After reading the link from Mark's blog--and watching Star Trek III, in which there is a scene that opens the door for a possible pregnant Vulcan--I've been thinking about the abortion "debate"--I don't know if it can really be called a debate, since debates tend to be civil. Anyway, if you were to ask me if I was for abortion, I'd have to give one of two answers: "yes" with an "if", or "no" with a "but". Please allow me to explain.
My first argument for allowing it to be legal is that it's going to happen, whether it's legal or not--I know, by that argument, everything should be legal--and if it is legal, it can happen in a safe and controlled environment. A good--but fictional--account of the possible consequences of having an illegal abortion can be found in A Case of Need. I feel that, since it is going to happen, we--as Christians, or even just as fellow humans--should be concerned with safety of those that choose to do this.
My second argument is that at times, it is medically necessary or warranted. For example in cases where the mother's or child's well-being could be in danger if the pregnancy were to continue--an example would be Tim Tebow. Or if the child has birth defects, and would likely not live long after birth.
Other times when abortion should at least be considered is in cases of rape or incest. Some women in that position would come to resent the child--being a constant reminder of that horrible time in their life--and may mistreat or neglect it, even before the birth.
Now you may be thinking "What about adoption". Well, adoption by itself is not the full answer. Note: I'm not sure if the research supports the trends I list here, so bear with me. Chances are, if a child is not adopted by 2, they will remain in the foster care system until they reach adulthood--there is a stigma on children in the foster care system that makes some would-be adoptive parents shy away. Also, with more and more families adopting from foreign countries, more children are left unadopted in this country. Some of these children grow up feeling unloved and unwanted, and so may have behavioral and/or substance abuse problems. I do agree that adoption is better than abortion, but neither alone is the complete answer--without other changes.
The best answer, of course, is getting people to be responsible with what they do. If you're not ready for the likely consequences, KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS! If you're not financially and emotionally ready to raise a child or deal with an STD, don't have sex, even with precautions. It's simple. Contraceptives aren't perfect. They fail occasionally, and some don't even masquerade as being able to stop STDs. I can't claim purity without blatantly lying, but I haven't had sexual contact with another, and I'm hurtling towards 24, so it's not impossible.
You may have noticed that so far, I've only been talking about society as a whole, and haven't mentioned my personal stance. Well, if the child involved was a product of my stupidity or unwillingness to wait, I don't think I could live with myself if the adoption or abortion options were taken--I would want to be in my child's life too much. However, I know that at times, abortion is an option that needs to be considered--at the very least--so it should not be made illegal.
That's the long and short of my opinion. It may not be completely biblical, but neither is the stance that some anti-abortionists take--murdering doctors, telling women that they're going to hell, etc. We need to remember to love the sinner, yet hate the sin. Too easily do we forget half of that sentence--and both are forgotten in different situations.
Followed your post from today, to the one that you linked, which linked to this one... I had forgotten you were a liberal hippie. Anyways, the "Love the sinner, hate the sin" phrase. Can you make a biblical/rational explanation of it's validity?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this comment, I did a quick search. The gist of the phrase is in St. Augustine's letter 211:
Delete"Moreover, what I have now said in regard to abstaining from wanton looks should be carefully observed, with due love for the persons and hatred of the sin, in observing, forbidding, reporting, proving, and punishing of all other faults."
And then it was brought to a more familiar form by Gandhi in his autobiography, where he said:
"'Hate the sin and not the sinner' is a precept which, though easy enough to understand, is rarely practiced, and that is why the poison of hatred spreads in the world."
Now, Gandhi was a Buddhist and not a Christian, but he did study the Bible (and other religious texts) during his time in England.
So technically, it is not a biblical precept, but it does have roots in the early church, as St. Augustine's letter was written around AD 424.
Agreed. I don't think that it is an un-biblical view, but people often quote it as memorized scripture. I think that Jesus was the only man to truly love people, while still hating their sin. It is very difficult for immoral humans to be able to do so. Not that we shouldn't try!
Delete