A Wicked Deed in Wichita — A Test for the Pro-Life Movement

The cold-blooded murder of Dr. George Tiller on Sunday morning presents the pro-life movement in America with a crucial moral test — will we condemn this murder in unqualified terms?

For many years, Dr. George Tiller has represented the horrific reality of the abortion industry in this nation.  Infamously known to the pro-life movement in America, Tiller was known as “Tiller the Killer” because of his well-known willingness to perform late-term abortions almost no other doctor in the nation would perform.  Because of Dr. George Tiller, Wichita became the destination of choice for women seeking abortions in the late third trimester.

In 1993 Tiller was shot in both arms by an assailant.  His clinic was regularly protested and was once bombed.  Tiller had many brushes with the law, and just weeks ago he was acquitted of charges that he had colluded with another physician to illegally justify late-term abortions.

George Tiller was shot to death Sunday morning as he was serving as an usher at Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita.  Witnesses said that a lone assailant entered the church, shot Dr. Tiller with a single shot, threatened two others, and then fled the scene.  A suspect was arrested hours later.  Wichita police said that the unnamed suspect would likely face multiple charges as early as Monday.

Violence in response to the horror of abortion is rare, but not new.  According to some news reports, Dr. Tiller was the fifth physician to be murdered by abortion opponents.  In other cases, abortion clinics have been bombed and workers have been hurt or killed.

Proponents of abortion rights often charge that the rhetoric of the pro-life movement leads to violence.  After all, we describe abortion as murder and point to the business of abortion as the murder of the unborn.  We make clear that abortion is the taking of innocent human life and that what goes on in abortion clinics is the business of death.

We make these arguments because we know they are true.  Abortion is murder.  What goes on in those clinics is institutionalized homicide, often for financial profit.  Abortion is a moral scandal and a national tragedy and a blight upon the American conscience.

But violence in the name of protesting abortion is immoral, unjustified, and horribly harmful to the pro-life cause.  Now, the premeditated murder of Dr. George Tiller in the foyer of his church is the headline scandal — not the abortions he performed and the cause he represented.

We have no right to take the law into our own hands in an act of criminal violence.  We are not given the right to take this power into our own hands, for God has granted this power to governing authorities.  The horror of abortion cannot be rightly confronted, much less corrected, by means of violence and acts outside the law and lawful means of remedy.  This is not merely a legal technicality — it is a vital test of the morality of the pro-life movement.

The Christian church has been forced by historical necessity to think through these issues again and again.  The church has reached a basic moral consensus on issues of violence and governmental obedience, and this consensus requires that Christian citizens work within legal, judicial, and political means to persuade governing authorities concerning what is good, right, just, and honoring to God.  Those who operate outside of this consensus and perform acts of violence are rightly understood to arrogate authority to themselves in a way that violates not only the laws of men but the law of God.  Civil disobedience may be justified so long as the Christian is willing to suffer at the hands of the governing authorities, but is not justified if the citizen employs violence against the state or against other citizens.

In the case of Dr. George Tiller, the governing authorities failed again and again to fulfill their responsibility to protect all citizens, including those yet unborn.  The law is dishonoring to God in its disrespect for human life.  The law failed to bring George Tiller to account for what should have been seen as crimes against humanity.  But this failure does not authorize others to act in the place of the government, much less in the place of God.  The government must now act to prosecute and punish the murderer of Dr. George Tiller.

In October of 1859, John Brown led a violent attack upon the United States Arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia.  A radical abolitionist, Brown had already proved himself capable of violence for his cause.  In 1856 he had led a gang that brutally killed several pro-slavery figures in Kansas. The raid on Harpers Ferry led to more deaths before Brown and his surviving rebels were arrested, charged with treason, and executed.

When John Brown was arrested, Henry David Thoreau defended the man and his violence, asking:  “Is it not possible that an individual may be right and a government wrong? Are laws to be enforced simply because they were made? Or declared by any number of men to be good, if they are not good?”

Those are the very questions some are tempted to ask now, but these weighty questions cannot justify violence in the name of an honorable cause.  Thoreau was right about the fact that the laws allowing slavery in the United States were immoral and unjustifiable.  John Brown was right when he claimed that slavery was a blight upon the nation’s conscience — a wrong that had to be ended.  Brown’s logic led him to treason, and he was found guilty in a court of law and punished.  Thoreau would refer to Brown as an “angel of light,” but Thoreau never had to live with the consequences of his own attempt to justify murder, nor did he ever acknowledge the true character of the man.

The pro-life movement in America must not wage war against abortion by following the example of John Brown.  Nor can we allow ourselves the luxury of the logic of defending the indefensible along the lines of Thoreau. We must confront this great evil of abortion from a higher plane, and know that the battle is ultimately in God’s hands.

Murder is murder.  The law rightly affirms that the killing of Dr. George Tiller is murder.  In this we must agree.  We cannot rest until the law also recognizes the killing of the unborn as murder.  The killing of Dr. George Tiller makes that challenge all the more difficult.

Finding “Common Ground” on Abortion?

Podcast: Download (7.9MB)

LISTEN NOW:

The hot button issue of abortion has been in the news recently with our pro-abortion President Barack Obama being invited to give the commencement address at Notre Dame, a Catholic university with a historically anti-abortion stance.

In Hour 2 this Saturday of The Christian Worldview, we’ll discuss the changing conviction in America on abortion, what the Bible says about the unborn, how euphemistic language is used to support it, and whether and how Christians should address it in the public and private realm.

America’s Unsettled Conscience on Abortion

Here is an amazing fact — over 35 years after the legalization of abortion this nation is still deeply divided over the issue.  America has an unsettled conscience on abortion, and this most contentious of moral issues may be further from resolution than at any moment since the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down in 1973.

A new Gallup poll tells the story.  The headline of the report from Gallup should encourage pro-life Americans:  “More Americans ‘Pro-Life’ Than ‘Pro-Choice’ for First Time.”  Indeed, 51% of those polled indicated that they are “pro-life” on the issue of abortion.  Prior to this poll, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, and that was in August 2001 and May 2002.

Only 42% of respondents identified themselves as “pro-choice.”  And, even as the percentage of those identifying as pro-life grew, the number of Americans who believe that abortion should be legal under all circumstances fell to 23%.  According to the data, 53% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal under some circumstances and 22% believe that abortion should be illegal under all circumstances.  That means that fully 60% of Americans are opposed to removing all legal restriction to abortion — a stunningly large majority.

As the Gallup organization noted, this means that most Americans fall into some middle position on abortion.  As other surveys and polls have made clear, a majority of Americans want some access to legal abortion, but want some forms of abortion and abortions under some circumstances to be illegal.  They also want some abortions to be illegal but they do not want women arrested for seeking or securing an abortion.  They are opposed to the claim that women should have access to abortion for any reason at all, but they are also unclear about what circumstances should make an abortion legal.

In other words, Americans are confused.

The Gallup organization confirmed its findings through additional polling and research.  It is clear that many Americans are rethinking the abortion question, and it is also clear that many Americans hold confused, contradictory, or inconsistent positions on issues related to abortion.

All this points to an unsettled conscience on abortion, and this confusion is perhaps deeper now than at any point since 1973.

Responding to the new data, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America told The Los Angeles Times:  “I am pretty confident that Americans really don’t want Roe v. Wade overturned.”  Keenan also pointed to recent elections in which pro-choice candidates achieved electoral success, starting with President Barack Obama.

In this context, Kennan’s statement looks quite defensive and pained.  The best she can do is to offer her assurance that “Americans really don’t want Roe v. Wade overturned.”  That is hardly a ringing defense of abortion as a basic right — an argument central to American feminism and to the pro-choice movement throughout recent decades.

On the other hand, Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, told the paper: “People are generally pro-life depending on how you ask the question.”  This new poll from Gallup seems to confirm her confidence.  At the same time, her qualification of “depending on how you ask the question” is huge.  Kennan can rightly point to recent elections as evidence for her claim that Americans must not be as pro-life as they think themselves to be.

The elections do seem to demonstrate that the pro-life convictions of many Americans are not well grounded or considered.  While the pro-life movement can take real hope from this new headline, there is clearly much ground yet to be won.  Americans may be squeamish about abortion and, thanks to modern ultrasound technology, they have a genuine concern for the unborn child, but this has not yet translated into a firm and convictional determination to bring the scourge of abortion on demand to an end.

The pro-choice movement can point to the election of President Obama and many other pro-choice candidates, but the movement must be biting its nails over the trend evident in this new poll and similar surveys.  The most ominous trend for the pro-choice movement is the increasingly pro-life character of younger Americans.  As some observers have pointed out, a generation that can see ultrasound images of themselves in their own baby books tends to see abortion for what it is — the killing of a child.

Here is the great quandary for the pro-choice movement:  More than 35 years after Roe v. Wade, they find that abortion is anything but the “settled issue” that some abortion proponents were certain would be the fate of the abortion question soon after 1973.  To the contrary, the pro-choice movement is losing ground, not gaining.  The frustration of pro-choice leaders is starting to show.  They have little reason to be confident.

Abortion remains the greatest scandal confronting the American conscience.  Those of us who yearn for America to return to its senses on this issue can take hope, even as we have much to do.  Rebuilding a Culture of Life is no easy or quick task.  This is one of the greatest civilizational challenges faced by this generation.

America has an unsettled conscience about abortion.  We should be thankful for this fact, but not satisfied.  An unsettled conscience is far better than a conscience settled on the killing of unborn children.

Talking About Talking About Abortion

President Barack Obama delivered his commencement address at the University of Notre Dame on Sunday, and he appeared to dive right into the very issue that made his visit to the Catholic university so controversial — abortion.

The President’s appearance at Notre Dame came even as seventy Catholic bishops denounced the university’s invitation.  Protests and debates roiled the world of American Catholicism and a major media event was assured.

The President began his address with a call for common ground, noting that the generation represented by the young Notre Dame graduates would face daunting challenges.  “Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone,” said Mr. Obama.  “Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and greater understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.”

Yet, even as he called for common ground, he also warned:  “We’re not going to shy away from things that are uncomfortable sometimes.”   Everyone knew that the President was referring to abortion.  Once again, he called for common ground.  “That’s when we begin to say, ‘Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.’”

In virtually every way imaginable, the Notre Dame speech represents the quintessential Obama.  By now, Americans should understand that this President is going to take positions and shape policies that are at odds with the sanctity of human life.  He has already done this with respect to federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research and, as a candidate he pledged to do far more — even to sign the Freedom of Choice Act if passed by Congress.

At the same time, the President wants to claim common ground and respect for those who differ with him on these issues.  He calls for others to do the same:

I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away.  Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.  Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction.  But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Mr. Obama went on to call for “Open hearts.  Open minds. Fair-minded words.”  In the end, the President’s comments were entirely about how Americans should discuss or debate abortion.  There was no serious consideration of abortion itself.  President Obama merely talked about talking about abortion.

This was a moral evasion and an insult to the importance of the issue.  If the President had actually addressed the issue of abortion — if he had actually even offered a defense or rationale for his own position — he would have dignified the issue.  Instead, Mr. Obama issued what amounted to a call for civility.

When the President called for Americans to agree that, while differing on abortion, “we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually,” he failed to make clear why this is so.  If the unborn baby is not a person who possesses an intrinsic right to life, why is the decision to abort so “heart-wrenching?”  If the fetus is just a collection of cells, why the angst?  Furthermore, does the fact that a decision is “heart-wrenching” make it right or rational?

When the President acknowledged that, in the end, the two positions on abortion are irreconcilable, he was on more solid ground.  Both sides frame the issue as a question of rights — specifically a woman’s “right” to control her reproductive destiny by any means, including abortion vs. the unborn child’s right to live.  The weakness of the pro-abortion (or “pro-choice”) position becomes evident at this point.  The claimed right of control over reproduction is not commensurate with another person’s right to live, and not to be killed in the womb.

If President Obama had actually spoken of abortion itself, rather than addressing abortion only as an issue of controversy, he would have found himself defending the indefensible, which explains why he avoids this discussion at all costs.  Yet, now that he is President, he cannot get by with claiming that this question is “above my pay grade.”

The President also called for a certain humility on contested issues.  “And this doubt should not push us away our faith,” argued the President.  “But it should humble us.  It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness.”  In itself, this is a good and responsible warning.  But, as President Abraham Lincoln made clear in his second inaugural address, avoiding arrogance and self-righteousness does not mean failing to take a clear and costly stand.

This President is entirely predictable on the issue of abortion and related issues of human life, such as embryonic stem cell research.  He is framing policies that are completely consistent with what he said and promised during his campaign.  It is embarrassing to see some evangelicals who claim to be pro-life running public relations for the Obama Administration’s policies and positions.  It is not uncivil to protest the President’s positions as subversive of human dignity and the sanctity of human life.

At the University of Notre Dame President Barack Obama talked about talking about abortion.  One day, he will have to talk about abortion itself.  He will put that day off as long as possible.

Can America Be “Saved”, And If So, How?

Podcast: Download (8.7MB)

LISTEN NOW:

By any biblical Christian’s estimation, the situation in the United States of America is very troubling. The killing of the unborn is more readily available (and taxpayer-funded), the creation and destruction of embryos for scientific purposes is now legal (and taxpayer-funded), a socialist economic policy of enormous spending and redistribution of income from our nation’s producers to our non-producers via excessive taxation and regulation is unfolding before our eyes, and the historic building block of society -marriage between one man and one woman – is being redefined state by state to include homosexual acts the Bible calls abominable.

Seemingly every day, some news story or policy offends our Christian sensibilities – from the politically correct silencing of our Christian faith in the public square to a radically humanistic government educational system to an entertainment industry bent on corrupting the historically biblical mores of our country.

With all this bad news, is there any way that America can be “saved”, and if so, how? Read more

When Abortion Collides with Totalitarianism

The vast nation of China remains under the control of one of the few surviving Communist regimes on the planet.  Over the last two decades, that regime has redefined Communist economic theory, allowing private capital and a consumer market to emerge alongside state control and ownership.  Nevertheless, the totalitarian nature of the regime reaches even into the most intimate dimensions of life.  The most insidious example of this totalitarian impulse is China’s infamous “one child only” policy.

The policy limits most Chinese couples to only one child.  Reports of forced abortions and sterilizations abound.  Couples in rural areas with a girl as their only child may apply for permission for a second child, in hopes of a boy.

The preference for boys is overwhelming in the Chinese culture, and especially in rural areas.  The urgent desire for sons has led to two horrifying developments — the abortion of girls and the abduction of boys.  The abortion of baby girls is now a well-established fact.  The abduction of boys in China is less known in the West, but it is now attracting attention.  As The New York Times reported April 4, 2009, “Although some are sold to buyers in Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam, most of the boys are purchased domestically by families desperate for a male heir, parents of abducted children and some law enforcement officials who have investigated the matter say.”

The mentality behind the preference for boys is reflected in this comment made to the paper by a man who paid $3,500 for an abducted 5-year-old boy:  “A girl is just not as good as a son. . . .  It doesn’t matter how much money you have. If you don’t have a son, you are not as good as other people who have one.” The abduction of boys, usually very young, is now “a thriving business,” according to the Times.

A clearer picture of the practice of aborting girl babies is also now available, thanks to the British Medical Journal.  The picture is nothing less than horrifying.  The arrival of ultrasound technology has made the identification of fetal gender a deadly reality for unborn baby girls.  They are aborted by the millions.

The demographics are reported in stark terms:

In 2005 males under the age of 20 exceeded females by more than 32 million in China, and more than 1.1 million excess births of boys occurred. China will see very high and steadily worsening sex ratios in the reproductive age group over the next two decades.

In other words, the problem of the gender imbalance has now reached the point that there is, practically speaking, no way to do anything about the present generation.  Millions of Chinese young men will have no opportunity to marry.  The sociological impact is beyond imagination.

The British study points to a phenomenon known as the “at least one son practice.”  Many Chinese couples will do just about whatever it takes to have a son.  If their first child is a girl and the couple receives permission for a second child, the report makes clear that the abortion of a baby girl at that point is exceedingly likely.

Consider this:

[T]he steady rise in sex ratios across the birth cohorts since 1986 mirrors the increasing availability of ultrasonography over that period. The first ultrasound machines were used in the early 1980s; they reached county hospitals by the late 1980s and then rural townships by the mid-1990s. Since then, ultrasonography has been very cheap and available even to the rural poor. Termination of pregnancy is also very available, in line with the one child policy.

As William Saletan of Slate.com explains, “It’s a terrible convergence of ancient prejudice with modern totalitarianism. Girls are culturally and economically devalued; the government uses powerful financial levers to prevent you from having another child; therefore, to make sure you can have a boy, you abort the girl you’re carrying.”

Though sex-selection abortions are officially illegal in China, the totalitarian regime has made abortion a centerpiece of its “one child only” policy.  Ultrasound machines and abortion clinics are available virtually everywhere in China — and both are put to deadly use.

Here we see abortion and totalitarianism hand in hand, resulting in the deaths of millions of baby girls and the abduction of at least thousands of young boys.  When human life is devalued and abortion is state policy, the Culture of Death is institutionalized.  When the “one child policy” and an ancient and ingrained preference for boys are combined, the womb becomes a deadly place to be a girl.

Stem Cell Decision Worse Than Roe v. Wade

Today, the shoddiest piece of journalism I have seen in a long time landed on my front step. The L.A. Times article “Obama Moves to Strengthen Role of Science in Policy” was printed in my Colorado Springs Gazette. It is the most blatant form of secularist “if you don’t agree with our science, you are religious and should be dismissed” ideology since John Kerry’s presidential campaign. The “journalists” Jim Tankersley and Noam Levey write:

President Obama made his most forceful break yet from his predecessor’s controversial scientific agenda Monday, opening the door to a major expansion of government-funded research on embryonic stem cells and ordering federal agencies to strengthen the role of science in their decision-making.

The twin announcements marked a clear departure from former President George W. Bush’s approach to science, which had caused a rift between that administration and a large segment of the nation’s research community. Many complained that scientific data had been ignored or skewed as the Bush administration set policy on climate change, oil and gas drilling, and other aspects of environmental and health policy.

In particular, Bush’s limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell experiments had become a touchstone for many scientists angry at the administration, as well as for advocates for patients who have hoped the research would lead to cures for a wide range of diseases.

The problem here is that few presidents have been as thoroughly vindicated on a particular policy decision as George W. Bush was on his decision to restrict federal funding for embryonic destructive research. For a clear history of this, see the November 2008 article by Joseph Bottum and Ryan Anderson “Stem Cells: A Political History.”

Where Bottum and Anderson are correct is that with the astounding success of adult stem cells (stem cells acquired from sources that do not require the destruction of the embryo), and the exciting developments in regard to induced pluripotent cells (non-embryonic cells “reprogrammed” to behave like embryonic stem cells) there remains few scientific reasons, if any, to pursue the ethically questionable research that destroys the most innocent among us. We certainly do not think we should fund every scientific venture with tax dollars. Why this one?

Where Bottum and Anderson are wrong is in their suggestion that since this issue was a minor one during the election, it is therefore no longer a political issue. Clearly, after yesterday’s dismal decision by President Obama, it still is.

This is a decision worse than Roe V. Wade. In cases of abortion, one can at least wrongfully argue that immediate hardship will be alleviated. In this case, there is no reason to believe any hardship will be alleviated, and certainly not immediately. Not to mention, where on earth are we going to get any federal funds at this time? Has our President forgotten the real crisis now is not that scientists cannot find money (Note: embryonic stem cell research was never banned, contrary to Kerry’s claims. President Bush restricted federal funding. States – and many did – and private investors – and very few did since it was such a bad investment – were still allowed to provide funding), it’s that our country cannot find money?

Without all of the ethical questions surrounding this, it is a poor economic decision! It’s bad enough that President Obama thinks that all problems need to have government solutions. Now, he is fabricating problems so that the government can solve them! There is no problem anymore! In fact, there never was!

So, why is this ignored in the “report” by the LA Times? Why are any arguments against embryonic destructive research considered merely religious and political? Why are all arguments for embryonic destructive research scientific when there remains next to no scientific reasons to pursue it any more?

(Note also how later in the article, the authors imply that those who oppose global warming do so only for political reasons. Are they unaware how increasingly ridiculous the accusation of human cause global warming is becoming? Are they at least aware that the scientific community has not come to a consensus about this issue?)

So, today I, and many Americans, are forced to fund murder and contribute our tax dollars to something which will – in the name of “science” – further our culture of death. Only, it is not science. It is politics. And, it is completely unjustifiable.

Life and Marriage: Why They Matter (Part 3 of 3)

Finally, to end this mini-series on Life and Marriage are still issues that ought to matter for the Christian, we need to address what seems to become the most convincing reason to abandon them. This is, of course, the statement that is often thrown around that we should be people of love. This was the primary point of our aforementioned emailer:

Our greatest commandment is to, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind and to love your neighbor as yourself”. As followers of Jesus Christ our greatest commandment is NOT to pick or choose the sins that we, as humans, see as the worst sins. In this case gay marriage and abortion have randomly been chosen. Jesus said that he does not see things the way the world does but rather that He looks at the heart. As humans we like to rate and justify. Well this sin is worse than that one and well, I might have done this but at least I didn’t do that. The fact is, however, that sin is sin! If you lie, you are no worse than the woman who kills her unborn child. If you drive over the speed limit and disobey authority then you are no better than the homosexual. For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I would like to know what authority gives Summit Organization the power to Read more

Republicans Using Christians on Life Issue? (Part 2 of 3)

In my previous post, I addressed the first of the three most common reasons offered for why Christians ought to abandon any public posturing against abortion and gay marriage.

Today we look at the second reason, that these issues make us pawns of the Republican party, who really care nothing about the issues. As the email I mentioned yesterday put it, 

I recently heard a radio program hosted by this organization that was basically a campaign for the Republican Party because they are against gay marriage and abortion. While I too believe that those things are wrong I must tell you that I AM SICK AND TIRED of people who push for the Republican Party to get into office for two reasons and two reasons only: gay marriage and abortion.

There are so many assumptions being made here, it is hard to know where to begin. First, it is assumed that anyone who supports bans on gay marriage is Read more

NAE Leader Richard Cizik: Exhibit A of Evangelicalism Moving Left

From SliceOfLaodicea.com

When an evangelical leader [Richard Cizik, Vice President of Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals] claiming to represent millions of supposedly Bible-believing Christians in this country, goes on National Public Radio saying he voted for the most virulent defender of child murder in American history when he voted in the Virginia primary, we’re looking at smoking ruins, folks. 

Click here to listen to Cizik’s interview on NPR.

Click here to listen to Crosstalk’s December 2nd radio program covering this issue.

Crosstalk Press Release: December 3, 2008 

Headline:  Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) Says Christians Can Vote for Pro-Child Killing Politicians

Richard Cizik, VP for Governmental Affairs at the National Association of Evangelicals, appeared on the Fresh Air program on National Public Radio on Tuesday. When asked who he voted for in the election, Cizik announced he had voted for Barack Obama in the Virginia primary, and said that the vote should give some indication of how he voted in the general election. He went further and said that evangelicals could vote for a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage politician even though they disagreed on those issues.  Read more

« Previous Page — Next Page »