Point 3: Abortion

Yeah, I know this one is tough, but I think it’s time I just say some things about it. Everyone seems to make it a very simple issue of black and white. I can’t help but think that it might that simple in and of itself, but I differ on answering the problem. Sometimes when looking at that simple problem takes an answer that is a little complex.

I turn to the pro-choice people. I tend to not agree with all that the pro-choice argument states, even though it’s difficult to really draw a line that separates two beings when one is still in the womb. I tend to think that pregnancy is a gift of responsibility, which is the only point that pro-choice is applicable, since a law controlling that would be an invasion of freedom. There is a good number of people arguing the pro-choice argument that argue more on a political idea that says that government shouldn’t be telling people what they should do with their bodies. Although we disagree with how that is being pushed too far, the majority of this group is admitting that there is a problem with the number of abortions today, which is good. I’ll return to this later.

The pro-life argument I tend to agree with, but usually just with the abortion issue. Let’s be honest, most of them argue against abortion, but there are other things that they accept without paying any attention to their arguments of sanctity of life. If someone argues for the sanctity of life, you have to at least consider it when it comes to things like war and capital punishment. It’s a illogical to give attention to one type of killing and turn a blind eye to another type, unless you find a new foundation for your argument, which means kiss the sanctity of life argument and Christian world-view goodbye. Or, if you want to push the true pro life view point, take it further, start looking for things that would in general be contrary to preserving life. Some are starting to see that we should oppose killing of any kind. Just look at the Patristic father Justin who disowned even the abandonment of children and his contemporaries who generally ranked abortion and infanticide with killing, whether homicide, warfare, or even capital punishment.

I personally think that there are some complications that produce gray area. Let’s say that I had a wife who had complications with pregnancy and the doctor presented the choice of saving the child or the mother. I don’t exactly what I would say. I would probably lean in favor of the wife, but you can see the problem. Or, let’s say, a guy has a gun and is getting ready to shoot my family, but I have access to a gun and can stop him. I just don’t know what I would do. I would like to talk him away from it and beg for the life of everyone, but I just don’t know.

One of my points may cause some people to swallow their pride. Many Pro-life proponents would not even think about joining sides with one for pro-choice legislation, and the same vice-versa. But let’s think about the fact that there are pro-choicers who admit that there is a problem. Most of the sides take to picket protests and holding signs that simply say things that not only are dividing, but hurtful at times. The point is to help with the problems in a way that reflects Christ. This would mean that maybe those who admit that there is a problem have had something revealed to them. What if we could let go of our pursuit of legislation and move towards programs that would help lessen the punch of the problem? That actually would move toward an answer better than what we’re doing right now. If we are concerned with the sanctity of life, then we must no longer stand on a platform that goes nowhere, but step towards inclusion with those who also want to answer a crisis despite political philosophy. Perhaps that will be the picture of grace and, even more importantly, hope that this debate has been lacking for a very long time in America.

Some would call me a little naive, and understandably so. Most of those people work with the idea that we will not return here after we die and that the separation is necessary in order to make the most of here. That is extremely unbiblical. The bible teaches us that resurrection for us will be physically real.

That here, in this world, but just in a transformed reality.

The point that I make is that the Christian has a different basis of reality, so that they are  not naive, but in a new hope and in a different world view. So don’t judge too quickly. If you truly believe in resurrection, then death here means nothing, since whoever dies will be present in the Lord, which means that when God returns and resurrects everyone, that they will be present with everyone else.

So don’t worry about trying to punish people by using violence. We push for redemption, and that means no vengeance, which is tough. But once again, resurrection, which leads to a line of thought.

Someone is murdered,

but they are going to be resurrected later,

so there is no point in getting revenge or being scared of dying.

And since we are enemies of Death as Christ was, we do not cause death (or try to).

These are just some thoughts. Don’t be scared of dying, and don’t be so prideful to team up with someone who is willing to approach some answers. Although you may do it for different reasons, at least for a Christian it becomes a point of going towards the Kingdom and taking as many with you as you can.

At least consider some of this.

Grace and peace to you all.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Point 3: Abortion

  1. This is an important issue, if only because of the politics that has built up around it. Many people have closed minds about it, on more than one side.

    Three thoughts on abortion, on matters that trouble me, in addition to what you have said:
    1) Much of the religious right stopped emphasizing abortion before the election of 2008, to take up arms (figuratively, or mostly so) against illegal immigration. The only way that I can understand that is to believe either that being against abortion was not as fundamental as they originally said that it was, or that those who changed their emphasis were not following any scriptural or moral lodestar, but were following secular commentators on TV and radio.

    This is not to say that illegal immigration shouldn’t be dealt with, in a careful and loving manner. But why the shift? (Most of the people I am talking about weren’t inclined to be careful or loving.)

    2) I’m not sure that a rock-solid case against abortion can be made from the Bible. There is no scripture explicitly condemning it. The NIV, in a note to Exodus 21:22, indicates that one possible interpretation of that text is that the penalty for causing the loss of an unborn fetus is not the same as the penalty for murder.

    That being said, that doesn’t mean that Christians should support abortion, especially that they should support abortion for any selfish or trivial reason, such as to avoid being pregnant for a ski vacation, or because you’d rather have a child of the other sex. I don’t think that a rock-solid Biblical case against slavery can be made, either, but the church was right to oppose it — it’s a great evil. Perhaps that’s the way to look at abortion.

    3) Isn’t an aborted fetus better off that way than as if she had been carried to term, and then chosen to reject Christ?

    Thanks for writing. I’m afraid that I haven’t really addressed the issues you bring up.

    • I would agree on point one. Point two is difficult since you have to deal with original law and redactions up to at least the second temple perio, which calls to question if they made exceptions for an issue or were there more exceptions before. On your third, I’m not sure how to answer that, except that judgment here is based on faith until we reach the judgment seat, at which we end up judge on our actions reflecting our faith, so I don’t think the question is easy when applied to abortion. I do, however, admit that God has grace, and how He judges will surprise many.

      Thanks for these points.

  2. Pingback: Post on the Healing Seminary « Russell Purvis's Weblog

Comments are closed.