Well Obama did it again. He seems to be a President on a mission. On a mission to do what he got elected saying that he would do. And that is a breath of fresh air. It almost like he has the goal to be a one term president – to hell with politics.

Seriously, how many times have the Republicans been elected with the backing of the religious right on the platform of doing something about the abortion issue. And they never follow through. They know that taking a stand during an election will get them votes from the two issue christian right. One day I’ll write what I really feel about regarding christian faith and politics; it’s enough to sum it up now with a quote: “Jesus doesn’t give a shit who you vote for”

Today, Obama did a good thing. “Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values, it is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology” ~ Obama.

For far to long conservative Christians have been sinning against God and His creation by closing their ears to His revelation through the natural world. While I find the debate over evolution and creation humorous, some of the other on going debates are down right frightful. Two things about the above statement:

  1. I struggle calling some of these things [i.e. evolution and global warming] debates. They are not debates in my mind they are ‘scientific facts’ vs ‘christian propaganda aimed at the christian populous’;
  2. I in no way mean this to be degrading to the average believer – for the most part he/she could care less and are only going with the flow. My real beef is against the so called scientists that propagate their propaganda and those that blindly take up a fight based this pseudo-science.

Today, Obama “abolished contentious Bush-era restraints on stem-cell research.” While I think this issue needs continued debate, I think that many Christians are hypocritical. The same Christians that are up in arms over this, see no problem with the birth control pill. The Pill does three things:

  1. it contains a combination of the hormones estrogen and progesterone to prevent ovulation.
  2. it thickens the mucus around the cervix, which makes it difficult for sperm to enter the uterus and reach any eggs that may have been released.
  3. it also affects the lining of the uterus, making it difficult for an [fertilized] egg <conception?> to attach to the wall of the uterus.

How many Christian couples have had an abortion as a result of taking the pill?

Also, what do we do about the fertilized eggs that are not used at fertility clinics? How many of these abortions are carried out because some Christian couple are selfish enough to become pregnant by In Vitro Fertilization rather than help some poor child who has had an unwanted pregnancy and thus feels compelled to have an abortion?

My point is not to make any one feel guilty, but to show that the issues that arise around stem cell research and abortion are not as cut and dry as both sides make it out to be. What about the issue of abortion? Is it as black and white as the pro-life side makes it out to be? Here are some things that have cause me to slow down and think about it more.

When does life start? Its easy to blurt out “at conception”,a but there are theological positions for life starting at other times. And there is a theological implication for stating that life starts at conception.

It is estimated that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among known pregnancies, the rate of miscarriage is approximately 10% and usually occurs between the 7th and 12th weeks of pregnancy.
Medical Plus Medical Encyclopedia

What kind of God would Himself abort more life then all the abortion clinics combined? If life begins at conception, then what about all those fertilized eggs that just don’t seem to take hold in the womb? We blurt out, “we’re in a fallen world.” But the fact is, if God is God, he could have made every conception go to full term – even in a fallen world. God seems less concerned for the ‘human life of the fetus’ then do Christians.

Another issue is the legality of the fetus. Should abortion be on the same level as, say, having a service to remove young children [or teenagers] we are tired of? If abortion is to be made illegal, do we need to register all unborn fetuses. And when one dies, do we need to have an investigation? Was it spontaneous miscarriage or an act of negligence?

If a mother was rock climbing in her 8th month of pregnancy and fell and the fetus was aborted, is she liable? What if a mother gives birth and then straps the baby in a baby snugly, then goes rock climbing and falls and the baby dies? Is there a difference legally?

Is a pregnant mother who has a miscarriage because she was not buckled in and had a car accident as guilty as a mother who did not properly buckle in her 6 month child who died because of a car accident?

Finally, and only half jokingly, the doctors who preform abortions could be showing the love of God as demonstrated by Christ himself. If all these fetuses have eternal life and are going to heaven after being aborted, and if the majority of them [or even just one] would end up going to hell if they were allowed to be born and grow up to adulthood, then, like Jesus, the abortion doctors could be said to be laying down their eternal life in order to guarantee the eternal life of the unborn.

This is not as far fetched as you may imagine. I heard a story – can’t seem to find it now – that there was an order of monks that baptized and then promptly ran a sword through children in order to guarantee their eternal salvation. Of course this may just be an urban legend, however, it is not so far fetched as to be unbelievable.

As you can see, this whole topic is not something that can be taken lightly. There are potential implications that also need to be thought of. So while I currently have no problem with stem cell research this is something that should be continued to be debated but debated in a non hostile environment that calls for both sides to be willing to concede some ground in order to reach a consensus.