Category Archives: Abortion
Still Newer Pro-Life Resources
In light of this being the 37th year since Roe v. Wade, here are some more top-notch pro-life resources from Scott Klusendoff.
Scott is also the author of The Case for Life:Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture.
Tons of Pro-Life Stuff on the Web
John Piper, Lincoln’s Logic on Slavery Applied to Abortion
R.C. Spoul, Video series on abortion (streamed on the web for free)
Robert P. George, Our Struggle for the Soul of Our Nation
Ed Whelan, Senate Testimony on Roe v. Wade (2005)
Michael New, The Case for Pro-Life Optimism
Star Parker and Gary Bauer, A Dream Unfulfilled: Roe v. Wade has Played a Big Role in the Devastation of the African-American Community.
(HT: Justin Taylor)
Also from Juston Taylor’s blog:
This past Sanctity of Life Sunday I had the privilege of preaching in my church on the truth of God vs. the tragedy of abortion.
You can download the MP3 (53:18min, 36.6MB).
I was heavily indebted to the work of John Piper, Greg Koukl, and Scott Klusendorf. Follow the links to hear this material said much better than I can!
At the end of my message I quoted James 1:27, where we are commanded to visit orphans. I made the brief comment that if God commands us to help to those who parents are dead, how much more should we seek to rescue those whose parents want them dead.
I neglected to mention that I got this idea from a sermon by Piper on this passage. Here’s the relevant section:
James’ command to have compassion on the helpless who have lost mother and father applies to them if their mother and father turn on them and become worse than dead parents; namely, killing parents. If orphans should be cared for by God’s people, how much more children whose parents reject them.And when it says, visit them “in their distress” we may ask, Is there any place of greater distress than in the womb of a woman who gives herself over to abortion? This is the greatest distress any child will ever experience. To be torn limb from limb in the very place that should be the safest place in the world is “distress” if there ever is anything called “distress.” “Visit orphans in their distress.”
Piper closes the sermon in this way, and I call you to pray this prayer with him:Amen.
O how I pray that the religion of our church will be “pure and undefiled religion”–pure and undefiled faith in our Lord Jesus Christ! May God grant us to speak both languages of compassion: the language of the orphan and the language of the widow. The language of the helpless child and the language of the desperate woman. There are many other languages we must speak (to the fathers and to the lawmakers and to the doctors, etc.). But whatever we do, let us not be silent. For if we are, our religion is empty, and our faith is dead (James 1:27; 2:14,17).
Doniger on Abortion, Palin, and Roe v. Wade
Several weeks ago, Wendy Doniger, Professor of the History of Religions, University of Chicago’s Divinity School, wrote an article titled, “All Beliefs Welcome, Unless They are Forced on Others.” In this article (which can be found here in its entirety) Doniger makes statements such as these about Gov. Sarah Palin:
Belief in god, like getting pregnant, is a private matter between consenting adults (or one consenting adult and one or more deities) and is no one else’s business. …But I object strongly when anyone (and especially anyone with political power) tries to take their theology out in public, to inflict those private religious (or sexual) views on other people. In both sex and religion (which combine in the debates about abortion), Sarah Palin’s views make me fear that the Republican party has finally lost its mind…Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. The Republican party’s cynical calculation that because she has a womb and makes lots and lots of babies (and drives them to school! wow!) she speaks for the women of America, and will capture their hearts and their votes, has driven thousands of real women to take to their computers in outrage. She does not speak for women; she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working class women. (Emphasis mine)
And the article goes on in much the same tone for its length (though it’s not terribly long, so read it if you can).
When I read it, I feel compelled to offer what I take to be a reasoned response to some of Dr. Donigers claims. Most of what I say below in more on the faith and reason, and abortion issue than on her attacks against Gov. Palin’s character. Here is my response in full:
This is a very interesting piece, and for a number of reasons. First, I find it is ironic (and a bit amusing) that Dr. Doniger chastises Mrs. Palin for supposedly attempting to speak on behalf of all women (not to mention that Doniger appears to be able to read the intentions of Palin’s heart, “she has no sympathy for the problems of other women”), yet herself “speaks for all women” when she expounds her views on ethics of the life-abortion debate.
Does she not see the inherent contradiction of her position? She would refuse others the ability to do the very things she herself does in this article!
Also, contra Biden (and those that follow suit), the issue of when life begins is not a matter of faith. And it has essentially been a platform for pro-abortion advocates to state the conflict in terms that say that pro-lifers believe what they do became of religious convinctions. This simply is not the case, the pro-life position is firmly rooted in the scientific claim that human life begins at conception, or as Dr. Jerome LeJeune, (“the Father of Modern Genetics,” University of Descartes, Paris) says, “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence.”
Likewise, Dr. Hymie Gordon (Mayo Clinic) states, “By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.” Palin’s position is not whether or not the abortion issue boils down to the ‘right to choose”, but on whether or not the fetus is a human being. If it is (and it is, according to Dr. Alfred Bongioanni [University of Pennsylvania] who said, “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.”) then we do not have the legal right to choose to kill it any more than we have the legal right to kill our teenage children if their lifestyle becomes an emotional, cultural, or financial burden to us.
And if the fetus is a human being there likewise should be a law protecting that life, outlawing the ability to take it’s life in the same way that there are laws forbidding parents from taking the lives of their teenage children, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. It is simply being consistent in our “anti-murder” laws. And lest the issues of rape, incest, etc. are presented, I note that the pro-life position is and always has been primarily on the topic of abortion on demand, not the 1%-2% of abortions that fall under the “hard cases” (we should also recall the truism, “Hard cases make for bad laws”). This is not about “forcing” or “inflicting” privately held, but scientifically unverified, beliefs upon others. To state the case this way either a) demonstrates ignorance of the issues involved, or b) is an intentional attempt to erect a smokescreen and obscure the true pro-life position. The pro-life case is built upon the facts regarding the status of the fetus, and until those facts are refuted, the case stands.
And, to make this a religion v. science issue is to misrepresent the nature of the debate.
When Does Life Begin?
Justin Taylor provides some clear quotes on the subject from a number of doctors at leading medical institutions. Though it is common to hear that we don’t really know when life begins, the medical answer seems pretty clear.
Contrary to what many believe about the position of many (if not most) Christians on the abortion issue, the case for the pro-life position is largely a scientific case. The theological dimension is the ethic premise, ‘You should not take an innocent human life.” But whether the fetus is a human being, one whose life should be protected as any other innocent human life (by law), is determined by a scientific analysis of the nature of the fetus itself. Rhetoric, whether ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice,’ muddles the issue and generates more heat than light.
For more on this issue, on both the scientific issues involved as well as the moral/theological issues, see:
Abortion and Personhood
Recently, a reader of this blog left a comment. It was in reply to an entry I made on the anniversary of the Roe V Wade abortion case. The comment was short and to the point. Actually, it was an argument. Here it is:
1) It is morally wrong to murder an innocent person.
2) A fetus isn’t necessarily a person.
3) Therefore, abortion isn’t murder nor necessarily morally wrong.
I began to write a reply directly to the author, but because I’ve lately been swamped because of several life-changes (I’ve relocated from Florida to New York City) I haven’t had much free time to blog. So I thought I’d use my reply as an entry. Here it is:
Thank you very much for your reply. I also appreciate that you stated your disagreement in the form of an argument. My point of departure from your argument is on your second premise, “A fetus isn’t necessarily a person.” Here is why I respectfully disagree with your position.
First, you said a fetus isn’t necessarily a person. This I understand as some hesitation on your part. The fetus isn’t necessarily a person…but it might be. If I’m understanding you correctly, then a lack of certainty should warrant a pro-life stance. Here is an example I learned on the issue. Imagine a demolition crew has properly wired a building in order to tear it down. The foreman asks if the building is clear for the blast about to tear it down. One of the workers says, “I’m not sure.” What would a responsible foreman do? Uncertainty, when it may very well put the life of a human being at risk, calls for caution. So, if we’re not sure if the unborn is a “person” then there’s a serious chance it just might be, and if we kill it, we’ve killed an innocent person with all the rights of any other person.
Secondly, I have difficulty with any position that admits that the unborn may be a human being, but not a human person. Though this is a common distinction that’s heard on many fronts, I don’t believe that it’s a valid one. The value of our life is based on our nature, not our function, i.e. it’s who and what we are that gives us value, not what we can do. The common criteria for distinguishing between a human being and a human person I find arbitrary and self-serving for most pro-abortion advocates. Before I mention these criteria, I want to defend why I made the above statement. All of the common markers for “personhood,”, if consistently applied, would just as much rule out newborn infants, as it would rule out unborn babies.
Here are the common traits people employ to distinguish human beings from human persons;1) Size, 2) Level of dependency, 3) Environment, 4) Development. This is commonly referred to as the SLED test for human personhood. Rather than reinvent the wheel, allow me to point you in the direction of some helpful material that aids in thinking through why these criteria aren’t sufficient.
The Sled Test: The Top Four Arguments- Steve Wagner
Four Difference Between Preborn and Postborn Persons-Stephen Schwarz
Obama for Infanticide?
Normally I avoid writing pieces here that speak to political issues (at least in the sense in which we normally use the word “political”). But, as of late, an interesting and alarming discussion has been taking place on the blogsophere on Barack Obama’s opposition to the Infant Born Alive Act. This act would prohibit doctors from killing babies who survive abortion attempts. Of course, there’s a lot more to this issue than I can write on this short entry. Instead I’d like to provide some sources where the reader can track this vital discussion.
The Elephant in the Room: a Harsh Ideologue Hidden by a Feel-Good Image
An Open Letter to Senator Obama
Obama’s Opposition to the Infant Born Alive Act-Documentation
Top 10 reasons Barack Obama voted against Born Alive Infant Protection Act
35 Years of Abortion
Today is the 35th anniversary of the Roe V. Wade decision to legalize abortion-on-demand (otherwise known as elective abortion). I recently taught an adult Sunday school class on the subject of abortion because I firmly believe that Christians are largely ignorant of the reasons why we believe that abortion is wrong. Sure, Scripture condemns murder. But how do we defend these beliefs with those that aren’t interested in hearing scriptural reasoning? The logic of the pro-life position is quite simple, it’s two premises and a conclusion. If the first 2 premises are true, then the conclusion is undeniable. Here’s the argument in a nutshell:
1) It is morally wrong to murder an innocent human being
2) Abortion kills an innocent human being
3) Therefore, abortion is morally wrong
Here are a couple of helper resources for learning how to defend the right to life of the unborn.
How to Defend the Unborn in 5 minutes or Less
Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade
Greg Koukl has recent written a great short piece comparing racism to abortion.
