September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  


« The Bible's Buried Secrets | Main | "Why Believe in God?" »

November 18, 2008


The Washington Post wishes. I seriously doubt the magnitude of this camp.

While saving all babies should be our ultimate goal, any baby saved is a gain for our side. While we should encourage them to keep fighting in court, we should encourage this new adventure as well.

This sounds like something out of the Sojourners camp. We need to educate and reduce poverty first then worry about the trivial matters of abortion and same sex marriage.

There is another underlying message in all this and that is that programs come before people. It is as if these people somehow believe that schools were built, teachers were hired, then people started having children.

Wanda said "any baby saved is a gain for our side." While this is true, stating it this way can also be a cause for division.

We need to get society to see that a baby saved is also a gain for the baby, the baby's mother and father (whatever their economic level) and a gain for all of society.

Society needs to see who it is that is being aborted and how it is being done. If people can become outraged when baby seals are clubbed to death, they should be even more outraged when baby humans are torn apart.

In defense of Wanda's statement, I think that we have to understand that the act of persuasion is often a process rather than a "conversion." Apparent in the Post's post, we are still "antiabortionist" rather than pro-life. I believe that as we implement more pro-life practices, we are also showing the main reason why we do the things we do - we value life.

Moving from Anti-Choice to Pro-Life is going to be a hard fight because the media doesn't "love" us enough to present our side as a legitimate moral viewpoint.

Apparently we have to believe what they believe in order to be "tolerant."

As I was reflecting on the method Mr. Koukl uses when he engages people of a different point of view, it occurred to me the putting a stone in someone's shoe was different than stoning the person's foot.

In my engagement with individuals against Prop 8, I came to realize that the lack of a common ground makes it much more difficult to communicate with each other (communicating with people of the same persuasion without setting down common ground is difficult enough). Jumping from Keith Olberman's, "I just don't understand," to a convert's, "You are right," takes a lot more than a court case or even a whole bunch of public debates.

Linking my second post to my first, I think that framing the debate to a matter of Life should be our first objective. By showing that we will go a distance to promote that Life is a powerful step forward rather than a side-step from the main thing. Life IS the main thing.

Thank you Augustine, that is what I meant.
The law of the people can change overnight so we should continue this fight in the courts.
The heart of society on the other hand rarely changes overnight, it often takes years for the people to accept the changes in the law.
During the interim they are often quite bitter and fight the changes with every opportunity they get, therefore it isn't enough for us to change the law of society we need to change the heart of it as well. We can't change the heart of people in the justice system we have to witness to them about Christ and the value of human life with not just our words, but with our actions as well.
It is not until abortion is unthinkable as well as illegal that out job will be done.

"developing other assistance for pregnant women to reduce the number of abortions."

You mean like creating the CPCs that have been around for years (and Dems want to defund)?

The comments to this entry are closed.