If God commanded you directly by voice from heaven to vote to make wearing red t-shirts illegal (say it’s on the ballot, California referendum style), and you became convinced that God had actually given you such a command, would you vote accordingly?  Just to secure the hypothetical, let’s say that you were with your closest friends and family, including the ones you trust most and the ones who are most skeptical in character, and each of them affirms that he/she heard God give you the command, and you are provided whatever other forms of proof you need to be certain that it was actually the Creator of the Universe who gave you the command (dew on the grass but not on the blanket, a staff turning into a snake, burning bush, water into wine, and whatever else you want).  Again, would you vote according to the command?  (You need not assume that it’s the Christian God giving you the command; just some ultimate creator.)

If your answer to the question is “yes,” it seems to me that you are therefore willing to enforce your religious convictions in a political manner upon others, consistent with your (practically undeniable) belief in God and His command, regardless of whether anybody else had any insight into your knowledge of the command obtained through direct revelation.  It probably wouldn’t much matter to you that others happen to disagree about whether you had been given the command, or even if they thought you were crazy.  You were given a direct insight from God and a command, and you chose to obey.  (Note: this is only because God hypothetically commanded you to, and I am not setting forth the argument–at least not in this post–that in reality, God has in fact commanded you to vote in any particular way on red t-shirts or any other issue.  That’s for another post.)

If your answer to the question is “no”, then it seems you aren’t really all that willing to obey God (or else you doubt your sanity).  You place your politics or personal judgments ahead of God Himself, which is to say that you are ultimately faithful not to God, but to the state and/or your own fallible judgment.  In short, you are deliberately and knowingly unfaithful.

Now replace “red t-shirts” with abortion.  Maybe God has commanded people to oppose abortion, or maybe He hasn’t, but if a person in good conscience believes that God wants him or her to politically oppose abortion, he or she is perfectly entitled (perhaps even obligated) to do so, even on religious grounds.  The appropriate response to that position for the pro-choice person is not to spit on the freedom of religious conviction and the free exercise thereof by demanding that people keep their religion to themselves, but rather to discuss whether God actually does require them to oppose abortion.  And that will bring us squarely to a religious discussion about politics.  Suddenly the lines don’t seem so clear. 

I came up with this little hypothetical at one minute shy of midnight, which is rather late for me.  Perhaps I’ve committed some fallacy.  But I’m very curious how one would respond to my brief argument (one conclusion being that if your religion requires certain political action and you reject, even oppose, that political action, you deny your faith).

Joy DeKok is the author of five published books, a professional speaker, and an author coach. She recently opened an office in Rochester, MN where she offers private coaching, group coaching, and holds writing seminars. Her debut novel, Rain Dance, released with Sheaf House Publishers in August. You can learn more about Joy at www.gettingitwrite.net, www.joydekok.com, www.raindancebook.com, or www.believe4kids.com.

Q: Welcome to Beyond the Books, Joy. Can we start out by telling us whether you are published for the first time or are you multi-published?

A: Thanks for having me. I have four books in print right now with a fifth releasing in March 2010.

Q: What was the name of your very first book regardless of whether it was published or not and, if not published, why?

A: Under His Wings was published by Barbour Publishing. After a couple of years out of print, it is being re-released by Sheaf House Publishing in March. I didn’t set out to write this book. At a writer’s conference a speaker invited us to send her our bird stories. I picked a couple I’d written and submitted them. She asked for a few more. Eventually, Cristine Bolley edited and agented the book and although all the stories are mine she is listed as my co-author. Cris taught me a lot about the writing, editing, and publishing process.

Q: For your first published book, how many rejections did you go through before you either found a mainstream publisher, self-published it, or paid a vanity press to publish it?

A: None. It was a much different story though for Rain Dance. Every major publishing house and several smaller ones rejected it. With those dreaded responses came several personal letters encouraging me to self-publish. After carefully considering the options, I chose Print-on-Demand. My new publisher discovered the novel after reading the POD version.

Q: How did the rejections make you feel and what did you do to overcome the blows?

A: Rejection is hard. I tried to separate the emotion from it and see everyone as a professional decline. Sometimes this worked and sometimes it didn’t.

Q: When your first book was published, who published it and why did you choose them?

A: Barbour Publishing chose Under His Wings and I accepted. I had done my homework though. Their devotionals were priced low and popular with book sellers and readers. It felt like a good match and it was.

Q: How did it make you feel to become published for the first time and how did you celebrate?

A: I was excited. I loved the cover, format, and the way my name looked in print. My husband took me to our favorite restaurant.

Q: What was the first thing you did as for as promotion when you were published for the first time?

A: I did a bunch of stuff all in one day. I made and printed book marks and postcards, and sent them out. Then, I sent out emails and set up a book signing at a local store. I sent out a press release to our local newspaper as well as the radio and TV stations.

Q: If you had to do it over again, would you have chosen another route to be published?

A: No. Even with Rain Dance. Utilizing POD got the book in the hands of a publisher who not only liked it, but had a vision for it. I learned so much from the POD process and am thankful for it. Some people think that POD or any kind of self/vanity publishing is the easy way out. That cracks me up. I became the investor, designer, and marketing department. If that book was going to get into the hands of readers it was up to me to get it there. I was told I was vain and my book was illegitimate and would always be second class. Vanity had little do with the decision – I followed the advice of two very big publishing houses and two well-known and experienced agents. As for the illegitimate part, I know they meant it was unauthorized. (see Webster’s Dictionary) It hurt to hear that. I’d put myself into the book heart and soul. Then I’d invested financially and become a professional who had readers writing to her weekly. I saw then that no matter what someone says, readers are the only authorization needed.

Q: Have you been published since then and how have you grown as an author?

A: I am published traditionally and I continue to publish using a POD press as well. My children’s books have not been accepted traditionally and I enjoy the POD process and my books are selling well.

A year ago, I became a co-owner in Sheaf House Publishers, a traditional publisher who has contracted 17 authors in both fiction and non-fiction. I’m the VP of Marketing and Promotions as well as the acquisitions editor for their non-fiction imprint, Journey Press.

At first glance this might all seem contradictory. To me, it makes perfect sense. I believe there are many publishing options and none is more acceptable than the other. Being traditionally published is great. Publishing via POD is great. All my books are selling and I hear from readers who are asking for more. They don’t care where the books were published as long as the writing satisfies.

Q: Looking back since the early days when you were trying to get published, what do you think you could have done differently to speed things up? What kind of mistakes could you have avoided?

A: I’m not sure. It’s so easy to shoulda, woulda, coulda ourselves. Every experience in the process was valuable – even the painful ones.

Q: What has been the biggest accomplishment you have achieved since becoming published?

A: Joining Sheaf House Publishers. We are publishing some fantastic books. In fact, we recently signed with Joe Bonsall (a member of the Oak Ridge Boys) for his latest project One Man’s Perspective. I get to work with all our authors and while we’re all working extremely hard, we’re also having a blast. Joan Shoup stepped out in faith and then I got to step up and join her. What a privilege!

Q: If you could have chosen another profession, what would that profession be?

A: Well, I sometimes day dream about being a NASCAR driver. Really. Or maybe that’s what they call fantasy – the dangerous thing you think about doing, but wouldn’t really do?

Q: Would you give up being an author for that profession or have you combined the best of both worlds?

A: No. I love writing, speaking, publishing, and coaching. For me, when a coaching client succeeds or one of our authors sells a book, it’s as for me exciting as when it happens to me.

Q: How do you see yourself in ten years?

A: I see me doing the same things and loving them just as much or more.

Q: Any final words for writers who dream of being published one day?

A: Trust your heart with your story and your publishing process. Write and publish like no one’s looking. Then dance.

I’ve always considered fetal homicide laws like this interesting:

Blair was injured when her van was struck by another car in Bennington on Aug. 10. Her 6-month fetuses — a boy and a girl — died as a result of the crash, which also seriously injured her husband, Randy Blair, leaving him unable to walk.

The other driver, Kelly Cook of Pownal, faces felony charges of driving under the influence of drugs with serious bodily injury resulting and gross negligence with injury resulting. Those charges relate to injuries Patricia and Randy Blair suffered, but state law doesn’t allow charges related to the loss of the Blairs’ unborn children. That infuriated Patricia Blair.
[...]
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard Sears, D-Bennington, is hoping that legislation he plans to introduce Monday would account for such situations. His bill would enhance penalties for assaulting a pregnant woman, wording that he believes walks a careful line: creating consequences for harming an unborn child without unfurling a debate about abortion rights.

I’m not sure this is the best case to illustrate the problem. That Blair was pregnant (much less with twins) was incidental to the nature of the crash that ended their lives.

I think a more relevant case would be one where a man, knowing a woman is pregnant, assaults her, leading to a miscarriage. In this case it would seem appropriate to charge him with the murder of the fetus (and the assault of the mother) because even if he did not have a motive of killing the fetus, he had a knowledge of the potential ramifications of his actions.

In the real case though, the other driver was certainly irresponsible and should be guilty of those charges that were leveled, but it seems cruel and unusual punishment to tack on two counts of manslaughter. Does this present a double-standard about fetuses and (born) people, sure…but then the mothers can choose not to keep the fetuses so that seems to not pose a logical problem. We could completely ignore fetuses legally as is the status quo in the states that have not adopted fetal homicide laws, but in my fictional example it seems downright cruel to ignore the death of the fetus. I’d have to see the exact text to know whether this particular bill (or those that have been enacted) walk this reasonable line without going too far, though clearly given the case that prompted this bill, one cannot hold out much hope.

I’m beginning this blog for the sole purpose of venting, and perhaps helping myself find myself along the way. I’ve found that many things have gone wrong in my life lately, and looking back, I’m sure I’ll think, “Oh, I thought that was bad?” but right now it seems awful enough. I’m struggling but I still have my head above the constantly rising water, so I consider myself lucky for not giving in and drowning. I would not appreciate the air sucked from my lungs any day.

And so it began… well really, I think it began when there was a strain of deaths in my family. Grandpa from my dad’s side dies, and then six months later… My step-grandfather dies. He was my only real grandfather as far as I am concerned. I’m still affected deeply by his passing, and I can’t listen to Sway by the LostProphets without thinking, “Oh, that’s when I broke down. That’s when it first occurred to me that people do die, and that one day everyone close to me will die… whether I’m there to catch them in their last days or not.”
So a few weeks later, I’ve graduated and everything… And my other Grandpa dies (Mom’s side). In the midst of everything hectic happening to me, I find the journal this grandfather left behind from rehab and am once again deeply affected.
Life goes on and I’m pressured to move in with my dad and attend UTA, which sucks. Let it be known that Wendy does not need to go to a school that is as far from liberal as Pluto was from the Sun (or now is from being a planet, for that matter)…
So from there, I sink further into misery, but I’m trying so hard to keep swimming. Let me make mention right now of how little Dad and I have in common. We look alike, but I’m knee-deep in art culture and he’s in finances. I think money is meant to be spent on those you love and it’s no big deal if I’m low on it as long as I can pay for what I need to, and he’s about as frugal as Scrooge himself. I’m flexible, he’s stubborn. The list goes on and on and on… It’s sad. Living with this man made me realize why he and Mom broke up. It feels so strange to type that… Almost as if I’m some other person, or like I had never admitted to that knowledge before, but either way it happened, and I don’t think anyone should regret it.
To continue my sob story–that I keep jumping around on, I apologize to anyone who might have sat through it to this point–I started talking to Steve online at the point I became so depressed that I would go home from school and just fall asleep, because that’s what life was, and we became involved with one another shortly after we started talking. He amused me and that was all that mattered. I had found comfort in my realm of discomfort, and that was a first at Dad’s. So I get a job at Tony’s Italian Grill where I had been going to eat since I was 10. Seemed like a good idea at the time. Things were going well for awhile.
Then Joey comes along. In an incident we referred simply to as “fish,” I’m sitting around work one Sunday with my higher-ups and we’re about to have the most amazing fish tacos ever. Then Sal’s friends/roommates Dustin and Joey come along and are invited to eat with us. Joey has the most amazing blue-green eyes ever. We smile at each other, and it goes little farther than talk.
Fast-forward a month or so. Things are going well at school, despite my very stupid Gateway organization class. I’m beginning to learn that there isn’t much to college. Work is going well–people are impressed with the speed and effort I’m willing to expend for my first job. And this one night Joey comes along and I’m flirting openly with him. I’ll admit to that, not that I’m comfortable enough with the fact to admit it out loud. We talk about art and our families and everything under the sun. We just clicked. I can’t remember if it was that night, but we went to see Hitman (AKA Shitman), and it was awful. “GET IN THE TRUNK!!” “Oh..okay..” Man, it was ATROCIOUS! This couldn’t cover the fact that I knew I was walking the line.
I knew I cared about Steve, but I liked a guy right in front of me.. not in Chicago. This could be any girl’s downfall. But this was MY downfall, and I can’t believe I let it happen.
It got worse, to the point of us hanging out and me sleeping in his car. I felt guilty for not being at my Dad’s so much. Things began to spin out of control. The only solid state in life was school and sometimes work. I missed my family. I knew I was in the wrong.
I went to Chicago to visit Steve on New Year’s. It was nice… we slept on the floor, we slept in the tub, we saw Sweeney Todd. It was excellent, when I look back. And I love the North. I saw snow. I had a great time.
I get back, I fall back into habits.
I begin to fail math.
I draw away from Dad.
Things happen.
More things happen.
Here’s where things get very muddled. I remember going to work and feeling sick. I remember anger. Resentment. I began to live at Joey’s place (we referred to it as “The Shack” and it was awful. No electricity except what we stole, and a foundation that made me feel seasick despite the fact that we were nowhere near water). He was guiltstricken over me. He was guiltstricken over liking me. He was guiltstricken over his life, which he continually fucked up. And I continued to try to help, like a fool.
One day I find out I’m pregnant. What can I do? What will I do? I’m numb. I had suspected this. I somehow knew this would happen.
One evening I’m angry. I realize what I’ve done. I’m down on my knees, crying, arms raised skyward, face illuminated (I can only imagine) by the murky light of the Shack. “WHY ME?! WHY THE HELL DOES IT HAVE TO BE ME? WHY DID I KNOW…?!” and so on and so forth. Slight comfort.
I’m at work, feeling sick. Working at a restaurant–yeah, great idea. But I find soon that the “morning-sickness” feeling that I’m getting seems to be caused by needing food. I’m wondering how I created such a monster inside myself. I eat when I feel sick.
I’m on the floor at work, trying not to go hide under a table. I feel beyond sick, I want to die. It’s a week before my birthday.
Two days before my birthday I’m sitting in a waiting room feeling antsy. I’m jittering. I’m scared. Very, very scared. I nearly yelled at the woman protesting the very deed I’m about to go through with when we came in. She said “Mom, Dad…” and handed me and Joey pamphlets. I glared at the woman, looked up at Joey–my only tie to the world at that moment, because he’s the only thing familiar to me just then–and he steers me away from the woman. I wanted to tear up the pamphlets. I wanted to slap her and yell, “Have you ever even stopped to consider that it’s worse to bring a child into a cruel world unprepared?! Have you ever stopped even once to consider somewhere within that tiny, peaheaded brain of yours that this is a responsible and very hard decision that many girls make?! Have you ever put yourself in our position? Maybe some of us can’t afford to have a child! Maybe some of us want to raise our own children–not give them away, because we are incapable of such an act–in compassion; in our own arms we want to hold them! And maybe, just maybe, we simply cannot do anything but prepare for the worst right now. So hold your tongue, woman, and learn some respect, insight, and compassion before you go protesting against things you simply do not and can not understand!”
Of course, I couldn’t. But to this day I want to.
This thought kept me giggling in the waiting room. I paid, got the sonogram, almost asked to keep the sonogram, then played the paperwork-while-waiting game.
It was a dark room with a television, probably meant to make us comfortable. But it was obvious that all the other girls were as uncomfortable with the situation as I. We didn’t know what to expect. We trusted no one but ourselves–many of us probably not EVEN ourselves–and were as silent as possible as we waited in the gloom. My iPod and my cell phone were my saviors. I texted Joey that I was hungry and regretted not eating. I was nervous that the stupid man had signed me up for the highest does of anesthetics. I was angry. I was scared. I couldn’t cry. I was strong. Stronger than I have ever been in my entire life.
I’m led to a room to speak with a woman about a few things and have an overview of the operation. She weighs me, and she seems slightly shocked that in a couple of days I will be 19. I’m shocked at the weight of my own age. How did I get here? I shake it off.
I’m taking my clothes on and replacing them with a robe.
I don’t like this nurse.
I’m being told to sit on the table. I follow orders. I’m told to put my feed on the straddles. I follow orders. And now the nurse hands me a ball to squeeze. I’m crying now and shaking my head. I’ve met my worst fears all at once in that moment: doctors, pregnancy, hospital facilities or doctor’s offices, operations, and worst of all… needles. She’s grabbing my wrist and yelling at me to squeeze and I’m crying so hard. I don’t want it, don’t give me it, I’m afraid, please don’t… She wants me to shut up. I’m stupid. I’m just another empty soul, another empty body. And so she anesthetizes me, and I remember little. Maybe it’s better that I remember little, but sometimes it feels like it’s coming back to me.
After that I’m told to put my clothes back on. I can’t think. Everything is a blur, and I’m putting my clothes back on. I sit in a wheelchair, waiting. I can’t remember what I’m waiting for, but I’m handed some crackers and told to eat them sparingly. Don’t worry if you throw up, ok? Don’t worry, it’s normal. Eat these.
I eat them all.
I regret that later, after Joey has hit my head on the truck doorframe trying to get me in and I have coldly remarked that “you suck at this putting people in cars thing.” He’s silent as we drive, and once I feel like puking. He has handed me a fruit plate from 7/11. It’s called “Fruit Frenzy.” I eat all of the pineapples out of it and ignore everything else… and I haven’t been thinking. Because pineapples have enzymes. A lot of enzymes.
We’re at the shack laying down, I’m useless, and suddenly I’m up running to the sink. False alarm! Half an hour later, I wake up from another half hour of laying in stupor and I’m running to the sink. I make it just in time and I feel absolutely nothing. I start to wonder if I’m hollow.

I’d like to take this time to remark that I can’t go to 7/11 and see the Fruit Frenzy plate without thinking, “Fruit Frenzy?  More like a Fruit Frenzy… In my stomach…” And resist lurching.  Hah.

There was something about heating soup by candle because we had no access to the stove. I watched movies all day and Joey left me. I go to Jason’s Deli that evening cursing the man because he should have been there to get it for me, not that it’s really his problem. The anesthetic has mostly worn off, of course, though I’m not sure it’s been eight hours or whatever the recommended time is to be able to drive. I feel gross, but I make it and I get soup. I continue cursing Joey, because if I died in a car crash I would be blaming him for not taking care of me.
To this day I have fears that I will die with no one taking care of me.
I can’t remember if he came home at all, but I don’t think he did. If he did it doesn’t matter… he had already neglected me in that Shack through two terrifying hail storms with winds that knocked out the power and made me think that I was going to die when the Shack just collapsed. That’s what it felt like.
Asshole.
Perhaps I’m selfish. I know that it was wrong, what I was doing, anyway.

A couple of weeks later I feel better, and I go to Chicago all dressed up, hoping never to have to tell Steve the secret that he shares with me. He doesn’t know.
We have fun, though things felt disgusting. I was on the pill because I had been told to take it after the abortion. I was taking a bath one day and I screamed when I realized that the tub was quickly feeling with blood. I had forgotten I was on the pill, and I was flipping out. Steve ran in and I screamed at him because I’m scared as all get-out and he ran out. I was crying quite hard by that point. Again I felt like no one was taking care of me–not that he could have known that I wanted someone to comfort me, not to run out like he was afraid. He later told me he thought I was more comfortable with him out. I tried not to blame him. He couldn’t have known.
I missed my flight, so I was there a week longer than I would have been. At least school was over!
A few weeks after returning (or rather, about a week and a half) I began to prepare to move back with my solid family. I felt like it would be better for me. I stayed at my friend Bryce’s house for a week, which was awesome, and then I moved out of Dad’s house after staying there for one more night. I never thought living with him would be a good idea, but I had no idea that it would be that awful. And you guys don’t even know the half of it right now, because I’m not ever going to go back and revise this to add in all the other superawesomefantastic details that filled in the blank spots of that year. I don’t know that I have the patience.
Moving back with my parents (my Mom and my Stepdad) was one of the best things that I did. My family had missed me. I was getting home-cooked meals and hardly had to pay for food. Dad had said he’d pay for all of my expenses, but once I had gotten that job to fight off the boredom, I was paying for everything. Good job keeping up with your promises. At least he paid for that year of school.
I got a job at the bookstore in the mall, which was fun at first, and I got to hang out with my friends that I had never had the opportunity to hang out with before.

I’ll leave off there… And I’ll continue soon. At least the next part is awesome. It’ll do me some good to write about what happened next in my life–I need it badly.

(from www.motmplus.com)

It’s time for a change. Clearly, writing on Saturdays (my only day off from studying) isn’t working. It’s time to transition to daily writing. It’ll take less time, give me my Saturdays completely off, allow for more reflection and up the number of posts on the blog. Everyone wins!

***

It’s the day after Thanksgiving break. It’s hard to get up. Thankfully, I spent part of yesterday studying, and so I feel a desire to get back and learn more.

I get to UVM around 7:30 and spend some time reviewing the Red Book (our anatomy book) and our Dissector before class at 9.

***

9 AM begins Block 3 of HSF. As I walk in, I find the customary packet of printed lecture outlines for each lecture in these next few weeks. I grab it and take a seat.

Betsy (i.e. Dr. Ezerman) welcomes us back and reminds us to do evaluations so we can see our grades. She reminds us that Block 1 was “Motors, wires and chassis”, i.e. lots of muscles and what innervates them, while Block 2 was ”Plumbing and climate control”, i.e. respiration, cardiology, the endocrine system and homeostasis.

Block 3, she informs us, is about the gastrointestinal system, i.e. “Eat, drink and be merry!”

She then introduces Dr. Haeberle and his “barf cart” to simulate the digestive system. For some reason, it looks to me like the bottom part of a concession stand cart with a bunch of scientific apparati on it.

He’s a bit of a character. To demonstrate that chewing produces a cohesive bolus (a ball of food that won’t stick to your esophagus), he ground up some food, rolled a bit of it into a ball and threw it into the audience. It did stick together after landing.

He also utters this phrase during the lecture: “Au contraire, my gastrointestinal neophyte.”

Dr. Mawe then comes to give two lectures about the impact of a meal on the gastrointestinal system. Pretty straightforward. But you gotta love a guy who shows us pictures from his colonoscopy as part of his lecture. (Not to mention an image from when his son swallowed a quarter.)

***

Lunchtime comes. This time, I take it with the Reproductive Rights interest group, who are having a seminar with free pizza. Cate Nicholas, who heads the Doctoring Skills part of HSF along with Dr. Rubin, talks with us about how she worked as an abortion care provider for several years and discusses her experience and thoughts.

Even though it was somewhat lighthearted in discussion, it still is sober to discuss. It has to be. What I walk away with is the fact that the abortion issue is much more complicated than most people on either political side realize.

***

From 1-4, I have Histology. Thankfully, most of this is redundant with what we talked about in the lecture today.

The two course TAs come in to lead this session. We love it when TAs lead because they’re concise, they hit everything we need to know for the exam and they’re super-helpful with helping us identify structures.

Watch this name: Isabella Martin. My understanding is that she’s going into pathology. If so, she will not only be an excellent pathologist, but she will also be an effective and enthusiastic teacher.

***

Afterward, I go to a classroom and spend some time teaching myself information from the RedBook. Then I go home, have dinner with my housemates, and prepare for lab tomorrow, do some Imaging and review Histology / today’s lecture notes.

 As I review the lecture outlines, I find this paraphrased phrase: “I was going to put an exclamation point here, but didn’t upon remembering the Seinfeld episode that mentioned that topic.”

I rethink whether Dr. Mawe is antic-free.

Josh Pothen (UVM’s Meager Med Student)

Donate $1 to The Meager Med Student!

Voddie Baucham gives us the  the answers to the questions:

Who am I?…Why am I here?…What is wrong with the world?…How can what is wrong, be made right?

***SOME OF THE IMAGES IN THE VIDEO ARE VERY GRAPHIC***

By Dena T. Smith

While abortion is certainly a hot-button issue on the American Political Scene, the fervent debate over the topic – mostly fueled by a clash between liberal and conservative, predominately religiously-oriented moral entrepreneurs – faded into the background after the presidential election season. In short, abortion is an issue that, while always central for some, tends to become peripheral outside of election seasons, during which candidates of both parties accuse one another of either caring too little for life or of obstructing a woman’s right to choose.  However, of late, the health care debate has re-ignited the passions of pro-life activists and politicians who seek opposition to the constitutional right of a woman to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. What makes this instance of this on-going clash less quotidian than the usual back and forth over when life begins or whether the rights of a mother or fetus are more important is that it is being used to stall political change in the form of health care reform.

The debate over a woman’s right to choose is a moral debate with a long history in religion, philisophy and even in the formation of the modern medical profession. Emotions are elicited in the face of moral issues and abortion is one that tends to get people’s blood boiling. For the pro-life camp, the idea that a life would be terminated is offensive. For the pro-choice camp, the idea that a woman would not have a right to chose the fate of her own body and make decisions on her own behalf is offensive. The heated debates between pro-life and pro-choice groups are evidence enough to show the deeply emotional nature of this subject.

So, what’s the point? The intertwined nature of morality and politics often leads to the stalling of reform – in this case, as I argued earlier this year, the stall would be on reform the country desperately needs. The idea that a moral issue will stall perhaps the greatest chance we have to do an even greater moral deed - provide people the health care that they need, so they won’t die – is striking. The possibility that a government option (that we don’t know yet will be available) could pay for abortions is keeping us from providing Americans who are dying, with the care they need. I bring this up as an important issue not to denigrate the pro-life advocates who object to this possibility, but to show how our emotions are always involved in politics and that, if we do not pause to think about how they operate and affect the political process, we will not be able to understand and effectively analyze the social and political change or the driving forces behind it. If we go on ignoring the fact that emotions are central in the political process, we ignore perhaps one of the greatest reasons why people rally behind political causes – or stand in the way of political reform.

Health Bill Revives Abortion Groups

Emotional Dimensions of Social Movements

The Irish Times reminded us on Monday that the case of A, B and C v. Ireland, which examines our restrictive abortion laws, will be before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in a week. I posted about the case  in October. We will cover the case as it progresses.

by Josh Franklin

I have been watching Glee since a few episodes into the season, and it’s a pretty addictive show. Amidst teen drama and autotune-drenched “glee club” renditions of pop songs, the way that the show integrates social issues like homosexuality, teen pregnancy, and race makes the show seem very appealing. However, despite how enjoyable Glee is, I think that there is something problematic about the way the show presents these issues, especially Quinn’s pregnancy.

When Quinn (a popular cheerleader who is also the president of the chastity club) discovers that she is pregnant, she is forced to keep it secret from her parents (who eventually kick her out of the house when they discover the truth), consider her financial stability and plan for her future, and negotiate her own beliefs about pregnancy, abortion, and adoption. She is clearly put in a position where she cannot freely make choices about her pregancy due to a fear of her parents and general social censure. It isn’t really surprising that she enters into a series of deceptions that make her pitiable at best, while transforming the confrontation of the uncomfortable realities of teen pregnancy into a titilating teen drama.

Quinn demands that her boyfriend Finn (a football player and glee club member) prepare to provide financially for their future family. Finn had hoped to go to college and leave his hometown, and struggles with the dual sense of responsibility towards his child and Quinn and his dreams of getting an education. But the child isn’t Finn’s–Quinn had slept with Finn’s friend Puck (a mohawked football player and glee club member who is portrayed as somewhat shallow). Puck wants Quinn to break up with Finn and have a relationshp with him, but Quinn doesn’t think that he’s as reliable as Finn. And to add an almost absurd layer to this drama, Quinn has promised to give her baby up to Mrs. Schuester, who is lying to her husband (Mr. Schuester, the charismatic teacher in charge of the glee club) about her (fake) pregnancy in order to keep him from leaving her.

Glee is certainly entertaining, and I don’t want to suggest that every mention of an important social issue like teen pregnancy has to become a sociological critique. I think that it’s nevertheless worthwhile to point out that there is something problematic about the way that Glee imagines teen pregnancy. We do see that Quinn is subject to intense pressure, but I think that the show focuses so much on the web of deception that Quinn creates to try to deal with that pressure, that it’s hard to see her as anything but at fault for her problems.

I don’t mean to say that every television show should necessarily dwell at length on the social pressures and stigmas that make unplanned teen pregnancy a challenge. What Glee does is trivialize teen pregnancy–in the guise of confronting a challenging social issue–by reducing it to a teen drama. While this is certainly how the characters of the show would understand it, I wonder if there is a way for a show like Glee to produce a more thought-provoking discussion of teen pregnancy as a social issue. In the end, Glee is a melodramatic caricature of high school; all the characters are portrayed in stereotyped roles, and I think that one could argue that the show’s attitude towards these stereotypes is tongue-in-cheek.

Throughout Glee, characters–especially women–are stereotyped in obvious ways, and this is what creates the comedy of high school drama. Is the show critiquing the way that these stereotypes are enacted in real life in a much more serious way? That is, even if the negative pressure and stigma placed on Quinn is comedic or ironic in the show, those pressures are real for people who live with teen pregnancy. How should we read the show in relation to their experiences? And maybe most importantly from the perspective of a feminist critique of pop culture, what are the responsibilities entailed in making show about such a sensitive social issue as teen pregnancy?

On November 28, 2009, the New York Times Sunday edition featured an editorial “In Support of Abortion, It’s Personal vs. Political” in the Week in Review. While there were some things I liked about this editorial, there was much to dislike. First and foremost being the fact that Post-Roe women are defined only by what we have NOT experienced, not defined by what we have experienced. Instead of going on and on about what bugged me about this article, I decided instead to re-write it, the way that I believe it should be written. This article reflects elements of my vision for how the changing landscape of the abortion debate should be investigated and reported. This is a work of fiction, which means I have created new lines of dialogue and quotes from actual people listed in the original article – what I wish they would say from a strength and asset-based perspective, instead of the deficit-approach featured.

Enjoy.

“In Support of Wellbeing, Abortion Matters to Women & Families”
By Cheryl Straight Stobilt

In 1999, an airline pilot’s daughter named Aspen Baker was attending college in Northern California when she had a safe and legal abortion at a local hospital. She had been raised a pro-life Christian in Southern California and while she never believed she could make a pregnancy decision for another person, she never believed she would have an abortion herself, until she did. While she was relieved when the procedure was finally over, she found herself with a lot of difficult emotions about the experience and because of the stigma and politics surrounding her decision she was unable to find someone who would listen to her, without judgment or bias.

Today, Aspen Baker is the Founder and Executive Director of Exhale, an organization whose mission is to create a more supportive and respectful social climate around personal experiences with abortion and which runs a national, multilingual post-abortion talkline. At 33-years old, Baker is a member of what many feminist leaders call the “Third Wave,” though Ms. Baker rarely uses the term herself.

The Third Wave has been working overtime for more than a decade on issues long-ignored by the previous feminist movement, which focused almost exclusively on defending abortion rights. At the intersection of social justice and reproductive rights, Third Wave feminists fight against environmental toxins plaguing poor communities of color and the shackling of pregnant incarcerated women during childbirth. Their efforts have paid off: they have policy wins on issues like comprehensive sexuality education and safe schools for LGBT youth. Recently, Third Wave feminists celebrated an important victory when they successfully advocated that the Center for Disease Control reverse a decision which forced immigrant young women to receive the HPV vaccine, something that is not even required of American citizens.

It has been nearly 37 years since Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that established a right to abortion, and in that time, an entire generation – including Mr. Obama, who was 11 when Roe was decided – has grown up with their own unique experiences of legal abortion in a very hostile political climate. The result is a generation of young women and families whose voices and experiences with abortion are ignored, silenced or actively manipulated for political purposes.

“Here is a generation that has only known a time when abortion has been legal,” said Anna Greenberg, a Democratic pollster who studies attitudes toward abortion. “For many of them, their own personal experience with abortion is more significant than what gets reflected by the rights-based political debate. So when we send out email-alerts saying “Oh my God, write to your senator,” young people wonder if there will ever be more to the dialogue than the constant recruitment to join the fight.”

Polls over the last two decades have shown that a clear majority of Americans support the right to abortion, and there’s little evidence of a difference between those over 30 and under 30, but the vocabulary of the debate has shifted with the political culture. Ms. Baker, says women like her, who came of age when abortion was legal, tend to view it in more nuanced terms – abortion is something many have personally experienced and yet felt silenced by the political debate over the decision and they don’t want to be a part of the problem, silencing other women. But older people tend to view it as a right to be defended, like freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

The 30- to 40-somethings are concerned with educating their children about sex, and are active in causes that they believe will benefit the health and wellbeing of their children’s children – like reversing climate change and finding a cure for cancer – and the 25-and-under crowd connect more deeply to complex issues like gay marriage bans or the Darfur genocide. Given that nearly one in three of the people in these age groups have had a personal experience with abortion – either their own abortion or someone they love had one – many wonder why they don’t get politically involved in the issue. Exhale, which listens to the voices of women and men who have had abortions through their national, multilingual post-abortion talkaline, understands that the simplified political rhetoric around abortion rarely addresses the full spectrum of real, lived experiences with abortion.

“The language and values, if you are older, is around the right to control your own body, reproductive freedom, sexual liberation as empowerment,” said Ms. Greenberg, the pollster. “That is a baby-boom generation way of thinking. Now, more women have had legal abortions then women had illegal ones and each one of their experiences is unique – some have experienced a sense of empowerment and control while others have felt real emotional pain or sadness. There is no one-size-fits-all abortion experience and so continuing to talk about abortion only as right leaves behind many of those who have actually had one. And millions of women have had abortions.”

Abortion opponents were first to pick up on the negative emotional experiences many women have had with abortion and they use these experiences to make arguments against abortion. “Not only is this the post-Roe generation, I’d also call it the post-sonogram generation,” said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, who notes that baby’s first video now occurs in the womb, often accompanied by music. “They can take the video and do the music and send it to the grandmother. We don’t even talk anymore about the hypothesis that having an abortion is like having an appendectomy. We know many women have regretted their abortions and we want to prevent more women from going through this horrible experience.”

The pressures relating to abortion had seemed, for a time, to go dormant. Mr. Obama, who campaigned on a vow to transcend “the culture wars,” even managed to win confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor, without the usual Washington abortion uproar. Most of his political energy around abortion has been spent trying to forge consensus on ways to reduce unintended pregnancies.

The quiet was shattered this month, when the House — with surprising support from 64 Democrats — amended its health care bill to include language by Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan, barring the use of federal subsidies for insurance plans that cover abortion. Lawmakers who advocate for abortion rights found themselves in the uncomfortable position of voting for the larger health bill even though the Stupak language was in it.

Proponents of the Stupak language say they are simply following existing federal law, which already bars taxpayer financing for abortions. Democratic leaders want a less restrictive provision that would require insurance companies to segregate federal money from private premiums, which could be used to purchase plans that cover abortion.

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida and chief deputy whip of the House, understands the need for creating a new abortion dialogue that reflects people’s lived experiences and knows the real challenge of our current political climate which allowed Mr. Stupak to prevail. At 43, the mother of three children, she has taken up the abortion rights cause in Congress, as she did as a state legislator.

But if she had to round up her own friends “to go down to the courthouse steps and rally for choice,” she said, she is not certain she could. Even though abortion is incredibly common, “the stigma and politicization of the abortion issue and the simplistic, militaristic tone of the debate has left my generation and younger wanting a different approach. We want to fight for something positive and life-affirming for women and families, not just rally against hated opponents.”

That is not to say all younger women feel like they have to choose between either joining the fight or creating new ways to engage others on the abortion issue. In fact, young women are leading the way, bridging new and old models of activism on issues of reproductive justice. Serena Freewomyn (a name she adopted to reflect the idea that “I don’t belong to any man”) is a 27-year-old administrative assistant at an H.I.V. service provider in Tucson who was inspired, she said, by reading “The War on Choice” by Gloria Feldt. When George Tiller, a doctor in Kansas who performed abortions, was killed in May, she started a blog, Feminists for Choice.

“I am so glad younger women have been able to come of age in a time of post-Roe v. Wade, where they have access to lots of different birth control options,” Ms. Freewomyn said. “What a great political win for feminism and the choice movement. Now, younger women are mobilizing in different ways than what people in current leadership positions are used to.”

On Wednesday, a coalition calling itself “Stop Stupak” will hold a “National Day of Action” to lobby lawmakers. It will include abortion rights advocacy groups that have sprung up in recent years to reach out to younger voters. Law Students for Reproductive Justice, founded in 2003, will host an Internet seminar to educate law students on the fine points of the House and Senate bills. There’s also Choice USA, which targets people under 30. Kierra Johnson, the group’s executive director, is pairing up with counterparts in the immigrant rights and gay rights movements — tactics she says are critical to those movements shared goals of justice, equality and dignity for all. “The same young people who are fighting to keep anti-abortion language out of the health care bills are also fighting to insure that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender people fit in to broader health care reform, making sure that immigrant women don’t fall through the cracks,” she said. “They’re coming at these issues in a much more complex way.”

The question now is whether the Stop Stupak coalition can succeed. Ms. Wasserman Schultz sees the debate as a chance to rouse women of all generations, and Ms. Slaughter warns that if Mr. Obama signs a bill including the amendment, it will be challenged in court. Yet, she knows, that the debate must – and will – eventually change because when “her generation is gone the new generation – which has already wracked up a slew of political victories important to women and families and is leading the way on new models of activism – will succeed in creating an abortion dialogue that reflects and supports each person’s lived experience with abortion.”

At the moment, her faith in the future is strong. “Right now, I believe we have a vision for wellbeing that women and their families from across the country will stand up to support because it is relevant to their every-day lives,” Ms. Slaughter said. “And abortion matters to women and families.”

Daniel Cardinal DiNardo defended the Church’s involvement in removing abortion from the House version of the health care bill after a storm of criticism was leveled against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) of “lobbying” concerning the last minute addition of the Stupak Amendment.

“We would say: If you call it lobbying, we’re lobbying on moral issues that relate to the public square and we feel we have, as religious leaders, a place in that debate with others,”

Cardinal DiNardo became chair of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities at the USCCB.  He is also the ordinary of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston.  His Eminence represents a growing cadre of bishops that are leading their flocks out of the wilderness bravely in a fallen world.

All throughout 2009 many bishops have entered the national debate in regards to defending fundamental moral values and rectifying misinformation from wayward Catholics in political life.  This year seems to be the year the bishops found their voice.  Not since Francis Cardinal Spellman graced the New York Archdiocese have we seen the faithful being led with strong ecclesial leadership from all parts of the country.

Addressing the criticism directed at religious leaders speaking up on these important issues Cardinal DiNardo said,

“Whatever the polls say, that would not determine going into the public square on those issues,”

“For us, the role of the human person, it’s a religious and a moral and ethical principle.”

“We believe legislation that violates this moral principle is not true health care reform and must be amended to reflect it. If that fails, the current legislation should be opposed,”

The current legislation should be opposed.  Expect a resolute voice against any abortion wording in the Senate debate, especially behind closed doors.

“We’re going to work very hard to speak to senators,”

Let us continue praying for our shepherds as they fight the good fight in defense of the most vulnerable among us.

Ora pro nobis!

_._

To read the interview of Daniel Cardinal DiNardo by Moises Mendoza of the Houston Chronicle click here.

By: James Poindexter

Generation “y” deserves some credit. I’m not just saying this because I am a member of this generation, but because the numbers back it up. Sarah Palin has successfully dodged this question for over a year now, but it is time to get a definitive stance from all potential candidates in 2012. The nation’s religious right would love to convince us that abstinence only sex education is the only way to promote a healthy society and reduce teen pregnancy. Unfortunately for them, the numbers support a much different hypothesis. In the US, not only is religiosity on the decline, but so is teenage births. In fact, teenage pregnancy is at at 65-year low according to the National Center of Health Statistics. (http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/2545/0).

Today, as we continue to debate health care and the subsequent issues that are inherent in the bill, we must keep in mind that the generation that this bill will apply to is much different than the one writing it. So before we take a stand on the Health Care issue based on our religious tendencies, let’s take a look at the facts.

The Abortion Issue:

One of the most contentious parts of this health care bill is the abortion clause. It is likely that this bill will fail if it supports state reimbursement for abortions (something that many health insurance companies cover in their plans). But the abortion rate is at its lowest point since 1976 according to Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1722176020080117). With abortions being covered by private insurers and the cost of the operation being relatively low (especially in comparison to birthing a child) it is easy to see that the number of abortions will not increase if the state reimburses citizens for their operations, especially since the operation is legal and constitutional.

Today, we are faced with many moral dilemmas. Problems that should be handled on an individual basis, not the national scene. As long as abortions are considered legal and constitutional, there should be no difference in access between this procedure and any other legitimate medical operation.Especially in cases where the child and/or mother’s life is at stake.

According to an ABC study, states that are high in religiosity have higher levels of teenage pregnancy. (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/study-finds-teen-pregnancy-common-religious-states/story?id=8602283) I am not blaming religion for this problem, I am blaming certain church’s stances on the issue. The unwillingness to take a rational approach to a serious problems has led to severe consequences in the past. Religion is a force of good in our society that gives us a beacon of hope in a troublesome world, and a moral compass to guide us towards justice. But religion is subject to the same rules as any other institution: it must adapt as new evidence is discovered. To ignore facts is by definition ignorance, and as a member of the greatest and smartest nation in the world, I will not sit by and be subject to the ignorance of a few.

Google News (USA)
The House adopted strict limits on abortion funding as the price for the support for their healthcare bill from anti-choice Democrats. Abortion rights supporters are now backing Reid’s approach, which maintains the status quo on abortion coverage. However anti-choicers will be working to undermine these efforts in the Senate healthcare package.

Salt Lake Tribune (Salt Lake City, UT)
Across the country, pro-choice advocates like this letter to the editor writer from Syracuse, UT, are concerned about extremists’ hijacking healthcare to deny women their rights. “If the anti-choice people get their way, they could destroy what progress has been made so far on women’s freedoms.”

The Baltimore Sun (Baltimore, MD)
As expected, the Baltimore City Council on Monday approved a first-in-the-nation law that would require faith-based crisis pregnancy centers to display signs telling prospective clients that they do not provide or refer for abortion or birth control.

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (Fairbanks, AK)
Opponents of a ballot initiative designed to outlaw abortion in Alaska by declaring fetuses “legal persons” are challenging it in Alaska court. The leader of the Alaska initiative characterized his bill by saying: “So, basically, what we’re doing here is if we say that we recognize the unborn as persons, then a woman’s right to choose or a right to privacy doesn’t matter (just as) she doesn’t have a right to kill her child after it’s born.”

Dear John,

Your headline and the beginning of this story that you quote make it sound like the bill would offer free-for-all abortions, which is not the case. The jack-booted bishops and their allies came in and undid a carefully crafted compromise that did not violate the principles of the Hyde amendment but allowed people to pay for abortion coverage in an otherwise federally-funded plan. We live in a plural society. Many people do not believe that human life begins at conception. If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one – but let those who believe differently use their money as they wish.

I would have thought that this would be the libertarian position.

mike toner
BEE ‘72
Buffalo, NY

# – # – #

[JR: The Libertarian position would be that there should be NO forced taxation. Not like that is going to happen anytime soon. We can go into other Libertarian thoughts from there. But, let's start from there. As a taxpayer, it is abhorrent to be forced to pay for killing human beings. (I don't support the war or capital punishment either.) There is no way they can get away from the fact that this uses federal funds to pay for abortions. Otherwise why does it have ANY connection to the federally funded plan. They can squirm all they want but it does. And, I don't want to pay for it. Make the taxes voluntary, and see how much they collect! Us libertarians would like nothing better if EVERYONE could spend their money anyway they want. Sorry if I've disappointed you. It's not about beliefs; it's about force.]

Toner, Mike (MC1972)

# # # # #

Learn more here: http://www.maafa21.com

This is an incredible article on South Dakota’s approval of the ban on abortion. Full article found here, on RhealityCheck.org

I always considered myself pro-choice, but was never involved in the movement until South Dakota’s State Legislature passed an abortion ban and Governor Mike Rounds signed it into law.

Pro-Choice Activists joined forces and The South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families was formed.  According to the SDCHF website in less than 10 weeks, the organization successfully collected more than twice the number of petition signatures required to refer that abortion ban to a vote of the people using an all-volunteer force. With the help of our volunteers and supporters throughout the state, the abortion ban was defeated by a wide margin- – 11 points!

As a resident of South Dakota I followed news reports on the ban and the grassroots efforts to defeat the ban. I was hoping the ban would be defeated, but hadn’t given it much thought because as a married mother of two beautiful children, I knew we would welcome a third child and would never need an abortion, so the law wouldn’t affect me.

In 2006 I became pregnant and was thrilled.  After landing in the hospital with a severe kidney infection at 19-weeks gestation, I received my first ultrasound, leaving us shocked and thrilled to see we were expecting identical twin boys.

The joy didn’t last when our babies were diagnosed with Twin-to-Twin Transfusion Syndrome.  Webmd.com explains that Twin-twin transfusion syndrome as “the most serious complication of identical twins. It starts in the womb when one twin gets too much blood and the other not enough. The outcome for both twins is grim.”

Abortion patient, Mechelle Hall attacks pro-lifer with knife

Read more here: Crazy pro-choicer attacks pro-lifer with knife: Where is the press?

More here: Brutal murder of pro-life activist exposes epidemic of pro-choice terrorism and violence

Did you?

A quick search of the Senate health bill will bring up “secretary” 2,500 times.

That’s because Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would be awarded unprecedented new powers under the proposal, including the authority to decide what medical care should be covered by insurers as well as the terms and conditions of coverage and who should receive it.

“The legislation lists 1,697 times where the secretary of health and humans services is given the authority to create, determine or define things in the bill,” said Devon Herrick, a health care expert at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

For instance, on Page 122 of the 2,079-page bill, the secretary is given the power to establish “the basic per enrollee, per month cost, determined on average actuarial basis, for including coverage under a qualified health care plan.”

The HHS secretary would also have the power to decide where abortion is allowed under a government-run plan, which has drawn opposition from Republicans and some moderate Democrats.

Read the whole very scary thing.

Hat tip: Vodkapundit.

Many people have the mistaken idea that being a person of faith and choosing to terminate a pregnancy are mutually exclusive when in fact, sexuality and spiritually are mutually beneficial forces in our lives. We here at Cherry Hill Women’s Center encourage our patients to bring their faith and spiritual identity into the clinic with them when making the decision about whether or not to continue a pregnancy. The women who are making pregnancy decisions are the same women who go to church, pray and practice their faith as a daily part of life.  So, of course, it’s only natural that when making such a life changing and complex decision about whether or not to bring a life into the world would involve considering the faith traditions in your life.

In fact, the Alan Guttmacher Institutes 2009 “Overview of Abortion in the United States” found the following results when polling women choosing abortion:

• When U.S. women having abortions are asked their religion, 43% say they are Protestant. This is a lower proportion than the approximately 51% of women 18–44 in the U.S. population who identify themselves as Protestant, which means that their abortion rate is lower than that of all women.
• The proportion of abortion patients who are Catholic is slightly lower than the Catholic proportion of the population. Thus, the abortion rate of Catholics (abortions per 1,000 female Catholics aged 18–44 in the population) is slightly lower than that of all women.
• Thirteen percent of abortion patients say they are “born-again or evangelical Christians”

Many women who come to CHWC will tell us that they are concerned that God will not forgive them for having an abortion and are concerned about how to reconcile the decision to end a pregnancy with their faith. Sometimes when talking with a woman during a counseling session, we may pray with a patient or talk about the religious rituals that we use in daily life to heal or cope with loss and grief. Often times we’ll recommend that a woman seek guidance from her own clergy, but for women who don’t feel that they can go to someone in their own church or temple, we refer them to Faith Aloud. Faith Aloud is a clergy run organization that promotes reproductive justice through the religious and moral communities and offers counseling and guidance to women of faith as they make their pregnancy decisions.

Here are some videos from some of Faith Aloud’s clergy members that lend some insight into the intersection of faith and moral decision-making:

“ …a choice made for good reasons and in good faith does not separate a human being from God.”– Barb Shelley

“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them” (Psalm 139:13-16, ESV).

January 22, 1973 must have put a smirk on the devil’s face. Though none of the human participants may have foreseen, what happened effectively pronounced a death sentence on yet-to-be counted millions. On that date the U.S. Supreme Court issued its notorious Roe v. Wade decision, opening the door to abortion on demand. And since, tens of millions of unborn Americans have been terminated and discarded like a used Kleenex. In a single year, more unborn babies are intentionally killed than all of the soldiers America has lost in battle during the Revolution, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, both Gulf Wars—all her wars combined! Add up the total war casualties in American history and the sum will not equal the number of babies whose lives we take in a twelve month period. Abortion is big money, big politics, and an even bigger shame. Abortion has become a festering controversy, and totally without justification, since the Bible is quite plain on God’s perspective of human life. What light does the Bible shed on this subject?

Abortion Takes a Human Life

In making a point on faith, James wrote that “the body apart from the spirit is dead” (James 2:26). This is God’s definition, which overrules any medical or scientific attempt to define death. If death is the separation of human body and spirit, then human life is the union of body and spirit. If what is growing in the womb of a pregnant woman is alive, then, by definition, it is alive by virtue of its having a God-given spirit. The Bible does not draw a qualitative distinction among people based on how old they are. In other words, a man is not more human than a boy; a toddler is not more human than a newborn; a newborn is not more human than the just-conceived. When Mary went to visit a pregnant Elizabeth, “the baby leaped in her womb” (Luke 1:41). And, when it came time to name the newborn Savior, “he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb” (Luke 2:21). Jesus was named, not just before he was born, but before he was conceived. What was he at conception, in God’s eyes—just a cluster of cells? We think not. Remember, those two verses were penned by an inspired medical doctor. Speaking of marriage, Jesus said that no man had the right to separate what God joined together (Matthew 19:6). If men have no authority to separate—without cause—a husband and wife, then why do we think we have the right to separate the body and spirit of the unborn by putting them to death?

Abortion Sheds Innocent Blood

Solomon said, “There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:16-17). There is no blood more innocent than that of the unborn. And, no society has the right to practice, tolerate, or put its stamp of approval on anything the Lord finds abominable. Notice, God did not say he hates the shedding of any blood—just innocent blood. This is why the same Bible that condemns abortion can uphold capital punishment. Government wields its power by divine authority (cf. Romans 13), including the obligation to take the sword after the wicked.

Abortion Presumes to Put Man in God’s Place

The English Standard Version renders Ecclesiastes 11:5, “As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.” If God is the maker, does man have the right to assume the role of destroyer? “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you” (Jeremiah 1:5). Who formed Jeremiah in the womb? God did. Jeremiah was already Jeremiah to God, even before he was born. In fact, due to his omniscience, God can speak of the yet-to-be-conceived as already having existence. Thus, God tells Rebekah, “Two nations are in your womb” (Genesis 25:23). Likewise, Levi is described as “still in the loins of his ancestor” (Hebrews 7:10), long before Levi was ever conceived. If Levi was in God’s mind prior to conception, then surely at conception and thereafter he existed in reality—even before birth. Abortion makes man the dealer of life and death, usurping a position to which he has no right.

Abortion Is Ingratitude for God’s Gift

“Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward” (Psalm 127:3). If children are a gift from above, then abortion is a slap in the face to the Giver—a big “thanks, but no thanks,” written in innocent blood. Abortion views the unborn as a burden, a punishment, a curse, a problem, an inconvenience.

Abortion Tries to Eliminate Sin’s Consequence

Abortion on demand is the “get out of jail free” card of a wicked and selfish generation. The crux of the matter is this: we want sin’s pleasure without paying sin’s price. Abortion is most often the culmination of many sins, including lust, fornication, irresponsibility, and lack of love. Contrary to society’s advice, not everyone has the right to sex. Contrary to society’s practice, we are not barnyard animals and God expects every human being to conduct himself on an ethical level above what transpires in the hog pen. There are reasons why God placed sex solely within the confines of scriptural marriage, one of them being the potential of conceiving children. People may delude themselves into thinking they have escaped sin’s consequence by abortion, but it will certainly come back to haunt them in eternity and, most likely, long before then.

Abortion Hardens Hearts

The Lord raised the question, “Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb?” (Isaiah 49:15). Looking at America, the answer is, “yes.” Some are heartless (Romans 1:31). Some are brutal (2 Timothy 3:3). Some have seared their consciences (1 Timothy 4:2). What kind of heart will pay money to snuff out a life growing inside her? What kind of heart encourages the practice? What kind of heart performs the procedure? Does the practice of abortion give a doctor greater respect for life, or less of it? Does abortion cause a young woman’s (or society’s) heart to be more tender or more calloused? Does it demonstrate the compassion of Christ? Paul wrote that older woman were to teach younger women to love their children (Titus 2:4). When tiny bodies are ripped limb from limb—when babies in process of birth are punctured and have their brains suctioned out—do these things fall under the heading of loving the children?

Abortion Is Sanitized Child Sacrifice

Old Testament Israel grew so wicked they embraced the practice of child sacrifice. “And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind” (Jeremiah 7:31). Americans don’t sacrifice children on the pagan altar of Baal; instead, we sacrifice our children on the altar of convenience, selfishness, and irresponsibility. And we’ve sanitized the process for minimum damage to our own psyches. There are no screams to hear, no blood to clean up, no bodies to bury, no faces to forget. In the sterile operating room, calculated murder is carried out as though a tumor were being removed.

Abortion Opens the Floodgate

Once a society rationalizes and accepts the killing of the unborn, there is no sustainable argument to be made against killing other people. If the sanctity of human life is not respected across the board—if it does not extend to the helpless on the unborn end of the spectrum—then, it does not extend to the helpless at the other end. Euthanasia (so-called “mercy killing”) is inevitable. And, why not kill the crippled, paralyzed, deformed, or anyone else whose quality of life does not measure up to our evolving standard? Why not kill those who are an economic burden on society, even if they are healthy? If not, why? We kill unwanted babies, don’t we? And, why not knock off those who disagree with us politically? If all life is not sacred, then no life is sacred.

Abortion Is Biblically Unauthorized

For anyone who respects the Bible, this is conclusive in itself. In light of Colossians 3:17, all we say and do is to be done by Jesus’ authority (i.e. authorized in his New Testament). Yet, there is not the slightest hint of divinely sanctioned abortion, either by statement, example or implication in Scripture. In fact, abortion is no more authorized by God than polygamy, pornography, or praying toward Mecca.

It was Ronald Reagan who observed, “Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.” How telling that is. Everyone who has ever attended a “pro-choice” rally has already been born. They take the gift of life they were given and now exert their energy trying to deny it to the next generation. If the blood of a single murdered individual, Abel, cried out to God from the ground (Genesis 4:10), then what must be the sound in God’s ears of countless millions slaughtered for convenience and profit? During his suffering, Job reached the point he wished he had not been born. “Why did you bring me out from the womb? Would that I had died before any eye had seen me and were as though I had not been, carried from the womb to the grave” (Job 10:18-19). Such is abortion: an untimely journey from the womb to the grave. 

“Abortion is not health care. In Northern Ireland it is a criminal offence”.

Indeed the SPUCer is correct and 40 women each week leave the North to obtain an abortion elsewhere.