tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1573015459789360915.post2619666304102708795..comments2024-01-02T23:22:21.430-05:00Comments on The Guild Review: "Dangerous Game," part IIAaron Lindermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15992073027586818751noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1573015459789360915.post-15047287290019280242009-01-22T15:58:00.000-05:002009-01-22T15:58:00.000-05:00Here's a relevant link concerning abortion, the pr...Here's a relevant link concerning abortion, the pro-life movement, and the analogy to slavery:<BR/><BR/>http://www.firstthings.com/blog/2009/01/22/for-us-there-is-only-the-trying/Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10825489013036249581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1573015459789360915.post-49564033944162850902009-01-12T23:04:00.000-05:002009-01-12T23:04:00.000-05:00Steve,I agree with you that many pro-lifers do "fa...Steve,<BR/><BR/>I agree with you that many pro-lifers do "fall somewhere in between" three and four. <BR/><BR/>However, I can't remember seeing this kind of "moderation" represented in the stated positions of any recent prominent candidate for office. <BR/><BR/>The presidential race seems a case-in-point. McCain, a moderate in many other respects, was technically extremely "pro-life": he vowed to appoint judges that would (presumably) overturn Roe v. Wade. This position seems to me the very opposite of "gradual abolition." <BR/><BR/>Do the majority of Americans want to overturn Roe v. Wade? If not, what would be the results from such an overturning? Would this be in the best interests of mothers and their unborn children? Would it stop them from having abortions? <BR/><BR/>I don't know the answers to these questions. But the thought-experiment doesn't even seem to have been presented by McCain (or other "pro-life" presidents or presidential candidates in recent memory.) <BR/><BR/><BR/>Some more questions: <BR/><BR/>Are there concessions pro-life legislators can, in good conscience, make to pro-choice opponents? (e.g. like the upholding of the Fugitive Slave Law--which Lincoln supported.)<BR/><BR/>I have wondered lately about the "health of the mother" clause. (The lack of it--a disputed point-- the reason Obama gave for voting against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.) As McCain said during the debates, "health of the mother can mean just about anything." If a stricter definition of "health" was put in place, and if it were allowed as an exception in otherwise "pro-life" legislation, would more of that legislation pass? Is this compromise be morally acceptable for Christians?<BR/><BR/>These seem to be questions worth discussing. I'm still working through my own answers to them, but I'd love to hear what you think. (Or you, Aaron, or anybody else out there in cyberspace.)Zachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13878139648810753007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1573015459789360915.post-61594135103284126062009-01-12T20:17:00.000-05:002009-01-12T20:17:00.000-05:00Zach,I think a lot of pro-lifers fall somewhere be...Zach,<BR/><BR/>I think a lot of pro-lifers fall somewhere between 3 and 4 in your little schema. Most pro-lifers hope for the eventual outlawing of all abortion but are willing to chip away at abortion here and there, using various tactics. At times they'll attack abortion in one state. Other times they'll attack a particular method of abortion (e.g. partial-birth abortion). And sometimes they'll try to impose certain restrictions. They do this in the hope of a gradual "abolition."Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10825489013036249581noreply@blogger.com