Abortion, and the killing of millions of babies around the world, pushed by the Left from western countries. Increasingly acceptable to the Left to kill babies alive and out of the womb increasingly destroys value of human life.
Let's pull apart some of the issues around the abortion debate. It would be good to get some clarity and even some agreement. I share your concern, where the concern is abortion. If your concern is the Left's approach to abortion, you've lost me. I also wonder what you would consider an appropriate individual/church/state response to the abortion question.
To get things going, let me try to outline my current position with respect to abortion.
I am opposed to abortion. Were a woman with an unwanted pregnancy to approach me for advice, I would advise her to keep the baby and offer it for adoption. In many respects, my opposition to abortion is similar to my opposition to divorce. I believe God wishes neither, but both occur in a fallen, sinful world and we need to deal with both in a redemptive (not punitive) way.
I am opposed to criminalizing a woman who chooses to abort her fetus. Most of these women have enough problems putting their life together without needing yet to deal with the threat of court proceedings and/or jail.
I am opposed to criminalizing a doctor, who, in dealing with a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, decides to assist her in an abortion.
I have not found a clear, unequivocal Biblical teaching on abortion. There is enough there for me to have an opinion, but not enough for me to impose my opinion on others.
Fundamentally, abortion is a sanctity of life issue. There are several other sanctity of life issues swirling around us. The two most obvious are capital punishment and war, particularly preemptive war. It is important to me to be consistent in the application of sanctity of life issues.
Here are the important questions:
1.When does life actually begin?
2.Who determines the answer to 1. and what criteria are used?
3.How important is it that we have a working agreement with respect to 1.?
4.If there is disagreement, at what point is it necessary that state values preempt the rights of the mother?
5.Where there is disagreement, at what point does the mother's exercise of her control of her body become criminal?
6.Where there is disagreement, at what point do actions to assist a woman doing to her body what she wants to do become criminal?
7.In determining whether to assist a maternal care agency, should the agency stance regarding abortion as a family planning tool be the "line in the sand"?
I have lot of trouble understanding why this has become a Left/Right issue. Maybe you can help me understand.
Well let's at least be clear that those on the left are typically for abortion, and those on the right are against. If you look at a Gallup survey, 75-80% of liberals are pro-choice, and a similar level of conservatives are pro-life. If you look at what liberal leaders like Clinton and Obama do, the first thing they did in office were sign an order to lift a ban on foreign funding of abortion. Reagan, Bush and Harper (those on the right), all have defunded abortion abroad (in the case of Reagan and Bush one of first things they did when in office). Therefore, I conclude that abortion is an agenda of the left.
ReplyDeleteWhy? It has never been that clear to me. I think in part it is that many on the left worry about over-population, and this is an easy way to get rid of people. I think many people also don't think, and with most educators and Hollywood mainly pro-choice in part due to a reaction against Christians, it has influenced people. What concerns me is that many on the left - including Obama - are in favor of letting 9 month old babies alive and out of the womb - die on a table if the woman choses so.
I think life begins at conception, but would concede it is not that clear from the Bible. The Bible says "from my mothers womb you have been my God" (Psalm 22:10) and makes many references of God knowing you in the womb. Is it possible the Bible is not more clear, as they didn't anticipate people would actually be confused by it?
I think logically, it is not simply a women's body. If it simply is, should someone not face a stiff penalty for kicking pregnant women in the belly until their baby dies? At least if pro-choice people were consistent, and when seeing a pregnant woman, they should say "so how is the fetus" instead of asking, "how is the baby". Are they not being inconsistent?
Should we criminalize abortion? I am in favor of criminalizing yes, but i certainly see some problems with doing that. For example, if a woman has a mis-carriage, does that mean we need to conduct a criminal investigation? Clearly this sounds extreme, and hence i struggle how to implement.
So net i can see some room for disagreement, but while i understand why pro-life people are so passionate on the issue given they believe it is killing a human life, i don't understand why pro-choice people have similar passion. How do i know they have similar passion? I evaluate this both on the first action in office taken by leaders on the left (Clinton and Obama) to fund foreign abortions - clearly a priority - but also that most liberals (like most conservatives) use abortion as a litmus test.
I re-read my comment, and I didn't answered why I believe life begins at conception. If we don't take that stand, we have to use other guides, like "a baby feels pain at 3 months, so has to be before then, etc..". We also run into the slippery slope issues, whereby many believe it is fine to kill a 9 month old baby as the magical moment of life to them is when they are detached from the cord. But logically, i have a problem with saying a baby goes from non-human to human at some magical date, other than conception. If someone else has a better answer - and i am confident someone reading this blog does - i would be interested in hearing that perspective.
ReplyDeleteAppreciate your thoughtful response. This is obviously a matter of significance to you. In my response I'm going to be somewhat rambling, but hopefully helpful.
ReplyDeleteOf course you are correct about the Right being typically pro-life and the left being typically pro-choice. I also agree that both the Right and the Left use this as a litmus test. I wish it were not so. Could it be that this is done to divert attention from the really important issues of the day?
When does a pro-choice position becomes a pro-abortion position? In my mind there is a monumental difference. I will admit to some ignorance as to what the Left typically believes, but I have never heard a Leftist describing himself as pro-abortion. It has always been pro-choice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this label has only been given to them by the Right. I'm going to assume here that all readers of this blog understand the difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion. If there is confusion in that regard I can address that in another comment. So I said this in my original post, I am firmly against abortion, but am also a strong advocate of the mother's right to decide.
As I understand it, the pro-life case rests on two assumptions: 1) that there is a reasonable way of coming to agreement on when life begins, and 2) it is practical and effective for the state to impose its will on the mother.
When does life begin? I agree with your logic when you say you have a problem with saying a baby goes from non-human to human at some magical date, other than conception. But saying it begins at conception does not solve the problem. Does this mean that the use of an intrauterine devise equates murder? Does this mean the use of the “Morning After” pill equates murder? The Catholic Church long taught that the only acceptable means of birth control was the rhythm method or abstinence. The case could be made from Genesis 38:8-10 that using any birth control method is wrong. I recall a conversation I had with an Orthodox priest “if a person does not want children, he (she) should not marry.” My point is that in my view there is no easy, logical answer to the question of when life begins. If we extend the debate beyond Christian circles, if becomes more complicated yet. Anthropologists tell us that what we call Infanticide, is practised only by nomadic people, people whose life depended on their mobility. A mobile clan can only tolerate a certain number of children that need to be carried. So the common belief with nomadic cultures is that life begins with the first nursing.
So net: there is no easy answer. Personally I believe life begins at conception, although Mary and I have used an inter-uterine device, and I do not think that was wrong. This is Mary and my personal opinion, and that is how we have applied it in our life. Having said that, I would share that by way of advice with someone who is searching for an answer, but I could never be sufficiently confident in the correctness of my view that I would impose it on others.
But I do not believe this discussion is about what kind of birth control you should be using in your home. It has to do with the state role in birth control you choose to employ in your home. (Why is it that people who feel passionately that the state needs to force its view of birth control on all women, seem to settle on their preferred method of birth control without much thought? I see an incongruity there. No?) So the discussion only has value if the state can do something which is practical and effective. Otherwise we could debate how many angels fit onto the head of a needle.
In another comment I will offer some thoughts as to the state role.
This story, taken from Greg Boyd's web site probably better articulates my view than a lot of debate.
ReplyDeleteAn unmarried 18-year-old woman I’ll call Becky became pregnant. She was afraid to tell her strict Christian parents because she was convinced they would disown her in disgrace and make her move out of the house. This in turn would severely jeopardize her plans to attend college and fulfill her dream of becoming a veterinarian. Consequently, she was planning on having an abortion.
Becky confided in a neighborhood friend of the family I’ll call Dorthey. Dorthey was a middle aged divorced woman who over the years had developed a special relationship with Becky. When Becky told Dorthey of her plan, Dorthey didn’t judge her or dump her opinions about abortion on her. She simply offered to help. If Becky chose to have an abortion, Dorthey offered to help with her post-abortion recovery. But, believing that abortion was not the best solution to Becky’s dilemma, she lovingly encouraged Becky to think seriously about her planned course of action.
Even more importantly, she offered to do whatever it took to make going full term feasible for Becky.
If Becky’s parents kicked her out of the house (which they did), Dorthey offered her basement as a place to stay. It wasn’t much, but it was something. Whatever financial and emotional support Becky would need throughout the pregnancy, Dorthey offered to provide as best as she was able (she ended up taking out a second mortgage on her house). If Becky wanted to give the baby up for adoption, Dorthey would help with this. If Becky wanted to keep the child (which she ended up doing), Dorthey would help her with this as well (she became the Godmother). And, on top of this, Dorthey promised to work with Becky to help make it financially possible to pursue her dream of becoming a veterinarian.
As a result, Becky went through with the pregnancy, moved in with Dorthey, pursued her dream part-time while both she and Dorthey raised her daughter.
This is an example of being “pro-life” Kingdom style, for Dorthey was willing to sacrifice on behalf of Becky and her unborn child. Dorthey’s sacrifice wasn’t rooted in a particular way of resolving the complex, ambiguous questions mentioned above. In fact, Dorthey didn’t claim to know much about these difficult issues. She only believed it is better to affirm life whenever possible rather than to terminate it, and she was willing to communicate this conviction in any way she could by paying a price.
The price Dorthey paid was much greater than the price of a vote, carrying a picket sign or signing a petition. But this is why Dorthey’s way of being “pro-life” was a distinctly Kingdom way of being “pro-life.” It has nothing to do with one’s opinions about which limited, ambiguous, kingdom-of-the-world option is “right.” It’s got everything to do with replicating Jesus’ Calvary-quality love to others.
It may be worth noting that, for a variety of complex reasons, Dorthey tended to vote “pro-choice.” Yet, I submit Dorthey was far more pro-life than many who profess to being “pro-life” because they vote a certain way.
So i don't believe most that are pro-choice are pro-abortion. However, those pro-choice with the most political power in western countries at least, appear to be pro-abortion. For example, in the US the National Organization for Women (NOW), a leftist woman's group that is legitimized by most in the media as some sort of mainstream group speaking for all women, is pro-abortion in my view. A good example, is when Bush wanted to cut funding to Chinese reproductive causes, due to their forced sterilization and one-child policy. What could be more "pro-choice" than wanting to end the policy of forced abortion in China? However, NOW was vocal in opposing Bush as I think they view children as a way of enslaving women. Here is the complete story.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.liberator.net/articles/McElroyWendy/now.html
Yes, the story you attached about Dorthey makes here rightly look very good and wise. On the topic, most Democrats in the US support laws that allow 13 year old girls to have an abortion, without knowledge of their parents. In this world view many democrats are pushing, this girl would then go to planned parenthood, a government funded group that seeks to abort based on 90%+ of the cases they advise abortion over adoption according to the record, and she would never had the chance to meet a loving person like Dorthey.
Abortion isn’t a political issue in Germany like it is in the US, or at least not an election issue, still Christian conservatives and the left are divided on abortion.
ReplyDeleteDie Linke and the Green left party for example don’t mourn the loss of life but the loss of freedom for women to kill. Their position is: “Women had more rights in DDR, because East German women enjoyed the freedom to terminate their pregnancy”. Enjoyed?
I don’t know how people can think giving rights to women to kill an unwanted child is a more favourable society and a plus for women’s rights.
This is where the “compassion” of the pro choice is so wrongly placed they only or more highly value the inconvenience or embarrassment of the woman, instead of the life of an unborn child, which begins at conception. This is not a choice about a woman’s body; it is a choice about life.
I don’t know how anyone can be pro choice by including the option to kill a baby, especially today where there are so many options.
True compassion can only be acting responsibly and lovingly in favour of the mother and the unborn child, thus to offer supportive options other than abortion.
Things were not always this way. Is it good that things are this way?
ReplyDeleteWhen Mary and I got married, to be conservative meant to be opposed to any non-natural birth control. The Catholic Church lead in this conservatism, but many other Christians held that same view. The alternate view was probably articulated most clearly by Planned Parenthood. What they said is that responsible parents could plan when/whether they want to have children, and here are the tools. We welcomed their contribution to the discussion. I had no clue as to their policy with respect to abortion, and did not care. When I visit their web site today, they give the impression that this is still what they are about. To the best of my recollection, this was definitely a moral discussion, but not a political discussion.
Today it is a political discussion. The National Organization for Women and Planned Parenthood are vilified by those of a particular political persuasion, to the point where it is often difficult to hear the core message these agencies are bringing. Maybe this is good, but I am not persuaded.
Here in Canada I know of people who have voted Conservative exclusively because of this party's stance on abortion which they believe to be (perhaps rightly so) a yes/no issue. Personally I can think of many good reasons to vote conservative, but that is not one of them. For me the issues around abortion are just way too complex for that. They just don't boil down to a yes/no for me.
What should be a nation's goal in setting policy vis a vie abortion? What should be our goal as Christians as we advocate with respect to abortion policy?
My exposure to the whole abortion question is limited. I have never been involved with a woman contemplating abortion. I have friends who had an unexpected, unwanted pregnancy who decided to keep the baby. I have friends who have had an abortion. Nevertheless the more I think about abortion, the more I come to the conclusion that issues around an unwanted pregnancy are very complex. That being the case, I find it hard to see how a state would be more adept, proficient, compassionate, reasonable in dealing with this complex issue than the mother.
And I find it hard to see how a partisan debate, which by definition tries to make complex issues simple, helps anyone - least of all the mother.
Interesting choice of subject. I have to agree with the general "flavour" of Eric's position, but would tend to be more agressive on a point or two. There is a level of redunancy and disjoint in my comments and appreciate any grace you may extend to me in that regards.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of being required to pay for someone else's choice to abort is one I STRONGLY oppose. If you make this choice which I adamantly disagree with, then please do not involve me by asking me to pay for it. The lack of accountability for my actions, in this discussion appears to be missing(or I don't pay enough attention)
The Pro-abortion folks call themselves pro-choice but at what point am I(pro-abortion/choice) held accountable for my choice?
I choose to have sex
I choose to NOT protect myself(IUD;condom 'pill etc
and then I choose to abort or not
[sort of speaks to pro-choice does not equate with pro-abortion ]
At what point am I held accountable for my actions??
Another point I would like to highlight is - what about the sperm donar, what about his rights/responsabilities and choice? I can almost second guess some thoughts and let me answer with a story. When my wife was working as a VON she cared for a man who confessed a murder to her. His mental and spiritual anquish was blatant. Her initial thoughts had been along the line of " Help now what do I do" he continued to share how shortly after the war he had gotten a girl pregnant and had insisted she abort the baby - she did and some 50 years later he was still living with the guilt. The point being men too suffer post -abortion trauma
I have a good friend who is intimately involved with a ministry called Rachael's Vineyard - whose focus is to offer a place of processing and healing for women(and men) who have suffered from the mental and spiritual hurt of choosing abortion.
Why mention this - because in my experience..
There appears to be a prevalent belief in society that choosing an abortion involves only physical consequences/choices that end when the baby is aborted. The mental and spiritual pain I believe that virtually every mother(sperm donar if he is aware) who aborts her child feels on some level is seemingly little to never aknowledged in public. The reason I mention this is that there is ministry for men and women available in many areas from the same people who say "I am against abortion". Not the same persoanl sacrifice as the Dorothy storey but I belive nonetheless a more Christlike response than a Moltov cocktail into a doctors house or clinic.
As to the question of when life begins is not so hard to decide as we have the science for that, but at what point do we put value on that life? Value enough to keep.
The question of how to implement the"right" laws etc.. ? Not going to happen. I believe we need to work on it in our own lives and those we affect first and then as people see how we treat others they too can't help but be positively affected. Tks for letting me comment. I recognize that there were a few other points I missed (next time) My apology if I was somewhat unclear
lc
I so agree with the points strong oppose points made my little Chief.
ReplyDeleteJust fyi in Germany where health care coverage is excellent it does not cover abortions, (cost is 400€ euro) except for women in the low income bracket. Abortions are available only after counselling, a 3 day waiting period and must be approved by 2 doctors. Does this help hinder abortions? I don't know, no time to research further.
I am glad that you mentioned:
- the fathers in this conversation and the anguish of mothers that abort and the compassionate Christian response in working with mothers that abort. Unfortunately the media likes to label pro life people as the exception odd lunatics that attack the clinics, not like caring compassionate people like you.
response to Eric. I think society has greatly improved on offering support to pregnant teens. We have Gott sei dank, become more compassionate towards the mothers and fathers, but have somehow in this process lost our feelings or compassion for the life of a child and that is a sad society.
I also agree it shouldn't be a voting issue but it has to be political and I would bet you that more pro abortion laws have been put into place by liberal or left governments than conservative gov'ts. Not going to research either, just my feeling.
Karl thanks for the article on China and liberal policies. We all know extreme socialism has never valued human life, too bad some groups think they are supporting women and in reality they are killing baby girls.
I think Little Chief brings up a lot of good points, particularly on the mental anguish it is reported people typically face for decades post having an abortion.
ReplyDeleteI do have some reason for optimism, despite actions in Canada giving Morgentaler the "Order of Canada". I think with technolgoy, people are seeing 3D images of their 17 week-old babies and increasingly, in the US at least, people are calling themselves pro-life. In 1995 (when Gallup started its annual Survey - 56% were pro-choice and 33% pro-life. There has been a steady trend to the point that now 51% or pro-life and 42% pro-choice in the US. The trend towards pro-life as been most prominant with non-believers.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx
It's at least mildly amusing that with respect to abortion, I am the one who is suggesting that the effect of policy on what people do is over-rated. If I understand Karl and Caroline, they are suggesting that more stringent policy would significantly reduce abortion. Usually I have been the one advocating for more proactive policy.
ReplyDeleteIf the Law of Unintended Consequences applies anywhere, it applies here. What are (would be) the unintended consequences of a stringent anti-abortion policy? What a mother contemplating abortion needs most is to feel that she is surrounded by a supportive environment – first family, then friends (including church), then a social safety network – that is the order of importance, but as the higher order of support breaks down, the support lower down becomes important. Where that is absent, abortion becomes attractive. My sense (I have no data) is that stringent anti-abortion laws convey isolation and non-compromise to the woman, whereas laws permitting abortion under controlled circumstances removes much of that sense of desperation. True? I think so, but I may be wrong. In a similar vein, I think a church that strongly advocates for stringent anti-abortion policy will almost certainly come across to the woman contemplating abortion as a inhospitable place for her.
Karl's data indicating that more people are embracing the pro-life position is interesting. What would account for this shift? To me the most plausible is that it has to do with Obama adoption a fairly extreme pro-choice stance. This can't be divorced from the right wing media portrayal of that stance. People have been saying that this is going to far. For Obama, I dare say, this has been an unintended consequence.
As I reflect on the abortion question, it seems to me that for anyone, abortion can only be an option after all other options of birth control are no longer available. Having come to this point, what difference does it make whether the abortion is legal or not? I read that in India, abortion is illegal only if it is carried out outside an appropriate clinic. Within an appropriate clinic it is legal. In spite of that, of India's 6.7 million abortions annually, 5.7 million are done illegally, unsafely. 9% of all birth related deaths are the result of unsafe abortions. If that data is accurate, what is the appropriate policy? What Canadian policy would be most supportive of maternal health?
Which leads to another series of questions. If our government is going to fund a maternal health service, what criteria ought one to use to measure the effectiveness or worthiness of such a service? Number of unwanted births? Number of abortions, legal or illegal? Number of adoptions? Really, what?
As it stands now, it seems crucial decisions in this regard are being made at the highest political level, both in the US and Canada – Harper did recently, and as Karl points out, in the US the first thing Obama does when he gets into office is allow government support to agencies facilitating abortion (before closing Guantanamo, before stopping torture), and the Republicans do the reverse as soon as they get into power. I don't know what unintended consequences there are around these decisions, but I'm sure there are many. It seems the line in the sand is 'do you facilitate abortion?' To me it is quite conceivable that an agency that facilitates abortion under some circumstance could be doing more to reduce the number of abortions than an agency that is totally opposed to abortion.
Just a real quick thought as I peruse Eric's last comment
ReplyDeleteWhat a mother needs most(my opinion) is to never have to be in the position to contemplate abortion. This would entail a .......wait for it.....yes...here it is ===a proactive response from the family, community etc etc. If I close the corral gate properly I never have to worry about how I am going to round up my horses.[read that some where - I think] Too much of our response seems to me to be "reactive"[Don't worry the irony of men declaring what mothers need most is not lost on this brave]
As to the rest of your questions (valid ones I might add) will require more pipe smoking.(contemplation)
I so agree with Little Chief, well said.
ReplyDeleteI don’t really have time to respond properly but don’t want to ignore the comment on policy. Setting laws to protect the life of an innocent baby, is obviously not the same as over regulating free markets. I value life and allowing one to live it to its potential I guess on the one hand the state needs to protect it and on the other needs to allow people the freedom to live. I am at loss of words to define that better.
A church should be hospitable to all but a church should not bend its beliefs so that people feel welcome. That is exactly the problem nowadays, saying yes to everything and not taking a stand between right and wrong. The woman who chooses abortion is obviously welcome but her actions are not. In fact as Little Chief said she and the father need support more than ever and that should be the Christian response, while contemplating abortion and after an abortion, support and a firm position.
Males definitely have a say on this issue. This isn’t a woman’s issue, it isn’t about women’s rights, as feminist groups like to make it. It is about a life.
I am encouraged by the stats that Karl provided that because of technology more people are becoming pro- life b/c they see that this baby is not just a thing that one can simply throw away in the trash, it is a beautiful human being.
Upon further contemplation, Exodus 21:22-23, which was often confusing to me (in part given many of the laws in Exodus 21), seems to be clear that abortion in the law of Moses is to be punished by death. Many seemed to have interpreted "come out" as miscarriage, but from what i have read of the Hebrew it is clear that it is a premature birth. A different way to look at it, is no other accidental death is to be punished by death in the Bible, but rather isolation of the "felon". If the serious injury therefore, was referring to the woman, there already is a law for that - isolation. Yet here, the penalty is death.
ReplyDelete