Outcomes of Overturning Roe Vs. Wade

[RZehr]

Mike Atnip makes the case that disallowing abortion will only create more emotionally aborted children like is the case in Latin America. I'm curious whether the repeal of Roe Vs. Wade is already resulting in more emotionally aborted children in the USA.

Mike says the solution is not to sanction abortion, but rather pray for a revival of Christian morality, and work in the direction of adding more people to the kingdom of God. He makes a case for why the work should be happening at the church level, rather than at the civil government level.

https://www.plainnews.org/wp-content/up ... s-MA-1.pdf

This first sentence sounds like the end justifying the means. Which I don’t agree with.

Reading the article, he seems to be not really talking about abortion, but about involving oneself in politics, or voting, or just depending on the state to bend culture towards good morals. I can agree with that.

But this particular example in isolation is not reasonable. The cause for emotionally stunted children, is a failure of parenting; it is perhaps the result of fornication and sin; it is a result of people not following Gods plan, and the solution is always to turn to God, not to double down on evil by adding abortion upon the evil, to mitigate evil. That logic is like saying robbing and killing is justified, because I am poor.

To set aside the article, and just talk about this idea, no, I can’t imagine saying that abortion being illegal is the reason I neglected my child, is going fly on Judgment. It is no excuse.
Having children is expensive. Is abortion is justified because they may suffer from being in a family that is under the poverty line? Abortion is never the answer for making life easier.

How about just straight up murder? A baby in Central America is born to a dirt poor family, and the Mom and Dad disappear. Now the baby is going to be “emotionally aborted”. Should we just kill the child to avoid that?

Maybe we should kill all criminals, due to the recidivism? Just kill them, statistics aren’t in their favor, they are a burden to society, they are emotionally aborted.

[temporal1]

Mike Atnip makes the case that disallowing abortion will only create more emotionally aborted children like is the case in Latin America. I'm curious whether the repeal of Roe Vs. Wade is already resulting in more emotionally aborted children in the USA.

Mike says the solution is not to sanction abortion, but rather pray for a revival of Christian morality, and work in the direction of adding more people to the kingdom of God. He makes a case for why the work should be happening at the church level, rather than at the civil government level.

https://www.plainnews.org/wp-content/up ... s-MA-1.pdf

This first sentence sounds like the end justifying the means. Which I don’t agree with.

Reading the article, he seems to be not really talking about abortion, but about involving oneself in politics, or voting, or just depending on the state to bend culture towards good morals. I can agree with that.

But this particular example in isolation is not reasonable. The cause for emotionally stunted children, is a failure of parenting; it is perhaps the result of fornication and sin; it is a result of people not following Gods plan, and the solution is always to turn to God, not to double down on evil by adding abortion upon the evil, to mitigate evil. That logic is like saying robbing and killing is justified, because I am poor.

To set aside the article, and just talk about this idea, no, I can’t imagine saying that abortion being illegal is the reason I neglected my child, is going fly on Judgment. It is no excuse.
Having children is expensive. Is abortion is justified because they may suffer from being in a family that is under the poverty line? Abortion is never the answer for making life easier.

How about just straight up murder? A baby in Central America is born to a dirt poor family, and the Mom and Dad disappear. Now the baby is going to be “emotionally aborted”. Should we just kill the child to avoid that?

Maybe we should kill all criminals, due to the recidivism? Just kill them, statistics aren’t in their favor, they are a burden to society, they are emotionally aborted.

Why do we obey the Lord?
viewtopic.php?t=3773

The will to live is God-created, He breathes it into every living cell, it defies human reasoning and understanding.
It makes no sense. It is life.

[JimFoxvog]

Mike says the solution is not to sanction abortion, but rather pray for a revival of Christian morality, and work in the direction of adding more people to the kingdom of God. He makes a case for why the work should be happening at the church level, rather than at the civil government level.

I'm unconvinced either way about legal sanctions on abortion.

This is one good alternative answer.

Another is addressing the factors that motivate abortion, both economic and emotional. This could be done by church, state, or both.

[Ernie]

Mike Atnip makes the case that disallowing abortion will only create more emotionally aborted children like is the case in Latin America. I'm curious whether the repeal of Roe Vs. Wade is already resulting in more emotionally aborted children in the USA.

Mike says the solution is not to sanction abortion, but rather pray for a revival of Christian morality, and work in the direction of adding more people to the kingdom of God. He makes a case for why the work should be happening at the church level, rather than at the civil government level.

https://www.plainnews.org/wp-content/up ... s-MA-1.pdf

This first sentence sounds like the end justifying the means. Which I don’t agree with.

Reading the article, he seems to be not really talking about abortion, but about involving oneself in politics, or voting, or just depending on the state to bend culture towards good morals. I can agree with that.

But this particular example in isolation is not reasonable. The cause for emotionally stunted children, is a failure of parenting; it is perhaps the result of fornication and sin; it is a result of people not following Gods plan, and the solution is always to turn to God, not to double down on evil by adding abortion upon the evil, to mitigate evil. That logic is like saying robbing and killing is justified, because I am poor.

To set aside the article, and just talk about this idea, no, I can’t imagine saying that abortion being illegal is the reason I neglected my child, is going fly on Judgment. It is no excuse.
Having children is expensive. Is abortion is justified because they may suffer from being in a family that is under the poverty line? Abortion is never the answer for making life easier.

How about just straight up murder? A baby in Central America is born to a dirt poor family, and the Mom and Dad disappear. Now the baby is going to be “emotionally aborted”. Should we just kill the child to avoid that?

Maybe we should kill all criminals, due to the recidivism? Just kill them, statistics aren’t in their favor, they are a burden to society, they are emotionally aborted.

Both I and Atnip agree that allowing or sanctioning abortion is not the answer. Why is this not clear? How is this different from what you are saying?

[Josh]

Could you clarify if you think abortion should be illegal or not?

This isn’t asking you to vote - it’s simply an opinion. For example, I think murdering an adult should be illegal as well.

[Ernie]

Could you clarify if you think abortion should be illegal or not?

Yes, I think it should be illegal.
Abortion is allowing a more powerful person to take the life of a defenseless person.
And then there is a case to be made for the sanctity of life.

[Josh]

Could you clarify if you think abortion should be illegal or not?

Yes, I think it should be illegal.
Abortion is allowing a more powerful person to take the life of a defenseless person.
And then there is a case to be made for the sanctity of life.

OK, that makes sense. I would agree with you (and perhaps with Atnip?) that it may not be politically feasible to outlaw abortion right now. However, I would still say it should be illegal.

As an Anabaptist and a Christian I don’t think we should agitate for political change to change laws, but simultaneously we should be clear that some things are very wrong. And it’s good for government to “punish evildoers”, according to the Bible.

Some Anabaptists seem a little soft on punishing evildoers - particularly when it is one of their own family members or coreligionists. I agree we should have heart changes, but heart changes can and do happen in prison. (I heard a very good testimony of a Swartzie man who committed terrible crimes and gave his life to the Lord and is now a changed person living a very different life since he got out.)

Some right wing evangelicals and many left wing people want to use laws to bring about change in society. I don’t think we should do that, but I do think laws should reflect justice. (Policy concerns a different matter, but I do think policy should promote righteousness, not lawlessness and sinfulness.)

[RZehr]

Mike Atnip makes the case that disallowing abortion will only create more emotionally aborted children like is the case in Latin America. I'm curious whether the repeal of Roe Vs. Wade is already resulting in more emotionally aborted children in the USA.

Mike says the solution is not to sanction abortion, but rather pray for a revival of Christian morality, and work in the direction of adding more people to the kingdom of God. He makes a case for why the work should be happening at the church level, rather than at the civil government level.

https://www.plainnews.org/wp-content/up ... s-MA-1.pdf

This first sentence sounds like the end justifying the means. Which I don’t agree with.

Reading the article, he seems to be not really talking about abortion, but about involving oneself in politics, or voting, or just depending on the state to bend culture towards good morals. I can agree with that.

But this particular example in isolation is not reasonable. The cause for emotionally stunted children, is a failure of parenting; it is perhaps the result of fornication and sin; it is a result of people not following Gods plan, and the solution is always to turn to God, not to double down on evil by adding abortion upon the evil, to mitigate evil. That logic is like saying robbing and killing is justified, because I am poor.

To set aside the article, and just talk about this idea, no, I can’t imagine saying that abortion being illegal is the reason I neglected my child, is going fly on Judgment. It is no excuse.
Having children is expensive. Is abortion is justified because they may suffer from being in a family that is under the poverty line? Abortion is never the answer for making life easier.

How about just straight up murder? A baby in Central America is born to a dirt poor family, and the Mom and Dad disappear. Now the baby is going to be “emotionally aborted”. Should we just kill the child to avoid that?

Maybe we should kill all criminals, due to the recidivism? Just kill them, statistics aren’t in their favor, they are a burden to society, they are emotionally aborted.

Both I and Atnip agree that allowing or sanctioning abortion is not the answer. Why is this not clear? How is this different from what you are saying?

I’m replying to this phrase, in isolation from the article.
“Mike Atnip makes the case that disallowing abortion will only create more emotionally aborted children like is the case in Latin America.”

[ohio jones]

Mike Atnip makes the case that disallowing abortion will only create more emotionally aborted children like is the case in Latin America. I'm curious whether the repeal of Roe Vs. Wade is already resulting in more emotionally aborted children in the USA.

Mike says the solution is not to sanction abortion, but rather pray for a revival of Christian morality, and work in the direction of adding more people to the kingdom of God. He makes a case for why the work should be happening at the church level, rather than at the civil government level.

"Sanction" is one of those particularly ambiguous words called contronyms (other examples include inflammable, cleave, oversight, clip, and fast) that can be inherently self-contradictory. I try to avoid them unless the context is absolutely clear. In this case I think Ernie is using it to mean punish (parallel to disallow) rather than permit, but wanted to make sure others weren't interpreting it in the opposite sense.

[RZehr]

You can say that any “sword swinging” of the state is merely “hacking at branches” instead of “digging at the root”.

And God has ordained that some of these branches be pruned by the sword of the state.

I don’t see Mike A. complaining that incarcerating criminals is merely hacking at branches. Or laws against other murder is merely hacking at branches. Yes, I might agree that abortion, etc. is hacking at branches, but I find it perfectly within the ordination of the state to do so. I agree with Mike A. that we, as separate people, shouldn’t be involved in politics, or look to the state for deep answers.
But I find his criticism of abortion laws, based on unwanted children as the result, to be entire unwarranted from a Christian standpoint, and completely ignoring the fact that poor Christian families can get by with large families and no abortion, and no neglect. From a humanist standpoint, it does make sense.
Neglect is the problem. Go ahead and keep the focus on where it belongs.