Wedge Issues (Part 2, by Romal Tune)
During the summer of 2003, my cousin and his girlfriend celebrated the birth of their son Glenn Molex, III. I remember getting the call from his father and hearing the pride in his voice when he told me about the birth. My cousin and his girlfriend live in the inner city and by social definitions, they are poor. But in spite of their financial situation, when they found out that they were going to become parents, they decided to go through with the pregnancy and keep the baby. They do not attend church, and I'm not sure if they have ever been inside a church for anything other than funerals for friends lost to street violence.
Two weeks after my grandmother died I received a call from my mother, who is also now deceased, telling me that there was a drive-by shooting on my cousin's house. He, friends, and other family members were sitting on the porch that night when a car drove up and shots were fired. My cousin's girlfriend was in the house with the baby. She laid him on the couch and ran to see if everyone was okay. When she returned to get the baby, he was dead -- a stray bullet hit him in the head. What's my point in sharing this tragedy?
These were two young people living in poverty who decided to have their child, not because they are Christians, not because of their understanding of the Bible, or not because of any change in legislation related to abortion, but simply because they wanted to raise and love their child. However, that dream was taken away from them because of a drive-by shooting.
Here is where I find myself getting angry with the right-to-life argument. I don't like the idea of abortion. I know women who have made that choice, and they have told me it was the hardest thing for them to do. Some regret it, some don't, but all of them agree that it has stayed with them all of their lives. What I would like to see from those who champion the right-to-life argument is that they spend just as much energy fighting for children to have the right to a better life once they are born. I do not condemn their perspective; I just believe they should go much further and fight for a child's future once he or she is born. In other words, fight for better public schools, for tougher gun laws, mentoring programs, after-school programs to give kids options so that they don't choose gangs, and adopt children who need a loving family.
Similarly, rather than condemning women who choose to have abortions, the question we have to answer is this: Will the church minister to women in the pain of making that decision and help them find healing through a God who still loves them -- a God who is forgiving and who reminds us that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ, and because of him even in our brokenness we can be made whole? God does not hate people; God hates sin, which is why God sent Jesus, so that sin no longer has the power to separate us from God.
When it comes to abortion and homosexuality, maybe we should look at how our words can hurt people emotionally and distance them spiritually. Is it possible that we can do what a wise man once told me:
When you are doing the work of ministering to people, it is not your job to change anyone, only God can do that, your job is to be a connector. You introduce them to God and let them get to know each other. Our assignment is simply to hold God's people with our hands open, with all of their hopes, dreams, faults, fears, pain, and doubts. You hold them with your hands open, and the moment you try to close your hands and mold them into what you think they should be, you are going too far.
I think he was right. Had I allowed myself to be molded into the image of what others thought I should be, I would not be "becoming" the person that God wants me to be. I would have become what others chose to create, a proverbial golden calf created by those who were too impatient to wait on God.
Rev. Romal Tune is the CEO of Clergy Strategic Alliances, a graduate of Howard University and Duke University School of Divinity, and a member of the Red Letter Christians.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Here is where we get to the nub of things. Rev. Tune's entire brief against the pro-life movement can be summed up: "Why don't these people care about what I care about?" The same question can just as easily be asked of others though: "Why aren't you more concerned about abortion?"
But in the same article he concludes with observation that we should all be who God created us to be, and not let ourselves be molded into what others want.
This gets us nowhere. God calls each of us to our own ministry. For some of us this means activism on a broad range of issues. For others it may mean concentrating on one particular issue, like abortion, or combatting the street crime that took the life of Rev. Tune's cousin's son. And for others that calling may have little to do with politics. Does that mean they are okay with both abortion and drive-by shootings?
During World War II, lots of men fought in Europe, and lots of men fought in the Pacific. The fact that a soldier fought on, say, Iwo Jima didn't mean that he didn't want to see Hitler beaten too.
We all have our callings, things that God has laid on our hearts. Even if we disagree at some point we should give our brothers some benefit of the doubt about both their desire to follow and the value of their calling.
Posted by: Lord Voldemort | August 12, 2008 10:38 AM
Here is where we get to the nub of things. Rev. Tune's entire brief against the pro-life movement can be summed up: "Why don't these people care about what I care about?" The same question can just as easily be asked of others though: "Why aren't you more concerned about abortion?"
I don't think he's saying that. However, in the evangelical world abortion has been at times the number one social priority to the exclusion of almost everything else; back in the 1980s it was as if anti-abortion activism was the first thing some people did after conversion, and it hurt the witness of the church because demonstrations and voting became relatively easy. That was a clearly unbalanced approach.
Posted by: Rick | August 12, 2008 11:00 AM
Voldemort, I agree with some of what you said but disagree with your assessment of Tune's article. The right-to-life leadership seems to have a "devil's pact" with the fiscal-conservative establishment (Chambers of Commerce, Norquist tax-cutters, etc.) that their issue will get a constant hearing in the Republican Party as long as they can bring in the votes and not rock the boat on any structural issues. Individuals who feel strongly that abortion should be made illegal have essentially been told for years that they can approach this topic in a vaccuum, without taking the environmental or personal dimensions of an individual's reproductive decisions into account. This is precisely what is meant by wedge issue: keep it simple, convenient, non-negotiable, and divorced from its overal context.
Fortunately, there is one national anti-abortion organization that is not like this: Feminists for Life. This organization tries to make childcare and other supports more readily available to women so that they can give their child a better life and be less inclined to choose abortion. While I think there are still things that they could do better--such as to confront poverty head-on in a more intentional way and to address minority issues with respect to abortion--I encourage people who feel as Rev. Tune does to look into this organization.
Posted by: I and I | August 12, 2008 11:11 AM
you stated that we needed more gun control laws. do you really think the people doing this drive by shooting had a legal weapon and had gotten their gun through legal means? roger
Posted by: roger | August 12, 2008 11:43 AM
There is some good thought going into these commentaries by Rev. Tune. In particular, I share his concern about anger being directed towards people because they harbor different views on these issues, and even not different views, just different ways of talking about these issues in the public square. When one looks at people who have different policy ideas and labels them “enemies” it’s hard to have reasonable conversation about important issues.
I also agree with him when he writes that “If we support legislation solely on the premise that certain behaviors are sin, doing so will not do anything to affect a person's relationship with God.” This is very true. Outlawing abortion will not change anyone’s relationship with God. But this maxim doesn’t just apply to the “wedge” issues discussed in this commentary. It applies to other issues favored by the political left as well. Those on the left like to say we need a more just society and that to that end we should redistribute wealth using the force of the government because Jesus tells us we need to help the poor. While this may help the poor, it doesn’t affect the wealthy person’s relationship with God. This doesn’t create a truly just society; it just creates a society in which the poor get more assistance. A truly just society would be one in which everyone voluntarily gave to the poor without coercion. My point is just that dismissing a policy proposal because it doesn’t affect a person’s relationship with God should either be applied across the board to all public policy or discouraged.
I assume when Rev. Tune writes that “Here is where I find myself getting angry with the right-to-life argument,” he really means “getting angry with certain individuals on the religious right who employ the right-to-life argument”. Many, many people who support the “right-to-life argument” also do work for better public schools, after school programs, mentoring programs, etc. in their communities. The right-to-life argument isn’t the problem here, nor are most self-described “pro-lifers” the problem.
One final thought I’d be interested in others’ opinions on. There’s a lot of talk on this blog about Biblical prophets and modern day prophets. Certainly, in the Bible, the prophets did a lot of condemnation of sin and sinfulness. They didn’t pull any punches. Some of the modern day prophets lauded by people on this blog don’t either. How do the actions of these “prophets” hold up to the desire to not condemn the actions of other people? I’m not saying condemnation is the best tactic in every situation; I think it usually does more harm than good. But when is the time for condemnation and when is the time for love and compassion? I don’t think there’s any easy answer.
Posted by: Eric | August 12, 2008 11:44 AM
my church has a day care and has an after school program. this is all part of being a downtown church. we do not need to use the force of government. we the church are capable. roger
Posted by: roger | August 12, 2008 11:49 AM
"I assume when Rev. Tune writes that “Here is where I find myself getting angry with the right-to-life argument,” he really means “getting angry with certain individuals on the religious right who employ the right-to-life argument”. "
If that is what he really means, then he did not express himself well. I think he has simply stereotyped those who adhere to a political position, which is the very thing he decries.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 12, 2008 11:49 AM
Rev. Tune creates and then destroys lots of strawmen in this article.
Posted by: Jeff | August 12, 2008 12:01 PM
I could not agree with you more! As minister, who has also been a therapist, with a wife who was once a teacher- I know that a better world is possible for our kids once they are born. I am pro-life, but you have certianly given us a great call, to make sure then when we say pro-life it doesn't just mean that I am against abortion, it also means I am against the death penalty and for programs that will help improve the quality of life for others.
Posted by: JD | August 12, 2008 12:04 PM
Kevin,
No he didn't express himself clearly (assuming he really meant what I think he meant), that's why I mentioned that sentence.
Posted by: Eric | August 12, 2008 12:11 PM
I’m not saying condemnation is the best tactic in every situation; I think it usually does more harm than good. But when is the time for condemnation and when is the time for love and compassion?
That depends on the attitude of the recipient. If the person is already humble and willing to change a gentler approach is sufficient; however, if he or she is haughty, indifferent and dismissive stronger commentary is needed. This is because the latter doesn't see the need for God.
And as for "redistributing wealth," keep in mind that it's power, and not the money itself, that's the issue. God condemns rich people when, and only when, they use their heft for their own aggrandizement and abuse the poor in the process.
Posted by: Rick | August 12, 2008 12:16 PM
Rick,
Your delineation between when to use condemnation and when to use compassion when it comes to specific individuals, is a good one. It gets trickier though when one is talking about sinful behavior that permeates a society (e.g. materialism, greed, selfishness…).
I agree that when wealth is condemned by God it is wealth that is either acquired by unjust means or used for self-aggrandizement. There is no inherent sin in making money. This is the hazard though that comes with justifying the redistribution of wealth/power in Biblical terms. The unjustly wealthy and the justly wealthy get rapped with the same big stick.
Posted by: Eric | August 12, 2008 12:32 PM
Lord Voldemort,
Perhaps you should have been more clear in the post. I did not want to sugggest that all who fight for right to life don't engage other important issues. I was trying to point out that some of the people I come in contact with, do not fight for other issues important to improve the lives of children and communities they have to live in. I do know people that have a wholistic approach to meeting the needs of children and are right to life advocates. I wanted to point out that we need more diverse and wholistic approaches to meeting the complicated needs of children and poor families trying to raise their children. We need to learn from those Christians working to create safe communities so that once a child is born, he or she has a fair chance to succeed and live out their God given potential. I am pro-life as a Christian. But I don't believe abortion should be illegal because not every American shares my religious beliefs.
Thanks for your insights and critique of the post. I'm working on developing my post more clearly and fairly with an open mind to other opinion and suggestions.
Also, someone pointed out that the people who killed my cousin likely used illegal purchased guns. That i probably the case. The issue is that guns are far to easy to get on our streets. We need better gun laws. Many of the guns that end up on the streets were purchased by someone legally and then sold on the streets. Although I was angry and sad about what happend, as a minister working in communities, i later began to ask myself how we can reach young men and women before the hearts are hardend and they end up in gangs or engaged in other unhealthy behaviors. Most of what we see these kids doing is an outward expression of a lot of pain experienced in their lives. And as I said before, hurt people, "Hurt people." if we can some how stop or heal their pain, we can stop others like myself from experiencing what happens when people are not heald spiritually and emotionally.
Posted by: Rev. Tune | August 12, 2008 12:46 PM
It gets trickier though when one is talking about sinful behavior that permeates a society (e.g. materialism, greed, selfishness…).
The same principles apply, however, and the institutions that foster injustice need to be challenged. People tend to forget that MLK Jr. touched on all these issues, not just racism
There is no inherent sin in making money. This is the hazard though that comes with justifying the redistribution of wealth/power in Biblical terms. The unjustly wealthy and the justly wealthy get rapped with the same big stick.
That's not really the point -- it's how attached people are to their wealth/power, and you can tell that by how they react when it appears to be at all threatened, which is why I dismiss any and all arguments against "economic redistribution." After all, that was the very same justification for opposing the overthrow of apartheid in South Africa -- it really wasn't at all about economics.
Posted by: Rick | August 12, 2008 12:49 PM
Rev. Tune,
"Although I was angry and sad about what happend, as a minister working in communities, i later began to ask myself how we can reach young men and women before the hearts are hardend and they end up in gangs or engaged in other unhealthy behaviors. Most of what we see these kids doing is an outward expression of a lot of pain experienced in their lives. And as I said before, hurt people, "Hurt people." if we can some how stop or heal their pain, we can stop others like myself from experiencing what happens when people are not heald spiritually and emotionally."
Check out Royal Family Kid's Camp at rfkc.org I just returned from a camp in Illinois. Royal Family Kid's Camps are camps for abused, neglected and/or abandoned children. Most of the kids are in the county social services system. The mission of RFKC is exactly the same as you mention above.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | August 12, 2008 1:04 PM
Rev. Tune -
You have my deepest sympathy on the loss of your young cousin. I know it must still hurt, even after five years. What a senseless, meaningless violation of a precious human life. Thanks for sharing this story and for struggling so publicly with your efforts to make some sense of it.
Posted by: Another nonymous | August 12, 2008 1:13 PM
Rev. Tune and others--thanks for opening this discussion. I will do my best not to get too heated. :)
Doesn't our view of government have anything to do with this? What sort of role should government play in a Christian understanding of society?
My understanding is that a government should seek to protect the basic rights of citizens and offer basic services for the healthy functioning of society. As such, I am pro-life: since an unborn baby is in some measure a human life, it deserves the basic protection of government. (Here I disagree with Rev. Tune--if a human life is at stake, which is the primary reason to be pro-life, then I believe you should support a ban on legally taking a human life. That is, unless you also want to repeal laws against thievery and murder because "not every American shares your religious beliefs." We don't enact laws to enforce religious beliefs, but to provide basic protections for our citizens.)
Once they are born, people are not automatically entitled--or subject to--a guarantee of the state's conception of "the good life," whatever that looks like. They are accorded the same basic protections that the state is supposed to provide.
If what you are advocating, Rev. Tune, is that Christians begin to develop holistic ministries not dependent on taxpayer dollars, I am 100% with you.
If you are advocating that the state mandate a Christian vision of justice and tax everyone to make that happen, then I'm not. Simply because I don't support that does not make me unconcerned with the plight of the poor once they are born.
However, it does reveal my skepticism about the ability of our government to meaningfully define and enforce the Kingdom of God. Better they stick to the business of protecting rights and providing basic services and leave the Kingdom-building to Kingdom people.
Posted by: Mike J | August 12, 2008 2:00 PM
In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man did nothing "wrong" but he was still cast into the pit of fire because he did not do what was "right".
Its not how much money you have, its what you do or don't do with the money that matters.
The same goes for the issue of abortion, it matters what YOU do, not the government. What are you doing to reduce the desire to have abortions? Are you working with programs that prevent pregnancies, helping teenagers stay pure or offering prenatal and post natal care? If the Government offered to help pay the operating costs and childcare would you be able to provide services in your church or community?
As to the question about gun laws: Those guns that kill children were legal at some point. Just because the shooters did not get them legally has no meaning. They got legal guns illegally and used them to kill children. We need to realize that those who own guns need to be responsible and protect the guns from theft.
WE do need laws that make it harder for criminals to obtain guns yet many states have such weak laws that criminals from one state can go to another state and "legally" buy guns. They then sell these guns under the counter to fellow criminals in even other states.
During the Watts riots, guns where "stolen" from a freight car that was left unattended for three days. To this day nobody has ever explained why that car was left there and who owned the guns.
All life is worth saving!
Posted by: Paul,seeking wisdom | August 12, 2008 2:11 PM
Mike J,
"Better they stick to the business of protecting rights and providing basic services and leave the Kingdom-building to Kingdom people." I like that line a lot. I'm going to have to use that one. And yes, I do believe that we can build holistic ministries in ways that don't rely on the government. At the same time, we must hold the government accountable so that it does not perpetuate systems of oppression. I certainly understand your perspective on the pro-life issue but it is something that I still wrestle with. My concern is that even if we ban it, people are still going to do it and they will do in even more danger setting and more dangerous ways. Let's say it becomes illegal, we'll have people trying to raise children they never wanted to have which is terrible for the child as well; and i'm not saying that's reason to keep it legal. We will have more kids abandoned or if lucky in foster homes. I think aboration is wrong and I think there are ways we can work to make it rare and uncommon. I also think social factors make it easy for people to choose abortion. Soceity perpetuates a lot of selfishness and individualism that we didn't see in my grandmothers generation or even my mothers generation. The entire family helped raise a child back then; yes, some are still doing it but the even the notion of family has changed. Everything seems to be about money and the good life. Now the church can set a better example but the challenge to us is not to bring societal norms into the church and try to make them fit people who are supposed to be set a part and called to a higher standard. I've been in more churches than I can count that teach an unhealthy gospel of consumerism and you would think they're sermons come out fo the book of illusions rather than any from the Bible. You're right, it's up to us in many ways and it a huge responsibility and challenge. The more i think about it, the only way we'll ever be successful is to allow the Holy Spirit to use us even more and rely on God rather than our own abilities.
Posted by: Rev. Tune | August 12, 2008 2:27 PM
Rick,
So are you saying it is sinful for someone to object to any attempts by a government to reduce his or her standard of living or power in a community because, by virtue of that objection, he or she has shown they are too attached to that position in the community or standard of living?
Posted by: Eric | August 12, 2008 2:37 PM
I will say it again; the idea that one can be personally opposed to abortion yet against legal efforts to prevent it is both morally and intellectually debased. For one, abortion is not merely a religious issue-- beyond philosophical questions about the rights of a zygote, legal and rational arguments dictate that a viable fetus should not "be terminated" (euphamism for sticking a fork in a baby's brain). That these issues are secondary to government welfare (which depend significantly on religious perspectives and are funded by the taxes of non-believers) is ludicrous. The argument that making abortion illegal will lead to dangerous back alley abortions is also intellectually bunk-- it would be like me arguing that outlawing capital punishment will lead to more vigilante killings. Because the moral cost of something might be high, it does not mean we should abandon morality.
I'm very progressive politically and socially on a number of issues-- no doubt i agree that significant efforts at reducing poverty and increasing justice are priorities for Christian discipleship and are even in the interest of common good in our society. But progressive Christians like yourself, Rev. Tune, will not carry the moral authority to preach against social ills of one stripe while ignoring the grave social evil of abortion-on-demand.
Posted by: Matt K | August 12, 2008 2:45 PM
Paul,
Would you apply the same logic you use about abortion policy (it matters what YOU do, not the government) to any other area of social justice or human rights issues?
Posted by: Eric | August 12, 2008 2:46 PM
Matt K, I envy your absolute certainty. It also scares me to death.
Posted by: carl copas | August 12, 2008 3:03 PM
So are you saying it is sinful for someone to object to any attempts by a government to reduce his or her standard of living or power in a community because, by virtue of that objection, he or she has shown they are too attached to that position in the community or standard of living?
It might be. You see, the government has two roles: Restrain evil and administer justice, and when rich people use their heft to promote unjust policies they need to be dealt with. Besides, it's not as though they're reducing the "standard of living" all that much, only the authority that might come with it.
By the same token, those same people who complain about "economic redistribution" do so in only one direction -- from the "rich" to the "poor." As has been mentioned here at other times, those same folks were silent when it began going the other way during the Reagan years and still does today -- that's immoral and should be illegal (but enforcement would be the problem).
Posted by: Rick | August 12, 2008 3:06 PM
Eric,
Your description of a fully just society is lacking. For one thing you are confusing justice with charity. They are not the same thing. God using the government to feed the poor is just especially when so many rich and others waste. God has a long history of using forced distribution to show how we should live and just because you don't like it doesn't mean God won't use it.
p
Posted by: Payshun | August 12, 2008 3:33 PM
Payshun,
I'm not confused between justice and charity; I know the difference. A truly just society is one in which all people voluntarily work to address the needs of the poor and needy out of love for them. My idea of a truly just society is far superior to a society in which people are forced to help the poor against their will with the threat of legal action if they don't. I don't think my idea of an ideal society is lacking at all. What is it lacking?
That being said, what do you think about my larger point I was making - that one shouldn't pick and choose which public policy proposals to apply the standard about affecting a person’s relationship with God?
Posted by: Eric | August 12, 2008 3:50 PM
"This is the hazard though that comes with justifying the redistribution of wealth/power in Biblical terms. The unjustly wealthy and the justly wealthy get rapped with the same big stick."
This is well said, and I'm going to steal it for future use.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 12, 2008 3:56 PM
Rick,
“It may be.” That leads back to my original statement that “This is the hazard that comes with justifying the redistribution of wealth/power in Biblical terms. The unjustly wealthy and the justly wealthy get rapped with the same big stick.” In your mind “it may be” sinful to object, but not all the time. The unjust and the just get caught up in the same redistribution schemes.
You believe that “…when rich people use their heft to promote unjust policies they need to be dealt with” and that such actions as reducing taxes on the wealthy should be criminalized. In your ideal world people who support a reduction of corporate tax rates or upper income taxes brackets would be prosecuted. This is basically criminalizing pretty mainstream political views just because you think they are in conflict with Biblical teaching. Karl Rove would be so envious of your boldness! If your worldview is so extreme that anyone who supports reducing taxes on people other than the poor should be made a criminal there really is no point in discussing this issue with you.
Please reconsider another nonymous’ words of advice from the other forum: "Let's start by recognizing that our opponents are people taking principled stands because of moral principles in which they deeply believe."
Posted by: Eric | August 12, 2008 3:58 PM
For one thing you are still confusing justice with charity. Humor me for a minute and explain the difference. For another God has used forced distribution in every world power to make sure the poor were fed, whether it was ancient Egypt or Babylon. God seems to understand that the ideal you are living is not at a protection for the poor. It's just not. There is graft, theft, and generally people don't care for the poor by choice in large numbers, hence the need for the law.
I agree with your point completely. Feeding the poor has nothing to do with a person's relationship with God on a legalistic level. The law can't save the soul, it kills it. But this is where we disagree the law can also protect those that can't protect themselves and it can do that by using force when necessary.
p
Posted by: Payshun | August 12, 2008 4:05 PM
Carl, you're pretending I'm something I'm not. It is in fact my skepticism that drives most of my opinionating about abortion. If you'll read closer, you'll see I don't necessarily subscribe to an dogma that all abortion must be 100% illegal. My position is that for as little as we understand about abortion, that it should be accesable "on demand" as birth control beyond the stage of fetal viability is a HUGE moral assumption on our part that we may (or may not) stand in judgement for. From a somewhat post-modern epistomology, I've concluded I would rather "err" on the side of life and put stricter limits on abortion in this country.
I know it would be easier to argue against me if I'm were a fundamentalist who hasn't done any real reflection on this-- but I'm not. The religious left needs to engage the issue with some consistency rather than sell out to a democratic party beholden to pro-abortion monies. Again, let me reiterate that I'm pretty progressive on most issues; but it remains clear that progressive Christianity has skirted this one out of political convenience.
Posted by: Matt K | August 12, 2008 4:23 PM
Payshun,
Maybe I should have said this up front because I think you're confused about what I'm saying. I'm not saying using the government to help and protect the poor by taxing those who have means is bad public policy. I think it's good public policy. I'm just saying it doesn't create a truly just society. With the risk of getting repetitive, a truly just society is one in which people administer justice out of love for the people who need it, not because they are threatened by legal action. Yes, it's a lot to expect from people, but Jesus expected a lot from us.
The difference between charity and justice (when it comes to the poor) is that charity is basically meeting the daily need of someone who is poor - making sure they have enough to get through the day. A good example is a soup kitchen. Justice is making sure that that same person doesn't have to depend on charity but can make their own way in life - giving him or her the opportunity to not just survive, but take responsibility for their own well-being.
Posted by: Eric | August 12, 2008 4:30 PM
"ignoring the grave social evil of abortion-on-demand."
matt k,
i hope you will venture back over to where i responded to your most recent post about "abortion on demand" on part one of tune's commentary. beyond viability, you are just completely wrong. perhaps you don't make a distinction b/t pre & post viability in protecting "life," but surely you can at least see where reasonable & moral people might do so.
Posted by: nad2 | August 12, 2008 4:35 PM
The unjust and the just get caught up in the same redistribution schemes.
But who is more likely to complain? The "unjust." For that reason they hire people to lobby Congress and state halls to get their taxes reduced, often by promising financial support (but not directly, of course) to a re-election campaign or else threatening to work for a candidate that will do so if the incumbent isn't "cooperative." Sadly, our political system was built to accommodate that. That's what I'm talking about.
Posted by: Rick | August 12, 2008 4:36 PM
I mostly like what you have to say, Romal, but you hedge on the gay marriage issue, talking around it in a way that leaves your position vague. The truest thing you said about the issue of homosexuality is that you don't understand it, because if you did, you would be clear: God don't make no junk. Most folks are right handed; a few are left handed. Most folks are heterosexual. A few are homosexual. Nobody should be excluded from full participation in in our social order or more importantly, in our Christian community because of who they are. That includes the institution of marriage.
Posted by: Conrad Steinhoff | August 12, 2008 5:23 PM
Matt K, thanks for the explanation. I feel a little more at ease now.
Like you, I oppose abortion. But I have many friends who are very thoughtful, upright folk and defend abortion pre-viability. That makes me reluctant to support outlawing abortion. My stance is that they will have to answer for their actions.
I mentioned before on similar threads: as the father of two adopted children, this is an issue that is very close to me personally.
Posted by: carl copas | August 12, 2008 5:45 PM
Posted by: Lord Voldemort | August 12, 2008 10:38 AM
"Rev. Tune's entire brief against the pro-life movement can be summed up: "Why don't these people care about what I care about?" The same question can just as easily be asked of others though: "Why aren't you more concerned about abortion?" "
Well, perhaps it was less confusing before the anti-abortionists decided to frame the debate by calling themselves pro-life, without really being pro ALL life. If you only care about abortion, then call yourself "anti-abortion" or "pro-fetal-life" or "pro-birth". Don't call yourself pro-life and make statements like "After they're born, too bad, expecting me to do anything about them is THEFT. And it's UNBIBLICAL. And show me where Jesus said the government should take MY MONEY."
If you really care about a fetus, then providing medical care and some diapers and baby food aren't going to cut it. And for all the reasons Rev. Tune has already stated, passing a law isn't going to change anything.
Jane
Posted by: Jane | August 12, 2008 5:45 PM
Jane,
"After they're born, too bad, expecting me to do anything about them is THEFT. And it's UNBIBLICAL. And show me where Jesus said the government should take MY MONEY."
Do you really believe this is a fair representation of the pro-life view?
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | August 12, 2008 5:58 PM
"Don't call yourself pro-life and make statements like "After they're born, too bad, expecting me to do anything about them is THEFT. And it's UNBIBLICAL. And show me where Jesus said the government should take MY MONEY." "
This phrase is in quotes. Who are you quoting here?
I don't have a problem with the term anti-abortion either, but this is pure semantics. I can think of all sorts of choices that the "pro-choice" side would ban by legislation.
The "buying diapers" argument could equally apply to those who wish for infanticide to remain illegal (which is almost everyone). As such, it is immaterial to this debate.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 12, 2008 6:09 PM
"Do you really believe this is a fair representation of the pro-life view?
Jeff"
It was not intended to be a representation of a genuine pro-life view. It is what I see among anti-abortionists. I have seen it in this thread, numerous times, in almost those words. Not pretty, is it?
In my mind, somebody who is "pro-life" is also concerned about life after birth.
Jane
Posted by: Jane | August 12, 2008 6:13 PM
In my mind, somebody who is "pro-life" is also concerned about life after birth.
Jane
Posted by: Jane
I believe that is what is strange about this conversation . God says he knew us in the womb if you believe the Bible , and God cares about out our every need .
So caring people can disagree , but since when did being pro life or pro choice make one caring or not . You can rude , obnoxius , selfish , and still be right . Pro choice folks are just wrong . Thank God some were brought up in a way to be considerate and caring of others .
Posted by: politicsmakesusthisway | August 12, 2008 6:30 PM
Jane,
I find your rant to be ironic to me personally. A number of years ago I started a personal items shelf for the poor. The main items were diapers and feminine hygiene products (essential products that can't be purchased with food stamps). I faced vigorous opposition from the lady who ran the area food-shelf because "diapers take up so much landfill space". She also had a position with the local United Way, so she threatened to reduce services to our community if we went forward with our plan.
We went ahead and opened up and helped many poor young moms and others. BTW, I'm prolife she's prochoice. It really is difficult to pigeon hole people.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | August 12, 2008 6:32 PM
Posted by: kevin s. | August 12, 2008 6:09 PM
"I don't have a problem with the term anti-abortion either, but this is pure semantics. I can think of all sorts of choices that the "pro-choice" side would ban by legislation."
The term "pro-choice" was a silly response to the anti-abortionists claim to be "pro-life". I guess everybody thinks it's better PR to be pro something than anti.
"Who are you quoting here?"
It was obviously not a direct quote. But it pretty well sums up the way I felt reading some of the posts here. Even if I didn't think it was my Christian duty to pay taxes which improve quality of life for all, I think it is my duty as a citizen of an enlightened 21st century society.
Jane
Posted by: Jane | August 12, 2008 6:35 PM
Eric said:
Justice is making sure that that same person doesn't have to depend on charity but can make their own way in life - giving him or her the opportunity to not just survive, but take responsibility for their own well-being.
Me:
That's the goal of justice but not what true justice is. You are describing empowerment. They are not the same thing. But I will get to that in a minute.
I understand what you are saying and I did appreciate your explanation about what you honestly think about welfare. It clarified a few things. One, it shows that you have a rather complex view about it. Two, you are standing up for a policy that helps the poor even though you have some fundamental objections to the use of "force." Three, it showed me that you can be a realist.
Justice is bigger than empowerment or your idea of justice. It's the basic premise that all persons and groups within a nation or the planet are treated equally. That's justice. Empowerment is part of that but it involves corporate empowerment too. It's not just about the individual. Here's a really great quote on social justice.
"It is generally thought of as a world which affords individuals and groups fair treatment and an impartial share of the benefits of society."
p
Posted by: Payshun | August 12, 2008 8:15 PM
Jane,
You can call me whatever you like and I'll wear the label proudly. I don't consider it a slander to be called anti-abortion.
I'm confused by what you wrote here: "If you really care about a fetus, then providing medical care and some diapers and baby food aren't going to cut it. And for all the reasons Rev. Tune has already stated, passing a law isn't going to change anything."
Do you or do you not think our society should try to look after low-income mothers by helping them with the costs of providing for their newborn babies? I would think medical care, diapers and baby food would be helpful.
Also, Rev. Tune didn't say a law wouldn't change anything. He said passing legislation "will not do anything to affect a person's relationship with God." That is true, but a ban certainly would discourage many women from choosing abortion.
Posted by: Eric | August 12, 2008 8:29 PM
Posted by: Eric | August 12, 2008 8:29 PM
"Do you or do you not think our society should try to look after low-income mothers by helping them with the costs of providing for their newborn babies? I would think medical care, diapers and baby food would be helpful."
Yes, I believe that society should try to look after low-income mothers, and I think there is a limit to what churches can do. Medical care would be very helpful, but it should not be limited to pre-natal care. It should be available to the post-born infant and also to the mother, and to the child throughout his or her life. Diapers and baby food are helpful. What about decent housing? Decent schools? Transportation to a job? Day care? What about clothing for the school-aged child? Job prospects for that child? Parents so overwhelmed with the effort to survive, that they pay no attention to the child? Financial and emotional obligations do not end with infancy. Support for the child implies support for the entire family.
"Also, Rev. Tune didn't say a law wouldn't change anything. He said passing legislation "will not do anything to affect a person's relationship with God." That is true, but a ban certainly would discourage many women from choosing abortion."
He also mentioned dangerous illegal abortions, abandoned children, and foster care. I have seen the best of Christian foster parenting close up, and my heart breaks for what those children have gone through and never recover from.
Jane
Posted by: Jane | August 12, 2008 9:06 PM
Payshun,
I think we might have different ideas of what justice is (entirely possible), or maybe I just don't fully understand yours. I agree that justice certainly is that everyone is treated equally under the law. Laws should not be discriminatory. If you define "fair treatment" as equal treatment that's fine by me. You lose me when you, or whoever you quoted, say that everyone gets an "impartial share of the benefits of society".
If, by that, you just mean equality under the law, equal opportunity, or even that poor and low-income people are assisted by the government so that they get the basics of what they need to get by (food, shelter, health care, etc), that's fine by me. But if you literally mean the impartial share of the benefits of society – meaning everyone gets exactly the same material “stuff” (for lack of a better word) and no one has any more than anyone else, then I don’t seek the same justice that you seek. I cannot think of any attempt in modern history in which a government has tried to administer this type of justice that hasn’t ended in massive suffering and oppression. I don’t want a government made up of anyone other than God himself to attempt to achieve that goal.
That being said, a society in which people voluntarily gave what they had to others so that everyone shared equally in the benefits of society would be ideal to me, if it could actually happen.
As for my thoughts about welfare and “force”, I do support some method by which the tax dollars of those of us with means go to help poor and low-income people get the basics mentioned above. Obviously I don’t have a problem with using the force or power of government to do so. I just don’t think this creates a truly just society because people aren’t doing it out of love. They’re being compelled. Basically it’s the difference between tithing when you’re little because your Mom makes you and tithing as an adult because you love blessing others with what God has blessed you with. Either way goes towards a good cause, but it’s not the same spirit.
Posted by: Eric | August 12, 2008 9:15 PM
Posted by: Jeff | August 12, 2008 6:32 PM
"I find your rant to be ironic to me personally..."
That is a great story, and does indeed prove that you can't put labels on people. As if an already-overwhelmed mother is going to launder cloth diapers. Sigh.
It was a rant, because this is an emotional topic for me. That is what makes it such a wedge issue. People are so focused on the fetus that they do not see that there is a living already-born woman in a situation where there is no good solution. I am angry that women are treated as either children not capable of making a moral decision, or as mere containers for the all-important fetus. Either way, it is de-humanizing.
Passing a law is the easy way out, because it means nobody has to do the hard work of dealing with the underlying reasons why women have abortions. One-size law does not fit every situation. Consider: a 19-year old unmarried woman who already has 4 children, a married couple who needs a boat, a new SUV and a vacation home (do these people really exist?), a college senior who doesn't want to mess up her career before it starts, an empty-nest couple caring for elderly ill parents, a drug addict, a woman in an abusive relationship whose partner / husband does not want a child, a couple where the main wage-earner has just been laid off, a promiscuous woman using abortion as birth control, a couple who can barely support the children that they already have.... How can one law apply to all of these situations?
How presumptuous to think that we should respond to all these women in the same way.
Jane
Posted by: | August 12, 2008 9:30 PM
28 years ago, the Republican Party entered into an unholy alliance with the Right-To-Life movement, and the abortion issue became politicized. If this issue could be resolved through political action, then the election of Republican candidates during all but 8 of the last 28 years, and the selection of 7 of 9 of the Supreme Court justices would have settled it by now. Have any of the Republican presidential nominees proposed a Constitutional Amendment outlawing all abortions? Why not? If such an amendment were approved, not even the SCOTUS could void it.
So the Republican Party has used this issue in elections to ensure the support of the Right-To_life movement. But that movement has also become willing dupes. how else can you explain their undying loyalty despite 28 years of inaction?
When it really comes down to an individual decision, I think it's a lot more complicated than most of us are willing to admit. should we make exceptions in the case of rape or incest? should we consider the life of the mother who is carrying the child? Each of us may come to different conclusions, but in reality, I think that few of us are willing to return to the days when prospective mothers were left to take matters into thei own hands. It's a situation that many of the rich Republicans were solving simply by traveling to another country where the procedure was legal.
Posted by: Sister Marie | August 12, 2008 10:00 PM
Jane,
I appreciate your clarification. As I’ve said to Payshun, I don’t have a problem with my tax dollars going to help truly poor and low income mothers and their children afford the basics in life (food, housing, health care, basic education). You seem to define the basics a little more broadly than I, but that’s a different discussion for another day.
But any negatives that come from banning abortion would be far outweighed by the positives of the lives saved.
Posted by: Eric | August 12, 2008 10:10 PM
"But any negatives that come from banning abortion would be far outweighed by the positives of the lives saved."
Would you say the same about any negatives that might come from raising taxes to improve access to reproductive health and education, two things that have been proven to reduce the number of abortions?
Posted by: RJohnson | August 12, 2008 11:34 PM
Would you say the same about any negatives that might come from raising taxes to improve access to reproductive health and education, two things that have been proven to reduce the number of abortions?
Posted by: RJohnson
Proven ?
We know not having an abortion prevents one . But you can prove this ?
Anal sex even is taught on a equality of vaginal and oral sex in public education . To some this is seen as equity . I am not sure how they are going to update the cucumber though . Kids know more about sex then any generation ever before in this country .
The Bible says Bad company corrupts good morals . I am a Fudamentalist , but this is just logical as most of the Bible is to me . Do you think getting different spins on things is hard for you as an adult , just think what it is like for a 14 year old in 2008 .
How does one prove effects on a culture though ?
When ever society has promoted forcing values on a minority or majority , their has been disaterous results . The Power of Abstinence comes from the Power of God , I agree not a realistic thing for a anyone to live a life of .
Even though we are suppose to untill married if we marry . But I am with you , teach protection .
Calling young ladies whores also caused a stigma lessening sexual contacts among young ladies and men . I hope we don't go back to that if the social engineers see it as benficial .
Just wish Christians could agree the importance of learning about sex through a Bibical perspective . Yes all the details , all the physical protections learned about also , but also of the importance of the spirtual factors . Otherwise its a counterfeit , and yes perverted .
Christians should at least understand the world they live in , its not in the best interest of any child to learn about sex without the knowledge of RESPECT , Love and real commitment . The world does not know what that means , heck we have enough of a problem with it . And we have Christ .
P.S
Are you for mandatory gun safety classes also ?
Does it not matter how the safety of the class is taught , especially if your against gun ownership . I would suspect you might consider it promoting gun usage . Maybe not . But I would be concerned if my kid learned about guns in a public school . I would make sure what the curricullum was , and not many parents do that from my experience .
Posted by: Michael | August 13, 2008 1:07 AM
"What's my point in sharing this tragedy?
These were two young people living in poverty who decided to have their child, not because they are Christians, not because of their understanding of the Bible, or not because of any change in legislation related to abortion, but simply because they wanted to raise and love their child. However, that dream was taken away from them because of a drive-by shooting."
"What I would like to see from those who champion the right-to-life argument is that they spend just as much energy fighting for children to have the right to a better life once they are born."
To protect life and discourage the shooting of babies we have already made killing babies illegal. Rev. Tune, do you think we should legalize drive-by shootings and just focus on "fight(ing) for better public schools, for tougher gun laws, mentoring programs, after-school programs to give kids options so that they don't choose gangs?"
Posted by: DITE | August 13, 2008 2:08 AM
These were two young people living in poverty who decided to have their child, not because they are Christians, not because of their understanding of the Bible, or not because of any change in legislation related to abortion, but simply because they wanted to raise and love their child. However, that dream was taken away from them because of a drive-by shooting."
Even if they were "living in poverty", if these two young people were really hoping to raise their child in a secure loving environment, they could have scraped up enough money for a marriage license and made the commitment to each other and the child.
But Rev. Tune, instead of asking why these two didn't do the one thing that was most likely to help both the child and themselves, wants to pass the responsibility on to others to "fight for better public schools, for tougher gun laws, mentoring programs, after-school programs to give kids options so that they don't choose gangs, and adopt children who need a loving family."
Remember the old saying, "Charity begins at home". Well, so does naking the world better for your family.
Posted by: sage | August 13, 2008 2:38 AM
To protect life and discourage the shooting of babies we have already made killing babies illegal. Rev. Tune, do you think we should legalize drive-by shootings and just focus on "fight(ing) for better public schools, for tougher gun laws, mentoring programs, after-school programs to give kids options so that they don't choose gangs?" DITE
The profundity and utter nuance of that argument is astounding- rivaling wit and intelligence of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.
Posted by: JamesM | August 13, 2008 4:48 AM
"Even if they were "living in poverty", if these two young people were really hoping to raise their child in a secure loving environment, they could have scraped up enough money for a marriage license and made the commitment to each other and the child." Sage
Yeah and that marriage license would have stopped the stray bullet.
Posted by: JamesM | August 13, 2008 4:52 AM
JamesM,
Care to elaborate?
Posted by: DITE | August 13, 2008 5:37 AM
DITE:
Does it really require elaboration?
Posted by: Don | August 13, 2008 8:43 AM
Dear Rev. Tune,
I appreciate your article and its tone. The suffering from this tragedy is so deep and beyond the pale.
However, a few of your solutions that you wish the right-to-life crowd would take up are 1) either being engaged in by us or 2) questioned as the only solutions to our problems.
1) I myself have volunteered as a mentor in my public school the past two years (which are my first two years in this community).
2) I worked in an after-school program in the previous town I lived in.
3) I believe there are quite a few Christians involved in adoption.
4) Your proposed solution of tougher gun laws is a non sequitur from the statistics showing that a populace denied their constitutional right to self-defense via a gun become the victims to the law-breakers who ignore such "strict" gun laws.
5) The need to strength K-12 education in this country is certainly true. But to continue to parrot the lines of the NEA and say we need only to spend more on the public school system is a proven failure as well. Competition via private and charter schools is an idea that I believe you should embrace if you truly believe in helping children get a great education, instead of protecting the NEA lobbyists.
Thank you for a good and thought-provoking article.
Posted by: Steven Schueren | August 13, 2008 9:40 AM
Steven:
Just one comment. Don't complain about others' parroting the lines of the NEA if you are going to parrot the lines of the NRA.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | August 13, 2008 9:56 AM
So, if I see a man who is poor, my Chistian response should be to go find someone who I believe is "rich," take from him and go back and give it to the poor man? Really? I can see why Liberalism appeals to people who don't want to part with their own possessions! It must be much easier to give away that which one does not own and did not earn. Is there any blessing in making "sacrifices" which cost you nothing?
Posted by: Bradley | August 13, 2008 9:57 AM
On the gun issue, instead of banning guns, why not just ban murder?
I could cite the overwhelming body of evidence showing that gun bans lead to increased violent crime, but I know you've all seen that and choose to discount it.
When do you intend to apply your logic in gun control to fighting rape?
Posted by: Bradley | August 13, 2008 10:12 AM
"The term "pro-choice" was a silly response to the anti-abortionists claim to be "pro-life". I guess everybody thinks it's better PR to be pro something than anti."
That pretty much sums it up.
"Even if I didn't think it was my Christian duty to pay taxes which improve quality of life for all, I think it is my duty as a citizen of an enlightened 21st century society."
As do I. It is worth noting that Rev. Tune is tying abortion to funding schools, not diaper purchases, which is a different ball of wax. Most conservatives would support a bill that banned the majority of abortions, but also provided federal support for new mothers.
But legalized abortion in this country remains an egregious wrong. Lack of federal support for this or that program is not an argument for allowing humans to be destroyed.
There is no justification for this, which is why Tune would rather talk about prisons, the cruelty of pro-lifers, or schools.
"Would you say the same about any negatives that might come from raising taxes to improve access to reproductive health and education, two things that have been proven to reduce the number of abortions?"
I, for one, would more than happily provide funding to crisis pregnancy centers, as would most conservatives. Most Democrats oppose even the existence of these centers, because they have an "agenda", which gives lie to the idea that Democrats want abortions to be rare.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 13, 2008 10:25 AM
wow bradley, way to elevate the conversation. yes, sophistry (which is being very generous to you) really makes for thoughtful dialog.
actually, i'd love to see the overwhelming body of evidence to which you refer. i am all for credible evidence. it's the main reason i started believing in evolution & global warming.
Posted by: nad2 | August 13, 2008 10:35 AM
I could cite the overwhelming body of evidence showing that gun bans lead to increased violent crime ...
No such body of evidence exists. The evidence is inconclusive at best.
I also should have added that I read no 'parroting' of the NEA's public school agenda in anything Rev. Tune wrote here. He does call for strengthening public schools, which critics of the NEA claim isn't their real agenda anyway.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | August 13, 2008 10:36 AM
But legalized abortion in this country remains an egregious wrong. Lack of federal support for this or that program is not an argument for allowing humans to be destroyed.
That's the view you might have if you consider the issue abortion in a vacuum. The rest of the world, however, doesn't.
It must be much easier to give away that which one does not own and did not earn. Is there any blessing in making "sacrifices" which cost you nothing?
You assume the "rich" earn whatever they have, but in truth many didn't -- they jiggered the political system to get the money rolling in. For that reason the real issue here is political, not just (or primarily) economic.
Posted by: Rick | August 13, 2008 10:57 AM
RJohnson,
I have no problem with my tax dollars providing basic health care and reproductive education for low-income people.
What do you think about coupling an abortion ban with increased social services for low-income mothers/parents?
Posted by: Eric | August 13, 2008 11:06 AM
Wow, Sage--
In your passion for righteousness, you wholly lack the compassion of Christ.
Posted by: squeaky | August 13, 2008 11:39 AM
"What do you think about coupling an abortion ban with increased social services for low-income mothers/parents?"
eric, what you are saying is roughly equivalent to, "would you be for a ban on free speech if it were coupled with funding food for all the people in africa?" it is indeed an interesting question. both are coupling tarnishing a protected constitutional right with doing justice in the world.
the issue for abortion is: when does human life begin? many very moral people do not equate the "life" of a zygote with the life of a baby or even the life of a viable fetus. they certainly see the seeds of life there, but do not equate it with human life.
in a certain way, we all do this. we do not mourn as though human beings were lost in the countless early term miscarriages that are so frequent & often happen in the first weeks of pregnancy, often w/o the mother even realizing it happened. sure, it is sad, but it is different than it happening later in the pregnancy or after birth. also, what would that say about our god if human life began at conception that, as conservative estimates put it, roughly 15-20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage (most in the first trimester)? these are some of the philosophical & religious reasons people do not think life begins at conception.
and the supreme court, i think, has struck a reasonable balance, saying that in those early stages, the decision is the mother's, but after viability, the state can regulate however it wants, including bans, to protect the interests of what it sees as a human (as long as there is an exception for the health of the mother).
i understand & respect that some people see humanity beginning at conception. i disagree, but i understand. i too think scientifically some type of life begins there (or at least once it attaches to the uterine wall), & the possibility of humanity begins there, which is magical & to be celebrated by couples when it happens, but that is not a person, & i think at that point it is for the mother to decide what to do with that group of cells because it is not humanity.
& i get back to understanding. like i said, i understand, & i do not criticize the belief, except to say that i am interested in hearing the theological basis for it, which i can't say that i've ever heard. also, most pro choice & pro life people agree (along w/ the supreme court) that we are talking about people who deserve our protection after viability, many would probably even come back a month or two from viability. as for understanding, it always seems to me the basis for humanity at conception is couched in religious terms, which i respect (though again, some one please let me in on why). as a strong & devout christian, i do not think that any religious belief, absent some additional basis for moral righteousness or claim of eternal and enduring truth, should be legislated just because it is a religious belief.
Posted by: nad2 | August 13, 2008 12:47 PM
"I could cite the overwhelming body of evidence showing that gun bans lead to increased violent crime ..."
I am sure their are statistics , and I can follow logical arguements that giving people the right to protect themselves reduces violence .
As people can give statistics giving statistics and logical arguements giving kids condoms reduces abortion .
But we have too many people dying because of guns , indeed we have people dying because of sex . Just appears here to me we have political philosphies coming first into lives instead of Bibical Truth . If that matters or is seen as relevant . Or I guess the Bible is read so differently that this makes no sense ?
Is not guns , our bodies , our wealth , sex , all subject to God in a Christian's life . Not political philosphies ?
But teaching kids about guns or sex appears to take away the responsibility of parents , and undermines others depending on the culture and method it is taught . In either case , the world won this debate . I would not say justice prevailed . We have our guns and we have sex with no consequences . It just not seem like the consequences are incidental through my perception and discernment .
Posted by: Michael | August 13, 2008 1:00 PM
Nice going, Bradley. Augment a discussion of wedge issues by beating your drum on yet another wedge issue (guns).
And since NEA-bashing has started, I'll just throw a little spice into the mix: one can be pro-public school without being pro-NEA. I think the AFT is a much better teachers' union, and they know how to be a team player with other unions.
And I certainly agree with Rick that "wealth" and "earnings" are certainly not synonomous.
Posted by: I and I | August 13, 2008 1:06 PM
Michael: "Anal sex even is taught on a equality of vaginal and oral sex in public education."
Can you elaborate on this? because I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean by "on a equality of vaginal and oral sex."
Thank you in advance.
Posted by: carl copas | August 13, 2008 1:31 PM
"That's the view you might have if you consider the issue abortion in a vacuum. The rest of the world, however, doesn't."
My point does not require me to view abortion in a vacuum. It is an egregious act that ought not be legal, in any context.
"both are coupling tarnishing a protected constitutional right with doing justice in the world. "
Abortion is not constitutionally protected.
"the issue for abortion is: when does human life begin? many very moral people do not equate the "life" of a zygote with the life of a baby or even the life of a viable fetus. "
If you eschew morality in favor of a utilitarian ethic on an issue of life or death, then I disagree that you are a very moral person. A fetus is alive, and it is unquestionably human. Most people agree with this, which is why the pro-choice side is forced to jump through semantic hoops to make their case in a voter-friendly way (as Sojo has done here).
"in a certain way, we all do this. we do not mourn as though human beings were lost in the countless early term miscarriages "
Only to the degree we are unaware of the loss. Once we are aware of the existence of a child at any stage, we certainly mourn the loss.
"also, what would that say about our god if human life began at conception that, as conservative estimates put it, roughly 15-20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage (most in the first trimester)?"
Humans have a 100% mortality rate, but you won't here this argument in favor of murder.
"these are some of the philosophical & religious reasons people do not think life begins at conception. "
Nobody said that the pro-choice side does not have reasons. Those reasons, however, do not hold water.
"i too think scientifically some type of life begins there (or at least once it attaches to the uterine wall), & the possibility of humanity begins there,"
What is the biological definition of the "possiblity of humanity". On what basis are we allowed to declare what constitutes "some type of life" and what constitutes a human being? Is there any scientic or scriptural prescription, or is it kinda just what you think?
"which is magical & to be celebrated by couples when it happens, but that is not a person,"
This is the problem with your argument. We are forced to define a fetus not as a living human, but we cannot escape it's decidedly human characteristics. As such, we are required to believe in some heretofore unrecognized magical entity. I don't believe in magic, and I'm in the majority on this one.
But let's pretend it is a magical entity. How do we regard a magical creature? Does the fact that it's existence and growth constitute a magic trick entitle it to any rights? The existence of a pregnant mother is highly explainable in scientific terms. Nothing magic about her, so why does she get to decide the fate of a magic being?
If we appeal to the Constitution, which (obviously) accords no rights to magical beings, we are in trouble. What if we decide a toddler is magic? What if a cancer survivor, predicted to die, is determined only to exist by some sort of magic force? I'm sure an insurance company could make ample use of this new classification.
"& i get back to understanding. like i said, i understand, & i do not criticize the belief, except to say that i am interested in hearing the theological basis for it, which i can't say that i've ever heard."
God repeatedly refers to children in the womb. The bible says that he knit us in the womb, and regards David's unborn child as a child. When women become pregnant, it is said that God has blessed them with child, this before the baby was actually born.
The Bible, of course, also says that murder is wrong.
I think you have heard this argument before.
"also, most pro choice & pro life people agree (along w/ the supreme court) that we are talking about people who deserve our protection after viability,"
While we're on the topic of viability, I would be interested to hear the theological underpinnings for what constitutes "viability" and why we should use it as a determining factor in what constitutes a life.
The problem with the viability argument, on a philosophical level, is that viability is in the eye of the beholder. At various times and locales, people have thought other people to be non-viable for a variety of reasons. Once you say that something is non-viable, there is no counterargument that will suffice.
As such, freedoms are left to the majority opinion as what constitutes viability. History has shown this standard to be extremely dangerous. In this sense, legal abortion is merely a symptom of impresice philosophy and law as it relates to the treatment of other people.
"as a strong & devout christian, i do not think that any religious belief, absent some additional basis for moral righteousness or claim of eternal and enduring truth, should be legislated just because it is a religious belief."
All laws act as some sort of variation on religious belief. That said, one needn't appeal to the Bible to recognize that a fetus, as a human being, is given equal protection under the constitution.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 13, 2008 1:31 PM
Carl,
JamesM's and RJohnson's comments don't help the situation much either, and rarely do.
But I agree, we should all try to converse as if we were sitting across the table from each other, not typing anonymously on a keyboard.
Posted by: Eric | August 13, 2008 2:00 PM
I and I said, "Nice going, Bradley. Augment a discussion of wedge issues by beating your drum on yet another wedge issue (guns)."
Carl Copas said my post was a piece of "nastiness."
I like you guys. I know we disagree on pretty much everything, but I still like you. I just re-read my comments to see if an apology was in order, but I did not say anything offensive. I stated my views, I did not insult or name-call or anything else. Apparently, my only sin was posing an idea that differs from yours.
William F. Buckley, Jr. was right when he said,
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
Come on, guys. Don't be like that. You can disagree with me, but don't throw false accusations.
By the way, I and I, a quick count reveals that the word "gun" was mentioned once in the column and 26 times in the comment thread before I ever mentioned it.
Posted by: | August 13, 2008 2:10 PM
If there is one point that I think all of those who have contributed to this discussion can agree on, it is that we should strive to reduce the number of abortions. We can achieve that goal in a number of different ways.
But lets not pretend that one of the two major political parties can resolve this or even that one party owns the moral high ground on this issue. With the possible exception of a handful of politicians in both parties, there is no serious effort being made to ban all abortions.
Additionally, when we interact with our Christian brothers and sisters, lets not pretend that God is "on our side" and that we should withhold communion from them because their beliefs differ from ours.
Posted by: Sister Marie | August 13, 2008 2:20 PM
That last post was me. I didn't mean to leave my name off.
Thanks,
Bradley
Posted by: Bradley | August 13, 2008 2:21 PM
My point does not require me to view abortion in a vacuum. It is an egregious act that ought not be legal, in any context.
That's just the argument that accuses anti-abortionists of focusing only on the condition of pregnancy. What happens afterwards -- "that's not our concern."
William F. Buckley, Jr. was right when he said,
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
Toward the end of his life he was probably saying that about his own side.
Posted by: Rick | August 13, 2008 2:21 PM
First, Kevin S thank you for sparing me the time to respond to nad2's post.
"Then DITE, Bradley, and Sage post their respective pieces of nastiness, and the discussion threatens to degenerate into a street fight."
(snap snap) Here come the Jets
little world step aside
better go underground
better run better hide. (snap snap)
Why was my post nasty? Is it only nasty when conservatives talk about abortion? Tune and the others on GP consistently argue that abortion is bad.
Posted by: | August 13, 2008 2:25 PM
First, Kevin S thank you for sparing me the time to respond to nad2's post.
"Then DITE, Bradley, and Sage post their respective pieces of nastiness, and the discussion threatens to degenerate into a street fight."
(snap snap) Here come the Jets
little world step aside
better go underground
better run better hide. (snap snap)
Why was my post nasty? Is it only nasty when conservatives talk about abortion? Tune and the others on GP consistently argue that abortion is bad.
Posted by: DITE | August 13, 2008 2:25 PM
Rev. Tune (and all),
Thanks for responding to my comments above. Like others here, I value dialogue on this issue as I think we have truth to bring to light together.
I think the weakness with the "we want to make it rare by keeping it legal" argument is it again misunderstands the purposes of law as I see it. We can see this if we plug in other criminal behaviors: racketeering, murder, etc. We make certain activities illegal because we as a society have a vested interest in "the least of these" not having their basic rights violated, and it's important for us to demonstrate that with consequences. If we believe that the law is a useful tool in this way, then the law is a tool we should use. If we don't believe the law is a useful tool in this way, then we have to have a whole 'nother discussion about the importance of the rule of law in society. (Life without the rule of law, by the way, is far more attractive in theory than in practice.)
Otherwise, I agree with you; churches are falling woefully short of what they need to be today. I am a pastor and there is incredible pressure from the Church Growth Movement (and its adherents) to grow numbers in a church, which involves meeting people's felt needs and basically staying inoffensive. We have defined numerical growth as success. So it is difficult for any lone pastor or two to stand firm against that and preach a countercultural sort of gospel which is about this kind of kingdom growth.
Not to mention that when you do preach it and try to lead it, you then deal with people who have been conditioned to think inadequately about the Gospel and/or perceive their lives as busy enough that they don't have time to be doing this Kingdom stuff.
No easy answers here, but I'm sure that expansion of government aid has been found wanting as a solution thus far. Time to stumble around until we find better solutions.
Again, thanks to all esp. Rev. Tune for your thoughts.
Posted by: Mike J | August 13, 2008 2:26 PM
Sure Carl,
It was part of our School District's local emphasis on safe sex . The class stated it taught what a Mature / Healthy , Safe sexual Relationship consisted of .
The three defintions of actual safe sex was anal , vaginal , and oral . It was one the first things that told me something happened during my ill spent youth that lasted into my 30/s .
The moral compass of those in charge of things shifted a little . I could dig up the actual materials if you are interested , but surprisingly not many in the school district were not . Some How I got the curricullum changed . I got a black eye for causing a fuss also . Which is another thing I learned , is much of the stuff out their is not supported necessarily by the majority , especially in academia , but no one likes someone rocking the boat .
What got me was the actual information of safe sex contradicted the actual health concenus of professionals . It was almost like it was a politically correct health class . By all means use a condom , but their are some parts of the body that were designed or evolved, depending on your view , for things going out , not in . Use a condom of course , but telling kids its equal with other sex ?
Anyway , it is interesting being out of the cultural changes in our culture then coming back and finding out some of things I repented for has become safe , healthy, and mature in the present culture .
Posted by: Michael | August 13, 2008 2:33 PM
Nad,
Your comment covers some very well-trod ground. Your analogy with free speech and funding for Africa isn’t remotely similar. My offer was a compromise on a single issue. “Pro-lifers” would give in on higher social service spending for low-income parents while “pro-choicers” would give in on having abortion be legal. They both get something they want in exchange for swallowing something they don’t want. That’s what different interest groups do in a democracy if they truly want to solve a problem.
There’s no Constitutional right comparable to free speech at stake here. Roe vs. Wade was one of the most poorly justified decisions ever handed down the Supreme Court, even some who agree with the final policy result admit this. There is just no right to an abortion in the Constitution and it's certainly not as clear cut as First Amendment freedoms like speech.
You seem well versed in abortion policy so I’m sure you’ve heard the well-founded argument that the “health of the mother” exception would virtually allow abortions for any reason that a mother could come up with. The “restrictions” permitted by Roe vs. Wade are virtually no restrictions at all.
I understand that people view a miscarriage differently than the death of a person they’ve known and loved for years. That’s only natural. People react differently to the death of a still born child or one that dies a couple days after birth than they would if it was their 10 year old. It’s the same reason I would mourn differently if my 95 year old grandmother died than if my wife died tomorrow. This isn’t an argument against treating unborn babies differently under the law.
As for religious vs. non-religious argument for banning abortion, I have to say my reasons for banning it are more based in reason and logic than in religion. I don’t know when life begins, but it makes much more logical sense to me that it begins at conception rather than some undetermined moment in between birth and conception. But I also disagree that you absolutely need a non-religious reason for legislating on something. You’ll be a lot more successful if you use non-religious arguments for it, and I don’t think it should be done in many circumstances, but protecting human life is one of those extreme cases where I think it would be appropriate.
Posted by: Eric | August 13, 2008 2:40 PM
Michael, now I understand better. Thank you.
Posted by: carl copas | August 13, 2008 2:44 PM
Is it only nasty when conservatives talk about abortion? Tune and the others on GP consistently argue that abortion is bad.
No one, not even its "supporters," believes that abortion is a good thing. Trouble is, much of evangelicalism focused on it like a laser beam to the detriment of everything else -- including, in some cases, the Gospel of Jesus Christ -- because it turned activists into jerks, and that caused the reaction (overreaction, depending on your point of view) from the other side. I mean, I remember when folks were being called "Nazi baby-killers," and I don't see how that helps the cause.
If we believe that the law is a useful tool in this way, then the law is a tool we should use. If we don't believe the law is a useful tool in this way, then we have to have a whole 'nother discussion about the importance of the rule of law in society.
That also depends on what laws are passed and to benefit whom. Law, as I understand it, represents the proper ordering of relationships and thus should attain the optimum good for the greatest number of people. Using law for the sake of power, on the other hand, defeats the purpose of law.
I am a pastor and there is incredible pressure from the Church Growth Movement (and its adherents) to grow numbers in a church, which involves meeting people's felt needs and basically staying inoffensive.
I hear you. That often happens when the focus is on the church as an institution, failing to recognize that Christianity at its heart is an insurgent, sometimes subversive movement that has always done its best work underground or when temporal power was out of reach. That is to say, when you seek to be seen in the world as powerful what's the use of really relying on God?
Posted by: Rick | August 13, 2008 2:45 PM
P.S
I brought up gun safety class only to show an anology that perhaps having a class taught in a certain way , as sex education , could cause problems in how the person in the class has their views negatively influenced on the subject . Hence being against guns as parents or/ Christians , , but having it taught as a fun , safe , sport to your children could cause more acceptance in the culture and your child's life . Even though they are being taught gun safety .
Sorry did not mean to offend , just sharing a view .
Posted by: Michael | August 13, 2008 2:48 PM
Incidentally, what is the problem with discussing "wedge" issues? Isn't that precisely what we should be discussing and reconciling? To me this seems like a dodge for an imposing an arbitrary (and self-serving) hierarchy of values.
Entitlement programs certainly divide public opinion. Why should we not declare the question of their funding to be a wedge issue?
"Then DITE, Bradley, and Sage post their respective pieces of nastiness, and the discussion threatens to degenerate into a street fight."
Then ignore what you perceive to be nastiness. That said, I don't think Bradley's comments were all that nasty, though when you introduce rape into a discussion, you had better have a compelling reason to do so.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 13, 2008 2:54 PM
eric, thank you for your response. i will try to respond if i have time.
Posted by: nad2 | August 13, 2008 2:56 PM
Kevin - A wedge issue is any issue that your political opponents bring up that you'd rather not discuss because it gets you away from talking about the issues that are politically advantageous to you.
Posted by: Eric | August 13, 2008 3:03 PM
Care to elaborate?Posted by: DITE
No. Other than to say that the response was commensurate with the utter ridiculousness of the initial comment that prompted it.
Posted by: JamesM | August 13, 2008 3:04 PM
nad2:
I'm not sure you can ask Kevin, or anyone else, not to comment on your postings. You are free, of course, to ignore his (and he can ignore yours if he chooses), but once something is posted here, it invites comment from anyone who so chooses.
DITE and Bradley:
Maybe 'nastiness' was a poor word choice, but I think I understand what Carl was trying to get at. But maybe not. DITE, I believe you rhetorically asked Rev Tune whether he would be willing to legalize drive-by shootings. Given the tragedy he told to us about his cousin's child, I would certainly regard that comment below the belt at the very least. And Bradley, I think Kevin adequately addressed your rape comment.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | August 13, 2008 3:09 PM
A poorly worded comment:
I wrote, "Maybe 'nastiness' was a poor word choice, but I think I understand what Carl was trying to get at. But maybe not."
It should read, "Maybe 'nastiness' was a poor word choice, but maybe not. I think I understand what Carl was trying to get at."
Don
Posted by: Don | August 13, 2008 3:11 PM
What constitutes a "wedge issue?"
Suppose Rick and I were running against each other for political office: If I mention the second amendment or abortion, I presume that would be called a "wedge issue."
But what if Rick mentions social justice or global warming? "Wedge issues?"
Shouldn't the two of us express our differing ideas and debate them? Naturally, we would each want to rally our supporters to come out and vote for us. I don't think that's a bad thing.
My point is, at what point do opposing view-points become "wedge issues?"
Posted by: Bradley | August 13, 2008 3:12 PM
Hi Rick-- you say
"Law, as I understand it, represents the proper ordering of relationships and thus should attain the optimum good for the greatest number of people."
I respectfully disagree. What you have said is textbook utilitarianism: the greatest good for the greatest number. Laws in America have historically been oriented toward the protection of certain inalienable rights, not towards defining and achieving a social utopia, or at least the best we can do toward that end. There are of course other governments that have chosen that course, and all have failed spectacularly.
You also say:
"Using law for the sake of power, on the other hand, defeats the purpose of law."
Respectfully, I'm not sure how I advocated using law for the sake of power. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean. I said abortion should generally be banned because an unborn child is at least in some measure a human life, created in the image of God and therefore deserves the basic protections government exists to provide.
Posted by: Mike J | August 13, 2008 3:16 PM
"No one, not even its "supporters," believes that abortion is a good thing. Trouble is, much of evangelicalism focused on it like a laser beam to the detriment of everything else -- including, in some cases, the Gospel of Jesus Christ -- because it turned activists into jerks, and that caused the reaction (overreaction, depending on your point of view) from the other side."
Rick, I know you are a journalist (right?), so I have to ask you this question: Why do journalist use such long convoluted sentences?
Anyway, you're wrong. Some definitely feel that abortion is a good thing. "It eliminates unwanted babies." Or they argue over when the baby is actually a "baby." Certainly you have seen or heard about the "I had an abortion" T-shirts that celebrate this event.
Posted by: DITE | August 13, 2008 3:18 PM
well don, with that, my friend, i bid you adieu. life is too short, & i have other arenas in which to have respectful conversation. peace to all,
Posted by: nad2 | August 13, 2008 3:24 PM
Okay, in all honesty, abortion isn't a deal-breaker issue for me. I'm pro-life, but that's well down the totem poll on the reasons why I vote republican. Despite that...
"DITE, I believe you rhetorically asked Rev Tune whether he would be willing to legalize drive-by shootings. Given the tragedy he told to us about his cousin's child, I would certainly regard that comment below the belt at the very least."
You are making my point for me. Of course, killing a baby is terrible and we should pass laws to have just retribution for those that kill babies. Unborn babies should have the same protection.
Posted by: DITE | August 13, 2008 3:36 PM
What you have said is textbook utilitarianism: the greatest good for the greatest number. Laws in America have historically been oriented toward the protection of certain inalienable rights, not towards defining and achieving a social utopia, or at least the best we can do toward that end.
I beg to differ -- Biblical law, which doesn't always specify "rights" and understood in its proper context, is all about what I just said. More to the point, it's community-based and relationship-oriented and doesn't generally focus on the individual; that comes from Scotch-Irish culture and the Enlightenment, not the Scripture. The focus is on creating not "utopia" but justice (which is in the Scripture many, many more times than "rights"). Now, we don't live in a religiously-based political system, but the same concept applies somewhat.
I said abortion should generally be banned because an unborn child is at least in some measure a human life, created in the image of God and therefore deserves the basic protections government exists to provide.
I totally agree with you.
Why do journalists use such long convoluted sentences?
What I wrote is accepted common sense; it becomes convoluted only to people who either don't understand it or are committed to a viewpoint that believes anyone who doesn't share it is wrong. That's why we in the media are wrongly miscast as biased toward "liberalism" -- they really don't want to hear it straight.
Some definitely feel that abortion is a good thing. "It eliminates unwanted babies." Or they argue over when the baby is actually a "baby." Certainly you have seen or heard about the "I had an abortion" T-shirts that celebrate this event.
That doesn't contradict my point because most on the pro-choice side would support a woman whatever decision she made, whether to terminate or go ahead with a pregnancy. I am not aware of any T-shirts that say "I had an abortion," but I know personally four women who have told me that they did (three regret it).
Posted by: Rick | August 13, 2008 3:46 PM
You are making my point for me.,/i>
Well, you could have, indeed should have, said it in a far less offensive way. The way I read what you wrote, you made light of Rev. Tune's family tragedy to score a rhetorical point. I would agree with Carl on that one--it was a nasty comment.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | August 13, 2008 3:52 PM
"Unborn babies should have the same protection."
Ironically...they do, but it depends on the context. If someone murders a pregnant woman, they are charged not only with the mother's murder, but the unborn child's as well. I'm not weighing in on this debate with my views about this topic--just pointing out one of the ironies in this incredibly complex issue.
nad2--let me modify Don's statement. At least this is how I think things should be: You can certainly ask someone not to interact with you on this site. However, there is no guarantee that person will honor your request.
Personally, I think if you make that request of someone, that person should honor the request (especially since the rest of us won't have to be subjected to the sniping). However, if that person does not honor your request, the best thing to do is just ignore that person.
Posted by: Squeaky | August 13, 2008 4:12 PM
"Kevin - A wedge issue is any issue that your political opponents bring up that you'd rather not discuss because it gets you away from talking about the issues that are politically advantageous to you."
And nastiness is any act that disagrees with ones own political viewpoints.
"i will not substantively respond to chicanery. you religiously take things out of context, distort points made, show zero respect for the points of view of others and show no interest in dialog. "
Well, this might explain why you have never heard the theological case against abortion. It's hard to hear when you stick your fingers in your ears and pout. I will respond to your arguments as I choose. I took your arguments at face value, and engaged in no chicanery.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 13, 2008 4:14 PM
"No one, not even its "supporters," believes that abortion is a good thing. "
I have seen it argued even here that abortion was a gift from God. Further, if one believes that a fetus is not human, then one cannot escape the conclusion that abortion is often good. The death of a non-entity is inherently preferable to single motherhood, yes?
Posted by: kevin s. | August 13, 2008 4:21 PM
Bradley: "I could cite the overwhelming body of evidence showing that gun bans lead to increased violent crime, but I know you've all seen that and choose to discount it."
Me: Cite the dang evidence, then! I hate it when people say that. I have seen no such evidence and it isn't because I choose to discount it (a very inflammatory thing to say, BTW). I HAVEN'T SEEN IT. So please, cite away.
Posted by: JEM | August 13, 2008 4:23 PM
'You are making my point for me. Of course, killing a baby is terrible and we should pass laws to have just retribution for those that kill babies "
Dite I understand your dilema . The Reverend is using a tradegy to support an arguement , that you find nasty yourself . Abortion .
Or better stated perhaps the Reverend finds lacking from pro life supporters . The Reverend is pro life , not perhaps in the way you or I would see it , he believes he is . He values life .
Hence he put you in a category . Somehow negatively attached to a tradegy we all , non Christian even , would find tragic , That is nasty also using the same scales that your accusers used . .
Actually , both of you made some good points . But the value of life being protected does not start with our pro life , pro choice opinions , or whatever , the Reverend is wrong , the importance of life starts with God . We made it a wedge issue unfortunately .
Posted by: Michael | August 13, 2008 4:25 PM
"What I wrote is accepted common sense; it becomes convoluted only to people who either don't understand it or are committed to a viewpoint that believes anyone who doesn't share it is wrong."
I obviously understood your point, but I just don't get why paper journalists continue to write in paragraph long sentences. In my opinion its just not effective writing. The media is viewed as biased toward the Left because they are biased toward the Left. Anyway...
"That doesn't contradict my point because most on the pro-choice side would support a woman whatever decision she made, whether to terminate or go ahead with a pregnancy."
Yes it does. What you are saying is that abortion is only okay if the woman aborting the baby thought it was a good idea.
Posted by: DITE | August 13, 2008 4:25 PM
Kevin: "I have seen it argued even here that abortion was a gift from God."
Kevin, not that you care what I think, but I don't believe you. Please find the pos