Abortion and Politics

[pearson]

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 

[Felix Culpepper]

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.

[Matt Hummel]

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?

[George Erdner]

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.

[Dave_Poedel]

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.

[Charles_Austin]

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.

[pearson]

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

[David Garner]

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.

[Matt Hummel]

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.

[Norman Teigen]

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. 

[peter_speckhard]

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.

[Matt Hummel]

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.

[David Garner]

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.

[Norman Teigen]

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

[Buckeye Deaconess]

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.