« Greg Koukl - Does God "hate sin but love the sinner?" | Main | You Don't Care About Children After They're Born »

January 22, 2013

Comments

I oppose abortion on moral grounds but get irritated when religious right uses it to manipulate the church into a mindless, blind, voting block when in fact, being pro-life means so many other things, beyond the uterus. I sent this to John Piper this morning and respectfully raise the same question to you.

"For someone who preaches "God's Total Sovereignty" I am shocked that you believe mere human beings are preventing 50 million persons from being born in this world, some of whom would presumably be elect and some of whom would presumably stay in their unsaved, wrathful depravity. So which is it Piper? Is God in control or not? Can any woman "decide" to prevent the physical birth of a person whom our Lord God had predestined to be born? You can't have both! Stop using abortion as a straw man politcal tool for the Republican Party whose policies are as far from being "Pro" life than the 3rd Reich ever was. There is no real definitive theology behind it and your public preaching mitigates against an impotent God who would seem to be helpless as He watches women supposedly choose (a la Arminian free will?) to allegedly "murder" persons he intended to be born into this world. Are you now an Arminian free-willist?"

Are you shocked to know there is evil in the world? There is, and not just abortion. And God is sovereign. And people are making decisions. As with every societal evil, trying to persuade people to make right decisions is not a straw man. God is not helpless to stop all evil, yet He hasn't yet done so--He will, but not yet. God hasn't put an end to all of us in our evil yet because of His mercy and because He's gathering people to Himself. The fact that He hasn't brought history to an end yet certainly doesn't give us an excuse to ignore evil (see Romans 13). God, in His sovereignty, uses us to fight evil in His name. I recommend If God Is Good if you'd like to understand the view on this. Or just do a search on this blog and our website.

As far as limited government coupled with other robust institutions (the family, the church, other charities) being as bad as the Third Reich, I disagree with this atrocious charge, and if you consider the comparison to be "respectful" (as you say) and at all accurate, then you have some serious work to do to try to understand the positions of those with whom you disagree. If you don't consider it to be respectful or accurate, then you are part of the demonization problem in politics today, and I'm sorry to see it.

I actually think limited government is far more conducive to human dignity and a thriving society than is a large, intrusive government where decisions are made far from the people involved. Concentrated political power is not good in the hands of sinful people. I recommend Acton.org if you'd like to learn more about Christianity and economics, also Money, Greed, and God.

You forgot one method: The Gospel.

Addressing the symptoms without addressing the cause will not do much long term. Since the root cause of all cultural problems is always sin.

Therefore, cultural change begins through the transformational power of the Holy Spirit in the repentant individual and one cannot repent unless they have been shown that they are sinners and have had The gospel taught to them.

"I oppose abortion on moral grounds but get irritated when religious right uses it to manipulate the church into a mindless, blind, voting block ..."

It would be wonderful if people on both ends of the political spectrum would oppose abortion since, as you point out, it's a moral issue. And I'm glad to see that's true in your case. Perhaps you can work towards convincing the political left to take up the cause of ending abortion in this country?

yeah, gotta protect those 5 day embryos

@ CR Campos -

"Stop using abortion as a straw man politcal tool for the Republican Party whose policies are as far from being "Pro" life than the 3rd Reich ever was."


Show me your evidence for this vile, slanderous charge.

@ RonH -

"yeah, gotta protect those 5 day embryos"

Which embryos are you referring to?

Those used for stem cells.

RonH said:

yeah, gotta protect those 5 day embryos

SoA said:

yeah, gotta tolerate more of RonH's non-sequitur barbs

Remember people -- don't feed the troll.

Mo,

If you had to ask Which embryos?, you may still be wondering why my comment is relevant. If you are not wondering, maybe someone else is.

So...

STR's position on abortion, is 'life begins at conception' - they are against abortion at any stage. (They are even against it prior to implantation.)

This also means STR is against embryonic stem cell research because it uses embryos 5 days after they are fertilized.

By the way, they are also against in vitro fertilization fertility treatment because (in practice) the vast majority of embryos fertilized in the process die as embryos.

RonH

"STR's position on abortion, is 'life begins at conception' - they are against abortion at any stage. (They are even against it prior to implantation.)

This also means STR is against embryonic stem cell research because it uses embryos 5 days after they are fertilized.

By the way, they are also against in vitro fertilization fertility treatment because (in practice) the vast majority of embryos fertilized in the process die as embryos."

Not sure what your point is. STR's position is completely consistent in the above sentences. You may not agree with it, and it may even be wrong, but your original comment was intended to mock the position. But the position laid out in the 3 ways you described is completely consistent. So what's the point you're trying to make that? That you disgree with it?

Darth Dutch

Darth Dutch,

Yes. They are completely consistent so I wasn't pointing out a contradiction in the position.

If you don't see my point, I take it that you see the stem cell and IVF things as upsides to the from-conception position?

RonH

Out of curiosity, does not the umbilical cord also contain stem cells? If mistaken, then no worries.
I did hear of someone able to produce stem cells from other than embryos. Has anyone else heard or read anything about this?

I support a church that stands outside an abortion clinic praying quietly, if an opportunity to talk to someone comes up, we offer counseling and a program called "Gabriel Project" which partners with a pregnant mother. We offer "Rachel's Vineyard" for God to bring healing of the trauma to the post-abortive mothers. I hope our standing for life helps someone choose purity.

We participate in the 40 Days for life in spring and fall which saves about 6,500 babies each time nationally, changes the hearts of abortion workers, has even closed abortion facilities.

We need more workers/prayers for the harvest is ready. Will all the churches stand side by side to end this practice which has taken the lives of 56 million babies? Contact 40 Days for life to join up this spring!! Shalom

The only difference between babies in the womb vs. those of us sitting here dialoguing on this site is Size, Location, Environment and Level of Development. "A person is a person no matter how small" - Dr. Suess

RonH,

Your point was to mock the position of STR as evidenced by your comment of "they are even against it prior to implantation" as well as others; showing how "far out there" STR is in their position on abortion. My point was to say you may disagree with it, but why mock it?

As to your other question, if you are asking if I am in agreement with STR, I would say "yes" on the whole.

If there is genuine debate as to when life begins and the question is still out for debate, then why not take the conservative approach and err on the side of protecting the potential life from birth rather than assume the opposite and kill the unborn? Seems like it would be wiser to protect something that ends up not needing protection than to kill something that ultimately should not be - again, if there is genuine debate or uncertainty.

(By the way, that last question is asked in general, not of you specifically Ron. I'm not saying you ever made that claim.)

Darth Dutch

"the potential life from birth"

Oops, I meant to write "the potential life from conception" in the above post. My apologies.

Darth Dutch

Deborah,

Agreed! I also find it quite telling that no one, not even the most strident pro-choicer there is, will say they are going to a "Fetus Shower" when a friend of theirs or they themself are having a baby. It is a "Baby Shower" because that child is wanted.

If they were being consistent, they would refer to it as a "Fetus Shower" or by some other jargon.

Darth Dutch

Ron is incorrect about our view on IVF. We’re not opposed to IVF. We’re opposed to creating more embryos than you’re willing to implant and/or implanting more embryos than you’re willing to carry. (Here’s a PDF by Steve Wagner on this from our website.)

Treating human life cavalierly, and/or as a commodity, and/or for research is always wrong, no matter what the age of the human.

AnotherMike, yes, cord blood contains stem cells. Also, adult stem cells are used all the time for therapies, and they work. See here and here. Or just type “stem cell” into the search box here on the blog and you’ll find lots of info.

Amy,

See where I said 'in practice'?

Here is what I mean: IVF is very expensive. For many people, IVF is impractical without the economy of extra embryos and extra implants.

So for these people IVF is impractical under your rules.

Biologists pursue ESR because they see advantages and potential upsides compared to ASR.

These would be lost under your rules.

Mind the costs.

Thank you.

RonH

The comments to this entry are closed.