Loving Our Pro-Choice Neighbors in Word and Deed

Even if abortion is murder, I question the wisdom of calling it that when discussing it with pro abortionists. It is just inflammatory because obviously, pro abortionists do no believe abortion to be murder. It is also a bit of a logic problem because it assumes something as fact that is not proven (at least from the world’s viewpoint).

Jim, the problem is that pro-abortionists for the most part do not consider it taking human life or at least not during the early stages of pregnancy. And since the matter of when life begins is debatable, opening an argument by stating the unproven assumption as fact that life begins at conception is not going to get anyone far with pro-abortionists.

It is interesting to me that in general, over the past few centuries, it has been the liberals who have championed rights for the oppressed (minorities, women, employees and even children). They have done a lot of good for humanity and never before in the history of the world have we probably valued life of all humans more than we do now. But abortion is the one glaring exception to that rule and liberals are on the wrong side of that one in stark contrast to their record. I don’t know quite what to make of it but it is more complicated than pro-lifers tend to give them credit for. Calling them murderers is just an overly simplistic reaction.

I posted a comment on the CT article to the effect that, by Prior’s definition, no one in Nazi Germany could oppose the Holocaust as murder because the government at the time said it was legal to kill Jews and other “undesirables.”

This was an extremely unwise comment for her to make. It’s only going to provide ammunition to the pro-abortionists.

I would be extremely hesitant to use the term “murder” in a personal conversation with an acquaintance who is not pro-life because I do believe it inflames the conversation. There are other ways to argue that a life is being taken without using the harsh term “murder.”

On the other hand, I’m not sure the fact that abortionists don’t considering it to be the taking of a life to be the determining factor, as GregH argues. Pro-gay “marriage” proponents believe two homosexuals getting married is “marriage,” but that is not going to stop me from making the case that it is not.

[GregH]

Jim, the problem is that pro-abortionists for the most part do not consider it taking human life or at least not during the early stages of pregnancy. And since the matter of when life begins is debatable, opening an argument by stating the unproven assumption as fact that life begins at conception is not going to get anyone far with pro-abortionists.

It is interesting to me that in general, over the past few centuries, it has been the liberals who have championed rights for the oppressed (minorities, women, employees and even children). They have done a lot of good for humanity and never before in the history of the world have we probably valued life of all humans more than we do now. But abortion is the one glaring exception to that rule and liberals are on the wrong side of that one in stark contrast to their record. I don’t know quite what to make of it but it is more complicated than pro-lifers tend to give them credit for. Calling them murderers is just an overly simplistic reaction.

Put all the “work”, dollars, manpower, etc… of what the “liberals” (read as non-Christ followers in this context) have done to relieve human misery and put it up against those whose work has been done in the name of Jesus and there would be no argument about the HUGE gulf that exists. The Left wants you to think that they are more benevolent and generous, but research and history itself reveals the truth. In much of history, the generosity of Socialism, Leftists and Liberals is that they take the money of others and give it to their agenda and think themselves generous.

[DLCreed]

GregH wrote:

Jim, the problem is that pro-abortionists for the most part do not consider it taking human life or at least not during the early stages of pregnancy. And since the matter of when life begins is debatable, opening an argument by stating the unproven assumption as fact that life begins at conception is not going to get anyone far with pro-abortionists.

It is interesting to me that in general, over the past few centuries, it has been the liberals who have championed rights for the oppressed (minorities, women, employees and even children). They have done a lot of good for humanity and never before in the history of the world have we probably valued life of all humans more than we do now. But abortion is the one glaring exception to that rule and liberals are on the wrong side of that one in stark contrast to their record. I don’t know quite what to make of it but it is more complicated than pro-lifers tend to give them credit for. Calling them murderers is just an overly simplistic reaction.

Put all the “work”, dollars, manpower, etc… of what the “liberals” (read as non-Christ followers in this context) have done to relieve human misery and put it up against those whose work has been done in the name of Jesus and there would be no argument about the HUGE gulf that exists. The Left wants you to think that they are more benevolent and generous, but research and history itself reveals the truth. In much of history, the generosity of Socialism, Leftists and Liberals is that they take the money of others and give it to their agenda and think themselves generous.

Hate to break it to you but liberal does not mean “non-Christ follower.” There is absolutely no connection. And there is no doubt that the major advances in human rights over the past 200 years have all been championed by progressives/liberals while the conservatives were on the wrong side. That includes the toppling of the monarchies and class warfare in Europe, the rights of minorities, the rights of women, the rights of children, the rights of employees and the rights of the poor. Yes, Christians fought for those rights—primarily liberal Christians though.

You’ll notice I said to “read as non-Christ followers in this context”. I’m fully cognizant of the fact that by some definitions, Christianity is in and of itself “liberal”. I am referencing the current gulf that exists between secular liberalism and religious social/conservativism. However, the fast majority of advances in human rights over the past 200 years have not all been championed by progressives/liberals unless you want to roll things like the right to abortion, right to gay marriage, right to sodomy, right to publish porn, etc… as matters of “advancement”. Issues like right to life, death of slavery, battles against human trafficking, advocating for adoption, feeding/sheltering homeless and addicted, children’s homes and orphanages (until the liberals banned them to be replaced by our horrifically flawed foster care system), medical missions from founding hospitals to field hospitals in 3rd World Countries, etc… have been led more often by Christian activists than secular liberals. Not sure what you are using as your dictionary or research sources, but the evidence is incontrovertible.

Conservative: holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

Liberal: open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

The difference between conservatives and liberals has nothing to do with Christianity. It is about how they view tradition. When the tradition is bad, the liberals are on the right side. When the tradition is good, it is the conservatives that are on the right side.

In the areas of valuing the oppressed (abortion excluded), we have seen great progress in the past 200 years. That is in spite of conservatives that tried to conserve the disgusting status quo of monarchies and a privileged class and their wrong view of women, minorities, the working class, and children. Over the past 200 years or so within Western civilization, conservatives have been on the wrong side of all of those things (at least at the start though they obviously come around. For example, BJU finally started accepting black students a few decades ago but only after a long fight fought and won by liberals).

The fact that we live in a democracy where people are treated equally and valued is not because of conservatives. It is thanks to liberals who saw the problems and fought them. That is just an uncomfortable truth. So my point is that the abortion thing is interesting because it goes against what liberals have traditionally stood for.

Again, you keep trying to connect conservative/liberal to secular/Christian. There is no correlation.

[GregH]

DLCreed wrote:

GregH wrote:

Jim, the problem is that pro-abortionists for the most part do not consider it taking human life or at least not during the early stages of pregnancy. And since the matter of when life begins is debatable, opening an argument by stating the unproven assumption as fact that life begins at conception is not going to get anyone far with pro-abortionists.

It is interesting to me that in general, over the past few centuries, it has been the liberals who have championed rights for the oppressed (minorities, women, employees and even children). They have done a lot of good for humanity and never before in the history of the world have we probably valued life of all humans more than we do now. But abortion is the one glaring exception to that rule and liberals are on the wrong side of that one in stark contrast to their record. I don’t know quite what to make of it but it is more complicated than pro-lifers tend to give them credit for. Calling them murderers is just an overly simplistic reaction.

Put all the “work”, dollars, manpower, etc… of what the “liberals” (read as non-Christ followers in this context) have done to relieve human misery and put it up against those whose work has been done in the name of Jesus and there would be no argument about the HUGE gulf that exists. The Left wants you to think that they are more benevolent and generous, but research and history itself reveals the truth. In much of history, the generosity of Socialism, Leftists and Liberals is that they take the money of others and give it to their agenda and think themselves generous.

Hate to break it to you but liberal does not mean “non-Christ follower.” There is absolutely no connection. And there is no doubt that the major advances in human rights over the past 200 years have all been championed by progressives/liberals while the conservatives were on the wrong side. That includes the toppling of the monarchies and class warfare in Europe, the rights of minorities, the rights of women, the rights of children, the rights of employees and the rights of the poor. Yes, Christians fought for those rights—primarily liberal Christians though.

Greg and DL Creed,

If we go back to the 19th and even the early 20th century, evangelicals were not necessarily categorized in the conservative and liberal/progressives like they are now. Some scholarly works such as Timothy L. Smith’s “Revival and Social Reform” have shown that a lot of evangelicals (not just the Charles Finney types) were at the forefront of addressing slavery, poverty, and greed, from an institutional perspective. Another dissertation that I’ve read, Norris Magnusons’ “Salvation in the Slums: Evangelical Social work, 1865-1920” brought out the fact that there were was a large segment of evangelicals (including the Salvation Army when it was theologically conservative) that were championing the rights of minorities, women, children, employees, and the poor. Many of these laws would not have passed if it hadn’t been for their evangelical support. It wasn’t until the 1920’s and on that we see the theological rift between the conservative and liberals, which also had a profound affect on how conservative evangelicals viewed social reform.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but DL Creed seems to be viewing history of social reform from a 21st century perspective. There have been many studies in the past 20 years that shows how political conservatives (many of whom are born again Christians) are much more generous in giving to charities than their liberal counterparts. However, that was not the case, 100 years ago. Liberals/Progressives were just as generous with their charity as conservatives. For instance, as much as Walter Rauschenbusch (father of the social gospel) advocated socialist policies as solutions for social problems, he was also a generous man with his charity. So were most other progressive/liberal Christians back then. In contrast, Greg H seems to be viewing history from a mid 20th century perspective. Before Timothy’s L. Smith’s landmark book, most historians believed as Greg H. does that the liberal/progressive side of Christianity were primarily the ones that championed social reform, while the conservative side of Christianity either fought against it or did not engage in it. As I mentioned above, Smith and others have proved this to be not true. The majority of scholars have accepted Smith’s view.

Again, I think it is clouding the issue to try to mix two ideas. I am talking purely about liberalism vs conservatism, not where Christians fell across that spectrum.

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson was a liberal because he had the audacity to stand up against the conservatives who believed that the right form of government was a monarchy (because that was the European tradition). That liberalism led to the collapse of oppressive monarchies not only in the US but in Europe as well. That is progress, not from conservatives but from liberals.

In 1850, Lincoln stood up against slavery and his was a liberal idea. Conservatives were happy with the status quo established by the US Constitution. His liberalism helped lead to a radical new way of viewing humans.

In the early 20th Century, brave women stood up for women’s rights. They were considered liberal—conservatives wanted things to stay the way they are. That has led us to where we are today where women actually are finally treated equally (mostly) to men, perhaps for the first time in the history of humanity that I know of.

In the mid-20th Century, it was liberals that fought for civil rights. The conservatives were on the sidelines or fighting tooth and nail. In fact, to this day, you see relics of that. If you want to look for racism, just go into a few prosperous conservative churches here in Atlanta. You won’t have a hard time finding it. There is a reason why BJU was one of the last universities in the country that allowed African Americans to enroll decades after Billy Graham (considered liberal by the BJ peeps) was trying to desegregate his crusades.

These ideas all represent progress and they are all based on the liberalism (a rejection of tradition in the hopes of improvement) and were fought vigorously by the conservatives of their respective times. Whether Christians were on both sides of those debates is not the issue though it is clear they were on both sides.

It is confusing when looking at history as to were the conservatives and who were the liberals because perceptions change over time. The simple question to ask is who was fighting for tradition and who was fighting for progress. That tells you who was who. And I am glad that liberals have usually won.

Wow, what an amazing distortion of history this is. So basically anyone who fought for change of any kind was a liberal? Abraham Lincoln was a liberal? (Remember, he was just as much in favor of PRESERVING THE UNION (in other words, fighting against change) as he was for abolishing slavery.) Let’s just throw out all definitions of liberal and conservative then.

Yes, of course there were conservative Christians arguing for slavery in the 19th century and against civil rights in the 20th century. But there were conservative Christians on the opposite sides of those issues, too.