“Pro-life” and “Pro-choice” both seem to have such a negative connotation.  I immediately think of extremists.  Why do I think of that?  Because when ever pro-lifers are shown on television, they only show the strange, extreme, and often illegal protestors of abortion.  I have a negative vibe with pro-choice people, because I completely disagree with them.  This has left me and many others in my generation sitting on the sidelines doing…nothing. Saying…nothing.

‘There is nothing we can do.’
‘I don’t want to be associated with those people.’
‘We can’t change the laws.’

Thoughts like these resonate within our minds.  I see pastors and leaders around me (that believe abortion is wrong), doing nothing on the topic.  It is almost like it is a ‘late 80s/early 90s’ topic.  We don’t see it fitting in our glossy sermon series.  We don’t want to be controversial.  We don’t know how to talk about it in a practical way. We might not even care.

Over the last 39 years, over 54 million people have lost their lives to abortion.  These individuals were not respected with a choice of life or death.  We made it for them.  We can be passionate about poverty, slavery, and injustice all over the world because it is religiously cool to do so in modern Christian circles while 1.3 million kids will die in the USA this calendar year.

President Barak Obama issued an official statement supporting abortion this week.

“As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.”

Let’s stop for a second and make sure we understand what he is saying.

He is saying that the decision to legalize abortions protects women’s health.  How? It is completely ignorant to say that allowing abortions has saved women’s lives.  Look at the birth/pregnancy related illness and death before and after the legal decision.  He fails to mention that abortions can be extremely dangerous to the mother’s body.  As to reproductive freedom, this is also erroneous.  If you are ending your pregnancy you are NOT reproducing.  The facts are that abortions can limit your ability to become pregnant in the future, therefore restricting your reproductive freedom.

However, the deeper philosophical and moral question is: “Why is a woman’s right to choose a higher priority than the child’s right to life?”  The government should not interfere with a family’s decision unless the family’s decision is to eliminate one of their own family members (and that family member has no voice in the decision-making process).  The government does not seem to have a problem making laws against murder, stealing, or perjury when it involves families.  His premise is like saying, “Well, we can’t have a law on the books about killing your mother, because that is a family matter and the government can’t get involved in private family matters.”

He goes on to say:

“While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue — no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

I completely support some of his thoughts here: we need to support pregnant women and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoptions.  YES!

I have some serious problems with the other parts of this statement.  The problem isn’t necessarily what he says, but what he implies.  It seems as though he wants to use ‘any means necessary’ to prevent unintended pregnancies.  This point of view says that the baby is the worst thing that can happen.  When discussing this issue, one must not reduce the language to ‘a pregnancy’ or ‘fetus’ or ’tissue’.  When using that vocabulary it dehumanizes and only describes a certain time frame in the life of that PERSON.  It is a person that is in the womb and a part of the discussion.  It is though President Obama is saying we must use whatever means necessary to eliminate this unborn person from life, from the future of our country.

He ends by bringing up the issue of broken homes.  Men leave.  Women are left to raise children alone.  This is a huge social problem in America.  Instead of dealing with the men or the women, his solution is to eliminate the life of the child.  As with the previous issue, when we use terms such as ‘pregnancy’ instead of ‘person’, it is much easier to swallow the reality of loss of life.

A Huffington Post article quotes Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood’s president, “Obama’s pro-choice and pro-contraception decision on Friday will likely be a major reason for women to rally around him in November.”  Right, but it is interesting that the only women supporting him in November are the ones that were born.  There will be an eiry silence from around 24 million women that were never born.

As President Reagan once stated, “With regard to the freedom of the individual for choice with regard to abortion, there’s one individual who’s not being considered at all. That’s the one who is being aborted. And I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.”

+robin