Abortion and Politics

[George Erdner]

Regarding making exceptions for situations where abortion might remain legal, this thread is Abortion AND Politics. We should not forget that politics is known as the art of the possible. It is how we puny, flawed, and sin-ridden humans handle our own affairs, and it is not perfect. It is a process through which we seek to improve, with the full knowledge that while we might take steps to make things a little better, we will not make them perfect.


In the political landscape of 2012, when confronted with a choice between two political parties and their plans for action over the next four years, we are not presented with a choice between one candidate who is totally wrong on the issue of abortion and another who is totally right. We are confronted with one who is mostly wrong and another who is mostly right. It is utter folly to reject the choice that is better just because it isn't perfect.

[Matt Hummel]

OK- So we get that Norman hates the Great Whore of Babylon (from whom I draw a paycheck)

But some questions are still out there.  How many of us would claim to accept an orthodox Christology?

I am guessing everyone.

So the question is, if Adoptionism is a heresy, at what point did Christ become fully human?  I would guess that the answer the Church would give, synchronically and diachronically, is at Mary's "Yes!"  And if Christ is like us in all things except sin, and he was fully human from conception, then what else can we be?

So we have disposed of the issue theologically, contra Mr. Wills.

But the issue is also open to reason and the facts of science.  Before conception, you have two haploid cells that contain half the genetic information of their source.  From conception on, you have a unique, diploid entity.  And as for the idea of the zygote being a "potential" human, then by definition it has to be potentially non-human.  Tell you what, when Drudge posts the story of a woman, having conceived after intercourse with her husband, giving birth to an aardvark, I will graciously concede the point that zygotes are "potential."  Until then, I will take "Fully Human" for $500, Alex

This is where Biden [I was saddled with this guy as a Senator until he got kicked upstairs in a glittering example of the Peter Principle], blew it in the debate.  The Church arrives at its position on abortion via reason and science and so it is not something that is accepted or rejected de fidei. Abortion is not wrong because the Church opposes it.  The Church opposes it because it is wrong.

[Matt Hummel]

Regarding making exceptions for situations where abortion might remain legal, this thread is Abortion AND Politics. We should not forget that politics is known as the art of the possible. It is how we puny, flawed, and sin-ridden humans handle our own affairs, and it is not perfect. It is a process through which we seek to improve, with the full knowledge that while we might take steps to make things a little better, we will not make them perfect.


In the political landscape of 2012, when confronted with a choice between two political parties and their plans for action over the next four years, we are not presented with a choice between one candidate who is totally wrong on the issue of abortion and another who is totally right. We are confronted with one who is mostly wrong and another who is mostly right. It is utter folly to reject the choice that is better just because it isn't perfect.

George- Interesting points and on the whole true.  Asking truly as a matter of curiosity, in what way could one see the current occupant of the Oval Office as being even partly right on this issue?  I will stipulate that from my perspective, Gov. Romney leaves much to be desired on Life issues.  But honest injun, from his days as Stae Senator to now, what has Obama done that even remotely smacks of being Pro-Life?  I ask because I want to hear.

[George Erdner]

Regarding making exceptions for situations where abortion might remain legal, this thread is Abortion AND Politics. We should not forget that politics is known as the art of the possible. It is how we puny, flawed, and sin-ridden humans handle our own affairs, and it is not perfect. It is a process through which we seek to improve, with the full knowledge that while we might take steps to make things a little better, we will not make them perfect.


In the political landscape of 2012, when confronted with a choice between two political parties and their plans for action over the next four years, we are not presented with a choice between one candidate who is totally wrong on the issue of abortion and another who is totally right. We are confronted with one who is mostly wrong and another who is mostly right. It is utter folly to reject the choice that is better just because it isn't perfect.

George- Interesting points and on the whole true.  Asking truly as a matter of curiosity, in what way could one see the current occupant of the Oval Office as being even partly right on this issue?  I will stipulate that from my perspective, Gov. Romney leaves much to be desired on Life issues.  But honest injun, from his days as Stae Senator to now, what has Obama done that even remotely smacks of being Pro-Life?  I ask because I want to hear.

I don't know how one could see Obama as being right, but I attribute that to my lack of imagination. Perhaps he should get credit for his socialist agenda to favor government handouts and incentives to have children instead of aborting them in order to get more government largess.

[Matt Hummel]

Regarding making exceptions for situations where abortion might remain legal, this thread is Abortion AND Politics. We should not forget that politics is known as the art of the possible. It is how we puny, flawed, and sin-ridden humans handle our own affairs, and it is not perfect. It is a process through which we seek to improve, with the full knowledge that while we might take steps to make things a little better, we will not make them perfect.


In the political landscape of 2012, when confronted with a choice between two political parties and their plans for action over the next four years, we are not presented with a choice between one candidate who is totally wrong on the issue of abortion and another who is totally right. We are confronted with one who is mostly wrong and another who is mostly right. It is utter folly to reject the choice that is better just because it isn't perfect.

George- Interesting points and on the whole true.  Asking truly as a matter of curiosity, in what way could one see the current occupant of the Oval Office as being even partly right on this issue?  I will stipulate that from my perspective, Gov. Romney leaves much to be desired on Life issues.  But honest injun, from his days as Stae Senator to now, what has Obama done that even remotely smacks of being Pro-Life?  I ask because I want to hear.

I don't know how one could see Obama as being right, but I attribute that to my lack of imagination. Perhaps he should get credit for his socialist agenda to favor government handouts and incentives to have children instead of aborting them in order to get more government largess.

George- Thank you.  An honest, but very sad and troubling answer when one considers it.  The best you could do is refer to a side effect of a policy put in place for other reasons.

[Steven Tibbetts]

Since there are justifiable reasons for killing an infant in the womb, (such as what the ELCA has in it's Statement on Abortion) I don't believe that we should create laws to prohibit abortion, even though there are people who misuse the laws for abortions that are not justifiable.

Would you agree (with the ELCA's Statement on Abortion) that it is appropriate for government to regulate abortion?

[Coach-Rev]

No one is cutting anyone off, Pastor Fienen, from expressing their views in whatever forum possible. What seems odd to me is the suggestion here that excoriates former bishop Chilstrom from even making his views known.

But Charles, you fail to see that, as PB, he professes to speak in that capacity, thus speaking on behalf of all ELCA Lutherans, which he most definitely does not.  Moreover, he does not speak on behalf of Lutheranism in general, or for that matter, all of Christendom, at all.

[Charles_Austin]

You are wrong again. No where does he professed to speak for anyone but himself.

[Matthew Voyer STS]

As a PB or former PB unfortunately it matters not on whose behalf he professes to speak. His office carries weight and authority that he should reckon with before making any more public statements. Rodney Eberhardt at a STS General Retreat a few years ago said that as goes the office of holy ministry so goes the church. He meant as we destroy and discard the office of holy ministry the church suffers greatly. I imagine even moreso for the office of Bishop. The sad thing is that the office is often destroyed from within. In my experience lay people have so much more regard for the office than pastors and bishops.

[peter_speckhard]

It is difficult to say someone speaks only for himself when the only reason anyone knows him is because of that office. For example, in emails with my family I'll sometimes be very political and (hopefully) humorous, but if I ever forget myself and do the same sort of thing on facebook or someplace with a more general audience, I'm reminded that I'm the pastor of people from both parties; it is no good saying I speak just for myself. To people who only know me as their pastor, it still seems as though I am speaking for the church.

[TravisW]

Your analogy does not quite match up.  In the one case (abortion) you talk about laws  banning an activity.  In the other case (guns) you are talking about laws banning a tool.  If we were to parallel your position re laws concerning abortion to laws concerning guns, the apples to apples analogy would be that even though people at times missuse guns and use them to unjustifiable kill people that does not mean that there should be any laws prohibiting any use of guns.

You are right. I'll make the second activity killing a human being. We do not make laws that prohibit the killing of all other human beings. That is, we allow soliders in combat to kill others (even permit some collateral damage of the killing of non-combatants). We allow killing another human when one believes their own life or a that of a loved one is threatened, e.g., the "stand your ground" law. Oregon, my home state, permits physician assisted suicide ("death with dignity") under some stringent requirements.


I could even make the more general activity of taking a life. Only under certain circumstances do we prohibit the taking of life. Few people feel badly about taking the life of a mosquito. Many of my friends in Wyoming take the lives of moose, elk, deer, and antelope. There are limits on the killing of such game, but it is not completely prohibited.

It's generally illegal for me to stab somebody in my living room. If, in fact, I stab somebody in my living room in a manner that seems justifiable, that's an exception to the general law against murder. If I'm unable to demonstrate that my family or I were at the risk of death at the hands of the person I stabbed, I'm up for murder. The police can't shoot people higgledy-piggledy; they must provide substantial justifications for their having killed somebody. Even soldiers in a warzone are operating under a legal sanction when they kill enemy combatants - they have to operate under the general rules of war.  From a legal standpoint, the prohibition on killing is general, with allowable exceptions. 

[Donald_Kirchner]

Ah, you must have a legal background. That is exactly right and is the way most if not all statutes regarding killing are written. I.e., it is a crime to take the life of another person. Within the statute are exceptions to the general rule, such as self defense. In the same way, if charged with the crime of killing- taking the life of another person- it is an affirmative defense that must be raised to claim self-defense.

Which is why I never had a problem with the 5th commandment being "Thou shalt not kill." It is wrong to kill, but there are affirmative defenses/excuses to the general commandment.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Since there are justifiable reasons for killing an infant in the womb, (such as what the ELCA has in it's Statement on Abortion) I don't believe that we should create laws to prohibit abortion, even though there are people who misuse the laws for abortions that are not justifiable.

Would you agree (with the ELCA's Statement on Abortion) that it is appropriate for government to regulate abortion?

Yes.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Regarding making exceptions for situations where abortion might remain legal, this thread is Abortion AND Politics. We should not forget that politics is known as the art of the possible. It is how we puny, flawed, and sin-ridden humans handle our own affairs, and it is not perfect. It is a process through which we seek to improve, with the full knowledge that while we might take steps to make things a little better, we will not make them perfect.


In the political landscape of 2012, when confronted with a choice between two political parties and their plans for action over the next four years, we are not presented with a choice between one candidate who is totally wrong on the issue of abortion and another who is totally right. We are confronted with one who is mostly wrong and another who is mostly right. It is utter folly to reject the choice that is better just because it isn't perfect.

Ah, but I heard a legislature confess that he has voted against bills that contained 80% of stuff he favored, but the 20% was so bad, he couldn't vote for it. Conversely, there are times he votes for a bill because the 20% is so good, that he has to put up with the 80% that is horrible. Seldom are bills all black or all white.

[Brian Stoffregen]

OK- So we get that Norman hates the Great Whore of Babylon (from whom I draw a paycheck)

But some questions are still out there.  How many of us would claim to accept an orthodox Christology?

I am guessing everyone.

So the question is, if Adoptionism is a heresy, at what point did Christ become fully human?  I would guess that the answer the Church would give, synchronically and diachronically, is at Mary's "Yes!"  And if Christ is like us in all things except sin, and he was fully human from conception, then what else can we be?

Christ's conception was unlike any other conception. Can we claim to be conceived of the Holy Spirit? While we might believe that the Spirit has something to do with helping the particular sperm reach the egg -- that's not the same thing.


John says, "The Word became flesh." From the Latin we say that Jesus is God incarnate. When in the womb does the fetus have flesh? It's not at conception.


So, church doctrine can also speak against the incarnation happening at the moment of conception.

So we have disposed of the issue theologically, contra Mr. Wills.

But the issue is also open to reason and the facts of science.  Before conception, you have two haploid cells that contain half the genetic information of their source.  From conception on, you have a unique, diploid entity.  And as for the idea of the zygote being a "potential" human, then by definition it has to be potentially non-human.  Tell you what, when Drudge posts the story of a woman, having conceived after intercourse with her husband, giving birth to an aardvark, I will graciously concede the point that zygotes are "potential."  Until then, I will take "Fully Human" for $500, Alex

It has the potential to become a human and it has the potential to become dead tissue. It has the potential to become something slightly less than fully human, e.g., genetic defects, missing or additional chromosome, deformed limbs, etc. It does not have the potential to become an aardvark.