Before you read this at some point in the future, ask me first to make sure you’re old enough; because the content is dark, disturbing, and designed for a more adult audience:
The story of a man named Kermit Gosnell is finally going viral, even though it is being ignored by the major news networks. That’s why I want to encourage people to talk about it.
Basically, a man was caught performing illegal abortions, “aborting” 7 babies after they were already born; plus he was responsible for the death of an adult female who died due to complications of his procedures, as well.
For me, this story raises some interesting points regarding the extremely polarizing topic of abortion; for both sides:
A) If abortion were illegal, there would probably be more similar cases of “botched abortions” like this going on.(Pro-choice point.)
B) Why is this story more disturbing because those 7 babies had already exited the birth canal? Why does exiting the birth canal, regardless of the age of the fetus, determine whether the word “aborted” or “killed” is used? Is a photo of an aborted baby more disturbing than of a child “aborted” after it was born? (Pro-life point.)
As a pro-life Libertarian, I passionately support laws against abortion, though I do recognize that a law simply makes it more difficult for people to commit an action which the majority of the population perceives as morally wrong. The law doesn’t necessarily change the demand for the outlawed action, it just helps prevent the action from being as commonly practiced.
However, something did cause the percentage of people who are pro-choice to drop from 47% to 41% in just a year’s time. So… something caused America’s views on abortion to change within a year’s time… and I doubt it’s people yelling at each other on Facebook in all caps and leaving condescending comments on blogs.
With that being said, I wonder how the story of Dr. Kermit Gosnell will influence the percentage of Americans who are pro-choice in the next Gallup poll.
Last August, I wrote about The Partial-Birth Abortion, in which a person chooses to give birth to one twin but abort the other. Yes, it was pretty shocking to learn that’s a real thing and that this occurs has often as it does.
But that’s so 2011. With a new year comes a proposal from Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, who in the Journal of Medical Ethics,promote the idea that if an infant is born alive under circumstances which would have justified an abortion, then a “post-abortion” should be permissible.
The obvious question is this: How is aborting a child after they are born any different than outright murdering a newborn?
It used to be that a “mother’s rights” (pro-choice term) overruled a fetus’s “right to life” (pro-life term).
But now, the technically of passing through the birth canal may no longer be enough to justify survival of an infant in danger of being aborted. At least, if Giubilini and Minerva have their way, that could be the case.
It just seems too hard to believe this is an actual discussion taking place right now. I doubted the legitimacy of the conversations I was reading on Facebook about it; but then I read this well-crafted article in Slate magazine, asking why if abortion is permissible, infanticide isn’t.
I would like to assume this will never become a reality. I would like to assume that we as a civilized nation wouldn’t have to ever lobby our government leaders to ban a post-birth abortion. Do we really need a law to tell us this is wrong?
Every person has a moral code. We all decide in our own minds what is considered right and wrong; moral and immoral.
So I’m pretty curious, are there actually people reading this right now who support the concept of a post-birth abortion?
Don’t let me hog the stage. Don’t let me be a bully here. Please, step up and defend your case.
I’m very curious to hear an opinion other than my own very obviously biased one.
Okay, go:
Post-birth abortion and infanticide: The difference Is…
“What do you think the consequences should be for a woman who harms her unborn baby by drinking alcohol?”
That is the question a friend from high school recently asked on Facebook. She and her husband adopted a little girl from Russia who suffers from several physical conditions because the birth mom drank alcohol while pregnant.
It’s common knowledge that when an expecting mom drinks alcohol, it greatly puts an unborn baby at risk. Granted, alcohol isn’t the only harmful threat for a child in regards to the pregnant mom’s wreckless behavior.
What about drugs? What about carelessness in general? What consequences are there for those in our society whom we consider to be “unfit mothers?”
It’s not like it’s easy to always pinpoint the “birth defects” of a child on the mother’s bad decisions. After all, not every baby born from a good mother makes it into this world perfectly healthy.
But going back to the topic of pregnant mothers who make destructive decisions, what exactly can we consider to be “child abuse” in the womb? Or as I like to call it: in utero child abuse.
For me, though, I take this topic a level further:
If a mother deliberately harms her fetus with the intent to kill her child, maybe by using a coat hanger, or having someone repeatedly punch her stomach, or even if the mom herself shoots her own stomach with a gun, and the child dies in the womb, is that definitely considered murder?
I realize each state may have its laws regarding this situation, but I’m less concerned with man’s law and more interested to know how our society perceives this within our own moral scope.
When a mother intentionally terminates her pregnancy on her own in some unthinkable way I just named, is that definitely murder?
Or do we deem that as an illegimate version of an abortion?
In today’s publication of the New York Times, there is an article entitled The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy. It tells of the growing number of women who are pregnant with twins and choose to abort only one of the fetuses, and allowing the other to survive. In other words, these women are having a “half abortion.”
According to the article, New York’s Mount Sinai Medical Center performed 101 abortions last year; 38 of those pregnancy terminations involved a mother pregnant with twins who decided to only abort one unborn child. And that’s just one medical center in the entire country.
One mother who used fertility drugs to get pregnant, then aborted only one fetus, gives her reasoning for the decision:
“If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn’t have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there’s a natural order, then you don’t want to disturb it. But we created this child in such an artificial manner — in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me — and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.”
What is it about the idea of a half abortion that somehow seems more difficult to grasp than a “normal” abortion? The immediate thing that comes to mind is that it is an ultimate case of “playing God.” As if a “normal” abortion wasn’t already giving one person the authority to choose another human being’s ability to live, a half abortion gives a person the ability to decide which unborn child deserves to live and which one deserves to die. That’s playing God, times two.
Is there any justification for a half abortion? The article in the New York Times gives several examples of why women made their decision:
1. The mother was 45 years old and already had children. She felt financially insecure, as well as, too old to have twins.
2. The mother was known as a “good parent,” highly devoted to her children. Pregnant with twins, she decided she couldn’t be equally devoted to two more; just one.
3. The mother already had a son. Then she got pregnant with twins; a boy and a girl. She chose to keep the girl.
4. Many of these mothers were in their 2nd marriage and already have kids from their previous marriages. Twins would have been too complicated, compared to only one more addition to the family.
5. Some were single mothers.
6. Some mothers did not want to jeopardize their education.
7. Some did not want to jeopardize their careers.
8. One woman’s husband was an officer in the Army, fighting in Iraq. They already had a few kids. Twins were too much a risk if something happened to her husband.
For those of us unfamiliar with the idea of a half abortion until today, we now make a decision in our own minds of whether it is ethically justifiable or wrong. The fact that The New York Times is doing a story about it says something in and of itself: This is not your typical “gray area” moral dilemma.
This isn’t a discussion about whether abortion is right or wrong, in general. Honestly, “pro-choice vs. pro-life” debates bore me. Polls show that our nation is split 50/50 on abortion. Most of us have already made up our minds on the issue and the truth is, we are not going to convince each other otherwise via comments on a blog post; especially if we ourselves play God by judging other people’s character and life decisions.
I hope it is clear that I am not asking anyone to cast stones, but instead to think with an open mind about a tough issue that has some undeniable ethical questions surrounding it. I enjoy mature, mutually respectable, deep conversations. Therefore, I’m curious to know how other people feel about the “two minus one pregnancy.” What ethical issues does the half abortion raise?
Seems like a strange pair, but we born-again Christians love our movies and TV just as much as everyone else. But where do we draw the line?
One of my favorite TV shows during 4th and 5th grade was surprisingly The Dick Van Dyke Show as it was featured in syndication on Nick at Nite. It was while watching that show (I was around 9 or 10) that it occurred to me, “Dick Van Dyke is kissing Mary Tyler Moore, but in real life, they may both be married to someone else who has to watch them kiss another person.” To me, that would just be too weird… and wrong. As much I fantasize about being an actor in a flash-sideways version of my life in some alternate path I could have chosen for myself a decade ago, I have to acknowledge that as a born-again Christian, there would be an exhaustive list of limitations for me as a legitimate actor. (Granted, Kirk Cameron got around the “have to kiss another woman” dilemma when he used his own wife as a stand-in at the end of the movie Fireproof.)
That’s not to say that there aren’t born-again Christians who act in mainstream media. For example, there’s the often-mistaken-as-a-Jew-but-actually-just-Welsh-American actor Zachary Levi, who is the protagonist of the hit show Chuck. He has been outspoken about his relationship with Jesus Christ. Click here to see what he said in one of his interviews with Relevant magazine. I am fascinated by his Hollywood success and his commitment to his faith. I would love to ask him about this very topic today; specifically this question, “As a Christian, what won’t you do in a role?” (Zachary Levi, if you’re reading this, feel free to comment and help me out. Thanks.)
Where does a Christian draw the line when it comes to acting? I would say kissing another person on stage is harmless except when either or both of them is married. And what about “love scenes” (scenes that involve sexual activity, with or without nudity)? What about profanity? Are there any words you just shouldn’t say? Personally, I could easily curse on camera before I could say, “oh my God”; because to use God’s name in vain is breaking one of the Ten Commandments, while cursing is simply a fading taboo of shifting rules set by the expectations of culture. To me, there are plenty far more destructive ways that words can be used that go against the Kingdom of God, like gossip, malicious sarcasm, and belittling.
Here’s where it gets really tricky. If you think it’s wrong to curse in a role or play a character who has premarital sex, how is that so different from playing a character who is a murderer? At least by playing a killer, you’re truly just pretending to play a character who is obviously in the wrong. But by being filmed semi-nude under covers in a bed, you’re sending a subconscious message that sex between two consenting adults doesn’t necessarily have any spiritual concerns attached to it.
So in theory, in 1983, as a born-again Christian, if given the opportunity to have Al Pacino’s lead role in Scarface, would I, should I, could I? For it’s time, the movie Scarface contained more profanity than any other film in history. It was originally rated NC-17 for its violent content. But in the end, (sorry if you haven’t seen the movie but you’ve had 28 years to see it so I feel okay about giving away the ending) all of Scarface’s sins find him out. It’s obvious that his life of violent crime led to his own demise and in the end, it wasn’t worth it. Does that mean that this movie teaches its viewers not to waste their lives in a mob, getting involved with violence and cocaine? In theory, yes. In theory, it has positive, redeeming value because in the end, crime doesn’t pay.
That’s something I’ve observed about Christian culture. It seems most Christians are okay with a character doing obviously un-Christian things if in the end they repent: Unlike the character of Stacy Hamilton, played by Jewish actress Jennifer Jason Leigh in the 1982 movie Fast Times at Ridgemont High, who decides to have an abortion and seemingly goes on to live a completely normal life, never regretting her decision. I contrast that to the song “Red Ragtop” by Tim McGraw, whether the 20 year-old protagonist gets his 18 year-old girlfriend pregnant and together they decide to have an abortion.
However, by the end of the song, though it’s not explicitly stated, the melancholy mood and subtle lyrics of the song itself convey the message “we can’t undo what we’ve done or beat ourselves up over it, but we do regret and it’s definitely a sad thing that happened”. Rightly assuming that Country music fans are mostly Christians (simple demographics), they helped the song rise to the #2 position on the Country charts.
Entertain this thought: Ask yourself privately, as a Christian, whether or not you would play the role of a character in a play, musical, TV show, or movie who would do any of the following things:
-use minor profanity
-use stronger profanity including racial or gender slurs, up to the “f-word”
-use God’s name in vain, whether it’s by saying “oh my God” or “G.D.”
-play a character who has premarital sex and never encounters any real negative consequences
-play a gay character who never actually kisses another actor
-play a gay character who does kiss another person of the same gender
-play a heterosexual character who jokingly kisses a person of the same gender on the lips, which happens quite often on Saturday Night Live
-play a serial killer and rapist, though no explicit violence is ever shown on screen and who never curses or participates in any pre-material sexual relationship
-play a serial killer and rapist, though no explicit violence is ever shown on screen and but does participate in some premarital sex and who does some cursing
-play a serial killer and rapist, though no explicit violence is ever shown on screen and but does participate in some premarital sex and who does some cursing, but at the end accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior and from that point on lives a life in accordance to the teachings of Jesus
How is it any more wrong to play a homosexual actor than it is to play heterosexual actor who has premarital sex? Though both situations are perceived much differently by the general population, when it comes to my understanding of the Bible’s teaching of righteousness, I don’t see how one is any different or worse than the other. The way I understand it, Jesus died for all sin. Sin is sin is sin. No matter what kind it is, it separates us from God and causes every single one of us to need His grace.
Where do you draw the line as a Christian actor? Obviously to be involved in straight-up porno-graphy is out of the question for any sincere Christian. But there are so many millionths of the scale to get to that extreme. On the much slighter end of the scale is a man with his shirt off showing off his six-pack while he rides a horse bareback. Further down the scale is that same man passionately kissing a woman while in a hot tub, both in their swimsuits. Next is the same man and woman acting out a love scene in bed and though they are actually naked, they aren’t acting having sex underneath the blankets which strategically cover up certain parts of their bodies.
I remind myself that outside the culture of conservative Christianity, in reality the rest of the world behaves its own way regardless of our censorship. To imagine a real life group of people who in their everyday lives never cursed or had premarital sex (outside of the conservative Christian world) is to me, simply unbelievable. Taking away the elements of entertainment that are unChristian-like either makes the TV show or movie either A) unrealistic or B) a Christian movie like Facing the Giants.
I also remind myself that the Bible itself is full of violence, premarital sex, rape, and murder. There is homosexuality. There are concubines. There are instances were people cursed (like when Peter denied Christ). The King James Version of the Bible even contains the words “piss” and “ass”. If the entire Bible were made into an epic movie, could born-again Christians play every role?
But some point, acting is no longer simply just acting. It’s doing. So here’s my final thought about all this. In some technical, annoying way, are we as conservative, born-again Christians actually hypocrites for being spectators of popular entertainment?
Imagine this: Instead of the majority of the cast of Friends and Seinfeld being Jewish, instead they were all born-again Christians. Because of their faith-based convictions, none of them were willing to use any profanity or be involved in any situations that involved premarital sex. I know how beloved these two sitcoms are among the majority of Christians I know. But imagine a world where Ross Geller saying “We were on a break!” meant nothing to us.
Two Questions for You about This Today:
A) As much as we Christians love our sitcoms and movies, would they truly exist if we didn’t support them with our viewership because we ourselves wouldn’t be willing to play those roles the same way?
B) Where would you personally draw the line in regards to what you would or would not do for an acting role, hypothetically speaking, if you were an actor?
I sincerely would love to hear feedback from you, the invisible reader, on either or both of these proposed questions, by leaving a comment below. You don’t have to leave your name; you can easily remain anonymous if you wish.
If you’re not a conservative, born-again Christian, still free to answer as well… and please know how aware I am that the content of this entire post probably seems a bit… out there. For all I know, you may find it either laughable or offensive that we believe premarital sex is wrong or that kissing someone’s spouse is both weird and taboo. But what good is a religion that has no backbone or reasonable standards, despite how counter-culture those limitations may be? Thanks for reading despite the culture shock of it.
Family Friendly Daddy Blog 