Comments on: The Trouble with the Social Welfare Modifier to the Pro-life Position http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/06/the-trouble-with-the-social-welfare-modifier-to-the-pro-life-position/ A First Things Blog Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:35:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Mark http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/06/the-trouble-with-the-social-welfare-modifier-to-the-pro-life-position/#comment-11490 Mark Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:30:20 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=7041#comment-11490 Maybe if we spent less money on salaries and buildings we'd have more to spend on these and other more important issues? Maybe if we spent less money on salaries and buildings we’d have more to spend on these and other more important issues?

]]> By: Henk Olwage http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/06/the-trouble-with-the-social-welfare-modifier-to-the-pro-life-position/#comment-11397 Henk Olwage Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:18:25 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=7041#comment-11397 Opposition to abortion and a spirit of caring and advocacy are actions that should run absolutely parallel for followers of Jesus Christ. Not to say we should wait for intricate social reforms to be enacted before we can oppose abortion, not at all; but we have to realize that babies born into situations where their mothers were not ready and toddlers are also vulnerable. So many members in the church, such big conferences and sometimes so little readiness to be there for them. Opposition to abortion and a spirit of caring and advocacy are actions that should run absolutely parallel for followers of Jesus Christ. Not to say we should wait for intricate social reforms to be enacted before we can oppose abortion, not at all; but we have to realize that babies born into situations where their mothers were not ready and toddlers are also vulnerable. So many members in the church, such big conferences and sometimes so little readiness to be there for them.

]]> By: Sarah Flashing http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/06/the-trouble-with-the-social-welfare-modifier-to-the-pro-life-position/#comment-11391 Sarah Flashing Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:39:58 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=7041#comment-11391 The point of this post is very clear, abortion advocates commit a logical fallacy that often goes ignored, even by those on the prolife side. To make abortion a crime doesn't logically necessitate any other requirements to be placed on society. "If abortion is illegal, then prolifers need to financially care for the needs of these children." While people of the prolife persuasion would love to assist in these areas if it were financially feasible, requiring women not to kill their unborn children means simply do not kill your unborn children. The point of this post is very clear, abortion advocates commit a logical fallacy that often goes ignored, even by those on the prolife side. To make abortion a crime doesn’t logically necessitate any other requirements to be placed on society. “If abortion is illegal, then prolifers need to financially care for the needs of these children.” While people of the prolife persuasion would love to assist in these areas if it were financially feasible, requiring women not to kill their unborn children means simply do not kill your unborn children.

]]> By: Hunter Baker http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/06/the-trouble-with-the-social-welfare-modifier-to-the-pro-life-position/#comment-11387 Hunter Baker Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:18:54 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=7041#comment-11387 John, I thought the point of the post was quite clear. There are those who argue that opposition to abortion must be predicated upon the enactment of a variety of social welfare measures. I offered a reason why I think that argument is wrong. The "point" is what some people call communication. John, I thought the point of the post was quite clear. There are those who argue that opposition to abortion must be predicated upon the enactment of a variety of social welfare measures. I offered a reason why I think that argument is wrong. The “point” is what some people call communication.

]]> By: John http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/06/the-trouble-with-the-social-welfare-modifier-to-the-pro-life-position/#comment-11382 John Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:45:58 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=7041#comment-11382 What is the point of this post? It doesn't reinforce the evil of abortion. It doesn't give an substantial new answer to the problem. It doesn't do much at all... Other than make the point that you can be a Republican and that's fine. (Oppose abortion, but don't seek government intervention to stop why abortions happen.) This is a ridiculous post that isn't pro-life so much as anti-social reform. Reminds me of the pro-life people that oppose any kind of legislation that doesn't completely outlaw all abortions. It's ridiculous and getting us nowhere. What is the point of this post?

It doesn’t reinforce the evil of abortion.

It doesn’t give an substantial new answer to the problem.

It doesn’t do much at all…

Other than make the point that you can be a Republican and that’s fine. (Oppose abortion, but don’t seek government intervention to stop why abortions happen.)

This is a ridiculous post that isn’t pro-life so much as anti-social reform. Reminds me of the pro-life people that oppose any kind of legislation that doesn’t completely outlaw all abortions. It’s ridiculous and getting us nowhere.

]]> By: Chuck http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/06/the-trouble-with-the-social-welfare-modifier-to-the-pro-life-position/#comment-11374 Chuck Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:48:32 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=7041#comment-11374 The counter argument, of course, is to say that merely because action is evil is not sufficient reason in and of itself to refrain from performing the action. The counter argument, of course, is to say that merely because action is evil is not sufficient reason in and of itself to refrain from performing the action.

]]> By: Truth Unites... and Divides http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/06/the-trouble-with-the-social-welfare-modifier-to-the-pro-life-position/#comment-11373 Truth Unites... and Divides Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:34:36 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=7041#comment-11373 <b>Janice</b>: <i>"As for your present comment, I’m sure many people appreciate it. <b>As do I.</b> However, the language you use strikes me as tendentious."</i> Soooo, you do appreciate "tendentious" language? (BTW, I don't agree that Dr. Beckwith's comment was tendentious.) <i>"Do you think that it’s possible to approach this important and highly emotional topic in a more “objective” way, and to characterize the issue using terms which are less biased?"</i> Does saying "abortion is murder" count as a more "objective" way of approaching the topic in a less biased way? Janice: “As for your present comment, I’m sure many people appreciate it. As do I. However, the language you use strikes me as tendentious.”

Soooo, you do appreciate “tendentious” language?

(BTW, I don’t agree that Dr. Beckwith’s comment was tendentious.)

“Do you think that it’s possible to approach this important and highly emotional topic in a more “objective” way, and to characterize the issue using terms which are less biased?”

Does saying “abortion is murder” count as a more “objective” way of approaching the topic in a less biased way?

]]> By: Janice http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/06/the-trouble-with-the-social-welfare-modifier-to-the-pro-life-position/#comment-11371 Janice Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:20:40 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=7041#comment-11371 Francis Beckwith, It's nice to see you back. I'm wondering if you ever got a chance to consider my reply to you here: http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/06/gay-rights-aggression-distortion/#comment-11221 As for your present comment, I'm sure many people appreciate it. As do I. However, the language you use strikes me as tendentious. Do you think that it's possible to approach this important and highly emotional topic in a more "objective" way, and to characterize the issue using terms which are less biased? I ask you these questions with sincerity, recognizing your expertise on the issue. Francis Beckwith,

It’s nice to see you back. I’m wondering if you ever got a chance to consider my reply to you here:

http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/06/gay-rights-aggression-distortion/#comment-11221

As for your present comment, I’m sure many people appreciate it. As do I. However, the language you use strikes me as tendentious. Do you think that it’s possible to approach this important and highly emotional topic in a more “objective” way, and to characterize the issue using terms which are less biased?

I ask you these questions with sincerity, recognizing your expertise on the issue.

]]> By: Francis Beckwith http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/06/the-trouble-with-the-social-welfare-modifier-to-the-pro-life-position/#comment-11370 Francis Beckwith Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:05:29 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=7041#comment-11370 Janice: "Abortion" is the name we give to the killing of unborn human beings in utero. If, of course, the unborn is not a person, then there is no need to justify it, just as there is no need to justify blood transfusions. On the other hand, if the unborn is a person, then the benefit of having an abortion requires that another person be killed. That requires justification. Making blood transfusions illegal would be analogous to abortion in this regard: forbidding people to receive blood to save their lives is like forbidding the unborn to receive sustenance, shelter and nurturing, which are precisely what are ripped from the unborn in an abortion. What a strange world we live in. It is in one in which otherwise intelligent people think that it is the height of sophistication to believe that we ought to allow the most vulnerable, defenseless and dependent members of the human community to be killed at the sole discretion of the only person who has absolute power over him or her. Perhaps the solution is to rename the womb "Guantanamo Bay" and abortion "water boarding." Janice:

“Abortion” is the name we give to the killing of unborn human beings in utero. If, of course, the unborn is not a person, then there is no need to justify it, just as there is no need to justify blood transfusions. On the other hand, if the unborn is a person, then the benefit of having an abortion requires that another person be killed. That requires justification.

Making blood transfusions illegal would be analogous to abortion in this regard: forbidding people to receive blood to save their lives is like forbidding the unborn to receive sustenance, shelter and nurturing, which are precisely what are ripped from the unborn in an abortion.

What a strange world we live in. It is in one in which otherwise intelligent people think that it is the height of sophistication to believe that we ought to allow the most vulnerable, defenseless and dependent members of the human community to be killed at the sole discretion of the only person who has absolute power over him or her.

Perhaps the solution is to rename the womb “Guantanamo Bay” and abortion “water boarding.”

]]> By: Janice http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/06/the-trouble-with-the-social-welfare-modifier-to-the-pro-life-position/#comment-11356 Janice Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:25:57 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=7041#comment-11356 Odgie, take a hint from my introduction of the analogy: "For an analogy that begs the question in the opposite direction..." Try asking yourself, "What's the (main) question that's getting begged here?" Odgie, take a hint from my introduction of the analogy:

“For an analogy that begs the question in the opposite direction…”

Try asking yourself, “What’s the (main) question that’s getting begged here?”

]]> By: Odgie http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/06/the-trouble-with-the-social-welfare-modifier-to-the-pro-life-position/#comment-11355 Odgie Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:21:12 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=7041#comment-11355 Janice, Are you honestly comparing blood transfusions and abortion? Aside from both being surgical procedures, where is the comparison? Janice,

Are you honestly comparing blood transfusions and abortion? Aside from both being surgical procedures, where is the comparison?

]]> By: Janice http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/06/the-trouble-with-the-social-welfare-modifier-to-the-pro-life-position/#comment-11353 Janice Fri, 18 Jun 2010 20:46:58 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=7041#comment-11353 For an analogy that begs the question in the opposite direction, here we go: <blockquote><i>If you plan on making blood transfusions illegal, then you’d better be ready for a explosion of black market surgical services--unregulated, dangerous, and undermining the rule of law. Until you remove the incentives for blood transfusions, you had better be ready to live with blood transfusions.</i></blockquote> For an analogy that begs the question in the opposite direction, here we go:

If you plan on making blood transfusions illegal, then you’d better be ready for a explosion of black market surgical services–unregulated, dangerous, and undermining the rule of law. Until you remove the incentives for blood transfusions, you had better be ready to live with blood transfusions.

]]>