An exchange with a faux-lifer

Just thought I’d share this exchange with a faux-lifer on the Following Jesus Means Being Political and Advocating for “The Least of These” post by pro-abortion extremist and false teacher Mark Sandlin.  (Faux-lifers pretend to be pro-life but just repeat pro-abortion sound bites and do nothing to reduce abortions.  And by supporting the Democrats, they seek to increase abortions via taxpayer-funding and elimination of restrictions.)

I started with this:

It is fascinating to see Sandlin take passage after passage at face value when he agrees with with he thinks they say (even if he misunderstands them so). There wasn’t a hint of doubt about whether the texts were accurate in what they said. But he turns hyper-skeptic when he can’t rationalize away the clear meaning of the passages about the resurrection. Are we to believe that the writers were supremely accurate on the parts Mark thinks he likes and blasphemous liars on the rest?

If you want to follow Jesus, it decidedly means advocating for the “least of these.”

Ah, the least of these passage. The “Christian” Left loves that one, yet they are ghoulish pro-abortion extremists, advocating for things that most pro-choicers disagree with. They are loud and proud in saying, “According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath” so they can justify abortions at any time for any reason, including the infanticidal procedure called “partial-birth abortion.”(https://1eternitymatters.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/the-christian-left-is-far-more-extreme-than-the-average-pro-choice-person-2/ )

Yeah, tell me more about how you care for the “least of these” while advocating for this — http://tinyurl.com/yzjq4lv http://www.advocatesoflife.com/graphicabortionimages.htm

And do they ever read the rest of Matthew 25? Doubtful. And they rely on the biblical ignorance of their followers. Reading Sandlin’s take you’d think that the Romans chased Jesus around. Scan the Gospel accounts yourself and see how far off base Sandlin is.

They don’t read to the end of the chapter, because they typically deny this part:

41 “Then he will say to those on his left,‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. . . .45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Do all those quoting Matthew 25 to justify forced wealth redistribution as a Christian act also affirm the truth of eternal punishment?

Do they think He will really return and glory and make a final judgment of people?

Then “RustbeltRick” left this comment:

If I respond to your post, will it actually lead to a dialogue, or have you already written off everyone from the Left as “ghoulish pro-abortion extremists”? There are those of us on the Left who see the tragedy of abortion but you don’t seem to think we exist, so I’m not sure how much you really want to talk; you seem to want to opine, instead.

Hi RustbeltRick,

I suppose it depends what you respond with ;-).

I choose my words carefully. If you look at statistics, even those who favor legal first trimester abortions (which are just as wrong as late term abortions, but that’s another topic) switch sides when it comes to issues like later term abortions, parental notification, etc. So if 79% of even pro-choice people think 3rd trimester abortions should be illegal and 94% of pro-life people agree, that places the “Christian” Left at the extreme — hence the highly accurate term, pro-abortion extremists.

Pro-choice views (Gallup, 2011) — http://media.hotair.com/greenroom/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/abortion-consensus-gallup.gif

–Make abortion illegal in the 3rd trimester – 79%

–Make abortion illegal in the 2nd trimester – 52%

–Ban “partial-birth abortion” – 63%

–Require parental consent for minors – 60%

–Require 24 waiting period – 60%

The “Christian” Left is officially loud and proud about insisting — direct quote — that “According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.” Their words, not mine, repeated many times without hesitation. I find that ghoulish. And I find it curious that you seem to take more exception to me calling it that than you do to the procedure itself, and you are more concerned about whether I want to “talk” than anything else. Yes, I’m here to offer my opinion. You seem to be doing the same. Nothing wrong with that.

If you are on the Left and disagree with people like Sandlin and the other “Christian” Left leaders on abortion, then good for you!

Having said that, I’ve come across countless faux-lifers (not saying you are one) who talk in “tragic” terms about abortion but do absolutely nothing to stop them. I hope you are the exception.

* https://1eternitymatters.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/the-christian-left-is-far-more-extreme-than-the-average-pro-choice-person-2/

 

There are many on the Right who also switch sides: they are passionately committed to the survival of the fetus, even if that survival is enforced by government edict; but then think nothing of making continual cuts to the nation’s food stamp program (because they dislike government edicts, even those edicts which provide modest support for the poor).

Lots of fallacies there.

1. That’s a human fetus, by the way, i.e. a human being. We are quite consistent in protecting the lives of human beings inside and outside the womb. If you want to say we are inconsistent, then show where we sit idly by regarding murders outside the womb. Example: We also oppose infanticide and euthanaisa.

2. I understand the rhetorical value of “government edict” language, but I also know it is fallacious. Laws protecting life outside the womb are also government edicts and we have no issues with those. We consistently point to the Constitutional roles of government.

3. You use a combination straw-man / ad hominem / question-begging attack with your food stamp example. Nice triple play ;-).

First, studies show that by any measure — giving time, money or even blood donations — conservatives are more generous. They just don’t lobby Caesar to “give” your money and count it as a good deed on their part. See http://www.nationalreview.com/content/who-really-cares . So we actually do care. We just want to care in a discerning, effective way.

Unless the IRS gave you access to my tax returns and you hacked into my calendar, you have no idea how generous I am with my time and my money. It is mighty judgmental of you to assume otherwise, and very telling that you can’t stick to the topic of whether people should be able to kill children up to their first breath, as the “Christian” Left clearly advocates.

Second, you beg the question in assuming that those programs are effective and require no refinement.

Third, you claim that we oppose all government edicts, which is just false.

Fourth, you use this entire line of reasoning to dodge any efforts to prevent what you claim is wrong: Killing children before their first breath. Faux-lifers like you act like you’ll get around to opposing abortion once the world is perfect in every other way. I’m not persuaded.

I have a hard time swallowing the “pro-life” label for people who are very selective about which vulnerable humans should be protected and which vulnerable humans should be abandoned.

Logical fallacy: Equivocation. If you want to do this and this to human beings outside the womb, I will oppose you just as consistently as I do to protect human beings inside the womb.

There is no inconsistency.

I know you want to make morality about abortion only, but I refuse to limit the discussion that far.

No, I just used abortion as an example of the “Christian” Left’s lies about truly caring for the least of these (if they unborn don’t qualify, who does?). The”Christian” Left is immoral on other topics as well.

Bonus: Here are some more responses to the fallacious “pro-lifers don’t care about those outside the womb!!” meme. I encourage you to read them carefully. If you are intellectually honest you’ll never use that slanderous and fallacious sound bite again.

1. If people were slaughtering toddlers, the elderly or anyone else the way they do unborn children, I guarantee that we would be protesting that as well. So we are completely consistent in protecting innocent human lives regardless of location and yes, we do care for life post-birth.

2. You can speak against moral evils all day, every day without being obligated to care for all the victims for life. If mothers were killing toddlers for the same reasons they give for abortions (money, career, love live, pressure from boyfriends / parents, etc.) would you stay quiet? Would you lodge the same criticism at those who spoke against toddler-cide without adopting all the children? Hopefully not. The question is whether the unborn are human beings. They are. At least that’s what all the embryology textbooks say. Just because they are smaller, more dependent and in a unique environment (formerly synonymous with a safe place) doesn’t mean their lives aren’t worthy of protection. The right to life is the foundational human right.

3. The premise is false. Countless pro-lifers help women and children before and after birth with their own time and money. Crisis Pregnancy Centers offers an array of free services. Planned Parenthood and the like make millions via abortion.

4. Asking the government to take money by force from others to supposedly help the poor does not qualify as charity on your part.

5. Do you criticize the American Cancer Society for not working on heart disease? If not, why are you being prideful about your preferred ministry over what others feel called to? That is, if you actually do anything for others at all.

6. Unless they want forced abortions, pro-choicers have the same obligations to help that they put on pro-lifers.

7. The claim that we don’t care about the children outside the womb is demonstrably false. But even if their claim was true, it seems like the greater sin would be to approve of a child being literally crushed and dismembered rather than just not personally feeding someone else’s living child.

P.S. I hope that was enough dialog for you :-).  If you read carefully you’ll note that while I disagreed with you, I took your statements at face value, read them carefully, and responded in kind.  If you respond — and I’ll try to answer if I have time —  I encourage you to focus on the facts and logic and not your unsubstantiated personal attacks.  If you really think abortion is wrong, what are you doing about it besides criticizing pro-lifers?

The dialogue went about as I expected. Cheers.

Interestingly, that was the one thing on which we agreed: It also went just as I expected.  I’ll leave it to the readers to determine if he really wanted dialog.

I “up voted” his comment and let him have the last word.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “An exchange with a faux-lifer”

  1. Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
    ” 4. Asking the government to take money by force from others to supposedly help the poor does not qualify as charity on your part.


    6. Unless they want forced abortions, pro-choicers have the same obligations to help that they put on pro-lifers.”

    Powerful combo. I may not like Christianity in all its respects, but this is sound logic.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s