Jimmy Carter Against Abortion
By Zachary Gappa | Posted in Blog | Apr-02-2012
Former President Jimmy Carter made some surprising remarks recently in opposition to his party’s long-held stance on abortion. While he supports the legality of abortion in cases of rape and incest, he is against the current rhetoric of the Democratic Party. He explains (from LifeNews – click here to read the whole article):
I never have believed that Jesus Christ would approve of abortions and that was one of the problems I had when I was president having to uphold Roe v. Wade and I did everything I could to minimize the need for abortions. I made it easy to adopt children for instance who were unwanted and also initiated the program called Women and Infant Children or WIC program that’s still in existence now. But except for the times when a mother’s life is in danger or when a pregnancy is caused by rape or incest I would certainly not or never have approved of any abortions.
I’ve signed a public letter calling for the Democratic Party at the next convention to espouse my position on abortion which is to minimize the need, requirement for abortion and limit it only to women whose life are in danger or who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest. I think if the Democratic Party would adopt that policy that would be acceptable to a lot of people who are now estranged from our party because of the abortion issue.
Carter is taking a moderate position on this point, and his comments get at a key decision Democrats need to make. Either abortion is a guilt-free amoral choice that should be completely legal and neither encouraged nor discouraged by anyone, or it is morally suspect, undesirable, and should generally be discouraged. Unfortunately for pro-choicers, this second option leads to more significant questions.
Why is abortion undesirable? Why should it be discouraged? What is being hurt/destroyed? The answers to these questions will quickly lead you in a pro-life direction.
Print, Email and Share:
April 18th, 2012 at 10:22 pm
It frustrates me, too, that what is called pro-life is only one aspect of life, that of the unborn child. If we say the baby must be born even at the risk of the mother’s life, we are saying that the mother’s life is dispensible, and we’re saying the father if one is around is responsible for the total care of the child(ren) if the mother dies. While this is a painfully divisive issue for us as a nation and even as Christians, the issue should never stop at the question of whether or not a woman let’s say a 16-year-old should give birth to a child. The issue goes on: Do we in our church believe in supporting this unwed mother once she has decided to keep the baby? If so, in what specific ways, and for how long? Do we believe in baptizing that child in the church if the family wishes, and will we work to find housing, food, baby clothes, employment and other assistance for that family? Or if we believe that a mother should stay home with her newborn, will we support her financially? (The movie Juno raised some great ontseiqus about all of this in a balanced way.) Here’s how much energy and love goes into being truly pro-life: When I lived in Alaska, our pastor and his wife and 3 kids took in an at-risk pregnant teen who was trying to decide whether to have her baby. She decided yes, and she lived with them before, during and after her pregnancy for about a year until she found work that could mesh with a newborn’s schedule. Even after the new mom left their house, the pastor’s wife babysat the baby daily, for free. I will never forget their putting into practice God’s call to be pro-life in every aspect.