A Weblog Dedicated to the Discussion of the Christian Faith and 21st Century Life

A Weblog Dedicated to the Discussion of the Christian Faith and 21st Century Life
___
I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, –that unless I believed, I should not understand.-- St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109)

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

A Message for Those Who Voted for Barack Obama and Who Are "Pro-Choice"

Something to Consider


HT: Craig Carter

14 comments:

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Allan,
Very powerful, for pro-lifers, as it really reminded me of a video from an evangelical organization (can't remember the name) that also supported pro-life issues, but used Beethoven's life, as an example...it may have been Bill Gothard...

No matter what posiiton I personally hold, I value enlarging the view of the narrow minded (if they are open to hear, that is). That is education in the making, as it sharpens reason, and brings a clearer picture or focus of why to believe or not to believe what we believe...

Ethical decisions are complex ones. Some would like to argue that the 10 Commandments are straightforward black and white issues, not even taking into account that how they understand the application of those "laws", are reasoned ways of thinking...

Most use Psalm 139 as reference to a personal directly interventional God, who has a plan for the fetuus's life. While this fits inot the overal scheme of evangleical theological opinion, it does not meet the standards of a little reflection...

The whole argument is based on Scripture (interpreting from an evangelical fundamentalistic perspective..) a personal God, who specifically created the individual life, versus a God who causes by natural processes to allow the resulting life...Some think that this view devalues life, but does it necessarily?

A personal God is needful if one believes in determination of purpose, while, if there is a openness of the creation order, there is a process of interaction with choice and the intersection of history, which is destiny...or life is what you personally make it mean...as valued...

I think believing is a personal God is a childish way of understanding life, as it is not all about me...but about the whole cosmos...yes, it diminishes my "personal value", but then, I create meaning by the things I choose to do or commit to, or not do, or commit to, which is really Christian existentialism...

Some do not think that exitentialism is congruent with Christian faith, but I disagree. It is only in allowing the indivdiual expressions of creation to manifest themselves, in thier own unique way, in personal choice, that the creation is enlarged and gifted..This is not evangelical or orthodox belief, though, which may enrage, irritate, or bring fear upon those who think in concrete ways...

I think what the Church should be about, besides, enlarging the world of others, is also about boundary maintenence which is about relationships and what is appropriate or inappropriate behavior towards another, and why...this does get into social issues, of gay marriage, sex within the confines of a committed relationship (or marriage), etc....some again would hold to a literalistic view of Scripture, which is hard to defend in today's diverse climate of change...I mean we do not hold slaves anymore, do we?

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Allan, a book called "post abortion syndrome" or something to the effect, was written a while back as an apologetic on scientific terms (socially constructed) that supported pro-life stance...my question here would be, if it is proven that across the board there is emotional disengagement from a pro-choice stance, then how do they determine that all people in all place, and at all times respond this way ...and how do they do control experiements...and know that people differ in their specific strengths in relational/emotional developmental capacities...and the possible lack of attachment, so called, is due to another "problem" of family systems dysfunction...or mental illness (narcissism,or other personality disorders, etc.)...and if the pro-lifers understand that it is a more comples issue than what one chooses to do and the result of that choice, perhaps there is some hope for the Christian Church to be inclusive in their attitudes and understandings....

doodlebugmom said...

I voted for Obama and am pro-choice. Yes, its a powerful video. And I myself would not consider having an abortion, that is MY choice. However,I would not dream of taking away another woman's right to choose. It is never that simple.

Anonymous said...

I voted for Obama and am not pro-choice. Choosing a candidate is more complex in my mind and I chose based upon my priorities of who is better to bring together the races, uplift the economy (although maybe this crash is a lesson in greed) and to inspire our youth. I think abortion is a result of poverty, either a state of or fear of...

Allan R. Bevere said...

Angie:

I cannot really answer your question as I have not seen any studies. What I know is anecdotal. I can tell you from having known several people who work and have worked at different crisis pregnancy centers, they regularly see women who come for counseling because they cannot cope with having had an abortion. They also tell me that often the women come there because the place where they got the abortion (usually Planned Parenthood) was not too sympathetic.

Is that the case universally? Of course not. I do not think the matter is unimportant, I am just not sure what to make of it.

You say, "if the pro-lifers understand that it is a more complex issue than what one chooses to do and the result of that choice,..." Most pro-lifers I know are well aware of the complexity of the issue; they just refuse to allow complexity to become the mud of moral ambiguity when it comes to abortion as a serious moral issue.

Actually, I would argue that many pro-choicers do not realize the complexity of abortion in reference to the larger society. How many great people, who could have done so much for humanity, have we aborted? I think the point of the video was precisely that. That's all I was asking those who claim they are pro-choice and who voted for Barack Obama. So many have such high hopes for his presidency. How would they feel if this day would never arrive because his mother decided to exercise her "right to choose?" Abortion is not just a decision that affects only the mother; it affects the unborn child and it has implications for the society and the world. When pro-choicers focus only on the individual choice, they are the ones simplifying the issue.

Doodlebugmom:

See my comments above about the "it's never that simple" response.

The notion of right to choose is arbitrary, and I think comes from a modern culture which idolatrously worships the self as the center of moral standard. It is exactly what we find in the Book of Judges... "Everyone did what was right in his (or her) eyes."

I just continue to be amazed that so many on the Left (I am not suggesting that this is you) who are so concerned about the "least of these," and who believe that society has an obligation to protect the powerless and to speak up for those who have no voice, leave those most powerless and voiceless-- the unborn-- out of their realm of concern.

As my former teacher Stanley Hauerwas used to say, when a society legalizes abortion, it is a vote of no confidence in its children and in the future. How do we honestly tell our children that we could have aborted them and still have them be glad that they are our children.

As far as taking away a woman's choice-- I have to say that unfortunately, legalized abortion is here to stay. The Republican Party has strung pro-lifers along for years with empty promises. More than a few of them are now going with the Democrats in the hope of reducing abortions. My view on this is that the Democratic Party is doing the same thing. They are stringing along the pro-lifers to get their vote by paying lip-service to abortion reduction. Pro-choice groups have the Democrats in their pockets and abortion has become a big and lucrative business. Anyone who is pro-life and thinks either political party is truly interested in their concerns is walking down the yellow brick road with Dorothy.

Anon:

Yes, you are right, choosing a candidate is complex and I understand that there is more than one issue when it comes to voting, but the truth of the matter is, while most people do not vote on just one issue, all of us have issues that are a priority for us as you admit yourself. Abortion may be issue number one for James Dobson, but poverty is issue number one for Jim Wallis. How would Wallis respond if someone said to him, "C'mon Jim, there are other issues beside poverty." He would no doubt agree, but I guaurantee that he would not vote for any candidate who he believed would not try to help the poor, even if he agreed with them on everything else. The same is true for those Christians who place abortion at the top of their list of important issues.

You say, "I think abortion is a result of poverty, either a state of or fear of..." To use a word that is getting thrown out alot in this discussion-- the reasons are more complex than poverty, and a significant number of abortions happen for reasons other than poverty.

Jonathan Marlowe said...

Thank you for your witness, Allan.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Thanks, Allan. You are correct about the complexity of choosing one candidate and you do a good job in showing why...I just choose (sometimes without conscious choice) to "play the devil's advocate, when it comes to what some call straightforward answer to moral questions...and I disagree with some very close to me when it comes to some social issues which I think need to be researched scientifically, in regards to making judgments "based on Scripture" alone...I can't stand the "culture of the Moral Majority", perhaps, because I was part of it and I see where it has fallen short in making people really human in relating to one another...it causes prejidice, and self-righteousness...I hate it!

Ted M. Gossard said...

Powerful. Thanks for sharing that.

I think I agree with Mart DeHaan that we need to get back to those who, like the early Christians were noted for not aborting, and for their starkly different way of life, rather than thinking we can legislate things through in Washington.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I don't think going back to then will affect now, as going back to the roots of "tradtion" in dress, food, etc. is "legislating" like Muslims do, with Shairiah. Should we go back to stoning the adulterer, too? That would be uncivilized, and surely would not do anything except make one look foolish and irrelavant.. to the modern world.
As far as RBCs, fundamentalists also simplify their faith, which is fine for those who choose to believe that way, but I think it is misguided for them to think they will change the world through this type of understanding.
The Restoratin movement is such a movement...
Those who would believe this way would have the mother, who aborted, stoned, as it is life for life...

Allan R. Bevere said...

Ted:

I agree; we cannot get everything done through legislation. The politics of witness is the church's primary mode of political "involvement." Of course, there are times to become activist as well. If President Obama signs FOCA, it will give faith-based hospitals who receive Federal funds the ultimatum of providing abortion services or losing those funds, which will effectively put them out of business. Catholc hospitals will close unless they can make up for the loss of those funds through private donations, which may happen in a few places, but certainly not all. It seems to me that Christians need to vocally oppose FOCA which I am going to do.

Angie:

It seems to me that you are guilty once again of oversimplification, lumping conservatives, funadmentalists, restorationists etc. all in the same intolerant camp.

For someone who seems to think people on the right are so simplistic about faith and life, you continue to make simplistic associations and draw the same kinds of conclusions. Your arguments need more nuance.

doodlebugmom said...

I will never believe that a fetus should have more rights than the mother.

One more thing...Our country needs to get out of the dark ages as far as birth control is concerned. Prevention is the key unwanted pregnancies.

As for medical reasons. I would prefer the goverment stay out of things between me and my doctor. It is pro choice, not pro abortion.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Doodlebugmom,
I think that 'dark ages" is a strong term, but I'll agree that the decisions are difficult to address..
The pro-life movement as a whole is driven by those who believe that God intervenes in the affairs of men/women...an open universe.We cannot dismiss their "input" into government without limiting religious freedom, which some atheists would want to do...
Whereas, many issues play into the pragmatic choices concerning pro-choice. The U.N. is pro-choice as in population control, because of limited resources. But, if one believes that the "second coming" is immeninent and that "all that doesn't matter", then there will be less of a concern about population control and limited resources...or with the spread of AIDS, or with stem-cell research for the betterment of mankind..all of these are issues that go into the complexity of "life on earth" and as stewards, whether Christian or not, one would think that this would be a concern...it is important to address the issues of who are living beings...as we are interconnected...

Allan R. Bevere said...

Doodlebugmom:

I am not suggesting that a fetus should have more rights than the mother; I am saying he/she should not have less.

I never even addressed the birth control issue. I am all for birth control; but the solution to the abortion dilemma cannot be reduced simply to better birth control. It is more than a matter of unwanted pregnancies; it is a matter of what we believe life to be about and the purpose that God has given to each individual life, and what that means for those unexpected pregnancies when they do happen, which they will even in spite of better birth control.

The reason why I cannot accept your premise of government getting in the way of a personal decision is that one of government's tasks is to do its best protect the innocent, and I included the fetus as such. So, it is not only about the life that is the mother, but the life that is the child as well.

You and I are just going to have to disagree on the language. I am convinced that "pro-choice" is just cover language for "pro-abortion." Once one goes into pro-choice mode, abortion is not seen as a bad thing, simply a personal decision.

Angie:

Yes, in general I think you are correct in reference to one narrow group of Christians in reference to the Second Coming and all that, but for many Christians the issues are larger theologically-- the notion of life as a gift, that life has purpose, and with all the things you speak of, that God is providentially caring for this world. There is a larger theological discussion that is involved here that is not captured by the very narrow and limited perspectives of "right to life" and "right to choose." It is precisely this language on both sides of the debate that has simplified and limited the discussion.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I just question how we understand life itself. Christians have socially constructed their "meaning" in history through their understanding of God and Scripture. There are other religions/cultures that differ in their understandings. No one can "prove" which historical understanding is "right" or even "best". It is a cultural value...this is why colonialism is wrong, as it assumes an understanding that is necessarily Western cultural values. That does not mean that I don't think that the West is best, but that is because I am from the West and because I have internalized these understandings...and values.

Of course, depending on the view (discipline) one is committed to, will determine how all of these differences are evaluated..Western business would have a different perspective, as their goal or interest would be "pragmatically" productive, useful, purposeful as in economic value...