"Membership in the family of God is neither inconsequential or something to be casually ignored. The church is God's agenda for the world. Jesus said, "I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it." The church is indestructable and will exist for eternity. It will outlive this universe, and so will your role in it."
- Rick Warren
Thursday, January 24, 2013
John Piper writes on the abortion tragedy in America:
We have killed fifty million babies. And what increases our guilt as a nation is that we know what we are doing. Here’s the evidence that we know we are killing children.I recommend you read the whole thing.
1. Anecdotally, abortionists will admit they are killing children.
Many simply say it is the lesser of two evils. I took an abortionist out to lunch once, prepared to give him ten reasons why the unborn are human beings. He stopped me, and said, “I know that. We are killing children.” I was stunned. He said, “It’s simply a matter of justice for women. It would be a greater evil to deny women the equal right of reproductive freedom.” Which means women should be no more encumbered by the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy than men. That equal freedom from the burden of bearing unwanted children is the basis for abortion that President Obama refers to again and again when he talks about equal rights for women. We know we are killing children.
2. States treat the killing of the unborn as a homicide.
We know what we are doing because 38 States (including Minnesota) treat the killing of an unborn child as a form of homicide. They have what are called “fetal homicide laws.”
It is illegal to take the life of the unborn if the mother wants the baby, but it is legal to take the life of the unborn if she doesn’t. In the first case the law treats the fetus as a human with rights; in the second case the law treats the fetus as non-human with no rights.
Humanness is defined by the desire of the strong. Might makes right. We reject this right to define personhood in the case of Nazi anti-Semitism, Confederate race-based slavery, and Soviet Gulags. When we define the humanness of the unborn by the will of the powerful we know what we are doing.
3. Fetal surgery treats the unborn as children and patients.
High risk pregnancy specialist, Dr. Steve Calvin, in a letter some years ago to the Arizona Daily Star, wrote, “There is inescapable schizophrenia in aborting a perfectly normal 22 week fetus while at the same hospital, performing intra-uterine surgery on its cousin.” When the unborn are wanted, they are treated as children and patients. When they are not wanted, they are not children. We know what we are doing.
I was alive when Roe v. Wade was decided, though I was not really aware of the abortion issue. I remember throughout the seventies and eighties the general pro-abortion argument broke down into two main categories. The first was "we don't really know if a fetus is alive", which is the old "when does life begin" debate. The second was framed as a compassionate "quality of life" stance. "No child should ever be unwanted" (a sentiment I heartily agree with) justified the killing of those who's mothers didn't want them.
Time has passed. We know far more about what's going on in the womb now than we did forty years ago, and so you hear the first argument less and less. Oddly enough, you hear the second argument less and less as well.
We know what we are doing.
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/6769.
Comments on ""We Know They Are Killing Children"":
2. nhe
- 01/24/2013 5:43 pm CST
This is a fascinating post. The shift to "admit" they are killing children is pretty startling.
How widespread is this concession?
Aren't "most" pro-choice folks still clinging to one of the two arguments you mentioned?
I would think they would have to, as it seems to me that admitting this really makes their position indefensible.
3. Shrode
- 01/24/2013 8:07 pm CST
Great post Bill.
I mean, the subject is terrible, awful and horrific.
But this is a good post on the subject.
thank you.
Roe V. Wade was decided a few months after I was born. I can remember reading in my 5th grade textbook that my generation was called the "echo baby boom" because we were to be just a tiny bit smaller generation than our parents' - the baby boomers. That was the expectation...before our numbers were decimated by abortion. So then they called us the baby busters because the expected echo boom never happened...we were a bust. That was just before the term "generation x" caught on.
I have tried hard to find the statistics...but have been unable to find out how many of my peers I'm missing because they were slaughtered before they were born.
Kids today ought to wear Tshirts that say "I survived my mother's womb."
New bumbersticker idea: "If you can read this, thank your mom for not aborting you."
Oh Lord. Hosanna, Hosanna, Hosanna. (Save Now. Save Now. Save Now.)
4. Shrode
- 01/24/2013 8:45 pm CST
Tom,
Nice try. Seriously.
But it won't work. Neither side would give on that one.
For Pro-lifers life begins at conception. "You knit me together in my mother's womb". It's going to be hard to convince people (including me. :-) that God doesn't start working on a person until after 23 days. (3 weeks)
For Pro-abortionists - limiting "a woman's choice to 3 weeks after conception would be unacceptable since most women don't even know they are pregnant before 3 weeks. That would be way too "constricting" on a woman's right, from their perspective. I'll prove it. Try and propose 15 weeks after conception as the cutoff to a pro-abortionist. They wouldn't even take that I bet, let alone 3 weeks after conception.
5. Tom Kelly
- 01/24/2013 9:19 pm CST
I am pro-life and don't see where "You knit me together in my mother's womb" somehow makes life begin at conception. God's knitting on each of us began with Adam and Eve, well before our conceptions.
"Life is in the blood" is a direct reference to life. The link between "...womb" and conception is indirect at best. The simplest and most straight forward in context meaning of scripture is usually held to be the most accurate.
The scriptural evidence, to me, is that God Himself does not believe that life begins at conception.
You are correct that the pro-abortionists will not accept this. But it is not the pro-lifers or the pro-abortionists who decide the political battle. It is the low information voters who may very well like the idea of a compromise.
6. Bill
- 01/24/2013 10:34 pm CST
You are correct that the pro-abortionists will not accept this. But it is not the pro-lifers or the pro-abortionists who decide the political battle. It is the low information voters who may very well like the idea of a compromise.
Tom, it would be a very rare person who would see this as a compromise. As Phil pointed out, this would make most abortions illegal, since most women don't know they are pregnant before the third week.
It would be - principles aside - a clear win for the pro-life side, because it would drastically reduce the number of abortions.
But I'm with Phil - I don't see it ever happening, and I don't think most people out there would accept the Bible as authoritative based on the passage cited.
7. Shrode
- 01/24/2013 11:16 pm CST
Tom, you wrote: God Himself does not believe that life begins at conception.
If we accept Frank Gaebelein's premise that "All truth is God's truth" and I do, I think it's very Scriptural...then what Science tells us is God's truth.
Science tells us that life begins at conception. Scientifically speaking, when the egg is fertilized it becomes a living cell. Therefore, God believes that life begins at conception because he made the world and all the natural laws and processes within it.
"life" is when when something receives nourishment and grows. When the egg is fertilized, and the cells are dividing, and this ______ with it's own unique DNA different than the mother's begins to grow, it's alive. That's a very simple, provable, demonstrable scientific fact. (If it wasn't alive, it wouldn't be called abortion. It would be called surgery.)
Now "life" also describes bacteria, your tonsils, and plants, so the fact that the zygote (is that what they call it?) is alive doesn't in and of itself mean it deserves protection.
A better statement of the dispute should be "when personhood begins".
That's what you are really talking about here, is not "life", but "personhood". When does this cell/embryo/zygote/fetus/baby become a person?
The law of our land (decided by our unelected supreme court) is that personhood does not begin until someone is outside of his or her mother's womb. Individual states can extend personhood to an unborn baby only on those occasions when the mother wants the baby, and so in those cases, the mother has been granted the authority to decide personhood. (Example - a 22 week old fetus being aborted in one room of a hospital, while surgery is being done on another 22 week old in the other room OR the fact that so many states prosecute you for murder if you kill an unborn child that the mother wants to keep.)
Our supreme court says that the constitution only recognizes the inalienable rights of born people.
I think God Disagrees. I think God believes personhood begins at conception. At the moment of creation. At the moment when there is new life, with its own dna and it begins to grow. It's a person. Unique from the mother. In her body, but not a part of her body.
Isn't what you are saying similar to a Jewish position on the subject? (I can't remember exactly, but what you are saying sounds familiar...I think some Rabbi's teach something like what you are proposing.)
Oh and Tom, another question:
Originally you said "an idea for a Bible inspired compromise". I thought you were just proposing it, but now it appears from your response that you actually believe what you proposed. In other words, the "compromise" you suggested is actually your position. Correct?
I don't think that the pro-choicers would see it as much of a compromise. They'd think it went too far towards the pro-lifers. (I like your insight about low information voters though. Good point.)
I come back to an argument I got from Greg Koukle - If you even THINK something might be a human person, wouldn't the right thing to do, be to err on the side of caution and NOT kill it?
The example he uses is hunting. If you hear a sound in the bushes, and you don't know if it's a person or game, do you open fire? Of course not. Why not? Because it MIGHT be a human, and killing a human is such a horrible thing that you would rather let a deer get away than to kill a person. The cost, if you are wrong, is just too high.
So if there's doubt about the personhood of this human cell/embryo/zygote/fetus, shouldn't we err on the side of NOT killing it?
I think that argument applies to your 3 week theory as well. Even if there's a 99% chance you are right, shouldn't the 1% chance that you are wrong and we are killing babies, be enough to stop you from supporting abortions prior to 3 weeks?
8. Tom Kelly
- 01/25/2013 3:07 pm CST
This is an idea I've had for about 20 years and every so often I will throw it into a forum to get some response.
When it comes to my belief, I believe that God and all committed Christians want to see as many abortions stopped as soon as possible. This is a political, not theological, position for me.
However my theology is pretty flexible when it comes to unknowable truth. I do believe that the scriptural evidence for the beginning of "personhood life" is stronger for the beginning of blood flow than it is for conception. This flow of blood concept is not a single verse, it is a major theme of the entire Bible.
Just as 1st century Jews did not generally recognize Jesus as the messiah, I believe there are a whole lot of 21st century Christian beliefs that are rooted more in tradition than in the Word of God and using the "in the womb" verse to extend personhood to conception when it nowhere says that MAY be one such case.
But back to the point. Right now, under present law and practice throughout the world, millions of prebirth persons are being killed ever year. There seems no likely way to stop this without a political compromise. Isn't giving an inch on personhood worth the lives saved, especially when there is scripture to stand on?
10. Tony
- 01/26/2013 12:36 pm CST
However my theology is pretty flexible when it comes to unknowable truth.
How about the origin of the soul for unknowable truth? What about traducianism? Where the soul of the offspring is derived from the souls of the parents (through conception). This implies that God doesn't create souls directly, I know. Or even if God created the soul - doesn't matter I guess; at what point does God deliver the soul to the body? At conception or day 23? We don't know about the soul aspect even if we had the material all figured out. So shouldn't we err on the side of caution?
11. Tom Kelly
- 01/27/2013 9:30 am CST
We will not err if we leave to God what is known only to God.
The origin of the soul is not unknowable but the timing is. In Genesis, God explicitly tells us where everything comes from, what is created directly by him and what is made from the previously created.
He did not "speak to the earth" to create us. He spoke to Himself ("let us") as we are not of the earth but of Him.
Our souls come from God, are sustained by God, and are meant to return to God.
God did not create a conception soul in Adam and Eve so there is no reason I can think of that He could not place a soul into you and me at any time of his choosing.
Leave a Comment:
An idea for a Bible inspired compromise:
In Leviticus 17:11 and indeed a major theme throughout the Bible, "life is in the blood". No blood means no life.
With modern technology, pregnancy can be detected prior to their being flowing blood in the fetus, around day 23.
It therefore seems a reasonable compromise to allow "abortion" before then and disallow abortion after then, since we would then not be killing off what the Bible defines as life.