The problem with Tragic Christian's post is the judgement he renders on anyone who might (as Jill suggests) decide they can't bring such a child to term. There's only black and white for TC, and if you follow the link and read the post, it's fairly dripping with condescention.

TC's judgement is not only misguided, it's reprehensible - and counter to the very basis of the religion to which he professes fidelity. ("Judge not" and so on.) Who can point to another and say that they should be "strong enough" to follow their moral example (or rather, what they perceive as a moral example) with perfect (as judged by them, of course) fidelity?

I can easily think of many instances where terminating such a pregnancy would not only be reasonable, but advisable, but more to the point, I cannot make that decision for someone else. Yet I see this very POV derided in the comments as 'moral relativism'. Jesus once had some words for a group of fellow Jews preparing to stone an adultress - as they were right to do under Jewish law. He spoke to them of a higher law, and they famously put down their rocks. (For such acts, the Jewish leaders of that time attempted to accuse Jesus of, uh, 'moral relativism' rather than proper adherence to Jewish teachings.)

The impact of that lesson, unfortunately, seems lost on this crowd. Such moral browbeating and posing is a large part of why Christians are so deeply reviled in certain circles. It's certainly why I personally avoid Christian groups (and even their blogs), and I have a small library of theological tomes I could discuss.

What TC did with his daughter is good. That he loves his daughter is good. His actions, combined with restraint and humility, might find widespread admiration. Instead, using it to flout his moral superiority over ("judging") others leaves such goodness barren of 'fruit'. (i.e.: Only the faithful will be moved by his histrionics, while everyone else will see "just another self-righteous Christian ASS".)

He's utterly wrong in his stance, and although many good points are made in the comments, not one Christian in that forum seems to understand exactly why he's wrong. Centuries come and go, but human folly is remarkably consistent.

Aw, I just can't let this one go. Know what's missing from TC's post? An ounce of compassion for anyone facing such a tragic decision without making the same decision he did. An ounce! Those folks are Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, and that's all there is to it.

When you face God, here's hoping you see more compassion than you're showing here, fella.

Mister Snitch! Take a few deep breaths, man!

I do urge everyone to read the actual post on Dawn Patrol, along with the comments. You won't get a sense of the discussion if you rely on the red-faced collection of ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments above. He even calls down God's wrath on me at the end! Quite a reaction to someone who merely holds a different opinion than oneself!

Mister Snitch! says that I'm "utterly wrong in [my] stance," but doesn't say what that stance is nor cite anything to refute it. I'll give it to you here:

1. 80%-90% of Down Syndrome-diagnosed children are aborted in utero.
2. I believe this is based on (a) outdated and/or wrong information given by members of the medical profession and (b) a general cheapening of the value of human life caused by having abortion on demand.
3. There is no reason for this level of abortion, as medical, social, and educational advances in the past few years have increased the chance of DS children living a more normal, rewarding life.
4. All people are made in the image of God, and that needs to be respected. As well, we Christians need to remember that God "disabled" himself in order to live as a human being in Jesus Christ.
5. Regarding our children as fungible commodities, to be disposed of at will, cheapens us as human beings and is contrary to how God would have us act toward each other.

I welcome any explanation as to why I am "completely and utterly wrong" here.

It's interesting that Mister Snitch! would bring up the story of Christ and the adulteress (John 8:1-11). My understanding of Jesus' life and ministry is that he invites us to take the side of the powerless against the powerful, and does so here. A group of powerful people gather to exercise their undisputed, lawful right to take the life from someone weak and powerless. Jesus challenges them, and they take the path of mercy and life instead. I usually use this story to explain why I am pro-life.

A couple of final points, then I'm done:

1. When I face God, I hope he shows compassion on me. No argument there.
2. Mister Snitch, when you say, "just another Christian ASS," in quotes -- who exactly are you quoting? If this is your statement, why not take the quotes away and claim it as your own name-calling? As for me, as Paul said ( 1COR 1:27) "God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong." Ass I be, then.

Peace & grace,

Tragic

Abortion is wrong for any reason... period

TC is so allergic to criticism that he feels compelled to chase it down.

"red-faced collection of ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments"

Ah well, such characterizations must prove how wrong I am.

""just another Christian ASS," in quotes -- who exactly are you quoting?"

About three-quarters of New York City. I hear this constantly around here, referring to people like yourself who dish it out but can't take criticism. If you really want their names, get a phone book.

"but doesn't say what that stance is nor cite anything to refute it."

Actually, I was quite specific in my criticisms.

"Jesus challenges them, and they take the path of mercy and life instead."

As I predicted, TC completely misses Jesus' message here, turning it into the 'pro-life' argument he wants to hear.

""God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise"

I've heard this tired wheeze before as well. Faced with tough criticism, some Christians resort to spouting this quote to 'prove' that the criticism comes from someone who can't grasp the wisdom of their foolishness. Sometimes, TC, that's true. Not this time, though. Watch out, your arrogance is showing.

"Mister Snitch! Take a few deep breaths, man!"

Do I get exorcized over hypocrites like you? You bet.

"A couple of final points, then I'm done:"

Really? Let's see.

Do I get exorcized over hypocrites like you? You bet.

You mean he drew an evil spirit out of you without even trying?

See, I knew you'd show up if I threw you an open line.

I feel, for whatever reason, that I need to point out that the provenance of the pericope adulterae (John 7:53 - 8:11) is suspect. The message seems consistent with the gospels, but modern evidence suggests it was not found in the earliest manuscripts.

Mr. Snitch, abortion is not like gambling, drinking, pre-marital sex, and teaching evolution in schools. It is a completely separate, very serious subject, and you oversimplify by lumping it in with the "Christian conservative" issues.

People of all faiths and none should examine the culture of death abortion encourages. What are the implications of aborting fetuses because we deem them defective? Is birth the "line" that we draw for deciding if that's morally right? Why? There is no substantive difference between a fetus at term and a baby at term. It's just semantics.

And abortion on demand has dramatically changed the definition of "defective." Women abort because their fetuses are the wrong sex, or have webbed fingers, or the wrong father. Yes, this is rare, but once again, we're dealing with a "line" issue. Is it "OK" for me to judge you if you abort a female fetus?

Or am I supposed to pretend that just because it's your right, and I'm a Christian, I'm supposed to shut up? I don't think so.

I believe Christians should be very, very circumspect in their political activity, but abortion is the exception to this rule. Abortion is a great evil, and Christians should never hesitate to point that out.

It's not about sex or any kind of moralistic judgment - it's about human rights.

"I'm supposed to shut up?"

Apparently, I'm the one who's supposed to shut up. You're not interested in a discussion, you want to give a lecture. Great, you've done that. Let's count the changed minds - shouldn't require a calculator.

Since you can't defend the passage re the adultress as a "pro-life statement" on Jesus' part like the other guy did (no serious theologan could make that absurd stretch, either), you point out that it might be fake (as have others).

But this insight merely opens a new barrel of monkeys: Since you aren't even sure what parts of the Bible you profess to follow are 'legit' and which aren't, why can't you boyos summon up just the teensiest bit of humility now and again (not as a lifestyle – God forbid! – but just to keep in practice - and you two seem in dire need of practice in this area). You might find it kind of illuminating to contemplate how much you DON'T know, and that you might possibly not have the Only Hotline to the Big Boy Upstairs. Or that others might also have a legitimate point of view, hard-won and honestly come by, that doesn't consign them to hell. Or even that trying to bludgeon your worldview into people is maybe not such a hot strategy.

Yeah, I know: Jesus said 'no one comes to the Father except through me'. He ALSO said a lot of clownboys would show up at his door claiming to be his devoted lifelong followers (with heavily-thumbed Bibles to prove their authenticity, no doubt), and that he'd send 'em packing. You seem to spend a lot of time reciting the former line, and not nearly enough (or - let's face it - none) wondering if the latter concept might possibly apply to you and yours.

Nah. There's not a chance of anything I say making a dent in those skulls hardened with 'the full armor of God', is there? 'Sallright, this is mainly for my own entertainment. Reminds me of why I long ago stopped hanging out with your type. But, hey - thanks for the condscending lecture. Extremely Christlike (I'm sure he's looking forward to shaking your hand and thanking you himself, or something). I'll just hold my peace in the face of your superior knowledge and morality.

Mr Snitch seems to be absolutely terrified of even a hint that someday, somewhere, he won't be able to get any of that free, abortion-cleansable Ms. Snatch because the evil Christers got to her first.

Snitch,
I don't understand how my arguments could engender such anger.

I don't believe I've approached this debate with any special knowledge. I haven't used scripture, and I don't see how my arguments could imply that I think I have the only "hotline" to God.

I readily admit that I know very little, and even what I know is highly suspect. But you haven't addressed the difficult question about the "line" where abortion can and cannot be considered moral. These are questions that anyone of any faith should consider seriously.

I'm growing concerned that this discussion may be trying the good will of our host, but I'll respond one last time.

"How inconvenient for everyone involved! We can't possibly get her into advanced placement classes, or an Ivy League college! What'll we say to our neighbors? Better off just to make the "hard decision" to get rid of her."

Dripping with sarcastic condescension, the author tells us in no uncertain terms that anyone making a choice other than the one he made is superficial, probably amoral, and self-serving. Clearly no decent person could ever abort a severely deformed child, and clearly there is no room for argument here. Even "hard decision" gets the "derisive quote" treatment, because obviously we're talking about a type of person who would never lose a moment's sleep over putting their child to death. Such people are monsters, incapable of appreciating TC's superior moral compass.

I note that none of the Christians weighing in here took issue with TC's disparaging characterization of those wrestling with this life-changing decision. Only his choice, and no other, is acceptible. This utter lack of compassion and rush to judgement from 'Christians' was my point exactly. And from the ensuing discussion, the point's evidently been utterly lost on them, which surprises me not a whit.

Speaking of judgement:

"Is it "OK" for me to judge you if you abort a female fetus?"

You're supposed to know the answer to that (but obviously, you don't): It's NO.

This reminds me of the great Simpsons' line: "I was at Bible camp, learning how to be more judgemental." (Maude) Obviously, Dan's not the only Christian who's missing the point here.

"Abortion is a great evil"
"Abortion is wrong for any reason... period"

Yet, I'm now being chastized for not making my case for it. In the presence of such an open-minded exchange of ideas that IS hard to fathom, isn't it? My point never was to 'favor abortion' but to point out the (presumably) unChritsian contempt being shown for those making such a choice in these difficult cases. This point, again, has been completely overlooked. And again, that's not at all surprising but, sadly, what I expected.

"Mr Snitch seems to be absolutely terrified... free, abortion-cleansable Ms. Snatch because the evil Christers got to her first."

How on earth does one address such unhinged statements? One doesn't. One points out the level of discourse coming from the other side, and moves on.

Dan, TC, and their like-minded fellows represented here, made up their minds long ago. They're not interested in changing them, nor am I interested in the futile effort of placing new ideas before closed-fisted miinds.

Look guys, there are plenty of forums out there where you can beat your breasts and congratulate each other for your superior morals. Avail yourselves of them, and I'm sure you'll find considerably more satisfaction than I can offer you. Let's leave Charles' blog in peace.