One of the big issues I have with the “Christian” input into the abortion debate is that it’s pretty heartless when it comes to understanding the mother to be. I understand the need to fight for the rights of the unborn. I think we’re called to speak for the voiceless. I think we should uphold the value of human life. But most abortion protestors (as a horrible generalisation) are big on “it’s wrong don’t do it” and not so big on what to do if you don’t do it.
It’s a complex issue and worthy of much more than a simple dismissal. Abortion protestors are often (another horrible generalisation) jumping on a moral soapbox that is irrelevant to a non-believer, while offering no solutions whatsoever to the causal issue. Some mothers just don’t feel equipped to have a child, to raise a child and to love a child. I know that not having a child would be a much better option. I know because Bristol Palin says so.
The voice of the “pro-life” movement would be much more compelling if they were “pro-life” not just “anti-death” – which is why I think this Presbyterian Church in America that has come out and offered to take in any unwanted baby and care for them – is taking a great approach to raising the quality of the discourse on the matter. And getting some positive press for doing so… Here’s an excerpt from the sermon.
"I make a promise to you now and I don’t want you to keep this a secret," the pastor pronounced, "the Peachtree Presbyterian Church will care for any newborn baby you bring to this church.
"We will be the family to find a home for that child, and there’s no limit on this. You can tell your friends, you can tell your family, you can tell the whole world …"
Comments
Agreed.
Australia does not have a functioning Adoption scheme and we wonder why people get abortions?
I assume adoption is difficult, partly because the number of people looking to adopt would seem to be hard to pin down. But having churches come out and offer to do the adopting seems to me to be a really practical way to offer love and support – particularly because parents who give up babies will know exactly where they’re going.
[…] only so many times one can visit Chatswood Westfield on their lunchbreak), and found an interesting post by Nathan on abortion. He […]
It’s my impression that ‘Christian’ or ‘pro-life’ organisations tend to be pretty good with the whole “helping the mother-to-be who decides against abortion”. Individuals who argue the pro-life point might not, but the organisations out there who are doing something appear to be. (In the US, at any rate. I really don’t know what it’s like in Australia, but would assume it’s not too different).
I’m pretty sure that picketing abortion clinics is not loving to the women thinking about using them.
I’m pretty sure that condemnation without empathy/sympathy is also not particularly loving.
I’m also pretty sure that saying “that’s wrong” without saying “here’s a better way” is not loving.
It might be correct, but it’s not loving.
[…] The one on abortion […]
Adoption is ‘unnecessary’ when IVF is increasingly effective. Why have someone else’s child when you could have your own?
(I’m not saying that IVF is wrong – jury is still out for me.)
Pre-natal testing is readily available, and becoming increasingly normal and expected.
Why carry a child to full term if you know there is a high likelihood that it will be stillborn or have a severe disability.
Just to clarify, I don’t actually agree with my last statement. I have thus-far refused pre-natal testing because I don’t want the temptation to terminate a non-viable pregnancy.