A Response on the Issue of Abortion

There were several issues raised by "Ishmael" (a pseudonym used by a long time friend) in response to my "Eyes Wide Open" post. Considering the subject matter and breadth of the relevant information, I will be responding to each of the areas he brought up in separate posts.
As properly identified by "Ishmael" the primary thrust of my previous post was framed around the issue of abortion. However, as I set forth explicitly in my underlying email and subsequent blog post, it was not my intent to argue the various positions regarding whether abortion was right or wrong but rather for voters to recognize where their respective Presidential Candidate stood on the issue. Admittedly my post was motivated by the desire to "wake up" self-professed Christians who while stating they were pro-life were actively supporting Barack Obama. I make no secret of my stand on the issue of abortion, I am ardently pro-life.

I make no apology for the simple fact that I am actively pro-life in my beliefs. Likewise, this polarizing social issue will in many occasions dictate my selections for candidates of public office regardless of their political banner (Republican or Democrat). However, over the years the vast majority (not all by any means) of Republican candidates have embraced pro-life issues within their political platforms and as such have garnered my support. With this said, I simply rip away any illusions that may have been perceived that I was purposely evasive regarding my personal stand on this issue. Along these same lines, I was not and not even now am a strong or ardent supporter of John McCain.

Even with his strong support for many pro-life issues and proposed legislation, I have not always considered him to be very supportive much less tolerant of the evangelical Republican base. Additionally, were it not for his current selection of Sarah Palin, I would likely be torn over how or if to vote in this current election. Regardless, all of this information was well known to my targeted audience as well as anyone who has previously visited my blog and read my earlier entries.

With all of that said, I now focus upon the issue of abortion and the reasons why I espouse my beliefs and convictions on this issue. While I am ardently opposed to this "medical procedure" I must state that my feelings about this issue are not an indictment or accusation towards individuals who have made this "choice." I personally know several women in my circle of friends and relatives who have made this decision for a variety of reasons which encompass difficult medical conditions to outright selfishness.

While I may disagree with their decision, I do not look down upon them as a person or hold them in any less esteem. My words and thoughts on this issue are simply my beliefs regarding whether I see it as wrong. While I may disagree with someone’s choices, I nonetheless recognize that with a God given free will, we are at liberty to decide to do wrong. If I take issue with any of these individuals it is simply over the argument of whether this activity is wrong. Echoing words I stated on this blog over two years ago I repeat my words:

"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 dilemma 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."

Let me begin with an overriding premise that dominates my thoughts on this issue, "I inherently believe that life begins at fertilization and subsequent implantation of the fetus in the mother’s womb." While my background and expertise are more directly in the area of the law, I have a unique perspective and insight into this area. First, my wife is a registered nurse who for many years worked in surgery for a hospital which largely performed "fertility procedures" with a very prestigious and well known fertility group. Subsequently, my wife went to work for this physician’s group and while maintaining the requisite patient confidentiality, we discussed at length on numerous occasions the various legal, ethical, medical and social issues surrounding infertility. Additionally, in all candor we personally underwent treatment with this facility prior to our first child being conceived, so although the expertise is not within my field, from a personal experience level, I am not making vague personal generalizations.

Significantly, it is in this area of medicine that a majority of the knowledge regarding pregnancy and the development of a baby/fetus originates. Specifically, this area of medicine addresses individuals and couples who are attempting to have biological children but for various physiological reasons are unable to conceive and/or carry to full term a child. Without having the pervasive knowledge on these subjects, much of my insight into this area is through the eyes of my wife.

Within this area of medicine, the advances of technology and knowledge regarding the development of a child are staggering. For example, the current medical technology exists that a single female egg can be fertilized with a single sperm by injecting the sperm into the egg artificially simulating the act of conception. However, even with this overt act of technology, modern medicine is unable to explain why or even control whether the now fertilized egg will begin the process of cell division. In many infertile couples, even the overt act of injecting a sperm into an egg, does not result in the spontaneous creation of life and rapid cell division which leads to the development of a child. Likewise, even after a successful fertilization, there is another major obstacle which is the implantation of the now fertilized egg into the uterine lining of the uterus. Despite the overt technological advances we now possess, this step like the initial fertilization is outside of our control. Even the foremost fertility specialists in the world at this stage can only attempt implantation and then have to sit back and see if it occurs.

Even the most atheist of physicians are faced with the unknown and uncontrollable in these two situations. Although they may deny a higher power, they are unable to show or even surmise what supernatural process takes place that allows a fertilization and/or implantation in one situation while spontaneously aborting in another. As a Christian, I see the hand of God in these situations making a definitive and overt act to set the life of an individual into motion. As a legal scholar, I make the analogy that these two distinct occurrences are significant because the fetus has a definitive and undeniable change of status that is separate and apart from any external or overt action medical science can take. Were it not the overt touch of God, the potential life would cease even in cases where the potential parent(s) and doctors desperately and longingly desire its success.

The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade made a distinction regarding when a child could or could not be aborted based upon the medical time-line demarcation of the third trimester. The Court engaged the use of a "legal fiction" to support its decision while frankly commenting that it was unable to determine or even hazard a guess as to when "life" began. Specifically the Court took an otherwise unremarkable occurrence to act as a boundary/path marker because it fit within the Court’s desire to have an objective and easily identifiable demarcation line to mark when a legal change of status was attained by the unborn child. Unmistakably the true milestones I referenced above did not and would not have fit within the social and legal objectives of the Court.

Although bound by the Court’s interpretation in an American legal context, it is not an authoritative standard to evaluate whether something is moral or proper. If such were the case, then the legal principles of Adverse Possession and/or Acquisitive Prescription would be a morally acceptable manner of acquiring property. Instead the reality is that it is a "legal theft" of property simply because the true owner did not take overt acts to evict the trespasser. From an analytical and legal standpoint, I take issue with the Court’s side stepping of the underlying issue.. When does life begin? Based upon the medical evidence known and sound legal principles (if exercised without a predisposition towards a specific intended result) then the change of status embraced by the Supreme Court should have been at the moment of successful implantation in the womb.

This is why from a legal and analytical view I hold to my beliefs. However, my internal beliefs are driven more strongly by my personal faith in a savior whose death and resurrection ransomed my soul. Thereby surrendering my "right" to do what was expedient, convenient or selfish for what was morally and spiritually right. In this context, a child in the womb is the most defenseless of creatures who are deserving of my protection and advocacy for their well being. Thus my statement that advocating for a candidate who was professedly pro-life was a stand for "righteousness."

In conclusion, I wholeheartedly agree with Ishmael’s wife’s sentiments that this medical practice will not be stopped by the courts or legislative houses, but rather only through a heart transformation of the people, who come to themselves in realizing that they are destroying God’s greatest gift based upon the short sighted temporal concerns of this world.

Finally, without belaboring this already lengthy entry, I cite the following sources to support some of the statements I made in my initial post which Ishmael criticized for not providing authoritative references.

1. Statistics regarding the reasons for abortions, I admit the percentages are a little different from the statistics I initially cited; however, the percentages are close and my analogy remains consistent. Also the cited reference indicates that all of its data is derived from pro-abortion sources.

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

2. Most of the "public debate" involving the abortion issue has centered around the question of incest, rape and health of the mother as demonstrated by the speeches of the opposition to most anti-abortion proposed legislation. Although there are some radical elements who openly espouse the "any time, any reason" position, it is the rare person who will admittedly advocate this position which is obviously and unavoidably a decision based upon purely selfish motives (unwanted, unexpected, can’t handle the morning sickness). Considering the vast majority of Americans believe and profess that individuals should take responsibility for their actions, it would be very surprising to find that any arguments advocating the use of abortion as a birth control method would receive widespread support. Despite your claims to the contrary, the areas of grey (rape, incest, health of the mother) remain the reasons that most individuals in America concede a reluctance to prohibit abortion.

3. The "medical procedure" involving abortion goes back into antiquity, and was known by the "bronze age" civilization inhabited by Jesus. In response to the spiritual justification for an opposition to abortion, I specifically direct you to the scripture Ishmael referenced in Jeremiah which states, "...I knew you before you were in the womb." Although this argument will not sway an Athiest/Agnostic who discounts the existence of God, as a Christian I consider this statement by God along with the supernatural events that take place at fertilization and implantation as demonstrable evidence that except for God’s sovereign action and will, that a person does not come into existence. Although unable to scientifically prove this belief, my personal belief is that the moment fertilization occurs and the cells begin to divide is the physical manifestation of the Lord indwelling a person’s "spirit and soul" into the living tissue. As its exit from the living tissue at death would explain why our medical ability to keep the body alive through artificial means does not revive the spirit of the person.

History of abortion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The practice of abortion dates back to ancient times. Pregnancies were terminated through a number of methods, including the administration of abortifacient herbs, the use of sharpened implements, the application of abdominal pressure, and other techniques.
Abortion laws and their enforcement have fluctuated through various eras. Many early laws and church doctrine focused on "quickening," when the initial motion of the fetus can be felt by the pregnant woman, as a way to differentiate when an abortion became impermissible. In the 18th–19th centuries various doctors, clerics, and social reformers successfully pushed for an all-out ban on abortion. In the 20th century various women's rights groups, doctors and social reformers successfully repealed abortion bans. While abortion remains legal in many Western countries, it is regularly subjected to legal challenges by pro-life groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion