5 Reasons Why Supporting Abortion Reflects an Unchanged Heart

by Mike Leake on January 24, 2013 · 59 comments

Before I give you these five reasons (and I could have given more), I want to give you a disclaimer.  I am not saying that if you are not pro-life that you are not a Christian.  I believe that I was not pro-life (not sure I was pro-choice either) for the first couple of years after coming to Christ.  God had changed my heart but He had not yet changed my worldview.  So, I do believe that one can still have faith in Christ and be mistaken on this issue.

Though I could probably give more than five reasons why supporting abortion reflects and unchanged heart here are five:

  1. It places my freedom as ultimate.  The way of Christ is to place others before Himself.  It is to lay down personal freedoms for the good of the lesser. While the woman’s choice is very important—and could have been violated, as in cases of rape—the choice and freedom of the lesser needs to hold more weight.  In other words, the Christian way of doing things is to surrender your own personal freedoms and comforts for the good of those that are “weaker”.  You don’t get any “weaker” than an unborn baby.
  2. It preaches that life is found in stuff.  Some argue that abortion should be legal because the child’s quality of life will be terrible.  Often what is meant by that is what I will address in point 3, but some actually refer to opportunities.  At times it is a reference to the opportunity of a teenage girl that finds herself pregnant that will be surrendering many chances in life.  As our President said, “I don’t want my daughters to be punished with a baby”.  Life isn’t found in “stuff” and in “opportunities”.  Christ proclaims that life is found elsewhere.  To believe otherwise reflects a heart that is still infatuated with worldly pleasures.
  3. It proclaims that the answer to suffering is death.  Many who support abortion do so while adopting an Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 mentality, which basically says that for some death is far better than life.  But the mentality of Solomon in Ecclesiastes 4 is that of a despairing man that is devoid of Christ.  The gospel gives hope in the midst of suffering.  The gospel proclaims a good purpose of God even in the midst of suffering.  An Ecclesiastes 4 proclaims death as the solution to suffering.  Whereas Scripture says that death is part of suffering and not a solution to it.  The solution that Christ provides for death and suffering is found in His redemptive acts. Abortion on the grounds of an Ecclesiastes 4 mentality denies the power of the gospel.
  4. It teaches that it is okay to return evil for evil.  Pregnancy because of rape and incest is horrendous.  It should be mourned and fought against.  Those committing such crimes should indeed be punished, and punished severely.  But arguing (even as many Republicans now do) that it’s okay to abort a child that results from such evil is morally acceptable is backwards.  Scripture proclaims that we should not overcome evil with evil but to overcome evil with good.  You aren’t punishing the perpetrator by aborting your child.  You are punishing the child and even yourself.  A gospel changed heart overcomes evil with good.
  5. It looks more like Rome and less like the early church.  Rome paid little regard to children.  As one letter from a husband to his delivering wife shows, “”I ask and beg you to take good care of our baby son, and as soon as I received payment I shall send it up to you. If you are delivered (before I come home), if it is a boy keep it, if a girl, discard it.”  The early church fought against infanticide from a very early point.  They were the ones finding discarded babies and taking them into their communities of faith.  They were the ones that eventually ended the practice.  Those that were closest to the time of Christ reflected the heart of Christ to “let the little children come to me”.  They understood that the gospel is a message of life and should foster a community of life and not one of death.

Those are only five reasons why supporting abortion reflects and unchanged heart.  In saying that my point is not to say, “therefore, you had better vote Republican”.  Personally, I don’t think the solution is solely political.  Perhaps that will be one means that the Lord will use to end abortion.  But it is not the only way.  What I am saying is that as believers we ought to be involved in fighting this social injustice.

Check out Abort 73 and get involved.  (Warning: The videos on that site are graphic)

1 rick January 24, 2013 at 10:39 am

After Al Mohler’s excellent piece on how Evangelicals got involved in the politics of abortion, I am now aware that we fail to distinguish between being against abortion for moral and ethical reasons and being politically active (or at least sounding off in the political arena) on abortion. I believe the former is the work of God’s church and is appropriate. I believe the latter is the work of concerned Christian individuals who are participating in a democratic process. And yes, there is a difference, and no there is not a fine line here.

I also believe that it is possible for someone to be morally opposed to both abortion and the church being politically active on the issue. Individuals? No problem. God’s church participating in what has become a political football game? Not so much. I believe it cheapens to gospel, cheapens Christians, and is waging the enemy’s battles with the enemy’s weapons, a clear violation of Paul’s principles that we not use carnal weapons to achieve spiritual victories.

I say this as a person whose wife is deeply, deeply involved in the pro-life movement. She is a paid employee of a humanitarian not-for-profit that operates a prenatal center in a rural county – the only prenatal center in the county. As an individual and as a Christian, not as a church representative, she participates occasionally in marches and walks, but more importantly, she works on a daily basis with girls and women to save babies, not just up to delivery, but to provide help afterward. THAT, in my opinion, is where the battle needs to be fought. Not in the halls of government.

2 John Wylie January 24, 2013 at 3:38 pm

Outstanding insight Rick. I’ve got to admit I’ve been confused in this area. Do you think that the church should be involved in any political action on any issues of social justice? Say for instance like what happened in Darfur?

3 rick January 24, 2013 at 5:06 pm

Thanks, John. I have found that among polemicists in general, it’s hard to present nuanced views without being soundly condemned. I have conservative and liberal friends who both deride me for being on the wrong side of arguments. Like Baby Bear, my position is “just right” if it’s not too hot and not too cold.

I do not think The Church should be involved in politics as The Church. Let’s just put it this way, if I were a pastor, I would have serious misgivings about putting an American flag in the church, and if I did, it certainly would NOT be on the speaker’s right. That place of honor should be reserved for the Christian flag. But that’s my opinion and I know of no one except a bunch of Mennonites and some Anabaptists who share it. So that’s just to let you know I’m kind of a radical and believe that our Kingdom is not of this world. For real.

That being said, I have no problem with politically motivated individuals participating in direct government action. Unless they are doing it as representatives of a denomination or a church. Jesus told centurions that they should stop being so rough with folks and told tax collectors not to collect more than was legally due them. He never told them to quit their jobs and go into Full Time Christian Service. So I believe individuals are free to be lobbyists, Congressional appointees, politicians, or activists. If that is what God has called them to do. But I look askance at things like the Christian Coalition that are blatantly religious in their orientation and do what they do in the name of religion instead of on behalf of the issues they are advocating. I’m all for issue advocacy. Would love to see more people getting involved in the political process on behalf of issues that they feel deeply about. But tying a political agenda to a religious practice is dangerous, in my opinion.

And yes, this is a nuanced view that is likely to draw derision from both those who feel that Christians should “abstain from all appearance of evil,” i.e. the political process or that Christians should form their own PACs and force the government to bow to our will.

4 Dave Miller January 24, 2013 at 1:30 pm

I thought the story circulating this week about how John Piper actually went to jail as a part of an abortion protest was intriguing.

5 Frank L. January 24, 2013 at 11:47 pm

Dave, I’ve had the honor of being led off to the pokey for simply holding a sign at a Carole King rally for choice.

I would not give up my spot that I had been holding for hours in the rain to a democratic supporter. The Democratic supporter asked a police friend (in uniform) to intervene.

Fortunately for me, my police friend out-ranked his police friend. The Chief of Police was a friend of mine.

I did fully realize that there is often a price to pay for one’s principles. My price would have been a very, very, very small one to pay even if I’d been “booked.”

I greatly respect people who act upon their principles, even if they differ from mine. I get a bit ticked when people only act by attacking the principles others hold without demonstrating any of their own.

6 Jess Alford January 24, 2013 at 2:04 pm

I wish there were no such things as abortions. I was reading in the Huff
Post that the EEOC have several lawsuits filed against companies that discriminated against pregnant women. The companies fired these women simply for becomming pregnant. The Family Health and Leave Act of 1993 was fought against by companies and the Republican Party.

I am not trying to get political here, but this country is in a mess. We just don’t know who to believe. We must turn to the scriptures and believe God.

The Republican party says it’s against abortion yet support companies large and small who are against women becomming pregnant. Which can result in abortion.

The Democrat Party makes me sick I’m sorry I ever cast a Democratic vote. Abortion is sin plain and simple. Again, I’m not trying to be political
even though I may sound like it, I hate politics and abortion. I’m guilty of being political in the past, that is a sin I have ask forgiveness for. One that I have to live with.

7 Rob Ayers January 24, 2013 at 7:20 pm

One party leaves them without a job. The other leaves them dead. Would I rather not have a job yet alive, or just dead? I am at a quandary here…

Rob

8 Frank L. January 24, 2013 at 11:50 pm

Rob, sometimes it is a bit slippery trying to traverse Jess’ stream of logic.

I get what Jess is saying though I agree it seems to be a very weak argument.

Too often we conflate issues that are totally unrelated and it only benefits the abortionists. The Devil thrives on chaos and confusion. The muddier the water, the more the Devil enjoys swimming in it.

9 Christiane January 24, 2013 at 4:59 pm

I would hope to read the comments of some Southern Baptist women in response to this post.

Section 4 is something that is most controversial, of course, among Christian people.

10 Dave Miller January 24, 2013 at 5:00 pm

I know a lot of Christian (and by that, I mean those who have repented of their sins and put their faith in Jesus Christ) women, and every single one of them is anti-abortion. I know there are a lot of religious folks and nominal Christians who still support killing babies inside the mother’s womb, but I have yet to meet a Christian (by the biblical definition) who supports that atrocity. I’m sure they exist, but not commonly.

I think Mike’s point is powerfully made – that supporting abortion gives evidence of a thought process that has not been conformed to Christ and brought under the authority of the written Word.

11 Frank L. January 24, 2013 at 11:51 pm

Dave, nicely put.

12 Rob Ayers January 24, 2013 at 7:10 pm

Christiane,

The question is not if it is controversial – that is incontrovertible. The question that you should ask is, “is it true?” At what point do you find Mike’s reasoning suspect in his argument of #4?

Is it 1)”Pregnancy as the result of rape or incest is horrendous”?
Is it 2)”It should be mourned and fought against”?
Is it 3)”Those committing such crimes should indeed be punished, and punished severely.” So far I don’t think you have a problem right?
4) I think you start going off the rails with the argument starting here: “But arguing… that it’s okay to abort a child that results from such evil is morally acceptable is backwards.” Why is this a problem to contemplate?
5) “Scripture proclaims that we should not overcome evil with evil but to overcome evil with good. You aren’t punishing the perpetrator by aborting your child. You are punishing the child and even yourself. A gospel changed heart overcomes evil with good.” The question here is not if this is palatable. The question is if this is true. Does Scripture teach ‘not to overcome evil with evil?’ Is the taking of a child by abortion an evil in every other circumstance? And if it is so, how does this circumstance of rape and incest negate the evil performed? The rest of Mike’s reasoning is sound. Why do you not think so Christiane. I would really like your thoughts on this.

Rob

13 Christiane January 24, 2013 at 8:19 pm

Hi ROB AYERS . . .

the controversy I refer to is this one:

http://thehill.com/video/campaign/263985-santorum-mourdock-didnt-say-rape-was-a-gift-from-god

for the most part, men’s voices are heard on this subject, but where are the women’s voices ?

I think that the interjection of ‘God’s Will’ into the discussion by Mourdock DID introduce a new factor into the whole topic; and I do realize that Santorum wished to downplay any inference from Mourdock’s original statement.

I think women’s voices, especially the women of the Christian far-right, need to be heard concerning this controversy . . . I’m thinking, maybe they were . . . at the polls, when Mourdock was defeated?

What say you, ROB?

14 Rob Ayers January 25, 2013 at 12:33 am

Christiane,

You are interjecting the raw emotion of a great evil (rape) into a discussion of another evil (abortion) and wrangling politics into it as a leverage hot point. Madam, God made me a man by His sovereign will. I will never understand motherhood or truly understand the crime of rape on an innocent. My being a man and rape being evil does nothing to dissect the current argument at hand. Said in another way so that maybe you can understand plainly, “Two wrongs do not make a right.” That would be right if a man, or a woman demanded relief from an evil act that the relief itself was an evil act. You are suggesting that the end justifies the means – that in this special set of circumstances God is not aware of the consequences or penalty of sin. I do not believe God plays that way. Tell me – you enjoy quoting scripture at length that suits you – do you see any alternative to the Scriptural injunction that Mike quotes here, “not to overcome evil with evil.”?

Rob

15 Rob Ayers January 25, 2013 at 1:25 am

I might also add Christiane;

I am not being flippant when I say that while I am not a woman, I am extremely empathetic to the hurt that comes from this issue. I am certain that the women who voted for the other side of Mourdock felt he was unfeeling to a circumstance that he could never experience or appreciate. Nevertheless the God who understands all and appreciates all circumstances (who Himself took the world’s total pain for all ages on the cross) does not count opinions or votes for what is the moral and right thing to do. In fact for most of the history of humanity, we have been voting against Him. Yet He holds the majority of ONE. Always has – always will. He is the one who said you cannot overcome evil with evil, only good can overcome evil. Right?

16 Jess Alford January 24, 2013 at 8:31 pm

Rob Ayers,

I can go along with you to a point, but sometimes a mother by rape or incest may become mentally unstable to the point of taking her own life. I would like your answer on this issue.

17 Mike Leake January 24, 2013 at 8:36 pm

I’m not Rob, but I’ll answer. I’d use about the same argument as #4. The heart of a believer isn’t to preserve its own life at the expense of children.

18 Jess Alford January 25, 2013 at 2:54 pm

Mike Leake,

A believer can become severly mentally unstable under certain conditions. They are human, Your answer lacks substance.

19 Mike Leake January 25, 2013 at 3:12 pm

I’m not denying that a believer could become “severally mentally unstable under certain conditions”. Nor am I denying that a believer might even under such duress decide upon an abortion. But at that moment they are acting as if they are an unbeliever. Their actions are reflecting the heart of an unbeliever and not a believer.

Is your argument is that under cases of rape/incest when the mother is considering taking her own life we ought to allow an abortion so as not to lose both child and mother? If so, the woman at that point is moving from victim to perpetrator. That’s never helped anyone.

Besides, what if she doesn’t have this trauma hit her until the child is two years old. She’s so overcome by this that she is considering ending her own life and that of the child. Is she charged with murder?

So, what’s the difference?

20 Jess Alford January 25, 2013 at 5:04 pm

Mike Leake,

This is my answer to #19. If at 1:00 AM there is a crash at my door and I wake up enough to make it to my gun,
I see a man with his face covered with a pistol in his hand. I shoot him and he falls to the floor, am I acting like a Christian or an unconverted sinner? according to your logic the truth is comming out and I’m just an unconverted sinner. (Thou shalt not kill).

I submit to you that in the case of incest or rape when someone is traumatized and kills the perpetrator are they an unconverted sinner? (Thou shalt not kill).

If some is traumatized enough and they become mentally unstable and wants to get rid of the perpetrators baby. (Remember I said mentally unstable). According to your logic she is an unconverted sinner because what is within is comming out. I sincerely hope you really don’t feel that way.

A very close friend of mine lost a son, it devastated him. Later he confessed to me that he had put a 45 automatic to his head several times. He also confessed Christ as Saviour.

When I lost my two daughters I can tell you I didn’t care if I lived or died. I thought seriously about taking my own life.
I was mentally unstable and just didn’t know it. When one doesn’t know it, this is the dangerous stage. If I had taken my life would that have made me an unconverted sinner? absolutely not….Every one that my Heavenly Father giveth me I have kept and not one is lost.

We shouldn’t pretend to know what a woman, boy, or girl goes through when something like this happens to them. We all need more compassion.

21 Mike Leake January 25, 2013 at 5:16 pm

Jess,
I believe that my statement “Their actions are reflecting the heart of an unbeliever and not a believer” is not as clear as it could have been. Hence the confusion.

I am not arguing that a person who commits suicide–or even one that commits abortion–is necessarily an unconverted sinner. But what I am arguing is that in that moment they are acting in unbelief.

As far as your story of 1:00 am shooting someone in your house…that’s an entirely different discussion.

I’m not lacking in compassion. This isn’t a discussion about what I would say in a counseling session with someone that had been raped and is considering abortion. This is a theoretical discussion that you brought about the life of the child in the case of a distressed mother that is considering suicide. And my answer to this (not to the mother considering suicide) is that if she does this she is moving from victim to perp. Obviously, if I were talking with her I’d stand behind this truth but my words would be much different.

22 Mike Leake January 25, 2013 at 5:19 pm

PS–I’m sorry for the pain that you have experienced with the loss of your daughters. You aren’t the only one that has battled darkness of such a state that suicide felt like the best option. As one that still battles darkness at times I feel you.

http://www.mikeleake.net/2011/12/preparing-for-when-light-goes-out.html

23 Rob Ayers January 24, 2013 at 8:58 pm

Jess,

I see Mike has answered his own argument. There are a lot of issues out there, “tough” ones that we could probably find that would cause many (including me or you) to consider the ultimate in taking their own life. That does nothing with the scriptural admonition, “…you shall not overcome evil with evil.” In this case the evil on the other side of the ledger you hypothesize is the taking of two lives: both the victim (through suicide) and the child. You could answer that in this case that abortion is better than suicide – the taking of one life versus the removal of two. I don’t think God plays with John Stuart Mill on the best of days – the “greater good” is still the saving of all life, not the elimination of it.

Rob

24 Frank L. January 24, 2013 at 9:23 pm

Thanks Rob. That is an excellent summation.

The Defense of the Unborn, rests.

25 Greg Buchanan January 25, 2013 at 12:01 pm

This is ONLY controversial in the abstract for those without a heart.

I personally know women who have been raped who would NEVER have aborted a resultant baby.

Their reasoning: THE BABY DID NOTHING TO ME AND IT WILL NOT BE PUNISHED WITH DEATH FOR ITS EXISTENCE.

It did not result in a baby, but the next decision would be to raise the baby or put up for adoption. But never abortion.

26 Jon January 24, 2013 at 5:10 pm

I believe abortion and euthanasia are (usually) wrong. The bigger issue I see is that life is often not seen as a gift, nor is it recognized as something to be offered up to God. We affirm life when we realize we are created in God’s image to worship him and to reflect him in service.

27 Dave Miller January 24, 2013 at 5:56 pm

usually?

28 Christiane January 24, 2013 at 7:07 pm

An ectopic pregnancy is a pregnancy that occurs outside the womb (uterus). It is a life-threatening condition to the mother. The baby (fetus) cannot survive.

Medically, to prevent internal bleeding and the resultant going into shock, physicians recommend terminating the abnormal pregnancy.

29 Christiane January 24, 2013 at 7:22 pm

What do Southern Baptist Christian people say in cases where a fetus (baby) is not going to make it,
either because of a mother’s severe illness, or an ectopic pregnancy;

and the decision to operate is done with the PURPOSE of saving the life of the mother,

and in the course of that surgery, the pregnancy is terminated, although the termination was not sought as the PRIMARY purpose of the surgery;

the primary purpose being to save the mother’s life.

This is a question that involves a moral response and it most certainly does have something to do with the value of all human life.

I know what my own faith teaches in cases like this, but I do not know what Southern Baptists believe is right in such cases.

I would appreciate some comments, if someone cares to respond, either for themselves, or someone who is knowledgeable about Southern Baptist moral ethics concerning cases like this.

30 Frank L. January 24, 2013 at 9:25 pm

This so rarely happens that it really amounts to a red herring in regard to the abortion issue.

To entertain an answer would suggest otherwise.

31 Mike Leake January 24, 2013 at 10:06 pm

I agree that its a red herring. Personally, I don’t consider this abortion.

32 Christiane January 24, 2013 at 10:11 pm

Thank you both for your responses.

33 Joe Blackmon January 24, 2013 at 10:17 pm

What do Southern Baptist Christian people say in cases where a fetus (baby) is not going to make it,
either because of a mother’s severe illness, or an ectopic pregnancy;

This is not an abortion. You’re welcome.

34 Dale Pugh January 24, 2013 at 11:38 pm

You can find the resolutions pased by the SBC at SBC.net.

35 Bill Fortenberry January 30, 2013 at 11:55 pm

Christiane,

You are mistaken to conclude that neither the mother nor the child can survive an ectopic pregnancy. I have uncovered hundreds of cases in which both have survived quite well. In fact, my research has shown that, with proper medical care, the mother has a greater than 99% chance of surviving and the child has at least a 25% chance. You can read my research online at: http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/ectopic-personhood.html

36 cb scott January 25, 2013 at 12:22 pm

L’s,

If I remember correctly, you do have some form of medical training (maybe not) so you full well know that an ectopic pregnancy is never, not ever, considered to be a “legitimate” pregnancy (I use the word ‘legitimate’ for lack of a better word due the fact that I am not a OBGYN and do not know a better term.)

L’s, if I am correct about you having medical training, it is the utmost of hypocrisy on your part to even interject this argument into this comment thread.

It is my opinion that you were seeking ignorance on the part of those on this thread in order to make an ungodly point from your left-wing, pseudo-faith platform.

As I have now read their responses to you, it is evident you failed in your twisted desires to ridicule and demean conservative, biblical Christianity once again.

Why don’t you just give it up, repent of your hatred and evil ways and embrace the biblical gospel? Otherwise . . . well, you already know your final destination if you don’t.

37 Christiane January 25, 2013 at 2:08 pm

C.B.
what are you talking about?

38 Christiane January 27, 2013 at 1:09 pm

C.B. What are you talking about?
Some explanation is important here, as some of the content of your comment is confusing and I need to know your source of information concerning me.

This is important. Please respond.

39 Jon January 24, 2013 at 6:14 pm

Euthanasia is always wrong. I suspect abortion would be, too. But I’ve often thought I was so sure about something and quite certain the Bible itself taught it directly or by implication, yet I was not a few times wrong. Hence the qualifier.

40 Dave Miller January 24, 2013 at 6:38 pm

I made a stupid pun here, but came to believe that levity on a post like this is out of place, so I deleted it (and the response to it).

41 Jon January 24, 2013 at 6:42 pm

Well I understood perfectly: Being from the Northeast I’m perhaps sardonic. I suppose Iowans are far less given to that.

42 Dave Miller January 24, 2013 at 6:47 pm

I actually have a black belt in sarcasm. But I got to thinking that a post about abortion might not be the best place to display it.

43 Jon January 24, 2013 at 6:51 pm

But the bigger question is….does the sarcasm owe itself to a midwestern quirk or is it’s origin elsewhere? I suppose you might have grown up outside Iowa.

44 Dave Miller January 24, 2013 at 7:15 pm

Grew up in Iowa.

45 Jon January 24, 2013 at 7:18 pm

That’s good. Everytime I go across country I take the midwestern route, because the American midwest is arguably the safest place on earth!

46 Christiane January 25, 2013 at 3:15 am

What I think about Christian evangelical women is conjecture, and it is this:
if Christian evangelical women agreed with the likes of Akin and Mourdock, those men would be sitting in the United States Senate today. (The disparity between the women’s votes for Romney in those two states shows that they supported Romney but did not support Akin or Mourdock.)

I would still like to see some comment from Southern Baptist women on the topic of number 4 especially, and I remain hopeful of getting insight into their thinking concerning that. I, of course, respect DAVID’s comment on my hope, but the absence of Southern Baptist women’s comments here is a new concern for me. Maybe tomorrow. :)

Men speaking for women or in the place of women is not what I was after here, but I do remain thankful for those who did respond to some of my questions and concerns.

47 cb scott January 25, 2013 at 8:03 am

Mike Leake,

Thank you for writing this post. It reflects thoughtfulness on your part and invokes thinking on the part of the reader (me).

Almost every year during the month of January someone will ask me to speak in a worship service, Sunday School Class, Brotherhood meeting, WMU function or some Pro-life event and tell the story of presenting the Sanctity of Human Life motion to the Baptist Sunday School Board (LifeWay) back in ’87.

They are usually shocked that although the majority of the 91 trustees served a Southern Baptist church as pastor the motion was voted down the first time I presented it. They are more shocked when I tell them the president and the administration of the BSSB fought against the motion tooth and nail.

It was almost two years before we gained a biblically conservative majority to pass the motion to put a Sanctity of Human Life lesson in all Sunday School material the third Sunday in January every year until Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Many Baptists are also usually shocked when I tell them the Messengers to the SBC in St. Louis voted in support of abortion on demand in 1971.

I think many or most Southern Baptists have come to see the truth that abortion is murder. But, it is obvious that not all have. And sadly, I fear, some never will. May God have mercy on us. May God have mercy on a bloody nation. And may a bloody nation repent and may the Church of the Living God lead the way.

48 Jess Alford January 25, 2013 at 7:40 pm

Mike Leake,

Thank you for clearing things up for me. Keep up the good work.

49 Joe Blackmon January 24, 2013 at 9:44 pm

Frank,

For all the people who belly ache endlessly about “rape and incest”, I would like to point out one very cogent, often overlooked fact. ABORION IS NOT LEGAL ONLY IN THOSE CASES!!!! You can have an abortion for any reason and no reason. The fact is, the people who blather about rape and incest share two things in common–(1) They would give everything they could to keep abortion on demand in ALL cases legal without any question or limitation whatsoever and (2) They all just so happen to no longer be in the womb and in danger of an abortion.

50 rick January 24, 2013 at 10:53 pm

Frank and Mike,

As someone who had to sit across the desk and answer the question the doctor asks, “If it comes down to it, do you want me to save the baby or your wife?” this is not a red herring.

And you may think it a rare happening, but I had to answer it five times.

I praise God that it never came to a choice and I have five healthy kids, but I might suggest that such comments may not be well received in your congregation. You may not know what some parents had to go through just to have their children and to be so flippant about a matter that caused us enormous emotional anguish and turmoil is unbecoming of any Christian, especially one who should be ministering to those grappling with the issue.

Let’s just say if I were in your congregations and had to face this issue today, I wouldn’t be coming to you two to talk about it.

51 Frank L. January 24, 2013 at 11:07 pm

Rick,

You can take the “I was a victim so I know more than you” approach if you want to. As someone that has buried his child, lost a grandchild, and is currently supporting a daughter with a difficult pregnancy, I think I qualify as “been there, done that.”

You can whine and attack all you want and you still will not change the statistical fact that “supporting abortion because of issues with the mother’s life” is an extremely rare event — howbeit just as tragic for those who must endure it.

Be careful to hold on tight sitting on your high horse.

Mike is absolutely correct in distinguishing the difference between surgery that may endanger the baby, and a procedure, the goal of which is to kill the baby.

We are not talking about what one would say in counseling, so your parting shot rings hollow.

52 Mike Leake January 24, 2013 at 11:09 pm

You’ve misunderstood my sparse comments. In no way am I attempting to minimize the pain and difficulty of such decisions. My point is that in the abortion debate it’s a red herring b/c this isn’t even the issue when we talk about the legality of abortion. It’s a separate issue altogether. But what has happened is that “life of the mother” is now “total well-being” of the mother.

53 Jess Alford January 25, 2013 at 2:43 pm

rick,

You are 100% correct, it happens. You’ve made the right decision each time. No matter what anyone thinks. I am against abortion,
but I have enough sense to know I would have made the same decision.

54 Frank L. January 24, 2013 at 11:10 pm

PS — Not every pregnant woman when forced to decide between her life “or” the baby chooses self-preservation.

Some, choose the life of their unborn child. There have been many such cases of mothers making this choice. My wife is past child-bearing age, but if my daughter was faced with such a choice, I would reluctantly and with great sorrow mixed with pride, accept her decision.

55 rick January 24, 2013 at 11:29 pm

I agree with your PS, Frank. You will note that I didn’t post what my answer was. Nor will I. That’s a personal decision we made as a couple and isn’t a public affair.

Thanks for the smack-down guys. I appreciate the benefit of the doubt that it was a misunderstanding. I would agree that the pro-abortion camp arguing “life of the mother” is a red herring. But what doesn’t seem to have come across is that there are a number of us who’ve faced the issue and tend to be just a bit more sensitive to things than the jingoistic partisans.

And just to tick Frank off a little more, can I ask how many women in his church have had abortions? One of the things about the abortion statistics is that when we see how many babies are killed in a year, that’s how many not-mothers there are out there. And how welcome are they in our churches as women in need of God’s grace? I have run into Baptist preachers who have proudly stated that no girl or woman in his church has ever had an abortion. Could be that they didn’t feel welcome there so they left. Or never started in the first place. I wonder how effective our “hate the sin but love the sinner” approach translates to the other victims of abortion – the not-moms.

56 Dale Pugh January 25, 2013 at 12:49 am

What if she chose to preserve her own life?

57 Frank L. January 24, 2013 at 11:36 pm

“” can I ask how many women in his church have had abortions?””

My closest friend and one of the greatest servants I’ve served alongside of in church.

At least two other women, though they do not talk about it much.

In fact, my dear friend lived in agony of the decision for over 40 years until I became her pastor. With a deep sense of conviction and much pain she admitted her grievous error with my support.

So, once again, “careful way up there on your high horse.”

58 Frank L. January 24, 2013 at 11:37 pm

PS — Once again, Rick, your logic betrays you.

There is a world of difference between being a “non-mom” (your term) and being “dead.”

59 Rob Ayers January 25, 2013 at 11:26 am

There are consequences for any choice. That is not flippant; that is reality. In these cases, choice A and choice B are both potentially tragic – I don’t envy any person placed in such a predicament – my heart goes to them – my prayers and support and love are theirs unconditionally no matter what happens. I hope that their choice is rooted rock solid in faith that God will be found in their choice, but I understand that sometimes in some circumstances that faith can be weak, so therefore I will not judge, just support. I imagine that is what most Pastors and clear thinking Christians would do.

Rob

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: