All Comments for: Don't Cede the High Ground | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > May

Christianity Today, May, 2007 |

Foolish Things

Don't Cede the High Ground

Our abortion views don't rest on sociological data.

Stan Guthrie | posted 4/25/2007 09:05AM

One of the things I loved about Seinfeld was how it poked holes in our society's moral shallowness. During one episode, George Costanza's boss, Mr. Lippman, summons him.

Lippman: It's come to my attention ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 29 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

Phil	Posted: May 05, 2007 9:07 AM

Sin doesn't please God. However Jesus did NOT focus on people's sin. He focused on introducing them to a loving relationship with God. That eventually lead to people choosing to change their actions in response to God's love. You will never change someone's actions first (legislatively or through guilt), and then somehow lead them to God afterwards. That's the tail wagging the dog. If you knew God you would know that he takes no pleasure in good outward action without the right relationship with him. That's right...no pleasure. If he did, he would have made robots, or better yet would have never allowed sin into the world. This article has almost no value to the believer or unbeliever but to stir up anger between Christians and non-Christians. The author of this article has completely missed the message of the gospel and is falling into the trap of current day cultural-christian tendencies. This is not the message of Jesus. Think about it.

No revisionist history

Posted: April 30, 2007 6:10 PM

"Searcher of God's Will" should accurately quote the verse s/he relies on. I looked up Ex. 21:22-24 on all 18 English-lang. translations on Bible Gateway (and a couple of others on bible.com) and NONE of the versions includes the langauge s/he purports to quote (claiming that a man who injures an unborn or prematurely born child must give life for a life). Most versions don't specify whether the punishable harm was to the woman or the child. Of the few that specify, such as the (new) Contemporary English version, and the (old) Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition, both state the punishment is for injury to the woman, NOT the child. Some versions refer to "miscaries" or "miscarriage." This traditional reading fits into the brutal context of the chapter, which explicitly condones slavery (even selling one's own daughter) and treats women as property. Any attempt to impose late 20th c. warm/fuzzy feelings about the unborn into this text is pure revisionist "history."

Joy	Posted: April 30, 2007 12:15 PM

People who choose abortion have not killed my baby but their own. Comparably, if someone robs from or kills a person who is a stranger to me, I have suffered no loss, the perpetrator owes me no debt and so I have nothing to personally forgive. However I expect my government to hold those people accountable who hurt an innocent person. Having a legal system is not a foreign idea in the Bible: "The governing authority is God's servant, to bring punishment on the wrongdoer"Rom 13:4. God established governments to maintain order in society, but God is not powerless to bring about consequences for a government's licentiousness: "Can a government that brings misery by its decrees and condemns the innocent to death be allied with God? ...God will repay them for their sins and destroy them" Ps. 94:20-23. In a democracy, if we are complacent about immoral laws, we share in the guilt. You can make rules, guide, help, punish, share consequences AND forgive - I do it with my children all the time.

Tesfatadelle

Posted: April 30, 2007 10:04 AM


Yes, "We cannot lose our moral compass in a mountain of sociological data" for immoral people lie all the time. Wh says we can get honest answers from the people who do the crime or the transgression?

Don H

Posted: April 29, 2007 8:04 PM

Let's face it, Evangelicals could care less about the abortion issue. It's all talk and no walk. A sham of the worst kind. This article is just more cheap talk. If we REALLY thought the 48.5 million deaths from abortion since 1973 was a bad thing, we'd be marching on Washington and be unrelenting in elections to bring about change. But we're spineless and we let the killing go on. Supposedly there are 100 million Evangelicals in the US. We could stop it if we wanted to, but we don't. We only want to talk, talk, talk as millions continue to die.

a repentant mother

Posted: April 27, 2007 3:42 PM

When I was 19, I got pregant, and though I didn't consider 'abortion' - I wondered what I could do to lose the pregnancy - even considering throwing myself downstairs. Unfortunately, my parents talked me into abortion, and at the time it was a relief. Since then, I have repented. Although I have not suffered any emotional trauma, I did experience physical problems; when my first living child was born, the placenta had become embedded in my uterus because of the scarring the abortion had caused. I'd like to address Jim Allyn's comment "Pro-lifers" currently have no high ground to cede. They will have the high ground when they start working to reduce the demand for abortion, as opposed to merely making it illegal" He is so right there; but the solution is not to provide physical support, but emotional support - most young women, at least succomb to sex because of either a need to feel loved and accepted, or a poor choice in moving close to areas of temptation.

Ed	Posted: April 27, 2007 6:13 AM

It is correct that we cannot make pro-life arguments based on sociological data. However, we should never diminish the effects of abortion on women, and men, in our society. Having volunteered with a national pro-life organization for 10 years and having been on staff full-time for this group since 2003, I know there is a need to be compassionate for those who have made an abortion decision in their past. Yes, we opposed abortion because it is immoral. Yes, we stand up for life in all stages of development, at all ages, and no matter what condition that body is in because our value is not based on our capabilities. Yes, we do this because human life is precious to God and not because of some statistic. But we can never forget to extend the hand of forgiveness made possible through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is only through His love for us that we can share this love with others. It is only through Him that women and men have healing for wounds and a hope for the future.

GM Reynolds

Posted: April 27, 2007 12:59 AM

The article is good and takes a solid evangelical stance on a serious issue. However, there is something in this whole issue that simply doesn't ring as true as it seems it ought to in the light of the life of Jesus Christ. The Bible states emphatically that God is Love. God's love is not a "warm fuzzy" but a high principle of altruism. For Divine love to be truly that, it has to respect the freedom of divinely created creatures to be free to exercise choices, or else there is no freedom and then there can be no love! The amazing thing about Christ's love revealed in His farse of a trial is that in creating freedom to sin, He also created creatues who could slap Him in the face,and spit on Him, and yet, Christ never lost His love for His creatures and that despite their spiking Him to a Cross! Sin is not something that simply makes God angry, but it is something that changes the Sinner and makes him or her more like the devil! "Forgive them; they don't know what they do!"

Sushia

Posted: April 26, 2007 10:38 PM


When I became pregnant I thought I had miscarried in my first trimester and had to see my doctor to see if the fetus was still viable which I was told meant whether or not it had a heartbeat indicating that it was alive. I don't understand how in the medical field the same people who look for the heartbeat of a fetus to determine life can say that abortion does not kill...

Kevin

Posted: April 26, 2007 9:26 PM


100% Agree with this article. The moral/spiritual "high ground" is based on the WORD OF GOD. And since the ALMIGHTY GOD "IS THE WORD"--JOHN 1--then it naturally follows that our--Christian--argument must not be based on worldly statistics but on the SOLID ROCK (JESUS CHRIST). 5 stars!

David

Posted: April 26, 2007 9:53 AM

This hits the nail on the head. This issue and practice is one great bloody battlefield in the centuries-old war between the philosophy that says, "What is truth?" and then answers: it is, finally, unknowable, and therefore each person must determine (ie., invent) his/her own truth (currently expressed ad nauseum with the word "feel"), and the philosophy (truly, philo-sophy--love of wisdom) that says, "truth is, even if no one acknowledges it; and what's more, even if truth is not comprehensible by finite human beings, nevertheless it is knowable and reliable. The nominalism of the first "philosophy" is nothing more than the "will to power." The suggestion that men "can't" know about pregnancy under difficult (even "impossible") circumstances is simply an extension of that nominalist/subjectivism. I could say that no woman who is contemplating getting an abortion can possibly know what it's like to *be* aborted, therefore, how do they have right to decide?

Steve

Posted: April 26, 2007 7:36 AM

With all due respect to Nell and her comments, it's inappropriate to say that abortion is an issue that should be decided by women, since they're the ones carrying the child. Don't men have a role to play in the pregnancy? Isn't that fetus genetically the father's too? I don't think that she would agree that military issues should only be decided by men, since it's mostly men who serve in the military. But you're right Nell, men do need to understand the plight of the raped woman, of the impoverished, lonely woman contemplating abortion. I may be against abortion, but I need to understand that, for many women, the choice to abort isn't as easy or as simple as having a cavity filled. But our compassion for such women still shouldn't cloud our consciences. What is in the woman's uterus is undoubtedly a living human being. What about compassion towards him or her?

Keith

Posted: April 26, 2007 4:08 AM


So well said. What do you call it when millions of innocent lives are systematically exterminated for ideological and narcissistic reasons? Genocide -- a holocaust!

italy

Posted: April 25, 2007 11:28 PM


pro choice encourages women to have abortions due to choice without counseling them in other alternatives to the end the woman is left with the guilt of taking an innocent life.

Nell	Posted: April 25, 2007 9:13 PM

I have been listening to the pro and con arugments being currently made in Mexico as their legislature is about to decide whether or not to make some abortions legal to prevent the back alley practice of those caught in the delimma of whether or not to carry a fetus to term when conditions are unfavorable for the mother to provide for the child, etc. The voices were loud and insistent--all were male-- as though they were the one who had the problem. As a woman, I am offended that men think they have some kind of moral high ground when not one of them ever became pregnant from a rape or incest or from a husband who has left them penniless. Let women decide this issue.

Steve

Posted: April 25, 2007 5:21 PM


Like a lot of TV shows of similar ilk these days, this article simply reminds me why our family didn't bother to watch Seinfeld on a regular basis.

Anne	Posted: April 25, 2007 4:37 PM

I don't agree that treating post-abortive women with care and compassion is in any way capitulating to the culture. It is following in the steps of Jesus, who gave us an example in the way he treated the woman caught in adultery. Post abortion syndrome has at its center deep feelings of guilt and remorse, even for nonChristians. These women who are suffering don't need someone to point out their sins. They need to be pointed to the mercy and compassion found at the cross, and experience the love of Christ from Christians (what a concept). Jesus loves the sinner and the sinned-against, mothers and babies, equally.

Myrna Wilson

Posted: April 25, 2007 3:53 PM


Psalm 127 v:3 can answer the abortion issue.

Dave	Posted: April 25, 2007 2:47 PM


I find no moral high ground, spiritual or otherwise, in the so-called pro-life position. If you want to "fight against the devil" then don't use the devil's tactics to hoodwink vulnerable women in making decisions by using deceptive and high pressure tactics.

Chris

Posted: April 25, 2007 2:39 PM

Once again the battle lines are being drawn. I agree that abortion is not a good thing and it is used far too often as birth control; however, I have found no Biblical mandate in my 30+ years as an evangelical Christian that tells me that I am to consider the pro-abortion camp as murderers. What I do find is Jesus teaching me to love my enemies and I see Him take a strong stand against spiritual legalists. Further I find the writings of Paul telling me to take a moral stand against the worldly views in way that I behave, by example and to remember that my fight is against the devil and the flesh. The closest thing I have heard as a mandate against abortion, is the OT stories of the people of God sacrificing their children to the god Molech, which in effect can be construed to be sacrificing our children to the god of our own convenience. The moral shallowness of our society is a heart problem and flesh problem that will only be truly remedied by a work of the Love of God.

Jim Allyn

Posted: April 25, 2007 1:50 PM

"Pro-lifers" currently have no high ground to cede. They will have the high ground when they start working to reduce the demand for abortion, as opposed to merely making it illegal. And that means doing the hard work: passing living wage laws so people can afford to have children, providing health care for all our citizens, accepting that human beings will continue to have sex and educating our children about contraception, and so on.

Kristen

Posted: April 25, 2007 1:45 PM

Also, pro-life advocates do themselves or their cause no favors when focusing on the post-abortion trauma to the mother. It's patronizing ("we must protect these poor people from themselves!") and if I hear one more post-abortion ministry volunteer talk about how the overwhelming majority of post-abortion women are wracked with guilt and they know this based on their years of working with women who seek out post-abortion ministry, I will scream. Although these ministries often do very good work, it does not seem to occur to these people (who are otherwise statistically literate) that they just might be working with a nonrepresentative sample. Books and Culture had a great article a few months ago on "Evangelicals Behaving Badly with Statistics" and this is a prime example.

Ron	Posted: April 25, 2007 1:13 PM

Many so-called pro-life folks also mis-lead and bully folks. People need to be spoken to in love and respect. I cannot imagine anyone in their right mind that would consider an abortion as being a good thing. However, no where in scripture does it teach abortion as taking a life [i.e.: Exodus 21:22] but many assume that life begins at comception when in fact Biblically life begins with the breath of life. [A living soul means breath and Biblically life begins with breath.] But any abortion is tragic for it affects the emotional, spiritual and physical conditions of all those involved. My prayer is that the world will be such that there will be no need for abortions. But to deny the love and Christian faith of those that minister to people who are hurting just ain't Bible.

john	Posted: April 25, 2007 12:42 PM


Thank you speaking with the heart of a faithful prophet.

Jim	Posted: April 25, 2007 12:16 PM


That should be five stars. I clicked on one star too soon and then the system would not let me get back to correct the error. Thanks for a great article. The call to stay on the high ground of scriptural and spiritual authority is prophetic.

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment