yet they were supposed to be asked the same questions, right?

Anyway, one thing that's always stuck me about the "40 million lost babies" argument is that they are ignoring the fact that many of the women who have abortions will go on to have children they otherwise would not have had.

There aren't 40 million fewer Americans alive today than there would have been without abortions.  Indeed, it's quite possible (though perhaps unlikely) that there are more American-born today than otherwise would have been.  Consider how many abortions are the result of teen pregnancies or birth defects that would have resulted in mothers who were too mentally, physically, or fiscally sapped to go on and have a family with more than one child.

I am the second child in my family.  My parents were only planning on two children and my mother had a miscarriage before I was born.  If that baby had lived, the chances are that I would never have existed.  (Actually, the chances are nil given the almost infinite variables that govern events before any conception, but you get my point -- no child would likely have been born to my parents around the time I was born.)


by tacitus on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:29:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama would have done well to decline the invitation.

The interesting bit is that burial customs haven't changed among all those conservative "life begins at conception" people. I don't see a rash of people requesting their first or second trimester spontaneous abortion fetal remains from the hospital pathology lab., for purposes of burial or individual cremation.

Are the conservative LBAC people more open about their spontaneous abortions (in lay terms, "miscarriage")? I don't see condolence cards for this situation.

by NancyP on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:17:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Warren may take care to appear "softer" than, say, Hagee or Robertson, but he is part of the religious right. In fact, he can sound downright Dominionist if you pay attention... I think the "stealth Dominionists" will probably have success where the iron-fisted ones fail. Rick Warren is not "scary" like Hagee, and a lot of semi-secular people think he is pretty cool, just like Jim Wallis. Be very careful of any who have megachurches.

by phatkhat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:10:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have noticed that many people, rather than discussing an issue directly, put a label on people. The label is usually meant to be pejorative in nature and intends to place unnecessary baggage on the targeted person. This is certainly true here and an unfair representation of Warren's views. He is certainly not a "dominionist" and, while a expressly conservative Evangelical, it is unfair to characterize him as "Christian Right". He has many issues of disagreement with both theological expression and practice from many who identify themselves with that label. I am sure you would take issue with someone placing a label on you with which you disagree. Why intentionally do this to Warren? Does it help understanding and discussion? I think not.

by ErwinDale on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:12:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

financially comfortable/ capable of sizable contributions

by NancyP on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 01:54:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You profess to know a lot about Warren's motives and strategy. Unfortunately, I humbly suggest, you are quite misinformed in your statement. To wit: (1) His intention in creatively attracting people to church is simply so that they have every opportunity to hear the message of love, hope and forgiveness that Christ offers and to be an active part of a family of other believers in Christ. (2) "Purpose Driven" simply means base your ministry on God's purposes, not your own. There is no nefarious intent here. (3) He does not propose "mingling church and state" anywhere. His message is quite clear, the church is to remain the church. However, on social issues (especially poverty, health and education) the church, state and private sector should cooperate and bring their resources to bear on the issue to be the most effective in combating the problem, while maintaining their own distinctive. This is not "mingling."

by ErwinDale on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:31:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]