« Stem Cell News | Main | Greg on Web TV »

January 30, 2009

Comments

"I am not pro-life because you have to be if you're a real Christian."

Then again, maybe the Christian shouldn't overlook his/her distinctively Christian beliefs. Such beliefs might, after all, be quite relevant. Picking up on another discussion, certain Christian readers might conclude that abortion is in the best interest of the unborn human being. Let's call this, to give it a memorable name, the "loving parent argument":

(1) God sends some people to Hell.
(2) Hell is a place of eternal suffering.
(3) God (presumably) does not send unborn babies to Hell.
(4) Therefore, the abortion is (presumably) in the unborn baby's best interest.

Even if this argument is sound, it wouldn't of course prove that abortion is morally permissible. Nevertheless, if abortion is in the best interest of those whom it most directly affects, this might be something to consider when asking whether or not abortion is "the greatest social issue of our time."

I should have said, "even if the argument's conclusion can be established, it wouldn't of course prove that abortion is morally permissible." The Loving Parent Argument really only suggests a direction one might take for establishing its fourth line.

occasional reader, that argument would justify infanticide and all manner of other atrocities so it would be very misguided for anyone to use in an attempt to justify abortion or even to reduce its moral weight.

> (3) God (presumably) does not
> send unborn babies to Hell.

Really?
You get that from Scripture?

Besides, even if that's true, people don't have the prerogative to act on their own to send someone else to heaven. That's God's business.

Occasional Reader,

One observation that could be made is that we here are supposed to go forth and be fruitful. You can hardly be fruitful if your aborted. The loving parent is also supposed to consider what it is best for the child in light of what God wants. There is no scriptural basis for assuming that God has provided us with the option of deciding whether or not the current cultural climate is suitable for for us to allow His gift of life to be aborted. This decision is His alone and our mandate is to raise them up in the fear and admonition of Him.

"that argument would justify infanticide and all manner of other atrocities"

Not obviously

"even if that's true, people don't have the prerogative to act on their own to send someone else to heaven"

We can accept this claim without denying the Loving Parent Argument. As has been noted, even if abortion is in the unborn baby's best interest, this doesn't entail the moral permissibility of abortion.

libra, everything you say is compatible with the conclusion that abortion is in the best interest of the unborn baby.

Occasional Reader,

"Not obviously"

Why is this not obvious?

"As has been noted, even if abortion is in the unborn baby's best interest, this doesn't entail the moral permissibility of abortion."

This statement assumes that we are authorized to make such a decision and as a Christian there is no justification for making such a leap. It also assumes that what you have planned for the child (abortion) is better in the long run than what God has planned during the course of their life.

"everything you say is compatible with the conclusion that abortion is in the best interest of the unborn baby."

Not in light of my observation that we are to be fruitful and that we haven't been called to make the decision that they are better off dead.

occasional reader,

"Not obviously"

Why is this not obvious?

"this doesn't entail the moral permissibility of abortion."
"libra, everything you say is compatible with the conclusion that abortion is in the best interest of the unborn baby."

It would be easier to accept your assertion save for these observations previously stated:
- we are to go forth and be fruitful
- bring them up in the fear and admonition of Him
- there is nothing biblical claiming we are given the authority to decide they are better off dead
- it assumes that we know better than God that what we have planned for them (termination of life) is superior to what He has planned for them throughout their life.

The argument (as ridiculous as it is) also relies on a very specific style of Christianity that espouses neoplatonic dualism.

Many Christians are beginning to see that God is not simply throwing us a rescue rope to whisk us off this evil planet when we die, but that He's working with us to recreate a world without alienation and violence (especially violence against the utterly helpless).

Lb, it strikes me that all the observations you list would at best only provide reasons (perhaps even decisive reasons) for why it is true that the conclusion that abortion is in the best interest of the unborn baby does not entail that abortion is permissible.

To be very clear: the Loving Parent Argument does not deny that abortion is wrong or immoral. It does not even show that abortion should be legal. And, most certainly, the argument does not claim that anyone should have an abortion.

Mijk V, Is it the premises you find ridiculous, or is it the inference to the conclusion that you find ridiculous?

I'm quite ready to concede that Christians need not regard Hell as a place of eternal suffering. The argument is addressed to those Christians who do accept premises (1)-(3).

occasional reader,

Opposing ideas are by nature divisive if they can not both be true at the same time. The bible makes truth claims. A Christian lives by those truth claims which the bible says will be devisive. Your argument is based on the Christian and the foundation of his/her belief (the bible). It also does not follow that your conclusion is true based on what I offered. It, in fact, offers that biblically your conclusion is neither permissable nor in the best interest of the unborn as I understand your argument.

On, I'm unable to understand your comment. It sounds like you think that abortion is not in the unborn baby's best interest. Why do you think this?

Occasional reader,

You responded that you did not think it was obvious that your previous assertion justified infanticide and I asked why you believed that. You also said that my observations were "perhaps even divisive reasons". I also said that your idea that your conclusion did not follow from my observations.

Lb,

With all due respect, I think you are reading/writing too hastily. It isn't obvious that conclusion of the Loving Parent Argument even justifies abortion--much less infanticide! The fact that doing something is in some other person's best interest does not show that doing it is morally permissible. Can you see why that is true?

I wrote "decisive" not "divisive".

Your last sentence is difficult to understand. I never denied that the conclusion of the Loving Parent Argument follows from your observations. (I don't even see why that would be relevant.) Rather, the conclusion that abortion is in the unborn baby's best interest follows (or it is at least suggested by) premises (1)-(3) of the same argument.

Occasional reader, I've had the same thought, honestly. It is certainly possible that such a thing does happen, but that argument just cant pass the "what if", stage. We dont have any Biblical evidence to support that suggestion.. I mean, strongly enough to back away from the debate or even consider your alternative. The closest we get perhaps is the story of David (i think?) when he lost his baby because of his bad behavior.

In any case, what you said is possible. And a very strong emphasis on that word. But what if that wasnt the case? We have no clue what happens to a human soul post-abortion. It "could", be in the childs best interest, and it could not. Its so iffy that im not even sure if theirs a point to presenting that argument. Not to mention the external ramifications of such a mentality.

What if the baby just vaporizes, and ceases to exist (or perhaps never existed, from a perhaps athiestic perspective), and we just spared that non-child the hardship of life, what if the child gets throw into the 'life-stream' and spirit ends up in another mommys womb? What if the spirit flys into a baby elephant? What if the child-matter shifts into an asteroid?

Excuse me for getting off track but my point is this. Your argument is certainly possible, and at best high and perhaps dangerous speculation at best. I know God is just. In light of that, Ide find it extremely challenging to seriously defend this argument. If I am a Christian, and God says thao shall not kill (murder), and abortion is murder, and I believe God was not just speaking to 'Christian Folk', (IE, the bible is not simply a "Religious Text"), and finally when you consider the nature of murder, it would be logically impossible to endorse this argument even if the end result is what you suggested.

Im sorry, I omtted a paragraph by mistake*

The reason I mentioned those sci-fi alternatives was because I was trying to point out that you could make that argument pretty universally (that is, from any worldview.)

Im not saying that nullify's your argument, not at all. Im just questioning if it adds anything worth considering.

Think of it like this. A serial killer is going to your church and you, and you know who he is. If he has his way, he will kill the entire congregation. Would it make sense to apatheticly and "lovingly" sit back as he murders your entire congregation? Lets say he does it in the most plesant way possible via neutralizing them in their sleep. Theyre going to heaven anyways, so whats the point of stopping him?

To take it a giant step further, because the end result is the end result and will always be the end result -- whats the point in stopping anything evil? I know, that has nothing to do with the loving aspect of your loving parent argument, so feel free to disregard the latter statement. I didnt spend too much time thinking about it, but i could ;)

Occasional reader,

Correction noted. Beyond that your argument still assumes to much and can not be true. As "love only one girl" pointed out, you don't know what happens after death to say that they are better off dead. As I pointed out, you don't know what God has planned for them and again it presumes too much. There is also no biblical presidence to support our having been granted the ethical or authoritative power to make that presumption. That is Gods prerogative.
Next, it was my understanding that you were claiming that under the "loving parent" scenario your conclusion stood "regardless" of my observations. My position is that they do not stand. Your conclusion relies on the idea that this authority is a matter subjective to our whims and not objective to Gods will (at least as I understand your position). Simply because the conclusion seems to follow rationally from the premises offered does not make it sufficient to accept that it is sound. If you are going to lay your argument within the Christian framework then you also have to consider what is meant by being a "loving parent" within that framework. The Christian framework does not allow for such subjective authority on the part of the parent as to decide that the unborn would be better off dead. What it means to be "loving" is to be understood from knowledge of Gods nature and what our relationship to Him is and therefore our relationship to our children. If this issue is subjective to the parents then it is not within a Chritian framework and again, the conclusion does not follow.
(Eph 6:4b)

Love only one, Girl (“LooG”, for short?),

I appreciate your thoughtful response. You are entirely correct in pointing out that the Loving Parent Argument would not convince the general public of its conclusion. The argument is only worth considering because many people do accept premises (1)-(3). I expect that many readers of this blog, and perhaps even Brett, accept these premises. You yourself may be inclined to accept the premises (1) and (2). You express doubt regarding premise (3): that God presumably does not send unborn babies to Hell. But you do affirm, “I know God is just.” Do you suspect that God, who is just, might be condemning those aborted babies to eternal suffering in Hell? If so, perhaps you could explain what you mean in affirming that God is “just.”

For people who find it plausible that a just God presumably does not condemn unborn babies to the eternal fires, but who also think that God does condemn some people to this eternal suffering, I claim that it is worthwhile for them to reconsider abortion from the unborn baby’s point of view.

Nachtgold, this is a good consideration, but the case of the churchgoers is quite different. I suspect that few readers think that just because a person attends church, he/she will go to Heaven rather than Hell. We must also consider the friends and family of those who would be murdered. These who would be murdered are likely to be mothers, fathers, friends, and children of other people. True, the unborn fetus is a child of someone else, but apparently it is an unwanted child, given that the mother is electing to have the abortion. To make the analogy to adults, I suspect you will have to formulate a scenario that is far more fanciful. And, in making the analogue suitably fanciful, the analogous conclusion might seem less absurd.

Lb, I do not say that “authority is a matter subjective to our whims.” Also, it may be best for now to avoid reading too much into the name of the argument. Just consider the argument itself, and go no further than its stated conclusion. For the initial concerns of your last post, see my reply to LooG.

The only arguments from scripture for an unborn or infant automatically going to heaven are taken from examples of godly parents, (David), the children of the godless are an abomination to God thus the child of the unsaved suffers the same fate as the unsaved.

Keith, I think you'll have a hard time convincing pro-lifers that human fetuses are an abomination to God. That sounds downright savage! Are you finding influences of Moloch worship in the Hebrew scriptures?!

Anyone who can justify killing an unborn human being in the womb can justify anything. Our judges use the living tree evolving society interpretation of law, and occasional readers speak for themselves. Unborn babies deserve our protection not capital punishment. Occasional readers arguments show us what kind of society we have become.

Garry Sahl, it sounds like you've not been reading my arguments very closely. I've explicitly denied that the Loving Parent Argument justifies killing an unborn human being. The argument only concludes that abortion is in the unborn baby's best interest.

I think you're perfectly right, however, to say (contra Keith) that unborn babies do not deserve punishment. I also agree that we ought to protect unborn babies, and to consider what is in their best interests.

Occasional Reader,

What makes you think premise #3 is valid?

The argument falls apart if it's not.

Life and death of the unborn is not a "best interest" issue that falls within human jurisdiction. The only consideration is if an innocent human being has the right to life. I think that he does more so than a guilty one. It seems to me a miscarriage of justice for a guilty one to deny such a life without being made accountable for it.

Mike Westfall, see my reply to LooG above at 7:04 a.m. Also consider Garry Sahl's recent contention that unborn babies do not deserve punishment. Do you suspect God--the God who reveals himself in Christ--of condemning unborn babies to eternal suffering? (If secular pro-lifers thought abortionists were evil, just imagine what they'll think of such a God. But I can imagine how such a thesis might bolster one's general fear of God.)

The argument goes like this:

(1) An unborn fetus is a human life.
(2) It is wrong to kill a human life (in ordinary circumstances).
(3) It is wrong to kill an unborn fetus.

The problem with the argument is that it doesn't defend premise (2). Why is it wrong to kill human life? Is it merely because they are mammals? Or is it because they have bigger brains? Or maybe its because they have 23 chromosomes.

No, the reason why it is wrong to kill other humans is because they are persons. They have rationality, personality, thought, etc. But it begs the question to say that a fetus is a person.

I find it so ironic that this post starts out with a diatribe against being ignorant of the arguments, when it is blind to intelligent persons being argued against.

There is not a single sane person that denies that a fetus is a human life. What they deny is that being a human life does not by itself give rights. They say that only persons have rights, and don't think there is any good reasons to say that a fetus is a person.

Occassional Rieder,

I suppose, the reason why I said I know God is just wasnt necessarily to imply that "Because I know God is Just, I know God doesnt send aborted children to hell", because quite frankly I dont. (Key word know) Perhaps what I was trying to say is I can trust God to always make the best decision in his Grand decision making, process. My only concern is that as a man, though I have a very strong sense of justice my sense of Justice is severely limited in light of God's. Let me be clear: I do not reject your third premise as very possible. But for the sake of.... Not sure what word im looking for? LoL... but for that sake I could never, nor would I ever encourage or endorse the conclusion that taking that argument as 'fact' per se may support. I suspend my speculation in light of what God has made explicitly clear, thao shall not kill. And, maybe its in the parents (or mothers) worst interest to have one.. But thats an entirely different topic so ill concede on that.


Heres my (I hope) well thought out synopsis of your argument.. At best, christians can take comfort in light of God's grace and Justice. Beyond that, not a single drop of effort should be withheld. Even if your argument is true, a great earthly tragedy is still occuring, one that goes well beyond mere abortion (but to be fair, your argument is only concerned with a particular aspect) and one that entails ramifications not completely understood. And one that we may be amidst Gods justice because of, we have been raised in a culture that has pretty much always allowed it, so we wouldent know better because this is all we know. So at best, we just have a bit of Divine comfort. Not to downplay that, though.

But I should ask you I suppose, what would I guess, be the goal of actively employing your argument if you were to do so? I am curious :)

p.s, forgive me because I realise many of my points arent as speciffic to your argument as your argument demands, I guess its a bit challenging to isolate this topic without considering other factors. And of course you can omit those that do

Edit: This sentence is kinda choppy,

"And one that we may be amidst Gods justice because of..."

I ment to put a period after "of"


LooG,
I really appreciate the thoughtfulness, as well as the fairness, of your posts. You’re right that there is something very odd about the Loving Parent Argument. Here’s what I personally think about this. I suspect that the oddness is traceable to the first and second premises, along with the idea that God is just. There is something uneasy about the idea of a just God making people suffer eternally in Hell. The Loving Parent Argument merely exploits this uneasiness. One shouldn’t be surprised that such substantial propositions about God and Hell should have interesting consequences for other other beliefs, values and actions.

For anyone who accepts premises (1) and (2), and thinks that it is improbable that God sends unborn babies to Hell, I believe it is rational for such a person to conclude that probably abortion is in the best interest of those whom it most directly affects. A believer (especially one who appreciates STR) shouldn’t fear taking his/her religious beliefs to their logical conclusions. Drawing a valid inference is no sin against God. I'd rather suggest that it is a requirement of faith to so take your beliefs seriously.

What, however, should such a person then do with the conclusion that abortions are probably in the best interest of the unborn? This is less clear, but here’s what I think. First, such a person should face up to the idea that his/her own beliefs lead to this interesting conclusion. Then, if the person decides maintain his/her own beliefs, he/she ought to face that conclusion squarely and consciously adopt it as a further belief. Such a person ought to then think through the ramifications of that belief. Minimally, such a person should reconsider whether or not abortion practices are comparable to genocide, and whether abortion is the “greatest social issue of our time,” and whether the issue of abortion should take such priority in one’s political views.

Occassional reader, ide like to make a longer post but im very short on time. Good post**

One thing I would like to commend you for though is that even though I too have brewed on this argument in the past, ive never really taken the time to consider some of the things related to such an argument that I would not have otherwise given serious thought, so I appreciate you presenting it (I do, really), even if I find it to be very absurd. The good kind :D.
I wanted to further on something I was thinking about in my car ride home but Im in a bit of a hurry :/
perhaps later though

Two observations:

1) >>"We must also consider the friends and family of those who would be murdered. These who would be murdered are likely to be mothers, fathers, friends, and children of other people."

I thought we were considering only the best interest of what is being killed and not side issues such as this. If we are not to consider other moral issues within the framework of this argument, why would we have to take into consideration the grief of loved ones? I think this objection fails as a defeater for Nachtgold's point, provided the persons being killed are going to heaven.

2. >>"Minimally, such a person should reconsider whether or not abortion practices are comparable to genocide"

Why? What has been provided in the loving parent argument that would allow this to follow? All that follows from the argument is that abortion is in the fetus's best interest, not that something isn't being killed. If we're looking to prove that abortion practices aren't comparable to genocide, we would need to prove that we aren't killing anything in the first place, not that what we are killing is going to heaven. That point is irrelevant to the question of genocide.

Two observations:

1) >>>"We must also consider the friends and family of those who would be murdered. These who would be murdered are likely to be mothers, fathers, friends, and children of other people."

If we are looking to avoid any side moral issues and focus exclusively on the best interest of what is being killed, why must we consider the grief of loved ones? If the loving parent argument goes through based solely on the issue of best interest, why can't the loving serial killer argument go through on the same grounds, provided assurance of salvation?

2) >>>"Minimally, such a person should reconsider whether or not abortion practices are comparable to genocide"

Why? What has been shown in the loving parent argument that would allow such an assertion to follow? All the loving parent argument shows is that what is being killed is going to heaven, not whether or not anything is actually being killed. The conclusion is irrelevant to the question of genocide.

Sorry for the double-post. I didn't think the first went through.

bc, thanks for these two nice questions. Regarding your first question, I accept the proposal to focus exclusively on the best interest of “what is being killed”. This proposal strikes me as very good. I was, however, responding to Nachtgold’s comment, who asked if it would be appropriate to "lovingly sit back as [the killer] murders your entire congregation.” Surely the loving thing to do is also to consider (among other things) the survivors who will be deeply affected by murders. But more to the point of your question, we can also consider whether it makes a difference to the interests of the murder victim that he/she is already engaged in projects and is involved in significant relationships. Cannot the welfare of a spouse or children be among the interests of a dying person? I would think that such considerations can be among a person’s central interests.

The Loving Parent Argument concludes that abortion is presumably in the best interest of the unborn. This means that abortion is presumably in the best interest of those whom it most directly (and significantly) affects. This tends not to be the case with genocide. It would be wrong to say that genocide is presumably in the best interest of its victims. This marks a difference between abortion and genocide, and this difference might be important.

(You also state that the loving parent argument does not show “whether or not anything is actually being killed.” You are correct. So long as we understand “killed” in the sense causing biological death, the argument simply assumes that abortion kills a fetus. This is a sound assumption.)

LooG,

I agree with you that there are absurdities lurking in the area. Some think it absurd that some people suffer eternally in Hell. Some think that the idea of souls or an afterlife is absurd. Some think it absurd that a zygote is a person with the moral standing of an adult human being. But where will you locate the absurdity? You might wonder whether you are being overly influenced by the sentiments of the short-sighted people of this world, who do not consider that this earthly life is only a small and temporary piece of the soul’s eternal existence.

So here’s the question for you: why do you resist the conclusion that abortion is presumably in the best interest of the unborn?

o.r./bc,

"The conclusion is irrelevant to the question of genocide."

"All the loving parent argument shows is that what is being killed is going to heaven, not whether or not anything is actually being killed."

Because it does not follow for the reasons that have been stated.
The conclusion presumes too much from the premesis.

Also consider the original topic of this blog. The "loving parent scenario" does not deal at all with the issue of the non religious aspect of the real discussion.
"I am a pro-lifer because of the answer to one simple question: What is the unborn?"

bc,

I apologize for not addressing the second statement in the previous post.

"All the loving parent argument shows is that what is being killed is going to heaven, not whether or not anything is actually being killed."

It does justify infantide. There is nothing about the syllogism (problematic at best)that prevents that line of reasoning and it could be carried out precisely because of the line of reasoning offered to defend the syllogism. Anyone who is a believer (following the "loving parent scenorio") could fall on that syllogism to have an abortion.

"The conclusion presumes too much from the premises"

"The 'loving parent scenario' does not deal at all with the issue of the non religious aspect of the real discussion."

Lb, can you be more specific? What is it that the conclusion illegitimately "presumes"? What relevant "non-religious aspect" is the argument neglecting?


"So here’s the question for you: why do you resist the conclusion that abortion is presumably in the best interest of the unborn?"

Hello Occassional reader :)


There are several reasons why I resist that conclusion. To start, that assumption requires a further assumption of things that simply cannot be known. Let me give this premise. Life in Heaven is the ultimate goal, and all earthly happenings are fleeting, meaningless, and ultimately not worth experienceing because the end result far exceeds any earthly joy. Therefore instead of letting the child live and risk the flames of hell through circumstance, abortion is in his best interest because it ensures the best end-result. Well, ive just made quite a few assumptions for which I cannot verify. Furthermore, I have made the bold declaration that there is nothing in life worth living, Biblicly or otherwise.

This premise (atleast, from a Biblical Perspective) seems to override the sovergnty of God in favor of human interest -- speciffically as that relates to salvation. It kind of, kind of says "everyone starts out as having put their trust in God", whereas the Bible seems to imply that man on his own accord will not choose God until God gives him the capacity to make that decision. However that takes place is beyond me, but that seems to atleast call into question the validity of "sending babies to heaven" (again, not disagreeing, but leaving room per se). From a Non-Christian or otherwise persepctive, you could still make the argument that it is not in every childs best interest because they wont get to enjoy the many wonderful things in life. And if another worldview was correct, the child simply wouldent exist. (And thus, we couldent even have this discussion, so certainly that isint entirely relevant).

This presmise also supposes that the child will be happy with its earthly parents decision to abort him when he is in heaven. Well, Ide find it pretty difficult to be satisfied with my parents decision to murder me because of conveniance (or otherwise) if upon reaching heaven God were to enlighten me on the nature of man, and such. I would be happy that I was in heaven, but happiness in heaven does not equal... "Satisfaction", or perhaps thankfulness to the parents for their consideration of my eternal deestiny. Again, God is the only person in control of that, so even if my parents were acting in my best interest, ide be hard-pressed to say I was thankful for it. Then I would have to ask if it was truly, and not superficially in the best interest of the child.

So in summation, the statement, "Abortion is in the best interest of the Child" (And I am almost entirely juxtaposing this statement in light of heaven), demands an un-knowable amount of presumptions to such a degree that the foundation of such is far too shakey to support.

P.s reader, I agree and I apologize for my usage of the word "absurd", maybe absurd isint the manner I should have classified this argument

oc,

Clearly the "loving parent scenario/lps" is based on theological premises (i.e. premise 1/2/3). The original argument of this blog was that it is a "human being" and that there is no justification (given the existential qualifications of the "lps" and the original argument) to abort them. It further states that there is no significant difference between those having been born and the unborn. Therefore it is not justifiable to abort them for those qualifications. At this point you can not argue that it is justifiable, based on the blog argument, to abort the unborn given its external qualifications which also implicitly include the “lps” qualifications without justifying aborting those who have been born. The original argument does not provide that parents are given the authority to kill their children, nor does the “lps” which simply presumes it in the conclusion. Also, based on the original argument you can not justify aborting unborn without justifying the abortion of the born because there is no “significant difference” between them. On the other hand, the “lps” assumes that authority or whim (however you wish to describe it) and provides no premise that prevents one from aborting born or unborn children based on the idea that it is “better” (not defined fully) that the child should die and go to heaven than to live. If it is better for the unborn to go to heaven because of sociological (etc.) reasons those same conditions exist for those already born and they may be aborted for the same reasons offered in the “lps”. From a theological standpoint (of which “lps” is contingent) it is an argument for aborting both. Again, based on the “lps” no reason can be offered that prevents someone one from aborting born or unborn. If there is, what would it be? The original argument is not contingent upon a theological position but can be defended legally or philosophically also. Quickly stated:
1) It is not legally justifiable to abort a “born” child on the basis of sociological/financial (etc. ) difficulties
2) There is no significant difference between born and unborn
3) Therefore it is not legally justifiable to abort the unborn on the basis of sociological/financial (etc. ) difficulties

1) A human being having been born alive has a right to life
2) There is no significant difference between born and unborn
3) Therefore the unborn has the same right to life as those born
"What is it that the conclusion illegitimately "presumes"?
What relevant "non-religious aspect" is the argument neglecting?"

It illegitimately presumes that it is simply best to abort the unborn WITHOUT premise. This is also identified in the syllogism "(presumably)".
It neglects the original premise that there is no "significant difference" between the born and unborn (if we are to stay on topic). If there is no difference then it is not possible to justify life/abortion for one and not the other based on existential qualifications offered by either the original argument or the “lps”.


Here is a video I want to share with you all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c&eurl=http://www.catholicvote.com/static/flash/cv_yt_player.swf

I think this is such a subtle and yet drastically different form of political speech relating the to the abortion issue. Supposedly NBC rejected it for airing during the Super Bowl.

"Imagine the Potential"

Where does the Antichrist now live with the other fallen angels, and who do they influence today? Shouldn't we reflect on where they currently live and who they live with?

Sounds like Gary is ready for a good old-fashioned witch hunt. At this moment I'm really glad I kept my anonymity.

The comments to this entry are closed.