Weblog Entry - 01/25/2003: "Abortion again"

01/25/2003 Entry: "Abortion again"

If you read the comments of yesterday's post, you'll see that Greg Popcak has responded to me. Both he and Dean point out that I lifted the words I quoted out of context. Guilty as charged, your Honours. Would rhetorical expediency be considered mitigation? It's all I have.That being said, the words I quoted were not untypical of the way that arguments on important subjects are presented between Christians, and it's that wider context which is the more important one. To a degree, we have been talking at cross-purposes. Greg wants to talk about abortion. I was trying to address the issue of how we deal with disagreement in the Church, using the discussions we've had in the last few days as a starting point. He's taking about how we should deal with a pastoral situation. My concern was our conduct in public debate. Surely we can agree that these two spheres are different, though obviously related. I'll try to unravel my understanding of the two as I respond to Greg. I've quoted him at length so that I can go point by point, and this time I've tried to preserve the context of all his remarks. I think it is pretty clear there is little hope of us reaching agreement on this - what I'm aiming at is understanding.

Reverend, you have the mistaken impression that facilitating healing means being less than truthful. Abortion IS murder.

No, I haven't. I am fully aware of the role that truth and truthfulness have in healing. In my pastoral practice and in my preaching I hope that I am not afraid to "speak the truth in love". But let's put that on a hook and come back to it later. For now let's look at those final three words. They're the nub, aren't they? If those three words are clearly and unreservedly true, the whole debate is ended. Murder is, by definition, unjustifiable. The first response to it is not therapy or counselling (they should come later) but punishment. If abortion is murder, it must be punished. What should that punishment be?Whilst the slogan seems like a handy bit of rhetoric, that's really all it is. I'd agree that there are circumstances where abortion would be murder. The termination of an otherwise healthy pregnancy at, say, eight months would be one clear instance in my view. (Incidentally, I don't know the law in the USA, but here in Britain such a termination would be illegal). At the other end of the scale, things are much less clear to me. I know that many say that life begins at conception, and in a sense that's true, but I'm not at all sure that the full meaning of personhood can be invested in an almost invisible bundle of dividing cells, whatever their potential. And this, surely, is the point that seperates us. It is said that at conception a unique, never to be repeated combination of genes arises making every individual unique and precious. Yes - but a person is much more than a bundle of DNA. Perhaps the debate about when life begins should be informed by our understanding of death. If death is defined by the ceasing of the brain's electrical activity, it seems bizarre to me to put the beginning of life before such activity is possible.The other informative parallel is miscarriage, where again it is clear that there is a scale of how it is talked about and acted upon. (Please bear with me. I know this is dangerous, painful territory) A miscarriage at a few days or even weeks might not even be noticed. A miscarriage at eight months is a bereavement as terrible as any. In between lies a process of growth, bonding and mutual awareness. Somewhere in this process a person emerges.Turning to the scriptures, the only directly relevant passages I know of are Leviticus 21: 22, which seems to indicate that the ending of a pregnancy through accident is treated as an injury to property rather than human life. and Leviticus 27: 1-8, which say that the lives of those under 1 month old are of no value. There are clear and severe penalties set down in Leviticus for murder. These are not applied in the case of injuries resulting in miscarriage.Lastly, most Christians would accept that abortion is permissible in circumstances in which there is a real and direct threat to the life of the mother. An abortion in this situation is no less an abortion, but few if any would call it murder.None if this is meant to trivialise the reality of abortion. But a simple slogan, attractive though it may be, just won't do.For the record, I am not "pro-abortion". I think the language of choice when associated with pregnancy goes very wide of the mark. In a pastoral situation I would certainly not be a "whatever you decide God won't mind" sort of pastor. There are times when this is a "black and white" choice between right and wrong. But that's a long way from saying that the choice is always black and white. Trouble is, "Abortion is in some circumstances murder" doesn't scan in a chant and doesn't fit easily on a placard. Life, and death, are like that.

Now, that said, of COURSE, women who have had an abortion thought it was the lesser of two evils at the time. But clearly it wasn't, and the fact is, healing cannot take place until one fully reconciles with the gravity of what one has done and what she has experienced.

It might have been, but whether the choice was right or wrong, the feelings of guilt, regret and self-loathing are still likely to be there. And I believe that it should be possible for us to conduct our public debate with sensitivity to those experiencing these feelings, whilst also sqaring up to the realities of what's happened in a pastoral situation. Even then, I wouldn't begin, "You're a murderer." Would you?

All your approach does is slap a band-aid on the wound, which does nothing save compel your parishioner to put on a brave face so Reverend can feel like he did his bit. Then, she suffers another year or so until she eventually comes to someone like me, who can finally help her really heal. I wish I had tuppence for every time I heard that story.

‹SARCASM› Funny, I thought "Wonderful Counsellor" was a title that belonged elsewhere ‹/SARCASM›
Seriously, I'm glad there have been women you've been able to help. But I admit to being a wee bit narked at you jumping to conclusions about my pastoral practise on no evidence other than your own prejudices. I shouldn't be so sensitive.

Regarding your comments on the need for humility, I will only say that everything has its season. Perhaps you would think that Elijah lacked humility for standing up to the prophets of Baal, or Joshua lacked humility facing down the walls of Jericho, or Josiah lacked humility for making the people of Israel weep at having forsaken the Law of their fathers. Perhaps you would, but I would not

Nor would I. But I'm no Elijah. Not even a Wesley. Just a jobbing parson doing his best to discern God's will and almost certainly getting it wrong as often as I get it right. Sometimes, like St Peter, managing to do both at the same time. (Matthew 16: 13-23)

Reverend, I will leave it to you if you wish to placidly stand by while your people sacrifice their children to Moloch. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

The temple of Moloch in Swansea closed down a few years ago. There's probably still one in Cardiff. Trust me, we're doing our best to serve the Lord this end, too.

Finally, if that spade looks like a shovel to you, I would suggest that it is for the same reason you Brits confuse that Euro-weenie sport, "soccer" with "football" and think that french fries are chips.

That proves it. We're right about those. And we make much better beer. ;o)

Now, just to show that there are no hard feelings, I'll buy the next round

Ta very much. But it'll cost ya!

Replies:

If "life is life", the embryo in an ectopic pregnancy is alive by your definition. It has no responsibility for its plight, and yet it is a threat to the mothers life. To save the mother you must take an innocent life. I think that's logical enough.

Let's leave it Greg. We've made the arguments, we can let others decide how well we've made them.I'm looking forward to sharing a glass with you again sometime.

Posted by Richard @ 01/27/2003 07:56 PM CST

I would not comment further insofar as I do believe we have exhausted this discussion, however, your last post contains another error of both logic and fact that I could not let stand.

Unlike a typical pregnancy, an ectopic pregnancy has no chance of being born alive (in addition to being a threat to the life of the mother). That makes all the difference here. Abortion is morally problematic because a typical pregnancy is treated as if it is were a disease,and the pre-born child is regarded as a disease-causing agent, but an ectopic pregnany IS a disease and therefore may be treated as such. In an ectoric pregnancy, unlike a typical pregnancy, the CHILD HAS NO CHANCE OF SURVIVING to a natural birth so there is nothing to be gained for the child OR the mother by allowing it continue. However, in a typical pregnancy, even one as painful as your blogging friend's, there is everything to be gained by allowing the child to be born.

I'm afraid that if this is the best you can do, it shows how little you have really thought about this issue. It is only "complex" because your logical errors prevent you from seeing it through to its rational resolution.

I look forward to engaging you at another time.

Posted by Greg Popcak @ 01/27/2003 04:16 PM CST

Greg has indicated by email that he feels this conversation has gone as far as it sensibly can, and I agree with him on that at least!So I'd like to conclude by saying thank you for his time and I hope that, whatever your views on ths subject, you have found it both constructive and helpful.

Posted by Richard @ 01/27/2003 03:01 PM CST

Remember Greg, I was trying to discus the way that Christians disagree. It seemed to me that you were holding up Jerome and Augustine as a model. That's where "invective" comes from, and I think it's a perfectly appropriate word in the context. "The internal control falacy" is a new phrase to me, but I recognise the truth of it. Again, though the issue is confused because I wasn't suggesting you could cause a belief in someone by what you say. The context of this is the public debate between Christians in an environment that is largely unChristian. I'm not suggesting anything more radical than the schoolteacher's "Be on your best behaviour down in the town - remember that you're ambassadors for the school". We are ambassadors for Christ. So when we disagree, we do it with robust respect, because people are watching.fwiw, I appreciate the way that you've continued this discussion.

You state your position clearly, "a) life is life. b) The taking of innocent life is murder. Period"- though I had already grasped the point. Can't argue with (a), but (b) is false, because there are circumstances in which it is not true. You were kind enough to point out an error in my logic - this an error of yours. One clear example, and I don't know why this didn't occur to me before, is the ending of an ectopic pregnancy. I've never heard even the most ardent "pro-lifer" call that murder. I only need one exception, and that one will do (though, of course, I'd want to say there are others.That'll have to do for now - there's real work to be done.

Posted by Richard @ 01/27/2003 09:25 AM CST

1) To what "invective" are you referring? The posters? My comments? You lost me.

The only point I will make on this--and your friend's post on logic brought it to mind--is that we in the psych biz have a list of our own logical fallacies, called "cognitive distortions." Basically your position seems to suggest what we call, "the internal control falacy" that is, the belief that by what I say and do, I can CAUSE some reaction in the other (in this case, to make someone believe or not believe). If this is what you are suggesting (that my approach will turn people off because it is too "in your face" with the truth and therefore will chase people away) then this is an error on both a psychological and spiritual level. On a psychological level, I have no power to make anyone believe or not believe anything--especially spiritual and moral truths which are quite simply, more revealed than proven anyway. On the spiritual level, conversion is not an act of man, but an act of the Holy Spirit--remember, faith is a gift. So, in such a complicated situation as the one your unfortunate blogging friend describes, the only thing I or anyone else can do is fulfill my prophetic role by speaking the truth BOTH as clearly as I can and as charitably as I know how (assuming this does not mean watering it down). The rest is up to God. A prophet's job--and as I already established, you are a prophet by virtue of your baptism--is simple. It is not your job to make them "get it." That's God's job. It is simply your job to speak the truth plainly, and as charitably as you know how. And then? Well, "Let him who has ears hear." (I believe that's the biblical equivalent of "Que sera, sera.")

2)You deny the role of "life giver" but you ignored the questions I asked. I wasn't being polemical. The questions of when life begins and is abortion murder are "complex" only because you make them so. In other words, my position is clear and simple a) life is life. b) The taking of innocent life is murder. Period.

By contrast, your postions requires you to answer such questions (i.e., the beginnings of "true" human life) or else you simply can't claim that your conscience is properly formed on this issue. Either you know, or you don't, and if you don't, then you have no choice but to assume that it is a life. Think of it as Pascal's wager applied to life issues. This rather simplifies things, no? Either answer the questions I asked, or be gentleman enough to admit that you can't, ergo, you're wrong.

3)I don't know the specific case to which you refer, but it is irrelevant, we have our share of heinous killers too. Regardless, I stand with the Pope on this one. Specifically, when society has the means to keep itself safe by lesser means, it is not just to take a life. Certainly, as far as the state is concerned, it is permissible, but it is not just. As for your other questions, you are unecessarily confusing the issue. As I said initially, you are arguing from civil law which may or may not have anything to do with moral and natural law. Is there some way I can make this clearer? Help me out here. I'm not sure what you don't get about this. (And btw, let's for the sake of argument assume that killing an innocent man is murder and therefore, sanctioned by the state or not, Jesus, being innocent, was murdered.)

4) The woman you linked with the "no easy answers" story was very tragic. My take is that the pastor seriously overstepped his bounds and made a terrible situation that much worse. The rule of thumb for dealing with such moral dilemmas is "Always propose, never impose." This pastor crossed the line and attempted to impose, which, of course, pushed the poor girl further into darkness (while allowing himself the opportunity to feel self-righteous while doing it. Disgusting.)

Nevertheless, I stand by everything I have said to this point. One can hold to an objective standard of morality and doctrine and still, amazingly enough, be pastorally sensitive. It requires a certain degree of maturity to pull it off, but it can be done. If you ever have a change to read George Weigel's biography of John Paul II, he demonstrates what I am talking about beautifully in several specific vignettes.

The reason I mention this is that in reading between the lines I have the impression that you think that I and others like me ("conservatives" "moral absolutists") believe that all we have to do is spout doctrine from the bible or the catechism and all shall be well. I'm not that stupid. While I can't really effectively demonstrate the technique of doing this on the interet, you're just going to have to trust me that there is a way to be both very clear about moral and doctrinal absolutes without coming off as some kind of judgemental troglodyte.

4) I'm sure the Archbp is a lovely man and I would indeed like to meet him (After all, I have never met a druid before ;-) even if only an honorary one.) If my family and I are ever in the UK, I will be calling on you to make good on that offer.

5) HA! HA! Loved your joke! V. funny. No doubt you made that up while stuffing yourself with bangers and mash and watching Benny Hill reruns. ;-) You cultured guys crack me up.

Oh, and just to show good faith, I'll concede the sports thing. I actually hate all organized team sports, I was just having a little fun with you. So as far as the "Soup Bowl" goes, I have no idea what the attraction is. I'd rather watch the World Pastry Championships on The Food Network anyday. (At which, BTW, the US whupped France's frou-frou ass. Incidentally, I didn't see GB there. I guess the UK team's Kidney Pie petite fours didn't make the cut. Just way too cultured for the rest of us, I guess.)

Posted by Greg Popcak @ 01/27/2003 04:25 AM CST

Last year's World Cup soccer was the most extensively covered and viewed event in TV history -- 1.1 billion people in 213 countries watched the final, and hehe I was 1 of them :)

Posted by Rachel C @ 01/26/2003 09:20 AM CST

I don't know about the when, but for the "where" I'd suggest one of those clubs where the music is so loud you can't hear yourself think.We'd be able to have our "chat" without having to pretend we were actually listening to one another.;o)I'm sure Greg'll stump up. Go on Greg. Dean's right - it could be a rare old night out.

Posted by Richard @ 01/26/2003 07:42 AM CST

Hate to be a butt-in-ski here, but when are we going out, and who's paying for my fare?

Sounds like it would be a lively time out on the town for sure!

Posted by Dean Peters @ 01/26/2003 02:26 AM CST

I'll have to be briefer evn than you Greg - Sunday draws closer & there's still stuff to do but...

1. I've never heard anyone brought to Christ by following the fierce arguments of his followers. The ability to construct powerful invective was not on the list of the fruits of the Spirit the last time I looked. In a world of bitter conflict, I have to believe that the church could be a living sign of "that peace that pases understanding" - even though there has never been much sign of it since Jerusalem ca.AD30

2. As I've tried unsuccessfully to indicate, I don't see myself in the role of lifegiver. What I've said is that this is more complex than a simple A is M formula.

3. I didn't say "punishment is required before healing can begin". I said "The first response to it is not therapy or counselling (they should come later) but punishment. If abortion is murder, it must be punished." I think they're very different statements.The case of the killer Myra Hindley, who died in jail recently, comes to mind. By all accounts she came to faith in prison. I have it on good authority that her repentance was genuine, and I rejoice with the angels about that. Some said she should therefore have been released. I was not one of them. Is there another any other class of murder you'd be willing to see unpunished? Or are you saying that abortion is murder, but not quite proper murder? If it's murder, what sets it apart for this special treatment?Or is it that "murder" is just not the right word to use?(I'm not sure the crucifixion of Jesus is a helpful example - "judicial killing" rather than "murder", surely?)

The Archbish is a pretty good bloke you know. If ever you're coming this way, let me know & I'll try to get you an introduction. But you'd have to look very hard to find the Church of ENGLAND in Swansea. This is Wales, cariad.

Footie is "weenie"?? You've never seen it played at the miners' welfare on a Sunday afternoon. But the players are soft aren't they? They don't wear a mountain of body armour, they don't take rests every 30 seconds... Until I came to the States this summer I'd have agreed with you about cricket. But then I tried to get into baseball. Remind me. How many nations are there in the "World Series"? ;o)btw: What's the difference between a pot of yoghurt and the USA?Leave the yoghurt 200 years and you'd have a culture.:oP

It'll have to a swift half.

Posted by Richard @ 01/25/2003 08:20 PM CST

I'll try to be brief

1) I realize that you were trying to describe the discussion between Christians. Surely you've heard of the wicked debate that went on for years between St. Jerome and St. Augustine. If you read the letters today, you can still feel the heat rising off of them. They're probably still fighting it out. There is no law that says Christians must debate with pinky-fingers extended.

2) As for when life begins, the burder of proof is on you. If not at conception, then when? Can you be sure? If you're not sure, then how can you be so damned sure that it's not murder? I think these are fair questions. What if, based on your advice, a woman thought the the life growing within her was not actually a life and on your advice, took that life? True, God is merciful to the ignorant (though perhaps not quite so merciful to the willfully so), but then, God is also just, and this is the same God who said, "Better you should be cast into the sea with a stone around your neck than to lead one of these little ones astray." If God feels that way about leading one of his children astray, how do suspect he feels about killing them?

For a man who claims to be a simple, jobbing pastor, you pretty confidently take on the role of life-giver. Your entire argument is simply, "If it looks like life to ME, well then, then it's life." Well, pastor, what if your definition of life and God's are different? As for me, I am but a simple, jobbing therapist, and prefer not to insinuate myself into decisions that are that far above my pay grade. God is the author of life, therefore, life is sacred from conception to natural death. And until God descends and tells us otherwise, I'm afraid you are rushing in where angels fear to tread.

Incidentally, for a week by week view of what you refer to as an undifferentiated bunch of cells please go here. www.pregnancyguideonline.com/

3) You say that if abortion is murder, then punishment is required before healing can begin. Forgive me, but that's just silly. REPENTANCE is required, not punishment. As the psalmist says, "If you mark our sins against us, then who could stand." and as scripture further tells us, "Nothing can separate us from the love of God." God doesn't want blood sacrifices (or prison terms), he wants your heart. You are confusing civil law with moral law. Anyone who has ever had anything to do with civil law knows that there is a huge chasm between what is legal and what is just. The same, however, cannot be said for moral law, which seeks only to return the heart to God.

4) That said, let's be clear. The woman isn't the murderer. The doctor is the murderer. The woman is almost as much a victim as the baby. Even so, the woman has cooperated in a gravely sinful act, and since she wouldn't be coming to me--or you--unless she already believed this (otherwise why talk to a pastor or therapist about it and not just her hairstylist?) the answer is "no" I would not call her a murderer, but, "yes," I would validate her understanding of the abortion as the unjust taking of a life. And with my next breath, I would read her this from Augustine.

"The apostle's creed says, 'I believe in the forgiveness of sins.' Therefore, let no one say, 'I've committed this sin or that; maybe it won't be forgiven me. Just what sin have you committed? Name any heinous crime you've committed--heavy, horrible, which you shudder just to think about. But tell me: Have you killed Christ? No deed could be worse, because no one could be better than Christ. Yet afterward, many who HAD killed him believed on him and drank his blood in the Eucharist. So even they were forgiven the sin they had committed." (On the Creed: A Homily to Catechumens).

To return to an earlier point, Reverend, if God did not require prison or other punishment for those who killed his Son--a crime which was undoubtedly murder--why would you be so unmerciful to a woman (or her doctor) as to insist on punishment for her crime? Surely it WAS a crime against moral and natural law, if not civil law, but again, as far as east is from the west, the Lord takes our sins from us. "Sacrifices and burnt offerings you sought not, but a humble and contrite heart."

5) You say you are not Elijah, or even Wesley, but every Christian by virtue of his baptism is given the three-fold mission of prophet, priest, and king. As a son of God, you have as much right and duty to proclaim the truth as the prophets of old. You might be a simple jobbing pastor, but the Spirit of God who dwells within you is still the same Spirit that gave Elijah his authority (we can debate the nature of Wesley's authority another day). You are mistaken when you think there was something special about Elijah. There wasn't. It was only the Spirit of God working in him that made him "special." And it is this same Spirit that fills you with the right to participate in that same prophetic mission. Try to remember, you may be just a simple, jobbing, pastor, but the Apostles were just simple, jobbing fishermen, and Jesus was just a simple, jobbing carpenter. Is your ministry to be less powerful than theirs? And no, I'm not being rhetorical.

6) The Temple of Moloch didn't close, they are now a fully-owned subsidiary of the C of E. Afterall, the new Archbishop of Canterbury was recently made an honorary druid, wasn't he? (Quite an honor!) ;-)

7) I concede your point about the beer. But soccer is still a weenie sport. And Cricket?!? What the hell's up with that? You'd need stronger beer to think that's a sport. ;-)

8) This round's on you.

Posted by Greg Popcak @ 01/25/2003 06:44 PM CST

Add A New Comment