Roe v. Wade, Love v. Power
I am about as pro-life as they come. I believe that each abortion is the termination of innocent life, otherwise known as murder. I don't believe that this is any business of the federal government or federal courts, therefore Roe v. Wade should be repealed, leaving the issue up to each individual state. If Missouri then held a referendum to decide whether or not to ban abortion except to save the life of the mother, I would vote "yes."
I speak only for myself when I say this, because I have friends and loved ones who disagree with me, and I respect their opinions. I disagree with those who believe that banning abortion would increase dangerous back-alley abortions without decreasing abortions in general, but I empathize with their concern. I disagree with those who say that an abortion ban amounts to the oppression of women, but I can see their point.
The Core holds no official position on abortion, nor on any other political issue for that matter. As Americans we each have a duty to vote, and get involved in the political process to some degree. We have the right to communicate our views, and attempt to persuade one another.
But when Jesus commissioned his disciples to become the Church, did he intend to form a fractious political coalition? When the Church spread across the world, and began to include the majority of people in some societies, did the angels rejoice because of our newfound potential for political power?
I have yet to see convincing evidence that the Church can simultaneously muster the forces of political influence, and live out the kind of love that Christ has commanded of us. Maybe it really is possible, and if you have an example of this, please share it with me.
But what do we have to say about all the Christian women and girls getting abortions every day? I don't know if there's a singe source of statistics that I trust to be unbiased in this area, but I am sure we can all agree that there are far too many. Far too many single women too afraid of the judgment of the Church to be seen pregnant among them. Far too many young girls too afraid of their (Christian) father's wrath to confess their mistake. If the Church cannot be a bastion of forgiveness, support and unconditional love to those whose lives have bottomed out, we should give up now and find a new hobby.
And that's what brings me to my conclusion. I believe the Church should completely stop talking about abortion until we learn what it means to be a redemptive force in the lives of people, rather than a coercive force in the halls of power.
So yes, vote your conscience. Support your opinions. Exercise your freedom of speech. But remember that not one life has ever been transformed by might, or by power, but only by his Spirit working through us.
Posted at 9:09 AM
View 32 comments made so far
Add a comment
Links to this post
32 Comments:
I tend to be less "on one side" than you but I totally agree with this statement and I've said it with different words every time I have this discussion with people.
"I believe the Church should completely stop talking about abortion until we learn what it means to be a redemptive force in the lives of people, rather than a coercive force in the halls of power."
Back in my young misguided 20s I was an outspoken liberal on a few issues EXCEPT abortion. As an unwanted child I floated thru the family services system until I was six months old, and some nice family borrowed against their then-seven-year-old 1957 Bel Air to pay the adoption fees. I tend to be pro-life without a politician's endorsement or a bible verse. It's amazing to me that it's such a left-right issue, when the left is supposed to be all about compassion. Alan Keyes once pointed out that our constitution says 'All Men are CREATED equal' It does NOT say BORN equal.
By the way, I'll support embryonic stem cell research when the unborn person in question can sign a donor card and let their family know it's ok
Jim Cox
mr.jamescox@yahoo.com
Amen, brother. I'm behind you, all the way. I'm thankful you put the word "until" in there. It's kind of like the verse about not taking the spec out of someone else's eye when there's a log in yours. But on the flip side of those statements, there's a duty. IF or UNTIL we learn to embrace single, pregnant moms AND actually help get them on their feet, whether emotionally, vocationally, financially, socially, or otherwise, then we should certainly increase our labor on that side of love. But i don't think we can place being supportive of women in these situations over acting to save the lifes of children by every ethical means possible. Although, the thing that "unsupportive pro-lifers" apparently haven't given serious consideration to is that IF they loved these women as they should, then they would be less likely to kill their babies.
I really like the Southern Baptist position on this issue. Basically show forgiveness and compassion to those with this in their past ( ALL have sinned, including me ) and stroungly encourage others not to take this path. My wife had a cousin get a spring abortion simply because her prom dress wouldn't fit by may. Check out the Dobson video ' The Silent Scream' It's an ultrasound of an evacuation abortion. You see the face of the child attempt to cry out right before the ( i'm gonna stop there, you get the idea )
many thanks to Ryan for another useful discussion.
One last thing. Why is it that most pro-lifers tend to be christian? Hmmmmmmm
Jim Cox
mr.jamescox@yahoo.com
Yes! Mr. Keyes pointed out last Wednesday night (were you there, Jim?) that when we view babies in the embryonic stage of development any differently than a grown adult, we are in fact discriminating because they aren't like us! Yikes! And then Dr. Chang's point about what scientifically determines what a living being is... something with a particular number of chromosomes. In the case of embryos, if they have 23 sets of chromosomes, then they're human! So science actually supports the fact that embryos are fully human, despite the fact that they are at their earliest stage of development.
This is THE issue which abortion debates hinge upon. I have yet to hear a pro-death advocate give a good argument against using the due process of American law as a model for abortion, namely the "innocent until proven guilty" clause. If we aren't sure whether or not the baby is a real human (which we know is absurd), then we ought to be better safe than sorry, hadn't we?! We ought to assume that they ARE human, because if they ARE and we are murdering millions of babies a year, then we have hell to pay for it!
Beloved, I'd like to emphasize a comment you made that is absolutely right on.
What is our motive regarding abortion? Is it a new law? Repealing an old law? Is it vindication? Or is it fewer abortions?
I think many, many people would be shocked at how many abortions come about because a Christian young woman cannot face her church. If we learned how to love like Christ, a giant chunk of these abortions may never occur. And what is better, to love someone out of committing a sin, or to legally forbid them from doing it?
And let me clarify on one point. When I say the Church should shut up on abortion until we learn how to love... I don't mean that individual Christians should shut up. Naturally, it is more important to love than to vote, no matter who you are. But before the Church decides to proclaim its politics to the world, it is crucial that we have made major progress in this struggle against judgmentalism.
No government that calls itself Free has the right to dictate to its citizens Reproductive Law. That is not Freedom, that is Fascism.
Therefore, it must be completely understood that it is appropriate for the legislative branches of the United States Government to protect our Right To Choose. It is not appropriate for the government to dictate as to what the choice will be.
It is our Constitutional as well as inalienable right to make personal reproductive decisions, no matter how resolute and unyielding we may be in our beliefs for or against, The Freedom To Choose.
For more information on Reproductive Choice, and by extension - stem cell research, we can direct you to New Israel’s article entitled: “Revelation Twelve: 7 – 10, New Testament, The Final Interpretation”
Thank you.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines Fascism as: "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."
This definition tells me two things: 1) A government that usurps states rights is more fascist than one who allows more regional control. and 2) The United States is nowhere near the point of becoming a fascist state.
It is one thing to believe that all women have a right to choose to have an abortion. It is another thing to call it a Constitutional Right. In order for that to be true, such a right must actually be found in the pages of the Constitution. And because it's not in the Constitution, it cannot be called a Constitutional right, nor can it legally be regulated by the Federal Government, or Federal Courts.
In my estimation, our federal government is in the most danger of descending into fascism when it begins to control whatever it wants, with no regard at all for the Constitution, or for states' rights. In some ways, we are already headed down that road.
As we said in our open letter to the President of the United States:
"..Control over one’s physical body, is the most basic Inalienable Right that People possess. Any Legal debate or legislation about denying a person’s Inalienable Right to make decisions about their own reproductive system is a crime against every principle of Freedom. In other words, it is a crime of the worst nature, to legislate into a person’s flesh and blood body, be it the Penis, the Testicles, the Womb, the Heart, the Kidneys, the Liver, the Lungs, and etcetera..."
It is important to remember that our right to disagree about all topics, including the continual disagreement among lawmakers and layman about the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States of America --- is what has made this Country the most powerful and blessed Country on earth.
Having said that, on this one, Coreman, we may have to agree to disagree. Truce?
We cannot consider this a government limit on the right to choose until we give the unborn HUMAN the choice. It is not a new idea for the government to have a say in what we do with our bodies i.e. indecency/exposure laws, illegal drug use, and in most places, prostitution. Our government's indifference to abortion by leaving it legal has more similarities to Nazi Germany that the 'facist' concept of limiting abortion. Where's the compassion in murder?Wheres thedignity? Abortion is not just a choice, it's a SELFISH choice, based on the ME ME ME viewpoint. Most of the time, it's economics, or maybe it's convenience/career motivated. If we can say it's better for the unwanted child, and it's ok to get rid of them, then we can get rid of all the unwanted 0-2 yr olds out there, because ' it's better for them than to be unwanted '. Unless you're gonna save a mother's life, and the MOTHER made that choice ahead of time, it's murder.
Prior to my daughter Noel being born in 1999, I asked my wife point-blank, that should a problem arise, should the Dr save Mom or the Baby?? Wife voted for the little girl to live if it came down to that.
Again, I will offer forgiveness to anyone that has ben thru this (including an old friend or two ) and continue to stand for comopassion towards them and assistance to the moms-to-be with the guts to take the high road, the less selfish road. By the way Coreman, thanks for the picture. I think little fingers and toes are proof of God's design. Best to all today, and thanks for the discussion
Jim Cox
mr.jamescox@yahoo.com
I would say "Truce" except I don't think there's a battle here. Just a difference of opinion. So yes, we can agree to disagree. That's why I said that I respect the opinion of those who believe in a right to have an abortion. I just don't share that view myself.
I think warbird has a good point about laws regulating one's body. I don't believe that the reproductive system deserves special treatment... we should be consistent in our philosophies. If it's not ok to make laws restricting one's body, then we'll make all drugs legal, plus prostitution, indecent exposure, etc. If it is ok to make those laws, then we'll keep those things illegal, and include abortion.
I think we can find a good illustration in Statutory Rape. If two unmarried legal adults want to sleep together, it's none of the government's business. But this society considers those under 18 not mature enough to provide consent to a sexual encounter. Therefore, if such an encounter occurs between an adult and a minor, all legal responsibility is placed on the adult to protect the minor.
Thus, if a 17 year old and a 12 year old and a 5 year old are all considered too immature to protect themselves, how much more a pre-born child? It is our moral and legal responsibility to protect them, and to hold accountable those who do not.
And remember, I'm not speaking on behalf of Christ, or His Church, or all Christians. I'm speaking only for myself.
We refer you to an article in our web site called:
"Revelation 12: 7~10, New Testament, The Final Interpretation" (It is the last LINK in the Contents)
To completely understand why abortion must remain a legal option, it is critically important to read the entire article. The Web site address is:
http://www.newisrael.net
Thank you.
I have read your article, and I understand why you hold the opinion you do.
And although I respect that opinion, I do not respect the hatefulness with which you present it.
Let me draw you back to the spirit in which this blog post was written... the desire that love triumph dogma.
"For if I speak with the tongues of men and angels, yet have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal." -1 Corinthians 13:1
I don't have anything to add, because Jim, Coreman, and I have given the complete pro-life case. But I would like to contribute by simplifying things. This debate is not about a woman's right to her own "well being" vs. the State's right to impose sanctions on her freedom. It is about one thing, and only one thing. The only reason pro-lifers give a RIP about this is because we're dealing with real-live human beings, not just cellular blobs. The only thing that matters at all in this conversation is whether a fertilized egg is indeed human, i.e. whether he/she has 23 pairs of chromosomes. This is what scientifically defines one species from another- the DNA. If a fertilized egg has human DNA, then it's..."TADA!"...HUMAN! Surprise, surprise! Pro-choicers can pile their arguments as high as they want, but none of it amounts to a hill of beans unless they can prove that an embryo with 46 homo-sapien chromosomes is not a homo-sapien. But wait, they can't prove it. So they'd rather risk killing millions of babies and be wrong, than err on the side of love towards those unborn children just in case they are (and they are) little human beings, however small they may be!
By the way, I'll go on record that I'm no respecter of opinions. I respect people. But I do not respect the opinion of a person who believes it's right to intentionally take the innocent life of another. I don't respect Hitler's opinion, and I don't believe the pro-choice opinion is any different than his. He discriminated by race. Pro-deathers discriminate by developmental stage. There's no difference.
Beloved, I never said that I respect all opinions. I would not respect the opinion of a person who believes a fetus is a human, and also believes that it is morally right to kill that fetus.
But you are actually disrespecting people when you make this issue out to be SOOO SIMPLE. It's as if only a moron could disagree with you.
Remember, not everything that is morally wrong can be illegal. You and I believe abortion is morally wrong and should be illegal. But you can't get those two questions confused. I know plenty of people who hate abortion and think it's wrong, but do not think it should be banned. I believe they are mistaken, but I do not demonize them and consider them imbeciles, which is what your language is in danger of doing.
If you're going to respect people who disagree with you, you have to be prepared for the possibility that they are intelligent people who are simply mistaken, or even sometimes that they are *gasp* right.
I am merely calling for consistent practice. Not everything immoral is against the law. But all murder is a felony under American law.
Beloved, you still believe that those who disagree with you are all stupid. It's so OBVIOUS that abortion = murder, and all murder is illegal, therefore all abortion must be legal for consistency's sake. Most people, pro-choicers included, will agree that abortion is a death. But what makes it a murder? Because the victim is innocent? Innocent people are killed in war, but that is not called murder. If you are out hunting, and see something move in the woods, so you shoot it, then realize that you've just killed a human instead of a deer, you've killed an innocent human that you didn't recognize as a human.
All I'm asking is for you to recognize the complexity of the issue. Believe what you believe... I share that belief. I wish everyone did. But until you choose to understand how a thinking person can disagree with you, you will forever be guilty of arrogance.
And please don't respond by countering the points I made about the definition of murder. Remember... I AGREE with you. Try to hear what I'm saying about your attitude.
Oh, most definitely, kind sir. My debate isn't with you at all. It's with the pro-choice philosophy in general. I believe that there are SOME pro-choice individuals who oppose abortions but oppose legal punishment of those who kill or have their babies killed. They believe that by doing so more babies will be killed. That is an opinion I disagree with, but still respect. My issue is with people who deny that a fertilized egg is fully human, thereby denying that abortion is legally murder under the constitution that is currently in place.
By the way, I don't think it's very fair to misquote my definition of murder and then ask me not to clarify. All i will say is that you omitted the important term "intentionally" from my definition, which makes up for the question you raised.
I think two or more people can engage a topic they all agree on, yet challenge positions held by others, and still have a productive conversation. To me, it's good to work a topic over well, so that when we have conversations with those who disagree, we will be more nuanced in our ability to competently engage the topic. Wouldn't you agree?
Also, if I am somehow playing by different rules than everyone else in the legal and scientific spheres, then please let me know. I feel that I have built a solid case by merely using common science as well as rule of law, along with some watertight logic. Notice I haven't adamantly argued that prosecuting and punishing baby killers will actually reduce the number of abortions. There isn't a watertight case for that, and to claim that there is, that to me would indicate arrogance.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Coreman pleads the Fifth. ;)
I was going to let you have the last word, but OK.
I think that all you care about is making your case for banning abortion. In that sense, I believe you have missed the point of my post.
And as long as you talk about your logic being "watertight" you are still guilty of arrogance... you are determined that only idiots may disagree.
My point for continuing to assert my case is that I'm trying to convince everyone reading this that we should be fervently trying to persuade people of our case. Not so we can say we won. That's ridiculous. It's to save children!
The American Army went to war against Hitler's army. They didn't strike up a dialogue with the Nazi's...
"Hey, have you considered that genocide might actually be wrong? Do you believe in right and wrong? You do? But genocide's OK... Well, i guess you're entitled to your opinion. Let's do coffee sometime."
Maybe we should've approached it like that, eh? While tens of thousands more Jews were massacred. Oh well, it doesn't matter. What matters is that we don't hurt the Nazis' feelings.
Every day that we reserve to "dialogue" about this genocide, thousands more children are murdered. The number of births ending in abortion is up to 25% now, by the way. Why? Because some Christians are either too chicken or too stupid to be politically incorrect, and because other Christians spend too much effort trying to have a friendly dialogue with them.
News flash: We will never have more proof than we do now that embryos are fully human. It's impossible to know when a soul enters a person, unless God speaks in an audible voice and tells us. Even the scripture that says He knew us before the beginning of time doesn't make a case for this. All we have is due process (innocent until proven guilty, e.g. human until proven inhuman) and genetic science (which says that a human is an organism with 23 pairs of chromosomes). The reason the American people have not reached consensus on this is that pro-lifers are making weak arguments. As I said before, they aren't using the two key arguments I've presented here. I believe that if we confront people with these two arguments, they will not have an answer to them. Can you think of a good refutation of them?
Yes, we need to dialogue about what the best way is to prevent abortions. I'm open to all those conversations. But until we are all are willing to be united on the fact that embryos are living human beings, this will always be at least one step away. Therefore we must continue to persuade... persuade, I tell you!
So you want to compare this to Hitler? Let's do that.
Hitler caused the murder of many millions. So the US resorted to violent action to stop him.
Who is causing the millions of deaths by abortion? Not allowing, causing. Pregnant women and abortion providers. Would you join the ranks of those who kill abortionists? And I don't know anyone who wants to threaten pregnant mothers considering abortion with violence.
Do you think you're DOING more than me to finally ban abortion? Are you spreading leaflets or campaigning or organizing political simulcasts? No... you're talking. Just like me.
But when Jesus tells us to "speak the truth IN LOVE" I choose to take that seriously.
Do you think we should be doing more as a group to this effect? I mean, we would do so in a loving, but passionate manner. You know, I really would like to be an advocate for this. Thanks for the nudge in that direction.
We may not want to stake out a position as a church, but as a group of individuals who hold a consensus among us. We would obviously welcome anyone whose convictions differed from ours to refrain from these activities.
As soon as I hear an intelligent case presented that refutes mine, I'm going to have a hard time finding the opposing views intelligent. Don't get me wrong, I hear lots of intelligent cases made for preventing abortion, coming from the left, many of which I agree with. But when it comes to whether or not abortion is actually murdering human beings, I've just heard the same arguments over and over, which continue to avoid the real issues at stake.
Of course I'm not advocating bombing abortion clinics and killing abortion doctors and pregnant mothers. But there's a big difference between that extreme and simply playing nice. in between, there's aggressive, intelligent activism. What I've seen most is aggressive, unintelligent activism. We need both working simultaneously for it to work.
I believe we will go a long way toward finding harmony with the reasonable portion of the pro-choice community if we focus on our common values-- preventing pregnancy and supporting moms. If pro-choice folks aren't willing to partner in those endeavors, then we really have no common ground whatsover. Wouldn't you agree?
Shoot. When I said "As soon as", I meant "Until". Sorry about that!
Beloved, I used to send a monthly donation to the Pregnancy Care Center here in Springfield. If anybody is really doing something to prevent abortions and support moms, it's them. I think it's possible that The Core could support them in an official manner someday, since it's apolitical. Anyone who believes that abortion as a bad thing can agree that the Pregnancy Care Center is a good thing.
And I agree that aggressive activism is sometimes necessary. But most of the time it's like trying change someone's mind by hitting it with a rock. I want all the same things you do, and I want them just as badly. But unless we learn to present our case with humility and respect, we are losing credibility with people, and driving them even further from the truth.
"unless we learn to present our case with humility and respect, we are losing credibility with people, and driving them even further from the truth."
Most certainly, my gracious friend. But I sincerely pray that we learn how to be humble without being weak and timid. When I envision a sermon or speech dealing with this topic, I see it having crests and troughs, places where we shout in anger and places where we have difficulty being heard over our trembling lips and sobs.
I think the key in this is "not sinning in our anger". My anger toward this turns into pain and makes me want to cry and scream and get down on my knees, all at the same time. If our brokenness is what shines through, I can't think of anything more humble. What is prideful to me is the person who stands up in front of people all composed with a clean, succinct, tame message on why abortion is wrong and what we should do to prevent it. That's downright cowardly and selfish. Being willing to stick your neck out and make yourself a fool through your mumbling and sobbing... I think that's a better picture of what our posture should be.
And I want you (Coreman) to know that I wouldn't expect you to play the coward in the situation i just described. I would expect your brokenness to shine through sincerely, passionately, and respectfully, disgregarding what all those listening might think of you.
Instead of banning abortion we should be doing more to prevent pregancies in the first place. One place to look is the success in Holland (europe). They have the lowest abortion rate in the West. They do it by teaching a pro-sex seuxal education to youth, free contraceptives to all, and having a welfare state which elimates the ecomonic reasons for abortions. And Holland is very secular outside of the islamic ghettoes. Interesting enough in the USA states with the lowest church attendence have the lowest abortion rates and states like Alabama with high church rates a high abortion rate.
"Life begins before conception and death does not end it."
Shaku Dionysus
It's shaky ground, this problem solving is, yet it's ground we're called to trod. The primary delimma of Christians is where must we do good... in the process, or the product? Or both? Will God honor the process if it does not agree with His laws?
I guess we need to be digging deeper and finding out what the heck God expects of us. We are starting with so many assumptions, and honestly, I think most of them are birthed in our conscience, not the Bible. Please allow me the opportunity to think out loud... it may seem as if I'm contradicting myself.
We can't make the case from the Old Testament that God forbids the taking of innocent lives. He forbids murder. But I do not know how He defines murder. He seems to condone the killing of what we would consider "innocent" people, such as family members of someone who has committed a certain crime. I was reading just the other day where God ordered a whole family, women and children included, be stoned to death because the father/husband kept loot from a plunder. This does not seem just. It does not seem just when God orders the slaying of entire villages in order for His people to inhabit the land. This does not fit our definition of justice or humanitarianism whatsoever. In fact, sometimes it makes me sick just thinking of it. So when I realize that there are some decisions God makes that rub me the wrong way, I have to put into question what my "conscience" is telling me with regard to human justice and morality.
That said, Jesus did not speak out against injustice in His day. Oh, He certainly pointed to injustice to show people their unrighteousness. But He did not rally people to save the lives of innocent victims. He did not advocate for the abolition of slavery. He did not (contrary to most Christian feminists) advocate a wife dominating her husband, or even challenging the boundaries of the social roles she played. He seemed more concerned with putting proud people in their places, providing rest for the weary, healing for the hurting, giving life to the spiritually dead. Yes, He healed. He cared for people in pain and desired to relieve it. He commaned us to look after orphans and widows. He commanded us to love one another. But yet this is the same Jesus that ordered the slaughter of tens of thousands in years past. He gave those orders, not some different, Old Testament God.
So I guess I'm saying my jury's hung on what our role is as Christians in the whole abortion thing. Killing babies is horrible, in my opinion. But until I get a mandate from God telling me that I should be actively trying to stop them, then I guess it's none of my business.
Can you cite sources for your statistics? I would like to know more.
There's an article in Christianity Today that might inform this conversation. The full-text of the Evangelical-Catholic statement can be viewed here.
You say the core does not take a position on abortion or any other "political position". Abortion is not political it is a sin, such as say murder!!!. Which is what it is. I once worked with a christian girl who was raped. She prayed to God for her baby to look just like her so she didnt have to see her attackers face in her child. I have never seen a mother and daughter look more alike in my life. You see God can work all things out, if we will put them in his hands. On the day of judgement you will be held accountable if you dont start taking a stand against these things. No, abortion should never have been a political issue, but it is. It is time all who call themselves Christians took a "position".
If you're going to ask me to take a position, maybe you yourself should not remain anonymous.
Besides, I did take a position. Go back and read the first sentence of this post. What I do NOT intend to do is to draw a line in the political sand to divide those who are welcome in The Core from those who are not.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home