Abortion Clinic
A couple of weeks ago BH and I went to stand, shiver, talk, and pray at the Saginaw abortion clinic.
I have prayed for an end to abortion for a long time, but never before a clinic where babies are actually being aborted. There is a significant difference in the sense of dread that comes out of nowhere. I think this "dread" is something that CS Lewis writes about -- asking why should we really ever have this emotion -- especially if the soul is not real.
We saw couples go in. On one occasion a couple came out, sat in their car, and then went in again. Then the abortionist arrived, quickly driving to the back, people there knew him by name.
Soon, a couple emerged, it was still too dark to see their faces. But, as they left by I saw the girl, she was crying. I was impressed that the crying did not at all seem to be a cry of physical pain but one made abject by irreversible loss and irreversible decisions.
At this point I had to walk away, my chest was filled with helpless horror at seeing this girl. I cried. Thinking of my own children and the incredible loss that just happened. Two people of 10 decided against abortion that day. There was hope eventhough death was powerfully present.
I will go again. It is clear that the presence of others can act as a deterrant. They are such young kids and they are making such a terrible mistake -- perhaps seeing others offering hope will sway them.
Abortion isn't a religious issue
Evangelicals are adamant, but religion really has nothing to say about the issue.
By Garry Wills
November 4, 2007
Wills tries to do a number of things in this article.
My first problem is that so much of his article is unsubstantiated. I know that a number of his comments are incorrect. He carries no burden of proof regarding his false statements about christianity and religious arguments.
Then, he goes on to try to define the moment at which a baby is human. He appeals to recent scientific capabilities and studies. I am amazed that he complains that Aquinas and other christians defined "humanness" in one way without the benefit of all the science and then he freely makes use of science to advance his arguments. (This is anti-historical in the sense that Aquinas and others didn't have the information that we have today.)
In the end Wills is unable to really pin-point the moment at which a baby is a "human". This is the mire that people get into when they try to go down this road, they begin splitting hairs to try and justify the killing of a baby before it becomes murder. The Bishops of the Catholic Church recognize this flaw and the complexity of it and ultimately the sin of trying to just kill one moment and then, in another second when "it" becomes human, oops, that was murder. This is why there actually can be no bright line, science will ever improve and demonstrate human qualities at an earlier and earlier stage, because "it" is human. Thus, the Bishops have stated that human life, and humanness begins at conception. This IS biblical, contrary to Wills statement, by the way.
I think the logic is real simple, a fertilized egg always leads to a human being. If other events occur, like lack of implantation, then this is natural and God will act according to His own will. This problem comes when we play God.
There are other issues that are flaws in this article (e.g., his whole discussion about semen and hair) this is also addressed in the Bible but Wills has not read these chapters.
An interesting development is the way some of the political endorsements are going...
Pat Robertson endorsing Giuliani: link
National Right to Life Committee endorsing Thompson: link
i.e. endorsement of candidates who have supported abortion rights or who don't favor a constitutional ammendment banning it. Perhaps right-leaners are making the practical decision to take the position that left-leaners have long held...abortion is an important issue but not the only issue.
Incidentally, the US Bishops issued a statement (14-Nov) on the issue of faith and how we vote. Here is an exerpt from a news summary.
I quote:
The bishops warn of two temptations for Catholics in public life.
"The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity," the statement says. "The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life […] is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed."
A second temptation, the bishops said, involves "dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, torture, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or lack health care, or unjust immigration policies are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act."