The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform's Truth Tour is in Thunder Bay for the weekend. Tonight JoJo Ruba kicked off the tour with "A Case for Life" at the LU for (I guess) close to fifty of us -- some of which were, happily, new, young faces. Tomorrow JoJo will resume his "Making Abortion Unthinkable" series at St.Peters Roman Catholic Church with " Becoming Pro-life Ambassadors.” On Sunday at Westfort Baptist Church, at 11:00am, JoJo will speak on "Loving our Unborn Neighbour" to be followed later at 8:00pm at the United Reformed Church with "True for me but not for you."
I am really looking forward to being strengthened in my pro-life beliefs and learning from JoJo's expertise and experience this weekend and I am thankful that the Lord has opened doors for him to get the Truth out there where it can make an impact. Especially encouraging for me were the events immediately preceding this weekend's tour, in which the "pro-choice" protest and subsequent suspensions of a few St.Patrick school students sent waves throughout the city of Thunder Bay, stirring up the subject of abortion, freedom of speech and expression, and provoking some much needed dialogue and debate from the community. This will be the fourth time this year that abortion has made the press and has brought to the surface the nature of the heated abortion debate once again. This, I think, is a very good sign. As JoJo so rightly observed tonight, we pro-lifers have a winning argument if we would just engage people in conversation.
JoJo began tonight by helping us to identify and confront moral relativism by emphatically asserting our pro-life views as objective truth owing to the basic fact that abortion kills a human being.
He then explained the usefulness of realistic, graphic pictures to unmask the abhorrent nature of what abortion is -- which is killing a human being. Delineating upon this notion further, he took great pains to underscore the humanity of the unborn child -- that this personhood is not merely a personal belief; rather, it is scientifically supported by the principle of BIOGENESIS (like produces like). Then, to help us in our efforts to more effectively engage with others and dispel faulty conceptions of what determines personhood, he introduced us to the SLED test:
1) Size
Does size determine personhood?
2) Level of Development
When do our abilities determine personhood? (It's a rhetorical question.)
3) Environment
Does where we are determine what we are?
4) Degree of Dependency
Does dependency determine personhood?
Now, the example he gave to prove his point here (I felt) was seriously lacking. JoJo used the example of the dependency of a born child to a parent, and reasoned that a parent could not just kill his or her child because the child's dependency is an inconvenience. I have debated pro-choicers before who have appealed to the dependency of the unborn to the mother as the basis of the pro-choice argument, and I see their point. The unborn child is dependent on the very body of the mother for his or her life, and not on the certain extrinsic tasks the parent must undertake for the child's survival. If such a case arose wherein the parent was not willing to take on these responsibilities, they can be deferred to somebody else who is willing. The child does not necessarily die as a consequence -- he can live with the help of another; however, the mother of the unborn child does not have this option. She may not be choosing to kill the baby -- perhaps she is choosing to assert her right to her own bodily integrity. But when she makes the choice to disengage herself -- her own uterus (and she does not have to necessarily target the child at all...she simply refuses her organs to the child) -- the child will die, but indirectly. Her intent was merely to excercise her own autonomy that the child happened to be subsisting upon.
So there is a fundamental difference between these two scenarios, obviously.
And pro-choicers, who are coming from this viewpoint, will ask you if we should also force people to give blood to save others. And what do we say? Of course not! If we see that a person is in need, and we have the capacity to meet that need should we sacrifice something of our own, whether we choose to meet that need or not is a matter of choice -- of personal values -- and there is no place for the law to infringe on our freedom to choose in such a case. Even though it is true that the mother of the unborn child needs not actively "do" anything to preserve the life of the unborn child, she must still carry that child, be stretched, endure labour pain, and then deliver that child and recover from childbirth. We are still compelling her to sacrifice something of her own personal space, comfort and ownership for the sustenance of another. In light of this, one can rightfully argue that this is not a matter for law, but for individual conscience.
Now, there is a problem here for the pro-choicer too, as the abortion procedure never simply evacuates the contents of the uterus without infringing on the integrity of the child. But one can argue still that when one has trespassed on your property, there are allocations for the use of force in removing the intruder, if necessary.
We pro-lifers can draw the "choice to have sex" card, but when it comes to sexual reproduction, there is really no choice at the very heart of the matter: Women did not choose to have their bodies designed in such a way that sex and pregnancy are inextricably linked. Many women, if there were a choice, would choose sex without the capacity to produce human lives that would subsist within their wombs. Many women take birth control and still experience breakthrough pregnancies.
If you have debated with enough pro-choicers you quickly come to see that very few of them who have done their homework (which are the most avid pro-choicers) really believe the unborn child is not a human being. They simply believe that the unborn child (human or not) should not be entitled to subsist on another person's body against that person's will.
To be clear: I am not sympathizing with the absurdity that Joyce Arthur subscribes to in maintaining that the nature and value of the fetus is subjective to the mother (this defies both logic and reality); I am saying that even though we recognize the human nature of the fetus and ackowledge it's inherent value, there is question as to whether or not we ought to use the law to force someone to continue to have their body used as a life support system for that human being -- and this is really the crux of the matter.
I am not quite sure what to think at this point. I care deeply about the lives of the unborn. I mourn for them. I remember the little body (the eyes, little nose, mouth, hands and fingers, feet and toes) of my tiny son and think abortion is a grave evil. I can't imagine how it would feel for him to have his precious arms and legs torn off of him as he writhed in pain. But I also think leaving the poor to "stew in their own juices" while we live it up here in the West is a grave evil too. (Yet, we make sure our own families are liberally provided for, and then we give the poor some of the left-over. Poor children are dying too, but we do not think it is our responsibility to make any real sacrifices for them.) The question is, do we use the law to force us to donate to the poor? Do we use the law to give a kidney to someone who is going into kidney failure?
What I do know for sure is that we should never gloss over the horrendous reality of abortion and the severity of that choice. We should not even pretend that it is morally acceptable. We do have a mandate to fight for truth and to make sure that women making this choice are given straightforward facts instead of deceptive euphemisms. We have a responsibility to our young women who are under the age of consent to not abort their babies when they are not of age to make such a decision. (We also have a responsibility not to let abortion clinics cover up the crimes of pedophiles by destroying the evidence.) We should fight insofar as truth is being systematically concealed. There is much pro-life work to be done. But should we use the law to force people to be moral, and if so...where do we draw the line? That is what I would like to know.
I guess I am just questioning a lot of things lately. I am trying to distinguish between man-made religion, and what is biblical Christianity.
EDIT:
I did manage to speak with Jojo while he was here, and he helped to clear some things up (which I will blog about in the near future). He also pointed something else out that instantly reminded me of a conversation I once had with a few pro-choice activists.
Jojo made the point (and I have to paraphrase) that this argument (the dependency of the child to the mother) is really a non-issue for pro-choicers; they simply use this argument as ammunition against Life. His words instantly stirred up something these choicers had said to me in a conversation we were having regarding the prospect of a future artificial womb, and what effect this would have on the pro-choice movement. Basically, it mattered not to them; not one bit.
"What if", I asked, "a future abortion procedure became available which simply removes the child from the womb without any additional violence? What if technology did permit us to transfer the child from the woman's womb to an artificial womb, for example?"
And the answer?
It makes no difference to them. "The woman should be entitled the right not to be a parent against her will."
So basically, they want the right not to allow the child to exist at all. All logic and morality and basic humanity tossed to the wind. Make way for the almighty woman (or the man who is manipilating that woman)! We now live in a might makes right country.
This really is an argument to get us sidetracked.
I am really looking forward to being strengthened in my pro-life beliefs and learning from JoJo's expertise and experience this weekend and I am thankful that the Lord has opened doors for him to get the Truth out there where it can make an impact. Especially encouraging for me were the events immediately preceding this weekend's tour, in which the "pro-choice" protest and subsequent suspensions of a few St.Patrick school students sent waves throughout the city of Thunder Bay, stirring up the subject of abortion, freedom of speech and expression, and provoking some much needed dialogue and debate from the community. This will be the fourth time this year that abortion has made the press and has brought to the surface the nature of the heated abortion debate once again. This, I think, is a very good sign. As JoJo so rightly observed tonight, we pro-lifers have a winning argument if we would just engage people in conversation.
JoJo began tonight by helping us to identify and confront moral relativism by emphatically asserting our pro-life views as objective truth owing to the basic fact that abortion kills a human being.
He then explained the usefulness of realistic, graphic pictures to unmask the abhorrent nature of what abortion is -- which is killing a human being. Delineating upon this notion further, he took great pains to underscore the humanity of the unborn child -- that this personhood is not merely a personal belief; rather, it is scientifically supported by the principle of BIOGENESIS (like produces like). Then, to help us in our efforts to more effectively engage with others and dispel faulty conceptions of what determines personhood, he introduced us to the SLED test:
1) Size
Does size determine personhood?
2) Level of Development
When do our abilities determine personhood? (It's a rhetorical question.)
3) Environment
Does where we are determine what we are?
4) Degree of Dependency
Does dependency determine personhood?
Now, the example he gave to prove his point here (I felt) was seriously lacking. JoJo used the example of the dependency of a born child to a parent, and reasoned that a parent could not just kill his or her child because the child's dependency is an inconvenience. I have debated pro-choicers before who have appealed to the dependency of the unborn to the mother as the basis of the pro-choice argument, and I see their point. The unborn child is dependent on the very body of the mother for his or her life, and not on the certain extrinsic tasks the parent must undertake for the child's survival. If such a case arose wherein the parent was not willing to take on these responsibilities, they can be deferred to somebody else who is willing. The child does not necessarily die as a consequence -- he can live with the help of another; however, the mother of the unborn child does not have this option. She may not be choosing to kill the baby -- perhaps she is choosing to assert her right to her own bodily integrity. But when she makes the choice to disengage herself -- her own uterus (and she does not have to necessarily target the child at all...she simply refuses her organs to the child) -- the child will die, but indirectly. Her intent was merely to excercise her own autonomy that the child happened to be subsisting upon.
So there is a fundamental difference between these two scenarios, obviously.
And pro-choicers, who are coming from this viewpoint, will ask you if we should also force people to give blood to save others. And what do we say? Of course not! If we see that a person is in need, and we have the capacity to meet that need should we sacrifice something of our own, whether we choose to meet that need or not is a matter of choice -- of personal values -- and there is no place for the law to infringe on our freedom to choose in such a case. Even though it is true that the mother of the unborn child needs not actively "do" anything to preserve the life of the unborn child, she must still carry that child, be stretched, endure labour pain, and then deliver that child and recover from childbirth. We are still compelling her to sacrifice something of her own personal space, comfort and ownership for the sustenance of another. In light of this, one can rightfully argue that this is not a matter for law, but for individual conscience.
Now, there is a problem here for the pro-choicer too, as the abortion procedure never simply evacuates the contents of the uterus without infringing on the integrity of the child. But one can argue still that when one has trespassed on your property, there are allocations for the use of force in removing the intruder, if necessary.
We pro-lifers can draw the "choice to have sex" card, but when it comes to sexual reproduction, there is really no choice at the very heart of the matter: Women did not choose to have their bodies designed in such a way that sex and pregnancy are inextricably linked. Many women, if there were a choice, would choose sex without the capacity to produce human lives that would subsist within their wombs. Many women take birth control and still experience breakthrough pregnancies.
If you have debated with enough pro-choicers you quickly come to see that very few of them who have done their homework (which are the most avid pro-choicers) really believe the unborn child is not a human being. They simply believe that the unborn child (human or not) should not be entitled to subsist on another person's body against that person's will.
To be clear: I am not sympathizing with the absurdity that Joyce Arthur subscribes to in maintaining that the nature and value of the fetus is subjective to the mother (this defies both logic and reality); I am saying that even though we recognize the human nature of the fetus and ackowledge it's inherent value, there is question as to whether or not we ought to use the law to force someone to continue to have their body used as a life support system for that human being -- and this is really the crux of the matter.
I am not quite sure what to think at this point. I care deeply about the lives of the unborn. I mourn for them. I remember the little body (the eyes, little nose, mouth, hands and fingers, feet and toes) of my tiny son and think abortion is a grave evil. I can't imagine how it would feel for him to have his precious arms and legs torn off of him as he writhed in pain. But I also think leaving the poor to "stew in their own juices" while we live it up here in the West is a grave evil too. (Yet, we make sure our own families are liberally provided for, and then we give the poor some of the left-over. Poor children are dying too, but we do not think it is our responsibility to make any real sacrifices for them.) The question is, do we use the law to force us to donate to the poor? Do we use the law to give a kidney to someone who is going into kidney failure?
What I do know for sure is that we should never gloss over the horrendous reality of abortion and the severity of that choice. We should not even pretend that it is morally acceptable. We do have a mandate to fight for truth and to make sure that women making this choice are given straightforward facts instead of deceptive euphemisms. We have a responsibility to our young women who are under the age of consent to not abort their babies when they are not of age to make such a decision. (We also have a responsibility not to let abortion clinics cover up the crimes of pedophiles by destroying the evidence.) We should fight insofar as truth is being systematically concealed. There is much pro-life work to be done. But should we use the law to force people to be moral, and if so...where do we draw the line? That is what I would like to know.
I guess I am just questioning a lot of things lately. I am trying to distinguish between man-made religion, and what is biblical Christianity.
EDIT:
I did manage to speak with Jojo while he was here, and he helped to clear some things up (which I will blog about in the near future). He also pointed something else out that instantly reminded me of a conversation I once had with a few pro-choice activists.
Jojo made the point (and I have to paraphrase) that this argument (the dependency of the child to the mother) is really a non-issue for pro-choicers; they simply use this argument as ammunition against Life. His words instantly stirred up something these choicers had said to me in a conversation we were having regarding the prospect of a future artificial womb, and what effect this would have on the pro-choice movement. Basically, it mattered not to them; not one bit.
"What if", I asked, "a future abortion procedure became available which simply removes the child from the womb without any additional violence? What if technology did permit us to transfer the child from the woman's womb to an artificial womb, for example?"
And the answer?
It makes no difference to them. "The woman should be entitled the right not to be a parent against her will."
So basically, they want the right not to allow the child to exist at all. All logic and morality and basic humanity tossed to the wind. Make way for the almighty woman (or the man who is manipilating that woman)! We now live in a might makes right country.
This really is an argument to get us sidetracked.
