Planned Parenthood: Unfunded and Exposed
by
Motte Brown
on Mar 4, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Planned Parenthood hasn't been gettin' much love lately.
Last week, the Virginia Senate voted to strip state funding for Planned Parenthood of Virginia because it offers abortions. If signed by the governor, it would cut hundreds of thousands of dollars in state aid to the organization.
As reported by Lifesitenews.com, Senate Majority Leader Richard L. Saslaw fears the decision will lead to other cuts to abortion providers saying, "Once we start down this road, there will be no stopping."
I hope he's right.
If passed, Virgina will become the 7th state to cut all funding to America's largest abortion provider following West Virginia, Idaho, Montana, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Utah.
Also last week, pro-life college student Lila Rose exposed Planned Parenthood's "eugenic character" by releasing the transcript of a recorded conversation with her posing as a donor who wanted give money specifically for abortions for "the minority community."
Here's a portion of the transcript:
Actor: I want to specify that abortion to help a minority group, would that be possible?
Planned Parenthood: Absolutely.
A: Like the black community for example?
PP: Certainly.
A: The abortion - I can give money specifically for a black baby, that would be the purpose?
PP: Absolutely. If you wanted to designate that your gift be used to help an African-American woman in need, then we would certainly make sure that the gift was earmarked for that purpose.
A: Great, because I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don't want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids. I just had a baby; I want to put it in his name.
PP: Yes, absolutely.
A: And we don't, you know we just think, the less black kids out there the better.
PP: (Laughs) Understandable, understandable.
A: Right. I want to protect my son, so he can get into college.
PP: All right. Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I've had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I'm excited, and want to make sure I don't leave anything out.
You may remember Lila Rose from Ted's blog last year. She was the one who posed as an under-aged teen seeking an abortion from Planned Parenthood and was told by an employee to just lie about her age.
Thanks to Lila, more Americans know that their Federal tax money goes to support not only a pre-born baby killing organization, but a law breaking and racist pre-born baby killing organization.
1. Jade had the following to say on Mar 4 at 4:17 PM:
I find it disgusting and offensive that taxes paid by pro-life people go to support abortion at all, so good for the Virginia Senate and I hope other states follow suit. At this point in history, abortion is really a grass roots issue, pro-lifers need to rise up and say enough is enough.
2. Sara had the following to say on Mar 4 at 4:33 PM:
Margaret Sanger is one of my heroes, but this is disgusting.
I wouldn't put 'PP' beside the quotes, I'd use the specific person's name or position! I mean, on the same lines, not everyone a church hires to preach necessarily gets their doctrine right!
3. JB had the following to say on Mar 4 at 4:40 PM:
Some person whose job it is to take donations didn't hang up the phone and refuse to take the money, therefore the organization is racist? May we hold FotF to the same standard?
4. Josh had the following to say on Mar 4 at 4:55 PM:
To be fair putting the characters in that transcript as "Planned Parenthood" and "Actor" is misleading. It's not like the racist comments are Planned Parenthood doctrine, they're the comments of whoever the Actor happened to be speaking to. I could see a situation where a good-hearted volunteer for Planned Parenthood is confronted with a potential donor who happens to be very racist, so they play along a little because they figure that the money can do good even if the person offering is disgusting.
5. brx had the following to say on Mar 4 at 5:16 PM:
To be fair, I think a large percentage of people these days, even proclaiming Christians, reason that ends-justifies-means. And so, we get responses like this - receive the money under any circumstances and redirect it later.
It sounds pretty darn close to entrapment.
Grace...
6. Someone who wishes to remain anonymous had the following to say on Mar 4 at 5:27 PM:
Just out of curiosity... Historically, there had been cases in this country in which people resist certain taxes because they supposedly are used to fund the U.S. military. (This happened during the Vietnam War, for example.)
==> So, if the story from lifesitenews.com mentioned above is true... Is there a legal way to be a "conscientious objector" of tax money that goes to certain organizations such as Planned Parenthood?
7. S had the following to say on Mar 4 at 5:28 PM:
Re: money Planned Parenthood receives, from a Washington Post article about the issue:
"...some of the state aid for Planned Parenthood goes for programs that it operates at juvenile correction facilities to teach pregnancy prevention.
Planned Parenthood also gets state aid to run programs to prevent HIV, she said. The organization also gets some funds for providing health care to low-income women.
"The funding that goes to Planned Parenthood is going to fund teen pregnancy programs as well as pass-through for a variety of health-care procedures for low-income women," she said.
Planned Parenthood provides abortion services. But it also provides outreach and education to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Which, in turn, prevents abortion.
8. James had the following to say on Mar 4 at 5:41 PM:
I agree with #5. While I'm VERY MUCH against PP and abortions, that transcript is still very shady and stinks of entrapment. What you want if you want solid evidence is PP compromising themselves with no prompting. In court, doing what that young lady did would be called "leading the witness" or something much like it. Most of the racist comments came from the lady posing as a racist, NOT PP. They just wanted the money, and they could defend themselves on that.
Please don't think I'm defending PP. I applaud VA for doing what its doing. It's just that I also don't think its right (or wise) to try and 'expose' PP in the way that young lady did. Like Poster #5 said.....it's entrapment.
9. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) had the following to say on Mar 4 at 5:52 PM:
So what happened after that? Did the actor make a donation? Did the employee continue to go along with it? I find it rather curious that the whole conversation was not posted.
I know that I've dealt with racist, sexist, homophobic customers before, and I just smile and nod and laugh out of awkwardness and then talk to my supervisor as soon as the customer is gone. The PP employee was in the same situation- he admits that he's never had a request like this before, so he's clearly overwhelmed. I don't think this proves that any racism exists in PP. The "actor", however, was incredibly racist.
10. Al had the following to say on Mar 4 at 5:59 PM:
Eugenics *is* actually Margaret Sanger's doctrine, and the sole purpose for which she founded Planned Parenthood. Birth control only served her ultimate and championed cause of human betterment through negative eugenics. While her approach wasn't exactly the same as say, Nazi Germany's, and she deplored the sorts of things that happened under that regime, and I would even be hesitant to call her racist-- she was a champion of eugenics by birth control, and determined that the poor, uneducated, and those deemed mentally deficient should not reproduce.
Sanger even specifically targeted minority communities-- concentrations of poverty and what appeared to be weaker genetics-- through their churches in order to curb their growth. While on the face of it her approach seemed kind as she offered a potentially better standard of living, and while that might even have happened in some cases, she also simultaneously desired to curb their reproduction due to the apparent inferiority of great numbers within their communities.
I don't know if she thought that African Americans and certain other minorities were inherently inferior. She might not have. But she acted on the observation that the poor, the superstitious, and the wretched were in minority communities. Nowadays, in the same liberal movement that embraces Planned Parenthood, that would be considered racial profiling and system racism of the most insidious kind. A little ironic that her attitudes are admittedly sweeped under the rug. Planned Parenthood here is actually more consistent with its original doctrines (intentional or otherwise) than I thought it would be.
Sara,
I guess this explains why I felt compelled to address your earlier comments on your hesitancy to aid certain others for fear of them having children due to your aid, and elevating the fear of future pain in some cases above potential future human life or even present human benefit. It sounded uncomfortably like Sanger eugenics, and struck me as suggesting we are wise enough and have great enough vision to determine the life or non-life of others. And it seemed a little to me like the paralyzing elevation of kindness over love that we were speaking of, even as you desired to love.
I guess I can only offer you encouragement to move out of tangible love for those before us, especially for those who are already hurting, children or otherwise, and overcome the fear of pain through hypothetical cause and effect in the future. If we deny help to those here now rather than trust that others like you will be there to take care of those tomorrow, suffering has already won and even made us its allies today.
11. J. had the following to say on Mar 4 at 7:27 PM:
True, the actions of one Planned Parenthood worker may not represent the mindset of the organization as a whole, but the fact remains that organizations -- whether they're non-profits or corporations -- occasionally get into trouble when one or a few of their many, many members makes mistakes or intentionally misbehaves (the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit and the Denny's restaurant racism lawsuit also come to mind), and when they do, it is ultimately not the individuals who are held responsible in the courts and in the eye of the public, but the organizations they work for. This is unfair sometimes, but it's the way things are.
brx (#5), the standard for entrapment is actually pretty tough to meet. It would probably have to be argued that Lila Rose was somehow making the Planned Parenthood worker respond to her comments in the manner she did (by wearing her down psychologically, for example), and this doesn't seem to have occurred.
To those who are uncomfortable with Ms. Rose's methods and think she has been deceptive, I ask: Where do we draw the line? Is it also wrong of undercover policemen to infiltrate crime rings or to catch pedophiles who use the Internet to prey upon children? What about missionaries in certain countries that can't be honest with the governments as to why they are really present and have to serve surreptitiously?
12. Brandon had the following to say on Mar 4 at 8:12 PM:
Just curious? I've seen alot of posts on these blogs that I cannot believe a Christian would be saying. So I'm interested to know if for instance Sara is a Christian? Since I find an absolute inconpatability with someone saying they are Christian and at the same moment consider Margaret Sanger a hero? This is just my own curiosity really.
Unrelated to the above, how can those in the other posts defend Planned Parenthood at all? I can understand as a Christian you would not want to lie or misrepresent facts as an underhanded way to destroy something, but seriously who cares what kind of repressentation Planned Parenthood gets from this interview? As long as my tax money is supporting them the sooner they are gone the better.
13. Laura had the following to say on Mar 4 at 8:59 PM:
Guys, I'm a little disappointed that you let comment #12 through -- he's questioning someone's salvation based on them liking Margaret Sanger. Is that not "overly personal, cynical, disrespectful... or unnecessarily contentious"?
14. James had the following to say on Mar 4 at 9:01 PM:
J. (#11), the examples you gave don't exactly bait the people they catch, but more like they hang out a target or watch passively to see what someone will naturally do.
Ms. Rose's methods were done towards a person who is trying (or is supposed to be) polite and cordial, and essentially not supposed to turn away someone who is offering them money. Now, if she'd brought up the topic but didn't state her position (or assumed position), but the worker responded in a racist manner or such, then THAT would be valid. However, Ms. Rose was essentially spouting racist comments and trying to prove that just b/c the worker was giving the general "uh huh, yes yes" that that was indicative of racism.
Big difference between the methods used there and the methods used by undercover cops posing as young kids in areas where pedophiles are known to roam on the net and catching them making a proposition. In those circumstances, the undercover cop doesn't make a poposition, the pedo does. In Ms. Rose's case, she essentially made the proposition. Got the cart put before the horse. Invalidates her claim. Doesn't clean the massive amounts of blood PP has on its hands, but it certainly gives them LOTS of deniability about supposedly being racist.
15. Josh had the following to say on Mar 4 at 9:08 PM:
RE #12 (Brandon)
I'm defending Planned Parenthood in my comment (#5) because it is the right thing to do. I am not a fan of them and I heartily oppose their abortion policies but anything less then integrity when dealing with somebody you disagree with is hardly Christ-like. This would certainly fall under "bearing false testimony against your neighbor".
If you want another reason for demanding honesty in these kind of dealings with Planned Parenthood, a reason that corresponds to your interests, just think about how dishonest representation ultimately undermines your position. Even if you are championing the right causes immoral tactics make you look bad in the long run. So whatever "good" you think may come out of misrepresenting Planned Parenthood hurts your position as well to any discerning objective viewer.
16. Leah had the following to say on Mar 4 at 9:58 PM:
J.- I don't think anyone was uncomfortable with Lila Rose's methods. They were uncomfortable with the conclusions Motte is drawing based on the conversation. While I oppose PP, you have to face facts- Lila purposely set up that PP employee to look as racist as possible. The employee never really said anything racist (except perhaps "understandable, understandable", and THAT'S understandable because he's been put in a very awkward situation that he probably wants to talk his way out of as soon as possible). It was Lila who set up the racist atmosphere, and in reality, she framed that employee. I'm not saying the employee did the right thing- he really should have admitted if PP was not able to follow through on Lila's racist request- but in an awkward situation like that, people don't always respond in the best moral way.
Laura, I think it was ok to let comment #12 through. He wasn't shouting down Sara and saying she can't possibly be a Christian, he's asking if she is. Not making a definitive statement. I think that's ok.
17. IMO had the following to say on Mar 4 at 10:32 PM:
Laura (#13):
I don't believe Sara considers herself a Christian. In fact, from her previous comments from various posts, I think she considers herself leaning toward atheism.
*Sara, please chime in if I am wrong!*
So please don't be so critical yourself of other posters like Brandon. He is allowed to have an opinion. And he doesn't need to be censored for it! Just like you are free to judge Brandon's comment.
18. J. had the following to say on Mar 5 at 12:26 AM:
James (#14), all the examples I offered in my previous post do indeed involve some degree of deception; the point I was trying to make is that there is a continuum. Yet they are for the public good or, in the case of the missionaries I mentioned, the sake of the gospel. Ms. Rose probably thinks her actions were for the public good, as well.
As for whether the Planned Parenthood worker was baited to respond in the way she did, there may be other workers who, had they gotten the same call, would have been appalled at the intentions Ms. Rose stated and been far less friendly and helpful. It's particularly difficult to imagine an African-American PP employee taking the bait -- especially once affirmative action and college admittance competition were brought up.
19. Jethro had the following to say on Mar 5 at 12:34 AM:
This is nothing more than a cheap trick and I should think you have the brains to realize that Motte. I bet if someone put in a call to Focus saying they wanted to donate but they didn't want the money going to blacks you guys would still accept it.
In any case, does this mean that since I don't agree with the Iraq war I can opt out of paying taxes that go to the war? Come on! It's a society, not everything the government does has to meet with our personal approval.
20. J. had the following to say on Mar 5 at 2:50 AM:
I'd also like to add that it's possible Lila Rose made several, similar calls to various Planned Parenthood offices and was not accomodated. Perhaps she is publicizing only one call of many, the one with the results she was seeking. Margaret Sanger's views aside, I don't think it is fair to say that the "eugenic character" of an entire organization and its people today was revealed by a conversation Ms. Rose had with one person. On the other hand, if the phone call did in fact represent a common mindset at Planned Parenthood...this would be a very troubling issue which would deserve to be exposed.
Just my $0.02.
21. Khalil had the following to say on Mar 5 at 6:01 AM:
For all of those that are pointing out this sounds like entrapment, I would encourage you to consider the online pedophile stings. Would those fall under your definitions of entrapment? I don't think what this lady did was entrapment and neither do I think that the online stings are either. Besides, this person calling in to Planned Parenthood was not a law or government official as far as I know, so I don't think entrapment issues would really stick there anyway. I could be wrong.
There was nothing forcing the Planned Parenthood person to accept a racist pledge of support. If that worker had real values or morals (in question, it was a person working for Planned Parenthood) they would have rejected the donation or at least raised some questions. Where is the quality control?
If I worked for something such as Planned Parenthood I would expect at all times people that "people are out to get me" and would have to be working at the top of my game. There is no excuse for that worker to have "accepted" the donation. I do think that the person making the phone call might have placed herself in a compromised spot...what state was it in and what are the laws regarding on recording phone calls? Just my thoughts on it.
For what it is worth, I currently live in Virginia and I am happy to see this move as it has recently. I hope it sticks.
22. Kathryn had the following to say on Mar 5 at 6:28 AM:
Brandon, (#12) I don't think I've heard anyone defending PP, only objecting to the means used to bring them down.
I really don't know much about PP, except what I've seen in the movies, but whatever they stand for, I don't like the way that Lila Rose manipulated the conversation the way she did. As was quoted, this was the unofficial spokesperson's first time fielding a donation call, so I think it's very unfair to single them out as an example. As Andrew R (#9) mentioned, I would probably do the same: nervously smile and nod then bring up any queries with a manager when I've finished with that customer.
23. obewan had the following to say on Mar 5 at 7:31 AM:
It used to be in liberal New England that United Way funded Planned Parenthood. It gave me major heartburn because my employer used strongarm tactics to secure United Way donations from all the employees.
Now in the Florida Bible belt, United Way does not fund Planned Parenthood. We still have the same strongarm tactics, but at least we can earmark our donations for the Salvation Army or Lutheran Social Services.
For those who donate to United Way, it would be prudent to check on this. If they support Planned Parenthood, I suggest earmarking your donations for your favorite christian charities.
24. Zach Thompson had the following to say on Mar 5 at 8:42 AM:
Let's hope & pray it passes but our governor is a Democrat here in VA.
25. farmer Tom had the following to say on Mar 5 at 9:22 AM:
Margaret Sanger is one of my heroes,
http://lifedynamics.com/DeathCamps/Holocaust6.cfm#TheTop
That's your Darwinian natural selection worldview in all it glory folks.
And if you're like Sara, this woman is one of your heroes.
26. Jesse had the following to say on Mar 5 at 9:43 AM:
Lila's recon' operation and the morality thereof aside, public funding for abortion is simply undemocratic. The bottom line is that state governments are forcing all of their state's citizens to fund something that NOT all of the state's citizens support. In fact, those opposed do more than just not support abortion: they view it as an abomination as defined by their God and they're being made to fund it. That's just bad politics regardless of one's stance on abortion.
Pro-death people say "stay out of our bodies" while pro-lifers can now say "stay out of our wallets." Whose forcing doctrine on whom now?
While the same could be said for many other political issues, none of them are as costly in terms of human life (not even the war in Iraq) as abortion.
27. Jesse had the following to say on Mar 5 at 9:46 AM:
#9
She was acting...
28. kaj had the following to say on Mar 5 at 11:28 AM:
I do not agree with Planned Parenthoods pro-abortion and pro-promiscuity agendas.
I wish there was a Christian alternative that offers women low- to no-cost gynecological care, especially to those unemployed, under-employed, or who have little or no health insurance.
I admit I used Planned Parenthood for an annual exam a few years ago as a last resort, and only because I was unemployed (yes, i was actively looking for work) and had no insurance. Because of my income level (or lack thereof), I wasn't charged for any services.
I felt weird going there, and maybe they thought I was weird for NOT being sexually active. As professional as the Planned Parenthood staff was, I still missed going to the wonderful Christian OB/GYN I used to see when I was insured.
I think there may be other women who have been in my situation, especially single women or those who are married but can't get coverage under their husband's plan.
For all the talk of how important womanhood and having babies is to many Christian circles, what has been done to make sure women can afford routine exams to make sure all the "baby making" parts and associated hormone systems are functioning properly? To my knowledge, not much.
If anyone does know of such organizations that provides gynecological care to women that does not hold the sinister agendas of Planned Parenthood, please let me know.
(note: this does not include "crisis pregnancy centers," which, noble as they are, don't offer much service to women who do choose abstinence but still may deal with hormone imbalances, for example)
29. Christina (in green) had the following to say on Mar 5 at 1:18 PM:
Wow.
Kaj, those are some awesome points.
You make me want to start one.
30. Ted Slater had the following to say on Mar 5 at 1:43 PM:
Kaj and Christina -- Though we're not as large as PP, Focus on the Family is helping in this area. Check out our Option Ultrasound Program, for example. Great stuff happening through that ministry!
31. Sara had the following to say on Mar 5 at 1:53 PM:
Re: Sanger and eugenics
First, condemning Sanger about her eugenics streak is in part like condeming Christians who owned slaves: yes, it was bad, but they were a product of their times. There's a difference in relative blameworthiness between a Christian who owned slaves in the 1700s, and one who would have slaves today.
The key difference between Nazism and being pro-choice is consent: if Margarent Sanger was pro-forcing people to get sterilized, that's bad, although there's the fact to consider that unwanted children do tend to grow up to commit more crimes than children who were wanted. All this is separate from relgious discussion (yes, I'm an atheist), but from what I've read, state by state, 18 or so years after each state okayed abortion, crime rates went down. I would never use that alone to encourage abortions, but I'd kind of understand it if someone did.
An important thing to consider is that desperate women will get abortions whether they're legal or not! It's a historical fact. Better for the woman and for any possibly surviving unborn baby too, that the mother and baby doesn't get stuck with knitting needles and goodness knows what other unsterile items. Planned Parenthood also supports adoption services, too.
What I like about Sanger is what she did for birth control: imagine being a mother so poor that every time you have sex you're terrified you'll get pregnant and be unable to feed your children; or having gone through tramumatic miscarriage after miscarriage and wanting birth control: these women would beg doctors for 'information' but it was illegal to give it to them. Sanger was willing to put herself at risk to help them. I know some people hate the idea of giving women control over their own bodies, but I think it's the most important thing a person can have.
Even so, I'm still a little iffy on abortion. For me, part of it involves the answer to a thought experiment like this one: guys and girls, pretend that I could shrink myself down to 12 inches long and lodge myself inside your body for 3, 9, 18, 90 months, and demand care: would you be under absolute obligation to take care of me?
32. John had the following to say on Mar 5 at 2:35 PM:
Sara,
You make a number of points in your post that need responses.
First,you speak of Sanger having a "eugenics streak," talk about an understatement. She intended to join the eugenics and birth-control movements, but was rebuffed by the leaders of the eugenics movement because she wanted to have abortions available to all, not just the poorly bred.
You are correct in pointing out that she did advocate choice, as opposed to the Nazis, but did you know that in the 1930's she personally visited Hitler and endorsed his eugenic thought? As far as I know she never endorsed the mass exterminations, but the early steps by the Nazis were OK with her.
You then argue "An important thing to consider is that desperate women will get abortions whether they're legal or not!" There is some truth to this, however when a culture legalizes an act it is giving it moral sanction. Notice how to the abortion rate skyrocketed after Row v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Behind this is the more important question" is abortion a moral thing that society should endorse?
This takes me to your thought experiment, this is really a version of the incapacitated violinist argument. However, it is not a good comparison, because the baby does not force itself into the mother. Rather, the pregnancy is a result of the mother's actions. When a woman engages in sexual activity, she should know that pregnancy is a normal consequence. (And lets not turn into the rape and incest argument, because #1 it is rare that pregnancy comes from these horrible acts and #2 exceptions make bad laws.) Therefore when a woman engages in sexual activity she is really agreeing to the possible outcome of pregnancy, much as a man is held to be responsible for any child he fathers.
33. Eliza had the following to say on Mar 5 at 3:57 PM:
Kaj, #28
I TOTALLY AGREE! This summer I was temping and my insurance situation was pretty shaky. I thought a ton about going to PP to get an exam and talk about contraceptives (I was getting married in a few months and was clueless about my choices). But then I thought I had my insurance covered and went to the regular doctor. Turns out I wasn't covered and ended up paying $300 or so, but whatever. Not a huge amount in the scheme of things. I think my fiancé actually ended up paying for it, because I couldn't afford that at the time.
Ted,
That's nice about the ultrasound program. I'm sure that's great for crisis pregnancy centers, but women's health encompasses a lot more than just pregnancy, which I'm sure you know. My understanding of Planned Parenthood is that they offer a complete women's health package, including annual check-ups, blood tests and cancer screenings. It would be great if there was a Christian equivalent of something like that. Some place that offered everything PP does, without the abortions.
34. Brandon had the following to say on Mar 5 at 4:17 PM:
Hey thanks Sara for stating your position. And for the others I'm not judging someone as far as whether they are saved or not, ONLY God can do that. But I don't think it's unfair to view someone’s comments, actions etc. and ask where that person is coming from. A Christian is a follower of Christ. You can be saved and while you are saved by Christ you aren't necessarily "Christian". I say that based on a number of things including my own life. There was a time not so long ago when I drank, caroused swore and spoke any number of perversities but I was still saved. I don't think at that time you could have called me "Christian" though. So I guess that is the danger of not judging someone's actions. Just because they say they are Christian doesn't mean their actions are out of the limits of doubt or discussion as to whether they are actually "Christian". Hopefully, this isn't too confusing. I think the more generally understood word is apostate and the book of Jude speaks directly to this phenomenon that occurs in all churches and church communities. Now don't get me wrong I know there are alot of minor non-doctrinal issues that good Christ following people are divided on and I don't think those warrant asking about someone’s Christian state, but in the case I pointed out in post 12 I think it warrants the question. I know when I read this blog I tend to assume most if not all posters are Christian. Given the state of many churches I've visited it leaves me very discouraged as far as the state of the modern church. So it is good to know that not everyone here claims to be Christian though it is my hope in Christ that they would become so.
Sara - As far as Margaret Sanger goes I can understand that some of the things she proposed are beneficial without being necessarily against biblical standards. However, to call her a hero and put her up for reverence I think is wrong. Hitler had alot of good ideas. Mien Kompf contains some interesting material that isn't necessarily wrong. In fact Time Magazine named him man of the year. However, to say he is my hero is going in a completely wrong direction. Just because someone intrinsically evil does something good does not mean that person should be embraced.
As far as women controlling their bodies I don't think that birth control is necessarily wrong. However, your thought experiment doesn't make any sense. For instance you don't get pregnant out of the blue. That type of pregnancy happened once and it's recorded in the Bible and even that wasn't a mystery. So to say that you just wandered up and lodged yourself in someone’s body is ridiculous. Now if you had said there is this really fast car that you can drive as much as you want. However, there is a chance you'll get this little person lodged inside of you for 90 months. As a result you have to nourish that person for the duration of that time. Then, I could understand. So in that instance if I decided to take the risk then I must also decide to take the possible consequences. The same is true with sex and abortion.
35. Sara had the following to say on Mar 5 at 5:13 PM:
Hi John. (I haven't looked up the facts so I'm assuming what you say is true. Also, to me, advocating for [as long as it's not forcing] abortion-on-demand and advocating people who can't afford to take care of children to not have any doesn't equal bad eugenics. Just plain wanting to prevent sick babies from being born I don't have a problem with. Going from there to killing live people and being coercive is again a matter of respecting consent)
- it sounds like Sanger was rejected b/c she wouldn't be selective enough, which is exactly one place where 'good eugenics' crosses over into bad (that is, thinking that race is a disease like Down Syndrome or something)
- I'm not familiar w/ Hitler's early eugenic thought: what's the worst thing you're saying SAnger advocated?
I don't go for mixing law and morality like you do. If the majority of people want abortion (or condoms) then that should be encoded in the law, unless it goes against [yes, somewhat murky] universally accepted human rights. A person can be in principle anti-abortion, but, looking at the facts, convinced both that everyone ought to have rights over one's own body and convinced that, in practice, those mothers who would go for knitting needles anyways (and those who would be affected by her actions) ought to be protected, too: like, police deciding which of 2 neighbourhoods to protect shouldn't knock on everyone's doors and see which has the most moral families, in making their decision.
Don't know the incapacitated violinist one.. But sex isn't a choice like other things are choices: it's almost (not quite but almost) like holding people accountable for eating and drinking. To suggest that certain very incontinent people are able to pull their socks up on their own is circular, that is, demanding bootstrapping. Much more importantly, though, especially in the past, when Sanger was going and before that, marriage wasn't really an option for women (and many were married so young and were so uneducated I'd hesistate to hold them accountable) so they were sort of forced into sex and therefore pregnancy.
36. Matthew had the following to say on Mar 5 at 5:34 PM:
I'll second kaj-- great points, this is something that Christians in general need to address. Health care for the uninsured simply doesn't seem to be on our priority list as a church in America and as a first-year medical student I can definitely say that it needs to be.
Ted, the Option Ultrasound didn't have much in any kind of care except that which was related to ultrasound/abortion prevention or STDs that I could find... I think that's a really, really good start and I applaud and support CPC's wholeheartedly but that didn't really answer kaj's question about other medical issues.
37. Meghan had the following to say on Mar 5 at 7:29 PM:
As far as Margaret Sanger goes, her writings and associations don't leave much room to question the purpose of eugenics in the creation of planned parenthood. She herself wrote they were one and the same thing in her Birth Control Review article titled "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." October 1921, page 5. In fact, she wrote,
"I think you must agree ... that
the campaign for birth control is
not merely of eugenic value, but
is practically identical with the
final aims of eugenics ... Birth
control propaganda is thus the
entering wedge for the eugenic
educator"
And don't think this was simply an unapplied philosophy in Sanger's precursor to Planned Parenthood -- The Birth Control League. Her cohorts (some on the very board of directors with her) were men like Lothrop Stoddard, whose writings appeared in Nazi textbooks. The make up of the organization -- contributors to the publishings, the board of directors, etc were almost without exception eugenicists. For years, the Birth Control League was housed in the same building as the Eugenics Society. Coincidentally, they changed the name of the Birth Control League to Planned Parenthood in the early 1940's -- after all, now the US was at war with a regime that took Sanger's type of message to heart -- she had to make sure people wouldn't remember just how close she was -- and judging from many posts here, they don't.
It is rather difficult to read through the mass of literature Sanger produced and not get a feeling in the pit of one's stomache that eventually this woman's philosophy would lead to the slaughter of the "unwanted", just as the same philosophy of social darwinism and "scientific" eugenics led to Holocaust in Europe. And now, with Planned Parenthood as the largest abortion provider in America, and possibly the world -- IT HAS LED TO SLAUGHTER. Planned Parenthood was born and remains a devoted vehicle of dehumanizing philosophy and death.
38. Ashley had the following to say on Mar 5 at 7:46 PM:
I'm pretty disappointed by the content of Brown's blog. Such an underhanded method of obtaining information is not to be applauded. Furthermore, such methods shouldn't be used to convince others of the inherent wrongs of Planned Parenthood. It's easy to get caught up in a pro-life or pro-choice position and forget ourselves -- who we are, who we serve. There's plenty of legitimate information/evidence out there to use to "incriminate" Planned Parenthood.
I, for one, would prefer not to laud sour attempts such as Rose's.
39. Melissa @ Anxious for Nothing had the following to say on Mar 5 at 8:52 PM:
A recording of the conversation is on Randy Alcorn's web site here.
I am confused, though, because the "caller" to Planned Parenthood is definitely male, unless Lila Rose has an extremely deep man-sounding voice.
40. farmer Tom had the following to say on Mar 6 at 11:23 AM:
Health care for the uninsured simply doesn't seem to be on our priority list as a church in America and as a first-year medical student I can definitely say that it needs to be.
By what Biblical standard, (please site at least three proof texts), is it the responsibility of the church to provide health care for anyone. Again, at least three proof texts, Thank You.
as a first-year medical student
Any chance you might be biased??
41. farmer Tom had the following to say on Mar 6 at 11:32 AM:
But sex isn't a choice like other things are choices:
That is patently absurd and an offense to anyone who has a modicum of self control. By that kind of logic, I would act exactly as the animals on the farm do, engaging in sexual activity anytime anywhere with anything that doesn't resist and some that do.
Using that line of reasoning, it would be perfectly normal behavior for me to grab every attractive woman I see on the street, and immediately force her to have sex with me on the spot, middle of the street, in the toy section at Walmart, in the freezer section of the grocery store.
Sara, you're being ridiculous, if you want to make an intelligent argument, I would suggest holding humans to a higher standard that the livestock.
42. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) had the following to say on Mar 6 at 12:12 PM:
"By what Biblical standard, (please site at least three proof texts), is it the responsibility of the church to provide health care for anyone. Again, at least three proof texts"
Matthew 10:8: (Jesus tells the disciples) "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those with leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give."
Matthew 25:36: "...I was sick and you looked after me..."
Matthew 4:14: "Jesus went through Galilee... healing every disease and sickness among the people."
I don't recall Jesus ever charging people for His services. Jesus went around and provided universal healthcare. If you're looking to bring America back to its Biblical roots, this would be a great place to start.
"Thank You."
You're welcome.
43. Amir Larijani had the following to say on Mar 6 at 12:13 PM:
Farmer Tom:
Excellent point. Sex is a choice. Abortion promises mitigate the consequences of that choice.
Planned Parenthood--being the largest abortion provider--has a vested interest in keeping abortion legal, and even funded by taxpayers.
A threat to either taxpayer funding of abortion--or the legality of abortion itself--is a threat to their financial well-being.
Of course, as the leaders in "sex education"--while being the leading abortion provider--they have an inherent conflict of interest.
All the more reason not to fund them with tax dollars.
I will drink to their demise.
44. Matthew had the following to say on Mar 6 at 12:23 PM:
farmer Tom,
I am biased, mostly because I see and hear about people who can't get the health care they need and then either come into the emergency room, die, or live miserable lives simply because they can't afford health care. This just ain't right, especially if they're already working hard (or they're retired from a life of working hard.) I think that playing the proof-text game in this case is sort of like asking for a proof text to prove that we ought to go to church every Sunday or we ought not to play computer games 10 hours a day. Health care as we know it simply wasn't around in the time of the Bible, ergo, there are no proof-text verses. But I'll throw in three good sets of verses that I think help us in our understanding of loving the poor.
I would start with Matthew 25:31-46, where Jesus tells us that whatever we do "to the least of these" (many of the uninsured and underinsured fit this description pretty well, especially children) we do it to Him. The clear message of this is that if our faith isn't backed up by love and kindness to prisoners, the poor, and the needy, that faith might not be genuine.
Laws in the Torah (especially Leviticus 19:9-10 and Exodus 23:11) emphasize not maximizing profit so that the poor can work and get their sustenance. Many of the uninsured are working; their jobs just don't provide health care and they're certainly not poor enough to get Medicaid. I think the clear Biblical principle is that the community of God must sacrifice to help provide for the physical needs of people who are otherwise unable to provide for themselves. At the very least we should be doing this for our brothers and sisters in Christ; I think it would be a great witness to believers and non-believers if the church stepped up to the health care crisis in America.
Lastly, Acts 4:32-37 tells us what the earliest church did: they shared their possessions and as anyone had need the community met that need. Again, this is more about Christians helping Christians than Christians helping everyone, but the principle is the same-- we extend love to our community in the most loving and sacrificial way that we can, Christians first and then the rest of the world. Historically, persecuted Christians helped non-Christians during times of plague, even risking their own lives to minister to their neighbors (Rodney Stark writes a bit about this.) Could we take those same kinds of risks with our earthly riches to trade them in for heavenly ones? I'd like to see it.
Dionysius (a pagan writer) wrote about these Christians:
"Most of our brother Christians showed unbounded love and loyalty; never sparing themselves and thinking only of one another. Heedless of danger, they took charge of the sick, attending to their every need and ministering to them in Christ, and with them departed this life serenely happy; for they were infected by others with the disease, drawing on themselves the sickness of their neighbors and cheerfully accepting their pains. Many, in nursing and caring for others, transferred their death to themselves and died in their stead…. The best of our brothers lost their lives in this manner, a number of presbyters, deacons, and laymen winning high commendation so that death in this form, the result of great piety and strong faith, seems in every way the equal of martyrdom."
Sorry that was kinda long, but I hope that it answers your question.
45. Sara had the following to say on Mar 6 at 12:48 PM:
farmer Tom, your example isn't any more 'normal behaviour' than that of someone who gobbles down every chocolate bar as soon as they walk into a convenience store! I was saying that we can't expect people to always refrain from occasional premarital sex. Maybe I'm wrong; at least for the sake of this argument I'll say that I was wrong:
I should have focused more on how, for so many women in Sanger's time and other times (and to an extent today), sex was barely optional in that many women were young and uneducated and came from poor families, and lived in non-welfare states, and were under the rule of their parents, and for these and other reasons might have been essentially forced into marriage and motherhood, or else running away from home.
Here, it seems pro-life Christians and 'radical' feminists can unite! The more economic and social freedom available to women, and the more grounds we'll have for demanding that women take responsibility for their actions, and the less likely we'll have unwanted children.
Just in relation to a 'straightforward' rape case, again, what are people's reactions to the thought experiment? "pretend that I could shrink myself down to 12 inches long and lodge myself inside your body for 3, 9, 18, 90 months, and demand care: would you be under absolute obligation to take care of me?"
46. Matthew had the following to say on Mar 6 at 12:53 PM:
sorry, my quote is not right-- I was thinking of a different quote by a pagan writer. The Dionysius quoted was Bishop of Alexandria around AD 260. Here's a blog post summarizing some of Stark's ideas:
http://ericswanson.blogspot.com/2005/12/how-gospel-grew.html
47. Amir Larijani had the following to say on Mar 6 at 12:55 PM:
Actually, I think Farmer Tom simply phrased the question the wrong way.
The issue is not whether the Christian is obliged to be charitable, but rather (a) whether the command to be charitable translates to a mandate for government control of health care delivery, and (b) whether the Christian is obliged to extend such charity to people who are simply irresponsible rather than needy.
When you stick your hand in your own pocket, pull out your money, and give it to the poor, it is charity.
When you stick your hand in someone else's pocket, take their money, and give that to the poor, it's theft.
48. Jo had the following to say on Mar 6 at 1:09 PM:
farmer Tom says: "By what Biblical standard, (please site at least three proof texts), is it the responsibility of the church to provide health care for anyone."
Do you agree that the huge numbers of people in America who don't have health insurance through no fault of their own are in need of healthcare?
I'm pretty sure you're from the 'government funded welfare etc is wrong and it's the church's responsibility to provide for the needy where necessary' camp, right?
Well if you don't agree that the church should step up and help those who can't afford health insurance, how can you possibly stand against a government funded healthcare system that would take care of everyone regardless of their wealth and status?
49. Al had the following to say on Mar 6 at 2:13 PM:
Sara,
Sanger's position on eugenics can't easily be excused away as merely being of a product of her time. I know Planned Parenthood literature does this to rescue her image, but she was not a passive ideological subect of her day-- if anything, she was one of the most vocal movers and shakers with respect to Mathusian eugenics applied through birth control. Like I mentioned before, eugenics *was* her primary cause, not just an irrelevant philosophical footnote to her actions.
Comparing her to a Christian slave owner whose beliefs are at odds with their action forces an extremely dubious analogy. The Christian slave owner does not own and acquire slaves out of a proper understanding of his faith, but rather does violence to it by twisting scripture to say things it does not. Sanger's actions however are fueled primarily by her eugenic cause. While Sanger's work with birth control may appeal to you out of legitimate fear for a woman's welfare and quality of life when she has a child she cannot support, Sanger appears to have feared that woman's obviously "dysgenic" progeny much more. Choice was a practical means to the ends of eugenics-- she sought to change hearts and minds to eliminate the undesirable and create a better human stock.
I've seen some pro-Sanger literature claim that Sanger opposed forced sterilization, but in "A Plan for Peace", in her own words, she seems to directly advocate it on certain sections of the population:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/327166/1932-Margaret-Sanger-A-Plan-for-Peace
Well, she does seem to present a choice-- between sterilzation and segregation from society, perhaps with hopes that they would extinguish on their own. That's not much of a choice.
Understand that I'm not saying birth control is a bad thing simply because it is associated with Sanger's philosophy and cause. I am however, saying that Sanger's championed cause and passion was deplorable, and was the very reason she founded Planned Parenthood. To be intellectually honest, we should recognize that rather than reinterpret her passion and life's cause in order to hail her a hero, even if she advocated something useful and beneficial for the wrong reasons.
Linking legalization of abortion with lower crime rates alone seems an extremely sketchy use of the data to justify a position. A lot can happen in 18 years, all of which can impact the crime rate. One of the things I had pounded into my head in college psychology courses was "Correlation does *not* equal Causation." Even if partially true, it is compelling only if we assign a low value to the life of a fetus. But if we value them as actual human lives, then the statement because irrelevant, because through what can then be argued as murder, 40 million lives were the cost.
Furthermore, if we consider that most violent crimes are committed by young, black men, then by that reasoning, we would also lower the crime rate if we focused on aborting black babies in America-- something Sanger would likely concede to, though she would much prefer birth control as even she recognized the unborn as human life. She was however willing to sacrifice that life where she felt justified.
To be fair, I don't think she sought the elimination of the black race-- but she knew that her focus on their communities and intent to curtail their growth could be seen in that light. That's why she co-opted black churches and ministers to put eager, trustworthy black faces to her programs.
50. Al had the following to say on Mar 6 at 2:27 PM:
Oh, it appears that Sanger hoped to segregate the dysgenic masses to work camps that they might somehow improve themselves-- so at least by her words, I was wrong in my cynicism that they might simply perish by the wayside. Still, she recommended sterilization if they refused to comply. She confuses me because she asserts that they should remain in the camps their entire lives, then immediately says, "as long as necessary". Perhaps by both she means the same thing.
"Even so, I'm still a little iffy on abortion. For me, part of it involves the answer to a thought experiment like this one: guys and girls, pretend that I could shrink myself down to 12 inches long and lodge myself inside your body for 3, 9, 18, 90 months, and demand care: would you be under absolute obligation to take care of me?"
That thought experiment is only valid if babies actively invade their mothers bodies without their choice or as a result of any of their actions, so as it stands, it doesn't resemble most actual unwanted pregancies as fetuses are not willful parasites. I would have even less moral obligation to provide care for you for invading my body than for invading my house. But as it stands, if your life was at stake despite the demand you would be placing upon me, I'd like to say that I would still care for your survival.
But since you're able to actively demand care, I will also assume you are also able to understand that I'm giving you a gracious 12 months to literally get back out on your own. :)
Now, if my actions would have resulted in you being in my body through an actual pregnancy, then I would be absolutely obligated to ensure your survival as my daughter. Fortunately for the both of us, this would require either an extremely twisted miracle or a bad Arnold Swartzenegger movie.
51. Jethro had the following to say on Mar 6 at 3:07 PM:
Farmer Tom,
Your conservative ideology might not allow for government provided health care, but I challenge you to look someone who is dying of cancer in the eye and tell them that they're just going to have to suck it up and die quietly because it's not the government's role to help them.
When your ideology starts outweighing your humanity I think you need to reconsider your position.
52. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) had the following to say on Mar 6 at 4:20 PM:
Amir:
"The issue is not whether the Christian is obliged to be charitable, but rather (a) whether the command to be charitable translates to a mandate for government control of health care delivery, and (b) whether the Christian is obliged to extend such charity to people who are simply irresponsible rather than needy."
Can't answer (a), because I don't think that universal health care is a Christian thing as much as it is a human thing. For (b), I don't see a difference. I know Jesus healed people who were trapped in sin, by fault of their own. And I know that all people are God's children.
"When you stick your hand in your own pocket, pull out your money, and give it to the poor, it is charity.
When you stick your hand in someone else's pocket, take their money, and give that to the poor, it's theft."
I would gladly pay my taxes if I knew they were going to help sick, poor people, instead of going to big businesses so they don't have to pay as much taxes.
Let me ask: do you (everyone, not just Amir) have a problem with your tax dollars going to help the poor and sick?
53. Matthew had the following to say on Mar 6 at 7:35 PM:
[here goes another thread off the tracks] Just so my position doesn't get confused with others:
I am strongly in favor of the church taking on healthcare in America and providing for the least of these who are not insured-- from a missiological and Scriptural standpoint, it makes sense. It would also probably not nearly be as corrupt or inefficient as a gov't system. Until the church does that, though, there seems to be few other options to help the health of our nation and defend this basic human right besides an expansion of government programs. Amir, if you, me, and our fellow Christians won't give to the poor to help them meet this need, perhaps it is God's judgment on us to have the government steal it from us and provide that help in our stead.
Keep in mind in all discussions of who is "worthy" of receiving care that you and I were utterly undeserving of God's grace and healing when He saved us. If we are talking about the church's charity, then at the very least we should consider how we can reflect God's love to others.
54. Leah had the following to say on Mar 6 at 9:18 PM:
Sara, it is true that desperate women will get abortions whether they are legal or not.
But what about those who are just scared and think they have no other option? Is PP giving them the option to keep the baby? They may do, in a very off-the-cuff way, but they certainly don't encourage it. The point is, you can either legalise abortion and have, eg. 500,000 abortions a year (whether it be out of desperation, convenience, fear, apathy, whatever), or illegalise it (criminalise?) and have eg. 50,000 women getting abortions out of desperation.
farmer Tom, must you be so negative about people? How unfair of you to assume that the first-year med student suggesting the church looks after people like Jesus did is suggesting this out of his (or her) own self-interest.
55. farmer Tom had the following to say on Mar 7 at 5:50 AM:
In #47 Amir said,
Actually, I think Farmer Tom simply phrased the question the wrong way.
and he is correct, in my defense I was in a hurry, I should have asked where in Scripture we are told to be compassionate at the end of a gun barrel?? Do it or die.
To Andrew R in #42,
When I have the gift of healing, I promise to do it for free, nice try.
In #48 Jo asked,
Do you agree that the huge numbers of people in America who don't have health insurance through no fault of their own are in need of healthcare?
No I do not agree!!
In #51 Jethro said,
Your conservative ideology might not allow for government provided health care, but I challenge you to look someone who is dying of cancer in the eye and tell them that they're just going to have to suck it up and die quietly because it's not the government's role to help them.
When your ideology starts outweighing your humanity I think you need to reconsider your position.
Number 1, I am not a conservative, I am a Constitutionalist.
Number 2 and this is the crux of the matter, Jethro, I'm looking you right in the eye. "You are going to die."
Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die,
Futhermore, a believer in Jesus Christ has no reason to fear death.
Paul said, "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
I've got breaking news for you, everybody is going to die. The mortality rate for humans is 100%. You can not avoid your appointment with death.
So therefore your premise is false. Whether you die of cancer at 12 like my cousin did, or at 76 of cancer like my uncle did, or at 97 in your sleep like my neighbor did, you are going to die.
The question is, who should pay for someone prolonging their life. And I know this is harsh, I know this does not fit with the current crop of liberal do gooder propaganda that some church groups, some businesses and some individuals are parroting.
I can't save everyones soul, salvation is a personal acknowledgment of need for a Savior. You must personally accept God's free gift of Salvation. It's between you and God, you must personally accept or reject that free gift. In the same way "health care" is a personal responsibility. You should personally pay for your life style/health care and I am not responsible for saving your rotting carcass either. I am not responsible for the health care needs of some other person. Taking care of my family of 6 is more than I can handle anyway.
My health care is my problem. Your health care is your problem. Stealing my money to pay for someone else's health care is still still sinful, because those of you trying to make me pay for your health care or any body else's are thieves.
All of you would do a much more noble and eternally useful thing by putting your energies into sharing the Gospel message of Jesus Christ crucified, buried and Risen again, than whining about how some schmuck who doesn't have health care is dying. He's gonna die, are you more concerned with his "health care" while he is alive, than his eternal spiritual health???
So suck it up, pay your own bills and quit trying to take my money to pay for your "healthcare", we're all going to die anyway.
Question is where are you going to spend eternity?
56. Louise had the following to say on Mar 7 at 8:43 AM:
Farmer tom has just admitted that his family of six is "more than I can handle anyway".
So....perhaps people who decide that their family is complete after one, two or three children should not be considered undeserving sinners!
57. Matthew had the following to say on Mar 7 at 9:02 AM:
farmer Tom,
I feel like your position is mishandling the Bible. You're right-- sharing the Gospel is more important and spiritual health takes precedence over physical health. We must always fear Him who can kill both body and soul. However, we cannot make the mistake of treating ourselves as souls stuck in a slab of meat for a certain number of years. God created our bodies and will fully redeem them at the end of time; we need to recognize His care for creation and be part of that redemption. Jesus' ministry was part of that-- He healed the sick because He cared about the physical health of the people He created and wanted them to live full lives.
Also, the historical example I gave above showed how Christians caring for the physical health of their neighbors led to their neighbors repenting and believing in Jesus Christ.
If we throw out gov't-sponsored universal health care (sorry Jethro and Andrew) and just deal with the church, it is very clear from history and theology that we as Christians ought to be concerned about health care-- firstly because God cares about it and secondly because it is a powerful witness to God's love for the hurting, broken, and sick.
58. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) had the following to say on Mar 7 at 9:26 AM:
Farmer Tom:
So when Jesus tells us to care for the sick... and when He told the disciples to heal the sick... He meant only if God had given them the power to do so? So we should only do God's work if God makes it extremely easy for us to do?
But beyond that, your response to Jethro was really interesting. You argue that because everyone is going to die, we should not try to prolong people's lives by spending other people's money for their healthcare. Fascinating. What if we take it a step further? If everyone is going to die, why should we oppose abortion? We're just ending the fetus' life 70 years in advance. And why are we so against euthenasia? Everyone dies, so why not let them die when they want? Heck, why is murder illegal? Why do we have firefighters? We all die eventually, right?
Right?
59. Jesse had the following to say on Mar 7 at 10:02 AM:
Does anyone have any stats on the percentage of the corporate church that is obedient in tithing?
Regardless of one's beliefs as to whether or not the church is obligated to provide funding for health care, I wonder what the church could do if it had the financial freedom God intended it to have.
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=139
60. obewan had the following to say on Mar 7 at 11:34 AM:
#59. Jesse had the following to say:
“Does anyone have any stats on the percentage of the corporate church that is obedient in tithing?”
I have heard it commonly stated that the average American Christian only “tithes” 3.5% or so. (I don't expect it to change with the average credit card debts at $5K-$10k)
That said, there is absolutely no way the Church could start providing (abundant) medical care unless there were an literal army of “volunteer” doctors who were willing to give up their lucrative incomes to care for the needy as a form of “ministry”.
If our “high profit” corporations are already in CRISIS over this issue, how can the church be expected to take up the slack?
I see it as a real crisis waiting in the wings for many people. The Miami paper ran a recent article about a 64-year-old man (dying from cancer) who worked his whole life (over 40 years) only to become homeless when his HUGE medical bills bankrupted him completely.
He lost his home and his entire life savings and was forced to live in the park with his wife and two teenage sons. The city was even evicting him from the park, and he had nowhere to go. (His wife was sick too.)
Yes, SOME people in the church helped by bringing the family meals. If not for the food donations, they probably would not have eaten. Most of the uninsured in America are only one serious illness away from being in the same shoes as that family.
61. Matthew had the following to say on Mar 7 at 11:37 AM:
Good point, Jesse-- if all evangelicals who claim to believe the Bible just tithed (and assuming the tithe didn't go to charlatans like Benny Hinn or Kenneth Copeland), we could probably support way more missions, make a huge contribution to fighting poverty in America and around the world, support more church planting, care for more babies that would have otherwise been aborted...
62. Elizabeth Johnson had the following to say on Mar 7 at 2:40 PM:
Reguarding voting: I read an interesting editorial in WORLD magazine some time ago putting forth the opinion that while being pro-life does not qualify someone for office, supporting abortion does disqualify someone for office. I think that this is a reasonable point of view (my opinion:)The right to life is one of our most fundamental human rights, and someone who fails to protect life of the most vulnerable in our society is not fit for public office.
63. farmer Tom had the following to say on Mar 7 at 5:06 PM:
Andrew R said in #58,
But beyond that, your response to Jethro was really interesting. You argue that because everyone is going to die, we should not try to prolong people's lives by spending other people's money for their healthcare. Fascinating.
I'm all for prolonging life. I want to live to a ripe old age, like 47. But I am not a thief. Nor do I want you to be a thief.
As long as a person is capable of providing for themselves it is immoral for them to be taking money from anyone else to cover their medical care. At the point they can no longer provide for themselves, then God has established a hierarchy to cover these things. First is family, children should help to take care of their elderly parents.
Second is the church. If possible the church should help someone in needs access the needed medical care. After that comes private charity. Think Salvation
Army or Red Cross.
But no where is there ever a Biblical mandate to send soldiers, police officers or government agents out to collect money to pay for the health care of the needy. It is theft. Someone sticking a gun in your ribs and demanding money, whether he wears a mask in a dark alley or a uniform in broad daylight, is committing armed robbery.
If everyone is going to die, why should we oppose abortion? We're just ending the fetus' life 70 years in advance. And why are we so against euthenasia? Everyone dies, so why not let them die when they want? Heck, why is murder illegal? Why do we have firefighters? We all die eventually, right?
And no I am not amused at your attempt to distort what I was saying. I did not say I wanted anyone to die, I only said it was a fact. We are to protect life, we do what we can within reason to help those in need, but fearing death leads to attempts to make everyone live forever.
64. JB had the following to say on Mar 7 at 8:07 PM:
Farmer Tom,
I was pretty shocked to read your response. Where do you get your theology? The fact that we are all mortal does not in any was mean that we have no obligation to care for the sick. Life should be preserved, and even when it cannot, we can do a lot to ease suffering.
And this is your concern. The whole thrust of Christian ethics is about modeling agape in the world. You are your brother's keeper. Jesus commands us to love God and to love our neighbor, and, what's more, in caring for the sick these commandments are one. In Matthew 25, we're told that, "...whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." To care for the sick is to serve God and to refuse to care for the sick is to turn your back on God. It doesn't get any plainer than that.
If the government takes responsibility for providing this health care and your contribution to the healing of the sick comes in the form of taxes, that does introduce some new issues. But, at the same time, since we are commanded in no uncertain terms expressly to look after the sick, I don't see how your objection could be anything but purely theoretical. Your obligation to the sick remains the same whether through taxes or not.
65. JB had the following to say on Mar 7 at 8:16 PM:
Farmer Tom,
Your #63 wasn't posted when I wrote my last, but it raises a couple issues.
First, could you provide three proof texts that health care cannot be provided through means of government action? Texts that account for contemporary liberal democracies would be preferable.
Second, no one can steal from you if you give them what they ask for freely. If you gladly contribute to care for the sick, then the fact that you're also legally required to give the money is irrelevant. Government taxation to pay for health care can only possibly be theft if you would refuse to give money to that cause. I do not think, as Christians, that we can refuse to do so anyway.
66. Jethro had the following to say on Mar 7 at 9:56 PM:
Farmer Tom,
Your response actually made me quite happy. Happy because it clearly represents the absolute fringe of radical fundamentalism. Thankfully I think that's a place most Christians recoil from in horror - as evidenced by responses to your post. It gives me great hope to know that most Christians are far from where you are.
67. Jo had the following to say on Mar 8 at 4:13 AM:
farmer Tom,
We seem to be mixing two issues here.
First there is the issue, "Should the government be providing universal healthcare and taxing us for this prupose?" We know your answer to this is "No", and that's fine. So let's put that whole government-involvement issue to one side and work with a hypothetical situation where each person pays for his own healthcare.
In my post (#48) what I meant to point out was that you were saying it was not the church's duty to help the poor with their healthcare needs. Now I have a problem, because you're telling us that ""health care" is a personal responsibility", which flies in the face of Jesus' teaching in several passages that have already been quoted.
I'm fine with you saying that those who can afford healthcare should pay for themselves. I'm not fine with you saying that if they can't afford healthcare, it's no one's problem but theirs. I'm paraphrasing of course, but that seemed to be the implication of your comment.
Matt 25:44-45
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
Jesus clearly doesn't give us an option of saying "Well Lord, they were going to die anyway so we decided it was best to just preach to them." It's not an either-or situation.
Anyway, now I'm confused because your latest post (#63) seems to contradict your earlier one, since now you're saying the church does have some responsibility in this area. Perhaps you could clarify? To say that it's not our duty to help the poor through taxes is not the same as saying it's not our duty to help the poor at all.
68. Elizabeth H. had the following to say on Mar 8 at 5:27 AM:
This might be off-topic, but one health care option to consider is joining one of the Christian bill-sharing programs. The monthly share ends up being about the same, but at least the money is going to people who share the same set of values. You are not paying the medical bills of someone who is living a non-Christian lifestyle.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be charitable towards non-believers, but