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.
The Internet Monk Archives 
TO: Internet Elias
praise the lord..i have finally found a poster who shares my beliefs. i am not sure why people grasp at abortions and homosexuality-in the eyes of god all sin is equal. god hates sin…any sin…i think abortion should be left to the doctor and the mother…and in my beleif they will answer to god. as others have said, if a woman has an abortion and isnt a christian then she isnt gonna even consider that as a detriment to having the abortion in the first place. im sure lots of non christian women dont have abortions, just as lots of christian women do have them. in the end god will be the one who decides the fate. thats what i beleive. do christians forget that cheating on your taxes, calling in to work sick when you arent, cheating on your spouse…all of those are just a great a sin as the other.
i know this wasnt in the thread but i am excited to hear someone voice this opinion, i dont hear that very often. i often wonder why people dont get as upset over adultery or lying or stealing as they do over abortion or homosexuality–they are all a sin in gods eyes-none less or more..just a plain and simple sin.
god bless you all
LikeLike
Nedbrek-
I disagree, but suggest we take this back to my blog.
LikeLike
Antigone, (“Then what good is Christianity in the here-and-now?”):
The good of Christianity is that it is true.
That said, there should be some improvement in the behavior of Christians (a lot of people who say they are Christians, aren’t).
“I don’t wish to be forgiven for anything I’ve done, until I’ve actually redeemed myself in the eyes of who I’ve hurt”
There is a horizontal (man-to-man) component of sin. But there is also a vertical (man-to-God) component. This is because God created man. Bad analogy:
If you hurt someone’s dog, you are sorry to the dog – but you also apologize to the owner. How much more, if the owner made the dog from nothing!
And people are much more valuable than dogs. This makes the hurt to God much greater.
It is redemption from God that we all need need most.
LikeLike
The Christian who believes the Bible is the Word of God will generally argue that giving and taking of life should be left to God. The intent of Roe vs Wade..in its beginning…was for the woman in CRISIS to, along with her doctor, pastor, and whomever’s advice she seeks….to make a decision she can tolerate. The perfect situation for pregnancy is that it be within the confines of a love relationship. Procreation, as intended by God, would result in the ‘one flesh’ offspring of the parents. But modern times seemingly considers sexual relationships as sport more than for procreation and turns to abortion for unwanted pregnancies. Personally, as a Christian, I believe life begins at conception. I taught severly disabled students for eighteen years. Many of my students were premature…weighing 1 to 2 pounds. They developed into beautiful people who made the world better for their being in it. I believe there are many personal reasons women have abortions. Whether those reasons are justified…rape…incest..and so forth…only God knows. As a Christian who is a democrat, I take a lot of chomping over abortion. In my view, only one person is accountable in an abortion….the woman who chose it. I’m not outraged over abortion because I have given my outrage to God. I’ll probably get screeched at by some commentors…..but I believe, from the standpoint of scripture, that the unborn child goes from death to life….as do we all. I’m bothered by the ‘dead murdered baby’ talk, paintings showing Jesus holding a limp incomplete aborted baby, and references to the defenseless unborn. If there is a God. If scripture is His voice. If there is an after-life…then we focus wrongly on abortion. In an abortion, my concern if for the woman….not the child. The child immediately goes to perfect LIFE…..in my belief. I know not everyone believes that. But I do. The woman who is desparate, has an abortion, and suffers over that loss is my concern. I believe abortion is sinful. But abortion is no different to adultery, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, child abuse, knowing children are starving around the world and doing nothing to help, divorce caused by infidelity with no repentance, and the poverty and struggle in which many with intellectual deficits find themselves. Where’s the outcry for the kids in these situations? An aborted unborn goes to God. These others are left here in this death to suffer. Where’s the outcry? And I know there are many compassionate people to do care and who do help with these other situations….but…mostly due to political rhetoric…the fists are aimed at abortion for political reasons mostly. Wisdom requires that all things be kept in perspective. Abortion is only one of the many, many sad realities of our time.
LikeLike
Aliasmoi-
If you google it, you find that the story does show up in a few Florida papers. Otherwise, I’d imagine it didn’t show up because it doesn’t sell papers.
Some days I wish news was required to be non-profit: then maybe they’d actually do their jobs as the 4th Estate.
LikeLike
Then what good is Christianity in the here-and-now? If it does not result in people being more moral, or treating people better, then what good is being Christian?
If I saw some sign that Christians as a group were better than any individual person; or heck, that after a conversion, that all the people who converted were more moral, then I’d be willing to call it a prescription for social ills. But as it does not, I don’t see how advocating for it is going to fix any problem at all.
I don’t wish to be forgiven for anything I’ve done, until I’ve actually redeemed myself in the eyes of who I’ve hurt, and hopefully have learned not to do that again. A third-party cannot grant me that.
LikeLike
Antigone,
You make an excellent point! I will be the first to announce that I am a sinner! It was this realization which made me look for a savior. It is only when we acknowledge that we are sinners (liars, thieves, adulterers) that we can come, broken and desperate, to the cross of Jesus.
A Christian is still a sinner, just forgiven.
LikeLike
Why haven’t we read about this in a credible news source? — Aliasmoi
Not news.
doubleplusungood refs doubleplusunevents.
doubleplusungood refs doubleplusunpersons.
memhole.
— Our Betters the Media
LikeLike
Great points, I-monk.
MLK and the Southern CHRISTIAN Leadership Council won by changing the hearts and minds FIRST, the laws came later!
We Christians (necessarily pro-life, abortion is thoroughly antichrist) need to go the extra effort to win hearts and minds, not just point fingers and blame at the Clintons and O’Donnells of our nation.
LikeLike
Since plenty of “sin” has been done by people spreading the gospel, I call into question your prescription, nedbrek.
LikeLike
Sarah I’m not sure I believe something the size of a grain of salt that hasn’t even got a heart beat yet has a soul, but yes…. If some of these parents had chosen to terminate in the early stages of pregnancy, then at best they’d be safe in the arms of heaven.
LikeLike
It seems to me the concept of the soul is both immortal and amaterial- if I read you right, Aliasmoi, the souls of the people you mention (the guy who calls himself a poster child for abortion?) would be better served if they continued to exist in the pre-material/non-body state? Am I understanding you right?
LikeLike
Aliasmoi, you witness first hand the “overwhelming sinfulness of sin”. The solution is not to kill sinners, the solution is to give them the Gospel.
LikeLike
I think life is very precious – which is why I don’t think a precious immortal soul should be brought into this world to live through the horrors that I have seen these kids (some now adults) subjected to.
Like I said, the life long alcoholic – dying of cirhosis at the age of 36 – said he was a poster child for abortion. Not just because of how sad and tragic his own life, but because of the devestation he caused in the lives of others.
The kid who started getting high with his mom at the ripe old age of seven went on to extinquish another precious light. That wouldn’t have happened if he hadn’t been born.
The kids that social services straight up said they wouldn’t remove because of how messed up they were – one of them ripped an earring out of my ear. Now, that individual is still a fairly young/small child. Imagine the kind of damage he/she will be able to cause when they’re big enough?
LikeLike
Nedbrek: “To non-Christians, soul is a meaningless term.”
Say what? Religions that believe in an afterlife or re-incarnation all believe in some non-material part of a person that survives death, which generally gets what’s coming to it after death based on what happened in this life. By definition, that’s a soul, and it’s pretty important to a lot of non-Christians.
LikeLike
I really wanted to call bullcrap on the Florida Catholic story, but I just got off the phone with the Hiliah, FL police department, and it really happened just like the Florida Catholic says it did. They’re trying to bring criminal charges against the clinic owners – as of last week. I’m waiting for a phone call from the Dade County Clerk of Court. What can I say? It’s been a slow day here. I thought I’d do a little fact checking.
Why haven’t we read about this in a credible news source? I realize that this originally happened in 2006, but a Google search turned up no news articles from 2006. Plus, like I said – the case is ongoing. The only *news* sources I can get on this is various pro-life publications.
LikeLike
Aliasmoi, your work sounds very stressful, and I am glad you do it. But, I’m curious as to what you think the purpose and value of life is, that you could say what you say.
LikeLike
Now, I’m REALLY against coercing sterilization. That has a really nasty history of being racist and classist, particularly in the United States.
LikeLike
I’m a Christian, and I am pro-choice. I have been a social worker in prisons, in domestic violence, in child abuse – and I couldn’t come to any other conclusion but that some of these kids AND their parents would be better off if they hadn’t been born.
Here’s a thought to consider – which I’m sure some of you won’t – but you cannot put a baby up for adoption without the consent of the father. So, a woman (maybe she has kids already and maybe she doesn’t) who is fleeing a domestic violence situation. On top of it all, she’s pregnant. She would like to put this new baby up for adoption, but she can’t because “daddy” won’t sign the papers. If she has that baby – she will in some way be tethered to that man for the rest of her life. Not to mention all the nasty mind games the child will be subjected to or the abuse he/she will witness as “daddy” uses the kid as a pawn to try and control mom. Now, eventually, social services MIGHT intervene and forcibly remove the child, but probably not before they’re severely messed up for life. This isn’t a hypothetical case. I run into it three or four times a year. I won’t even start about the family that social services wouldn’t remove the kids because the kids were so emotionally/mentally traumatized from all the abuse they’d witnessed that no foster family would touch them.
How about the life long alcoholic, dying of cirrhosis at the ripe ol’ age of 36 whose *daddy* used to poor wine on his breakfast cereal when they didn’t have milk? He used to say he was a poster child for abortion.
The 18 year old in prison for the rest of his life who committed murder while trying to get drug money – he got high for the first time WITH HIS MOTHER AT THE AGE OF SEVEN.
I know some local lawyers who have a fantasy of being able to offer $5000 for people who willingly get sterilized. I keep pointing out to them that the people who will take advantage of that won’t be the people who really SHOULD get sterilized. It’ll be more or less responsible people – like me – who weren’t going to have any more kids anyway, but could do with an extra five grand.
LikeLike
Steved, I don’t know what a soul is. As a Christian, I believe God created us “body and soul/spirit”, but I don’t know how to measure that. To destroy human bodies, based on our assumptions of what a soul is and when it is given cannot be justified.
To non-Christians, soul is a meaningless term. Even the Greek and Hebrew terms may be referring to “the whole person” rather than some other created aspect of Man.
LikeLike
nedbrek:
I believe a human is what it is because of how it is made (â€intrinsic valueâ€), its DNA (and the like, mitochondrial DNA, etc.)
I believe a human is what it is because we have a soul. Life doesn’t exist without a soul. You can discuss DNA, however, much of the human genome occurs in other species. What distinguishes humans is that we have the ability to reason. If you want to argue the point that life begins at conception, for humans you also have to state that it is at conception that we are given a soul, our personhood.
LikeLike
Nope. I’m going with how it’s made, I just put the line at sentience. I also don’t consider what a woman to do as passive to the creation of life.
LikeLike
Antigone, perhaps we have a different understanding of what it means to be human.
I believe a human is what it is because of how it is made (“intrinsic value”), its DNA (and the like, mitochondrial DNA, etc.)
It sounds like you may be supporting an “extrinsic” value – that our value comes from what have done, or can do, or reasons other people value us.
Would you agree?
LikeLike
Nedbrek-
The “miracle” is that a woman has her entire biology hijacked to support this embroyo, that turns it into a human. Seriously, what do you guys think pregnancy IS?
Bob-
An acorn is a fertilized nubbin. The fertilization has already taken place (pollen is essential sperm). If there is no fertilization, there will be no acorn.
You’re botany is bad.
LikeLike
I think the acorn analogy is wrong. Acorn does not equal embryo. Acorn equals egg or sperm, depending on whether the oak is male or female. This may not be good botany, but it is good logic. Maybe pollen equals sperm.
LikeLike
Re. life begins at conception:
Fertility clinics are a thread unto themselves!
Suffice to say, before conception you have two sex cells (half chromosome) from the adults.
After, you have a new set of DNA.
After that there is only development (unless you believe some miracle happens which magically transforms a blob of tissue into a human being).
From that point of view, any birth control which can prevent implantation must be abstained from (as a consistent pro-lifer). Similarly, people should not be made in labs, unless you are sure you are going to bring them to term. And certainly not to be dissected for medical experiments!
LikeLike
Re. abortion is murder:
Of course it is. But we don’t treat all murders the same. There are extenuating circumstances (temporary insanity, ignorance, coercion). Also, you are fooling yourselves if you think laws are logical. They probably should be, but ultimately, laws serve us.
LikeLike
“But that is the Biblical stand. If you reject the Bible, it’s not going to make any sense… The Bible even predicts this”
So if one takes what you say there to be true… how exactly then does a pro-life person hope to accomplish anything by arguing from the Bible with people who reject its authority?
This is a prime example of talking past somebody.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
“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?
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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).
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Awesome post very glad you went there. There may well be more effective ways to win over folks.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
I meant to put “genocide” in quotes the second time.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
I’ll find some state specific statistics and post them here.
LikeLike
Well, to start with:
http://www.newwest.net/main/article/the_failure_of_abstinence_only_sex_education/
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
” 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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
fantastic discussion. huge thanks to antigone for participating. i so appreciate the love and thoroughness in your responses. thankyou so much.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Surfnetter, you hit the nail on the head. Abortion is the predominant White Christian issue. But, it is not the predominant ethnic Christian issue. Several weeks ago I asked on my blog and on iMonk’s blog why the voting pattern was so incredibly different between ethnic conservative Christians and white conservative Christians.
The answer is that ethnic conservative Christians are fully pro-life. But pro-life means more than just abortion. For many of us, the incredibly high incarceration rate of non-white young males with the concommitant result that they are shut out from future good jobs (we punish a felon forever in America, there is no forgiveness and no rehabilitation, even among good white evangelical Christians) is something that needs to be changed.
For many of us, the way in which we are dealing with illegal immigrants is a significant issue. The bitter jokes about being arrested for “driving while black” have some significant basis in reality. The fact that you can go to YouTube and see a white policeman shooting a black young man in the back after being handcuffed and restrained and killing him, and that the policeman is now free on bail is a life issue.
I am not a leftist. Believe me when I say that a Cuban in the USA is not a leftist. But, I am tired of being told by good white evangelicals that there is only one issue and that issue is the only one I may consider when I vote for a candidate, even if that candidate is not going to help solve the ethnic concerns in the USA.
Antigone, props to you for being brave and willing to engage us in discussion, though you and I have some differences in conclusions.
LikeLike
Antigone,
I am a male and thus I’m not like you. As you point out, abortion will never be an option for me. I will never get pregnant; I will never have an abortion. But you and I are alike in at least one important way. Neither one of us has ever been aborted.
The issue is not being argued over the bodies of women. It is being argued over the dead bodies of little boys and little girls
LikeLike
Thanks for the reply, Antigone. I was interested in your thoughts, so thanks for leaving them.
LikeLike
Antigone:
This has been very helpful. I am a Christian and pro-choice to the extent that I believe some abortions in the first trimester are not immoral. It seems there’s an assumption in this thread that all Christians are pro-life; all Christians are not.
Abortion has become a cause, and there are likely some fairly subtle psychological explanations for why this is. But a cause and the gospel are two separate things. A pro-life position is not inherently Christian and yet it has become a litmus test for orthodoxy among most evangelicals (I don’t think that’s an overstatement). It is difficult having a civil discussion with another believer when you suggest that there are no exceptions to abortion.
Because abortion is a cause, it has been given the power to undermine the gospel. The wretched Christians who know nothing other than the epithet “baby-killer” to describe anyone who disagrees with them have snuffed out the gospel in their zeal for the unborn. It is no doubt sincere, but it is also, I believe, misguided.
Anyway, thanks for such thoughtful posts. It is very much appreciated.
LikeLike
I am a pro-life Roman Catholic — and I think the real damage that is being done by legal, prolific abortions is to those of us already a part of this society. But the fact that it is THE White Christian issue of our time is indicative of the very effect abortion is having on us —
“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?”
It is ironic that pro-lifers compare themselves to the civil rights activists. There were few White Christians who put themselves in harms way for their Black brothers suffering back then. Most Whites who left the safety of their neighborhoods to support Southern Blacks were Jewish. It says something that we support the rights of those who never saw the light of day and began to display appearances, behaviors and beliefs that don’t match and/or threaten our own, while we’re relatively silent (as a whole) on the already born and suffering.
LikeLike
Michael, thanks for your post! Commenters, thanks for sharing your views! I’ve been swirling thoughts around ever since Sanctity of Human Life Sunday 2 (almost 3) weeks ago and I JUST posted on my own blog last night in an attempt to get my swirling thoughts organized and sensible. Readers and commenters can check it out here if they’d like. http://blog.wayfellows.com/2009/02/06/lets-start-by-blaming-me/. I found it interesting that Michael posted this the very next day after I finally wrote up my own thoughts because I have been unable to think of anything else for weeks. I love the irony of timing. Jaime
LikeLike
Antigone, I know you’ve dropped the issue of the appropriateness of men expressing opinions about abortion, but since your nitpick was (I think) addressed to me, I wanted to respond. I was speaking in terms of practical realities, not legal fiction. The reality is that most women have abortions because someone they love and trust tells them it’s the right thing to do. That’s what the in-depth studies show. It could be a close family member (mostly likely the mother), but that person is very often the woman’s husband or boyfriend. I can’t really say what the woman who became my first wife would have done had I pushed for her to choose abortion, but I was certainly aware that I had a great deal of influence. And that’s been true in most of the situations with which I’ve had any personal contact. It’s legally correct, but is largely misleading and untrue to say that the thoughts, opinions, and desires of the man do not matter. They very often (not always, but often) matter a great deal to the woman trying to decide what to do.
Because I was writing in more of a personal narrative form, one of my points probably wasn’t clear. I may not be clear on the details of the controlling cases since I haven’t really studied the legal framework in any significant depth. However, I couldn’t say that I’m presently willing to see that framework changed. While I’m predisposed, one would think, to favor change, those most vocally championing ‘pro-life’ causes have failed to make their case to me. In fact, the thought of most of them writing laws in this area gives me the creeps.
I also agree whole-heartedly with your point that scriptural references and Christian arguments largely have little impact on those who are not already convinced by them. In American Christian slang, that would be called ‘preaching to the choir’. That’s the thing I most appreciated about the one lecture I heard from Frederica Mathewes-Green. She built a case that the present climate had ended up damaging to women and the exercise of their rights in ways they had not predicted or foreseen. And she discussed many areas on which people on both sides of the legal question shared similar goals and could certainly cooperate to improve things for women if they could set aside the rhetoric long enough to work together. And she suggested we focus on those areas where we all want to make things better first. I hear very few on either side speaking that way.
I’m not trying to drag you off on a rabbit trail. I just wanted to clarify what I was actually trying to say.
LikeLike
Wow I am learning so much from this discussion.
So much of what I had previously believed that simply isn’t true. On both sides of the issue.
It is so amazing what can be learned when people of different persuasions come and reason together, as opposed to verbally campaigning against each other. At times I recognize within myself an instinct to retaliate verbally against something I disagree with.
Antigone, as I have been raised sheltered in the Evangelical community, this is the first time in my life I have been exposed to your point of view expressed so rationally. Not that I’m converted or anything, but I really appreciate your risking crucifixion. I feel I’ve been greatly enlightened from it.
LikeLike
Vairo Lecto,
Let me try to explain the Catholic view of ectopic pregnancies. We use the idea of the “Double Effect” principle. During surgery, the damaged portion of the woman’s body is either removed or repaired. That fact that it is damaged by an embryo that dies after the surgery is secondary and not, in theory, the main reason for the operation. Some strict interpretators would even insist on a specific kind of operation for this purpose.
LikeLike
I’m not objecting to the mention of contraception, but I don’t want this thread to become a contraception debate and throw us over into Protestant/Catholic territory. I will moderate actively along those lines.
LikeLike
Jenna–
Amen! Let us stop shouting past each other and work together to make abortions as rare as possible, while leaving them legal and safe. Contracepton is the place to start.
LikeLike
What am I doing to fight the fight?
I have in the past donated my time to the local CPC and currently, I donate my money.
Also, politically, I vote for pro-life candidates. I am also fully pro-life, no abortion, no death penalty, and no euthanasia.
LikeLike
My suggestion would be to drop the argument against contraception. I think adding this to the argument really takes away a lot of credibility.
LikeLike
Antigone,
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.
If you would agree that there are varying degrees of sentience, are those who are so to a greater degree more ‘valuable’, or more worthy of protection under law?
How would this pertain to end-of-life issues, or the severely mentally handicapped, or to coma victims?
And, if you would permit me one more question, why is sentience your defining criterion?
LikeLike
Making a parallel with smoking, I wonder if there can be laws against smoking only because smoking is already less popular, rather than there is a decrease in smoking’s popularity because there are laws against it. (Sorry for the grammar- IM, please don’t flunk me). Change the hearts first and the laws follow.
In an ideal world everyone would do the right thing willingly without being coerced. What if abortion were a legal choice but everyone chose to carry babies to term freely and there were no abortions. Who has a problem with that? (please aside leave the hard cases for now)
LikeLike
We save most of that level of rhetoric for me.
Really- we appreciate the conversation.
LikeLike
Rob-
It’s no problem: I’m actually shocked at the reception I’ve thus far been given. At other blogs this is the point I’d be called a “baby-killing slut” and banned. I really appreciate being listened to.
LikeLike
Since this is not the appropriate venue, I hereby redact any and all statements about the appropriateness of men and their beliefs on abortion. I am sorry I brought that point in this thread; it is better suited to a different environment, and I think was needlessly thread-jacking. I’m trying to stay on point (and polite) though may be failing in this medium.
As to people’s various points:
Katie-
I never made any claim that women were all pro-life (or even all feminist for that matter). I did not mean to imply otherwise. While I believe that individual pro-lifers may care about women (having seen it first hand- forced to volunteer at a pregnancy crisis center: long story) I also know plenty of pro-lifers in the moralistic persuasion. But my points about the pro-life message is more about what comes across to the other side, not about any individual pro-lifers. Friendly suggestion that if you want to change minds, or build credibility, the discussion should focus on what you are doing, not what you want to ban.
Bill-
I’m not sure if you want my personal view or what the consensus is from pro-choicers, so I’ll answer with my own views, and know that I’m a semi-outlier in pro-choice discussions. I’ll also try to be as honest and straight-forward as possible, though I’m a little afraid to. I sometimes feel like any time the pro-choice side admits any level of moral ambiguity, the pro-life side seizes on this as a concession.
I put the time of “life” at about 20 weeks (varying a little bit to each pregnancy). This is about the time of viability for quite a few pregnancy, but for me the determinate factor is the fact that fetus has brainwaves; which suggest sentience, and a connected nervous system, which suggests it could feel pain. I am not a vegetarian, I don’t think all life is equal or worthy of being protected. I do believe sentience is worth respecting, however, and if something feels pain then a moral, sentient being should not needlessly inflict it that being. Reading this story makes me feel ill to my stomach, starting with the teenager who was woefully ignorant about her own body, the doctor who displayed at very least callous levels of unprofessional conduct, and a group of receptionists who didn’t have a clue what they were doing; and the infant that could have made it, or otherwise wouldn’t have existed, if they factors would have been remedied.
That being said; I still don’t necessarily think that after the point of viability, the fetal life necessarily overrides the woman’s health or life. Until a baby is born, it still is functioning at sufferance of the woman involved. And pregnancy has HUGE health risks; who am I to demand that a woman give up her life, her vision, her possible reproductive capacity, any number of things that could go wrong during a late stage pregnancy? When it gets to that point, most of the time it’s a wanted pregnancy (the vast majority of them take place in the first trimester) and the woman and her doctor have to make a decision. I have no intention of ever getting pregnant, so who am I to tell her what she should do? LEGALLY, I think this a decision better left up to people in the medical community, and the actual woman in question, than something that should be up for debate. Socially, I think those nearest and dearest to her have a stake in it. To say “it’s a life, end of discussion” cuts out everything that the woman has to go through.
Patrick-
I don’t disbelieve that many women suffer feelings of regret, loss, or anguish after an abortion, especially if they feel forced into it, or it is something their particular community condemns. That being sad, there is no legitimate psychological condition of “post abortion syndrome”. There is a legitimate medical condition of “postpartum depression”, which is the result of fluctuating hormone levels, but there is no medical evidence to suggest that there is anything like that about abortion. Just because someone regrets something doesn’t mean that it caused them a mental illness. There are many, many things I regret; but that doesn’t make it a mental illness.
iMonk, if this pulling things too far off topic, please feel free to say something: I don’t want to come in and dominate your discussion.
LikeLike
(Note: for the record, I am pro-life and anti-abortion. I apologize if this comes off as inflammatory or tangentially related… this is not my intention. I am wondering honestly if there are ‘degrees’ of being pro-life… I am against elective abortions, but some would say that not opposing the ending of a pregnancy in the case of ectopic pregnancy is a selective and deceptive form of being ‘pro-life’.)
Question: what about high-risk pregnancies, like ectopic pregnancies? Is taking out a fetus that will most likely severely injure or kill the mother if it grows an act of murder comparable to aborting a viable child that is growing safely in the womb? Or is it more morally comparable to a child who is killed unintentionally as a civilian in a war–tragic, but unavoidable? Innocent children are always causalities in war… but sometimes wars are justified. The taking of an innocent life, or many innocent lives, must be balanced against a nation’s survival and security.
I’m asking this because Vision Forum president Doug Phillips has recently compared ending an ectopic pregnancy to the hypothetical scenario of a mother and her child being stuck out on the sea in a life raft with limited supplies, and the mother pushing her kid overboard to be eaten by sharks in order to save her own life. Since this guy has some clout in the Christian homeschooling world, I’m interested in what the iMonk and his commentators might think.
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2003/09/558.aspx
and also
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/life/why_the_life_of_the_mother_is.aspx (this is the one with the ‘sharks’ comment.)
So, there is the issue, and I think it goes back to what Antigone said about the mother being erased in a discussion of the ethics of abortion, even in cases like ectopic pregnancy: I think this makes some women (perhaps many women), rightly or wrongly, feel like the pro-life movement and men in that movement are treating them like a life-support system for a uterus… or for the unborn child within them. How is that compassionate?
What about a rape victim who is carrying the child of her rapist? It is easy for an anti-abortion Christian to show great care in the continued life of the baby, and perhaps not so much care about the mental and emotional health of the woman. I’ve thought about what I might do if I was in that situation, and I’ve decided that I would carry the child to term, though I am sure that there would be many moments when I would not want to have that child growing within me, but I would still do the right thing because I believe that punishing an innocent person for the sins of its father is wrong. But I have never been assaulted and never been in this position of having a rapist’s child; how could I express this idea of not punishing the innocent party to a raped woman who is likely in severe mental, emotional, and physical trauma, and who has to live with the physical reminder of her rape for nine whole months? It’s hard to know what, if anything, would be appropriate to say. And it’s easy to throw around rhetoric. It’s easy to be angry and emotional, but it’s harder to love someone who is hurting, who is tempted towards a decision that is wrong, and share the Gospel with them.
LikeLike
I also want to thank Antigone for being cool and collected in expressing her point of view.
As a former leftist myself (and I mean way left). I was dismayed in the early 70’s to discover that it was our side promoting legal abortions.
We were the good guys.
We were the ones who favored life over the culture of death in all cases.
I thought it was a shameless attempt by the men of that free wheeling time to escape responsibility.
My first was born when I was barely 17.
In addition and regardless of any religious arguments is it not apparent to any observer that science is proving that the fetus is human?
And one last piece of logic.
If we cannot prove that the fetus is either human or not then should we not err on the side of not killing someone?
The idea that surgery is even in the argument astounds me. We are not discussing removing bunions.
LikeLike
I find myself in a minority, I suppose, b/c I don’t often hear the moral outrage. I’m in Nashville, too, where “everyone” is a Christian. Nobody talks about abortion. Ever. We’ve capitulated. It’s controversial, it makes people think you’re a bigot or don’t care about women’s rights or health care, and Christians only care about being loved and liked today, so they stifle.
But I know there are lots of Christians working in crisis pregnancy centers, etc., and also adopting like crazy.
So, yeah. I find myself in the odd position of saying we’re doing pretty well at the quiet, loving resistance. I think we could use a bit more moral outrage.
Mileage may vary depending on areas/subcultures, I suppose.
LikeLike
Antigone,
I take exception with you on a number of points.
You said, “she’s a “victim†who is going to suffer from mythical Post-Traumatic Abortion Syndrome,”
You may believe it is mythical, but I can assure you it is not. I have a close relative who had an abortion at a relatively young age, and it totally devastated her and it has had a lingering effect. We can differ on what you want to call it, but it does exist. I have seen it in a couple friends too.
“It does bother me a great deal to have men feel like they have an equal stake in this issue: they don’t. ”
Yes we do. This point of view totally shuts out the father in this decision. I have known men who got there girlfriends pregnant and then were stunned when the woman had an abortion without even considering their point of view or their desire to keep the child. Admittedly, many abortions happen because the father abandons the woman, but to say that this is the case every time and therefore the rule is misleading.
“This issue is being argued over the bodies of women.”
Only partially true. The DNA of the fetus is distinct and seperate from the DNA of the mother. If the fetus and the mother’s DNA was identical your statement would be entirely true. We are now dealing with two bodies, and this changes the equation.
“(And I also have not met many pro-lifers who are also anti-death penalty. The distinction I hear from most hinges on this weird idea of “innocence and guilt†not on any intrinsic value of life.)
This argument is based on the logical fallacy that the two things are morally equivalent.
There are well reasoned counterpoints to many of the things you bring up. I am sorry that you have not been exposed to them. However, this format isn’t the best way to discuss these matters so I will refrain from a detailed digression and review of them.
LikeLike
Treading in lightly here. iMonk, you can of course delete or moderate out this comment if I’m opening up anything you’d rather I not open.
Antigone, first, thanks for commenting. I think it helps to get the other side’s view (or at least one person on the other side). You have already stated that you aren’t here to have your mind changed and I can respect that. But I have an honest question I’d really like your perspective on – given this opportunity, I guess I’ll take it:
In your view, is the primary reason to keep abortion rare because it is a surgery (albeit outpatient) and thus is costly and has some risk? In other words, is there any moral component regarding the life of the fetus that, perhaps, grows as the fetus grows. In short, I’ve often wondered at the differing views of pro-choice people regarding viability, etc. I reiterate that this is not a loaded question – I’m genuinely curious. Do you ascribe to abortion on demand all 9 months, or support any restrictions due to viability?
Some pro-choicers support zero restrictions up until delivery and, I assume, don’t believe that the fetus’s life is valuable until birth. Others seem very uncomfortable with late term abortions and believe that abortion is bad, just not as bad as the alternative. Some even believe that abortion is the taking of human life, but that, again, it’s not as bad as a woman having to carry her fetus to term if she doesn’t want to.
I’m interested in your thoughts. I don’t want to get into a debate about abortion with you (as I don’t think that’s your goal in commenting here). Just very interested in what you think.
Thanks!
LikeLike
I am a woman, and I am pro-life.
I have put my money (or time, or whatever) where my mouth is, and for several years in college volunteered at a local crisis pregnancy center. The idea that these places don’t care for anything except getting the baby out alive is completely wrong. Most of them spend gobs of time, effort, and money on taking care of the moms (and dads!) involved. Making sure that mom has maternity clothes to wear, including winter coats. Referring clients to appropriate government agencies, etc… Teaching parenting classes. Mentoring parents and grandparents. Distributing prenatal vitamins. Making sure everybody in the house has food. Locating cribs, car seats, diapers, formula, daycare for the new baby and any other children. I could go on.
Please don’t assume that we don’t know how to love and care for everybody involved.
Also, the argument that men should stay out of the discussion is terrible. No, it is not technically their body, and I agree that it isn’t “fair” that of the two of you that it took to make the baby, one of you has to bear nearly all of the consequences. However, it is difficult for men who love their children (even pre-born) to “stay out of it” because they know that wife/girlfriend/whoever is about to have their son or daughter or killed. The man is thinking, “that’s my baby, please don’t kill it.” Also, the number of girls that I used to work with at the CPC who desperately wanted their boyfriend’s opinion astonished me. I went into the experience expecting most of them to want their space to make a decision. Instead, most of them were begging their boyfriend for some sort of advice. And the guys, having been raised in the “it’s not your body, it’s not your business” mentality didn’t know how to respond. Many of them flat-out refused to say anything remotely resembling an opinion or helpful statement. Aargh.
LikeLike
SB’s? I’m not familiar with the term.
LikeLike
I suggested on a blogsite recently that we teach our own daughters to stop killing their children and was told that I was not ‘one’ of them- them being SB’s. I am SB but I still agree completely with your post. If any of those guys on the blog I was on come here you are going to get put in a corner and yelled at.
LikeLike
Wow, that comment got extremely long. I apologize.
LikeLike
“Why do you keep trying to make sex stay within marriage, and why do you want marriage to be the norm for child raising, when you say you’re really concerned about the pre-born child? come join us in asking for more health insurance, child care and pre-school, and income support for single parents!â€
That does about sum it up, though I don’t think it would ever be phrased like that. Most leftisits have a problem of credibility with pro-lifers: from the outside, the actions seem to be more akin to “anti-woman” or “forced-birthers” than anything that we generally consider life. I suppose abortion does tend to be the lightening rod about the much larger issue of “Why are you trying to force everyone into the same box, and make many people miserable in the process?” The idea that sex, pregnancy, child-care and marriage is a private thing, and no one should forced in or out of any of those is a core value to leftists. It is something that people on the pro-life should be concerned about to: the Supreme Court has ruled that the government has a “legitimate interest in protecting fetal life”- it could just as easily determine it has a legitimate interest in reducing the number of people in a country. I know this seems like scare-mongering, but when we let the government get into the business of whether our reproductive organs are capable of being inspected, we open the door for demands that we don’t have children as well as being demanded TO have children. It has happened in other countries: Germany under Hitler, Romania, and China.
(I’m going to say “generally” and “normally” a lot, because beliefs within pro-choice, feminist, and leftist (though most of us would call ourselves “progressive”) communities are going to widely vary).
Also to continue concern-trolling, as a general rule, leftists are not going to find Biblical references compelling. The ones who are whatever flavor of Christian are generally going to think that religion is a personal belief, and not something that we should be basing public policy on, and then a good chunk of them are going to be of the agnostic/atheist/deist whatever flavor of non-monotheistic religion. Any attempt to use Biblical passages, or Biblical morality, is more than likely than not going to be met at best, with blank stares, and at worst, sneering condescension/ hostility and some quoted back Bible verses undermining your position (I find that people who were Christian Conservatives who de-converted tend to be very, very knowledgeable on exactly what the Bible says, but that’s a different comment). I am not saying that this is a particularity good strategy for liberals, but just that’s the response you’re likely to get. Most leftists tend to be of the utilitarian persuasion (greatest happiness for the greatest number of people) so putting your arguments in those terms may work the best.
Again, this is concern trolling: there is probably very little that you can do to convince me that my life, health, and happiness (I’m a woman of possible fertility, though I’ve been on birth control for years, so the point is fairly moot) is worthless when compared to something that can accurately be described as a parasite when unwanted. I’m trying to do my best to be honest and upfront about what people on “my” side believe, and try and figure out what “your” side believes, so maybe we can stop talking past each other all the time.
(And I also have not met many pro-lifers who are also anti-death penalty. The distinction I hear from most hinges on this weird idea of “innocence and guilt” not on any intrinsic value of life.)
Nitpick #1: Scott, if you are like I suspect, a male, abortion is never going to be an option for you. You will never get pregnant, ergo, you will never have an abortion. It does bother me a great deal to have men feel like they have an equal stake in this issue: they don’t. This issue is being argued over the bodies of women.
Nitpick #2: It is a common misconception that Roe v. Wade is the controlling case on abortion: it is not. Planned Parenthood of NE PA v. Casey is the controlling standard: the “undue burden” standard which says in sum: “The government can make whatever laws it wants to put up roadblocks for abortion, as long as it doesn’t ban outright the procedure, or put the woman in immediate physical danger from her husband”. In a move that bothers a great many feminists, the Supreme Court said that not having a health exception for abortion was not an “Undue burden”.
LikeLike
Either all life is sacred, or no life is. I fail to see how we can have it both ways.
LikeLike
“I said we can learn from the civil right struggle. I didn’t say it was identical. I said we could learn from the Christian approach of the protestors.”
Yes, and I think you are definitely correct about that. Sorry, I got fixated on that one issue (and I still remain a bit perplexed about what to actually do).
Bottom line, everything we do has to be in accordance with what Christ would have us do, and ends-justifying-means actions cannot be condoned.
Again, very good post and good conversation.
LikeLike
Sorry, i hit “submit” too quickly. I would add to Antigone that Heartbeats and other crisis pregnancy programs i’ve worked with and around are very attuned to the needs and challenges faced by pregnant women, especially poorer and younger ones — that’s the bulk of their budget, in my experience, to buy food and infant care supplies, maintain housing, and generally support them when often their family is saying they won’t help if she has the baby.
As for whether pro-life groups are helping to “reduce the shame and stigmatization of “unwed†motherhood, so that women lose that pressure on them and can make a more free choice to have children, if they want to. When was the last time any Christian group did that?” I’d say that’s a vexed, but not unaddressed question. Yes, most of us on the pro-life side are pushing for keeping sex within marriage and not facilitating single motherhood with government supports — there’s data all over the map on your suggestion that promoting welfare payments/AFDC to single moms will reduce abortion, but lots of info that points to how dependence promotes dependence, which then is often reinforced on men dependent on their partners becoming dependent.
If we were more premarital-sex-neutral (or positive) and less concerned with single motherhood as a choice, you imply we’d actually be more effectively pro-life; we suspect women would be even more used and degraded than they are, especially in impoverished areas, if we were to concede those stances. And i can only assure you we have those kinds of conversations because that’s how i’ve always heard it addressed, but my circumstances just don’t seem that unusual.
Do we affirm marriage and mostly (if not exclusively) home based care of the child as our primary values undergirding life? Yep. I get the sense, perhaps unfairly, that “feminist” distaste for pro-life groups is as much out of resistance to those two points as they are to maintaining the current legal status of abortion throughout the pre-natal span of an infant’s life. I would welcome further discussion of that, as i could read your points wrongly (i’m out a bit on a limb of inference), but it seems pretty solid that most feminist anti-pro-life statements stand on a basis of “why do you keep trying to make sex stay within marriage, and why do you want marriage to be the norm for child raising, when you say you’re really concerned about the pre-born child? come join us in asking for more health insurance, child care and pre-school, and income support for single parents!”
But pro-life and pro-marriage (and pro-married-sex!) are as much of a seamless garment to most of us as anti-abortion and anti-death penalty thinking are; the fact that we don’t all spend as much time protesting at prisons at midnight as we do praying at abortion clinics doesn’t mean the connection isn’t there in our own thinking, praying, and voting.
LikeLike
I am against abortion. So, officially, are all the canonical Orthodox jurisdictions in the USA. But, Antigone has a point. Though much of what she said about taking care of people has now been adopted by the best of the pro-life groups, yet I can still remember, quite well, the failure to care for the mother to which Antigone points.
Moreover, she is absolutely correct in commenting that the objection by social conservatives to almost any form of welfare, job training, and child care strategies still does contribute to the factors that leads to an increase in abortions among teenagers and poorer mothers. In other words, many Christians do not have a consistent pro-life stance, it is a one issue stance.
Another way to put it is that the much-maligned leftist often has a much more wholistic approach to people and their problems than the lauded pro-life movement. This does not mean that I agree with liberal ideology. But, I must admit that they often have a better consistency of approach.
So, I would argue that for Christians to be able to lower the abortion rate, they, too, must be able to articulate a wholistic strategy, which may include government involvement in certain aspects, that works with all facets of the problem of an unwanted child.
Finally, I agree with you iMonk on the incredible increase in damaging rhetoric that the pro-life movement has used in order to force even Christians into only their political solution and no other. I was recently told by an Archpriest at a recent diocesan meeting that I should be thrown out of the ministry for having voted for President Obama. It had to do with the abortion issue. When I pointed out that just about every ethnic person in the room, including the bishop–who is also ethnic–, had voted for Obama, he essentially exploded and had to be calmed down by another Archpriest. I feel for the laypeople standing near us. Nevertheless, I can easily see a future split in some denomination over the issue of whether a Christian can vote for any party which is not officially pro-life in a very specific way. That is the tremendous damage that has been done by the over-the-top rhetoric of Right-to-Life and the James Dobson types.
LikeLike
Scott M, add grandmothers to that list of people who tell a woman that an abortion is the right choice. Grandmothers are the bane of my attempts to help pregnant women past the gate that leads to the clinic one town over, but when grandma puts them in her car, and drives over and pays herself for her granddaughter to abort her great-grandaughter, it reminds me that i’m needing to preach without blinders about who is “making” these choices. Frederica’s point is dead on.
Antigone, thank you for your comments; i found your statement of your perspective very worth reading.
LikeLike
More here, if you’re interested.
http://www.lifevesting.com/blog/2009/02/could-i-have-some-outrage-please-with-extra-salt/
LikeLike
We can not legislate morality. Look at prohibition. Look at the drug war. Alow me to ask some questions that pertain.
1. How does your church treat unwed mothers?
2. How much moral education do you do with youth? pizza parties do not count.
3. Do you support people in adoption? Really support them, with prayer, money, time?
4. Does your church teach young women how valuable they are? Skirt wearing silence might not be a role they aspire to.
5. Can you talk about sex in your church? Do you teach out of Song of Songs? or do you skip that one. Why?
The war against abortion will be won in the hearts, not the court rooms. Have someone involved in an abortion give a testimony. Heartbreaking. Be open to people who struggle with the flesh, remember that you, on some level, do too.
If you said yes to 7, stop at my blog and pray for Jessica, please.
LikeLike
A word about blaming the media:
I think it’s an extremely short sighted view of the CRM to say it was a matter of getting the cameras on the right people. That was a factor, but the idea of many pro-lifers that this is a struggle for news coverage of pro-life rallies is simply not true. I agree that the media’s bias in the covering protests is ridiculous, but the media is ridiculous.
The CRM was won by the people who went to the schools, the restaurants and the theaters. It was won by people who prayed for and reasoned with others. It was won by courageous legislators and teachers who refused to enforce segregation.
Watch Glory Road. Ask yourself who is the revolutionary there? Don Haskins, a white man who would not let an evil or the coverage of it change his mind. He just did the right thing.
I fear that the pro-life movement has forgotten that having Dr. Dobson hyper-inflating numbers in an interview is not going to change history. Every person who adopts, pays a bill, opens up a room, refuses to take his/her daughter to the clinic, speaks up in class persuasively, praises a courageous legislator, raises their kids right and so on….these people change history. It takes time, and it doesn’t get news coverage.
LikeLike
“Your point #7 could be applied to any moral outrage to rip the outrage out of it.
“If you’re upset about this, you should also be upset about that and that and that, otherwise you’re not being consistent.â€
In fact, it could have been used against the civil rights movement too. And in that way you castrate the issue. It’s hardly fair.”
The point is not that we pro-lifers need to be outraged about every injustice equally or we can’t be outraged about any. The point is that if we claim to be on the side of innocent life, it can’t just be the innocent life of an unborn baby. What happens when we are not consistent on that point is that is too easy for our opponents to pigeonhole our views as being more about controlling sexual behavior, particularly that of women, than protecting innocent lives.
LikeLike
I haven’t read any of the comments yet. I’ll probably just skim them on this thread. Rather than make general statements and proclamations, I wanted to write more personally.
I want to start by simply thanking you, Michael.
I would call my childhood formation highly spiritual, but it was hardly Christian, though I did have some pretty varied Christian experiences. That carried through well into my adult life. In fact, as a direct result of some of my experiences with Christians I had pretty much rejected Christianity as an option. I have difficulty conceiving myself ever choosing one of the modern, more purely materialistic perspectives, though. That’s a very brief summary simply to frame my comments here.
Personally, simply because of the great value I saw in people, I have never personally embraced abortion as an option. That was put to the test when I became a teen parent, so I’m certain that’s how I feel and what I believe. However, as one in the very leading edge of what is often labeled ‘Generation X’, I don’t really have any memory of a time or a culture in which abortion was not just legal, but a right.
Now, given my personal, lived opinion on abortion, it seems like ‘pro-life’ would be a natural progression for me as I moved into Christianity later in my adult life. But it’s been anything but. Oh, I still believe each human being is of great value. I even understand that better now as I understand that their immense value is based on the fact that they are each and every one a glorious, if often damaged, eikon of God.
But that hasn’t happened. I don’t really know what I am, but I’m not and can’t be part of the movement that is labeled ‘pro-life’ in America. I often don’t even really understand them. In part, that’s because I don’t understand the nuts and bolts of what they are trying to accomplish. I have a hard time envisioning the legal structure for a society in which abortion is not a right. It seems to me that we need to shift or adapt our laws to regulate and manage abortion, perhaps using the laws of other modern societies as a guide. Perhaps by doing so, we can find a path to a point where abortion would truly be rare. But nobody talks about that. Instead, I get the sense that the entire focus of the ‘pro-life’ movement involves overturning Roe v. Wade and that if they can do that, they believe the job will be finished rather than barely beginning. I get the sense that many believe that that alone will somehow make abortion illegal. I’ve tried, and I simply don’t understand how the pro-life movement plans to truly make abortions rare in our country.
Another part, as you mentioned, is their tone. I hear it and it sounds hateful and intolerant to me. I have no sense whatsoever that they are acting with or from love. And I don’t understand that.
I’m also often repelled by the methods employed. In the name of ‘saving babies’ the Christian ‘crisis pregnancy’ clinics, especially the evangelical ones, are often as manipulative of the poor women in crisis as anything on the ‘pro-choice’ side. Yes, there have been ‘family planning’ clinics that abused ultrasound machines into manipulating women to choose abortion. (In some instances, even women who weren’t actually pregnant.) The ‘Christian’ response? Use ultrasound machines to manipulate women into choosing not to have an abortion. Since when did the end justify the means in Christian ethics and morals? How is manipulating or screaming at a woman in crisis and often vulnerable loving that woman?
The only person I’ve ever heard speak about abortion in a way that made sense to me is Frederica Matthewes-Green. Several years ago I listened to the audio of a Veritas lecture she gave on her movement from pro-choice to pro-life. And she made the case for a pro-life perspective without ever referring to Christianity. Further, she spoke in a way which was loving of the women involved. Saying that abortions are ‘convenience’ is an extremely hateful and misleading way to put it. It implies that women have abortions simply because they don’t want to be ‘inconvenienced’ by a child. Most women have abortions because someone they loved and trusted (most often boyfriend, husband, or mother) told them it was the right thing to do. That’s what the real studies show. And it’s just as true in Christian circles, even strongly ‘pro-life’ Christian circles, as it is anywhere else.
Until or unless we address that, nothing else really matters.
So I’m against abortion. That’s one of the relatively few things in my perspective on the world that has not been altered in some way by my conversion to Christianity. I simply better understand why I have always been opposed to it.
But I’m not part of the ‘pro-life’ movement. Heck, until someone explains to me how we are going to shift the legal framework in ways that love and honor both mother and child, I’m not even sure I’m in favor of changing the current laws. I’m pretty certain I don’t want those spewing bile and hate in charge of designing any sort of law.
If I actually saw more Christians working together in ways like the early Christian communities opposed and acted against abortion and infant exposure in their day, I would be greatly encouraged. But I hardly ever see that at all.
LikeLike
One lesson has to do with leadership. MLK was in stark contrast to the “by any means necessary” voices. He was clear that the protesters must imitate Jesus and seek to convert their enemies by love. We all know that abortion is an issue on which leaders can build power. We need leaders that will teach and imitate Jesus, who saw moral outrages all the time, but still acted appropriately.
LikeLike
gullchasedship
It could, but not necessarily. Nothing compels that kind of either/or thinking. One can be outraged, but temper the outrage for a helpful outcome. Any parent knows this.
LikeLike
Mike,
I’d echo Patrick on the silent work of thousands of pro-life Christians. The proliferation of Crisis Pregnancy centers around the country is owing almost entirely to Christians (be they Catholic or evangelical). These organizations don’t simply care about babies in the womb; they minister to mother and child from birth through the first few years.
Planned Parenthood has been quietly shutting down suburban and rural clinics and moving almost entirely into strongholds in the inner city. Now there are groups like Heartbeat International who are targeting urban environments in order to bring the gospel and justice to light among the less affluent and minority populations.
And, while I agree that the Civil Rights movement has much to teach us, I think most Christians are learning those lessons. However, one of the key differences between the Civil Rights Movement and the pro-life movement is the role of the media.
When city officials unleashed dogs and firehoses on African American marchers, the cameras were there to capture and send it round the country. When hundreds of thousands show up for the March for Life following the inauguration of Obama, the big newspapers and networks don’t even cover it. Five ladies in pink protesting the Iraq War is news; millions of pro-life Americans marching and praying around the country is not.
What the media does love to show is the angry pro-life movement. So news of outraged pro-lifers crowds out the tireless work of counselors and nurses who love the unborn into existence.
I’d be interested to hear how you think we should apply Civil Rights lessons to the pro-life movement when the major difference is that in the CRM those oppressed were also those who marched and suffered, whereas in the current oppression, those aborted can’t march, and to show the horrific pictures of abortion’s results is met with hostility and anger from the other side.
LikeLike
Your point #7 could be applied to any moral outrage to rip the outrage out of it.
“If you’re upset about this, you should also be upset about that and that and that, otherwise you’re not being consistent.”
In fact, it could have been used against the civil rights movement too. And in that way you castrate the issue. It’s hardly fair.
LikeLike
I stumbled on your blog a while a go, and have been mostly lurking since then.
But since you asked, I’ll play concern troll for a bit (I’m completely pro-choice).
Pro-life talk, as you pointed out briefly, never seems to be consistent about “life”. It is common saying in pro-choice communities that “pro-life people are only pro (fetal) life. Once it’s born, they don’t care”. This is based on the fact that most pro-lifers are social conservative; 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). In addition, I have never seen a pro-lifer express any kind of concern for the woman involved (who’s alive too, I’d like to point out) other than some patronizing talk on how she’s a “victim” who is going to suffer from mythical Post-Traumatic Abortion Syndrome, completely reducing her agency. Most discussions of abortions in pro-life communities erase the pregnant woman entirely: look at the symbols of the pro-life organizations: they are all baby-looking fetus floating in a disembodied balloon.
Secondly, the use of the word “pro-abortionist” is firstly, wrong, and secondly, purposefully inflammatory. Pro-choice means exactly that: choice. Almost all pro-choicers want to reduce the abortion rate, because an out-patient surgery isn’t exactly something one does for kicks, and does have risks. Pro-choicers have taken steps to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and therefore the number of abortions by zealously advocating for birth control. And, they tend to push for things like welfare for single mothers, including day care assistance and universal health care. Relatedly, feminist seek to reduce the shame and stigmatization of “unwed” motherhood, so that women lose that pressure on them and can make a more free choice to have children, if they want to. When was the last time any Christian group did that?
Thirdly, to address Andy’s point up there, pro-choicers called illegal abortionists “back-alley butchers” because they killed women. Performing abortions with unsterilized equipment, in unsanitary areas, with people who didn’t necessarily know what they were doing, and then women who were too afraid to go to a hospital because of the illegality of what they did. That’s why they were butchers, and that’s what you’ll go back to if you ban abortion in this country: a bunch of dead, desperate poor women (because the rich ones will travel out-of-state, and out-of-country).
LikeLike
iMonk –
I’ve struggled with this issue quite a bit lately. It’s become quite clear to me that even the Christians who ARE trying to speak the truth in a loving way just aren’t doing it effectively. I think we need new tactics, arguments and talking points to persuade the culture at large, but I’m not sure yet what they are. Standing outside an abortion clinic may shut down the clinic (it does — I’ve heard enough stories) and that is good but I think we should attend to steering the narrative of a bigger cultural battle. Trying to mimic the civil rights movement with acts of civil disobedience (Operation Rescue) didn’t seem to work well either, right?
I agree that our attitude should be the same as those fighting for civil right, but following them too closely seems ineffective. I don’t think the pro-life movement has the same inherent drama and narrative power of the civil rights movement because honestly, the people are smaller and silent and they can’t communicate their suffering in their own words. We can tell other people theor suffering but I don’t think it has the same impact. It was those graphic, first-person slave narratives detailing a whole life of misery and thwarted living that opened people’s eyes to the evil of slavery.
So I wonder if our arguments needs to be very practical, detached and rational since the pro-life movement doesn’t have that same narrative power. For one thing, I think it would help to address the question that it REALLY is unjust that two people make a baby and only one person has to live with the consequences. That is unjust, just like the feminists says it is, and if we don’t address that we can’t make a coherent case.
Uh, this got long. Maybe if I have the guts I’ll make my own blog post.
LikeLike
All true, Michael, and very well said. I think the kind of peaceful, loving resistance you speak about is happening in many places. Unfortunately, it does not get publicity or headlines. Organized prayer vigils have shut down several clinics and probably saved thousands of lives. The “40 Days For Life” project is a good example.
But you also hit the real root of the problem: spiritual emptiness, even within the churches. If we who call ourselves Christian would simply live Christian lives 24/7, all kinds of things would change.
LikeLike
I said we can learn from the civil right struggle. I didn’t say it was identical. I said we could learn from the Christian approach of the protestors.
LikeLike
First, let me say from reading the original article, that I appreciate and respect what the state of Florida, along with its licensing boards have done in response to this. One of the arguments long held by pro-abortionists is that illegal abortions led to back-alley butchers. What the heck do they call that?
I also appreciate the appeal to a broader expression of sanctity of life. (Interesting – I learned on my trip to Israel, that nation so many of us love and defend, that the Israeli military pays for the first 2-3 abortions its female soldiers have… after that they’re on their on. Where is the outrage among us American prolifers for that?)
Moses’ challenge to “choose life” in Deuteronomy require consistency, and I so agree that civil discourse, followed by consistent action will gain us credibility.
I must gently disagree with the MLK analogy, because most of the participants were the people whose lives were being affected by the culture. In the abortion situation, the babies have no voice but a collection of outraged strangers.
I’m intrigued by the lawsuit. In the deep south, the KKK was brought to its knees by that. I know it’s apples-and-oranges, but still….
LikeLike
Good, thought provoking post, Michael.
One thing, I think, that makes it harder for pro-lifers to use the civil rights struggle as an effective model is the fact that the civil rights leaders were part of the oppressed minority. They had more opportunities to suffer and sacrifice A pro-lifer (who is not the oppressed minority (fetus)) does not have that opportunity, necessarily. We are advocating for others, from a position of safety from the deadly oppression of the abortionists tools. Also, the civil rights leaders were struggling to get the law and the court decisions of the land (brown vs. Board, civil rights act) that were already on the books recognized and adhered to. The pro-life movement has another task, because the law and the court decisions are against us..
I think you’re right, though – we need to always balance our (I think righteous) anger on this with the love of Christ in our actions and God’s wisdom in our strategies.
Challening
LikeLike
Not only do I not believe it is wrong to be outraged, I would consider a person not outraged to be morally retarded.
But my experience with pro-life Christians leads me to believe that many have decided “be angry and sin not” does not apply here. Intemperate speech. Verbal violence. Slander. And most of all, the failure to admit that many abortions are to evangelicals. It’s a problem in “our” house.
LikeLike
Michael,
I believe the pro-life movement can learn a lot from the Civil Rights movement of forty years ago. (I’ve written as much on my blog before.) There is much we can do to change hearts and minds, to put an end to abortion by looking at the example of MLK and others.
At the same time, I think we see less outrage today than, say, 15-20 years ago. The protests in the early 1990’s seemed much more violent and “all-Law/no-grace” than the compassionate pregnancy care centers that are now the rule among the pro-life crowd.
I don’t want to go back to the kind of outrage that sees abortion doctors murdered. God forbid! But a certain amount of moral outrage is necessitated by the evil of abortion, just as we should be outraged at other horrific examples of injustice across our world (Darfur would be one…).
Is it wrong to be outraged? Perhaps at times. If there is no action attached. If it is anger without love. But true love cannot detached from anger. Righteous indignation is born out of love – love of God, love of the oppressed, love of the vulnerable.
LikeLike