This ad ran after the debate in a few select locations…
This is one of the most powerful arguments I’ve seen on the issue or heard and it’s a tremendous example of the power of testimony.
We typically see this issue as an either/or sort of thing – it’s either life or death; it’s either choice (liberty) or governmental restrictions; it’s either murder or protecting the unborn. Is there a way to see this question as a both/and? Is there a middle ground that takes the life of the unborn in to consideration as well as the emotional/physical/wholeness of the mother also?
With fear of stirring up a hornet’s nest I ask the question anyways… what are you thoughts? But more importantly, what should the church’s response to this question be?
Related posts:
- Pro-Lifers should be out in force for this one…
- Shiavo…what is life?
- homo-evangelicals = emergent.
- the west wing.
- OH ME! OH LIFE!
sometimes I wish the world weren’t so complex… that’d make it a whole lot easier to answer the question…
I respond with both sympathy and cynicism.
Sypathetically, yes, the issues of rape and incest are gut-wrenching issues when it comes to the abortion debate. Intellectually, you can argue that it wasn’t the babies fault that he is a bastard conceived of a rape, but emotionally, that case is harder to make when looking into a woman’s eyes.
I can’t help but be a little cynical as well. Maybe it is an unfair assessment, but I see a girl who is being exploited further for political gain. Abortion rights advocates have always been using this particular slippery slope argument on this issue – that is why they support partial birth abortions which are just an abomination – because any retraction of abortion rights will eventually lead to a loss of all abortion rights.
It is an effective ad campaign – “Mean old Sarah Palin wants to force me to have this child” (as if Palin is running for president) – but it is effective for its emotional appeal, not its logical appeal. I know that doesn’t answer the good question that you asked, but this is just my “off-the-cuff” response.
With your preface, I’m not sure what I was expecting. But, the ad wasn’t convincing to me at all. In fact, I was half-expecting this to end up a pro-life ad at the end – with the girl’s “I didn’t have a choice” reflecting the unborn child’s lack of choice or something.
Isn’t this really a biological question? If it’s not a life, end of story? Who cares if you get rid of it?
If it IS a life, then the circumstances of how the child was conceived, as traumatic as they may be, should have no affect on the child’s human rights.
I just keep watching the sky, listening for a trumpet…
I feel for the girl, but Sarah Palin is not running for president.
However, I’ll be saying near the exact same thing that she is saying if the democratic-proposed health plan is implimented.
I have been raped. And now I have to pay for it. And Obama won’t let me stop.
regardless, perfect view, Andy…
monts,
thank you for posting this. i hadn’t seen this add. also, i appreciate the questions you raise regarding what the church’s response should be. i would like to say that the church should respond with peace, grace, mercy and love. but how that would look specifically i do not know. yes, this girl has been severely traumatized. what has happened to her is horrendous. but does that mean the little one conceived within her is to be discarded like trash? yes, this girl was hurt, but how far do we allow the pain to spread? at some point we have to stop the bloodletting and hope that God can work good out of even the worst of tragedies. and through his son Jesus, i would say that he did. maybe the people of the church should step up to the plate and start offering to adopt these innocent victims. also, maybe we could provide the finances and materials to assist these women in their time of need.
Something I find interesting in the conversation that revolves around this debate is that one “side” is focused in solely on the unborn while the other “side” is focused in solely on the mother. I think both sides have valid arguments, although I don’t think both sides have it all “right”.
This is how I see the church responding… picking only one “side” instead of attempting to “deal” with both. We certainly have talked a big game about offering financial resources to the mother as well as offering up other options (i.e. adoption) – and I do believe some churches have taken up this banner and are actually living that out. But what I see the church missing out on, again this is in reference to incest and rape, is failing to take into consideration the trauma the victim is going through.
Many times it seems we are taking those feelings and reality and tossing them out the window for the needs of the unborn… perhaps because the church is mainly run by men who don’t understand what pregnancy is like. Everyday for 9 months (give or take) is a reminder of the event… a re-living of that event. And the pro-life position is seemingly a tough-luck, “deal with it” sort of position as they focus solely on the unborn.
If I were a woman and in that position I’m not sure I could carry a child to term after incest or rape. I’m not sure I would be strong enough, mentally and emotionally, to handle that sort of intense pressure. How can the church respond to that? How can the church care for the mother’s needs on that sort of level as well as provide financially and with other resources to ensure the life of the child?
I’m not sure we’re prepared for that sort of reality… I’m not sure we’re equipped to handle that sort of situation… and perhaps that’s why we haven’t seen the sort of change in the pro-life/pro-choice debate like we hope for.
Thoughts?
_PS – Rags, I hadn’t thought about the exploitation factor in the ad… good thoughts, however I’m not sure the victim truly feels exploited by the situation. So, is it really exploitation if you don’t feel exploited? (If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?)
Is “Justifiable Homicide” Godly? We see Him work this way throughout Scripture and yet at the same time see Jesus as the ultimate call to peace.
If someone was trying to kill your spouse/child, would you respond by taking the perpetrators life in defense of the defenseless?
From my perspective, on average, the modern American church is pro-life when it comes to the abortion issue and pro-death when it comes to the war issue. Sounds like we’ve got a ways to go before there is resolve on the matter of human life. A sad commentary that we must endure if only for our own sanity. Thanks for the brave opener Monts.
I think Erik has a good point in the dichotomy of having a church preach pro-life issues but be in favor of pre-emptively defending our country even if innocent life is lost.
Most churches are still split on the capital punishment issue, should vengeance be taken out against a person in defense of the victim?
Question…
Where does “all sins being equal” fall into the discussion of capital punnishment, this issue, etc.?
Could the difference be our personal view of the evil? If this is the case, how would it effect our decision making process as a country / government / society?
I’m trying to wrap my brain around this…
Erik, you bring up a really good point about “justifiable homicide” and the seemingly contradictory view of Jesus. I think a lot of that tension revolves around how we look at Scripture… and typically it’s not in a “timeline” sort of fashion. We stand outside of it and instead of seeing it as a story and a process, we see it as all the the same from beginning to end. Our hermeneutic has to be adjusted to maintain the integrity of Scripture.
Which is why I think, the church hasn’t embraced a holistic view as it relates to the issue of life. We have a “pick and choose” mentality from time to time when it comes to Scripture–picking and choosing what parts to proof-text our actions at any given time instead of seeing the wholeness of Scripture and how it speaks truth into current events. *Does that make sense?*
I think the life issue is one of our achilles heels when it comes to the pro-life/pro-choice debate. If we stood on the side of life at all times and in all situations I think we’d have a better voice in this instance, but instead we stand out as hypocrites… and that sucks.
Dan, there’s certainly a stigma about certain sins as opposed to others…and that stigma has changed throughout the years as our society changes/evolves and our values/ethics shift. Whereas with God, all sins are equal at all times – any sin=death.
Punishment for crimes, throughout history, has evolved… whereas it used to be punishable by death to disrespect your parents, or your hand would be cut off for stealing… today’s penalties for such are far different. In most countries today (in most “civilized” countries) capital punishment is no longer in practice… I think we’re one of the last to keep it in play.
I’ve long believed capital punishment to be wrong – but not from any other position than I believe the person who committed such a heinous crime can have more of an opportunity to find Jesus with some of the amazing work that Prison Fellowship does in penitentiaries around the country! I’d rather see that happen than have him killed for the gratification of other. I’d rather see grace exhibited to the criminal in hopes that this grace would allow him to see the grace of Jesus… that’s my perfect/idealistic world!
The last line of the ad really intrigues me:
In some ways that line seems to speak out of desperation for some semblance of control. I’m speaking out of ignorance, but I wonder if that’s what this debate comes down to for the victim—wanting to regain some sort of control over their life after such a chaotic event(s)… and this is their way of exerting that on a subconscious level by removing any remembrance of it by killing the child inside.
Thoughts? Am I stretching?
(smiles) Boy… ths is when I wish I knew people like you (Monts) living in my hometown. Bloging (although I LOVE your blog) can’t satisfy my desire to realy converse about this. I mean, we could go down so many paths and sadly enough, this thread will quickly find it’s way down the page and be too soon forgotten.
I try to recognize the “timeline” of Gods Word and yet can’t help but FEEL a change in God’s character through it. My current theology in regards to God’s character is that it doesn’t change. These two ideas makes it difficult to take a wholistic approach towards scripture. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve cmopletely left behind the cut and paste theology that in my ignorance was very convenient. I feel that somewhere in my present personal theology I’ve missed the mark and through these great conversations (and other means!) I’m trying to make better sense of it all.
In regards to your last post’s ?… I think that in part or in whole it’s true. Maybe it’s even simpler than that. Pro-life doesn’t = pro-birth. Taking on the responsibility of a LIFE is the most grandest undertaking one can embark on. From birth till death you’re there for that life. Maybe these women simply can’t take on that responsibility in their present situation. Which brings us back to the Church.
And the beauty of this is that regaurdless of all of our screwd up theology’s, one can’t deny that helping take care of a life in need (a potential abortion AND the potential mother) is an ungodly decision. I guess we need to buckle down, scratch the plans to go to the mall on Saturday, and make a date with Planned Parenthood.
This “debate” should be settled by actions, not words.
“this is their way of exerting that on a subconscious level by removing any remembrance of it by killing the child inside”
I TOTALLY don’t think you’re stretching with that, Aaron. But, I think we’re kidding ourselves to think that getting rid of the child would actually help the woman emotionally, over the short or long term. You can argue whether or not that’s the state’s call to make or not. But, I think that both the unborn child and the women’s well-being are best considered under the pro-life banner.
i agree that both proponents and opponents of abortion each take the side of either the woman or the baby without really trying to understand the others point of view. however, what i have never understood about the pro-choice camp is that to me it does not seem that they take the woman’s emotional health into perspective either. they want her to have a choice, to have a child or to not have a child. but it doesn’t seem as if they care for the woman after the abortion has taken place. i have known a couple of women who have had abortions. one of these women still grieves deeply for her unborn child. so just to have an abortion is still turning a blind eye to the long term emotional damage. the church needs to take care of both woman and child in the short and long terms.
That’s a really good point Thadd, I would tend to agree with you that the emotional health of the mother isn’t typically deemed “important” after the fact… I too, have experience of understanding in the realm through some relationships.
I like what Erik said about settling the debate with actions instead of words – unfortunately the actions we have taken (at least the most visible actions) are those of protest rallies with grotesque and repulsive signage that are waved around on the streets. I don’t discount the motive and heart behind the protester, just their method.
When we lived in Aurora, there was a new Planned Parenthood that opened up just around the corner – there was a lot of controversy behind its opening. And all anyone saw in regards to this debate was the Pro-Lifer’s standing outside on a daily basis encroaching on other people’s property with signs that were grotesque and inappropriate for the neighborhood they were in – lots of little children saw these signs, not to mention it was a really busy intersection.
Pro-choicer’s however, did nothing… mainly because there was nothing to protest… but it made the Pro-Life side look really bad. These sorts of actions aren’t the actions that will start the conversations that will bring about healing and an end to abortion… that’s ultimately the greatest problem.
Good discussion. I really have nothing to add, but I have posted a link to a very good article on Obama’s “pro-life” position on my blog.
I know I’m coming in sooo late to this convo but I’ll still give it a shot.
My question for the girl would be, “Honey, how soon did you go to the doctor?” If we are going to take a strong stance on not terminating pregnancies, then I believe that we should be just as firm about preventing them. In rape & incest, we need to create a culture where women feel secure in reporting abuse immediately so that pregnancy can be prevented.
On the other end, we must recognize that for many women the thought of giving up their child is harder than the thought of not having it at all. In the case of a womans who sees only 2 options (parent or abort) we should be providing the resources both financial and emotional that would encourage a single woman/teen to parent.
Also,
Was the rapist good looking? Did he have good, christian morals? If so, the kid may turn out to be okay.
Now if the rapist was a dirty liberal democrat, then she should definitely take the morning after pill.
Is there no pro-life after rape treatment to prevent pregnancy?
I thought that the D&C after rape/before pregnancy was OK by Pro-life standards. But maybe that’s old school.
So if a terrorist was living on my block is it my duty to go down the street and shoot him for fear of what he might do to others then too right? I mean we are saying kill the baby for fear of what he/she might grow up with emotionally after being conceived of rape. Or kill it because of what it would do the woman who is carrying it.
I think the answer is simply love from the church. You counsel and love the woman who went through tragedy. You adopt and love the baby as your own.
There are hundreds of videos out there too from the pro life side that state similar things about women who were almost forced into an abortion or some who actually went through with it after a rape, and now are scarred for life because they did. Or some say having the baby ended up being the best thing ever happened to them.
Is there truly a 100% right answer from the human perspective? I’m not sure that is doable. What would Jesus say in such matters is often what I wonder. I think the answer is He would love all. Victim, Unborn Life, and criminal. As a church shouldnt we model that?
The question I raised has weighed on my mind a lot. Over the past few days I have been Googling various phrases trying to find an answer & finally did. I think the article is spot on with balancing the concerns for life & prevention. It’s a Catholic article, so please don’t jump to conclusions when you see that I’ve mentioned “prevention” in conjunction with “rape”.
I think it is a crying shame that none of us, myself included, could provide this information. How are we going to make any progress if we can only tell people not to choose death instead of showing them how to choose life?
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0566.html