A classic case of people thinking it has to be either/or, when it can be both/and. Why must we choose b/w focusing on outlawing abortion, OR reducing the number of abortions? It should be both.
So many studies indicate that when laws regulating abortions are enacted, the number of abortions decrease.
I'm glad this type of thinking wasn't in Lincoln's ear ..."are you an abolitionist? No, I'm just trying to reduce the number of people in slavery...outlawing it hasn't worked for 20 years..."
I don't think your post was bad. You are right about the philosophy - unless nothing can get done because it is such a polarized topic. AND, because it is a linked issue - and the Republican Party's other stances detract from this one (but don't the publicity).
Can't we not sell out, by always stating that we are not. And, work on the many many many many many many many other issues that affect this one?
Philosophically I totally agree with Jim's first point (regardless of whether he had yet read the whole article or not). There doesn't have to be a choice - but, we still ought to work to fix the other problems.
If a bill came up in a state that made it illegal to beat a slave (in 1854), would I vote against it because it wasn't big enough? Mayeb I wouldn't give it a lot of time or attention because it wasn't big enough, but I wouldn't reject it for that reason...
A Bad example - please don't interact with it. But, what about a law working on the pirating of slaves in Africa - that would have reduced the number. Again, not big enough by a long shot, but still worthwhile...
Same with Stem cells. it drives me crazy that we can't pass a provisional bill to use the 400,000 eggs that are thrown away each year due to In Vitro.
Do I like that we throw them away? No. Do I think it is a very sensible middle ground - especially while science and technology grow - yes. Will anyone even consider it - No. Conservatives are too pissed about the principles, and it isn't good enough for those advocating for Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
Alright Jim/Annie/Jessica (aka, those smarter than I) annihilate my arguments...
I keep starting to respond, and then deleting it. This is just one of those topics that is hard for me on a blog.
I hope that someday the church, which has been so completely entrusted with being Christ’s hand and feet, will become such a sanctuary and sustenance for those who find themselves in such a vulnerable position in such a broken world, that to discuss how best to address the problem and to turn to government, whether through moral programs or moral outrage, would be preposterous.
That's funny it was you...I was sure thinking Rachel sounded a lot more like you than I had previously thought :)
I don't see anything deserving of annhialation...I think we agree. Murph would be pleased. (ps--I might need to take issue with your aka label, but...another time)
I also like making sure to comment both on facebook and your blog...I'm really busy at work...
Well, this used to be a "random-thoughts blog". For this season, it is primarily a way for my family to keep our extended family (you) up to date on our story.
10 comments:
A classic case of people thinking it has to be either/or, when it can be both/and. Why must we choose b/w focusing on outlawing abortion, OR reducing the number of abortions? It should be both.
So many studies indicate that when laws regulating abortions are enacted, the number of abortions decrease.
I'm glad this type of thinking wasn't in Lincoln's ear ..."are you an abolitionist? No, I'm just trying to reduce the number of people in slavery...outlawing it hasn't worked for 20 years..."
I expect to discuss this more with you. =)
Good talk, Russ!
Interesting...
I re-read the article, now noticing there's a second page to it. Wish I'd read that before commenting, my bad.
I don't think your post was bad. You are right about the philosophy - unless nothing can get done because it is such a polarized topic. AND, because it is a linked issue - and the Republican Party's other stances detract from this one (but don't the publicity).
This frustrates me.
I want to comment, but not on a blog.
That is all.
And yet you did anyway :)
Can't we not sell out, by always stating that we are not. And, work on the many many many many many many many other issues that affect this one?
Philosophically I totally agree with Jim's first point (regardless of whether he had yet read the whole article or not). There doesn't have to be a choice - but, we still ought to work to fix the other problems.
If a bill came up in a state that made it illegal to beat a slave (in 1854), would I vote against it because it wasn't big enough? Mayeb I wouldn't give it a lot of time or attention because it wasn't big enough, but I wouldn't reject it for that reason...
A Bad example - please don't interact with it. But, what about a law working on the pirating of slaves in Africa - that would have reduced the number. Again, not big enough by a long shot, but still worthwhile...
Same with Stem cells. it drives me crazy that we can't pass a provisional bill to use the 400,000 eggs that are thrown away each year due to In Vitro.
Do I like that we throw them away? No. Do I think it is a very sensible middle ground - especially while science and technology grow - yes. Will anyone even consider it - No. Conservatives are too pissed about the principles, and it isn't good enough for those advocating for Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
Alright Jim/Annie/Jessica (aka, those smarter than I) annihilate my arguments...
That last one is from me... not my wife...
I keep starting to respond, and then deleting it. This is just one of those topics that is hard for me on a blog.
I hope that someday the church, which has been so completely entrusted with being Christ’s hand and feet, will become such a sanctuary and sustenance for those who find themselves in such a vulnerable position in such a broken world, that to discuss how best to address the problem and to turn to government, whether through moral programs or moral outrage, would be preposterous.
That's funny it was you...I was sure thinking Rachel sounded a lot more like you than I had previously thought :)
I don't see anything deserving of annhialation...I think we agree. Murph would be pleased. (ps--I might need to take issue with your aka label, but...another time)
I also like making sure to comment both on facebook and your blog...I'm really busy at work...
Post a Comment