I’m really not up for a fight, but this needs to be said so I’m saying it. Or at least letting the links speak for themselves.
There’s a new initiative under way by a black pro-life organization. The campaign is called “Fatherhood Begins in the Womb.” (h/t: Ann Brock). I agree with their stated aims and think that fathers are too often forgotten when this subject is discussed. However, I also think they go a bit too far in placing the problem of black fatherlessness solely at the feet of men.
I agree with Dr. Keith Ablow that men should have a say in the lives of their children from conception. If a man can object to his child being adopted out, surely he should be to object to the child being killed.
On that very serious and somber note, I wish y’all a restful, worshipful, and family-filled weekend.
The link said that black men were somehow “empowered” by Roe v. Wade to “have sex and run”?? Where do they get that from?
Now, most of the black families I knew as a child were very patriarchal (I say that using the “good” connotation). You listened to what Grandpa and Papa said or else and said, “Yes, sir” to him. I can’t imagine these men reading the paper after the decision came down and saying, “Yippeee! I can have sex and run now!”
It’s insulting to the character of many, many black men to use even something so horrid as abortion to make a political point like that, yk??
Hey Terry I’m having a hard time understanding this statement: “When a man has sex with a woman he is consenting to being a FATHER”. I totally, completely, absolutely disagree with that idea.
“When a man has sex with a woman he is consenting to being a FATHER”. I totally, completely, absolutely disagree with that idea.
I disagree with that statement, too Ann. Unless we’re going to say that “when a woman has sex with a man, she is consenting to be a MOTHER”, then this statement is discriminatory against men.
Of course abortion rights are built on just the opposite premise. That’s why I said what I said in the post:
I also think they go a bit too far in placing the problem of black fatherlessness solely at the feet of men.
They do go to far. I want to see fewer babies aborted, but I don’t want to see men demonized for women’s bad choices.
@ Happy Elf Mom: I agree with you. Like I said above, their goal is good, but their tactics here are questionable.
Women are (whether we want to admit it or not) the gatekeepers of sex. Unless there is a rape, there is no sex without a woman giving the green light. This is what WOMEN wanted: the ability to “have sex and run.” Sex without the possibility or the responsibility of motherhood.
The government made things worse by incentivizing female promiscuity.
I don’t like the way they turned this around on men. Yes, men bear some responsibility, but this goes too far. The blame is equal, not disproportionately borne by men.
“Now, most of the black families I knew as a child were very patriarchal (I say that using the “good” connotation). ”
Wait a minute…. patriarchal has a bad connotation?
Regardless, remember this old report by Daniel Moynihan?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action
“I don’t like the way they turned this around on men. Yes, they bear some responsibility, but this goes too far.”
Boundless and similar Christian sites do this all the time. They blame men for women’s abortions.
@AnnBrock wrote: “When a man has sex with a woman he is consenting to being a FATHER”. I totally, completely, absolutely disagree with that idea.”
I completely disagree with your statement. If you are having sex than you ARE consenting to the potential result, children.
@terri wrote: “Women are (whether we want to admit it or not) the gatekeepers of sex.”
I agree this is true but if we put the responsibility on the woman to be the gatekeeper than we remove the responsibility from the man to control himself. He is supposed to be the leader in all situations and as a leader he has to be held accountable for his decisions.
I presume that the target audience for this advert is men…i.e., those dastardly deadbeat guys should get with it and have some investment in the children they sire.
But there is another way to interpret this image…and that is as a message to women to respect a man’s contribution, right, and responsibility in the new life that was made. Talk about a paradigm shift for our society, one that declares in word and deed that kids are the property of mom. But I wonder (a) how many women would interpret the billboard this way, and (b) would actually take it to heart?
Oh, were it so that the veto power that Dr. Ablow supported in that Fox News OpEd piece were reality. It is far more radical in these libertine times than C4M ever dreamt of being.
Good post, Terri.
“a message to women to respect a man’s contribution, right, and responsibility in the new life that was made.”
Maybe because I am a married woman with lots of kids I am biased, but that is how I interpreted the sign.
Coupla thoughts.
Although Ms Planned Parenthood, (Margaret Sanger), was intensely racist and her efforts to win women our “right” to do what we please with our bodies were largely intended to help control what she believed to be an undesirable population surge of black people, this issue goes far beyond the problem of black fatherlessness, who has what “rights” or even abortion.
The entire contraception culture has reformed American thinking about the value of children, purpose of sex and it’s appropriate parameters…even within marriage.
This is what WOMEN wanted: the ability to “have sex and run.” Sex without the possibility or the responsibility of motherhood.
In some cases, this would be true. And all of us are inherently selfish. However, it cuts both ways and I’d say that although the rallying cry has been “female empowerment”, the reality is that much of the responsibility for avoiding the inevitable consequences of “cheap sex” has, from the beginning, been dumped on women (how many male forms of contraception are there in comparison?). It might make women “gatekeepers” by default. But note how the deceptively presented push for “rights” has created a false sense of responsibility which also has gotten dumped on women and then lost in the battle for the ability to opt out of the consequences of poor choices.
My husband has said before that he’s “pro-choice”. But he believes that the choice needs to be made well before any baby’s life is at stake. And, I believe this echoes the sentiment relayed by God’s Man, above. Stress should first be placed on responsibility of both men and women and it needs to be done at the appropriate juncture.
“Although Ms Planned Parenthood, (Margaret Sanger), was intensely racist and her efforts to win women our “right” to do what we please with our bodies were largely intended to help control ”
Yes, apparently she was a “Catholic” as well. I wonder if she was excommunicated for promoting birth control(American laws banned promoting such obscene material, but thanks to the 1st Amendment those laws were considered “unconstitutional”)…. She probably wasn’t. The Church has continually failed to excommunicate politicians who advocate divorce, abortion, and gay rights as well in more recent times. Ahh, if a little tart like her had lived under Pope Pius IX’s reign, she’d definitely get excommunicated. Under Pope Paul III, she’d be placed into the loving hands of the Inquisition. Only in America.
Her racism and eugenical mindset was appalling and unChristian as well. Here’s a good article by Bruce Charlton on the matter: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-eugenics-is-bad-and-anti-eugenics.html
“My husband has said before that he’s “pro-choice”.”
What does that mean?
First of all, let me welcome God’s Man to the conversation. Thanks for your input.
Secondly, Ann said something in the comments of her post that I think is the lynchpin affecting my thoughts on this campaign. She said they are in essence, conflating two separate issues into one. And I agree with her wholeheartedly.
Yes, the burden has been dumped onto women but women made the decision to absolve men of the responsibility that comes with sexual activity. I am no fool. I fully recognize that there is a significant percentage of men who enjoy the sex without responsibility culture. But make no mistake about this. It is men that get thrown in jail for non-payment of child support even if they are doing the best they can to do right by their kids. So the idea that men are getting off scot free is a bit overstated.
I stand by my original comment. If you are going to say that men automatically choose fatherhood when they choose sex, then you have to say that women automatically choose motherhood when they choose sex. Yes, I know what the law says, but as godly people we shouldn’t subscribe to double standards.
All that said, I agree with Wapiti that this is probably targeted at the cohort of men (a sadly not insignificant number in the black community) who are just deadbeat dads from whatever angle you look at it. And yes, they (the men and the women) compound the problem by not even being responsible enough to try and prevent unwanted pregnancies or children they are in no position to care for.
There are few forms of make contraception because of the very thing Heather mentioned: biology. It will probably always be easier to develop forms of contraception for women than for men. Which is why I don’t understand why women worked so hard to come out from under the societal, cultural, and legal protections that were in place to protect them precisely because the burden of children rests more heavily on the women in any other system than one where men provide and protect.
Interestingly enough, Svar, in Sanger’s day, even Protestants were not so willing to buy into her scheme.
What does that mean?
It means that the potential consequences (emotional, social, relational and procreational) implications need to be carefully considered before either the man or woman engages in “consensual sexual relations”. There is a reason God designated such interaction to be restricted to a committed, long-term marriage relationship and there’s a lot more at stake than a few minutes of pleasure.
If you are going to say that men automatically choose fatherhood when they choose sex, then you have to say that women automatically choose motherhood when they choose sex.
It’s not about automatically making a choice to become a parent, but rather, being adult enough to recognize the very real potential and be willing to accept that this is part of the packaged deal.
Whether or not birth control is employed, most forms have a significant failure rate (for various reasons).
It occurred to me that I forgot to complete a thought in my earlier comment.
Let me try to explain what I (and I think Ann) means by conflating two issues:
There is the issue of the sanctity of life, and the issue of the nature of sex. While they appear to be the same issue, they are not entirely the same issue. Yes illicit sexual relationships largely power the increase in the numbers of women seeking abortions. But if that were the whole of the matter, then there would be no married women seeking abortions and we know that they do.
The fact that 70% of babies are born out of wedlock in the black community (40% in the American population at large) clearly illustrates that irresponsible, Biblically unsanctioned sexual behavior is a problem. It needs to be addressed. A very large proportion of these children grow up without an active and involved father in their lives and we are all well versed in the results of this tragedy.
But this is a pro-life campaign, ostensibly aimed at stopping the scourge of disproportionate numbers of abortions in the black community. The answer to that problem is not to implore single men and women to consider the lives of their babies after they are conceived. The answer to that is to preach the gospel (if you’re believers) and make clear that fornication is a sin to those who receive the gospel. If the goal is not religious in nature, then the answer is to educate these young men and women about the tens of contraceptive options available to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place to prevent the slaughter of as many innocent unborn children as possible. Yes many fail, but it’s better than nothing and they work more often than not.
See, the statement that Ann and I decry suggests that the men either a) coerce the pregnant woman into having an abortion, or b) at the very least make it clear that he supports abortion and has no intention of being a father.
I think this is a giant leap and I’m not sure it’s a sound assumption to make.
It’s not about automatically making a choice to become a parent, but rather, being adult enough to recognize the very real potential and be willing to accept that this is part of the packaged deal.
Yes, Heather. I agree.
“a message to women to respect a man’s contribution, right, and responsibility in the new life that was made.”
Obviously I agree with that, which is why I linked to the piece by Keith Ablow.
Maybe I should have interpreted it that way, but I’ve spent my life hearing about how bad black men are and how strong and selfless black women are so I assumed it was more of the same.
There is the issue of the sanctity of life, and the issue of the nature of sex. While they appear to be the same issue, they are not entirely the same issue.
I don’t know, Terry. Maybe it’s just my own inability to clearly separate this into two distinctly different issues. I mean, it’s possible to examine each in an isolated state…but, in the case of unplanned pregnancy and abortion, I see the two to be inextricably connected.
A primary function of sexual union is to create new life. All of nature testifies to this fact.
Yes illicit sexual relationships largely power the increase in the numbers of women seeking abortions. But if that were the whole of the matter, then there would be no married women seeking abortions and we know that they do.
There are married couples who choose to abort their babies, too, though, due to such things as reports of genetic “defect” or even financial strain. And again, consideration of the sanctity of life and nature of sex both come into play here.
Maybe it’s just my own inability to clearly separate this into two distinctly different issues. I mean, it’s possible to examine each in an isolated state…but, in the case of unplanned pregnancy and abortion, I see the two to be inextricably connected.
A primary function of sexual union is to create new life. All of nature testifies to this fact.
I see your point Heather and I don’t disagree. I am simply making the distinction as it is currently accepted in modern Western culture. Of course sex and procreation go together! The separation of the two have wrought incalculable havoc on our society as a whole.
However, we have a situation that has unfolded thusly: Secular culture blames men for the burden women bear as a result of unwanted children. Hence the increasing pressure on men and the increasing punishment when they don’t fulfill the financial obligations as outlined by the state, which is another issue entirely.
The church on the other hand, blames men for not taking the lead and not having self-control. I’ll add here as an aside that the church has been deafeningly silent when it comes to the legal and cultural standards that we can hold up to encourage the sacredness of sex and the protection of children. The church’s public stand has basically been “Don’t fornicate” , but if you do, “Choose life.” This is woefully inadequate given the current sexual climate in this country.
I would feel better if someone would have the guts to call out men and women equally. That is all I’m trying to say here. It seems I’m bungling it badly if I have expressed the view sex and procreation are separate from each other. That is not MY view, it the current legal and cultural standard that has been used to stack the deck against men and make it easier and easier for women to NOT be chaste and NOT be wives and NOT treat men with the respect they are due in the lives of their children from the womb to adulthood. Yes, men are promiscuous too, but they are still held legally accountable for the children sired as a result. Actually that’s not true. They are held financially responsible.
I think maybe I have too much in my head that precludes me from discussing this effectively.
Okay. I think I see what you mean, now, Terry.
The separation of the two have wrought incalculable havoc on our society as a whole.
Yes, it has. I suppose that leads to the question of whether Christians ought to allow the faulty definitions of secular society to determine the way we approach certain topics.
Our culture is troubled and quickly sinking in a mire of sinful indulgence. As you have noted before, though, the Church needs to put her own house in order before we go charging into the world to correct outside error.
They are held financially responsible.
Seems as though pretty much everything in our society boils down to finances, doesn’t it?
I suppose that leads to the question of whether Christians ought to allow the faulty definitions of secular society to determine the way we approach certain topics.
I see what you’re saying and I partially agree. I do not subscribe to the faulty definitions of secular society when approaching this issue. But refusing to look at the logic behind their arguments and the legal structure in place implies that believers can have no part in being agents of change on the issue of abortion aside from the preaching of the gospel.
While I agree that as a primary position, it’s the one we should take (the eternal is always to be our principle concern), I see no problem with working within the framework of the current secular legal system to find justice on behalf the unborn. I think we can and should do that as the opportunity presents itself. I don’t believe that betrays our commitment to Christ or to the gospel.
refusing to look at the logic behind their arguments and the legal structure in place implies that believers can have no part in being agents of change on the issue of abortion aside from the preaching of the gospel.
I’m not of the blinders and earplugs mindset and see nothing wrong with recognizing the underlying thought processes of those with whom we engage. And yes, it is right to desire to re-establish a sense of justice in our legal system which provides protection to the weakest among us.
I do think our difference here is just that I tend to have a hard time with being able to successfully move from secular rationalization back into “Christian” thought. Various moments of parental frustration has proven how easy it is to get stuck trying to fight spot fire protests and rationalizations when the wall of flame is closing in quickly.
I do think our difference here is just that I tend to have a hard time with being able to successfully move from secular rationalization back into “Christian” thought.
I’ve actually been periodically looking forward to your reply which is why I’m responding so quickly.
Am I understanding that you view taking the time to look at an issue from the opposite side as entertaining “secular rationalization”? That analyzing the issue from all sides is somehow opposed to Christian thought?
Hmmm… I find that interesting because I have never looked at the secular side of the issue of abortion as anything other than abhorrent even as I have unpacked the legal maneuvering that would be required to greatly decrease the number of abortions performed in this country.
I am not sure whether my “gift” for deconstructing is one I should consider an asset or a character flaw when you put it that way. Ha!
Oh and I agree with you about missing the forest for the trees and focusing on putting out spot fires. I’m actually not much of a political activist, by the way.
The problem with the abortion debate is similar to debating whether or not God exists with an atheist: neither side can prove anything. I mean, can we rationally prove that life starts at conception? Can they prove that it doesn’t?
We can’t and they can’t. A logical debate on this matter is impossible. They believe in their crap and we believe in our Faith. We need to stop wasting time trying to debate the undebatable and go straight to Kulturkampf territory. This is a Culture War, plain and simple and only one side is going to win. However, our side is handicapped by the fact that we do not control the schools, the universities, or the media like they do. What we do have on our side is the fact that Leftism is suicidal. What we can do is try to build up our local communities and Churches, home school, vote for less government regulation in all factors of life, vote for extreme immigration restriction, raise our children to have a long counter-march through the institutions, and most importantly, go forth and multiply. By the time Babylon burns, we’ll have Christendom in a good position before the ashes can even cool.
@ Heather
Check out this article: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/02/democracy-versus-populism.html
“Let’s be clear on this – democracy is leftist, populism is rightist.
Democracy is about process, populism is all about outcomes.”
I just realized why I have a blatant disregard for the democratic process and the Constitution-I’m a populist, of the worst sort: right-wing socially conservative populism combined with distributist(micro-capitalist)/centrist/3rd Way economic populism. I personally think that this is far better political platform than the one that Neo-Cons and Fox News Conservatives push. One that is more likely to succeed.
I also realized why I am so outcomes-oriented instead of process-oriented.
Am I understanding that you view taking the time to look at an issue from the opposite side as entertaining “secular rationalization”? That analyzing the issue from all sides is somehow opposed to Christian thought?
Not exactly.
I believe it is prudent for Christians to be aware of what information is being circulated and I can accept that some individuals are highly capable of assessing a secular (or alternative religious) view from it’s own perspective and be able to point out logical error without getting derailed from the need to remain Christ-centered.
But, I don’t seem to be very good at it and end up on peripheral tangents. My husband has pointed this out to me a few times by showing me how I often will get into a lengthy, rambling back-and-forth with one of my kids because I allowed their (flawed) line of reasoning to dictate the direction we took. In the end, my corrective point gets lost and they get the idea that I’m willing to negotiate on lines I can’t afford to move.
I’m actually not much of a political activist, by the way.
I’m not, either. But, we do all have to answer the question as to what it means to be a responsible citizen.
Perhaps a good general guideline for what I’m trying to say would be Proverbs 26:4-5
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
It looks like the two statements contradict, but, I believe the idea is that it is foolish to get stuck debating a “fool” on his own level. If response is made in kind, with similar attitude or by giving too much credence to his view, then there is a danger of falling into error as well.
On the other hand, foolish statements need to be answered swiftly and with cutting, Biblically-aligned accuracy so that the one who uttered them will not have an excuse to continue thinking he is right.
Be aware of what the opposition is saying ..but wade in only as far as is necessary to be able to answer wisely.
Am I making any sense?
Svar,
Interesting thought. Put in that light, democracy is designed to keep people spinning in circles with no clearly defined goal.
Populism would be concerned with identifying an end point and making a plan to safely and efficiently arrive at the destination point.
Populism would definitely be preferable if the goal proved to be a worthy one.
To be honest, I’m not wild about “democracy”, either.
I have no issues with the idea that we are all created “equal” under God. But, when postmodernist philosophy kicks out the foundation of commonly agreed upon standard of right and wrong and everyone’s opinion, religion and lifestyle choices are supposedly equally valid then it’s the perfect environment for anarchy to thrive.
Am I making any sense?
Yes, perfect sense.
Heather and Terri:
“I’m actually not much of a political activist, by the way.
I’m not, either. But, we do all have to answer the question as to what it means to be a responsible citizen.”
Some idiotic Leftist said that “the political is the personal”. He/She/It was right. A broken clock is right twice a day.
http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/p/catholic-politics-101.html
“Catholicism is more than just a religion. It is a comprehensive way of life, that should encompass every aspect of our being — including and most especially politics!”
Just replace “Catholicism” with Christianity and you’ll realize that the same applies for Protestants. We need a genuine Cultural Counter-Revolution. This is a Kulturkampf and things like sustaining our communities and our Churches will limit the role of the (liberal)Government in our families and friends. Voting to defund parts of the government is a very good start but you need to replace most of these things(I say most because we don’t need to replace things like Planned Parenthood) with something else: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Tory
“The term “Red Tory” has been revived in recent years by individuals such as the British philosopher and Director of the ResPublica think tank, Phillip Blond, to promote a radical communitarian Traditionalist Conservatism which inveighs against welfare state monopoly as well as market monopolies. Instead, it respects traditional values and institutions, localism, devolution of powers from the central governments to local communities, small businesses, volunteerism and favours empowering social enterprises, charities and other elements of civil society to solve problems such as poverty.[2]”
The Red Tories of Canada have a good plan.
Svar,
I’ll let Terry answer for herself, but when I say I’m not a political activist, I’m not talking about disinterested pacifism. I just don’t place a lot of stock in the idea that successful political manipulation is my ultimate hope.
Just replace “Catholicism” with Christianity and you’ll realize that the same applies for Protestants.
Who you really are determines what you do.
We need a genuine Cultural Counter-Revolution.
You are not at all alone in that sentiment.
“I just don’t place a lot of stock in the idea that successful political manipulation is my ultimate hope.”
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/02/christianity-and-political-correctness.html
“Christianity cannot be used – and the attempt should not be made – as a means to the end of good secular government.
(For instance, Christianity should not be used as a means of making people behave well.)”
and:
“It is very likely that Christians (real Christians) are not going to be on the winning side in this world.
At least, things have been getting worse from a Christian perspective for such a long time, and are now very bad indeed; and much wiser heads than mine have perceived that this is unlikely to be reversed (except perhaps temporarily and in a localized way) – and indeed things are likely to get very much worse.”
and:
“SO (what I think is that) Christianity is probably ‘not a good bet’, not an expedient choice, if someone is looking for power, status, influence, worldly happiness or indeed freedom from suffering.
But only a valid choice for people looking for reality (i.e. The Good: approximately for Truth, Beauty and Virtue): looking – that is – to save their souls and (perhaps) those of (some) others -
…but not a good bet for those looking to save a ‘civilization’, or a nation, or an ethnicity or any large grouping. Since all such are now so thoroughly corrupted by worldliness that they do not want to save their souls (not, indeed, believing that they have any souls to be saved).”
Seems that you and Terri have a point. We can not revive Christianity on a national or civilizational level, but we can preserve it at the local levels the same way Christian groups in the Balkans and Anatolia did during Ottoman rule.
“Who you really are determines what you do. ”
What do you mean by this?
What do you mean by this?
Jesus put it this way:
The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. Luke 6:45
Doing (or speaking) flows from being.
Although we are not perfect (sinless) like Christ, if an individual’s identity is found in a genuine relationship with Christ, he will be motivated and enabled to do what pleases God.
I like Heather, am not inclined to put hope in governmental solutions to moral problems. Clearly I am interested in the political and am politically aware as evidenced by the things I post here. I do (again as evidenced by this conversation) believe that as much as possible, American Christians have a responsibility to vote in line with our conscious as well as support ideas and legislation that have the potential to produce a godly result even in the context of a secular system so long as those ideas are not unbiblical.
But I am not an activist in any meaningful way. I don’t campaign for candidates, don’t have much faith in either of the two major parties, and constantly remind myself that this is not the end of the story nor is America the center of the universe.. We get so caught up in this stuff sometimes that we lose sight of the world outside our borders and the greater command to reach the lost.
I think you have a point Svar about the building of community among believers. I am often struck at the contrast between myself (a city dweller in a large church living in a jaded atmosphere) and people like Heather who seem to be acutely capable of drowning out other voices and able with an almost “zen-like” (forgive the phrase Heather it’s all I could come up with at 6 AM) concentration to zero in on the Biblical line of thought.
I am secure in my faith and in a Biblical worldview but I have never been in a community where there are many people who see the world the way I do outside of the essential, universally recognized tenets of the Christian faith. I have to go out of my way to connect with people who appreciate homeschooling (or homemaking!) or who understand why our girls are going to live at home while they attend college. Who think about the connection or lack thereof between faith and government or any of the hot button issues besides gay marriage which ironically is the one I lose no sleep about.
It seems, at least from my little corner of the world, much harder to have Biblical tunnel vision than it is for others. An understanding or at least a willingness to understand the other guy’s point of view isn’t easily discarded. In one sense, I see an advantage in it because I have had the joy of my witness drawing another to Christ. On the other hand I wonder if my soul is vexed like Lot’s.
I need to add a thought. When I said this:
I have to go out of my way to connect with people who appreciate homeschooling (or homemaking!) or who understand why our girls are going to live at home while they attend college.
I did not mean to imply that ANY of these things are essential doctrines of the Christian faith. I know that they are not and I have been blessed to build wonderful friendships with women who love God and live godly lives while walking a path different from mine in various ways. I feel greatly blessed in fact because I know many believers find it hard to bridge these practical gaps and love each other nonetheless.
I was simply making the point that my life is one where an openness to others is a necessity in order to live a connected life.
An understanding or at least a willingness to understand the other guy’s point of view isn’t easily discarded.
There’s nothing wrong with making an effort to reach out in kindness and compassion, Terry.
As to my “zen-like” ability
it is the very fact that I have an overwhelming desire to understand, give others a fair hearing, and be sure I have hit every conceivable angle that keeps me clinging to a Biblical line of thought.
There are a lot of contradictory (even “dead sure”) voices all yelling for our attention. If I do not remain determined to filter everything through scripture, I will internalize and obsess about things and it is likely I will end up back on the fast track to a major emotional meltdown.
It’s a horrible place to be.
“The church’s public stand has basically been “Don’t fornicate” , but if you do, “Choose life.” This is woefully inadequate given the current sexual climate in this country.”
You said it! You should hear me “amen”ing and “mmmhmmm”ing as I read this thread.
Svar, are you actually saying that you can’t prove life starts at conception? If you have sex and become pregnant and you go to term, you have yourself a human baby. All life, even animals, begins at conception. You cannot argue any other way. At what moment do you miraculously become “alive” if it is not at conception? When you’re heart starts beating? Or when you can be “saved” by machines? or when you can take your own breath? Those are all stupid, inane arguments. Life begins at conception and any argument otherwise is absurd.
Life begins at conception and any argument otherwise is absurd
HA!
No two ways around that one. Two living cells unite and the rate at which they multiply thereafter is tremendous!
But I don’t have much trouble accepting that someone who is largely ignorant of the process might not realize that. The supposedly educate doctors who would perform abortions at any phase of development are a different story…
It is amazing how the determining factor regarding “life begins…” for many is whether the child is wanted. Have you noticed how a couple who have trouble trying to conceive yet REALLY want a baby will consider their child to be a baby as soon as the test comes back positive?
“It is amazing how the determining factor regarding “life begins…” for many is whether the child is wanted.”
The double standard is ridiculous. Just like the monument to the unborn for 9-11 victims. Seriously? You’ll build a NATIONAL monument to the unborn for this but otherwise they’re just pieces of tissue to be discarded on a whim????
“Have you noticed how a couple who have trouble trying to conceive yet REALLY want a baby will consider their child to be a baby as soon as the test comes back positive?”
Yes, I sure have. It bugs me how naturally conceived babies are considered tissue, but in vitro babies are precious treasures. And they are, but so are naturally conceived babies. Not to get into the validity of IV as a conception method.
When a man has sex he is concenting to be a father and the woman is concenting to be a mother. Well maybe not in their MINDS but certainly in their bodies…..My 12 year old daughter when walking in and seeing her rabbits mating said 28 days BABIES. How come she understands the connection completely? probably because we live on a small farm with lots of animals and to her sex leads to birth .every time , the way we live in this country makes it sound like children are planned for and ordered on a scheduale like a pizza delivery which has nothing to do with the act of sex which is like a sport that you should suit up before playing to prevent unexpected “results”,
Of course life begins at conception. I was frankly stunned that Svar suggested otherwise but I didn’t think it warranted further comment from me because the truth is so obvious. But since my friend Joanna went there, I’ll pile on and see I agree with her and Heather.
When a man has sex he is concenting to be a father and the woman is concenting to be a mother. Well maybe not in their MINDS but certainly in their bodies.
Yes, Karen! And this is the sticking point, the point where our deluded culture finds it perfectly reasonable to commemorate the unborn lost on 9/11.
We have somehow decided that it’s only a baby if the person carrying the baby defines it as a baby. Not the father mind you, who is not a part of the equation. Not science because this is one instance where rational, scientific thought becomes an inconvenience. But the mind of the incubator, er, mother, is the only place that the validity of the life (or tissues or fetus) can be determined.
This is why I proposed using the law and logic as a way of dismantling the sacredness of abortion as enshrined by law. Logically, it doesn’t hold up. And that is because in the arena of Ultimate Truth, it doesn’t hold up.
Certainly we should preach the gospel and turn the hearts of those within our sphere of influence to the only Source of hope and love. This is our calling.
“Svar, are you actually saying that you can’t prove life starts at conception?”
“Of course life begins at conception. I was frankly stunned that Svar suggested otherwise but I didn’t think it warranted further comment from me because the truth is so obvious.”
Whoaaah!
I never said that life didn’t start at conception. All I said is that I don’t know. I’m not really sure, but I plan on taking the safe option and say that it does. That means I consider “morning-afters” to be abortion. In fact, the Biblical mandates against “spilling seed”(masturbation and Birth Control) could mean that God considers sperm to be life as well. I don’t know if that interpretation is true, is it?
I do find arbitrary arguments like “when the heart starts beating”, “when you can be saved by machines”, “after 20 weeks”(lol wut), and after “you take your first breath” to be ridiculous arguments.
My main point is that this is not a point to be argued. There is no point in arguing about abortion. Liberals just want Daddy’s approval and want you and the Church to say that it’s a-ok so that their feeeewwings don’t get hurt. Screw ‘em.
Svar, the nature of your question is why I brought up the entire contraception culture issue.
It is also one reason I tend to stay out of discussions such as this.
However, you are ( I believe) referring to Genesis 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
I have heard the argument that “spilling of seed” is a form of birth control and this passage is used as proof that The primary sin of Onan was in his refusal to honor the mandate to marry the widow of and produce a child for his dead brother. Keep in mind that this is a narrative regarding Israelite custom and a culture that practiced plural marriage and, as he was in the line of Judah (Christ’s lineage), the refusal to produce an heir is especially offensive. The account is very interesting. You ought to read it if you have not.
Still, there are very good (Biblically supportable) reasons to examine whether the specific activities you listed are in line with Scripture. They run into a lot of areas, though and some of the implications might not sit well with modern sensibilities.
Sorry, was typing in a hurry.
What I meant to say was:
I have heard the argument that “spilling of seed” is a form of birth control and this passage is used as proof that birth control of any sort is wrong. While the Lord may use this passage to direct the conscience of some, the context here is not first about specific instruction regarding birth control.
Terry i’m going to try and explain why I believe this particular billboard seems to be addressing two separate issues within our community. If this billboard would have only spoke of fatherhood and not had link to the abortion issue I would have given the message a thumb up. Even the stats that is being used by the group is more about father hood than abortion to me:
41% of all US children are born to non-married mothers
72.3% of all black children are born in homes with no fathers
84% of abortions are performed on non-married mothers
Children (without fathers in the home) are 5 times more likely to live in poverty than homes with married parents
Children (without fathers in the home) are twice as likely to drop out of school than their peers with married parents
I believe when older black men decide to stop abandoning their family, it will and it can convince our young black men of today to stop abandoning their home and children also. I think when a man walk out and leave his family he have forgotten the important role that God gave him. God gave man DOMINION over every thing that creep and crawl upon this earth. When you think about it that’s some kinda power.
In other words each man should control his own (home) environment. I believe the change and shift will occur when young black women see that men are no longer leaving and abandoning them. There will be less reason for abortions in our community. I believe the abortion rate is so high in our community because to many girls have been abandon and left holding the bag along.
Yes, Ann you’re right. There is the issue of abortion, and then there is the issue of what is happening to the children who are already born.
And these are two different and serious issues facing the black community in a disproportionate way.
I don’t completely disagree with you, by the way. This is really one of those “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” questions. Some say the fault is with black men who run off and leave. Others say black women need to be more discriminating when choosing sexual partners. That is countered by those who say that if these young women had involved fathers they wouldn’t be such easy targets for the type of men who want sex without the corresponding commitment. And on and on it goes, you know?
It’s a mess no matter how you look at it.
take a moment to check out my post on abortion….