Who Says There's Nothing Wrong With Inflammatory Rhetoric?: On Praying that Obama Will be Assassinated

Thats's what Wiley Drake prays for, that President Obama will be assassinated. He's a former leader of the Southern Baptist Convention. This kind of rhetoric must be stopped! Drake's comments are analogous to the inflammatory rhetoric about abortionists like George Tiller who was murdered recently. Is this not a way to call upon the faithful to do what must be done, not unlike how Muslim leaders call for the death of others? It sure sounds that way to me.

Listen up. Abortion does not equal murder. Murder is a legal term. We kill people all of the time. The Bible calls for the killing of people and even genocide where it's even hoped that babies are even dashed upon the rocks, and that means the parents are already dead so the soldiers have the freedom to go around doing this. What one country considers to be murder varies from country to country and era to era. There are also degrees of murder, from 1st-2nd-3rd degree, to vehicular homicide, to manslaughter. When it comes to these crimes there are mitigating circumstances calling for vastly different punishments from the death penalty to 5 years of probation.

The “Eye For An Eye” "lex talionis" Passages (Leviticus 24:18-20; Exodus 21:22-25) cannot apply to abortion since the related incident is about an accidental injury and not an intentional abortion. The law does not require the death penalty for an accidental death (Ex. 21:13-14, 20-21; Numb. 35:10-34; Deut. 19:1-13). The concern expressed is for the husband’s loss of property, both his wife and his child to be. If anti-abortionists want to use this text then let them also embrace the property status of the woman to her husband. Let them also embrace a barbaric “eye for an eye” justice. Such texts comes from a superstitious and barbaric people requiring us to ignore them.

After all, upon reading through Judges 19-21, what ethical right do these people have to tell us how to live our lives? Read it. Even if it's merely telling us what happened without providing an ethical judgment (and why not?), what legitimate right does a barbaric people like that have in writing down ethical principles for us to live by? NONE. We must decide for ourselves. So did Tiller. He did not forfeit his life because he operated under the law and helped people.

41 comments:

edson said...

John, I must say that I do not disagree with you completely, although for different reasons. I personally do not think the murdering Tiller was worthy or assasination of Obama a useful event to happen in the land of a United States.

However, I do not think that for those who are praising or calling for these events are inviting on other christians to follow on their wishes. Yes it is true that the Christian right is deeply annoyed at the presidency of Obama and at abortions, but surely their position is just theirs, and has nothing to do with Christians or Christianity, in general.

I identify myself with the Christian right at many things pertaining to christian doctrines and other political stand points. I didn't like Obama's speech at the Muslims world, but I cant even imagine the possibility of criticizing Obama at this point of his presidency, let alone calling for his assassination.

Let it be known to you (and I'm sure you know this) that christians are not a bunch of brainswashed wish-washers swayed here and there by their clerics, do this and dont do that. We read the bible on our own (and the bible is pretty clear for any one to understand it) and our political and social inclinations are decided mostly by our private choices based on personal emotions. Please let us not confuse Christianity at large and personal emotions.

feeno said...

edson
You forgot the part about Alan Colmes not finding it very news worthy to show some church group praying for Pres. Obama and our nation. I'd say for every dumb ass praying for some one to be killed there's at least a hundred thousand other people praying that these Dr.'s and politicians will simply have a change of heart.

Peace out brown trout, feeno

Scott said...

Edson,

Personally, my confusion lies at what appears to be a contradiction.

Why would God assist in wiping out entire cultures, but not the assassination of one political leader?

Jephthah asked God for victory over his enemies, at a hight personal cost, and God gave him that victory. Why shouldn't Drake expect the same thing? What's different now?

Chuck said...

Edson and Feeno,

While I appreciate both of your good natures I find your denial of Christian doctrine insulting. You both act as if the Christian Orthodoxy is an all inclusive theology driven by an ecuminical spirit. It isn't.

Minimization is denial.

Denial breeds all kinds of injustice.

You would do a lot for your integrity if you addressed the implications of the ideas around depravity and propitiation and how these ideas assess the Christians perceived value of non-believers.

Christian theology demands you think of yourself as part of a chosen few. What does that make those who disagree with you? Who do they serve? According to Christian theology, they are nothing but servants of Satan.

That idea has power and implies irreconciliable conflict.

It leads to the murder of innocent doctors because those doctors act in a manner that supercedes the evil practiced by serial killers.

Ideas have power.

The ideas you subscribe to would marginalize those who don't subscribe to your spiritual perspective as hell-bound depraved souls gripped by original sin and in service of Satan.

Humans have no intrinsic value outside of Christ's propitiate sacrifice. We all are sinners and are deserving of destruction.

That is Christian theology and it leads to dangerous ideas which, as history shows, inspires very deadly and criminal actions.

Unfortunately after the deadly action is done "true believers" line up and deny that the governing ideas that sponsored the action are inconsistent with the reality of Christian theology.

Having been a member of a conservative Christian community, it makes perfect sense to me how and why Roeder murdered Dr. Tiller.

He was certain that Tiller was a spawn of Hell doing the Devil's work on this planet and by killing him he would bring glory to God.

He was fulfilling his responsibility as a good Christian and both of your minimization of this truth keeps murder alive as a reasonable option in the war between sin and righteousness.

I'd suggest you get a little more honest if you want to advertise your faith.

Jim said...

Since nothing fails like prayer, I'm not worried too much about what Christians "pray" for.

Scott said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott said...

Jim,

I agree....

However, while it's not actually in the Bible, there's a popular saying which does make me worry.. "God helps those who help themselves."

Hacksaw Duck said...

I can't stand Obama and the direction he's taking my country. But I'm appalled and horrified at the thought of someone praying for his murder. How repulsive!

feeno said...

Sir Charles

OK, we got a#%holes running around waving the Christian Flag with one arm, and a giant Bible tucked under the other. And because I don't condone this behavior I'm somehow being less than honest?

True story: I pulled up next to some guy with a Darwin fish on his car, he was eating his boogers, If that was his car and little fish then all evolutionists integrity should be questioned if they don't own up to their booger eating?

If I have a copy of JD Salinger's "A Catcher in the Rye" and I assassinate someone, who should be held accountable? Me or Salinger?

Dueces Out, feeno

Mr. Hyde said...

I must emphasize one thing in the post. Wiley Drakes is a former leader of the SBC. The comments of late from him have been nothing but outright wrong. I know there has been at least two calls to publicly repudiate him from the SBC.

Chuck said...

Feeno,

You remind me of Doug the Dog from UP.

Both your charm and your ignorance seem sincere.

You make me laugh.

But, I find your arguments insulting.

Does eating boogers ever appear as a central tenant in "On the Origin of Species"?

I would argue that the guy with the Darwin bumper sticker was offering you an object lesson in the reality of our genetic makeup and how we don't differ in behavior from our chimpanzee cousins but, his personal hygiene has no bearing on the ideas supporting adaptation through natural selection.

Neither does Catcher in the Rye nor JD Salinger argue for the assassination of pop music stars as a germane tenant to the that book's or its authors literary perspective.

Christianity however argues that anyone who is not baptized in the blood of Christ serves Satan and therefore is evil.

It also instructs its believers to watch out for false believers, like Mr. Roeder must have been doing when killing Dr. Tiller in the vestibule of the Dr.'s church.

I'd say that Mr. Roeder and his ilk are behaving consistent with Christian orthodoxy and are not anything but a perfect example of Christian righteousness.

If you are a bible believing follower of Christ then, doctrinally speaking, you have to agree with Mr. Roeder and his actions.

If you don't then you are either a hypocrite or a liar.

What do you believe Feeno? It doesn't seem to me that you are an orthodox Christian.

John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Chuck,

You said, "Christianity however argues that anyone who is not baptized in the blood of Christ serves Satan and therefore is evil."

That is absolutely false. Please cite that statement, which you assert to be true.

"It also instructs its believers to watch out for false believers, like Mr. Roeder must have been doing when killing Dr. Tiller in the vestibule of the Dr.'s church."

You claim to know Roeder's mind, which you don't, to make your inflammatory remarks.

"I'd say that Mr. Roeder and his ilk are behaving consistent with Christian orthodoxy and are not anything but a perfect example of Christian righteousness. If you are a bible believing follower of Christ then, doctrinally speaking, you have to agree with Mr. Roeder and his actions."

That is patently false and you know it. If that's what your former church taught, then they were sick. There is NOTHING orthodox about what you claim.

"If you don't then you are either a hypocrite or a liar."

Making these statements that you know to be false makes you, Chuck, the hypocrite and liar.

Chuck said...

Hey JBurd,

Read the Book of Romans and then get back to me. Okay?

Chuck said...

JBurd,

In case you need a summary of Romans.

Here you go . . .

http://www.gotquestions.org/Book-of-Romans.html

Seems pretty consistent with my analysis.

Anonymous said...

"Abortion does not equal murder. Murder is a legal term."

John, first I'd argue that the term 'murder' has both a legal and a moral dimension. Legally, no Jews were murdered by the Nazis; morally, they were murdered, not merely 'killed.'

Second, the law in the U.S is itself incoherent with respect to killing a fetus. If it's done by a doctor at the behest of the mother, it's legal; if a third party kills a fetus, it may indeed be a case of murder, according to the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, or under one of the versions of this law adopted at the state level by thirty four states. Now, that act does explicitly make an exception for abortions and the like, but that's not the point. The point is that it's incoherent to label an act 'murder' and to treat it as murder in one case, and to legalize it in another, when the only relevant difference is who is doing the killing, and when the 'who' is not an agent of the state.

Re: the Bible, there are purely secular grounds for opposing abortion; one need not resort to the Bible. For example, Christopher Hitchens famously opposes abortion on entirely naturalistic grounds (though he also supports choice).

Chuck said...

Eric,

Cut the rhetoric and join a policy debate. If you prohibit abortion you invite implications. Are you comfortable with those implications? Are you comfortable with the Government dictating the bounds of privacy governing your body? And Hitches admits abortion is an ugly option but argues for the reproductive rights (including abortion) for women. He doesn't oppose abortion at all. You might not want to lie as much as you do.

Chuck said...

Eric also, you might want to read the history of Raphael Lemkin and his desire to ratify the Genocide Conference as a means to eliminate legal killing like the Holocaust. There is a legal term for what happened to the jews, it is called "Genocide", not murder. So, if you want to somehow make the claim that non coercive safe abortion is actually genocide then you don't have grounds for your verbal flim flam.

Anonymous said...

Chuck: "And Hitches admits abortion is an ugly option but argues for the reproductive rights (including abortion) for women. He doesn't oppose abortion at all. You might not want to lie as much as you do."

Eric: "For example, Christopher Hitchens famously opposes abortion on entirely naturalistic grounds (though he also supports choice)."

Christopher Hitchens: "Every Catholic is supposed to regard abortion as an abomination (and, if it matters, I concur)."

From Michael Kinsley's review of God is Not Great in the New York Times: "Christopher Hitchens had seemed to be solving this problem by turning his conversion into an ideological 'Dance of the Seven Veils.' Long ago he came out against abortion."

From World: "What’s a pro-war, anti-abortion, religion-hating Darwinist doing in the Bush camp, or any camp? Commentator and contrarian Christopher Hitchens talks to WORLD"

Hitchens goes further, dismissing both yours and John's notion that there's no serious debate to be had here: "By rightly expanding our definition of what is alive and what is human, we have also accepted that there may be a conflict of rights between a potential human and an actual one. *The only moral losers in this argument are those who say that there is no conflict, and nothing to argue about*."

As I said, Hitchens opposes abortion, but supports choice. After reading you foolishly referring to me above as a liar, I'm no longer surprised by your blithe smearing of Professor Feser. If I had nothing to rely upon but your rather obviously meagre intellect, I would probably resort to smearing others too.

"Eric also, you might want to read the history of Raphael Lemkin and his desire to ratify the Genocide Conference as a means to eliminate legal killing like the Holocaust. There is a legal term for what happened to the jews, it is called "Genocide", not murder."

You might want to read what you're responding to before you respond:

Eric: "Legally, no Jews were murdered by the Nazis; morally, they were murdered, not merely 'killed.'"

I was explicitly using the term 'murder' in its moral sense, not in its legal sense.

Chuck said...

Eric,

You expose yourself as a liar when you admit Hitchens personal opposition to abortion yet his public support of choice and reproductive rights. Your glee in claiming him as a pro-lifer is where the lie exists. It is akin to those who try to quote Einstein's use of "God" and surmise he was a theist.

Hitchens condemnation of Mother Theresa while painting her as immoral due to her unwillingness to support abortion rights is evidence enough that his position is not yours.

Cut and paste all you want but I suggest you read a little Hitchens and understand that he does not agree with you or any fascist Catholic like your beloved professor (hey, wasn't Franco a good Catholic too?)

I, like Hitchens, personally oppose abortion but will fight for the rights of women to make reproductive decisions.

Your black and white thinking and arrogance is indicative of the level of your intellect.

But, reading your profile I see you are still a student.

When you grow up son and graduate then you might be able to see that partial information is mis-information and trying to be "right" is not the same as being intelligent.

Anonymous said...

"I, like Hitchens, personally oppose abortion but will fight for the rights of women to make reproductive decisions."

How in the world is this any different from what I wrote? I said that Hitchens opposes abortion but supports choice. You proceed to write that I'm lying about Hitchens, since he, like you, opposes abortion but support choice. This is simply incoherent.

Chuck said...

Eric,

Your lie is equating biblical opposition to abortion with Mr. Hitchens stance is where the lie exists. Misrepresentation of the facts to win a point indicates either your lack of intellectual rigor or, your desire to misuse information to win an argument. I understand that you are still in school and this kind of thinking might win you some points on a term paper but, in the real world, it amounts to dishonesty. Now grow up and recognize your feeble moal fiber.

Anonymous said...

"Your lie is equating biblical opposition to abortion with Mr. Hitchens stance is where the lie exists."

Huh? Chuck, think: what was the point I was trying to make when I first brought Hitchens into the conversation?

Eric: "Re: the Bible, there are purely secular grounds for opposing abortion; one need not resort to the Bible. For example, Christopher Hitchens famously opposes abortion on entirely naturalistic grounds (though he also supports choice)."

I explicitly said that Hitchens' opposition to abortion is on naturalistic, secular grounds. Also, not my parenthetical remark at the end: I clearly say that Hitchens supports choice. So, I say he opposes abortion on secular grounds, but supports choice, and you interpret me as saying that his position can be identified with biblical opposition to abortion?! The problem isn't with my 'moral fiber,' but with your reading comprehension.

Chuck said...

Eric,

For the record I copied below EXACTLY what Hitchens said regarding abortion.

Please indicate how his position is the intellectual equivalent to yours or your beloved professor.

If it is not then choosing to cite him to make your point is a misrepresentation of fact and in my understanding that is a lie.

Q: Moving on to perhaps the subject that got you into hottest water with the left: abortion. Could you talk a little about your view on this?


Hitchens: Two points I wanted to make. One, that the term "unborn child" has been made a propaganda phrase by the people who called themselves "pro-life." But it's something that has moral and scientific realities. It's become very evident indeed that this is not just a growth upon the mother.


If that's true, what are the problems? It need not qualify the woman's right to choose. It need not. But it would be a very bold person to say that what was being chosen didn't come up. What I argued in my column was this was a social phenomenon. This is the next generation we're talking about. Considering the unborn as candidate members-- potential members--of the next generation; wouldn't that strengthen the argument for socialized medicine, child care, prenatal care?


There's a reason why this is the only country where it's a mania. Because it's between the fundamentalists and the possessive individualists. It's ruined politics, absorbed a huge amount of energy that should have been spent elsewhere.


Q: But you're not agreeing with the religious right on this?


Hitchens: No one who is not for the provision of sex education, contraception, and child care should be allowed to have any position on abortion at all--and those who do should be met with fusillades. Women will decide it, that's a matter of fact, as much as a principle.


Q: So, what is your position regarding the continued legal status of abortion?


Hitchens: There's no choice but choice. I mean that to sound the way it does sound. But there are choices about the conditions in which that choice is made.


I'm very much opposed to euthanasia. I've never understood why more of these people can't commit suicide. Why do they need a Doctor Kevorkian? It's very theatrical. I believe in a right to decide.

But I'm against all blurrings. There's a very sharp dividing line in the case of an infant. I'm against fooling with that. Everything in me rebels against that. The conclusion I've come to as to why it' s such a toxic question in America is it isn't about the rights of the unborn child. I think it's an argument about patriarchy. It is a metaphor for the status of women in what is still in some ways a frontier society.

Chuck said...

Eric,

Your reading and writing comprehension could use some work.

Using Hitchens as evidence to the opposition of abortion (along secular lines) as an equivalent substitution of biblical opposition is a misrepresentation. Why make the point if not to legitimize the bible believer's opposition to abortion is universal as evidenced in secular opposition. Mr. Hitchens position is not yours. Linking the two is shoddy rhetoric and it is of course a lie.

Mr. Hitchens thinks abortion is awful but he does not oppose it within any policy realm.

Now, do you want to keep arguing or will you just admit your lie.

Anonymous said...

Chuck, I fail to see what's so difficult to understand here. My point was obvious: John referred to weak Biblical reasons for opposing abortion, and I responded by saying that there's a perfectly naturalistic, secular case to be made against abortion. My only point was that opposition to abortion need not be biblically or religiously motivated. I haven't in any sense 'lied,' and anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see that. If I had only said, 'Hitchens opposes abortion,' you'd have a case that I misrepresented him by not indicating that his opposition is on purely secular grounds, and by not mentioning that he supports choice. However, I included these qualifications in my very first mention of Hitchens. If you insist on continuing with your nonsensical charges, I won't waste my time responding. However, if you should look back over this discussion and see where you went wrong, I'll gladly continue.

Russ said...

edson,
You said,

We read the bible on our own (and the bible is pretty clear for any one to understand it)

This is observed to be flat out wrong. Less than one percent of all Christians in all the Christianities read their Bibles and even among Christian clergy only around 5 percent read their Bibles. These numbers come from Christian polling groups like Barna and academic studies from various Christian seminaries. It's near consensus: in the Christianities, neither those who pay for it nor those who get paid for it, don't care what's in the Bible.

Your statement that "the bible is pretty clear for any one to understand it" is grotesquely misinformed. There are tens of thousands of Christianities due in large part to widely varying interpretations of the Bible. The Bible is not clear. Much of the Bible is, in fact, incomprehensible as prose. Over and over the Bible pits one Christianity against another Christianity. The bible is in no way clear for anyone to understand it.

----------------------------------------

feeno,
You said,

If I have a copy of JD Salinger's "A Catcher in the Rye" and I assassinate someone, who should be held accountable? Me or Salinger?

I think you make a good point here. You are not responsible for any impropriety or transgression that Mr. Salinger might have committed, in the same way that no person living or dead is or ever has been responsible for the fictional transgressions of the imaginary characters Adam and Eve.

Chuck said...

Eric,

There is nothing to continue with.

I don't understand why your brought up Hitchens' position within a thread debating a completely different stance.

Here's a question for you, do you think Mr. Hitchens' position on abortion in anyway is consistent with the pro-life movement's position?

Because that is what this discussion thread is centered on.

Your need to bring in tangential evidence to somehow move the debate towards your direction is where I have a beef.

It is dishonest to do so.

You seem smart enough to see that yet you still assume some sort of bruised pride.

Your indignation is not earned.

Scott said...

Eric,

Perhaps I can clarify...

Do you think abortions are awful, but think women should be able to choose?

This seems unlikely since, instead of being the worse of all possible solutions (which, in many cases can be avoided), It's likely you think it's on God's list of things not to do. Period.

Clearly, this is a significant difference.

Grace said...

Not a useful event." As far as I"m concerned, this comment by Rev. Drake reflects pure hatred, and wickedness, and is horrifying.

This man needs to be counseled, and disciplined by the SBC.

He should not be preaching from any Christian pulpit.

Chuck, I think it is because humans are of such intrinsic worth, and great value to God that He entered into human life and suffering, so that we could share in His life.

You have it all turned on it's head, friend.

Anonymous said...

"Clearly, this is a significant difference."

Scott, of course it's significant, which is why I mentioned it when first bringing Hitchens up. I think I was careful not to misrepresent him (hence my disgust at being charged, contrary to everything I said, with lying and misrepresenting Hitchens' position). However, it's not at all relevant to the point I was making, i.e. that opposition to abortion need not be biblically or religiously based. After making a secular case for abortion, one may either continue to support choice, as Hitchens does, or one may not. Whether one who believes a secular case can be made against abortion supports choice or not is not a function of the secular nature of the case, but of a number of other variables, none of which pertain to the point I was making. And, since my only point concerned the possibility of a secular case against abortion, the 'choice' issue simply isn't relevant.

"Do you think abortions are awful, but think women should be able to choose?
This seems unlikely since, instead of being the worse of all possible solutions (which, in many cases can be avoided), It's likely you think it's on God's list of things not to do. Period."

Of course I think abortions are awful. I know few who would disagree with that proposition. However, if you think that my conclusion concerning the 'choice' issue can be decided by looking at the Bible, then you misjudge me. In fact, my position is similar to Hitchens' in the sense that I oppose abortion but do not support outlawing it simpliciter. However, I'm sure my reasons for the latter differ somewhat from Hitchens' reasons, and I'm sure that my position is more restrictive than his. I'm simply undecided about it: the issues are extremely complex, and I haven't done enough of the hard work required to have a firm conclusion on the issue (and, unlike far too many, I don't think that requirement can be met by reading a couple of websites). That said, I also see the force of the argument that where life is concerned, we should err on the side of caution. Hence, my current tentative position: I would favor the outlawing of abortions in all cases that do not involve the standard objections (rape, incest, life of the mother, etc.). This is the admittedly inadequate manner in which I balance the need to err on the side of caution when life is concerned, and the need to respect the rights of women.

Chuck said...

Grace,

The only way to share in God's life is to admit that you are guilty of a sin committed by mythic beings in a mythic garden 6,000 years ago and then admit that you deserved capital punishment for this sin but instead had God kill himself as the incarnation of his only son in your place because he loves you.

Yeah, I'm the one who has it turned upside down.

LOL

Chuck said...

Eric,

Hitchens doesn't make a case in opposition to abortion. He respects the right to choose.

When you conflate the comments of someone to make your point many might call that obfuscation. In lay-man's terms, it is called "lying".

You are a liar son. Admit it.

Anonymous said...

Chuck: "Hitchens *doesn't* make a case *in opposition to abortion*."

Chuck: "I, *like Hitchens*, *personally oppose abortion* but will fight for the rights of women to make reproductive decisions."

Chuck, I know I said I was going to ignore you, but when your stupidity makes it so easy to expose you, you make it hard to keep my mouth shut. Surely, even someone as benighted as you can see the blatant contradiction above.

When you disagree with someone who can quote your own words to make his case, it's time to reconsider your position.

Chuck said...

Eric,

Please cite the "case" Hitchens or I make in opposition to abortion. Personal opposition is not a "case" against the policy.

Yes, you should quit when one can use your words against you.

If you don't see the intimation in your rhetoric then there is nothing more I can do to help you.

You are a liar son.

Admit it.

No "case" was made by me or Hitchens in opposition to abortion. Personal opposition does not a "case" make.

Anonymous said...

"Please cite the "case" Hitchens or I make in opposition to abortion. Personal opposition is not a "case" against the policy."

You do Hitchens a great disservice: of course his opposition to abortion follows from a 'case' against it. He doesn't consider it to be an abomination (his word) for no reason whatsoever.

Hitchens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcYv9hAkenI&feature=related

Here he makes a biological and technological case that the unborn may have rights and admits, with a definitive 'yes,' to being involved in the pro-life movement.

Now, as I've repeatedly said, Hitchens also supports choice, so your 'case against the policy' strawman is -- as with all your arguments -- easily dispatched.

Chuck said...

Eric,

Nice you tube clip.

I've seen it before.

No case is made consistent with the religious right's case. That was your argument.

Scott said...

However, it's not at all relevant to the point I was making, i.e. that opposition to abortion need not be biblically or religiously based.

Eric,

If the type of opposition is not the same, then I'm not sure how this "point" is actually relevant? Implying it is relevant implies equality.

And, since my only point concerned the possibility of a secular case against abortion, the 'choice' issue simply isn't relevant.

If people had choice, then It's unclear why it would be necessary to wish violence should occur to others.

However, if you think that my conclusion concerning the 'choice' issue can be decided by looking at the Bible, then you misjudge me. In fact, my position is similar to Hitchens' in the sense that I oppose abortion but do not support outlawing it simpliciter.

Would I be correct in saying that you think God is the very foundation of all morality?

If so, it appears that any concrete issues we may have, such as potentially avoidable suffering caused by abortions once the fetus gains a nervous system, or the avoidable trauma to the mother, is merely our personal opinions?

Either there are conditions in which abortions are wrong due to concrete, intrinsic reasons - regardless if God existed - or it is an act that offends God.

You initially wrote For example, Christopher Hitchens famously opposes abortion on entirely naturalistic grounds (though he also supports choice).

The reason why Hitchens view is so "famous" is because it is used as rhetoric, in the same way you have.

You wrote: Second, the law in the U.S is itself incoherent with respect to killing a fetus. [...] The point is that it's incoherent to label an act 'murder' and to treat it as murder in one case, and to legalize it in another, when the only relevant difference is who is doing the killing, and when the 'who' is not an agent of the state.

I'd have to ask, why is it OK to label and act as 'murder' in one case, yet consider it 'righteous' when the only relevant difference is who is doing the killing and when the 'who' is supposedly an agent of God?

Chuck said...

Scott,

Well said.

Anonymous said...

"If the type of opposition is not the same, then I'm not sure how this "point" is actually relevant? Implying it is relevant implies equality."

Scott, this is so simple it's a joke. Three simple questions: is there both a religious and a secular case to be made against abortion? Answer: Yes. Question: Is there any necessary logical connection between the religious and the secular case against abortion? Answer: No. Question: So, if one demolishes the religious case against abortion, does it follow that there is no case to be made against abortion? Answer: No.

The possible cases of opposition to any position P need not all be grounded in the same way if all are to count as opposition. Again, I would've thought this was obvious.

"If people had choice, then It's unclear why it would be necessary to wish violence should occur to others."

Who wishes violence to others?

"The reason why Hitchens view is so "famous" is because it is used as rhetoric, in the same way you have."

Nio, Hitchens' view is so famous because he's so liberal in most cases (the notable exception being, of course, his support for the war in Iraq).

The rest of your post has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue

Scott said...

Eric wrote So, if one demolishes the religious case against abortion, does it follow that there is no case to be made against abortion? Answer: No.

Therefore...??? How is this relevant?

Who wishes violence to others?

Who was the topic of this thread? It certainly isn't Christopher Hitchens praying that Obama should be assassinated.

What *is* relevant is how conservatives are feeding the fire by mainstreaming the fringe.