Sects, Politics, and Religion: A review of Good and Bad Ways to Think About Religion and Politics

First Things ^ | April 2011 | Francis Beckwith

[lastchance]

Pushing for one does not mean forestalling on the other. It means doing what you can to stop the slaughter. If you know a full out ban on all abortions will be rejected it does not mean you stop arguing for a ban on some or on additional restrictions. All the while making it a point to try and move public opinion to pro life beliefs. You accomplish what you can while putting the means in place to accomplish what you must.

Should we not push for example requiring ultra sounds because it does not call for a full ban on abortion?

We are in a battle each bit of ground we gain means the enemy must yield. But just like in all wars there is important work done away from the battlefield. This is mainly getting those who are on the sidelines to truly understand why abortion is wrong so that they join the battle. The battle is not weakened because some work behind the frontlines.

Also I am curious how would you argue to someone who believes that abortion is about the right to choose as guaranteed in the Constitution? What would be your springboard for challenging this belief? How would you do so without appeal to religion?

[caww]

I disagree that people don't know “the music or the key”. They certainly do know.

The idea of playing in their ball park by approaching the abortion issue from their perspective of womans rights is just the wrong way to go about this. It's a privilege to bring a child into this world.

The right woman have is to say no to intercourse when it is well known babies come from such an act. It is a no brain-er.

Until the pro-life movement addresses these basics as the point of choice....all the rest is simply furthering the “rights” woman believe have been infringed on them or not.

Look how the debate on this recent Economic Bill went down. Woman were going to die, kids were going to starve, and on and on because they used “rights as their mouthpiece...it wasn't about rights...but it is used heavily on everything today. Consequences, decisions, reason and thought beforehand are rare to be seen. Government cannot dictate morality no matter how it's approached....people will do as they will regardless. The foundation is not "prolife beliefs"....it is changing the hearts and minds thru Christ so they can see the truth. Without that we're just painting a picture.

[MestaMachine]

Ask an atheist how he/she knows right from wrong without religious convictions. Some things are a moral given. Murder is wrong. But no one in the media or academia or on the left talks about abortion in those terms. Change the language BACK to what it actually is. Murder versus life.
Is it wrong to murder a three year old child? no one except a certifiable lunatic would answer no. The terms have got to be stark and real and serious. A fetus is a child...not a flea.
There are other ways because I have done it. time constraints right now, but I’ll be back.

[lastchance]

“Change the language”

Ye, yes, yes!!!! For too long we have let the other isede frame the language of the debate. That goes for abortion, homosexual behavior and many other questions of public policy.

[lastchance]

“The idea of playing in their ball park by approaching the abortion issue from their perspective of womans rights is just the wrong way to go about this. It’s a privilege to bring a child into this world.”

That is not what I advocate. I advocate changing that perspective. The question is how do you approach them in order to accomplish this?

[caww]

The question is how do you approach them in order to accomplish this?

By distinguishing the difference between a right and a priviledge, which those lines are often times blurred terribly, just as we see happening throughout political and moral issues.

It's like Obama saying, "it was a mistake" when he previously voted against raising the debt ceiling. Rather than making it personal decision by saying "I" was wrong".

Using 'It' seperated the deed from himself...as if it somehow just happened rather than a decisions he made. If he had said he was wrong then there has to be a right, which would play into those voting for this ...which he wants to avoid being on "their" side.