if hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done
12.07.2008
Both
i recently read a blog and subsequent comments where the readers argued the point; which was a more important moral issue: abortion or world hunger?
is this really worth the debate? thoughts...comments...arguments?
16 comments:
Anonymous
said...
It seems pretty disgusting to argue such a point, but we should clarify. It seems to me that only the involvement of governments in the two problems necessitates discussion. In our case, both of these problems can be "fixed" by government action, but only one -- abortion -- can effectively be called "policy" in our country. This is a big difference, and to me, this is where the debate begins. But again, it is silly to speak of which is "worse." Both the poor and the premature can be considered the "least of these."
of course, our country could also fully witness the problem that is global hunger and famine and try to erradicate that too...but apparently we're too busy trying to find a man in a desert to focus on other global issues. and the list goes on and on...how about AIDS, global poverty, the lack of individual freedom, etc. i really should have posted other pictures too...
I see your point, but the difference between the two problems is still there and at least worth the domestic debate. Hunger and famine are global concerns that governments may have indirectly affected in the past but can only hope to indirectly affect in the future. Abortion does not, to me, differ in substance as a type of suffering from abject poverty; this, we can both agree, would be a silly, even offensive discussion. The difference is that abortion is a domestic concern that our government directly causes and can directly act to change. We can send precious aid to Africa and elsewhere, as every administration has done in record numbers, and that is a good thing. But we cannot control how the governments of these countries respond with new fund, rebuild their infrastructures, stop genocide, etc.
the government has no more power to stop abortion than it does the power to stop anything currently classified as "illegal". remember that, before roe v wade, plenty of abortions were being performed.
that's a rabbit-hole for someone else to run into...
the original question is not worth asking. it cannot be quantified and scripture is clear on all sin sharing a certain equality.
both fall into "loving thy neighbor" and both are issues more complicated than our wildest imagination.
thanks for the responses...dare i say that sometimes it nice to write things on the edge..that are 'unanswerable' just to get one's mind running. i think we all know how each of us feels on these particular, and other equality issues. thanks for allowing this to be a forum occassionally, rather than just a quick skim and exit of the mouse...
Jeff, There are so many problems our world faces today, poverty and hunger and war are just the tip of the iceburg.
I voted for change ths year. I am praying for change. This was the first year I was actually able to vote after finishing all of my court commitments.
Here is my major concern when it comes to abortion, Iam not necessarily FOR abortion but I really honestly believe it is an INDIVIDUAL decision and the INDIVIDUAL has the right to say what happens to her body. Our government has no place in that decision. If the government were allowed to mandate what we can do with our bodies, what else can they do? THat is a scary thought to me. God made us of free will and a sound mind. He allows us choices and I dont think the government should have a say in it. I dont get WHY it has to be a controversy.
I do appreciate the conversation, Jeff. It's a welcome tangent in a busy week.
Some thoughts on the comments. It's a fallacy to assume that the government can have no affect by declaring actions illegal. Obviously nobody agrees with that as a blanket statement; otherwise, we would have no legislation whatsoever. It has been estimated, for example, that 1.2 million abortions occurred in 2004; were it declared illegal, who would argue that the numbers would stay so high?
People get very upset about the notion of "legislating morality," but what do laws represent but commonly held ideas about morality? The government has already legislated what we can do with our bodies. No assisted suicide, no polygamy, no public drunkenness... the list goes on. That's how government works -- it legislates over actions.
In any case, most of us seem to agree that debating which kind of suffering is "worse" is silly. My question is which problem can we, as a country, do most about?
When you say "we", do you mean our country as a whole, or each individual in this country? For some reason I feel no real connection to the "we" where it falls under country. It's like saying the country has spoken and we voted Obama as our next president. Well, if I didn't vote, or voted for someone other than Obama, does that mean i'm not represented in the "we", the country? I don't know if that makes any sense...
I guess what my point is that when i see the "we", i'd like to think that it really includes me doing something about it, not just being clumpted into a group as a majority.
I think "we" without any personal involvement and action is just "they". We as individual is action and responsibility.
I mean both. The American government represents us, whether we vote or not. And, as much as it sometimes sucks, we have to submit to that authority. (Romans 13:1-7) I'm not going to argue for American exceptionalism, but we are lucky enough to have a form of government where we can have a say. So why not take action (voting, protests, etc.) against a social issue that the government directly affects within its own borders?
This doesn't mean you discredit work toward the poor. My point is you do what you can with the tools available. The government only has one tool to help the poor, and they give it abundantly: money. But as Christians, we can reach the poor with another step -- love.
Abortion is only different from global hunger in that we have a direct, governmental way to act against it. That's more or less what I meant.
"It has been estimated, for example, that 1.2 million abortions occurred in 2004; were it declared illegal, who would argue that the numbers would stay so high?"
I might. It is as valid as the argument that they would decline. :)
"Abortion is only different from global hunger in that we have a direct, governmental way to act against it. That's more or less what I meant."
this is also untrue. legislating against something does not stop it. 19.5 million Americans over age 12 are users of illegal drugs. Illegal.
government cannot stop abortion. If we put significant money and manpower towards the problem of world hunger, we could ensure that people were fed.
I've heard this argument before, and it still doesn't make sense. Drugs are just a bad analogy for the abortion situation. Abortion does not fit in a bottle (or a spoon or a joint), it is not relatively cheap to make or buy, and it isn't addictive. I brought up a few other cases that more closely resemble governmental approaches to abortion (polygamy, assisted suicide); we've acted against these before as a country. They still exist, true, but they don't occur with the frequency of earlier times. (Mormons changed their entire religion after legislation!)
You also missed my point from earlier. I brought up governmental involvement as the only difference separating these two problems. We can create legislation to "end" global hunger by creating stimulus packages or sending out foreign aid. But how would this help more than it did in all the decades before this one? We can't control how aid is distributed by overstepping recognized bounds of sovereignty. If we could, genocide would have ended a long time ago; ask Robert Dallaire...And there is unfortunately no way we'd create a package to "end" hunger any time soon with the economy in the condition it is.
I have a question, though. My argument was that our government can do something direct RIGHT NOW about one of these problems. It wouldn't cost us more than a vote, maybe a walk or a protest. In the beginning I assumed we all agreed that both were a problem, but now I'm not so sure. Global hunger is an easy problem for us, as Christians, to "focus" on because nobody is against helping the poor. But why do we shy away from the abortion argument? If "significant money and manpower" are your solutions for global hunger, what are your solutions for abortion? Or do you think it's as significant a problem as I do?
studies show that birth rates for underage mothers closely mirror poverty rates. after poverty, we can look at repairing inner city public education, rebuilding a values dialogue among the working-class, and rethinking conservative sex education...
Driving through town tonight I watched saw lawn chairs splayed out in driveways. Old men who smoke too much, who watch the years go by and listen to the trains die away in the distance. Young people who dream and know and do, who watch the summers fade to falls fade to winters and burst into springs. The lawn chairs never leave, nor do the old men, but the young people, like the train songs, fade into the distance and become a part of the town's memory. We have the distinct pleasure of being living memories, we dreamers and thinkers and doers. It is a great honour and a great burden.
caleb, i honestly have no idea where this train of a discussion has gone. i think you and kyle dropped me off 2 stations back!
i will say this...in your first comment you said "we should clarify..." and went on to discuss remedies through government work. i guess my though is this...let the government do what it wants..we can vote, march, petition, whatever...but the reality is that a single person probably isn't going to reverse legislation.
so, as my man david crowder sings, "let us be the remedy". it starts with us, as individuals, not us as an entire nation. i think that's been my frustration all along...people are lazy, people dont want to think, act, decide. they'd rather have it all decided for them and then complain when it's not perfectly suited to their needs.
what is that? that's not Jesus. Jesus is the guy who hangs out with the homeless, brings food to the needy and offers a loving hug to the 15 year old girl who walks out of the abortion clinic....Jesus is mercy, Jesus is grace...
Jesus is definately not government...heck, Jesus is definately not even me most of the time. thats my 2 cents!
Ah, I see... if we all had money, there would be no abortions. Hmmm...
In any case, Jeff, I wouldn't think we left you a few stops back. I think we're heading down the wrong street! My original point was that the two problems -- hunger and abortion -- only differ in respect to how government can approach them -- direct vs. indirect affectation. I haven't heard anything to dispute that point.
I agree with you, Kyle, that laws by themselves do not end immorality. They do, however, deter it. "It is illegal to consume or possess banned substances." "Thou shalt not kill." Do either of these commands "end" the behavior their aiming at? No. Of course not. People still do drugs, and even Christians still commit murder. But to argue that making laws is a wasted effort in affecting behavior is just silly; anyone can see that legislating against immorality is at least a valuable deterrent, a start.
What better way to "rebuild a values dialogue among the working-class" than starting with a law to end an injustice? My question remains unanswered. If both of these are a problem but only one can be declared illegal by our government, why avoid legislation?
I agree with you completely, Jeff. Government only has limited ways to work against these problems, but in the case of abortion, isn't one direct way better than none at all? That's what I see as the only difference between the issues. Christians should still do whatever they can to love on those suffering from both poverty and abortion in a way that government cannot, but we should at least consider all of the options available today to stop these injustices.
just saying that we've had a few decades pass since the supreme court decided what it did. we've have a lot of conservative leadership in the govt and a current 5-4 SC imbalance in favor of conservative thinking. nothing has changed.
so, i am saying maybe we look at causation since focusing on the other angle has netted us absolutely nothing.
you can pursue a change in law. i'll attack causative factors. between us, maybe we'll make a difference somewhere.
of this comment... "Ah, I see... if we all had money, there would be no abortions. Hmmm..." i don't make up statistics. and money doesn't solve problems by itself. but statistics say that as poverty decreases, so do abortions.
16 comments:
It seems pretty disgusting to argue such a point, but we should clarify. It seems to me that only the involvement of governments in the two problems necessitates discussion. In our case, both of these problems can be "fixed" by government action, but only one -- abortion -- can effectively be called "policy" in our country. This is a big difference, and to me, this is where the debate begins. But again, it is silly to speak of which is "worse." Both the poor and the premature can be considered the "least of these."
of course, our country could also fully witness the problem that is global hunger and famine and try to erradicate that too...but apparently we're too busy trying to find a man in a desert to focus on other global issues. and the list goes on and on...how about AIDS, global poverty, the lack of individual freedom, etc. i really should have posted other pictures too...
I see your point, but the difference between the two problems is still there and at least worth the domestic debate. Hunger and famine are global concerns that governments may have indirectly affected in the past but can only hope to indirectly affect in the future. Abortion does not, to me, differ in substance as a type of suffering from abject poverty; this, we can both agree, would be a silly, even offensive discussion. The difference is that abortion is a domestic concern that our government directly causes and can directly act to change. We can send precious aid to Africa and elsewhere, as every administration has done in record numbers, and that is a good thing. But we cannot control how the governments of these countries respond with new fund, rebuild their infrastructures, stop genocide, etc.
the government has no more power to stop abortion than it does the power to stop anything currently classified as "illegal". remember that, before roe v wade, plenty of abortions were being performed.
that's a rabbit-hole for someone else to run into...
the original question is not worth asking. it cannot be quantified and scripture is clear on all sin sharing a certain equality.
both fall into "loving thy neighbor" and both are issues more complicated than our wildest imagination.
thanks for the responses...dare i say that sometimes it nice to write things on the edge..that are 'unanswerable' just to get one's mind running. i think we all know how each of us feels on these particular, and other equality issues. thanks for allowing this to be a forum occassionally, rather than just a quick skim and exit of the mouse...
Jeff,
There are so many problems our world faces today, poverty and hunger and war are just the tip of the iceburg.
I voted for change ths year. I am praying for change. This was the first year I was actually able to vote after finishing all of my court commitments.
Here is my major concern when it comes to abortion, Iam not necessarily FOR abortion but I really honestly believe it is an INDIVIDUAL decision and the INDIVIDUAL has the right to say what happens to her body. Our government has no place in that decision. If the government were allowed to mandate what we can do with our bodies, what else can they do? THat is a scary thought to me. God made us of free will and a sound mind. He allows us choices and I dont think the government should have a say in it. I dont get WHY it has to be a controversy.
My 2 cents worth.
Sara
I do appreciate the conversation, Jeff. It's a welcome tangent in a busy week.
Some thoughts on the comments. It's a fallacy to assume that the government can have no affect by declaring actions illegal. Obviously nobody agrees with that as a blanket statement; otherwise, we would have no legislation whatsoever. It has been estimated, for example, that 1.2 million abortions occurred in 2004; were it declared illegal, who would argue that the numbers would stay so high?
People get very upset about the notion of "legislating morality," but what do laws represent but commonly held ideas about morality? The government has already legislated what we can do with our bodies. No assisted suicide, no polygamy, no public drunkenness... the list goes on. That's how government works -- it legislates over actions.
In any case, most of us seem to agree that debating which kind of suffering is "worse" is silly. My question is which problem can we, as a country, do most about?
When you say "we", do you mean our country as a whole, or each individual in this country? For some reason I feel no real connection to the "we" where it falls under country. It's like saying the country has spoken and we voted Obama as our next president. Well, if I didn't vote, or voted for someone other than Obama, does that mean i'm not represented in the "we", the country? I don't know if that makes any sense...
I guess what my point is that when i see the "we", i'd like to think that it really includes me doing something about it, not just being clumpted into a group as a majority.
I think "we" without any personal involvement and action is just "they". We as individual is action and responsibility.
I mean both. The American government represents us, whether we vote or not. And, as much as it sometimes sucks, we have to submit to that authority. (Romans 13:1-7) I'm not going to argue for American exceptionalism, but we are lucky enough to have a form of government where we can have a say. So why not take action (voting, protests, etc.) against a social issue that the government directly affects within its own borders?
This doesn't mean you discredit work toward the poor. My point is you do what you can with the tools available. The government only has one tool to help the poor, and they give it abundantly: money. But as Christians, we can reach the poor with another step -- love.
Abortion is only different from global hunger in that we have a direct, governmental way to act against it. That's more or less what I meant.
interesting...
"It has been estimated, for example, that 1.2 million abortions occurred in 2004; were it declared illegal, who would argue that the numbers would stay so high?"
I might. It is as valid as the argument that they would decline. :)
"Abortion is only different from global hunger in that we have a direct, governmental way to act against it. That's more or less what I meant."
this is also untrue. legislating against something does not stop it. 19.5 million Americans over age 12 are users of illegal drugs. Illegal.
government cannot stop abortion. If we put significant money and manpower towards the problem of world hunger, we could ensure that people were fed.
I've heard this argument before, and it still doesn't make sense. Drugs are just a bad analogy for the abortion situation. Abortion does not fit in a bottle (or a spoon or a joint), it is not relatively cheap to make or buy, and it isn't addictive. I brought up a few other cases that more closely resemble governmental approaches to abortion (polygamy, assisted suicide); we've acted against these before as a country. They still exist, true, but they don't occur with the frequency of earlier times. (Mormons changed their entire religion after legislation!)
You also missed my point from earlier. I brought up governmental involvement as the only difference separating these two problems. We can create legislation to "end" global hunger by creating stimulus packages or sending out foreign aid. But how would this help more than it did in all the decades before this one? We can't control how aid is distributed by overstepping recognized bounds of sovereignty. If we could, genocide would have ended a long time ago; ask Robert Dallaire...And there is unfortunately no way we'd create a package to "end" hunger any time soon with the economy in the condition it is.
I have a question, though. My argument was that our government can do something direct RIGHT NOW about one of these problems. It wouldn't cost us more than a vote, maybe a walk or a protest. In the beginning I assumed we all agreed that both were a problem, but now I'm not so sure. Global hunger is an easy problem for us, as Christians, to "focus" on because nobody is against helping the poor. But why do we shy away from the abortion argument? If "significant money and manpower" are your solutions for global hunger, what are your solutions for abortion? Or do you think it's as significant a problem as I do?
one must address causation.
studies show that birth rates for underage mothers closely mirror poverty rates. after poverty, we can look at repairing inner city public education, rebuilding a values dialogue among the working-class, and rethinking conservative sex education...
Driving through town tonight I watched saw lawn chairs splayed out in driveways. Old men who smoke too much, who watch the years go by and listen to the trains die away in the distance. Young people who dream and know and do, who watch the summers fade to falls fade to winters and burst into springs. The lawn chairs never leave, nor do the old men, but the young people, like the train songs, fade into the distance and become a part of the town's memory. We have the distinct pleasure of being living memories, we dreamers and thinkers and doers. It is a great honour and a great burden.
caleb, i honestly have no idea where this train of a discussion has gone. i think you and kyle dropped me off 2 stations back!
i will say this...in your first comment you said "we should clarify..." and went on to discuss remedies through government work. i guess my though is this...let the government do what it wants..we can vote, march, petition, whatever...but the reality is that a single person probably isn't going to reverse legislation.
so, as my man david crowder sings, "let us be the remedy". it starts with us, as individuals, not us as an entire nation. i think that's been my frustration all along...people are lazy, people dont want to think, act, decide. they'd rather have it all decided for them and then complain when it's not perfectly suited to their needs.
what is that? that's not Jesus. Jesus is the guy who hangs out with the homeless, brings food to the needy and offers a loving hug to the 15 year old girl who walks out of the abortion clinic....Jesus is mercy, Jesus is grace...
Jesus is definately not government...heck, Jesus is definately not even me most of the time. thats my 2 cents!
Ah, I see... if we all had money, there would be no abortions. Hmmm...
In any case, Jeff, I wouldn't think we left you a few stops back. I think we're heading down the wrong street! My original point was that the two problems -- hunger and abortion -- only differ in respect to how government can approach them -- direct vs. indirect affectation. I haven't heard anything to dispute that point.
I agree with you, Kyle, that laws by themselves do not end immorality. They do, however, deter it. "It is illegal to consume or possess banned substances." "Thou shalt not kill." Do either of these commands "end" the behavior their aiming at? No. Of course not. People still do drugs, and even Christians still commit murder. But to argue that making laws is a wasted effort in affecting behavior is just silly; anyone can see that legislating against immorality is at least a valuable deterrent, a start.
What better way to "rebuild a values dialogue among the working-class" than starting with a law to end an injustice? My question remains unanswered. If both of these are a problem but only one can be declared illegal by our government, why avoid legislation?
I agree with you completely, Jeff. Government only has limited ways to work against these problems, but in the case of abortion, isn't one direct way better than none at all? That's what I see as the only difference between the issues. Christians should still do whatever they can to love on those suffering from both poverty and abortion in a way that government cannot, but we should at least consider all of the options available today to stop these injustices.
never said not to have laws...
just saying that we've had a few decades pass since the supreme court decided what it did. we've have a lot of conservative leadership in the govt and a current 5-4 SC imbalance in favor of conservative thinking. nothing has changed.
so, i am saying maybe we look at causation since focusing on the other angle has netted us absolutely nothing.
you can pursue a change in law. i'll attack causative factors. between us, maybe we'll make a difference somewhere.
of this comment...
"Ah, I see... if we all had money, there would be no abortions. Hmmm..."
i don't make up statistics. and money doesn't solve problems by itself. but statistics say that as poverty decreases, so do abortions.
there is no argument there.
Post a Comment