A Clarification on My Position

One of the comments in response to my last piece had me re-examining my premise. Thanks Mike for the gut-check! I remain convinced that the position I advanced regarding changing the abortion debate is solid but I feel that there needs some clarification on the spiritual stand side of the discussion.

I have always been a very results oriented person and prefer to carefully consider the entire picture when making decisions. With that said, I firmly believe that unless there 0ccurs a dramatic spiritual revival or awakening that the overall consensus on the issue of abortion will not change, thus the stalemate with the ill-conceived case of Roe v. Wade dictating the status quo.

As a Christian, my moral stand on abortion for any reason is unwavering.. I honestly believe it is wrong and that the "choice" horribly affects the aborting mother through guilt, shame and remorse. Not to mention that the decision disregards the possible role that God plays in turning things that the enemy meant for evil into something good. Although, I advocate our reconsidering support for legislation that achieves less than a full prohibition of abortion, in no way do I believe or endorse a retreat from our moral duty to still maintain the truth that it is still wrong in any situation, no matter how difficult the moral dilema to abort a child.

My rationale is best set forth in the following analogy:

Suppose you are in a boat with five other individuals in the middle of the ocean. In the water around you there are 100 children floating in the water around you. In order to save ANY of them you must have a majority. Understandably, you and two others are wanting to save ALL of them (for clarity, the boat is large enough to safely fit all of them). However, two of the adults are opposed to saving ANY of them, they counter that they are not wanted, too much trouble, will be a burden on the six adults and besides five of the kids are sick, too close to the rocks placing everybody in jeapardy and will die anyway. The one undecided adult is torn because he rationalizes the arguments and concludes that saving the five is too great a risk and sacrifice. He would probably join you and the other two adults and save the rest, but you and the other two are patently refusing to do anything unless ALL of the children are saved. The undecided adult just can't bring themselves to risk it for the five kids who are too much trouble.

This is a very simplified analogy, but it still makes the point; you either agree to save the 95 children while maintaining that it is wrong to leave the five remaining children or you continue to argue over the five while the 95 others perish.

Although I grieve for the children of the product of rape, incest and health of the mother; it doesn't make sense to ignore the possible saving of the other children who are being aborted simply out of selfish "birth control" reasons. Save as many as we can while maintaining that its wrong and upholding our moral stand. The alternative is to continue to engage in the stale-mate and waiting for the day when the Lord sovereignly gives us our one clear victory; but failing to take any steps in the meantime to save most of these children. I remain resolute that we need to change the argument.

Tough Questions on Abortion - My Response: Take the Debate Out of Their Court

In a recent discussion on my University's email list-service, the question came up about whether abortion was ok in the difficult situations involving rape, incest and the where the life of the mother was at risk. I personally do not agree with abortions in these circumstances because I embrace the core belief that life begins at conception. However, I also understand that a person faced with this situation is in the most horrible moral dilema a person could ever face.

It is one of those times that society as a whole has to suspend their judgment and leave this to divine wisdom alone. The person facing this choice has to come face to face with God and make their decision before God alone and leave it to his judgment as to whether it was wrong or right. In the event the effected person is a Christian, I would hope that their faith holds fast to trusting that, "he works all things together for their good," but even if their faith falters (we all have been there and fallen short of the mark ...) that his mercy and grace offers forgiveness.

In the context of the abortion debate, I feel that Christians and pro-life groups have fallen into a carefully laid trap by the other side, pushing for a complete ban ignores these tough questions which are often faced by non-christians who do not have the benefit of faith or a strong moral compass. Even the most secular individual is hard pressed not to feel empathy for a person facing this situation. At times we as believers, fail to show that same empathy for people in these situations and the other side has beat us up one side and down the other over it.

The reality is that there will be those (both believers and non-believers) who will not see the "clear line" between right and wrong and will be swayed by these truly difficult situations. In the meantime, millions of unborn children who do not fall into these "moral dilema" areas are destroyed because we selfishly refuse to compromise in any measure.

Although I would prefer there were no abortions, I can more readily accept abortions occurring only in the cases of incest, rape and threatening the life of the mother. Rather than falling upon our sword accepting defeat while maintaing that we have fought the fight without giving an inch, we could re-align the argument and take away the easy out we have supplied to the opposition.

Its time the argument was focused upon the 98% of the abortions performed for purely selfish reasons instead of the 2% that are truly moral dilemas that no one could face without divine intervention and mercy.

I realize that this position will likely be opposed by many pro-life people, who I honestly and completely agree with in the stand that they have taken. However, we should be wise and discerning regarding how we deal with the world. Christians are often naive when they expect the world to accept biblical mandates as authoritative. We have forgotten that our "open eyes" are a gift and were it not for the Lord's mercy we would be stumbling in the dark as well. We have to expect the world to act like the world and not be surprised when they refuse to do something just because it is the right thing to do.

Along these lines, I know that many pro-lifers are opposed to these concessions because the other side will "create" the necessary circumstances to justify the abortion (i.e. claim it was rape or that the mother's life is in danger when it really is not), while these concerns are justified and plausible, the fact remains that their actions will be against the law. In this world, people will commit crimes for their own evil purposes (it will not change until the Lord returns) but it does not invalidate that the law is in place and society has asserted its opposition to that activity. At this time, no such restriction exists and judging from the recent elections, it seems unlikely that pro-life advocates will be able to muster the necessary public mandate to achieve a complete prohibition on abortion. Not to mention that any successful law would quickly be struck down by the Supreme Court.

I merely contend that the concession of these "gray" areas (as defined by most of secular society) will eliminate the "smoke screen cover" that the pro-choice movement has hidden behind. In the end, it will make them come out and have to admit that their agenda is "abortion on demand for any reason at any time." I sincerely believe that we can win that argument in the hearts and minds of the average American (even those without any discernable moral compass) but until we are able to strip away these "false issues" we will continue to have our initiatives fail because moderates of little moral conviction are swayed by emotionalism involving gray areas that are not truly the determinative issues.

These questions are relevent because its the biggest and most effective argument used by the pro-abortion forces. However, the reality is that it makes up less than 2% of the abortions performed while it is 98% of their argument.

The stark truth is that abortion has for the most part been a "choice" of convenience and founded upon the ultimate act of selfishness. The impassioned pleas from the pro-choice movement focus upon these rare circumstances but in reality their desire is based upon the refusal to accept responsibility for their prior choices. They have just wisely not brought it up because they know that the average person will not support it for those reasons. Let us take this facade away and bring them the fight that they have feared.

The Party Matters Sometimes More Than The Individual Candidate

Its often been said, "To tell who a man really is, look and see who he walks with and stands with." In the present election, there has been a lot of discussion among conservatives about "sitting it out" to bring the Republican Party back to its senses, a virtual "don't you forget about me again" power move. As a very conservative individual who is very issue driven in my choices for candidates, I must confess a certain degree of dissatisfaction with many mis-steps and disagreement with certain policies by the Republican Party and the Administration over the last several years. However, I will vote in this election and I sincerely hope that all conservatives (whether evangelical or otherwise) will vote also for the Republican candidates.

My reasons are simple:

1) When I have supported and voted for a candidate then in a sense he has an obligation (albeit slight) to at least listen to my concern on issues of importance when he/she is in office;
2) The party stances on critical international issues are so stark and irreconcilable that a shift in the party in power would have a dramatic impact upon the countries where we are currently engaged in the war on terror;
3) The lives of millions of people in the countries of Iraq, and Afghanistan would be severely placed in jeapardy by a pre-mature pull-out advocated by the Democratic Party, in the same way millions were murdered and left to the mercy of evil when the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam; and
4) Although I'm not always pleased with the Republicans' decisions, I have a voice and my views are at least considered; if the Democrats take control, then my voice is ignored in the same way it was during the entire Clinton Presidency (Not surprisingly, I'm not one of their constituents why should my views matter).

The choice is clear now more than ever, if your views are conservative and you believe in conservative causes, then a vote for a democrat or a vote of abstention will help the very party whose views are contrary to your own. We often tell children not to cut off their nose to spite their face, but when upset as adults we often do the same thing. The issues are too important and critical to let pride or self righteousness overcome your common sense. Instead play a part in the Republican Victory and become engaged in the debate to change the issue positions that you do not support.