Actually, blogs have been debunking Glenn Stassen's (the statistician behind the Hillary and Dean claims) poor use of statistics since he came out with an editorial for Sojourners back in October 2004. Unfortunately, mainstream media hasn't challenged these claims and basically taken those purporting these myths at their word.

It sickens me to see Ministers who use God to influence their congregations to vote Democrat or Republican, to imply that one side is more Christian than the other. I can tell you that that there are a lot of Christians who think abortion is wrong and a moral sin, but don't believe we should legislate morality. Let people make their own private decision on this issue, and let God be the judge. To me, trying to legislate morality is just as bad as trying to legislate and force communism on people. God gave us the freedom to choose so why can't we?

#1 - It's pretty silly to hear the Dems keep trumping this up, no matter what the figures are. If you disagree with something that is legal and fight to alter it, the number of people who partake in the activity is irrelevant.

#2 - Christians are not moral relativists. The condition Monica describes is exactly what Pope Benedict XVI - and many modern philosophers - rally completely against. If a Christian thinks abortion is murder (and almost every denomination that counts does, even the Episcopalians still), then there is no wiggle room for him to "let people make their own private decision" any more than there is when John Smith decides to murder his wife.

It doesn't take much to see that every law is based upon some sort of standard of objective morality. As a matter of fact, I'd say it's pretty darned obvious. Attempting not to legislate morality is impossible.

"It's pretty silly to hear the Dems keep trumping this up, no matter what the figures are. If you disagree with something that is legal and fight to alter it, the number of people who partake in the activity is irrelevant."

This is simply wrong. Let's say I am one of the "Guns should be banned" folks (I'm not)...does that mean I should not at all care about the number of guns on the street? Obviously not. If I think all guns are bad, then any baby step I can make towards reducing the number of guns around, whether it be education or gun buybacks or helping purchase trigger locks, will be a positive step in the direction of my goal; less gun violence.

You can do the same thing with almost any other issue. Pick one. Let's try Alcohol. Let's say I think alcohol should be banned because of its effect on families. It's clearly a bad thing in many cases. Should I then not take any efforts to try to encourage people to drink responsibly, or in some cases even abstain? Of course not. If I can't convince the nation to ban alcohol, I'm going to save a hell of a lot more lives by getting off my ass and creating publicity or running a counseling center or something similar than I am if I say it's all or nothing.

The same thing holds true here. I don't like abortion, and a decrease in the numbers (due not to intimidation or lack of availability but due to a genuine decrease in the demand for them) is a very good thing in all cases. Abortion is not an easy decision. It scars people emotionally, often for life. It tears apart families. It hurts people when it happens. So, if I were strongly anti-abortion and I wanted it banned, sure I could hold that up as a goal for the long-term, but if I can't accomplish that legally, then as far as I would be concerned, any help I could give, such as creating programs to help reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, encouragement of birth control, education, etc, would help reduce the number of abortions, save lives, and make this country a better place.

If the statistic is wrong, then its wrong and it should never be mentionned again. But the number of them happening is clearly important.

I can't recall from his campaigns, does George W. Bush think abortion is murder?

Monica -

Abortion, to most anti-abortion folks, is akin to Slavery. Telling Right to Lifers not to impose their beliefs on women is like telling abolitionists not to impose their beliefs on plantation owners.

Hate to pile on, Monica, but what the others said here is right and you are wrong. If you believe abortion is murder, you are obligated to work against it. In other words:

Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, "But we knew nothing about this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done? -- Proverbs 24:11-12

to imply that one side is more Christian than the other

I can't speak for others, but I aim my arguments at policies and not factions. Some policies are decidedly unChristian - abortion, euthanasia (esp. involuntary), asset forfeiture absent of criminal conviction (Bible says obey the authorities - one of which is the Fifth Amendment - and don't steal), etc.

Let me offer a partial defense of Monica. There are a couple of different claims that need very much to be kept separate here:

(1) Moral facts (incl. about abortion) vary from believer to believer; if I believe that abortion is ok, then it's ok for me, and if you believe otherwise for you, then that's fine for you, but there's no comparing the two.

That is indeed a version of moral relativism. And I agree with Josh that it's false (as indeed pretty much everyone agrees -- it's a pretty silly windmill to go tilting at, actually, but when you're pope, who's going to tell you that you're being silly?)

But contrast that with:
(2) Some moral facts (incl. some about abortion) are too difficult to uncover definitively, given our limited human capacities; and so it is important to recognize that different good people -- even different good, believing Christians -- can reasonably & defensibly come to different positions about those facts.

(2) is not at all committed to relativism, as it is an epistemological claim, not a metaphysical one. It is simply an expression of humility in the face of exceedingly difficult questions. It does not entail that we should not act on our considered beliefs, merely that one should suspend certain forms of judgments about others concerning the same beliefs. That is, you can believe that abortion is murder, and even that your Christian faith dictates that it is murder, and be vigorously pro-life on that basis -- but still refrain from labeling as "un-Christian" those who do not share this item of belief.

A further distinction that is relevant here: within the abortion-is-a-sin camp, there is a distinction between believing that it is morally wrong (a failure of one's duty to oneself or to God, for example), and believing that it is _murder_. If one's views are on the first side of the distinction, then it could make sense to advocate a don't-legislate-morality position. However, one should acknowledge as well that that position will not be one that folks on the other side of the distinction can sensibly adopt. Just because you can accept that a given question is a matter of conscience, it doesn't mean that everyone can so accept it. (That's why this is only a partial defense of Monica -- her comment does not make these distinctions successfully, either.)

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0045.html Perhaps the reasoning of a real philosopher would be of interest?

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0045.html Perhaps the reasoning of a real philosopher would be of interest?

Very interesting, when does a seed become an apple?

It is an interesting argument and deserving more than a chicken and egg commentary, or an acorn and a oak. Did you learn nothing as an undergrad? Which is not a fair question, actually, since the answer is already known.

Well I think the answer is clear.

C'mon, Foltz, stop encouraging the jerk. You and I can both tell that the piece he linked to is ludicrous sophistry, as can pretty much everyone around here with half a brain -- there's just nothing to be gained by even semi-mooting it around with the troll.

Another real philosopher you might then prefer would be Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College. His small book, The Unaborted Socrates, uses Socratic techniques to get to truth.