Kind of shocking isn't it? Yeah, makes my stomach turn too, especially in light of the fact that I have an African-American daughter now.
I wonder why we don't feel that same way about abortion. One of the reasons is due to the fact that it is mainly a relatively private affair. If we did abortions in public like we used to do slavery (like the above picture) I'm sure it would change some minds. Ever seen a fetus pulled apart? Watch the movie "Lake of Fire". You'll get to see one. It's not gratuitous; just cold and clinical... and sickeningly horrific.
Remember, we voted for the guy who thinks it should continue that way. Could you ever imagine yourself voting in favor of slavery? If you voted for Obama you should at least watch the movie and allow yourself to face with brutal honestly what your candidate is fully in favor of. He is in favor of partial-birth abortion as well. Ever considered what that looks like in real life? It makes movies like "Friday the 13th" on par with Barney and Friends.
Please don't tell me presidents can't do anything about abortion (I heard that quite a bit before the election). Obama's done enough already in the first few months that should make us recoil in shock.
I still don't understand why most Christians would never vote for a president that believed in the above picture, yet so many Christians were so willing to vote for the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever. Mind boggling.
Slavery and abortion is what happens when might makes right and human life is devalued.
(HT: Jill Stanek)
17 comments:
Such a good point.
Well, Zach, I am one of those people who were convinced by your posts before the election that was arguing that a president could do nothing about it. Thanks for that.
I've seen Lake of Fire. Unforgettable. Like you, Zach, I was horrified both by the graphic footage of the abortion "aftermath" and also by the professing Christians in the movie who at least *seemed* to be "all Law, no Gospel." Not a flattering portrait of pro-lifers, to be sure!
In that vein, it does concern me that many non-Christians could watch the film and come away with a more distorted view of Christianity than they already have. However, for the painful truths that it literally shows about abortion, Lake of Fire is an important work. If anyone believes that abortion is *not* the taking of a human being's life, see the film, and then try to make that argument.
Thank you for continually and relentlessly posting on this subject. It’s one of the reasons I check your blog almost daily. I’m still blown away by your post There Is Nothing Worse Than Abortion.
“Abortion is the worst sin we know. It is our scourge. It is not an option for Christians to fight it, as if we can pick from a fast-food menu of sins to fight.”
Excellent post
I agree with many things here. I don't like abortion. I'm not for it. I'd rather it not happen. But I've come to accept that the bottom line issue for me I guess is a mother who doesn't share my beliefs, religious/moral or otherwise, has a right to what happens in her body. The difference between slavery and abortion is that people with NO given rights over another human being claimed that right to themselves to do as they please. And the same with the argument of "What if a mother on the way to an abortion is struck and killed along with her unborn child by a drunk driver - why is that then murder of the infant?" Again, because it was someone else's actions taking that life without right. However a mother, and only the mother, unfortunately, like it or not, should have the choice of what goes on in her body. Again, I don't like that, but it's the world we live in.
I really think if there was a similar issue that effected men in the same way, we'd have a big issue with government trying to tell us what to do with our own bodies. What if we were not allowed to have vasectomies by government decree? I'm sure you make a case in some religious cultures that men should not have vasectomies. What if our President and government decided to subscribe to those religious beliefs and made vasectomies illegal? Or what if we were forced to have vasectomies by a certain age or number of kids?
On another level, I would never hope my daughter (who is only 11) would ever consider an abortion in the case of rape, consensual sex, what have you. I'd do everything I can to talk her out of abortion as an option and steer her in other directions. But if someday she does not share my same beliefs and goes her own way, I'd much prefer for her sake that she have a choice to legal options rather than the alternative. I value her enough as a person and child of God to allow her to make her own decisions - it's her body. Even if that may mean to sin or not. But that's her decision. Isn't that what God gives all of us?
John,
Vasectomies, however, do not kill another human being. The right to do what we want with our own bodies ends when that action causes harm to another human being.
John C,
When you use the words, "what happens in a mother's body," as you do in your statement, "A mother has the right to decide what happens in her body," you need to know what is "happening in her body" is that a *human life* is living there. Apparently, you think that she has the right to have that human life killed. Do you realize what you are saying here?
@ DJ & Christopher:
Unfortunately however, other people do not believe as we believe that an unborn child is another human being. I'm not saying I believe that way. I'm just saying others don't. There is not a universal collective thought on this, like the way there is universal collective thought on murdering a walking talking "outside the womb" human being. Government has obviously sided with the side of the science world and those that do not yet believe an unborn child is a full 100% human being.
A mother has a choice to have sex, get pregnant, have a baby or not. It all starts with her body. Like it or not, the decision to carry that baby should rest with her as well, even though it goes against the grain of our religious beliefs to the core for her to decide not to. But I'm firm believer in the fact that other people do not share our religious or moral beliefs, sorry to say, and I don't want my beliefs legislated. You never know in the end who's beliefs and what religion may some day be used to create other legislation in areas that for the collective public are still gray areas such as abortion. I'm also a firm believer that until the Christians get this out of their hair as such a huge sticking point politically, culturally, socially, etc. - all things that are so divisive in nature yet are doing little good in either world for the cause, we stand to gain no ground in the world's eyes. I think we have opportunities to win people to Christ but not when we're allowing this issue to be such a huge focal point of the Christian "agenda" in the way that we have. I'm tired having this issue continue to be what I see as a major sticking point in gaining any credibility with the un-christian world, simply because of how we've been viewed and perceived in using this issue as such a central platform of the Christian agenda.
John,
Let me see if I am understanding you correctly.
Would you then say that Christians 60 years ago should not have worked hard to speak out against the white opposition to black people having the right to vote, sit in the front of the bus, go to good schools, simply because there was not a "universal collective"?
So we should only have laws when they are somehow agreed upon universally? I'm pretty sure you don't want to embrace the implications of what you are saying here.
z
I guess I and others just see a difference between the offenses towards living walking breathing human beings who are independent outside the womb, in the case of blacks and slavery, and an unborn human still attached to the mother's body where as the mother is the host and owner of her body and that entity of life - before it is an independent being apart from herself. living and sustaining itself on it's own. Now, in saying that, I don't agree or like the idea of abortion. But in the case of a woman who does not share those beliefs, I don't know how you take that right away from her.
My issue has been how things like the abortion issue has overtaken such a large part of the Christian agenda to the point where many people outside of Christian culture that are critical of it - that's all they can see, hear and point to as the main "Christian agenda" (thank you James Dobson.) Personally I'm tired of being lumped in that same wagon. And when there are so many equal causes we could be bringing to the forefront of the world and in more positive ways that serve the world. And with how people have gone about activism and being vocal in such divisive condemning ways (along with rights for homosexuals, etc.) - that's all anyone can see these days. It is driving Christians apart and it is driving non-Christians further away from Christianity. Hmmm . . . just what the evil one would want I would think?
A great quote from Leonard Pitts Jr, a Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist, commenting last weekend in the Miami Herald on the recent news from the survey recently out citing that Americans have less religious/faith affiliations, said (and he was speaking of MANY religions in the news - not just Christianity and Catholics )"If all I knew of God was what I had seen in the headlines, I would not be eager to make His acquaintance. I am thankful I know more.
Unfortunately the problem for many that do NOT know more - ALL they see are the headlines. They don't see a collective unified body of Christ being Christ to the world. They see finger pointing, condemnation, rules and rhetoric. (and really bad monotonous worship songs!) I don't think we need to give up the fight. I just think we need to lay it down for awhile and trust God and find better ways of reaching our culture that's not o divisive and hostile. And better ways of dealing with the abortion issue.
I don't know - just my own opinion. I just don't see us getting anywhere in any direction in the current state of things. We just make people mad and hate us more.
John C,
I agree with you that the *manner in which* many Christians have treated the abortion issue has often not glorified God. Too often, there has been a lack of evident compassion for the struggles which pregnant women face.
As I wrote above in my earlier comment, from some professing Christians on this issue, there is, seemingly, "all Law and no Gospel." That is, undeniably, a *serious* problem.
However, we must also remember that sinful people who have not yet been saved by God do not naturally *want* to embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ, because to do so, they must first admit that they are completely spiritually bankrupt before God, and also, that they have been in rebellion against Him.
The above truths do not change the fact, though, that Christians (all of us) do need to be informed by, and as much as possible, to actually express, the hope and love of the Gospel when we speak with people about abortion.
However, concerning your opinion that slaves, as "walking, living, breathing, independent" human beings, should be more legally protected (as far as the right to life) than fetuses, I have to ask a question. Doesn't your stance ultimately base legal protection of one's life upon one's *temporary location* (in this case, the stomach of the mother)? Why should legal protection of one's life be dependent on one's *temporary location*? How is this a sound principle?
"I guess I and others just see a difference between the offenses towards living walking breathing human beings who are independent outside the womb, in the case of blacks and slavery, and an unborn human still attached to the mother's body where as the mother is the host and owner of her body and that entity of life - before it is an independent being apart from herself. living and sustaining itself on it's own."
John, please see that this is an argument for infanticide. My 5 month old daughter is every bit as dependent for life on my wife and I as a fetus in the womb is. Certainly a fetus would die quicker than Mya would, but does the speed of death determine whether we should have the right to kill something?
Also, consider this, does change of location determine what should be protected and what shouldn't? Baby travels six inches down the birth canal and then we should have law protecting it? Why should human right suddenly be bestowed upon a human once it changes location?
z
I don't know - I just think that as long as it's connected to Mom, it's part of Mom and her body. We may not like it or agree, but it's her body. If a Mom doesn't align with our values or morals, it's not really any of our business what someone does with their body or what's growing out of it. You want someone telling you what you can or cannot grow in your body? You want the government telling you that? If we really can't tell a woman what to do with her body or not, is it worth ALL that it has cost in the name of Christ to fight it all? I just think God can handle it. You see patterns all throughout nature of life being, for lack of better words, disposable. Why do birds abandon their babies if they are handled by humans? Why do many wildlife eat their young in certain conditions? Why do 2 year olds get brain cancer? Why do still births happen? Miscarriages? We're all part of nature. I just think God can handle it without our over intervention.
John C – thank you for dialoging here. I’ve actually learned some things by reading your comments.
My brother holds a similar view. For him, a brilliant display of logic demonstrating that a fetus is indeed a human being has no affect. Why? Well, what I think I’m finding is that he (and possibly you) don’t really hold that human beings are valuable. Comparing human life to animals and laws of nature demonstrate a difference in worldview. The Bible says that human beings are unique in that we are the image bearers of God. We are not animals. On the flipside, Darwinists see no intrinsic value-distinction between humans and other species.
So, this goes full circle right back to where this post started… if human beings do not have intrinsic value, then slavery was not wrong at all! It was a preference. It was the will of the stronger species. It was the majority rule. As Zach stated at the end of this post: “Slavery and abortion is what happens when might makes right and human life is devalued.”
John C,
Does the fact that the fetus is temporarily living in the mother's stomach mean that the fetus is *less* of a human life than an infant? That *seems* to be what you are saying.
Outside of the mother-- a human life, worthy of protection. Inside the mother-- merely a "part of" the mother's body, for her to do with as she wishes. Is this what you believe?
Scientifically speaking, even when the fetus is inside the mother, that human life has its own DNA, distinct from the mother or the father. This means that the fetus is a *separate life* from the mother or the father, even though the mother is temporarily carrying that life. The fetus is not merely "part of" another human body-- he/she is actually a separate human life with a personal, distinct DNA. Why should he/she not be legally protected, simply because the mother is carrying him/her for a certain amount of time?
@ Christopher & Brian
No, those all aren't things I believe personally. I have a lot of mixed thinking over it all. I certainly lean towards being anti abortion in my personal feelings. I would encourage anyone at all costs to NOT have an abortion. BUT - I respect the fact that others have different religious, or no religious views, different world views, and different sets of morals in this issue, and they have the right, based on the fact that Government and minds have studied this issue and made it legal, that they have the right to do as they choose. As much as I have the right not to choose abortion.
Post a Comment