Where I Stand Today on Abortion
Last week I was the foil for one of the many recent articles declaring “Obama attracts young evangelicals.” No disrespect to Jon Ward, who co-authored the Washington Times article, but I believe Jonathan Merritt’s Southern Baptist credentials made him an even better foil for the same article in the Washington Post.
The experience of being featured in a national newspaper article, however, has given me an opportunity to reflect on my changing political views, especially concerning the issue of abortion. Whether this is wise or not, I believe in transparency, so I want to be honest here (even though I realize this opens me up to even greater criticism).
This may ultimately be a stupid thing to do, but I’ll just do my best to answer some of the questions that have been raised—and live with the consequences.
First, Justin Taylor is right about the importance of appointing Supreme Court justices if the goal is to overturn Roe v. Wade, and that seems to be the primary goal of most pro-life advocacy. I recognize there are wonderful things happening in the areas of pregnancy centers, adoption agencies, etc., but the rallying cry of the pro-life movement is “overturn Roe v. Wade,” and I have to confess that is something I no longer support.
I simply do not believe that criminalizing abortion is the best way to reduce the number of abortions in this country. Already we’ve seen the abortion rate steadily decline since 1990. Why? Well, it’s a number of factors, but I think one of the primary reasons is education—more young people are being raised with an understanding of and appreciation for the sanctity of life. My parents, once they joined the pro-life movement, were quite vocal in their support for pro-life causes, and that was passed down to me. The fact that abortion (and along with it sex and contraception, etc.) became a topic of conversation in many people’s homes has had a very good effect on developing more pro-life young people. And that is a good thing.
But the bottom line is I don’t believe a woman or a doctor should be put in jail for having or conducting an abortion. I no longer believe that threatening punishment is the best solution (and the Guttmacher Institute seems to support that conclusion), and therefore I can no longer support the effort to criminalize abortion. This ties into another question, written in the form of this statement: “Evangelicals who support someone like Obama do not truly believe that the unborn are human persons deserving full human rights.”
When Does a Fertilized Egg Become a Person?
I can only speak for myself, of course, but I suspect there may be many like me who have serious questions about the “human rights” of a fertilized egg. Yes, there is biological life at the point of conception—the potential for it to develop into a full “human person” (this is not going to develop into a kitten or a squirrel)—but what “rights” should be afforded? and at what cost to the mother who may be at cross purposes, facing an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy? What about the “human rights” of the woman without whom the fertilized egg would never develop? These are deep and profound questions not easily answered by a pat “life begins at conception” statement.
I also find myself disillusioned by the apparent hypocrisy within the pro-life movement, which has tightly aligned itself to the Republican Party with its economic policies which seem to say to women, “You have to carry your baby to full-term, and we’re not going to do much to help you financially.” It’s an almost Darwinian “survival of the fittest” political platform that is inherently racist when you realize the abortion rates are highest among black and Hispanic women.
Here’s another reason for my disillusionment: Much of the birth control used by evangelicals essentially promotes “abortion” by not allowing the already fertilized egg to implant on the uterine wall. Now, if you really believe that life begins at conception, then this type of birth control should also be on your “to don’t” list. Perhaps Catholics have been more consistent in this pro-life practice, but I have not seen such consistency in the evangelical movement.
Why Risk Being Wrong?
Finally, I find myself questioning the theological arguments as to when life begins and the nature of the soul. None of these are conclusive in my mind. So I have to admit that I’ve become somewhat agnostic when it comes to the question of “When does life begin?” And, I can hear the response now: “Why would you want to be on the wrong side of that question? What if life does begin at conception? Then abortion is murder and even a holocaust! Why risk it?”
Well, I simply have to say that I would give deference to the life of the person standing before me who is faced with the abortion decision, over the potential life of the fertilized egg inside her. Maybe that’s being too pragmatic. To be honest, abortion has never had any real-life implications for me. Like it is for many (dare I say, most) people in the abortion debate, the actual people affected by abortion are just hypothetical and theoretical to us, and what happens on a daily basis has no real impact on our lives. I say this to my own shame, but also to hold a mirror up to my pro-life friends who fervently believe abortion should be made illegal in this country.
I have serious questions for you:
- Who goes to prison if Roe v. Wade is overturned?
- How do you plan to pay for all of the new prisons that will need to be built?
- Who is going to adopt or provide foster care for the thousands of unwanted babies that would be born and abandoned?
- What are you doing now to support the unwed mothers in your local community?
- Has your church come alongside any pregnant teens to provide a safe, supportive environment for them to keep their baby and still get an education and develop themselves further?
- Have you taken on any of the real financial costs for a woman who could not make it on her when faced with an unplanned pregnancy?
More importantly, I wonder:
- How can we work together to see the number of abortions in this country continue to drop?
- How can we work together to develop a culture of life in this country?
- How can we work together to seek justice for the poor and the oppressed who do not feel they have a safe, supportive environment in which to bring a child into this world?
No, I don’t have certainty about when personhood should be recognized and full human rights afforded to a baby—or if a fertilized egg should ever be elevated over the life of a woman—and that is certainly a factor in the erosion of my support for overturning Roe v. Wade (besides other concerns I have about the criminal justice system in our country). I can say this: I am still committed to reducing the abortion rate. And I still consider myself a pro-life evangelical. But if those movements are more narrowly defined, then maybe I am neither of those things. Perhaps “whole life post-evangelical” would be a better label for me. Let me know if any reporters are looking for that angle on the election story.
Frank Schaeffer’s latest article is a forceful argument for why he is voting for Obama. It is a must-read!
Conservative Republican megachurch pastor Joel Hunter has some interesting things to say in Zack Exley’s article “Will the Real Pro-Life Party Please Stand Up?” (www.tinyurl.com/prolifeparty) Link
- Gender Equality
- Rights Here, Right Now: FSD and the 2010 International AIDS Conference
- HELPING THE REFUGEES WOMEN REBUILD THEIR LIVES
Posted on 08-18-2008
Comments
August 19th, 2008 at 12:19 am
when people ask me my opinion on abortion, do you mind if i just print this out and hand it to them, pretending i wrote it? i’d rather not go into a long explanation to them when you’ve already hit the nail so squarely on the head.
August 19th, 2008 at 5:27 am
Steve,
Wow. I enjoyed this post controversial as it may be. Quite honestly, I tend to agree with you. I am the father of 5 children and yes, we suffered a miscarriage once and it was a very difficult thing to endure. Having said that, I don’t think I have a child in “heaven”.
I know this is really weird, but I have always secretly believed that a fetus becomes a “living soul” when he/she breathes the “breath of life”. Until that time, it seems to me, it is a potential life.
How do I deal with verses that talk of God “knowing” someone in their mothers womb? I guess he knew them then in the same way that he knew us before the foundation of the world…and no, I don’t understand that either.
Anyway…good post….thanks for bringing some clarity to a foggy issue! Interestingly enough, my wife totally disagrees with me on this whole issue.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:53 am
Good on you! I think it’s hard to reconcile a deep belief in pro-life causes with the reality of situation, and you’ve managed to do that with grace.
It’s definitely not a good idea to prosecute or persecute women and/or physicians for having/performing abortions – because it doesn’t *do* anything productive. I think it’s telling that most women who abort do so because of financial concerns, and so it seems to make more sense to reduce the number of abortions, at least in part, by helping women and families be more financially viable. And heading off unexpected and unwanted pregnancies to begin with is incredibly important.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:07 am
This seems more “knight inspired” than “God-inspired.”
If life doesn’t start at conception, when does it start? Where should we draw the line as a society?
Is the goal of overturning legal abortions reducing wrong behavior or justice?
Have you found any research to suggest that Evangelicals care about adoption or financially supporting adoption for a woman who can’t afford to support their own baby?
For someone who has never had any “real-life implications” from abortion, why are you asking these hard questions on a blog? Why don’t you go down to a Crisis Pregnancy Center and ask them these questions??? These folks, men and women, likely would be happy to talk to you and answer your questions.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Wow Steve! This was unexpected! I’m glad that I get to be the 1st to comment.
I have to say that I agree with you. While I may not agree 100% with your reasons, I fully agree with your conclusion.
I am pro-life. I just don’t believe that we can legislate morality. Maybe if we Christians tried loving the women (& men) facing this kind of decision instead of yelling at them, we may just reduce the # of abortions even more. It’s time to try a different, more godly approach.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Great article. Great thoughts. I need to digest them more, but I like your train of thought and willingness to put it out there.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I guess I have to get up even earlier in the morning to make post #1.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:37 am
I commented on Josh’s post, but I’ll comment here as well. I disagree on the beginning of life part. I don’t know whether it begins at conception, but I do believe it begins soon enough that many, if not most, abortions take a human life.
I do agree with the need for a “whole life” philosophy. If we are about advancing Christ’s Kingdom, then we need to be concerned with all of life, not just the unborn.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:04 am
The law sets a standard. Presently the highest law in the land has created a right for mothers to end the life of their unborn children. I have worked with many women who aborted. Almost all said they would had never had an abortion if it had been illegal. They lived with regret, shame, and fear. Depression and self-destructive livestyles often follow.
Prison? Do a national study on the number of women in prison who have had an abortion (note: female population has increased in recent years). One has been done in TX — many women say abortion was the first step that lead them down the path to prison.
I could go on and on.
More accessible birth control? Those irresponsible enough to risk creating a life, contracting an STD, etc., are not responsible enough to use birth control responsibly. Also, birth control does not prevent STDs. If a woman contracts Herpes (condoms only reduce the risk), it can cause birth defects if she has a child later in life.
In addition, abortion is associated with premature births and a number of other physical problems.
For more info, visit: http://www.trinitylegalcenter.org.
Abortion is a sad and tragic commentary on our culture.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Steve, I think I’m more or less on the same page as you. I’m pro-life, but I’m not convinced that criminalizing abortion is any sort of actual solution for the root problems. It’s far easier to picket and protest than it is to actually help provide all the women considering abortions with truly viable alternatives.
And even easier than picketing and protesting is to just ease your conscience by voting for the pro-life candidate in every election, regardless of any other nutty positions that candidate might hold.
I think it’s politically naive to think that Roe V. Wade is ever going to be overturned, and it’s even more politically naive to have the abortion issue be the only litmus test for who you’re going to vote for. I’ve done that in the past, but I’m no longer willing to let that one issue corner me into voting for someone who I think is otherwise insane.
Anne, if someone is, in your words, “irresponsible enough to risk creating a life” and “not responsible enough to use birth control responsibly” then do you think they’re responsible enough to be parents? And if not, how many of these children are you willing to adopt?
August 19th, 2008 at 10:25 am
when we got unexpectedly pregnant with number 3, and our plans to join a ship were cancelled because of it, we took it as a gift of God and named her Abigail (Father’s joy) because it was a joy to change plans and shift gears to a new field of focus.
no regrets.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:49 am
I’m right with you Steve! And this is one of the issues that ended up getting us resigned from our previous church post.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:30 am
couldn’t of said it better myself. its more of a complex issue than when i was crusading for the pro-life cause. i seek to hold a consistent life ethic, but am unsure that making abortion illegal would be helpful.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Nicely put, Steve. You’ve summed up the position that I have (not so successfully) tried to put into words for years. I appreciate your honesty on such a sensitive subject.
Mind if I link to this on my blog?
August 19th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
I will answer these questions in order…….
* Who goes to prison if Roe v. Wade is overturned?
Nobody…the doctor just loses his license to practice medicine. If he does it a second time the doctor goes to jail
* How do you plan to pay for all of the new prisons that will need to be built?
See above answer
* Who is going to adopt or provide foster care for the thousands of unwanted babies that would be born and abandoned?
Hopefully the church will. what would help is to make it cheaper and easier to adopt….cut the red tape and you will get more people who want to adopt.
* What are you doing now to support the unwed mothers in your local community?
I teach in a low income school district and I work with pregnant girls on campus and do what I can.
* Has your church come alongside any pregnant teens to provide a safe, supportive environment for them to keep their baby and still get an education and develop themselves further?
We have missional communities that minister to pregnant women.
* Have you taken on any of the real financial costs for a woman who could not make it on her when faced with an unplanned pregnancy?
No I have not…but there are plenty of social programs and resources available to her.
Bottom Line….it is about justice for the unborn child. Their right to live overrides any other factor in the situation.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Eddie, thanks for answering my questions honestly and directly. I’m glad to hear about what you’re doing in your community to address this issue and support women who face these difficult circumstances. I’d love to hear more about the missional communities that are ministering to pregnant women, what that looks like, etc.
I think, ultimately, where I can’t go with you is on “the justice for the unborn child” that you say “overrides any other factor.” I simply can’t disregard the justice for the woman in this sweeping way.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
“I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love – that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.”
“Please don’t kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted, and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child, and be loved by the child. From our children’s home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3,000 children from abortions. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents, and have grown up so full of love and joy!”
~Mother Theresa
August 19th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
I want to emphasize that just because people like Steve (and myself for that matter) cannot make the statement that “life begins at conception” and don’t think abortion should be illegal DOES NOT mean that we think abortion is ok or that we shouldn’t be actively working toward minimizing the number of abortions. I think it’s great that there are christians taking seriously their call to care for the women….but on the whole, the situation in the area of proactive behavior, education and care of women by the church is ABYSMAL.
Also, my feelings about when life begins does not require a slippery slope reaction toward thinking that abortion is ok. in fact, they can practically exist independent of the other.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
I will agree that we need to streamline the adoption process and fix the foster system. However, it’s actually not expensive to adopt within America’s foster care system…just for the record.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Hi Steve. I think you raise some good questions and point out some valid inconsistencies. One other complexity you don’t address directly (though I suppose it relates in part to the criminalization aspect) is the idea of who should be making choices regarding abortion and reproductive issues, mothers and fathers, or the state.
As with many other issues, it is possible to believe something is wrong, but also believe that the decision (choice) to commit that wrong should not be made by the state. This, of course, leads right into the discussion about the rights of the fetus (child) and the rights of the mother. When does an unborn child have the right (need) to be protected from its mother?
While you make the point that there is some reasonable room for discussion and disagreement about when a fertilized egg becomes a human being, you didn’t really say much about if and when that fetus EVER has rights that should be protected.
Is there any point in a pregnancy that you believe the unborn child has a right to life? Do you think laws that hold mothers accountable for drug and alcohol use during pregnancy are wrongful criminalizations of a mother’s rights?
How do we give your questions their due and yet still value not-yet-born persons? Just wondering.
One more thing– the Frank Schaeffer article you site makes some very compelling arguments. I think that more mothers and unborn infants in the world have been ADVERSELY impacted by our current so called “pro-life” republican president’s domestic and foreign policies than have been helped by his so called “pro-life” advocacy.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Steve you said
“I think, ultimately, where I can’t go with you is on “the justice for the unborn child” that you say “overrides any other factor.” I simply can’t disregard the justice for the woman in this sweeping way.”
I guess I am curious as to why you cannot disregard the justice for the women who may have a hard life because of having to raise a child yet you can disregard the justice for the child….which ultimately means that the child’s life will be taken. i don’t really understand that.
Also when it comes to justice, I mean the women made a choice….and so did the man who slept with her and got her pregnant. Because a pregnancy makes their life harder does not mean that is an injustice. It is a natural consequence for their actions. Why should the child lose their life because of the actions of it’s parents. Somehow that seems to be the much greater injustice. How is it unjust to hold these people accountable for their actions (both the man and the woman).
Now as to her being in poverty…well there are many ways to better yourself in this country. There really are not too many excuses since she can go to school, get a good job and go on in life. I know many people who do just that. It is possible to do that here in this country with so many opportunities. Will it be harder with a kid…most certainly, but again….that is a consequence of a choice. There are place she can go to for help. Once the baby is killed…..there are no more choices for the baby. I think murder is a far greater injustice than anything the woman has to deal with.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Andrew, our third child was “unplanned” as well, but abortion was never really an option for us. We had the means and the desire to keep a child. My concerns are for the many women who are in desperate situations where this is not the case.
As Ann said above, “Abortion is a sad and tragic commentary on our culture.” So how do we change the culture? I simply no longer believe it is through criminalizing abortion.
Thanks everyone for the comments and discussion!
August 20th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Steve,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here. My wife, Lydia, and I are preparing for our first “unplanned” child so I’ve got some fresh thoughts to offer here.
First, I have been (for years) a product of the “consistent life ethic” movement. In other words, I don’t think “pro-life” simply means anti-abortion and I get quite irritated when the rhetoric centers solely on abortion. Pro-life, for me, means being against war, euthanasia, racism, poverty, and capital punishment. Christians are called be reconcilers and peacemakers and I, personally, can’t see that advocating a “pro-life” agenda that just includes overturning roe v. wade is especially Christian.
I do think such a “pro-life” stance that only focuses on abortion without addressing other issues (poverty, racism & war especially) is mostly politically convenient and hypocritical since most of the politicians who advocate a pro-life stance are serving white, upper-middle class constituents who’ll likely never be directly affected by any of the issues addressed by a consistent ethic of human life.
peace,
A.T.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
This is something I’ve struggled with defining, myself. I guess my take on the issue is that you can be pro-life and also believe that abortions are wrong without feeling the need to involve the federal government. As Christians, why are we so hung up on having the federal government police morality? Adultery is a sin, just like abortion is a sin, and we don’t see people protesting and petitioning the government to incarcerate people who commit the sin of adultery. Can’t we uphold Christian values without having to get the government involved?
August 20th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Hey Steve, (good to talk to ya last week!)- and yeah i do have some thoughts on the matter, -
First off – when i was 21 i had an abortion – though during that time in my life, i certainly wasn’t walking well with God during those days, in fact- i refer to that time period as one in which Jesus and I were in Therapy- and i wasn’t engaging in the counseling! I can say from one has gone thru it… it was immeasurably hard. I knew when i was going thru it … that it did break God’s heart, yet, i still felt His presence – even in the room…
What i DID know is that He was weeping- for me and my child- Later in my walk with Jesus, i did receive some deep inner healing from all of it. ( i couldn’t go to the dentist because the suctioning machine reminded me too much of the abortion- just to give an example)
What’s not often talked about is what happens after an abortion- the guilt, the tears, the “what have i done?”
Granted that was 20 years ago, and they sure didn’t even attempt to discuss it while i was filling out the paper work. I did feel very alone in all of it, except for the nurse that held my hand during the procedure- that was the only tender part of the entire ordeal-
I didn’t even feel human – more just another number – and the Dr. sure didn’t want any discussion, because that would have made me a human being with feelings.
I would have a 20 year old son today if i chose wisdom, love and grace in that matter (i know it was a boy, because i asked the Dr. at the end— you should have seen his face when i spoke- he turned 50 shades whiter, because he had to look again, and realize “it” had a gender)
I later named him Jonathan (meaning God’s gift)- when i thought about it later, it was a reminder to me …. and a ponder, about how many gifts from Him do we abort.-
I had walked with Jesus for a long time before all of that, and even was excommunicated from my family, because i pursued Jesus outside of the “Catholic” church….
So i had already given up a lot for the sake of His ravished love ………
But during that time…. i was “doing my own thing”- knowing HE was there, but making some very poor choices.
In retrospect, when someone asks me “why i did it, being a christian and all?”- i share from my heart-
When i told the guy i had slept with – that i was pregnant – he flipped and went into a rage. I had seen that look in my mothers eyes with her ballistic anger.. and it sent me into terrified mode. (the guy also was “a believer”)
I was barely getting by and trying to finish my degree- and i didn’t see anyway out……… so bottom line is that i let my Fears dictate my actions-
If there wasn’t an option… i would have chosen putting him up for adoption….
(where i rationalized – is that i’m adopted, and while i’m grateful to my birth mom for giving me life, i was adopted into a very dysfunctional home with a highly abusive mother- and that is putting it mildly.)
I think over the past 20 years, that education has increased and that is helpful-
But i also think birth control should be free- (not that everyone will use it- )
Also yes, it would be cool for the church to stand in the gap space, but often pregnancy outside of marriage has it’s own stigmata – they may not be out right throwing stones, but from a relational standpoint based in years seeped in traditions (and i’m oh so putting that lightly)- the Church hasn’t been the most welcoming to those “in that situation”.
As per it being a “election thing”- all over the news and what not…….
i don’t think it will solve anything——- the principalities of Baal and Molek are doing their thing and have been thru the generations.
Until the Church looks in history and sees that some of this is a assignment of the enemy, and actually teaches about it…. instead of the “just say NO” thing…
only then will things change.
Oh, yeah, Steve feel free to use any part of this in what ever manner you like…
I know what i did was sin…… I know Jesus was weeping during it… Yet His forgiveness is full of Life……….
I will say, real help in those areas (for me – then) is hard to find…..
Perhaps besides for all the environmental issues, and the poor and needy aspects that are being looked at in the Emergent- Perhaps, a pro-active approach in this area needs to be looked at. Consider the flock of “poor decision making”
Blessings Bro…
thanks for letting me share.
Shalom and Phat, thick Love!!
cat
August 20th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Laura,
I think the reason that you do not see people protesting the government and petitioning them to make adultery illegal is because adultery is far different then murder. I would venture to say that if the government decided that rape was immoral but decided that it was not going to be illegal anymore then Christians would be just as upset as they are over the abortion issue.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
It has no impact on our day to day lives? Are you being serious? Do you have any idea what 40-50 million people could be doing for our economy, country, military, police, medical field, etc. You can pretty much sum of everything that is starting to suck in the U.S. due to the fact their our growth as a country has been greatly faltered, and how much government spending our country used to stunt our countries growth is ridiculous! Just think first before you say that 40-50 million people wouldn’t make an impact in our lives.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Tobin, you’re speaking in the hypothetical. My comment about how the abortion issue doesn’t really affect most of us in our day to day lives is a comment about the actual, the reality of our lives. How does the reality of abortion affect your life in a real, meaningful, costly way? Others have shared parts of their personal stories here that have addressed this point in a way that your hypothetical does not.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
No Steve it does not affect me in any way related to cost….but it still is the murder of another human being…..since when do we put a cost on the life of an innocent child.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:47 am
Eddie, my point is that if you’re not willing to “pay the price” to adopt a child, support a pregnant teen, financially invest in a woman living on minimum wage to help her make the choice to keep a child, then your “pro-life” advocacy is cheap and easy. When will you put your money where your mouth is? That’s the hard question I don’t think very many people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade have had to face up to.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:49 pm
There are certain consequences to actions…..Just because the women and the man put themselves in a position where they are now struggling it does not mean that society has to come rushing in with money to fix it. They need to take responsibility for their own actions. There is a price to pay for their behavior. Now I am not saying that Christians should not minister to these people…but again…even if she lives in poverty you cannot compare that to the injustice of the murder.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Also…since when did we become a society that says….go ahead make all the mistakes you want and other people will clean up after yourselves. If a women gets pregnant then the man who got her pregnant will have to help with child support. he should get a job and she should get a job. They should then put all their efforts into raising that child.
If I drive drunk and crash my car is it now the responsibility of others to make sure that I get a new car…or is the loss of a car the consequence of my action. That is the problem with society today…nobody wants to take responsibility for their actions. In all reality there are plenty of programs already in place to help these women. They have no excuse.
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:41 am
I’m a little disturbed, frankly, that Eddie feels people need to be punished for having sex, and that punishment should be both a child and poverty.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:04 am
Eddie, you said “Now as to her being in poverty…well there are many ways to better yourself in this country. There really are not too many excuses since she can go to school, get a good job and go on in life. I know many people who do just that. It is possible to do that here in this country with so many opportunities.”
I would not claim to be an expert on the poverty issue, but your blanket statement seems to imply that anybody who lives in poverty does so by choice. I assume you have done research to support that claim?
But let’s take the argument outside of America, because I assume you’re pro-life regardless of the woman’s country of origin. If she lives in Africa or some country where poverty is less of the personal choice you seem to feel it is, is abortion okay or more acceptable to you?
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:14 am
Sorry to comment twice in a row, but having read the rest of Eddie’s comments, I think he’s missing a vital point.
If you’re pro-life in the sense that Eddie is pro-life, then I’m going to assume that you probably don’t have the same view on abortion as a woman who has decided to get an abortion.
Eddie, on the surface I agree with you that society as a whole should not be responsible for cleaning up every mess a person makes. But the woman about to get an abortion has identified the abortion as a way to clean up her mess.
If you decide that on any level her decision is your business, and you don’t like the decision she’s making, then that’s where you become responsible for helping her make a different choice.
And if you really want to convince her to change her mind, it’s probably going to take more than saying, “Sucks to be you. You screwed up, so go live in poverty, and if you don’t like it, you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps because this is America.” (That’s especially ineffective if she doesn’t live in America.)
Yes, you could pass her off to some ministry, but many non-profit ministries are in constant budget struggles. If every woman considering an abortion turned to these ministries, I doubt they would be financially capable to help everyone suddenly at their door.
If you really do want to stamp out every single abortion, you ARE going to need to put your money where your mouth is by either directly helping the women you’re trying to convince to make a different decision, or by dramatically increasing donations to ministries dedicated to that goal, not to mention the inevitable increase in foster care and/or orphanages that would be necessary if Roe V. Wade were overturned.
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:21 am
Dave, that’s well-stated.
Eddie, Anne, anyone want to tackle that apparent contradiction in the “pro-life, small government” position?
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I’d like somebody – in the pro-abortion crowd here – to explain to me why partial-birth abortion is okay. I’d like to have it explained to me how ANY Christian can say it’s okay for a doctor to “3/4th deliver” a baby, then poke a hole in the back of its skull and suck out its brains, killing it in the birth canal.
Let’s face it folks, abortion kills babies. Explain it away any way you wish, but abortion still kills babies. Say they shouldn’t be forced to be born into poverty, but abortion still kills babies. Use duplicitous language like, “we need to be completely pro-life”, but abortion still kills babies.
Pregnancy caused by rape or incest accounts for less than 1% of all abortions. This means that 99+% of the nearly 1 million abortions in America each year are – honestly – performed for matters of convenience. Nearly 1 million babies are killed because they were conceived at an inconvenient time, or in an inconvenient way.
How anybody can turn his/her back on the unborn and allow them to be killed, yet call him/herself a Christian, is beyond me. There are no easy answers, but one thing is for certain: Killing the babies is NOT the answer. Shame on us for acting as though abortion is just another “issue”, on the same level as the “issue” of global warming.
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Jeff, I haven’t heard anyone hear say that partial-birth abortion is “OK.” I’m personally glad that there’s been bipartisan support for a federal ban on partial birth abortion. This is, frankly, one of the things (as I’ve said before) that troubles me about Obama’s record on abortion — he simply hasn’t been able to clearly and concisely explain his previous decision on abortion bills, leaving him open to attack as “the most pro-abortion senator in Congress,” etc.
I assume you’ll probably disagree with the “semantics,” but technically what abortion “kills” is determined by stage of development. When most abortions take place, it is hardly more than a fertilized egg that is “killed” (basically the size of the head of a pin). To be sure, the potential for that fertilized egg to grow into a fetus and into a baby is there. That is the difficult decision that these women face — to bring another child into this world or not.
Again, questioning my Christian faith is unhelpful rhetoric in this discussion, but I understand why you would feel passionately to such a degree as to say such a thing.
Ironically global warming often has much the same effect as the “climate” of poverty on the desperate and underprivileged (what you dismiss offhandedly as “convenience”) — the end of life, where human flourishing should be taking place. So, in that sense, yes, why should I not (as a Christian) be just as concerned about global warming/climate change? Just because a tsunami hasn’t hit the East Coast of the United States yet, doesn’t mean the loss of life because of environmental degradation isn’t just as real.
This is where I think traditional “pro-life” advocates lose their own argument. Either you care about all life that is being threatened or you don’t have much moral authority to talk about life at all.
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
There are ways to stop abortion other than criminalizing it. When it comes to federal laws prohibiting abortion, a large part of the issue is the disagreement over when life actually starts. Scientifically speaking (which is legally the only argument the federal government can bend to), life starts at birth, when the baby takes his/her first breath. As Christians, many of us believe otherwise – that life starts at conception (or implantation, when sex is determined, or various other stages of the development process). The problem with this is that, constitutionally, the government cannot use that reason in order to ban abortion because it is faith/religion based.
I don’t think anyone here is advocating for abortion. The argument is not whether a woman should or should not have an abortion. The question is whether or not our federal government should criminalize her for it. Personally, I believe more abortions would be prevented by Christians spending their time loving, supporting, and praying for women in this position rather than wasting it judging them, promoting legislature, or protesting Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics.
Our Christian duty is to spread the Gospel, to love God, to love people – not to try and rule the country. As Christians, we would be more influential if we spoke from love, and not from judgment. Changing the government is not the way to change the world. Reaching out to people who are hurting, who are lost, who are seeking is.
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Laura, thank you so much for articulating so well what I’ve been struggling to try and say here myself.
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Well Steve, if you openly campaign for the most aggressively pro-abortion presidential candidate who has ever been on a major party ticket – a candidate who has stood strongly against even so much as restrictions on partial-birth abortion – it would appear that you’re okay with partial-birth abortion. And I’m not talking about Obama’s fumbling rhetoric when being interviewed by Rick Warren. I’m talking about his voting record – a record that is available to the public. I’m also referring to the fact that Obama has a 100% approval rating from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
This frightens me. In fact, it sends chills down my spine.
Also, there is no question that a child – in its 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th month of gestation – is a human being. And that is the stage of gestation when partial-birth abortions are being performed. But I’d like you to also consider the fact that even a newborn baby is NOT a viable life form, if we use the standards of the pro-abortionists. The newborn baby is parasitic, and cannot survive without being cared for by a host.
Now, to be certain, I totally agree with you about our need to care about ALL of life. Absolutely. But to bring Global Warming into the discussion (I know, I know… I’m the one who originally mentioned it) and act as though Global Warming and Abortion are somehow on equal moral footings is terribly remiss.
Global Warming has not been proven to even be real. In fact, more and more scientists are admitting that we’re in the warming phase of a typical climate cycle. Even so, I am in no way proposing that we continue on our course of environmental destruction. Far from it.
But driving a fuel-efficient car with an internal combustion engine is a far cry from killing a baby.
Thanks for your thoughts and consideration!
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Laura ~ prior to Roe v Wade, abortion was not “criminalized”. Can you cite, for me, anybody who was imprisoned for either performing an abortion, or getting an abortion, prior to Roe v Wade?
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Agreed- Amen Laura!
part of the reason i shared is because i wanted to be honest – and hypothetical terms are one thing, but actually walking through it is another…
i do have’ta wonder though- why is it you can get fined for killing a baby eagle that’s still in the Egg… ? The Eagle has been taken off the endangered list, but the mother and the eggs have not… and still holds a fine.
Gotta admit, it’s a head scratcher.
shalom,
cat
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Jeff, Again, I agree with you on partial-birth abortion. That is one way in which I would personally like to see Obama move more to the middle on the abortion issue. Despite your repeated concerns, I still believe it is possible to be a Christian and vote for a candidate I don’t fully agree with on everything. (Does any such candidate exist? Probably not.)
I won’t press the global warming/climate change topic any more. I think your admitted skepticism and doubts about global warming (and thereby the implications on human life around the planet) are telling enough. I only commented on it because you brought it into the discussion.
On the question of “who was imprisoned” prior to Roe v. Wade, I’d say that’s a good question. I wasn’t born yet so I don’t know all the history of that. And what I’m more concerned about is: what the pro-life/anti-Roe v. Wade folks plan to do IF Roe v. Wade is overturned (as is the clear goal)?
Only Eddie has answered that question directly so far. He said that in his post-Roe v. Wade world, “The doctor just loses his license to practice medicine. If he does it a second time the doctor goes to jail.” So the focus in that scenario is on punishing doctors and potentially putting them in prison. Is that the general consensus among the rest of you who wish to overturn Roe v. Wade? I’d honestly like to know.
Thanks for the discussion here, everyone. This has been a predominately respectful and helpful dialogue — a rarity in the online world it seems!
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
This is not Roe v. Wade, but it is an example of a woman being arrested for performing an illegal abortion, which in the current state of affairs means herbal abortifacients and the like. Prior to Roe v. Wade, it meant things like coat hangers, which is what many people fear would happen if abortion was made completely illegal.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/23828.php
A note on partial birth abortions: I don’t agree with legalizing this practice. When I say “abortion,” this is not included in my definition. It includes birth control pills (which are abortive in a sense), the “morning after pill,” and early term abortions. I want to further clarify that I am against abortion on a moral level. I just have concerns over the legality/illegality of it.
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
“I’m a little disturbed, frankly, that Eddie feels people need to be punished for having sex, and that punishment should be both a child and poverty.”
I do not believe I ever said people should be punished for having sex. I basically said that becoming pregnant could be a natural consequence of having sex. should you choose to engage in sex then you should be will to take on the responsibilities for the consequences that may arise.
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Hey Laura ~ yeah, that’s a weird story about the immigrant who performed an illegal abortion on herself. In fact, it’s very bizarre. What it shows me is that, more than anything, legalized abortion is about the money. Legalized abortion is a billion-dollar “industry” in the United States today. And you better believe that they’re paying big-time money to lobby the politicians, just like Big Oil is spending millions on lobbying/buying politicians.
Concerning partial-birth abortion, it IS legal in the United States, so “legalizing” it is irrelevant at this point. Perhaps that’s not what you were saying – so I apologize if I misunderstood you.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Dave said’
“I would not claim to be an expert on the poverty issue, but your blanket statement seems to imply that anybody who lives in poverty does so by choice. I assume you have done research to support that claim?”
Look around all over and you will find many people who have risen out of poverty and made a life for themselves. I teach in an inner city school with some of the worse poverty rates for children in Arizona. We have many kids who overcome the obstacles presented to them and go on to lead productive lives. They have access to college, career training and anything else they want in order to be successful in life.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Dave Said,
“But the woman about to get an abortion has identified the abortion as a way to clean up her mess.”
Then I guess we disagree about ways of appropriately “cleaning up her mess”. I do not think the murder of a child should ever be an option to correct her mistake. The father should be required to provide child support. She could get job training, go to college, get help from families or churches to care for her baby while she is in class or working. If none of these are options, which I think would be a rare case, then she has the option of giving the baby up for adoption. There are so many better ways of fixing a mistake that does not include the killing of and innocent baby.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Steve said,
“Eddie, Anne, anyone want to tackle that apparent contradiction in the “pro-life, small government” position?”
Please provide me further details on what you see as the contradiction and I would be more than happy to comment on it.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Jeff, I think you’re mistaken about partial birth abortion being legal in this country:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266724,00.html
Has something happened to overturn the federal ban since the Supreme Court upheld it last year?
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Laura said,
“I guess my take on the issue is that you can be pro-life and also believe that abortions are wrong without feeling the need to involve the federal government. As Christians, why are we so hung up on having the federal government police morality”
So I ask you…..Would you like the federal government to no longer police any moral issue. Such as this….should the federal government no longer enforce laws that do not allow strip clubs to operate in family neighborhoods or by schools.
Or how about this one….public nudity…nudist be free to wander the streets naked if they like…That is a moral issue.
or how about this….should we allow marriages between mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, sisters and brothers. What if i want to take 16 wives…..are not laws that do not allow me to do that moral issues that you are suggesting we not get hung up on. Just curious.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Let me rephrase that last bit…came out kinda choppy
Aren’t these laws that prevent me from doing these things based on a some moral issues that you are suggesting we not get hung up on.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Steve ~ you bring a fantastic question to the table with the “What does a POST Roe v Wade United States look like to you?” You’ve brought to light a topic that many pro-life people haven’t even thought about.
First of all, I don’t believe that overturning Roe v Wade will “criminalize” abortion – as many of the extremists scream. Overturning it primarily means that we’re not using taxpayer money to fund killing babies. And I can pretty much guarantee you that if performing abortions ceases to be financially lucrative, most abortionists will quickly become absolutely disinterested (Again, we need to follow the money trail here. Abortion is a billion dollar “industry” today.). Doctors will not stop performing abortions because they fear going to jail. They’ll stop doing them because they won’t be making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year as a result.
Second, we need to admit that we’re not living in the Dark Ages. All manner of highly effective contraception is available to everyone in America. Getting pregnant is not an inevitable result of having sex – regardless of the moral ramifications of the context of the sexual act. Again, we need to be reminded that the overwhelming majority of abortions are “convenience” abortions – and by that, I mean abortions that are not due to rape or incest. That’s another way of saying that those pregnancies could have been avoided, but they weren’t. And why weren’t they? Because we’re now using abortion as post-conception birth control.
Third, there is already full medical care available to poor pregnant women – married or not – in America. Is it ideal? No. Should it be improved? Yes. MUST it be improved and expanded, if Roe v Wade is overturned? Absolutely.
Fourth, in a post Roe v Wade America, tens of thousands of couples – who desperately want to adopt children – will be able to, because the children were not killed before they were born. This is a very good thing for at least two reasons.
There are lots and lots of speculative ideas we could bat back and forth. But the bottom line is that what “might be” is of lesser importance than what “is” – and what “is” is that unborn babies are being killed by the tens of thousands. All of us tend to follow the path of least resistance – and that path of least resistance is to get an abortion when a person gets pregnant.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Thanks for the link Steve. I was mistaken – and was a couple years behind.
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Eddie said: “should the federal government no longer enforce laws that do not allow strip clubs to operate in family neighborhoods or by schools…”
I was under the impression that those laws are mostly state laws and city ordinances, not federal. To me, there’s a big difference between a state law and a federal law. As for abortion, I think the federal government should leave that up to the states, as well.
And I don’t agree with government funding for abortions. But I do believe that the federal government is not in a position to take away the right of a woman to have an abortion because the main argument against it has to do with a religious-based, not scientific-based, view of when life begins, as I have clarified in a preceding point.
As for the government policing morality, laws about murder, incest, rape, etc. as far as the government is concerned many times have less to do about upholding morality and more to do with containing society, preventing chaos, ensuring safety. In order for our society to be productive, we have to enforce laws that protect that productivity. There are many immoral things that aren’t illegal (adultery, lying, greed) and some illegal things that aren’t necessarily immoral (driving fast, parking in the wrong place).
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Jeff – The lady was an immigrant. She is an example of someone who is a product of a country where there are not “legal” abortion clinics and people use other means to end pregnancies. “Abortion” has been around since before it was ever even called abortion. Heck, people have been trying to end unwanted pregnancies since before there was a United States.
A note on adoption: There is no shortage of children in America who can be adopted. Our foster care system is overrun.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Laura, that is really stretching it as an excuse for legalized abortion.
And you’re right. Abortion has been around since before there was a United States. But so has pedophilia.
August 24th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Eddie said: “There are so many better ways of fixing a mistake that does not include the killing of an innocent baby.”
Eddie, I more or less agree with that (there’s still the problem of figuring out at what point it’s a baby), but I’m not the one you need to convince. I’m not convinced that overturning Roe V. Wade is going to do anything to stop determined women from getting abortions, and I’m not convinced that voting for the Bush’s and McCain’s of the world is even going to do anything to overturn Roe V. Wade in the first place.
I guess the bottom line for me is this: Look at the lengthy discussion on this topic, and this is, as far as I can tell, among people who are Christians. If there’s this much controversy over the issue, then that’s a reason why I’m no longer comfortable with painting the issue in completely black and white terms (either you’re okay with any abortion or against every abortion) and voting on a candidate based solely on whether or not they are pro-life. Do we even know if they’re pro-life in the same way that you or I would define it?
Sure I wish Obama came down more on the pro-life side, but on just about every other issue, I prefer him over McCain (and I’m not going to get into any of those other issues lest we all start going off topic), so I’m not going to use the abortion issue as a litmus test anymore. I personally feel really burned about voting for Bush twice mostly due to the pro-life cause.
August 24th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Distractions (visiting grandkids, etc) have kept me from responding to recent posts. I’m now going to try to respond a little at a time.
I’ll start with the background of Roe v. Wade. Norma McCorvey, who was “Jane Roe” said she was raped. She has since admitted she was lying. She was young, doing drugs, and living in a park. She never had an abortion, and she never testified in a court of law.
Sandra Cano, who was “Mary Doe” in the Doe v. Bolton case never wanted or had an abortion. Sandra had sought legal aid to get a divorce from her child-molesting husband and to get custody of her children. When her attorney scheduled her for an abortion, she fled from the state of Georgia until she was assured that she didn’t have to have an abortion. She has always been pro-life. Sandra believes that her attorney (now deceased) either forged her signature or deceived her into signing papers that she believed were related to her divorce.
The Doe case was the companion case to Roe — that is, both cases were decided the same day. Roe legalized abortion. Doe created the “health exception” that ultimately resulted in abortion for any reason up to the day of birth, including “partial-birth abortion.”
Sandra never testified in a court of law. When her case was being heard, one of the justices even wondered if she were a real person. Sandra was horrified when she learned what her case had done. Her attorney had her records sealed, and it took her years to get them unsealed.
Both Norma and Sandra want to see their cases overturned.
When Roe was decided, the Court did not address the issue of the humanity of the child, which they saw only as a philosophical issue.”
Even liberal legal scholars acknowledge that Roe is on shaky legal ground.
If Roe is overtuned, it will not end abortion in America. The issue will return to state legislatures to regulate abortion, as they do other issues.
The Supreme Court ruling on partial-birth abortion did not outlaw late-term abortions; it only banned a method –partial birth abortion (killing the baby during delivery). For example, an abortionist can inject a substance into a baby’s heart in the womb to kill the baby, and then abort it.
August 24th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
P.S. Prior to the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases being decided, some states had legalized abortion. If Roe and Doe are overturned, the states that still have pre-Roe & Doe laws banning abortion will return to those laws. States that have repealed their pre-1973 laws will have the option to pass laws regulating or banning abortion.
August 25th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
POWER! excited power for the hurting. steve; look at the emotion that exists with or without your comments. it’s all from the heart. it makes my heart swell. i don’t wan’t my heart to swell and burst — i want to briefly wave to your ideology, hopefully wait shortly for your honesty, and communicate well in the future.
August 25th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Powerful emotions indeed, Dan. Thanks for reading and commenting.
August 25th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Anne, I appreciate you coming back into the conversation because I appreciate your knowledge and history of the issue. From what you describe, I think we can agree that Roe v. Wade was pretty flawed in the way that it came about. However flawed it was, I guess I’m still not convinced that it should be overturned and the decision turned back over to the states.
Here’s why: What I imagine happening in that scenario is some states banning all abortions (South Carolina, perhaps?) and others allowing anything and everything to go (California, perhaps?). This creates all kinds of problems for young women who find themselves in these desperate situations. Parents who can’t even say the word “sex” around their children will now have their pregnant teens fleeing to states where abortion is legal. We’re already seeing this among girls who live in states where parental notification is mandatory — crossing state lines, etc. It will certainly happen in even greater numbers if the states are left to decide how to regulate (or not regulate) abortion.
I guess I feel this is a national issue that requires a national solution, and that solution (in my mind) is to remain legal and regulated. While the partial-birth abortion ban is a good thing, I would personally support a late-term abortion ban, covering other methods, such as the one you described.
I know you and others in the pro-life movement are doing wonderful things to help women and young girls in these situations, but the dominant narrative right now, in my opinion, is simply one of fear that suggests the only/best solution is to get conservative judges on the Supreme Court so that they can legislate from the bench. I’d just like to challenge you and others who are in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade to continue articulating (and in stronger, better ways) what real, concrete assistance is being given to women and girls who are caught up cycles of poverty and desperation. Those are the stories that need to be told. Those are the stories that will impact the hearts and minds of people and cultivate a culture of life in this country.
Thank you for respectfully engaging in this dialogue with me here. All of this is ultimately in God’s hands, and God is the one who allows leaders to come into power (or not). I’m going to close the comments here on this post, but I’ll have at least one follow-up post on this subject so please come back and continue the discussion with me there.
August 29th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
[...] Now that’s admittedly a sink hole of debates and arguments (by the way, I appreciate how Steve Knight summarizes his position on abortion, which fits nicely here), but it makes a clear point. Not only did having Christians in political [...]
August 30th, 2008 at 6:08 am
[...] a losing strategy strategy of protest, but Christians have done it before. Hmm. I just discovered some thoughts by Steve Knight along the same lines. He also points to Frank Schaeffer, the pro-life Obama supporter. Oh, okay, [...]
September 13th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
[...] the News Feed on Facebook with far greater interest than my blog has ever gotten (well, except for my abortion post, that [...]
September 14th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
[...] Steve Knight says that, while he used to believe Roe should be overturned, he has changed his mind and now supports it. Here are the points that appear to specifically relate to Roe: [...]
September 28th, 2008 at 10:16 am
[...] supports overturning Roe v. Wade. I have to say, on the face of it, at least, I agree with him. Here’s the link, and here’s a copy of his [...]
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:34 am
[...] Opines: Day 30 Posted on October 23, 2008 by Cynthia Steve tells “Where I stand Today on Abortion” (comment section is good reading as well) I have serious questions for [...]
October 26th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
[...] Where I Stand Today on Abortion – Steve Knight [...]
October 27th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
[...] Steve Knight [...]