Drinking Deeply

Wednesday, June 01, 2005 at 12:37 AM

Abortion Response

So one of the people whom I emailed sent a response to all the people on the list. Let's examine their statements. Paragraphs numbered for reference


~~~~~
Hi guys,

I'm sorry I waited so long to respond. (Let me just say that I agree with all the Biblical arguments Mickey presented. ) Abortion is truly a touchy issue in today's society; something that we can't ignore and the results of which have echoed through our time... i agree with Mickey in that as Christians, we have to adhere to a higher goal, a higher purpose, God's purpose... and all our decisions and views should be eventually conformed with God, instead of with the world. at the same time, abortion is an issue that is really touchy for women in particular, because it deals with their bodies. and the prospect of rape, especially for young women (with date rape, and all that other crazy stuff) is really scary, and shouldn't be treated lightly.

(1)nonetheless, whether they should have had the abortion is something that women really do struggle with after they abort. I have heard stories of people having nightmares, and regretting it for years afterward. While this may be less prevalent among women who have been raped, this is something to think about before making a blanket statement about whether abortion is right for people of certain circumstances. And of course, if you really don't want the kid, you can always give it up for adoption.


(2) and really, how could you ever know what God has in store for you? He places you in trials so that you may be grown to His image by it. If having a child from a rape is what He has in His master plan for you, then who are you to disagree? maybe the child will turn out to be a great evangelist, turning millions to Christianity? or maybe the child will bless you in many multitudes of ways, something that you never may have expected at the beginning. It is a lesson in trust, in submission to God's will, that we all have to learn, whether or not we are faced with the decision of abortion. For nothing happens apart from His will, right? This is from a personal and moral perspective, that you should treat every human being (yes, even one you created!) with dignity andrespect, because of the respect that God has placed on them.

(3)Of course, from a public health and policy perspective, the considerations for the legalization of abortion is completely different. This is largely stemming from the division between church and state. (and that may be the seat of the points I was bringing up.)

(4)There are two different shoes to fill here, the one of the advocate and the one of the policy maker. if you stand in the shoes of an advocate, then you MUST stick up strongly for one side, because -obviously! - it's right. hehe. but in the shoes of a policy-maker, you must take into consideration all the different voices expressed in this debate. a policy-maker can't just push aside all parties that oppose his/her point of view, or all havoc will ensue. and these parties include christians and non-christians alike, who don't operate under the same moral laws. this is definitely what makes president bush's job so hard.. he must, as a leader, stick up for what he feels is right, but he is also the leader of christians and non-christians alike, and so he must act in the interests of both parties.

(5)also, just to play devil's advocate, there are a number of things i learned in humbio that spoke on abortion - namely, that studies have shown that making abortion illegal doesn't decrease the number of abortions but increases the death rates during attempted abortions - because it will be through illegal methods. additionally, the effects of a child growing up in a household that doesn't want it apparently has very damaging psychological effects, and makes him/her more prone to aggression, higher dropout rates, etc. just some food for thought.

yeah, personally, if i had to make a choice (and i hope i will never be in this situation) then i would not abort the baby... cuz you never know what God has in store for you.. so enjoy the ride :)

~~~~~~~~~~~

Ok, so she agrees with me, but her reasoning is very convoluted. To be completely honest I felt like she was seeking to undermine my email more than anything. I ask her for clarification as to why she felt necessary to bring in the fact that women had nightmares. I felt like Scripture speaks clearly enough on the subject, and if she agreed with Scripture nothing more needed to be said. Her argument against abortion essentially amounted to "people feel bad about it, so you shouldn't have it" in paragraph 1. This leaves her in a poor position for when someone says "I feel fine having an abortion."

Paragraph 2 only serves to say "you shouldn't because God is sovereign."

Both of these points only serve to undermine my point: God hates murder. hates sin. Those who allow it are condemnable to death under the law. We are left with a very subjective definition. As long as you don't trust God, as long as you feel good about it, abortion may be ok! But this is absolutely wrong. Abortion is murder clear and simple. The argument is as strong as it's premises, and when you incorporate premises that can easily be disowned, the argument is also weakened.

I asked her why she felt it was necessary to include those points for the reasons I stated and she responds with:

Her (8:25:18 PM): i was only trying to express what you said in the previous email in a more accessible way


Now she immediately followed up with "I don't know if that's necessary or not, being accessible that is." But this doesn't eliminate her initial statement and assumption: She believes (or implied) that Scripture is not sufficient. And we wonder why Christianity is having such a hard time today. It is simply because of the fact that people no longer believe that Scripture is sufficient and need to turn to other explanations. Now maybe she didn't really mean what she implied, maybe she is a firm believer in the inerrancy of Scripture and I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, but just being able to make this statement without feeling something is extremely wrong only serves to prove how much the secular worldview has made inroads into Christianity.

(3)Of course, from a public health and policy perspective, the considerations for the legalization of abortion is completely different. This is largely stemming from the division between church and state. (and that may be the seat of the points I was bringing up.)
(4)There are two different shoes to fill here, the one of the advocate and the one of the policy maker. if you stand in the shoes of an advocate, then you MUST stick up strongly for one side, because -obviously! - it's right. hehe. but in the shoes of a policy-maker, you must take into consideration all the different voices expressed in this debate. a policy-maker can't just push aside all parties that oppose his/her point of view, or all havoc will ensue. and these parties include christians and non-christians alike, who don't operate under the same moral laws. this is definitely what makes president bush's job so hard.. he must, as a leader, stick up for what he feels is right, but he is also the leader of christians and non-christians alike, and so he must act in the interests of both parties.


Moving on to paragraphs 3-4 she makes the claim "a policy-maker can't just push aside all parties that oppose his/her point of view, or all havoc will ensue." and applies it to President Bush. Now, no opinion on Bush, but where does she get the idea that one must compromise or "all havoc will ensue." As a Christian is she called to compromise on her values because America requests it? I asked her for clarification on this and she thought I was challenging her on separation of church and state, but she laid for the following statements:

this is the "Freedom of religion" that is supposed to exist in the US, which has ramifications that no religion has bearing on national policy


I pressed her on the point of "freedom of religion" has ramifications that no religion has bearing on national policy stating that we as Christians are to reject that completely. Everyone is shaped by their foundational beliefs, whether they define it as religious or irreligious. As Christians we are to oppose any and all arguments that set itself up against God, which includes that concept. She then says that she agrees with me, but we are to show grace and forgiveness to them. I respond by saying "we show grace by demonstrating the truth and giving them a chance to repent, not accepting them how they are" and she says "but then we need to ask for forgiveness ourselves." I say yes, but our duty is still the same.

In one fell swoop she accuses me of hypocrisy and being unforgiving. Another blow that secularism has struck against the Christian worldview is a forcing on of definitions of secular "grace" and "forgiveness" as opposed to biblical ones. What does Christ say?

and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him."



It is just as important the repentance part as the forgiveness one. I cannot and will not just idly stand by while God is being wronged and say "oh don't worry, I forgive you." This is what I see the world demanding of us and this is what I will openly oppose, even at the cost of people accusing me of hypocrisy. I will forgive any who ask, I will also try my best to ask for forgiveness when I wronged someone else, but I cannot grant forgiveness for something that people are not repentant of. But all the while the message is the same: God will repay so it is He who demands repentance and He who demands forgiveness.

(5)also, just to play devil's advocate, there are a number of things i learned in humbio that spoke on abortion - namely, that studies have shown that making abortion illegal doesn't decrease the number of abortions but increases the death rates during attempted abortions - because it will be through illegal methods. additionally, the effects of a child growing up in a household that doesn't want it apparently has very damaging psychological effects, and makes him/her more prone to aggression, higher dropout rates, etc.


Finally, the big issue I had with her email. Why does she end the email here? She gives all these counterarguments against the Biblical view and then ... up and ends her email. I ask her about this and she says that "it's helpful to know what the counterarguments are. "

Well yes, absolutely it's helpful, but when it's presented like it has some semblance of truth or authority or it's reasonable then you're presenting completely wrong. Even if she could prove all those points true which I deny, they hold nothing against the Biblical reason against abortion which is still the same: Abortion is murder. God has a specific commandment against murder. Therefore abortion is clearly against God's command. It's as simple as that.

Instead, she presents the arguments with no refutation, with no semblance of "oh but I don't believe this." No, she presents it as part of her email prior to her final statement. Implicitly stating that either a) there is no counterargument or b) she agrees with them. Both of which set themselves up against God's explicit commands.

This I will not stand for. To see God's Word clearly disregarded, even when she starts off by saying "I agree," is downright offensive to me.

In conclusion: To imply that it is necessary to add extra-Scriptural arguments to Scripture's clear teaching only serves to undermine the authority of Scripture, and this is something I will not stand for. To imply that worldly reasons have any foundation in truth apart from Scripture does the same. To demand a "grace" and "forgiveness" without repentance is an excuse for rejecting God's Word and turning sinfully away. I will oppose any and all of these, publicly if need be, but I would hope not.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

Drop a thought