Trevin calls this the pinnacle of wickedness, and no rational, morally sensitive person would disagree. But we don’t live in a rational or morally coherent age.
In the very same week, the President said, at the National Prayer Breakfast, that no one believes in a God who approves of the death of the innocent. Plenty of commentators have pointed out the irony of that statement as well.
But I’m increasingly frustrated by my fellow Christians on this issue. Let me tell you why.
1) There are massive amounts of talk. Constant, never ending talk on radio, blogs and television. But it’s not persuasive talk. It’s the speech of moral outrage, and that is appropriate at times. But it is not the talk of cultural change, mind-changing or policy change. It is the kind of talk that convinces the already convinced, but which makes the unconvinced feel cornered and yelled at.
2) There is an increasing undertone of of “anything goes” in the rhetoric of many Christians. Certainly, this issue will bring about a lot of emotion and strong feelings. But does “anything go?” Can you say anything and do anything without regard for boundaries and restraint? What’s our ethical responsibility when we respond?
3) The endless escalation of this issue will result in violence, either verbal or physical. Unstable people, angered by outrageous acts that inflame their emotions over their reason, will perpetuate a cycle of violence. Christians bear responsibility, in my view, to find a way to focus without creating the beginnings of a cycle of vengeance and revenge in the minds of those for whom violence is justified in this cause.
4) The civil rights struggle should be a great teacher for Christians who are pro-life, but I see little evidence of it. Dr. King and others had a sophisticated response to a deeply ingrained culture of hate: they out-loved, out-risked, and out-suffered them. Yes, there was rhetoric. Yes, there were speeches. But the civil rights struggle was a personal struggle won by people putting themselves on the line and saying “we will quietly, stubbornly, lovingly, sacrificially defeat this evil.” I don’t see leaders emulating or imitating this model. It’s just more and more and more outrage, and little conversion.
5) The Amish school tragedy has haunted many Christians. Are we prepared to respond to moral outrage and violence with greater love and greater forgiveness? Do we even have it in us? If such an act had happened in Christian schools, would there have been angry mobs outside the jails demanding a violent revenge? The lessons in the pro-life struggle are obvious: can we love those who perpetuate this evil? I can take you to blogs right now that will say we should not love them and that we have no responsibility to love them. Our response, according to these discernabloggers, should be hate and retaliation in the name of protecting the innocent.
6) Do we want a fight, or do we want to save lives? Do we want a fight, or do we want to persuade? Do we want a fight, or do we want to humble ourselves as a Christian community and admit how many of those abortions are our daughters? How many are of women living within shouting distance of our churches?
7) Is there a consistent pro-life response among American Christians? Are we outraged by children starving in Africa? Are we outraged by the innocents suffering in war? Are we outraged by child soldiers and the trafficking in sex slaves? Are we outraged by child abuse, sexual abuse and preventable disease? Are we willing to think in terms beyond the clear, outrageously evil stories such as the throw-a-way baby in Florida to see the pro-life issues all around us?
8] Is there a response to the pro-life cause that pays the bills? Writes legislation that makes slow, compromising progress? Is there a response that creates alternatives for women likely to seek abortion? Is there a willingness to risk family embarrassment to deal with our daughters’ pregnancies in ways other than a quick procedure? Can Christians, pastors, churches and ministries make a response that is practical, on the ground and real world, or is the main appeal here the opportunity to be outraged, angry and to keep on shouting?
My students and fellow adult Christians are almost universally pro-life. Some may have marched or answered phones in a crisis pregnancy clinic. I don’t know. Most of what I see is a lot of anger. Shocking pictures. An almost visceral, emotional ranting to release frustration, but little actual engagement or even understanding of the issue beyond what they emotionally hate.
I want to see more. I want a deeper, more effective response. I don’t want to just be angry. I want to see the problem addressed, minds changed, dialogue happen, truth told and people loved. I want to see progress by slow compromise if that is all we can get for now. I want to see Christians consistently applying the pro-life position to all of life.
The scripture says that the anger of man doesn’t create the righteousness of God. The way of love is far more difficult, but it is not optional for the follower of Jesus.
Thanks iMonk, for stating what many evangelicals need to wake up to. I finally came to the “seamless garment” view of Prolife this past election and I come from a very conservative background religiously and politically.
I also appreciated Antigone’s comments. Many were valid and as Christians, we need to listen. The one thing I will disagree with Antigone about is Post Abortion Syndrome. Having experienced it myself, I can categorically say it is not mythical. And because I’m in a support group for post-abortive women, I can say that what I feel and see from other women is not mere regret. It’s deep, deep grief and more. If I could go back and change my decision to abort my child, I would. And to iMonk’s points: I am a case example: a teen at the time, growing up in a fundamental Christian home. My mother wanted to ship me away so our family wouldn’t suffer embarrassment, and she often said, “It’s just tissue.” She took me to the clinic and paid for the abortion. Now that I am married with children, I often think how my mom helped abort her first grandchild. It hurts.
While I can respect that Antigone has a different opinion on when life begins, I have to say that my experience as a woman is that I was a mother. And I knew I was a mother. And now I have come to the horrible realization these many, many years later that I ended my own precious child’s life. And I grieve. I repent. I am on my face before God for my sin.
My “choice” has led me to years of distrusting others, a hard time bonding with my husband and kids, even lower self-worth, I could go on and on listing the areas of my life that have been altered for the worse for my choice. I think if the the prochoice crowd would really be honest about it and study women in post abortive support groups, they might come to a different conclusion about whether or not PAS is really mythical.
All that said, to Antigone’s point, the prolife crowd has largely left the woman ignored. However, I’d like to add that the prochoice crowd has ignored her after the abortion. And I think women are lost between the two sides. Sometimes I feel like a pawn in a political game. On the one hand, prolifers might think, “Of course she hurts! What can she expect from what she did?” On the other hand, prochoicers might think “Why should she hurt? She benefited from the choice and it’s not a child anyway.” So we don’t have social permission to grieve. And we often do it alone until we find the courage to seek out the only other crowd who can possibly understand the complexities of crisis pregnancies–other post abortive women.
And for those prolifers who think that a woman goes into a clinic to take care of a “problem” like shes going to the dentist to get a cavity filled, I would wish that they spent some time learning about crisis pregnancies: the state of mind a woman is in, the pressures she faces from family, friends, life dreams, etc…She doesn’t want to make this decision. But at the time it often seems the easiest solution. And perhaps the one that most of her support network is advocating. It’s a bitter pill that once swallowed, poisons her life until she one day realizes she swallowed a lie.
No one stood up and encouraged me to keep my child. NOT ONE. And I grew up in a Christian family and who was rhetorically prolife and in a very fundamental church. Case in point for iMonk’s post. We, as Christians, need to put down the picket signs, check our words, and get busy. It’s loving support and encouragement and the offer a hopeful solution that just might make a difference in abortion rates. If we don’t stop talking and get busy, many women will believe the lie that they don’t have any better options. And if we do get busy, we won’t save just one life. We will save two or more. (Please don’t think for a moment that my husband and children aren’t somehow impacted by my choice).
All this to say, I am prolife. But I am prolife for the unborn, the mother, the poor, the forgotten.
iMonk, if this is too personal, and I hijacked the thread, I’d completely understand if you choose not to post it. I apologize if my comment was inappropriate.
fantastic discussion. huge thanks to antigone for participating. i so appreciate the love and thoroughness in your responses. thankyou so much.
In my church, we are trying, in various ways, to encourage a “culture of adoption” (that encourages adoption, in other words). If I were married and could even begin to afford it, I would want to seriously consider adoption.
I try, in various ways, to inform people about the sin of sexual slavery, in America and around the world. I pray that God will bring this scourge to an end.
Moral outrage over abortion and other “life issues” is godly. Sinning in that outrage is not godly. The difference can be a fine line, but it is an important one. Let us pray to be grieved, outraged, and loving.
Prodigal Daughter,
I am so deeply sorry that no one in the church supported you and loved you through your pregnancy as they should have. I wish that I could have been at your church to reach out to you in some way. Please do know that God has forgiven you. He loves you, my sister in Christ. You are His daughter, and He loves you.
Perhaps we can do very little to change the legal status of abortion at this time, but there are many things that a follower of Jesus can do to respond to the problem – things which we are not already doing or are not doing very well. My list is based on conversations with a friend who helps pregnant women find alternatives to abortion (technically I suppose this is crisis pregnancy counseling, but she does not call it that). I have helped her provide some of the needs of these women, but have never dealt directly with the women.
According to my friend:
-Some women are not interested in exploring options to abortion. They just want to “solve their problem†and “get on with lifeâ€.
-However, some women are interested in exploring the options to see if they are viable. These are the women with whom she works.
-In most cases, women considering abortion are facing significant pressure from one or more significant people in their lives who want them to have an abortion:
1) The father of the child. Frequently he is not married to the mother of his child. He does not want to marry her, and does not want to pay eighteen years of child support. Sometimes, especially if he is young, he does not want his parents to find out that he got the woman pregnant, or if they already know, they are pressuring him to pressure her to have an abortion.
2) The woman’s parents – Especially if she is young. They do not want the possible embarrassment, possible financial implications and do not want to end up raising the child. Also, they think having a baby out of wedlock may ruin their daughter’s chances of someday finding a good husband.
3) In a minority of situations – Her husband – He does not want another child for various reasons, a common one being that he thinks they can’t afford it.
-The women who are willing to consider an alternative almost always need help if they are not going to have an abortion:
1) They may need help getting to prenatal doctor’s appointments and paying for them, as well as other prenatal needs, such as vitamins, a healthy diet and so on.
2) They may have no way of paying for the delivery and follow-up medical appointments (if they choose to keep the baby).
3) They often do not have baby equipment – diapers, clothes, bottles, formula, crib, etc., and no way to pay for these items.
4) They cannot afford to take off work, if they work, to go to doctor’s appointments, for pregnancy leave and so on.
5) They cannot afford childcare after the child is born.
6) If they are willing to give the child up for adoption, they have no clue what to do or who to ask.
The above list covers just the proverbial tip of the iceberg. If you’re young, pregnant and those closest to you are telling you its just a blob of tissue and the way to solve the problem is an abortion, and we’ll even take you and pay for it, that’s really difficult to resist.
What can followers of Jesus do who want to really do something about abortion? – Perhaps we cannot solve the entire problem, but we can do more than be outraged. We can put our time, money, love and efforts where our mouth is and do all kinds of things to help meet the needs of these pregnant ladies who need help and support if they are not going to have an abortion.
In addition to responding to the needs mentioned above, groups of us could be ready and standing in line, pre-approved, to adopt these young women’s babies, babies that they chose to have rather than abort. But to make that happen, we must help them make it to that point. This might include us helping pay their rent, allowing them to live with us until the baby is born, helping them get back to work after the birth and a host of other things.
Now I’m really going to meddle – This takes time, money, love and effort. Does it never strike you as very odd that the churches of the land that rail against abortion often own very expensive real estate and pay large sums of money for employees to care for the people of the church? Let’s put our money where our mouths are and help these young women!
you said that sentience is what you value and what gives a person the right to protection under law. (just to clarify, we’re defining sentience as self-awareness; consciousness?). would you agree that there are varying degrees of sentience? For example, the fact that you’re more self-aware than a child of 20 weeks.
For the purposes of clarity, self-awareness and consciousness can be considered “sentience”, though there still is some various shades of that. However, in any sort of calculus, I don’t see varying levels of sentience among humans translating to varying levels of value: once it’s there the levels don’t matter (with the largest exception being how much responsibility we give that person: a person of diminished capacity (a child, or those who are mentally handicapped for instance) can not be responsible for their actions to the same degree. What this means is that people have the right to make their own end-of-life decisions: I don’t see things like Terri Shivo as “protecting life” but rather holding it hostage.
Scott:
I shall just say one thing: I haven’t seen those studies. If you would be willing to send me one, I’d appreciate it. The idea that a woman couldn’t make her own decision without someone forcing her to do it is insulting.
Filoque:
Interestingly enough, without abortion, my smallest sister wouldn’t exist. My mom had a pregnancy complication between births, and need an abortion. Because of that, she kept her fertility, and low and behold, my baby sister now exists. If my parents wouldn’t have had sex that one night in January, I wouldn’t existed. If a doctor wouldn’t have told my mom that she couldn’t get pregnant, I wouldn’t existed, because they probably would have used a condom. My non-existence is not something that really bothers: I exist, that’s what’s important. If my mom would have had an abortion, I would not exist, and therefore not care.
Prodigal Daughter:
I am sorry that you regretted your abortion and I’m glad you have a group you feel like you can trust. And yes, I do think that the pro-choice community has a blind spot on supporting women who have had problems with abortion. Like before, I think they tend to be worried that any expression of different results that ok will jeopardize the right to it. But they are working on it: women do deserve that support.
But, there is still not a medical condition called “post abortion syndrome”. It’s regret, not a medical condition. I do wish you would have had a free place to make your own decision, free from the pressure of someone forcing you to get an abortion. When I say choice, I mean it: no one should be forced in to it. But taking away abortion means someone will be forced into a decision they don’t want either: is that what you want?
I don’t want anyone forced to have an abortion and more than I want a woman forced to finish a pregnancy. Both are distasteful: not because having an abortion is morally evil, or because a pregnancy is in of itself a bad thing, but because forcing these decision is probably the essence of denying autonomy. And that would be the scariest thing I could think of: that my body is not my own.
Lots of thought provoking posts.
I find it interesting that people are still surprised and outraged by this story or abortion in general. Surely everyone must realize that the aborted baby is put in a biohazard bag after the procedure. The only reason that the mother in the news story was outraged was because the doctor did not show up on time and the baby was put in the biohazard bag right in front of her. She will likely sue for pain and suffering, but the outcome would have been the same. If her gaze had been diverted she probably would not have been offended or reported the “problem”.
How much of the outrage among Christians is because “this shouldn’t happen in a Christian country”, or “our country will be/is being judged because abortion is allowed to exist”, which I’ve heard several times from my friends this week.
” and aside from not supporting birth control and comprehensive education (the most effective way to reduce the abortion rate), they also generally don’t support welfare for single mothers, or low-income families (the second best way to reduce abortion).”
I’m intrigued. What evidence do you have, Antigone, to support this statement?
Thanks
I don’t see how this is any more troubling than any other abortion. An abortionist who can cut a baby apart in the womb can do so just as easily outside.
The Civil Rights movement had violence on both sides. Black panthers and Malcom X? John Brown?
Abortion needs to be taken out of the religious context, as that is the only way to win this fight. I don’t see why non-christians can’t feel as much horror at the execution of innocent preborn infants as they do at the execution of birthed infants.
Also, death penalty is not analogous to abortion, and lumping them together weakens the anti-abortion cause. We take great measures to ensure the life we execute with the death penalty is not an innocent life, and the reason we use execution is to show that we hold innocent life to be priceless. By executing a murderer, we show that his crime of taking an innocent life is the ultimate evil.
Prodigal Daughter:
Thank you so much for sharing your story. I admire your willingness to be vulnerable on a forum like this. Peace to you and your family.
One point to add, and I’ll try to blog on this later, but lots of historians, many of them left-wing, have said that MLK would not have had success were it not for the hard work of “by any means” types on the ground in the Delta, in the Black Belt and other areas. They did the grunt work on a daily basis, and it was MLK who got the publicity. See activists like Ella Baker. I don’t agree with those activists, mind you, because many of them were extremely radical (i.e. Marxist), but there was so much more to the Civil Rights Movement than MLK.
Well, to start with:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html
http://www.newwest.net/main/article/the_failure_of_abstinence_only_sex_education/
I’ll find some state specific statistics and post them here.
I am male, so my opinion probably doesn’t count for much, and I am old, which makes it worth even less.
For the record, I am against abortion, but pro-lifers who insist that an unborn child is “a person” don’t make sense to me. In our country, “persons” are counted in the census. It was only after God breathed into Adam the breath of life that Adam “became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). Not breathing = not a living soul = not “a person” and the concept also applies to people after they die (speaking of being consistent); the dead aren’t counted in the census either.
The rabidly pro-life segment of the movement should be demanding that the U.S. Constitution be amended to include fetuses in the census. How far do you think that would get?
Someone will now tell me how stupid and illogical I am being.
One thing I found interesting about Antigone’s comments were her mention of the importance of personal autonomy. In theory, Christians don’t believe in this, since God is involved and is sovereign and therefore we are not autonomous. However, this is not a premise that a secular person is going to find very convincing, and I don’t think there is any sort of meaningful compromise that can be made on this point.
“I don’t see why non-christians can’t feel as much horror at the execution of innocent preborn infants as they do at the execution of birthed infants”.
I think that they do. But it has been labeled as a religious issue and cast in the media like an extremist issue. Actually, most people want a life exception for the mother, but that all but eliminates them from both camps.
I live in the abortion capital of the U.S. – Wichita, KS, with notorious third trimester abortion doctor George Tiller. Abortions are actually down in the nation, but Tiller’s are consistent because he has picked up the slack for other states. (Incidentally, Tiller works with the state of KS to fill in the correct paperwork to continue to do late term abortions for women, labeling their health at risk for everything from depression, etc).
At least two pro-life organizations drive around with huge panel trucks plastered with pictures of chopped up aborted babies. They want the shock value to stir people up, but it is so extreme that it just makes people turn away angry.
Antigone,
I’m glad to hear that the prochoice movement is making steps to helping women who have been hurt by abortion. And I agree with your assessment of why they have not done a good job of it to date.
I won’t argue the point about PAS being a medically recognized condition. I know it’s not, but I think it should be. It’s not too far different that Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. If you’ve ever talked (or tried to console) a woman who has passed the denial phase of her trauma, it sure won’t look sane to you (maybe the phrase “emotionally stable” is better). So, to your point, no, it’s not a recognized medical condition, but please allow me to make this point: that abortion hurts some women. I can’t quantify, but I will qualify and say it not only women like me who are Christians or who have a religious background who “regret”. I have a good friend from HS who has no religious background or belief and she has experienced much the same emotions/thoughts as I have since her abortion many years ago. I’d bet good money she’s not alone.
All that said, I think the prochoice movement should be required by law to tell women what the possible “side effects” of the procedure are. Call it regret, if you want, but please include the relationship problems that women have experienced post-abortion: the lack of trust, fear of intimacy, trouble bonding with subsequent children, or overly loving them to make up for what was done to the child aborted, the depression, etc… No one told me. I never knew I’d feel this way someday. I never knew what effect it would have on my life, relationships, etc… And from what I’ve heard, many women like me say the same thing. If we really want to give women a choice, we should really make sure that it is a well-informed choice, regardless or not what that might do to the political agenda. And truth-telling goes for the prolife movement as well–truth should be the rule, not the exception. No, I don’t believe that abortion is linked to breast cancer because I worked for a cancer organization and found that the science did not support it. I can be prolife and honest about that.
So far as giving women a choice–my feeling is that we are better served in meeting our goals of reducing abortion by getting involved in grass roots/community programs. I don’t think the prolife cause is helped by a very large group of morally outraged Christians who choose to stay that way and do nothing. I think dialogue, like the kind on this thread, are what is needed between both sides to foster understanding and encourage action that will bring results. If Christians really want to make a difference, then we have to persuade in the marketplace of ideas rather than push for laws to change. Laws are downstream of ideas, so it’s a backwards strategy IMO.
I apologize if I led you to believe that I was forced into my decision. I wasn’t forced. No one put a gun to my head. I was, however, heavily influenced into my choice by well-meaning friends and family. And I’m positive they didn’t know about the possible “risks” or damage to my life that my choice would cause me.
When it comes down to it, I think abortion, no matter how well-meaning, is oppressive to women. And I say that because too many women don’t really feel they have a “choice”. At least not a choice they really want. How is the prochoice cause helping a woman forced to “choose” between her child and her boyfriend/husband? Or a young girl pushed by well-meaning or embarrassed family? Does a woman in a crisis situation truly have a choice? I’m probably opening a can of worms with this thinking, but I’ll express it anyway.
Abortion hurts women. Just stand in a recovery room and count how many women you can hear crying or moaning and tell me that this choice was good for them? I don’t say this to change laws, but to inform. To educate. To be truthful. I really appreciate your perspective, Antigone, so please know I say all this kindly.
Christopher Lake and Boethius, thank you both for your kind words and extending me peace. I appreciate it.
The answer to all your questions in #7 is “Yes.” That’s assuming that what you mean isn’t, “Are we equally outraged all the time about these other things, too?”
No person–or even organization–has the time, energy, or ability to devote the concern to each of the world’s ills that is deserved.
Allowing a baby to die provokes outrage because it demonstrates the lies of the pro-abortion folks, who insist this is about the “woman’s body” and that you have rights once you hit the air. Well, here’s a clear-cut case proving that’s a lie.
You answered #8 yourself. Not only is this country dotted with many crisis pregnancy centers, but I think you’ve mentioned before that evangelicals are far more supportive of the pregnant teens among them than the wider culture gives us credit for. The only people shocked by the way evangelicals responded to Bristol Palin were secularists on the Left. For a huge portion of us who have been Christians our whole lives, well, we’ve seen that kind of thing in our own churches.
Acting as though Christians as a whole just shun, ostracize, and push away single mothers is tantamout to slander.
The sexual revolution is a huge underlying problem. There is no version of carrying a baby to term that allows you to have the kind of sex life that the majority of teens and twentysomethings think is their birthright.
Would you have criticized a German in 1939 for being more concerned about the treatment of Jews in his home country than, say, the treatment of blacks in the United States?
Tom-
Probably is unresolvable; but give me some strong and convincing evidence about a) god and b) his beliefs on any particular subject and I would be willing to listen (on a different thread; and I mean this in all seriousness).
PD-
I think there’s more to being forced then just a gun to someone’s head, but I get the general point. Some women do feel regret, pain, and sorrow after abortion, no one’s denying that. But not all women; not even most women whom I know who have had an abortion. Though I don’t mind a doctor telling a patient what could happen for either an abortion or a pregnancy as long as it is honest. The “breast cancer” link is something that does irk me.
I know a few friends who have an abortion: most of them married at the time, about half with kids already, and most because birth control failed. I have a few who regretted it right away, and now think it’s the best decision they’ve ever made in their life. I know some who initially had nothing but relief, but later in their life couldn’t stop thinking about the child they might have had. Every woman’s reaction to it’s going to be different: but more to the point, I don’t think that the government should be in the business of keeping us from choices that they later regret (if that were the case, we should get rid of the military entirely, and all business courses, based on the major regrets of my friends).
Fearsome Comrade-
I never heard anyone on the left judging Bristol Palin’s decision to have sex, or keep the child. Most I know expressed regret that she didn’t have access to birth control, and pointed out that she wasn’t exactly the norm in most people’s life (a willing, well-off family supporting her). But, I stick pretty exclusively to feminist blogs, and a few minority-rights, and free-thinking ones, so maybe there was a “lefty” voice I was missing.
I hardly think Antigone or those like her who are pro-choice are “lying” about anything. To characterize her perspective as a lie is disrespectful, to say the least, but perhaps it proves the original post’s point.
I am heartened that some on this thread have been able to discuss a very difficult topic with civility and grace.
I am afraid Prodigal Daughter’s hope that the goal of reducing abortions can best be realized via “dialogue” is a wishful thinking. Once you are convinced that a human being exists at the moment of conception, there can be no compromise. Any abortion is cold-blooded murder. You can’t compromise with murder.
Go read any of the TR blogs to see how willing they are to interact with those expressing views that differ in any material respect from their own. The finest point of theology is always crystal clear to those with eyes to see and ears to hear. And so it is with abortion. A woman like Antigone would have been banned from a thread within minutes and insulted out the door. I don’t have much hope for dialogue in this kind of toxic evangelical environment.
Parsifal: Sadly, very true. I was just thinking how grateful I am for the IM audience and the ability to have a civil discussion. I’ve only had to ban one person.
Parsifal,
I didn’t mean to imply that Antigone or the the prochoice movement was actively lying. (Antigone, if you gleaned that from me, I apologize). But from where I sit, there’s a large silence from that camp about the kinds of “regrets” I am experiencing. I don’t think I will ever see eye to eye with the prochoice movement regarding Post Abortion Syndrome, and that’s fine, as long as we can agree that some women suffer horribly as a result of their choice. And, not to be crass in my marketing comparison, but if we are to understand the problem, who best to listen to than the “voice of the consumer”–the women who have chosen abortion and can tell about their experiences after the fact? If we want to understand poverty, shouldn’t we understand those who live in it?
I speak of truth telling in the sense that some very real experiences are being ignored, not to imply a lie is actively being told. I guess from my perspective, I feel I wasn’t told “the whole truth” at the time of my abortion I hope that clarifies things. My hope is that people DO understand the reality that abortion affects lives — and it hurts SOME women’s lives. And that is what I mean about telling the truth. That’s a very different statement than saying someone with a different opinion is lying.
I’m going to re-read the comments and have some more to say, but I wanted to put in a plug for a new project of ours at the Pro-Life Action League that I think gets to the heart of the rational response Michael is looking for here.
We’ve just produced Sharing the Pro-Life Message, a pro-life handbook and you can get a free copy FreeProlifeHandbook.com.
It’s 96 pages of facts and figures about abortion methods, fetal development, questions of law and answers to common pro-choice arguments.
Plus, at 3.5 x 5 inches, it’s literally small enough to keep in your pocket to have at the ready whenever the need arises.
Our ethos is really focused on dialog that will change hearts and minds, not just repeating the same old slogans and catchphrases.
We made the handbook that we, as pro-life activists who talk to people about this issue all the time, wanted to have in our pockets, and we want to get it in the hands of as many pro-lifers as we can.
Once again, get your free copy at FreeProlifeHandbook.com.
PD:
Sorry, should have made that clearer. My comment wasn’t directed toward you.
Fearsome Comrade suggested that those, like Antigone, who see abortion in terms of a right over one’s own body are “lying” about that.
Wow, so much has been said here, there’s no way to address it all.
Antigone, thanks for offering some measured, humble and helpful dialogue from the pro-choice perspective. Your openness to dialogue and efforts to see other people’s perspectives are what will make a real conversation between our camps possible.
If I had to boil it all down to one point, and I kinda feel like I have to, it would be the fact that the embryo, from the moment of conception is a unique human being with unique DNA that makes it an irrepeatable member of the human species.
If we believe it’s a horrible atrocity to end the life of a thirty-five year old human or a three year old human, we must believe it’s the same atrocity to end the life of a two-week old human.
The only difference between the two is development.
And if the embryos being killed are really human persons (and science has no other name for them), then what we are dealing with is genocide.
If it’s really genocide, it can’t take a backseat to any other issue. Social services are vitally important, and I support them and have used them.
But we can’t say that we need to refine our social service programs before we’ll outlaw genocide. That’s beyond absurd.
And while I don’t believe we can just pass a law and change things overnight, I believe we absolutely must keep working on legal solutions that will make this genocide illegal.
While we do that, we must also be offering help to women in crisis pregnancy centers and, Antigone, I believe pro-lifers are doing this, perhaps more than anyone else.
I personally know people who have taken the babies of women with untimely pregnancies into their homes. I also know people who have offered them other options, and I can’t tell you how many women are simply relieved to know that there are other options.
We offer that. That is our goal in the pro-life movement and we’re working hard on it all the time. We care deeply about the baby after it’s born and the mother, before and after the birth.
So, there’s my thoughts. Thanks, Michael, for posting on this important topic. The movement as a whole could use a lesson in how to communicate effectively, and that’s just what we’re trying to give them.
Matt-
When half the country doesn’t think a “genocide” is happening, and in fact thinks that it’s insulting to actual victims and survivors of genocide, that kind of language really isn’t going to get you too far, and that’s the long and short of it. You can think I’m such a heartless person that I condone (in fact, actively support) genocide, but that surely is not going to endear you to me. And when so many women have had abortions in this country (openly and otherwise), and so many people know others who have, I don’t think that kind of rhetoric is going to win you many allies.
In fact, a post in one of the major feminist blogs was how the idea that an embryo is a full human is very diminishing to what a woman does to create life.
But, hey, we have these kinds of discussions on lefty blogs too, about how to tailor messages, and how and when to be strident, and there will probably be some that are the fire-and-brimstone to the base type, and others that are looking to do the convincing to the others.
I meant to put “genocide” in quotes the second time.
Antigone,
Thanks for the reply. And, though I was pitching it to my crowd earlier, I’d encourage you to get a copy of our handbook too, since you seem to have a sincere desire to understand our position. I really think it fleshes out what we think clearly and concisely.
That said, I think it really does come down to what makes a human person a human person worthy of all the rights and privileges that go along with that.
If it’s simply being a member of the human species, as pro-lifers contend, then the embryo is included. If it’s sentience or the ability to feel pain or other such criteria, I guess I don’t understand why we can kill pigs or cows or, in the opinion of many choice minded folks, old or comatose people.
I know you’re not here to get converted so I’m not going to waste ink. I would refer you to some of Scott Klusendorf‘s work on defending the pro-life position for some really compelling apologetics on the subject if you’re interested.
In any case, thanks for the discussion, and if you’re ever in the Chicago area, feel free to look up the Pro-Life Action League if you’d like to have lunch and talk life issues sometime.
All the best,
Matt
Antigone, thanks for the links. Several thoughts-
Survey data can be hard to get right, especially in this circumstance. Also, bias is something to keep in mind in this situation, as the groups behind the survey are on record as to their position re induced abortion. Regardless, assuming that the numbers listed in the article are accurate, I was surprised at the relatively low mortality rate of “illegal abortion”. The rate, based on 20 million abortions comes out to 0.3%. This strikes me as low, since the mortality rate for hernia repair ( a minor out patient procedure ) is 0.2%. Unfortunately,I’m not sure we really know what the mortality rate for legal abortion is, particularly in the US, where abortion related deaths can be misclassified. I’ve seen other reviews of this article claiming that the rate of abortion, as a percentage of live births, is significantly lower in Africa as compared to the US. I guess I really need to get the article and read it.
Another interesting issue is how you classify post abortion deaths. The WHO, which was quoted by the NY Times, classifies all deaths within one year of child birth or abortion as a “maternal death” In Finland, a study was done looking at the maternal death rate after abortion and after childbirth. Interestingly enough, the death rate was higher after abortion during this one year period. This in a country with a very generous medical/welfare system.
There are some good review articles that point out some medical consequences of induced abortion, such as subsequent premature births and placenta previa. While the breast cancer “link” may “irk” you, there are some legitimate statisticians who think it’s real. And the Royal College of Psychiatry has suggested that women be informed of the potential mental health risks of induced abortion.
Unfortunately, good evidence in relation to abortion is hard to come by, as studying abortion through experiments is impossible.
Sorrry about the length. I don’t know how to embed links, but can provide a list of articles if there is any interest.
The link between abortion and breast cancer is nothing compared to the link between breast cancer and never pregnant. I’m not a biologist (I’m in law) but that suggests to me that there might be some breast cancer reducing hormones when pregnancy rolls around, and if you don’t get it, then you don’t get breast cancer.
Antigone,
Why are only “leftists” considered free-thinkers? It is that type of arrogance on that side of the aisle that makes me want to scream into my pillow for about three hours.
Other than that, though I disagree with many of your comments, I found them interesting. If it is a woman’s rights thing, then if the baby that is going to be aborted is a female, what about her rights to her body?
I know that you probably view it as not being human, but if that is true, then what are we aborting? Because it sure wasn’t going to grow up to be some other form of life.
“Free-thinkers” are how most deist/ agnostic/ atheists refer to themselves. I forget not everyone is familiar with the vocabulary.
You’re other questions read as kind of a non-sequitor to me, because it’s like asking “What if that kid you didn’t have because you didn’t have sex would have grown up to be a girl?” It had the potential to, but until it actually exists as a living human, I’m not sure why I should care about it. To make a comparison, it would be like if an environmentalist started freaking out and saying I was causing deforestation because I use acorns in my salads. Yeah, given the right conditions and a ton of work, that acorn would someday be a tree: but right now it’s an acorn.
A presumption that seems to underly a lot of this discussion is that if we find the right rhetorical mix we will be able to persuade the “other” and bring positive change to our nation in the area of life. I am having difficulty being that optimistic. The Christian nation rhetoric seems so unreal. Maybe it is because I am Californian but I percieve us as living in a wicked, ungodly pagan society. From my perspective our civilization, culture, nation have become intrinsically corrupt and evil. I pray I am wrong and you are right. Deep down I believe the battle for America’s soul is lost. So what to do? Pray and share the Gospel. We may not be able to change the nation but we can change the lives of individual people. We can bring them into the community of Christ, His living body on the earth. We can do good where possible and help those we can. But changing society by altering our rhetoric? I don’t think that is possible.
This is a truly great post. So much so that it’s inspired a whole imonk-themed post on my blog (http://andybeingachristian.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/its-about-the-cross-stupid/ – do delete the link if your comments rules prescribe against it!). Your wisdom is displayed by the very considered, loving and practical steps you condone. For what it’s worth, over in London, our congregations have managed to set up a pregnancy counselling centre for those in need of decision-making guidance or post-abortion care. I do believe that many benefitting from the service will be relieved and impressed by a ministry of compassion, rather than one characterised by judgemental rage. Jesus did come to heal the sick, after all.
Antigone
“Yeah, given the right conditions and a ton of work, that acorn would someday be a tree: but right now it’s an acorn.”
Greg DeVore
“A presumption that seems to underly a lot of this discussion is that if we find the right rhetorical mix we will be able to persuade the “other†and bring positive change to our nation in the area of life.”
Yep. And the acorn vs tree example is a perfect illustration that the two sides don’t even agree on the basics, much less the details.
Biblically, the strongest case is for a definition of life at conception. Sadly, our nation has rejected the Bible as its standard for truth…
That leaves science and logic. Scientifically, life begins at conception.
That leaves “personhood”. No one is really sure what that means, or when it begins – which makes a lot of people really happy. They can keep their abortions, and still claim to be scientific and logical.
Of course, a scientific analysis of personhood results either in a return to the pro-life position, or an even more shocking anti-life position. We see this in academics who have started to defend the killing of newborns, and children up to twelve months.
The truth is, those who hate God love death. If you want people to be pro-life, give them the Gospel. If they claim to be Christians, give them the Gospel again, and sound Biblical teaching.
Awesome post very glad you went there. There may well be more effective ways to win over folks.
nedbrek-
“The truth is, those who hate god love death”.
Aside from the fact that if you don’t believe in a deity, it’s really hard to feel an emotion towards a non-entity, that is INCREDIBLY insulting, and untrue. If a person does not believe in god, that does not mean they “love” death. If that was true why would so many non-Christians work to help people? If that were true, why would non-Christians write so beautifully about existence?
You are just flat wrong in this point.
It’s true because God said it
Proverbs 8:36 “But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death”
You can help people and still love death. Death is a way of thinking and living. Death is the payment for sin (rebellion against God). Either you are a slave to God (and receive His wages – eternal life) or you are a slave to sin (and receive those wages – death).
But that is the Biblical stand. If you reject the Bible, it’s not going to make any sense… The Bible even predicts this (1 Cor 2:14).
if it became illegal – what do we do with women who abort or attempt to abort? with any other murder the perpetrator is tried in a court of law. are we ready to sit on the jury of that case?
may god sweepingly damn the notion in our heads that a vote can change a heart and may his people respond by investing their lives in the lives of others instead of trusting politicians.
graceshaker, I don’t know of any serious proposals to try women who have abortions. There would certainly be criminal penalties for doctors who perform abortions.
nedbrek:
There would certainly be criminal penalties for doctors who perform abortions.
That could become the basis for overturning such a law. If the abortion was sought after by the pregnant woman, she could be seen as a co-conspirator. That’s one problem in creating a law as such. Who would convict the woman of murder? Example: wife hires someone to kill her husband. That someone kills the husband, the hired killer is convicted. However, the law is actually harsher on the person who does the hiring. So,the potential is that if abortion is made illegal with some sort of legal penalties we might wind up prosecuting both the doctor and the woman.
Again, it seems like pro-lifers really want to reduce the agency of women involved when it comes to abortion. If it’s murder, than the woman is a murder: full stop. To say she’s a victim of abortion, to say all women are forced into an abortion, means that woman are not moral agents. If we don’t have penalties for women who have an abortion, it is akin to calling women moral children; who don’t have the ability to be responsible for their own choices and own actions.
Not only does the argument suggest that women are moral children, it is logically incoherent. The rhetoric that employs terms like murder, slaughter and holocaust to argue that abortion must end disappears when you get to the criminal phase of things. Even though a woman chooses to commit pre-meditated murder, her crime does not require the same punishment as any other pre-meditated murder. Nedbrek seems to suggest that there is no crime at all so far as the woman is concerned.
I’ve never heard a rational explanation for the disconnect between “slaughter” and a civil penalty for the perpetrator of the atrocity. And I’ve never understood why doctors are considered the real culprits. It’s the woman who chooses to kill her baby, to use the vernacular. The doctor is an agent in that act, but not the instigator.
So if it’s not a crime worth prosecuting, why the outrage when others disagree?
“Scientifically, life begins at conception.”
In a fertility clinic, when sperm and eggs are mixed to produce fertilized eggs which are then stored to be later implanted in the mother, your argument is that a crime has been committed.
A person, a fertilized egg, has been detained without giving their permission, perhaps frozen, perhaps discarded.
Is that what we’re saying? That I can remove an egg from my wife, mix some of my sperm with it in a petri dish, and there’s a human being there?
Doesn’t the presence of a soul have something to do with humanity? If the soul doesn’t matter to human life, then why should God?
And we cannot forget that preventing life, as in birth control, is also seen as a sin by many Christians. Outlawing birth control is a logical step down the road of purely biblical-based procreation. Witness the Full Quiver movement.
I’m not pro-abortion, far from it. But neither am I going to call a man and a woman murderers for using something like the morning after pill.
Or, for that matter, the common birth control pill, which prevents the *fertilized egg* from implanting into the uterus. Is this murder?
I’ve had a vasectomy, so I’m unable to procreate as God intended. Once we turn over my wife’s womb to the government, are my testicles next?
Willow,
I know someone has probably responded to you by now, but there are so many posts I didn’t have time to read them all.
You said that we can not legislate morality. I know what you mean, but every time someone makes a law they are legislating someone’s morality. It may not be Christian morality, but someone’s morals are being legislated.
We may be allowed to drink now, but we can’t drive while intoxicated. Why not? People believe that it’s “wrong”. People could and do get hurt and killed and so the government says that it is illegal to drink and drive.
Morality is legislated every day, just at different levels. In Amsterdam pot smoking is acceptable, but rape and murder still aren’t. Morality is being legislated.
Al Gore believes that taking care of the earth is moral and that pollution is immoral. You may say to yourself “it’s only practical. It’s the only planet we have” but what about those who violate Gore’s beliefs about the planet. What then? Morality is being legislated.
Joseph-
The morning-after pill prevents ovulation. There have never been any tests that a fertilized embryo has failed to implant using the morning-after pill.
Cey-
None of things you said were legislated out of “morality” but rather “safety”. It is not safe to drink and drive. It is not safe to rape or murder someone, nor is it safe to have a polluted family.
The government can and does legislate the safety of abortion, and I don’t think anyone here is saying they can’t.