Three Women and the Unborn

One year ago, an article in the NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/08/upshot/politicians-draw-clear-lines-on-abortion-their-parties-are-not-so-unified.html) showed that members of the two main political parties often hold differing views from their party platform regarding abortion. The article and others infer that the leading candidates usually line up with whatever view they believe will garner the most votes. I have to admit that I agree: Political candidates cater to the people and the more widespread the office, the more they cater in their desire to win votes.

Regarding abortion, I had held what I considered to be a rather strong, yet sympathetic, view: Abortion is wrong… but what about victims of rape, etc.? My view changed many years ago and it was not because of someone's preaching, a well written article, a powerful speech, or graphic images spread across the internet or television screen. Three people had the greatest impact on adjusting my view: My wife, my mom, and my grandmother (and grandfather).

All three of these women stand/stood 100% against abortions—ALL abortions. My dear wife is resolute because, as she will quickly and with unabating firmness point out: Abortion is, first and foremost, about the baby. Whatever the reasons of the mother (and there are some heartbreaking, horrific, and ungodly circumstances), the baby deserves to live.

My dear mother has made the same point. Growing up, she always taught us that "two wrongs don't make a right." That extended to the wrongs done to women, which can be of the most vile and unthinkable nature. They are not made right by committing further atrocities, in this case, taking the life of another human being, i.e. an unborn (or, nowadays, even a new-born) baby. I pray Mom will be able to continue sharing that conviction and love for all lives as long as the Lord allows her to live on this Earth. She is 91 years old as of this writing.

Then there is my Grandma Gantenbein. Her example speaks for itself. She was not a large woman. At least, she was not large physically. She also had her share of health problems. When Grandma and Grandpa had their first child, Aunt Dorothy, all went fairly well. But there were problems when Uncle Al was born and the doctor told my grandparents that they should not have any more children. When they found out Grandma was pregnant again, that doctor told them that they need to terminate the pregnancy because it could do great harm to Grandma and the baby, with death being a very real possibility. Grandma's response (echoed by Grandpa Gantenbein) was that they were going to leave that in God's hands and trust Him. Aunt Betty survived the birth as did Grandma. But, the doctor said, "No more children!" He told them it was a matter of life or death. When they refused to have an abortion in 1923, Uncle Don was born but the doctor was adamant about the loss of both the baby and Grandma if they had another. In 1924 the doctor did his best to talk them into terminating the fifth pregnancy. As before, my grandmother bore witness to God's sovereignty and affirmed that if she died, so be it, but that baby's life was sacred and she was going to do everything possible to allow it the opportunity to live. Whew! James Calvin, aka Dad, made it. To the extent it affected Grandma's longevity… maybe without the 3rd, 4th, and 5th child, she would have lived to be a miserable and self-centered old woman. Instead she passed away, full of joy and always proclaiming the love of God, at the tender age of 89, a little more than two months after her 13th grandchild and Cathy Lynn Van Scyoc were married. Her home church pastor, her fifth child, and her son in law officiated her service.

I am so glad for the examples and unwavering conviction of these three saints. I am here today, with a refined view of the issue, because of them.

Summer of 1965 – Myself, Grandma Gantenbein, Dad (James Calvin Gantenbein)

Now, the Southern Baptist Convention has before it a resolution to condemn all abortion. Clearly it would not be necessary if they had wives, mothers, and grandmothers like mine. I would remind others of what they reminded me: 1. It is about the innocent baby; 2. Two wrongs do not make a right; 3. You would not be here today if someone had not trusted God and stood up for what was right in His eyes.

Following is a link to a web site where you can read the SBC resolution and, if you choose, take your stand to protect the lives of the unborn and the conscience of those mothers who might otherwise choose to commit this sin for which you cannot not put the toothpaste back in the tube.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScgVHlX3klYqQthBEJ-6YGgANtFuNaLjYXiQ6loUzaHOLu8OA/viewform?fbzx=6859269257849298698&fbclid=IwAR0fXrOx_Rp8zPKxGA_RgTawrB_-p3olfow5kRkv9ZUN05NGQusMpOEwRB0

An Observation About the Pageant

I did not view the Miss America Pageant but I have read different articles and posts about it. If the reports are true, I am disheartened by the lack of logic, common sense, and morality. To illustrate why, here is a hypothetical case with hypothetical numbers (just to make a point).

Let's say a family has an annual household income of $100,000 with a take home of $80,000. Their annual cost of living, including all expenses, leaves them with just $1,000. They want to take a certain type of vacation each year that costs $10,000.

Now, let's say you give them $9,000 but with the strict stipulation that they are to use it on cost of living expenses and are not allowed to use any of the $9,000 on vacation. Oh my, how frustrating. How can they possibly observe the stipulation but still take the specific vacation?

Low and behold!… After they use the $9,000 to pay on their annual cost of living, it turns out they have and extra $10,000 (the $1,000 originally left over plus the $9,000 they didn't need to use on cost of living due to your generosity).

How does that taste? Does the logic sit well with you?

If it does, then you could have been a contestant in the Miss America Pageant because that was the kind of "math" used for justifying the government continuing to give massive amounts of money to Planned Parenthood.

By the way, if I have offended you, I'm not against taking help from gullible people. Send me $10,000 each year so Cathy and I won't spend all of our income on necessary expenses. We really need to take a cruise or two each year.

Addressing Pro-Choice and Pro-Life

WARNING: What follows is not a tightly edited and concise commercial scripted with key words and imagery for the purpose of manipulating the reader. It is a lengthy—"get it off my chest"—unedited discourse overflowing from my emotional, mental, and spiritual reaction to what I have observed and read regarding the topic.

Most of my friends and acquaintances are Pro-Life but a good number are Pro-Choice. The arguments on the Pro-Choice side revolve around a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body, thus "pro choice." The traditional argument on the Pro-Life side has revolved around the right of the baby, in whatever stage of development, to live, thus "pro life." Let us be honest: Abortion is at the heart of the issue, not family "planning" or any other facade.

Recent political campaigns have revealed, once again, that too many politicians will say anything in the hope of persuading people to vote for them and that has included the issue of abortion. With what has been said by candidates, their supporters, and represented political parties on all sides, we should all be ashamed and embarrassed to align ourselves with a political party if for no other reason than the revealed ignorance or lack of morality.

Even though I am a man, I have fathered three children. They were nurtured and issued forth from my wife's body. I did not experience any of the extreme pain and discomfort that accompanies pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum recovery. Neither did I experience first-hand the thrill, wonder, and joy of feeling the babies' first noticeable movements or the pride in knowing that my offspring where safely developing in my womb. I involved myself as much as possible in their feeding and care and know the benefits of such intimate involvement in their lives.

Since I am opposed to abortion, I will first address the impression I have received from very sincere Pro-Choice advocates and then address the impression I have received from too many Pro-Lifers.

An unwanted pregnancy is, by definition, unwanted. Rape and incest are horrific and they stir up a very primal reaction in me that, in all honesty, calls for the death penalty or a life of labor in which every penny earned goes to the victim and, when a pregnancy occurs, her baby. The rapist has, in my mind, forever forfeited any supposed rights with regards to the victims. To the extent that any would be granted should be completely at the discretion of the victims and even be revocable later by those victims. As already alluded to, my Pro-Choice friends principally voice their conviction that others should not have control over a person's body, particularly a woman's. A rapist or instigator of incest is forcing control over that woman or girl but that is, oddly, not something I ever hear my Pro-Choice friends addressing. Perhaps it is just so blatant that it is an assumed truth that does not need to be stated.

Again, it is really a matter of the right to have an abortion more than just the right to choose. Otherwise, it is logical to expect the Pro-Choice advocates to speak just as loudly, frequently, and passionately about the need for women to choose to not have sex—or unprotected sex—and run the risk of getting pregnant in the first place. (Does "Just say no!" only apply do drug use?) No matter what side is presenting the statistics, I have never seen one that suggests the vast majority of pregnancies are from rape and incest but from consensual sexual intercourse. That choice would only have two possible negative consequences—denial of momentary sensual pleasure and possible rejection or disdain by the partner—as opposed to the multitude of negative consequences we have heard about with an unwanted pregnancy, including emotional, financial, social, physical, and even spiritual problems.

I believe it is primarily about extending our "throw-away" society to the realm of human life. And, yes, I also believe with all my being that a baby is a human being at conception. It is a Bible thing and I do not use the Bible to support or distort my beliefs but to form them. Many of my Pro-Choice friends and acquaintances do not have the same beliefs and that helps explain our differences in this arena. Understand, however, that for me the baby, whether desired or unwanted, is a human and has a right to live. To choose to terminate its life is making a choice for it or forcing your desire on it and is totally and abhorrently contrary to "Pro Choice", having taken the choice away from the baby. I have friends—including adolescents to whom I have had the privilege of ministering—relatives, and acquaintances who have assured me that the indescribable pain from being raped, including incest, is not alleviated by an abortion. In other words, abortion is not a solution and it denies a human of its own right to choose to make something of his or her own life.

To us on the Pro-Life agenda, particularly those of us who claim to follow Christ: Are we nuts?! How in the world can we claim to embrace and fight for the sacred cause of life itself and carry on with such dispassionate regard for those who have been so victimized by others. Yes, we know abortion is wrong. Yes, we know every life is sacred. Yet, in our rush to point out, condemn, and even, hopefully, cast out those institutions and agencies responsible for promoting and performing infanticide, we are rejecting older versions of the very lives we claim to be protecting. (I am speaking of the majority of what I see. I am aware that there are those who work tirelessly as advocates for these mothers but their efforts are, shamefully, in the minority.)

It is fairly easy to understand that rape and incest victims need help and compassion, understanding, support, love, and defense. But we have focused our attention on the "unwanted" babies still unborn that must have our protection. In our passion to protect the babies, we too often ignore their mothers or the demand for justice and healing so these women can have meaningful lives again.

Furthermore, regarding those mothers who seek abortions simply because the baby they carry is unwanted or inconvenient: We cast them off in our minds and hearts in the same way we believe they desire to cast off their babies. Those women and girls have distorted values and desire to do something we believe is an abomination. What kind of mind and heart would do such a thing? The answer is simple: A sinful heart and a sinful mind. Do you know what that makes them? Go back to what you were before you accepted God's gift of forgiveness or a time since then when you took control over your life away from God and got off track. That is where we will find them. That is where we will find God meeting them where they are and inviting us to join Him. They are living beings, too. Our pro life stance must include them, too. 

Food for thought: We who are Pro-Life usually regard abortionists and those having abortions—when not considered victims of the former—as murderers, placing them among the lowest forms of human life. In such a state of mind, we can easily view them as truly among the neediest people on earth. How do we treat such needy people? Do we dare humble ourselves and heed Matthew 25:31-46?

P.S. I once was a bit softer or at least undecided/hesitant on the topic when it came to rape and incest. My position was solidified after two influences: 1. The story of my dad's parents and their own legacy of having children (Dad will have to tell that story to do it justice); 2. My wife, Cathy, who has never wavered from believing and firmly stating that all abortion is wrong.