Monday musing: What's wrong with "choice"?

A lot has been written lately about abortion advocates dropping the "pro-choice" label.

• Planned Parenthood Steers Clear of ‘Choice’ and ‘Life’
• The End of Pro-Choice: Will 'No Labels' Really Help the Abortion Debate?
• Abortion proponents now totally confused about what to call themselves
• When Our Labels Fail: The End of 'Pro-Choice
• “Pro-Choice” Passé? Much more than that behind PPFA’s shift in language
• Embracing cognitive dissonance?
• Pro-Choice: What Does It Mean?

While I can understand why they don't want to be "pro-abortion," I'm not all that clear on why they're suddenly anti-"choice." It seems they regret not nabbing "pro-life" before we did. Of course, I think "pro-death" seems more appropriate, but I was willing to give them "choice."

This very public shrugging-off of a label (which they, ironically, chose) is like a gawky teenager who can't quite find comfortable clothes. Why are our opponents having such a hard time?

I think it's because they've always been unwilling to come to terms with the consequences of choice. They have habitually wanted to have their cake without calories.

Some do admit abortion ends life, but instead of taking that to heart and saying, "You know what, that choice isn't worth it" or "This is a bad choice," they persist in upholding the freedom to choose abortion at all costs. In the language of Proverbs, that would be the definition of foolishness.

Religious abortion advocates argue from the free will angle. God made us with a mind and a will, they reason, therefore we have the right to choose.

Well, yes, but from Eden on we've seen where that's taken us. As Isaiah 53:6 shows, we have all exercised freedom of choice and to that God has attached His own label: "iniquity."

The end of choice

So what's the point of abandoning "pro-choice"? Is it an admission that the exercise of choice isn't an end in itself? I don't think they're there yet, but maybe it's an opening. If only they could bring themselves to make a good confession, starting with the words of Jeremiah 8:6 -- "What have I done?" If only they wouldn't continue headlong on a reckless path.

Choices have consequences. They either make God smile or frown. That's Theology 101.

Abortion rights advocates often say, "Although I'd never have one, I'll fight for your right to abortion." But why never have one if abortion is morally neutral? Why are they so like the Fonz, never able to admit, "It's w-w-w-wr-wrong"?

They emphasize the agony of the process of choosing abortion over any physical agony the aborted child might experience. It's as though the pain of the abortion decision will validate its choice, mitigate any "wrongness," and temper any future pangs of remorse the woman might feel.

Abortion advocates say, "Abortion may not be a good choice, but it's less bad than others," (i.e., living in poverty due to having this child, being unable to cope with a disabled child, having less to give my children already born, etc.). Such excuses may help justify abortion to themselves, but can they do so successfully with God? Have they consulted Him or sought His help avoiding abortion? Have they actually found Him wanting, or just assumed He doesn't care and can't help?

When a woman is pregnant, she has three options: give birth and parent, give birth and release the child for adoption, or have the child aborted. Each choice has permanent consequences. No responsible pro-life person would ever say carrying a child and giving birth is without pain and hardship, or that parenting is always joyful. Adoption is its own kind of hard. But abortion is a whole other thing altogether.

Abortion means a child is dead. A unique human life is gone from us into eternity. In more ways than one, abortion is the end of choice.

In an NPR interview Friday, an author identified her book's main character as a "bad choicer." She goes on to describe him:

I don't think he's an irredeemable bad person. I think he's a bad, bad choicer. Part of what's wonderful about writing, and reading too, is you can see yourself on the same continuum, you know, to wonder, 'What would I do, if I were more desperate than I am? Or am I three or four mistakes away from doing something like this, something unimaginable to me right now?' 

Some choices are bad; some people choose badly. Abortion is, or ought to be, in the category of "unimaginable choices."

Many women today look back on their abortions with deep regret. Yet, like the character in the book, they are not irredeemably bad. Having examined abortion and the thought-process that led them to it, they've repented before God and accepted His forgiveness in Christ. They now warn others away from the brink.

The consequences of our choice

What about the consequences of being pro-life? Have each of us reckoned with how it obligates us to help pregnant women? Do we expect them to make hard choices without our lending a hand or an ear? Are we trusting God with them for help avoiding temptation? Are we living by the faith we say we have?

Related: A Christian appeals to his pro-choice neighbor

Friday feature: Abortion doctors

The media is always full of stories about abortion in January, but this being the 40th anniversary there seems to be an added focus. I've noticed a trend of feature articles putting a positive spin on the lives of abortion doctors:

• Forty Years After Roe, Abortion Doctors Still Fear For Their Safety
• Sundance 2013: 'After Tiller' puts a face on abortion doctors
• Inside an Oklahoma Abortion Clinic
• Roe at 40: ‘It’s never been this frightening before.’
• Abortions Are Safe When Performed By Nurses Practitioners, Physician Assistants and Certified Nurse Midwives, California Study Shows

This bias is countered by these stories:

• Pro-Lifers See 1,500th Abortion Clinic Close, Now Only 660 Remain
• Most doctors now refuse to do abortions
• “Beautiful, Immaculate, Clean” Abortion Clinics? Hardly
• Records: failed abortions at Muskegon clinic
• Pregnancy centers play key role in fight for life
• Even this, from the NY Times - Pregnancy Centers Gain Influence in Anti-Abortion Fight
• 3801 Lancaster - documentary on Kermit Gosnell's 'house of horrors' clinic
• Abortion abuses and state regulatory agency failure - RTL of Michigan
• Former Abortion Worker: I Held Up Feet to Check the Dead Baby’s Age

I could go on, but you get the idea. Just be sure not to miss these two articles:

• 10 Very Surprising Quotes From Abortion Doctors
• The real truth about abortion from the mouths of abortion workers

Please pray for abortion doctors and their supporters. They need the Savior. The truth will set them free (John 8:34,36).

UPDATE: Two stories from the week of 2/8/13 add to the pile of "things that abortion clinics must answer for" -- Carhart Patient Dead From Horrific 33-Week Abortion Injuries and Ambulance Transported Another Sella Patient to Hospital Moments Before Board Dismissed Negligence Charges. 

Monday musing: 40 years too long, 55 million too many

Tomorrow marks the 40th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in this country. Most Supreme Court cases fade into history, but this one remains far from settled.

All you have to do is glance at recent headlines to find evidence of that. The news this time of year is full of stories about where we are as a nation as a result of Roe -- pro and con. Depending on the point of view, the stories usually reference how far there is left to go in "securing abortion rights," or how much ground we've gained toward full protection of unborn babies' right to life.

One recurring theme concerns numbers: How many abortions there have been since 1973 (54,559,615 in the U.S.*); how many per year worldwide (approximately 44 million*); how many pro-life laws have been passed; or how many tax-dollars Planned Parenthood gets from the government each day ($1.5 million).

Numbers can boggle the mind, but don't tend to move people to lasting action. They seem to only make us angry or overwhelm us into inaction. And then we're on to the next atrocity.

Meanwhile, which side is winning or losing is scored with as much precision as presidential election polling, but we really don't know the pro-life side has won until a "vote" is cast . . . until a woman chooses life for her child. And we only get that information if we're privy to the counseling room in a pregnancy care center, or to conversations taking place on the sidewalk at an abortion clinic.

You can also feel closer to the "action" through involvement with a pro-life ministry as a regular supporter and/or prayer warrior. If you're not enlisted that way already, I recommend finding a "front lines" pro-life ministry to pray for. Choose one that's good at communicating prayer requests on a regular (even daily) basis via Facebook, Twitter, or email. It could be a pregnancy center in your  neighborhood or across the ocean. We can make recommendations.

Numbers in the millions are too many to fathom, so concentrate on one at a time. One baby at risk. One mom tempted by abortion. One pregnancy care center offering abortion alternatives.

One life lost is too many. You can be sure one life is on the line right now.

One life at a time is, after all, what God demands an accounting of. In Genesis 9:5, He said:

"From every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man."

As God demanded an accounting from Cain over the loss of Abel, so God will demand from someone an account of every unborn baby lost to abortion. He doesn't miss a single one, even if the official counters do. The blood of the innocents cries out to Him (Gen. 4:10, Psalm 9:12).

America will have a lot of explaining to do, for first legalizing abortion and then exporting it around the world.

There's one more that needs our attention: the woman regretting her abortion at this moment. She needs to hear of the blood of Jesus "that speaks better word than the blood of Abel." It's a word of invitation, not accusation. He wants her to unload her burden of sin at His feet. He's offering forgiveness and a new life. We are privileged to bear that message.

*We're forced to rely on abortion providers and the government for figures on abortion because otherwise we'd have no access to them. Corrected 1/22/13: The link given above is to a National Right to Life compilation of figures through 2011; adding another year of 1.2 million abortions to the that total yields 55,772.015 abortions since Roe v. Wade.

Related:

Time & Abortion
Roe v. Wade: 40 years later

Roe v. Wade month - part 1, part 2

40 years after Roe, human dignity hangs in the balance
You Can Change Our Culture's Mind on Abortion - tools to use
Better Reporting for Abortions

Working Wednesday: Research

Coming back from a vacation that spanned the holidays, I had quite a bit of email to absorb. I thought I'd share with you a few news stories that surfaced while I was away. They reflect the kinds of things that I collect and later write about in this space.

• Fire Marshall Closes Abortion Clinic Someone broke into Women's Medical Services of Muskegon on or around Christmas day. When police responded, they found conditions so deplorable -- and unrelated to the break-in -- that they called in building inspectors and the fire marshall, who deemed the facility unsafe for occupation and shut it down. Operation Rescue notes they have additional information about "serious violations" at the clinic, but are keeping mum for now. Apparently, someone who formerly worked in the clinic has provided evidence. Citizens for a Pro-Life Society has been keeping its eye on the clinic's doctor, Robert L. Alexander, MD, for many years; they report he has a "troubled and checkered medical career." You can take part in a poll that asks whether this clinic should reopen or not. UPDATE from Operation Rescue listing some of the abuses. TV station reports that clinic will not reopen.

• The Bioarchaeology Of Care. Don't be turned off by the academic-sounding title. It's a fascinating story about the discovery of the remains of a severely disabled pre-historic man in Vietnam. What's so interesting about that? The evidence shows he "survived from early adolescence into adulthood completely paralyzed from the waist down and with very limited use of his upper body." He had to have been "[d]ependent on others for meeting his most basic needs . . . only possible because of the high-quality, dedicated, and time-consuming care he received." That's a revelation to archaeologists, and perhaps a challenge to evolutionists since it belies "survival of the fittest." The author of the article notes that, "Looking after those who are unable to look after themselves is a behavior that defines what it is to be human." Here's a New York Times digest version of the article: Ancient bones that tell a story of compassion. 

Maddalena Douse with her
mum and dad.

• Scissors save premature baby's life. In the UK, babies born weighing less than a pound are not considered viable and are left to die. Little Maddalena Douse's life was spared, however, because someone left a pair of scissors on the scale during her weigh-in, causing it to tilt in her favor. She's home now, after being on a ventilator for six months, and is expected to be perfectly healthy.

• Finally, this also from the UK: A 'dad' is tenth most popular Christmas list request for children. That despite the idea that any kind of family will do. According to The Christian Institute, only 14% of children in the UK are born into families where dad is married to mum. One-third of American children (15 million) are being raised without a father (compared to nearly five million who live without a mother).

Postscript: Assisted Suicide’s Dangerous Illusion of Control. It never fails. I hit 'publish' and then something new comes along that prompts me to add to my post. I'd read this article about elder abuse earlier in the day, then received a related email from a concerned individual. She wrote to tell me about the group National Association to Stop Guardianship Abuse. If you know someone who's vulnerable to this type of abuse, pay attention!

I guess if this post is about anything, it's taking care of life. If even "neolithic" societies could do it, so can we!

Monday musing: Is the biblical pro-life message ancient or modern?

Blogger Jonathan Dudley started something when he wrote "When Evangelicals Were Pro-Choice" (for CNN) and "How Evangelicals Decided that Life Begins at Conception" (for the Huffington Post).

His contention is that "what conservative Christians now say is the Bible’s clear teaching on [abortion] was not a widespread interpretation until the late 20th century." For proof, he cites individuals and groups who agreed with the legalization of abortion in some, if not all, circumstances in the late 60s and early 70s.

Dudley explains the migration to the current pro-life view as evangelicals falling under the influence of powerful leaders of the "Religious Right," such as Jerry Falwell. Christians should, in his view, "consider the possibility that they aren’t submitting to the dictates of a timeless biblical truth, but instead, to the goals of a well-organized political initiative only a little more than 30 years old."

Why does it matter that what evangelical leaders say is "the biblical view on abortion" was not a widespread interpretation until about 30 years ago? For one thing, it's harder to argue the Bible clearly teaches something when the overwhelming majority of its past interpreters didn't read the Bible that way. For another, it illustrates that evangelical leaders are happy to defend creative reinterpretations of the Bible when it fits with a socially conservative worldview -- even while objecting to new interpretations of the Bible on, say, homosexuality, precisely because they are new. And for another, by looking at the history of how today's "biblical view on abortion" arose, one can begin to see the worldview that made it possible. In the process, it becomes apparent it is that unacknowledged worldview, and not the Bible, that evangelical opponents of abortion are actually defending.

Several Christian writers generated helpful responses: Mark Galli of Christianity Today (here and here), John Stonestreet of Breakpoint, and Albert Mohler. I'd like to add a few points to the discussion:

• InterVarsity may have published (and then rescinded under pressure) a 1984 book that said abortion was legitimate in some instances, but it had already published Michael Gorman's Abortion and the Early Church in 1982. This book built the case that from its earliest days, the church opposed abortion.

• Regular Baptists, from which Life Matters Worldwide sprang, were solidly pro-life from the beginning. In 1971, two years before the Roe v. Wade decision, the GARBC (which would call themselves "fundamentalists" rather than "evangelicals)" acknowledged that "the sanctity of human life is well documented in Scriptures" and resolved to "go on record as being thoroughly opposed to abortion on demand."

• Diverse methods for interpreting Scripture -- in the past or today -- better explain why there's diversity in Christendom on abortion. Your stance on this issue has more to do with where you land on the errancy/inerrancy spectrum than anything else. Those who approach the Bible with a non-literal hermeneutic are the ones who come up with novel interpretations (concerning homosexuality, for instance), while we who take God's word literally have always maintained it's a sin. 

The same is true of abortion. Taking God's word at face value and employing grammatical-historical methods of interpretation, we are satisfied with statements about the personality of unborn humans as found in Genesis 16:11-12 and 25:22-24, Psalm 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:5, Hosea 12:2-3, Luke 1:15 and 41, and Galatians 1:15-16. 

• What hindered many Christians from early involvement in the pro-life movement was not lack of biblical support, but hesitancy to join the political fray. What increased the comfort-level with the pro-life movement for many evangelicals (and brought them into the political arena by the backdoor) were hands-on ministries such as pregnancy care centers that sprang up in the 1980s. PCCs gave them opportunities to prevent abortions by offering alternatives. They could serve families in their communities, reach out to women who'd already had abortions, and share the Gospel.  

Over time, our understanding has grown about just how pervasive the sanctity of human life ethic is in Scripture, and what we are called to do about it. More than a few proof-texts, it's a theme from Genesis to Revelation.

Every age has been confronted by challenges that require Christians to go to work "rightly dividing the word of truth." If, as Peter says, "His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness," then we are equipped to handle questions that didn't necessarily arise in the 1st century -- or the 3rd, or the 13th.

No, the word "abortion" never appears in the Bible, but if you study topics such as violence or the murder of innocent people, you'll find those are the domain of wicked people. Furthermore, the treatment of widows and orphans as well as all poor people is also tied to the sanctity of human life. Thus, if you make a move to strike someone, or abandon a hungry person to her own devices, you're placing them at risk of death -- their blood would be on your hands.

Abortion is nothing if it is not violent; it is the ultimate injustice. The pregnant mother and her unborn child must not be abandoned. We are learning what to do when it comes to this issue.

Postscript 12/6/12: Here's a pertinent article by Phil Cooke that appeared on a Huffington Post blog -- How Christianity Lost Its Voice in Today's Media Driven World

Tuesday prayer: For our nation

Pray and vote. Will you vote the values that stand the test of fire? Even if those values are ridiculed?

Monday musing: Rape, abortion, and your worldview

Even though "progressives" wish we'd gotten past the abortion issue by now, it has certainly not faded from this election cycle. In fact, "social issues" (marriage and abortion) once again offer some of the clearest distinctions between candidates at all levels.

Both candidates for president, however, agree abortion should be admissible in cases of rape, incest, and the life (and health) of the mother. This has not been the case in other contests and the rape issue has somewhat blown up in all our faces. Republican candidates could do a better job expressing themselves, but it's surprising how surprised the media has been by the idea that executing one of the victims of a crime ought to be a crime. (And, no, scorn for opposing views does not qualify as a rationale.)

Aside from the standard objection to such "hard case" abortions -- that a person's right to life is not altered by the circumstances of his or her conception -- the pro-life view seems to steadily lose resonance. That's as Jesus predicted (John 15:18-21), so please let us not act surprised.

Tired of being on the defensive, one Christian blogger put together a list of 10 questions that pro-choice candidates should be forced to answer. I'd add an eleventh: Why should being conceived in rape or incest be a death sentence? "Liberals" are usually so good at identity politics, so I wonder why they can't distinguish between a rapist and his baby.

Pregnancy resulting from rape touches on a host of meaty doctrinal issues. A theologian would really be able to sink his teeth into them, but I'll sketch out a few aspects of the biblical worldview that have been overlooked in the recent drama:

• Sin - Non-biblical worldviews deny its existence, but the Bible says there is such a thing, and that rape belongs under the heading (Deut 22:25-29). God is the ultimate One sinned against, as well as the victim (Psalm 51:4). Rapists and abortionists must answer to Him (Gen. 9:5).

• Justice - Non-biblical worldviews mistakenly blame the victim for rape, or punish the children. Deuteronomy 24:16 says only the perpetrator is guilty. 

• Suffering - Non-biblical worldviews say a sovereign God would never allow suffering, so instances of rape mean God either doesn't exist or is weak and not worth our time. In the biblical worldview, God is always great and good, no matter what happens to His creatures. Suffering is a result of Adam's sin and sovereignly allowed by God for purposes known to Him and rarely revealed to us (Job 1-2, Gen. 50:19-20).

• Life - Non-biblical worldviews view life as random and essentially meaningless. The Bible teaches, however, that God is the source of all life (Genesis 1-2, John 5:26, Col. 1:16-17, 1 Tim. 6:13). Human life is no accident and all human beings are created in God's image (Gen. 1:26-27, Ps. 139:13-16). This includes the child of rape or of any illicit sexual encounter. It even includes the rapist!

• Parenthood - Non-biblical worldviews increasingly consider children as commodities owned by their parents, but in the biblical worldview, children belong to God and are granted to parents in a stewardship arrangement (Psalm 127:3). Adoption reflects God's loving character and is an excellent alternative to abortion (Eph. 1:5). 

• Redemption - We who know the Savior who redeems and restores sinners should let these truths shape our responses to rape victims and their children. We should also never let the magnitude and horror of such a violation be too far from our imagination. We should suffer alongside women as they relive their trauma. When they elect to continue a pregnancy, we should support them with a sense of respect, awe, and gratitude for the abundance of God's grace in their lives. We should love and welcome their children.

This has been an admittedly rudimentary treatment of theological issues at stake in our culture. [Added 10/31/12: To demonstrate the difficulty of saying everything you need to on this subject, I found myself today regretting I hadn't made a point about how abortion solves nothing -- doesn't erase the rape or negate the trauma -- it only compounds the violence and violation that women feel. I also should have provided a link to What About Abortion for Rape or Incest? on our website.]

Related: Read these additional contributions from Christian leaders and other thinkers --

• Mohler: The Mourdock Moment -- Life, Death, and Lies on the Campaign Trail
• Christianity Today: Are Pregnancies Even from Rape a Gift from God?
• Douthat: The Press and Abortion, Revisited
• Richard Mourdock Gets in Trouble for His Extremely Conventional Religious Beliefs
• Rape, Conception, and God: Why Mourdock Was Right
• Our Media & The Blessed Rape Baby
• Rape, God, Life, and Liberals
• Reardon: The Despicable “God Intends Rape” Comments
• Mohler: The Great American Worldview Test -- The 2012 Election
• Pro-life group vows changes after Akin debacle

Personal testimonies:

• “Rape hurt my mother, but abortion devastated her.”
• ‘I’m not a mistake.’ Five women conceived in rape support Mourdock
• I was conceived in rape. Did I deserve to be aborted?
• My Rape Pregnancy and My Furor Over Social Myths
• Dear Ann Coulter: babies conceived in rape are not cannon fodder

Postscript: I was just chatting on Facebook with a friend in Kenya and asked him to pray for our country as we undertake the election next week. He replied, "I fervently pray for your nation. May God give you a leader after his heart and give all of you wisdom as you elect." And then he said something that put everything we endure -- endless robo-calls and attack ads -- in perspective: "Pray for us also as we come to elections. Civil wars arise and many kill each other." Wow. Good reminder, huh? Please pray for Kenya!

Time & Abortion

Our fall issue of Life Matters -- the copy-ready insert you can print out for church bulletins or the tract rack -- is now available for download. The topic is Time & Abortion. It asks readers to ponder some important questions:

• What does the passage of time mean in relation to abortion? 

• As the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade approaches, are we any nearer the end? 

• Where can we find encouragement?

Monday musing: Love the enemy

I still remember the moment I excitedly realized I could obey a difficult passage of Scripture. The sun was in my eyes as I headed east after leaving the bagel place where I'd studied Luke 6:27-36. It may have been this same time of year, with a 40 Days for Life campaign going on. Whatever it was that made me put two thoughts together -- loving my enemies and praying at the abortion clinic -- I felt joyful as I anticipated loving the local abortionist by praying for him!

Before this, the concept of having an enemy had been rather vague. None of mine seemed to have a name or a face. They existed in the abstract -- Fear, Anxiety, Forces of Darkness in High Places ... entities like that. Whenever I came across references to foes in the Psalms, I spiritualized them. In general, I didn't really want to identify someone as my enemy because that would mean -- in the world's scheme of things -- having to battle or confront him or her in some way.

Thankfully, what I am actually called by Christ to do is love, do good to, bless, and pray for those who "despitefully use" me. Or despitefully use the unborn.

As previously noted, righteous indignation is too thin a motivation for being pro-life anyway. It simply doesn't get at the core problem or bring about lasting change. The reason is, it doesn't reflect the totality of Christ's character the way loving ones enemies does.

Over at Churches for Life, Rev. Douglas W. Merkey writes that there are many possible motives for being pro-life. "Some ... are driven by an imbalanced affection for God’s law and an overblown sense of their own piety. Some ... are driven by unresolved guilt, perhaps fueled by their own abortion experience. Some ... are driven by a hope for human approval, or insecurity. Still others ... are driven by a craving for political, social, or moral enlightenment." He urges champions of life to be "gospel-driven." (See a longer treatment of this idea here.)

When I read the article my mind went to 1 Corinthians 5:9-13a where Paul corrects a misperception: 

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges.

We're to hold "insiders" to God's high standard but, rather than being constantly alarmed or surprised by what "enemies" do, we're to treat them with godly pity. "Such were some of you."

So, while I might identify someone as an enemy of life, my treatment of him or her is modified by what God requires of me in terms of reflecting His mercy. I have to recognize this person is incapable of living a new life, never having forsaken the old (Col. 3:1-14). He lacks the advantage of an indwelling Holy Spirit.

Thanks to the Gospel, enemies become friends. Carol Everett is one such trophy, among many. Hatred and vilification could not do what the Holy Spirit, prayer, and persistent pro-life witness did by God's grace.

A new pro-life organization is devoted to bringing abortion doctors and workers out. Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood executive, has started And Then There Were None, whose goal it is "to provide financial, emotional, spiritual and legal support to anyone wishing to leave the abortion industry."

Do you know the name of an abortionist? Would you pray for one today? Here's a list of over 700 U.S. abortionists. Find the one nearest you.

Monday musing: May God bless every good deed and word

"May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father,who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope, encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word."

Paul encouraged believers in the 1st century with these words (2 Thess. 2:16-17), and they bless our hearts today. Life Matters Worldwide's mission statement echoes the thought:

Helping the Body of Christ articulate the biblical pro-life message in word and deed.

Word and deed. Proclamation and practice. It's an over-arching theme in Scripture, Old and New Testaments. The prophets were famous for challenging people who professed to have faith in God to also help the suffering person -- or at least stop participating in their oppression. Isaiah 58:1-11, Jeremiah 7:4-7, Zechariah 7:9-12, and 8:16-17 are just a few OT passages that come to mind.

James completes the thought in 2:12-17: 

"Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment. What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

From our earliest days, this organization was founded on the principle that "it's not enough to say abortion [or now assisted suicide] is wrong, we must also offer alternatives." There are many ways to do that. We've made it an aim to express our beliefs in actions that establish and sustain pregnancy care centers as effective Gospel outreaches. And, through LIFT, to help Christians offer practical and spiritual support when church members are chronically or terminally ill. 

Whatever you do for Christ today, may God encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word!

Related article that may hurt to read: Pregnant and homeless on the doorsteps of a Christian megachurch

The Great American Worldview Exercise — The 2012 Election

Albert Mohler: Years ago, Governor George Wallace of Alabama once remarked with disdain that there is not “a dime’s worth of difference” between the Democrats and the Republicans. In a sense, he was at least partly right. A look back at the platforms of the two parties in the 1950s and 1960s reveals little division over many of the issues that now frame our national debate. . . .

Fast forward to 2012 and the distance between the two parties is breathtaking. The nation’s political polarization is clearly evident in the radical distinctions between the Republican and Democratic platforms. but this polarization is not merely political. It is fundamentally moral and ideological. These two platforms present two contradictory understandings of realities as basic as human life, liberty, and the institution of marriage.

Related: The Role of Genes in Political Behavior

Dem. convention champions legal abortion

Baptist Press - Dem. convention champions legal abortion - News with a Christian Perspective: Democrats spotlighted their support for legalized abortion Tuesday night at their convention, with at least 10 speakers -- including First Lady Michelle Obama -- trumpeting the issue, although the word "abortion" itself was rarely said. It was the most abortion rights-centric night for a Democratic convention since 1992, according to NBC News political director Chuck Todd, and the issue was referenced every hour, from 6 p.m. Eastern to the final hour of the night beginning at 10 p.m.

Related:

• Compare the Democratic and the Republican platforms
• NY Times editor says Dems are "aggressive" on abortion
• Where the candidates stand on abortion (printable flyer)
• 25 DNC speakers champion abortion

'via Blog this'

South Korean success story

C-Fam Friday Fax: This is so good, I'm going to reproduce most of it here --

Pro-life Doctors Movement and South Korea's Abortion Ban

South Korea’s highest court upheld that country's 59-year abortion ban last week, amidst a surge of pro-life activism led by former abortionists. On Wednesday the government reversed a decision that would have lifted the prescription requirement for emergency contraception.

. . . What dramatically changed dynamics in Korea was that the government, which had for decades encouraged doctors to perform abortion as a means of population control to foster economic growth, expressed official support for a pro-life doctor's group. Because of that, "the political terrain of abortion politics in South Korea is changing drastically," researcher Young-Gyung Paik said.

Young-Gyung's 2012 paper showed that pro-life activism, long marginalized as "religiously driven," suddenly gained prominence: "It was only after the formation of the group of doctors called 'Pro-life Doctors' in 2009 that the contentious issue of abortion started to gain public attention in South Korea." "In [the doctors'] opinion, the South Korea’s low fertility rate has originated from its high abortion rate, which, in turn, was the result of the immoral and profit-oriented conducts of Korean medical doctors," Young-Gyung found.

Whereas Korean media painted the pro-life activism as a "war between doctors," Young-Gyung's extensive interviews with both sides found it was fostered by the development of neo-natal medical technologies, decreased interest in embryonic stem cell research, the rise of disability activism, as well as concern about depopulation.

. . . "I bought into the government's argument that it was OK to do this," Shim Sang-duk told the Los AngelesTimes in 2010. The doctor received death threats and took a significant pay cut after abandoning the practice of abortion. "[I thought] it was good for the country. It boosted the economy," said Shim, who founded the Korean Gynecological Physicians' Association to encourage other doctors to stop performing abortions and call on the government to enforce the law's penalties.

. . . Abortion has been illegal in South Korea with exceptions for rape, incest or severe genetic disorders since 1953, but the law has been routinely flouted.

Kwak Seung-jun, chairman of the Presidential Council for Future & Vision, told reporters in 2010: "There are few people who realize abortion is illegal. We must work to create a mood where abortion is discouraged."

Related: What the Media Missed: Looking into South Korea’s Abortion Ban

Four ways the president affects abortion rights

Four ways the president affects abortion rights: In an interview with CBS News Monday night, Mitt Romney argued that abortion was not an issue for the presidential election. “This is a matter of the courts,” Romney said. “It’s been settled for some time by the courts.” The Supreme Court is certainly the only body that can overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion. But that does not mean the president does not hold sway over what abortion rights look like in a wide variety of ways.

See also: 
Christians Have Responsibility to Vote to Further Pro-Life Cause
Abortion gains as political issue

Editor: But what about when the candidate is so lukewarm? Tell me again why we should be excited about this ticket?
Romney's sister says he would never ban abortion (not that pro-aborts are buying it)
Romney's view on abortion are clear (that he allows for the exceptions of rape, incest, and a mother's health)

'via Blog this'

Hubert Humphrey opposed abortion

MCCL Blog: What you won't hear about Humphrey at his memorial dedication: He opposed abortion: Hubert H. Humphrey was a Democrat and a progressive for sure, but he was also a believer in civil rights and social justice. When asked on the campaign trail about legalized abortion he said flat out, "I am not for it." One of his most famous quotes from 1976 underscores his concern for society's most vulnerable citizens: "The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

'via Blog this'

New Republican Party platform strongly pro-life

New Republican Party platform strongly pro-life | LifeSiteNews.com: The Committee approved a new party platform that strongly defends the sanctity of human life. A key provision in the document is a call for a Human Life Amendment to the US Constitution, a provision that has been in place since 1976, just three years after Roe v. Wade. And, in an historic first, the document now includes information about the negative impact of abortion on women, a provision that was approved unanimously by the delegates.

Meanwhile, pro-abortion-rights leaders will speak at Democratic convention. And GOP grassroots furious at Romney over Akin, abortion rape exception. Finally, Full GOP pro-life platform strongly opposes abortion and euthanasia.

'via Blog this'

The Pro-Life Movement Must Disavow Akin Comment

Dennis Prager: The Pro-Life Movement Must Disavow Akin Comment: "It is . . . morally incumbent on conservatives to do everything in their power not to give the left legitimate targets. Therefore, the pro-life movement should announce that the comment on pregnancy has no basis in truth. And since truth is a supreme conservative and religious value, the movement neither espouses nor condones untruths. The Republican Party has said this. And since Todd Akin has not said this, his candidacy is no longer viable."

Related:

• Medical opinion similar to Akin's has been cited for decades
• Todd Akin’s rape remark has GOP fretting
• Obama, McCaskill, Funded Group Failing to Report Child Rape
• Media at war

'via Blog this'

Todd Akin’s rape remark has GOP fretting

Todd Akin’s rape remark has GOP fretting - David Catanese - POLITICO.com: Answering a question about abortion from a local Fox station in St. Louis, Rep. Tod Akin said victims of “legitimate rape” very rarely get pregnant because their bodies prevent them from doing so. “If it’s legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” he told reporter Charles Jaco.

Editor: What does the idea of "legitimate rape" suggest to all the women who have become pregnant after rape? I don't know who the doctors were who gave Akin this idea, but they were not reliable.

Related:

• Akin’s Opposition to Rape Exception vs. Obama’s Infanticide Support
• Woman Conceived in Rape Responds to Akin Abortion Controversy
• Akin's Abortion View: More Widespread in GOP Than You Think

'via Blog this'

Don’t ‘discern,’ join the fight for the unborn…now

Don’t ‘discern,’ join the fight for the unborn…now | LifeSiteNews.com: Jonathan van Maren of the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform responds to Rolley Haggard's call for more leadership from the pulpit concerning abortion (and here) --

"When recruiting activists to the pro-life cause, this is one of the immensely frustrating things that can happen. People will see the reality of abortion, become convicted of their responsibility to do something about it, and immediately lapse into an interminable period of 'finding their calling,' 'discerning,' or a variety of other costly delays. And when I say costly, I mean that the pro-life movement needs people to confront the culture and save babies, and they need them now. The hourglass is dripping drops of blood. . . . We know how to end abortion, and we know it’s not easy."

Editor: I think I understand what van Maren is saying because I'm well aware of the kind of "discernment" with which he's frustrated. It's the kind that says a person shouldn't move unless and until he's heard a special, private word from God. God's word reveals His will, and He clearly says to all, "rescue those who are being delivered to death" (Proverbs 24:11).

But to say we shouldn't use discernment is dangerous and foolish. It would be like saying, "Don't love" or "Don't pray." Discernment is a godly virtue (Matthew 16:3, Philippians 1:9, and Hebrews 5:14).

And it's a little crazy for van Maren to say this because the group he's working with promotes a different tactic from the one proposed by Haggard. In fact, his essay goes on to cite Joe Foreman who wrote, "We will never transform our culture by politicking for a surface change in the law." Yet a political solution -- urged on through preaching -- is precisely what Haggard proposed. And this quote was taken from a book Foreman wrote in support of yet another tactic -- the rescues/blockades at abortion clinics of the '80s. If one were to jump on a bandwagon, one would have to first decide which direction to leap.

I'm amused by van Maren's statement that "we know how to end abortion." We do? Judging by the wide array of pro-life groups and the multiplicity of tactics that they represent, I'd be hard pressed to say which is the ultimate solution. 

There are as many ways to be pro-life as there are pro-life people. Not every method is efficacious. Some have proven detrimental. A person must choose which one fits his or her beliefs, skills, personality type, etc. It takes discernment. 

Yes, do something. But choose wisely.

Related: 
Is there an 'overnight solution' to abortion?

Louder than the ‘Silent Scream’: the deafening silence of our pulpits
'via Blog this'

Peter Singer: "It’s irrational to risk women’s lives for the sake of the unborn"

Bioethicist Peter Singer writes in The Scotsman  (emphasis added):

Opponents will respond that abortion is, by its very nature, unsafe – for the foetus. They point out that abortion kills a unique, living human individual. That claim is difficult to deny, at least if by “human” we mean “member of the species Homo sapiens.”

It is also true that we cannot simply invoke a woman’s “right to choose” in order to avoid the ethical issue of the moral status of the foetus. If the foetus really did have the moral status of any other human being, it would be difficult to argue that a pregnant woman’s right to choose includes the right to bring about the death of the foetus, except perhaps when the woman’s life is at stake.

The fallacy in the anti-abortion argument lies in the shift from the scientifically accurate claim that the foetus is a living individual of the species Homo sapiens to the ethical claim that the foetus therefore has the same right to life as any other human being. Membership of the species Homo sapiens is not enough to confer a right to life.

We can plausibly argue that we ought not to kill, against their will, self-aware beings who want to continue to live. We can see this as a violation of their autonomy, or a thwarting of their preferences. But why should a being’s potential to become rationally self-aware make it wrong to end its life before it has the capacity for rationality or self-awareness?

We have no obligation to allow every being with the potential to become a rational being to realise that potential. If it comes to a clash between the supposed interests of potentially rational but not yet conscious beings and the vital interests of actually rational women, we should give preference to the women every time.

Editor: I've highlighted some pretty startling concessions by this pre-eminent "enemy" of our cause. It is "scientifically accurate" to claim the embryo (and, therefore, fetus) is "a unique, living human individual." And it's a pretty big caveat on Singer's part to admit the it's difficult to argue for abortion "except when the woman's life is at stake." Life, not health. 

As to whether it's a leap to make the ethical claim that fetal (or embryo) life is the same as any other human being, we have only to argue that these are mere stages of life. Development of the human person goes on throughout life. It is wrong to arbitrarily attach conditions for one's right to life.

Later: In his essay, Singer cites a recent case in the Dominican Republic which -- he says -- proves his point about a clash of interests between the mother and her baby. Here's an article that refutes the case as he presented it: Dominican Pregnancy Death Sparks American Demagoguery over Life-of-the-Mother Cases. Dr. Patrick Johnston of the Association of Pro-life Physicians is quoted, explaining: “When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness, the preborn patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic.”