AAAAAAAAA

A blog post with every single category marked (I'm doing this for scribefire)

Some Abortion facts - Germany vs America

• In 1996, the average American woman in child-bearing years had 0.69 abortions. This means that if you get 100 women together at random, 69 of them would have had an abortion. Source.
  
• In 1996, the average German woman in child-bearing years had 0.23 abortions. Gather together 100 women and 23 of them would have had an abortion. Source.
  
• US abortion rates suddenly dropped between 1994 and 1995 and have remained at that lower level since then. Source.
• 17% of Americans have an income 50% of the median wage or lower. Source UNHDR (pdf, 12mb).
• 8.4% of Germans have an income 50% of the median wage or lower. Source: UNHDR.
• The US fertility rate is 2.0 children per woman. Source: UNHDR
• The German fertility rate is 1.3 children per woman. Source: UNHDR.
• Both the US and Germany have a contraceptive prevalence rate of 75 or 75%. Source: UNHDR.
• In 2004, America's abortion rate was 16, down from 21 in 1996. Source: CDC.
  

Good critique of my abortion post

One Salient Oversight's use of statistic recalls how a drunk uses a lamppost, for support, not illumination.

I have replied to some of his criticisms on the comments post. However I still think the basic thrust of my argument stands. Moreover, CPA does not address these issues:

• Why is it that Germany has such a low abortion rate?


• If the Pro-life movement has been successful, why is it that two-thirds of Americans and Australians do not see abortion as immoral?


• Why does Chile, a nation which has made abortion illegal, have such a high abortion rate (about twice that of the US)?

My position on Abortion

As an Evangelical I believe the bible. I believe that it was written by God, whose Holy Spirit ensured that its human writers were able to write what was correct and true. I'm also fairly strong on the issue of Sola Scriptura - the belief that the Bible is the sole authority that believers should turn to to discern what to believe and how to live. This is not to say that I worship the Bible (I don't) - but what it does mean is that I believe that the Holy Spirit lives and works in us whenever we read and study the text of Scripture (which includes private study, small group bible studies and preaching from pastors / teachers / presbyters / overseers). If we are to listen to God, then we are to listen to Him speak through the Bible, in the way that He has written it.

The practice of Abortion is not mentioned in the Bible. Nevertheless, we can discern from scripture that an unborn baby in whatever form it takes is considered a living human being by God. Bible references for this include Psalm 139 and Exodus 21.22-25 but include many others.

Given that this is the case, the only true attitude that Christians should have towards abortion is that it is the deliberate killing of a human life. As part of our ministry in the world, which includes the preaching of the Gospel, must be the clear proclamation of God's ethical standards. Moreover, Christians should take steps to protect the weak and unsupported - it was, may I point out, Christians who were the most vocal opponents of slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries.

So. Abortion is wrong and Christians should do something about it. But what?

Ever since Roe vs Wade in the United States essentially legalised abortion, Christians have been at the forefront of fighting against it. The effect of Roe vs Wade has not just been to legalise abortion, but to also legitimise it in society. Since the early 1970s, our society has become increasingly tolerant of abortion. In Australia, a Roy Morgan Poll in 2006 indicated that about 65% of Australians supported abortion, while 22% were opposed with 13% unsure. Polling in the US shows a similar trend.

Of course, ethics and morals are sourced from God, not public opinion. The fact that a supermajority of people in Australia and the US support abortion means nothing when it comes to determining right and wrong.

Nevertheless, the sheer amount of people who support abortion should give Christians pause to think. Ever since the first protests against abortion were made by Christians in the 1970s, the focus has been solely upon prohibition - making abortion illegal. Moreover, this focus has meant that politicians have been able to use the issue as a way to get people's votes. This is very much the case in the United States, where Republican politicians are more likely to indicate a pro-life stance than their Democrat colleagues. Along with attitudes towards homosexuality, the Republicans in the United States have become the party which Christians want to vote for. Here in Australia, none of the three major parties (Liberal, National, Labor) welcomes an anti-abortion message, though the more conservative parties (Liberal, National, Family First, Christian Democrat) are more likely to have pro-life people active in them.

The problem (the "elephant in the room" as Craig Schwarze would put it) is that the pro-life movement has failed - completely and spectacularly. Despite 30 years of protests, political action and even violence (albeit from a militant minority), western society has embraced abortion. Despite the efforts of the pro-life movement, support for abortion has increased since the early 1970s. While pro-life people argue and agitate to make abortion illegal, a considerable majority of people wish to keep it legal. Moreover, voting for politicians who support the pro-life camp has resulted in absolutely no change at all in abortion laws. For example, from 1994 until 2006, the US congress was controlled by conservative Republicans who had been voted in by the American people to enact conservative legislation - which included support from pro-life groups. Despite 12 years of congressional control (of which 6 years were spent under a conservative president who would not veto conservative legislation), Roe vs Wade was never repealed, abortions were not reduced and public opinion of abortion did not swing enough towards the pro-life position (if it swung at all). So much for political agitation.

So while I believe that abortion laws have resulted in the deaths of millions of unborn infants over the years, I cannot support the current pro-life strategy. Barring a revival in Western Countries and a subsequent acceptance of biblical ethics, a substantial majority of people in our society will support abortion and prevent any attempt to make it illegal. The efforts of the pro-life movement are essentially in vain - their strategy ensures that they will lose.

And that is, of course, the tragedy. While pro-lifers jump up and down and protest, unborn babies are still being aborted. By focusing upon prohibition, pro-lifers are failing to protect the innocent and are failing to stop abortions. Not only are their efforts in vain, their efforts are actually encouraging abortion by not taking an alternative stance. This is because pro-lifers have not examined any alternative strategies.

The best sort of strategy is the one which will result in the best outcome. I am a fan of measurable outcomes, which is why the pro-life movement does not impress me - the outcome of their efforts is worse than when they started out. If pro-life people really want to make an impact, they need to adopt a strategy that will result in the best outcome.

And what is the best outcome? Is it the prohibition of abortion (making it illegal)? No. Believe it or not, that is the wrong objective to have. The correct objective, when taking the biblical evidence in hand, is for abortion rates to reach zero. The best outcome is zero abortion, and that can be achieved without focusing upon prohibition making it illegal.

To understand where I am coming from, pro-life people need to step into the shoes of pro-choice advocates. No matter what we think of them, the fact is that pro-choice people do not see themselves as evil, fascist, demon possessed servants of Satan. Instead, they see themselves as defenders of personal liberty, which is why they call themselves "pro-choice", rather than "pro-abortion". You see, this is because pro-choice people focus upon the freedom for a person to choose between keeping a baby or aborting it. Regardless of the theological and ethical problems of this attitude, pro-life people MUST understand that the issue for pro-choice people is choice.

I have spoken to pro-choice people over the years, both on the internet and in person. I have read their statements of values and their arguments. Pro-choice people do not think abortion is a wonderful experience that every woman should go through. Pro-choice people know that complications sometimes do occur after abortions which may prevent conception and child-bearing later on. Pro-choice people do know that abortion is a surgical procedure that has risks. And, most important of all, pro-choice people have no problem with declining abortion rates since they know that preventing unwanted pregnancies is better than abortion.

You see, pro-choice people are more concerned about a woman's choice to have an abortion than they are about the procedure itself. All pro-choice people believe that preventing unwanted pregnancies is an essential feature of woman's health, but, if an unwanted pregnancy does occur, they would argue that abortion should be a legal and safe option for the woman to consider. Moreover, they would support a woman's choice to keep her baby if that is what she wants - it is the choice that is important to pro-choice people, not the abortion procedure.

And this is where both pro-life people and pro-choice people can have some level of commonality. If pro-life people want zero abortions, and pro-choice people want safe and legal access to abortions, then surely there is common ground. But where?

Well, imagine a country in which abortions are safe and legal and where no abortions occur. Is it possible? Certainly. If women have the freedom to choose between keeping their baby or aborting it, and then all choose to keep them, then we have a situation in which both sides are happy. But is this possible?

A 1999 study by Henshaw, Singh and Haas examined the incidence of abortion throughout the world. What it discovered is that abortion numbers varied widely from country to country. Australia, for example, had an abortion rate of 22.2 (abortions per 1000 women) in 1995-96. The United States had a rate of 22.9. Germany, however, managed an abortion rate of 7.6. Other low rates include Belgium at 6.8, Finland at 10.0, Netherlands at 6.5 and Switzerland at 8.4. Spain and Italy, two very Roman Catholic countries, have abortion rates of 5.7 and 11.4. Countries that have large abortion rates include Bulgaria (51.3), Belarus (67.5), China (26.1), Romania (78.0) and Vietnam (83.3).

There are some rather important lessons to learn from this 1999 study. First of all, abortion rates in western countries are much lower than in developing countries. Second of all, countries which legalise abortion have lower abortion rates than countries where it is illegal.

Now I realise that might go against certain assumptions - yet it is clear that low abortion rates and legalised abortion do actually go hand in hand. For those who wish to make abortion illegal, it seems logical (though hard to accept) to assume that making it illegal will actually increase it.

But why so much disparity between countries? Why do secular Western European nations have lower abortion rates than conservative Christian America? Why are abortion rates lower in countries where abortion is accepted, and higher in countries where it is illegal or at least controversial (as in America)?

The key, I believe, is that legalised abortion in western nations has gone hand-in-hand with higher rates of prevention - that is, women in countries with legalised abortion are more likely to prevent conception from occurring in the first place. When women prevent unwanted conceptions, they are less likely to seek abortions.

And this is where I believe that both pro-life and pro-choice people have an area of commonality - the desire to prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring in the first place. If pregnancies can be prevented, it means less abortions can take place. That would please the pro-life person because it would mean less deaths, and it should please the pro-choice person because women are choosing to prevent pregnancies.

So, what practical steps should happen?

Well, it means that new pro-life groups in Western countries need to form with the express purpose of reducing abortion to zero but without demanding that abortion be illegal. In other words, these pro-life groups would accept that abortion be legal so long as steps are taken to prevent unwanted pregnancies to ensure that abortion rates reach zero.

It would also mean that research needs to be done into why it is that abortion rates are so low in certain nations and so high in others. Why is abortion so low in Germany? Is it the culture? Is it due to government funded public education programmes? Are school sex education curriculums partly responsible? Rather than making an ideological choice (eg "government programs can never work"), the choice needs to be made based upon evidence and pragmatism. I suspect that much of the reason why Western European nations have such low abortion rates is because women in these countries are better educated in sexual health and prevent conception - and the education has come from publicly funded sources. If this has worked in these nations then it should be tried in places like America and Australia - and these new pro-life groups should be at the forefront of lobbying government to act.

Reducing abortion to zero through education and changes in public attitudes will take time - but it will happen. Every year we can expect abortion rates to drop. But if pro-life groups continue to take a hardline stance and demand that abortion be illegal, then we can expect little to occur and for abortion rates to continue as they are. I would rather real, measurable outcomes (a drop in abortion rates) rather than hardline rhetoric that solves nothing.

As Christians, we can assume that sin will continue to rule our society. Abortions may continue in our lifetime regardless of what we try to do. Moreover, despite the solutions I have offered in this paper, I am not trying to argue that some form of "utopia" can exist on earth whereby government laws prevent us from sinning. The only thing that truly saves us is the Gospel, and that is what Christians should be trying to achieve. God's ultimate solution to sin is the message of the cross. The solutions I have offered here may reduce abortion to zero in countries that practice them, yet this will not let people into heaven.

In other words, Christians should preach the Gospel first and foremost, while praying for a society that looks after those who cannot look after themselves.

Exodus 21.22

This is a cartoon doing the rounds amongst non-Christian / progressive thinkers. They apparently see Exodus 21.22 as being contradictory to the idea that Abortion is the killing of a human being.

Usually I'm the one telling Christians that they're reading the Bible improperly, but in this case I've got to pick a rather large hole in this argument from unbelievers.

It's important to read not just verse 22, but the surrounding verses that continue on the line of thought. Here we go, Exodus 21.22-25:

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

One important thing to understand here is what it means by "her children come out". The comic above translates it as miscarry, but the word can mean both miscarry and premature birth.

The other important thing to understand here is when it says "harm". Who is being harmed here? The woman or the baby?

Let's assume a pregnant woman is attacked by men and then gives birth prematurely. But let's also assume that the baby lives. In that case, "there is no harm", and only a fine is required. However "if there is harm", then we get the "life for life" phrase.

Notice that there are two consequences of this action: a fine set by judges if there is "no harm", and death if there "is harm". It is illogical to assume that the "harm" being described here is harm to the pregnant woman, since it is obvious that she has been beaten up and given birth prematurely. The issue of "harm" therefore has to do with the baby, since it is the only person that has a chance of being unharmed.

All this, of course, reinforces the belief that the Bible views an unborn baby as a human being.

Abortion and The Australian

Craig linked to this article in today's Australian. This is the offending paragraph:

The US state of South Dakota voted in February 2006 to ban all abortions, followed by the African nation of Kenya. Isolated instances, sure, but in many places, for the first time since the turbulence of the 1960s and '70s, clear majorities have indicated a deep unease about abortion.

Two points to make:

1. South Dakota repealed the law in November 2006 after massive public outcry led to a referendum that was 56%-44% against the new law.


2. A majority of Americans have supported abortion for a long time.

The Australian is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the same guy who owns Fox News. Fixing facts around conservative politics is their speciality.

Check my FAQ for my view on abortion.

Wade Burlson, the Pill and Abortion

Wade Burlson is a pastor in the Southern Baptist Convention who is part of a movement to reform and renew the church. His latest posting was about the control of the SBC over its members but has ended up becoming a heated discussion about abortion. This is the offending illustration that Wade uses in his post:

SBC Interviewer: "Do you use contraception?"
SBC Interviewee (female): "Yes."
SBC Interviewer: "What kind of contraceptive method do you practice?"
SBC Interviewee: "The pill."
SBC Interviewer: "Are you aware that the pill changes the lining of the wall of the uterus so that if ovulation happens to occur the fertilized egg cannot implant itself in the uterus?
SBC Interviewee: "No, I was unaware of that fact."
SBC Interviewer: "Do you believe life begins at conception?"
SBC Interviewee: "Yes."
SBC Interviewer: "So, if you carry life in your body via a fertilized egg, but refuse to allow that life to be implanted in your uterus by means of a pill, are you taking that life into your own hands, playing God, and committing an abortion of choice?"

The illustration goes on. The point of Wade's use of this illustration is to show just how personal the SBC could become in its control over people. Yet the use of such a touchy subject as abortion has got some readers heated up and claiming that Wade supports abortion by supporting the pill.

Let me just summarise the particular problem:
1) A woman who uses the Pill as a contraceptive will prevent conception in 99% of cases. This is because the Pill prevents ovulation.
2) In 1% of cases, the woman will ovulate and there is a chance that conception will occur.
3) The Pill causes changes in the woman's uterus that prevents the fertilised egg from being implanted, which results in the loss of the fertilised egg.
4) A Fertilised egg is considered a human being created by God.
5) Therefore, if a woman used the Pill, then she may be causing the death of a human being.
6) Therefore, Christians should not use the Pill for contraception.

It's an interesting argument. Let me point out that I am reasonably conservative at this point. I believe that a fertilised egg is a human being and this new information that I have learned today has disturbed me and forced me to delve into the issue more deeply. My wife and I used the Pill early on in our marriage for a couple of years, and it has shocked me that we may have caused the death of an unborn child.

Fortunately, I have found the answer. The answer lies in the natural prevalence of miscarriages.

Medical science has determined that a full 25% of conceptions result in miscarriage - most of them occurred within the first few weeks and went totally unnoticed by the woman.

We need to remember that, while sad, such a high death rate has been recognised by God. It is he who has chosen such a high number of miscarriages.

So if a woman takes the Pill, she actually prevents conception - which results in less miscarriages. Yes, a fetus may die because it does not implant in the wall of the uterus - but overall, there are less deaths.

To reiterate - using the Pill results in far less miscarriages than normal.

To illustrate - imagine a woman who is super fertile and will conceive whenever the chance occurs. If she takes the pill, then, statistically, one child will die for every 100 times she, um, well... you know. But if she does not take the pill, then, statistically, 25 children will die. (She will also have 75 kids, which shows how limited this illustration is)

Abortion - the war American Evangelicals can't win

Being an Evangelical Christian means, amongst many other things, that I find abortion to be morally wrong. Based on a number of fairly clear passages in the Bible, Evangelical Christians believe quite strongly that human life begins at conception. For a more detailed summary, go to the Wikipedia article on the subject.

Of course, this tends to conflict with my politically liberal side - or at least with the pro-choice narrative that many liberals have. But I will admit without shame that I see myself as an Evangelical Christian first.

Nevertheless, I feel that many American Evangelicals have got it all wrong when it comes to abortion - specifically when they approach the issue of Roe v. Wade. It cannot be doubted that a very clear majority of Americans support abortion. Polls taken throughout three decades not only indicate this clear majority, it also shows that the numbers in support of abortion are actually increasing.

A USA Today / CNN Gallop poll asked just over a thousand adults recently about various questions regarding current events. They also compared these results to previous polls to discern trend lines.

When asked whether the Supreme Court should completely overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling, 66% of people said no, while 29% said yes. Polls from 1989 to 2002 show a fairly steady 60/35 relationship between those who wish to keep the ruling (the majority) and those who wish the court to overturn it (the minority). In recent polls, the numbers in support of Roe vs Wade have increased from 60% to around 65% today, while numbers who wish to overturn have declined from 35% down to 30%.

Now being an evangelical, I can still believe that abortion is wrong since God's truth is not determined by popular opinion but by God himself. In practice, this means that I see the Bible as divinely inspired. The fact that the majority of Americans support abortion does not make it right.

But even though most evangelicals would say a hearty "Amen" to those previous three sentences, the fact is that these statistics should worry American evangelicals greatly. What these polls indicate is that America is becoming increasingly secular.

US Census figures over the years have shown that "No Religion" has grown from 8.4% in 1991 to 15.0% in 2001 - that is a massive increase and is clearly indicative of a nation that is no longer seeing itself as linked to historical Christianity At the same time, Baptists (a traditionally evangelical grouping) have declined from 19.8% to 17.2%. Newer evangelical movements like the Pentecostals and Charismatics have continued to grow, but are actually quite small in comparison to the rest of America. I don't see any reason why these census figures should change much by the next census.

Essentially my argument is this - America is getting increasingly secular and the churches are still emptying... and as a result of this, more and more people are accepting abortion as being a fact of life.

So what should evangelicals do?

What they should NOT do is what they're doing at the moment. Evangelicals are ripping their garments in woe and anger at the recent anniversary of Roe vs Wade and reaffirming themselves to direct political action to ban abortion in the United States. Money and time is spent in political tooing and froing, lobbying, letter writing and harsh words on radio. Some Christians decide to picket clinics and voice their opposition.

But while it is vitally important that Christians involve themselves in the running of worldly governments, trying to set up a law based entirely on Christian morals and beliefs in a society that has by and large rejected them is, to put it bluntly, incredibly stupid. While I concur with my fellow Evangelicals that abortion is a grevious sin, I cannot see any positive outcome with the direction my brethren are headed at the moment.

The reason is simple - the majority of American people support abortion and are not Evangelical Christians. If this simple fact were not true then maybe, just maybe, Evangelical political action may actually work.

In this article I've used two statistical pieces of evidence. The first is the USA Today / CNN Gallop poll that has been following societal trends towards abortion and which shows an increasing support for it amongst ordinary Americans. The second is the US Census figures which show an ever increasing secularity amongst American society and a marked decline in church membership, even amongst evangelicals. Do I really need to quote any more primary sources to convince anyone that American Evangelicals are declining in both number and influence?

It is obvious that Evangelicals are fighting the wrong battles: The pomposity of Justice Sunday; the naked hate of Westboro Baptist Church; the dirty politics of James Dobson; the sheer hypocrisy of Ralph Reed; the increasingly bizarre Pat Robertson; I have to admit that I am thoroughly embarrassed by all of these public expressions of Evangelical Christianity. The only reason why I remain an Evangelical, and not turn to atheism, is my solid belief that God himself shares my frustrations.

What should evangelicals do? For starters, they should, in the words of Bill O'Reilly, JUST SHUT UP. Words are cheap, and morally outraged Evangelicals are doing no one a favour when they start complaining about how un-Christian America is. What? America isn't Christian? Well duh!

The second thing evangelicals should do is get back to the basics - knowing and living the gospel of Christ and the Word of God. It's amazing, but ironically the Bible is the least read document in American churches. Instead of preaching from the Bible, most evangelicals preach a spiritualized self-help philosophy based more on Anthony Robbins than the Spirit-inspired word of God. Some even preach the "health and wealth" heresy that will ruin the lives of many once the next recession hits. Hey, fellow Evangelicals, the answer is simple - just teach what the Bible says, not what you want it to say. And preach Christ crucified, died and risen again.

The third thing evangelicals should do is interact with the world lovingly. This does not mean compromise or airy-fairly relativism, but it does mean letting your actions match your words. It also means shutting up (again) and listening to people.

And who knows, some of these people you deal with may end up becoming your friends. More than that - shock horror! - they may even choose to not have an abortion because of your influence! Chances are that this will work much better than bombing clinics or paying corrupt lobbyists to push a Roe-hating federal judge through congress...

From the Theosalient Department

© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/

FAQ about the author




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.