Ten questions for my "pro-life" friends

(Before I ask these questions, please know that I am ardently pro-life. There has never been a time when I haven't been, so please keep that in mind when responding).

1. When you think of being pro-life, does that only, or even primarily, mean that you are against abortion?

2. What is your position on issues of life after a child is born? Are you as strongly committed to meeting his or her needs during childhood, adolescence, young adulthood? Not abstractly, but practically, what are you doing?

3. At what point does termination of life become a reasonable option (e.g., death penalty, targeting civilians during war) and, being pro-life, what is your justification for that position?

4. If you are a Christian, you believe that there is also life after death and most of you believe in a literal heaven and hell. Are you dedicating as much time and effort and prayer to a person's eternal life as you are to their physical, earthly life? Are you as committed to sharing the gospel with people as you are to talking about the horrors of abortion?

5. What does a truly pro-life position have to say about issues like caring for the poor, orphan care, pornography/human trafficking, substance abuse, bullying?

6. When you hear of someone who has committed a heinous crime, or when you think about those who are in prison, what thoughts pop into your head? Do your thoughts degrade them, or do you view them as a someone who bears the image of God and as someone who needs Jesus as much as you do?

7. God also speaks an awful lot about widows and the aged? What are you doing to love well those who are older than you or whose minds and bodies are failing them?

8. Do you find yourself judging people of other races or religions, assuming you are better than they are or that you would never do the things that they do or have done? When you see news stories about violence in the streets, is your gut reaction to think, "well, of course, they're black thugs" or "must be a Muslim terrorist"? or is your first response to think, "I should withhold judgment because I don't know the circumstances. What I can do is pray for how to best love right now."

9. Are you cautious with your tongue? Do you use words to build up or tear down? I understand this is not the same thing as the destruction of a physical child in the womb, but an evil tongue damages a soul. Many times, a person who is made to feel worthless or ashamed wishes they had never been born and may even seek to end their own lives. We need to communicate to people, even when we disagree with them: "YOU MATTER."

10. In general, at a deep level, do you view others as less worthy of life and love? Do you think that are other people are less in need of the Christ's saving grace? Blacks, Mexicans, White supremacists, women, drug dealers, pornographers, liberals, Muslims, gays, abortionists? If you were to dig beneath all of your self-protective armor, are there ever flashes of viewing some people as less inherently valuable.

Friends, to be pro-life MUST mean to be pro-human in all of its forms. The Bible speaks about the sanctity of the preborn, but there is a whole lot more evidence for how we care for those who are already here. God's love for the downtrodden is everywhere in the Bible. That doesn't mean that we call good the things that God says are evil, but it does mean we seek to love well even when we disagree. That doesn't mean we shift our responsibility to the government or a relief agency, but it does mean we must ask ourselves, how can I be "pro-life" right now?

No Mr President

In 2009, John Piper addressed the then newly elected Barack Obama about his statements made about abortion.  They remain relevant today as it is the 41st anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade supreme court decision.

Ancient Attitudes on Abortion

When the United States Supreme Court made its ruling about abortion on January 22, 1973, Mr. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court.  The first section in his opinion was titled “Ancient Attitudes.”  In it he referred back to preChristian law.  He said, “Greek and Roman law afforded little protection to the unborn.  If abortion was prosecuted in some places, it seems to have been based on a concept of a violation of the father’s right to his offspring.  Ancient religion did not bar abortion.”  Thus, as his first point, Mr. Justice Blackmun based his opinion on the practice of pre-Christian Greek and Roman law.  Most people who read this did not realize the logical result concerning babies after their birth.  Roman law permitted not only abortion but also infanticide.  As we think this over, we ask ourselves, “Now that this door is open, how long will it be before infanticide is socially accepted and perhaps legalized?”-Francis Schaeffer, What Ever Happened to the Human Race?

Why do abortionists use the language of misdirection?

In providing justification for abortion, a friend of mine recently cited "uneducated women/children" and "ignorance" as possible reasons why abortion may be acceptable. Today, I was reading through an article in the Wall Street Journal by James Taranto. He cites an example of how abortion clinic workers are to respond if a client asks if abortion kills a baby.

The clinic workers are trained to say no, naturally:

Linda Couri, who worked at Planned Parenthood, described how she responded when a teenager considering abortion asked her the following question: "If I have an abortion, am I killing my baby?"

Couri said: " 'Kill' is a strong word, and so is 'baby.' You're terminating the product of conception."

You're terminating the product of conception. The fetus precipitates. Again the Orwellian doublespeak, in this case employed therapeutically. Euphemism is an analgesic for the psychological pain that "strong words" aggravate.

Help me to understand--if one of the concerns is that these young women are ignorant or uneducated, how is telling them that they are "terminating the product of conception" not deliberately evasive and taking advantage of their ignorance? If they are truly ignorant, these words will probably not make sense other than sounding like "the smart doctor said so." How is this double-speak pro-women in any regard?  

Define Irony?

As my friend Zach says, "The ironic contrast couldn't be more stunning."  

Pro-Choice Bumper Stickers

This phrase, and the accompanying bumper sticker, are very popular with the pro-abortion set.  Scott Klussendorf shows the flaw with this line of thinking.  He writes,

Notice the bumper sticker completely transforms the nature of the abortion debate with a single word---"like."

When pro-life advocates claim that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being, they aren't saying they dislike abortion. They are saying it's objectively wrong, regardless of how one feels about it. Notice what's going on here. The pro-life advocate makes a moral claim that he believes is objectively true---namely, that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. The abortion-choice advocate responds by changing that objective truth claim into a subjective one about likes and dislikes, as if the pro-lifer were talking about a mere preference. But this misses the point entirely. As Francis J. Beckwith points out, pro-life advocates don't oppose abortion because they find it distasteful; they oppose it because it violates rational moral principles.

Imagine if I said, "Don't like slavery? Then don't own a slave." Or, "Don't like spousal abuse? Then don't beat your wife!" If I said such things, you would immediately realize I don't grasp why slavery and spousal abuse are wrong. They are not wrong because I personally dislike them. They are wrong because slaves and spouses are intrinsically valuable human beings who have a natural right not to be treated as property. Whether I personally like slavery or spousal abuse is completely beside the point. If I liked spousal abuse, you would rightly say I was sick! You wouldn't resign yourself to, "I guess abuse is right for you but not for me."

And yet this is precisely what the pro-choicer does. He reduces abortion to a mere preference and then declares, "Hands off! Keep the government out of the abortion business!"

Read the rest here.  

The pain of "selective reduction"

A couple of days ago, there was an article on American Thinker, written by an anonymous author, the husband of a woman who chose to selective abort two of her three babies. He had no choice in the matter. She told him she would abort them all or keep only one.

He writes,

"Before the procedure, my wife's eyes teared up; she asked the doctor over and over if they would feel pain, and was assured they would not.  I asked again if my wife was sure about this because once done, it could not be undone.  She said she was sure, but her tears and her looking away from the screen, deliberately, and her wanting me to not look either, told me the truth: she knew as well that this was wrong.  I wanted to insist that she look, but I think that her mind -- already fractured by the news of triplets -- would have snapped permanently had she seen the images onscreen.  And to save the one, and for the sake of the one we already had, I needed my wife sane.

"My wife didn't look, but I had to.  I had to know what would happen to my children.  I had to know how they would die.

"Each retreated, pushing away, as the needle entered the amniotic sac.  They did not inject into the placenta, but directly into each child's torso.  Each one crumpled as the needle pierced the body.  I saw the heart stop in the first, and mine almost did, too.  The other's heart fought, but ten minutes later they looked again, and it too had ceased.

"The doctors had the gall to call the potassium chloride, the chemical that stopped children's hearts, "medicine."  I wanted to ask what they were trying cure -- life?  But bitter words would not undo what had happened.  I swallowed anything I might have said."

Please take time to read the whole thing here. 

Presidential prayer breakfast: A review

World Magazine has a good summary of the presidential prayer breakfast. I would commend the whole article to you.  However, I have a few thoughts. 

I was glad to read that Eric Metaxas was the keynote speaker. From what I have gathered he spoke boldly about Jesus, proclaiming him as "the enemy of dead religion."  He went further to speak out boldly against abortion. He apparently noted that the Germans of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's time (Metaxas wrote a biography of Bonhoeffer) viewed some people as less than human, just as many do today. 

Obama also spoke. He apparently cited several Bible verses in support taxing the rich in support of the poor, which are taken out of context to be sure. Without a doubt, the Bible is a strong advocate of caring for the poor and loving the least of these, but that is a mission of the church, not the government.  Plucking verses out of scripture without keeping all of God's word in view is bad exegesis.  The president also apparently aligned himself with Catholic Charities, claiming his administration has linked arm in arm with faith-based groups across the country.  I suspect that Catholic Charities may not view it in the same way. 

Where are the March for Life pics

Mollie, at Get Religion, shares an interesting, apparently annual trend among some news outlets. In a photo slideshow at CBS entitled "Activists hold annual march for live on Roe v. Wade Anniversary", none of the pictures of the pro-life advocates, though they likely outnumbered the pro-abortion protestors 1000 to 1. I have not kept up on these trends; what I can say is that I looked through this slide show and indeed, none of the pictures show the activists their slideshow was supposed to be about. 

She cites, Elizabeth Scalia, who writes, "Unfortunately, the 'big picture' is hard to come by, particularly if you’re looking for 'big pictures' of this well-attended march. We have reached a remarkable era of photojournalism, as demonstrated by the once-noble Washington Post — one where a half million people can march, the headlines can call it “thousands” and the pictures show you none of it.

"Someone asked me on Twitter, 'why don’t they just report the truth' and I thought, 'because they have given themselves wholly over to a lie, and they fear the truth. Having built up the lie for so long that it’s become their foundation, they know they cannot withstand an assault by the truth.'

"So they have become truth-phobics, our mainstream media. They can’t tell you the truth about anything, anymore — they can only do whatever it takes to sustain the narratives they’ve constructed. …

"You want the truth? You think you deserve it? The press can’t handle the truth; they can’t bring it to you. The New York Times just ignores inconvenient truth, entirely.

"That’s why 250 people camping out in a park gets thousands of stories, while half-a-million marching on Washington does not get reported at all, or if it does, the pictures are cropped; the attendees are caricatured, mis-named and under-represented while their opponents are over-represented."

Read the whole thing here.  

Sanctity of Life Sunday

Today is Sanctity of Life Sunday.  Please take some time to watch these videos, then pray for our leaders to protect children and pray for women to choose life. 

This first video is from John Piper a few years ago, but it remains as relevant today as it was when he first shared it. 



The second video is the 180 Movie. Take the 40 minutes and watch it if you haven't seen it. 

The president on Roe v. Wade

President Obama on Roe v. Wade--"As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.  I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.  While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue- no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.  And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams."

Mr President, may I ask a question? If abortion does not kill a child, why do we need to "reduce the need for abortion?" If it merely a blob of unwanted tissue, and not a person, there is no justification necessary for abortion. However, if it does kill a person, there is no justification that is sufficient.

Wanton Disregard for Human Life

A few days ago, I came across this letter from Adolf Hitler to Philipp Bouhler and Karl Brandt regarding the medical termination of lives deemed unworthy.  The brief note states that they, "are instructed to broaden the powers of physicians designated by name, who will decide whether those who have - as far as can be humanly determined - incurable illnesses can, after the most careful evaluation, be granted a mercy death."  This letter followed a course of events you can read about on the website Letters of Note.  As you will learn, in 1933 compulsory sterilization was mandated for those deemed defective.  In 1939, Hitler granted a father permission to kill his 5 month old son, which gave way to a wider program of murder in the "Children's Euthanasia Program".  Eventually, Hitler expanded the program to allow, perhaps encourage, the murder of those "unworthy of life", all by legal mandate.   


Although the similarities to modern society are profound, I think we too easily miss the connection.  The current culture of abortion on demand also allows for the medical termination of lives deemed unworthy.  Each day, thousands of children are murdered in the United States, often for no reason other than they were unwanted by their parents.  The case of Canadian Katrina Effert, which has recently resurfaced in the news, raises concerns that the climate regarding the sanctity of life continues to deteriorate.  In 2005, as a new mother, she strangled her unwanted infant with her underwear and threw the baby over the fence into her neighbor's yard.  She was recently granted a suspended sentence. The judge presiding over the case, commented "while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support."  Effert received a suspended sentence.  For infanticide.

At what point may we conclude that a punishable offense has taken place?  When the child is 5 months old?  5 years old?  When will we acknowledge that we have justified murder as a legal medical procedure?  When will we realize that we accept the wholesale termination of helpless people as a matter of convenience? 

The ongoing abortion debate is not simply a political issue.  It is the wanton disregard of human life.  Like the holocaust.

I would also encourage you to watch this video.  Ray Comfort helps people to see the similarities between what Hitler did and modern abortion.

5 pro-life questions for the midterm elections

Scott Klusendorf asks 5 questions about pro-life voting:

Question #1: Should pastors lovingly challenge church members who actively support a political party that supports elective abortion?
Question #2: What role does the gospel play in my political affiliations?
Question #3: Liberal Christians insist that conservatives are focusing too narrowly on abortion to the exclusion of other important issues. Are pro-life Christians guilty of single issue voting? 
Question #4: Some Christians say that while they don’t think abortion is a good idea, legislation is not the best way to prevent it. They contend that pro-lifers would be far more effective spending their energies “elsewhere.”
Question #5: In 2008, some “pro-life” advocates voted for a presidential candidate who supports elective abortion as a fundamental right. Many insisted their vote was a true pro-life vote. How do you explain this?



Read the whole thing here.     

Psychological "Science" and the Art of Spin

There are three types of lies:  lies, damned lies, and statistics--Benjamin Disraeli

Yesterday, I was listening to a podcast of the White Horse Inn.  Michael Horton and friends were interviewing Os Guinness, who shared that when he was raising his children, he developed a game called "spot the lie."  He trained his children to spot non-sequitirs and lies as they consumed the media.  I made a mental note to incorporate this concept into my own parenting. 

Today, I was able to spot the lie.  On a listserv I frequent, someone asked about the American Psychological Association's policy regarding adolescents' ability to consent to abortion and I curiously wanted to know as well.  In 1990, the APA filed an amicus brief (Hodgson v. Minnesota) making clear their position that minors were developmentally mature enough to consent to abortion without parental consent.  As I read further, however, in 2005 the APA filed another amicus brief with the supreme court (Roper v. Simmons) stating that adolescents were developmentally immature and, therefore, should be exempt from the death penalty.  This drew swift criticism from Justice Scalia and many others as well who spotted the lie.  In October 2009, an article was published in the American Psychologist by Steinberg, Cauffman, Woolard, Graham, and Banich that attempted to scientifically reconcile these two apparently inconsistent viewpoints.  Despite their use of statistical methodology, they, like the APA, began with politically-biased assumptions--that the death penalty is wrong and abortion is right. 

I hope the publication of an article in the APAs flagship journal supporting inconsistent viewpoints with science disavows you of the notion that science can be objective and value free.  The stance that we should not kill kids who kill others but that we should allow kids to kill their own kids without parental consent is yet another reason why I am no longer a member of APA and why, on days like today, I struggle to even self-identify as a psychologist.