Confusion Abounds

David Limbaugh assesses the weak theological and moral musings of George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Whoopi Golberg in this good article.

Comments

[Sigfried Trent]

Are “moral conservatives” really this thick headed, or are they simply taking rhetorical advantage to sway or gain favor with their constituents?
Instead of actually trying to understand the perspective of “pro choice” proponents they author invents bizarre opinions based purely on their own absurd interpretation of a person’s spoken words on a live program. Instead of honestly asking questions it makes wild assertions and then proceeds to tear them down. It is a classic case of straw man argumentation. Pretend your opponent is an idiot, speak for them, and then show how stupid your own version of their assertions are.
I can envision all the nodding heads out there. But stop and consider for a moment that Whoopi Goldberg might actually have more to say on the subject than you imagine from a few out of context quotations. Folks might actually try talking and more importantly listening to such people so that you can better understand where they are coming from. If you argue against them in ignorance your arguments will only look as hopelessly simple minded as this article appears.
No one is saying only people who have had abortions have the right to debate them. The point is that if you have not had one, you don’t have a full understanding of the issues involved. Just like any complicated experience in life, if you haven’t lived it, you could learn something from someone who has. That doesn’t mean those who have been there have a moral monopoly, it just means they have an important perspective that you would be a fool to simply discount or think you have an entirely comparable perspective.
Anyone who thinks 50 million abortions were done with glee and joy is a moron. You know better and so does Goldberg. Many of those decisions were no doubt anguished ones. I’m sure some were not, but none of them were a walk in the park. Even without any moral compunctions the medical procedure itself is no walk in the park, and those who claim no emotion associated with it are either psychopathic or lying.
You will notice how “Americans” and “revere” are quoted independently and that the ought to part is the authors statement. I didn’t see it, I don’t know what was said but the way it is quoted is very suspicious of having cut out the context of the statement. We should certainly listen to women who have had abortions and those who have not before we make up our minds about public policy (distinctly different than personal morality).
To say that you either believe a fetus is human or not, as if it is a binary equation shows a vast ignorance of the way people feel in real life. Only those who judge their morality by scripture alone could have such a perspective. The difference between a fertilized egg and a fully grown baby is pretty vast. The difference between an egg and a chicken is significant. I think it is intuitively obvious to people that there is a continuum of development of a fetus from a seed of humanity to a fully grown individual. Even the pro choice side doesn’t act as if a fetus was of no consequence. Even a devout Christian when given the choice of saving a preserved embryo in a lab dish or a living human baby would have a pretty easy decision to make.
A huge mistake the right constantly makes is to trivialize the millions of women and their families who have to make some difficult decisions in their lives. To say they are inhuman monsters or fools is to turn a blind eye to reality and when you do that you make those sitting somewhere in the middle thing that you are the fools, the ones with no sense of real ethics or morality. If you want to hold up the truth you had better take a close look at it yourself first.