Alas!

In fact, in #8, you AGREE with me, it is your comments that followed your agreement that brought on this latest branch of the argument. You also say that the “whole thrust of #9″ is regarding which job is more noble, that is but two paragraphs of a LONG post….

I said nothing like “those who fight abortion are more like Christ than others.” I said only—in response to a comment from you suggesting that we do not understand what it even means to be Christ-like (see #7)—that the most Christ-like people I know (I who, by the way, only know so many people) are the ones who stand outside of abortion clinics trying to help abortion-bound women.

I will invite any objective reader of this discussion—if there happens to be one—to discern which of us first assumed an antagonistic, accusing, even dismissive tone.

As far as I know, Christ was the whole package. He didn’t just talk about one aspect of morality or how to live one’s life or how to right one wrong. He taught lessons from the ground up focusing on all aspects of the human experience. He did not fight one fight, he fought all fights.

So the point of my argument was to show that the people who fight abortion are certainly not more Christ-like than people who teach children or MANY OTHERS for that matter. I never would have even discussed something like this had you not made the statement that you made–which is equally strange.

And what a strange demand to make, that “for every hour you spend protesting abortion and providing support for the parents, you need to spend another hour volunteering your time at a local public school or doing something to support the children who are born”!

Why aren’t you likewise required to spend an hour fighting abortion for every hour you spend working with kids?

Why is Sr. Helen Prejean not required to spend an hour at a soup kitchen for every hour she spends ministering to death row inmates?

Was Mother Teresa to be chided for dedicating her time exclusively to the dying poor of Calcutta—for failing to give an equal number of hours to teaching children to read?

Do you accuse Mr. Rogers of ignoring the plight of adolescents because he devoted his ministry to preschoolers?

It seems to me that different people are called to do different work. No one can do everything, and there’s no hypocrisy in discerning the main work one is meant to do, and doing it.

I apologize if my overly dramatic use of the word “contempt” caused problems, that sort of was my intent. I have a tendency to overdramatize things, that’s my nature. I can equally say that I do not know very many people who hold that view and I’m in contact with just as many regular people as you. Theoretically, morality is the basis of law, but as you and I both know (as does most of civilization) that many laws have no reflection on morality.

So accept my apology and it is not really the picture I have of you at all. The picture I still have is you sitting on the edge of my couch in your bike shorts in fact….

Actually, Jim, the fact that you can read contempt into such an simple statement of fact tells me a lot about who you think I am, and how fruitful I might expect further dialog with you to really be.

I did not originate the idea that law is an important teacher. That’s a very old observation.

As to who these people are who hold this view, I can only say that I meet them all the time. “It’s legal, leave it alone,” is something that I hear all the time. Maybe the “it’s legal” thing is a cover for some deeper willingness to accept abortion, but it’s a cover I don’t think we should grant them.

Do you really deny that there are people out there who believe that if something is legal, it’s okay? What about the corporate executives who hide behind just such a view?

Gotta go—that’s all I’ve got time for right now . . .

When you say this, this shows me how much contempt you must have for certain sorts of people. Who are the “many” who think in this manner, I would like to know. You seem to think that people make moral decisions based on legality…so these same people when they go over 65 mph suddenly feel immoral and are racked with guilt…I don’t think so. I would agree that perhaps some are able to rationalize an abortion because of its legality, but I do not think this frees them IN ANY WAY from moral culpability or remorse or guilt. People are much more complex than simply assuming that legal = moral for the majority of them. This sells people short, particularly the people that you hope to reach the most.

“abortion was decriminalized in this country a decade after the establishment of the kinds of massive welfare programs you want to maintain and expand.”

I could just as easily (and incorrectly) argue that the plight of abortion was at its peak during staunch Republican control of the White House…which administration had the highest abortion rates?…Why Reagan and Bush I of course. I could say their economic squeezing of the lower and middle class led to a higher abortion rate and therefore was responsible for millions of deaths, but that is of course a logical fallacy, just as your implication would be.

“You choose to attribute motives to people’s votes—that those who vote for a Republican House candidate, say, “don’t care” about deaths in the Iraq War, poverty, etc. But you don’t really know that at all.”

This certainly isn’t the case, and if I implied that I apologize. People’s votes are motivated by a ton of factors and in the case of recent elections, they were motivated by fear. Fear of the unknown, of more “evildoers” attacking, fear of Muslims, of the Democrats being “with” the terrorists, being told it was better to “fight them over there, instead of over here”…all votes have a motive. With the pathetically low turnout of voters that this country has, those that do go out to vote ARE motivated, they would have to be. Apathetic, unmotivated people don’t bother voting, the numbers show that. Many of those who voted Republican originally did so because they were duped by the government into thinking Iraq was a danger to us, were told that we would be safe if we became aggressive and took it to ‘em. People want to believe in their leaders, it is their nature, so of course motives enter in to elections.

“The “surprising truth” is that conservatives actually give more to charity, volunteer more hours, even give more pints of blood than liberals.”

I’ve heard of the book but haven’t read it, the topic alone leads to the following questions: What constitutes a charity? Was the NRA considered a charity? Is Greenpeace a charity? How could someone like me, who is a public school teacher in Chicago, who devotes his life to helping those who need it most, who makes very little money…how could I afford to help with cash, when I’ve given my life to helping? I might give this book a read so I could thoroughly destroy it at some other time. I could of course also say that conservatives give more because they feel guilty for wrecking the country and the lives of those in it (but that’s a joke…at least it’s mostly a joke).

“But this is the very first time someone has suggested to me that second hand smoke is a more pressing problem than abortion.”

I used the suggestion as an example…you have your fight to fight and I understand that, but these things are all problems that exist because of the same inherent problem with our government in general. The government makes too much money from cigarette and liquor taxes, therefore these things will never be made illegal, though they are arguably just as deadly and evil as abortion. A cigarette does one thing, it destroys your lungs (and the lungs of the people around you)…that’s it. Shockingly it is quite similar to abortion. When society accepts certain destructive elements, it inevitably leads to the acceptance of other destructive elements. If you are going to support the tobacco industry, don’t be shocked when something like abortion remains an option for pregnant women.

“Everything you have written here suggests to me that you really have not contemplated the meaning of abortion. The way you speak of “fetuses” and people “OUT of my stomach”—this is not the language of someone who has really learned to sympathize with the unborn child.”

When I wrote that I was using the “voice” of someone who might speak that way based on how they feel the government has treated them, particularly when I gave the “Out of my stomach” example. As for the use of the word fetus, it is an accepted word, just as baby, infant, adolescent, and teen discuss stages of development, so does fetus…so while it may not be the same as unborn child, it is still a completely acceptable word and no more diminishes the child than the word teenager.

There are differences in our opinions to be sure. I have always been of the mindset that people are designed to make choices – good and bad. It is societies job to guide those choices and provide a solid framework for them. To help them become better decision makers in the long term. To stop the girl before she gets pregnant, to teach that every action has a consequence, to show that small decisions can sometimes lead to huge results…both good and bad. That’s why I teach adolescents, that’s why I’m in the middle of the city doing everything I can to help them become better humans. To teach them what humanity is, what society is, what a difference each of them can make. So while you may find that the people who are most Christ-like are those who stand outside the clinics and fight your one fight, I find that people who stand among the children and fight all the fights, teach all the lessons, create sound moral fiber- to be equally Christ-like. I prefer to think that stopping children from making bad decisions as adults, teaching them the significance of themselves and other humans on this planet is as profound and significant as what you do.

In fact, the stories that you linked to, ask yourself who is responsible for many of these children for a good chunk of their lives…it is people like me. Working mothers have children, they have support, but it is the teacher that is in front of these children 6, 7, or 8 hours a day, five days a week. I’ve had students come to me with real issues (gunshot wounds, gang problems even rape; or problems with drugs or alcohol – and this is elementary school I’m talking about) and I’ve had to deal with it and provide guidance and sympathy and compassion and call the police or the DCFS or make sure they had a safe trip home… So while your fight is important, there are decades that follow, where my fight should take precedence. That is why I strive for social reform and social justice. Every unborn child that is saved, now has a life that will impact those around them, a life that needs to be full of love, understanding and compassion. For every hour you spend protesting abortion and providing support for the parents, you need to spend another hour volunteering your time at a local public school or doing something to support the children who are born. That is the real challenge. And I am not talking about donated furniture or hand-me-down cribs I’m talking about math problems and rape counseling and advice on why they probably shouldn’t be listening to that Jay-Z song when they’re only 11 and why a game like Crackdown isn’t right for someone in 5th grade. So you may feel that you are fighting the most important fight in the last 50 years, you are actually only firing the first salvos, the real challenge lies in the NEXT 50 years.

That’s a straw man, Jim. Nobody is saying there’s an instant political solution to abortion. Nobody. But there certainly are ways that politics can increase or decrease abortion, or move us closer or farther away from legal protection for the unborn.

Moreover, our work at the Pro-Life Action League has very little to do with politics. My father founded the League—our freshman year of high school, by the way—precisely because he didn’t believe in waiting for a political solution, but that changing hearts on minds on abortion was the necessary foundation for any lasting protection for the unborn.

But is it demonstrably untrue that the legality of an action has no bearing on its practice. The abortion rate in this country skyrocketed after Roe v. Wade, and for many the fact that abortion is legal is all they need to know; what’s legal is what’s moral.

What’s more, abortion was decriminalized in this country a decade after the establishment of the kinds of massive welfare programs you want to maintain and expand. Is there a connection? Maybe, maybe not, but it belies the notion that social programs will tend to reduce abortion.

“Voting for the party that reduces the amount of money for social programs while increasing the amount of money budgeted towards mass murder (the war in Iraq) sends a very mixed message.”

But Jim, I don’t think voting sends any message other than, “Given these choices, I pick X.” In other words, the only “message” of a vote is the vote itself.

You choose to attribute motives to people’s votes—that those who vote for a Republican House candidate, say, “don’t care” about deaths in the Iraq War, poverty, etc. But you don’t really know that at all.

It isn’t self-evident that the particular policies you prefer are the right ones. Welfare programs, in particular, have a pretty dubious history in this country. Declaring that anyone who would cut funding to Program X is utterly indifferent to those meant to be helped by Program X is simply unfair. Could be the opponent of Program X judges that program to be a failure.

By the way, the canard that conservatives don’t care about the poor is debunked in Arthur C. Brook’s new book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. The “surprising truth” is that conservatives actually give more to charity, volunteer more hours, even give more pints of blood than liberals.

So you see, your effort to argue backwards to hypocrisy or ignorance from what little you know about people’s policy positions really fails.

“Why should I care about the health of a baby, when this idiot next to me is blowing his cigarette smoke right into my face.”

I have to hand it to you, Jim. As the Communications Director of the Pro-Life Action League, I receive a constant stream of e-mails from disgruntled liberals demanding that we solve problems X, Y and Z first before spending any more time on abortion. But this is the very first time someone has suggested to me that second hand smoke is a more pressing problem than abortion.

“If you want abortion to be eliminated, you do it by treating every person with dignity and respect . . .”

Except perhaps Republicans.

“Eric,when you say something like ‘there is no place on earth more ordered towards the protection of life than the womb; and there is nor manner of death more grisly and cold-blooded than abortion.’ You are doing yourself a disservice, you are far more intelligent than this sort of rote response.”

I’m sorry you consider that a “rote response,” because in actual fact it is not. Everything you have written here suggests to me that you really have not contemplated the meaning of abortion. The way you speak of “fetuses” and people “OUT of my stomach”—this is not the language of someone who has really learned to sympathize with the unborn child.

You clearly do sympathize with the poor, the unemployed, the displaced. If you do also sympathize with the unborn, it really isn’t coming out very clearly in your words.

“Change other things, and you will eliminate abortion.”

Yes, perhaps you’re right that banning cigarettes will stop abortion. But have you considered the way the abortion undermines the effort to “change other things”?

Why should we provide assistance to poor children, for example, when, really, they ought to have been aborted in the first place? Is there not a monumental contradiction in a social policy that says both “feed the poor” and “kill the poor”?

But in any case, aren’t you really contradicting yourself here? Above you declare that “there is no instant political solution to abortion,” but fill in the blank, man. There’s no instant political solution to anything. Why are we supposed to eschew addressing abortion politically, but seek political solutions to poverty and violence?

“[Jesus] was someone who understood that the way to change someone’s heart was to walk among them and live as one of them, this is much more the way I view the mode of change.”

On this week agree—though if you feel you have to say this, perhaps you are not as thoroughly familiar with the pro-life movement as you say. Take a look at the recent Time Magazine article on crisis pregnancy centers, or read up on what we’re doing at the League.

Our #1 effort to to provide a pro-life presence at the abortion clinics, offering help to men and women desperate enough to kill their unborn children. The most Christ-like people I know are the ones who dedicate their time to this work.