Monday Morning Music Ministry

10-7-24

Whether it is the logic of the issue’s presentation, or the frequent statements by Pro-Choice people, I have changed my attitude, and my stance, on the matter of Abortion. Count me as favoring the procedure.

This might surprise people who have known me, and are familiar with my views, but henceforth I will advocate against the so-called “Pro-Life” positions. In deference to people who have joined these contentious debates with me, as well as readers who might be interested in arguments that have changed – for they have, in society, for many people in many ways – I will present my reasons.

They are not new with me, for the Abortion debate has been engaged uncountable times. But I will summarize the salient points of my new home, Pro-Choice.

• In a democracy, the majority rules. And these days Abortion is accepted by many people; it is urged upon everybody; and is no longer a taboo procedure to be ashamed of. It seems like “Pro-Life” is in the minority.

• Besides the change in public “morals,” there are the advances in birth control. Abortion has been made easy, cheap, and widely available. And now, technology has brought us pills and liquids and various abortifacients that will do the job just as well as surgery.

• Since birth control is no longer a matter of opprobrium in society, Abortion ought be regarded as another, maybe after-the-fact, form of birth control. Over and done.

• In that view, we know from the scientific community that the earth is over-populated, and resources are being stretched thin. Going forward as a species, we need fewer, not more, people.

• There are many couples, married and unmarried, who simply are not ready to start a family. If we are free to express mutual love, we ought to be free of the burdens of parenthood. If you hated your parents, don’t become one yourself. Stop that life.

• In practical terms, again speaking of over-crowding, limited resources, and the convenience of family situations, we must frankly embrace the woman who inspired the contemporary Abortion and Family Planning “Enlightenment,” Margaret Sanger. She taught us that the lower rungs of society – especially the poor, the chronically unhealthy, and inferior groups like African-Americans in her view – ought to be thinned out.

• Not excluding teen pregnancies and “extra-marital” affairs, the majority of Abortions, and a higher percentage of Abortion clinics, are in neighborhoods of the poor, underprivileged, and African-Americans, already. This is a start, and should be encouraged.

• “Freedom” is an attractive, compelling word. It has persuaded me, and many others, in the context of the Abortion debate. Except for matters like murder and “hate speech,” the government should not adopt restrictive laws and regulations. Legalize Abortion, drugs, “mercy killings”; and then begin to restrict outworn traditional practices.

• Speaking of “hate speech,” all the familiar views and traditions of many cultures and peoples – views from Aborting babies to personal religious expression – ought to be banned too. Some enlightened countries imprison people who maintain cherished customs and practices, and we can look forward to doing so here, too.

On second thought…

Of course these are not my views. But separately or together, they are the views of many people in the United States. And only a few of those concepts are old, “outdated.” For instance, Margaret Sanger warred against “Negroes” who, she believed, had too many children. Today her followers might sound compassionate but still embrace the idea of thinning the “under-served.”

The American culture of consumerism, our throw-away mentality, and the ethos of Life Is Cheap, seduce many people to subscribe to the ideas I listed. “Everybody does it”; “Mind your own damn business”; and “Who does it harm?” have supplanted the 10 Commandments.

“Who does it harm?” is, of course, a dishonest question that many people are happy to ignore. Of course, Abortion harms the unborn baby. Pretty severely. It is easy to ignore the silent screams, isn’t it?

As to the points above:

… Democracy does not determine right and wrong. Too often it is a weapon to mask the evil that men do. God does not depend on our opinions of His Commandments.

… As to easy forms of birth control (hmmm, why is it not called “fetus control” or “blob control”?): Even if government imposed legality, why must the public pay for others’ Abortions-on-Demand? Why force doctors and nurses with consciences to participate in killing babies?

… Over-population can be addressed by resource-management. If a woman “gets in trouble” (what a bizarre phrase) perhaps kids can learn to stop screwing; perhaps parents, and schools, and oh yeah, the church, can remember how to wisely counsel decent behavior.

… The not-so-veiled racism of Sanger’s spawn merely proves the French saying that “the more things change, the more they stay the same.”

… In the end, we realize that Freedom is fungible, at least as we employ it. Freedom to kill babies is literally selective, partial-freedom at best. The Aborted baby is given no “Choice.”

How often do people think these things through? If a woman kills her baby, and the father objects, is it “fair” that he has no say in the matter… especially as the Law says he is obligated for Child Support otherwise. If a baby was aborted, do the parents wonder, years afterward, where and what their child would be like, be doing? A vast majority of babies with birth “defects” are Aborted these days… but have you seen a mother’s life that has been transformed, loving for that child she bore?

We have become a Culture of Death, no better than those “primitive” societies we read about in faraway places and ancient times, that practiced infant sacrifice. Today we sacrifice our children to the gods of convenience and pleasure. Science breaks its back searching for the Origin of Life… discovering new life-forms… and desperate to find evidence of Life in the universe. But science – and so many of us – have become callous to the practice of killing babies, snuffing out Life.

No matter the circumstances, God’s Word tells us that every child was known and “formed” by Him in the womb. His ways are mysterious to us, sometimes, but He is sovereign. Did Jesus come to earth to save souls, yet we destroy them first? That is the devil’s job, and joy. And our curse.

+ + +

By the way, if you are a reader, or have had this message passed to you, and are somewhere near my pretend-position here – and if you have been wracked with confusion or guilt or regrets – you must remember that even Abortion is something that God forgives. Repentance and cries for forgiveness “God will not despise.” He is the Lord and Giver of Life (yes, a reason we must not play God) and He yearns for fellowship with you… and helping minister to your problems.

+ + +

Click: I Hear Your Voice

8-17-15

Well… actually, that’s a lie. If it really were simple, in America and many places in the world, there would not be hot debates, policy fallouts, family feuds, “litmus tests,” stockpiles of weaponized arguments, court cases, broken churches, broken families. Or, often, broken women, erstwhile moms, bitter regrets. And, not recalled enough: tens of millions of dead babies.

But I hope any pro-abortion, “pro-choice,” readers will stick with me here. I acknowledge the “issue” is not simple… and my thoughts here, which have evolved through my life and I feel have arrived where they should be, might yet be a snapshot in time, evolving still. I think theology is clear, but public policy is difficult. Family management, counseling friends, is challenging.

And my theological point of view – where colleagues might part company – is that I believe the Bible is clear, although without the preponderance of specific references, on the proper spiritual and ethical attitude toward abortion. But I do not think that it is the Unpardonable Sin. It should not be encouraged in or out of the family of God… but mothers who made the euphemistic “choices” to “terminate” should be welcomed, not shunned, by Christians.

Friends know that I once was quite comfortable with the practice (not alone among other issues I have abandoned). Even before Roe vs Wade it was legal in Washington DC, where I went to college, and there was a culture that was very mechanistic – arguments about affordability, family “planning,” the soulless nature of blobs.

In truth, two attitudes fueled that culture, in those days: Washington, with its large black population, was a focus of abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood, whose founder, Margaret Sanger, frankly targeted her work, hoping to minimize or eventually eliminate the black population in society. Ugly, but true. And in the 1960s and ‘70s there was the attitude, if not explicit argument, that abortion simply was after-the-fact contraception.

My views changed through the years, the closer I drew to Jesus; but, also, the more I thought about the “issue,” the implications, the repercussions, the legacies. Abortion says something about the women, and men, involved. It says something about the society that permits – or encourages – it. It says something about dead babies. Not aborted fetuses: shut up. Dead babies.

The “issue,” once thought settled after Roe vs Wade, is more contentious than ever in America. Less settled. Science has made astonishing advances, both in maintaining viability of the pre-born, and in determining what, frankly, is a human – what is life, who is living – after conception. Traditionalists often are labeled “anti-science” about issues like evolution and global warming, but science is on the side, today, of the anti-abortionists. Or pro-life advocates.

The “issue” has invaded politics. Candidates might disagree on war and peace, the economy, government snooping, the threat of Iran, anything and everything… but (to employ the extreme labels) killing babies or a woman’s “right to choose” are defining issues of the age.

The “issue” is such today that almost every day its implications rise before us. At least for me. The news stories, of course, that disclose videos of Planned Parenthood leaders discussing the sale and efficient harvesting of babies and their organs. (Opponents fulminate against the hidden cameras, or the relatively small profits, shamelessly ignoring the horror of it all.) This week is the anniversary of my granddaughter Sarah’s birth. She lived nine days, a fragile preemie, and I look at the photo of my daughter Heather holding the tiny baby; I still cry to see the hope in Heather’s smile – and then I look at tiny Sarah and cannot help, today, picturing “scientists” and abortionists who would have swept in and carved her up at so many cents per pound. I watch an afternoon of Smithsonian documentaries about primitive societies and realize, peripherally, how many practiced infant sacrifice. Primitive. societies.

I believe abortion is current-day infant sacrifice. We appease the gods of convenience, guilty conscience, and callous morals.

History has a term for these primitive, and contemporary, practices writ large: infanticide. China long has practiced selective – and mandatory – abortions and infanticide in order to manage its economy. And the world shrugs.

Again, not an issue easily discussed or dispatched. Does it come down, after all, to women grasping for a legal sanction to resist biological, as well as moral, imperatives? Five Supreme Court justices aside, there still are differences between the sexes, and always will be. We have a generation of women – I know not all, despite the implications and claims of surveys, or, rather, poll-takers – who refuse to be women, at least in the most defining, distinctive, and glorious, way possible: motherhood.

Theodore Roosevelt once said (a propos expanding women’s right to vote), “Equality of rights does not mean equality of functions.” He did not mean cooking and cleaning; he meant to resist the revolutionary and degenerate aims of his contemporary, Margaret Sanger.

Of course there are the assertions, whether sincere or convenient, of those who argue that many children born to disadvantaged families are abused; that one “mistake” of passion should not be “punished by a baby,” as President Obama rationalized; that our planet cannot support more people. With these arguments the “issue” finds itself shifted alongside those of barbarians, Nazis, and ethnic cleaners.

To me, certain responses are increasingly hard to resist:

If death is determined by when a heart stops beating, why is life not measured when a hearts begins beating?

If fetuses are not human, why are their little body parts considered human?

We are told that people have rights to health care, to food, to schools, to hospital care; why not a right to life?

If a single cell were discovered on a distant planet, the world would celebrate life existing elsewhere in the universe. If it were found in a woman’s womb, why is it not considered life?

Women abort – let us say, kill their children – when babies are inconvenient. Under Hitler, Jews were deemed inconvenient; their mistreatment was legal; their slaughter not punished. Are pre-born babies guiltier, more deserving of execution, than Jews?

If these unborn babies can be dismissed as tissue masses and “blobs,” why do we not discuss “blob control,” so nice and antiseptic, instead of “birth control”?

This is not a man/woman perspective. I know as well as any man can, how life-altering an “unwanted” pregnancy can be. Well, there are millions of women who cry for babies, their own and others, who are more militant than I. There are uncountable women who were spared being aborted, sometimes at the last minutes, who thrive today – happy, healthy, and grateful for life. There are women who decided to give their babies up for adoption – maybe the second most wrenching decisions they could make – and those children live amongst us.

Our society is not sensitive to fathers of “unwanted” babies who are bound to support their child until majority; but have no say if their girlfriends kill the baby. I have met women who were consumed with grief for being misled, for killing their babies, and have lived with their “choices,” to use the hallowed word. One I know, have interviewed, is Norma McCorvey – the “Jane Roe” of Roe vs. Wade – remorseful and a pro-life advocate today.

But still, not an easy issue. This is my determination, and a plea to my allies – celebrate life, all life; welcome sinners (as we all are) who repent; wrap them, as we wrap ourselves, in Jesus’s love; and exercise forgiveness. As God offers forgiveness to us.

To those who still wrestle with the morals and ethics of the abortion issue, I close. Like it or not, there is a Heaven and a Hell. And as we understand God’s mystery, in Heaven we will all have “perfected” bodies. More than that we really don’t know. But consistent with what the Bible teaches, one’s aborted babies will be there, too.

Can you imagine looking into the eyes of these? “Why, Mommy? Why, Daddy?”

You might think you would answer, “I was afraid I would fail you. I was afraid you would stumble through life…”

And what if the answer is, “But what if you had not failed but succeeded? And what if I had not stumbled, but blossomed and flown and danced… and lived?”

+ + +

The poignant lullaby by Stephen Foster, sung by Alison Kraus:
Click: Slumber, My Darling