1-Melinda at Stand to Reason writes
The problem with those who want to reduce the number of abortions is that they continue to accept what is the core injustice of abortion rights - that the unborn are not fully human deserving of protection under the law, that there is a class of innocent human beings whose lives can be taken from them, that unborn babies are just part of the mother's body and not a separate precious unborn human person, that the Constitution protects a woman's right to kill her unborn child. The reduction position doesn't seek to undo these unjust and tragic presumptions built into our current law. It's the status of the unborn under the law that is the heart of the concern and reducing abortions doesn't address that injustice.2-Pyromanaic Dan Phillips writes
Now, had the writers really wanted to stretch themselves and defy convention, they could have made the doctor an abortionist. For instance, he could have been one of the sorts of doctors who recently advised a British couple to abort their baby because the unborn child was diagnosed with rhomboencephalosynapsis, would be born deaf and blind, and would only live an hour or two.3-The Humane Society and downer cattle and abortion;
In the actual case, the parents rejected the counsel, and the child was born perfectly healthy, in spite of the assured diagnosis his parents had received. But how many such children have been actually aborted, on the basis of equally flawed diagnoses? I know of another similar case myself.
The fictional doctor could have actually succeeded in convincing the couple to kill the child, and then discovered his error. That, or countless other of the living nightmares by which abortionists could rightly find themselves gripped when they paint a bull's-eye on a baby. Then we would have had a case of real guilt over a real moral wrong.
What's wrong with these Humane Society people? Don't they have better things to do with their time? Perhaps they could alleviate this problem, if there really is a problem, by pasturing their own cow herds if they really cared. Anyway, I'm quite sure this video is a fake. And even if not, I don't believe cows feel pain when being plowed by forklifts. No one can prove to me that they do. Flinching when prodded with pokers is a visceral response.4-Abortion and African-American genocide
In America today, almost as many African-American children5-Francis Beckwith on Defending Life, an interview.
are aborted as are born.
A black baby is three times more likely to be
murdered in the womb than a white baby.
Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent.
Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from
AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.
Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than
have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire history.
Planned Parenthood operates the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics and
almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.
About 13 percent of American women are black, but they
submit to over 35 percent of the abortions.
6-Do Emerging Christians find it hard to condemn abortion?
Beckwith expressed concern about what he believes to be the emerging/Emergent church’s “downplaying” or minimizing of the issue of abortion.I added a comment to this discussion.
I found this question important and one that need some conversation. While I been involved with all things emerging for some time, I have found this lack of engagement disturbing and inconsistent, to say the least.
7-Chuck Colson announces that the demise of Pro-Life politics has been greatly exaggerated.
What is it that makes us evangelical? Our commitments to orthodox biblical Christianity, spreading the gospel, and promoting righteousness in all spheres of life. To be an evangelical is to defend life at every stage, help the poor, and strive for justice.
8-Doug Groothius talks about Obama's "repentance," voting to save Terri Schiavo's life.
9-Darwin, Hitler, Singer, the disabled and the unborn.
Also, I should mention that Haeckel was also the first person in German history to advance the idea that disabled people should be killed, a program the Nazis carried out. Most of the eugenicists and physicians who promoted "euthanasia" for the disabled—and most of those who carried it out under Nazism—used overtly Darwinian justifications for it.10-Something not abortion related...building homes with local clay and sand for a cheaper house, Compressed Earth Blocks.
Now, Ruse is right that Darwinism has been used by many people to advance a variety of positions, some of which are antithetical. I am not saying that Darwinism leads inevitably to Nazism. However, as I point out in my article "Does Darwinism Devalue Human Life," many Darwinists have admitted that Darwinism does have philosophical implications that impinge on the value of human life.
Peter Singer, the bioethicist at Princeton University who supports infanticide and euthanasia for the disabled, for instance, admits that Darwinism underpins his dismissal of the sanctity of human life. Richard Dawkins likewise claims Darwinian support for euthanasia.