Regardless of what Planned Parenthood (may have) Done

                There are many ways to skin a cat, and to best approach the question of abortion in general, and specifically(perhaps) Planned Parenthood, it is important to define and explain the two general approaches to addressing it. 

                One, there is the Christian/Biblical viewpoint that must be explained and defended.

                Two, the pluralistic/agnostic/scientific/sociological viewpoint that must also be explained and defended. 

                I would contend that these positions can, and do, point to the same conclusion.  And I hope to make a compelling case to that end. 

 

The General Christian Argument Opposing Abortion:

1. Murder is ALWAYS wrong. 


2. Life is defined by God


3. God is the one who breathes life into us and knows us in the womb


4. Therefore, willfully taking of an innocent persons life is murder and a sin against God

 

It may be difficult to “scientifically” define when a child in the womb moves from non-life to life, the very fact that we are currently unable to truly “know” at what point that threshold is crossed, our responsibility would be to err on the side of life.  If murder is a sin, and at SOME point there is a life that bears the image of God inside the womb, it is of great and unnecessary risk to accidentally, perhaps, murder a life because your “guess” on the timing of when this threshold has been crossed was incorrect. 

If you were to indiscriminately shoot at a building where people were inside, regardless of your claims to not intending to actual kill someone, you would still be culpable for murder if you did “accidentally” hit someone.  In the same way, it is the height of irresponsibility to play Russian Roulette with children in the womb hoping that it might not actually be a life at the time you destroy it. 

 

Therefore, the risk of murder is so great, and the knowledge, scientifically, is so limited, faithful Christians should indeed advocate for the elimination of abortion.

 

The General “Secularist” Argument Opposing Abortion:

1. Murder is always wrong


2. Life is defined by a few narrow parameters, generally speaking, heartbeats and brainwaves


3. Brain waves are an indication of life and an individual who is known and can be known


4. Therefore, willfully taking of an individuals life(those who can think and feel) is always wrong

 

With the general concept that brain waves are indication of life the secularist argument rests in the “threshold” of the time at which these are observable.  Brain waves are first detected at 6 weeks.  While a secularist argument has a more defined “threshold” moment, there is still one. 

Therefore, abortion past the time of brainwaves is the willful taking of a life. 

 

 

Possible Disagreements and My Response: (Christian views)

1. Rape


2. Incest


3. Life Endangerment


4. Well Being of the future life(poor mothers, bad home environment, etc)


5. We are a pluralist society we can’t advocate for our religious beliefs.

For each of my responses there is one foundational premise that I will state here, and not restate.  If we believe that God breathes life into us and knows us in the womb and He alone is the Author of life, regardless of the tragic circumstances surrounding any specific pregnancy, the life that DOES exist is an image bearer of God and the willful murder of that life is not justified by any degree of tragedy associated with its creation.   The argument against abortion are not reliant, or, related to, the reasons for the abortion.  

Rape: 

The Christian response to a victim needs to be “weeping with those who weep”.  And admittedly there are too many stories of victims who were not lovingly cared for in the aftermath of their situation.  Studies have shown that women who choose abortion after a rape are nearly 80% likely to regret the decision.  70% of women actually choose not to have an abortion, and not 1% of those have stated that they regret the decision. 

The sad reality is that many rape victims are not given the opportunity to know that there is  light on the other side.  While most who are led to believe that abortion will mitigate their suffering find that it increased it. 

While there are obviously those who had an abortion and are “glad” of it, it still doesn’t address the fundamental premise.  Is the value of an individuals life defined by the circumstances related to their creation define their value? 

I hope it is clear that creating an ethic that accepts that some lives are less valued than others by no fault of their own is a dangerous and completely unbiblical position to have.

 

Incest:

Much of this is similar to my response to the rape exception.   The additional point is related to WHY we would contend for abortion in the case of incest.  This is generally presented as a protection against severe defect due to close relatives. 

By accepting this premise we are allowing for differentiation of objective value being ascribed(by our own opinions—not Gods) upon lives who are “not” defective and those who “are”.  I hope that we would weep if we became a nation that began to advocate for the abortions of every child in the womb whose tests have shown defective genes.  The child who is deformed due to incest is no less valuable than the child who is deformed due to other reasons. 

 

Life Endangerment: 

This is obviously a much more difficult question to deal with.  I will say that historically, pre Roe, women who came into the hospital and were literally dying due to their pregnancy DID receive medical help to save their lives.  Doctors did not just sit there and watch them die because they were opposed to abortion.  Extreme, and TRAGIC, medical procedures have generally always been accepted as a necessity. 

A choice of who to let live is thankfully EXTREMELY rare.  To advocate for abortion in general when this accounts for an almost too small to account for percentage of total abortions is disingenuous.  I think a Christian can support the heartbreaking realities of these extreme events without it also including other forms of abortion.

 

Well Being of Future Life---Generally Related to Financial/Life Situation of the Mother

Luckily, for all of us, what is true today, is not guaranteed to be true tomorrow.  The tragedy of this position is that it is advocating for murder for the sake of financial benefit(in reductionist terms).  While it may feel too “hard” today, what if two days later they get a raise.  What weeping should there be?

This position also fails to take into account the literally millions of Christians and millions of dollars that ARE poured into private charities to support these young women and families.  My wife and I personally support and work with our local Pregnancy Crisis center.  They provide clothes, education, formula, parenting classes, babysitting, home placement, etc.  We have even personally offered our home to young women who had no where else to go. 

I am not exaggerating when I say that, due to my communities and connections, that we could find a place and resources for virtually any young woman you could send our way.  If someone’s argument is that they don’t know what to do, I would say, “Who have you talked to???”  In the dozen cities and towns I have worked in EVERY single one has places that provide everything I just mentioned. 

 

We Are a Pluralist Society:

It is true we cannot force our views on anyone, nor should we, this does not change the fundamental reality that a life is a life is a life.  Therefore, should a good society NOT defend and speak up for the most vulnerable lives?  When a culture begins to devalue ANY of its citizens lives for ANY reason, it will begin to rot from the inside.

 

Possible Disagreements and My Response: (Secular)

1. Life isn’t a brainwave


2. Murder isn’t always wrong


3. It’s better for society


4. “Viability” is a more appropriate barometer for life

 

Life isn’t a brainwave:

This would be in direct contradiction to nearly every other medical standard we hold to.  We know that in the womb children; dream, feel pain, laugh, think, learn, etc.  While the degree to which they can do that is not clearly defined by the “amount” of brainwaves, we do know that these are true neuro realities of the unborn.  And even if they can’t “learn” as much as a Three year old, or, a 33 year old, we obviously do not place value on an individuals life by their degree of relative intelligence. 

And if we do not use brainwaves to define life in the womb, by what scientific method shall we then use?

 

Murder isn’t always wrong

Obviously this is a rare argument.  But historically there have been individuals, and whole societies, who contend for the value of eliminating those with “less” value.  Every healthy secularist society rejects this notion.  Though we should always be on guard for the voices that try to slip in from time to time to advocate for such.

 

It’s Better for Society

This is in relation to generally 2 broad thoughts; 1- Better life for the mother/family therefore, better communities, 2- We don’t need more poor uneducated people. 

Communities where abortion is more frequent are NOT better off.  Not that I am saying they are doing poorly BECAUSE of abortion, but, it reveals that abortion is not a catalyst for healthier families and communities. 

This ultimately boils down to a value being placed on someone’s life by the value you perceive them providing for you, directly and indirectly.  To repeat an earlier point let us pray that this type of cultural ethic never gains prominence. 

 

Viability is a better barometer of life

The problem here for a secularist, and especially a Christian, is that this is a moving goal post.  What was viable 50 years ago is radically different to what is viable today.  As medical science continues to progress that “threshold” continues to move ever farther back.  To use the term, “extreme” measures, when evaluating legitimate life sustaining procedures is itself very unhelpful.  A child at 38 weeks could have complications in the womb that means extreme steps post birth are necessary.  Extreme steps that are similar to the steps for an extreme premature birth.  If the degree of effort necessary to sustain life becomes a defining characteristic, does that mean a 38 week child is no more a “life” than an 18 week old one? 

Once we accept that extreme steps to provide viability is not a satisfying standard to define life, we will conclude that is practically a completely unusable one.  And, as technology advances does that therefore change moral standards.  For example, it wasn’t murder to abort a baby at 30 weeks 50 years ago, but it is today….?  A moral standard is not dependent upon technology.  If technology defines morality, than morality means nothing at all.

 

So, those are my thoughts.  Where am I wrong?  Where am I right?  Let me know!

 

 

Wide Tents with Thick Walls

Did you hear?  Some Christians don't get along.  They have drawn a line in the sand and declared those on the other side Hereticstm and will now refuse to be friends!  Regardless of how you feel about it, these fights are increasing in frequency and angry rhetoric.  Is this ok?

In Matthew 12 Jesus is accused of being from Satan due to his ability to cast out demons.  This leads to a very important teaching moment for the church today.  "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand"(verse 25).  He goes on to illustrate that when we are divided we become ripe for destruction. 

So, should we just stop fighting.....

I want my kids to get along and love each other.  In a perfect world they would always be best friends and watch out for the other.  But this is not a perfect world, and my kids are not always best friends.  Sometimes, because I love them, I have to separate them and protect them from one another.

A few days ago I heard my 2 year old daughter began to cry in the other room.  My 4 year old son happened to also be in the room.  Since I am very Sherlockian in brilliant intuitive connections, I said to my son, "Why is your sister crying?"  He replied quite frankly, "She was playing tea party and I was playing crush things".......

I could  not allow my house to be divided, so following Jesus' wise counsel, I let my son continue to push around his little sister....

Wait, what?!?!

My son's behavior was unacceptable.  It is something we have addressed many times(and will surely be addressed many more).  In our house, you DO NOT pick on your siblings.  If you do, there are consequences.  I protect the unity of my house by addressing and putting a stop to hurting one another. 

The concept of unity is not found in ignoring bad behavior.  It is around rallying around love, truth and good behavior.  I love my kids unconditionally.  No matter how many times he hits his sister, I have never noticed a depreciating measure of my love for him.  I want to lead him in love towards being a child who treats his sister with love.  While also standing up to his bad behavior!

Do you know how difficult it would be to be a parent if our expectations and rules changed daily?  Today I tell my son to not hit his sister, and then tomorrow I ignore it, perhaps even reward it.  Talk about creating disunity!  Part of the hopeful effectiveness of lovingly teaching rules in our house is that they are consistent and reliable standards. 

The Church today has so many terrible fights and line drawing going on.  One day your are in, the next day you are out.  A hero today, a goat tomorrow.  Theologian extraordinaire in the first book, and Purveyor of Heresy in the next.  The goal post is constantly shifted to what it means to be a Christian. 

Sadly, this is not a new problem that has infected modern western Christianity.  From nearly the beginning of the Church people set up their little camps to duke it out over secondary doctrines that we were used as the lithmus test of True Christianstm.  So how have we made it 2000 years and counting with these ridiculous squabbles. 

Well, first and primarily, the fact that Jesus is alive.

But secondly I would contend that there have been moments in Church History that men were willing to lay down their differences and reaffirm that which was non-negotiable and true.  And that was quite a small list actually.  We, in many ways still lean on what they wrote.  We know them as the Creeds. 

I am not great theologian or Church Historian.  So don't go overboard on correcting my potential simplification of the matter.  I have linked to the two primary ones, the Apostles and Nicene creeds.  And in history there have been a number of other great statements of Faith that helped guide the church for many years. 

So why do I mention them?  I believe it is time for a new creed.  Not as a replacement, or a rewording, of the ones that have come before.  But one that can allow us to say, the tent is wide, but there are thick walls that clearly define us.  Perhaps you view justification and sanctification different than I, but if you affirm "these", then I can call you brother!  We have to not only be unified in fellowship, but also unified in correcting that which falls outside the fellowship. 

For those who read me religiously(hey Mom!!..and....um...somebody else...) I hope to never present myself as some sort of profound theologian.  But, to at least open up the discussion, here is my attempt at a new Creed that we can affirm together!

The 21st Century Creed

1.  The Old and New Testaments are an accurate and reliable testimony to the Living God, King of all Creation

2. Jesus is the Son of God who came to Earth as fully man and fully God for the purpose of dying in sinful mans place on the cross to pay the penalty of man's sin.  He rose three days later and in Him and Him alone we have hope of eternity with God.

3.  The Holy Spirit is the promised deposit given to each person who has professed faith in Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross.  It is through God in Us(the Holy Spirit) that we are empowered to fulfill the ministry of the Gospel and grow in every increasing maturity as followers of Christ.

4.  Each individual has a personal responsibility to respond to the claims of Christ and to claim Him as savior, or to reject Him.

5.  The Bible is our primary guide to life as followers of Christ and the functions of Christ's Church. 


This is probably far from complete, but what would you add, or take away?