I'm sitting here watching this week's political convention. I watched last week's too, and some of the debates before. I also listened to each candidate express his view on when a human's civil rights begin as asked by a preacher in California.
Two very different answers. Two very different positions.
Tonight I held my grandaughter on my lap as she peacefully fell asleep. One year ago tonight her mother discovered she was pregnant. It was not news we wanted to hear. Not because she would be unloved or unwanted. But because of the enormous jeaopardy the pregnancy placed on the life of the mother. If you're unfamiliar with the story, you can read it here.
The medical opinion was to abort to save the life of the mother. Roe v. Wade gave them that constitutional right. But the parents' decision was to keep the child and place their lives in hands of the Giver of life.
I was a firm believer prior to this pregnancy in the right of the unborn to life, but I won't lie. The news of this pregnancy caused me to question that firmly held belief. Earthquakes shake the foundation before the roof. But witnessing the faith of two young parents-to-be and then seeing God work miracles encased that belief in concrete.
So if you want to know why I vote the way I do, just come over and hold Gwyneth. Look into her eyes. See her smile. Better yet, watch her mother do those things. You'll never convince me that any other position is acceptable or even tolerable in the eyes of God.
Two very different answers. Two very different positions.
Tonight I held my grandaughter on my lap as she peacefully fell asleep. One year ago tonight her mother discovered she was pregnant. It was not news we wanted to hear. Not because she would be unloved or unwanted. But because of the enormous jeaopardy the pregnancy placed on the life of the mother. If you're unfamiliar with the story, you can read it here.
The medical opinion was to abort to save the life of the mother. Roe v. Wade gave them that constitutional right. But the parents' decision was to keep the child and place their lives in hands of the Giver of life.
I was a firm believer prior to this pregnancy in the right of the unborn to life, but I won't lie. The news of this pregnancy caused me to question that firmly held belief. Earthquakes shake the foundation before the roof. But witnessing the faith of two young parents-to-be and then seeing God work miracles encased that belief in concrete.
So if you want to know why I vote the way I do, just come over and hold Gwyneth. Look into her eyes. See her smile. Better yet, watch her mother do those things. You'll never convince me that any other position is acceptable or even tolerable in the eyes of God.
(The picture was of Gwyneth and me in the NICU.)
Posts
42 comments:
Hey, you are on a roll! Two great posts in a row! (actually that number is probably more like 972, but I particularly liked these last two! :) ) Thank you for saying these things so very clearly!
Watching your grand daughter grow has blessed me. She is a beauty. Her mother and your son are both brave and strong in Christ, that also is a blessing to watch.
May Our God give your family another wonderful year. Thank you for sharing such a beautiful example of choosing life.
Thanks SO much for this post.
I'm in Wilmington, NC...enjoy following your blog!
have an awesome day! :)
Amen and Amen!
Right on target Rick. The demonstration from Nate and Tricia of the trust and faith they placed in God, and the sparkle in Gwyneth's eyes are a true indication that we all can take our problems in prayer to God. He has a plan, and in your words, The big guy upstairs has a solution before we understand there is a problem.
Great post :-)
That too is the reason why I vote the way I do. God's word goes before any "rights" we think we might have as humans. I don't vote for economic reasons, I don't vote for foreign policy reasons, I don't vote for a certain party. I vote for the candidate who values the lives that God creates.
If Roe V. Wade is ever overturned then I'll start looking at economics and foreign policy but for now I'm more concerned with valuing life that God creates than I am about my wallet or even gas prices or interest rates.
Two candidate skirt the issue and one stands right up and states they are against abortion and stand for life. Not a hard decision for me to make when it comes time to cast my vote. God's Word comes first. Holding baby Rose confirms that in my life as well.
Another good post about the candidates stand on abortion:
http://davidnasser.blogspot.com/
AMen!
That was amazing, Rick! Thank you!
SUPER POST!!!!! The miracles God has performed in Nate, Tricia, and Gwyneth's lives are aboslutely amazing!! I have truly enjoyed watching Him work through all 3 of them. It's so incredible. I also think that is totally awesome that Nate and Tricia let God lead the way, especially considering how young they are, and how much time they would lose together if Tricia hadn't of made it. That goes to show what a wonderful upbringing both of them have had by their parents. You don't have a faith that strong without a firm beginning, and a firm foundation in your home. In my opinion, your family is one of the most awesome families ever. Your faith, your love for each other, and your trust in God is so cool. I can't wait to see what else God has in store for the Lawrensons!
I also agree with the voting. I don't agree with anyone that is going to allow innocent lives to be taken; innocent lives that God created and has a plan for. It's so sad that people don't value the life God created.
This is such a tricky question for people. I have always been pro-choice as I don't consider abortion murder. I preface that with saying that I suffer from severe infertility and when I was able to get pregnant I was not able to remain pregnant. I was in a position to adopt a baby however the birth mother decided on abortion rather than adoption. Yes I was angry but at the same time I believe a woman has the right to make a choice. Even if that choice leaves me without a child. I can not be hypocritical in my beliefs/judgments simply because I was greedy and wanted the baby that would have resulted from the pregnancy.
I also respect that Tricia decided (chose) to have her baby given the state of her health at the time. But again, she was given that choice. The Choice isn't just a constitutional right to have the abortion but also the constitutional right to have the baby or to choose adoption. It's all choice.
Does that make sense? I just feel like one day this woman who had the abortion where I was hoping to adopt will have to answer for her actions just as I will. I don't even pretend to know when the unborn has rights or would be considered a "baby". But I do know that what makes this country great is that no one is telling us what we can and can't do as women and as Americans by men and those of a particular view point.
But I do want you to know that I absolutely stand with you being thankful for the choice Tricia made.
Allison
We'll have to disagree.
America is not great because a generation of Americans have been lost to the inconvenience of pregnacy and the convenience of abortion. America has been diminished because of it. Our greatness has been severely tarnished by abortion on demand.
It's a question of whether or not there are moral absolutes.
@Allison
I appreciate so much your willingness to share your thoughts on here.
I just wanted to respond to your last comment about the government.
I disagree with you on many accounts -- but I just wanted to say that I believe part of our government's job is to praise good & punish evil in society (Romans 13:1-5).
If we are torn on this issue it's because our cuontry is swaying between moral relativism (which I do not believe in at ALL) vs. morality that God created from the beginning that is unchanging and concrete. I don't believe that morality is changing -- I don't believe it changes as cultures change.
But putting ALL that aside ---- if we disagree on when life begins in our country --- then we need to error on the side of life.
I believe that we need to do whatever we can to value & preserve life.
AMEN! I didn't really get it myself till the first time I felt my son kick inside me...Nate and Tricia have been refined as by fire and God is continuing to show them and us his love...
Praying for all of you, and for the unborn in this country.
Rick - i have to disagree. Abortion is not "convenient"; any woman who has been through it understands that fact. It is a hard decision, in the best of times, that must be made individually. And how important is it that women are given that choice to make for themselves and their families? Extremely important. We cannot pick and choose what we'd like our government to control - establishment of governmental control over abortion is a slippery slope that can then encompass gun control, religious control, etc.
I agree that Tricia made the right choice for her situation - and wasn't it appropriate that she was able to make that choice, based on her beliefs and those of her family, and it wasn't imposed on her?
@Chickolet
the majority of Americans are still christians - or say they are. Christians believe that God and God alone has the ability to create life and end life here on earth.
Christians believe that what makes us human is not our body - nothing physical about us - christians believe we are spiritual beings created long before we come out of our mother's womb.
Therefore --- the majority of the country believes that abortion does end a life.
Therefore - protecting these babies is no different than protecting a 5 year old baby.
Nobody should be given the right to decide that one life is not as important or valuable as another. Nobody should be given the choice to end the life of another human being - even if it their child. In the news right now we have a toddler missing and the authorities are saying all signs lead to it being the mom that killed her --- do you believe that our government should give that 'right' that 'choice' to ANY mom? to choose to end their child's life?
Let's just say the government doesn't want to take on the christian doctrine outright that life starts at conception ---- then since there is no proof either way - then the government should say - we can't agree --- therefore we must error on the side of life.
The government must assume it is life --- and value it as life and protect it as life if there is any debate. They must punish those who end it like any other life protected under the government.
I don't think abortion is easy. I don't think having a baby is easy. I don't think being human is easy. I feel so much compassion for ALL women - women who abort women who choose not to ----
being pro life does NOT take away compassion for the mother --- what it does say is that there is a moral code out there ---- and whether we like it or not... whether it's hard to follow or not... it exists.
I understand your point about life beginning at conception; I'm not disputing that most evangelical christians believe that. There is a body of evidence (both scientific and otherwise) which disputes that - but that is not the issue I raise.
I simply believe that the more government is given control of us - our lives, our purchases, our work, the air we breathe, the soil we farm - the more it will want. Where is our dividing line in the sand? When is enough enough? We need to take personal responsibility for our moral code, not impose it upon others, and not expect the government to do it for us...
I appreciate your response because I really have never heard that argument before. Very interesting.
I also want less and less government....
but in the case of abortion --- you are protecting one person against another (even if that other is the mother). they are separate beings - or so we debate.
There's SO much MORE that needs to be done at the same time if we make all abortions illegal -- abstinence teaching, etc. etc. etc. BUT isn't the governments job to protect each of us - no matter age, physical ability or any other fact from murder? isn't it the government's job to fight against injustice?
I believe the Bible tells us it IS the government's job to punish evildoing and reward good
now if the government FORCED us to have sex to have children.... that's intereference - that is too much government
thanks for your input! :)
I sincerely advocate for separation of church and state for this reason (among others) - there are many bibles, many religions. This country was founded on the basic premise that there are freedoms that America promises, and one is that of worshiping where one chooses. There are many facets of Christianity - Roman Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Anabaptist among others - and there is no "one size fits all" in this argument.
It is clear that a 5 year old child - as you mentioned above - is unavoidably a separate human, it is not so clear that a 6 week old fetus is a separate human. It is mostly a religious argument, and not a scientific one. And just as I don't want my government telling me what I can and can't do, I don't wish to have any "majority" religion telling me what I can and cannot do. If I wanted that, I'd move to China, where freedoms are limited and you don't get any choices.
And for the record, I'm a married, for 14 years, mother of 2 girls. And I'd wish for their future the same freedoms that we all enjoy with a decided lack of government interference.
that's cool! That you're a mom of 2 daugthers I mean and have been married for 14 years.
I disagree that a 5 year old is CLEARLY more human than a fetus. A 5 year old is physically separated from it's mother yes --- but we believe it was ALWAYS separated from the beginning of it's time as a humanm being. Is separation from our mother what make us human?
So are you okay with late term abortions too then? If you believe life starts at separation from mother -- then you would be okay terminating a 40 week old baby in the womb as long as it was still inside the womb? What about babies taken out of the womb for medical emergencies but still need to be kept alive/sustained with machines? Are they are human though they can't physically live on their own yet?
Just because we physically are sustained by our mother's from the beginning - doesn't mean we aren't a separate human yet.
If it's not a human inside the mom, what is it?
I don't believe our physical make us human. I don't believe somebody on a ventilator is less human than a person living on their own. I don't believe a person with deformities and not a full 'normal' body is less of a person than a full bodied person. I don't believe our physical abilities or body is what makes us human. I believe we were given a soul and that soul is very clearly formed in the womb - not outside.
and yes you are right - we don't want religious persectuion. and yes I believe it is true that our founding fathers wanted us to have the right to choose where we would worship. our consitution itself says America was created to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (meaning our future generations - all of our descendants) --- including babies in the womb. Shouldn't babies be given the same chances to pursue happiness & have liberty - the freedom to live.
Our declaration of independence clearly states all men are created equal and in the very same breathe -- says we were created by a Creator. We clearly are a country founded by creationists who believe God is the creator of life and should be the ender only which is what creationists believe.
freedom OF religion is very different than freedom to kill.
the freedom to kill is not a freedom that any government should give. not china, not america.
so again -- if there is debate - we should error on the side of life, right?
This is tough. this is not a woman's issue. this is a man's issue as well. should THEY be given the right to say yes or no to an abortion? women and babies aren't the only ones suffering when an abortion is committed... this is a heartbreaking gutwrenching topic for men as well.
but statistics show that less than 10% of abortions are done because of medical reasons of mom or baby, and cases of rape or incest. 10% So they are done for social or economic reasons.
phew --- i'm tired of thinking on this
but I do so appreciate you 'talking' to me about it. I would rather talk and hear perspectives than not talk about it and hide it under the rug.
I DO hear what you are saying and understand the argument --- and that argument would be okay if morality was relative.... but I don't believe it is. I believe the government should be a moral entity - and that includes protecting & preserving all lives of it's people.
Scientifically, the definition of a mammal would be "a class of animals that have backbones, are warm-blooded, breath air, and whose females have milk-secreting glands for feeding their young". This definition doesn't mention a soul, a soul is a strictly religious definition.
For the record, I "personally" believe that anything past established "age of viability", which has moved downward in recent years because of medical advancements yet is generally understood to be 24 weeks gestation or so, is "my" line in the sand - but I absolutely do not want to limit the hard choices that some pregnant woman(and her partner, if he is available) past that age of viability might have to make because of circumstances out of their control... That is a personal decision for her and her supporters if there are any available, just as it is a personal decision when families should withdraw life support on accident victims when there are no medical orders established.
See the slippery slope? Who is making my decisions for me - who is responsible for my actions? I am. I would never consider telling someone I don't know that their choices are wrong. That's not up to me, it's up to a higher power.
so, chickolet...
Would you not tell a rapist his/her choice to rape was wrong?
Would you not tell a serial killer his/her choice to kill was wrong?
Would you not tell a drug dealer his/her choice to deal was wrong?
Really?
Because, the government does tell you that you can't rape, murder or deal drugs without serious consequences, and many people in our society would argue, just as you are arguing here, that it is their right to choose to do these things without consequence from any authority.
I'm confused by your position. It appears that you're saying there is no absolute truth?
It depends on your definition of human. Drug dealing has been established as a societal problem; arrest of individuals who deal drugs is proported to protect children and adults (although efficacy of that fact is up for debate). Rape is the control of a child or adult via force. Serial killers kill children or adults. Humans.
If human is defined as I said above, then before the "age of viability" fetuses are not human, in MY opinion.
And that's the crux of the problem for this argument - the definition of what makes us human. It is a grey zone, subject to interpretation. Mine may not be right for you, and yours may not be right for me.
I was referring to this statement:
"I would never consider telling someone I don't know that their choices are wrong."
And I was speaking in the context of pro-choice vs. pro-life - not in the context of established, non-grey area, good governmental intrusion to protect humans.
My intent is not to argue - it is to provoke thoughtful discussion...
OK. discuss away!
sorry I left the conversation haha I had to go run some errands...
but yeah chickolet you TOTALLY lost me.
So the constitution was created to protect all mammals? I'm not understanding what the definition of mammal has anything to do with it.
Clearly our founding fathers were creationists who wanted to protect humans --- nothing to do with all mammals.
We'll have to agree to disagree I guess
because you say that it's a slippery slope for the government to put in place laws to protect humans ---- but look at the slippery slope that *I* have seen having for a few decades:
we start saying that morality is relative. Relative to the person, relative to situations, relative to what is going on the world, relative to culture. a group forms that doesn't want to have a baby after they had sex (which is what creates one) --- so because this group has formed and there's a medical way to do it now - morals change. babies in the womb can now be killed --- and everybody including the government is supposed to sit by because there's NO scientific proof that it's a human.
so what happens next on this slippery slope? a group forms that says children who have ___ disease or ___ disability aren't human because of whatever reason --- so they believe that it's okay to kill them, since there's no proof that they themselves are human (have souls). sooo then our morals change again ---- when does it stop?
there is NO neutral territory here. if they don't say it's a life --- then that means they are saying it is NOT a life - they are taking a stance either way --- so I would say - all religious convictions aside ---- error on the side of life!
you don't believe that we all have moral absolutes. I believe that morality is unchanging & universal.
this slippery slope I see of morality being relative is sort of what happened during Hitler's reign. He took the role of God saying who is worthy of value and who isn't.
I KNOW that pro-choice advocates, including you, are not anything like him in your heart --- he was just all out 100% evil --- while I believe you have a good heart and really just care for people to have freedom which is so admirable. I know that it's a tough issue --- and we all believe what we do because of our experiences & perseptives.... but since there is no proof - we must error on the side of life.
imagine the slippery slope that will ensue if we change morality based on culture. if that is what some want --- there should be NO laws at ALL. It would be everything goes --- nobody has any right to interfere in anybody's life. we all have the right to choice to do whatever we want.
so since there is no proof either way - what would be the right thing to do?
imagine if there was a drug out there given by public institutions funded by the government (or even not even funded --- how about regulated by) that some found to be a human killer - some didn't think so. It wasn't scientificially proven either way. it has been said that it POSSIBLY might have been linked to over a million deaths a year ---- shouldn't the government value & protect the lives that it might be hurting --- and say bye bye to it? just at the possibility of killing 1,000,0000 people a year
let's not even discuss incidents of rape, incest or medical emergencies since those are so rare in the abortion statistics.... should we allow these abortions for economic and social reasons to continue if it even POSSIBLY is killing millions of babies a year?!
I have never heard these arguments before from the pro-choice side. I say discuss away as well.
but chik ---- what do you believe makes you human? Do you believe that you have value? Do you believe you are worthy of protecting?
Shouldn't people over age 50 be so so thankful that your mothers didn't have as readily available an option to do away with their babies in their wombs? how many of you baby boomers wouldn't be around?
who would NOT have been born if roe vs wade had gone into law a hundred years ago --- beethoven right? you've seen that forward go around? Senator Obama? -- his mom was an unwed 18 year old when she had him. helen keller? maybe some of the greatest leaders of our time right? maybe somebody you are really close to? who are we not giving a chance?
My point is that most prochoicers believe that life does not begin at conception - it begins when there is a viable fetus. By scientific and medical standards, that would be 24 weeks or so.
The argument that Hitler's extermination of Jewish people (which was an absolute atrocity, but comparable to our government's using black men for syphillis testing without their knowledge) as a comparison to the abortion of non-viable fetuses is like comparing apples to oranges.
The idea that life begins at conception is strictly a religious one. Yes, development begins at conception, but life, including the things that define a human, doesn't happen until much later than that.
And that is why the separation of church and state is so important to me. I don't wish my government to make a religious stand on this subject, or others (including same sex marriage). They are best left up to the individuals involved who know the most about the specific situation - and they certainly don't impact me or others.
And by the way, abortions WERE being done in the 50s - they were something that wasn't spoken of, just as molesting uncles and babysitters weren't spoken of either, but occurred.
they were not acceptable or near as prevalent as today. the government didn't promote them as being acceptable like the majority of the government shown on the media does.
the government IS making a religious stand one way or the other. If they allow abortions, they are making a religious stand that their religion is relative morality. even if it's not a formal religion with a formal name--- what is being created in this nation IS a religion.
the government IS saying something with their legislature one way or the other - there is no neutral ground.
so again - since there is NO neutral ground and they are making a stance either way - would the right thing to do -- be to protect the (possible) life - even if it's just a POSSIBILITY
again - agree to disagree :)
I wanted to tell you that I think you have value & worth and I want to encourage you that I believe you are worth something that is far deeper than your physical development. I believe you are completely worthy of protection and the right to life. I'm so glad that you are here and able to voice your opinion and passion about freedom.
Freedom is such a universal desire --- sort of like morality. I believe these things are 'unalienable', inherent convictions in our soul - to hate injustice - to crave for freedom - to do right.
You're correct, freedom is certainly an inalienable right which doesn't exist in many countries today. It must be preserved as much as possible, in my opinion.
And now i must correct an 8 year old's homework and make dinner. Thanks for the conversation.
and thank you as well! :)
God bless you.
Thanks for being passionate, for seeking out answers to your questions and for being willing to discuss.
and thanks for the correction -- INalienable
haha
I'm going to ask you two ladies to continue your discussion privately.
Thanks!
I apologize for taking over your comment section Mr. Lawrenson.
When I click on her name it takes me to a dead end so I couldn't find a way to contact her directly. I should have offered my email or something I guess.
Sorry again to bombard your comment page.
That's OK.
If you two want to continue your conversation email me and I'll be glad to connect you!
Thanks.
We were actually finished! :)
and she can find me if need be.
have an awesome weekend! Prayers for protection from Hanna for you all --- and for us in south N.C.!
Life is living. The fetus is alive because it lives and it grows. So to put a stop to the growth is to put a stop to life.
Since only 10% of abortions are the result of rape, incest or for medical reasons then this means 90% are of abortions because of choice.
I think the choice was made when the man and the women decide to have sex. So you have a right to choose. Choose to have sex or choose to abstain. With every choice there is a consequence. Be a responsible human and own up to the responsibility of your choices in life.
I agree with the last comment but don't think the state should enforce it. I think more should be invested in education about sex and responsibility, actions, consequences- but not from a religious standpoint. I am not Christian nor believe in God but I do believe in certain principles as a human being. But the thought that the choice could be in the government's hand makes me shudder. It is after all the woman who carries the pregnancy and bears the child, it is her body and she is the one dealing with all the physical and emotional consequences of it. I think it is one's own personal business.
Thanks for your post. Life is precious--choose to save it!
Post a Comment