The computer didn't want to let me post this as a comment, so I'm posting it as a new message. This is a response to Kyle's comments. Kyle is the one responsible for getting me to start this blog in the first place...and the first to challenge me on it.
I think you're giving him too much credit, Kyle. I hope I am wrong, but I think it likely he let his feelings slip at the PA town hall meeting where he said he wouldn't want his daughter to be "punished" by a pregnancy. I don't think him to be Moloch, but Obama's vision of the good is so ghastly wrong that Moloch has control. To think of a child as punishment which can be disposed of to avoid the costs speaks to his premises, if this is ok then that is ok, it's cogent reasoning, but the premise is despicable and if he holds this premise then what else is ok?
I do agree on the long-term term solution, conversion. There is no other way, we aren't morally able to force them to act as we wish, our task is to spread the gospel.
Allow me to ramble a bit...In the realm of ideas, I think the underlying premises speak louder than the tenets of the policies themselves. If "whether or not it works" is his premise than he is capable of nearly anything. If nixing legal protection for a nurse who finds abortion murderous is permissible, then what will follow. I have been told by several in the nursing field that hospitals are inserting lines in their contracts that they must assist in abortions, or they will lose their jobs. So such coercion is going on and Bush signed an order that would protect their consciences, legal protection.
Are you familiar with Budzizewski (sp?) he wrote 'written on the heart' and 'what we can't not know.' He argues that at some point people need to be shocked with blunt reason. He may be wrong. Flannery O'Connor made the same argument: to the blind you must write in very large letters. I've grown quite weary of cordial non-discussion of so many issues just for the sake of tranquility. I don't mind roughing the waters, but I do pray that my approach is what certain people need at a given moment.
I spent some time in DC at Family Research Council and from that experience I can not accept that there is not a larger agenda behind seemingly small changes. Again, the premises behind the actions are more powerful than the initial acts and a larger legislative goal is being pushed by many ngo's upon every sen. and every cong'ssm'n at all times. Steps such as this and the Mex. City policy are hideous, but things will get much worse, I am convinced.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I think you're giving him too much credit, Kyle. I hope I am wrong, but I think it likely he let his feelings slip at the PA town hall meeting where he said he wouldn't want his daughter to be "punished" by a pregnancy.
ReplyDeleteI’m hesitant to read too much into this comment, though it is troubling. Given President Obama’s dedication to his own family, he doesn’t seem to look upon children as a form of punishment.
If "whether or not it works" is his premise than he is capable of nearly anything.
If this is his only guidance, then yes. What works isn’t always what is moral. For instance, I don’t care whether or not torture works; I oppose it always because it’s evil.
Are you familiar with Budzizewski (sp?) he wrote 'written on the heart' and 'what we can't not know.' He argues that at some point people need to be shocked with blunt reason. He may be wrong. Flannery O'Connor made the same argument: to the blind you must write in very large letters. I've grown quite weary of cordial non-discussion of so many issues just for the sake of tranquility. I don't mind roughing the waters, but I do pray that my approach is what certain people need at a given moment.
I don’t think I’ve heard of him, but I’m familiar with the method of shocking people out of their complacency. Any method of persuasion, however, has to meet people where they are. I don’t find that the rhetoric among some pro-lifers – the kind that demeans the opposition as, for example, bloodthirsty baby-killers – meets the opposition where they are. It sows discord and enmity. One can, of course, rough the waters and still be respectful. Being respectful towards the opposition includes listening to them, acknowledging that they have legitimate concerns, openness to learning from them, and presenting their position in terms they would consider accurate.
I don’t want non-discussion; I want hospitable discussion. Discussion, though, means we actually engage in discussion groups like Planned Parenthood. Picketing their clinics, while it may provide a public witness or even prevent abortions, doesn’t actually engage them in a way that opens them to being persuaded to forsake their support of abortion.
St. Thomas Aquinas might serve as a model for us in the pro-life movement. He could often present the opposing side better than the opposition could. When he refuted an argument, he presented that argument in a very persuasive manner. I recall once wondering if he held heretical ideas, until I realized he was formulating the objections to his position.
I spent some time in DC at Family Research Council and from that experience I can not accept that there is not a larger agenda behind seemingly small changes.
Well, sure, many pro-choice people advocate removing most all hindrances to procuring an abortion. They want the “right to an abortion” upheld not only by a judicial opinion, but by the law of the land. Hence FOCA.