I wrote this earlier in the year in response to several who were raising questions about various abortion protest methods. I know all will not agree. I offer this as one man╒s evaluation. I welcome any comments.
Thanks for the download. Share this as you see fit.
================================
The modern practice of abortion amounts to abortion-without-qualms for the sake of personal convenience. Men and women and boys and girls engage in sexual activity as they desire ... then when pregnancy occurs, they decide that the fetus doesn╒t exist as a person ... and on the basis of the Supreme Court decision (Roe V. Wade, 1973)[1] - cheered on by the Left and abortion╒s vocal defenders, an innocent human being is killed. This is not right! Not only is there scientific evidence of life before birth, the Bible teaches that the unborn child is a human being { 2 Chron. 33:6; Gen. 25:22; Ps. 139:13; Lk. 1:36,44; 2:16; Ex. 21:22-25; Rom. 1:31}.
We can and we must preach the sanctity of human life, and that means distinctly pronouncing our opposition to the modern practice of abortion. There are a number of perfectly legitimate and unquestioned means and methods available in this nation to work toward the eventual over-turn of Roe V. Wade: Legislative pressure, seizing opportunities for proper debate, seeking access to the public through routine media avenues, teaching our children, friends and neighbors, etc. I╒ve never heard anyone devoted to Biblical values deny the validity of any of these methods.
My fear is, some of the more combative opponents of abortion have slowly begun to elevate their methods to the status of principle. Some evangelicals who are long-time devotees to the pro-life cause will not accept that we are truly opposed to abortion unless our outrage is expressed in the same way theirs is. The mistake is, elevating the methods to the status of principle ... or even above it. Is it possible that some who could not articulate the Biblical case against abortion have become adept at sit-ins, protests march and rescues? Is there the danger of having a ╥zeal level╙ of 10+, while knowledge lags behind at a weak 5?
And I╒m concerned that these methods (largely promoted by some pro-life organizations) may create such an emotional atmosphere - the violence that may be generated by such an atmosphere may outweigh the good accomplished, especially in the long run.
The act of murder performed in Pensacola, Florida was wrong![2] Some pro-life activists have issued a qualified condemnation of the killing. I╒ve heard them on the radio and TV saying that the shooting was wrong, BUT .... There follows a whole line up of special pleadings, mitigating circumstances and situational reasoning (which is more characteristic of humanists than conservatives!). What needs to be said is: MURDER IS WRONG! To murder an unborn baby is wrong, PERIOD. To murder a doctor who performs abortions is wrong, PERIOD.
Rescue Methods have been called into question by people from the religious, political and legal community who are strong opponents of abortion. Charles E. Rice is professor of constitutional law at the University of Notre Dame, and he believes that abortion is the ╥killing of an innocent human being.╙[3] Yet he has observed that the rescue methods are flawed by inconsistency. ╥They are willing to intervene only to save those babies they can save without the use of ╘violence.╒ But this is inconsistent with their rhetoric. If there is an absolute biblical injunction to rescue, as they say there is, where does it say or imply in Scripture that it must be done only to the extent that the rescue can be accomplished by ╘nonviolent╒ means, passive resistance, going limp, etc.? The rescuers are willing to intervene, up to a point, to deny the woman access to the abortionist. Yet when the woman is escorted past them in the passageway, on her way to the killing chamber, they do not stop her. The objective of saving lives is subordinated to an insistence on pacifist tactics left over from the 1960╒s.╙[4] At the least, there is reason to question some of the rhetoric. The fact that militant leaders of pro-life causes have virtually written a set of tactics into a creed is no reason to conclude that ALL WHO OPPOSE ABORTION MUST CONFESS THAT CREED. Somewhere in the debate it must be said that ...
The abortion issue is a moral issue. I know that it has political overtones and media implications and there is certainly an economic factor no one can deny. But the important question here relates to moral and principle. Once we recognize that this is a moral issue, we must inquire: ╥How do we fight moral battles?╙ Do we rely on coercion, ╥in-your-face╙ publicity, civil disobedience, public annoyance and provocation? Or, do we preach, teach and seek to persuade? I╒ve been thinking about the abortion issue, specifically the methods being used, and the intolerance of some who promote these methods. I╒ve drawn some conclusions ...
Intolerance in regard to methods is self-defeating. May I illustrate: There is a scriptural basis for me to appeal to my fellow gospel preachers to PREACH THE WORD (2 Tim. 4:1,2), but I have no right to insist that they duplicate my methods (computer-generated charts on over-head projector; my outline style; my delivery, etc.). You see, I am warranted in urging preachers to preach nothing but the Word of God {and they should issue the same admonition to me}, but I am not warranted in suggesting that those who do not use my methods are ╥unsound,╙ or lacking in faith. If I elevate my methods to the status of principle, and condemn those who do not use my methods, I become as arrogant as the self-righteous Pharisees and defeat my cause. This is my fear about some of the militant opponents of abortion. I share their outrage, but my objection to abortion doesn╒t put me under obligation to endorse and participate in the methods dictated by some of the bellicose leaders.
Fighting This Moral Battle!
If there are some methods that may not be wise and suitable to consciences of some of us who oppose abortion, that╒s one thing. But we still have a battle to be fought. I cannot be a passive opponent of abortion. Babies are being killed everyday, and millions of souls are being lost. Surely there are some good, legitimate methods I can use.
1. Working toward a restoration of constitutional protection of all human beings. We may become very frustrated with the ╥system╙ of representative government, but one thing is certain: If we never even try to use the system, our complaints about it are not very credible. If every person who objects to abortion-without-qualms would write to his/her Representative and Senator, and plead for the constitutional protection of the unborn, it would have impact. And if qualified people with Biblical values would run for office, and participate more fully in the process, I believe this would make a difference. The problem is, too many people just assume ╥it won╒t do any good,╙ ╥the system won╒t work,╙ and ╥I can╒t do anything.╙ Passive opposition has never changed anything. [John Leo recently stated his belief and hope that ╥the antiabortion position is a longterm winner. Jacques Maritain, the French philosopher, argued that natural law evolves in the mind of mankind: Practices that were once regarded as natural and moral, such as infanticide, torture and slavery, gradually come to be seen by the world world as barbaric. Abortion, too, I think. But to get there, the appeal has to be to conscience, not to menace at the clinics.╙[5] ]
2. Help people recognize that abortion is not the main problem, but only a symptom of the main problem. Sometimes, in moral and political battles, a symptom gradually looses its╒ symptom status! You see, there is a basic, underlying disease here: A defiance against the absolute moral standards prescribed by the Maker! Abortion-without-qualms (legalized or not), the promotion of homosexuality, permissive sex education programs, the distribution of condoms (on the assumption that young people have no self-control), and a host of other ills in our society ARE SYMPTOMS of a fatal disease. When we allow some specific issue or symptom to gradually take on a life of itself, separated from the underlying cause, our thinking is out of balance; thus, our methods may be thoughtless and ineffective. We must - in our influence, rhetoric, etc. - try and help people see the basic problem. ╥Abortion ... is not just about killing unwanted children, ut about sexual morality, the spiritual value of human life, and woman╒s unique responsibility in the home. Abandon ship on any one of these more fundamental issues, and you╒ll soon find that the womb has become a tomb.╙[6]
3. Let us preach the gospel, with greater enthusiasm and urgency. If the basic problem is a defiance against God╒s rule over man (sin), something powerful is needed as a remedy. There isn╒t anything more powerful than THE GOSPEL, to lift men out of sin and bring them into obedient fellowship with God (Rom. 1:16,17).
4. We must be more serious in teaching the next generation. If things are bad now (morally), think of conditions that may well prevail for your children or grandchildren. You can╒t do anything about your ancestors, but you can do a lot about your descendants. {Deut. 6:6-7; Judg. 2:10; Eph. 6:4; Psa. 78:1-8).
5. Take advantage of media access. In a battle I╒ve been involved in here in Texas, to defeat a liberal sex education agenda, a great deal of ground has been gained through writing - the distribution of tracts and brochures; mass mailings; letters-to-the-editor; letters to officials; radio and TV interviews, etc. We have been able to build a powerful consensus to stop the humanistic agenda of the irreligious Left. Do not underestimate the power of the pen ... the stamp ... the media.
6. Avail yourself of other public opportunities to expose the inconsistency of the humanists distorted view of the fetus. Here╒s an example --
In a debate over nuclear power, a feminist named Juli Loesch was forced to re-think her own contradictory views of fetuses. She was a vocal organizer attempting to stop the construction of the Three Mile Island facility. She had schooled herself on what leaked radiation could do to prenatal development. {Remember, she is pro-abortion; taking the view that the fetus is not a person.} At a meeting one day, a group of women issued an unexpected challenge: ╥if you╒re so concerned about what Plutonium 239 might do to the child╒s arm bud, you should go to an abortion clinic and see what a suction machine does to his whole body!╙ -Source: Jason DeParle, ╥Beyond The Legal Right.╙ The Washington Monthly, ⌐ 1989 by The Washington Monthly Company, 1711 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20009.
Some of my good friends and brethren who object to abortion - after considering my thoughts about methods - may still be convinced that the protest marches, demonstrations and rescues are useful in this battle. I will not try to talk you out of those things you scrupulously feel you must do. But please allow those of us who do not join in all your methods the liberty of conscience to fight the same battle, but with methods and tactics we believe are more effective, and more compatible with our understanding of Scripture.
End Notes:
1. The current legal situation is inconsistent, immoral and schizophrenic! ╥The right to life is the primary civil right from which other rights (such as property rights) flow. Yet today, liberals have elevated property rights above the very right to life. A fetus has the right to inherit property under civil law, but doesn╒t have the right to live because he in turn is his mother╒s property. He╒s legally both a person and a non-entity at the same time. He╒s both human and pre-human,╙ (Tom Haughey, McAllen Monitor, Mar. 23, 1993, p.#7D.)
2. Long before the recent violence in Pensacola, back in 1984 on Christmas Day, four young people blew up three Pensacola Abortion Clinics.
3. ╥Protesting Abortion Is A Just Cause,╙ by Charles E. Rice, THE WANDERER, Jan. 19, 1989.
4. THE WANDERER, Jan. 19, 1989 & 1990 ANNUAL, Human Sexuality, p.#84.
5. U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, March 29, 1993, p.#17.
6. THE CULTURAL CHURCH, by F. LaGard Smith, p.#69.
