A Response to Steve’s Comments

I have tried to respond to Steve Grech’s comments to my previous post, point by point. His words are in italics. (This is coming as a new post from me since I could not figure out how to do the italic thing within the “reply” box.) Please scroll down to read my previous post on abortion.

After reading this, I have an important question for you “What is your personal belief as to when life begins?”

I am a real conservative on the matter of when human life begins. From the Book of Genesis right on through many religious and legal codes through the millennia, human life begins when we take our first breath.

Why is this important? Because in your own words, you relate “Language is metaphorical and symbolic.” If you believe that, nothing can be a foundation for you. Life, love, Jesus, God, faith, Incarnation, Resurrection, blessing, miracle-are these all “symbolic’? You cannot build a life of faith on “symbolic”.

I did not say that life and faith etc. are symbolic. I said, “Language is metaphorical and symbolic.” Language is composed of signs, symbols, and sounds. The word “horse” is not a horse. It is a symbolic representation of another reality to which it points. And there is a great deal of subjectivity in the word “horse,” because one person hearing the word may think about a particular horse he has ridden, while another may think of an equestrian granite statue.

“Symbolic” language leads you to believe Planned Parenthood gets a “small percentage of its operations” from abortions. Fact (not symbolic):

1. In its last annual report (June 30, 2010), PP received $487.4 million tax dollars.
 2. Over that some time period it performed 329,455 abortions.
 3. It provided prenatal care to 31,098 women.
 4. It referred 841 women to adoption agencies.

Steve, I believe that if you check that same report you will see that Planned Parenthood provided over 11 million services during the reporting year, of which 3% were abortions. According to my math that qualifies as a “small percentage of its operations.”

“Small percentage” is a very poor symbol when talking about the facts listed above. 91% of pregnant women seen by PP get abortions.

Be careful here. My dad was a statistician who used to claim that “figures lie and liars figure.” (Please don’t take this personally. My dad didn’t. I only quote him to make the point that we must read the numbers carefully, so that we don’t draw conclusions that are not revealed in the data.) Again, according to the report, only 31,098 women received prenatal care. But prenatal care is not Planned Parenthood’s primary mission. 1,144,558 women received pregnancy tests, of which at least a few probably came out positive. In addition, statistically, some of the over 5,775,000 who participated in cancer screenings/prevention and STI/STD testing and treatment were pregnant as well. So it cannot be accurately claimed that “91% of pregnant women seen by PP get abortions.”

When you speak about the “official position of the Episcopal Church”, you relate women should have the legal right to choose…” The government does not grant “rights”, only God can give rights.

We have a Bill of Rights amending our Constitution. The Supreme Court has affirmed that a woman has a legal right to choose an abortion. I referred to “legal” rights. Existential rights may be granted by God, but “legal” rights are spelled out in constitutions, legislation, and court rulings.

Government needs and should be limited in scope.

I agree. Government should not be in the business of regulating women and their bodies. As I said in my original piece, “If government can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, then government could also force a woman to abort (as has been the case in China).”

Abortion is not a “right”. Abortion is an act. What you left out of your paragraph was this interesting part of the 72nd Convention: “That this 72nd General Convention of the Episcopal Church express grave concern about the use in the third trimester of pregnancy…called partial birth abortion…except in extreme situations”. Really?! What possible extreme situation would cause a doctor to puncture a hole in the base of a baby’s skull, suck the brains out, and then pull out the rest? Is this language too “symbolic”? And you as a priest, stand by and support this?

A circumstance is that of a hydrocephalic fetus that cannot be delivered and may or will kill the mother. Another may be extreme septic shock. Please note that the General Convention did make an exception for extreme situations. Yes, as a priest, I follow the teaching of the bishops, priests, and laity gathered in General Convention.

“Bringing an unwanted infant into the world…having a baby with known or probable defects-these are just a few examples”. Where is God’s hope in this? Have you heard of Ben Carson (reknowned surgeon), Steve Jobs (adopted), Larry Ellison (adopted), Scott James (autistic singer), baby Isaac (recommended for abortion and now a happy 4 year old boy), and last, but not least, Rebecca Kreisling-conceived in rape and now an attorney. God’s hope is always there but its hard when the word “hope” is symbolic or metaphorical.

Let’s talk about the 30,000 children who starve to death every day. Remember, words are symbolic. Not the reality to which they point.

Congrats to you also for being a foster and adoptive parent. Foster parents and adoptive parents are very special. Using your reasoning about bringing “unwanted children into the world, birthing a child with physical or emotional ‘defects'” which child do you think should have been aborted? When they were born, I’m assuming there was no hope in their lives, out of the 80 children you fostered, chances are high one or more had physical or emotional “defects”, and as you state “every child born into this life places an additional burden on the earth’s resources”. So which child? All the mothers had that choice you support ardently. Can you honestly look at their pictures (or your grandchild’s pictures) and say “Abortion would have been so much better”.

Once they are here, breathing, fully human, yes, I will fight to defend their presence among us and their rights and care with all my life. Too often, that‘s when many folk want to abort them post birth by denying them health care, education, food and general welfare. Please note: “Abortion would have been so much better,” are your words, not mine. So which child would I choose? That’s my point. I don’t get to choose. I’m a man.

Finally, when you state “the individual must make her choices with fear and trembling, always in the belief and confidence that righteousness is an unearned gift”. I learned in EFM, righteousness is “walking with God”. Righteousness is not “unearned”. The person must make a decision to turn and walk and follow. God does not follow, He does not hover. He leads after He asks (free will) and you decide. Is the woman afraid of God (i.e. “trembling and fear”)? Why? Why can’t her priest in her life convince her God is love and not death? Where are the reverends to hold her hand and say, “The church will help you through this because God has a plan!”

I beg to differ. As a former EFM mentor and as person with a doctorate in theology, I maintain that righteousness is a gift from God that cannot be earned. It is a gift from God that we call “grace”. Grace is never earned. As you know so well, this was the main theological thrust of the Protestant Reformation.

Regarding the language “trembling and fear,” you will remember that Philippians 2:12, says “…continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”

In your world, words are “symbols and metaphors” so only you can answer the question I asked at the beginning: Where in your personal belief does life begin?

See above.

Babies die if you answer wrong.

No. Fetuses are aborted. If they do not breathe, they are not babies.

Many Christians will disagree, and you are certainly among them. As often portrayed by the media, yours is THE Christian position on the matter. But as I stated in the beginning, mine is a Christian perspective that is held by many faithful people.

–John Paddock