Posted on 06/14/2015 9:15:16 PM PDT by Morgana
One of the pillars of the Evangelical marriage to the Republican Party is the Pro-Life movement. By far, this movement is one of the most passionate and mobilized groups in America. But I wonder have they ever taken a moment to ask themselves the question of why, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 65 percent of all abortions are performed on Christian patients (37 percent Protestant and 28 percent Catholic). Sometimes I wonder if they even know this statistic. And if they do, how do they look at themselves in the mirror at night after they have gone to college campuses and given graphic demonstrations to kids that they likely presume are heathens only to know in their own heart that it is their fellow-churchgoers that are having 65 percent of all abortions? So if Evangelicals are so fixated on ending abortions then maybe they should stop having them.
(Excerpt) Read more at patheos.com ...
Take a look at some of the other comments on this thread.
Willful ignorance.
Or.
“Christians don’t get abortions.”
Counter-evidence presented that many self-professed Christians do indeed have abortions.
“Those aren’t real Christians.”
If I were to say: "no person that identifies themselves as a Christian would ever have an abortion"
Then if you were to say: "But Jane here identifies as a Christian, and she had one"
And then I contrived: "Well then she did not mean it when she identified as a Christian"
In this case I would be committing a fallacy, because you gave a counter example that contradicted my assertion and I defended it with a contrivance whose sole purpose was to nullify your counter example.
However, this is not at all the case with the current argument. Your approximation of the argument is not as accurate as this one in my view:
Right-wing side: "Abortion is neither a moral nor a Christian value and women should not have them, and it should be illegal. And if a woman claims to be a Christian and yet has an abortion, she is being hypocritical and should repent"
Left wing side: "Oh ho, you are hypocrites, for 65 percent of women who get abortions identify as Christians"
You see, both sides here maintain that it is hypocritical for Christians to have abortions. This is not an example of a specific counter example, since I don't think anybody every maintained the dubious assertion "Nobody claiming to be Christian has ever had an abortion"...at least not in this conversation...but that is the kind of starting claim you need for it to be a real case of the True Scotsman fallacy.
Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, a quick check of google on the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as Christian is 83%, which is more that 65%, so if we can take both these numbers at face value, then Christian women have fewer abortions on average than non-Christian women...something that seems to undercut the author's whole premise of it being hypocritical.
Put another way, if I were to say "Scotsman are people who come from Scotland or who have Scottish ancestors"
And you replied: "Well my cousin Joe is a Scotsman, and he has never been near Scotland, nor does he have a Scottish ancestor"
And I replied "Well then, he is not really a Scotsman"
I hope you would not claim this was yet another example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. For it is generally agreed, and not just a contrivance to overcome your counter example, that being a Scotsman has to do with being Scottish.
Well then, if it is generally agreed that abortion is contrary to Christian behavior, and that being a true Christian means conforming to Christian behavior, then it is not a contrivance for somebody to relate one's behavior regarding abortion with how sincere a Christian they are.
Fair enough. However, please note that in my original post I said, “at least to some extent.”
While the argument may not be a classic example of No True Scotsman, it verges on it “at least to some extent.”
good point.
Matthew 7:[23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.
Baptism doesn't make the Christian any more than a ring makes the marriage - it is a public display of one's commitment to Jesus - I know, I know, heresy...
Heck, even Catholics know that Baptism doesn't make the Christian - else they wouldn't have Confirmation....
Up high, Texas Eagle!
If Christians stopped having abortions.......that would do nothing to stop abortions.
Does the author really think(I know he doesn’t the whole article is just stupid) that the left would then say “Well, since Christians are no longer killing their children then it’s time to make that illegal”. Really?
I would also like to know where he got his 65% number. I have a feeling he just pulled it out of his ass.
In my area there are literally 14 non-Catholic churches for every Catholic Church. Every year the Knights of Columbus sponsors buses to go to DC for the MFL with the Knights paying approximately half the cost. Every single church in the area is contacted 2 months in advance. Kids 7 and under get to go for free and the cost to adults is between 5-7 dollars. Last year we sent 7 busses, 5 were filled by the two Catholic Churches, the other two were filled by the other 28 churches combined. Those churches sent no other buses. A total of 4 non Catholic pastors went.
Their definition of Christian is “a Believer who is not a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or other religion”, regardless of the individual’s relationship with Christ.
I think you need to have a refresher course in basic Christianity. Baptism is the one absolute requirement to be, to become, a Christian. How a person lives their life after they’ve been baptized is another matter.
As for your comment,re: “even Catholics know that Baptism doesn’t make the Christian - else they would not have Confirmation”, you once again demonstrate your theological ignorance. The Roman Catholics, Episcopalians (at least those who are still orthodox) and other churches who baptize infants bring those children to the bishop generally at age 12 to be “Confirmed”. It doesn’t change the fact of their Baptism one iota, they are (already)a child of God by virtue of their Baptism.
Confirmation makes them a full member of the Church with rights and responsibilities, etc. Confirmation renews the vows made at Baptism and confers the seven-fold gifts of the Holy Spirit upon the person, i.e., wisdom, understanding, counsel, ghostly strength (meaning the Holy Ghost), knowledge, true godliness and holy fear.
Confirmation is not, in and of itself, an absolute requirement necessary for salvation but it would be wrong to neglect it through indifference. Jesus did not institute this sacramental action needlessly since it confers grace(s) that are invaluable in one’s spiritual life. It makes us stronger in the struggle for spiritual virtue; therefore, it helps us to assure our salvation.
As for a “ring making a marriage”, again you need to re-think your position. Does a ring make the marriage? Not in and of itself, but a ring is an outward symbol of the inward commitment the man and woman make to God and themselves. The ring symbolizes God’s unbroken circle of love and commitment to the couple to confer necessary graces upon them during their marriage and the couple’s commitment to honor God in all that they do in their marriage.
Are you saying that one is absolutely required to be baptized in order to be saved? If so I have to disagree. For example it seems like the thief crucified to Jesus’s right hand was saved by his repentance and faith. And the thief to his left was not because of his lack thereof. Granted, as far as we know, the thief on the right may have been baptized earlier (perhaps by John the Baptist), but the gospel writers did not seem to think it worth mentioning if he was. I will agree with you that one should be baptized though—and believers ought want to be! I just don’t think its required to be saved.
Thanks for the extra sleuthing. I had an idea that if I were to go through all of his links I would find that he mis-matched documents to claims.
Of course my first impression is (as always) what is his motivation or agenda? In this case (and the reason why I framed my earlier comment the guy from the “God is Not a Republican” website) it appears that he looks to shame Christians (of whatever sufficiency) for hypocrisy regarding abortion. Naturally I considered the “No true Scotsman” fallacy but discarded it as irrelevant to his point. We’re all human and as such, flawed. The idea that a Christian could go against the teachings of the church when the SHTF? Sure, why not?
The question I would have for him (if there was even a chance of objectivity forthcoming) is “How many of those Christians who have had abortions were waving the “No Abortions!” flag before? If someone was an anti-abortion activist and then subsequently got pregnant and had an abortion, I would consider that person a hypocrite.
A person who is a “Cafe Christian” or has abandoned their faith only to consider it in a SHTF moment are more confused than they are hypocritical.
The other thing is a minor point but (if I read the table correctly) his alleged numbers don’t line up with the Guttmacher document.
You claim I am ignorant "theologically" but your theological "expertise" revolves around cannon and tenets of your religion and diverges from what God tells us in the Bible. When he told us that He would give us a new covenant where He would forgive our wickedness and no longer recognize our sins, He never mentioned that we needed to be baptized before we were aware of what it meant and Jesus didn't indicate, when He was baptized, that it was for others to do for us, but that we needed to do it.
If we need to be baptized (especially with no knowledge of its meaning) to be saved, then God and Jesus are liars - no matter what your religion tells you. If you read the Scripture about the matter and take every word into account instead of the piecemeal bits that seem to support what you told me, you might understand that which you say I am ignorant of.
“THe left makes me vomit their hypocrisy back at them.”
I keep posting stuff about Christians having abortions and you all keep not believing it.
Colofornian what chapter was that in George Grant’s book??? I have not found it yet. Still on the part about Margaret Sanger.
For the rest of you....Here’s your home work
Anyway I really wish you all would quit arguing about church doctrine in this thread and talk about how you are going to be more pro life in your church. Don’t even assume just because your church is “pro life” that there are not women there who have had abortions in the past or may have one in the future. It is called “temptation” and it gets everyone from time to time.
Do you all realize the left is not lying with these fact but they are rubbing them in our face? I am posting these in hopes you will do something to lower these numbers!
Please stop arguing about church doctrine I don’t want to hear it here. I want you to tell me how you are going to go to your church and start baby clothing closet for women, or a group that prays outside abortion clinics, even better sidewalk counseling. By the way, I put my money where my mouth is, when I’m not pestering you people with pro life threads I do help a crisis pregnancy center in my area!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.