Posted on 07/11/2018 12:20:56 PM PDT by gattaca
The only people who can legally murder are abortionists and death row doctors.
Great book.
Is NPR possibly distorting his message? I guess I should read his book.
On the assumption that NPR has accur4ately quoted him, I would have some questions:
(1) Abortion should be the decision of an individual and "his or her" conscience... wait! Is he saying a man should be able to veto an abortion, if he's the father? Or is he saying a man should be able to mandate his partner's abortion, if he wants the baby dead? Or is he saying it's "his or her" conscience if transwomen or he/shes or whatever are getting pregnant? Or... what the hallelujah is he talking about?
(2) An intriguing concept, the individual having life-or-death power. He clearly opposes the killing of professional abortionists (I do as well). But how can you oppose that, if killing is a decision of "an individual and his or her conscience"?
It would be interesting for Schenck to meet with somebody who has actually made this "conscientious" decision to shoot an abortionist. For instance, visit James Kopp, a "conscience"-inspired idealist still in jail in NY state, and see if he's still OK with shooting Dr. Bernard Slepian through the heart.
So much for "individual decision." Your thoughts?
Is NPR possibly distorting his message? I guess I should read his book.
On the assumption that NPR has accur4ately quoted him, I would have some questions:
(1) Abortion should be the decision of an individual and "his or her" conscience... wait! Is he saying a man should be able to veto an abortion, if he's the father? Or is he saying a man should be able to mandate his partner's abortion, if he wants the baby dead? Or is he saying it's "his or her" conscience if transwomen or he/shes or whatever are getting pregnant? Or... what the hallelujah is he talking about? (2) An intriguing concept, the individual having life-or-death power. He clearly opposes the killing of professional abortionists (I do as well). But how can you oppose that, if killing is a decision of "an individual and his or her conscience"?
It would be interesting for Schenck to meet with somebody who has actually made this "conscientious" decision to shoot an abortionist. For instance, visit James Kopp, a "conscience"-inspired idealist still in jail in NY state, and see if he's still OK with shooting Dr. Bernard Slepian through the heart.
So much for "individual decision." Your thoughts?
His twin brother, Paul Schenck,also became an Evangelical Christian and eventually became an Episcopal priest. Years later he became a Catholic.
I agree with some other posters. God’s Word doesn’t change. I think his message would have been more compelling if, instead of sounding pro abortion, he could have just stopped with the militant stance, and done something like counsel women who feel guilty years after an abortion.
I can see a tactical re-evaluation: that happens all the time as people weigh alternative paths to the same goal. And he must know that: his bio shows a lifetime of involvement with all kinds of issues which have legitimately utilized all kinds of approaches.
But to outright say that there is a private right to kill your child before it's born? That really cuts the child out of the human race. And in doing so, it decisively undermines the whole idea of "Life" being one of those inalienable rights --- for anybody --- which hurts us all.
Good story from Sheen.
Was he “grandfathered” in as a Catholic priest?
Amen!
I think so. Fr. Paul Schenck used to be an Episcopal priest. He (and wife and family) cam into the Catholic church a number of years ago, he got a little retrofitting training-wise to become a Catholic priest, and they have eight kids and 4 grandchildren.
My thoughts are that an individual’s conscience does not matter one whit when it comes to the the murder of another human being. The primary concern is for the unborn child.
When Person A (i.e. unborn child) is incapable of making a life or death decision for themselves, then it is nice to have someone, Person B, who can be trusted to make decisions IN THE BEST INTEREST of Person A. When, in “good conscience”, Person B elects for the slaughter of Person A, because it is in the “best interest of Person B”, then Person B clearly cannot be trusted to make any decisions regarding the welfare of Person A.
Amen.
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.