Abortion, Steve Jobs and the Choices of Life

I'm only just catching up on some news back in November: Steve Jobs, originally an unwanted pregnancy and adopted at birth, himself remained constantly grateful to his birth mother that he "didn't end up as an abortion." LifeSiteNews.com:

The new authoritative biography of Jobs, biographer Walter Isaacson reveals how Jobs set out to find his birth mother in the early 80s, even hiring a private detective for the task.

While his first efforts to find his mother failed, Jobs persisted, particularly after his adoptive mother passed away in the mid 80s.

Jobs explained to Isaacson why he was so determined to find his biological mother:

“I wanted to meet [her] mostly to see if she was OK and to thank her, because I’m glad I didn’t end up as an abortion,” he said.

I read about this the other day in a newsletter we subscribe to from The Choices of Life. In the same edition I was interested to read that at a recent Presbyterian Youth Camp (NSW I assume), after the speaker Bruce Coleman presented on the issue of abortion, Coleman surveyed the students, aiming to test how significantly their thinking might have changed as a result of the pro-life presentation and hearing personal experiences of abortion.

Coleman used the following question: "What do you think is a good reason why a woman should be able to have an abortion?" Students and leaders were given 7 options to consider:

• Rape;
• Mum's life at risk;
• Disability of the baby;
• It's a woman's choice;
• The woman is too young;
• Other; and
• No good reason.

The tallied results indicated significant numbers of changed minds after listening to the presentation:

• Rape: Before 98; After 18.
• Mum's life at risk: Before 112; After 37.
• Disability of the baby: Before 2; After 1.
• It's a woman's choice: Before 3; After 0.
• The woman is too young: Before 5; After 2.
• Other: Before 7; After 6.
• No good reason: 192; After 351.

I found it striking that one presentation to this large group of young people could so signifiantly and positively effect their thinking on this issue, particularly on those very questions that are considered to be the exceptional circumstances: that of rape and when a mother's life is at risk. 

Asking about Abortion

Do you have strong views about abortion? Have you done all the thinking you should about this important question? Have you asked all the questions? Are your views open to questioning?

Would you read this if it only asked questions? Would you at least think about them; perhaps even try to answer them?


Where do we begin?

It's a question of life: When does human life begin?

Is it that a life doesn't become human until a certain stage of development? When it gets to a certain size? Age? Physical location? Level of independence from the mother? Could it be that until a certain time, a life - be it a zygote, embryo, fetus - is a different kind of organism, other than human?

Is a 20 year old adult a different kind of organism to a 2 month old child, who is less developed and more dependent? Is a new born fundamentally different in kind to a newly conceived? Does a baby in utero aquire personhood the moment it is born, or when the cord is cut?

Or is it that from the moment of conception a human life lives?


What do we give?

It's a question of value: What value do we give a life?

What determines the value of a human life? Is a larger human more valuable than a smaller one? Are older people worth more than younger people? Does quality of life give one more value?

Is the life of a 30 year old man, who is bigger than a 12 year old child, worth more? Is a happy person more precious than a sad person?  What about health? The sicker the person the worse we can treat them?  Does the level of dependence affect value? Are children of less worth because they are more dependent on their parents than adults?

Would it be ethical to kill mentally and physically disabled children who have already passed down a birth canal at some point in their life? Can we discriminate between people based on the circumstances of their conception? Is a child conceived during a ‘one night stand’ some how less valuble than a child born from a loving stable relationship?

Or is it that all human life, irrespectively, has equal value?


What do we care?

It's a question of right: Do people have rights? Is there such a thing as the right to life? If so, which people have it?

Is it okay to harm certain people in certain ways just because they are different? Is it naive to think that killing innocent people is wrong? Or is it merely disadvantageous or undesirable or inappropriate to do such things, sometimes?

Could killing innocent children actually be right in some situations - or rather, advantageous? Or is living without an umbilical cord a criterion before we have the right to safety and care, even protection?

Or is it a case of competing rights? Is upholding the right not to be pregnant a greater good than the right not to be killed? Or is it the lesser of two evils? Do the tragic situations into which children are born make it more evil to protect them than to kill them?

Or is it that sometimes killing really is completely wrong? Such as when it's murder; Like when it is a violent personal assault on an innocent, unprotected, indefensible victim?

Apart from the fact that murder is unlawful, is it actually wrong to murder people, always?


What does it matter?

It's a question of law: Does the law always get it right? Does our legal system always maintain justice and protect people as it should? Or does it fail in places?

What about the treatment of Indigenous Australians by a previous generation? Was the slaughter of thousands right simply because it was endorsed by the government and their laws at that time?

What about unborn children in our time? Why does our law condemn a person as guilty of murder if they kill a baby by injuring a pregnant mother, but then fail to recognise the situations in which abortion would also be murder?

Why will a mother be prosecuted if after giving birth she discards her baby in a rubbish bin, while another who carries out the same act but with the assistance of medical staff in a professional setting, be treated differently?

Should all parents be given the freedom to kill their children at any stage? Or do only mothers have this unconditional right, and for just a limited time?

Or is it that, regardless of the law and irrespective of one's relationship to the child, the question about abortion is one of murder?


What do you think?

It's a question of reason: Are there exceptional circumstances? Are there cases when we should be more distressed about a child's live birth than its abortion?

Is it a different question when, for example, abortion concerns a child conceived as a result of rape? Do we think the abortion of these babies is justified because they were forced upon us? Does the brutality of the first act mean the second is less brutal?

What about the abortion of seriously deformed children? Why do we think that this is any different to condoning the killing of all incapacitated children? Is it because a person born with brain damage is less human than one born with lung damage?

Are there even more serious situations than these, where abortion should be acceptable? What about the situation where the mother's life is in danger? Is a mother at liberty to 'let her child go' in order to save her own life? Is 'pulling the plug' on the life of a viable baby in utero in order to save oneself any different to 'putting down' a child whose life one can only uphold at the expense of one's own life?

If the killing of one life in order to save another is the only option, which life should be saved? The one more needed? In other words, the one of more value? But can one human life really be of more value than another? Which life is truely of more value? What really determines the value of a human life?

Does our full circle to the same question asked earlier show you that this reasoning misses the real question: Though all killing is tragic, is all killing murder?

Or is it just that in all situations where abortion is murder, it remains just as wrong as any other murder?


What do you know?

It's a question of conscience: Have you known this all along? Or have you forced yourself to ask these questions for the first time?

After thinking through these issues, will you think differently? Or regardless of what you truly know - whether you're prepared to admit these things or not - will you retain the same attitude and behaviour towards abortion as you always have had in the past?

What does this show you about yourself?

And are Christians, who may believe abortion is wrong, actually any better? Are they any more righteous than anyone else? Or for that matter, are they more righteous in any part of their lives ?

If not, what's the point of all this talk about right and wrong?

Does anyone have the ability to do what they know is right anyway? Is there anything anybody can do that is perfectly right? Could you do what is right, from this point on?

"As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus”

(Romans 3:10-12, 23-24)

The Christian and Alcohol

Or 5 biblical principles that should control our use of alcohol

The Preacher says “In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these: a righteous man perishing in his righteousness, and a wicked man living long in his wickedness. Do not be overrighteous, neither be overwise--why destroy yourself? Do not be overwicked, and do not be a fool-- why die before your time? It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. The man who fears God will avoid all extremes.” (Ecclesiastes 7:15-18)

The subject of ‘the Christian and alcohol’ has been a controversial one in the church, a subject with extremes of opinion. The only way to gain wisdom on this subject is to take seriously what is written in the entirety of God’s Word concerning it, and to heed the warning of the Apostle Paul: "Do not go beyond what is written." (1 Corinthians 4:6).

This is a brief topical overview of the Bible’s teaching on the subject of alcohol, with a particular focus on the New Testament’s ethic for its use and applications for Christians (Point 5).

1. The Bible actually teaches that alcohol is from God.

E.g. Psalm 104:14; Ecclesiastes 9:7, 10:19; Proverbs 31:6. The Book of John gives an account of where Jesus turned water into wine in order to meet needs and bless a newly married couple on their week long wedding party (John 2:9-10). On one occasion the Apostle Paul needed to tell Timothy to stop abstaining from the properties of wine which could be helpful/good (1 Timothy 5:23).

2. As with anything in this world, the love of alcohol and the indulgence in it is sinful.

E.g. Just to focus on Proverbs alone, see 23:20-21, 20:1, 21:17, 23:39-35.

Because even a small amount of alcohol can be intoxicating , even more wisdom and self control is needed than with other things of this world that we use. Christians are told in scripture to take particular and serious care, not to ‘cross the line’ by drinking to intoxication: Ephesians 5:15 -18.

3. The evidence of the Holy Spirit’s work in a Christian is the continuing death of their sinful nature, and the outworking of the new nature of Christ that is in them. Part of this nature is self control, and so the Christian way to treat alcohol is with self control: Galatians 5: 16 – 24.

Accordingly, the world should be able to see the nature of Christ in us by our action (self control displayed whenever we drink or partake of anything in this world that is from God) that they may take seriously God’s message that we preach, and turn to Him: Titus 2:2-13.

4. This lifestyle of self control with alcohol is even more important for leaders of God’s people.

E.g. 1 Timothy 3:1-3, 8; Titus 1:7.

5. Every Christian, as part of the body of Christ, is to building others up and restrict themselves to what leads to the good of others. And so it is sinful to do anything that causes other Christians to stumble, even if you know you’re theologically free to do that thing in Christ. This is a very important principle of God’s Word that applies to alcohol consumption.

It may be that the Christian, who sees you drinking alcohol, even though they know the Biblical perspective on it, doesn’t have the character that you have. Then, when they follow your example, they don’t have the self control that you have, and so really they are unable to follow your example in the first place. They fall into sin, but you have contributed to it. If this is at all a possibility with somebody then don’t set that example until they’re ready for it, so that they won’t stumble.

It may be that a non-Christian who sees you drinking, or a Christian for that matter, doesn’t understand the Biblical perspective on it as you do. They may judge you for it, thinking you’re a hypocrite. How then can you share the gospel with them, since they will discredit everything you say? And so you’re drinking in that case hinders the work of the gospel, which is more important than you’re freedom to drink. And it’s more important that they understand the truth of the gospel than they understand the Bible’s teaching on drinking. So in circumstances where drinking might destroy the work of God in somebody’s life, it is of course better not to drink.

However it may be that in certain situations you could use your consumption of alcohol as an aid to point out the true nature of sin and the difference between religious living (bondage because of the law) and Christianity (freedom because of grace in Christ), and so share the gospel in explanation of their wrong thinking on this issue.

And what about another Christian if their conviction is that it is sinful to drink alcohol? For them drinking is sin, because they would be rebelling against God in their hearts if they were to drink (anything that does not come from faith is sin: Rom 14:23). The apostle Paul describes this as a ‘weak conscience’, meaning, an over sensitive conscience; and also as ‘weak faith’, because a strong faith knows that through the cross we are free to live and enjoy all things from God in this life as the Spirit bears the fruit of faith in us. However, we are still responsible to make sure we don’t sin ourselves by causing those with a weak conscience to stumble. The entire chapter of Romans 14 explains this principle in depth: Romans 14:19-23.

This is a general principle of the New Testament, and applies to all areas of our freedom in Christ. We should cease doing anything that hinders the gospel, or causes our weaker family members (in faith/character) to stumble; whether smoking or drinking, or our choice of language/vocabulary, or dress or cultural etiquette: 1Corinthians 8:9 -13; 10:23-11:1

Therein lies the heart of the matter: “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God--even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 10:31-11:1)

It’s the grace of God shown us in the cross of Christ that teaches us to live this way: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2:11-13).

The difference between morals and ethics

Is there a difference between morality and ethics?

(I found myself asking this question a few days ago when directed by a friend to an article addressed to the business community. The case was being framed up against the 99designs business model within the design industry, arguing that its practices are 'unethical'. Accordingly, my friend made the jump (in terminology), that my engagement with this type of business might actually be 'morally' wrong.)

I recall studying Christian Ethics in my Moore Theological College Correspondence Course. Michael Hill's notes of 1979 formed an excellent course that was not easy to forget. But I did forget the difference between 'ethical theories' and 'moral codes'. Although the terminology of 'ethics' and 'morals' are often used interchangeably in everyday conversation, a distinction can be made that I think is helpful.

At the simplest, morals are about the 'rules' we create for ourselves (or that the Bible creates for us). A moral code is the 'set of rules which governs the way we behave and act.' But we may not be able to justify those rules. And put simply again, ethics are about the 'reasons' for the rules, but more precisely, the underlying principles from which rules may be created.

The principles of ethical theories are meant to be universal. They should be absolute, based on essential beliefs about God, mankind and the world. But the applications of these principles (morals) may often depend on situations and contexts. So the justification of morals depends on our ethical theory. But although morals come from ethics, somebody may adopt or retain morals without necessarily adopting or even understanding the ethical theory that created those morals.

Here's a helpful excerpt from Hill:

A moral code might be defined as a set of practical rules adopted by a person or persons to govern their behaviour within the framework of the obvious obligations of personal relationships. As rules, the moral code applies to particular situations. For example, in relation to speaking to others, the rule "don't tell lies" can be applied in a variety of individual situations. In relation to other people's property, the rule "don't steal" can be applied to a variety of particular occasions.

An ethical theory on the other hand deals not so much with the practical rules but with principles; not so much with applications but with the reasons which justify the acceptance of the moral rules. An ethical theory will be the result of rational activity whereas a moral code may not - although it can be. Ethics, in this sense, has been defined as "a rational procedure for determining what individual human beings ought to seek to realize by voluntary action." It might equally have been defined as the location and justification of moral principles (as distinct from moral rules).

I should acknowledge that I realise that contemporary thinking constantly seeks alternate ethical theories to those of the Bible, and consequently attempts to recreate our morality. I should also acknowledge that there are other ways in which the terms 'ethics' and 'morals' are used, and these differences can be confusing if we don't be careful with definitions.

Christians of course are concerned with working out the ethical principles that create the moral commands (rules) of the Bible.

But I've said all of this to primarily point out that I don't think we can separate Christian ethics from morals. If we believe something to be 'unethical' -- based upon a Christian justification -- then if follows that this principle must follow through in application to our moral rulings as we create boundaries for ourselves to keep us from what is actually, in a Christian sense, 'wrong' and therefore sinful.

Thinking about all this again makes me realise how much work I need to do on my own understanding of the ethics of the Bible and the morals that I've adopted (that may not necessarily be justified from a thoroughly Christian basis).

Is gambling wrong?

What does a properly Christian ethic rule on the issue of gambling? That is, if our motive is actually and truely to "love our neighbour" in service to Christ, can we go ahead and engage in the activity of gambling?

This is not a question seeking the 'morals' of gambling, divorced from the imperative of a gospel-driven motive. I'm actually wanting here to avoid legalism: rather than making an absolute rule about gambling, I want to ask whether the activity can ever actually be good, and loving, if I'm my decision is driven by a faith-response to the gospel of obedience to Christ's command to love.

Most of the work is done in the defining:

"Gambling may be defined as the determination of the possession of money, or money-value, by an appeal to an artificially created chance, where the gains of the winners are made at the expense of the losers and the gain is secured without rendering in service or in value an equivalent of the gains obtained."

(A Dictionary of Christian Ethics, John Macquarie)

The thing that makes gambling a clear case is that it always involves your gain made at the expense of your neighbour, without giving back anything in return, much less something that would proportionately compensate your fellow human with the equivalent value of what you have taken from them.

In other words, it is an absolute contradiction to Christ's command to "love your neighbour as yourself". If I gamble, my gain involves your inevitable loss, and even if you are willing and able to sustain that loss, and whatever my motives in doing it, whatever my intentions, I have still preferred my gain at your loss.

The Spirit of Christ's command is to prefer my neighbour's gain if in conflict with my own. At the least, 'each one should look out not only for his own interests, but also to the interests of others'.

So I conclude that gambling is wrong, always. Do you agree?