Here's the link:
Watch out for the commercial at the beginning.
I get the same message that Fr. Bill gets when I click the link for the longer video as well.
The link for the longer video seems to be wonky. I get a "page does not exist" notice.
Kamilla, I never thought I'd hold a likewise opinion with you, however in this case I absolutely agree. Well said.
The drop cards are a general practice of AHA. I didn't mean it to refer to this specific situation.
in all the videos from the Oklahoma City chapter I've seen, you can rest assured that there was no AHA litter strewn about the lawn. I saw faithful calls of repentance, offers of help, and obedience to the law.
I think the "problem" is that most everyone's too scared to say the wrong thing in the wrong way (or say anything "negative" at all); so nothing gets said...but AHA does...and clearly. Crystal clarity.
The main concern I have for it is that it doesn't appear to be under the authority of any church...though I imagine individual chapters could be...then again, I don't see many churches willing to sound such a clear message of opposition. I think abolition is the right message.
The language used points directly to where HIF's interests lie. As quoted above, they say that "It is the hope and dream that The Holy Innocents’ Foundation will aid anyone who is in a crisis moment of a pregnancy, and assist them in any way to avoid the choice of abortion and to Choose Life." (emphasis added). That's the shibboleth of the proabortion movement--choice! HIF is actually 100% Pro-Choice; they just happen to favor the choice that doesn't kill babies (incidentally, this is also exactly what was wrong with the 100% Pro-Choice movie "Juno," that so many prolifers were enamored of; but I digress). So apparently "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" are not opposites, nor are they mutually exclusive of each other; like HIF, and many "pro-life" organizations, you can be both at the same time. "Pro-life" is a product of the status quo, exists within the status quo, and is threatened by any change to the status quo. Abolitionism, on the other hand, exists to overthrow the status quo.
One of the problems you touch on was co-belligerence. How can one think that they are on the same page when the pre-suppositions are different? There is much more than mere "distinctions" that separate Protestants and Roman Catholics.
I was part of a similar problem with a food pantry operating out of the church I was a part of. We let them use the building and decided that we will have a book table that handed out Bibles, pray to start the busy day, and offer to pray with anyone who may desire. The operator was furious, though they were Catholic, they "despised" the overt offering of the Gospel. They are quite content to show their "love" by the very silence of St. Francis. It is so sad that Paul's words do not resonate (Romans 10:14)
I think the "...established to be a quiet prayerful witness..." from the HIF mission says it all. The AHA group was obviously not being "quiet." Good for them, and I pray that God will bless their efforts as well.
And this is the problem that I have with Abort73.com. In their statement, they say that they want to clear misconceptions about being pro-life involving any "religious fanaticism."
The actual difference here is between that of the Abolitionist and the Prolifer.
“Abolitionist” is not a synonym for “pro-lifer.”
Pro-life is the expression of a moral opinion. Abolition is the expression of a moral action. When you call yourself “pro-life” you are letting people know what you think about abortion. When you call yourself an abolitionist, you are telling them what you aim to do about it.
Pro-lifers prefer gradual, over immediate, abolition.
Abolitionism has historically been wed to the doctrine of immediatism. The history of the pro-life movement has been one of gradualistic means and measures, incremental legislation, ameliorative programs, and the inclusion of exceptions to abortion along the way to its eventual total abolition. Abolitionists reject the idea that you can effectively fight evil by allowing it in some cases or doing away with it by planned incremental steps. Abolitionists reject the notion that you can ever commit a little evil in order that good may come. Abolitionists cry NO COMPROMISE!!! Pro-lifers cry “get the best that you can get when you can get it,” and consistently support the “lesser of two evils.”
You can be a secular pro-lifer. You cannot be a secular abolitionist.
To be an abolitionist you must believe in a higher law. One does not need to believe in a higher law or deity to embrace an adverse opinion regarding abortion. But to argue that abortion is evil and ought to be abolished regardless of whether 99.99999% of the rest of the human population agrees with you requires the existence of a binding moral law which has its reference point outside of humanity.
Pro-lifers prefer common ground. Abolitionists prefer to proclaim the gospel.
A majority of pro-life leaders and organizations argue that one need not convince a person that God exists or that abortion is sin, in order to convert them to the pro-life position. While this may be true, abolitionists never choose to remove God or the gospel from the conversation. Abolitionists believe that abortion exists because men deny that God does. The pro-life movement argues that we should talk less about sin and more about science. Less about salvation and more about “saving the babies.”
Central to the work abolition is the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Bringing abortion and its justifications into conflict with the Gospel is the primary mechanism of Abolition. Abolitionist understand our work as being part of the Great Commission. Abolitionists adopt these Five Tenets of Abolition and practice these Two Modes of Abolitionism
THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT ARGUES THAT WE SHOULD FOCUS ON SAVING THE BABIES. THE ABOLITIONIST MOVEMENT ARGUES THAT WE SHOULD FOCUS ON CONVERTING THE CULTURE. ABOLITIONISTS BELIEVE THAT SAVING SOULS HOLDS THE KEY TO SAVING BABIES. ABOLITIONISTS BELIEVE THAT A CONVERT TO CHRIST IS A CONVERT TO THE CAUSE OF ABOLITION.
"we all know abortion is a procured miscarriage"
Right. And we all know murder is procured death. So what's the big deal if I bump off a romantic rival? Or a competitor for my dream job? Or even just the fool ahead of me with 16 items in the 15-item-or-less check out lane?
But then, you're also wrong about the Church's witness on miscarriage. See Tertullian, De Anima 25. And that's just to get you started.
Sophie, help me know what I need to repent of first:
Not murdering enough children while still in the womb to reduce the rate of murdering them outside the womb, or for being American?
More and more I'm convinced argument only facilitates the further hardening of men's hearts against the truth. Sophie, if you were actually reasonable you wouldn't say the things you have said. All you've managed to do is add a veneer of "reasonableness" to what is absolutely wicked and illogical.
You make basic category errors. For example, do you lament over murder victims the same way you do over somene who died from congenital heart failure? What about those who die from freak accidents? Suicide? Of course not. Each of these may involve a death, but they are not equivocal. There are many kinds of lamentation, and some cry out for justice. Only a fool refuses to see this.
You mistake unanimity of opinion for truth...an unfounded claim of unanimity, no less.
You rely on circular reasoning, claiming those who agree with you (most of whom appear to be European) are kinder and gentler…but the point of disagreement is over the very nature of abortion. To prove you are kinder and gentler, you must first prove abortion isn’t the deliberate destruction of infants in the most cruel and vicious of ways. You are a hypocrite and your view is the most bloodthirsty and cruel of all because it pretends to care while simultaneously desensitizing consciences to the gutting of the weakest and most vulnerable.
You’re not reasonable, either. Calculating is a better description. Such is most of the world, so I won’t argue that you are particularly unique.
I lived in England for six years and I was an officer in my church there and the membership was uniformly opposed to abortion. Being open to the shedding of innocent blood is not compatible with two millenia of Christian witness no matter where in creation you call home.
I would respectfully point out that by no means all Christians are anti-abortion
Yes they are.
I would respectfully point out that by no means all Christians are anti-abortion and remind you that not all Christians are American. It's a world religion and different nations have their own emphasis.
I'm British, and many British Christians, including those I would consider very devout, would not agree with your assumptions. While none of us are in favour of abortion, most of us see it as sometimes the best choice in an impossible situation.
I would add that it doesn't sit well that a nation which seems often to produce such vehement views on abortion, even attacks on clinics or picketing vulnerable women, should have a higher abortion rate, and a higher unwed teen pregnancy rate compared to Europe where (apart from Ireland) abortion is not particularly controversial among Christians, apart from Catholics (and by no means all of them.)
To put the argument in a broader field, in connection with a completely different matter, I recently became aware that in my country roughly one child a week is killed by a parent or guardian. Saddened, I compared the figures here to those from the USA. There is a huge difference between our two nations. Allowing for different population size, the child homicide rate in the US is roughly ten times the British one! Why do you think this is?
I wonder how many of those murdered children were never wanted? I can't help but think the church in the US would be better served working to help poor and friendless parents, to improve healthcare and social support. Seems to me that the pragmatic approach to abortion and birth control taken by Christians in the UK and other developed countries produces more Godly results, kinder, gentler, with far fewer (around a 10th) children abused or killed. Is it right to press unwilling women to bring children into homes where they are unwanted and into poverty?
You can argue that these abortion are in themselves murders, though I would disagree. One argument I would put is that we all know abortion is a procured miscarriage. So let's look at miscarriage in terms of the church. To do so is very informative. Miscarriages are not, and have never been, treated by Christians as the deaths of children. No. A miscarriage has always been left unacknowledged by the church, a private family grief. It's the ready and safe availability of abortion that's changed people's position. A miscarriage is still no one else's business yet, if a pregnancy is ended deliberately, suddenly these fetuses become people who are being murdered. I -- and others -- cannot agree. Unless the churches treat a miscarried fetus as equivalent to the death of a child, I cannot see that your arguments against abortion are coherent or consistent. In closing, I would suggest that you unthinkingly make a lot of ungrounded assumptions about the unanimity of Christian opinion. Perhaps you might consider that the Internet is a global thing with not all Christians sharing your agenda or priorities in terms of sexual health. This is important. To my sorrow, for example, there are African churches who approve imprisonment, even the death penalty for homosexuality. The church is a big, very varied place.
People who reject Passover, Kosher laws and the Saturday Sabbath quoting the Old Testament. I love it...
You've loved the church for two millenia then...
People who reject Passover, Kosher laws and the Saturday Sabbath quoting the Old Testament. I love it...
Because the fireworks moved to the fairgrounds, we actually watch them at the Clearnote church house now, Eric. Odd how that tradition returned, isn't it?
Shawna and I have fond memories of watching the fireworks with CGS at the old Church of God property (well after CGS had stopped sharing that building) and we wondered if that tradition was still in place.
We'll see you on the 4th. (and 5th and 6th.)
Fr Bill - Try Amsterdam. I was under strict orders when I visited last year as to what to avoid, and I did so, but it is not hard to see how corrosive that environment could be. But some people seem to be able to manage in it.
Europe's been a cesspool for a while, at least in the upper classes. I've got a cookbook written by a nobleman who appears to have escaped Austria's most infamous corporal, and he notes that the 19th century was as bad as Fr. Bill's description--at least in the houses of the rich. Also take a look at anything by Honore de Balzac.
(leads to the question; was Europe ever really evangelized in any significant way?)
I hear you, Father Bill. Europe is a cesspool. I've only experienced it a bit, but I'm with you. MTW had an area retreat in Greece many years ago and they gave out warnings for those who went into Athens for an afternoon of shopping. It wasn't as bad as your description of Vienna, but it was still pretty bad. Glad I don't live there. Pray for those missionaries who labor in Europe and face this everyday.
The original Apostles, with the exception of Judas, still hold their positions. The question we have to figure out is whether Matthias or Paul is the legitimate replacement for the one who lost his bishopric by transgression.
Certainly, the other eleven did not lose their bishopric by transgression. They continue to be The Apostles of the Lamb, as indicated in Revelation 21:14, which says, "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."