Al Mohler describes (below) what he calls the “mainstream pro-life” view on questions related to the criminalization of abortion.
…While folks on both sides on the cultural divide are trying to make a great deal of this. We have to understand there really is a big story here. I said earlier that Kevin Williamson could not work for a mainstream pro-life organization in this country. Why did is say that? It is because he holds to a view that those organizations have long repudiated. The mainstream pro-life movement in this country represented by the most visible organizations and names has long argued for the criminalization of abortion but for criminal penalties not against the woman who might seek an abortion but against the medical practitioners and others who would profit by it.
The mainstream pro-life position in this country developed over many decades is that abortion is murder but that the murderer who want to be charged with homicide is either the one who profiteers of the one who practices the medical action that brings about the abortion. In any event, it is the murderer, not the woman seeking the abortion, who the mainstream pro-life movement has identified as the most significant moral agent. This is not to argue that women who have sought or who have obtained abortions are not morally responsible.
It is to say that’s a different kind of responsibility than the one who actually brings about the murder. There has also been a two-fold pragmatic argument behind this. The first pragmatic aspect is the fact that if one wants to preserve life, one must deal responsibly and redemptively with a woman who might be under the pressure to consider an abortion. Threatening her with criminal action at a moment of vulnerability is pragmatically speaking, not the way to limit abortion or to convince a woman not to have an abortion. The second pragmatic consideration is this. The American people, even when abortion was criminalized, did not support criminal charges being brought against the woman who sought the abortion…
We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive. –C. S. Lewis Nobody can actually be on the “wrong side” of history since history is just a sequence […]
Over the past several months I have been encouraged by finding self-identified “classical liberals” calling for more dialogue between opposing views in response to the volatile political climate. One of these voices is Dave Rubin. I respect what he is trying to do even though I disagree with him on many levels in terms of policy. He is […]
Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty (Washington Post)
In a speech not long before she launched her 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton made a stunning declaration of war on religious Americans. Speaking to the 2015 Women in the World Summit, Clinton declared that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”…
…They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.”
Palmieri responds that Catholicism “is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals.” “Excellent point,” Halpin responds, adding that “they can throw around ‘Thomistic’ thought and ‘subsidiarity’ and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they’re talking about.” Podesta is included on both emails.
Albert Mohler comments here on how it is apparently the worst of the worst to be considered an “evangelical”. So much for tolerance!
On a side note: the idea of subsidiarity is an amazing idea and represents of how the framers of the Constitution and many founding fathers viewed the role and responsibilities of the federal government compared to local and state authority. Very libertarian and limited government oriented.
I have long been convinced by certain arguments about the hypocrisy of many big corporations (see HERE, HERE, and HERE) relating to the surge in LGBT support and a recent Financial Times article called The Business of Gay Pride has further added to my understanding of the situation. The article takes a look at how quickly the Gay Pride brand is […]
First of all, the term “pro-choice” is a euphemism for a practice that encourages the taking of defenseless unborn lives. Second of all, just because something is legal, it does not make it moral. There are plenty of legal yet immoral things that we have the choice to do. We all know people on both […]