I've long thought Christians looking to be chaplains to the government in order to legislate morality are wrongheaded.

But isn't every law a kind of legislated morality? Making killing, stealing, or maiming a crime is legislating morality, quite directly. Maybe the question we should be asking is, whose morality should be legislated, if at all? Is it even worth it to try and convince the government that all violence is wrong when they cannot themselves 'exist' (or so they've told themselves) without violence?

Just some thoughts. I don't really know the answer to this one beyond being the Church and bearing each other burdens. If somebody deems their own unborn child a 'burden' (tragically), then are we not to take care of that gift of life for them for the glory of God? Perhaps one of the great failures of the 'pro-life' movement is that they don't live out an real options beyond just trying to make it illegal.

Peace,

eric

Eric,

Good point about existing laws legislating morality. I agree. I should probably qualify that statement a bit more when I use it. Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be that Christians ought not make it their main goal marshalling the forces of government to bring about their goals. As the pro-life movement tends to alienate itself further from authentic Christian teaching about the sanctity of life, I think the Church will find an excellent opportunity to teach the world what a consistent culture of life looks like.

Matt, I disagree with the assertion that the distribution of financial aid by the government to assist in the raising of children would solve problems. Statistically it might lower the number of abortions, but maybe only to see the number of children being born to poor, unwed mothers double. In some instances, extra money might change someone's mind about having an abortion, but in the majority of cases, about 70% cccording to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the reasons for abortions are convenience and not financial. In fact, the same study says that only 21.3% of women having abortions claim it is due to the lack of money. The government is also the last group of people I trust with distributing money. It is too big and too cumbersome to do it effectively.

It is obvious by the steady flow of abortions performed in this country and world wide, that the church has failed to meet the needs of young, unmarried women. Many churches are so outspoken against abortion that the last place an unmarried, pregnant teenager is going to go is church. The church must take on the responsibility of caring for these young women and give them alternatives to abortion. How many churches do you know that actively seek out poor, pregnant teens? On the ohter hand, how many churches do you know of that put on some type of religious musical with a budget in the thousands? There has to be a fundamental shift in the body of Christ's current approach to the poor. In the end, I want Christ to receive the credit for changing young lady's lives, not the government.

Jeremy,

I would say I agree with you concerning your conclusions. I don't have any faith in the government as I see it as a pernicious entity that tries to make (false) soteriological claims upon our lives.

Although, at the same time, I don't disagree with the fact that the financial aspect is a huge part of it. You said that that Guttmacher Institute's study talked about the reason given for pursuing an abortion being more 'convenience'-based than 'financial'. Well, it's interesting that they would be so flawed as to make those two mutually exclusive options. Doesn't having little-to-no money make raising a child terribly 'inconvenient' to many? I'm putting scare quotes around these phrases because I in in way agree with abortions, but I'm just saying that that institute's research seems a bit shakey to me. Nothing is as 'objective' as people would like to make their supposed 'objectivity' :) All claims come from some sort of faith commitments -- even ones claiming to be 'scientific'.

Peace,

eric

Sorry for the confusion. The study didn't break down the numbers that way, I did based on their findings. Here are the results in full.

* 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.

* 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.

* 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.

* 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)

* 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.

* 7.9% of women want no (more) children.

* 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.

* 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

I lumped all of the results that weren't financial or health related and dubbed them convenience.

i couldn't read the editorial because i didn't want to pay the Times $4, but i am curious about how they obtained the numbers of illegal abortions. In the U.S., NARAL & Co. are always threatening the return of illegal & 'coat hanger' abortions, should Roe v. Wade be overturned or should states further limit access to abortions. But like all illegal activities, there is no official reporting to back up their claims of a pre-Roe time littered with the casualties of said abortions. (Since CA doesn't even report LEGAL abortions to the CDC, reporting deaths from illegal abortions is a pipe dream.)

While it's clear that illegal abortions are exponentially more dangerous, there are increasing reports of fatalities from legal abortions in clinics & via legal abortion drugs, i.e. RU-486. It's worth remembering that when we read, for example, Danco's report of 5 known deaths from Mifeprex alone, TEN people have actually been killed. As long as abortion is legal there will be cases like these, & the whole time Planned Parenthood is going to be successfully marketing their ‘safe’ procedures to the target audience: the uneducated.

Being employed by the pro-life effort & [too] limited in my understanding of the political & economical angles, i'm inclined to look at this issue simply in terms of the actual number of lives lost. In light of the 40 million+ Americans aborted in the 33 years since Roe, i can't help but feel that even though there are often 2 fatalities per every illegal abortion, the total annual deaths wouldn't come close to the 1 million+ children we see die legally every year, should abortion be outlawed in the U.S.

i agree with Jeremy; the church should spend less time marching against abortion & more time offering resources to prevent it. Unfortunately, in my professional experiences, to get some churches to even take a position is pulling teeth. When we were trying to pass the Parental Notification Initiative in CA last November, i read about churches actively working AGAINST us & supporting the continuation of secret-but-legal abortions performed on 12-17 yr olds. Even the eventual failure of our initiative didn't break my heart as much as that did.

This is not to say that all churches are either ambivalent or contrary to the pro-life effort, churches are the 1st place groups like mine turn when we need to activate lifers. Too often though, the churches wave their 'baby killer' signs, vote for the pro-life candidate, then call it a day. All the pregnant girl sees, of course, are the signs. We need the church to address this issue with love, rather than principle, then even those considering [what may someday be] an illegal abortion will have the option of life & care. The simplest ways right now are for churches to enter into relationships with the non-profit pro-life clinics already in existence & struggling financially, & to spend a little bit of that budget on pro-life education in the community. Just as long as they keep their dumb ass signs at home.

Sorry this was so long... you should’ve seen it coming, though! :)

Wow! I guess having David and Eric link to your new blog is a good way to spike readership by, like, 6000%! I figured this post would generate some comments, and frankly I was hoping a bit of dissent would come about, because this is a huge issue I struggle with politically. Even more important, I'm really trying to sort out how to hand this as a Christian who will soon be a practicing physician. I think the best way to go about this will be to acknowledge points in the order they were made. Sorry ahead of time if this gets long!

Jer, I'll admit I was a bit too biased by memories of the article by Glen Harold Stassen's, Pro-life? Look at the fruits, before the last election when I made this post. (Sorry if that link asks for registration again--this one's free and better than the NYTimes!) I know his numbers have been substantially debunked, but I think the points made in that piece are worth considering. The Guttmaccher Institute's numbers are helpful, but I think they need to be taken with a grain of salt. People can often be led one way or another by the phrasing of a question and the answer choices provided. So for those 25.5% who want to postpone childbearing, I would posit many do so because of financial reasons. I think the same point can be made for those whose partner does not want the child. I think some better research needs to be done in the area.

And I don't think that money can only come from the government. I don't quite distrust the government as much as you, but I wish the Church would do more to help matters other than align themselves with conservative politicians that only pander to their values during election cycles. And there is evidence other nations that provide substantially more financial assistance and access to contraception have lower abortion rates than the United States.

Now, this isn't really directed at Jeremy's comments, but I think it fits here. I find Christians align themselves on the wrong side of issues too often. The issue that comes to mind after the economics debate has been exhausted is abstinence-only education. My baby isn't here yet, but I know if parents repeatedly tell their children not to do something, the child will eventually do it. Not facing the facts that teenagers are still going to have sex and not equipping them to adequately prevent unwanted pregnancy is leading to a substantial number of abortions. Now, I don't mean this to be a license for wanton sexuality, but I think the place where you educate about abstinence, commitment, etc. is in the Church, where it makes sense. Telling kids
not to have sex is unintelligible outside the narrative of Christianity.

Now, back to Jeremy. Thank you for your comments on the Church's failure on this issue! I agree most churches are the last place a pregnant teenager will show up, and I find that despicable. If only all sins were as visible as an expectant mothers belly! Then maybe we could get somewhere after realizing all have fallen short of the glory of God. (And nice jab at churches going Broadway. HEHE.)

Kal, sorry for posting to an editorial that wasn't free. I thought ones by the editors were free and you only had to pay for op-ed columns. I was wrong; my bad. But that editorial is not the only place I've seen such statistics. From what I can gather, these data come from two sources: medical professionals dealing with botched procedures and anonymous survey of women of child-bearing age. No, it's not possible to track all illegal abortions, but it is possible to see the results of many of them. Even post-Roe ERs are still occasionally visited by women seriously ill from black-market abortions.

I agree with you that keeping abortion legal does not eliminate complications, but I'm convinced people will still seek abortions regardless of what the law says, so I'd hope the inevitable abortions that will occur happen in a place adequately prepared for those complications. Now, where I differ from most of the pro-choice crowd is that my acceptance of the inevitability of abortions occurring is not the same as me condoning them. I do believe life begins somewhere in the womb,although I am increasingly skeptical it's at conception. Thus, at some point abortion becomes murder, and that is something we as a society need to stop.

Glad to see another comment on how much better the Church can be doing on this issue. So, I think that makes four of us in agreement. Is that enough for quorum? Haha.

Thanks for your comments guys. This is fun, and these are conversations I really need to be having before I'm thrown into practicing medicine without considering what I'll be faced with.

At the risk of asking a loaded question, can you guys tell me what the reaction is to the morning after pill? I've met a lot of pro-lifers who equate this with RU-486, the abortion pill, and this is a medically ignorant assumption, so I'm curious how prevalent assumptions are. From my understanding of it Plan B is essentially emergency contraception, although I seem to hear more about contraception under attack these days too. Just curious what your experiences are. Okay, now I have to (ironically) get back to studying human development inside the womb. Take care guys, and please keep reading!

i can understand your desire in keeping abortion legal. i guess if we have a society where a majority would insist on illegal abortions, it could be worth it to keep it legal. i just wish it wouldn't be encouraged, marketed and profited off, you know? That's wishing for the moon, though.

The pro-lifers equate the Morning After pill with RU-486 because if the Night Before (if you will) brought about fertilization, the pill will destroy said fertilized egg. Since the pro-lifers believe fertilization is the beginning of life, it's considered an abortion. i think, also, that the fact that RU-486 is the only abortion pill among a variety of surgical procedures, it's easier for people to (ignorantly) equate pill to pill, so to speak.

i'm very curious about your views regarding the beginning of life. Forgive whatever misinformation i'm about prove myself full of, but isn't the fertilized egg an embryo and therefore fully unique? At the embryonic stage there's no heartbeat or brain waves of course, which some people equate with the beginning of life, but you do have a human being in all of its uniqueness, right? [my questions indicate that i'm not sure i'm correct, they're not my method of argument :)] This at least, is the pro-life argument against most embryonic stem cell research methods. In destroying the embryo, whether through research or early term abortion, one destroys everything that would otherwise make up a green eyed, dark haired, short, opinionated, lactose intolerant, freckled man with thick fingers (for example). Isn't that destroying creation the same as if it's a 4-month-old fetus?

Kal. Sorry this reply took a bit. I've been stuck test taking and nursery painting. : )

Thanks for confirming my assumptions about pro-lifers and the morning after pill. The short answer to your question is (a qualified) no. A fertilized egg has all the requisite information to become an embryo, i.e. it has one half of the DNA from mommy and daddy. However, being required to become life, I don't believe the fertilized egg itself is sufficient for life. Just as important as fertilization is implantation. It is quite common for eggs to become fertilized and never implant. I'm not one to consider the beginning of life that sloppy and destructive--if life life begins at conception then a lot of death occurs shortly thereafter--and I don't think most pro-lifers would think that way either, once given the information. This is where many are wrong in equating RU-486 with emergency contraception. RU-486 causes an implanted embryo to be discarded from the uterine wall, effectively terminating the pregnancy and initiating menstruation. The morning after pill prevents implantation altogether. If you don't believe life begins immediately upon conception, and I'll discuss a bit later on why I don't, then the morning after pill does not end a life. However, RU-486 could arguably end such a life, depending on when it occurs. Also worth noting, fertilization often does not immediately follow intercourse. Sperm can swim and persist up until seven days after intercourse, although they often top-out at 2-3 days. Thus, it is arguable that the morning after pill's action, preventing implantation, takes place well before fertilization.

Trying to discern the point at which life begins has long been a challenge for me. I've found scientific arguments, such as the beginning of heartbeats or brain waves, compelling. I also think it's worth considering traditional arguments in the church; through most of Jewish and Christian history life was believed to start when the mother first felt kicks or at the beginning of the second trimester. I find these points helpful, but I think by themselves they are a bit short-sighted and too late. On the flip side, I mentioned above I'm not compelled by the knee-jerk assumption that life begins at conception. If a fertilized egg is necessary but not sufficient for life, I don't think life can occur at conception. Jason and I used to discussed this several times as I was undergoing my premed science classes, and he told me how Dr. Fulcher approached this topic his developmental biology class. He suggested that twins have identical DNA but unique souls. (I'm a bit sketch on the body/soul dualism, but I think it proves helpful with this topic.) Up until a certain point--forgive me for not having the exact point, but I think it's between the first and second weeks--a single cell that comes off the embryo is not sufficient to bring about a twin. The way I like to think of it is that as each cell divides, each of these cells is like a template capable of creating a new solitary life, until that point at which differentiation occurs and twins are no longer possible.

Working with that framework begins to solidify things a bit for me. First, that's why I'm not opposed to stem cell research. I don't believe those fertilized eggs are each a little life, although at one point they could have been. Also, I think it's worth remembering that quite often embryos used in stem cell research are "leftovers" from in vitro fertilization that would otherwise be discarded. Second, it impacts my views on abortion and contraception. The point of differentiation I mentioned is still pretty early in pregnancy, so it is unlikely most abortions will occur before it. To be sure, most women don't even know they are pregnant until after that point. That's why I continue to see abortion as something whose frequency we should seek to decrease--it likely ends a young life. It's also why I think a huge component of preventing unwanted pregnancies and abortions is increased use of contraception. There is a lot of work to be done here. I think the Church, mostly Roman Catholic, needs to more adequately consider why it opposes use of contraception, since I think God granted us sex for reasons other than procreation, although that's certainly a large part of it. There also needs to be improvement in education. Health care providers, and especially pharmacists, need to be educated about the differences between RU-486 and the morning after pill. And men need to be encouraged to take a more proactive role in preventing pregnancy. Women have long had the pill, and rates of its use are quite high, yet men perform very poorly concerning rates of condom use. Perhaps things would improve if a male birth control pill comes about as rumors say it will. The last part of education I think we need is to make people realize that if they are going to play with their genitals like adults, they need to be ready to deal with the consequences of that like adults. Children (and politicians!) abdicate responsibility for their actions. Adults should grow up and realize the impacts of their behavior. Sex certainly feels good, but that's all it can do! Let's start living like it.

I really appreciate your input Kal. You are quite an inspiration for me. I hope I can learn from your ability to work with those who you don't always agree with to bring about change in things for which you do see eye-to-eye. That's something I really need work on!