I got a call from ADT the other day. They wanted me to buy an alarm system to protect my family from would-be intruders. I declined.
You see I’m totally against alarm systems. This includes the alarm system used by most of my friends back in Missouri, also known as the Smith & Wesson alarm system. (For those uninformed, that means that you protect your home with firearms).
I’m against both. Let me explain…
I think we really need to consider those that are forced to steal. For someone to break into my home and kidnap my children—they have to have had some bad stuff happen to them. Maybe they have made bad decisions in the past and it is now forcing them to do things that they don’t want—like kidnap kids or steal my television. It could even be possible that someone is forcing them to engage in this horrible act.
Now what happens if I have an alarm system or I use a gun to protect my family and property? When the alarm goes off this guy is going to get spooked. He might botch this and wind up hurting himself in the process. I don’t want to be responsible for that. Nor do I want to further perpetuate the effects of his bad decisions by having him be punished with jail time.
I want to take this a step further. I also think it is wrong for us to punish people who steal and kidnap children. Think of all the would-be-perpetrators that have died in prison. Or worse yet think of those that have died at the hands of someone they were trying to steal from. It’s not fair for them to lose their lives over a television set. Whether they lose their life in prison or at the hands of a gun-owner protecting his property. Think of what it must feel like to have to give up your freedoms because of one bad choice you made in the heat of the moment. It just doesn’t seem right.
Therefore, I believe that we should outlaw alarm systems and guns for home-owners. Furthermore, we should no longer make it illegal for people to kidnap our children or steal our stuff. It’s much safer that way.*
Why My Argument Doesn’t Work
The argument that I’ve just made is pretty ludicrous isn’t it? It’s silly because during the entire argument I’m not thinking about the safety of my children. I’m putting an emphasis upon the “suffering” of an adult that happens to get injured while attempting to harm my family. That’s foolishness. Certainly, we should protect our little ones over the guy that is trying to kidnap them.
So why do we still make the argument that abortion should be legal because women will die in bathtubs trying to perform their own abortions?
Not only is that statically dishonest it doesn’t make sense. Take this quote:
"One woman," Reagan writes, "described taking ergotrate, then castor oil, then squatting in scalding hot water, then drinking Everclear alcohol. When these methods failed, she hammered at her stomach with a meat pulverizer before going to an illegal abortionist."
We are supposed to respond to this by feeling sympathy for the woman. Which, might I add, is a correct response. But it’s not a sufficient response. We should also be upset that she has decided—yes, even in the case of rape—to resort to terminating the life of her child. Victim, yes. But she is also making herself a perpetrator. In the case of rape she has, sadly, chosen to perpetuate the violence done to her.
If we shift our eyes from the poor woman in the bathtub (and again it really ought to make us weep) to the unborn child in her stomach, then it doesn’t make sense to put the rights of the perpetrator (the pregnant mother) over that of the victim (her child).
Wait, you say…
Some that make the coat-hanger argument are saying, “Listen, I don’t want to see children aborted. But I also don’t want to see women die. If she is going to abort her child in a backstreet somewhere, I’d rather her do it in the hospital where it is safe. Why lose two lives instead of one?”
Even the most liberal statistics have the deaths for mothers at 5-10,000 deaths per year. That is horrendous. Each of these should cause us to weep. Consider this, though: Since 1973 there have been over 56 million legal abortions. If 10,000 mothers had died from 1973 to 2013 in back-street abortion attempts that would have been 400,000 would-be mothers.
So that means we have performed 56 million “safe” abortions to protect 400,000 mothers. That’s not 2-1. That is 140-1. For every mother that we have “saved” we have sacrificed 140 children. So my response to the “why lose two lives instead of one” is to say, “why lose 140 lives instead of one?”
If it’s a child in the mothers womb (and it is) then the coat-hanger argument simply doesn’t work…
--
*This entire section is not true. If you try to harm my wife or children I’m going Liam Neeson on you. I do have two cats that you are more than welcome to take, however.
as long as worldly solutions (guns, and laws) are celebrated as a Christian's solutions, and you can find comfort in them, then that is what you will known for
ReplyDeleteActually this has little to do with guns. This is about abortion. And my goal would be to get a law repealed...not to enact one. A law which has seen 56 million infant deaths since 1973.
DeleteHi MIKE,
Deletethanks for responding . . . and I do know that your purposes are to honor life, and I understand the goodness you wish to achieve. But I want you to think past those temporal solutions for a moment:
please keep in mind that what men do through the ways of this world do not employ the same methods as those that come from the Kingdom of God,
and even though we see a temporal benefit, man-made solutions are often transient and incomplete to fight the evil at work in this world.
I just want for you to remember that there are far greater resources at work against evil and these resources draw their strength from the Risen Lord and the Holy Spirit. These greater forces attack what is at the heart of the evil that men do, they don't just deal with the consequences of evil through man-made interventions that are 'of this world', even though those worldly interventions may seem totally effective through our human eyes at the moment.
"“A human action becomes genuinely important when it springs from the soil of a clear-sighted awareness of the temporality and the ephemerally of everything human. It is only this awareness that can breathe any greatness into an action.” (Vaclav Havel)
if you can, re-read your own post, and when you get to that desperate woman who has been raped and is impregnated, imagine how Our Lord Himself would approach her, what He would do and say . . . a human law involving forcing her to give birth will accomplish something,
but it will not be the same. Our Lord's Presence must be there in the midst of this woman's pain, if a Christian response is to be claimed, and that is the work of the Church . . . I believe you already know this, and I trust for you to realize that I mean no criticism of the good you want to do for new life to come.
I wouldn't for a second argue that legislation is the solution to the problem of abortion, murder, rape, etc. Nor would I say that Christ's presence isn't a necessity.
DeleteBut what I'm confused about is why you aren't also for legislation that would prevent killing 140 lives for the sake of 1?
So you believe Jesus would comfort her by saying...it's okay...I know you hurt..so go ahead and destroy the baby that's in your womb?
I against all killing, MIKE.
DeleteAnd as for the Presence of Our Lord in this woman's pain . . . He would not tell her to sin, no.
the problem where you and I see a difference, I think, lies in this phrase 'prevent killing 140 lives for the sake of 1'
'for the sake of 1' causes me to wonder what you are thinking there . . .
I know that the 140 lives are what you project that a law forbidding all abortions would save from termination, but tell me about that 'l' life you are talking about
a great Judeo-Christian ethic is brought into play here: what is the value of that one human life?
only continue our dialogue, if you wish, as this takes us a bit further into why people need to see the Presence of Our Lord in the work of the Church in any matter concerning the dignity of all human life, from conception to natural death,
and you may wish to circumscribe your post strictly to the abortion issue rather than to look further into the REASON the Church opposes abortions, unless they are incurred during an attempt to save a woman's life, but not as something that is original sought as the primary reason for a surgical intervention
What is the value of even one human life?
How does this factor into how the Church must enter into the effort in its work with the mothers in a way so that the world can see the presence of Our Lord in that work clearly?
These are not easy questions. But we have to consider even 'the sake of 1' in the equation if Our Lord's Presence IS to be seen at work in the effort of Christians to save lives.
When Christ saw lost and harassed people, what was His response? Compassion.
Are we the Church of the Good Shepherd? Or is the 'l' left lost?
I'm not denying that one human life (the mother) is precious. Nor am I arguing that we are not to minister to women considering abortion with the love of Christ.
DeleteEvery life is valuable. That is why it's atrocious that since 1973, 53 million children have been killed. Can you really say that had abortion not been legalized that 53 million would have been killed?
Allow me to ask you a question. Should we make rape legal?
MIKE, of course not.
Deleteplacing the presence of Christ into the equation speaks to a consideration also of that woman who is frightened . . . a consideration that is not marred by any response from any Christian that could be seen as less than His Own would be to her. The Church is His. He sends it forth into the world to love and to serve. It is His Witness to a world filled with pain.
The 'response' to evil must be 'of Christ' is what I am saying. The back alley abortion victims can't be discounted, neither the sinners, the frightened woman, or the infant that is butchered.
The Church must never be seen as being callous about the fate of any who will circumvent law out of fear, or greed, or selfishness, or sin . . . but it's that woman who is frightened and hurt who ESPECIALLY must be approached with the love of Christ, not with our contempt and dismissal.
We, the Church, cannot leave her out there lost, MIKE, that is what I am saying. Hurting people and frightened people must never be held in contempt for a greater good. Such was the way of the Good Shepherd.
I wouldn't argue what you are saying here. But again...how then does this relate to making abortions legal? I'm arguing for a both/and. Love the woman with the love of Christ. But also love and protect the infant.
DeleteWhy shouldn't we legalize rape?
I'm not trying to be facetious here or even crude. What I'm trying to say is that of course we shouldn't legalize rape. God has instituted government to curb such things. Imagine if we made rape legal. How many would-be rapist are held in check by fear of punishment. That's the point that I'm making. You are minimizing the effect that government can have.
Again, I don't see how what you are saying relates to make abortion legal.
well, here's an example from the past:
Deletedid you realize that in the days when abortion was illegal,
the brunt of the horror of the back-alley fell on poor women? Middle-class and wealthy girls and women had the choice and the opportunity to leave the country and travel to a destination that provided a 'safe' abortion.
It was the fate of frightened and desperate poor women to choose whether to have the child, or to go to those who waited for them in the back-alleys, and from what we heard in those days, the stories make the Philadelphia Butcher look mild in comparison.
This does not excuse abortion, legal or illegal . . . this example just points out that when the Church gets involved in a legal situation where only one class of people are held to account, and that 'one class of people' are primarily the poorer among our citizens,
then that DOES MATTER, don't you think?
In my Church, which has always opposed abortion,
there is a preferential option for the poor among Christian people.
Would it not be better for the Church to work for a society that welcomed life by finding ways to help women in trouble who might seek an abortion because they have no support system or community to help them through their pregnancy, delivery, and the early months of their baby's life?
?
The 'solutions' I propose are not politically popular, I know. But they may be more realistic about preventing abortion in the end, when you consider what it is that drives many women to an abortionist.
just one thought, among so very many
Excellent article again Mike! I heartily agree with your words about protecting your family as well!
ReplyDeleteWell said Mike. Do we really value human life? Or is it just an argument over who we pick and choose to live through legislation? Thank you for addressing an this social issue. Blessings!
ReplyDelete