Note: This is another entry that is based on real life conversations and questions raised regarding morality and our responsibility. My post here is based on the following post at
Ravishly.com
I am only seeking here to present a Biblical response to the idea of abortion, always remembering that we must speak the Truth in Love and extend grace to everyone in our dealings on these difficult matters.
o
Nice piece of satire indeed. I don't agree
with it all, but that's okay. I always get confused about the second point
though. Surely there's a bit more to abstinence-based sex education than that,
right? I would want students to be aware of safe sex procedures regarding
condoms and birth control and so forth-but I also would want to encourage
students to reserve sexual activity for the marriage bed alone. (Of course, I'm
not naive enough to think everyone will choose to do so, but we can rest
assured that it really won't happen if no effort is made to instill this as the
best choice for sexual health and the best moral choice. [I know people will
have differences on opinion on that second point though- but because of my
Biblical view from my faith in Christ, I believe that God designed sexual
intercourse to only happen between a man and a woman in the bonds of holy
matrimony. Anything else is a perversion of His creation and a violation of His
laws.])
Leaving the religious and moral arguments
aside though, I think it is simply a matter of logic that should be impressed
to students that it is simply not a good idea for teenagers to get pregnant as
they are generally wholly unprepared for the responsibility that comes with
children and they often are unable to complete schooling and of course, will
possibly face ridicule with a reputation as a slut, as the article pointed out.
[And I don't think that ridicule is right of course- I don't think we need to
have Hester Prynne walking around with that red scarlet letter 'A' emblazoned
on her blouse. I would also hold Roger Chillingsworth to that 'A' as well- but
it helps neither one to ridicule them and that's not right anyway.]
Teenagers and people in general should
certainly have information; as a librarian, I would highly encourage them to
come to their local library for such information. The library strongly believes
in freedom of information (so this means information from all points of view)
and many do offer programs for this particular topic of sexual activity and
healthcare.
I would also like to think that there are
some men of moral character that, given the possibility of being pregnant,
would not be getting abortions like going through a drive-through. (Again, this
gets into the issue of the morality of abortion, which of course, is where the
contention lies in this matter.)
If Planned Parenthood were simply providing
information regarding sex and birth control and sex control while they're at
it, along with cancer screenings and health checkups- I would have no problem
funding such a program. I don't believe in funding abortion, which is a process
that kills babies. I believe murder to be both morally wrong and legally wrong.
The two issues that seem to come up the
most are in regards to the definition of life itself and when and where it
begins, as well as the rights that men and women have in controlling their
bodies. Of course, men and women are already limited in the rights they have to
control their bodies. Laws from the government force all people to clothe their
bodies on the upper torso and legs and particularly over private parts. Other
laws restrict the use of drugs for recreational use in people's bodies. Other
laws restrict the sale of alcohol and tobacco products (and thereby intending
to limit the use of alcohol and tobacco products as well) in the bodies of
minors. There are even some laws in some places that restrict the consumption
of particular beverages and food products that are otherwise legal in the
bodies of men and women.
Thus, it would not seem inconsistent for
the government to issue a law regarding the control of a woman's body, insofar
as requiring the woman to refrain from destroying the life placed in her
through coitus. It would be great to see the law also require a man as well as
a woman to refrain from the act of coitus itself outside the bonds of holy
matrimony. However, this would be legislating morality, which I don't particularly
believe works anyway, as it doesn't really produce a genuine heart change on
the parts of people. (The only One who can do that is Jesus Christ. And I
believe He desires people to come put their faith in His death and Resurrection
for forgiveness of their sins willingly- and then, as an act of obedience to
Him in gratitude for His saving work, in conjunction with the convicting and
molding work of The Holy Spirit, willingly choose to follow Him in all His
laws, and in this case, particularly the ones regarding sexuality.) And
certainly I don't believe that can or should be forced upon non-Christians. I
would want people to willingly choose to abstain from sexual contact until
marriage and reserve it only for that special expression of love between a man
and a woman on the marriage bed, not the cheap and casual thing that so many
make it to be, sadly.
However, since many will not choose that,
it is necessary to provide sound sexual education.
In that education, it would be good to
define where life starts. In a worldview that for many evolution is accepted as
that origin point, it is easy to see how the developmental stage of babies
still in the womb is disregarded as nothing more than "a clump of
cells", as I noticed one commenter referred to the result of procreation.
After all, in an evolutionary worldview, human beings themselves were, at some
point, nothing more than "a clump of cells" that slowly turned into
increasingly progressing lifeforms, both in form and complexity.
This gets to the other question that is so
often raised in this matter. It seems very weird, to say the least, that most
every expectant mother I have ever known or heard of, most always seems to
refer to the growth within her uterus as her baby, rather than her foetus or
embryo or clump of cells or "parasite that's killing her", as I
noticed another commenter say. [That last one was in the case of a pregancy
that was causing medical problems for the mother, I believe.]
Also, seeing that Webster's Dictionary
defines a child as "an unborn or recently born person", it would seem
that "child" is another fitting term for the union of sperm and egg.
[The root word apparently is akin to Goth kilthei [i.e. womb] and perhaps to
Skt. jathara [i.e. belly] Both terms would seem to be referring, in ancient
terminology, to the uterus.]
That is the moral dilemma that surrounds
the matter, as I see it. The government has made its ruling, of course, and as
a Christian, I am bound to respect the laws of my country, of course (since God
is the one who put the government in power and He's the One who can take it
down as well- see Romans 13). However, there is also a call in The Bible to
stand and fight for justice to "the least of these" [see Matthew 25 and
Isaiah 1:16-20, among others.]. God also states repeatedly that He hates the
"shedding of innocent blood". [see Proverbs 6:16-19, Deuteronomy
19:1-13, Deuteronomy 21:1-9, 2 Kings 21:16, 2 Kings 24:4, Psalms 106:36-42,
Jeremiah 7:1-15, Isaiah 59, numerous others.] And, of course, there are times
when "we must obey God rather than men." [Acts 5:29]
(The account of the midwives refusing to
obey Pharaoh's order to slaughter the Hebrew baby boys in Egypt, as related in
Exodus 1, is a great example. God dealt well with them and blessed them with
families because they feared Him.)
In conclusion, to clarify one other point
often raised, let me say that all life is infinitely valuable and eternally
loved by God. (see Jeremiah 1:5, Jeremiah 31:3 and others.) This is because all
human beings are made in the image of God. (Genesis 1:26-31) And I value and
love the lives of not only innocent babies, but also the mothers and fathers
who are driven to such extremes that they feel they must make the choice to
have an abortion. I always want to consider their plight and consider how best
I can help them and love them.
I think the government should seek to
support and help all parties involved and provide the resources needed as much
as possible, as I have discussed earlier. However, I think the government
should also make a stand against allowing the slaughter of human life at any
stage of development.
I know this is a very touchy and tough
subject for many people and I also want to clarify that I mean no disrespect or
disregard for the concerns, feelings and rights of others. This certainly
includes those who may vastly disagree with me. I am also called by Jesus to
love them as much as I love myself. (Matthew 22:34-40) So let's seek to love
one another and come together to see how we can work together to minimize
abortions at the least and increase healthcare and support for pregnant women
and sexual education for people (something I think most people agree on) and be
willing to listen to each other in the conversation regarding the morality of
the matter- and how we want to be defined as a people in regards to what is
acceptable or not.
