Scott, just replace abortion with infanticide and see if your position makes sense. Abortion is the killing of a human being, an offense against God, not good taste or someone’s personal code. The only possible situation where this is not murder would be where the child threatens the life of the mother. The civil magistrate exists to uphold good and punish wrongdoing (Rom. 13). They are to do what is right, not what is popular. Murder is not simply wrong morally it is a crime and needs to be punished accordingly.

Like Scott Roper stated, abortion IS murder. Murder is illegal in this country; therefore, murdering babies in the womb should be illegal. Period.

Yes, there IS an underlying problem to the abortion crisis and one that the church and society need to solve. But that’s a whole ‘nother topic.

This is what I dig about you, man. It’s not an easy discussion and it’s not as black and white as I wish it would be. And it’s not an easy stance for a brother to take.

“Christians are adopting babies from China and Africa and probably Canada (not that there’s anything wrong with any of that) when there are babies right here that need homes too. We’re also having huge biological families of our own, when again, we might be able to provide a loving place for someone else’s child.”

This. I don’t know that it’s the *the* answer. I’m not sure that there’s just one answer to this debate. But I feel like there’s a lot more the church could be doing.

Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for the thoughtful post.

Hmmm. regarding Darrell, once someone suggests that someone else “man up”, I pretty much ignore what they have to say. You’re a better man that I, scott, for trying to engage him.

Regarding the topic, I pretty much agree with Scott on a high level, though I’m sure I’m more definitively pro-choice. But I do think the issue is simpler in some ways. If someone believes that any form of abortion is murder, there is no middle ground, no issue of what the government should and shouldn’t be doing. How could there be?

Once you believe that women should have the option to have an abortion beyond where their life is directly threatened by the pregnancy, you are pro-choice. Sure, you are also pro-life in that you don’t support that particular choice personally, but the whole thing is semantics at that point.

I want to reiterate, I really agree with your take on most of this. But at some level, attempting to reason with people who’s opinions are fundamentally different becomes problematic. Certainly one rarely needs to become specifically adversarial, but reasoned argument simply gets nowhere, even an argument that has faith as its bedrock.

Thanks for the post!

Didn’t we have a conversation on this topic somewhere before?
Let’s look at one year in the US, say 1992.
Number of abortions: ~1.5 million
Number of adoptions: >0.15 million
If adoptions are going to be a realistic alternative to abortions, the demand for adoptions will have to increase by more than a factor of 10.
Personally, I’d love to see the so-labeled ‘pro-lifers’ put their money (time and love) where their mouths are. Where are the institutions that will not only find a loving home for an unwanted child, but also pay for the healthcare of the mother during pregnancy?
I applaud you for seeking realistic alternatives before seeking illegalization. But Christians have a lot of tough work ahead if they are going to create such alternatives.
I think another avenue of attack on abortion is addition to reducing the number of unwanted children (through adoption), we could also work to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. For example, making contraceptives available to teens and educating them on their proper use would probably go along way to limiting that number. Unfortunately, this is very unpopular with most ‘pro-lifers’.

Yeah I meant to talk about that too, which I guess falls under the “There’s more I could say and might well say on this topic”. So yes adoption isn’t the only alternative.
I firmly believe that more education and access to birth control is a good idea. If someone says that it will lead to the moral decline of teens or some such then those people haven’t set foot in a high school lately.

I was thinking that we might be against the criminalization of abortion. That way we can encourage women away from abortion without treating them or their doctors like criminals and therefore focus on reducing the number of abortions that occur (ideally reducing them to just necessary/humane/justifiable.) Some may argue that any abortion is unjustifiable, but they would be in a minority across this country (and within the church in general.)
Just a thought….

Anybody think that medical science should be involved in the discussion? It blows me away how quickly the life of an unborn baby so quickly becomes all about the mother’s rights when medical science proves that babies in the womb are absolutely human and viability seems to get earlier in the cycle every year. Not that anyone wants to talk science

Scott, just replace abortion with infanticide and see if your position makes sense. Abortion is the killing of a human being, an offense against God, not good taste or someone’s personal code. The only possible situation where this is not murder would be where the child threatens the life of the mother. The civil magistrate exists to uphold good and punish wrongdoing (Rom. 13). They are to do what is right, not what is popular. Murder is not simply wrong morally it is a crime and needs to be punished accordingly.

Like Scott Roper stated, abortion IS murder. Murder is illegal in this country; therefore, murdering babies in the womb should be illegal. Period.
Yes, there IS an underlying problem to the abortion crisis and one that the church and society need to solve. But that’s a whole ‘nother topic.

Personally I think that the decision to abort is the wrong one. For me, in the vast majority of situations this decision needs to be made in, ending a baby’s life is wrong morally. So in that sense I am pro-life. But, I also think that in this country we need to have the right to choose

Can’t have it both ways, Scott. Both sides think of you as a pussy that way, and neither respects you. Get off the fence. Pick a side. Even if you pick the wrong side, you gotta man up.

Hi Fred, so how is decriminalization any different from keeping it legal as it stands now?

Hey KB! So what would involving medical science in this discussion do? I guess maybe if they made sufficient advances to support a baby in an artificial womb so that if the mother didn’t want to carry the baby to term that would be an option. That’s not going to happen for a long time though.

Hi Scott –

Scott, just replace abortion with infanticide and see if your position makes sense.

Legally it’s not the same thing, so replacing one word with another doesn’t serve any clear purpose other than to further emotionally charge the argument, something that isn’t needed.

Abortion is the killing of a human being, an offense against God, not good taste or someone’s personal code.

Going to war, the death penalty, euthanasia, or shooting a burglar in your home are all also killing human beings. Disobeying your parents, dishonoring God, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and sleeping with someone you aren’t married to are also offenses against God.

The only possible situation where this is not murder would be where the child threatens the life of the mother.

Murder has a legal definition, the only definition that really matters here and currently, abortion doesn’t fit the legal definition.

The civil magistrate exists to uphold good and punish wrongdoing (Rom. 13). They are to do what is right, not what is popular. Murder is not simply wrong morally it is a crime and needs to be punished accordingly.

So the magistrate is to do what is right? Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Currently the governing authorities have decided that abortion should be legal. Whether we agree with that or not we are required to respect it aren’t we? That chapter says nothing about not doing what is popular. Our country is a democracy not a theocracy. If we were to hold everyone to God’s standards legally in this country then it would be illegal to disobey your parents, to work on Saturday, to worship any other God, to covet your neighbor’s wife. Is that what you want? After all those things are not simply wrong morally they are a crime against God and need to be punished accordingly.

Hi Dawn! I’ve addressed Scott’s legal question, what do you think of that?

Yes, there IS an underlying problem to the abortion crisis and one that the church and society need to solve. But that’s a whole ‘nother topic.

That’s kind of the topic here.

Hi Darrell!

Can’t have it both ways, Scott. Both sides think of you as a pussy that way, and neither respects you. Get off the fence. Pick a side. Even if you pick the wrong side, you gotta man up.

Well since I don’t really respect either side in this issue as they both tend to use dirty tactics to get their point across I guess I don’t really care whether they respect me or not. I’m not out to get respect from people that don’t really want to find a solution that works for the broadest range of people. I also don’t really respect someone who thinks of me as a pussy, regardless of why they think that.

I find your last statement the most interesting. Is it manning up to pick the wrong side? Are you saying it’s better to make a wrong decision than to try and seek a narrower, more complex path? I think this business of “either you’re pro-life or pro-choice” to be the least “manly” approach. It’s divisive and a false dichotomy.

Well, your position comes down to “Blah blah blah, I’m pro-abortion, but I want everyone to like me.” That’s childish.

You realize that abortion is morally wrong in the VAST majority of cases. But you seem to want to find a way to justify supporting the availability of abortion on demand and supporting pro-abortion politicians.

Manning up is picking a side, man. Parading around with these effete political sensibilities is just insulting, especially to those of us who put our politics where our morality is.

I agree with Malcolm X when it comes to this kind of posturing: “I have more respect for a man who lets me know where he stands, even if he’s wrong, than for the one who comes up like an angel and is nothing but a devil.”

Actually my position is more like “Blah blah blah I’m pro-life but I want everyone to like me.” Except I don’t want everyone to like me. I could care less if you like me, love me, respect me, loathe me, or covet me broad shoulders and roguish grin (actually more impish than roguish, but charming, definitely charming). I’m surprised that you’d tag me as pro-choice since in the broadest sense I agree with you. Of course I don’t suppose I’m really surprised since both camps seem to be fond of the “x in name only” accusation that both political parties are also fond of.

My point is Darrell that there aren’t just two sides to this issue. It’s more complex than that. You don’t think so and God bless you that’s no surprise. That’s one reason I love reading your blog. You’re fiercely passionate about your beliefs whatever they may be and you could give a hang if anyone thinks you’re a nutcase or not. I’m a different cat than that.

I’m not sure why you find my “posturing” “effete” and insulting. I’m just laying out what I believe and it doesn’t happen to fall in to your neat little boxes. I’ve let you know where I stand. I believe that abortion is in the vast majority of cases immoral, but I have no desire to make everyone toe my moral line. I’d say that’s pretty clear.

Well, you did ask for feedback.

You say that there’s more to this issue than the one side or the other. I disagree entirely. There are still moral absolutes in this world. Murdering an unborn child so that his or her parents won’t be inconvenienced is wrong. Period. And the whole rape/incest/risk argument is a red herring because those cases are less than one percent of the abortions performed.

I have carefully considered both sides of this issue. One side sees abortion on demand as murder. The other side sees the abortion issue as a women’s rights matter. After years of thought I long ago reached the conclusion that those who believe that this is a women’s rights issue are incorrect. This is a matter of life and death. This IS a matter of moral absolute. Compromise is impossible.

Think about it this way: 200 years ago most Americans thought slavery was OK. A smaller amount thought it was wrong. Where would we be today if those who opposed slavery had sought a compromise?

I’ll leave it at that.

It’s good to see that most commenters’ knee-jerk reflexes are in good, working order. I see that politicians’ most effective wedge is as potent as ever. They’ll be glad to know that. That way, they can continue to get people to vote against their own interests on practical, everyday matters using a small set of emotionally charged issues.

Here’s a legitimate point:

babies in the womb are absolutely human and viability seems to get earlier in the cycle every year. Not that anyone wants to talk science

There was a law passed in 2003 that outlawed late-term abortions based on this so people are not only talking science but making decisions and taking actions based on it. And, indeed, the viability outside the womb age is dropping.

But what’s the cost? The earlier the birth, the more expensive the care. Not every pregnant woman has the financial resources to pay for the intensive care required for such premature births. Again, I would like to see the ‘pro-life’ community put their money where their mouths are and create and donate to institutions that pay for the medical expense and provide homes for unwanted children.

Premature death is a tragedy. It makes no difference whether it is abortion, murder, war, genocide, or any of the other countless ways we humans have killed each other.

I think abortion should be illegal unless a doctor says it is medically necessary. Unfortunately, this will probably never happen. The issue is so politicized now.

Darrell – I did ask for feedback and I’m glad you gave it. I wish there had been less labelling/name calling, but it is a charged issue and I understand that emotions cause us to say unkind things to one another from time to time.

Murder is wrong, whether it’s of an adult or a child and yet under certain circumstances, narrowly defined, it is legal to kill someone regardless of their age. I’d argue that that’s not ideal, but for now it’s how it has to be.

Our founders did compromise on slavery, again and again. First slaves counted as partial people, then as full people, then they were given some rights and only as recently as the sixties were they given the full rights as adults should have. Sometimes compromise is necessary.

Sid – It does seem that the only answer I hear from their side is “make it illegal” which as we’ve seen when anything is prohibited, doesn’t work. It is good that science is playing some role in the tightening of restrictions on abortion. If it’s solely based on viability (the laws passed in 2003) then perhaps that’s a good criteria for the circumstances under which an abortion should be illegal.

Your question of expense is a good one. The hospitals and government do some of that already. I don’t think that our more conservative commenters would be in favor of more government programs, even under those circumstances, but maybe I’m wrong?

Rock – You’re right, it would be nice if the only abortions carried out were those deemed medically necessary. As Darrell pointed out those would certainly be few, but what would the criteria be. What is truly necessary and should the doctor be the one to make that call?

Strictly speaking, the law I referenced is not based on gestation time. The ‘partial birth’ abortion ban that I referred to is actually a ban on a method of abortion. This method is usable both before and after viability. Some of the arguments for instituting this ban did use the viability argument though.

Look back over my comments. There wasn’t any name-calling on my part. I didn’t attack you, I attacked the credibility of your ideas. Fair game. The only thing I see that you could interpret as name-calling was my assertion that people on both sides of the issue would see you as a pussy for skirting the issue. That was a comment on what I perceive as the reaction to fence-sitting and not an instance of name-calling. What I said was that people would be inclined to hold that opinion, in MY opinion. I didn’t say “You’re a pussy.” I think there’s a crucial difference.

I would think a medical judgment would be best made by a doctor rather than a court or a politician.
Just to clarify my earlier remark about politicizing the issue, both sides have done this. Democrats gain votes by saying they will keep abortion legal. The Republicans gain votes by saying they will make it illegal. The Republicans are the worst of the two because they have shown no intention of actually following through with that promise.
Of course, when the big issues come up, like settling the 2000 election, the Republicans charge into action.

Darrell – Since you’re on one side or the other and you think people one side or the other would view me as a “pussy” then it’s okay if that’s how you view me. It’s not a reflection on me.
I would say that calling my views childish is an insult. I would say that calling my political sensibilities “effete” is insulting.
You think all of that is different than name calling. It seems like a bit of a dodge to say “I wasn’t insulting you, I was insulting your ideas.”, but if you intended no offense then fine. Please avoid insulting my ideas if possible. Point out flaws if you like, but all I ask is that you be civil.

This is what I dig about you, man. It’s not an easy discussion and it’s not as black and white as I wish it would be. And it’s not an easy stance for a brother to take.
“Christians are adopting babies from China and Africa and probably Canada (not that there’s anything wrong with any of that) when there are babies right here that need homes too. We’re also having huge biological families of our own, when again, we might be able to provide a loving place for someone else’s child.”
This. I don’t know that it’s the *the* answer. I’m not sure that there’s just one answer to this debate. But I feel like there’s a lot more the church could be doing.
Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for the thoughtful post.

DKT – Thanks! I appreciate it. Like Sid said up above it’s certainly not “the” answer, no. The problem is too complex for there to be one answer. And you’re welcome.

BTW, DKT, I really liked your St. Darwin story! Maybe you already saw that, but it’s worth saying again.

Good conversation going here Scott.. wish I could easily subscribe to comments so that I could keep up better.
I agree with you on this Scott..
“It is good that science is playing some role in the tightening of restrictions on abortion. If it’s solely based on viability (the laws passed in 2003) then perhaps that’s a good criteria for the circumstances under which an abortion should be illegal.”
..maybe one day medical costs will get (comparatively) cheap enough (or we will nationalize health care) so that all viable human life will be worth saving.
Maybe a cost-benefit analysis will eventually drive most of our “moral” decisions. Our Kansas legislature is currently reexamining our capital punishment laws because it is so legally expensive to execute a person.
And I am glad to provide the right-knee-jerk entertainment as I am enjoying the left-knee-jerk antics

Working on that subscription thing Bob. MT doesn’t make it easy.

I was using the word murder shorthand for the unjust taking of human life. What determines what is just and unjust? God’s moral law. While there is some ambiguity as to what constitutes a crime under God’s moral law (not everything that is immoral is criminal), murder is unambiguous. In Genesis 9:6, before the Abrahamic covenant, before the law of Moses, before the Theocracy, God requires punishment for those who murder. This command was given to all mankind.
There are other crimes that are not currently punished that should be (some of them you mentioned), but that is not the topic at hand. The question is whether we should be consistent in our application of the punishment against murder. We are warned again and again about the evil of using unjust scales or showing partiality. When we let the unjust killing of a certain class of humans go unpunished we are partaking of that very evil.

Hello Kansas Bob,

“Maybe a cost-benefit analysis will eventually drive most of our “moral” decisions.”

They are going to have to. We have limited resources with growing medical technology. These beginning-of-life and end-of-life debates are only the beginning.

“And I am glad to provide the right-knee-jerk entertainment as I am enjoying the left-knee-jerk antics ”

Actually, your comment wasn’t one I considered knee-jerk. I was referring to the “it’s murder!” comments. These individuals aren’t interested in conversation. They are only interested in condemning those with a different opinion.

I would say that calling my views childish is an insult. I would say that calling my political sensibilities “effete” is insulting.

Holy, crap, man. We’re arguing aesthetics now? You brought up ABORTION and invited feedback. Maybe you ought to consider thickening your skin a bit before jumping into that argument.

I get the impression that presenting yourself as someone with a “nuanced” pseudo-position on this matter is more important to you than the issue itself.

I checked this thread again today to see if you’d ever come up with an actual argument against the substance of my comments. Nope. Just more reaction to my presentation. I won’t bother checking again. I don’t think you really care about this issue at all and I can’t help but believe that the only reason you brought it up in the first place ammounts to “Hey, everybody, look how sensitive I am.”

Well, congratulations. You’ve carefully massaged your opinion on the most important issue of our time rather than taking a stand one way or the other.

I don’t know a better word for that than effete.

Scott (Roper) – The passage in Genesis doesn’t talk about just vs. unjust taking of life. It says “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” which seems to condemn all harm to our fellow humans. Now that may actually strengthen your point, when it comes to saying that God says murder is bad, but there would seem to be no just murder based solely on that verse. I won’t argue that abortion is moral on any ground and haven’t, so on that point we agree.

We should be just in our application of punishment against murder. Currently our country falls woefully short of that in so many areas it’s not funny. But also currently our country’s legal system doesn’t define early term abortions as murder. Your arguing that we should change that. I’m asking what good you think that would do. Should we jail mothers who have abortions?

Darrell – In case you do check back (and if you don’t, for the benefit of those still reading) I’ll respond.

Holy, crap, man. We’re arguing aesthetics now? You brought up ABORTION and invited feedback. Maybe you ought to consider thickening your skin a bit before jumping into that argument.

As I said, I understand why you said what you did. It’s an emotional issue. I’m not crying in my beer over this, I’m just holding you accountable as one Christian brother to another when it comes to speaking the truth in love. I try to not be insulting. I expect the same from others regardless of the topic. If you fail, well of course I’ll forgive you, as I would hope to be forgiven. I don’t need a thicker skin to do any of that.

I get the impression that presenting yourself as someone with a “nuanced” pseudo-position on this matter is more important to you than the issue itself.

Because I’m not beating my chest or rending my clothes?

I checked this thread again today to see if you’d ever come up with an actual argument against the substance of my comments. Nope. Just more reaction to my presentation. I won’t bother checking again. I don’t think you really care about this issue at all and I can’t help but believe that the only reason you brought it up in the first place ammounts to “Hey, everybody, look how sensitive I am.”

The substance of your comments seemed to be little more than “man up” and “get an opinion” and “there can be no compromise”. I agreed with your that abortion is immoral and disagreed with you that it should be illegal in all cases. Have I missed something?

Well, congratulations. You’ve carefully massaged your opinion on the most important issue of our time rather than taking a stand one way or the other.

I don’t know a better word for that than effete.

I also disagree with you that this is the most important issue of our time.

Well Scott, I must commend you on your restraint. FWIW, I’m pretty sure Darrell will be back.

Like you, it seems to come down to a question of when and where to apply morals into legal code.

I would like to see an infrastructure developed to support unborn children. In an ideal world, the chruch would create such an infrastructure – but lacking that, I believe a good case can be made that supporting children that would otherwise be aborted is an investment in our future. (what better investment than a child?)

Part of that infrastructure would also be much more pregnancy prevention programs. I was abstinent and I will teach my children the same. However, not everyone shares my value system – we have to be more aggresive than just preaching abstinence. That’s a bit Off-Topic, but worth mentioning.

After that infrastructure is in place, then change the law. I realize that it is not a perfect solution – especially as a state run institution would be raising children instead of families. It seems better than the alternative (make abortion illegal and potentially have two deaths instead of one).

Also a bit off-topic, I agree with Rock that the GOP uses action against Roe v. Wade as a canard. Honestly, no politician will do anything to overturn Roe v. Wade because he or she would have to upset almost half the nation to make any changing.

Well said, Scott. Darrell’s tone has been aggressive at best. Personally, I thought it was unnecessarily insulting as well. Clearly he has a different opinion about his comments so I’ll let others judge for themselves.

Perhaps I saw insult because my position on abortion is nuanced as well and he was dismissive of any opinion that doesn’t cleanly fall into one of the two politically expedient categories of ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’. Reciprocally, I have very little respect for this “you’re either with us or against us” attitude. It’s counter-productive and divisive. And, as we have seen here, it distracts from real dialog aimed reaching common understanding and, possibly, compromise.

Often being effective is more important than being right. His simplistic view of abortion will do absolutely nothing to change the world. I have a lot more respect for your approach, Scott. You are actually seeking ways to reduce behavior you find immoral as opposed to just criminalizing it (which is ineffective anyway).

If he follows through on his threat not to return he will not be missed.

FWIW – I found both Darrell & Scott to be quite upfront and firm in their opinions. I didn’t think either of you necessarily crossed the line into insult.
It’s a challenging issue and I’ll agree that those on the extremes of each side have no tolerance for anything but exactly what they believe and they’ll cut you down if you express anything less. A real discussion of the challenges is hard to achieve.
Patrick Mead wrote recently of Jewish teachings on abortion that I haven’t yet decided what to do with. It centers around ‘ensoulment’, when the soul enters the person. Modern American Christianity tends to think of this happening at conception, Patrick contends that historically Judaism has seen it happening at birth or the first breath. (That’s from memory, I may have it wrong). I dunno if either is right, but how you look at that will have a profound impact on your thinking on abortion.

Thanks guys!

Pink – The infrastructure is definitely needed. I’m gonna post on prevention today.

Doug – Ensoulment… Interesting word. I’m not sure what I believe in that regard. It’s worth reading and thinking about. Thanks for the link.

Hmmm. regarding Darrell, once someone suggests that someone else “man up”, I pretty much ignore what they have to say. You’re a better man that I, scott, for trying to engage him.
Regarding the topic, I pretty much agree with Scott on a high level, though I’m sure I’m more definitively pro-choice. But I do think the issue is simpler in some ways. If someone believes that any form of abortion is murder, there is no middle ground, no issue of what the government should and shouldn’t be doing. How could there be?
Once you believe that women should have the option to have an abortion beyond where their life is directly threatened by the pregnancy, you are pro-choice. Sure, you are also pro-life in that you don’t support that particular choice personally, but the whole thing is semantics at that point.
I want to reiterate, I really agree with your take on most of this. But at some level, attempting to reason with people who’s opinions are fundamentally different becomes problematic. Certainly one rarely needs to become specifically adversarial, but reasoned argument simply gets nowhere, even an argument that has faith as its bedrock.
Thanks for the post!