Open Letter to Dr. James Dobson

[CRASH]

I'm kind of befuddled with Knight posting this and the likes of BEL now coming out on this.

You see the court ruling is doing no more than elaborating what was said in the initial partial birth abortion ban legislation.

Take, for example, the following post from Knight that was put up some time back--




I bring this up in hopes to point out that if Dobson is out of line THEN SO TO WERE ANY OF THE CREATORS AND SIGNERS OF THIS LETTER WHO SUPPORTED THE partial birth abortion ban WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD.


You see if it's bad to endorse something that provides outlets for other forms of abortion then the court ruling is simply the full manifestation of what's been pushed, and acquiesced to, by any and all in the religious community who either supported, or passively allowed the partial birth abortion ban to proceed.


So I'm curious as to whether or not this realization will occur.

You see if Dobson is derelict and out of line with Christ and the Gospel on this point THEN SO TO WAS EVERYONE in the Christian community who either passively allowed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban to get signed into law OR any of those who did anything to promote or show support for that measure.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't go off on someone for supporting a half-measure that you now see as insidious if YOU YOURSELF didn't see the long-time-coming advance to such.

So the 'egregious' occurance was simply capped at the ruling by the Supreme Court. Anyone who voted for any 'pro life' candidate who supported that measure is just as damned as Dobson is claimed to be now, provided he doesn't 'repent.'

BEL has been warning the ban would not save one life for many years.
The other ministries may or may not have known how worthless the ban was all along but at some point the light came on and they have obviously repented for their position so no rebuke is required. FOF and Dobson however continue to flounder in legal positivism.
Why are you trying to make this an issue anyway. Be a man and do what is right donate to have the letter published in papers in Utah!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I'm kind of befuddled with Knight posting this and the likes of BEL now coming out on this.

You see the court ruling is doing no more than elaborating what was said in the initial partial birth abortion ban legislation.

Take, for example, the following post from Knight that was put up some time back--




I bring this up in hopes to point out that if Dobson is out of line THEN SO TO WERE ANY OF THE CREATORS AND SIGNERS OF THIS LETTER WHO SUPPORTED THE partial birth abortion ban WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD.


You see if it's bad to endorse something that provides outlets for other forms of abortion then the court ruling is simply the full manifestation of what's been pushed, and acquiesced to, by any and all in the religious community who either supported, or passively allowed the partial birth abortion ban to proceed.


So I'm curious as to whether or not this realization will occur.

You see if Dobson is derelict and out of line with Christ and the Gospel on this point THEN SO TO WAS EVERYONE in the Christian community who either passively allowed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban to get signed into law OR any of those who did anything to promote or show support for that measure.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't go off on someone for supporting a half-measure that you now see as insidious if YOU YOURSELF didn't see the long-time-coming advance to such.

So the 'egregious' occurance was simply capped at the ruling by the Supreme Court. Anyone who voted for any 'pro life' candidate who supported that measure is just as damned as Dobson is claimed to be now, provided he doesn't 'repent.'

Muster Seed thanks for posting that.

I like to think things through on my own.

I like to look at all sides of every issue and make up my mind based on what I see happening at every given moment in my life. And because of that, my opinions on certain topics change over time based on new and more compelling evidence. I would hope that you do the same.

I never completely form an opinion just because "so and so" said I should think a certain way.

I like to think that makes me my own person. I like to think that I am not a mindless robot regurgitating everything I am fed.

I am a hopeless optimist and I always want to think the best of someone (in this case "conservative judges"), yet clearly regarding this instance I was wrong. Does it bother me that I was wrong? No! Altering ones opinion based on the unfolding of events is not a bad thing it's a GOOD THING!

The people who do the most harm to the cause are the ones that don't alter their opinions based on the most relevant and current facts.

 

[GuySmiley]

The people who do the most harm to the cause are the ones that don't alter their opinions based on the most relevant and current facts.

That last sentence needs to be bolded! Its really the heart of the problem with Dobson.

 

[rehcjam]

The people who do the most harm to the cause are the ones that don't alter their opinions based on the most relevant and current facts.

:thumb: I second that.

(Proverbs 9:8) Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

and

(Proverbs 27:5) Open rebuke is better than secret love.

and

(Leviticus 19:17) Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him.

finally

(Ecclesiastes 7:5) It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.

 

[nursemaria]

I'm kind of befuddled with Knight posting this and the likes of BEL now coming out on this.

You see the court ruling is doing no more than elaborating what was said in the initial partial birth abortion ban legislation.

Take, for example, the following post from Knight that was put up some time back--




I bring this up in hopes to point out that if Dobson is out of line THEN SO TO WERE ANY OF THE CREATORS AND SIGNERS OF THIS LETTER WHO SUPPORTED THE partial birth abortion ban WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD.


You see if it's bad to endorse something that provides outlets for other forms of abortion then the court ruling is simply the full manifestation of what's been pushed, and acquiesced to, by any and all in the religious community who either supported, or passively allowed the partial birth abortion ban to proceed.


So I'm curious as to whether or not this realization will occur.

You see if Dobson is derelict and out of line with Christ and the Gospel on this point THEN SO TO WAS EVERYONE in the Christian community who either passively allowed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban to get signed into law OR any of those who did anything to promote or show support for that measure.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't go off on someone for supporting a half-measure that you now see as insidious if YOU YOURSELF didn't see the long-time-coming advance to such.

So the 'egregious' occurance was simply capped at the ruling by the Supreme Court. Anyone who voted for any 'pro life' candidate who supported that measure is just as damned as Dobson is claimed to be now, provided he doesn't 'repent.'

We, the signers of this letter, are sorry for supporting it back in the day but, over the last few years we have seen how destructive most pro-life laws are and we have learned. We hope Dobson will come along.

 

[GuySmiley]

Steve,

It appears that I am not they only one who has noticed you dodge the question of how this Act saves babies.

You make some assumptions here. I get no "adrenaline rush" from the battle itself. Etc, etc, etc . . .

You still have not addressed why the PBA ruling was good. How does the act save babies? Do you believe this act bans the PBA procedure?

 

[Mustard Seed]

The people who do the most harm to the cause are the ones that don't alter their opinions based on the most relevant and current facts.

I appreciate that.


The issue I see arising, however, is the problems this brings with the balance of pragmatism and ideology.

What lesson do you come away with from this? And I don't mean merely on this issue. I mean how do you reconcile between the points you hold to because ideological position and faith have bound you to it vs. those points and positions you take to effect the greatest good relative to the perceived do-ability of an endeavor?

Where and when do you draw that line? You, and the vast majority of those in your camp, long ago shifted to some degree of perceived pragmatism. Will this lead you completely away from it? And if such a divergence ends in the increased and escalated degradation of your stated over-arching goals will you then shift back or go on tilting at wind mills?

I'm not doing this to bash at all. I see a great deal of merit in pointing out, what I perceive to be, gross error and an utter atrocity in terms of what is permitted. But I often wonder what would happen (no matter how implausible you see such a scenario as ever being) if God came to you and your friends and told you to kill infants (born and unborn) in like manner as what took place in the Bible at the command of Moses, or Samuel--all in the name of the Lord. Dashing a baby to pieces isn't much different if it's done with a sword at the belly of the mother or through a medical instrument through the cervix--at least not in effect and overall deforming and desecration.

I hope I'm not upsetting anyone by bringing this up. I don't mean to at all. But I just have a hard time seeing how you keep going in a journey that seems to bounce aimlessly between Quixotic and issue specific alliances and efforts in the name of overall progress.

 

[bigbang123]

i'm a idiot in these matters so let me see if i can dumb this down in terms a dummy like me can understand.

for sake of argument - let's say in performing a late term abortion an abortionist has two techniques at his disposal

technique-A

and

technique-B

now, let's say that the recent supreme court decision bans the use of technique-A but still allows the use of technique-B.

there are now (at least) two ways to spin this story

1) Good News - technique-A has now been banned by the supreme court

2) Bad News- late term abortions can still be performed using technique-B


in terms of actual accomplishments - the "bad news" christians are 100% correct - the evil act can still be performed

but can't the "good news" christians say that in terms of "perception" some good has been accomplished and that can provide momentum in an attempt accomplish something more substantively good down the road?

just asking

 

[GuySmiley]

i'm a idiot in these matters so let me see if i can dumb this down in terms a dummy like me can understand.

for sake of argument - let's say in performing a late term abortion an abortionist has two techniques at his disposal

technique-A

and

technique-B

now, let's say that the recent supreme court decision bans the use of technique-A but still allows the use of technique-B.

there are now (at least) two ways to spin this story

1) Good News - technique-A has now been banned by the supreme court

2) Bad News- late term abortions can still be performed using technique-B


in terms of actual accomplishments - the "bad news" christians are 100% correct - the evil act can still be performed

but can't the "good news" christians say that in terms of "perception" some good has been accomplished and that can provide momentum in an attempt accomplish something more substantively good down the road?

just asking

Except that in the real world case, technique A wasn't actually banned.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

i'm a idiot in these matters so let me see if i can dumb this down in terms a dummy like me can understand.

for sake of argument - let's say in performing a late term abortion an abortionist has two techniques at his disposal

technique-A

and

technique-B

now, let's say that the recent supreme court decision bans the use of technique-A but still allows the use of technique-B.

there are now (at least) two ways to spin this story

1) Good News - technique-A has now been banned by the supreme court

2) Bad News- late term abortions can still be performed using technique-B


in terms of actual accomplishments - the "bad news" christians are 100% correct - the evil act can still be performed

but can't the "good news" christians say that in terms of "perception" some good has been accomplished and that can provide momentum in an attempt accomplish something more substantively good down the road?

just asking

Actually it goes something like this.....

Doctors currently use technique-A to perform abortions. Yet technique-A is distasteful to the masses. Therefore the supreme court altered technique-A, regulated it, renamed it, processed it, instructed doctors on how to perform technique-A slightly different so that they could claim to the masses that technique-A was banned.

 

[Poly]

Except that in the real world case, technique A wasn't actually banned.

And while in this ignorance, people are celebrating that now there's only one supposed "technique" available and don't even care or realize that it's the more torturous of the two.

I guess if a law is passed where it's ok to murder somebody as long as it's only by the technique of burning them at the stake, they'll look at this as a victory as well.

 

[Poly]

Steve, why won't you answer the question that's been posed to you so many times now in this thread? You've been asked by several here what kind of victory, even the small one that you claim has been won? What small battle in the war that you were referring to has been one? What kind of "bone" has actually been thrown as you said before? Will you once and for all be willing to address this?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Truth be told the Partial Birth Abortion ban appears to create several NEW WAYS to murder babies, some are far more awful than the normal PBA procedure that was in question.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Steve, you weren't born in 1775, but I suggest a more recent year...

Steve, you weren't born in 1775, but I suggest a more recent year...

Here's an example of moral relativism and legal positivism...
Originally Posted by Steve Wetzel: This case could not have over ruled Roe vs. Wade... As much as I would have loved to see Roe v. Wade over turned, that would have required judicial activism - the very thing we have been complaining... about...

I asked a question that Steve replied to but didn't answer: Hello Steve! So, when did you become a moral relativist, and a legal positivist? Just wondering... the year that is. I'm curious. Thanks, -Bob

Steve's reply did not answer:

Errr ... that would be 10 November 1775 to be exact - the birth of the Marine Corps. Abortion didn't just happen in 1973... Steve
mttu.com

Steve, I have no idea what you're talking about, and I am really interested in your reply. Here are some suggestions as to how you could be responsive to my hope to understand:

* I know that moral relativism is wrong because...
* I believe moral relativism is acceptable because biblically...
* I am not a moral relativist because...
* I am a moral relativist, and that is biblically acceptable because...
* My statement above does not indicate moral relativism because...
* Bob, what do you mean by moral relativism, as you use it here...

These are some ways that might help us directly address my accusation, that you have become a moral relativist. I do not believe that you have held this position throughout your Christian life and from the beginning of your pro-life activism. I truly am interested to know, perhaps you can do some reflecting and recall for yourself, what year you became a moral relativist? I will give you my answer to this question about you: I think you were led down the path of moral relativism the year you first supported child-killing regulations.

In Christ,

Bob Enyart

 

[PKevman]

Here's an example of moral relativism and legal positivism...
Originally Posted by Steve Wetzel: This case could not have over ruled Roe vs. Wade... As much as I would have loved to see Roe v. Wade over turned, that would have required judicial activism - the very thing we have been complaining... about...

I asked a question that Steve replied to but didn't answer: Hello Steve! So, when did you become a moral relativist, and a legal positivist? Just wondering... the year that is. I'm curious. Thanks, -Bob

Steve's reply did not answer:



Steve, I have no idea what you're talking about, and I am really interested in your reply. Here are some suggestions as to how you could be responsive to my hope to understand:

* I know that moral relativism is wrong because...
* I believe moral relativism is acceptable because biblically...
* I am not a moral relativist because...
* I am a moral relativist, and that is biblically acceptable because...
* My statement above does not indicate moral relativism because...
* Bob, what do you mean by moral relativism, as you use it here...

These are some ways that might help us directly address my accusation, that you have become a moral relativist. I do not believe that you have held this position throughout your Christian life and from the beginning of your pro-life activism. I truly am interested to know, perhaps you can do some reflecting and recall for yourself, what year you became a moral relativist? I will give you my answer to this question about you: I think you were led down the path of moral relativism the year you first supported child-killing regulations.

In Christ,

Bob Enyart

:first: PK SPOTD! http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1429787#post1429787

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I agree ... good post.

As much as I would have loved to see Roe v. Wade over turned, that would have required judicial activism - the very thing we have been complaining... about...

That we were ever complaining about judicial activism in a country where it is legal to rip off the arm of a baby while it is sucking its thumb in the womb is insanity. That's like worrying about turning out all the lights before you flee a burning building. There are bigger problems than those that don't follow procedure and protocol.

Incidentally, a godly man would do what is right and be a judicial activist if it meant saving lives. By demanding that we don't want judicial activism, we guarantee that a godly man cannot make it to the Supreme Court.

This is the sort of leadership that will leave Christianity unprepared for the coming persecution.

 

[rehcjam]

(1 Samuel 8:7) And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.


Same old, same old.

All hail king Dobson.
:bow: :lucy:

 

[QueenAtHome]

Looks like Steve Wetzel only fights battles that he can glory in. He likes getting arrested, as if it gets him another medal on his coat. He likes the conflict. He likes to scream and yell at very bad people.

But, the babies don't care. They don't care if he gets arrested or not. They don't care if he gets a rush from experiencing conflict. They don't care how many days a week he stands on the sidwalk.

The babies only care if he's working as smart and wise as he can, which he is not. He is approaching only one side of the issue, the activism side. He is disregarding the legal/policy/political side where damage to the dark side can also be done.

www.mttu.com could do so much better.

 

[Aimey]

somehow I think that we as Americans are so hardened by the terrible images
we have seen on television that when we hear of abortion and the various ways it is carried out , we hear a common and forgettible occurrence which does not affect us personally. Like when we are watching women crying and carrying thier bleeding children away from a terrorist bombsite screaming to the sky and the ground and all else of thier loss, yet most of us are able to change the channel and watch something else because somehow it is unreal to embrace the image as a real one.

If we were present however, in that scene many of us would brake down and never diminish the gravity of what had happened.

I wonder what impact would be had if every American found a bucket laden with
the torn remains of a small child in an alley. my guess is that in America enough
children have been aborted for each alley to share in the bloodshed! And I know
that not one person would walk away unaffected . It is impossible to dismiss responsibility when the death is on your doorstep.

we too easily hide our eyes from the facts of abortion.