Book of Oppositions | Pocket Full of Mumbles |

 

This world is one big game of "Go"-- Black against White, Light against Darkness --and we all have a choice to make: Do we war FOR the Light?

...or against it?




Matthew 18:14




Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

--Jesus



posted by Eric @ 11:13 PM,

54 Comments:

On August 17, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

And the unborn are truly "the least of these." --Matthew 25:31-46

Contrasting rewards...

"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

How can any man who will not defend the right to life of an abortion victim who is born alive call himself a follower of Christ?

To Obama and all those who support him:

Your soul is in your keeping alone. When you stand before God you cannot say, "but I was told by others to do thus." Or that virtue was not convenient at the time; this will not suffice.

By voting for such a man you take part in the evil he condones just as clearly as the good he lets. Given the choice you still must choose, or let others choose for you, but the latter I think levels the greater doom. After all "we should all fear evil men, but it's the evil of indifferent men that allow evil men to get away with their atrocities."

Abortion is clearly an atrocity. And I cannot support or even fathom the depravity of one who would vote for such a one who opposes a ban on partial birth abortion-- or who would oppose lifesaving treatment to the survivors of abortion.

I have my standards. Obama clearly has his.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 12:03 AM, Blogger Marshall Art said...

People actually support this turd. I just came here after posting a similar story regarding this pathetic excuse's position on his fellow human beings. Talk about "audacity". So this is the change Barry will bring to our land. A cruel and depraved indifference to the least among us. It's a sad commentary on our nation that so many find this dung heap to be what this country so sorely needs. Barry's a step up from Bush? That's just stupidity talkin'.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Understand the difference, fellas:

1. No one - NO ONE - in the Dem Party is actively promoting abortion.

2. No one - zero individuals - are actively promoting that the gov't support and promote or enact abortions.

3. What some (many) in the Dem party - and roughly half of the nation along with them - support is that the medical procedure known as abortion ought to be up to the individual, that the gov't ought not be involved in that decision.

One can VERY easily say some of the same things about Bush and his supporters here (by voting for such a man you take part in the evil he condones). We ARE responsible for our choices and we all have to make the best decisions we can with the information we have on hand.

One difference between anti-abortion types and pro-Iraq-War types is that, at least with the those opposed to criminalizing abortion, we're not PROMOTING the killing of innocent people BY THE GOV'T. The same can not be said of those who support the Iraq Invasion.

Do you really think allowing individuals to make a choice that you may find morally repugnant is worse than supporting the gov't in actively killing individuals as we have in Iraq?

At least with you, Eric, you will call the targeting of civilians (a la Hiroshima) a moral wrong. Even if you are somewhat wishy washy about its legitimacy, you acknowledge it for what it is.

Anyway, for a good number of people, we find a difference between promoting the GOV'T killing of people and of allowing individuals to make tough (and perhaps sometimes wrong) medical decisions.

Abortion is clearly an atrocity to you, just as targeting civilians or invading a nation like Iraq is clearly an atrocity to me. But we, the people are clearly not all united by Eric's Holy Word as to what is and isn't an atrocity. We have to make our decisions and Lord have mercy on you and on me if AND WHEN we do make wrong decisions.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Blogger ELAshley said...

As to No. 1 -- FALSE. By allowing a abortion to "be available" and fighting to ensure it remains available, all such who allow and fight for abortion "rights" are guilty of promoting abortion. What? Do they think that by making a procedure available no one will take advantage of it? Fool if you think otherwise.

As to No. 2 -- FALSE. The government subsidizes Planned Parenthood; the government PAYS for abortion procedures to be performed.

As to No. 3 -- No argument here! These folks [your "roughly half"] are content to allow others to commit murder, and yet they'll call the police first chance they get if they see some hoodlums trying to kill each other. They'll stand up in court and tearfully demand retribution for the slaying of a loved one, but they think it's okay if someone chooses to kill an unborn child. What a great collection of hypocrites!

Hypocrites with blood on their hands.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

And we would say the same about those who support this Iraq Invasion, or the bombing of Hiroshima, or the firebombing of Dresden citizens. "Blood on our hands," indeed.

The difference, which you may not acknowledge but it IS a difference, is that in ZERO circumstances - absolutely none - do I support our gov't targeting innocent lives with my tax dollars. NEVER EVER EVER do I support that.

Your side does.

That is a big difference.

You can SAY that it is "false" that Dems actively promote abortion, but you are wrong. If you have some quote where a number of Dems are promoting abortion, bring it forward. In the real world, there is a difference between fighting to keep something legal and promoting that action.

I actively support the right of free speech, even for those with whom I disagree. That I support, for instance, Eric's right to free speech IN NO WAY means that I support what Eric is saying.

Words mean things, Eric. The Dems do NOT promote abortion. That is a misrepresentation of reality.

You may have a case on the Planned Parenthood front, I don't know enough about that to know for sure. But even so, that they support sending funds to Planned Parenthood STILL does not mean that the Dems are promoting abortion. Planned Parenthood, as I understand it, has many roles (mainly "planning parenthood...") and I don't know that they are primarily a pro-abortion organization.

Words mean things, Eric and it is harmful to our Democratic process and the American Way for all this demonization to continue as much as it does.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Though his comments are a lot less petulant than this recent contribution to this blog -- it looks like he actually read and comprehends your comments, EL -- Dan's comment here is still problematic for a variety of reasons.

For one, in the Iraq war our government has taken great pains to minimize civilian casualities, has spent billions (which Dan would like to see cut) to develop technologies that insure against civilian casualites. On the other hand, abortion is defined successful only if the innocent life involved is ended. If a baby survives the "medical procedure," the procedure is considered a failure.

For another, I am -- to say the least -- extremely skeptical of Dan's claim that "No one - NO ONE - in the Dem Party is actively promoting abortion."

There are people who genuinely think that we should have fewer children for the sake of the environment: see here and here. Is it a stretch to suppose that, of those who are so concerned about carbon footprints that they anguish about having children, at least one is a leftist? That at least one is a member of the Democratic party? That at least one strongly believes in that euphemism about a woman's right to choose?

Is it really far-fetched to believe that the left's combination of environmental scaremongering and a radical commitment to legalized abortion has no philosophical overlap?

Really?

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.

He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.

Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.

"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."


Dan insists that this nihilism -- this species-wide death wish -- has no place in the Democratic party. It's a claim that is absolutely empty.


But what I think is interesting is the apparent need to make this claim in the first place.

If abortion is a "medical procedure" morally comparable to an appendectomy, or to plastic surgery, or to getting your ears pierced, why does Dan feel the need to tell us that "No one - NO ONE" in his political party promtes the procedure, that "No one - zero individuals" supports government subsidies for the procedure?

If Dan doesn't think abortion is an atrocity -- "Abortion is clearly an atrocity to you" -- why does he distance himself and his entire party from it?

Or, if Dan admits that the act is so heinous that the government ought not to be actively involed in it at any level, just why in the world does he totally oppose the act's criminalization?

Dan seems to want to walk the tightrope, admitting that abortion is immoral and thus distancing his entire side of the political aisle away from its explicit advocacy, but still supporting its legality.

But here's the problem with this middle path: in the vast majority of circumstances, abortion is the deliberate taking of human life, not in such difficult circumstances as when the mother's life is genuinely at risk, but in cases of convenience.

If such an act is immoral, it's not just "immoral but only mildly so," it's extremely immoral: it's a horror.

If it's immoral, it's similar to infanticide, and no mature Christian should accept the claim that his ostensible brother in Christ understands this evil enough to oppose its subsidization but still supports its being legal and available on-demand.

Some things, I think, could be legal but not subsidized, such as gambling. But abortion isn't a night at the horsetrack; it's murder.

Suppose the government made hiring a hitman legal; is it really supposed to make us feel better that one opposes government financial aid for such activity?

 
On August 18, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Anonymous Bubba said...

And, Dan, you are once again displaying some rather flagrant hypocrisy.

The difference, which you may not acknowledge but it IS a difference, is that in ZERO circumstances - absolutely none - do I support our gov't targeting innocent lives with my tax dollars. NEVER EVER EVER do I support that.

Your side does.

That is a big difference...

Words mean things, Eric and it is harmful to our Democratic process and the American Way for all this demonization to continue as much as it does.


Those who have supported the Iraq war HAVE NOT supported "targeting innocent lives with [our] tax dollars." Instead, we have supported tactics and strategies and funding for technologies that reduce civilian casualties.

There is a huge, huge difference between the clear-eyed understanding that wars result in civilian casualties and deliberately "targeting" civilians.

For you to ignore that difference to lie about those with whom you disagree is bad enough. You compound the lying with hypocrisy by conveniently clinging to the idea that "words mean things" only when it suits you.

And you make the entire spectacle even more repugnant by griping about demonization.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

You fully support the gov't taking actions that WILL result in innocent lives will be lost. In great numbers.

It is not your desire that innocent lives be lost, I fully understand that.

And that is another difference between me and y'all: I fully understand that you are not evil nor are you deliberately supporting evil actions. BUT you are supporting actions that WILL and DO result in our government killing innocent people.

I oppose all such policies.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Ignoring the debatable point of there being civilian casualties in "great numbers", I think it's more accurate to say that we support "the gov't taking actions that WILL result in innocent lives will be [sic] lost."

That's more accurate, because it rightly drops any charges of "targeting" civilians.

Since you're so apt to remind us that words mean things -- and even accuse us of demonization -- I don't see why you weren't more careful earlier, nor do I see why your clarification isn't coupled with an apology or at least a more explicit retraction.


I fully understand that you say you oppose the government taking actions that can and sometimes do result in the death of innocent human beings.

I do wonder whether this opposition is as complete as you make it appear. I've previously asked whether you oppose the police having lethal force at all, and now I wonder if you think the FDA should approve drugs only if there is literally no chance for a patient to die from taking that medication, or if you think the government should only build bridges that are truly indestructable and whose risk for collapse isn't just micoscopic, it's non-existent.

But I also wonder why you're so adamant that the government should take no actions that results in the loss of innocent lives. Are you focusing on the actor involved or on the act?

If it's the actor -- the government -- then does your desire for perfectly clean hands on the state's part mean that you oppose all incarceration, too, since no amount of legal failsafes can ensure that no innocent man will be wrongly convicted and imprisoned?

Or if it's the act itself, I wonder: if your blanket opposition to state actions that result in the loss of innocent life is a reflection of your concern for innocent life, why again do you support the legal sanction of abortion on-demand?

 
On August 18, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

I don't see why you weren't more careful earlier, nor do I see why your clarification isn't coupled with an apology or at least a more explicit retraction.

Well, in Eric's case, I believe he opposes our gov't taking actions that specifically target civilians. However, in the case o some (many?) conservatives, they HAVE said that they support the gov't targeting civilians, as in Hiroshima, as in Dresden.

So, I DID clarify for Eric's sake (although I'm not entirely sure where he falls - he seems to vacillate), the point remains that you and your type support the US gov't - at least at times - specifically targeting civilians. I remain opposed to that.

What ought I retract, in your mind?

 
On August 18, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Bubba borders the ridiculous, saying:

I do wonder whether this opposition is as complete as you make it appear. I've previously asked whether you oppose the police having lethal force at all, and now I wonder if you think the FDA should approve drugs only if there is literally no chance for a patient to die from taking that medication, or if you think the government should only build bridges that are truly indestructable and whose risk for collapse isn't just micoscopic

I am opposed to the gov't targeting innocent individuals for death. In every case.

I am not opposed to the police using lethal force to target and bring down a dangerous individual.

I AM opposed to them dropping bombs near that dangerous individual in hopes of stopping him - bombs that will likely kill civilians.

I am not opposed to the FDA testing and approving drugs - even when there is a chance that some of those drugs may be used in such a way as to result in a death.

I AM opposed to the gov't administering drugs that will lead to death in some cases.

It is all about freedom of choice. About individual liberty.

I am opposed to the gov't taking innocent life. In every case.

You are not.

That would be one difference between us and one reason why I reject out of hand the hypocritical stand some on the right take on the abortion issue.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Bubba said:

Ignoring the debatable point of there being civilian casualties in "great numbers"...

You disagree?

You know that the numbers range from 50,000+ - 600,000+ (with 30,000 being the number of civilian deaths Bush cited back in 2006).

The Washington Post said back in January of this year,

A new survey estimates that 151,000 Iraqis died from violence in the three years following the U.S.-led invasion of the country. Roughly 9 out of 10 of those deaths were a consequence of U.S. military operations, insurgent attacks and sectarian warfare.

The survey (conducted by the Iraqi gov't and WHO) also found an increase of 60% in non-violent deaths.

Whichever number you wish to embrace, tens of thousands (at a minimum) meets my criteria for "great numbers."

 
On August 18, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Blogger ELAshley said...

..::UPDATE::..
ENTERING INTO EVIDENCE:

1) From the 2008 Democratic Party Platform:

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." [Emphasis mine]

2) From RH Reality Check:

"Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota called for the defunding of Planned Parenthood last Wednesday. In a "special order" floor speech organized by Bachmann and Chris Smith, R-N.J., Bachmann called for an end to any federal money for the network of reproductive health care clinics because Planned Parenthood offers abortion services.

" "If you've got 882 clinics, you have $1 billion a year in annual revenue, and $330 million of that comes from taxpayer funding, I think that shows pretty clearly they are big business. They are the Wal-Mart of big abortion. They're the big box retailer," Bachmann told fellow members of the House. "It is time to end their tax-exempt status. It's a fraud. And it's time to stop the public financing of Planned Parenthood. It's the right thing to do." "


The end result:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports the right of any woman to murder her unborn child, and for those who cannot afford the procedure, the subsidy of abortion via taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood, to the tune of $330 million dollars a year.

The fact that Obama supports this clearly calls into question his Christian bona fides-- THAT or his serious lack of judgment.

That you would support and vote for such a man.... I'm not going to go there.



Kudos Bubba for the following:

"Some things, I think, could be legal but not subsidized, such as gambling. But abortion isn't a night at the horsetrack; it's murder.

"Suppose the government made hiring a hitman legal; is it really supposed to make us feel better that one opposes government financial aid for such activity?"


Wow! Your Kung Fu is powerful!


Dan: Lest you forget, Democrats clamored all over themselves, and the desks in their respective houses, demanding an opportunity to vote in support of the Iraq invasion. The U.S. Military DOES NOT deliberately target civilians. That honor goes to men like Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, RUSSIA... The Democrats know this. I cannot believe that Democrats would support an invasion knowing that the U.S. Military deliberately targets civilians. Yet because they DID support the invasion they obviously understood that civilians inevitably die in ANY armed conflict. Their understanding is, apparently, more nuanced than your own.

In order to avoid any and ALL innocent deaths in time of war is to not go to war at all. Disband the military. Allow anyone who desires to invade and enslave us all. But remember, there's no guarantee THEY won't kill and maim and rape any they choose. To defend yourself or your nation against all enemies foreign or domestic is to accept the reality that it may be necessary to take a life, and in the case of ANY war innocent lives are inevitably lost.

Abortion, on the other hand, is the taking up of arms SOLELY against the innocent. The Democratic Party supports the procedure. BOTH Parties are allowing the subsidy of it, but DEMOCRATS AND their candidate support it as a moral choice. It is anything but. Yes there are Republicans who support "a woman's right to choose" but they are just as wrong. Just as wrong as Barack Obama who said this:

"I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

Knowing that both Parties have allowed the taxpayer subsidy of Planned Parenthood-- the taking up of arms against INNOCENT lives --the question I'd like answered is this:

In light of the 2008 Democratic Party Platform, will Democrats oppose Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota's call for the defunding of Planned Parenthood? Remember, logically they went into Iraq with eyes wide open. If they oppose the defunding of Planned Parenthood can it not be said that they likewise enter into their objections with eyes wide open? Knowing that innocent life is destroyed as a result of legalized abortion?

John 3:19-21

"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."

Is Obama truly in the Light? More importantly, can a Christian support abortion and claim his actions "are wrought in God"?

Careful how you answer that. Words mean things.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

If anyone watched Saturday nights one-on-one/one-at-a-time get together with Rick Warren at Saddleback, Obama clearly and unequivocally failed. And clearly lied about his most agonizing decision: his nonexistent "vote" against the Iraq invasion... he wasn't even elected to the Senate for that vote.

Superdelegates and the Clintons have to be wondering about His viability and her renewed chances, respectively. It appears that Obama is doing all he can to have the nomination snatched from him.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Is Obama truly in the Light? More importantly, can a Christian support abortion and claim his actions "are wrought in God"?

Yes, many Christians can and do oppose the criminalization of abortion (which is not the same as supporting abortion - it doesn't matter how many times you say it, it will remain a falsehood).

I am a Christian, saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, the Lord of my life. And I oppose criminalizing abortion.

And I think I hold the best Christian answer on the position, although it is entirely possible I'm wrong.

But, as I have noted in the past, our being wrong on a position - even being wrong on an issue as serious as dropping bombs on innocent people - is not the same as us not being Christians. We are not saved by our correct-ness on each issue, but rather, we are saved by Grace.

If merely being wrong on certain sins is enough to mark us "unsaved," then Lord have mercy on both me and you, Brother Eric.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

You're only half right, Dan. You didn't answer the entire question. I asked:

"...can a Christian support abortion and claim his actions "are wrought in God"?"

Two questions:

1) Can a Christian support abortion. Clearly the answer is yes, though I question their judgment.

2) Can a Christian claim his action (his decision to support abortion) is "wrought in God" [Jn 3:21]? Clearly the answer is no. Which means that by supporting abortion one is out of God's will.

"Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish."

--Jesus

 
On August 18, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Blogger Marshall Art said...

Dan's famous powers of reasoning cannot dissect Bubba's comments and find no truth, no connection, no thread of logic (or "illogic" considering how he was extrapolating from Dan's comment)? He's taken your own statement, Dan, and run it to it's logical conclusion, and then you say he borders on the ridiculous.

There is only one word for the taking of an unborn's life, and the word that is used is "abortion". If there were separate words to distinguish the saving of a mother's life from all the convenience abortions that comprise the vast majority of them, one could get by saying one isn't in favor of any gov't supported killing of innocents. Too bad that isn't the case. All abortions kill innocent people, even when the mother's life is in danger. Since tax money goes to Planned Parenthood, since Dems support keeping the practice legal, Dan's objections are as lies.

Since tax money supports PP, the gov't IS targeting innocent life with abortions. The government ISN'T targeting innocent lives in Iraq or Afghanistan.

But if Dan wishes to change the dynamics by switching "targeting" to "taking" innocent lives, the government is indeed involved with a host of legislation wherein lives are lost. None so heinous and plentiful as those lost through abortion. That's more than the war in Iraq by quite a few.

And just to keep it real, whatever the number of Iraqis killed since our invasion, their deaths are at the hands of the enemy, not us.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

Did you get that?

"Even so it is NOT the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

--Jesus

To allow for the murder of "one of these little ones" is to go AGAINST the will of God. And allow me to reiterate:

Abortion is the taking up of arms SOLELY against the innocent.

America does not deliberately target civilians in time of war. But America, and the Democratic Party DOES DELIBERATELY TARGET INNOCENTS VIA THE LEGALIZATION AND SUPPORT OF ABORTION.

If you do not lift a finger to help your neighbor from being murdered you are morally complicit in his death... you should have done SOMETHING, even if your efforts failed to save your neighbors life. By that same measure, if you do nothing to prevent the murder of an unborn child your hands are as stained by its innocent blood as is the man who ripped it from the womb.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

"Vast Majority" is right Marshall. The use of abortion to preserve the life of the mother is extremely and exceedingly rare. Abortion is primarily a procedure of convenience. Murder for convenience sake.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Eric said:

If you do not lift a finger to help your neighbor from being murdered you are morally complicit in his death... you should have done SOMETHING

And so, are you saying that Eric will be held accountable for failing to do something about the killing of children in Iraq by US bombs and bullets? That you are morally complicit in the death?

Maybe so, maybe so.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

Allow me to repeat myself one more time...

"Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

--Jesus

Abortion is clearly an unsupportable position upon which any Christian could hope to stand.

Deflect attention to Iraq all you want, but your refusal to speak directly to the actual topic of this discussion speaks volumes. If I had to guess, I'd say you sense deep down your failure to defend the life of innocents via your defense of abortion, so you deflect attention from said guilt to something you feel will make me and Bubba and whomever else appear to be just as guilty.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Dan, a little lesson in logic, about that WaPo story:

A new survey estimates that 151,000 Iraqis died from violence in the three years following the U.S.-led invasion of the country. Roughly 9 out of 10 of those deaths were a consequence of U.S. military operations, insurgent attacks and sectarian warfare.

An estimate that "151,000 Iraqis died" doesn't elaborate on how many of those were innocent civilians. And, an estimate that attributes most of those deaths to "U.S. military operations, insurgent attacks and sectarian warfare" doesn't elaborate on how those numbers break down.

Since those numbers tally deaths from U.S. military actions AND insurgents, and since they include civilian casualitys AND insurgent casualties, the numbers give only the vaguest indication of how many civilian casualties were actually caused by U.S. actions.

"Whichever number you wish to embrace, tens of thousands (at a minimum) meets my criteria for 'great numbers.'"

I don't think you've shown that U.S. miltary action has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq.

Regardless, the number the WaPo cites is about one-half of one percent of the Iraqi population. It's a sizable number, but not the scorched-earth decimation which the fever swamps of the left are so eager to suggest.

And, I'll remind you that, over the same time period, 3.6 million abortions or more were performed in the United States.



On another note, I realized over lunch that Dan himself has already given a counter-example to his claim that he opposes, in all forms, government action that leads to the loss of innocent life: that counter-example is Planned Parenthood.

You may have a case on the Planned Parenthood front, I don't know enough about that to know for sure. But even so, that they support sending funds to Planned Parenthood STILL does not mean that the Dems are promoting abortion. Planned Parenthood, as I understand it, has many roles (mainly "planning parenthood...") and I don't know that they are primarily a pro-abortion organization.

Planned Parenthood has "many roles," so just because one of those roles is abortion advocacy, Dan doesn't necessarily oppose government funding for Planned Parenthood.

"I don't know that they are primarily a pro-abortion organization."

As long as abortion isn't their primary purpose or sole purpose, government funding appears to pass Dan's test.


Never mind that the U.S. military's primary function isn't the deaths of innocent civilians, that -- on the contrary -- we spend billions to develop technologies to avoid such casualties and even put our own troops at risk to preserve innocent life. Dan thinks that innocent death condemns the U.S. military even when it's incidental.

But he doesn't hold the same standard to Planned Parenthood.

As long as PP's mission is long enough to include other activities, the mass murder that takes place in Planned Parenthood's clinics can be ignored, and the government funding for Planned Parenthood is quite permissible in Dan's book.

I am opposed to the gov't taking innocent life. In every case.

You are not.

That would be one difference between us and one reason why I reject out of hand the hypocritical stand some on the right take on the abortion issue.


That difference is illusory. Dan apparently supports government funding for abortion clinics so long as they're multi-functional.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

Obama is not worthy of the office and position of the President. He is losing face, and continuing to do so, every time he opens his mouth. I truly do not believe he has a prayer of winning in November.

And I praise God for that.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

But just because you think something, Eric ("I truly think he doesn't have a chance of winning..."), does not mean it's reality.

It appears to be a close race but one that McCain is losing. You appear to be working yourself into a froth over the possibility of having this poor man becoming president. I'll give you this: He won't be a perfect candidate. No one will be.

And you will disagree with him on some points. That's the way it goes.

And the US will go on. Life will not come to the end. The antichrist will not be seated at the head of nations. We won't go to hell in a handbasket.

Life will go on. Take a breath. Relax. Enjoy life a bit, brother. Love your neighbor. Love God. Love this wonderful creation which we are blessed to live in.

Say a kind word to someone today. Smile. Smell a rose, plant a tree.

Be the future you wish to see.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

As to this:

Deflect attention to Iraq all you want, but your refusal to speak directly to the actual topic of this discussion speaks volumes.

Not seeking to deflect anything. I'm just pointing out that there are serious issues all around. This election is not about one issue. Disagreeing with Eric on this one issue is not the same as hating God and life and all that is good.

I think I've directly made my position clear multiple times on the abortion issue. But in case you have forgotten, I'll repeat:

1. I am opposed to so-called "abortions of convenience."

2. I am opposed to the Gov't making medical decisions for people.

3. I personally am convinced that an unborn child ought to be considered a human being, with rights and all.

4. I acknowledge that not every one agrees with this position - it is not so clear cut for some people.

5. I think that end of life decisions rightfully belong to individuals and their families, not the gov't.

6. If a person is ill, in pain and dying, I am opposed to gov't telling that person he can't end his life.

7. If a person is in a coma and has told her husband that she does not want to be kept in such a state, I think it should be that husband's decision to honor his wife's wishes (or not) as to whether a plug should be pulled. I don't want gov't making that decision.

8. Similarly, in a pregnancy, you have the life/health of a mother and of a baby to consider. I support the family making any medical decisions about treatment. I don't trust gov't to make those sort of decisions.

9. It is entirely possible (and likely) that some people would handle these sorts of decisions in ways that I would disagree with. Still, because of the personal and somewhat vague nature of that decision and its consequences, I support THAT person and their familiy making the decision, not me, not Eric, not the gov't.

10. If someone were aborting their child merely because they thought that child would be gay (or blind or blond or whatever), I think that person would be wrong and that decision heinous. IF there were a way to regulate "frivolous" abortions, it might be a place where Left and Right could find some common ground.

But doing so would be difficult because of the divisive nature of the question and because of hyper-critical language on the part of some.

So there you have this Christian American's position on the matter.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

Thank you for insulting me with that steaming plate of patronizing platitudes. Just because you think something, Dan ("blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum"), does not mean it's reality.

Why won't you address the topic?

Abortion is Muder.
Obama supports Abortion.
Ergo, Obama supports Murder, and
Anyone who supports Obama wishes him God speed and takes part in his evil deeds.

Is there anyone who comments on this blog besides Bubba and myself who can "rightly divide the word of truth"? and hold positions that reflect that right divide?

I wonder. Is there anyone who can honestly and intelligently defend Obama's position head on?

 
On August 18, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

Thank you the clarification, Dan. Sadly I don't have time to continue this now. I must get ready for work. Til this evening, then...

 
On August 18, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Funny how Dan's not quite so easy going when it comes to President Bush. Rather than embrace life and be the dream, dreaming to be the dream that can be, he can get pretty worked up about what he thinks is an immoral atrocity in Iraq.

The suggestion to chill out isn't coming from a genuine desire to keep politics in perspective. It is, like so many devices in his toolbox, a bit of rhetoric to be employed when convenient and ignored at all other times.

If there's anything more infuriating than a useless hippie, it's an insincere one.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Why won't you address the topic?

???

How many times and in how many ways do I need to address the topic? I've laid out my position quite explicitly.

I've pointed out that the Dems IN NO WAY believe in the the Gov't killing babies. Nor do they actively encourage abortions. In fact, quite consistently, they have said things such as "we want to keep abortions safe, legal and rare."

I've also pointed out that this is NOT a one issue campaign. There are other ways to measure a candidate besides what they think on one issue.

We've got serious energy/environmental problems that hurts/end millions of lives and has the potential to cost more lives in the future than.

We've got serious economic problems to consider and deal with - issues that are often life and death, too.

We've got serious problems with terrorism and how we deal with it.

We've got serious problems of how the US acts in relation with the rest of the world.

These are all life and death issues.

We get that you disagree with Obama's position on abortion. Okay. We get that you don't like him. Okay. But just because you don't like him does not mean that we ought not vote for him.

You are entirely free to not vote for him. Once he is president and has a solidly Democrat congress (which most likely WILL happen, largely thanks to how awful the Bush administration has been on so many fronts), you are free to leave this country and complain about him from the nation of your choice if you so desire.

But seriously, for your own mental health, relax a bit. You're going to give yourself a heart attack or an anxiety attack come November 5th.

And understand that there are many serious Christians and patriotic Americans who somehow will manage to disagree with you, Eric. And that's okay.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Dan:

I've pointed out that the Dems IN NO WAY believe in the the Gov't killing babies. Nor do they actively encourage abortions. In fact, quite consistently, they have said things such as "we want to keep abortions safe, legal and rare."

EL has shown that the Democratic platform in a defense of abortion "regardless of ability to pay," which implies government subsidies which you say don't exist.

The government funds Planned Parenthood, which performs abortions, and your response was that the organization has many roles: "I don't know that they are primarily a pro-abortion organization."

You didn't dispute, much less disprove, the two central claims that A) Planned Parenthood performs abortions and B) PP receives government funding.

Thus, you haven't "pointed out" that Dems oppose government funding for abortion, you only claimed as much, and the claim is transparently false.


But about abortion being "safe, legal, and rare", if women have the right to abortion, why does it matter how frequently it occurs?

Again, you seem to admit that abortion is immoral...

"I personally am convinced that an unborn child ought to be considered a human being, with rights and all."

...but you don't seem all that interested in supporting legal measures to protect your fellow human beings and to enshrine those rights in the same protections the rest of us have.

Calling for abortion to be rare, saying that you wish there were a way to regulate frivolous abortions, those are ways in which you're trying to throw a bone to the conscience. But in the face of what abortion is -- the deliberate murder of an innocent and helpless human life -- a passing acknowledgement of the act's regrettability won't do.

The act is heinous, and it demands moral outrage.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

And do you think that when a wife gets sick and is in a coma, that it is the gov't or the husband/family that should decide how to treat her and/or if she should be allowed to pass away?

I say it is the individual, not the gov't that should decide.

Abortion for me, is like that.

For others, they are not even convinced that the fetus should be considered a fully human being with rights and all.

We disagree.

What I just wish would happen is that we could disagree without demonizing the other. Yes, I absolutely disagree with Bush on many topics - and quite strongly on several of those.

But never have I questioned his patriotism or his Christianity. Never have I accused his followers of being "evil," nor have I called Bush a "turd," nor of having a "cruel and depraved indifference."

Nor have I accused them of something that they don't support. Eric here claims that the Dems are actively supporting abortion (when I pointed out that they weren't, Eric said,

"FALSE. By allowing a abortion to "be available" and fighting to ensure it remains available, all such who allow and fight for abortion "rights" are guilty of promoting abortion."

Never have I done the opposite, saying, "FALSE. By allowing Bush to invade countries, they are advocating we ought to invade countries and kill babies."

I have not said that because it is not true. I'm just saying it would be nice to have the same human courtesy extended to the other side.

Peace, fellas. Don't wet yourselves November 5th if you wake up to President Obama.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Maybe it's my tendency to demonize or the bile in my soul, but I don't tend to put a whole heckuva lot of stock in requests for courtesy when they're immediately followed by nonsense about urinary incontinence.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Brother man, joke if you'd like - make mocking remarks. But what I'm asking that we avoid is this:

How can any man who will not defend the right to life of an abortion victim who is born alive call himself a follower of Christ?...

By voting for such a man you take part in the evil he condones just as clearly as the good he lets...

People actually support this turd. I just came here after posting a similar story regarding this pathetic excuse's position on his fellow human beings...

FALSE. By allowing a abortion to "be available" and fighting to ensure it remains available, all such who allow and fight for abortion "rights" are guilty of promoting abortion. What? Do they think that by making a procedure available no one will take advantage of it? Fool if you think otherwise...


And on and on...

But I guess you see no difference between a joke (don't wet yourselves) and an abrupt jab (was Marshall just joking when he called Obama a "turd"? Calling Obama a "pathetic excuse"?).

I guess you don't see the difference between disagreeing with a position (targeting civilians as we did at Hiroshima is wrong) and misrepresenting a position ("all such who allow and fight for abortion "rights" are guilty of promoting abortion.").

I think there is a clear difference.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Dan, you are in no position to criticize others for misrepresenting one's position.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

[eyes roll out on floor...]

 
On August 18, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"For others, they are not even convinced that the fetus should be considered a fully human being with rights and all."

Yes, some people don't understand science and they take this view. But you claim not to. You claim to agree that abortion kills an innocent human being, and you think it should be legal.

"In fact, quite consistently, they have said things such as "we want to keep abortions safe, legal and rare.""

Those are weasel words from politicians. I addressed that here - http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/05/24/the-safe-legal-and-rare-myth-2/

Scientific fact: Abortion kills an innocent human being. Therefore, the "safe, legal and rare" crowd hold this view:

"Killing an innocent human being should be safe." Hard to miss the irony there.

"Killing an innocent human being should be legal." Hmmmmm . . . what they really mean, of course, is that it should be legal in the womb but not outside it.

"Killing an innocent human being should be rare." Well, yeah, but when we want to make murder rare outside the womb we discourage it by making it illegal.

Obama is a sad excuse for a leader and a "Christian," as is anyone who supports legalized abortion on demand.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

As is anyone who supports targeting civilians in wartime. And saying "the US doesn't target civilians" are just weasel words from the Religious un-Right.

See? I can argue like you all, too.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, you are trying to change the subject, as usual, to avoid the arguments.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

What avoid?

I've addressed the issue. Thoroughly.

What you all have failed to address is why you hypocritically condemn in others what you do yourselves? Why can't you disagree without demonizing?

 
On August 18, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe it's my tendency to demonize or the bile in my soul, but I don't tend to put a whole heckuva lot of stock in requests for courtesy when they're immediately followed by nonsense about urinary incontinence.> from Bubba's comment.

No, Bubba you do not demonize, you recognize lies and foolishness when you see it and so do a lot of the rest of us. It is a real disappointment when Christians or professing Christians will go to such great lengths to defend evil, but what can we expect other than what the Word tells us will happen. In Isaiah where it speaks of calling evil good and good evil. mom2

 
On August 18, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

Sorry, Dan. The U.S. Military does NOT deliberately target civilians. Abortion however DOES deliberately target innocents.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Hiroshima? Dresden? There were civilians there. Those civilian centers were deliberately targeted. What do you call that?

Again, if you want to say, "The military DOES sometime deliberately target civilian centers that happen to have military targets (sort of, usually) in them," you can, but that would be the weasel words sort of self-justification that Neil mentioned earlier.

Regardless, the fact remains that the Dems are not ADVOCATING abortion. Obama is not advocating abortion.

You all are advocating taking actions that would result in the gov't kill civilians. Children.

So, again, the election is not about one issue. There are many complex issues with difficult questions around them. Disagree with Obama's position on some issues if you want, I shall continue to disagree with McCain and your positions when I want.

But I, for one, will try to avoid the demonization method of discussion and debate. You, Eric, are not the enemy. Bush nor McCain are not the enemy. You are my brothers and fellow citizens. And we are all in this together trying to work out the best policies for our country. As is Obama.

Disagree. Not demonize.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Blogger Marshall Art said...

Hiroshima was a major port and a military headquarters, and therefore a strategic target. Though some advisors thought bombing an urban area would break the spirit of the Japanese, Truman was interested in a military target, which Hiroshima was. Dresden was considered a major industrial city involved in supporting the Nazi war effort. Both of these events were second-guessed, which is really easy to do after the wars end. But even if we assume that the idea of bombing Japan was to destroy half the country until they cry "Uncle", it's a far cry from "targeting civilians". You continue to use this silly notion, but it doesn't wash.

Abortion, as you have been told already, does indeed target innocent lives.

And no, I was not joking. Obama IS a turd and as such, a very pathetic choice for president. Hear this, Dan: Obama said that he could not view the living breathing survivor of an abortion as a person. He said this publicly in his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. I freely demonize such people, as I demonize bin Laden, Gacy, Hitler, Stalin, Bundy (Ted, not Al), and a host of others who have low esteme for their fellow human beings. I don't want such a man even vying for the presidency, much less be elected. I say again, I'm not talking about the unborn here, which lefties like to pretend aren't the equal to every other human, but those that have been born, that have taken a breath. Obama thinks they should just die. All of his other stupid positions are just stupid positions, even when they will harm our economy and culture. But THIS is unique. And you cast your lot with this scumbag. Demonize? You bet I do. He takes on the mantle with his cruel, heartless and depraved indifference to the plight of those who most need our compassion. Screw him. The audacity of a dope.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Blogger ELAshley said...

Did anyone WATCH the video I posted here? Live Infant Abortion?

I don't care about any other issue in this election, specifically in regard to Barack Obama's candidacy.

Barack Obama is a liar, and a cold-hearted murderer. And for this reason alone, America cannot afford the kind of change this monster will bring.

This is not demonization. This is what he is. This is what ANY man who would condone such practice deserves to be called. A monster, pure and simple.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Blogger Marshall Art said...

Amen, Eric. Amen.

 
On August 18, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Anonymous BenT - the Unbeliever said...

Isn't this a rather narrow reading of biblical scripture? Modern christianity makes the definite point that no one is innocent. So children born or unborn should have no special christian value. And condemning abortion with the ten commandments "do not kill" rubric seems a little hypocritical too. I mean the old testament is full of places where the hebrew army are commanded to kill their enemies unto the livestock.

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."
--Ex. 21:22-25

The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus. This is exodus 21 the chapter right after the ten commandments.

Abortion is a thorny moral issue, but to pretend like the bible has it simplified is disingenuous. Even the catholic church doesn't know when exactly life begins.

"The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature [as to the time of ensoulment], but it constantly affirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion."

That "moment" of conception is, of course, many moments in a continuum. Here's how Steven Pinker describes the actual science in "The Blank Slate":

"Just as a microscope reveals that a straight edge is really ragged, research on human reproduction shows that the 'moment of conception' is not a moment at all. Sometimes several sperm penetrate the outer membrane of the egg, and it takes time for the egg to eject the extra chromosomes ... Even when a single sperm enters, its genes remain separate from those of the egg for a day or more, and it takes yet another day or so for the newly merged genome to control the cell. So the 'moment' of conception is in fact a span of twenty-four to forty-eight hours."

 
On August 19, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Blogger Marshall Art said...

Good points, Bent. But let's look at it this way:

If we can't determine the exact moment when conception occurs, how dare we then decide that we can take the chance that the line has already been crossed? To assume that this new life is a person as we are is the prudent choice to make by far. I recall a letter to our local newspaper wherein the writer, in support of abortion, suggested that life doesn't start at conception, but is a continuing phenomena flowing from one generation to the next. I don't know how he thought that didn't make the pro-life position stronger, but I tend to agree with him on that point. To speak of life beginning at conception is to say that there is no distinction between a microscopic human (zygote) and a fully developed one. One is always endowed by one's Creator with the inalienable right to life.

"The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus."

Yeah, if no mischief follows. What does that mean? I believe it means that if the fetus is not harmed by the activity and can survive, then no penalty on the order of death is appropriate.

As to innocence, there is a plain distinction between the Biblical notion of innocence, that is, being born into sin, and that of civil judgement. We speak of the latter in discussions of aborting "innocent" babies. They've done no harm.

 
On August 19, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Anonymous 4Simpsons said...

Exodus 21 is often misused by pro-abortionists. This article analyzes the passage well and goes back to the original Hebrew:

The Misuse of Exodus 21:22-25 by Pro-Choice Advocates

 
On August 19, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Blogger ELAshley said...

Thanks for that link Neil. Very illuminating.

It's a shame one of the scholars offering interpretation hails by the name of "George Bush." Many on the Left would reject his testimony simply for the feelings his name would conjure, despite a century's worth of relevance... ;-)

 
On August 19, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Anonymous BenT - the Unbeliever said...

EL has always maintained that the preferred version of the Bible is the KJV. So the appeal to the original Hebrew is interesting and may defend a pro-life point in other places. But here EL has stated his preference. To construct in a way beyond the plain meaning of the KJV language would be holding a double standard, at least from him. IMHO

Second this doesn't address the point that the Hebrew army killed thousands of children throughout the old testament, at the commandment of Yahweh. How does a pro-life position jive with that.

Or the verse: And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
-- Genesis 2: 7 (KJV)
Which suggests life and breath are one. The bible is full of verses that can be validly interpreted individually to arrive a disparate conclusions. To say that those who don't agree with you are monstrous or evil or murderous or accomplices to murder is uncharitable at least and possibly scurrilous.

 
On August 19, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Anonymous Bubba said...

Ben, it appears that Dan doesn't disagree with us on the central moral issue of whether an unborn child is a human being endowed with human rights same as the rest of us.

"I personally am convinced that an unborn child ought to be considered a human being, with rights and all."

Dan isn't arguing that the unborn isn't human or that the unborn has no rights. He acknowledges their humanity, he affirms their rights, and he still isn't interested in supporting laws that would protect those rights.

Add to that his insufferable, near-giddy support for a politician who opposes a law recognizing the humanity of those who survive abortions and are born alive, and you have a person whose political positions can be accurately described as monstrous.

Let's be clear on what opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act really means: it means support for the idea that killing a baby outside the womb is just fine, so long as one already attempted to kill him in the womb. In other words, outright infanticide is okay, so long as the death stroke wasn't the first attempt at murder.

If that isn't monstrous, then nothing is.

 
On August 19, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Anonymous BenT - the Unbeliever said...

What Dan believes or doesn't has nothing to do with my argument. Nor does it strengthen yours that you and he have comity on something.

 
On August 19, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Anonymous BenT - the Unbeliever said...

Let's imagine the scenarios in which the Born Alive Infants Protection Act might apply.

To start with the child must be sufficiently advanced to survive outside the womb. So that means beyond the first trimester at least and probably more than 5 months. Agree?

By the 3rd to 5th month women know they are pregnant. And have made the decision to have or abort the fetus. So fetuses that develop this far along can be presumed to be wanted by the mother. Agree?

In fact the scenarios I can imagine for a woman aborting a fetus after carrying it for more than 3-5 months, all involve some hideous medical problem with the mother or the fetus. Can you imagine a pregnancy that far along being terminated for convenience?

But say the BAIPA mandated care for those misaborted fetuses. How long does this care continue? Until elementary school? All their life? These could be children with severe down syndrome, or unattached spinal cords, congenital heart defects. And how are these babies cared for if the medical care is successful? Foster care? Orphanages?

Quality of life is as important as the element of life. Pro-life and pro-choice could find common grounds working to strengthen the alternative to abortion, but each side plays this zero-sum political game. So don't accuse me of being monstrous, unless your ready to bend from your perfectly moral pillar. Unless your ready to get into the trenches of real people struggling with difficult moral issues I have no more time for this high moral bullshit.

 
On August 19, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So fetuses that develop this far along can be presumed to be wanted by the mother. Agree?"

I don't agree. Pro-abortionists demand the right to kill the unborn at any time during the pregnancy and for any reason. If the mom wants her at 5 months and doesn't at 6, then she can have an abortion.

If she doesn't want her at 5 months and has an abortion then decides at 6 months that she wants her, then . . . oops! Already dead. No going back.

Some decisions, like murder, are rather permanent.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]