Tuesday, January 24, 2006

knowing what we believe: abortion

a few weeks ago i starting teaching a lifestudies (cool term for sunday school) on current events and what the bible has to say about them. since the whole alito confirmation thing is going on and 75% of the question asked of him by the senate had something to do with abortion and sunday was the 33rd anniversary of roe vs. wade i thought it would be a great time discuss the idea of abortion.

well we all know jeremiah 1:5 "before I you were born i set you apart and appointed you as my spokesman to the world." scripture talks about how God cherishes us in the womb and had a plan for us. so easily we can assume the importance of life and to keep this sacred.

along with scripture i wanted to see what the wesleyan church had to say about abortion. this is a direct quote from the 04' discipline:

The Wesleyan Church— seeks to recognize and preserve the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death and, thus, is opposed to the use of induced abortion. However, it recognizes that there may be rare pregnancies where there are grave medical conditions threatening the life of the mother, which could raise a serious question about taking the life of the unborn child. In such a case, a decision should be made only after very prayerful consideration following medical and spiritual counseling. TWC encourages its members to become informed about the abortion issue and to become actively involved locally and nationally in the preparation and passage of appropriate legislation guaranteeing protection of life under law to unborn children.

now to break it down.

1. "seeks to recognize and preserve the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death"--this i believe we can all agree with.

2. "however"--whenever however is added after a statement you know it is going to go in a different direction.

3. "it recognizes that there may be rare pregnancies where there are grave medical conditions threatening the life of the mother, which could raise a serious question about taking the life of the unborn child."--the church taking a stance like this makes believe that they are pro choice. which is kind of interesting because a lot of people in my denomination voted for bush on the sole reason of him being pro life. i wonder how critical the situation with the mother does have to be. many people i have talked to says they know someone who was told by a doctor that it would cause complications and might even hinder the life the of the mother. but these mothers carried the baby full term and there was not one complications. but by the wesleyan standard it would be seen as okay if they had chose to end the life. by trying to appease everybody the wesleyan church has made few happy by this comment.

4. "In such a case, a decision should be made only after very prayerful consideration following medical and spiritual counseling."--at least they do add the idea of prayer and counseling.

5. "TWC encourages its members to become informed about the abortion issue and to become actively involved locally and nationally in the preparation and passage of appropriate legislation guaranteeing protection of life under law to unborn children."--the church then adds this comment to show that they want to protect the life of the human child.

please do not read me wrong i like the wesleyan church and have decided to stay within the denomination to pastor but i am wondering how many wesleyans actually know this is the stand that their church takes on abortion. i wonder if parishioners would be happy about this. i wonder if this should be discussed at the next general conference.

i was wondering how many of you knew what the jewish faith says about abortion. i came across this statement the other day that the "jewish law not only permits abortion but requires it if the mothers life might be in jeopardy." they view the child as a "potential human life until the mojority of the body has emerged from the mother.

what does your denomination say? what is your view?

6 comments:

Martin LaBar said...

I notice you said "so easily we can assume . . ." That strikes me as a great deal short of proof, for just about anything. People (including me) have assumed an awful lot that they shouldn't have, over the centuries.

Have you considered the different possible interpretations of Exodus 21:22-23? One such is that destroying a fetus is not the same thing as murder.

Jews are deeply divided on many issues (There are conservative and reform Jews, for example). My guess is that they are deeply divided on abortion, as well.

Thanks for writing.

nathan richardson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
nathan richardson said...

martin, to reply to the comment "I notice you said "so easily we can assume . . ." That strikes me as a great deal short of proof"

for me scripture is all the proof that i need, i probably didnt word it the best but that is waht happens when you dont look over what you write. we can see it throught scripture that God loves and has a plan for the person even while they are in the womb.


Job 10:8-12
Psalm 22:10-11
Psalm 139-16

thanks martin

Martin LaBar said...

Scripture must be our foundation, but the history of the church, including the interpretations of Christians of the past, is also important. As I understand it, the Church Fathers were not unanimous on this question.

You are correct that these scriptures indicate that God is interested in human life before birth. However, as Exodus 21:22-23 may show (I'm not sure) destroying a fetus may not have been the same as murder in the O. T. That being the case, the Discipline statement on abortion is reasonable. It opposes abortion except in extreme cases. You may be correct in disagreeing, of course.

Thanks for replying.

nathan richardson said...

thanks for clarifying. i am following you a little bit better the second time round. i have reread exodus 21:22-23 many times today and wonder the interpretations. it is difficult for me say. is the harm talking about the mother or the baby, referring to the harm caused? you can get two totally different ideas depending which way you view it.

i hope i do fall in line with the history of the church. but i have to think about who this is written to as well. there wasnt the medical technology back then that we have now and with all the improvments it would be easier for the baby to live despite the circumstances.

but i keep coming back to was it the referring to the baby or the mother?

thanks for the dialogue

Martin LaBar said...

You seem to have hit the nail on the head on the Exodus passage. I'm not a Bible scholar, but my understanding is that we just aren't sure which it means. If it means that the unborn child dies as a result of this behavior, however, the penalty is not the same as for an accidental murder, which, as I am sure you know, was that the killer, even though it was an accident, would be killed himself, unless he fled to one of the cities of refuge.

Because of the uncertainty, I don't think it's possible to make a rock-solid biblical case that abortion equals murder. I don't think that means that abortion is something trivial, though. It isn't.

Thanks for your work.