Posted by Anthony on February 5, 2010
Randall Terry, a prominent pro-life activist released a press release a few minutes ago that says among other things,
“‘Choose life’ is a ‘pro-choice’ message; it presumes it is ethically and legally legitimate to choose murder.
This is nonsense.
I do agree with him that we have as an ultimate goal the end of legal abortion and also that the Tim Tebow ad will probably be fairly ‘warm and fuzzy’ but it doesn’t follow in the slightest that it is implicitly a pro-choice assumption.
My wife and I have a story very similar to the one that Terry is denouncing. He says,
“The ad will be warm and fuzzy; Mrs. Tebow will talk on camera about how her doctor advised her to abort her pregnancy because of health risks; she will say something like ‘I just knew I couldn’t do it; I was going to have this baby no matter what.’ She will refer to prayer or her faith.
It is the part where Mrs. Tebow says she “was going to have this baby no matter what” that is most similar to the situation with my wife and I. We were told that our daughter had spina bifida and were given the ‘option’ to ‘terminate.’ We declined. (Read more: http://www.wechoselife.com).
If Mr. Terry is to be believed, we made the absolute wrong decision, here. Since abortion was legal, there was no value to choosing life. By choosing life and refusing to take part in a silent holocaust, we were, in fact, presuming that it is ethical and legitimate to choose murder.
This is absurd; dare I say, it is stupid.
I said before that it is an ultimate goal that abortion on demand be outlawed. However, there is something to be said for the notion that we could make the law unnecessary by persuading people to… choose life. Obviously, that is not realistic: nor is it realistic to suppose that if we outlaw abortion, abortions will end.
You see, we definitely need both. We need to restore a respect for life in the law of the land but we also need to change hearts. Mr. Randall seems to think that a strategy of changing hearts is an ethical compromise- which is nonsense- but I do wonder how he hopes to change the laws without first changing hearts.
Seriously. Mr. Randall, you need to think about that. How is it that you want to make abortion illegal without a population containing a critical mass of people who believe we should choose life- even if the government is willing to allow you to do otherwise?
It is head splitting to imagine that in Randall Terry’s mind all these people who chose life actually were endorsing a pro-choice position. I wish I would have known that before. Maybe at the ultrasound we just would have said, “Ah well. We don’t want to legitimize the pro-choice perspective so I guess you just gotta kill her.”
Asinine. Mr. Randall, think.
Posted by Anthony on
Demian Farnworth over at Fallen and Flawed has posted an interview with me regarding some of my apologetics activities. Check it out.
Posted by Anthony on
There is just something about this Tebow Superbowl ad that seems to have really gotten under the skins of the pro-abortionist groups like Planned Parenthood and others. I think its because they perceive that their whole agenda has been called out and they were left rocking backwards on their heels. A lot of the pro-choice groups are crying foul that we have to be ‘exposed’ to something as damnable as a story about a mother who was advised to have an abortion… but chose not to… in “contravention doctors’ orders” (ala Rachel Maddow).
Apparently, such divisive matters should not be presented to us during the Superbowl… far better to focus on what unites us: clever beer commercials and scantily clad women and the occasional wardrobe malfunction.
I think I know what is really going on, why they are so hostile. I think it is because they understand that their agenda can only be furthered when it happens under the radar. The worst thing in the world, from their perspective, is that the topic be out in the open. Like the cockroach and termite, their only hope is that no one notices while they do their nasty work, for if someone did, out would come the spray. And light is the medium by which they are spotted.
I was recently invited to be a columnist on a Christian news site called the CypressTimes. One of my first articles was on this very topic. Here is a snippet: Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on February 2, 2010
I am deeply disturbed by the Obama administration’s decision to try the 9-11 terrorists in civilian courts, whether in New York City or anywhere else.
My jaw dropped when Holder and Obama began offering their justifications. They clearly thought that they were being reassuring but they made it much worse. For example, in response to the argument that going through the civilian courts… you know, giving the terrorists status under the Constitution of the United States… meant leaving open such possibilities that these terrorists could get parole or even declared innocent, it was replied, essentially, “Not to worry, there is no chance that a guilty verdict won’t be returned.”
Oh? Then why have the trial at all? If you can assure us of a guilty verdict before the trial itself how is this not actually a show trial?
There are any number of tweaks to the system that will have to be made in order to have a fair trial under the Constitution. For example, how are we to provide the accused a fair jury of their peers? Do we need to import people from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan to find men like the accused? Also, wouldn’t a change of venue be in order? If I was the defense attorney I’d ask for one, and since I wouldn’t expect anyone in America (excepting those who write for the Huffington Post, but again, they aren’t rabid Islamicists, so not exactly peers) to feel less than outrage over the attacks, I would ask for the trial to be moved to Europe, or Pakistan or failing this, back to Gitmo.
Now we note, in passing, that these men haven’t had their Miranda rights read to them. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on January 29, 2010
A reader of Gilbert Magazine has forwarded to me an article in their latest edition that cites yours truly! The article author stumbled upon my brief review of Chesterton’s Orthodoxy that I posted on the ChristianPost.com. In a discussion on the resurgence of all things Chesterton, the author quotes me saying,
[P]eople will instinctively dismiss the writings of a man that are a shade over 100 years old. The truth, however, is that nothing he confronted then has actually gone away. He confronted the materialistic view of Man in his own life, determining finally that Christianity offered the truest account. He stood against the Darwinists, the eugenicists, the relativists, and the liberal theologians. All these are still here and with us. The only difference is that they have been re-packaged and re-presented.
Maybe I’ll have to subscribe to their magazine. 
Posted by Anthony on January 26, 2010
I will be presenting at St. Patrick’s Catholic Church in Sparta, WI on Jan 31st, 2010.
Details:
Witness for Life
What: Pro Life March and Youth Rally
for grades 6 thru adults
When: Sunday, January 31
Time: 12:00 pm—5:00 pm (10:30 Mass at St. Pat‘s Church in Sparta for anyone who wants to attend and conclude with Rosary at 5:00 in the church)
Where: We will meet at St. Patrick‘s School Gym in Sparta, WI and pilgrimage to other churches and places in Sparta.
Cost: $5.00 per person
Special guest speaker Anthony Horvath
and others.
Praise and worship music by Traditional Division.
Food and refreshments .
Posted by Anthony on January 23, 2010
One of the enduring criticisms against Christianity is that it is anti-knowledge, education, and learning. This blog has taken aim at this criticism before, most notably taking Richard Dawkins to task for his misuse of an Augustine quote ostensibly about ‘curiosity.’ I currently have an open challenge to Dawkins to repudiate his use of that quote.
In point of fact, these anti-knowledge criticisms really only began with the rise of the Fundamentalists and this in turn was spurred on by the rise of Darwinism. Even the shallowest of research will reveal that Christians have been at the forefront of investigation, scholarship, and yes, even science. (Dawkins answer to this: “But if they had lived in our day, these Christians would have been atheists.” What a chump)
The criticism has another angle, though, and it has to do with the relentless attack on the Bible as the ‘ancient writings of nomadic goat herders.’ Dan Barker would be a good example of an atheist presenting this attitude. The basic idea here is that if the Bible was really written by God, then it should be amazing in its clarity and its insight would be, divinely, penetrating, and certainly it should at all points validate whatever science has claimed to have discovered, since God, being God, would of course know these things. They would say, in short, that for a book supposedly inerrant and divinely inspired, it is a very human book.
Here is the brutal reality: the Bible’s ‘human’ nature is precisely an argument in its favor. Read the rest of the entry… »
