Freedom of Choice Act: 101, Part 2 by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 02/02/2009 at 9:00 AM

In my last post, I gave an overview of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which President Obama has promised to sign into law. [Note: The legislative link posted is from the last Congress. A FOCA is not currently introduced in Congress but a similar bill is expected.]

Now I would like to take a look at a few of the particulars of this proposed act. Most of us are familiar with the fact that President Obama has claimed to support government action that will "reduce the number of abortions." In fact, Christian writer Donald Miller is so convinced of this, that he stated the following while campaigning for the president:

Senator Obama is going to move us past the impasse in our cultural war, something I think of as a cultural Vietnam. On the issue of abortion, he is the only candidate who has a plan to reduce the number of abortions.

Dr. Paul Kengor, professor of political science at Grove City College, points out that this is a familiar claim of those who support abortion:

The common mantra of pro-choice politicians is that they do not favor abortion. Quite the contrary, they want abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare.” Pro-choicers generally hold to this position; thus, as they are quick to note, they are not “pro-abortion” but “pro-choice.”

Is "safe, legal and rare" upheld in FOCA? Let’s consider the issue of viability. From the previous version of FOCA:

Under Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the right to privacy protects a woman's decision to choose to terminate her pregnancy prior to fetal viability, with the State permitted to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to protect a woman's life or health.

First let’s look at the statement that says the State is “permitted to ban abortion after fetal viability.” Consider the definition of “viability” as stated in FOCA:

That stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.

While FOCA acknowledges fetal viability as a restriction on abortion, the act goes on to criticize the federal ban on partial-birth abortion, the intensely cruel procedure used to kill nearly full term babies:

Further threatening Roe, the Supreme Court recently upheld the first-ever Federal ban on an abortion procedure, which has no exception to protect a woman's health.

So the obvious qualm is the issue of the woman’s health. But this begs the question: How do we define health? The definition of health that will be applied under FOCA is found in Doe v. Bolton:

. . . the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.

Whoa. This definition creates a hole so big that — as one of my colleagues put it — "you could drive a truck through it." In other words, it offers no viability protection. If FOCA is signed into law, it would make abortion a federally guaranteed right through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason that an abortionist can dream up as protecting "the health of the woman." From prior history, we know that this loophole effectively allows any and all abortions to occur, which will not make abortion “rare.”

Dr. Kengor concludes:

This goes far beyond the mantra of “safe, legal, and rare.” It goes way past the mere legalization of abortion enshrined in 1973 by Roe v. Wade. It also flies in the face of the standard pro-choice position that “I’m personally opposed to abortion, and would never support it myself, but I think it should be legal.”

That’s not what’s happening here. People who voted that way on Nov. 4, 2008, actually voted, whether they know it or not, for pro-lifers like me to begin paying for abortions through my tax dollars. Their vote was not morally neutral; in fact, their vote will help generate a boom cycle for abortion clinics.

If President Obama goes through with this unprecedented promotion of abortion, then pro-choicers will need to amend their mantra. The new slogan will need to be “safe, legal, rare — and subsidized, and promoted, and without freedom of conscience . . . .”

In my next post, I will talk about action we can take based on this knowledge. Abortion is not the only issue Christians should be concerned about. Our faith needs to be holistic. We are called to be good neighbors, to feed the hungry, to give to the poor. But we are also called to fight for the oppressed and defend the cause of the weak. And who is weaker than a viable human being who is too small to fight for his own life? Or, even more vulnerable, a conceived being whose very personhood is in question?

Freedom of Choice Act: 101, Part 2 by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 02/02/2009 at 9:00 AM

In my last post, I gave an overview of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which President Obama has promised to sign into law. [Note: The legislative link posted is from the last Congress. A FOCA is not currently introduced in Congress but a similar bill is expected.]

Now I would like to take a look at a few of the particulars of this proposed act. Most of us are familiar with the fact that President Obama has claimed to support government action that will "reduce the number of abortions." In fact, Christian writer Donald Miller is so convinced of this, that he stated the following while campaigning for the president:

Senator Obama is going to move us past the impasse in our cultural war, something I think of as a cultural Vietnam. On the issue of abortion, he is the only candidate who has a plan to reduce the number of abortions.

Dr. Paul Kengor, professor of political science at Grove City College, points out that this is a familiar claim of those who support abortion:

The common mantra of pro-choice politicians is that they do not favor abortion. Quite the contrary, they want abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare.” Pro-choicers generally hold to this position; thus, as they are quick to note, they are not “pro-abortion” but “pro-choice.”

Is "safe, legal and rare" upheld in FOCA? Let’s consider the issue of viability. From the previous version of FOCA:

Under Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the right to privacy protects a woman's decision to choose to terminate her pregnancy prior to fetal viability, with the State permitted to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to protect a woman's life or health.

First let’s look at the statement that says the State is “permitted to ban abortion after fetal viability.” Consider the definition of “viability” as stated in FOCA:

That stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.

While FOCA acknowledges fetal viability as a restriction on abortion, the act goes on to criticize the federal ban on partial-birth abortion, the intensely cruel procedure used to kill nearly full term babies:

Further threatening Roe, the Supreme Court recently upheld the first-ever Federal ban on an abortion procedure, which has no exception to protect a woman's health.

So the obvious qualm is the issue of the woman’s health. But this begs the question: How do we define health? The definition of health that will be applied under FOCA is found in Doe v. Bolton:

. . . the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.

Whoa. This definition creates a hole so big that — as one of my colleagues put it — "you could drive a truck through it." In other words, it offers no viability protection. If FOCA is signed into law, it would make abortion a federally guaranteed right through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason that an abortionist can dream up as protecting "the health of the woman." From prior history, we know that this loophole effectively allows any and all abortions to occur, which will not make abortion “rare.”

Dr. Kengor concludes:

This goes far beyond the mantra of “safe, legal, and rare.” It goes way past the mere legalization of abortion enshrined in 1973 by Roe v. Wade. It also flies in the face of the standard pro-choice position that “I’m personally opposed to abortion, and would never support it myself, but I think it should be legal.”

That’s not what’s happening here. People who voted that way on Nov. 4, 2008, actually voted, whether they know it or not, for pro-lifers like me to begin paying for abortions through my tax dollars. Their vote was not morally neutral; in fact, their vote will help generate a boom cycle for abortion clinics.

If President Obama goes through with this unprecedented promotion of abortion, then pro-choicers will need to amend their mantra. The new slogan will need to be “safe, legal, rare — and subsidized, and promoted, and without freedom of conscience . . . .”

In my next post, I will talk about action we can take based on this knowledge. Abortion is not the only issue Christians should be concerned about. Our faith needs to be holistic. We are called to be good neighbors, to feed the hungry, to give to the poor. But we are also called to fight for the oppressed and defend the cause of the weak. And who is weaker than a viable human being who is too small to fight for his own life? Or, even more vulnerable, a conceived being whose very personhood is in question?

Comments

[1. Josh M said the following at 11:07 AM on Feb 2:]

1

While I don't agree with the logic of it, I was under the impression that those who are pro-choice with the intent of making abortion rare were not planning on making it rare by protecting the child at any point. But rather that through education and funding, the "need" for an abortion would become rare. As in, by getting enough contraceptives out there and transferring the knowledge to use them properly, people would be able to engage in sex as they see fit without any concern for the possible consequence of a baby.

They throw out all these exceptions - child threatening the life of the mother, cases of rape, etc - but the real reason to support abortion is a case for convenience, so that only people who are prepared and want a child should bear one.

I feel I should say again, that I don't agree with this point of view and line of reasoning. Only pointing out that whether FOCA makes partial-birth abortions legal or not, really has no bearing (in the FOCA supporters' minds) on whether they are making abortion more rare. They hope to make them more rare by other means, this law is just to make that "choice" more free.

[2. Salanna said the following at 5:55 PM on Feb 2:]

2

This raises the question: if this passes as President Obama has promised it will, how can we as Christians pay taxes in good conscience, knowing that our tax dollars would be funding something that we so vehemently oppose?

[3. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:41 PM on Feb 2:]

3

Disclaimer: I'm not giving tax advice here:

It does seem strange that every 4 July, Americans celebrate a revolt against unfair taxation (which was only about 2.5%), while today according to VP Biden it's "patriotic" to pay taxes 10 times as much, and which are used to slaughter unborn babies.

[4. Kelsey said the following at 7:02 PM on Feb 2:]

4

To #3: It doesn't seem strange if you remember the revolt was over taxation without representation not high taxes. We have representation here. Hopefully they will represent us well.

[5. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:13 PM on Feb 2:]

5

Kelsey (#3), as Thomas Sowell shows in detail in his book Knowledge and Decisions (praised by Hayek and Friedman), many of the regulations, including tax laws, are made by unelected bureaucrats in a multiplicity of bureaucratic agencies. Sowell argues that agencies that both make and enforce the law is a departure from the separation of powers.

It's especially ironic, because another gripe against the King in the Declaration of Independence was:

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."

[6. Bea said the following at 9:07 PM on Feb 2:]

6

As far as taxation goes, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"--and he was by no means a perfect ruler. Scripture is clear on that point--whether or not we endorse what our government does, we are to pay it taxes.

[7. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 12:23 AM on Feb 3:]

7

Bea (#6), so would you agree with this American biblical creationist who thinks the American Revolution was wrong? I know Wallbuilders wouldn't ... I am Australian, so want to know! :)

[8. brx said the following at 2:06 AM on Feb 3:]

8

Suzanne,

Nice analyzing, much better than part 1! :)

In your conclusion though, I think, is a stale-mate argument:
"And who is weaker than a viable human being who is too small to fight for his own life? Or, even more vulnerable, a conceived being whose very personhood is in question?"

That's the same old stale-mate because we can't look into the future and see the tangeable value of that life. So, some will continue to speculate and argue that any potential human life is of great value while others will continue to argue it is of no consequence.

BUT, that is were I think the argument may be won -- by examining the consequences - what does abortion do to a society as a whole? Is it good or bad? Attack the question from a seemingly more secular point of view so that the answer can't be dismissed as easily as an obvious 'religious' stance.

Grace & peace

[9. Jethro said the following at 2:26 AM on Feb 3:]

9

Mr Sarfati,

Let's not forget that taxes are also used to slaughter innocent Iraqis and Afghanis.

And yes it is patriotic to pay your taxes.

Can I recommend that perhaps you spend two seconds to stop and think about Obama/Biden/Democrats in general and realize that they are not in fact the pure evil your feeble caricatures make them out to be.

[10. LouiseinPA said the following at 7:36 AM on Feb 3:]

10

Thank you for bringing up this topic. i agree that it's extremely important that christians continue to fight abortion through multiple means-legislature, cultural evangelism, funding pregnancy centers, etc. i also accept that reducing the number of abortions is a good goal but don't think that either option necessary means that people could work towards both at the same time.

it makes me disheartened when Christians so easily give up because of one election and think that all is not lost. Thankfully God is in control and we're not called to necessarily be successful (ie immediate end of all abortions) but rather faithful in speaking up for what is true-the dignity of all people.

[11. Christina (in green) said the following at 8:55 AM on Feb 3:]

11

Jethro (#9),

As a Conservative that hates our two party system with a passion, challenges everything out of both parties (if not on paper, definitely in my head and against my father), and has caused my father no small amount of alarm at whether I'd vote dem or not and as someone who was originally considering voting for Obama when I first heard of him (around the time that Donald Miller was getting on board, I guess), I'd like to answer your rather abrasive question:

Can I recommend that perhaps you spend two seconds to stop and think about Obama/Biden/Democrats in general and realize that they are not in fact the pure evil your feeble caricatures make them out to be.

First of all, currently I am pleasantly surprised by what Obama is doing thus far. However, his promise to pass this act has me a bit perturbed and I am not off my guard. Biden, I could care less about him. I think he's just as dumb as the media made Palin and Bush out to be but because he's a Dem, he gets away with it. He's had as many gaffs as they have had.

As for democrats, I didn't see Sarfati necessarily call them "Evil" (though his opinion of Obama is clearly that - and he has his reasons that are actually reasonable...like supporting partial birth abortion).

I'm not John, so I won't call them evil, either - but I definitely don't agree with their policies, their philosophy, and the voting base they cater to.

What FRUSTRATES me about your ridiculous question, though, is that YOU refuse to stop and question your own motives, your own reasons, and your own blind belief in a political party. Why do YOU support these people? Is it because you think the other party is ineffective? Because that's no reason. I think the Republican Party is ineffective but I refuse to align myself with the vast majority of liberal policies.

Get your head out of your own little box and try challenging your own beliefs before thinking you'll have any effect on someone whose already abandoned those beliefs in favor of something else.

I say this, because you truly do sound like a walking box for the Democratic Party - like you've accepted everything at face value without trying to dig any deeper into it. Kinda like feminists and all those pro-choicers.

Oh - and FYI...if your going to use a title, go with Dr. Sarfati. Not Mr.

[12. Mary Jo in OH said the following at 9:08 AM on Feb 3:]

12

if FOCA is passed it needs to include:
Regulations that protect women from unsafe clinics & unscrupulous abortions (recovery for embryonic stem cells).
It should be optional, on tax forms, whether individuals want to fund abortions, and their contributions would be tax deductable.
All women who want partial-birth abortions,need to have mandated counseling by a committee of pro-life and pro-choice professionals in order to make an informed choice.
If a doctor or nurse does not wish to perform abortions, a pro-choice doctor or nurse need to be available.
Parents have the right and responsibility to be informed of their minor daughter's decision to abortion.

[13. brx said the following at 1:14 PM on Feb 3:]

13

Johnathan (#7),

It seems to me, that according to the teaching and priorities of Jesus, the best argument is that the violence of the American Revolution was indeed wrong.

That is NOT to say God didn't use the situation for purposes of His glory. Nor, am I suggesting that it's not a blessing to have the opportunities that are before each and every American citizen.

...but an asside: since everything that happened in the OT serves as an example for us so that we should not have our hearts in the wrong places, I think if the US as a nation does not get turned around to become the blessing it is supposed to be, it is not inconceivable that the US could go the way of Biblical Israel within our lifetime.

Perceive, Re-align, Attend, Xristos, Involve, Spirit

[14. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:31 PM on Feb 3:]

14

brx (#13),
It seems to me, that according to the teaching and priorities of Jesus, the best argument is that the violence of the American Revolution was indeed wrong.

This kinda makes sense to me, but then on top of that you have the rights guaranteed to citizens by the Magna Carta being violated...right? That was one of the tenets put in place by that document, wasn't it?

Sorry...I appear to be in need of pulling out my British History book once again...I am RUSTY!

Less video games, more books books books...

[15. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:11 PM on Feb 3:]

15

Miss Jethro (since you like to use the wrong titles :P):

You are yourself caricturing my position. Of course no one is "pure evil", evil itself is a privation of good (as I explain here).

It remains true that Obamov is an abortion extremist who supports infanticide aka a war on defenceless babies who are no threat to anyone. There is also a difference between intentional and unintentional killing.

OK then, if it is patriotic to pay your taxes, then the American revolution was wrong and unpatriotic.

It seems that Jethro replaces "In God we trust" with "In big government we trust".

[16. BDB said the following at 11:31 PM on Feb 3:]

16

Tonight I got a phone call recording of Mike Huckabee asking for money to make phone calls about FOCA. I felt like an informed person...

[17. Sheridan said the following at 2:24 AM on Feb 4:]

17

I am becoming increasingly disturbed by the amount of Christians that are no longer willing to fight against abortion, or even vote against the party that supports it.
The majority of Christians are saying (on boundless especially)
'There are OTHER issues as well... poverty, global warming, Iraq war, that are just as important, so we are voting based on these issues instead.'

But what they are REALLY saying is that these issues are MORE important, because those OTHER issues are the deciding factor of whom they vote for.

And I have a problem with this.

Athiests and the non-christian population will stand and make noise against war, about global warming..even against poverty.
They will not stand and fight against abortion.

So why don't we Christians leave the general population to fight for all these issues, and why don't we choose to stand for something that Nobody else will.

If we do not fight against abortion, both with our tounges, our actions, and our votes...the unborn have NO voice, because NOBODY else cares.

[18. Jethro said the following at 3:08 AM on Feb 4:]

18

Christina (#11),

First. The Democrats are not my party. I have no party. Certainly I have a strong preference for the Democrats over the Republicans, but I am not registered nor officially affiliated with either.

Second, I do in fact challenge various Democrat positions on alot of issues. I tend to characterize myself as a centrist/moderate, but essentially I believe in effective government. That is, government should go with what is proven and what works over what is dictated by a given ideology.

For example, on the issue of sex education I am against abstinence only and for comprehensive sex ed. This isn't because I think comprehensive is 'better' (whatever that would mean anyway), but simply because it is more effective if you consider the objective criteria: reduction in disease, pregnancy etc.

So thank you for your advice and please rest assured that I have already taken it on board.

FYI I went used the title 'Mr' instead of 'Dr' because I feel that the good Dr Safarti tends to rely on the implied authority of his education to boost the credibility of posts which lie far outside the areas of his formal training. For what it's worth, he isn't the only one with an honorific - we just don't all choose to use them.

[19. Kate said the following at 8:30 AM on Feb 4:]

19

Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.: Why do you refer to President Obama as "Obamov?"

Especially if you are insistent upon referring to yourself in such a professional, titled way as, "Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.?" (which I also think is somewhat odd in this setting!)

Sure anyone with a title can mention the title and ask others to address them by it... but it also does present a certain picture, and it also presents a certain picture (of disrespect) when you deliberately choose not to refer to somebody by their title when it is appropriate.

An example: in an academic setting as a student or colleague, not calling your professor by "Dr." or "professor" when this title is due and this professor has not asked you to call them by more informal terms, this is really disrespectful, unprofessional and inappropriate. But here on Boundless, readers are not enrolled in your class but are perusing the blogs and articles based on our own private interest.

Another reason your use of title seems odd is that writers and commenters on this site do not conventionally state their titles or credentials.

As far as the appropriateness of referring to President Obama as "Obamov"... since you are an author on this site, I cannot see how it is proper for you to refer to him in any other way than with the use of "President" before his name spelled correctly, whereas a commenter may be less inappropriate by referring to him as simply "Obama." I don't think it is appropriate for anyone to use stupid nicknames though! (The only reason I can think of for adding the "ov" on the end is that you are trying to make him seem more like an Eastern European, "communist" "bad guy" leader).

It's not that I am really a fan of Obama, but I find it really disgraceful to publicly show petty disrespect for leaders you may dislike. Also, your credibility in disagreeing with his philosophy and practices decreases with such behavior...

[20. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:43 AM on Feb 4:]

20

Jethro, the problem is that the Partial Birth Abortion Democratic Party is going for ideology not what works. E.g. Comrade Obamov declared:

"There is no disagreement that we need action byour government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."

Yet the Cato Institute ran a full-page newspaper ad signed by more than 200 economists, including Nobel laureates, stating:

"We the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's 'lost decade' in the 1990s ... Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."

Obamov also urges the quick passage of his porkfest stimulus bill quickly, because "something" must be done about this economic crisis. The great 1980s British political TV satire Yes Minister brilliantly shows the logical absurdity in a dialogue between two cynical head civil servants.

BTW, I despise the big-spending and tariffs by the other lot too.

[21. Jeremy said the following at 9:24 AM on Feb 4:]

21

"But what they are REALLY saying is that these issues are MORE important, because those OTHER issues are the deciding factor of whom they vote for."

This is untrue. For many people, there is no single issue that is a "deciding factor"; rather it is a larger set of issues. I personally find single-issue voting (especially on an issue like abortion in relation to which voting for a particular party has little to no effect on the actually issue) to be ridiciulously simplistic.

And I might remind you that abortion is not a Christian vs. non-Christian issue. Many atheists oppose legal abortion, and many Christians support it. In saying so, of course, I open the door for the common "Anyone who disagrees with me about _____ is not really a Christian," but hopefully we can avoid that sentiment.

-----------------------------------

"FYI I went used the title 'Mr' instead of 'Dr' because I feel that the good Dr Safarti tends to rely on the implied authority of his education to boost the credibility of posts which lie far outside the areas of his formal training. For what it's worth, he isn't the only one with an honorific - we just don't all choose to use them."

I could not help but smile at that.

[22. Josh M said the following at 1:36 PM on Feb 4:]

22

Jonathan (#20):
It should be noted that the CATO institute is decidedly biased against anything big government. So while yes it does show that there are disagreeing voices out there, it does not necessarily make them right just because they found 200. I actually happen to agree with them and much of what CATO puts out, but it's also important to consider the opinions of all economists out there, not just the ones I agree with. Thankfully a survey was commissioned of economists prior to the election to see what economists thought of party policies. Detailed results and methodology can be found here (use his powerpoint link).

@Kate (#19):
I agree. I'm also confused by his post #7 in this thread which seems to imply he is not American, but the rest of his posts seem to show a vested and personal interest in our politics. Dr. Sarfati?

[23. Charles H. said the following at 4:00 PM on Feb 4:]

23

You can call me 'doctor' or just Charles; it's not a big deal to me, but for the record, that's what I am. I am an attending physician at a major teaching hospital and trauma center. I say that not to brag (it was ALL God's grace that I survived the medical education system) but to preface my comments on what is, after all, a medical question.

Abortion is murder. It is the deliberate destruction of a living, innocent human being. I can't say it any more simply or clearly than that. Can you be a Christian and support murder? Yes, you can, just as you can be a Christian and support greed or pornography or stealing. That doesn't make any of those things right or worthy of support. It makes you a Christian who supports something sinful, and therefore a Christian who needs to repent and ask God's forgiveness.

This means that yes, I am one of the dreaded "single-issue voters." I believe that tax money is being wasted; I believe that our foreign policy is inconsistent if not incoherent; but I believe that legalized abortion is America's own holocaust. What was the tax rate in WW2 Germany? What was its health care system or its immigration policy? I don't know. I am sure it could be looked up, but the one thing all remember about that sad time - even beyond a foreign policy based on attempting to conquer Europe - is the massacre of the Jews. The one thing that will be remembered about this time in America's history is that we killed, with equal impunity, millions more of our own people.

Christina in green (#11), good point about VP Biden. If Republicans were to sell such a longtime Washington insider as a chance for "change," we'd be laughed off the stage, and rightly so.

Mary Jo (#12), I'd like to challenge your statement that "If a doctor or nurse does not wish to perform abortions, a pro-choice doctor or nurse need [sic] to be available." Abortion is unethical because it infringes upon the rights of a person who, if able to express her own opinion, would not wish to be killed. If I request that my own personal doctor do something unethical, is he required to look for someone who does not consider it unethical?

Regarding whether it is acceptable to pay taxes, I think the Bible is clear. Jesus Himself said to "render unto Caesar..." and taxes in the Roman empire would have gone to any number of awful things. Rome was not known for being a place friendly to Christians, nor to our values. So although I would welcome the chance to direct my taxes away from abortion, Jesus' words in the Bible seem (to me) to absolve me from guilt for how the government spends the money it takes from me in taxes. Thoughts?

[24. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 4:34 PM on Feb 4:]

24

Kate (#19), my own workplace, even the most junior staff address me by by first name, in a hypocoristic form at that. I was saying that if you are going to use a title, then make sure it's the right one.

It's also ironic that now people demand utmost respect for the President, after years of vilifying the previous one. The Leftmedia even gloated at that Iraqi Che-Guevara-worshipper who threw shoes at Bush. Of course, if he had thrown shoes at Saddam—or Che for that matter—he would have been tortured and killed.

As for Obamov, he supports antenatal baby butchery, socialism, and the entire gay agenda, and is crassly illogical to boot: see this clip from Yes Minister, then see if you can spot the flaw in Obamov's "we must pass this bailout quickly, since something must be done about this crisis".

[25. Sheridan said the following at 5:00 PM on Feb 4:]

25

People, stop getting stuck into Dr Sarfati just because he uses 'Obamov'.
We all know that you adore Obama...and we all know that you called George Bush a lot of worse names when he was in office. I don't remember anti-Bush people on here referring to him as 'President Bush'.
Get over it.

And why do all those that called George Bush a war mongerer decide that for some reason a man that supports genocide is more morally upright???
Go figure.

[26. Sheridan said the following at 5:11 PM on Feb 4:]

26

Jeremy:

Why Christians support abortion when it flies directly against the well known commandment of 'Thou shall not murder' is beyond me. Or is that another Bible verse not to be taken literally????

Also, I know of no athiests that are against abortion...granted there are some agnostics that don't agree with it...but they certainly dont list it as something that is worth casting their vote on.
If Christians also get it in their head that abortion is not worth their single deciding vote, well gee...you tell me...what hope do the unborn have at all?
None.

[27. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:02 PM on Feb 4:]

27

Josh M , the point is that Obamov did the typical liberal trick of declaring that there was no disagreement with the favoured left article of faith, whether go-to-you evolution, global warm-mongering, and now the necessity for the porkfest stimulus. That huge number of economics professors proves him wrong.

OK, so the CATO institute is biased against big government. But the question is, why are they biased? Perhaps for the reasons they presented: the repeated failures of government big-spending and bloated government programs, and seeing how economies prosper more when buyers ad sellers are free of government interference.

And yes, when I said, "I am Australian" (#7), a reasonable case could be made that this "seems to imply he is not American", albeit enthymematically ;) All the same, many Americans tell me that I know much more about American politics and history than most American voters.

[28. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:10 PM on Feb 4:]

28

Further to (#24), the transcript from Yes Minister (episode Party Games) (search the web for for "yes minister" and "politician's logic). For those who can't find it, it features two cynical head civil servants, Sir Arnold Robinson and Sir Humphrey Appleby discussing the politician and future Prime Minister Jim Hacker:

HA: Hacker’s just grasping at straws.

AR: It’s the old logical fallacy.
All cats have four legs. My dog has four legs…

HA: Therefore my dog is a cat.

AR: He’s suffering from politician’s logic.

HA: Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it.

AR: But doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing.

[29. Jeremy said the following at 10:05 PM on Feb 4:]

29

Sheridan (26) --

Whether abortion is murder depends on whether a soul is present at the time of the abortion. This is a question that is far from settled in many people's minds, and one that is not tied to any particular religious belief.

You might ask yourself, if abortion is so obviously murder, why do you know no atheists that oppose it? Do you suppose they would want murder to be legal too? Or might some (both atheists and Christians) see it as a more complex issue than that?

Indeed, although I see single-issue voting as a bit simplistic, what I find most bothersome are the many that take it to an extreme where it stops making sense. Maybe you can convince yourself that a Republican president would appoint enough Supreme Court judges that want to overturn Roe v. Wade that it could happen someday (although this is a fantasy). But even if so, many take it a step further and make abortion the deciding factor in who to vote for for, say, Congress. At this point not even in theory could the person have a significant impact on abortion, yet it remains the deciding factor? That strikes me as moving into the realm of the laughable.

[30. Josh M said the following at 11:32 PM on Feb 4:]

30

So, Jonathan, out of curiosity, why is it that you know so much of American politics and history? I must admit I know nothing about Australian politics and only limited amounts of some European states.

I work with someone who, if asked, would probably name herself to be Greek before saying anything of being American. She obtained dual-citizenship several years ago before I met her and is well versed in American politics and history as well. It was because of your knowledge that I asked, thinking you might be similar.

[31. Todd said the following at 8:15 AM on Feb 5:]

31

This comment probably won't be published, but the question is sincere.

Does anybody wonder if when you get to heaven and Jesus welcomes you with grace and mercy and love, he won't also maybe say (very lovingly of course), "Dude, you know you were a bit of an jerk, right?."

Or is it just me?

[32. IMO said the following at 9:58 AM on Feb 5:]

32

#31,

No need to speculate.

See Hebrews 10:29-31,1 Peter 4:4-6 , Revelation 19:11, Revelation 20:12-14

Perhaps 1 Corinthians 15:52-54 as well.

And to dig deeper, there are lots of commentaries available to read.

[33. Sheridan said the following at 4:05 PM on Feb 5:]

33

Jeremy:

The reason I believe athiests are not against abortion is because they believe there is no soul in the 'fetus'...and this belief is a dangerous path to go down. For instance...partial birth abortion, aborting at 8 months...where does it stop? And the truth is, nobody knows at what point the soul enters the body...and yet shouldn't the unknown factor be enough to save these childrens lives, not discard them as useless? The question should not be 'What if they have no soul?' but the question that should scare a lot of Christians and non-Christians alike...'WHAT IF THEY HAVE??'

Now, you are right that one man cannot overturn laws in congress...but George Bush had managed to make things difficult for the abortionist agenda none the less...hence now Barak Obama has (after being in office less than two weeks)
lifted these restrictions...much to the delight of the pro-choices.

So you say one man cant change anything? I think Obama can change enough to do damage.

[34. Hannah C. said the following at 5:09 PM on Feb 5:]

34

Actually, there are atheists and agnostics who are pro-life...

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

If you google "atheists against abortion" you will get varying other responses, some of which are pro-life.

The main reason I am pro-life has nothing to do with what the Bible says: it has to do with the fact that I have a lot of younger siblings, and I remember eagerly anticipating the birth of each one. If my mother had ever had a miscarriage, that baby would have been very much mourned. Also, being a former fetus myself and having a good friend who is the product of a teenage pregnancy, I fail to see the difference between the baby outside of the womb and the baby inside.

[35. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:36 PM on Feb 5:]

35

Josh, I am married to an American and have an American daughter.

If I were to name a single author for political and economic information, it would have to be economist Dr Thomas Sowell. Much of what he writes has world-wide application too. E.g. he has written the book Affirmative Action Around the World showing that it has been a disaster everywhere it has been tried (and he is African American).

[36. Jeremy said the following at 11:06 AM on Feb 6:]

36

"And the truth is, nobody knows at what point the soul enters the body...and yet shouldn't the unknown factor be enough to save these childrens lives, not discard them as useless? The question should not be 'What if they have no soul?' but the question that should scare a lot of Christians and non-Christians alike...'WHAT IF THEY HAVE??'"

Exactly right, and that is precisely my position; I think abortion should be illegal because, given that unknown, we should err on the side of caution. It frustrates me, though, that so many people pretend it is not an unknown in the first place. It is disingenuous to claim knowledge that one doesn't have, and it becomes dangerously so when one begins to twist Scripture to fit this preconceived notion.

[37. Ambrosia said the following at 12:02 PM on Feb 6:]

37

This has nothing to do waith Obama, democrats, FOCA or Taxes...

While I appreciate Christians taking social issues seriously and being "knowledgeable" about our society; It breaks my heart to see how fast we can tear each other down.

On Boundless comment sections, more often than not,I have begun to notice sarcasm,( No, not the "cutsy" funny kind) cynacism, disrespect and just sheer old meaness.

No matter the opinion of a fellow commenter, even if it goes against our deepest belief; we have no right (nor God's approval) to treat that each other with anything less than love!

Remember WE are suppose to be the light of the world... WE are the ones that need to show the world how to live and treat one another. If we can't treat each other with love, why should we expect the world too?

[38. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 3:09 PM on Apr 19:]

38

I scored 12/12 on this American politics test, although I confess to guessing on a couple, and I'm not even American. The mean score among Americans taking it is apparently 5.3 and the commonest score is 2, with only 2% getting 12/12.

[1. Josh M said the following at 11:07 AM on Feb 2:]

1

While I don't agree with the logic of it, I was under the impression that those who are pro-choice with the intent of making abortion rare were not planning on making it rare by protecting the child at any point. But rather that through education and funding, the "need" for an abortion would become rare. As in, by getting enough contraceptives out there and transferring the knowledge to use them properly, people would be able to engage in sex as they see fit without any concern for the possible consequence of a baby.

They throw out all these exceptions - child threatening the life of the mother, cases of rape, etc - but the real reason to support abortion is a case for convenience, so that only people who are prepared and want a child should bear one.

I feel I should say again, that I don't agree with this point of view and line of reasoning. Only pointing out that whether FOCA makes partial-birth abortions legal or not, really has no bearing (in the FOCA supporters' minds) on whether they are making abortion more rare. They hope to make them more rare by other means, this law is just to make that "choice" more free.

[2. Salanna said the following at 5:55 PM on Feb 2:]

2

This raises the question: if this passes as President Obama has promised it will, how can we as Christians pay taxes in good conscience, knowing that our tax dollars would be funding something that we so vehemently oppose?

[3. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:41 PM on Feb 2:]

3

Disclaimer: I'm not giving tax advice here:

It does seem strange that every 4 July, Americans celebrate a revolt against unfair taxation (which was only about 2.5%), while today according to VP Biden it's "patriotic" to pay taxes 10 times as much, and which are used to slaughter unborn babies.

[4. Kelsey said the following at 7:02 PM on Feb 2:]

4

To #3: It doesn't seem strange if you remember the revolt was over taxation without representation not high taxes. We have representation here. Hopefully they will represent us well.

[5. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:13 PM on Feb 2:]

5

Kelsey (#3), as Thomas Sowell shows in detail in his book Knowledge and Decisions (praised by Hayek and Friedman), many of the regulations, including tax laws, are made by unelected bureaucrats in a multiplicity of bureaucratic agencies. Sowell argues that agencies that both make and enforce the law is a departure from the separation of powers.

It's especially ironic, because another gripe against the King in the Declaration of Independence was:

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."

[6. Bea said the following at 9:07 PM on Feb 2:]

6

As far as taxation goes, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"--and he was by no means a perfect ruler. Scripture is clear on that point--whether or not we endorse what our government does, we are to pay it taxes.

[7. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 12:23 AM on Feb 3:]

7

Bea (#6), so would you agree with this American biblical creationist who thinks the American Revolution was wrong? I know Wallbuilders wouldn't ... I am Australian, so want to know! :)

[8. brx said the following at 2:06 AM on Feb 3:]

8

Suzanne,

Nice analyzing, much better than part 1! :)

In your conclusion though, I think, is a stale-mate argument:
"And who is weaker than a viable human being who is too small to fight for his own life? Or, even more vulnerable, a conceived being whose very personhood is in question?"

That's the same old stale-mate because we can't look into the future and see the tangeable value of that life. So, some will continue to speculate and argue that any potential human life is of great value while others will continue to argue it is of no consequence.

BUT, that is were I think the argument may be won -- by examining the consequences - what does abortion do to a society as a whole? Is it good or bad? Attack the question from a seemingly more secular point of view so that the answer can't be dismissed as easily as an obvious 'religious' stance.

Grace & peace

[9. Jethro said the following at 2:26 AM on Feb 3:]

9

Mr Sarfati,

Let's not forget that taxes are also used to slaughter innocent Iraqis and Afghanis.

And yes it is patriotic to pay your taxes.

Can I recommend that perhaps you spend two seconds to stop and think about Obama/Biden/Democrats in general and realize that they are not in fact the pure evil your feeble caricatures make them out to be.

[10. LouiseinPA said the following at 7:36 AM on Feb 3:]

10

Thank you for bringing up this topic. i agree that it's extremely important that christians continue to fight abortion through multiple means-legislature, cultural evangelism, funding pregnancy centers, etc. i also accept that reducing the number of abortions is a good goal but don't think that either option necessary means that people could work towards both at the same time.

it makes me disheartened when Christians so easily give up because of one election and think that all is not lost. Thankfully God is in control and we're not called to necessarily be successful (ie immediate end of all abortions) but rather faithful in speaking up for what is true-the dignity of all people.

[11. Christina (in green) said the following at 8:55 AM on Feb 3:]

11

Jethro (#9),

As a Conservative that hates our two party system with a passion, challenges everything out of both parties (if not on paper, definitely in my head and against my father), and has caused my father no small amount of alarm at whether I'd vote dem or not and as someone who was originally considering voting for Obama when I first heard of him (around the time that Donald Miller was getting on board, I guess), I'd like to answer your rather abrasive question:

Can I recommend that perhaps you spend two seconds to stop and think about Obama/Biden/Democrats in general and realize that they are not in fact the pure evil your feeble caricatures make them out to be.

First of all, currently I am pleasantly surprised by what Obama is doing thus far. However, his promise to pass this act has me a bit perturbed and I am not off my guard. Biden, I could care less about him. I think he's just as dumb as the media made Palin and Bush out to be but because he's a Dem, he gets away with it. He's had as many gaffs as they have had.

As for democrats, I didn't see Sarfati necessarily call them "Evil" (though his opinion of Obama is clearly that - and he has his reasons that are actually reasonable...like supporting partial birth abortion).

I'm not John, so I won't call them evil, either - but I definitely don't agree with their policies, their philosophy, and the voting base they cater to.

What FRUSTRATES me about your ridiculous question, though, is that YOU refuse to stop and question your own motives, your own reasons, and your own blind belief in a political party. Why do YOU support these people? Is it because you think the other party is ineffective? Because that's no reason. I think the Republican Party is ineffective but I refuse to align myself with the vast majority of liberal policies.

Get your head out of your own little box and try challenging your own beliefs before thinking you'll have any effect on someone whose already abandoned those beliefs in favor of something else.

I say this, because you truly do sound like a walking box for the Democratic Party - like you've accepted everything at face value without trying to dig any deeper into it. Kinda like feminists and all those pro-choicers.

Oh - and FYI...if your going to use a title, go with Dr. Sarfati. Not Mr.

[12. Mary Jo in OH said the following at 9:08 AM on Feb 3:]

12

if FOCA is passed it needs to include:
Regulations that protect women from unsafe clinics & unscrupulous abortions (recovery for embryonic stem cells).
It should be optional, on tax forms, whether individuals want to fund abortions, and their contributions would be tax deductable.
All women who want partial-birth abortions,need to have mandated counseling by a committee of pro-life and pro-choice professionals in order to make an informed choice.
If a doctor or nurse does not wish to perform abortions, a pro-choice doctor or nurse need to be available.
Parents have the right and responsibility to be informed of their minor daughter's decision to abortion.

[13. brx said the following at 1:14 PM on Feb 3:]

13

Johnathan (#7),

It seems to me, that according to the teaching and priorities of Jesus, the best argument is that the violence of the American Revolution was indeed wrong.

That is NOT to say God didn't use the situation for purposes of His glory. Nor, am I suggesting that it's not a blessing to have the opportunities that are before each and every American citizen.

...but an asside: since everything that happened in the OT serves as an example for us so that we should not have our hearts in the wrong places, I think if the US as a nation does not get turned around to become the blessing it is supposed to be, it is not inconceivable that the US could go the way of Biblical Israel within our lifetime.

Perceive, Re-align, Attend, Xristos, Involve, Spirit

[14. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:31 PM on Feb 3:]

14

brx (#13),
It seems to me, that according to the teaching and priorities of Jesus, the best argument is that the violence of the American Revolution was indeed wrong.

This kinda makes sense to me, but then on top of that you have the rights guaranteed to citizens by the Magna Carta being violated...right? That was one of the tenets put in place by that document, wasn't it?

Sorry...I appear to be in need of pulling out my British History book once again...I am RUSTY!

Less video games, more books books books...

[15. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:11 PM on Feb 3:]

15

Miss Jethro (since you like to use the wrong titles :P):

You are yourself caricturing my position. Of course no one is "pure evil", evil itself is a privation of good (as I explain here).

It remains true that Obamov is an abortion extremist who supports infanticide aka a war on defenceless babies who are no threat to anyone. There is also a difference between intentional and unintentional killing.

OK then, if it is patriotic to pay your taxes, then the American revolution was wrong and unpatriotic.

It seems that Jethro replaces "In God we trust" with "In big government we trust".

[16. BDB said the following at 11:31 PM on Feb 3:]

16

Tonight I got a phone call recording of Mike Huckabee asking for money to make phone calls about FOCA. I felt like an informed person...

[17. Sheridan said the following at 2:24 AM on Feb 4:]

17

I am becoming increasingly disturbed by the amount of Christians that are no longer willing to fight against abortion, or even vote against the party that supports it.
The majority of Christians are saying (on boundless especially)
'There are OTHER issues as well... poverty, global warming, Iraq war, that are just as important, so we are voting based on these issues instead.'

But what they are REALLY saying is that these issues are MORE important, because those OTHER issues are the deciding factor of whom they vote for.

And I have a problem with this.

Athiests and the non-christian population will stand and make noise against war, about global warming..even against poverty.
They will not stand and fight against abortion.

So why don't we Christians leave the general population to fight for all these issues, and why don't we choose to stand for something that Nobody else will.

If we do not fight against abortion, both with our tounges, our actions, and our votes...the unborn have NO voice, because NOBODY else cares.

[18. Jethro said the following at 3:08 AM on Feb 4:]

18

Christina (#11),

First. The Democrats are not my party. I have no party. Certainly I have a strong preference for the Democrats over the Republicans, but I am not registered nor officially affiliated with either.

Second, I do in fact challenge various Democrat positions on alot of issues. I tend to characterize myself as a centrist/moderate, but essentially I believe in effective government. That is, government should go with what is proven and what works over what is dictated by a given ideology.

For example, on the issue of sex education I am against abstinence only and for comprehensive sex ed. This isn't because I think comprehensive is 'better' (whatever that would mean anyway), but simply because it is more effective if you consider the objective criteria: reduction in disease, pregnancy etc.

So thank you for your advice and please rest assured that I have already taken it on board.

FYI I went used the title 'Mr' instead of 'Dr' because I feel that the good Dr Safarti tends to rely on the implied authority of his education to boost the credibility of posts which lie far outside the areas of his formal training. For what it's worth, he isn't the only one with an honorific - we just don't all choose to use them.

[19. Kate said the following at 8:30 AM on Feb 4:]

19

Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.: Why do you refer to President Obama as "Obamov?"

Especially if you are insistent upon referring to yourself in such a professional, titled way as, "Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.?" (which I also think is somewhat odd in this setting!)

Sure anyone with a title can mention the title and ask others to address them by it... but it also does present a certain picture, and it also presents a certain picture (of disrespect) when you deliberately choose not to refer to somebody by their title when it is appropriate.

An example: in an academic setting as a student or colleague, not calling your professor by "Dr." or "professor" when this title is due and this professor has not asked you to call them by more informal terms, this is really disrespectful, unprofessional and inappropriate. But here on Boundless, readers are not enrolled in your class but are perusing the blogs and articles based on our own private interest.

Another reason your use of title seems odd is that writers and commenters on this site do not conventionally state their titles or credentials.

As far as the appropriateness of referring to President Obama as "Obamov"... since you are an author on this site, I cannot see how it is proper for you to refer to him in any other way than with the use of "President" before his name spelled correctly, whereas a commenter may be less inappropriate by referring to him as simply "Obama." I don't think it is appropriate for anyone to use stupid nicknames though! (The only reason I can think of for adding the "ov" on the end is that you are trying to make him seem more like an Eastern European, "communist" "bad guy" leader).

It's not that I am really a fan of Obama, but I find it really disgraceful to publicly show petty disrespect for leaders you may dislike. Also, your credibility in disagreeing with his philosophy and practices decreases with such behavior...

[20. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:43 AM on Feb 4:]

20

Jethro, the problem is that the Partial Birth Abortion Democratic Party is going for ideology not what works. E.g. Comrade Obamov declared:

"There is no disagreement that we need action byour government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."

Yet the Cato Institute ran a full-page newspaper ad signed by more than 200 economists, including Nobel laureates, stating:

"We the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's 'lost decade' in the 1990s ... Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."

Obamov also urges the quick passage of his porkfest stimulus bill quickly, because "something" must be done about this economic crisis. The great 1980s British political TV satire Yes Minister brilliantly shows the logical absurdity in a dialogue between two cynical head civil servants.

BTW, I despise the big-spending and tariffs by the other lot too.

[21. Jeremy said the following at 9:24 AM on Feb 4:]

21

"But what they are REALLY saying is that these issues are MORE important, because those OTHER issues are the deciding factor of whom they vote for."

This is untrue. For many people, there is no single issue that is a "deciding factor"; rather it is a larger set of issues. I personally find single-issue voting (especially on an issue like abortion in relation to which voting for a particular party has little to no effect on the actually issue) to be ridiciulously simplistic.

And I might remind you that abortion is not a Christian vs. non-Christian issue. Many atheists oppose legal abortion, and many Christians support it. In saying so, of course, I open the door for the common "Anyone who disagrees with me about _____ is not really a Christian," but hopefully we can avoid that sentiment.

-----------------------------------

"FYI I went used the title 'Mr' instead of 'Dr' because I feel that the good Dr Safarti tends to rely on the implied authority of his education to boost the credibility of posts which lie far outside the areas of his formal training. For what it's worth, he isn't the only one with an honorific - we just don't all choose to use them."

I could not help but smile at that.

[22. Josh M said the following at 1:36 PM on Feb 4:]

22

Jonathan (#20):
It should be noted that the CATO institute is decidedly biased against anything big government. So while yes it does show that there are disagreeing voices out there, it does not necessarily make them right just because they found 200. I actually happen to agree with them and much of what CATO puts out, but it's also important to consider the opinions of all economists out there, not just the ones I agree with. Thankfully a survey was commissioned of economists prior to the election to see what economists thought of party policies. Detailed results and methodology can be found here (use his powerpoint link).

@Kate (#19):
I agree. I'm also confused by his post #7 in this thread which seems to imply he is not American, but the rest of his posts seem to show a vested and personal interest in our politics. Dr. Sarfati?

[23. Charles H. said the following at 4:00 PM on Feb 4:]

23

You can call me 'doctor' or just Charles; it's not a big deal to me, but for the record, that's what I am. I am an attending physician at a major teaching hospital and trauma center. I say that not to brag (it was ALL God's grace that I survived the medical education system) but to preface my comments on what is, after all, a medical question.

Abortion is murder. It is the deliberate destruction of a living, innocent human being. I can't say it any more simply or clearly than that. Can you be a Christian and support murder? Yes, you can, just as you can be a Christian and support greed or pornography or stealing. That doesn't make any of those things right or worthy of support. It makes you a Christian who supports something sinful, and therefore a Christian who needs to repent and ask God's forgiveness.

This means that yes, I am one of the dreaded "single-issue voters." I believe that tax money is being wasted; I believe that our foreign policy is inconsistent if not incoherent; but I believe that legalized abortion is America's own holocaust. What was the tax rate in WW2 Germany? What was its health care system or its immigration policy? I don't know. I am sure it could be looked up, but the one thing all remember about that sad time - even beyond a foreign policy based on attempting to conquer Europe - is the massacre of the Jews. The one thing that will be remembered about this time in America's history is that we killed, with equal impunity, millions more of our own people.

Christina in green (#11), good point about VP Biden. If Republicans were to sell such a longtime Washington insider as a chance for "change," we'd be laughed off the stage, and rightly so.

Mary Jo (#12), I'd like to challenge your statement that "If a doctor or nurse does not wish to perform abortions, a pro-choice doctor or nurse need [sic] to be available." Abortion is unethical because it infringes upon the rights of a person who, if able to express her own opinion, would not wish to be killed. If I request that my own personal doctor do something unethical, is he required to look for someone who does not consider it unethical?

Regarding whether it is acceptable to pay taxes, I think the Bible is clear. Jesus Himself said to "render unto Caesar..." and taxes in the Roman empire would have gone to any number of awful things. Rome was not known for being a place friendly to Christians, nor to our values. So although I would welcome the chance to direct my taxes away from abortion, Jesus' words in the Bible seem (to me) to absolve me from guilt for how the government spends the money it takes from me in taxes. Thoughts?

[24. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 4:34 PM on Feb 4:]

24

Kate (#19), my own workplace, even the most junior staff address me by by first name, in a hypocoristic form at that. I was saying that if you are going to use a title, then make sure it's the right one.

It's also ironic that now people demand utmost respect for the President, after years of vilifying the previous one. The Leftmedia even gloated at that Iraqi Che-Guevara-worshipper who threw shoes at Bush. Of course, if he had thrown shoes at Saddam—or Che for that matter—he would have been tortured and killed.

As for Obamov, he supports antenatal baby butchery, socialism, and the entire gay agenda, and is crassly illogical to boot: see this clip from Yes Minister, then see if you can spot the flaw in Obamov's "we must pass this bailout quickly, since something must be done about this crisis".

[25. Sheridan said the following at 5:00 PM on Feb 4:]

25

People, stop getting stuck into Dr Sarfati just because he uses 'Obamov'.
We all know that you adore Obama...and we all know that you called George Bush a lot of worse names when he was in office. I don't remember anti-Bush people on here referring to him as 'President Bush'.
Get over it.

And why do all those that called George Bush a war mongerer decide that for some reason a man that supports genocide is more morally upright???
Go figure.

[26. Sheridan said the following at 5:11 PM on Feb 4:]

26

Jeremy:

Why Christians support abortion when it flies directly against the well known commandment of 'Thou shall not murder' is beyond me. Or is that another Bible verse not to be taken literally????

Also, I know of no athiests that are against abortion...granted there are some agnostics that don't agree with it...but they certainly dont list it as something that is worth casting their vote on.
If Christians also get it in their head that abortion is not worth their single deciding vote, well gee...you tell me...what hope do the unborn have at all?
None.

[27. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:02 PM on Feb 4:]

27

Josh M , the point is that Obamov did the typical liberal trick of declaring that there was no disagreement with the favoured left article of faith, whether go-to-you evolution, global warm-mongering, and now the necessity for the porkfest stimulus. That huge number of economics professors proves him wrong.

OK, so the CATO institute is biased against big government. But the question is, why are they biased? Perhaps for the reasons they presented: the repeated failures of government big-spending and bloated government programs, and seeing how economies prosper more when buyers ad sellers are free of government interference.

And yes, when I said, "I am Australian" (#7), a reasonable case could be made that this "seems to imply he is not American", albeit enthymematically ;) All the same, many Americans tell me that I know much more about American politics and history than most American voters.

[28. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:10 PM on Feb 4:]

28

Further to (#24), the transcript from Yes Minister (episode Party Games) (search the web for for "yes minister" and "politician's logic). For those who can't find it, it features two cynical head civil servants, Sir Arnold Robinson and Sir Humphrey Appleby discussing the politician and future Prime Minister Jim Hacker:

HA: Hacker’s just grasping at straws.

AR: It’s the old logical fallacy.
All cats have four legs. My dog has four legs…

HA: Therefore my dog is a cat.

AR: He’s suffering from politician’s logic.

HA: Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it.

AR: But doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing.

[29. Jeremy said the following at 10:05 PM on Feb 4:]

29

Sheridan (26) --

Whether abortion is murder depends on whether a soul is present at the time of the abortion. This is a question that is far from settled in many people's minds, and one that is not tied to any particular religious belief.

You might ask yourself, if abortion is so obviously murder, why do you know no atheists that oppose it? Do you suppose they would want murder to be legal too? Or might some (both atheists and Christians) see it as a more complex issue than that?

Indeed, although I see single-issue voting as a bit simplistic, what I find most bothersome are the many that take it to an extreme where it stops making sense. Maybe you can convince yourself that a Republican president would appoint enough Supreme Court judges that want to overturn Roe v. Wade that it could happen someday (although this is a fantasy). But even if so, many take it a step further and make abortion the deciding factor in who to vote for for, say, Congress. At this point not even in theory could the person have a significant impact on abortion, yet it remains the deciding factor? That strikes me as moving into the realm of the laughable.

[30. Josh M said the following at 11:32 PM on Feb 4:]

30

So, Jonathan, out of curiosity, why is it that you know so much of American politics and history? I must admit I know nothing about Australian politics and only limited amounts of some European states.

I work with someone who, if asked, would probably name herself to be Greek before saying anything of being American. She obtained dual-citizenship several years ago before I met her and is well versed in American politics and history as well. It was because of your knowledge that I asked, thinking you might be similar.

[31. Todd said the following at 8:15 AM on Feb 5:]

31

This comment probably won't be published, but the question is sincere.

Does anybody wonder if when you get to heaven and Jesus welcomes you with grace and mercy and love, he won't also maybe say (very lovingly of course), "Dude, you know you were a bit of an jerk, right?."

Or is it just me?

[32. IMO said the following at 9:58 AM on Feb 5:]

32

#31,

No need to speculate.

See Hebrews 10:29-31,1 Peter 4:4-6 , Revelation 19:11, Revelation 20:12-14

Perhaps 1 Corinthians 15:52-54 as well.

And to dig deeper, there are lots of commentaries available to read.

[33. Sheridan said the following at 4:05 PM on Feb 5:]

33

Jeremy:

The reason I believe athiests are not against abortion is because they believe there is no soul in the 'fetus'...and this belief is a dangerous path to go down. For instance...partial birth abortion, aborting at 8 months...where does it stop? And the truth is, nobody knows at what point the soul enters the body...and yet shouldn't the unknown factor be enough to save these childrens lives, not discard them as useless? The question should not be 'What if they have no soul?' but the question that should scare a lot of Christians and non-Christians alike...'WHAT IF THEY HAVE??'

Now, you are right that one man cannot overturn laws in congress...but George Bush had managed to make things difficult for the abortionist agenda none the less...hence now Barak Obama has (after being in office less than two weeks)
lifted these restrictions...much to the delight of the pro-choices.

So you say one man cant change anything? I think Obama can change enough to do damage.

[34. Hannah C. said the following at 5:09 PM on Feb 5:]

34

Actually, there are atheists and agnostics who are pro-life...

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

If you google "atheists against abortion" you will get varying other responses, some of which are pro-life.

The main reason I am pro-life has nothing to do with what the Bible says: it has to do with the fact that I have a lot of younger siblings, and I remember eagerly anticipating the birth of each one. If my mother had ever had a miscarriage, that baby would have been very much mourned. Also, being a former fetus myself and having a good friend who is the product of a teenage pregnancy, I fail to see the difference between the baby outside of the womb and the baby inside.

[35. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:36 PM on Feb 5:]

35

Josh, I am married to an American and have an American daughter.

If I were to name a single author for political and economic information, it would have to be economist Dr Thomas Sowell. Much of what he writes has world-wide application too. E.g. he has written the book Affirmative Action Around the World showing that it has been a disaster everywhere it has been tried (and he is African American).

[36. Jeremy said the following at 11:06 AM on Feb 6:]

36

"And the truth is, nobody knows at what point the soul enters the body...and yet shouldn't the unknown factor be enough to save these childrens lives, not discard them as useless? The question should not be 'What if they have no soul?' but the question that should scare a lot of Christians and non-Christians alike...'WHAT IF THEY HAVE??'"

Exactly right, and that is precisely my position; I think abortion should be illegal because, given that unknown, we should err on the side of caution. It frustrates me, though, that so many people pretend it is not an unknown in the first place. It is disingenuous to claim knowledge that one doesn't have, and it becomes dangerously so when one begins to twist Scripture to fit this preconceived notion.

[37. Ambrosia said the following at 12:02 PM on Feb 6:]

37

This has nothing to do waith Obama, democrats, FOCA or Taxes...

While I appreciate Christians taking social issues seriously and being "knowledgeable" about our society; It breaks my heart to see how fast we can tear each other down.

On Boundless comment sections, more often than not,I have begun to notice sarcasm,( No, not the "cutsy" funny kind) cynacism, disrespect and just sheer old meaness.

No matter the opinion of a fellow commenter, even if it goes against our deepest belief; we have no right (nor God's approval) to treat that each other with anything less than love!

Remember WE are suppose to be the light of the world... WE are the ones that need to show the world how to live and treat one another. If we can't treat each other with love, why should we expect the world too?

[38. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 3:09 PM on Apr 19:]

38

I scored 12/12 on this American politics test, although I confess to guessing on a couple, and I'm not even American. The mean score among Americans taking it is apparently 5.3 and the commonest score is 2, with only 2% getting 12/12.