posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
10.29.06 (7:07 pm)
While it's a nice post, what changes in your position came from your studies?
posted by:
sudeshpoojari (
reply)
post date:
10.29.06 (9:59 pm)
Reply to: breakouttheglass
well for tht im waiting to find one, well is anybody here.. hellooooooo, i m alone, single is anybody here
can u help me find one
just joking can't resist myself when u asked tht question
posted by:
sudeshpoojari (
reply)
post date:
10.29.06 (10:02 pm)
well on serious note even i wld say to an extent i support dave's belief, but until marriage is to show world tht we are together now, but i think its upto two people(matured knowing the pro's and con's and prepared) who are involved in a serious relationship can take their own decisions.
posted by:
drforbush (
reply)
post date:
10.30.06 (11:45 am)
I agree with most of what you wrote here. There might be some subtle differences in my opinion. I might say that the second trimester was a "yellow" caution time, requiring more discussion, but not outlawing abortion. Like I wrote in another comment that I believe in shades of grey.
I also wonder about this sentence: "We are foolish to let the media blast it's attractive and promiscuous message, and not offer an equally appealing and much more healthy alternative."
Since we do have "freedom of speech" is bothers me that we consider restricting what others say. I believe that we need to communicate with our kids. Parents are the first defense on this issue. Parents should watch this media with there kids and comment on it letting their kids know what they think about these things. Talking about sex with teenagers will prevent a lot more pregnacies than shielding them from objectionable media. Obviously one doesn't need to go to extremes here, it doesn't take much.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.30.06 (6:35 pm)
Reply to: surrogate
Changes in my position?
For the longest, I have been straight pro-life, for the point of conception. As I've thought about it, I can no longer equate a recently fertilized egg with a human being. It is when the heart begins to beat and brainwaves come along that the issue becomes most difficult. So I've moderated considerably, for me. I now think the morning after pill, and a quick d/c after discovering one is pregnant, are valid. Those may sound simplistic to you, but they are major changes for me.
I'm more convinced the insistance upon no restrictions to abortion, from the Democrat party, is because of the power of extreme feminism. I think, as long as the Democrats hold to this intransigent position, they will not return to power.
I'm more aware that the decision to abort is, usually, not a cold-hearted decision. I am sure that most who choose it are left with deep hurt. Anyone with a heart just can't do it casually. So, I sympathize more with the difficulty of the decision.
And, I'm even more aware that we have to think for ourselves, and not allow groups to which we may have an affinity to tell us what to believe. Not the church. Not the party. No one.
I do appreciate your prodding, and your thoughtful exchange of comment on such issues. Sometimes we are miles apart. Sometimes you will never convince me. But it is valuable conversation, to me. You and many other fellow bloggers have greatly enriched and expanded my thinking; it is good for me.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.30.06 (6:42 pm)
Reply to: breakouttheglass
Alright. I'll answer you. I was not a virgin when I married. But, I was also an idiot when I married. Not because of the marriage- I have been so very fortunate to have stumbled upon someone who has truly made me a much better person. But I was quite unwise and far too confident in myself at that stage of my life.
I do know many who chose to save themselves, sexually, for their marriage partners. I salute them. They gave a great gift to their life-mates.
Ideals are worthwhile, even when we fall short. I strive everyday for goals I've yet to even get close to reaching.
And, I think sex is far too valuable of an expression of ourselves and intimate connection with another person, to be used casually. I know our society celebrates casual sex. But I encourage a higher understanding. And even when you and I fall short, I believe especially as a person of faith there is opportunity to begin again.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.30.06 (6:46 pm)
Reply to: sudeshpoojari
You will notice that while I encourage the ideal of abstinence before marriage, I am realistic is also encouraging the ready access to birth control and protection. I know that at least 50% of our teens are going to have sex before marriage. And, I do not want such to be complicated with an unplanned pregnancy. I do not want my religious idealism to actually contribute to the abortion problem.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.30.06 (6:47 pm)
Reply to: LadyG
I agree.
I didn't meet you at a party, about 30 years ago, did I?
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.30.06 (6:55 pm)
Reply to: drforbush
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my thoughts. My opposition to the amoral message of the media is not to censor, but to try to offer a more attractive alternative. I would like for the discipline of saying "no" to premarital sex to be pictured as a great respect for sex, as an expression of respect for self and the other person. I know it is a tough sell, but the church should try.
The great complication with your "shades of grey" during the second trimester is that, somewhere during those three months, the fetus most likely becomes viable. It is very troubling to me to give a woman, or a physician, the right to terminate a life that can survive outside the womb. In my opinion, viability is an ethical line I cannot cross.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.30.06 (6:59 pm)
Reply to: truthserum41
Those hormones are certainly raging when a teenager. And teens, by nature, have a hard time listening to authority and reason. It is a volatile combination.
Your last sentence is quite funny, and equally true. It was the same for me. Come to think of it, many years later I still find it to be a lot of fun.
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
10.30.06 (7:48 pm)
Don't worry Dave, while you may not have been a virgin when you got married, you wife says you might have well as been... hehehe.
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
10.30.06 (8:43 pm)
Reply to: PastorDave
I guess I meant during this particular exercise. From having read you for a while now, I was pretty sure you came out of it with the same positions you went into it with, AND I've always gotten the impression, though I could easily be wrong, that your "compromises" have been rather grudgingly made in order to get the other side to move your way, as opposed to changes in what you truly believe. I know you think folks like me are intractable in our position, but , as I've said before, it has nothing to do with my or "our" position. It's simply a matter of where the LAW has to be.
I oppose parental notification as the law of the land, though I definitely think, with very few exceptions, that a girl ought tell her parents before deciding to go through an abortion. However, the fact that there ARE circumstances where that notification could be more devastating to the girl than NOT telling them precludes the law. And, the mechanisms suggested for court workarounds for dangerous situations are simply impractical and so cumbersome as to virtually ensure that the parents will find out even in the most dangerous situations.
I HATE the idea of partial birth abortions, or any late term abortion. Still, not the point, for reasons I've articulated as well as I'm able earlier.
Here's the thing, though I don't know if I'll make the point or not, You've said repeatedly that "two wrongs don't make a right" when I've pointed out other situations having to do with real live walking-around people. On the one hand, we can't or haven't dealt with things like starvation, or kids not adopted already floating around. Presumably, the reason they're still problems is because we as a society can't get it together to solve them, or at least haven't, right? Now Dave, how is it, that when we can't even do those things, which ARE doable if we chose to address them with the sort of effort we're capable of, why this now?
Easy. It's because we get to simply pass a little law, and pat ourselves on the back and feel like we've done something without even breaking a sweat. So what if it'll turn women into criminals. So what if it won't significantly improve the lives of the girls who get pregnant and are FORCED to do something they don't wish to do for whatever reasons, and so what if it will significant add to the rolls of kids who, like already too many now, are brought up in situations that give them little sense of family or love while they grow up? Oh and of course, your side's folks will likely also reject out of hand any tax increases necessary to help care for the extra hundreds of thousands of unwanted, and in way too many cases, will be unadopted and unloved children.
-Could go on and on, but it's NOT that I'm intractable. It's that I think, and I've thought about this issue a lot.
posted by:
seochris (
reply)
post date:
10.31.06 (2:26 am)
It will take some time for me to actually comment on this. A little bit complicated.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.31.06 (6:27 am)
Reply to: surrogate
Sometimes, a law of the land needs to be changed. Science and experience, and God, enlighten us. And with the new understanding comes a compelling prompting toward a better way. So it was with slavery, and race relations. So it was with the poll tax, and voting age. So it will be, one day I believe, with the death penalty. And, I pray and hope, with unrestricted abortion.
In most matters of life, you choice must be governed when it comes to interfere with my life and well-being. Even if I am pre-born, if your freedom of choice means my death, then surely the law can offer me some protection. Expecially the law of a civilized and decent people.
Finally, and I suspect this will be provoking, it seems to me everybody needs to grow and change and mature in their thinking- but yourself. It's really the classic liberal sense of superior enlightenment. And I admit such an attitude is equally matched by the classic conservative religious sense of supernatural enlightenment. Why are you so supportive of abortion rights? Because it is the "intelligent" view. And why is the other guy so opposed to abortion? Because it is the "right" view. I'm willing to at least take a stab at rethinking deeply ingrained religious view on abortion. Maybe there are other viewpoints that are even more right. So, how about it? Maybe unrestricted abortion rights is not the smartest way to deal with this issue.
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
10.31.06 (1:56 pm)
Reply to: PastorDave
First, where have I ever suggested "enlightenment" on my part at all, let alone super-enlightenment? You do like to put words in other peoples mouths don't you?
"Even if I am pre-born, if your freedom of choice means my death, then surely the law can offer me some protection."
Tell me Dave, does the protection you speak of go only as far as ensuring the baby's birth? Many times in the past you talked of the social safety-net as liberal do-gooders gone amok. Utter crap, but you like to think it, so how you gonna make that play? You going to support the increased taxes? You going to be willing, without pointing fingers, to help pay the medical costs? For the education? For the counseling? For the food? Going to make sure all these kids are adopted by loving families? Goinna make sure it's the life's work of the same people who have time to make all these women feel like shit by putting cute little crosses on their church lawns, and pay for all these billboards and march and pray and cry and condemn now get off their asses and take care of these babies? NO. Know I how know this? Because if they really gave a shit about it as a group there wouldn't be ANY kids left "in the system" now. That's not enlightenment, that's not SUPER-enlightenment. That's rough math.
All I said was first things first. I am SOOOO sick of you insinuating that because I see this differently - like MILLIONS of other people, (still a majority in fact, from what I understand) it stems from my being a LIBERAL. Well it doesn't. I've never "decided" I'm a liberal. As it happens on many issues I share the viewpoint associated with other people so labeled, but do not define me, but Dave I look at the issue and make my decision and if that's where I am on the issue? -so be it. I DON'T look to see how "liberals" are supposed to feel about something and adopt that position as my own.
Ever here of, for instance, Barry Goldwater? Not exactly your flaming liberal there, but he understood that the government has no business making this decision for women.
You confuse the religious right with real conservatives and equate all liberals with the fringe. Go for it. Knock yourself out. Whatever floats your boat.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.31.06 (6:17 pm)
You are right; you, and most people who think seriously and deeply about matters, are a mixture of many things- liberal, conservative, etc. I'll try harder not to pin a label on you.
Now, on this issue of abortion, I just do not see you being very considerate of an alternative way of seeing things. And I have yet to see you deny it- instead, you go on the offensive.
I will follow the logical conclusion of your argument: Since our society does not do a complete job of providing for unwanted children, and since pro-life Christians are sometimes hypocrites, therefore it is best to terminate instead of birth children who would otherwise enter our world under adverse circumstances. This would be at the whim of the mother, with no limitations from society, and this would include the viable fetus.
I listened to a replay of Letterman trying to answer a question from Bill Oreilley (sp?): "Do you want America to win the war in Iraq?" Letterman would not give a definitive answer. He said, because unlike others, "he thinks". What I read from what he is saying is that he considers himself to be to smart to be definitive in his position on the Iraq war.
I view much of the world in terms of good and evil, white and black, right and wrong. I know it is a complicated world. But I cannot be a relativist is life-and-death matters, such as partial-birth abortion and the aborting of a viable fetus. I think it is definitely a matter of right and wrong, good and evil.
posted by:
bronwynj (
reply)
post date:
10.31.06 (6:28 pm)
Your animation "Work Hard & Be Happy....Annoy A Liberal" seems nasty, ie mean. Don't you have an Liberals in your congregation? - or are you trying to ensure that you don't?
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
10.31.06 (7:30 pm)
Reply to: bronwynj
It is not meant to be mean and nasty. I've had several fellow bloggers comment about it with humour. I'm not trying to offend anyone with it. Just a little "conservative humour"; apparently very little.
Do I have liberals in my congregation? "Liberal" can apply to so many things: theology, politics, love, etc. I want my church to be liberal in how it loves others, and I think we have made great strides in that area. Politically, my congregation is quite a mixed bag- we probably have more Democrats (i.e. "liberals") than Republicans. Now, theologically, I think most everyone in my church would be conservative. But within my particular Protestant Denomination (Southern Baptist) I guess many would label us as liberals because we do not like many of the actions/decisions of our church leadership.
So, it's a complicated question.
But, the little flashing sign has very little real meaning to it. I am interested to know if others find it to be offensive. I'd remove it if it is hurtful.
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
11.01.06 (5:53 pm)
Reply to: PastorDave
I certainly do not think it is a matter of good and evil, nor black and while, but then maybe you can see into another person's heart at such a time and can make that determination. I'm sorry. I can't. As for me? I'll continue to trust individuals and God.
As for Letterman's show... What is the right answer Dave? Define victory? Come on, twenty-five words or less AND it has to be a definition I agree with... See the problem? If you're quick to say yes, you'
d better have a damn good idea of what the victory means, and so far, it's changed about five times. at least from the folks whose responsibility it is to actually define it. Hell, we don't even know whether staying the course is part of (or even SUPPOSED to be part of) the equation to clutching this elusive victory right now, do we? Maybe in your mind Letterman was supposed to be all Rah-Rah and answer "Yesserrreeeeee! I'm for VIC-TOREEEEEE!" like a moron, but see Dave, he's not one, and anyone who answers a happy yes to the question right now would be proving he or she doesn't have a friggin' clue. Or is it sort of a "suppport the home team" thing you're after? That's all nice and stuff, but see, this isn't a game. You as worried about the (hell you pick a number, I don't want to be accused of inflating it cuz I'm a liberal, can we agree it's likely more than one?) Iraqi's lives being lost as you are the unborn kids here? Shouldn't we change the law to ensure we're not part of them being killed? No? Ohhhh... I know, we can't do EVERYthing...
So? -we do the easy "let's make us feel good about ourselves" thing and make a bunch of hurting women criminals!
Makes sense to me.
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
11.03.06 (5:48 am)
"I think it is definitely a matter of right and wrong, good and evil."
I've been thinking about the abortion thing in black and white terms, as you've said it ought to be. I've decided that I think abortion should either be legal, or it should be considered murder as so many people like to characterize it.
If it's legal? So be it.
If it's to be considered murder, then, since there's no statute of limitations on murder, anyone who's ever had one should be tried as a killer and penalized under the laws of the state in which the murder took place. And, since to my knowledge, unless a woman has been knocked out and taken to the place where her abortion is to be performed without her knowledge, it's always premeditated - so we're talking first degree. Life in prison or the death penalty, right?
Nice and simple.
Black and white. Good and evil.
posted by:
akelso (
reply)
post date:
11.04.06 (7:33 pm)
My heavens, this is one deep blogsite!
Thanks PastorD for the opportunity to see surrogate cut loose in rant after rant ...
Especially appreciate your thorough discourses on the complication of abortion and ethics. You know, I have yet to know a woman who having had an abortion, thought it was pleasant, fun, easy, beneficial, *good* or any other such descriptor. Women having abortions generally anguish over the decision, and are generally even in some psychospiritual distress over it for some time to come (if not for the rest of their lives.)
Doesn't it seem that if good and evil were truly part of the social context, there would be none but healthy, well dressed, suitably housed, educated children throughout our country? That all unwed mothers would be honored and loved sufficient to bring unplanned pregnancies to term and snapped up in adoptions? Further that all those unwed mothers would never feel particularly frightened or shamed by their mistakes, rather loved onto more functional life paths?
Good and evil? Please let's stop heaping all that nonsense upon the hearts and souls of women, and place the mirror of morality and responsibility before the entirety of American society.
Can we not just get on with taking care of and loving one another despite errors? Now really, what would be the counsel of Jesus toward the masses of American society who condemn pregnant women without a way to raise those children? Whose feet would he hold to the fire of social action? Who would he chastise for condemning *anyone* when we all that the perfect human being is nearly impossible to find alive?
Quite a blog, PastorD. Thanks for the opportunity to engage this discourse. Normally, I'd not feel safe unless I *knew* there was an army of liberals all around me! I actually feel safe here.
- Andrea
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
11.05.06 (4:16 pm)
Reply to: akelso
No rants... just thoughts inspired by what I'd read above, to which, I've noticed, there have been no reponses of late. We're to comment, but if we make too much sense? -the specifics will be ignored.
posted by:
akelso (
reply)
post date:
11.05.06 (4:34 pm)
surrogate, I actually apologize for using the word "rant" - I longed to pull it back once the toothpaste was already out of the tube - forgive any sense of disrespect. - Andrea
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.05.06 (5:27 pm)
Reply to: surrogate
So you equate my silence for a few days to my acquiescence to your superior logic? Do you think, just maybe, i've been just a bit busy? Actually, you repeat the same old tired arguments, which I think I have refuted quite well in the past. Sometimes you seem too busy listening to yourself to even consider what the other guy is saying.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.05.06 (5:36 pm)
Reply to: akelso
I see the same logic from our friend surrogate. Efforts to provide an alternative to unrestricted abortion, you think, must be enacted with perfection and pure love, or not at all. Sorry, but it is not going to happen. For 2000 years now the church has been working on "...love thy neighbor as thyself" and we are still not doing too good at it. I challenge you on this demand for perfection. Is there any endeavor of your life, whatsoever, with which you approach it with perfection? Since I believe in universal sinfulness, that "..all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God..." thaen I would believe you are much like myself- imperfect. But we still must try. So we do not love the unwed mother perfectly, or have yet to devise a way to assimilate all the orphan children. Still we try, because we love. Not perfectly, not comletely, but we are hopefully getting better at it.
Most definitely, I see good and evil within society, because both are at war in the heart of every person. I do think love should be the motivator for us to do more.
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
11.05.06 (5:37 pm)
Reply to: PastorDave
Come on Dave, you just made my point. When the argument's unrefutable specifically, you complain about the way it's made.
Try doing it at least partially point by point. Geez.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.05.06 (5:43 pm)
Reply to: surrogate
I agree that our society, because it is a civilized and decent society, needs to come to some clear conclusions about abortion. Legal and illegal should be included. But I think it is too general to ever conclude that abortion is illegal. Let's be more specific. Abortion of a viable fetus should be illegal. I hope we will one day reach this point of decency. And yes, my friend surrogate, even if every needful child has yet to be adopted, and even if still somewhere a child is being abused, and even if somewhere in our world a conflict is raging and somewhere else a Muslim-inspired warmonger is being detained.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.05.06 (5:45 pm)
Reply to: surrogate
The right answer from Letterman. "Yes. I want the U.S. to win the war in Iraq." Simple.
posted by:
akelso (
reply)
post date:
11.05.06 (5:52 pm)
Hmmmm (rubbing my chin, with furrowed brow) - so will Jesus intervene at this point and say, since I-and-Thou are imperfect, let's give up on perfect love?
You know, one of my favorite prayers is to (as some say, "kiss [the tough matters] up to God") acknowledge my incapacity to love perfectly, and then beg Jesus/God to love that person for me, through me, while I figure out how to catch up. Heaven knows, I ask the Lord to do that hard work on behalf of Dubbaya on a daily basis!
- Andrea
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
11.05.06 (6:12 pm)
Reply to: PastorDave
I wouldn't have answered yes... no honest person would answer such a question without knowing what the victory should entail, which I notice you didn't even take a stab at.
