2 Witness on Abortion - from Al Mohler

Here is a good article by Al Mohler:

Looking across the moral landscape of the last half-century, one issue looms larger than all others -- abortion. Considered from a historical perspective, the intensity and duration of the abortion debate came as something of a surprise. Handing down its infamous Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, the majority of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court declared the abortion question settled and closed. They were wrong.

Almost four decades after Roe v. Wade, Americans are still torn over the issue of abortion. Indeed, the intensity of the abortion debate in 2009 exceeds that of 1973. The controversy over abortion is not only unsettled and unresolved -- it is still developing before our eyes. To the great consternation of abortion-rights proponents, Americans have not accepted abortion on demand as a permanent reality. As a nation, we have debated any number of issues beyond abortion in recent years, but abortion remains the controversy that is most central, unavoidable, and deeply personal.

The personal dimension of the abortion controversy came to light this week from two unexpected witnesses. The first is Sarah Kliff, a reporter for Newsweek magazine. In a very personal column, Kliff describes her experience visiting Omaha, Nebraska and the abortion clinic of Dr. LeRoy Carhart, now perhaps the nation's sole specialist in late-trimester abortions. As Kliff writes, her experience covering abortion for the magazine over the past two years has led her into contact and conversation with a range of persons on both sides of the abortion debate. She recognizes that, "both sides feel abortion is an issue worth waging war over."

Given her journalistic experience, Kliff describes herself as "well-versed in abortion policy, the pro-choice and pro-life arguments, the latest legislation." Her next sentence delivers the surprise: "But I'd never actually seen an abortion; I'd never watched the procedure that activists vehemently defend or deplore."

But that is exactly what happened when Kliff went to Omaha to research her article on Dr. Carhart. Even as she anticipated observing the abortion, Kliff confessed to hesitancy and reluctance. She observed a first-trimester abortion, even though Dr. Carhart does perform late-term abortions. Why was she so ambivalent?

In her words:

Why was I reluctant to watch? To be fair, I'd never observed a surgery and knew myself to frequently flinch at 'Grey's Anatomy.' But abortion isn't like the complex, bloody operations you see on television: medically speaking, it's a simple and common procedure. About 1.2 million were performed in 2005, the same, numberwise, as outpatient cancer surgeries. I was nervous, I think, to watch something so controversial; no one protests outside cancer clinics. I didn't know how I'd react. Would I find the surgery repulsive? Encounter women whose choices troubled me? Whom I disagreed with? I was uneasy about coming in such close contact with such substantial decisions.

Observing the abortion, Kliff writes of seeing a woman prepared for the procedure and then of the suction tube that was inserted within her. Her report is both chilling and honest. "Carhart used a suction tube to empty the contents of the uterus; it took no longer than three minutes. The suction machine made a slight rumbling sound, a pinkish fluid flowed through the tube, and, faster than I'd expected, it was over."

As Kliff recounts, she felt no physical discomfort observing the procedure. Nevertheless, she did experience a very strong emotional reaction. After describing this emotional reaction and her encounters with patients in the abortion clinic, Kliff tells of returning home only to discover that her friends who supported abortion rights "bristled slightly when I told them where I'd been and what I'd watched."

In a profound statement, Sarah Kliff acknowledges that Americans just do not talk about abortion as they talk about other surgical or medical procedures. "Abortion may be a simple procedure medically," she explains, "but it is not cancer surgery."

Sarah Kliff does not condemn abortion in her article and she does not articulate a pro-life understanding of the abortion issue. Indeed, she speaks of abortion as involving a weighty choice that, "depending on how you view it, involves a life, or the potential for life." This is a very weak way of describing the moral question of abortion, but it is at least a start. Sarah Kliff's honest reflections on her experience of observing an abortion are, perhaps more than she knows or recognizes, a witness to the horror of abortion. Her description of "pinkish fluid" flowing through the suction tube is almost impossible to force out of one's mind.

Another unexpected witness this week is actress Kourtney Kardashian. Her recently announced unplanned pregnancy became part of Hollywood's scandal and publicity circus. But what caught the attention of the media this week was her decision to keep the baby and the straightforward logic behind her decision.

Kardashian has not adopted a pro-life position on the abortion question. Indeed, she told Peoplemagazine: "I do think every woman should have the right to do what they want, but I don't think it's talked through enough." The actress told of many friends who just assured her that abortion was the easy way out. "Like it's not a big deal," the actress recalled.

Interestingly, Kardashian's decision to keep her baby was at least partially prompted by her experience of reading the testimonies of women who regretted their abortions. "I looked online, and I was sitting on the bed hysterically crying, reading these stories of people who felt so guilty for having an abortion," she explained.

"I was just sitting there crying, thinking, 'I can't do that,' . . . And I felt in my body, this is meant to be. God does things for a reason, and I just felt like it was the right thing that was happening in my life."

As she thought about her decision, Kardashian concluded that "all the reasons why I wouldn't keep the baby were so selfish." She also received encouragement from her doctor. "My doctor told me there is nothing you will ever regret about having the baby, but he was like, 'You may regret not having the baby.' And I was like: That is so true."

The Culture of Death looms as a massive threat, but its foundations are crumbling. Unexpected witnesses such as Sarah Kliff and Kourtney Kardashian help us to see how moral insight can emerge from unexpected experiences, reflections, and witnesses. Some of the most profound witnesses to the horror of abortion and the sanctity of human life do not even know that they are so. The evil of abortion cannot be hidden once it is seen, and a voice for life cannot be forgotten once it is heard.

___________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Mr. President - You May Not Appoint A Pro-Choice Judge

As a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I am appreciative and I join Douglas Wilson's warning to President Obama regarding the appointment of a pro-choice judge to the Supreme Court:

You may not do this thing. And if by the time this message is preached, you have already placed the name of such a person in nomination, you are commanded in the name of the Lord Jesus to repent, and withdraw that name from consideration. The one to whom you ultimately answer is the Lord Jesus Christ, and not the American people. And this Jesus, who is the Lord of all presidents and parliaments, kings and congresses, forbids what you are in the midst of doing. And so I say it again. You may not.

You said in the campaign that you did not have "a litmus test" for your nominees, but it is important for you to know and recognize that the Lord Jesus does have a litmus test for judges. He requires them to hate injustice and to judge righteously (Dt. 1:16), to defend the fatherless (Is. 1:23; Jer. 5:28), and to keep the land from being soaked with the blood of innocents (Hos. 6:6-8; Ps. 10:18). Judges must adjudicate with godly wisdom (Prov. 8:16). Judges must recognize that there is a Judge above them, one to whom they answer. The Lord is our judge, lawgiver and king (Is. 33:22). And judges who refuse to acknowledge the wisdom of heaven are judges that the Lord will bring down to nothing. He makes the judges of the earth as vanity (Is. 40:23).

...You have no mandate to allow for the summary executions of anyone. You have no authority to make whether or not a baby is allowed to take a breath of air a matter of somebody else’s political "choice." That is not yours to give. You have no right to deprive anyone of life without due process. And to address the crowning hypocrisy in all of this, you have no authority to invert the meanings of empathy and cruelty. You have stated that one of the characteristics of your nominee would be "empathy." But the treatment that unborn children receive in this calloused and cruel nation of ours is a photo negative of true empathy. We dismember little children, we kill them with saline injections, we suck out their brains with high powered equipment, and you want a nominee who will keep this ghastly business going, and you want one who will call what he is doing empathy. But the prophet Isaiah has declared an authoritative word—"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" (Is 5:20-21). Woe, in other words, to those who do exactly what you are doing.

Furthermore, the one who is the resurrection and the life, the one who is the source of all our life, is the Lord Jesus. The Lord gives, and so the Lord is the only one with the authority to take away. You did not give life, and so unless you have direct warrant from the one who did give life, you have no authority whatever to take it away. This is why the magistrate can execute a murderer after a fair trial; God has given that kind of authority to the magistrate (Rom. 13:4). But without authorization from heaven, the capacity to kill does not confer the right to kill. Murder on a large scale, or conducted in a highly organized fashion, does not mysteriously turn into something else.

On Monday, President Obama selected Sonia Sotomayor to be the next Supreme Court Justice.
Where will she stand on this issue?

Download and listen to Douglas Wilson's sermon.

For the manuscript see here.

For the outline see here.

Abortion: Not a "Family Matter"

See this video clip posted at desiringgod.org

Wilson on Sarah Palin and Pro-life

Sarah Palin is creating quite a buzz and it is very fun to watch. Douglas Wilson, a presbyterian pastor and writer had some interesting things to say about the issue of pro-life and the choice of Sarah Palin as McCain's VP.

That said, my touchstone issue on whether or not this reversal is likely or possible has always been the abortion issue. That is the issue that we have to begin with, and it is therefore a non-negotiable. If we repent there, we can get to other issues as they arise. If we don't repent there (with repentance measured by nothing less than overthrowing Roe), then it doesn't really matter what we do elsewhere because it will be nothing but God's judgment, whatever it is.

Now I have known that if the Dalai Bama is elected, we will have absolutely no chance of getting pro-life judges on the Supreme Court. And if the Republicans have the White House, we might or might not get pro-life judges. But wait . . . there's more. McCain's persona of deliberately irritating conservatives with that maverick schtick of his has been such that it convinced me that there was no way that he was going to be the one to topple Roe -- right up to the recent reports that were circulating that he was actually considering Lieberman for his VP pick. But the bottom line has always been that if I knew that McCain was going to appoint pro-life judges to the Court, I would be more than happy to vote for him. But I -- like many other conservatives -- believed his various erratic and eccentric signals. "Don't ever trust me on this one" was his message, and "okay" was my response. This choice of Palin appears to a clear signal in the right direction, a signal that goes well beyond a pie crust promise --easily made, easily broken. So, is this VP choice making me rethink this election? Yes, it is. I haven't reached any settled conclusions yet, but I am willing to consider it. I'll keep you posted, if you don't mind me thinking out loud.

It is important to note that this is not about an "on paper" pro-life record. McCain really does have that. But if he had chosen another candidate that was ostensibly pro-life in the same kind of way that he is (e.g. Romney), I would have rethought nothing. But Palin is real-time, real-life pro-life. If this is the signal that McCain is making (for pragmatic political reasons, sure) that he is willing to bind himself to a pro-life course of action prior to the election, then it does alter the landscape...