Moving . . .

kschaub.blog has moved to Wordpress. Probably permanently.

Click here to read the new posts there!

http://kschaub.wordpress.com

Is the economy our end-all issue? Is health care?, Part 2

(Vignette 4):

Should men have a say in what a woman can do with her body? Abortion is an issue that does not directly affect men, except the father. It seems only men are commenting on the issue. Isn't it about time we start learning to accept and tolerate differences of opinion? Should we not respect one's right to choose or deny an abortion?

Shouldn't We Just Be Pro-Choice?

It seems wrong-headed to argue that the issue of abortion is limited to accepting cultural differences. Preferences are not the stake in the pro-life claim. The whole thing (i.e. the pro-choice argument) is eerily similar to the arguments made by pro-slavery supporters during the abolition days. The pro-slavery argument doesn't have many hearers today. But don't you think they thought their thinking was viable back then?

If a baby is aborted, it is murdered. It is being denied its natural process in the womb. How can it really be put another way if we are being intellectually honest? The fundamental rights to life that it deserves are being denied and there is an ugly double-standard being applied across the board.

Only males talking about the issue? That's a straw man. I have posted other notes (here) on the issue and women have commented (for and against) and there are many women Pro-Lifers (e.g. Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe to start!). Such a comment does not fly.

"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born" (Ronald Reagan).

————————————————

(Vignette 5):

Is the pro-abortion argument really similar to the pro-slavery one? Shortly before the Civil War and during the abolition days in Britain, pro-slavery (or, pro-choice for slavery) supporters argued that stopping the slave trade and freeing slaves would be devastating to the economy. That was eventually dropped. But today, our economy seems to be a bigger issue than the dignity of human life (re: abortion). So, what is so eerily similar? Or is that just a straw man? What about cases of rape, incest, etc.?

What is so eerily similar?

(Part A) What is going on here? It is legal to choose an abortion in the US, but it is not "oll korrect" to drink or smoke during pregnancy. This is bizarre (cf. many states have a "fetal homicide law that make it murder to kill an embryo or fetus intentionally, except in cases of abortion—in other words, it's unlawful to kill the unborn child unless the mother chooses to have it killed," cf. "Exposing the Dark Work of Abortion"). Do you see this troubling line of reasoning? That should be the conclusion to the debate. But for whatever reason, this huge inconsistency is tolerated. How can it be that a life can be taken away for a reason as silly as "that is her right and choice"?

This is just one way to point out gaping holes in the pro-choice issue. If it is determined that a fetus does not have "human rights until infancy," then what criteria determine it? To be frank, pro-choice advocates who do not see where this can lead are either ignorant or delusional.

Bizarre indeed.

One may argue this is a straw argument. I disagree. One, the argument for a kinship of slavery support and abortion support does share several telling similarities, though not necessarily one-to-one. Granted, it is not the best argument to make against legal abortions. Still, it is actually an argument that can be hashed out to very damning levels. There are also some fishy relationships being played at by Planned Parenthood that lend to racism, just for example. So, they may not be the end-all of arguments but they still tell something truthful about the situation.

(Part B) What about cases of rape, incest, etc.? The most compelling arguments for allowing abortion are the extreme cases (including certain complications to pregnancy, e.g. an ectopic pregnancy). But just to be honest, these extreme cases make up a very small percentage of all abortions performed in the US.

The usual case is a young single mother having her dreams "dashed" by a pregnancy. I don't doubt having a baby under those circumstances would be hard. But is there a compelling argument to kill that child so one can "plan" her "parenthood"? Is that really where we want to go? But this is the basis in place for the majority of abortions in the US and the general foundation for making this a woman's rightful choice. But, there are so many glaring inconsistencies with this reasoning when it comes to many other laws, especially those that pertain to two parties.

Sure, there are extreme cases that are more difficult to deal with. I typically want to show that those extreme circumstances should not be the driver for abortion rights because they are a smokescreen for the real argument. Here, pro-lifers do need to be intellectually and emotionally honest and learn to walk the line when it comes to the issue. When it comes to the extreme situations, it does no good to be cold or callous to the hurting lady. Helpful counsel and love is key to all possible abortion situations.

I have heard the argument hashed out in detail. I often ask, "How is it that two wrongs make a right?" What did the baby do to the mother to deserve suction or curettage? These are difficult questions that should be addressed. It is the man, in the case of rape, not the baby, who is the monster. There are plenty of excellent kids around today who bring joy to their mothers whose Dads are crooks, wife-beaters, sex offenders, etc.

I understand that may not alleviate the problem or help the mental health of a young lady in those circumstances, but it is at least something that should be thought through. Girls have actually done this before. It is just about incredible, but it's true. If you want to read a good book for this, check out Atonement Child by Francine Rivers. It is a fiction book--full of emotion and tears, but also tackles the personal issues in those situations head-on.

(Part C) I also think one may also make a fair point about how involved the government should be in the matter. Roe v. Wade caused huge problems because it restricted the issue. How is it right to make a decision for abortion rights without answering the key issues that stand against it? The result of this bad supreme court decision has likewise barred state and local governments from dealing with the issue decisively.

What else can be done? Talk to pro-choice supporters about the fetus. They don't like to hear about it. They don't like to have ultrasound equipment at their clinics because they might cause a mother to see her baby as a baby rather than a tumor that could be a baby if it is born.

But do you want to know where this ends for me? It is a theological issue. If I pander to abortion I get my hands dirty in what has become one of the greatest assaults on human dignity in history. I cannot go there. God knits us in the womb. How dare we call that just tissue--a potential life?

It will not become a small issue to me. The president does make decisions concerning the issue whether few or many. It is certainly an issue today--not a hangover issue from 1973.

Is the economy our end-all issue? Is health care?, Part 1

Robert P. George recently published a compelling, and somewhat lengthy, essay on Sen. Barack Obama's "abortion extremism" at The Witherspoon Institute for Public Discourse.

He begins saying, "Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States," and, "Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress." But there are Catholics and evangelicals who are Pro-Life and willing to vote for Obama. Many are even claiming that a vote for Obama is better for the pro-life point of view. So, "What's going on here?"

The following three vignettes (see def. 3b) offer background for the following commentary. Take them as a setting for an answer of sorts. Each vignette has been proposed by folks I know from varying views on the issue. My intent in answering each one is to help give a consistent thrust of what I think is a biblical pro-life stance.

As Drew mentioned in his scathing rant about the idiotic Obama emails floating around the internet, we are not here to endorse candidates. However, we do find it helpful to critique what they are saying and to analyze their records on different issues. This is an effort to analyze the implications of abortion in view of Obama's "abortion extremism." Its topics are actually ranging but center on the issue on abortion. With that introductory matter taken care of, let's turn to the vignettes.

------------------------------------------------

(Vignette 1):

It seems many Pro-Life Americans, including evangelicals and Catholics, are putting aside the abortion issue in order to focus more on economic and foreign policy issues. Issues like Roe v. Wade weren't overturned with conservatives in office and it is likewise unlikely that it would be overturned if McCain were in office. Is this a bother?

Is the economy our end-all issue? Is health care?

I agree with that assessment of the current situation. That is really what concerns me. The issue at stake is whether those who say they are pro-life actually consider it an issue that takes some sort of precedence over other issues.

Is the economy our end-all issue? Is health care? These are definitely important issues. But I happen to think the issue of the dignity of human life is one of, if not the, top issue we should be concerned about--above our checking accounts, above our health care coverage. That of course is tempered by a comparison I make of abortion to slavery. It trumps slavery as the greatest assault to human dignity and life in American history--at the very least, in terms of those killed.

So that is my angle. Roe v. Wade is a court decision that will take longer to overturn but there are certain measures in place right now that help limit the number of abortions in America that Obama would like to erase.

The troubling thing remaining is a sense of cutting-our-losses-cutting-our-gains to put moral issues on the back burner as if they don't matter in the grand scheme of things. I think George points this out convincingly in his essay.

------------------------------------------------

(Vignette 2):

Abortion should be a non-issue in this election. If you look at the 23 years of pro-life leaders in office since 1973, very little has been done to change things. So, conservatives should be blamed just as much as the liberals. The key to the issue is sex education to lower pregnancy rates. If you think about it, abortion rates are the same where abortions are legal and illegal. The only difference is less people die.

Is abortion a non-issue?

I first admit that the abortion topic is something that I believe is important and a fairly complicated issue when analyzing evidence and putting it in political clothing.

So how should your comment be answered? Is it a non-issue? This is something that shows whether it is a moral issue. If it is a moral issue, then yes, it is definitely an issue. If it is an issue which tax-payer dollars may be given to fund abortions when many would vehemently oppose it, then it is an issue. All of that may be at stake if the Hyde legislation (1976) were repealed and FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) passed. I think it is a big-leap for any evangelical to say that it is a non-issue. I also think it is for one to relegate it to a minor issue, but that seems to be something that is at stake with so many evangelicals and Catholics turning their support to Obama.

I think George convincingly answers the last statement:

They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn. This is delusional.

I do agree with you that neither party has done enough.

------------------------------------------------

(Vignette 3):

Sure, Christians should not turn a blind eye to the problem, but other issues should take precedence over abortion. Really, what has Bush done to change anything on the issue? Why make it a big deal in this election if nothing happens?

Priority for abortion among other issues?

I agree that Bush did not do enough. But to say that and then say that it should not take any sort of precedence over other issues is a non-sequitur response.

It does not necessarily follow that abortion rates have gone up due to any one thing. Planned Parenthood has shut down clinics over the past couple of years while selling more abortions (cf. 2004: 17 clinics closed and 20% more abortions). How? They have focused on urban communities for one. Why? That's where the demand is.

I get that. But why are the abortion clinics still complaining that legislations like the Hyde Amendment are costing them money? Because they are. So just because abortion rates have gone up does not mean that they have gone up as high as they could. Obama's position is extreme--there is no getting around that.

That does not mean that other issues don't matter. They do. They are important and I expect the new President to take care to deal with them. Still it leaves a sick taste in my mouth to think that we could sit around twittling our thumbs in a country where it is legal to kill a baby in the womb.

Hopefully that helps clarify where I am coming from. I do care about the economy and our foreign policy. I agree that Bush did not do enough. McCain probably won't either. He seems to think choosing Palin covers that, though Palin does seem to have a good stance on abortion (see Gov. Sarah Palin and her Son, Trig). But it does not follow to say that abortion should not be an issue because Bush failed--though this is up for debate (see The Guttmacher Institute, 2005 Survey of Abortion Providers). The Guttmacher figures do seem to make sense and would back my reasoning behind certain measures like the Hyde legislation.

I still think that it is difficult to nail down abortion rates. The figures I mentioned for Planned Parenthood in 2004 state that they were able to sell more abortions while closing clinics!

Thanks for reading. More will follow shortly.

Mark L. Strauss: Reading the Four Gospels, Part 2

How should we read the living Word of God? How should we preach it? Should we follow the storyline on its terms? The following exerpt is also from Four Portraits, One Jesus: An Introduction to Jesus and the Gospels. 

Reading "Horizontally": Comparing Their Accounts

While there is a danger in harmonistically reading one Gospel’s presentation into another, thare are also benefits in comparing their accounts using a “synopsis,” which places the Gospels in parallel columns. By comparing the Gospels, we can identify each writer’s themes and theology. For example, by comparing Luke with Matthew and Mark, we see that Luke often introduces statements about Jesus’ prayer life, revealing his interest in Jesus’ intimacy with the Father. We may call this reading horizontally–comparing the Gospels to discern each Evangelist’s unique theological perspective.

When is a harmony legitimate? While harmonistically reading the Gospels risks missing each Gospel’s narrative and theological themes, a harmony is beneficial when asking historical questions. The Gospels claim to be historical narratives, and so it is legitimate to investigate them from the perspective of what actually happened.

Jesus’ trial scene, for example, takes on different contours in each of the four Gospels. While a narrative may ask about the themes of each Gospel writer, the historian asks basic historical questions: What role did the Jewish and Roman authoritites play in the arrest of Jesus? Before whom was he tried. What accusations were made against him? Why was he crucified? The historian’s task is to examine and critique all of the available evidence in order to piece together a credible historical account. Here a harmonistic study is necessary and helpful in order to glean as much information as possible from the available sources.

Though the Gospels were written at a specific time, in a specific place, and with specific purposes, they are of timeless benefit for the church. The unique unity and diversity of the four Gospels provide the church of all ages with an authoritative and inspired portrait of Jesus Christ.

from Mark L. Strauss (Four Portraits, One Jesus: An Introduction to Jesus and the Gospels, 32-35).