Abortion and the argument of implantation

I've heard pro-abortionists argue that the embryo is not a person until it implants itself on uterus.  The argument generally goes like this: the process from conception to implantation on the wall of the uterus takes several days.  Beyond that, some 20-50% of embryos miscarry prior to implantation.  Once the embryo does implant, it sends out hormones to “signal” its attachment which also ceases the mother’s menstrual cycle.  Therefore, it is ridiculous to think that every embryo is a person.  Therefore, the embryo is not a person.

In response to this decisive moment being the moment when personhood is achieved, we can say a couple of things.  First, if it were universally agreed upon that personhood begins at implantation, then there would hardly be any abortions except for the spontaneous kind, which are also known as miscarriages.  However, personhood is not dependent on other people (in this case, the mother’s body) being aware of it by the hormone signal it produces.   Most people in the world are not aware that I exist; am I therefore not a person?

Second, the essence of the nature of the embryo is not dependent on how many of its kind survive.  Just because a large number of pre-implantation embryos do not survive does not change what it is in its essence.  Those that do miscarry die natural deaths are not being aborted in the same way as is what’s being debated in our country these days.  By the way, 100% of all people die.

Are you really saying that the potentially millions of frozen embryos are real people, just like you and me, with rights?  If so, why aren't you trying to save them?

Yes, I'm saying that.  It doesn't matter how incredulous you feel about the logic of it; what matters is whether the embryo is a person, and in every way that matters (i.e., the embryo is genetically distinct and alive) it is.  This is why I'm against embryonic stem cell research and am alarmed at the cavalier way fertilization treatments make dozens of embryos without ever intending to implant them all.  A pro-life couple can use IVF if they're willing to eventually implant all the embryos made for them (not necessarily all at once) and at least give them the same chance at development as a naturally-conceived embryo.

And in the way in which I'm capable, I am trying to save them by trying to change people's minds about what embryos are: very small, undeveloped human beings, but human beings nonetheless.

The argument of implantation fails to be valid because it defines one's essence by other people's awareness of its existence, and it arbitrarily assigns personhood to whether most of its kind survive.  

Abortion and the Argument of Pain

So I preached a sermon about abortion last Sunday (which you can listen to here).  It's far from perfect, and I feel I left out some important things (such as the effects of abortion on fathers), but the aim was not to attack women; rather, the aim was to attack the arguments used by pro-abortionists, which usually center around the woman and her rights.  Here, and in a few forthcoming entries, I want to state why I do not think any of the most common pro-abortion arguments are valid.  

Let's start with this one, one I recently saw in the comments section of a very edgy Matt Walsh blog article which goes roughly like this: I hear what you pro-lifers are saying, but before a certain point in its development, the fetus cannot even feel pain.  So abortion doesn't even hurt the so-called "baby."  This argument is ridiculous because, as ethicist Scott Rae points out, it confuses the experience of harm with the reality of harm.  If I were paralyzed from the waist down, and you cut off my legs, I would not feel pain, but could we say that there was therefore no harm done?  If I am anesthetized for surgery, and the doctor slips and pokes a hole in my heart, I didn't feel it - did he hurt me or not?  Harm is done when YOU hurt someone; it doesn't matter if they feel it or not.  Hurting someone does not depend on them feeling the pain of the harm done. 

This argument does not answer the question, "Is abortion wrong?"  It answers only the question, "How much pain will the baby feel when she is killed?"  

To which I ask, "Does it matter?"  We need to shift the focus of the discussion away from questions of convenience to questions of essence.  Convenience questions are questions such as is this child wanted?, is the woman/girl ready to be a mother?, will the fetus feel pain?, is the fetus viable?, etc.  Essence questions are is the embryo/fetus a human person or not?, what is the difference between a baby who has completely exited the birth canal and one that has only exited up to its head?, why is the killing of a healthy, 8-month-old fetus justified on the basis of concerns for the mother's health (which is defined arbitrarily by her physician)?

It's all about what the embryo/fetus is.  If it is not a person, then no justification for abortion is necessary.  If it is a person, then no justification is adequate.

"Into this world"

I have an honest question for those who assert that abortion should be allowed at any time before birth (although this question also applies to those who only support abortion up to a certain point) because, if a person doesn't want to, they shouldn't have to "bring a child into this world."  My question is this: isn't the baby already in the world?  Just because you can't see an unborn baby (with the naked eye; you CAN see her with ultrasounds) doesn't mean that she isn't "in the world" already.  They are behind some layers of skin and muscle, not in another dimension.

Christians and Drinking Alcohol

"Can Christians drink?" isn't really the most important question in the wider discussion on "gray areas" of the faith.  "Should Christians drink?" is a better question, because it avoids the unnecessary question of permission (yes, Christians can drink - a little, in moderation, without getting drunk, when it poses no stumbling block for a weaker brother) and moves to the question of benefit: Does social drinking help Christians make friends with/evangelize/become all things to non-Christians?  Does it help, or hinder, our witness for Jesus?

I am of the opinion that it probably doesn't help in most circumstances, and that most people will understand if you politely and non-judgmentally decline to drink (there are a hundred ways to do that without being offensive or snobbish).  Sometimes, though, I do think that it might hinder your witness not to drink.  Case in point: in Albania, where I have been on mission trips three times and have stayed with local families every time, there is a traditional drink of hospitality in the villages called raki.  Raki is basically moonshine, and although I'm not sure what proof it is, it's probably triple digits.  It's disgusting, potent, and a gesture of hospitality and good health to guests.  So if you refuse it, it's insulting to your guest and will hinder their receptivity to anything else you'd say, no matter how loving.  So I drank it, at least a little bit, even in the morning when it was served with my breakfast and Turkish coffee!  When the host would go to another room, I'd pout it out a window or something, but I always tried it.  But does this happen in the same way among Americans?  Probably not: people understand when you say, "No, thank you, I don't drink."

The argument from those who insist on their right to drink is that it breaks down social barriers with friends and acquaintances with whom you are developing a friendship, and it leads to a shared experience in which more openness and honesty is likely.  The argument from those who insist on not drinking is that drinking, even lightly, harms the consciences of those for whom drinking is unconscionable, i.e., it causes them to stumble in their faith.  Further, they argue that drinking blurs the line between being in the world but not of the world.

Jesus, as he often does, blurs modern distinctions.  He turned water into wine for a friend's wedding feast.  He was accused of being a drunkard (probably an accusation you can't earn without ever taking a drink), and he hung out with drunkards and other "sinners."  Most Christians know that what the New Testament condemns is drunkenness, not drinking.  In fact, in one place, the apostle Paul urges his disciple Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach (1 Tim. 5:23).  I believe the best place for us to turn is Romans 14 and 1 Cor.8.  Interestingly, the discussion at the time wasn't alcohol, but meat sacrificed to idols.

Romans 14:1-3, 15-23  Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.  2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.  3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. . . .  15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.  16 Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.  17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,  18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.  19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.  20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.  21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.  22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.  23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.  

1 Corinthians 8:8-13  8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.  9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.  10 For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols?  11 So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge.  12 When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.  13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

But there's also 1 Corinthians 9:19-23: 

19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.  20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.  21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law.  22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.  23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

An important question to ask about 1 Cor. 9:19-23 is in what way did Paul become like the ______?  In their drinking?  The text does not specify.  I don't think we can confidently stand on this passage to justify social drinking for the sake of evangelism.

Do I think it's wrong for a Christian to socially (and very moderately) drink?  No.  Do I drink?  Almost never.  If some friends invited me to go to the bar with them, and there was no schedule/family time conflict preventing me, I'd probably go and drink Dr. Pepper and enjoy the company of my friends.

But however you feel on this issue, we shouldn't only share the gospel with people when they are comfortable, on their turf, and loosened up by a couple of drinks.  Let's share Christ at work, at the gym, with the daycare staff, with the server at the restaurant (extreme politeness and big tips), with the customer service agent, etc.  And if you do drink with your non-Christian friends, don't forget to tell them about Jesus.

On Homosexuality and Cherry Picking the Bible

I want to pass along a helpful article by Tim Keller, a pastor and writer I'm appreciating more and more.  He is the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City (which is not exactly the easiest place to be a conservative evangelical!).  In the article he takes on a common accusation leveled against Christians who say homosexuality is a sin: because you say you believe the Bible, and because the Old Testament says to execute those who engage in homosexual sex, then why don't you still obey those laws?  Why pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will obey and which you will not?

His treatment is good because he understands the concept that while we do believe the Bible is true, some truths (read: commands) have an expiration date because the kind of relationship God has with the church is very different from the kind of relationship God had with Israel.  The nature of God's relationship with "his people" is fundamentally different after Jesus.  We call this the "new covenant" (which, by the way, is what "New Testament" means).

I'm Confused

On an ESPN show, Outside the Lines, Chris Broussard said some strong things in the midst of the recent coming out of NBA player Jason Collins.  He says a lot of other things which are quite neutral, especially when you find out where he's coming from as a Christian.  Here are his "controversial" remarks:

 What I'm confused about is this: why is it that when a gay person stands up for their beliefs and lifestyle, it is courageous, but when anyone who disagrees (regardless of religion, but it seems to be evangelical Christians who get the most heat for it) stands up for their beliefs and lifestyle, they are hateful bigots?  Some tolerance you got there!  Just because LBGTs say the Bible

There is a lot more to this interview than this snippet allows.  I encourage you to watch the whole exchange (which is 13 minutes long and also features openly gay reporter LZ Granderson), which you can find here.  Granderson believes he is a Christian, though his primary argument is political, not theological: you [Christians] say we are sinners because we have sex outside of marriage, yet you don't want us to get married, so "a brother's gotta do what a brother's gotta do" (his words).

No, a person (gay or straight) doesn't "gotta do what a [person's] gotta do."  There is no absolute NEED to have sex; it is a desire, not a need.  Your survival as an individual does not depend on having sex.  Many people live celibate and happy lives.  God's will is for sex to be in the context of marriage alone, and in heterosexual marriage specifically.  If you are gay and a Christian, then that means you willingly become celibate because loving and obeying Jesus ought to be more important than your lust.  There are a lot worse things that can happen to a person than celibacy.

Interestingly, Jason Collins was phoned by President Obama, tweeted by Michelle Obama, and is being hailed all over the country as a hero.  Because he's gay.  And a pro athlete.  Meanwhile, hundreds of soldiers have died for this country under Obama's watch, and how many surviving families get a phone call?  How many slain law enforcement officers' families get a phone call?  I thought LBGTs wanted to be treated like everyone else.  If that's so, then announcing your sexual orientation ought to receive as much fanfare as a straight NBA player announcing his sexual orientation.

I understand that culturally we have come/drifted a long way, and that this is becoming more common (I didn't say "normal.").  Frankly, I don't really care if someone's sexual temptation comes from the opposite gender or the same; what matters is holiness and obedience to the gospel of Christ, part of which is reserving sexual activity for marriage as defined by the Bible.  Is this hate speech, or understanding what the Bible says?  Why is it "intolerant" and "hateful" for Christians to affirm what the Bible says and not blindly accept all statements as harmless truth, yet to spew oceans of vile venom about how hateful Christians are is okay, even celebrated?  "Way to go, you tell those hateful SOBs how much they deserve to die a painful death and rot in a shameful afterlife!  They are so bigoted and backward because they don't agree with us!  We are so progressive, fashionable, and enlightened because we don't agree with them!"

Since when did "The Bible does not teach ______" become hate-filled bigotry, while laughingly belittling and bullying Christians (who do not believe that homosexuality is a mortal sin) is championing civil rights?  We Christians hear this a lot (though not this clearly): "you need to learn tolerance, you backwards, superstitious, hateful, archaic, irrelevant imbeciles!"  Maybe if we had a good example of tolerance...

And when the LBGT-friendly community actually does try to speak with Christians about this issue in an irenic way, it still reeks of a superiority complex:

LBGTFriendly: we need to have this conversation, we need to come together and talk about this in a peaceful way.

Christian: I agree.

LBGTF: I'm a Christian, too, and I believe God is love.

Christian: OK, but he's not love alone.  He is also holy and righteous and wrathful...

LBGTF: That's your interpretation, and what we need is a tolerant, peaceful discussion.

Christian: I'm trying to do that, but your interpretation of the nature of God is flawed and limited.

L: It's this kind of narrow-mindedness that is stalling this conversation from moving forward.

C: You mean, like, trying to figure out what the Bible actually says?

L: Look, I know I'm a Christian.  Jesus tells me so.

C: Where does Jesus tell you it's okay to be sexually active outside of marriage?

L: I don't appreciate your tone.  I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation with you and you keep offending me with your narrow interpretation and insensitivity.

C: Look, the Bible clearly calls homosexual sex sin.

L: I don't appreciate being judged.  God is my judge, not you.

C: Judging and telling the truth are two different things.  Judging means you are pronouncing a person's eternal destiny and standing before God.  Calling something you do a sin doesn't necessarily mean you're going to hell for it.

L: I'm disappointed by your words - they are hurtful and sound judgmental.  What's lacking here is respect and tolerance for different viewpoints.

C: No, I'm tolerating you just fine.  Tolerating someone does not mean accepting everything they say as true; that wouldn't be tolerance anymore. 

L: I'm sad that you aren't on the right side of history.  I feel sorry for you.

C: There's no way to win here, is there?

L: No.

One of these two is a hero for standing up for what he believes in (even though he claims to accept everyone's beliefs . . . except those that oppose his), and one is ignorant and prejudiced.

I'm confused.

On Saving Lives

I can't even begin to imagine what it was like inside of Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14th last year.  The whole thing should never have happened, and everyone agrees that it was a horrible tragedy.  That being said, I hope what I'm about to say doesn't sound callous or disrespectful to the families suffering after the shooting.

There is another tragedy occurring every day in America, and it, too, involves precious children.  According to the Guttmacher Institute, there have been over 50,000,000 induced abortions (not counting spontaneous abortions, aka miscarriages) between 1973-2008.  

However you look at it, that's an unbelievable amount of people, more than the populations of Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming combined.  How many scientists, consumers, doctors, artists, inventors, writers, poets, future Presidents, innovators, communicators, etc. have been lost to abortion?  

Remember, what is conceived is from the moment of conception a genetically independent human being.  All that is required for the embryo to become an infant/toddler/kid/teen/adult/elderly person is time and food.  The difference between an adult and a toddler is development and age.  The difference between a toddler and a newborn is development and age.  The difference between a newborn and an embryo is development and age, not anything genetic.  Yet it is legal to kill a baby before she is born because of some arbitrary and subjective definition of viability says the human embryo/fetus is not really human until it completely exits the mother's body.  According to this logic, the older you are, the more human you are, and the more worthy of life you are.  So the elderly are the most deserving of life, and babies and toddlers are the least deserving of life.  Does this not sound insane?

Abortion will never cease to be about the baby.  A woman's body and choice are secondary to the legal status of the human offspring growing inside of her.  The most dangerous place in the world for a child to be is inside of her mother, statistically speaking. 

Can't we all just get along? and other worthless sentimentality

I notice bumper stickers.  Sometimes they are funny, sometimes they try to be powerful and inspiring but end up being hokey ("God is my co-pilot" anyone?), but usually, they are lame.  Christians have cornered the market on this:

These are indeed classics, but we Christians aren't the only ones:

"What's wrong with the "coexist" bumper sticker?  It's simply a statement of what is happening every day that "we all" continue to exist on the same planet at the same time: we coexist.  What it's trying to say is "all religions ought to coexist peacefully, respectfully, and ought not to criticize the adherents of other religions or their beliefs and practices."  

Then there's this, which is a little harsh and oversimplified (not to mention fast and loose with stereotypes)...

This one proves the point I'm getting at.  Does anyone who knows anything about these religions really believe that peaceful, argument-free coexistence is possible?  Different religions are not different roads to the same place.  They drastically contradict each other on foundational beliefs.  I offer this quote from Steve Turner, speaking about modern culture: "We believe that all religions are basically the same; at least the ones we read were.  They all believe in love and goodness.  They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation."  

There is nothing wrong with discussing and arguing (not in a hot-tempered or hateful way) about differences in beliefs, evidences for the truthfulness or superiority of one's beliefs, and why someone else's beliefs are wrong or impractical.  The WAY we discuss and argue matters, though.  Christians are to speak the truth in love; we are to let our conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so we will know how to answer everyone, and we are supposed to be ready to defend our faith with gentleness and respect (see Ephesians 4:15; Colossians 4:6; and 1 Peter 3:15).

So, can't we all just get along?  No, we can't, if "getting along" means blindly accepting everyone's beliefs as true and equally valid, even if they're patently contradictory, having to like and embrace other "truths" like "all religions are roads to God," and being forced to accept the redefined notion of tolerance, which has come to be synonymous with uncritical acceptance.  We can't get along, and we shouldn't.  Would you say that all politicians should coexist and tolerate each other's ideas for leading the country?  All politics are just different roads to saving America, aren't they?  They're all equally valid and you shouldn't criticize their teachings or practices, right?

We don't think politicians can pull this off.  Why, then, do we think that religious beliefs, which most sincere followers will say is more important than politics, can?