Remembering Collective Shame

[Brian Stoffregen]

Why do you keep calling them "innocent"?

 Perhaps that's where we are going in opposite directions.  I guess if they're conceived in sin, better to abort them before they take their first sin-filled breath of life ... 

  They are innocent of actions that would bring a death penalty upon them.  I don't know if I'm frustrated or horrified that you'd confuse the use of that term when discussing the unborn.

If we don't believe that about the unborn and newly born, we become like the Baptists and others for whom children are innocent until the age of accountability -- at which time they need to be baptized. That is not our teaching.

From our human perspective, you are right that they have committed any crimes that deserve the death penalty. From our theological perspective, they are conceived in sin, born with original sin as part of their being.

How do you react to this section of our Statement?

The language used in discussing abortion should ignore neither the value of unborn life nor the value of the woman and her other relationships. It should neither obscure the moral seriousness of the decision faced by the woman nor hide the moral value of the newly conceived life. Nor is it helpful to use the language of "rights" in absolute ways that imply that no other significant moral claims intrude. A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born, nor does a pregnant woman have an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy.

[Brian Hughes]

The language used in discussing abortion should ignore neither the value of unborn life nor the value of the woman and her other relationships. It should neither obscure the moral seriousness of the decision faced by the woman nor hide the moral value of the newly conceived life. Nor is it helpful to use the language of "rights" in absolute ways that imply that no other significant moral claims intrude. A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born, nor does a pregnant woman have an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy.

Sounds much like:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/midsouthmi/11673.htm

We all dream of a perfect world where women never get cancer and never have an unintended pregnancy. But until this is a perfect world, we will continue to fight for every woman's right to make her own private, personal decisions about reproduction.

We don't apologize for the work we do. On the contrary, we are proud of our dedicated staff and supporters who work unselfishly and tirelessly for women of all ages and socio-economic circumstances who, on any given day, find they need us.

Could the woman who loses her job and can't afford $40 a month for birth control pills turn to an anti-choice activist for help?

Could a woman working two jobs to support a family go to an extreme ideologue for emergency contraception?

In the final analysis, we know that we do more every day to protect women's health and prevent unintended pregnancy than the anti-abortion extremists do any day.



 Perhaps Planned Parenthood understands more than we care to admit.  Certainly as a church we have failed to adequately reach younger generations, to work against the prevailing ideology of post-modernism, and to help young families be shaped by Christ and not the larger culture. 

  To paraphrase the author, where there is no collective shame, almost anything is possible. 

Brian

[Brian Stoffregen]

The language used in discussing abortion should ignore neither the value of unborn life nor the value of the woman and her other relationships. It should neither obscure the moral seriousness of the decision faced by the woman nor hide the moral value of the newly conceived life. Nor is it helpful to use the language of "rights" in absolute ways that imply that no other significant moral claims intrude. A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born, nor does a pregnant woman have an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy.

Sounds much like:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/midsouthmi/11673.htm

We all dream of a perfect world where women never get cancer and never have an unintended pregnancy. But until this is a perfect world, we will continue to fight for every woman's right to make her own private, personal decisions about reproduction.

Our Statement is very different than giving a woman the right to make her own private, personal decision. In fact, as the quote above indicates, talking about "rights" is not helpful.

[peter_speckhard]

The language used in discussing abortion should ignore neither the value of unborn life nor the value of the woman and her other relationships. It should neither obscure the moral seriousness of the decision faced by the woman nor hide the moral value of the newly conceived life. Nor is it helpful to use the language of "rights" in absolute ways that imply that no other significant moral claims intrude. A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born, nor does a pregnant woman have an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy.

Sounds much like:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/midsouthmi/11673.htm

We all dream of a perfect world where women never get cancer and never have an unintended pregnancy. But until this is a perfect world, we will continue to fight for every woman's right to make her own private, personal decisions about reproduction.

We don't apologize for the work we do. On the contrary, we are proud of our dedicated staff and supporters who work unselfishly and tirelessly for women of all ages and socio-economic circumstances who, on any given day, find they need us.

Could the woman who loses her job and can't afford $40 a month for birth control pills turn to an anti-choice activist for help?

Could a woman working two jobs to support a family go to an extreme ideologue for emergency contraception?

In the final analysis, we know that we do more every day to protect women's health and prevent unintended pregnancy than the anti-abortion extremists do any day.



 Perhaps Planned Parenthood understands more than we care to admit.  Certainly as a church we have failed to adequately reach younger generations, to work against the prevailing ideology of post-modernism, and to help young families be shaped by Christ and not the larger culture. 

  To paraphrase the author, where there is no collective shame, almost anything is possible. 

Brian

The Planned Parenthood statement is b.s. pure and simple. Pro-lifers provide all kinds of things to make it possible for a woman to give birth. The Planned Parenthood statement does nothing for a woman who wants to keep her baby, only about the absolute requirement that sex be divorced from procreation. Go tell Planned Parenthood that you decided to keep the baby and see if they'll help you get a car seat, crib, diapers, prenatal vitamins, baby formula, and supportive counseling. Lots of pro-life groups provide all kinds of care. Planned Parenthood is about abortion, not choice.

Brian S. is a master of the pointless digression, as the question about "innocent" and original sin illustrates. It amounts to nothing more than changing one discussion into an unrelated discussion for the purpose of obscuring the clarity of the real point being made.   

[Brian Stoffregen]

The Planned Parenthood statement is b.s. pure and simple. Pro-lifers provide all kinds of things to make it possible for a woman to give birth. The Planned Parenthood statement does nothing for a woman who wants to keep her baby, only about the absolute requirement that sex be divorced from procreation. Go tell Planned Parenthood that you decided to keep the baby and see if they'll help you get a car seat, crib, diapers, prenatal vitamins, baby formula, and supportive counseling. Lots of pro-life groups provide all kinds of care. Planned Parenthood is about abortion, not choice.

Planned Parenthood's statement doesn't guide the decision-making in the ELCA, but our own Statement on Abortion.

Brian S. is a master of the pointless digression, as the question about "innocent" and original sin illustrates. It amounts to nothing more than changing one discussion into an unrelated discussion for the purpose of obscuring the clarity of the real point being made.

I was not the one who kept calling them "innocent" contrary to our understanding of original sin.

[peter_speckhard]

Brian S. is a master of the pointless digression, as the question about "innocent" and original sin illustrates. It amounts to nothing more than changing one discussion into an unrelated discussion for the purpose of obscuring the clarity of the real point being made.

I was not the one who kept calling them "innocent" contrary to our understanding of original sin.

Nobody called them innocent contrary to our doctrine of orginal sin. Our understanding of original sin was not under discussion. If a judge finds the defendant innocent, do you declare the judge guilty of false doctrine, or do you understand the usage? (Maybe I shouldn't ask that.) As was pointed out upstream, we have a day on the church calendar dedicated to the Holy Innocents, but we aren't declaring them free of original sin. You brought original sin into this discussion not to clarify anything in need of clarification, but only to obfuscate. 

[Dan Fienen]

[

Brian S. is a master of the pointless digression, as the question about "innocent" and original sin illustrates. It amounts to nothing more than changing one discussion into an unrelated discussion for the purpose of obscuring the clarity of the real point being made.

I was not the one who kept calling them "innocent" contrary to our understanding of original sin.

If we accept (as we must) that they are guilty of original sin does that mean that because of that guilt they are justifiably subject to the death penalty to be carried out by doctors at the whim of their mothers?  If the guilt of their original sin makes it acceptable that they be put to death, then each of us could justifiably be killed at any time.  Original sin makes each of us guilty.  Or is it that they have not yet been baptized - so killing the unbaptized whose original guilt has not yet been washed away is acceptable?

Dan

[peter_speckhard]

[

Brian S. is a master of the pointless digression, as the question about "innocent" and original sin illustrates. It amounts to nothing more than changing one discussion into an unrelated discussion for the purpose of obscuring the clarity of the real point being made.

I was not the one who kept calling them "innocent" contrary to our understanding of original sin.

If we accept (as we must) that they are guilty of original sin does that mean that because of that guilt they are justifiably subject to the death penalty to be carried out by doctors at the whim of their mothers?  If the guilt of their original sin makes it acceptable that they be put to death, then each of us could justifiably be killed at any time.  Original sin makes each of us guilty.  Or is it that they have not yet been baptized - so killing the unbaptized whose original guilt has not yet been washed away is acceptable?

Dan

Careful Dan. Brian will point out the confession of sin from the hymnal that say we "justly deserve Thy temporal and eternal punishment" to make the point that being slaughtered is indeed a well-deserved temporal punishment for all these sinful babies, and that God typically uses agents to carry out His will, perhaps unwittingly. Therefore, the "choice" of the mother and the work of the abortionist is pure, divine justice. By opposing wanton slaughter, you're actually satanically opposed to all that is good and right. You'll find yourself in the awkward position of meekly asserting that somehow life is better than death while Brian marshalls a vast array of Scriptural proof that abortion ought to be mandatory and retroactively enforced.

[Brian Stoffregen]

You brought original sin into this discussion not to clarify anything in need of clarification, but only to obfuscate. 

Isn't that my job?

[Brian Stoffregen]

[

Brian S. is a master of the pointless digression, as the question about "innocent" and original sin illustrates. It amounts to nothing more than changing one discussion into an unrelated discussion for the purpose of obscuring the clarity of the real point being made.

I was not the one who kept calling them "innocent" contrary to our understanding of original sin.

If we accept (as we must) that they are guilty of original sin does that mean that because of that guilt they are justifiably subject to the death penalty to be carried out by doctors at the whim of their mothers? 

I've already answered that question.

[dfrazer]

Brian marshals a vast array of Scriptural proof that abortion ought to be mandatory and retroactively enforced.

Hmm. Since it is always the "woman's right to choose" does this mean that all the women (as opposed to just my mother) in my life might be able to decide that I have become too much trouble, a simple nuisance, and therefore I should be retroactively aborted?

[Brian Stoffregen]

Brian marshals a vast array of Scriptural proof that abortion ought to be mandatory and retroactively enforced.

Hmm. Since it is always the "woman's right to choose" does this mean that all the women (as opposed to just my mother) in my life might be able to decide that I have become too much trouble, a simple nuisance, and therefore I should be retroactively aborted?

Again, as our ELCA's Statement on Abortion states, talking about "rights" is counter-productive. Our Statement does not give a woman the absolute right to choose.

[Brian Stoffregen]

... while Brian marshalls a vast array of Scriptural proof that abortion ought to be mandatory and retroactively enforced.

Do you agree or not that Joshua and his army were commanded to wipe out the heathens that were living in the land God gave to Israel? That later prophets point to their failure to do that as a source of God's judgment against them? That such passages can be and are used today to support Israel's forced removal of Palestinians from the land?

This isn't an argument for or against abortion, but to indicate that scriptures is not as clear about "not killing children" (or about an individual's right to choose) as some people would like to think.

[peter_speckhard]

... while Brian marshalls a vast array of Scriptural proof that abortion ought to be mandatory and retroactively enforced.

Do you agree or not that Joshua and his army were commanded to wipe out the heathens that were living in the land God gave to Israel? That later prophets point to their failure to do that as a source of God's judgment against them? That such passages can be and are used today to support Israel's forced removal of Palestinians from the land?

This isn't an argument for or against abortion, but to indicate that scriptures is not as clear about "not killing children" (or about an individual's right to choose) as some people would like to think.

God ordering the Israelites to kill the heathens has no bearing on abortion for the simple reason that it was time, place, and people-specific command that had a specific purpose and role in salvation history culminating in Christ, not a general command or blanket approval for anyone to kill anyone. When you stop reading the Scriptures as a Biblicist and start reading it through the lens of Christ (which is the first hermeneutical principle) this will indeed be as clear to you as it is to "some people".

[TravisW]

Reading the original article, it seems that it deals more with the modern West's view on abortion rather than directly discussing the ELCA's social statement concerning abortion.  So, in the context of the Left-hand Kingdom...Here's my take. 

I'm in favor of the reversal of Roe V. Wade.  I'm also not going to hold my breath.  I also think that the concept of "Freedom of Choice" is so firmly ingrained in the minds of my generation (x) that support for an abortion ban amendment gets less likely as the years go by.  I see banning abortion as being a "supply-side" approach to the issue.  If abortion is banned, women will still seek abortions (just like people continue to willingly commit any other crime).  With the "right to choice" tending to be firmly entrenched in the minds of those of childbearing age, I think it would become the medical equivalent to Prohibition.  That's where the second approach comes in.     

The more difficult approach is what I consider the "demand side".  There are things that we know reduce the numbers of abortions.  A strong economy helps (less abortions based on dollar and cent decisions).  Also, unwed mothers should be considered people who should be helped rather than viewed with disdain.  The adoption system should have the kinks worked out of it.  People need to work on understanding birth control and how it relates to sex and procreation.  As a member of a post-sexual-revolution generation, my personal observation is that people tend not to draw the conclusion that reproduction is the natural outcome of sex; which I think is ridiculous from any logical standpoint.  Rather, procreation is seen as something that happens when it is planned. 

The biggest challenge that I see, though, is changing the way people view human life.  The value of human life needs to be extended to all human lives, and this includes the lives of the unborn, the mentally retarded, the homeless, etc...  In our various congregations, I'd imagine that all of us in various ways try to inculcate this way of thinking.  However, it extends far beyond the extent of Lutheranism and Christianity; it's American Culture in general.  That's a big part of why it's such a difficult problem to fix.