Posted on 11/26/2002 9:49:54 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
Sparta graciously gave me permission to post the text of this freepmail, which was sent to me from the "Pro-Life Families Complain About Group's Telemarketing Calls" thread:
This was going to be off topic, so I chose to freepmail you this instead.
I was debating abortion with my friends today. They were saying that abortion should be legal because children of poor parents would grow up in misery. Also, raped women would be too traumatized to carry their children. Also, teenage girls would have their lives ruined by caring for illegitmate children. I said that adoption would give the children a chance for life in the first two situations a better life and I said the teenage girls need to learn how to responsible. They then said that pro-lifers were just cruel and evil. How do I better respond to pro-abortion arguements?
N.B. IT WAS A JOKE!
First tell them they must be consistent in their beliefs. This belief is that any life deemed a nuisance should be destroyed. Say for instance if the parent's mother or father had to move in with them and was crippled requiring them to spend money and time to take care of the elderly parent. In this case the elderly parent should be killed to save the life of the entire family. Usually when you start confronting liberals with other balanced and equal scenarios of their logic they start to retreat or they show their true evil colors in which case go buy a cross and where it around your neck to ward them off.
Also, raped women would be too traumatized to carry their children.
What if raped women were killed to alleviate the traumatization of the husband? How can the husband be expected to look at his wife and care for her the same way again? This is a bit of a leap but its a common practice in Islamic countries.
Also, teenage girls would have their lives ruined by caring for illegitmate children.
Simple answer to this is explain how? I know several teens that gave birth to children and they are doing absolutely fine. This is simply nonsense. A teen with a child is less likely to get in trouble and in effect becomes more mature than the people around them. Given the state of the drug culture. A teen with a child might actually improve her odds of reaching 20.
Interesting, except that's not what Jesus did Himself. He stopped a crowd from stoning an adultress. And in so doing, he was, according to you, behaving as ``Mohamed and his barbarians(sic).?''
Listen carefully to his answers and get the Hell away from him if you think he is perverting the word. It would be better that he had a milstone tied around his neck than that he cause one child to suffer. This could be God's way to move you to another church.
The religious police in Saudi Arabia beat women if they are not covering themselves and men if they are eating during Ramadan! Any stupid foaming at the mouth militant Christian, who is crying over the murder of babies, and would like to force others to stop, is not behaving as Jesus asked us to do; but behaving as Mohamed and his barbarians.
If William Wilberforce had taken your attitude and shown what a great abolitionist he was by just refusing to own slaves, the slave trade in the British Empire might have continued for decades. Instead, he tirelessly lobbied Parliament and got laws passed.
What if MLK had taken your attitude and fought Jim crow by being nice to a few white folks?
We're not talking about militancy, tyranny or "foaming at the mouth." We're not talking about telling folks how to think or dress. We're talking about stopping 4,400 homicides a day. To compare those who want to protect innocent children with the Islamifascist thugs of Saudi Arabia is beyond the pale. If I were you I'd either clarify this post or apologize for it, depending on whether we're reading you right.
You (and Dutchgirl) have the right approach here. What I would suggest though is that you take this directly and immediately to your pastor if the guy can't see reason. Just because he's not currently teaching doesn't mean he doesn't need to have the right view of the value of human life before God. Also, if he doesn't need to worry about whether others are having abortions he might ignore a woman's troubles at the time of her greatest need, and that's a recipe for disaster.
http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ihy980232.html
Lincoln and Douglas debated the expansion of slavery, the authority of states to control slavery within their own borders, and whether the Dred Scott decision had been a wise one. In the Dred Scott decision, the United States Supreme Court stated that a slave was not a human being, and therefore was not allowed to sue for his freedom. Lincoln's and Douglas's opinions on the expansion of slavery were quite different. Lincoln opposed expansion, while Douglas believed in popular sovereignty, or the ability of each state government to determine its own laws and policies.
In fact, Douglas was known to hold the position that while he wouldn't own a slave of his own, it wasn't any of the federal government's business if anybody else wanted to own one.
BreakPoint with Charles Colson
Commentary #000524 - 05/24/2000
Engaging the Culture: Can Christians Avoid It?
On BreakPoint's web page, we recently ran a poll asking people how they thought Christians ought to engage the culture. The answers were revealing -- and, for me, a little disheartening.
Twenty-seven percent of respondents said we ought to change the culture by winning people to Christ. Twenty-two percent thought we ought to pray for the culture. Fourteen percent said we should set up an alternative, parallel culture as an example.
But just 17 percent said we ought to work within the political system to change the culture.
Well, that's bad news, because while prayer and conversion efforts are obviously at the heart of our call as Christians, so is attempting to influence the culture we live in, to bring Christian truth to bear on politics and every area of life.
A new book by Christian author Tim Stafford shows us why. Stafford's book is called THE STAMP OF GLORY. It's a novel set in the years leading up to the Civil War. The plot involves a small band of abolitionists who conclude that slavery is a sin -- an offense against God Himself. But instead of trying to pass laws banning slavery, these men and women attempt to change the hearts of slaveholders.
After all, they reasoned, laws were fundamentally coercive. Many slaveholders were Christians. Would it not be better, they asked, to expose the sinfulness of slavery, and appeal to slaveowners to repent of their sin?
The novel echoes real life events. In 1833, abolitionists formed the American Anti-Slavery Society. Efforts at coercion were strictly prohibited. As the society's Declaration of Sentiments put it, they intended to destroy "error by the potency of truth . . . overthrow . . . prejudice by the power of love . . . and [abolish] slavery by the spirit of repentance."
But the anti-slavery group soon discovered an unpalatable fact: Very few slaveholders were ready to repent. In fact, they were outraged that these abolitionists were criticizing them! Meanwhile, three million slaves continued to suffer in bondage.
Abolitionist leaders gradually realized that they could not avoid the political realm. They began questioning candidates about their views on slavery. They published what would today be called voter guides. They started their own political party, called the Liberty Party, and ran their own candidates.
When these efforts failed, they attempted coalition politics. Ultimately, abolitionists joined forces with the newly formed Republican Party. In the end, most of them supported Abraham Lincoln, though at that time he was not a true abolitionist but someone willing to compromise with slavery in order to save the Union.
Today, many Christians are taking a hard look at the degraded state of American culture and asking if they ought to limit their activities to prayer, conversion, and gentle persuasion. Should we get involved in politics? Or should we stick to purely spiritual weapons?
The lesson from the anti-slavery movement is that we must do both. We need to pray for and witness to our neighbors. But we must also commit ourselves to political and cultural transformation.
If you have doubts about this, I recommend you read Tim Stafford's new novel, THE STAMP OF GLORY. You can order a copy by calling BreakPoint. After you've read it -- and it's a great read -- prayerfully consider how you might become more involved.
Social evils are just as great today as they were a century ago. To fight them, America needs all the foot soldiers she can muster.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.