Ma Ma Jacquie's Blah Blah Blog

The thing about the abortion issue is that both sides are in a completely different argument, about completely different points.

To say that the "pro-lifers" are somehow opposed to a woman's right to make health care decisions about her body is inaccurate, since they would say that it's not about that.

In the same manner, to say that the "pro-choicers" are somehow fighting for the right to kill humans is equally inaccurate, since they would also say that they don't believe that is what's happening.

In order to have a rational debate, you would have to boil it down to the main important point that actually separates the basis of the two camps' point of view: when "life" actually begins.

Since it is difficult or impossible to scientifically prove this, I would suggest that rather than having a debate about this point, it would be much more profitable for both sides to put down their swords and try working together to do things like reduce teen pregnancy, improve the quality of sex education, and other goals that both sides can agree are good things to work towards.

In any event, since this issue will not be resolved (to the satisfaction of either side) by any decision the supreme court may or may not make, I would agree that it's kind of a waste of time to make that the only issue that is discussed.

As a matter of fact, in the coming years there are likely to be many very important supreme court decisions that have nothing to do with abortion, so I don't know why they are focusing on just this one.
 

I have listened to people, just regular folks, who don't care one way or the other whether life starts before, during or after conception. What they care about is a baby getting in the way of their life plans. It's not a scientific dilema to them. It's a business decision. I just heard a caller on the radio the other day saying how he doesn't really know about right or wrong, he's just glad he had the priveledge of aborting his baby so he and his then-girlfriend could finish college.

I truely do not believe the issue will ever be settled by people putting down their swords and having dialoge, because it's a spiritual issue. And that's why I think that it has become Issue #1 in America right now. (alot of other countries have already lost this battle) God is into family. It's all through the Bible. God is into reproduction. Each after it's own kind. That's what evangelization is about. God is into relationships. That's what the preaching of the Kingdom of God majors on. And so..... What God is into, the enemy will try to destroy.

At least that is what it looks like to me.
 

Abortion has become an issue by the media and pro-abortion activists (N.O.W.) because the last abortion rights case (Stenberg vs Carhart) was very close and only was approved by a 5-4 pro choice majority. The pro-abortionists know that if a conservative is put into the court, then the abortion rights cases could go against them in the future. Then they would be defeated so to speak.
That being said, I want the major news outlets (like what most America watch/listen to) to tell all about the candidates, not just keep it to one or two subjects like abortion.
 

But maybe, when you get down to the truth of our nation, it really is ALL about this issue. Maybe it's really all about our love, respect, and care for one another vs our self gratification and love for ourselves. I mean if you haven't yet been able to define "when" life starts, a loving compassionate society would want to err on the side of over protection, right? But maybe this issue is getting us down to who we really are as people.
 

And as people, I think that we should all be ashamed.
 

I completely agree that it's correct (and even necessary) to err on the side of not performing abortions, since we really don't know (and probably never will) when "life" begins.

I just wish the "pro-lifers" could get past the mentality of calling the other side murderers, etc., because that's primarily why there won't be any progress on this issue.

Just because you and I believe that it's better to take a "conservative" (ouch, I can't believe I said that) approach since we don't know for sure when life begins, doesn't give us the right to accuse those who don't feel the same way as being evil. For some reason, the pro-life side continues to do this though, and that's what I see preventing a lot from being accomplished.

So, in a way, I think you're correct when you say it's a spiritual issue: one of pride and condemnation on "our" parts. Along with the selfishness you describe on the part of those choosing abortion as a quick fix to their problems (which is certainly accurate), another part of human nature seems to compell us to take stands of moral superiority above those that we disagree with, rather than attempting to approach them humbly in an effort to make progress.
 

Do you not believe in conscience? Innate knowledge of right and wrong?
 

Lets compare it slavery in the United States. I'm sure one could make a convincing case that many slave owners honestly believed that African Americans were sub-human, animals even. Influential thinkers of that day certainly held such beliefs. However, others had a complete right and a moral responsibility to oppose and condemn their sincere beliefs. You may say the issue of abortion is a different case because it's impossible to determine when life begins, but that's just a vaccuous attempt to rationalize what all know to be wrong.
 

I'm not sure what you mean by the conscience comment, unless you are saying that everyone should just "know" that abortion is wrong. If that's what you're saying, then I guess I agree to some extent, although there are a lot of things that I believe are wrong that a lot of people don't seem to listen to their conscience about, and I don't know if that can really be a basis for a law.

Don't forget that I'm not arguing that abortion is good or right, I'm just saying that most of the "pro-lifers" are going about presenting their case in a completely unproductive manner.

In regards to slavery, I really don't think the abortion issue is even close to being comparable; they're completely different, so any analogy will very likely fail. Sure, there are often large groups of people that are willing to stand behind something that is wrong, but I still maintain that (in both cases) much more progress will be made by trying to bridge that gap and bring understanding than in name calling and refusing to have any kind of profitable discussion. So, if anything, the racism example would serve to strengthen the case for my approach.

The term "vacuous" does not apply, nor does the concept of rationalizing something one "knows" (or believes) to be wrong, since the proponents of "choice" do not believe that abortion is wrong to begin with. It's a scientific issue, not a religious one (at least for some), and it shouldn't be too surprising considering our constitution that a portion of the citizens of our country are not willing to allow the laws of the land to be based on the beliefs of a particular faith (especially when the issue isn't even technically defined in said faith).

You and I may agree that we'd all be better off, but since we don't have the right to shove that down anyone else's throat, I'd rather put in the effort to change minds and provide alternatives rather than put up even more barriers by calling people baby-killers.

Another interesting point in all this (that I alluded to above) is that it's pretty unlikely that any decision or action taken by the government will do much to affect the numbers of abortions being performed, either plus or minus. Actually, from what I hear, abortions were going down for most of the 90's (specifically towards the end), and up since 2000.
 

Deep down inside everyone knows what is right and what is wrong. I don't care what anyone says they "believe." You've never lied to yourself to justify sin. I know I have.
 

I do believe that in most societies, right and wrong (or the popular interpretation of it)IS the basis of the making of laws. And I would hope that it would be the basis for the laws in this one too. However I know that the Bible talks about everyone doing "what seems right in our own eyes" And that is a big issue because then the line between right and wrong can change from person to person instead of being drawn by God's principles.

I think the slavery case, the concentration camp case and any case where there is a grave injustice being done, does apply here as an analogy. You yourself said, Jared, in previous comments in other blogs, that you feel compelled to speak out when you see injustice. Would you have called slavery "evil"? Would you have named the senseless killing of Jews as "sin". I don't see anything wrong with Christians speaking out against abortion and calling it absolutely wrong.

I mentioned this before: For many many many people, the issue of right and wrong doesn't even come into play. They don't care if it's right or wrong. They want the baby gone. So it's not so much that we as people are going against our conscience, it's that our consciences are numbed and have no sensitivity to right and wrong. It's all about what's "good" for me right now.

How do you suggest changing people's minds? Science can't do it. It's more than a scientific issue. "Religion" won't do it. Religious rules mean nothing when pursuing the Ameican dream! Rational debate won't get it. Some Christians are committed to their belief in the sacredness of human life and Pro choicers are commiitted to their belief in "my rights". I suggest there is no way to change a person's mind on an issue like this except for a heart changing relationship with Jesus Christ.

I don't think Jesus shirked from speaking out against evil, and calling it such. "Brood of vipers" comes to mind. I'm not saying that the church hasn't done their share of stupid things and had alot of bad attitudes, but to say that the abortion issue isn't being resolved because they call evil evil, in my opinion, is misplaced blame.

Here's what I feel the progression should be when dealing with sin issues: Love for the person but realization that the sin is wrong and destructive, confrontation based on God's truth, repentance from sin, forgiveness and acceptance, new lifestyle.

Can this happen with a huge issue like abortion, slavery or genocide? I don't know. It seems that wars are the only way societies solve these problems. I don't know how the abortion issues fits here, but it IS a huge issue of RIGHT and WRONG. Good and Evil.

The funny thing to me these days, is this free speach thing. Free speech is encouraged and what you have to say is respected as long as it's in opposition to anything traditional, conservative, judeo-christian, etc. But when THOSE people start to speak out or protest, they are labeled as narrowminded, judgemental idiots. I just don't think that's right. OOPS!
 

Its probably good that you bring up the example of Christ, since he certainly should be our role model in our approach to resolving these issues. The "brood of vipers" statement, as well as the many other harsh one's issued by Jesus were usually directed *not* at the heathen people of the day, or those who did not claim to follow God, but rather the church and those who claimed to be representing his Father. When he really got in people's faces in the manner you mention, it was usually to people who already had agreed to live by the principles of God (and claimed or believed in their own minds to be doing so).

Conversely, when he encountered people who were involved in a sinful lifestyle (outside of those who already professed to be followers of God), you will find that he took a very different, much more compassionate approach, much like the one I am suggesting.

Sure, he never condoned sin, but he always offered forgiveness in a welcoming posture before he expected any kind of change in behavior. I would suggest a change in the order you listed above (realization that the sin is wrong, confrontation, repentance, forgiveness and acceptance, new lifestyle): since Christ has already offered forgiveness and acceptance to everyone, way before they repent or even acknowledge that what they've done is wrong. In my opinion, it's that first step of offering forgiveness and acceptance that HE already took (for everything that every person, present or future, will do) that allows for the confrontation (in love), which leads to the realization of wrong, then the repentance, then the new lifestyle.

Yes, I certainly believe that it is right and necessary to speak out against injustice. I'm just trying to say that we should do it in the same posture that Jesus did, not that of the crowd waiting to throw stones, whom he silenced. I would hope that in the other conversations of mine that you referenced, that I have presented my case against what I perceive to be injustice in such a manner; but if not, I admit to a failing on my part. I do usually try to be very careful in such matters not to engage in personal attacks or slander (assuming it's regarding a particular person or group of people); in some cases I realize I've had some strong words to say about some of our political leaders, etc., but even then it was more out of a "brood of vipers" type of frustration about their claiming to be doing things as "Christians" that I don't believe line up with who Christ is.

As for the issue of viewing abortion differently than slavery or murder, I think that we all agree that it's wrong, I just would hesitate to assume to know the motives and thoughts of the people who are going through that. Personally, I've talked to several people who have had abortions, and not one of them has ever said that they "didn't care whether it was right or wrong, they just wanted the baby gone". I'm not saying there aren't people like this out there, only that I don't think it's necessarily common. Perhaps the people you've talked to who've been through abortions have expressed that they really did feel (at the time) that they were murdering their babies and just didn't care. I'm not saying that's not possible; just that I doubt it's the case for most.

In addition, when dealing with this issue, I hesitate to use the word "evil", since I think that implies something about the motives of the person invovled that isn't neccessarily true in all cases. While you may believe (based on your interpretation of scripture) that abortion is evil, the Bible does not explicitly say that is the case. While I may (and do) beleive that since we do not know when life begins, that it is the prudent and "morally correct" thing to do to not take the chance and avoid abortions, that doesn't mean that someone who disagrees with me is evil.

I really do believe that God can reveal to any person what is right and wrong, and I just think that most people (if they don't have a relationship with him) have already established a pretty good system of "earplugs" to avoid hearing the things they don't want to hear from him. Anything that we can do to encourage an openness to establishing that relationship with God is much more likely to result in a removal of the metaphorical earplugs than if we just run up to them and try to yank them out and shout what we think God is saying to them in their ears instead.
 

We started mixing apples and oranges here. We were talking about having a national debate about a the importance of a judge's view on the legality of abortion and what that says about our country and then switched to dealing with individuals you may disagree with concerning a very personal, heart-wrenching subject. Two completely different animals. Maybe it was my fault but I didn't mean to do that.

Also, I think it's clear in the Bible that God highly values the unborn (Psalm 139). I don't see why a fetus has to be alive to be afforded legal protection.
 

I know. But it was my fault. I tried to mix the subjects of God's Kingdom principles with Man's Kingdom principles. Unfortuantely, two very different fruits. Oops.
 

I agree that God values the unborn child, as referenced in that Psalm, it's just unfortunate that it doesn't establish a specific point in time at which "life" begins. Some also point to the "before I formed you" passage in Jeremiah (I forget where exactly), but then that raises a whole extra set of questions. I don't think anyone would want to apply this literally and say that life actually begins *before* conception, since that would mean that a married couple would essentially be performing "abortion" if one of them wasn't in the mood on a particular night, much less if they used any form of birth control at all.

I would also agree with you that a fetus should be afforded legal protection due to the ambiguity involved. This is probably a much more rational approach from a strictly legal point of view, and since we're talking about shaping law, that's probably the right angle to address it on.
 

I think that the "before you were formed" concept quite possibly IS talking about life before conception. Meaning, God knows the end from the beginning. He had knowledge of us before we were a gleem in daddy's eye, if you know what I mean. Maybe that's what it's speaking about. I'm not saying that "I'm not in the mood" equals abortion, however.

It seems unfortuante to our inquiring minds that the Bible never says a difinitive chronological moment when human life begins, but it's probably all part of the plan. I don't know why, but it seems that God does keep some secrets from us and reveals them or allows us to uncover them as He sees fit.

Deut. 29:29 "The secret things belong to the Lord."

Colossians 1:26 ". . . the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations; but has now been manifested to His saints."

Matt. 13:35 ". . . I will utter things hidden since the foundations of the world."

I guess it's just the old "We don't know what we don't know. And we don't know that we don't know it, because we don't know what it is that we don't know." Ya know?
 

There is a story in Genesis 38 of a man who took his brothers widow as his wife as I guess was the custom of the day but selfishly practiced birth control by "emitt[ing] on the ground" in order to prevent him having to share his fathers inheritance with his brother's heir.

Some Christian's I've known were convicted enough by this scripture to swear off birth control completely.

But speaking from a totally secular point of view, why can't we humans recognize the extreme worth of an unborn human regardless of the ambiguous term "life." After conception it's a done deal. In 40 weeks a new human *will* exist with little or no tampering from "living" world. Should't we value that more than say a 100 year old oak tree, or stealhead in our local rivers, or our grand plans to become a CEO/astronaut.
 

I didn't mention the God struck that dude dead, and I brought it up because I think it's the most explicit scripture that touches on the issue of screwing--no pun intended--with conception.