I watched President Obama’s commencement speech at Notre Dame with some interest this afternoon (see video and transcript below). I was curious (along with everyone else in the country) about how he would address the protests surrounding his appearance at a Roman Catholic (and thus pro-life) university. The buzz leading-up to the speech was that the President would address the issue head-on while attempting to transcend the old “culture war” debates about abortion.The only thing transcendent about the speech, however, was the rhetoric. The President can turn a phrase with the best of them. But at the end of the day, he did not transcend the debate (or the “culture war” for that matter). He held fast to the the radical pro-abortion position that he has always held while calling for people on opposite sides of the issue to be nice to each other.
What concerns me most about this whole event was the sheer pathos of it. President Obama is a gifted communicator, and his persona alone may compel the casual observer to think that the pro-abortion position is as reasonable and respectable as its most articulate defender appears to be.
In the battle for the hearts and minds of a nation, this is what makes President Obama so dangerous. The Roe vs. Wade status quo, which the President heartily supports, has presided over the legal killing of nearly 50 million human beings since 1973. This reality is neither reasonable or respectable, and the President (and the administration of Notre Dame) sadly obscured that fact today.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Obama's Speech @ Notre Dame
Denny Burk:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Let's be honest: it's difficult to reason with religious pro-life activists.
With most evangelicals, for example, there would be much less to argue about if they were more reasonable. Here's an evangelical argument showing that it is silly to oppose abortion on behalf of unborn babies.
(1) Unborn babies do not deserve far worse than bodily dismemberment.
(2) God does not condemn people for what they do not deserve.
(3) Hell is worse than bodily dismemberment.
(4) Therefore, God does not condemn unborn babies to hell.
(5) Hundreds of millions of unborn babies have been aborted.
(6) Had they not been aborted, some of these would have survived to adulthood.
(7) It is unreasonable to believe that all of these would have come to faith in Christ.
(8) Adults who never come to faith in Christ are condemned to hell.
(9) Therefore, from abortion has saved some from hell.
(10) Similarly, we can conclude that abortion saves the unborn from the risk of hell.
(11) Hell involves eternal suffering and separation from God.
(12) There is nothing in the earthly life for which it is worth risking eternal separation from God.
(13) Therefore, abortion is in the unborn baby's best interest.
(14) Therefore, it is silly to oppose abortion on behalf of the unborn.
CT,
This line of argumentation is compelling but seriously flawed.
If you are a Christian, it doesn't have to get any more simple than God saying, "Don't take innocent life". He will take care of Heaven and Hell. We are just called to be faithful to spreading the message of the gospel.
Rescuing some people from Hell by murdering them? Seems pretty backwards to me.
You seem pretty concerned about the eternal salvation of those who are murdered, I would be personally very concerned about the eternal standing of those who commit these murders. I fear the wrath of God. It will be poured out one day. Either Jesus will bear it for you, or you will bear it yourself.
You line of reasoning here goes well beyond the calling of Christians guided by God's word.
z
z,
Note that the argument nowhere advises us to murder anyone, or to abort any baby. It rather says: since abortion is in the best interest of the unborn baby, it is silly to oppose abortion on certain grounds. It is silly to suppose that you are taking up the cause of the unborn when you are opposing abortion.
Let your mind be renewed by sound reasoning and revealed truth. With regard to abortion, too many Christians are overly influenced by the shortsighted values of the worldly culture, which can see no further than this earthly life.
"Since abortion is in the best interest of the unborn baby..."
Seriously?
How?
If you think that one through a little bit, aren't you arguing that abortion is a way to correct God's mistake of creating a baby that shouldn't be born because it might not embrace the salvation in Jesus?
Isn't that like arguing that God is unjust for forcing us to live?
Zack, to answer your "Seriously?" and "How?" questions, here is a clean-up and clarified version of the argument. Just read until step 14. The numbers are intended as an aid to help you reference any part of the argument that you find unclear or problematic:
(1) Unborn babies do not deserve far worse than bodily dismemberment.
(2) God does not condemn people to worse than they deserve.
(3) Hell is worse than bodily dismemberment.
(4) Therefore, God does not condemn unborn babies to hell.
(5) Hundreds of millions of unborn babies have been aborted.
(6) Had they not been aborted, some of these would have survived to adulthood.
(7) It is unreasonable to believe that all of these survivors would have come to faith in Christ.
(8) Adults who do not come to faith in Christ are condemned to hell.
(9) Therefore, if some had not been aborted, they’d have gone to hell.
(10) Therefore, abortion has saved some from hell.
(11) We can correspondingly conclude that abortion saves an unborn baby from the risk of hell.
(12) Hell involves eternal suffering and separation from God.
(13) There is nothing in the earthly life for which it is worth risking eternal separation from God.
(14) Therefore, abortion is in the unborn baby's interest.
(15) Therefore, it is silly to oppose abortion on behalf of the unborn baby.
You also ask, "Aren't you arguing that abortion is a way to correct God's mistake of creating a baby that shouldn't be born because it might not embrace the salvation in Jesus?"
Answer: No. We can assume that God's ideal plan is that the baby not be aborted, and that his ideal plan involves no mistake on His part. As a violation of God's plan, abortion is still a sin. This does not mean, however, that abortion is not in the unborn baby's best interest. Just because some act is in someone's best interest doesn't entail that the act is not a sin. That should be obvious.
CT - I wish I had time to respond as completely as I would like to, but let me just note a couple of things:
1) Regarding part 1 of your argument: why?
2) Your argument seems (to me at least) to be missing the possibility that the risk of going to hell is worth it for the prospect of bringing glory to God in this lifetime.
3) If your argument is correct, then it is also true that it is silly to oppose the complete and mass infanticide of all babies forever on behalf of those babies.
Post a Comment