Okay, so this is a much needed rebuttal on my end. I want to let all of you know I’ve really appreciated this discussion and the different angles we’ve had from things. I think we’ve all come to a better understanding of each other and of ourselves, and for that I know we are all grateful.
I wanted to clarify some things that I don’t think I made clear in my last post about my views and positions, so I’ll do my best to clarify them here. Some of these points may run together, because they will all tie together somewhat.
Okay, so here goes.
———————————————————-
Concerning Abortion: It’s an Issue of Representation.
Let’s go ahead and get this one out of the way. I understand that Zach and (I assume) Andrew’s approach is to come at the issue practically, which I completely understand and respect. Exempli gratia, whatever way means that practically less abortions will happen in America is the way to go. This is a position that I have come to understand more fully and respect more fully.
My own viewpoint adds an ideological addendum. While I do agree and will consider the practical, government-as-arm approach, another big factor for me is representation. This is where I want to explain myself more fully. In my last, single-issue post, I tried to explain that representation was a big issue for me, id est, if a president publicly and vocally condoned something evil with his platform, and not just silently with his policies, I have a hard time respecting that person and waving their flag. I gave the examples of a president who would be actively and vocally a racist, and that I would know his vocal view would have an affect on his policies. Otherwise, why would he say he was a racist? Furthermore, when I wave that flag, I’m supporting him and, whether I like it or not, making it appear I support his view on that subject. I couldn’t fully side with a president that actively and vocally supported rape, because I would know his vocal view would have an affect on his policies. Otherwise, why would he say he supported it? I then tried to make the connection to abortion issues.
My point is then that abortion is not the only thing I care about, and being pro-life doesn’t mean a pro-life agenda will always be enforced, but that one who makes it a point to be blatantly pro-choice (which at the end of the day either means pro-abortion or pro-ignorance-is-bliss, both of which ignore the severity of the issue and neither of which I would support) will be one who incorporates these into his policies and one who I have trouble waving the banner of. This is in light of a full knowledge that overturning Roe v. Wade is a seeming impossibility right now, and with full knowledge that practically, a pro-choice president might even be able to affect abortion levels for the good. With both of those taken into account, I still will think twice about waving the banner of that president, knowing what they represent.
———————————————————-
Concerning Other Issues: Weigh them in.
So what about the other issues? If I were to support a staunch Republican who opposes healthcare, supports the war, and seems to neglect other issues, aren’t I just pro-death anyways? This is a good question. I will do my best to address it.
Let’s start with the first, yet very sticky issue of innocent death. The opposition to my argument might say “an innocent civilian life lost on the war front is just the same as an innocent life lost in the womb.” I would have to disagree with you on this issue. Now, please don’t pull any Calvinist “we’re all depraved and sinful and deserving of death” stuff on me here, because I know that. But if you can look at a child who hasn’t even had the chance to take her first breath yet; hasn’t even seen the world; hasn’t even had the opportunity to take part in building their own life, and then look at an albeit innocent civilian of another nation, who has made a name for them self, who has established a life, who has battled with the sins of the world and who has (as any other human) lost the battles, who has experienced joy and sorrow and family and love and hatred and breathing and eating, and say that the infant deserves to die more than the innocent civilian, then we have something to talk about. If you call me a hater or one who doesn’t care for the civilian or the innocent adult, then you’re missing my point. And if you say that both the baby and the civilian are both eternally damned for hell without Jesus and so really there is no distinction between the two (which, I’ll give you, on a large, eternal scale the Bible agrees with and so does the Judgment Seat), you’re missing my point. My point is that that baby, curled within the womb, has not even tasted air or food or laughter or the reality of living on its own. To say that it has any reason to deserve to be killed by the powers of this world, I believe is fallacious. We’re not weighing evils. We’re not weighing souls. We’re not weighing innate, depraved value. We’re weighing one death to another death. One killing to another killing. If you must kill one, killing the infant makes little sense to me.
“So, Riley, what about those that do die because of a lack of healthcare? What about those that do die on the war front?” These are truly tragedies that I don’t mean to make light of. “And, Riley, you say that you can’t support someone who condones abortion, but you’ll support someone who opposes national healthcare. What’s up with that?” I’m hopefully getting ready to answer these questions.
So let’s examine the issues, shall we? Let’s look at the candidates. The likely opposition to my position would be “what would you say to a candidate who condones [insert issue] when you won’t support a candidate that condones abortion.” First of all, I would ask them to read the first paragraph of this section on the killing of innocent lives. Second, I would ask them to find me a good, logical reason for a nation’s government to support condoning abortions. Because, here’s the thing. Despite the terrible tragedies that happen because of casualties in war, deaths due to lack of proper healthcare coverage, etc., the political forces behind opposition to national healthcare and support of the war are not forces who desire poor, sick American citizens to not have healthcare, or innocent casualties at war to be lost. Show me a candidate that supports those things. A condoning of a ‘war on terror’ or an opposition to a national healthcare plan are not synonymous with a condoning of killing innocent casualties or harming poor Americans who don’t have healthcare. However, a pr0-choice argument is rarely anything else but a condoning of a mother’s right to choose to murder her child. The opposition to national healthcare is not “no health care at all,” which is what that argument would suggest. Generally the Republican argument is that national healthcare won’t work and will be too corrupted by bureaucracies, too tainted with unfair compromises, too much involving ridiculous deficits, and too damaging to market progress that would help the nation. To defend the Republicans here, the forefront argument has never been “no healthcare,” it’s been “no nationalized healthcare.” To the Republicans, healthcare reform is needed, but not at the cost of state involvement, market progress, fairness, and fiscal budget. So why doesn’t the same principle apply to abortions? Why aren’t abortions better worked out when not handled by the national government? Because, as I have tried to explain, a murder of an unborn child can hardly be justified. There is no overshadowing motive that would inadvertently result in the mass killing of these infants. There is no greater purpose for which these children would be the tragic, but unintended casualties. There is no state solution that would do a better job of outlawing abortions. When one is anti-national-healthcare, one has an option for which he thinks will help people get healthcare better. He has a way for which he will better represent the cause of healthcare and make it happen practically. When one is pro-war-on-terror, he (hopefully) has a greater purpose for which he thinks justice and freedom will be upheld. The casualties are not prescribed, intended, or desired. When one is pro-choice, however, there is no greater purpose. There is no greater option or greater cause. When one is pro-choice, this literally means he does not believe that the killing of unborn children is of great significance. In a war issue, casualties are a (albeit very important) sub-issue. In a healthcare issue, those without healthcare are most always considered to be the ones to be helped. In an abortion issue, there is no sub-issue or some greater cause. In an abortion issue, the issue is “Do you support a mother’s right to kill her child?”
So when one might say “You will be single-issue when it comes to abortion but not when it comes to healthcare, war, poverty, etc.” I would say: I am very concerned with all of these things. But if I do not support nationalized healthcare, I have another plan, perhaps localized, which I think will work better with a candidate who still represents the healthcare cause and knows there is a dire need. And if I support a war (not talking specifically a certain one), I have reason for which I believe it to be justified and candidates who are pro-freedom and pro-justice, not candidates who are pro-death and pro-civilian-murder. However, if I do not support an anti-abortion cause and rather support a candidate who is pro-choice, I cannot say “this person supports a greater cause: [insert cause] where the death of these children is sometimes the unfortunate, unintended, undesired tragedy.” I have to look at that pro-choice candidate, even if I think he will help my cause, and say “this man supports a mother’s right to kill her cihldren.” A pro-choice candidate has no other cause to hold onto in this area.
——————————————————————-
Single-Issue: A Matter of Importance, not of Exclusivity.
Lastly, I want to explain single-issue. I am not single issue in the sense that I only look to a candidate who will help the anti-abortion cause. It means that I struggle to support a candidate who condones a pro-choice cause. I tried to explain this in the first section of this post, and hope I have conveyed my opinion on the matter. I have many other issues I will consider when I vote. I will consider what will help Americans without healthcare get healthcare, but I will consider the factor of deficit and national corruption. I will consider how to minimize innocent casualties at war, while preserving American freedom and safety here at home and fighting corrupt powers abroad. I will examine the options and decide which candidate will represent the issue and say: “I support the ability of Americans to receive healthcare,” while applying the issue in a practically sound manner, whether it be on a national reform basis or on a more local reform basis. Being single issue means for me that I have a hard time deciding for a candidate who will represent the issue and say: “I support the right of a mother to choose whether to kill or keep her child,” even though he may work practically and inadvertently reduce the abortion count. For me, it’s an issue of representation and practicality. For me, to deny the former denies my ability to truly support him, and to deny the latter denies his ability to make it happen. Both are important to me.
—————————————————————
Conclusion: Reflections on the Aforementioned Statements.
So, I’ve established why abortion is a big issue to me. It denies an unborn infant the ability to experience life outside the womb at all.
I’ve established why not only practicality, but representation as well is a considered issue to me. It enables me to vote with confidence and good conscience, and enables my issue to be represented as wholesome in government.
I’ve established why the issue of abortion is different from the issues of healthcare and the war and the like. It has no greater purpose and no other legal alternative that negates it.
I’ve established what being single-issue means and why it is important. It is a matter of importance, not exclusivity.
———————————————————————-
Hopefully I’ve made myself clear and have been succinct. Feel free to comment and ask questions or for clarifications. I have thoroughly enjoyed these discussions.
May we seek the Spirit in all things, even in that of government.
-Riley
January 20th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Well said, sir. This was worth your skipping school for, I think.
January 20th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Haha man, I felt terrible this morning, for serious. Last night after practice my voice felt like a whole colony of mole-rats had taken up residence in my throat.
January 20th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
“If you must kill one, killing the infant makes little sense to me.”
IMHO, this is absolutely absurd. Killing anyone makes NO sense to me, and weighing the cost of either makes even less sense.
“a murder of an unborn child can hardly be justified”
How can the death of an impoverished man be justified? How can the death of a water-less African be justified? We can EASILY provide filters, food, or clothes in humanitarian relief and save lives. Justify the deaths of those who are without clean water, food, or clothes. You can’t suggest that the death of a child is less justified than the death of an impoverished man.
“In an abortion issue, the issue is ‘Do you support a mother’s right to kill her child?’” / “When one is pro-choice, this literally means he does not believe that the killing of unborn children is of great significance”
Hardly. The pro-choice ideology is almost always (I haven’t actually known any otherwise) rooted in one’s belief that life does not begin at conception, but instead upon exiting the womb–to them, a woman does nothing more than remove something from her body, just like you may pick a scab to remove it from your skin. You say that murder is their greater purpose. Aside from VERY FEW exceptions, nobody would consciously murder with the sole intent to murder. NOBODY. Consider that the most staunch pro-choice politicians (Rudy Guiliani, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, etc.) are also the most active in restricting access to guns. Why would these people, who you hold as conscious advocates of murder, try to limit access to a criminal’s weapon of choice?
Also, the most left of liberals that I know and that I have read consider a woman’s choice to abort a fetus AS a measure of her freedom (just as waging a war on terror is an exercise of freedom, as you said). To them, she controls her body, and if the government prevents her from doing as she desires with it, then it is the government that is overstepping its bounds and infringing on her individual rights.
You’re horribly misrepresenting the supporters of and position of “pro-choice.” Pro-choice is absolutely NOT a conscious act of murder.
“I am not single issue in the sense that I only look to a candidate who will help the anti-abortion cause. It means that I struggle to support a candidate who condones a pro-choice cause”
I didn’t get that impression at all ^.^
From your paragraph labeled “Single-Issue: A Matter of Importance, not of Exclusivity,” I wouldn’t consider you a single-issue voter. Your passage hardly describes one who is a single-issue voter, even when you bring in the most conventional definition of the term.
January 20th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
@Eric:
—————————
1st Paragraph: Eric, I brought up the weighing of costs because you did in your post. You brought up the concept of trying to decide which was more important. In a situation in which you have to decide which to let die, that is the situation which I was referring to. It is all hypothetical. I don’t want people to die.
2nd Paragraph: You’re missing my point. I never said I wanted those horrific things to happen. I’m saying that there is no other purpose for which the deaths of those children would be the casualties. In war, an innocent civilian would be an undesired but real casualty. In healthcare, most everyone wants healthcare reform but the deaths of those that don’t have healthcare are the unfortunate, tragic casualties of bad policies and bad practical political application. No one desires for those people to die. In the case of abortion, the death is the issue, and is desired, whereas in the others the death is always desired to be avoided.
3rd Paragraph: Remember when I said this about the pro-choice argument: “which at the end of the day either means pro-abortion or pro-ignorance-is-bliss, both of which ignore the severity of the issue and neither of which I would support“? Either way, a pro-choice argument denies the reality of the ACTIVE, DESIRED murder of the children. Again, innocent victims of war, disease, and poverty are the tragic victims of their society or other societies PASSIVELY and UNDESIRABLY killing them.
4th Paragraph: Sorry, but that doesn’t hold up. If I killed a man in my house with a gun (which the liberals would want to hang me and the gunmakers for) it wouldn’t be a “private, family matter.” I would be tried as a murderer. No excuses.
5th Paragraph: First of all, I don’t think I am. See my 3rd paragraph comment. Secondly, I don’t really know why they need or deserve defense. I won’t give it to them. Thirdly, Pro-choice people don’t want to believe that the baby is a human, so they won’t. To say “they kill because they don’t know yet” is like saying “a smoker doesn’t read the health warnings on the box.” He knows what they’ll say, but he doesn’t want to give it up. And, seriously dude, what other good reason do Pro-Choice proponents have that deserves defending? They “don’t know” it’s a human because they don’t want to know. But I think they do know.
I think you’re missing most all of my points… because I’m so Pro-Life doesn’t mean that I want impoverished people to die or innocent civilians to die or people with disease or unclean water to die… I don’t know where you’re getting that from.
January 20th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
I didn’t weigh any costs
If you’re talking about my question of saving 1000 diseased people vs 100 unborn, I was no way insinuating that you should prefer one over the other, but I was asking for the purpose of evaluating your “pro-life” stance. I never said that we should save a diseased person over an unborn child.
Death by casualty shouldn’t make a difference. I am not of the belief that an abortion is a intentional, perverse murder. Do you really think that people are spitefully aborting their fetus for the sake of killing their would-be baby? I am by no means denying the fact that abortion results in the loss of human life. But intentional murder? I think that’s going too far.
“pro-abortion or pro-ignorance-is-bliss”
Seriously? They may be ignorant, but I refuse to believe that anyone would “actively” and consciously murder a child. They legitimately don’t think that a fetus is alive. How can this be so ridiculous a notion?
“If I killed a man in my house with a gun”
They don’t think abortion is murder. They think it is a right. A right is granted to them by the freedom we exercise as citizens. Shooting someone is taking an existing life (or what they consider to be a life). Like I said, abortion is NOT murder to them–a fetus is NOT a person! You can’t set aside such ideological differences.
“But I think they do know”
Here are some pro-choice points of view:
By the way, I’m not defending the pro-choice movement, but we should understand it…
I was never suggesting that you “want impoverished people to die or innocent civilians to die or people with disease or unclean water to die”…re-read my post. I was presenting my ideas of what pro-life means, how that resonates in me as a voter, and how I think the pro-life ideology should be viewed.
January 20th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Let me continue my irenic policies and try to step in to interpret here:
@ERic: You said “Do you really think that people are spitefully aborting their fetus for the sake of killing their would-be baby?”. That’s not what Riley was saying. But this was originally a conversation about why he votes a certain way, and so what the pro-choicers think about what they do is not as important as what they are actually condoning in reality.
The fact of the matter is that those who support abortion are supporting murder. They may not be doing so intentionally, but that’s what they are doing.
Also, the distinction that Riley (and I–look, I took a side, Riley) would make between abortion and not-sending-aid-to-Africa is that one is a direct act of murder, while the other is a matter of negligence. If you want to say that both people are equally guilty, I guess you can do that, but I suppose then we would all be murderers for not sending every penny that we didn’t spend on bread and water (no houses, those aren’t a necessity for life) overseas.
Riley’s point, though, is again a matter of how he would vote: no candidate is against aid for the poor/starving/dying-of-disease–almost every candidate wants to do whatever they can to stop those things. But some candidates do support abortion, which is the willful killing of a baby (even if they don’t think it’s a human).
January 20th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Now, @Riley: you said “They “don’t know” it’s a human because they don’t want to know. But I think they do know”. I think ERic’s point is that whether in their spirit they know it or not, their minds do not know it. They are not so far gone. I could be wrong but I think he’s trying to keep you from demonizing pro-choice supporters. But I must say, this is starting to sound like that one discussion at Shindig I tried to have about the Pharisees, that got shut down for some reason.\
@ERic and Riley: please let’s not get heated. I know this can be a touchy topic, but we can all agree that we hate abortion, and we hate people dying from disease/drought/starvation, and we hate people dying from war. So let’s not think that we’re accusing each other of that.
January 20th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
@III: Yes.
@Eric: I think we’re just misunderstanding each other. Trey made better sense of my views on the Pro-Choice argument than I could.
January 20th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Both of you are are missing each other’s points, because you are both coming at this from different idealogical angles.
Also, Eric’s not saying that you want impoverished people to die or innocent civilians to die or people with diseases or unclean water to die, just the same as you aren’t saying that Eric wants to kill babies.
Eric, coming from the government-as-arm angle, is saying (I think) that he thinks more lives would be saved with national healthcare, less war, and more legislation against poverty in general,
While Riley, coming from the government-as-head angle (these being terms that the mere reflections people have invented for our own purposes in this discussion) is saying (I think) that someone who values the lives of the unborn will most likely make better decisions in the face of other lives (i.e. since they value the unborn child’s life, they must value human life more than someone who does not value the unborn child’s life.
Am I correct in these assumptions?
January 20th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
And finally, to raise a question of my own:
Eric, you said
What do you mean by “easily”? Are you implying that ending world poverty is a simple matter? And I’m not asking this to try to prove you wrong. I’m really just curious as to whether there’s something I don’t know. I’ve been burdened recently that I haven’t cared enough about the desperately poor around the world, but I’ve understood that ending global poverty isn’t the most probable of goals.
January 20th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
@III: Sorry for shutting you down that one time…
January 20th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
@Zach: Yes, I think that’s pretty well my view on that subject. Thankyas.
January 20th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
@Riley: But Eric is saying that pro-choice people don’t put less value on the human life since they don’t believe that life begins at conception, (which is what Eric was addressing when Trey kind of ended that line of argument with his comment about how this started from your voting post) so that argument wouldn’t be valid.
January 20th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
@Zach: which is why I would be nervous about fully supporting a pro-choice person. If they don’t believe that life begins at conception, either they believe some sort of mystic magic happens when the baby exits the womb or they honestly do deep down know that life begins earlier but don’t want to believe that. Either way, I would oppose it.
January 20th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
@Riley: Well, Eric’s sources seem to place the start of life at the same time of the start of consciousness (sometime after birth) but I in no wat want to argue that.
Furthermore:
I am going to post a new blog.
January 20th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Haha good idea.
January 20th, 2010 at 11:28 pm
What in the world is the argument here? Why does it have to be either/or? THIS ideology against THAT ideology? Is there no in-between? I’m not “trackin’” with you guys.
Side-note: I have a close friend who has a close friend who had three abortions in 2009. Three precious children not allowed to have life because of this person’s negligence, and ultimately because of the opportunity to them given by the state (I mean, it’s easy). In one sense, what makes this weighty to me (besides the fact that it’s murder, whether those who are pro-choice believe it or not) is that it’s almost even a kind of Divorce. When a baby is conceived, God KNITS the baby in the mothers womb, and in one sense the baby and the mother and father are one. The baby is the result of the unity of the mother and father. God brings these three together – for the rest of this baby’s life, he or she will be the biological child of the mother and father no matter what. To abort a baby severs this union. Let no man separate what God brings together. God hates divorce.
That’s enough to convince me. Am I allowed to be pro-life and also hate murder and when people die because they don’t have health care and poverty and when children don’t have food?
January 20th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Yes, Molly, you are! And if that’s the thought we all come out of this discussion with, then it has been successful. I hope it is!
January 21st, 2010 at 12:02 am
@Molly: haha, everyone has an ideology. We naturally have to decide between ourselves what we will believe and sometimes we differ. In my opinion, it’s better to be firm in establishing our own views than to swim in a sea of ambiguity. But we can be nice about it and I think that’s what you’re getting at.
January 21st, 2010 at 12:09 am
Whoa, I missed a tussle.
Not going to add much, because I’m comfortable in pro-life stance, and also comfortable with the fact that it isn’t the only issue I vote on.
I did, however, want to add that the U.S. gives more money to foreign aid than any country in the world (though, we are second in private aid, percentage-wise). Could we give more? Yes, of course we could. But it’s not as if we haven’t sought to address the issue. Both parties have done an admirable job of sending foreign aid. The problems of poverty are immensely complex, and there’s a lot more to it than money. Third world governments routinely exploit their starving citizens and perpetuate the problem. In many cases, anything short of drastic regime change (or a miracle) is going to be insufficient. As much as the left hates him, George W. Bush did more for AIDS relief than any previous president (liberal pundits admit this).
I also wanted to point out that it’s probably unfair to say that people who support abortion don’t believe it is a life they are taking. I think the majority opinion is one of willful ignorance. Nancy Pelosi said that even if life began at conception, it would not affect her belief in the woman’s right to choose. I think Eric linked to something that talked about the issue being when we afford life human rights. As absurd as I think the argument is, I know that the issue isn’t life itself, and it’s why the debate will be in deadlock forever. It’s completely arbitrary.
I’m sympathetic to certain pro-choice views, but in the end, I come down on the other side of the fence. I am more than willing to compromise, if it saves lives, but I cannot accept that abortion isn’t ultimately an issue of convenience and pride. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether a fertilized egg is a life or not.
That’s my take. Carry on!
January 21st, 2010 at 12:30 am
@Andrew: Hear, hear.
January 21st, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Great post Riley. I sincerely agree.
January 21st, 2010 at 5:18 pm
“Am I allowed to be pro-life and also hate murder and when people die because they don’t have health care and poverty and when children don’t have food?”
Yes, Molly! I think that’s what my first post said…
“Eric is saying that pro-choice people don’t put less value on the human life since they don’t believe that life begins at conception”
Yes, Zach!
“What do you mean by “easily”?”
Honestly, I don’t think it’s at all difficult to provide humanitarian aid to people. There are countless organizations that are willing to do most of the physical work for us, as long as people provide some resources. Some places just need volunteers to serve food, because they don’t have paid employees.
It’s easy to bring up Africa. We can save several thousand lives DAILY by providing a LifeStraw, which is a filtered straw. They’re NOT expensive, and they filter for a year. It comes out to something like a penny a day. Alleviating hunger isn’t much more of a hassle. For some $150, you can feed 2700 kids one meal, or about 7 kids for a year. That’s something like $25 to feed a kid for a year. An ENTIRE year. Do you think that’s easy?
I also suggested that it may be easier, practically and effectively, to promote humanitarian aid than to fight abortion, which Andrew pointed out.
“I think we’re just misunderstanding each other.”
Riley, if you reread my original post and subsequent comments, I was never accusing you of neglecting any humanitarian issues, nor was I suggesting that you’re wrong for thinking that you consider abortion above any other issue. I was, however, presenting my ideas of a pro-life ideology and how that aligns with my political vision.
In my very first comment, I wrote that “I was suggesting that pro-life is more than simply anti-abortion (as Andrew said). I think that there are many other ways we can promote life, as the term pro-life indicates.” How does this call for a rebuttal? Or rather, how is this an attack on your original post?
To my original post, you commented, “I think you’re missing my point.” As much as I doubt you’ll believe this, it really wasn’t a response to your post; I said that I’ve been considering “pro-life” for a while, and your post encouraged me to express my ideas.
To your rebuttal, I did respond emphatically, because I find some of your discussion incongruous and misdirected (“rebuttal” at what? racist vs pro-choice? abortion = prescribed, intended murders as a greater purpose?), but I understood what you meant in your post “Why I’m a Single-Issue Voter.”
“I could be wrong but I think he’s trying to keep you from demonizing pro-choice supporters.”
That’s a great way to put it! I think I was (I’ve slept since then) frustrated at your (Riley’s) presentation of the pro-choicers (intended murders/greater purpose of murder). Honestly, I think they have the same intentions as we do in saving lives.
January 21st, 2010 at 8:12 pm
That’s a great way to put it! I think I was (I’ve slept since then) frustrated at your (Riley’s) presentation of the pro-choicers (intended murders/greater purpose of murder). Honestly, I think they have the same intentions as we do in saving lives.
Wait, what?
January 21st, 2010 at 9:05 pm
I said that in light of…
“The casualties [of war, terrorism, etc] are not prescribed, intended, or desired. When one is pro-choice, however, there is no greater purpose. There is no greater option or greater cause. When one is pro-choice, this literally means he does not believe that the killing of unborn children is of great significance.”
“I think you’re missing most all of my points… because I’m so Pro-Life doesn’t mean that I want impoverished people to die or innocent civilians to die or people with disease or unclean water to die… I don’t know where you’re getting that from.”
Just curious, what point was I missing? And where did I say that you want impoverished, etc people to die?
January 21st, 2010 at 9:20 pm
As an innocent bystander here, I just want to say that it did seem like you (Eric) were painting someone with Riley’s perspective (which would include Riley) as not caring about the lives lost to hunger/disease/etc., and I’m basing that just off your tone and some of your arguments. I’m not saying you “accused” him of that directly, but that’s the way it came across.
And while I understand your defence of pro-choicers in the sense that you don’t want them portrayed as perverted, systematic killers who get pleasure out of destroying children, I think you just need to be really careful about making it clear you don’t agree with them. One thing I’ve learned about playing devil’s advocate in flammable issues like this one is that it is VERY VERY easy for someone to misunderstand you, and think that the views you are defending are your own.
I wish we could have this discussion in person. It’s so easy to misunderstand each other when all we can see is text.
January 21st, 2010 at 9:57 pm
@Trey: Amen to in person discussion.
On the issue of pro-life/pro-choice, all I can say conclusively is that abortion is active, intended murder whether with ignorance pled or not. I don’t really think I will debate that anymore.
January 24th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Oh, also, I wanted to comment on what ERic said in answer to my question about ending poverty being “easy”.
I think it’d be better to say that relieving poverty is relatively simple/cheap. And it’s cool to here about all those organizations. I’m trying to set aside a good portion of what I spend/get to give away, so I’ll look at some of those options for what to do with the money.