Obama, Bill Ayres, Praying for Authorities and Luther's Explanation of the 8th

[peter_speckhard]

Or maybe it means that on many issues in life we as Christians make blanket statements without recognizing the reality of human sin.  We also fail to  see that the same charity we seek from God should be applied to others. We demand justice for others and mercy for ourselves, and often don't balance the two.

Jeff Ruby 

Okay, I'll try again. Who or what were you referring to when you wrote the above paragraph, which apart from how I took it seems to have no bearing whatsoever on the discussion. Has anyone here written anything that failed to account for the reality of human sin?

[Lutheran_Lay_Leader]

I didn't say blanket laws. I said "blanket statements".

Jeff Ruby

The problem is that one either makes a general statement, and relies on the good and common sense of those reading those statements to exercise the sense God gave them to understand the meaning intended, or else one must type massive epistles full of disclaimers and exceptions.

If one does the former, it is certain that some yahoo will seize upon some picayune little detail and grab hold of it like a bulldog and shake it to bits. If one does the latter, one will endure snarky comments about one's posts being too long.

[jrubyaz]

Sorry, George's post summed it up. I am not going to get into a debate about words and meanings.

Jeff Ruby

quote author=peter_speckhard link=topic=1735.msg74115#msg74115 date=1226967521]

Or maybe it means that on many issues in life we as Christians make blanket statements without recognizing the reality of human sin.  We also fail to  see that the same charity we seek from God should be applied to others. We demand justice for others and mercy for ourselves, and often don't balance the two.

Jeff Ruby 

Okay, I'll try again. Who or what were you referring to when you wrote the above paragraph, which apart from how I took it seems to have no bearing whatsoever on the discussion. Has anyone here written anything that failed to account for the reality of human sin?
[/quote]

[Richard Johnson]

I think Peter's concept of "making the primary decision" about being pro-life or pro-choice, and then ironing out the details, is a very interesting one.

Many years ago my wife and I lost a child. She was 20+ weeks pregnant, and the pregnancy became infected (long story). She went into labor, her body wanting to get rid of the infection I guess. The doctor said the only real choice was to induce labor which would lead to the death of the baby (maybe not today, but at that time). If not, her life was in jeopardy, and the baby still would not survive. There was little time for parsing the moral issues involved. I took great comfort in the fact that this was taking place in a Roman  Catholic hospital; their clear theological/ethical "pro-life" position convinced me that this really was the only choice.

[Gary Schnitkey]

I think Peter's concept of "making the primary decision" about being pro-life or pro-choice, and then ironing out the details, is a very interesting one.

Many years ago my wife and I lost a child. She was 20+ weeks pregnant, and the pregnancy became infected (long story). She went into labor, her body wanting to get rid of the infection I guess. The doctor said the only real choice was to induce labor which would lead to the death of the baby (maybe not today, but at that time). If not, her life was in jeopardy, and the baby still would not survive. There was little time for parsing the moral issues involved. I took great comfort in the fact that this was taking place in a Roman  Catholic hospital; their clear theological/ethical "pro-life" position convinced me that this really was the only choice.

I don't believe your situation is what most "pro-life" supporters have in mind when they don't support unlimited abortion which, I suppose, is your point.  Most pro-lifers I know would suggest abortion is a moral choice for situations in which the mother's life is imperial.  There may be other situations when abortion could be a moral choice.

The fact is, though, that most abortions today are simply a matter of choice in which the mother does not want the child.  It is, in essence, birth control.

[peter_speckhard]

I think Peter's concept of "making the primary decision" about being pro-life or pro-choice, and then ironing out the details, is a very interesting one.

Many years ago my wife and I lost a child. She was 20+ weeks pregnant, and the pregnancy became infected (long story). She went into labor, her body wanting to get rid of the infection I guess. The doctor said the only real choice was to induce labor which would lead to the death of the baby (maybe not today, but at that time). If not, her life was in jeopardy, and the baby still would not survive. There was little time for parsing the moral issues involved. I took great comfort in the fact that this was taking place in a Roman Catholic hospital; their clear theological/ethical "pro-life" position convinced me that this really was the only choice.

Richard, I'm sorry for your loss. This story, while indeed more tragic than many people give it credit for, is also exactly the sort of story that is in fact pro-life because it illustrates moral reasoning from the standpoint of treating both mother and child as human. I'm the same way about Catholic hospitals-- I don't know enough medicine to iron out every detail of a unique situation on short notice, so it is nice to be in a place where whatever course of action is recommended comes from a shared viewpoint that recognizes the life of the child and the life of the mother. By contrast, moral reasoning from the standpoint of the mother's right to privacy, eugenics, population control, or the social and economic impact of the pregnancy on the mother or on society simply fails to acknowledge the child (and in some cases the mother, and in almost all cases the father) as human and thus fails to be valid moral reasoning. Once it is established that human life begins at conception, then and only then can the complicated issues about when one life can to be taken to save another can be worked out. Until then the only battle is to get people recognized as people. In Richard's example, it is important to note that had some medical marvel or miracle allowed the child to survive, that would not have been considered a failure of the procedure, but would have been cause for celebration. By contrast, it is very telling that a live baby represents the failure of an abortion today.    

[Richard Johnson]

Yes, my point exactly.

BTW, my son Michael lived for perhaps two hours. I had the great privilege of baptizing him, and, four days later, when my wife was out of the hospital, of commending him to God and burying him.

[PrSabin]

I come late to this discussion, but Peter Speckhard's illustrations of principle versus details resonate with me. My pain in the abortion controversy is the observation that often our culture mistakenly believes that law settles experience. I am unwilling to say to a woman whose pregnancy might well "ruin" her life and that of her family, "It's the law!" and leave it at that. It seems to me that love of neighbor demands that I enter into the pain and conflict of her situation and do all humanly possible to transform that "problem pregnancy" into a blessing.

[Richard Johnson]

I come late to this discussion, but Peter Speckhard's illustrations of principle versus details resonate with me. My pain in the abortion controversy is the observation that often our culture mistakenly believes that law settles experience. I am unwilling to say to a woman whose pregnancy might well "ruin" her life and that of her family, "It's the law!" and leave it at that. It seems to me that love of neighbor demands that I enter into the pain and conflict of her situation and do all humanly possible to transform that "problem pregnancy" into a blessing.

I think that is well said, Steven. Only once in my ministry have I been asked to be involved in a situation where an abortion was being contemplated, and the woman involved was not a church member but someone my wife met in the community. She and her husband had three or four children already, and all of them had special needs of one kind or another. It was a struggle (economically and emotionally) just to stay on top of things. Now she was pregnant, and they learned the child had Down syndrome. I spent several hours with them in their home, talking about the issues, letting them vent at God and at the situation. I did not know what they would decide when I left, though they were "leaning toward" the abortion, it seemed to me. They decided ultimately to allow the child to live, and he became the very light of their lives. In talking with her later, she told me that the thing I had said that flipped the decision for them was, "I look at your family now, how you are as parents to your children, and I see that if there is anyone who can love this child and care for this child with love and abandon, it is you."

[ptmccain]

Richard, I'm sure you did not mean to refer to the unborn thing in the mother as a "child" but probably meant to say "fetus" or "embryo" or "tissue"...kudos!