« Tim Tebow in the Super Bowl | Main | You might live in Indiana if... »

February 08, 2010



Good post John. Tolerance definitely seems to only apply as long as you agree with them. On another note. . . I think it is great that the ad did not even have to mention anything about choice or anti abortion or being pro life in the commercial, however because of the big over-reaction of the pro choice groups, more people heard about the pro life message and Focus on The Family everyday over the last several weeks than they could have ever hoped for. Though it was not their intention, it turned out to be one of the most brilliant marketing campaigns ever. Planned Parenthood has been just as responsible for promoting and drawing attention to the Focus on The Family message over the last several weeks as the Superbowl ad was.

Jay Piercefield

I will always feel that Christians miss the point on the issue of abortion. You cannot force people to adopt your morality as much as you don't want them to force theirs upon you. This country is not a theocracy. Legislating morality will never be feasible, however building relationships with people to effect social change is much more feasible and realistic. Showing love and kindess and building relationships can impact morality more than legislating it.

My dad said once, "I don't want the governament to ever have the pwer to tell me how or what I can and connot worship. How can I then tell someone else how to live their life?" Yes abortion is wrong, so are several hundred other things that the law allows. (ie see alcohol and the 50,000+ deaths related to it) More people die in relation to alcohol than unborn children but I don't see the frothing Christian anger over that issue.

Too often Christians seem to want what they think is right without respecting others. As much as we all want every person to be saved, a) you cannot force them, and b) they have every right to pursue what they believe in as much as you do. As much as we believe in God, other people believe in Islam, or Buddhism, or atheism just as passionately. We fail to see their perspective. We almost assume that deep down, they "must know they're wrong". But get this, they think the same of you.

Our lives are supposed to be what points people to Jesus, not our laws. Our lives are to be as such to draw people to him...debating right and wrong or making someone feel judged has rarely, if ever, lead someone to Christ.


Craig, that is the exact irony of this whole controversy. I wonder how many fewer people would have heard about FOTF if their critics hadn't said a thing. (That's also what happened back when Obama & Co. decided to call out FOX News as an organization that is not really a news organization. Everyone wants to then go over to FOX to see what the controversy is all about. And FOX News ratings spike.)

The danger of preemptive strikes when you don't know all the details has the potential to backfire in big ways, as it has for NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc. It's a good lesson for conservatives as well.

Jason Sole

Jay, your logic is faulty. Our legal system is nothing but legislated morality. Morality is simply the definition of good and evil, which is what our law does, defining that which is wrong, and therefore illegal, and that which is not wrong, and therefore allowed.

The law dictates that murder is wrong, that rape is wrong, that stealing is wrong, that driving drunk is wrong. Saying that murder is wrong does not make us a theocracy...it's simply about protecting the rights of the individual, namely the right to life.

The issue with abortion is no different - it is about the rights of individuals, not about religion. The rights of a child vs the rights of the mother. Whether or not the right of a woman to chose what she wants with her body supercedes with the right of the child to life.

US law is designed to default to the rights of the individual - which is why so many things that are sin are legal, and rightly so (such is the basis of freedom). But when the rights of the individual are in violate, then it is the responsibility of the law to intercede.

So the debate is really over the personhood of an unborn child. If that child is a person, they are guaranteed protection by the constitution. If they are not, then they are property to be dealt with at the whim of the owner. THAT is the debate, and one that must be had.


Jason, you beat me to the punch. Well stated!

Jay Piercefield

No kidding, really? And my point is, as much as YOU may believe it is an unborn child, there are just as many people that believe it is not, and since, therefore, there is no majority on this issue, it remains futile.

You think my logic is faulty, Great. I think Christians could better spend their time building relationships, creating education programs, support groups, and many other things with that energy that would CHANGE LIVES. Lobbying and screaming and all that garbage is NOT changing lives. You can be against something, but how you choose to address it is your call. Much more probability in preventing an abortion by investing in that female's life and showing her love than there is in rating and lobbying. How is that faulty? That is what Jesus would do.

If you notice, Jesus never forced anyone to choose Him or His ways, they choose Him because of His unconditional love. I fully believe that if he encountered a woman considering abortion He wouldn't be calling her a whore, or telling her she was murdering a child, He would have treated her like the woman at the well and THAT is what brings people to Him, period.

And as said above: "Tolerance definitely seems to only apply as long as you agree with them. " that goes both ways... I'm sorry but as much as you think YOUR values are right, doesn't mean that they are, because the person who believe in "choice" think they are right as much as you think that you are. So you therefore are at a stalemate. You cannot tell people what to do with their lives. You think it's murder. Good for you. They think it is not. You think you're right, they think they are right. Nothing will get accomplished in that debate, EVER. They aren't all the sudden going to change their minds and agree with you. The have an entirely different foundation of beliefs than you and people rarely if ever change their core beliefs, and never on the scale large enough to repeal this debate. So based on that.

I say invest in people's lives, educate them, show them love and kindness. What would you do, as a Christian, if you knew a girl who contemplated and then chose abortion? How would you treat her after? I know what Jesus would do, if she sought forgiveness and repented, He would forgive, but not for one moment would He make her feel bad or condemn her...that wasn't His style, nor mine.


I don't think "the law dictates that murder is wrong."

Rather, "the law dictates that murder [as defined in a certain way] is punishable by ________, depending on [some complicated set of criteria]" is more appropriate.

The law focuses on imposing consequences for actions whose natural consequences may not be enough of a deterrent.

I think Western law is much more concerned with human ethics, whether it pertains to business, driving or serious offenses like murder or molestation. There are certainly instances where it approaches the realm of morality, though I would argue that it never fully arrives.

Sharia law is what morality as legislation looks like. Wouldn't most of us agree that these two codes of law are distinct in their approach to morality?

It's also worth mentioning that the left doesn't have a monopoly on ending lives in the name of convenience. Dropping bombs on entire communities because a known or suspected terrorist is somewhere in the mix seems awfully similar to me. The inconvenience, expense or outright risk of the alternative apparently justifies our actions.

I don't know why Evangelicals don't want to talk about this issue. Catholics will. Go to a Pax Cristi meeting and you'll hear people advocating an end to abortion as well as an end to bombing civilians. Theirs is a more thorough position, and it's less prone (but not immune) to glaring inconsistencies.

The comments to this entry are closed.