tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595428623877008410.post4298015950186164995..comments2023-07-20T07:44:41.951-07:00Comments on a sense of place: Some ResponsesS. Richhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13955178908813877255noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8595428623877008410.post-43283513625610859682009-03-03T18:01:00.000-08:002009-03-03T18:01:00.000-08:00I think you're giving him too much credit, Kyle. I...<EM>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.</EM><BR/><BR/>I’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. <BR/><BR/><EM>If "whether or not it works" is his premise than he is capable of nearly anything.</EM> <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><EM>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.</EM><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><EM>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.</EM><BR/><BR/>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.Kyle Cupphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14607703830461449390noreply@blogger.com