Responding to Christian Protestors at a Planned Parenthood

I don’t view him as a jerk at all. They’re praying, in public. Since their god is supposed to be everywhere, they could have prayed about this issue at their homes, at their church. or at IHOP while eating breakfast. They didn’t, because tThey clearly wanted the attention of passersby. In fact, that is the point of a public protest: to get attention for your cause. So, engaging them isn’t a jerk move at all in my book, it’s entirely reasonable.  He was civil, he asked appropriate questions, and quoted material completely relevant and appropriate to the protest itself. They probably think he was a jerk, of  course, because anyone who questions their belief is a jerk, right? 

I, on the other hand, think it was perfect.

There’s also 2 Samuel 12, where God kills the baby of David and Bathsheba to punish David. And these stories aren’t the only ones.

As far as polemic sophistry goes, it’s pretty good I guess.

Sorry for the typos, I am having some keyboard sticky issues!

I think that was the best video of his that I’ve seen so far.  He usually goes a bit too far over the edge for me, but I thought this one was spot on.  I wonder if he scared them away, or if they were done for the day?  I hope it was the former.  They probably don’t want their children hearing what is actually in their “good book”.

One of the few things that I really resent about my upbringing in a Christian family was the day my parents took me to an anti-abortion protest. I asked them about it a few years ago, because it seemed uncharacteristic. They apologized, and also explained that they had been heavily pestered by their fellow churchgoers to show up to one of those things specifically because they had so many children. (This is not an excuse, but it still helps clarify, especially considering that they changed churches not long after).

The point is that these types willfully exploit children for emotional purposes. Hopefully, Mike guilted a few of them into giving their stance and their tactics a second thought the way my parents did.

Well look who just got back from the “Webster’s” store with a fresh sack of vocabulary!

Nice try with the 50 cent words, but still, just a sad fail on your part.

And of course they should go pray in their closets and not on the streets if they really read their bible :P.

You’re actually implying he was worse than the Westboro freaks?

The Westboro gang advocates death and suffering to anyone who don’t agree with their bullshit. Mike Lee was simply calling these protesters on THEIR bullshit. Westboro uses hatred and invective. Mike Lee used reason and satire. And Mike Lee is worse than Westboro?

You got some ‘splanin’ to do, Lucy.

Well, we can’t all rise to your level of enlightened rhetoric.

I suppose he could have started doing that as they started packing up already or that was just the last straw for them.

So friendly.

The best part was when he started reading the bible.  I really think that’s an excellent tactic.  Don’t argue, don’t ask questions, don’t berate.  Just open the bible and read relevant passages.   Beautiful.

Drive-by trolling? Don’t let the exhaust fumes hit you on the way out.

It’s hard to say, really. It could have been. It also could have been that he showed up shortly before he knew they were leaving, as many times these things are posted on places like Craigslist, with a fairly firm time so they can get as many people as possible (crazy people have jobs and kids, too, so they have to be able to plan ahead!).

 The pro-life protestors are often told ahead of time what the “party line” is, should they be questioned. I know this happens in Ann Arbor, and it’s because the organizers completely realize how nuts some of the participants will sounds if they get to give their own answers. It’s far better to tell those who show up to just say the “magic words” or remain silent, convince them this is because it presents a more unified message than having an actual conversation might, and hope they’ll fall for it enough to not make it onto the evening news saying something truly awful that will land the organization in some kind of hot water. I am not sure if the organizers ever tell people that they’re to leave if they garner too much attention of the “wrong” kind, but it honestly wouldn’t surprise me. I suspect they’d see this as a sign of how awesomely pious they are for not engaging the heathens.

Definition of POLEMIC SOPHISTRY
1: a vaguely nonsensical phrase meant to describe a deceptive and controversial situation; especially : a phrase meant to confuse your opponents into agreeing with you

There aren’t any murder victims on your keyboard, are there?

Indeed. Why, in Numbers 5, God even demands that a man who feels his wife has been unfaithful must bring her to a priest, who will mix up a potion for her to drink. Among other things, if she is pregnant with a child conceived through infidelity, the potion will abort the child (a child of non-adulterous origin will not be harmed).

So the God of the Bible is not only okay with abortion (under certain circumstances), he commanded it.

Well played, Rich. Well played.

well, pray to your bearded sky fairy and ask for the enhanced rhetoric 2.0. Maybe, since god answers all prayers, you’ll get lucky.

Don’t just stop there, take it all the way to it’s logical conclusion. If killing any cells are murder, then we shouldn’t be eating anything, because plants are also made of cells. In essence, this means we should starve ourselves so we do not commit murder, eventually killing ourselves in the end. This is what the bible teaches us.

Exodus 21:22:  If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

This makes it pretty clear that abortion is no mischief, let alone murder. It’s just some sort of misdemeanor which can be settled by paying a fine.

Call a publisher. Now. This is genius.

Well done Rich. Well done!

You’re forgetting the part where they don’t care about the woman. She got what was coming to her.

Why not? For many Christian religions, getting into heaven is the entire point. 

They’re praying against abortion?  That’s great!  At least they’re not working against abortion…

Not asinine at all. It’s simply a logical conclusion derived from their axioms. It hardly seems fair to criticise a preposterous conclusion when it’s the axioms that are broken.

Let’s not talk about the dictionary until our host corrects the spelling of “protester” in his own headline.

If the baby is born alive “no mischief” then there is a fine.  In the rest of the  verse it says if the baby dies then the man who caused the death is killed.  Thus God treats the death of an unborn infant as murder. Exodus 21:22

It can be spelled either way

No, it specifically says “that her fruit depart from her,” that sounds like losing the child.  It says premature birth or miscarriage in the NIV, and the serious injury, or mischief, is to the woman.  

I’m going to rain on parades. 

Why do we think they left due to the  Bible verses?  Maybe it was just the end of their protesting day and they went home.  

I really do doubt they’d leave due to their own book being read to them.

I was really hoping he would read that verse.  It’s so perfect.  The OT is pretty clear that a fetus is part of the mother.  Prior to that, abortion is more analogous to amputation than murder, and it is permissible, or even mandated depending on the situation, in most schools of Jewish ethics.  It would be wrong to amputate a healthy limb for no reason, but if the limb is diseased or somehow threatens the life of the whole, then it would be wrong to not amputate it.  

(The closest the Bible ever comes to calling a fetus a person is Jeremiah 1:5, but that verse is only about Jeremiah, not humanity at large.  The verse highlights that Jeremiah was so special that he, unlike everyone else, got the distinction of being known as his own person in the womb.)

I don’t disagree that this verse in the context of  laws relating to personal injuries caused by others. I also agree that this verse is not talking directly about abortion, but in these types of discussions I have seen it used to say that God treats the unborn as being less valuable then children that are born and that is not the case.

There is no language here which affords special protection to the pregnant woman or the unborn child. Therefore if the man beats the woman and she goes full term and delivers a brain dead child the aggressor is free from penalty because the child is ‘alive’ and not born as a direct result of injury. Without a premature birth to ascertain penalty the unborn child has no value in this context.

Mike did this right. Reading from the bible and then they packed it up and left.

So what gets me is the fact that he can read from the bible yet they walk, yet when they read from the bible, they stay.  The true hypocrisy reveals itself. 

Maaayon aise a lotta trolls here.

Kevin,

There is a cure for rectal-cranial inversion, but it requires the sufferer, in this case you, to remove one’s head from their ass.

Mike, in my version of the NIV it is not in the footnote.  But as you are aware, the footnote is a commentary, not the scripture itself.

Of course my comment did not exclude the other things that would be
involved with the development of a baby after fertilization. But tell me FSq, how can sperm by itself without fertilizing an egg ever lead to a baby? This argument is equating sperm with a zygote.  If you want to insist it is a logical and compelling argument feel free but being on the pro life side of this argument I can tell you it doesn’t persuade me in the least.

well, look at that! two different versions of the bible. Whodathunk it. So whose little musty old book is correct? I am going to bet that RXlaw is going to say his widdle book is wight….

I thought they believed all souls are inherently sinful and go to hell (which was why they invented limbo).
Or am i thinking of the beliefs of the slightly different cult?

Let’s assume that what you have said is true (I sincerely doubt the “many Christian religions” part). That would also “logically” lead to the conclusion that everyone ought to be killed at birth so that no one ever has the chance to reject Christ and go to hell. Yet you don’t see anyone arguing that. I have my suspicions as to why that’s the case.

 Everyday we have dead skin cells in our mouths that we swallow. Is everyone a cannibal?

I want these people to get involved in what is going on with birth control, family planning, and women’s issues.  That is how they can lower the abortion rate.  What they are doing is counter productive and has done nothing to help.

 There is a lot of Christian dogma and theology that is nowhere to be found in the Bible

Burden of proof, friend. It is you who must demonstrate why Christians must of necessity also believe that any means necessary can be justified to get to heaven. That’s what I mean above by “utilitarian ethic” – you aren’t likely to find many Christians who believe that the ends truly do justify the means, and the few that you do find are the only ones who have to grapple with this objection.

So why can’t rape victims have abortions, then?

Take a logic class fans of mike lee. He doesn’t argue the issues. Step away from Ad Hominem Mike Lee, you look arrogant and ridiculous.

‘Burden of proof’ is a red herring. If a person is interested in an engaged discussion, then assigning ‘burden of proof’ is nothing more than an admission of failure on their part.

Anyway, the reason people reject a utilitarian approach is because they refuse to acknowledge that inaction carries exactly the same burden of moral responsibility as action.

Failing to kill a child in order to give it access to an infinity of infinitely perfect, infinite joy is morally reprehensible.

It’s only the Christian’s lack of backbone, moral fibre and true faith in the existence of heaven that prevents him from following through on the logical conclusion of his sick and twisted theology.

Nice response to a patently ludicrous argument  made against Christians who oppose abortion. But it typical of those who intentionally misconstrue the Christian faith in an effort to make their point.

How is it self evident that planned parenthood is corrupt? They provide sex education, woman’s health services and family planning services, what is corrupt about it?