We fight on.

And I am surprised that so many people can be so vocal against those few that might be arguably justafiable. Especially in light of the fact that they ARE arguably justafiable.

So ask yourself which is more important: For me to stand firm on an issue that is arguably justafiable or to shout loud about an issue that everyone on this board agrees is wrong (including me)?

The 50,000 were wrong. There is no need to rehash that. I have said that I am against 99% of all abortions vehemently over and over on this board (perhaps if you have a few hours you can look at some of the discussions Matthew and I have had over and over). I have also said that I am against all other late term abortions. Out of convenience, out of fear, out of laziness, etc. all evil.

What I am standing up for, what I have been standing up for since day one on this blog, is that 1% who may really need an abortion but in the future may not have the OPTION to do so. In my eyes, that’s a terrbile mistake. We can play the numbers game all day. Maybe my shouting should be geared at the 50,000 or so. I don’t agree though. Here’s why: Personally, I think abortion will eventually become illegal in this country. It’s coming down the road for sure. The numbers are starting to show it as well. But I am going to continue to fight for the 1% who may need one so that no one is required by the US GOV to birth a terminally ill, suffering child and watch them slowly die a painful death.

My comment about “who am I to tell someone they can or can’t do something” was not aimed at you, but it is certainly what a lot of PC’ers use to stay out of controversy. The PC culture is rooted in not saying anything to upset anyone. That’s their problem. If you can’t discuss the truth you can’t resolve anything. I think it’s good that you feel strongly about an issue a say so. I’m just surprised you can be so vocal for the few abortions that might be arguably justafiable, when it is a fact that most of them are not, at least by your criteria. I think you should be more vocal about the 50,000 + lives that were snuffed out for convenience. Just my opinion.

I think late term abortion is justified when a doctor can predict with little margin for error that the baby is terminally ill and suffering and the mother’s health may be at risk. You will say this is immoral – it’s murder. I will argue allowing a baby to be born when it’s terminally ill, suffering, and the mother’s health is in danger is immoral. Different principles I suppose. I do not support any other late term abortions period, only those in which the baby is terminally ill and will suffer or where the mother may die. If you want to know why, I would suggest you look at Matt’s other blog. I’m too tired to rehash it all.

As to why there are only 3 doctors (2 now) that do this? Well one of them was brutally murdered by some extremist nut a few days ago – you tell me.

And finally, I do speak out about it. Read my last 1000 blog posts on this site and tell me if you think I speak for what I believe. And I don’t subscribe to the “who am I to tell someone they can or can’t do something”. That is total crap…people have no problem telling someone that shooting someone in the face is wrong but when it comes to the grey issues they cop out. That annoys me too.

But it annoys me no more than someone who tells me how I must live my life.

Point being, there are ways to stand up for a cause without passing the buck or telling someone how they must live their life.

I admire people who stand up and say strongly and unequivically “This is the way it should be!” (Even if I don’t agree with them, I can still, sometimes, admire their commitment to their cause) If you want to take this issue head on, why don’t you tell us all why late term abortion (>21 weeks) is so justified? Explain why only THREE doctors in the whole country will even perform them. (And coincidently FYI they are all multi-millionaires.) If you, personally, don’t believe it’s justified, then why don’t you speak out against it? The biggest cop out in the PC movement is when people say things like “Well just because I wouldn’t have an abortion, who am I to tell someone else they can’t have an abortion?”. “Sorry”. You are somebody that matters in a democratic society and should make your true feelings known. That’s all WE are doing. Join us.

Your first problem: I didn’t use extreme language. I used accurate language.

Your second problem: I didn’t do so out of emotion. I did so with reasoned restraint.

Your third problem: I appreciate that. And you are right here and that’s why I appreciate your feedback. But I just disagree with you on this one.

Artie, judging Matthew’s title and calling it an imprudent use of language is NOT the same as judging Matthew as a person. My point regarding that title is threefold. The first problem is that when extreme language is used it can prompt unstable, disturbed people to rash action. (i.e. the murderer of Dr. Tiller) The second is that it diminishes the credibility of the speaker–a reasoned argument is listened to by reasonable people–an emotionally charged issue is only received well by those ruled by their passions. The third problem may well be tinged with a judgement against Matthew: to whom much is given, much is expected. He has created a successful, widely read blog and has influence as a thought leader among some of his readers. This places a great responsibility on him to use that influence prudently.

Paul’s comments above regarding this confusion about what tolerance is or isn’t are spot on. It’s critically important in debate to define what the issue is first. What, exactly, do we mean when we use the word “tolerance?” I doubt Paul uses it as a synonym for “permissiveness,” which others on this blog seem to be doing.

I also believe there needs to be a healthy balance of each.

We cannot ignore sin and we cannot ignore faith, hope, and love either.

I am not a political beast by any stretch of the imagination. I think the right is the stupid party and the left is the party of death.

The left is willing to give up their beliefs in order to appease others, while the right is willing to stomp out others beliefs and could care less about others.

This is an stereotype of both parties, but pretty accurate in my opinion.

The problem in today’s society is moral relativism… and how dare a person who maintains absolute truth call out a sin.

Jesus was about truth and love, our Lord did not sugar coat anything, but he also did it out of love.

Jesus was not this hippy that soley talked about love and peace. He actually mentioned sin a whole lot more… I understand though… He was God and he can do that… completely understand.

However, if we truly love somebody we do so with truth and love. Both must go hand and hand.

I guess the problem I have is that people are judging Matthew’s blog about calling Tiller a Killer. Does that necessarily mean he did so out of hate? Isn’t that judging Matthew?