Another View for March 10, 2005
By Scott Kleinknecht
I have read the resolution on abortion that was passed by the Baptist General Association of Virginia in 1997 and is included in its pamphlet, “Truthfully Speaking.” Several letters to the editor of this newspaper demonstrate the need for additional discussion. Apparently what some take to be the plain meaning of this text, others do not.
The resolution states the following:
A. “Southern Baptists have historically held a biblical view of the sanctity of human life.”
B. “Abortion is a very serious moral and spiritual problem of continuing concern to the American people.”
C. “Christians have a responsibility to deal with all moral and spiritual issues which affect society, including problems of abortion.”
D. “The practice of abortion for selfish non-therapeutic reasons only destroys fetal life, dulls our society's moral sensitivity, and leads to a cheapening of all human life.”
Then the following is resolved:
1. “The BGAV reaffirm[s] the biblical sacredness and dignity of all human life, including fetal life.”
2. “In the best interest of our society we reject any indiscriminate attitude toward abortion as contrary to the biblical view.”
3. “We also confirm our conviction about the limited role of government in dealing with matters relating to abortion.”
4. We “support the right of expectant mothers to the full range of medical services and personal counseling for the preservation of life and health.”
What are we to conclude from these statements?
First, the BGAV considers the fetus to be a living human being. Why else would they reaffirm “the sacredness and dignity” of fetal life?
Second, the BGAV believes that it is wrong to oppose all abortions, but it is also wrong to support all abortions. Some abortions are okay, but some are not. What else is meant by rejecting “any indiscriminate attitude towards abortion as contrary to the biblical view”?
Third, it is not the proper responsibility of government to make the decisions about which abortions are allowable and which are not. Why else be “convicted about the limited role of government in dealing with matters of abortion”?
Fourth, it is ultimately the responsibility of the pregnant woman to make the decision concerning the moral propriety of an abortion in her individual case. Why else would the BGAV “support the right of expectant mothers to the full range of medical services and personal counseling for the preservation of life and health”? If the intention was to exclude abortion procedures because they purposely take a life, why not just say so? In the context of the ongoing debate and given the current law and practice in America, can a phrase like “the full range of medical services” reasonably be expected to communicate the exclusion of abortion as an option?
Fifth, the BGAV provides some guidelines to help women faced with this very difficult ‘choice.' A decision should never be made for “selfish or non-therapeutic” reasons. It should always have “the preservation of life and health” as its goal. Yet when does abortion ever have the preservation of the life and health of the preborn as its goal? Abortion always intends to take away fetal life. It is a choice made by the mother in favor of her own life and health. How can this be an unselfish choice?
And that word “health” has a well-established meaning in the debate, which includes the mental and emotional health of the mother. In practice this opens up a vast array of potentially proper reasons to abort. What genuine compassion do these vague and logically inconsistent guidelines really offer women who find themselves trapped in an unwanted pregnancy?
The resolution is concerned with promoting the “biblical view of abortion,” but by its interpretation, the biblical view is very similar to that of Planned Parenthood and almost every other supporter of “a woman's right to choose.” When push comes to shove, what happens to “the sacredness and dignity of fetal life”? A consistent application of this resolution would lead to the conclusion that the long accepted Christian prohibition against taking innocent human life is not necessarily what the Scriptures teach.
The BGAV is to be commended for insisting that abortion is an issue Christians are required to deal with. Because this is true, Virginia Baptists cannot have it both ways. No matter how much we may officially “reject any indiscriminate attitude toward abortion,” one guiding principle or another must be selected. So which is it? Is the resolution correct? Is abortion a procedure an expectant mother has a right to choose if she sincerely decides the circumstances warrant it? Or is abortion the wrongful taking of a human life? Yes, every case has its own unique complexities and we must always strive to live out genuine Christian compassion. Still, before you can bend a rule you have to have one. Despite its lack of consistency, in the end, this resolution gives us a rule. If you think that it is wrong, as I do, then you should oppose it. If you think it best represents God's truth then you should defend it. But please stop pretending that it doesn't say what it says and mean what it means.
Special to the Herald
Scott Kleinknecht is a member of Colonial Beach Baptist Church in Colonial Beach.