Monday, June 1, 2009

killing abortion doctors = happiness for millions of people.

admit it. you're happy.

if you are a regular reader of this blog, chances are you are also a hard core pro-lifer who will publicly denounce dr. tiller's murder and privately rejoice and feel a sense of justice.

I just read this article which was as confusing as it was long-winded and dull.

my view is not really the point (hint: I'm not pro-life), but it is interesting to me how easily we will disregard human life, and immediately pretend to care about unborn children. I hope dr. tiller's death prompts people to care more about human life, whether it is an unborn fetus, or an old man reaching the natural end of his long life.

it won't. people will continue hating. but it's a hope worth having.

I will believe that pro life people actually care about human life when I see evidence from those same people that they actually care about people who are currently alive.

hell, if pro lifers cared better for the people in their own communities, there might not even be any desire or need for abortions. we could start with that.

until then: sorry, human life isn't sacred. that argument dies in the huge churches it started in.


Jared said...

Do you have kids? My son was born pre-mature. Tiller could have legally murdered, I mean "aborted" him.

Are you saying you are for abortion, but against murder? Is it OK to kill viable babies in the womb? Forget "pro-lifers" what about the baby.. the argument?

Is partial-birth abortion "crazy"?

Jared said...

One more thing... I've heard this argument before and I'd be interested to see the data that says pro-choice people care about "life" so much more than "pro-life" people do.

In my opinion most people that I've heard this argument from are just pissed off at the church... it really doesn't hold much water... I don't think either side care all that much about life and certainly there are exceptions to the rule.

Clay said...

That is one of the grossest atrocities I have heard of.

Side note: Vision Forum is one of the more destructive "ministries" out there.

Matthew Smith said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I'm pro-life. This makes me sick. Since when is murdering one abortion doctor going to stop others from doing something that is legal? Is it supposed to frighten them into not aborting more babies? Woah! Dream big! It ain't happening!

BTW, last I checked, abortion doctors don't go around giving out abortions that aren't asked for. It seems slightly... hmmmm... illegal? Is that the word? That what consent forms are all about.

Jeff Irwin said...

father of 2 (1 preemie) sez: great post.

Clint Wells said...

Jared - I don't think it's reasonable to insinuate that having children or not validates either position on the abortion issue. Irwin's comment obviously supports this.

Tiller couldn't have aborted your son without your or your son's mother's consent. Doctors don't abort random, prematurely born babies. Not sure if you knew that or not.

Pro-choice is historically an argument for individual rights, not murder. It's fairly TIRED to tow the line that all pro-choice advocates are pro-murder. The next logical step for you is to label people in the pro-choice camp murderers themselves. Thankfully your personal agenda isn't the standard for individual freedom.

Regarding data about which camp values life more...I would encourage you to consult the internet. Google is a good starting place. But for starters, it is a statistical correlation that most Americans who supported the war are also pro-life. The implication being that the thousands of conscious, living people slaughtered were less important than speculatively living fetuses.

You were right to posit that both sides are likely equally apathetic about human life. However, one side calls themselves PRO-LIFE. This hypocrisy, I believe, is the focus of the post.

The church has done a lot to warrant criticism on this issue. Being angry at the church is an unfair dismissal and a great way of not engaging the point. Your entire comment was full of exaggerated, emotional and generally unfair argumentation which is, unfortunately for your cause, very indicative typical pro-life dialogue.

Clay said...

Clint, I don't want to speak for Jared, but I imagine his contention is that his prematurely born son would have been eligible for an abortion by Tiller. Yet he was born prematurely and is now as much a part of the human race as you or me. So if he was a human just after birth, what does that make him just seconds before? Is the gateway to becoming a human the birth canal? Or could he have been human 8 hours...8 days...or 8 months before?

Robert said...

It sucks. I don't know about millions, but there are certainly some.

With respect to violence and vengeance, Christians need to be reminded that Jesus is our judge and He will one day get His. Just more good news of the gospel.

Clint Wells said...

Clay - I understood his point. I just didn't think it was very good. Thanks, though.

Brian T. Murphy said...

jared - welcome to the worstweblogintheworld! I regret that your intro here is via such a heated topic. I understand that people have VERY set opinions about abortion, and my goal is never to change anybody's mind, but I guess my goal is to maybe ask some questions about what the real issue is (hint: I think the issue is way bigger than abortion). to answer your questions, no I do not have any kids. yes, I am against murder. yes, abortion is very unfortunate and in my experience people who are truly eager and happy for abortions are very rare. again, this issue is bigger than abortions - its about the value of human life, which, from what I see historically, and currently, appears to be at zero).

clay - what is the grossest atrocity? I don't know anything about vision forum, but at first glance, it seems about as helpful as focus on the family.

matthew smith - your comment was condescending so I deleted it.

jeff - your children are beautiful. I love when I get to be around them.

clint - I am curious now, as to how many pro-choice people are actually against abortion. I definitely think the terms "choice" and "life" oversimplify the issue.

clay - to me, the question is not "when does life begin?" the question is "what is the value of human life?"

robert - there are 300 million people in america. I'm staying with millions.

Jared said...

My point, Clint, is devastating to the abortion argument. Literally minutes before my son was born, he could have been aborted! If you don't think that's a devastating point then get your head out of your pie in the sky philosophical bullshit, and get your ass down to the maternity ward and stare at a pre-mature baby and tell me you think it's OK for the mother to have killed it hours earlier. I would suggest the same for Brian T. Murphy... what a God awfully, inconsistent post!

Anonymous, you mention consent? Are you serious? Burning an infant out of a mothers womb, or sucking it's brains out is OK as long as the mother consents? Alrighty then.

Having children has everything to do with it! When a couple get's pregnant and you watch the ultra-sounds, you see the heart-beat you see your little mans "junk" and they tell you it's a boy... it blows your mind! It's a baby. A human.

War? Are you serious! There are good reasons to go to war, and there are bad reasons to go to war. Google "Just War" Of course Pro-Lifers support a Just War (not saying we're in a Just War now by the way) It's completely consistent with our stand. Let's just say that Saddam had the WMD's, and we found tons of mass graves, if we did, we would rightly go to war, if that war would actually save and protect innocent lives. I think "Just War" is a noble, terrible, necessary thing. It is totally consistent for a Pro-Lifer to support a war.

Do you honestly think it would be inconsistent for me to kill someone who breaks into my house to harm my family? NO! The very fact that I'll shoot that guy is because I'm Pro-Life, I want to stop him from taking a life. It is wholly consistent! If that is your argument, then reverse the logic and use it for the Pro-Choice side... it doesn't hold water.

Clint you said, "Pro-choice is historically an argument for individual rights, not murder." Well isn't that convenient! Could there be a more selfish argument on the planet! Does the baby have no rights? I know you'll probably think that's a bogus question, but it's never been dealt with! Are you saying, "Who gives a crap about the viable baby, let's not inconvenience the mom!" Here's an idea, "Close your legs woman! Have some self control."

Pro-Choicer's would never claim they are pro-murder. I have Pro-choice friends and they are wonderful people, but if that fetus is a baby, and you support killing it, how is that not murder? I can't wait to see the gymnastics used to get out of this, and how PC's will deny the fetus is a baby. This is why having a baby is crucial to the issue!!! One minute my wife can have a doctor legally kill it, a minute later I have new son.

You have to see it to really understand the gravity of that moment!

I'm pro-life, and have no problem saying Tiller is dead... yeah I'm a little bit happy... OK maybe a lot happy. Why wouldn't I be. He was murdering infants!

Jared said...

By the way... my comments are personal.. or at least they are not meant to be. They are comments on the issue, the arguments, these posts... nothing else.

If I come across as attacking your person I apologize... I'm trying to passionately argue the issue.

Jared said...

Ugh... I wish I could edit posts! The first sentence on that last comment was supposed to say, "By the way... my comments are NOT personal."

Sorry for the confusion and the three posts in a row.

Clint Wells said...

Jared - Aside from the fact that I now consider you a raving lunatic (on account of your glee at the murder of Dr. Tiller), I have this to say in response:

If your unoriginal point (a fetus is a human being with rights) is so devastating to the argument then why is there still an argument? I guess the entire debate can simply be reduced to mass hysteria? Or maybe you just haven't had the influence over a mass audience that you obviously believe you deserve.

Get my ass down to the maternity ward? Fortunately I don't have to because close political relatives of yours annually parade the streets of my city with revolting images of partial birth abortions. I’m aware of what a pre-mature baby looks like. By the way, thank you for that tasteful image you’ve given us all of your son’s genitals. Classy.

The truth is that there is a lot of reasonable debate on both sides about when a fetus becomes viable. You say that the question of a fetus’s rights has never been dealt with? Are you serious? Science is making progress every single day on the issue. And to be sure, it will be science alone that finally makes clear the truth about these rights. However, WE STILL DO NOT KNOW.

Your arguments don’t seem to indicate that you’ve thought much about the issue. Obviously being talented enough to impregnate your wife has bloated your ego…but you haven’t really said anything. What would you say to a woman who was a victim of incestual rape? Or to a husband and wife who have learned that the woman’s percentage of surviving birth was fatally low? Or to a family who have found out that their child will be born with no eyes, ears, or a fully functioning nervous system or heart?

Please read the following articles:

Jared – the point is that it is a COMPLICATED issue. If you’re so bent on the morality of abortionists being murdered to protect life, then what’s to stop you from being a hero to thousands of children like your son and taking out some terrorists with your own guns?

curt chadwick said...

Hi Brian,

I was saddened when I read this headline in the paper yesterday and im in the "pro-life" camp. I think your observations on our consistancy in this matter are accurate. I also think its natural for us to want mercy for ourselves and justice for the other guy.


The Echerds said...

"The truth is that there is a lot of reasonable debate on both sides about when a fetus becomes viable. You say that the question of a fetus’s rights has never been dealt with? Are you serious? Science is making progress every single day on the issue. And to be sure, it will be science alone that finally makes clear the truth about these rights. However, WE STILL DO NOT KNOW."

Clint - I totally disagree with this statement. What you've claimed is that viability is the determining factor for when a fetus gains human rights. Science can do nothing but determine at what point viability occurs, not when right to life kicks in. That is strictly an ethical issue.

curt chadwick said...


if it boils down to when a "fetus becomes viable" and that someday science will settle this, wouldnt it at least be best for now to err on the side of life? I look at the picture posted and think so. thanks for your thought out arguments.

Clint Wells said...

The Echerds - I disagree with your disagreement. Life occurs somewhere. Every time a woman passes an egg in menstruation could be considered a violation of life. Every time you or I spill seed while masturbating could be considered a violation of life. The argument from birth control, etc.

There are many nuanced increments between 1 and 2. The closer we get to 2 is relevant but it does not mean that 1=2. Important concept.

I'm curious what your thoughts are about a possible solution to the ethical issue.

Curt - While I hope that the life of a fetus is always chosen, I believe that decision should rest with the mother

The Echerds said...

my point had nothing to do with the moment life begins, it was in response to your comment about a fetus' viability.

Clint Wells said...

I was using viability incorrectly. The moment of survivability outside of the uterus and life rights are related, but ultimately two different issues.

With that correction, I stand by my original comment. I'm still interested in hearing your thoughts about how to move forward.

Robert said...

So the question is, do the secretly happy fundies outnumber the outwardly outraged liberals?

There is a element of truth to your rhetoric. The church's job is to change the culture. I wonder how involved evangelicals would be in unwanted pregnancies and their causes if abortion were suddenly illegal.

Fantastic article. Not mourning does not equal happy. (important distinction) Its very unfortunate, two wrongs don't make a right. Obviously, repentance would have been some thing to celebrate. (However, had he choked on the bread at communion, then I might have considered raising a glass.)

Also, readers beware the forthcoming masturbation = murder straw man:

Jesus has balls. They likely produce sperm. One way or another those sperm die(d). Jesus is not a murderer.

Arguing that life begins somewhere other than conception is pretty vain.

Anonymous said...

First off, I should say that I am a woman. So, I'm feeling slightly outnumbered on this blog, but I don't really care. I'm always outnumbered on worstblogintheworld.

Let me remind you that I am not pro-choice. In fact, I am about as strongly the opposite as can be. A fetus is a human from the moment of conception. Humans are made in the image of God. And though a fetus may look like a lizard at points, it is still human.

Do you think that I don't know how abortions take place? I was in a Christian School growing up. The "horrors" of all the different ways to accomplish and abortion were put in front of me on paper and through teachers in more details than I cared to hear.

But how, I would like to know, is the murder of one man going to stop or even hinder for a moment the number of abortions that take place everyday? It's not! That's exactly it! Maybe my intellectual skill is lacking, and this why I think this way. Believe you me, I am not an intellectual by any meaning of the word.

But let me tell you this, abortions are considered by a lot of people the "removal of a tumor." It is, in their eyes no more damaging to a human or society than the "removal of a tumor" that takes place when a 'male' transgender has their F to M surgery. Both of these are sick in my eyes. Is this not taking what God gave them, and tossing it to the wind? But still it's an "unwanted tumor," thus it is the same idea to most of my friends.

Remind me please, when was the last time any of us heard of a plastic surgeon being murdered because they removed mammary glands on a [wo]man so they could become more like the person they think they were meant to be? Since when do doctors that offer testosterone or estrogen to gender queers and transgenders get put into the limelight as offering harmful services to the world? After all, it's "the same thing," right?

It's not the same thing. But the world doesn't see it that way. I don't really care to talk all about this viability stuff. I don't want to discuss all the fine lines, because I am not into debating. I just want to know why any fucked up person would think that killing one man who had a job as an abortion doctor is going to solve anything? Though I believe it's wrong, he was not going against the law. He considered it a job, a job that would help struggling people.

Christians who are happy about this trouble me. I feel sorry that they are so lost in trying to "make things right" that they don't know how to love people. What happened to praying for our enemies instead of killing them or cutting of their ears?

This whole thing makes me angry, confused and sad.

Liz said...

jared - i found your comment "close your legs, woman" extremely distasteful.

it is easy for a man - who will never have to worry about becoming pregnant, to make such statements and feel good about himself.

and having made that statement with such arrogance i would guess that you were probably a virgin when you got married...

and probably not by choice.

C_Appleby said...

Clint said:
"While I hope that the life of a fetus is always chosen..."

Why, Clint?

Clint Wells said...

Quite simply because I am for life.

C_Appleby said...

Thanks for the answer. I asked because your statement to Clay seems to imply that your "being for life" is trumped by your "being for the right to decide". I find this interesting...and somewhat contradictory...but mostly just interesting.

Frank said...

This is an entertaining post. I think it is stupid to think anyone is going change the mind or opinion of any other person posting here. The real fact is none of us have the 100% answer and until that happens all that is happening is a lot of bitching with people getting pissed off. So keep it up because the more you bitch and argue the more entertainment for me.

Clint Wells said...

The right for life also extends to the impregnated human being. If being for life means never leaving room for complicated circumstances then you're tacitly accusing every single person for the freedom of choice in the matter as being against life alltogether.

There is no substantial evidence for life at conception. Until then, as Curt suggested, I would personally err on discouraging abortion...but, as I've consistently stated, I believe that decision should be left to the individual.

I'm happy to have given you something interesting to think about. Perhaps you could return the favor?

C_Appleby said...

Push all the complicated circumstances stuff to the side. I'm not a person that claims a fetus' right to life over a mother's. Understatedly, it would be a hard call, but I would probably choose my wife.

I was just reacting to your statement about life in general, not particularly the mother's or the fetus'. I'm willing to accept that I might be operating on a bad assumption, but it appeared as though if you were asked to fight for one over the other (life of a fetus vs. right of the mother), you would fight for the right of the mother.

If I'm right about what you'd consider more important, I think that is interesting. I find it strange that you would say that you'd "hope" a mother would choose life (indicating you think there is something important about life), but that you think the mother should have the right to decide. This says that your own belief about rights is stronger or more worth fighting for than your own belief about life.

That is what I think is interesting.

George Edema said...

Interesting post, Brian. As usual.

I can understand why someone would want to kill an abortion doctor. It makes sense. If you believe that defenseless humans are being brutally murdered then it is natural to want to do something about it. And if our culture and government don't let you do something about it peacefully it is natural to want to take up arms. The same type of thing happened with the American Resolution and other just wars. At some point a stand needs to be taken on behalf of goodness.

I don't know anything about this particular case. But I know a lot of people that ask themselves the question often, how do we stand up for those who are being cut down? I don't personally think that going after doctors or should-have-been mother is the way to go, but at least they are being consistent in their position. If you are pro-life, then such action ought to cross your mind in some form or another. Some times war is the right thing. If that is where this guy was, I think he was wrong in his application, but I can understand it. But I'm certainly not happy about it.

Also, I think you are right about how there is plenty of other things we ought to be doing for the sake of "life." But that will always be the case. And no one is free of the guilt of not doing those things. But it doesn't negate that we ought to be doing "pro-life" stuff too. And there is plenty of pretending and disregarding to go around for everybody. We are humans after all, it is what we do. I sympathize with your frustration with American Christians, but I think you are pretty hard on them with your generalized opinions sometimes. Yes, we are hypocrites, we are inconsistent, we are foolish, and easily congregate behind simplistic positions and political powers, so what? That's humanity. There is grace for us too. Hopefully those of us who are like that will be sanctified out of it more and more, and the younger of us can take their place the next time around and wait to learn our lessons.

Elisa M said...

Here's an idea, "Close your legs woman! Have some self control."

Seriously? What a loving person you are.

So offensive.

Anonymous said...

I love the predictability of this blog! It was about time to piss off some born-again right-wing evangelical's been a while.....I love the pattern of responses that seem to repeat with each post.....Anonymous guy goes on the offensive, BTM friends defend, uneducated anonymous guy with poor grammar responds, condescending enlightened people reply.....issue still remains unresolved = complete waste of my time but highly entertaining.....


Brian T. Murphy said...

jared - again, I simply cannot stress enough how awkward this is for an initiation to the worstweblogintheworld. abortion, obviously, is a very heated issue, one which - very expectedly - people have passionate opinions. clearly, you and I view this issue differently. I'm 100% okay with that. I'm not going to respond to everything you said, but I will say that I think your comments are EXTREMELY PERSONAL, and that is also totally okay. and I'll also say its interesting that you admitted to being a little bit happy about tiller being murdered. and it also fascinates me that you are supportive of war.

curt - thanks for the thoughts. I'm thinking now about my own inconsistencies. admittedly, I have so much pent up anger at the church, and so much built up disappointments with christians - I expect mercy for me and justice for "them". ugh.

echerds, curt, clint, robert - the discussion re: fetus viability and when life starts, while a valid debate, is not the intended focus of this post. not that the discussion here isn't welcome (it is), I just wanted to point out that for me, the question still remains: why isn't human life sacred? will it ever be?

anonymous - I appreciate what you said here. I don't resonate with all of your thoughts on transgender issues, but I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments about the murder of dr. tiller. "whatever happened to praying for our enemies instead of killing them or cutting off their ears?" jesus is remarkably different, isn't he?

appleby - I am consistently surprised to learn that pro life people are surprised to hear that pro-choice people find abortion unfortunate.

frank - you like this? you should start your own blog. I would comment on it. I might even guest author a few times, if you ask nicely. for the record: I never hope to change anybody's mind.

george - I track with very little of what you wrote. when is war the right thing? when is war just? "pro-life" and "pro-war" philosophies are so often tied together. this is fascinating to me. you think I'm too hard on american christians? you would prefer if I just didn't question and kept these thoughts gently and quietly to myself? (this blog, by the way, is only read by people who choose to be here) I'm not going to sit around and wait for the next generation, as you suggest. sorry. I can't do that.

lucy - thanks for reading?

George Edema said...

When is war just? That is a good question. I certainly am no expert. But I'd say there are definitely times when we have a responsibility to fight evil and defend the oppressed. If someone attacks your wife it would be wrong for you not to step in. Loving others sometimes requires violence. Again, I do not think that the American abortion situation is one that requires that response. But I understand why people would end up there. In some ways I admire the well-intended but mistaken consistency and the guts of someone who would do such a thing. But I think he is wrong, has sinned, and ought to be held accountable for it. I wish he hadn't of done it.

Yeah, I do think you are too hard sometimes. I like the questions you raise. I am glad you raise them. That is one reason I read your blog. I think you bring a lot of insight to things we often don't think about or don't want to think about. But I also think you do it in a way that sometimes shows very little understanding or grace to the people you question. You beautifully describe and illuminate a messy world, but often it seems you only allow for certain types of people to be messy or for certain types of messes. It isn't that big of a deal to me. I do the same thing, all the time. But I think that might be why people react so strongly sometimes. Plus, how many people would you say are wise? How many do you think are more or less free of ignorance and fear. How many lead a mature, informed, lives marked by doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with the Lord? I can't think of many. Is it the fault of the multitudes? or is the the nature of multitudes? This is our Christian family.

I think you misunderstand what I meant about the next generation. I wasn't meaning to suggest you wait until the next generation. I was implying that the next generation will be like the last one, except it might have its own set of issues. And the new dominant generation will require patience from the new younger generation in the same way (and probably exhibit little to the new younger generation in the same way as well). And so it goes, sinners, graciously joined together in Christ.

Also, just to get it out there, after reading about what happened, I feel no shame in publicly denouncing Dr. Tiller's murder (and murderer) and also publicly feeling a sense of justice. I see no reason to be private about it.

Robert said...

I think now is a good time to point out that the republic of Texas has a law that allows you to kill someone (no fault) who has broken in to your home and threatened your family. One of the many reasons why Texans think they are awesome.

Clint Wells said...

If any of you actually care about the abortion issue and would like to read a VERY fair article by a brilliant mind then please direct your internetical webospheres here:

Carl Sagan. If you don't dig him then you are probably a robot.

George - Your comments are so strange.

Aubrey said...

Admittedly I've come into this argument a bit late. Brian, I’m a long-time reader who always enjoys your challenging thoughts on such issues.

My life and experience thus far have led me from conservative Christian and unflinchingly “pro-life” to a cautious agnostic who is even more cautiously “pro-choice.” What I have long found baffling (and conspicuously absent) from the “pro-life” side of this debate is the apparent disinterest in what happens to humans once they leave the womb, so long as they leave it alive. Where, here, is there room for the argument of the quality of life? In the United States, over five hundred thousand children live in foster care. Many of these were removed from their homes by the State with good reason (abuse, gross neglect); many were also removed because parents in this wealthy country are simply unable to afford proper care for their children. While there are many supportive, loving foster care homes, there are also those that perpetuate the cycles of abuse and neglect. We are now raising a culture of unwanted children, fighting against life from far too early an age.

In no way do I believe this to be an argument for abortion. What perplexes me, though, is that the right has clung to the importance of “pro-life” legislation, but has largely ignored the issue of caring for children who are already alive. The right has a tight-fisted hold on its money, complaining vociferously about government proposals like universal health care or welfare that attempt (often poorly) to level the playing field. Where is the fiery passion for the right to life of these children?

It’s far too easy to say that every children has a right to life. Stepping out to provide that care to disadvantaged children is infinitely more difficult. Let those crying out against abortion direct their much-needed passion towards this issue as well.

Anonymous said...

Brian, I don't want you to debate on transgender issues. It's not really the point. Thus, I'm glad you didn't find that worthy of taking up 17 paragraphs. That's an honest statement.

I am commenting here, because I am confused. I'm confused with myself. I find myself unsure where to go next. Many people, on the pro-life side, are bringing up the name of Deitrick Bonhoffer. He believed that if we personally sin in order to end the "greater" sin of another, it is the right thing to do.

But I don't know if that is right. It doesn't seem right, and just makes my stomach twist. Would Jesus have told a white lie if it meant his friend wouldn't commit adultery? I don't think He would have.

Lies and adultery, as opposed to murder and abortions? They seem like totally different ball games. But I think it's still the same idea. It is still one person's sin trying to prevent someone else from doing another sin.

Read what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount. Note who is being persecuted here (Hint: not our enemies).

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

All I hope is that I will be a peacemaker. I hope that I will be liberal in my love toward others. Holding signs is not the way to do this, and most assuredly, holding a gun to someone's head is NOT the way to do this.

Who am I to judge another man and place a penalty on his shoulders? I should be taking the log out of my own eye and allowing God to judge.

Brian T. Murphy said...

george - if someone attacks brooke, I would fight for her, and possibly kill to defend her. I would not necessarily do this because it is morally correct. I would do it because it is my nature to protect the people (especially the women and children in my family) that I love. this seems to be an observable trait I share with other human beings all around the world. I do not see, however, how this line of thinking flows into a justification for war. my defending my family is quite different from (typically male, typically wealthy) political leaders sending off thousands of (typically poor, typically oppressed, typically male) soldiers to fight, kill, and possibly be killed. even in our current iraq war, which has been cited in this thread as an example of a possible "just war", many soldiers have come home with unlivable levels of post traumatic stress disorder. if wars are so just, why do returning soldiers have so many nightmares? in what just war are children allowed to lose their parents, to starve and die? you say we have a responsibility to fight evil, that loving others sometimes requires violence. this seems to me to be in contradiction with the teachings of jesus.

all I'm really trying to say is: WE DON'T THINK HUMAN LIFE IS SACRED. and how beautiful the irony in pro-lifers admitting even right here on this thread that they are happy for a human life to be destroyed.

as far as me being to hard. I have re-read what I have written in my original post, and also how I have responded in this thread, and I have decided that I disagree with you. beyond the fact that this is my blog and that people choose to come here and read for themselves, I actually think that I have been quite careful to state my hopes for life and for humanity, and I have also been careful to be reasonable and respectful with people in how I respond to them, even when I disagree with them. please forgive my boldness, george, but I assert to you that part of why you are critical of my tone is because you wish you were brave enough to say and ask some of the things that I say and ask?

the older I get, the more confident I become in my freedom to process and ask questions, and the more aware I am becoming of how uncomfortable that makes other people, and more and more, I am growing comfortable with all of it. for me, christianity keeps getting smaller and smaller - and yet it keeps getting bigger. and for me, issues like abortion are bigger than abortion - they hint at how human beings really view issues of human life and what the value of human life really is. which really, I think pretty clearly, was the point of this blog post in the first place, and an idea I will stand by, whether you or others found it offensive or not.

I hear you on your assertions that none of us are wise, mature, mercy-loving, humble, etc. but I still hold that my questions for pro-lifers are valid and warranted, especially on my own blog. and further, I again hold that I am not being to hard on anybody.

I hear you on the generations.

and though your perspective on tiller's murder is disheartening, I at least appreciate your inconsistency as a pro-lifer. (wink)

I realize my tone with you is harsher than normal, but for some reason, you've hit a few chords with me. I love you george; we have logged many years together, and I am not afraid of disagreeing with you. I fear I am responding at too late an hour and that this is the wrong forum for us to have a discussion like this.

Brian T. Murphy said...

robert - my friend larry pointed this out to me when I was in austin a couple months ago. he said that there were very few burglaries in texas. seems to be an effective law.

clint - just read the article. brilliant. basically I think everyone should read that article and stop reading and discussing on this thread. here on this blog I am only talking about the inconsistency in the assertion that human life is sacred, sagan takes the discussion so much further... his historical observations concerning the church and when abortion became prohibited (not until the mid 19th century) were particularly fascinating.

aubrey - thank you for articulating so many of my ideas so much better than I ever could. I quickly jump to global social injustices, particularly the numbers of children currently starving and dying of preventable disease in africa, but it is important to note the lack of care and support for human life (specifically children) even in our own, incredibly affluent country. this is the entire thrust of what I was saying. thank you, aubrey.

anon - dietrick bonhoffer and I would probably not be great friends. I tend to think that I am not in a place to determine "greater" sin. if the gospel is true, then as I understand it, jesus is doing the redeeming. and according to the teachings of jesus, from how I understand it - if I am to enact justice - it is to reduce myself to humble selflessness and servanthood (i.e. mother theresa). I don't see how that lines up with killing people. I don't see that at all.

Frank said...

Brian, I would have to agree with the overall point that in general people in this day and age do not have a real grasp on the concept of human life being sacred. Also I think that it is wrong to consider an action or in some cases a reaction "Just" because it is ones gut response. Just because one has an automatic response to something does not make them "Just" in their reactions. If you hurt my wife or dog (No children, but my dog is like a child to me)then yes I will most likely beat the shit out of you and might even kill you. But that does not make my reaction just. Society and the laws put in place by society allow for proper levels of what is considered "just" reaction, but at the sametime dictate what is beyond our right to do.

And yes before someone says it. I know laws are not perfect and are flawed in the many different directions. But by simple rule if you operate outside the law then you are not "just".

George said...

I appreciate your response. I'm glad you are comfortable disagreeing with me. Your boldness in responding to me doesn't get me down. I hope the same for you coming from me.

I don't want to presume that I understand your position, but I think I do. And I appreciate the heart of where you are coming from. I wish I could be more like you in that regard. But I still think you are wrong about just war. And wrong about Jesus's teaching about such things. War sucks, but so does a lot of the Christian life. And all war contains evil, but that doesn't make war itself evil. I don't know about the Iraq war or other American wars.

Also, I appreciate you confronting me about possibly being afraid to say things like you say myself. I am a coward about many things. But I have already gone done that path unafraid. At the other end I realized that I was being ignorant and hypocritical in my understanding of the people in stereotypical Christian groups (though I still maintain I was right in my specific assertions). And all I accomplished was polarizing people and alienating myself from the people I was trying to help.

Thanks for engaging my comments, Brian. I enjoy you and your perspective. And I always appreciate my time with you, even if it is on a blog.

C_Appleby said...

Clint - I am a robot

Brian - I am surprised that you are surprised. But first a correction: I did not say I was surprised that pro-choicers find abortion unfortunate. I am surprised when pro-choicers find abortion LESS unfotunate than the removal of the choice.

Clint Wells said...

Chris - I suspected you were a robot with or without the ability to appreciate Carl Sagan.

But you're right. What does Sagan have to say to us that the caveman and murdering rapist Moses hasn't already said?

Oh... a lot it turns out.

(shameless blog plug)

C_Appleby said...

Clint, I haven't posted on this blog in two years, and yet I return to find the style of your comments to be unchanged. You assume unfounded things about what I believe and continually put words in my mouth. I am genuinely interested in hearing a response from you concerning your belief (the one I have supposed, not any belief stated by you outright) that the value of the choice should outweigh the value of the life. That's all man. No agenda. Just want to hear your thoughts on that.

For the record, I called myself a robot because I did not "dig" Sagan. Not because I can't appreciate him. He's a fine writer and obviously thoughtful - I just didn't read anything that I hadn't really heard before. Therefore, I don't dig him; therefore I'm a robot.

Brian, in an attempt to take up a direction more in line with what I think your original post was about...I think you are inconsistent regarding what you find inconsistent. You indicated that you believe pro-lifers are in contradiction when they fight against abortion but don't "care about people who are currently alive". Am I taking you the right way to assume you mean something like, not feeding the poor, or not loving your neighbor, etc.? If not, let me know.

It seems weird to assert that because someone is negligent in caring for people currently alive in the world, they are inconsistent in caring about lives that are about to be ended. I think you are equivocating on the word "life". In the one instance there is life that faces immediate and certain death, and in the other instance there is life that faces potential, future death. I do not see where caring about the first but not the latter is inconsistent. It is unfortunate, but it is not inconsistent. If a person can only gain creedence as a pro-lifer by consistently fighting for all life in all ways and all definitions, then consider the following quesiton:

How much care for people who are alive would a pro-lifer have to exhibit before he would not be considered by you to be inconsistent in fighting abortion?

Maybe I'm taking your comments too much to the extreme. If all you are saying is that there are some people who exist that are willing to fight abortion, but are not willing to love their neighbor (being anyone alive that needs help), then I agree that this sucks.

Or if all you are saying is that it's ridiculous to rejoice in the death of Tiller but abhor the death of the unborn, then I agree. I find his murder to be equally wrong as the babies he aborted. Like George, I think it could be viewed as consistent with a certain belief set, but I still believe it was wrong.

...and actually I did not feel happy at this news, and am not glad that he was murdered.

airbag said...

Brian, I have often wondered how conservatives reconcile their stances on abortion and capital punishment. It seems everyone is Pro-choice when it comes to sanctity of life, it just depends on whose life we're talking about.

On a side note, has anyone read Freakonomics by Steven Levitt & Stephen Dubner? They put forth a pretty interesting theory on the effects of legalized abortion on the reduction of violent crime in the 90's.

shawn avery said...

(1) some quotes from some previous comments that i found totally compelling in their absolute oppressive madness:

"If I'm right about what you'd consider more important, I think that is interesting. I find it strange that you would say that you'd "hope" a mother would choose life (indicating you think there is something important about life), but that you think the mother should have the right to decide. This says that your own belief about rights is stronger or more worth fighting for than your own belief about life."

"I can understand why someone would want to kill an abortion doctor. It makes sense. If you believe that defenseless humans are being brutally murdered then it is natural to want to do something about it. And if our culture and government don't let you do something about it peacefully it is natural to want to take up arms. The same type of thing happened with the American Resolution and other just wars. At some point a stand needs to be taken on behalf of goodness."

"I did not say I was surprised that pro-choicers find abortion unfortunate. I am surprised when pro-choicers find abortion LESS unfortunate than the removal of the choice."

(2) to harken back to the limp-wristed, though well intentioned reference to the american revolution... the genesis of our way of life in this country can be summed up in the cliched, yet appropriate call to action known as:


my culture... and your culture, whether anyone likes it or not, was built up the premise that liberty and freedom do come at a cost, often in the form of human lives, but nothing trumps liberty. liberty is the actual THING we fight and die FOR.

this is the ultimate goal. however, a culture that denies a woman the right to control her reproductive rights, is not a culture of people. it is a culture of oppression, which eventually becomes a culture (however ironic to some of you) of death.

anyone who disagrees with this premise isn't necessarily wrong, but they are, by definition, a fascist.

if some among you are ok with fascism, i'm not going to aggressively oppose your point of view, that is your right (obviously). fortunately, i have the laws of our judicial democracy on our side.

(3) i find it amusing, yet frustrating that both sides demonize each other so intensely, when in actuality, both sides have multiple merits to their arguments. the problem is, as i just stated, an issue of legal v. illegal (which doesn't always correspond with so called "god's law).

so this leaves, for me, the real issue to be one of laws.

you either have to choose to live under god's law, however you perceive that to be... or man's law... in this case, the laws protecting the reproductive rights of the MAJORITY of americans currently living.

i wouldn't begin to judge someone either way... but a choice must be made, for anyone concerned with this issue... and that choice must be consistent, lest you become a fence-sitter.

so which is it?

which side are you going to fight for?

god's law? or man's law?

this issue gets more complicated in that both laws sometimes overlap.

i'm pro-choice, but i believe abortion is horrid. and should be a last resort.

i've always believed that adoption is often a reasonable and elegant solution. but there are instances when abortion IS the only option, and to remove that option, is to deny liberty.

shawn avery said...


i also agree that aubry posted excellent comment. well said.

C_Appleby said...


Honest question: When you said, "...a culture that denies a woman the right to control her reproductive rights, is not a culture of people." do you define a woman's "reproductive rights" as both the right to produce and the right to terminate that which she has produced? Just for clarity - no demonization intended.


Matt Churnock said...

I think Brian has a lot of good points/questions (and critiques) about the church and how it seems to choose what life it deems worthy to fight for. And how it seems to soap-box about one and ignore the other. I think that is extremely valid and should serve as a mirror to the nature of the church.

My personal stance is that life starts as conception. I think it is a stretch to say that it occurs at any other point down the line or before that. I also think that once this life is created (at conception) the 'rights' of the mother to not want the baby do not trump the 'rights' of the baby to be born. Your desire for me not to exist should not be treated higher than my desire to exist.

I think the church could be well served to dump half the resources from fighting abortion into preventing unwanted pregnancies in addition to taking care of the needs of those who have need.

I also think that much of the hoops and cost should be taken out of adoption (esp. as one who may begin that process soon) so that abortion would be the less desirable alternative.

shawn avery said...

yep. but i'll extend that to include the right to control conception, abort, give birth, and to also have a decision about giving birth knowing the child could be put up for adoption.

i also believe that abortion rights can be abused... just like any other right.

there are limits to freedom of speech, and there should be limits on the application of abortion.

i see little reason to abort an unborn in the 3rd trimester. often an abortion decision can be decided upon within the first trimester.

some people will argue that abortion should be legal or not legal, with no exceptions, but those people have little understanding on the law, the constructive nature of constitutional law, and the history of human rights in the western world, at least at it has evolved since the 1750's.

although i disagree with obama's neo-socialist policies in general, i do think that he has the right idea on abortion. a hybrid of his beliefs and mine might look something like this:


2. make efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

3. promote adoption as an option, but present in a balanced manner.

4. make birth control WIDELY AVAILABLE. there are plenty of humans in the world. for example:

i read a while back that a tenth of a percent increase or decrease in population growth could save or end the human race by the year 2300.

if today's current population growth rates go unchanged, we will literally screw ourselves out of existence. that puts an interesting spin on the pro-life movement. here's an excerpt of the study i read:

"If fertility rates stabilize at 1.85, the population would shrink to 2.3 billion. If it went to 2.35, the population would balloon to 36.4 billion, which would put the planet on the brink of sustainability.

If fertility rates remained unchanged from the 2000 rate of 2.83, there would be 134 trillion people in 2300, impossible to sustain."

needless to say, i very tired of hearing fundamentalist-christo-fascists declare birth control a device of satan.

5. promote human sexual education

6. present the health risks of abortion.

7. where adoption is chosen. provide a safe, supportive environment.

anyone who has a problem with sexual education, has a problem with education in general, and thus, are promoting a culture of mass ignorati, i presume heavily weighed in favor of female sexual ignorance, which ironically would put the state of female education in line with that of many in the roles of leadership within much of christianity.

there is no place in our society for those who would deny people the basic understanding of basic human behavior.

does that answer your question?


Clint Wells said...

Matt – I think you’ve made some good points. Thanks. My only question is: how do you know that conception = the desire to exist? At the moment of conception you are no larger than a period at the end of a sentence. Most fetuses don’t even exhibit neurological activity until late in pregnancy.
This is where I find Sagan’s thoughts so reasonable and refreshing.
Shawn – Great points.
Aubrey – Ditto.

Matt Churnock said...

clint said: "how do you know that conception = the desire to exist? At the moment of conception you are no larger than a period at the end of a sentence. Most fetuses don’t even exhibit neurological activity until late in pregnancy.
This is where I find Sagan’s thoughts so reasonable and refreshing."

I think it is far more dangerous to think that desire isn't there than it is there. And perhaps I should not have used the word 'desire'. I was trying to find another word to use other than rights. We often think 'choice' when we hear 'rights', but my contention is that once there is life then it should have the protection to be born and not terminated by someone intentional decision. If you want to use 'science', I don't think there is a species out there that doesn't want to exist. The desire to live is always present. Sorry for the confusion.

As far as when is a baby (you can use fetus if you want) is actually alive leads to some pretty serious slippery slopes. I would characterize life as the act of cell division. Once that stops you are dead and if that never started it was never alive. That is my baseline. Now, I throw on top of that baseline that humans are created in God's image and I get to the conclusion that abortion is bad. If we differ about the baseline or the God's image part, we'll never understand each other. However, if there is no correct answer, I think my view (over the view of women should have the 'right' to choose) does less damage and provides for human potential.

interesting talk...

shawn avery said...

for those of you still reading and/or keeping score:

matt just told everyone that he is a fascist.

and i can respect that.

Matt Churnock said...

if the shoe fits...

Robert said...

Brian... did you realize that this post and the other ones that have exceeded 50+ comments all have one thing in common? A reactionist rant against evangelical piety.

I don't know how much you know about the philosophical school of the pietists, but the whole doctrine centers around constructing a Christianity that makes a person feel righteous. Anyway, this pretty much sums up the subculture we grew up in. It its ultimate form its also very Platonic (read: pagan).

Suzanne Owen Jones said...

3 words. "jesus come quickly."

leslie said...

Dr. Brian T. Murphy.

We should all hang out soon. We are moving to atlanta in the next few days so if we dont see you before then, then when we move in you and the missus must come down and stay with us and go to a show or something cool.

Mary Jane and Jason said...

Wow…so much to say, so little time to say it.
First off, since giving shout outs has become acceptable during this particular line of conversation I shall indulge
Echerds: Hey…haven’t talked in a while…thanks again for the mix when last we saw you. Mary Jane asks that I mention that we love you guys…and we do
George: Mary Jane (Hendrix was her maiden name) isn’t sure if you remember her, but she knew you a little at Auburn and is friends with Rick and said you and your wife are wonderful people. Makes you wonderful people in my book.
Brian: Thank you for allowing the continuing line of discussion on your blog. You could have cut this off long ago. My name is Jason, Mary Jane’s husband. We’ve met a couple of times but never really had the chance to talk.

Anyway, let me start with this. The problem with churches in America is this: they’re full of sinners. It stinks, but…on this side of the eschaton you won’t find a place that isn’t.
That said, I am sorry for some of the experiences you have evidently had with individual churches, and hope you know that The Church (big C) is not like that, and in fact many individual churches are not either. For example, after the murder of Dr. Tillman I have been surrounded only with comments of horror at the tragedy. The church I work for, the seminary I attend, and the Christian radio station I was listening to on the day I heard about his murder all had the same message: one of sorrow and disgust that this could happen. His murder is deplorable. Period.

As to whether or not human life is sacred, I have a lot of thoughts here. For now I will just say this. Yes. It is sacred not because of any human’s actions or lack of actions, but because God has declared that human life is sacred. There is nothing that can change this. God decides whether something is sacred. This does not mean humans always treat life “sacredly” but that does detract from the innate sacredness of human life as decreed by God. (note: if you are reading this and you do not believe in God then there is clearly a different discussion we would need to have. I suppose I am not at this time writing to you. One must choose an audience. However I encourage you to read on if you would like.)
Because human life is sacred, I believe as Christians we have a responsibility to defend life. For a Christian to defend life in one situation and not another is inconsistent, but by no means should they stop defending life in the first situation.
For example people who are pro-life but make not efforts to defend the sacredness of life in other areas are being inconsistent. But it would be silly for them to stop being pro-life, rather they should start defending the sacredness of life in other areas.

It sounds to me as though it has been rare for you to see this type of living in action. I am sorry to hear that. I know that there are many churches and many independent organizations that do operate this way. They understand that abortion is a lose/lose scenario. The child is dead, and the mother is often emotionally scarred for years if not life. These churches and organizations reach out to prevent abortions, to support those who have decided not to have an abortion, and to help and heal those who have had an abortion. If your church is not connected to this type of ministry, maybe we can find one nearby and help get them plugged into it, or maybe even start one. We need more of them.
I would like to see churches filled with members who would never consider having an abortion, but also filled with people who have had abortions. Why? Because the church has the one thing these women desperately need. Forgiveness, and with that forgiveness hope and healing.
Why forgiveness? Because, yes, abortion is murder. The baby is alive. He or she is human. He/she has all the characteristics of life.
(plese read the next post as well)

Mary Jane and Jason said...

Now, I will admit this is an emotional issue for me. It always has been, but has only become more emotional for me since the birth of my daughters 9 months ago. I have twin girls. They were born 14 weeks early. Parker’s eyes were still fused shut when she was born. They spent three months in the NICU and things were rough for a long time. God has been kind to us, they are doing well now. But here is the thing. Parker knew my voice when she was born. She knew my voice and responded to it before she was born. In the womb she would punch and kick in response to MY voice, not just anyone’s voice. When she was born she would turn towards my voice and struggle to open her eyes (still fused shut) when she heard MY voice, not just anyone’s voice. She was alive, she was human, and yet the law would say it would have been okay to kill her if she were still in the womb.
Are there tough issues associated with this issue? Certainly. I don’t propose to solve them all hear. But to briefly address just a few. What do we do with the woman who has been raped? Love her, take care of her needs, provide her with the help and counseling she needs, and if she (understandably so) feels unable to keep the baby, we adopt the baby, because evil should not be compounded with more evil. What do we do in the case of an ectopic pregnancy? Well, that is a horrible scenario. I have some friends who ran into this situation. There was only one thing they could do. They were forced to terminate the pregnancy. If they had not, both the mother and the child would have died. It was horrible for them, and I do not wish that on anyone. But this is a very specific and different scenario. There is no way the baby can survive.

I could keep going on, but I have already taken up a ton of space on your blog so I will wind down (plus I am going to have to feed those beautiful girls before long…praise be to GOD!)

Before signing off I would like to say mention one more thing. Maybe you should check out Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I am not sure if you are familiar with him. I skimmed parts of the long discussion and was confused by how he got brought in, and I am not sure it was made clear. Bonhoeffer was a German Lutheran theologian. He left Germany because he was horrified by the Nazi party. He was then called back into Germany to pastor an underground church. While pastoring he was presented with the opportunity to assassinate Hitler. He struggled with whether or not it was okay in this situation, in face of the holocaust, to kill in order to stop it (note: there is no reasonable comparison between this and the murder of Dr. Tillman. Murdering Dr. Tillman does not stop abortion). In the end he decided that he was faced with two wrong decisions. To kill Hitler would be wrong because it would be killing, but to do nothing would be wrong as well. He decided to attempt assassinate Hitler, but he stepped down as a pastor because he did not want anyone to see this as the Church legitimizing murder. The assassination attempt failed and Bonhoeffer was sent to a concentration camp, where he eventually was murdered. I think you might find Bonhoeffer’s writings interesting, both those written before his incarceration, and the writings which made it out from during his time in the concentration camp. Bonhoeffer had a way of calling it as he saw it and pointing out the inconsistencies between Christian life in the world, and what the Bible has called us to. Just a thought.

Thanks again for letting me blather on so long. If my post is filled with grammar errors and misspellings, I will blame babies and lack of sleep (which may be a cop out).

In Christ,
Jason Broge

Clint Wells said...

Apparently devoutly religious women have more abortions than those who are not religious.

What does this article tell us?

Brian T. Murphy said...

okay. I don't think I'm going to be able to adequately respond to the last 30 or so posts. here's an attempt:

frank - I am going to come over tonight and beat up your dog.

george - I think war is evil. and I recall some of what you've told me with regard to blog boldness, as it pertains to your experience. I had forgotten about that. also, I loved your last email. I plan a good (personal, private) response soon.

applebottom - I did not say you said you were surprised, it was just something I surmised. it is possible I was wrong. also, you state that I am inconsistent. I know this already. I never claimed to be consistent. but I do hold that human life is not sacred, and that pro-life people are not nearly as "pro-life" as they think they are. I understand the desire to fight abortion. I just think the issue is way bigger than abortion.

airbag - that pro-life people are also often pro-death-penalty is definitely a fascinating subject. freakonomics is awesome and I recommend it to everybody.

shawn - I appreciate your attempt at balance on this issue. and I also appreciate your liberal use of the term "fascism".

churnock - I completely respect your stance on this issue, and I think your suggestion of how resources could be allocated is a fantastic idea.

robert - yes, I do realize that. It is a source of regular conversation among me and my friends. I think feeling righteous is a really big theme for humanity, don't you?

suzanne - indeed.

leslie - thank you for calling me dr. so few people acknowledge that. I go to atl often. my sister lives there. this relationship is not over. and hey, I hope settling back into the lovely USA is going okay for you, seriously...

jason - I'm not really sure how to respond to you. a few comments, to some of what you said. you assert that the (C)hurch is not like how I describe, and yet, in this comment thread, two pro-life, church going people have admitted to being happy about tiller's murder. I am sure they are not alone, and if you want to bury their joy in the semantics of big or little C's, that's up to you, but I still think my point is valid. you assert that god declares human life is sacred. that's interesting. have you read the old testament? are you aware that (what I presume to be you believe) a completely sovereign god allows pain and death and suffering every day? he allows fires and earthquakes and disease and tsunami waves to wipe out human life? the questions are rhetorical. of course you are aware. and I've been swimming in explanations for these things for my entire christian life, and over and over, the explanations fall short. I don't have answers to these questions. they plague me.

clint - such an interesting article, and something we all know to be true. I think it speaks volumes about this issue. and it speaks volumes about how women are treated by the church.

Robert said...

Clint... I wonder about the legitimacy of the article. However, its consistent with many other aspects of the evangelical church (divorce rate etc). One may be inclined to conclude the following: Secular culture gets its cues from church culture. Our culture is pagan because the church is pagan.

Saying the church is full of sinners is like saying "Jesus defecated". On the surface it may sound surprising, but when you think about it, its pretty much a statement of the obvious (both need to be said on occasion, but that's another point). The church is full of pagans. ...Full of people who do things in out right rebellion against God, but in His name. Isn't that what this conversation is really about?

Anonymous said...

I feel sad that the conversation becomes about abortion and not brian's point about life. I wonder how many of us know someone who has had an abortion? just wondering but when subjects have faces it becomes a deeper reality that pull at your heart. If u do not know someone, tread tenderly, because that person is sitting close to you somewhere. second, this is dark but true I wish i was in heaven. to be spared of this broken f up world might be a grace that i would take these days. Suzanne is right jesus come now.(yes i believe aborted babies go to heaven as i hope their is one.) I am not stating my view of subject just thoughts on a hard night.

Brian T. Murphy said...

cal - I love you. but you already know that. also, surprised to see you here. didn't know that you even really knew what the internet was (basically - its a complicated system of tubes and pipes, running UNDERGROUND). and thanks for helping me start and carry these conversations and these ideas. you give me a lot of life. but you know that, too.

shawn avery said...

blog commentators are all fascists.

Anonymous said...

I'm against doctor's killing babies for selfish....oops I mean hopeless mothers. I'm against people murdering doctor's who kill babies. This isn't a christian/non-christian debate. It's a matter of protecting's not about the women's right to choose. It's about the humans (babies) right to live. Why has our government given women and docotrs the right to kill. Why are people passionate about killing babies and doctors. How depraved are our minds that we can justify these things?

Jamie Peterson said...

Hey, Brian - hope you are doing well. While you probably know that I don't agree with your views on abortion itself, I totally agree with you on the hypocrisy demonstrated by those who do claim to be pro-life. Here's a link to an article you can use as ammo against the hypocrisy that is so prevalent in the church today:

Take care and keep up the good work you are doing with your music.