Pro-Choice? Pro-Life? How About Pro-Honesty?

My interest was caught by an editorial in today’s AJC by Jay Bookman, titled Moral debate on abortion has its limits.  Bookman is a liberal editorialist, as are most of the writers of the newspaper to which I subscribe, and one may ask why I would read his articles.  There are several reasons.  "Conserv ative" and "liberal"  are fluid terms, and I surmise that almost none of us remain strictly under either label.  Also, often something good happens when I consider the point of view of someone with whom I disagree.  The process moves somewhat like the following: first incredulity that the writer would have the audacity to say such a thing, followed by downright disagreement.  And, as I mull over the details of what I have read, and consider the reasoning and illustrations, usually I can find some food for serious thought.  Sometimes there emerges room for understanding, even agreement.  Such is the case with this particular article.

The editorial begins with the typical progressive mantra, basically that the decision to have an abortion is a private, almost sacred matter, to be absolutely protected from any interference by government or society.  The object of his criticism is House Bill 147, which would require a woman seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound or sonogram.  He mentions the public statement, by the bill’s sponsor, that the legislation has nothing to do with “whether you are pro-life or pro-choice”.  Bookman says this is dishonest.  And of course, he is right.  The purpose of forcing a woman to view her unborn fetus with an ultrasound is to provoke a sympathy that what is developing inside of her is a person, deserving to be born.

Bookman challenges those who are pro-life to be consistent with the connection between belief and political statement.  If you truly believe that human life begins at conception, then he asks how you can be accepting of abortion for rape and incest?  Although the manner in which the child has come to be is tragic, such logic would still see the results as a living human being.  It is brutal logic, but it makes sense.  When you believe in life from the moment of conception, and yet allow some exceptions for abortion, then in reality you are condoning the ending of a life by elective surgical procedure.  I agree.

To me, it makes sense to understand the beginning of human life as being a time different from that of conception.  I believe there to be several weeks, after coitus and the fertilization of the egg, when the developing cells can be removed without the ending of a life.  There are all kinds of practical examples of why this makes sense: rape, incest, and even human weakness, stupidity, and “sin”.  Something unplanned and unforseen happens, for whatever reason, and now an egg has been fertilized and begins to divide.  One still has three weeks before a heartbeat can be recognized, and forty days before brainwaves are present.  To me, this gives a brief and most important span of time to possibly make the decision to abort, and still not end a human life.  I call this pro-life.  And, consistent.
02.08.07 (1:40 pm)   [edit]


posted by: guerillafunk (reply)
post date: 02.08.07 (1:53 pm)

I disagree, but don't really wish to dive into the fray at this point. I'm exhausted, what with being pregnant myself and all. Maybe another time.

-G.Funk


posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 02.08.07 (3:22 pm)

Reply to: guerillafunk
So, do you disagree that we need to be consistent with our view about abortion?



posted by: FinalyFree (reply)
post date: 02.08.07 (4:34 pm)

The last paragraph of this post is wonderful Pastor. Kudos. I myself am pro-choice but completely agree with your final paragraph.


posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 02.08.07 (7:50 pm)

Thanks. That last paragraph could possibly get me in big trouble. Many of my associates proclaim themselves to be pro-life/anti-abortion to the core, and look with disdain and judgement upon any who see otherwise. Yet, I wonder if they have put their convictions to the test of reason, as I am trying to do with this post? To say you are anti-abortion, yet allow it for rape and incest (and perhaps when one of your kids gets pregnant), is inconsistent. I've done some hard thinking about this subject, and my position will probably continue to evolve. And, to all my fundamentalist friends, "Yes, I love Jesus."


posted by: Barbara (reply)
post date: 02.11.07 (11:19 am)

I would argue that God is all-knowing, omniscient. Psalm 147:5 "great is our Lord and mighty in power, his understanding has no limit." Matthew 10:30 "and even the very hairs on your head are all numbered."

if no one interferes, the cells would grow to form a person, thus, you are playing God when you do interfer and this is no different than those who wait 40 days or more to interfere.

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb..." these cells didn't just randomly appear in the womb, God placed them there and then formed them into a person.

So, you have to choose to believe: is God all-knowing or are things just randomly happening?


posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 02.12.07 (4:29 pm)

Life begins way before conception.

HUMAN life is not constituted by anything less than breathing outside the womb. Brainwaves, heartbeats, thumb sucking, reactions are NOT anything more than signs of potential human life. Wonderful signs, to be sure, but it's not a real live human baby till it's breathing - hence the traditional lack of funerals for miscarriges.




posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 02.13.07 (6:29 pm)

Reply to: Barbara
If I follow your line of reasoning, then the use of birth control would be an interfering with the development of cells to form a person.

I try not to confuse God as all-knowing with God as all-controlling. Many things happen that surely bring grief to God, that are outside the will of God. Women are raped. Incest happens. Teenagers have unprotected sex. And so, sometimes sperms connect with eggs outside of the will of God. I don't see that society must force such an exacting definition of life upon those finding themselves in such difficut circumstances. If you see differently, then seek to be persuasive. But, don't use a gun to force the development of a child.

It is a difficult issue. I am not pro-abortion. What I accept is a very limited window of time, when a choice can be made that does not terminate a life.



posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 02.13.07 (6:36 pm)

Reply to: surrogate
Not a human being until it actually breathes? I think the insistence that it is a child, a human being, from the moment of conception is an extreme position. How can you call a few cells a person? But, equally extreme is the idea that a fully formed child which could live outside the womb is not really a human being deserving of protection until it is breathing. It is a person. It deserves as much protection as a breathing newborn. Somewhere between conception, and before birth, it ceases to be a mass of cells and becomes a human being. We can debate the exact point. In my opinion, it is evidenced by the presence of brain waves. But I think it awful, and it should be illegal- that's right, get the law involved- to kill a viable human being, whether it be an elderly person in a nursing home, a sick person in a hospital bed, or a pre-born child.



posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 02.13.07 (6:44 pm)

Reply to: kurtmaddox
I've thought, and studied, and believe my position is biblically consistent. I would not be comfortable advocating a position which is clearly against the teachings of the scriptures as I understand them. Of course, lots of people interpret the Bible in lots of ways. In the end, I'll read and study and pray, and live my own life accordingly even it goes against the understanding of another.

I've answered surrogate concerning this popular notion that the decision to terminate is the exclusive and non-negotiable right of the woman up until the moment of childbirth. This is just as irrational and unfair as the insistence that life begins at conception.

Yeah, we're brothers. You're the liberal one.



posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 02.13.07 (6:46 pm)

Reply to: FinalyFree
Thanks. Are you "pro-choice" without any limits? I'll guess you are not.



posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 02.13.07 (7:00 pm)

Reply to: PastorDave
I know how you feel Dave. And I understand why you feel like you do, but I'll fight any law making abortion a criminal act with MY last dying breath. I'll also fight to make abortion as rare as possible by making sure women have choices that make carrying their pregnancies to term an easier choice. Abortions go down when we take care of our people. Sometime look at U.S. abortion statistics for the last fifteen years. When did they start to go down, and when did they start going up again?






posted by: Barbara (reply)
post date: 02.14.07 (5:27 am)

Yes, I agree, too, that artificial birth control is interferring with the development of a person. The only birth control that I believe is acceptable in God's sight is abstention (sp.) And I believe, too, that He is all-controlling (nothing happens that he does not allow to happen - see Job) as well as all-knowing. We live in a fallen world thanks to Adam and Eve where all kinds of sins happen. But I believe God does't make mistakes when he allows something to happen. He sets a plumb line (the Bible, Old Testatment especially in Lev.) and wants us to obtain it. But knowing we can't, he sent a Rescuer to us, Jesus. It's interesting you used the word "gun", as the Bible, God's Word, is often referred to as the sword, a weapon. I know whom I have believed. All of my opinions are based upon my understanding of scripture, too. And I am still getting to know him better through offerings like yours. Thanks.


posted by: FinalyFree (reply)
post date: 02.15.07 (7:50 am)

Reply to: PastorDave
I definitely have limits, with abortion and most everything else. But it's that right to choose that I advocate. For me personally if more time and money were focused on girls/women not having to make the decision at all as opposed to the morality issue of abortion itself, there'd be more positive results. If some of the so called 'pro-lifers' would use their energy and dollars to promote abstaining from sex as a teenager to helping to provide low-cost alternative birth control methods to all women, they might be surprised at the decline of numbers at clinics nationwide. Perhaps my opinion is way to simplistic but perhaps simplicity isn't such a bad thing?



posted by: evilmammoth (reply)
post date: 02.16.07 (1:54 pm)

Not being bound by any sort of religious beliefs, I am pro-choice to a point. Third trimester for me is iffy, and partial birth abortion...well, let's just say the thought of vacuuming a child's brain out doesn't sit well with me.

That's neither here nor they. I seek not to quibble over when an embryo becomes human. Frankly, I think it is more important not to fill orphanages or bring children in the worlds of unwilling/unfit parents. For anyone who has had a scare, you probably know what I'm talking about.

I digress. I really just wanted to say that I have strong opinions against religion, partially out of personal philosophy and partially because of certain behavior from self-proclaimed believers. This goes for any faith.

I want to congratulate you, though, for taking an even-handed approach to the issue, whatever your final conclusions turn out to be. I write pretty caustic editorials myself, but I try to make it known that debate is healthy. Dissenting opinions are essential. Give and take. Ebb and Flow.

Excellent article.

Your Name:


Your Comment: