1. James Merrick
   January 12th, 2010 - 22:10

   Piper reminds me of the farting preacher, he’s so contrived in his dramatics!

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo9kJZvYBB0

   I’m just sayin.

   ( REPLY )
2. Tyler
   January 12th, 2010 - 23:35

   You present a false dichotomy that’s hard to take seriously when you make hoping for pro-life legislation and helping pregnant women in need somehow mutually exclusive. Surely you don’t think Piper sits around without a care in his mind for the poor young women who are driven to the abortion clinic because he’s so preoccupied with bills in Congress?

   With this shooting-from-the-hip logic, should we make murder legal since people are gonna do it anyway? Instead, we should be attending to those whose circumstances lead them to murder? You’ve sidestepped the issue of definition, tacitly assuming your own, and thereby stripped Piper of the coherency of his views. That’s not a charitable reading.

   You obviously don’t like Piper. If that’s the case, okay. But this is just glib.

   Now let me say this: I’m sure there ARE people who fall into your sights here, people who are pro-life and who give the movement a bad name because they think that if they sanctify the public square, everything will trickle down from there. Piper isn’t one of them. And fortunately, I’ve never run into any of them at the pregnancy centers I’ve volunteered at.

   ( REPLY )
   • Arni Zachariassen
     January 13th, 2010 - 07:57

     My opinion of Piper (which is, as you rightly perceive, not the highest) is incidental to my real point: That laws are a distraction and the pro-life movement lacks a connection to reality. Someone posted that video on Facebook today and I thought it would be a good item to use to ask some questions and make some points I’ve wanted to for a while.

     By the way, I’m not presenting a dichotomy. I’m just saying that the focus is wrong and ultimately counter-productive. The pro-life movement has been screaming about Roe v. Wade for 40 years now – what has changed? Nothing. And nothing will. To reduce the number of abortions, pro-lifers should focus on making society better so the poor aren’t forced into situations where abortion makes sense. And so on.
     I doubt the pro-life movement will change in this way though, because protesting laws and being outraged by statistics is a really easy way of feeling like you’re doing something righteous, while you’re actually not doing much of anything. I blogged about that a couple of months ago: http://www.arnizachariassen.com/ithinkibelieve/?p=64 When being pro-life becomes demanding, most people will step off the wagon. You seem like a genuine exception to that, for which I commend you.

     I find it interesting that you criticise me for a non-charitable reading of Piper, when you, in that critique, use my “logic” to legalize murder. What do you think – charitable or not? There’s one important factor that makes the abortion-murder comparison wrong: Murder usually means suffering for the victim. Most, not all, but most abortions take place in such an early stage of the pregnancy that the foetus hasn’t developed sufficiently to feel pain. (I feel I should point out here that for me personally, the limit to when abortions can be done should be determined by whether or not the foetus is capable of suffering. So I’m not defending any country’s laws (like those here in the UK) that allows abortions after that point, though I do think that some late term abortions should be legal.) And, more importantly, foetuses don’t feel existential pain. Also, murders are, in most cases, done by what could be called evil people. Selfish persons with no regard or respect for others. Abortions, on the other hand, are sought out by people in distress. Women whose social conditions make raising a child impossible. Victims of rape and abuse. Those with terribly deformed and disabled babies. And so on. Are you really ready to call these women murderers? I hope not.

     ( REPLY )
3. James Gardner
   January 13th, 2010 - 11:22

   If the last sentence of this is your main challenge to Piper then you come unstuck if you know anything about his family or church – one of the most pro-adoption, social justice involved conservative evangelical churches in the world, period. He has four sons and an adopted black daughter. Many, many others in his church family do the same, precisely with children who live because they gave women another option other than adoption. I don’t know enough about the legislative side of things – perhaps you’re right. But spend a week at their church (as I have) and, honestly, you’ll find a lot of your criticisms subsiding. When Piper started at the church he refused to live anywhere other than the worst neighbourhood near the church and has consistently urged the church family to move into and live in that area. He has seen it all there – been threatened, dragged absusive men off women, had the homeless and the addicetd off his porch and in his home. And that changes the way you hear the rhetoric. In my opinion. Cheers, James.

   ( REPLY )
   • Arni Zachariassen
     January 13th, 2010 - 11:46

     That’s really good to hear. As I pointed out in my reply to Tyler’s comment above, Piper is pretty incidental to the point I’m trying to make. I take issue with much of what Piper says, but of course have nothing against his person – especially not after what you tell me about him. It seems my using Piper as an example of the position I criticise was unfair and that’s unfortunate, but the criticism still stands.

     ( REPLY )
4. James Gardner
   January 13th, 2010 - 11:24

   whoops – this sentence should have ‘abortion’ as its last word NOT ‘adoption’!!

   ‘precisely with children who live because they gave women another option other than adoption.’

   Sorry

   ( REPLY )

Leave a comment