Monday, December 28, 2009

The Abortion Debate

Pro-Choice or Pro-Abortion

Is it semantics, or is there more to it? Suzanne Fortin at Big Blue Wave discusses the difference here, and with compelling arguments.

If you are pro-life, and if you yourself are breathing on your own, I think you should be, and want to read something disgusting, go to the comments to her piece, and read the linked article in the first comment. I was absolutely disgusted at what an alleged, esteemed member of the EEC clergy wrote earlier this year.

7 comments:

Joshua S. said...

Michael:

I could find no comments to the article. But on the subject of British clergy, it should be recognized that C of E Archbishop Rowan WhateverHisNameIs is perhaps the STUPIDEST clergyman in all of Christendom. And those eyebrows! Do you think they share a heartbeat or do they each have one of their own? Certainly, animating those eyebrows seems to leave insufficient blood to keep Rowan's brain functioning...

The C of E has become the most anti-Christian organization I can name (excluding the poison known as Islam).

mbrandon8026 said...

Here is the link

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/21537

Try not to throw up on your computer when you have read it.

Joshua S. said...

Oops! I have more to say on this.

Of course, Michel, this is a "semantics" based argument. So was/is the "gay marriage" issue. Let me explain.

"Marriage" is a sacramental ritual common to virutally all Christian and Jewish sects. WAY WAY BACK, when "semantics" wasn't so common a word, the state moved to "help out" people who didn't belong to any such organizations/sects/religions. The "civil marriage" concept was introduced, along with the semantics problem. "Civil marriages" have never been "marriages" but, rather, civil unions accorded all the social/tax privileges/responsibilities of the sacramentally married. But let's face it! NO LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF SACRAMENTS AND NEVER WAS. So the "gay marriage" debate is really of no consequence whatsoever to practicing Christians who are also literate and know what the word "semantics" means.

I am a deeply Christian man with a deeply Christian wife. One of our sons is homosexual. We delightedly paid for all the costs incurred when our son joined with his partner in a committed relationship through a civil union. That was almost a decade ago. Our son and his partner are integral members of our Christian family. To boot, they have brought us two wonderful grandchildren who are also being raised as Christians.

As a lifelong Christian who has LIVED HIS FAITH every minute of every day (as opposed to weekly attendance at some religious ritual), I see absolutely no contradiction in my family's manner of handling this situation. And through the grace of God, I have met as many committed Christians through my homosexual son and his partner as through his heterosexual (and married) siblings.

"Gay marriage", like "pro-choice", is a semantic non-starter, but in a totally different manner.

As a Christian who lives his Christian faith, it is not my role to criticize religious institutions who do not "get" the semantics of the issue. Alas, it is to my great Christian sorrow that so many allegedly Christian organizations condemn the homosexual community to lives as Christian outcasts over a sexual orientation issue beyond their individual control.

And just for the record, my gay son and his partner raised in excess of $10,000 to help the less fortunate celebrate the birth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ this past Christmas. How many Christian parents do you know who can make such a claim? Not many, I would venture.

Just a few observations about "semantics" and what it REALLY means to live a Christian life.

Joshua S. said...

Michael:

Thanks for the link. The term "sick puppy" comes to mind to describe this alleged clergyperson. No, I did not throw up, but I did wish (please forgive me, God) that this person would get hit by a speeding vehicle SOON. I also took heart in the comments. Apparently, most sentient human beings recognize "sick puppy" when they see one.

mbrandon8026 said...

Good comments, Joshua.

Sometimes we cannot see the forest for the commas, and it is far easier to have debates over words than it is to love one another. That takes real work.

Like you I know a gay couple, female in this instance, who are among the most charitable, kind and loving people I know.

There are some same sex oriented people who live in sexual and other depravity. Oops, the same can be said for some heterosexual people as well.

On the day that I myself become sinless, I am going to throw a pebble at all of them. Until then, I'm gonna leave those pebbles on the ground where they belong, and try and love them all, as Jesus taught us, and as I am trying to learn to do.

mbrandon8026 said...

Joshua:

The good news on the Ragsdale article was the comments by those who saw her for what she was protraying, a sick individual.

Praying for her is the only answer I can think of.

But, if I had eaten already I would have barfed on my keyboard.

Joshua S. said...

Dear Michael:

You wrote that "...On the day that I myself become sinless, I am going to throw a pebble at all of them. Until then, I'm gonna leave those pebbles on the ground where they belong, and try and love them all, as Jesus taught us, and as I am trying to learn to do."

I couldn't have said it better myself, nor could I more heartily endorse another Christian's comment. Jesus is NOT in the business of "saving some". If Jesus could accept St. Paul into the Christian community, then surely the entire Trinity smiles upon Christian homosexual people in committed relationships living Christian lives. Then again, "my" Jesus Christ just "saves" and doesn't just "save some and not others."