may infringe the religious freedoms of those whom they employ.

That isn't happening.  Me not paying for something for you doesn't imply that I stop you from obtaining it.  The whole premise is a flawed perception of how rights and government benefits (including government requiring employers to give benefits) interact.  No one is infringing upon anyone else's religious freedom by refusing to pay for things that violate their own religious consciences.  The employee is free to purchase his own contraception.


If the payments for insurance coverage that include contraceptives is exactly the same as payments for insurance coverage that does not cover contraceptives, you can't argue that you're paying for something against your religious convictions. At best, you can argue that contraceptives are being offered through the company plan - even though you're not paying for it.


It has been argued that the greater odds of pregnancies without contraceptive coverage would keep costs as high or higher than a plan with contraceptives. I don't think that the "paying for it" argument stands up very well.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 16, 2014, 01:55:26 PM
Now, there is another negative liberty at issue in this instance, namely, freedom of religion. The government is not allowed to pass laws abridging the free exercise of religion.  When a law granting a legal benefit infringes upon a natural right (in the proper sense), for example, the right to free exercise of religion, the law must yield to the pre-existing right.

I don't have a problem with your logic, David.  I'd just suggest that you have not take it far enough.  The Obama administration has already conceded the point regarding birth control and those who religious freedom might be abridged by requiring coverage pursuant to ACA.  However, that still leaves open the question of the degree to which religious institutions may infringe the religious freedoms of those whom they employ.

That isn't happening.  Me not paying for something for you doesn't imply that I stop you from obtaining it.  The whole premise is a flawed perception of how rights and government benefits (including government requiring employers to give benefits) interact.  No one is infringing upon anyone else's religious freedom by refusing to pay for things that violate their own religious consciences.  The employee is free to purchase his own contraception.


If the payments for insurance coverage that include contraceptives is exactly the same as payments for insurance coverage that does not cover contraceptives, you can't argue that you're paying for something against your religious convictions. At best, you can argue that contraceptives are being offered through the company plan - even though you're not paying for it.


It has been argued that the greater odds of pregnancies without contraceptive coverage would keep costs as high or higher than a plan with contraceptives. I don't think that the "paying for it" argument stands up very well.

Is there any actual data as to the effect on insurance premiums of adding coverage for contraceptives?  Surely the insurance companies have figured this out.  It is all well and good to speculate as to the effect and to make plausible arguments that other factors will compensate, but that is only speculation until there is data.  And if insurance companies will simply have to bear the cost themselves and not pass it along, what will that do to all insurance rates?

Speculate all you like, but you cannot simply dismiss the "paying for it argument" with mere speculation and plausible arguments.

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on March 16, 2014, 02:09:06 PM
But my religious freedom does not entitle me to any service, product, or condition that someone else is required to provide.

Your religious freedom also does not entitle you to impose your values and the consequences of the choices that you make, informed by those values, upon others.  The boundaries are gray and not nearly as black and white as those who would use their religious values to oppose ACA seem to imply.  As I suggested in the post to which you replied, if religious institutions do not want to provide coverage for birth control prescriptions, they should not employ persons whose religious sensibilities are not offended by their use.

I would go further and suggest that, if the birth control issue is that important, the religious institutions should have insisted that Congress work with the President to negotiate a health care act that they could live with.  Instead, many of the religious institutions that are making a lot of noise over this issue aligned with political forces that opposed universal health care in all forms. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Terry W Culler on March 16, 2014, 03:08:59 PM
John, do you seriously believe that this government would have cut any kind of deal that would, in their secularist minds, limit a person's so called "right" to birth control or the killing of a fetus?  If you do believe that, you are far more naïve than I suspected
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 16, 2014, 03:53:40 PM

I would go further and suggest that, if the birth control issue is that important, the religious institutions should have insisted that Congress work with the President to negotiate a health care act that they could live with.  Instead, many of the religious institutions that are making a lot of noise over this issue aligned with political forces that opposed universal health care in all forms.

John- what the **** did you think the Catholic Church, which has been pushing for universal access to healthcare well before the nightmare which is Obamacare was drafted, attempted to do, and was shut out?

The treatment of the Catholic Church and others is simply part of the petty machine politics writ large that marks this current administration.  The RCC, and others, are being punished and cronies like PP, NARAL, and others, including Big Pharma, are being rewarded.

What you seem to see as some vindication for the rights of women is simply penny-ante Chicago paybacks on a national scale.

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 16, 2014, 04:06:01 PM
Now, there is another negative liberty at issue in this instance, namely, freedom of religion. The government is not allowed to pass laws abridging the free exercise of religion.  When a law granting a legal benefit infringes upon a natural right (in the proper sense), for example, the right to free exercise of religion, the law must yield to the pre-existing right.

I don't have a problem with your logic, David.  I'd just suggest that you have not take it far enough.  The Obama administration has already conceded the point regarding birth control and those who religious freedom might be abridged by requiring coverage pursuant to ACA.  However, that still leaves open the question of the degree to which religious institutions may infringe the religious freedoms of those whom they employ.

That isn't happening.  Me not paying for something for you doesn't imply that I stop you from obtaining it.  The whole premise is a flawed perception of how rights and government benefits (including government requiring employers to give benefits) interact.  No one is infringing upon anyone else's religious freedom by refusing to pay for things that violate their own religious consciences.  The employee is free to purchase his own contraception.


If the payments for insurance coverage that include contraceptives is exactly the same as payments for insurance coverage that does not cover contraceptives, you can't argue that you're paying for something against your religious convictions. At best, you can argue that contraceptives are being offered through the company plan - even though you're not paying for it.


It has been argued that the greater odds of pregnancies without contraceptive coverage would keep costs as high or higher than a plan with contraceptives. I don't think that the "paying for it" argument stands up very well.

Is there any actual data as to the effect on insurance premiums of adding coverage for contraceptives?  Surely the insurance companies have figured this out.  It is all well and good to speculate as to the effect and to make plausible arguments that other factors will compensate, but that is only speculation until there is data.  And if insurance companies will simply have to bear the cost themselves and not pass it along, what will that do to all insurance rates?

Speculate all you like, but you cannot simply dismiss the "paying for it argument" with mere speculation and plausible arguments.


I'm speculating just as much as you when you argue that they are "paying for it".
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 16, 2014, 04:25:02 PM
Now, there is another negative liberty at issue in this instance, namely, freedom of religion. The government is not allowed to pass laws abridging the free exercise of religion.  When a law granting a legal benefit infringes upon a natural right (in the proper sense), for example, the right to free exercise of religion, the law must yield to the pre-existing right.

I don't have a problem with your logic, David.  I'd just suggest that you have not take it far enough.  The Obama administration has already conceded the point regarding birth control and those who religious freedom might be abridged by requiring coverage pursuant to ACA.  However, that still leaves open the question of the degree to which religious institutions may infringe the religious freedoms of those whom they employ.

That isn't happening.  Me not paying for something for you doesn't imply that I stop you from obtaining it.  The whole premise is a flawed perception of how rights and government benefits (including government requiring employers to give benefits) interact.  No one is infringing upon anyone else's religious freedom by refusing to pay for things that violate their own religious consciences.  The employee is free to purchase his own contraception.


If the payments for insurance coverage that include contraceptives is exactly the same as payments for insurance coverage that does not cover contraceptives, you can't argue that you're paying for something against your religious convictions. At best, you can argue that contraceptives are being offered through the company plan - even though you're not paying for it.


It has been argued that the greater odds of pregnancies without contraceptive coverage would keep costs as high or higher than a plan with contraceptives. I don't think that the "paying for it" argument stands up very well.

Is there any actual data as to the effect on insurance premiums of adding coverage for contraceptives?  Surely the insurance companies have figured this out.  It is all well and good to speculate as to the effect and to make plausible arguments that other factors will compensate, but that is only speculation until there is data.  And if insurance companies will simply have to bear the cost themselves and not pass it along, what will that do to all insurance rates?

Speculate all you like, but you cannot simply dismiss the "paying for it argument" with mere speculation and plausible arguments.


I'm speculating just as much as you when you argue that they are "paying for it".

So, why should your speculative argument stand up better than mine?  Why should I accept your argument and abandon mine if neither is backed by facts?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: pearson on March 16, 2014, 04:55:53 PM

Your religious freedom also does not entitle you to impose your values and the consequences of the choices that you make, informed by those values, upon others. 


That seems right.  So, is an employee, say, of a Catholic hospital who values contraceptive products entitled to impose her values on her employer?  And is the government entitled to enforce her entitlement-value on her employer?

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: pearson on March 16, 2014, 05:06:23 PM

It has been argued that the greater odds of pregnancies without contraceptive coverage would keep costs as high or higher than a plan with contraceptives. I don't think that the "paying for it" argument stands up very well.


I don't know about anyone else here, but for me the "paying for it" argument has nothing to do with any utilitarian cost-benefit calculus.  For me it's a moral argument: why should I be coerced into participating in a system that creates conditions under which somebody else pays for your contraceptives?  This whole business seems to me like buying a meal for a homeless alcoholic, and then being forced to pay for the beer he wants to drink along with that meal.

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: David Garner on March 16, 2014, 08:34:25 PM
If the payments for insurance coverage that include contraceptives is exactly the same as payments for insurance coverage that does not cover contraceptives, you can't argue that you're paying for something against your religious convictions. At best, you can argue that contraceptives are being offered through the company plan - even though you're not paying for it.

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

And I can argue whatever I like.  If I charge you less money for a plan but require that you purchase a plan that offers a particular product that you think is sinful, I am requiring you to pay for something you think is sinful.  The relative cost is irrelevant to what is being required of the employer.

Quote
It has been argued that the greater odds of pregnancies without contraceptive coverage would keep costs as high or higher than a plan with contraceptives. I don't think that the "paying for it" argument stands up very well.

A utilitarian argument seems beside the point.  No one is suggesting the costs of the plan with contraception versus without would be higher.  The point is the employer is required to provide the plan and is required to ensure that the plan covers contraception.  The employer thinks contraception is sinful.  IMHO, it is evil to require them to go against conscience in this fashion.

But regardless of utility or my own personal view of the evil of government forcing people to act against conscience in religious matters, what is indisputably not happening is the employer "infringing the religious freedom of those whom they employ."  And nothing you have said has addressed, much less proven, that false statement.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: David Garner on March 16, 2014, 08:35:33 PM

Your religious freedom also does not entitle you to impose your values and the consequences of the choices that you make, informed by those values, upon others. 


That seems right.  So, is an employee, say, of a Catholic hospital who values contraceptive products entitled to impose her values on her employer?  And is the government entitled to enforce her entitlement-value on her employer?

Tom Pearson

I find myself again pining for a "like" button.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 16, 2014, 09:21:07 PM
If the payments for insurance coverage that include contraceptives is exactly the same as payments for insurance coverage that does not cover contraceptives, you can't argue that you're paying for something against your religious convictions. At best, you can argue that contraceptives are being offered through the company plan - even though you're not paying for it.

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

And I can argue whatever I like.  If I charge you less money for a plan but require that you purchase a plan that offers a particular product that you think is sinful, I am requiring you to pay for something you think is sinful.  The relative cost is irrelevant to what is being required of the employer.

Quote
It has been argued that the greater odds of pregnancies without contraceptive coverage would keep costs as high or higher than a plan with contraceptives. I don't think that the "paying for it" argument stands up very well.

A utilitarian argument seems beside the point.  No one is suggesting the costs of the plan with contraception versus without would be higher.  The point is the employer is required to provide the plan and is required to ensure that the plan covers contraception.  The employer thinks contraception is sinful.  IMHO, it is evil to require them to go against conscience in this fashion.

But regardless of utility or my own personal view of the evil of government forcing people to act against conscience in religious matters, what is indisputably not happening is the employer "infringing the religious freedom of those whom they employ."  And nothing you have said has addressed, much less proven, that false statement.


If a Christian Scientist owns a business and believes that going to doctors and hospitals and the use of medicines are sinful - that the use of these things shows a lack of trust in God to heal them; should they be able to opt out of buying health care for all their employees?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: MaddogLutheran on March 16, 2014, 09:51:10 PM
If a Christian Scientist owns a business and believes that going to doctors and hospitals and the use of medicines are sinful - that the use of these things shows a lack of trust in God to heal them; should they be able to opt out of buying health care for all their employees?

Yes.  Of course, he can do that legally today, but maybe not tomorrow, or whenever the Obama administration decides to finally start enforcing the law of the land, i.e. the employer mandate.  No one is quite sure when that will be--maybe when Democrat congressman and senators are no longer in danger of losing elections.  At any right, of course the Christian Scientist business owner can choose not provide health insurance, and pay the penalty.   

Almost like the Amish, except they have an Obamacare exemption (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/u-s-struggles-health-reform-amish-go-their-own-way-f8C11345954).  Just like they are also exempt from Social Security.  So almost, but not quite.  Oops, did someone say equal protection?  Nah, I guess that only counts when we're talking about same-sex marriage.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on March 16, 2014, 10:30:25 PM

If the payments for insurance coverage that include contraceptives is exactly the same as payments for insurance coverage that does not cover contraceptives, you can't argue that you're paying for something against your religious convictions. At best, you can argue that contraceptives are being offered through the company plan - even though you're not paying for it.


Sorry, Brian.  Your "then" clause ("you can't argue...") simply does not follow your "if" clause. 

Regarding the particulars, i.e., the condition we are in wrt contraceptive coverage, the feds have mandated that there be no difference in the dollar cost, so the comparative cost you describe is itself artificial. 

But even in principle, your argument presumes that the inclusion/exclusion of contraceptive coverage can have no other effects on the dollar costs of medical coverage.  At the very least, there is a strong potential that the use or non-use of covered contraceptives will influence the covered costs of pregnancy and child birth.  You yourself have mentioned the argument (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=4290.msg253492#msg253492) (whether you actually endorse it as your own, I cannot tell) that covering contraception enables the insurance company to save (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=4535.msg268243#msg268243) on such costs.


And then you, once again, ignore those employers who self-insure.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on March 16, 2014, 10:36:25 PM
Instead, many of the religious institutions that are making a lot of noise over this issue aligned with political forces that opposed universal health care in all forms.


This is manifestly untrue, John, and has been from the very beginning of this debate.  Look up, for instance, what the US Catholic Bishops have been saying about health care in this land for several decades.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: David Garner on March 17, 2014, 09:14:01 AM
If a Christian Scientist owns a business and believes that going to doctors and hospitals and the use of medicines are sinful - that the use of these things shows a lack of trust in God to heal them; should they be able to opt out of buying health care for all their employees?

I'm not a fan of tying insurance to employment to begin with, so of course my answer is "yes."  But there is certainly no Constitutional right to have someone else pay for your health insurance, so even if government passes a law saying an employer has to do that, the statute cannot trump a constitutional right to free exercise of religion.  So my answer is still "yes."

I'm not of the mindset that just because I believe someone ought to do something, the government ought to step in and compel that person to act in accordance with my wishes.  I think our system of government, flawed as it is, still strikes the best balance between protecting pre-existing natural rights and allowing true liberty.  It does this by constraining government from infringing on rights, not by empowering government to infringe on them to achieve some social aim.  That doesn't mean government has no place to achieve social aims -- I think providing healthcare for all citizens is a worthy goal and government may have a role to play in that.  But that role is not to compel people to act against their own conscience in matters of religion.

Turning the question back on you, as an Orthodox Christian, I think requesting the intercession of the departed saints is right and salutary and beneficial to all people.  Would you support a law where the government compelled you to purchase icons for your employees and lead them in requesting such intercession?  Why or why not?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 17, 2014, 09:58:59 AM
One of the tests to determine if it is permissible for the state to interfere with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment is that of compelling interest.  No right is unlimited, if there is a compelling reason that the government must take an action that interferes with someone's free exercise of their religion, that action may be allowed.

What is the government's compelling interest in ensuring that women may obtain contraceptives and other birth control products without copay under employer provided health insurance?  If providing this benefit is so vital to the government, why not all women, not just those whose jobs qualify them for health insurance from a larger employer?  (Employers who employer fewer than a minimum number of employees are exempt.)  If this is so important, why not fund it directly from tax dollars, or like welfare a means tested benefit?

Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: John Mundinger on March 17, 2014, 10:31:01 AM
Instead, many of the religious institutions that are making a lot of noise over this issue aligned with political forces that opposed universal health care in all forms.


This is manifestly untrue, John, and has been from the very beginning of this debate.  Look up, for instance, what the US Catholic Bishops have been saying about health care in this land for several decades.

I said "many" not "all" and am well aware where the Catholics stand on universal health care.  Would that the "pro-life" Lutherans and the Evangelicals  would also take up the cause for universal health care.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Terry W Culler on March 17, 2014, 10:45:12 AM
Did Lutherans for Life align itself with the Republican party?  Did the LC-MS, AALC, AFLC WELS, ELS join the Republican party?  I just don't get what you're saying.  And besides that, when did universal healthcare become a religious test issue?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 17, 2014, 10:50:21 AM
Althea care

I said "many" not "all" and am well aware where the Catholics stand on universal health care.  Would that the "pro-life" Lutherans and the Evangelicals  would also take up the cause for universal health care.

Please name one prolife Lutheran who denies that health care should be universally accessible.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: MaddogLutheran on March 17, 2014, 11:03:22 AM
Instead, many of the religious institutions that are making a lot of noise over this issue aligned with political forces that opposed universal health care in all forms.


This is manifestly untrue, John, and has been from the very beginning of this debate.  Look up, for instance, what the US Catholic Bishops have been saying about health care in this land for several decades.

I said "many" not "all" and am well aware where the Catholics stand on universal health care.  Would that the "pro-life" Lutherans and the Evangelicals  would also take up the cause for universal health care.
So you welcome a religious theocracy, if/when it's advocating for the political causes you favor?  Got it.  I shall await Mr. Teigen's objection for your eagerness to see the wall between the Two Kingdoms violated.

I'm assuming that your usage of  "universal health care" here actually means a government run single payer system in reality, since you have demonstrated that you believe only government can deliver on such promises.  Of course, others have since pointed out the fallacy and slander of such a notion--that there are Christians opposed to "universal health care".
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on March 21, 2014, 06:42:50 AM
Here is an excellent account of the cases coming before SCOTUS next week.  The source is the Pew Forum.  http://www.pewforum.org/2014/03/20/health-care-laws-contraception-mandate-reaches-the-supreme-court/
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on March 23, 2014, 04:53:44 AM
Crying Wolf on Religious Liberty . . . http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/opinion/sunday/crying-wolf-on-religious-liberty.html?ref=opinion
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: David Garner on March 23, 2014, 08:26:57 AM
Crying Wolf on Religious Liberty . . . http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/opinion/sunday/crying-wolf-on-religious-liberty.html?ref=opinion

Fine, fine example of the logical fallacy of question begging:

Quote
Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government plainly has a “compelling” interest in reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions, and in furthering women’s health and equality. Accommodations have been granted to religious entities, and broad participation is the “least restrictive” way to carry out a complex national health reform. The argument that the mandate cannot be that important because most women already use contraception misses these facts: that birth control methods vary in effectiveness, that cost is a major factor in deterring women from choosing a more reliable method, and that access to affordable contraception advances gender equality.

"Plainly" here simply means "I do not wish to defend my assertion, so I'll use a word that implies that if you don't agree, it's because you're too stupid to get it, and that way I won't have to actually defend the assertion, but I can assume it and thus win the argument."

Thank you for posting Mr. Teigen.  Illogic should be exposed where appropriate.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: RayToy on March 23, 2014, 09:24:25 AM
Crying Wolf on Religious Liberty . . . http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/opinion/sunday/crying-wolf-on-religious-liberty.html?ref=opinion

From the article itself:

Quote
This week, the owners of two secular, for-profit corporations will ask the Supreme Court to take a radical turn and allow them to impose their religious views on their employees — by refusing to permit them contraceptive coverage as required under the Affordable Care Act.

    This opening line is problematic from the start.  These two companies are not requiring that their employees refrain from contraceptive use.  These two companies wish to pay their a employees a salary and provide them with a health plan.  The health plan they want to provide would not have certain forms of contraception as a covered benefit.  Employees would still be free to pay for contraception from their salary or from any other source of personal funds.

Ray

     
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: pearson on March 23, 2014, 10:48:55 AM

From the article itself:

Quote

This week, the owners of two secular, for-profit corporations will ask the Supreme Court to take a radical turn and allow them to impose their religious views on their employees — by refusing to permit them contraceptive coverage as required under the Affordable Care Act.



The article itself seems to be based on an argument that "employment" has somehow morphed into a basic human right; such that, if  attendant entitlements (like contraceptive coverage within a universal health care plan) are denied to an employee, then the rights of the employee (to be an employee) have been violated.  It's absurd, I know; but that's the only way I can make sense of the underlying logic to the claims set forth in the article.

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on March 23, 2014, 10:51:19 AM
Some people think that if SCOTUS preserves the government's case, then kosher butchers will have to sell pork against their religious convictions.  I hadn't heard of this until:   http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/7709/as_hobby_lobby_heads_to_scotus__let_s_ditch_kosher_butcher_analogies/

Ms. Posner wryly observes:   "Never in the history of Jewish civilization have non-Jews been so concerned about the fortunes of kosher butchers."
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 23, 2014, 04:07:24 PM
Crying Wolf on Religious Liberty . . . http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/opinion/sunday/crying-wolf-on-religious-liberty.html?ref=opinion

Lest we forget the actual point of the fable, the young lad in question actually did end up as lupine feces.

Wow! The NYT is down with current regime's policies.  That the NYT has no qualms riding roughshod over the religious liberties of those who are not Mainline Prot, "Pro-Choice" Catholic, Reform or Reconstructionist Jew [or Moslem- they get a free pass] is not at all surprising. This is not a "Man Bites Dog" type of story, Norman.  It's more of a "Dog Bites Man," or "Dog Humps Leg." 

The question is, does the editorial board of the Times' opinion count for anything of import?  What are other Law commentators saying?  Volokh? First Things?

In the meanwhile, can someone show me where Hobby Lobby or Conestoga said "If you work for us, you cannot contracept?"  All they have said is, "Please don't make us pay for what we deem to be immoral."  One day, Norman, that wolf is going to come after even the teeny weeny Evangelical Lutheran Synod.  But it won't really matter since the NYT will deem it unimportant.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 23, 2014, 04:37:48 PM
The idea that contraceptives promote gender equality is absurd, as is the idea that making a woman less healthy by interrupting the natural functioning of her organs is a matter of health care. When you think about how recently contraception was illegal and/or generally considered immoral by all Christians, well, it is a little alarming how far and fast we've fallen.

A 20th century innovation is fast becoming the bedrock foundation of our decaying culture. Christians should carefully rethink our participation in this development, and asking for religious exemptions to the contraception mandate is a good place to start.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on March 23, 2014, 05:24:41 PM
Help me:  what does the Evangelical Lutheran Synod have to do with this?

Secondly, there is more to contraceptive medication than what you suggest, Pastor Speckhard.  I know of at least one woman who used contraception medication for conditions other than birth control. To contend that contraception is immoral because of past religious tradition  is disingenuous.

Bedrock of a decaying culture?  Really!  The culture has been decaying since the Garden of Eden.   I think that a woman has a legitimate interest in her own health and well being.  If she and her personal physician decide on contraceptive medication then that should be considered an individual  matter.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 23, 2014, 06:33:51 PM
Help me:  what does the Evangelical Lutheran Synod have to do with this?

Secondly, there is more to contraceptive medication than what you suggest, Pastor Speckhard.  I know of at least one woman who used contraception medication for conditions other than birth control. To contend that contraception is immoral because of past religious tradition  is disingenuous.

Bedrock of a decaying culture?  Really!  The culture has been decaying since the Garden of Eden.   I think that a woman has a legitimate interest in her own health and well being.  If she and her personal physician decide on contraceptive medication then that should be considered an individual  matter.
If it were an individual matter it wouldn't involve other people paying for it. That's like telling your insurance agent you and you alone will determine if the roof needs replacing, and he will write the check. Not to mention the fact that birth control pills do not restore a woman to health and therefore are not a matter of health care.

I'm aware that the culture has been decaying since the beginning. I feel no urge to assist it. I don't support the porn industry even though lust has been around for a long time. My point is that what was universally and for centuries regarded as immoral and unacceptable and was in fact illegal in many places all the way up to 1969 is now considered so essential that even those who object to doing so must be forced against their will to pay for it. If that doesn't give you pause, nothing will.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: David Garner on March 24, 2014, 08:32:09 AM
To contend that contraception is immoral because of past religious tradition  is disingenuous.

"Past" according to whom?

Why do you get to tell other people whether their religious objections are relevant or not?  Can we tell you which of yours are relevant and which are "past?"
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on March 24, 2014, 10:42:44 AM
Again, what does the Evangelical Lutheran Synod have to do with this?  Why would you suggest that this is relevant.

Is contraception immoral?  From my reading of your post I gather that you think it to be so. 

Some believe that contraception and immorality are synonymous.  Contraceptive medication and immorality are two different things.  There has been immorality since the Fall.  There can be immorality with contraceptive medication  and there can be immorality such medication. 

Contraceptive medication matters are between  doctor and patient.  Proscribing contraceptive medication as a matter of public policy, for whatever good reason, is not a wise thing to do.  Making a specific set of religious beliefs on these issues binding on all citizens is undesirable and, I daresay, contrary to the spirit and law of the land.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Team Hesse on March 24, 2014, 11:29:02 AM
  Making a specific set of religious beliefs on these issues binding on all citizens is undesirable and, I daresay, contrary to the spirit and law of the land.


So join us in telling the government they have no business in mandating their religious belief (that contraception is an unqualified good that all should participate in by having all pay for it) on the rest of us.


Lou
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 24, 2014, 11:37:05 AM
  Making a specific set of religious beliefs on these issues binding on all citizens is undesirable and, I daresay, contrary to the spirit and law of the land.


So join us in telling the government they have no business in mandating their religious belief (that contraception is an unqualified good that all should participate in by having all pay for it) on the rest of us.


Why do you consider "contraception is an unqualified good" a "religious belief"? It seems no more religious than requiring inoculations for preventable diseases; or the payment of taxes for the common good.


It seems to me that forcing everyone to work six days a week - and resting on the seventh day - is more of a religious belief from scriptures. Would we want the government to force everyone to do that - and forbid the eating of pork, shellfish, and other unclean animals?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steverem on March 24, 2014, 12:22:37 PM

Why do you consider "contraception is an unqualified good" a "religious belief"? It seems no more religious than requiring inoculations for preventable diseases; or the payment of taxes for the common good.


It seems to me that forcing everyone to work six days a week - and resting on the seventh day - is more of a religious belief from scriptures. Would we want the government to force everyone to do that - and forbid the eating of pork, shellfish, and other unclean animals?


Ah, the certainties of life - death, taxes, Brian talking about eating shellfish ...
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 24, 2014, 01:27:35 PM
Help me:  what does the Evangelical Lutheran Synod have to do with this?

Secondly, there is more to contraceptive medication than what you suggest, Pastor Speckhard.  I know of at least one woman who used contraception medication for conditions other than birth control. To contend that contraception is immoral because of past religious tradition  is disingenuous.

Bedrock of a decaying culture?  Really!  The culture has been decaying since the Garden of Eden.   I think that a woman has a legitimate interest in her own health and well being.  If she and her personal physician decide on contraceptive medication then that should be considered an individual  matter.

Oh where to begin. The Church does not contend that contraception is immoral because of past religious traditions.  It contends that it is immoral based on theological understandings very much based in, or operative in, this present day.

As for contraceptives having off label uses, that is well known and easily accommodated. And the Law of Double Effect means that it is licit to use the drugs for those purposes (and therefore could be prescribed & paid for)

And I guess that if contraception is a decision between a woman and her physician, then so too is assisted suicide.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on March 24, 2014, 01:36:44 PM
Oh, my.  That is an extreme position.  I detect irony here but I am not sure if irony is part of your writing.   I am still wondering what the Evangelical Lutheran Synod has to do with any of this.  Do you have an answer to my inquiry as to why you wrote what you did?  You can send me a PM if you wish.

I thought that in the interests of all, another opinion would be useful   http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914204579397170026645290?mod=Opinion_newsreel_5.    I cannot open this because I am not a subscriber.

There are persuasive  opinions on both sides of this issue.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: David Garner on March 24, 2014, 01:42:20 PM
You can find the article here:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914204579397170026645290

Religious Exemptions Are Vital for Religious Liberty
The Hobby Lobby case is about far more than a federal rule mandating insurance coverage for contraception.
Email
Print

Save ↓ More
Comments
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
LinkedIn

    smaller
    Larger

By
Robert P. George And
Hamza Yusuf
March 23, 2014 5:59 p.m. ET

The United States is one of the most religiously diverse nations on earth. People of a vast array of traditions of faith live here in a harmony that would have been unthinkable in most of the world for most of human history.

One of the ways America has fostered and protected this diversity is by nurturing a robust understanding of religious liberty that includes granting certain exemptions to people who need them in order to be true to their religious faith. Religious exemptions protect people in situations where legislative or executive acts might otherwise unnecessarily force them to violate their consciences.
Enlarge Image

Associated Press

Over the centuries, such exemptions have protected a wide variety of believers, including Quakers who cannot fight in wars, Muslims who cannot transport alcohol, and, during prohibition, Catholics and Jews who use wine in their religious rituals. More recently, the system of exemptions has been expanded to protect conscientiously objecting people—whether believers or unbelievers—from being forced to participate in wars, assisted suicide, abortion or prisoner executions.

The robust conception of religious freedom that has served our nation so well is now being challenged in the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., which will be argued before the Supreme Court on March 25. Hobby Lobby (a chain of arts and crafts stores) and its owners, the Green family, are seeking a religious exemption from parts of ObamaCare's contraception and abortion-drug mandate. Their Christian faith forbids them from paying for insurance coverage for the provision of four drugs and devices that may act to terminate newly conceived human lives. Although the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that an exemption is required under federal civil-rights law, the government has asked the Supreme Court to compel the Greens to violate their consciences—which they will not do—or suffer crippling fines.

Some of the government's supporters—like the Freedom From Religion Foundation—have offered the high court in an amicus brief an even more extreme argument. They claim that the whole practice of religious exemptions constitutes an unconstitutional "establishment of religion," at least when protecting religious minorities deprives others of the chance to benefit from these minorities' forced service. The brief stated, "The intense passions about religious freedom and women's reproductive health in this case have obscured the issue that should be decided before this Court reaches the merits: RFRA [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] is unconstitutional."

This argument misunderstands both the nature and purpose of exemptions as protections for religious beliefs from majority coercion.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly—and unanimously—rejected the claim that policies enacted to vindicate free-exercise rights by accommodating religious beliefs and practices violate the Establishment Clause. For example, in Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos (1987), opponents of a Title VII exemption allowing religious organizations to consider religions in hiring argued that the law violated the Establishment Clause. And in Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005), opponents of a federal law protecting religious exercise for prisoners also argued that the law violated the Establishment Clause.

These Supreme Court rejections make sense, because the same First Amendment that prohibits the establishment of religion also expressly protects the free exercise of religion. It would be illogical to treat protections for religious exercise as establishing someone's religion. This is presumably why the court has upheld religious exemptions many times—sometimes even holding that exemptions are required by the First Amendment or federal civil-rights law—and why thousands of state and federal statutes allow for religious exemptions.

The argument against exemptions would be plausible if such laws only protected religious believers of one faith, or if the laws stipulated that religious interests should prevail in every case in which they competed with other interests and values. But the federal civil-rights law at issue in the Hobby Lobby case—the Religious Freedom Restoration Act—protects people of all faiths. Exemptions are not automatic, because the government is always permitted to show that it has compelling reasons to deny the exemption. Historically the government has often met this burden and won the case.

The reason that government is likely to lose in the Hobby Lobby case, however, is that there are so many ways for the government to distribute these drugs—on its own exchanges, through the Title X family-planning program and by cooperating with willing distributors—that do not require the forced participation of conscientious objectors. That presumably is why an effort is now being made to cut back on the robust conception of religious freedom that once united Americans of all faiths and even unbelievers.

The Establishment Clause argument should also fail. That provision exists to prevent the establishment of a national religion or the granting of superior standing to a religion that happens to have the support of most citizens. It would be perverse for a court to use it to punish the laudable practice—dating all the way back to George Washington's decision to excuse Quakers from his army—of accommodating the free exercise of religion by protecting people whose religious beliefs or practices are not shared by the majority from being compelled even in the absence of a compelling reason to violate their consciences.

Mr. George is professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and a board member of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing Hobby Lobby. Mr. Yusuf is co-founder and president of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, Calif., the first Muslim liberal arts college in the U.S.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: David Garner on March 24, 2014, 01:44:40 PM
Oh, my.  That is an extreme position.  I detect irony here but I am not sure if irony is part of your writing.   I am still wondering what the Evangelical Lutheran Synod has to do with any of this.  Do you have an answer to my inquiry as to why you wrote what you did?  You can send me a PM if you wish.

I thought that in the interests of all, another opinion would be useful   http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914204579397170026645290?mod=Opinion_newsreel_5.    I cannot open this because I am not a subscriber.

There are persuasive  opinions on both sides of this issue.

Also, as I read the comment, the point was that it's fine to claim religious conscience exceptions shouldn't apply to others.  It's quite another when, proverbially, "they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 24, 2014, 03:02:50 PM
Oh, my.  That is an extreme position.  I detect irony here but I am not sure if irony is part of your writing.   I am still wondering what the Evangelical Lutheran Synod has to do with any of this.  Do you have an answer to my inquiry as to why you wrote what you did?  You can send me a PM if you wish.

I thought that in the interests of all, another opinion would be useful   http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914204579397170026645290?mod=Opinion_newsreel_5.    I cannot open this because I am not a subscriber.

There are persuasive  opinions on both sides of this issue.

Norman- You get to live in The Shire of the ELS.  You all are small potatoes for the moment. The aggressive secular Statists down in Mordor or Orthanc are going to ignore you while they have their sights on bigger antagonists like the RCC and Evangelicals.  You know, the people whose beliefs you do not care for.

But when they are done with us, you are next on the menu.  And, having read your posts, I can tell you, you are no Frodo.  But it could be argued that you are samwise.  ;)
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 24, 2014, 05:15:11 PM
And here is an opinion that is not in keeping with the NYT, so please feel free to discount it.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/03/24/vatican-chief-justice-obamas-policies-have-become-progressively-more-hostile-toward-christian-civilization/
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 24, 2014, 06:08:29 PM

Why do you consider "contraception is an unqualified good" a "religious belief"? It seems no more religious than requiring inoculations for preventable diseases; or the payment of taxes for the common good.


It seems to me that forcing everyone to work six days a week - and resting on the seventh day - is more of a religious belief from scriptures. Would we want the government to force everyone to do that - and forbid the eating of pork, shellfish, and other unclean animals?


Ah, the certainties of life - death, taxes, Brian talking about eating shellfish ...

LOL!  And that The writers of the gospels are undependable sources for knowing the historical details about Jesus.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on March 24, 2014, 06:09:23 PM
What is "frodo" and what is "samwise."  I think that you have your own language.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 24, 2014, 06:11:52 PM
J.R.R. Tolkien characters.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on March 24, 2014, 06:16:05 PM
Not being familiar with this work, I would like to ask for help in understanding what has been said.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 24, 2014, 06:22:49 PM
Not being familiar with this work, I would like to ask for help in understanding what has been said.

Or you could simply google and read on your own. Perhaps it might lead you to read the works and broaden your literary horizons.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 24, 2014, 06:33:04 PM
Yeah, it was mean of me using characters from one of the most widely read works of literature in the past 70 years or so.  But then Lord of the Rings is Catholic  novel, with a distinct Catholic worldview and since Catholics have such disingenuous stands on positions like contraception and abortion, I suppose some people can just ignore it.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: James_Gale on March 25, 2014, 12:22:32 AM
Yeah, it was mean of me using characters from one of the most widely read works of literature in the past 70 years or so.  But then Lord of the Rings is Catholic  novel, with a distinct Catholic worldview and since Catholics have such disingenuous stands on positions like contraception and abortion, I suppose some people can just ignore it.


Not to mention the propensity among Catholics for praying to hobbits.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Satis Est on March 25, 2014, 09:31:17 AM
Yeah, it was mean of me using characters from one of the most widely read works of literature in the past 70 years or so.  But then Lord of the Rings is Catholic  novel, with a distinct Catholic worldview and since Catholics have such disingenuous stands on positions like contraception and abortion, I suppose some people can just ignore it.

No, it wasn't. But this post is. And unnecessary.

We haven't all read the Lord of the Rings trilogy. And even though I know, basically, who Frodo is, I'm not up on all of the lore and depth of meaning. But I do know how to google. And I also know people who know how to answer questions without making the inquirer look stupid.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Team Hesse on March 25, 2014, 09:49:04 AM
Yeah, it was mean of me using characters from one of the most widely read works of literature in the past 70 years or so.  But then Lord of the Rings is Catholic  novel, with a distinct Catholic worldview and since Catholics have such disingenuous stands on positions like contraception and abortion, I suppose some people can just ignore it.


Ah, yes, the old Papist arrogance rears its ugly head that the rest of us are not truly catholic.....I happen to be a real fan of Tolkien and I am very rarely accused of being Catholic. ;)


Lou
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 25, 2014, 10:55:25 AM
Yeah, it was mean of me using characters from one of the most widely read works of literature in the past 70 years or so.  But then Lord of the Rings is Catholic  novel, with a distinct Catholic worldview and since Catholics have such disingenuous stands on positions like contraception and abortion, I suppose some people can just ignore it.


Ah, yes, the old Papist arrogance rears its ugly head that the rest of us are not truly catholic.....I happen to be a real fan of Tolkien and I am very rarely accused of being Catholic. ;)


Lou

Lou-

An apology if you were insulted en passant. Twas not my intent. I could see where Tolkien would appeal to you, good Farmer Maggot.  Have you read his letters?  Tolkien writes (to a Jesuit friend) that the work is not only Christian in outlook, but Catholic.  There, I suspect, he means RCC. 

BTW- Interesting coincidence that this is the day on which Barad Dur fell and Sauron fell. Today, in the chronology of LOTR, is the day Frodo brought the Ring to Sammath Naur, and through the mysteries of providence and grace, it was Gollum who destroyed it.

As a daily Mass attending Catholic, Tolkien would know what the Feast is for the Church.  Kinda cool, dontcha think?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 25, 2014, 10:56:22 AM
Hoping this link works:

https://www.facebook.com/CatholicMemebase/photos/a.100239920125759.354.100237920125959/296532233829859/?type=1&theater
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Jeremy Loesch on March 25, 2014, 11:44:07 AM
That was an awesome meme that you linked Matt!  Blessed are the mememakers, for theirs is the gratitude of those who smile wryly whilst shaking their heads at the people who don't get it.

Happy Annunciation Day Matt.  I'll be parking in St. Ann's parking lot in another week or so when I'm visiting a church member at Kentmere.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Team Hesse on March 25, 2014, 12:00:29 PM
Yeah, it was mean of me using characters from one of the most widely read works of literature in the past 70 years or so.  But then Lord of the Rings is Catholic  novel, with a distinct Catholic worldview and since Catholics have such disingenuous stands on positions like contraception and abortion, I suppose some people can just ignore it.


Ah, yes, the old Papist arrogance rears its ugly head that the rest of us are not truly catholic.....I happen to be a real fan of Tolkien and I am very rarely accused of being Catholic. ;)


Lou

Lou-

An apology if you were insulted en passant. Twas not my intent. I could see where Tolkien would appeal to you, good Farmer Maggot.  Have you read his letters?  Tolkien writes (to a Jesuit friend) that the work is not only Christian in outlook, but Catholic.  There, I suspect, he means RCC. 

BTW- Interesting coincidence that this is the day on which Barad Dur fell and Sauron fell. Today, in the chronology of LOTR, is the day Frodo brought the Ring to Sammath Naur, and through the mysteries of providence and grace, it was Gollum who destroyed it.

As a daily Mass attending Catholic, Tolkien would know what the Feast is for the Church.  Kinda cool, dontcha think?


Not so much insulted as reminded of old wounds.....but no, I have not read his letters; probably should. I was introduced to "The Hobbit" in High School sophomore English by a little old lady who probably was a Hobbit. One wonders if teachers like here (overtly christian) would be able to teach in the current environment.


Lou
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 25, 2014, 12:29:15 PM

Not so much insulted as reminded of old wounds.....but no, I have not read his letters; probably should. I was introduced to "The Hobbit" in High School sophomore English by a little old lady who probably was a Hobbit. One wonders if teachers like here (overtly christian) would be able to teach in the current environment.


Lou

Lou-

Sorry for old wounds.  The letters are good.  Also, if you ever get the chance, this particular volume: http://www.amazon.com/Tolkien-Film-Essays-Jacksons-Rings/dp/1887726098/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395764294&sr=1-1&keywords=Tolkien+on+Film is worth reading for the "bonus" essay at the end.  It is an historical critical analysis of The Lord of the Rings that so obviously gets it wrong.  It should be mandatory reading for Exegetes.  It evens has its own sources, ala JDEP.

Turns out the Sauron was just a good ruler that was overthrown and the invading House of Aragorn needed a legend to legitimize their conquest.

On a real note, one of the things that helped open my eyes to the deficits in the Historical Critical method was the way people would speak of Tolkien's use of the Ring of Power as a metaphor for the Atomic Bomb.  After all, he wrote during WWII and after.  It was a weapon that was evil to use but foolish not to, etc.  Obviosuly, this is what Tolkien meant.  Then you read his letters. Nope. The Ring of Power was part of the Legendarium well before Tolkien probably knew there was even such a thing as atomic fission.  That little incident was always in muy mind when Biblical scholars were telling me that something was transparently obvious.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on March 25, 2014, 04:01:33 PM
This article points out that the Hobby Lobby et al cases aren't about birth control, they are about abortion.   http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/7714/hobby_lobby_case_isn_t_really_about_contraception

Here is an excerpt:

Religious conservatives’ objection to ECPs is based on their assertion that they may in some cases prevent a newly fertilized embryo from implanting in the womb, which they contend is an abortion based on the religious belief that life begins “at the moment of conception.”

Claims that ECPs are abortifacients were possible to make when the drugs became available in the late 1990s because scientists didn’t understand exactly how they worked. They knew that most of the time they prevented ovulation or fertilization, but didn’t know enough about the mechanism of action to completely discount that possibility that the pills could alter the lining of the uterus enough to prevent implantation. The fact it couldn’t be ruled it out gave religious conservatives who opposed contraception (and were agitating for the right to refuse to provide it in public accommodations like drugstores) an opening to claim that the drugs were potentially abortifacient. They then argued that the same conscience exemptions extended to the provision of abortion ought to apply to ECPs as well. Thus, a tiny amount of uncertainty was leveraged to paint drugs ironically hailed as a breakthrough in the prevention of abortion as abortifacients.

In response, emergency contraception expert James Trussell and a co-author wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association that these manufactured “politics of doubt” were a “powerful way of subverting sound science-based public policy.”
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 25, 2014, 04:26:57 PM
This article points out that the Hobby Lobby et al cases aren't about birth control, they are about abortion.   http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/7714/hobby_lobby_case_isn_t_really_about_contraception

Here is an excerpt:

Religious conservatives’ objection to ECPs is based on their assertion that they may in some cases prevent a newly fertilized embryo from implanting in the womb, which they contend is an abortion based on the religious belief that life begins “at the moment of conception.”

Claims that ECPs are abortifacients were possible to make when the drugs became available in the late 1990s because scientists didn’t understand exactly how they worked. They knew that most of the time they prevented ovulation or fertilization, but didn’t know enough about the mechanism of action to completely discount that possibility that the pills could alter the lining of the uterus enough to prevent implantation. The fact it couldn’t be ruled it out gave religious conservatives who opposed contraception (and were agitating for the right to refuse to provide it in public accommodations like drugstores) an opening to claim that the drugs were potentially abortifacient. They then argued that the same conscience exemptions extended to the provision of abortion ought to apply to ECPs as well. Thus, a tiny amount of uncertainty was leveraged to paint drugs ironically hailed as a breakthrough in the prevention of abortion as abortifacients.

In response, emergency contraception expert James Trussell and a co-author wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association that these manufactured “politics of doubt” were a “powerful way of subverting sound science-based public policy.”

Do you work for Hotels.Com?  In one way or another, the Secular Statist agenda has been pushing abortion.  That has been one of the primary motivators behind the ACA. The Dear Leader owes PP & NARAL.

I read the article, and its links.  The thing is, I know some of the players mentioned. And, as usual, I would say the reportage is  somewhat skewed. 

If the science shows that it is not an abortifacient, then it will not be called such by the Church. It will be objected to as as contraceptive except for those cases specified in the ERD (a document on my smartphone).

The Church, contra Seth McFarlane & Neil DeGrasse Tyson, et al., has no issue with Science.  We invented it.  You're welcome.   ;)
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: LutherMan on March 25, 2014, 05:27:26 PM
http://blogs.lcms.org/2014/tired-of-hobby-lobby

Tired of Hobby Lobby?
on March 24, 2014 in Office of the President, Official Statements, Pressroom 25
Why tomorrow’s Supreme Court Hearing Matters

You’re tired of hearing about Hobby Lobby and the Supreme Court, tired of all the talk of fines and health-care plans and reproductive rights, tired of being bombarded with words spoken in anger from both sides of the aisle. You want to put your fingers in your ears, switch the channel, and wait for the ruling and the rest of it to just go away.

But even though you are tired, even though you’ve grown weary of having the same discussions about the same points, Hobby Lobby and fines and health-care plans still matter. They matter because your country – the United States of America – was founded on the principle that you were born with certain rights: the rights to seek and follow truth, to live according to your beliefs, to worship freely.

And no one, not even the government, gets to tell you how to do that.

Today, our federal government threatens that right, consistently refusing to protect religious liberty as our Constitution and the laws of nature demand. In the dozens of cases against the Health and Human Services contraceptive mandate, the government has started dictating the boundaries of religious beliefs, and to pick and choose which beliefs – and which individuals – deserve religious liberty protection.

The contraceptive mandate, part of the Affordable Care Act, requires employers to provide a full range of 20 FDA-approved contraceptive devices, drugs and services in their health-care plans. These include “emergency contraceptives” with the ability to prevent implantation of an embryo – in other words, the ability to end a human life. Catholics, Lutherans, and many other Americans find these drugs morally reprehensible. Yet, though objections to the mandate are strong and numerous – with over 90 lawsuits filed so far – the government has simply swept them aside.

The mandate’s provisions allow for very narrow exemptions for houses of worship. Exemptions do not extend even to affiliates of those houses of worship; for example, a Catholic order of nuns, operating homes for the elderly poor, is not exempt. Nor are Christian colleges, nor are thousands of other religious non-profit organizations, which serve the public good.

In the case of the non-profits, the government has come up with an empty “accommodation” that would force organizations to sign HHS forms directing third-party administrators to provide the drugs that the organizations cannot. As one plaintiff, the Little Sisters of the Poor, explained, these forms are nothing more than permission slips. The Little Sisters cannot direct someone else to act immorally, just as they cannot act immorally themselves. The government has branded this particular belief meaningless.

Neither the exemption nor the false “accommodation” extends to individuals who run their own businesses, like David and Barbara Green, owners of Hobby Lobby. The Greens morally oppose providing drugs that can prevent implantation and have filed suit against HHS, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. In the Greens’ case, the government claims that moral convictions must be abandoned at the door of the workplace. The Greens may not run their own companies according to their consciences. Or, in return for staying true to their convictions, they will be forced to pay crushing fines.

The government’s distinctions under the mandate don’t make sense. The government does not get to reduce God and the way in which He works down to what happens only in church or worship. By its definition, religious liberty stipulates that a church – not the government – must be permitted to form its own definition and its own boundaries.

Moreoever, God uses each of us in our vocations to serve those around us. This call to serve others and live according to our beliefs extends beyond our houses of worship, into our homes, our communities, and our work. To prevent individuals from following the dictates of their consciences is an abuse of power and a gross infringement on human dignity.

As the leader of a Christian church body, I strongly object to the government’s approach of picking and choosing whose beliefs merit consideration. Now, according to the government, Catholic nuns must authorize others to give out free contraceptives, and evangelical Christians must abandon their most deeply held convictions in the operations of their own businesses. What group, and what belief, will next be under attack?

Friends, we may be weary. We may be tired. But we must stand together to protect our God-given right to religious liberty. This mandate threatens not only those whose religions specifically compel them to oppose it, but all Americans. We cannot allow our government to define the content of our beliefs or the degree of their significance.

The Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison is the current and 13th president of The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 25, 2014, 06:01:19 PM
And, as always, from Higgins Road, the sound of crickets chirping.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 25, 2014, 06:15:59 PM
This article points out that the Hobby Lobby et al cases aren't about birth control, they are about abortion.   http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/7714/hobby_lobby_case_isn_t_really_about_contraception (http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/7714/hobby_lobby_case_isn_t_really_about_contraception)

Here is an excerpt:

Religious conservatives’ objection to ECPs is based on their assertion that they may in some cases prevent a newly fertilized embryo from implanting in the womb, which they contend is an abortion based on the religious belief that life begins “at the moment of conception.”

Claims that ECPs are abortifacients were possible to make when the drugs became available in the late 1990s because scientists didn’t understand exactly how they worked. They knew that most of the time they prevented ovulation or fertilization, but didn’t know enough about the mechanism of action to completely discount that possibility that the pills could alter the lining of the uterus enough to prevent implantation. The fact it couldn’t be ruled it out gave religious conservatives who opposed contraception (and were agitating for the right to refuse to provide it in public accommodations like drugstores) an opening to claim that the drugs were potentially abortifacient. They then argued that the same conscience exemptions extended to the provision of abortion ought to apply to ECPs as well. Thus, a tiny amount of uncertainty was leveraged to paint drugs ironically hailed as a breakthrough in the prevention of abortion as abortifacients.

In response, emergency contraception expert James Trussell and a co-author wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association that these manufactured “politics of doubt” were a “powerful way of subverting sound science-based public policy.”


Sounds a bit like the anti-gun lobby. Because occasionally someone uses a gun to murder someone, we should try to prevent all people from owning guns.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on March 25, 2014, 07:07:53 PM
This article points out that the Hobby Lobby et al cases aren't about birth control, they are about abortion.   http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/7714/hobby_lobby_case_isn_t_really_about_contraception

Here is an excerpt:

<snip>

The fact it couldn’t be ruled it out gave religious conservatives who opposed contraception (and were agitating for the right to refuse to provide it in public accommodations like drugstores) an opening to claim that the drugs were potentially abortifacient.

Except, of course, at that time most of the "religious conservatives" who opposed these particular drugs did not oppose contraception.  Even now few of them go so far as to actually oppose contraception -- unless one defines "religious conservatives" in a way to include the Catholic Church -- though many more are willing to contemplate, or even acknowledge, that the warnings (prophecies?) of Humanae Vitae well-describe the spirit of the current age.  A spirit of which repentance might be in order.

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 25, 2014, 07:17:36 PM
Except, of course, at that time most of the "religious conservatives" who opposed these particular drugs did not oppose contraception.  Even now few of them go so far as to actually oppose contraception --

Including the owners of Hobby Lobby.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on March 25, 2014, 07:24:57 PM
Are Pastor Harrison's words to be considered as binding upon the views of the people who constitute the LC-MS?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 25, 2014, 07:29:06 PM
Do you mean the LCMS? If so, he is authorized to speak on behalf of the LCMS.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on March 25, 2014, 07:37:41 PM
Is a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod bound to accept what the President as said as binding?  Or is it just the honorable President's opinion?  I have some LC-MS friends and relatives who would be interested to know.  I am not personally a member of a Missouri congregation.

Here is an account of the day's work at SCOTUS  http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/birth-control-business-and-religious-beliefs-in-plain-english/#more-206874
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: LutherMan on March 25, 2014, 07:41:57 PM
Is a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod bound to accept what the President as said as binding?  Or is it just the honorable President's opinion?  I have some LC-MS friends and relatives who would be interested to know.  I am not personally a member of a Missouri congregation.

Here is an account of the day's work at SCOTUS  http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/birth-control-business-and-religious-beliefs-in-plain-english/#more-206874
No more than an ELS member is bound to accept what Pres. Molstad says as binding...
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 25, 2014, 07:45:49 PM
In fact, if you mean that you have LCMS friends, perhaps ask them if they consider themselves bound.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on March 25, 2014, 07:51:37 PM
Who decides what is binding?  The church leader or those who compose the flock?   
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 25, 2014, 07:55:04 PM
Well, if these LCMS (LC-MS is incorrect) friends are not LCMS members it certainly is the latter.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on March 25, 2014, 08:00:06 PM
Sorry.  LCMS it is.  I stand corrected.  So, is the answer "the former" if my relatives and friends ARE members of LCMS?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 25, 2014, 08:16:20 PM
Not necessarily. If your friends are LCMS members you can ask them.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: LutherMan on March 25, 2014, 08:27:45 PM
Not necessarily. If your friends are LCMS members you can ask them.
Or, he could ask his brother who was a delegate to our last convention...
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: LutherMan on March 25, 2014, 08:30:37 PM
Norman Teigen asks in a PM:
Quote
Why would you mention the President of the ELS (whose name is Moldstad, not Molstad)?  I am not aware of anything that he has recently written on this subject.  The relevant question is what is binding when the President of a synod speaks on an issue.  Is he making an opinion?  He is speaking for himself?  Does he speak for all in synod?   Those are legitimate questions.
Why not ask Pres. Harrison?  He is very accessible... 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on March 25, 2014, 09:01:01 PM
Since I am not a member of the LCMS I don't have the  standing to make such an inquiry.  I am just wondering what the people say.  I will ask my friends and relatives what they think and I am reasonably certain of what some of them might say.  My friends and relatives are traveling.  Here, in this Forum, I am asking what the LCMS people might think.  No one seems willing to state an opinion.  I checked Luther Quest and the opinions there are pretty straight forward and none of the contributors have any doubts. Brothers of John the Steadfast people might have opinions, too, and I will check there.  What think ye, oh people of Missouri:  is President Harrison's comment binding or is not binding?   Stand up and make a confession!
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: LutherMan on March 25, 2014, 09:10:05 PM
All of your LCMS friends and relatives are currently traveling?   Do none have mobile phones?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on March 25, 2014, 09:17:45 PM
I have left messages.   I am waiting for answers.  What is your opinion?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: JoeEckman on March 25, 2014, 11:08:57 PM
Since I am not a member of the LCMS I don't have the  standing to make such an inquiry.  I am just wondering what the people say.  I will ask my friends and relatives what they think and I am reasonably certain of what some of them might say.  My friends and relatives are traveling.  Here, in this Forum, I am asking what the LCMS people might think.  No one seems willing to state an opinion.  I checked Luther Quest and the opinions there are pretty straight forward and none of the contributors have any doubts. Brothers of John the Steadfast people might have opinions, too, and I will check there.  What think ye, oh people of Missouri:  is President Harrison's comment binding or is not binding?   Stand up and make a confession!

I checked out Luther Quest, and I could not find any straight forward comments on whether or not President Harrison's opinions are binding.  Please provide a link to back up your assertion.  Thank you.

Eckman
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 26, 2014, 01:44:16 AM
BTW, Mr. Teigen, what do you mean by your provocative term "bound"?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: LutherMan on March 26, 2014, 01:58:40 AM
Since I am not a member of the LCMS I don't have the  standing to make such an inquiry. 
No laymen are members of the LCMS.  We are members of local LCMS congregations.  I have queried Pres Mark Schroeder of the WELs about certain hot topics and he didn't refuse to answer me since I am not WELSian.  He was gracious and direct in answering me.  I suggest you contact Pres. Harrison.  He is very accessible...
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on March 26, 2014, 06:51:31 AM
bound

verb
1.
simple past tense and past participle of bind.
adjective
2.
tied; in bonds: a bound prisoner.
3.
made fast as if by a band or bond: She is bound to her family.
4.
secured within a cover, as a book.
5.
under a legal or moral obligation: He is bound by the terms of the contract.
6.
destined; sure; certain: It is bound to happen.

The question of being  bound in this context is to be under a moral obligation to accept as true what has been said.  Does the leader of any church bind the people of that church body to what he proclaims to be true?   Tough question, apparently.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 26, 2014, 09:01:08 AM
Not at all. given that definition, the answer is "no."

But, you knew that. So, what's your real question?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on March 26, 2014, 09:10:00 AM
Thanks.  I am greatly relieved.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 26, 2014, 09:30:17 AM
No, statements by Pres. Harrison are not automatically binding on all members of the LCMS (Congregations and rostered ministers, ordained or commissioned) any more than statements by PB Elizabeth A. Eaton are automatically binding on all members of the ELCA.  My understanding is that to be made binding, such a statement would need to be adopted by the Synod in convention as a binding doctrinal statement.

Still he is our elected leader and so when he makes statements for the church (internally as this was as an email to rostered workers) or externally representing us in a public forum, it is expected that he will have considered his statement carefully and be speaking in harmony with what much of the church would say.

Dan
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 26, 2014, 10:33:26 AM
Thanks.  I am greatly relieved.

And I am sure President Harrison is breathing easier with that knowledge.

My questions are:

Is/was your discomfort with the fact that this was a position like unto those iccky Catholics and Evangelicals whose thoughts you deride?  I notice that your postings have a consistent theme, warning people of the eevulls of Popery on the one hand, and the Modern Schwarmerei- the Evangelicals on the other. Never a peep about the dangers seeping into the Church from the mainliners run amok.

Is/was your discomfort with the concept that one person could actually speak with a level of authority for a church?  I have come to the determination that what separates me as a Catholic from you as a member of the ELS is 4 orders of magnitude.  The RCC has 1 Pope. You all seem to have 10,000.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Harry Edmon on March 26, 2014, 11:06:24 AM
No, statements by Pres. Harrison are not automatically binding on all members of the LCMS (Congregations and rostered ministers, ordained or commissioned) any more than statements by PB Elizabeth A. Eaton are automatically binding on all members of the ELCA.  My understanding is that to be made binding, such a statement would need to be adopted by the Synod in convention as a binding doctrinal statement.

Still he is our elected leader and so when he makes statements for the church (internally as this was as an email to rostered workers) or externally representing us in a public forum, it is expected that he will have considered his statement carefully and be speaking in harmony with what much of the church would say.

Dan
Actually in the LCMS nothing that Synod passes in convention, including doctrinal statements, are binding on a congregation.  However, a congregation that does not accept the confessional basis and doctrinal statements of Synod has no right to stay as a member of Synod since they are not longer "walking together" with the rest of Synod.   Such a congregation should be honest about their position (see the eighth commandment) and remove themselves from Synod, or lacking that should be removed by the DP.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 26, 2014, 12:48:40 PM
There are essays being posted about how Hobby Lobby's "Christian family values" does not prevent them from buying products in China - the #1 family planning nation. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/02/1259591/--Christian-values-Hobby-Lobby-purchases-its-products-from-1-family-planning-nation-China



Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: MaddogLutheran on March 26, 2014, 01:22:08 PM
UPDATE:  Actually, it's worse than I realized, and probably explains the lack of support for the subsequent links I followed...according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalreport.net), nationalreport.net website referenced in this link is satirical news (I've never heard of it, my go-to source for satire is The Onion).  That this Daily Kos writer would use that, intentionally or by mistake, should tell us everything we need to know about the quality of his opinion.  So please keep this in mind, as the Kos article may get subsequently corrected/scrubbed.  We'll have to wait and see if they have the integrity to acknowledge being duped.

There are essays being posted about how Hobby Lobby's "Christian family values" does not prevent them from buying products in China - the #1 family planning nation. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/02/1259591/--Christian-values-Hobby-Lobby-purchases-its-products-from-1-family-planning-nation-China
So what?  And what's your point?  Are you saying that the validity of a citizen's religious beliefs is dependent on another (the government, other citizens) judging them consistent?  Because that's not what the First Amendment jurisprudence says.

And again, for a person such as yourself, who is always attempted to assert that your perspectives are not to be normed by anyone else's as long as they are true for you, to raise this in this case is just plain offensive, and a smear against the Greens.  You're just an opportunist who will argue whatever is convenient to win an argument.  Do you, Pastor Stoffregen, think buying any Chinese goods is supporting slave labor?  Guess you better stop using those Apple products.  When did you stop beating your wife?  I followed the links from your original story, and I found no factual evidence, just mere general assertions, that Hobby Lobby sells any products produced by slave labor.  A hilarious example of "whisper down the lane" by laundering headlines--the second (http://nationalreport.net/jesus-christ-boycotts-hobby-lobby/) article hyperlink mentions "overpriced made-in-China labor camp 'craft' supplies", but the third (http://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-question-hobby-lobbys-defense-biblical-stance-against-obamacare-lawsuit-87935/) article it references provides no documentation to back that up.  It's not even primarily about slave labor, but only rehashing the arguments around the contraceptive mandate lawsuit.

At any rate, the distinction here is degrees of separation, which I realize is desirable to muddle.  The Green family, as far as we know, will not fire any employee who uses their salary to pay for contraception (or even I presume an abortion).  They just do not wish to provide such benefits themselves.  So it is with China.  From everything I have read, I bet they would refuse further business if they found out that a particular Chinese company was enforcing such a practice on their employees, was a directly owned by the government, or utilized slave labor.  I realize such distinctions are unimportant for those who are uncharitably disposed to those who hold different beliefs.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Matt Hummel on March 26, 2014, 01:25:23 PM
There are essays being posted about how Hobby Lobby's "Christian family values" does not prevent them from buying products in China - the #1 family planning nation. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/02/1259591/--Christian-values-Hobby-Lobby-purchases-its-products-from-1-family-planning-nation-China

I take it as a given then, since you are "pro-choice but anti-abortion," that you yourself boycott products from the PRC.

BTW- you did note that the article the KOS piece referenced is from what is basically a second string Onion? Are we now functioning as low information theologians?  Are Stewart and Colbert going to be seen as reliable sources?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 26, 2014, 02:09:06 PM
There are essays being posted about how Hobby Lobby's "Christian family values" does not prevent them from buying products in China - the #1 family planning nation. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/02/1259591/--Christian-values-Hobby-Lobby-purchases-its-products-from-1-family-planning-nation-China

So what if they buy "products in China"? What does that have to do with the issue?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on March 26, 2014, 02:32:39 PM
From The Daily Kos piece:  "Isn't it interesting that when it comes to procuring cheap goods from slave labor from China, Hobby Lobby's "Christian values" are nowhere to be seen? But telling its employees how to run their private lives? Then it is "Christian values" time!"
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Randy Bosch on March 26, 2014, 02:35:10 PM
Some commenters live in Arizona, claimed by a number of national groups to be an intolerantly ethnocentric, discriminatory society toward "the other".  Shall we conclude that such a commentator's writings against such behavior are suspect?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Randy Bosch on March 26, 2014, 02:41:20 PM
Norman, Daily Kos has an agenda, and an ethic that allows them to mischaracterize a situation in order to promote that agenda, illustrated by the clipping you provided from it  (...as do perhaps all media organizations - let me know when you find one that does not follow that path).  What is your purpose for sharing this particular clipping?  Merely interesting?  Adding to the discussion?  An extraction from a larger writing has purpose, and knowing your purpose, rather than entertaining inference may help inform discussion.  Just a thought.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Norman Teigen on March 26, 2014, 02:51:27 PM
RB....hypocrisy lurks around  the Hobby Lobby company.   That is nothing new.  There is a lot of hypocrisy in the business world.  And when a company doing business for profit in the public market wraps itself in the mantle of righteous holiness, such charges are sure to be made.  Civic claims of righteousnes and subsequent observations of hypocrisy are a part of the American experience.  Think of Mark Twain and H.L. Mencken.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 26, 2014, 02:52:37 PM
UPDATE:  Actually, it's worse than I realized, and probably explains the lack of support for the subsequent links I followed...according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalreport.net), nationalreport.net website referenced in this link is satirical news (I've never heard of it, my go-to source for satire is The Onion).  That this Daily Kos writer would use that, intentionally or by mistake, should tell us everything we need to know about the quality of his opinion.  So please keep this in mind, as the Kos article may get subsequently corrected/scrubbed.  We'll have to wait and see if they have the integrity to acknowledge being duped.


OK, do you consider US News and World Report to be satirical?


http://www.usnews.com/opinion/leslie-marshall/2014/03/26/hobby-lobbys-china-hypocrisy (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/leslie-marshall/2014/03/26/hobby-lobbys-china-hypocrisy)


Of course, there are essays on the other side: http://mereorthodoxy.com/hobby-lobby-chinas-abortion-policy/ (http://mereorthodoxy.com/hobby-lobby-chinas-abortion-policy/)
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 26, 2014, 02:54:27 PM
RB....hypocrisy lurks around  the Hobby Lobby company.   That is nothing new.  There is a lot of hypocrisy in the business world.  And when a company doing business for profit in the public market wraps itself in the mantle of righteous holiness, such charges are sure to be made.  Civic claims of righteousnes and subsequent observations of hypocrisy are a part of the American experience.  Think of Mark Twain and H.L. Mencken.


A greater sense of that hypocrisy beyond just buying products from China is in this essay - not by a liberal.


http://www.theamericanconservative.com/hobbylobby/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=hobbylobby (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/hobbylobby/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=hobbylobby)


I believe that I have been pretty consistent about arguing for consistency in one's approach to scriptures and to life. While the owners of Hobby Lobby do some things based on their Christian values: not open on Sundays, opposing state mandated coverage of contraceptives; those values don't seem to matter when buying from the cheapest suppliers, e.g., the worker abuse in China, etc.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Randy Bosch on March 26, 2014, 02:59:53 PM
Please name the verifiable abusive sources from which this company buys in China, and identify when and how the company was informed of those. 
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on March 26, 2014, 03:33:18 PM
There are essays being posted about how Hobby Lobby's "Christian family values" does not prevent them from buying products in China - the #1 family planning nation. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/02/1259591/--Christian-values-Hobby-Lobby-purchases-its-products-from-1-family-planning-nation-China

Again, so what?  What does that have to do with the issue at hand? IOW, what does Hobby Lobby have against family planning such that they would have qualms about "buying products in China"?
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 26, 2014, 04:12:58 PM
When and where did Hobby Lobby claim to be more holy or righteous than anyone else? All I recall the owner doing is trying to run his business in a way that is compatible with his beliefs.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on March 26, 2014, 04:59:31 PM
When and where did Hobby Lobby claim to be more holy or righteous than anyone else? All I recall the owner doing is trying to run his business in a way that is compatible with his beliefs.


And the essays argue that by buying products made in China, he is acting contrary to his beliefs.
Title: Re: Abortion and Politics
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 26, 2014, 05:16:30 PM
Well by all means, if commentators and others opposed to their stand detect hypocrisy then their appeal to First Ammendment religious rights must be void.  The only religious rights that are guaranteed are those approved by liberal commentators, the final and ultimate judge of genuine religion.  Has the left ever been hypocritical?  ::)