Discarded Children
by Ted Slater on 10/31/2008 at 12:11 PM
It's inarguable: Certain political stances are just "cool." It's cool to be concerned about the environment. It's cool to be concerned about AIDS. It's cool to be concerned about poverty. It's cool to be concerned about civil conflict.
And of course we should be concerned about these things.
But then there's that uncomfortably unhip group to whom Scripture fervently draws our attention: widows and orphans. "Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God," it says, "means caring for orphans and widows in their distress" (James 1:27).
I want to join Boundless author Gary Thomas in thinking about who an "orphan" might be. An orphan is a child who's been abandoned by her parents, either by their death or by their unwillingness or inability to care for them. An orphan is a child whose relationship with his parents has been severed.
Sounds a lot like those who are cut off from their parents pre-birth. As Gary writes in today's featured article, "Cool Compassion":
I'd like to suggest that in this day and age, a child on its way to an abortion clinic constitutes the classic "orphan." Even though both parents may technically be "alive," neither mother nor father is acting like a parent. Abortion by its very nature is the act of parents giving up all duties and responsibilities of caring for their child. And since that child is on its way to certain destruction, it is certainly "in distress." We should care, really care, about these children, whether or not it's fashionable to do so. Because God cares, we should care. It's that simple.
The Lord beckons us to care for these helpless ones, even if doing so is unfashionable. He expects us to defend the rights of these abandoned, orphaned little ones. May He give you and me wisdom as we consider how we might obey.
1. Vanessa said the following at 12:30 PM on Oct 31:
All I can say is a hearty "Amen", Ted!!!
2. Kari said the following at 12:54 PM on Oct 31:
Gary's post is FANTASTIC! I am so proud of him for speaking the truth!!
Today I talked to a co-worker who won't support a certain ballot amendment-- she said she agrees "completely with the definition" meaning that at fertilization a child is formed, but says that it is "very scary" to put that into law because it hurts women to be forced to keep their baby if they don't want it. I am continually frustrated by this--it is the one sanctioned form of murder, and it's legality defies ALL logic.
She also tells me nearly every day that "there are bigger issues" than protecting unborn life, and that I should really get off of that bandwagon and do something that will actually help the world. We are very peaceble about it, but it is very difficult to how deep that kind of sin goes.
3. Rose said the following at 12:58 PM on Oct 31:
Good post, but while the definition of an uncbormn child as an orphan might be a stretch for some, there are plenty of actual orphans in this country who desperately need help. Let remember that focussing on unwanted children is just as important after they've been born. Perhaps all of your readers who are ehading to the polls to vote in pro-life candidates need to stop by the local Dept of Family and Childrens' Services and look into providing foster care or an adoptive home for an oprhan. It's great to try to persuade mothers not to abort their unborn children, but why stop there?
4. LisaMarie Goetz said the following at 12:59 PM on Oct 31:
I just read through Gary Thomas' article "Cool Compassion," and I found it quite thought-provoking. He makes some very important points not only about the abortion issue but also about the way that a Christian is called to decide how to vote.
However, there is something I would like to point out about the article, and it is more of a theme that I see in a lot of the articles I've read on Boundless lately, as well as discussions on the podcast.
It seems to me that there can be a bit of a divisive and almost condemning spirit that comes through many of the points Boundless contributors try to make. Often I read statements that strike me as quite sarcastic, lacking a sense of mutual respect and love that I believe should be present among the Christian community. The first two paragraphs of Thomas' article represent this to me.
A more specific example occurs later in the article when Thomas says this,
"I believe you will be judged for doing so [voting to perpetuate the sin of abortion,] and I don't want to be silent as your Christian brother if you pull that lever or punch that chad."
This statement does not sit well with me, to be honest. I find it to be a bit underhanded and manipulative, and also quite condescending. Gary Thomas is a godly and well-respected man, to be sure- but neither does he have all the answers about every issue nor will he be the one to judge our decisions, ultimately. That role is ascribed only to the Lord
I freely admit that I am just as guilty as anyone else for having this attitude sometimes; maybe that's the reason I notice it so much. But it hurts my heart to see this kind of attitude perpetuated, especially when comments become so heated here on the Line because of an article originally written in this spirit.
We may not all agree about everything; as a matter of fact, we definitely do not all agree about everything. But if we all call ourselves followers of the Way and we desire to see the kingdom of God descend upon us here on earth, I think that we will exemplify that more by making an intentional effort to put on a spirit of love as we approach these issues.
5. Michelle F. said the following at 1:00 PM on Oct 31:
Neither of the candidates is as pro-life as I'd like them to be, so that's one of the reasons I voted third party.
6. IMO said the following at 1:30 PM on Oct 31:
"stop by the local Dept of Family and Childrens' Services and look into providing foster care or an adoptive home for an oprhan"
That's a great idea.
Does anybody else have suggestions as to how to take care of the orphans and widows?
My husband and I would love to provide foster care...but we are not in a position to do that yet...
7. Matthew said the following at 1:35 PM on Oct 31:
I just wanted to throw something out there from John Piper that's related: Thoughts on Voting and Politics.
I'm not necessarily accusing anyone on this blog of any impropriety in this, but while I certainly understand the emphasis that Boundless puts on this issue (and I pray that our next President defends the cause of the unborn) I just wanted to make sure we're being Biblical in this all the way around.
8. mk said the following at 1:42 PM on Oct 31:
#5 imo: i 'adopted' a child thru compassion international. that's a pretty low-involvement thing, i know. i send a check once a month, and we write letters back and forth, and some day i will go visit her. (she lives in haiti).
mentoring/tutoring and getting involved with big brothers/big sisters is another way to take care of kids who need it.
9. Ted Slater said the following at 1:48 PM on Oct 31:
Rose (#3) -- Your comment implies that we stop caring for children once they're born. What you wrote could come across as a cynical dismissal of those who are pro-life when it comes to pre-born babies.
We in fact have not "stopped there."
You may not realize that Motte is adopting four children. Or that another member of the Boundless team has adopted a little boy. And that the woman in the cubicle next to mind adopted a little girl. That one of my good friends and his wife are adopting two little girls. And that there have been numerous adoptions among my friends here at work and church. And that Focus on the Family is very involved in orphan care.
We are pro-life here at Boundless, from womb to tomb, as they say.
This *either* you are for pre-born children *or* you are for post-birth children dichotomy is fallacious. We are for the sanctity of life, from the time a person is alive to the time they are dead.
10. Bob said the following at 2:01 PM on Oct 31:
In reference to comment #3: Amen. In my experience, it is people derided as "Godless liberals" who actually do this. The self-identified "Godly conservatives" would have a much lower perceived hypocracy factor if they practiced as much concern for the post-born unwanted as for the pre-born unwanted.
Such as, taking a teenager thrown out of their own home into your own home. I have done that. On my own dollar, without help from government or church. Hope it doesn't qualify me as a "Godless liberal" in the eyes of the "Godly conservatives." But it is not to them to whom I must finally give answer. And for that, may the Lord Jesus be praised!
11. whs said the following at 2:45 PM on Oct 31:
Bob, you didn't do it on your own dollar and with out the church. Your money is owned by God and you are the church.
12. Brian said the following at 2:53 PM on Oct 31:
IMO (#6.),
You said that you would love to provide foster care, but that you and your husband are "not in a position to do that yet..."
I would challenge you to consider what would put you in that position, and seek after it wholeheartedly. You may in fact find that you ARE ready, just not by the world's standards. My wife and I have been blessed to be in a position where we ARE able to do it (though it means for us living on a single income), and it has been a wonderful opportunity to see God working in our lives and the lives of our foster children. And if you can't foster right now (remember the state usually pays for all healthcare and childcare, plus a stipend!) , then you should become a mentor!
13. IMO said the following at 3:12 PM on Oct 31:
Thanks for the encouragement, Brian. I will think about what you said.
I guess the term "not in a position of" carries different meaning...so I will expound a bit.
Part of the reason is that my husband and I have only been married for just over a year. In my head, I see us being more "seasoned."
It is also about committing to the overall well-being of a child. And there is no going back once the commitment is made.
Realistically (but not of course ideally) I think the more and more my husband and I become comfortable with talking about fostering, the more we will actually be inclined to take that next step. Because of course, just thinking about doing something and talking about it sporadically is very different than taking the actions necessary.
I have started to become involved in my church's Orphan Ministry but the one request I have heard from them--to babysit a boy during the daytime--I could not meet because of work.
In my perfect world, I would love it if I was good friends with a family that had foster kids. That way they could help us get connected. Of course I sound dumb saying that and of course taking initiative is key. I guess what I saying is that I would like support in doing this with people who are already plugged in.
14. Jeff said the following at 3:48 PM on Oct 31:
I'd like to hear what all of you think would happen if abortion was actually banned in America. Completely and totally banned; punishable by a life-sentence in prison for the person who performed the surgery as well as the woman who asked for it, or whatever punishment you would think is appropriate.
Would abortion actually cease to exist, or would procedures be secretly carried out in the back rooms of clinics across the country? As I understand it, this has the potential to be even more destructive than the current mass murder of innocent children. The creation of an Abortion Underground would put the lives of countless women and young girls at risk, in addition to killing the unborn babies.
Abortion is completely evil, but it is something that has been practiced for thousands of years. What we need is to educate people on the very real emotional and physical consequences of abortion, as well as informing them of the joy that a newborn child can bring to an adoptive parent. I would fully support legislation that mandates counseling for those seeking an abortion. I just don't think it is physically possible to completely eliminate it from our society.
15. DannieA said the following at 3:50 PM on Oct 31:
#3 (Rose)
as I told Ted, because I have replied to him through the line recently today...
let's discuss positives and get people into healthy state of minds to help people in abortion minded situations NOT to get abortions.
You stated people who say they are prolife should step into the social services department...well hello, guess what I am doing right now? Stepping in there and starting the process.
I think I'm tired of hearing negative comments against being prolife, BUT I would like for us to become excited about positive things we can do to urge mothers to choose life...via volunteering at a crisis center, looking at foster/adoption, becoming so well educated on local resources that you could hand walk a person with an unwanted pregnancy through it etc.
16. Texas Craig said the following at 4:00 PM on Oct 31:
As much as I respect the pro-life position, I think it is a gross distortion of scripture to try to characterize those whose lives are to be taken by abortion as "orphans." Seriously, there is no tenable usage I can see in scripture or in common English usage that would allow such a strained interpretation of the word.
So, while we should fight for the rights of the "least of us," let's not lose credibility by attempting to shoehorn a view into something it is not.
17. Ted Slater said the following at 4:07 PM on Oct 31:
Jeff, you wrote, "Abortion is completely evil, but...."
Hm. That "but" is troubling.
A couple of things: Nobody I know is wanting to ban abortion in all instances. Just as killing someone outside the womb is sometimes permissible, in the case of self-defense, for example, similarly killing someone inside the womb may be permissible, in the case of self-defense, for example.
Second, I'm not sure how making pre-birth murder illegal would be "even more destructive than the current mass murder of innocent children." Are you saying that by outlawing it in most cases, more people would in fact die as a result?
Finally, I'm in favor of a "both-and" policy on abortion. It doesn't need to be "either-or." I'm for *both* pro-life counseling *and* for anti-murder legislation.
18. Jo said the following at 4:25 PM on Oct 31:
I asked this in one of the other 97 abortion threads - there were a lot of comments there so mine probably got lost, but I'd really like some answers from those of you who vote Republican based purely on the abortion issue.
If both Democrats and Republicans put forward candidates who were 'pro-choice', where would your vote go then?
19. Jo said the following at 4:27 PM on Oct 31:
PS It's true that certain political issues are 'cool', but it doesn't follow that anyone who supports those issues is concerned only with what's cool and not with what they actually believe to be right.
20. Bethany Pledge Erickson said the following at 5:05 PM on Oct 31:
Matthew #7 -
THANK YOU. John Piper's thoughts were wonderful, a great encouragement to remember the Sovereign Lord. Thanks for referring me to it.
21. karen said the following at 6:06 PM on Oct 31:
so then, Ted, under what circumstances would it be okay to have an abortion- what do you mean by self-defense?
22. Ariana said the following at 6:24 PM on Oct 31:
Texas Craig (#16) got it completely right. Since there are actual widows and orphans in our society, the type that James was referring to, why not use that verse to tune people into policies about them?
And if, based on the James verse, there should be policies which protect the unborn, shouldn't there be other social policies in effect which protect the elderly, the orphaned, and the otherwise destitute in our society?
I think it does a severe disservice to the millions of abandoned children in our society to take a biblical mandate which points us to care for them and make it about the unborn. I think that it would reasonably appear to many "liberal" outsiders that that is another way of avoiding having to sacrificially care for the people that are actually present among you.
23. Ariana said the following at 6:48 PM on Oct 31:
Question: Is this blog or Gary Thomas actually suggesting that the reason that many, if not most, individuals care about AIDS or civil conflict or poverty is because it's "cool"?
The contrast serves the purpose of the article, but I am positive that it does not accurately speak to what is motivating the hearts of this generation.
Those aforementioned "cool" issues are those with which the Lord is immensely concerned. I am pro-life, but I would have a much easier time creating a list of biblical references encouraging us to take care of the poor, the sick, the needy (those which are actually living among us), and which speak of promises of peace, than I could in finding those which enjoin us to protect the life of the unborn.
Continue to preach a pro-life message. But be careful not to begin denigrating what the Lord Himself has clearly deemed important.
24. Gordon Hackman said the following at 8:19 PM on Oct 31:
I frequently dislike and disagree with the positions taken by this site, but I really appreciate this one. Abortion is the big issue for me and I haven't heard any compelling arguments as to why it shouldn't be.
25. Tara said the following at 12:01 AM on Nov 1:
I still don't get how being "pro-life" is political. But that's just me. :/
I know that in the political sphere "pro-life" means anti-abortion but really, doesn't it mean caring about all human life? I'm pro people being allowed to be born and live healthy, productive lives with a good dose of love.
Aborted fetuses might not be "orphans" but they are murder victims. No political jargon or semantics intended.
26. Esther said the following at 8:48 AM on Nov 1:
For those who are upset by Gary's assertion that he believes that we will be judged based on our actions towards the unborn, I would like to remind you that we need to remember that there is truth, there are consequences to our actions, and while He is merciful, God is also just and holy. Who will speak for and demand justice for the souls of these children, if it is not their Creator? In the same way that justice will be demanded for those innocents killed in genocides around the world (though little is done now), my faith in a just and holy God assures me that no life taken in violence and unlove will be forgotten and unaccounted for.
27. Melanie T said the following at 2:17 PM on Nov 1:
As I was reading this article this afternoon, I was reminded of a conversation that I had with a relative just yesterday regarding abortion and the upcoming election. As a Christian, I think that a person's stand on abortion is quite possibly the most important issue. If you are ok with someone destroying a life that God felt was good enough to create, then, in my opinion, you will not get my vote. I was one of "those people" who got pregnant unexpentantly. It wasn't a convenient time in my life. I had just graduated from college, and recently moved from PA to VA to begin my first year teaching. It definitely wasn't what I was wanting, but I never thought of destroying the life that God had created inside of me. I guess that's because I understood that God doesn't make mistakes. I got married, and 6 months later my son was born. My son is now 3 years old, and he's a wonderful blessing. I can't imagine my life without having him in my life. I understand that an unexpected pregnancy can really throw you for a loop. That's why Christians need to be out there to help these girls when they feel like there's no other alternative -- provide counseling, have them talk to other women who've experienced abortions, becoming informed of agencies like crisis pregnancy centers that can help these girls get through their situation.
28. Jeff said the following at 3:44 PM on Nov 1:
Hey Ted,
That "but" really is troubling, you're right. I guess I'm trying to understand abortion in terms of past historical issues that our country has been faced with.
While writing my original comment, I was connecting it with alcohol in the era of Prohibition. That treatment of alcohol was clearly not the correct way to take and resulted in a bigger mess than the country was previously faced with.
I suppose abortion could also be understood alongside slavery. In that instance, abolishing slavery was absolutely the right thing to do. We could not stand alongside and call for slave-owners to be better educated so they would treat their slaves better and, one day, give up their rights to owning slaves at all; the whole practice had to be abolished.
So what is the better way to understand abortion? How would a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy (and thus in a very fragile state of mind) react when abortion is illegal, but still found in the back alleys of our society?
I guess I'm just afraid that the official abolition of abortion would not prevent abortions from happening, but would simply force them out of the operating rooms where they currently occur and into the arms of unsavory characters with unsanitary instruments and procedures. (Not to imply that the current procedures aren't disgusting, they simply provide a lower risk of physical harm to come to the woman.)
29. Jeff said the following at 3:48 PM on Nov 1:
And yes, I am worried that "by outlawing it in most cases, more people would in fact die as a result". Maybe I just don't trust people to abide by the law as much as others do.
30. Candice said the following at 6:15 PM on Nov 1:
A few years ago I read articles from this website a lot - like multiple times a week. I really enjoyed it. However, I slowly stopped and eventually forgot about it. Recently, a friend of mine has been referencing multiple articles from this site in conversation and even quotes and links articles in her blog. Bringing it to mind brought me here tonight (when I should be studying for my exam on Wednesday).
I must say, I am pretty shocked at what I found. Almost everything on your site was a pro-life message. Those are the things she was quoting but it never occurred to me that it was all I would find if I went here. I used to read articles on dating, relationships, living godly in this world, movies, etc. The occasional article on abortion would appear and I would generally avoid it.
I have had abortions myself. They were prior to my salvation and wounded me deeply. I am pro-life and I would even go so far as to accept the non-P.C. term the pro-choice camp throws out to say I am absolutely anti-abortion. My own choices and the consequences from them made me that way.
However, since I have become a Christian I have found that so many people who hate abortion forget that the mother is a soul, too. In fact, although I do not hide my abortions if asked, I also do not advertise them because of the hatred from CHRISTIANS. Loving others includes loving the woman, too. A lot of Christians forget that.
The authors of the articles I have read tonight appear to have forgotten that. They hate abortion (and rightly so) but do not separate their hate from the practice of abortion and the confused, deceived, rebellious, lost soul of the woman and man involved in the sin.
I, too, want to see abortion outlawed, but I wish it was talked of with care for the wounded. Your articles hurt me. Granted, I am sensitive in this area, but Jesus came to bind the brokenhearted, not to crush the small flame of hope they desperately cling to.
Please try to remember there are hearts involved. You cannot imagine the pain and loss unless you have been there.
31. Lauren T. said the following at 7:11 PM on Nov 1:
To Jeff #14:
The pro-life position says that abortion is actual murder. Therefore, we want it to be treated as murder.
We have outlawed murder, but it happens all the time, often at some danger to the murderer. Should we make it legal because of all the risks the murderer runs?
I know it seems very harsh to look at a mother aborting her baby as a murderer and I truly do recognize that there are people in tough positions and that's why they even consider killing their babies.
However, the fact that the baby's life is taken makes the one who takes it a murderer.
I believe it's a false argument to say that the murder should be sanctioned because to make it illegal would put a potential murderer at risk.
32. Karen said the following at 8:05 PM on Nov 1:
#14, murder is illegal. That doesn't stop it from happening every day, but it is still wrong. But the fact that it is illegal very possibly does deter some from murdering people whom they'd like to murder for fear of punishment and the public shame that would occur if they were caught. Thus, outlawing murder has probably saved many lives, even though some have chosen to break the law and other lives have been lost. Just because some choose to break the law doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and say that since the law doesn't work in all cases then it shouldn't be a law.
33. Melinda said the following at 10:09 PM on Nov 1:
For the past year my heart has really been for orphans and adoption... I've even decided to look into pursuing social services for my master's degree when I graduate in May. I've been thinking a lot about how American Christians claim to care. We sing songs like, "For the children around the world without a home, say a prayer tonight." And rightly should we pray for them. but if we pray for them and nobody does anything to actually help them, what good does that do? I think we use prayer as an excuse to not act, to stay in our comfortable little boxes and say that "God is in control now." Yes, He is, but what does He call His people to do? Certainly not to stay where they are and ignore the children crying themselves to sleep because they feel unloved.
If you get a chance, you should listen to Steven Curtis Chapman's "All I Really Want for Christmas", about Christmas from the perspective of a child awaiting a family and just wants "someone to tuck me in."
We Christians, myself included, get so excited and avid about fighting for the lives of the unborn children. They are precious! Priceless! Created in the image of God! But what to we do to fight for the lives, the souls, the well-being of the children who have already been born? they are hurting all over the world. We have things we can do- mentor, foster, adopt, etc. But will we do it? It is a questions each of us must answer for ourselves.
34. Texas Craig said the following at 11:14 PM on Nov 1:
For everyone who feels so strongly about abortion, I would be interested in hearing what you are doing to fight it. Does it simply involve voting for certain candidates? If not, what more does it involve?
We honor those who operated the underground railroad to free slaves (which violated the law of man), and we honor those who engaged in civil disobedience for civil rights (which violated the law of man), and we honor those who hid the Jews in WW II (which violated the law of man), and we honor those who face persecution by the government in foreign lands to share the gospel (which often violates the laws of those lands), but very few engage in that civil disobedience here on the issue of abortion. Yet, they argue so vociferously about how passionate they are about the issue. It seems like a disconnect to me. I am honestly not trying to be argumentative, but I would love to hear explanations from those who feel so passionately about the issue what they are actually doing to put that passion into action to stop any single abortion from taking place.
35. Michelle said the following at 6:36 AM on Nov 2:
Re: the part where Gary says God will judge those who support abortion. There are a lot of things the Bible calls sin where we all fall short, and if we have to be righteous on our own, then we're lost. I'm glad God is full of grace to us sinners. But I'm also concerned that I will be judged for things like not offering food to the hungry, clothes to the naked, or not visiting people in prison. Sure, I give money to poverty-alleviating ministries once in awhile, but certainly I could do more. Like, actually get involved in the lives of hurting people. When I read Matthew 25, it sounds like at the time of judgment, God is going to say to me, "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Yikes!
What I'm trying to say is that abortion is not the only sin out there, and being fixated on abortion can cause us to miss other areas where God wants us to do his work. I want to see the abortion rate fall in this country, and I also want to promote a whole-life ethic where those kids at Gary's kids' school who get free lunch can be better prepared to face adulthood so they can escape the poverty cycle.
It seems to me that this whole abortion "debate" isn't really a debate anymore. Most people have already made up their minds. Ha, if that's true, why I am even posting this? :)
36. Jenny said the following at 11:18 AM on Nov 2:
One way to help orphans is by volunteering as a CASA - Court Appointed Special Advocate - for children in foster care. Volunteers are assigned children and act as the child's voice in court. I know in my county there are about 100 children waiting for volunteers; probably not much different anywhere else...
37. IMO said the following at 8:34 PM on Nov 2:
Texas Craig said, "For everyone who feels so strongly about abortion, I would be interested in hearing what you are doing to fight it. Does it simply involve voting for certain candidates? If not, what more does it involve?"
You make very good points. And I appreciate the challenge you bring to thinking about how to live out our beliefs. Good food for thought. And hope it leads to action.
38. Charles T said the following at 10:57 PM on Nov 2:
@Ted #17
You said, "Just as killing someone outside the womb is sometimes permissible, in the case of self-defense, for example, similarly killing someone inside the womb may be permissible, in the case of self-defense, for example."
I'm sorry, but for the life of me I cannot see any instance where an abortion could be considered self-defense. I mean, "killing in self-defense" implies that someone else is deliberately trying to kill you, and children in utero simply can't do that.
If I interpret correctly you were refering to an instance where carrying the child to term could endanger the mothers life?
Is that an acceptable reason to take a life? If that is acceptable, how then do we draw the line and say that it is wrong to take the life of a four year old to save a parent's life?
When does that life become priceless?
I'm not married, but I can imagine the horror of being told by a doctor that I would have to choose between my wife and our unborn child.
But I don't see a choice, who am I to tell the God that saw fit to create that life that the price is too high?
Would that be an easy road to walk? No, absolutely not, that would be a hard road to walk indeed.
But wouldn't refusing to walk it show a complete lack of faith in the power, love, and mercy of my God?
I don't know about you, but most of the parents I know would give their lives so their children might live.
p.s.
Good post, I agree with Gary that unborn children whose parents plan to murder are orphans, I'd never thought about it that way but it makes sense. Since in basic terms an orphan is one who has no one to care for him/her and the parents are refusing to do such.
39. Jeff said the following at 11:13 PM on Nov 2:
I've done some more thinking on the whole abolition of abortion issue. I now think that legislation against the widespread practice of abortion could work, but only if the availability of crisis pregnancy centers was greatly increased throughout our nation. These centers need to replace the abortion clinic as the first place that a terrified woman thinks of going when she learns that a baby is growing inside her. Monthly counseling would need to be readily available to each of them. Social programs would also need to be adequately prepared to handle the influx of new life that would arrive unsupported by any traditional family structure.
But implementing this idea would take decades, time during which many more abortions would occur. I think that the above idea would be the smoothest and most ideal transition if we were prepared for it today, but it is discouraging that we are so far away from it.
I keep coming back to the abolition of slavery parallel in my mind. In that time, the Emancipation Proclamation was relatively sudden and severe, and not many were mentally prepared for its consequences. Slaves were officially free, but they and their descendants suffered and continue to suffer under heavy racist attitudes. But maybe it would have taken just as long to mentally prepare the whites to accept slaves as neighbors and friends.
I guess I'm trying to make it clear that, even if abortion were abolished today, we, as well as the children saved from death, would face many abortion-related societal difficulties. Personally, I think the most effective thing to do right now is to petition local representatives to ask for more funds for local crisis pregnancy centers.
40. Emmi said the following at 11:18 PM on Nov 2:
Lisa (#4) - I agree with you. I feel like Boundless has taken on a somewhat unsettling tone toward its readers in this election season.
Why do some Boundless writers assume that our demographic cares about issues in addition to the legality of abortion only because we desire to be "cool" and not because we are trying to be genuine, critical thinking, Bible believing, loving Christians?
Divorce is legal in this country and reaching alarming levels, and we have to work hard to preserve marriages, especially within the Church.
Even if abortion stays legal in this country, we will still have to work hard to preserve the lives of these children-to-be and support the families into which they are born, especially within the Church.
No matter the outcome of November 4th, we will continue to live in relationship with one another within the Church and go about our daily lives in a world where we are Love Ambassadors, to the glory of God. I recently read a great quote by John Burnett: "The secular counterpart of the Church is the hospital, not the courtroom".
Thank God that He campaigns for our heart -- not our vote.
41. alex said the following at 11:38 PM on Nov 2:
Jeff #14, you are right.
As a woman who has had a VERY liberal secular education and an ultra conservative religious upbringing (Btw, don't anybody on this post do that to your children. If you are going to screw with their heads just do it in one direction, not two!), I am more aware than most of the role that abortion has had throughout history, and it is true that it is life threatening for the mother(heaven forbid!!!) when practiced outside of a doctor's office. It is also true that it has been practiced WIDELY (yes, I said widely) along with infanticide for many thousands of years. However, that does not make it right. Moreover, abortion in and of itself is dangerous not only for the unborn child but also for the mother whatever vulgar and horrific methods are used. I could go into it further but it would take FOREVER. I strongly urge those interested in fighting abortion to do actual reasearch outside of the Christian mags on the side effects of abortion on the mother. We as a society are lying to a whole generation of young women, pretending to protect their equality of life (to which they are entitled) when we are actually promoting something that is so incredibly dangerous to both the mother and the child. Moreover, whatever 'freedom' Roe v Wade may have supposedly protected in the past (which does not excuse it's existence and SPECIFICALLY affronts the most basic interpretation of the freedoms protected in our constitution), the statistics on who actually makes the abortion decision are frightening. Women and young girls are being forced or manipulated into having abortions when they should be able to enjoy life with their baby and the support of their families. Having children is one of the greatest privileges a woman can ever have and that responsibility is being STOLEN by many men and completely crazy if well-meaning older women in our society.
42. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:40 AM on Nov 3:
#14 Jeff,
The creation of an Abortion Underground would put the lives of countless women and young girls at risk, in addition to killing the unborn babies.
What seems to be a widely held misconception about illegal abortion is that legal abortion is safer.
The same people who perform illegal abortions perform legal ones and the risks are just as high.
As someone once said, doctors don't go to school to learn how to kill.
A site (realchoice.blogspot.com) is more focused on fixing the misconception that pre-legalized abortions were carried out by non-medical staff. 90% of all abortion deaths pre-legalization were done by trained medical professionals.
And if you think medical professionals are better trained nowadays, I ask you why do we have an Act out there protecting the rights of Born Alive Infants after abortions?
43. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:46 AM on Nov 3:
Ted #17,
You said:
"in the case of self-defense, for example, similarly killing someone inside the womb may be permissible, in the case of self-defense, for example."
Did you know that .04% of all abortions are done with legitimate medical reasoning? (I'm getting my information from a pro-life lobbyist's blog who believes that abortion is more dangerous for the mother's life than going through the birth)
Ireland has a ban on abortion and when a mother's life is in danger, ending the pregnancy is not something they do to kill a baby, its something they do to keep the mother alive. And a dead baby is the unfortunate by-product of that action.
Cancer patients that go forward with chemotherapy and medication will "abort" by natural means of going through treatments and the act is more of a "miscarry" than abort.
Ectopic pregnancy complications result in removing a child from outside the mother's uterus to save her life - not to kill the child's. If the child is viable, they attempt to save his life.
Abortions don't do that.
44. Kate said the following at 9:23 AM on Nov 3:
In response to Texas Craig of #16, I just learned a great deal about international adoption from a guest speaker at my school last week... including how a child becomes an "orphan" eligible for adoption in the US.
In general our culturally assumed definition of "orphan" seems to mean a child whose parents and extended family are dead. Certainly children are orphans if this is their situation.
Yet in adoption practice, a child is also considered an orphan if his or her parents/extended family sign that child out of the family legally. That does not necessarily mean the child was not wanted at all, though it can. It also does not mean that the child's family is perpetually unable afford to care for that child, though it often does. In some cases, the parents and family do not know their rights or do not understand that they are giving up their child forever and making him or her an "orphan" separated from a living family. Though these circumstances are part of the backstory of how that child became an "orphan," they do not influence his or her status as an "orphan." A lot of times people do not think of this way of becoming an "orphan" when they think about orphans... so Boundless is not making some kind of inaccurate link between children whose families are dead and children who have been abandoned by their families.
Based on that expanded working definition of "orphan" and Ted's understanding that unborn people have souls and the right to life (which I seem to remember you disagree with, being a long-time reader of this blog), I think it does make sense for him to say that aborted children are orphans, who have immediately died upon becoming orphans.
I'm going to take a crack at starting to understand the Biblical portayal of orphans, though obviously this application would be useless to somebody who does not believe the unborn are people.
In terms of Biblical desriptions of the "orphans" we are supposed to care for according to James 1:27... I suppose one interpretation could be literally "an orphan can only be a child whose parents are dead, therefore I am off the hook when it comes to anyone else 'posing' as an orphan because he's somehow similar to one." I don't know that that would be your interpretation of course. I don't think it makes much sense though (even from a "literalist" perspective) as people can be protected from being spiritual orphans in the sense of Jesus' promise in John 14 not to leave anyone who follows him out of God's presence, guidance, truth, protection etc... and there is also a reference to being orphaned at the begining of Lamentations 5.
If you look for "fatherless" rather than "orphan" you find a lot more references. In that sense you can start to understand the "characterization" of orphan/fatherless and widow (they are frequently mentioned together) as somebody who is abandoned, without protection, without the help and support needed to survive, wrongly ignored by believers and thus openly left to harm/exploitation by unscrupulous people, and that sort of thing. That is basically the story of aborted children, minus the required immediate death part of their circumstance and the fact they they never saw the world or met any other people alive.
Have you any references to scripture that suggests somehow that this characterization is not consistent with the circumstance of the unborn... or that somehow their special and additional conditions negate or fundamentally change the rest of the circumstances?
45. Kate said the following at 9:38 AM on Nov 3:
In response to Texas Craig's other comment #30, I fully agree that there is a need for access to support and care for desperate, pregnant women who do not want to be mothers, and very low awareness of and connection to the options and resources that do exist. People adopt and do foster care. People do care for and provide resources to women with unwanted pregnancies. Agencies try to provide access to birth control and sex education. People may not see parents taking care of the unwanted child of their young daughter as "abortion prevention" particularly because it is done by her family and because it's done privately by individuals. Sure pro-life people may not do "enough" to completely enable every last woman to comfortably bear her child, but I'm not sure if that is even a feasible goal.
Just as it's important not to discount the pressures and challenges faced by a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, it's important not to discount the complexity of trying to help them.
I think a lot of the problem with the disconnect between need and care is related to stigma as well as social separation between those who might help and those who need help (kind of like other things such as poverty or domestic violence). I don't know any women in my personal social network dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. I'm sure some of them have and I would have helped them evaluate options and with practical assistance had I known.
But is it socially acceptable for a pregnant woman without resources to ask for or even cry out for help & support from private citizens if she does not receive it from her family? Um, I'd say no. She has to keep it private and get the abortion, or go through the appropriate official channels to find that help she needs from social service agencies on her own. It's complicated for her to start the process of applying for welfare, finding assistance with medical expenses, finding a place to take the baby for adoption, and all the other things she'd have to do on her own. Increasing these services would be good, but if women don't have a personal advocate to help and support her in accessing them, I'm not sure how many women it would help. Yet if private citizens would like to help women personally and individually with this stuff, how can they if they don't know which individuals need help or if the individuals don't want help?
I'm not sure what civilly disobient actions comparing to what you described above would look like in relation to abortion. You can't be suggesting kidnapping and holding pregnant women who would get abortions for months in order to prevent them from ending their pregnancies? Sitting in front of abortion clinics in such mass numbers that people could not get inside to get them done? I can see why you are suggesting the need for such action but the nature of unborn being inside another body complicates things in terms of trying to "hide" unborn babies and keep them away from those who would harm them. Did you have anything in mind?
46. Texas Craig said the following at 11:58 AM on Nov 3:
Kate (#44):
I appreciate your thoughtful response. I still disagree with the conclusion that a life to be aborted is to be considered an orphan simply because they are like children who have been abandoned by their parents. Widows, too, may be like orphans (in that they have no one to care for them), but that does not make them orphans.
To me, there are many biblical categories that a life to be aborted might arguably fall into (e.g., the oppressed, the weak, the least of us), but calling them orphans stretches the meaning of the word. The term orphan is applied after the child has lost a parent or been abandoned, not before. Up until the abortion has occurred, the parent has done nothing to actually abandon the child. It is the abortion itself that causes the abandonment. In the same way, a child who has a parent that is going to die from some terminal illness is not an orphan prior to the parent's death, only after.
So, while abortion may constitute a total parental abandonment, that does not make the child an "orphan" prior to it happening. Of course, after it happens, the child is not alive, so the term orphan has no meaning then either.
Using parallels (i.e., an abortion is like "abandonment" which makes the child like an orphan) is what gets us things like "gay marriage." No, marriage is not between two people of the same sex, even if they want to have something similar to what heterosexual couples have. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Similarly, an orphan is a child who has lost parents or has been abandoned, not one who is going to lose parents or is going to be abandoned.
47. Texas Craig said the following at 12:34 PM on Nov 3:
Kate (#45):
I have to walk a thin line in answering your question, because I do want to be perceived as inciting unlawful behavior. My main point is that I hear very "strong words" from those who consider abortion to be pure murder, but I see very little strong action. To me, it is easy to say things, but the proof of our views are borne out by our actions.
I can say that evangelism is important, but if I rarely share the whole gospel with anyone and I only give a little bit of money to evangelism, do I really think that evangelism is that important? I think not. What we really believe is proven by what we do.
So, to me, if abortion is really pure murder, then it would demand passionate action. While I am not encouraging any of these behaviors, that could certainly include any number of civilly disobedient acts. Blockading abortion clinics, rigging the election process to ensure pro-life laws are passed, physically stopping a woman from entering an abortion clinic, etc. I could discuss other things, but I do not wish to encourage any improper behavior.
My point is that those who use such strong words and feel so passionately about it should be backing up their words with deeds, and strong deeds to match their strong words. That is called living with conviction.
My guess is that a lot of people will say "well, yes, that sounds good, but it is really is not practical because it will not make that much of a difference. I will just get arrested and nothing will change." Perhaps that is true, but the same could have been said by those in the civil rights movement. But, if you do use that justification, then what difference is there between you and the person who chooses not to vote for a certain candidate because they think it really will not make much of a difference. They may be wrong, just like you may be wrong, about the possible impact of your actions.
Just some food for thought.
48. Ted Slater said the following at 1:26 PM on Nov 3:
I've been asked to clarify what I meant in writing the following:
"Just as killing someone outside the womb is sometimes permissible, in the case of self-defense, for example, similarly killing someone inside the womb may be permissible, in the case of self-defense, for example."
Yes, I was giving my personal opinion about abortion being morally permissible in those cases where a woman's life is in danger if she carries the child to term. I'm not saying that a woman *must* get an abortion if her physician tells her that she may die by going forward with the pregnancy. But I am saying that I do not believe the Lord sees abortion in those rare cases as sinful, something from which to repent and something for which we may be forgiven.
Christina (in green), comment #43, I appreciate your comments; you make some good points. I guess I'm speaking of "abortion" as the medical procedure that brings a pregnancy to an end, with no consideration of the motives for doing so. Pretty broad definition.
49. LouiseinPA said the following at 8:35 PM on Nov 3:
Whatever happened to speaking truth in love? No one has addressed Candice's post and how she feels. I am against abortion, but I think we have to see most women who have abortions as victims and people in need of healing and mercy not condemnation. I'd imagine more people know someone who has had an abortion but is afraid to come forward and receive healing because of the condemnation many Christian give women. Showing mercy and compassion is what Jesus did when he encountered the Samaritan women at the well-a woman whose sins were considered so shameful by other "holy" Jews that they treated her as an outcast. Yet Jesus did not. We should do likewise. Acting as such would do far more to reduce abortions than simply checking a ballot box.
50. LouiseinPA said the following at 9:10 PM on Nov 3:
Just one more point. Statistically, poor women of color are the group most likely to have abortions. I'm not condoning their options, but the fact that women who are vulnerable are more likely to have abortions speaks to the fact that these women often are pushed to have abortions because they feel they have no other options.
51. Bri said the following at 3:14 PM on Nov 4:
A wonderful resource for women and men who are struggling with a past abortion is Rachel's Vineyard. They offer retreats around the country that help in the healing process. Also anyone who is interested in this issue should really check out the speaker's series videos on Femenists for Life's website. One of the speakers is a woman who was raped and decided to carry her child. The other video is a woman who survived a saline abortion. She was adopted by a loving family and has gone on to have a fulfilling life. It is truly an example of God taking something that was meant for bad and turning it to good.
52. Steve Coolbaugh said the following at 10:59 AM on Nov 6:
I appreciate Gary's line-up of pre-born children to the world's orphans, and would agree completely.
However, let us not forget or otherwise lose sight of the orphans here in America. There are perhaps hundreds of thousands of them, and they need God's love, which he chooses to demonstrate through his body. Growing up as a ward of the court, and knowing now that many of my childhood freinds are either dead or in jail, is a terrible loss. while Christ reached me, there are many in homes across the nation that don't know about God and have never seen his love and mercy demonstrated. Let us not forget.