President Bush picked a good time to exercise his veto power:  Bush Vetoes Embryonic Stem Cell Research Bill

One of the most common position pro-life positions is opposition to all abortions, except in the case of rape and incest (tangent:  a good friend of mine doesn’t add “and incest,” as incest is technically rape).  The reasons for this exception are plenty, I’m sure, but my hunch is that is a nod to the victims of such a deplorable act, and heinous it is.  I can’t imagine a more vile crime a man can commit against a woman.  Lost in that discussion, though, is the fact that in those rare cases where rape results in a pregnancy, there are at least two victims:  the woman and the newly created child, both of which are deserving of our love and support, as well as justice.

This is where things get odd.  The pro-life position is that of the defense of life.  We hold that all life is sacred and deserves protection.  We also hold that life begins at fertilization.  Not at implantation, for there’s nothing morally significant about attaching to the uterine wall.  Nor at 24 weeks, as there’s nothing morally significant about getting bigger and looking “more human.”  No, we hold that life begins at fertilization because it is at that point that two distinct sets of DNA (rather, two incomplete halves of sets of DNA) form to create a distinct third; at which point a genetically distinct person is created with his or her own gender, eye color, hair color, blood type etc.  That person, even though he or she is small is a person and deserves the right to life.  When we make exceptions to our pro-life stance, though, to except cases in which a child is conceived through the violent act of rape, we tell the world, and that sweet, little child, that all children are valuable and have the right to life, unless they are conceived in a distasteful manner, in which case it’s alright to snuff them out, and that makes an incoherent defense for the sanctity of life.

One of the difficulties we have as Christians opposed to social evils like abortion is perception.  The world expects us (and rightly so) to be “meek and mild” and not prone to anger, hypocrisy, etc.  These are high standards and, for Christians especially, very appropriate.  When discussing extremely sensitive “personal” issues like abortion (and homosexuality, adultery, etc), it is exceedingly easy to offend those on the other side of the issue, so great care must be taken to defend our position “with gentleness and with respect” (here, here, and here, for example).  Of course, it’s probably impossible to avoid completely offending some, as the truth can be offensive, but we need not add to that offense with rude, obnoxious, and abrasive behavior. 

As I’ve thought more on my Wal-Mart and abortion blog entry, I think I may be guilty of that very behavior.  While my part of me is still somewhat proud of how wity that title was, it was probably too inflammatory to be of much good.  To correct the error, I’ve retitled the entry (though I’ve left the body as is, for now at least).  I earnestly want to affect positively (for pre-borns) abortion policies and attitudes in this country, but being abrasive will only help to further polarize the situation.  Mea culpa.

One thing that’s often overlooked in discussions of Plan B is that it presupposes that there’s a Plan A.  That plan, given the context, is another form of birth control, which usually doesn’t include abstinence.  Rather, it usually means The Pill.  The idea being, I guess, that if Plan A fails (or fails to be executed correctly), one can fall back to Plan B.  Now, if Plan B really is as evil I’ve made it out to be, we can assume that the primary or preferred plan is a better one, right?  Wrong.  What most people don’t realize is that there is a strong body of evidence that shows that The Pill is actually an abortifacient.  You can read an extensive discussion of the issue over at Eternal Perspectives Ministries, but I’ll highlight it for you right here.
…

Read More Read More