Permalink | Leave a comment  »

In an attempt to refute my article "Cutting Through Prochoice Rhetoric ," a young woman nicknamed "Aizenald" from Alabama, has written an article called "Abortion and Right-to-Life." I would like to comment on some of her arguments here.

Aizenald said: “Something like 50% of all pregnancies result in spontaneous, natural abortion. These human beings have a DNA code all their own and are of a separate identity from their mother — yet they are not persons and will never become persons — they were 'potential persons.' ”

What about a full-term stillborn baby? The infant has all her own DNA code and separate identity, yet she will never be a toddler. She will never be a teenager. She will never be an adult. Was she a just a “potential person” then? I maintain that a natural miscarriage *is* the death of a human person, just like all other natural causes of death at any age and stage of developement.

Aizenald said: “Consider a very real possibility: a human being that has all the physical trappings of a human body (heart, lungs, circulatory system, etc) and a brain stem to control all these basic functions — but genetically engineered to have no brain — incapable of higher function. . . . It’s an empty shell.”

First of all, this is a strawman. There is no such thing as a genetically engineered human prototype devoid of a brain. Secondly, a fetus does not develop all his/her body parts prior to developing the brain. The brain is developing rapidly at the same time as all the other parts are forming.

Aizenald said: “There is something that makes us people, and working organs aren’t that something.”

Yet you wouldn’t exist at all without working organs. You can’t separate your personhood from your physical body without death. What is your brain if not an organ? Tell me – just what makes us persons? A soul? You can’t say intelligence or consciousness, because our cognitive abilities come from our brains, which are physical organs.

Aizenald said: "...the product of conception becomes a person when it gains the capacity for higher brain function (not complete brain maturity, but the capacity for some semblance of higher function). This happens some time after birth."

Aizenald does not provide any scientific proof to back up this claim. This is just an opinion. If her opinion is correct, then anyone who is born with a mental disability or anyone whose brain is damaged in an accident is not a "person" and has less value than a "actual" person. Dangerous territory here! This is the same mentality that fueled the Nazi gas chambers. Aizenald maintains that "This happens some time after birth. No, that does not make killing newborns okay." Well, why not? And this "some time," when is it exactly? What is the exact moment that a human being becomes a person?

Aizenald said: “I don’t suggest that consciousness is a requisite for personhood — merely the capacity for consciousness and higher brain function, not only in the future, but also in the past and present.”

And what do you base this opinion on? Do you have scientific proof for it? If this were true, then I must conclude (based on your belief) that a fetus becomes a person in the early 2nd trimester. In that case, abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimester is clearly murder. Nevertheless, you don’t have proof for your claim – it is just an opinion. I would rather stick to science – that is, that a preborn child, from the moment of conception, is a human being/person worthy of equal human rights.

Aizenald said: “I do not contend that intelligence is a requisite for personhood because intelligence is subjective. Children are not subhuman because we’re not worried about levels of consciousness — merely the capacity for consciousness itself.”

The “capacity for consciousness itself” as a requisite for personhood is your own religious belief. It is just as subjective as intelligence. You have no way of proving this claim. What if you are wrong; have you considered the implications?

And what about anachephalic infants? They don’t have much more than a brainstem and yet they can see, they can smile, and they can hear and enjoy music and voices and laughter; they can love. Often they don’t live long after birth but some anachephalic children have lived for several years, some ten years even. I know of a sixteen-year-old who is anachephalic. There is newfound scientific evidence that suggests that consciousness doesn’t necessarily originate in the cerebral cortex as many believe.

Aizenald said: “…to say that one is responsible for the consequences of his or her actions is to leave questions up to debate. What is a responsible reaction to the consequences? Depending on one’s situation, mentally, physically, financially, what-have-you, a termination of a pregnancy is often the most responsible choice a woman can make.”

The same argument could be used for a child of any age. It could be used to justify the murder of a newborn or a toddler. If a woman is unable mentally, physically, and/or financially to care for a child, then she can place her child with a loving adoptive family, or with child services.

Aizenald said: "A zygote/embryo/fetus is not the same as a toddler;  it is not physically living within the mother and she can send it to an adoption center or a safehouse at any time."

Here your argument is based on environment. i.e. a fetus is within the uterus, the amniotic fluid, and cannot survive outside the womb until "viable."

Let us make a comparison. An astronaut in space cannot survive without a protective suit and oxygen tank. Yet no one would argue whether or not the astronaut is a person while in space. The same can be said of the scuba diver. Human beings cannot breathe under water as fish can. We need an oxygen tank. Yet no one would contend that a scuba diver ceases to be a human being/person while under water. Now, here you will digress to the concept of "consciousness" again, however, in this argument you are suggesting that the reason a mother can kill her unborn child is because the child is currently reliant on her womb for survival. But this has nothing to do with consciousness! On one hand, you say that a 1st trimester fetus is not a person, but a 3rd trimester fetus is a person. On what grounds do you justify taking the life of a fetus who has consciousness?

Aizenald said: "The trick is preventing unwanted pregnancy in the first place through sex education and contraception."

I agree. However, that being said, hormonal forms of birth control can cause miscarriage should breakthrough ovulation and accidental pregnancy occur. If the zygote/embryo truly is a unique human being and person, than an early chemical abortion is just as immoral as a late-term abortion.

Related Article:

Why I Stopped Taking the Pill

(c) 2008  - Bekah Ferguson

Permissions: By all means, you are welcome to reproduce and distribute my articles in excerpts or complete format as long as you don't change any of the wording. If you do reproduce any part of my articles, please include the following information: by Bekah Ferguson, Ontario, Canada. www.bekahferguson.com

Licensed under Creative Commons.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

by Bekah Ferguson
www.bekahferguson.com

I've learned from experience that it can be difficult to get straight answers from prochoice adherents. There is so much rhetoric, douplespeak and catch phrases, that it can be like trudging through a swamp to get to the heart of the matter.

When talking with a prochoicer, remember this: scientifically and biologically it is a fact that a new and unique human life comes into existence at conception. Therefore, in any debate, the burden of proof is on the prochoicer.

So, to help you understand their perspective better and to recognize common strawmen, here are some of the prochoice arguments I hear the most and what they really mean:

 

What they say: It's not a human being yet, it's just a potential human being.

What they mean: I can't bear the thought that this a real human being. If I were to admit that to myself, I'd be overcome with guilt and grief. Better to console myself with the belief that it's only a potential life, not a real one. That way abortion appears no different than throwing a used condom in the trash.

The truth is that a unique human being is created/comes into existence at the very moment of conception. At fertilization - when sperm and egg join together - there is a complete set of DNA in place which is distinct from the mother. Eye color, hair color, gender, and intelligence are all determined at conception. This isn't a religious belief, it's a scientific fact.

According to the Center for Disease Control, the majority of abortions take place between 7-13 weeks gestation, by which time the fetus already has visibly developed arms, legs, fingers and toes, a face, and a beating heart. If this is only a potential human being, then what is it really? A lifeless puppet waiting to be magically transformed into a real boy like Pinocchio?

Tip: Ask the prochoicer why there is a heartbeat if this isn't a real human being. (What do you call it when there is a heartbeat? Life. What do you call it when there's no longer a heartbeat? Death.)

 

What they say: It's my body, my decision.

What they mean: Until this baby is born, it's only a product of conception contained within my uterus (just a mass of cells or a clump of tissue). In the same way that I can choose to have a defective gallbladder removed, I can chose to end a pregnancy before it develops into an actual baby. (See above)

If the fetus is only a part of the mother's body, then she must have twenty fingers and twenty toes, four legs, four arms, four eyes, two noses, two blood types, two circulatory systems; and half the time, male genitalia as well. The last time I checked, a gallbladder never developed into anything else. It will always be a gallbladder. A fetus, however, is a unique individual who will continue to grow and develop (if uninterrupted) from infancy to old-age. This is the natural cycle of life. At no point in time is an embryo or a fetus just another part of a woman's body. Not even for one day. An ovum is, yes, but an ovum will never be anything other than an ovum unless it is first fertilized by a sperm. That is the crucial difference. An embryo is not a mass of cells akin to cancer - it is a unique human being. A fetus is to an infant what an infant is to a toddler, what a toddler is to a child, and so on and so forth. A gallbladder or an appendix or a tooth is just a gallbladder, an appendix and a tooth.

Tip: Ask a prochoicer at which point in time does your body magically morph into a second human body? (When does "the product of conception" become a real baby?)

 

What they say: A fetus does not become a real baby - a human being - until it is viable.

What they mean: Until a fetus can survive on its own outside of the woman's body (the womb), it is not a real human being.

This is a prime example of a strawman argument. You see, "viable" is an arbitrary term. It can not be adequately defined or set in stone because you see, viability is based solely on medical technology. Fifty years ago, any infant born prior to 30 weeks gestation was not likely to survive. Today, infants as young as 20 weeks gestation have survived outside of the womb. Why? Because medical technology has advanced greatly in fifty years. Overseas, however, a 30-week-old preemie is still unlikely to survive, because they simply don't have the same access to medical technology there as we have here.

Let's jump ahead fifty years from now. Perhaps premature infants will be able to survive outside the womb at only 15 weeks gestation. Perhaps in time, we'll have created artificial wombs in which an embryo can develop/grow into a full-term infant without ever being inside a woman's uterus. How can we logically argue that an embryo is not a real human being when fifty years from now it very well could be? (Based on viablity of course.) Even today, while preborn children are currently viable around 20 weeks gestation (and are thus considered to be human beings), across the ocean a fetus of the exact same age is not viable, and is therefore, not a human being! This makes no sense. It merely proves that viability is based on technology, not biology.

Tip: Ask a prochoicer why abortion is still legal after a fetus has surpassed viability. If they say it shouldn't be, ask them when the exact cut-off point should be, and have them defend that position with scientific fact. But, if they insist abortion should be legal all nine months of pregnancy regardless, have them explain why that isn't infanticide.

 

What they say: A fetus isn't a person until it has consciousness.

What they mean: A fetus develops the cerbral cortex at some point in the early second trimester. Until there is a brain, there is no person involved here. I can have a first trimester abortion without feeling guilty, because it wasn't a person yet. (Again, see responses above)

First of all, have them clarify what they mean by "person." Do they mean human? If so, have them explain what species the fetus was prior to developing the cerbral cortex. Was it a turtle? Do we begin as one species and then develop into another? Of course not. We must be human beings fromt start to finish, just as a turtle begins as a turtle and then dies a turtle. Well, they may say, a fetus might be of the human species, but it is not a person yet. (Boy, the waters get muddy quickly.)

Here's the thing: As soon as you suggest that consciousness and intelligence are required for personhood, you're also suggesting that people in comas are no longer persons, that those with mental disabilities aren't human, and that children are subhuman compared to adults because their brains are still developing. If I fall down a hill and get knocked unconscious, do I cease to be a person during that brief time period before I regain consciousness? When a person dies on the operating table and is pronounced braindead, do they suddenly cease to be a person?

Secondly, since the full development of the brain is gradual (remember, the prochoicers have referred to the "early second trimester" loosely rather than giving an exact gestation), then who is to say that a fetus did or didn't yet have a developed cerbral cortex when it was aborted? Is there an exact moment in gestation, at the strike of midnight, in which a fetus suddenly has consciousness? And if so, what is it? Please give me that exact date.

Tip: Ask the prochoicer if being a member of the homo sapien species is based solely on personhood, then does a friendly dog, gorilla or dolphin magically transform into a human being as soon as we believe them to be persons?

 

What they say: Even if a fetus is a person, no woman should be forced against her will to carry to term.

What they mean: No one can be forced to donate a kidney to someone else against their will, therefore; no woman should be forced to donate her uterus to a fetus.

There are some crucial differences here. If someone is in need of a new kidney, it's because their current kidney is damaged; the reason being a disease/infection, a birth defect, or perhaps an injury. If no one offers to donate their kidney and this person dies, what will be the root cause of their death? It will be the disease or injury that initially damaged their kidney; the person who refused to donate their kidney is not the cause of death. Now, let's compare this to pregnancy. If the mother goes to an abortion clinic and ends the pregnancy, what will be the root cause of death for the preborn child? A disease or an infection? No - the abortion. The hands that held the currette and scalpel, the hands that turned on the aspiration vacuum. See, whereas the person with a damaged kidney dies because of their disease or injury, the fetus will not die unless it is deliberately killed. One death is natural, the other is unnatural. (I should note that the same applies to a fetus with a fatal defect. Yes, they will eventually die. But if aborted, the cause of death will be the abortion, not the defect.)

Let's take this one step further because the prochoicer is probably standing there right now saying, "Look, you just don't get it. The fetus needs my uterus like the patient needs my kidney. He can't legally have it without my consent!" Not the same thing. In the case of the patient needing a new kidney, you aren't responsible for the disease or injury damaging their kidney. But, if you are pregnant because you consented to sex (pregnancy is the natural result of procreation), then you are responsible for the child growing within you. So, in the first case, you aren't responsible, but in the latter you are. That's the difference. You consented to the risk of pregnancy when you consented to sex. To this the prochoicer says, "That's ridiculous. That's like saying that if I catch an STD while using contraceptives, that I consented to having an STD." No, not quite. You engaged in the behavior knowing the risk, and that makes you responsible for the consequence.

Tip: Ask the prochoicer if a mother should have the right to allow her newborn infant to die of starvation if she doesn't consent to breastfeeding (the infant needs milk from the mother just as the fetus needs nutrience from the uterus). To this they will likely reply, "She is responsible because she consented to the pregnancy and birth. If she doesn't want to care for the child, she can place it with child services or up for adoption." To that you can reply, the same goes for a preborn child: The mother consented to the risk of pregnancy when she consented to sex - so, as soon as the infant is born, they can be placed with an adoptive family.

 

What they say: Abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest.

What they mean: When a woman is raped, she has not consented to sex, and thus has not consented to the risk of pregnancy either. Therefore, she is not responsible for the child growing within her, and she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy.

Since when do we punish children for the crimes of their father? Is a man subject to capitol punishment when he is convicted of rape? No. Then why should a preborn child be put to death when he/she is completely innocent? We must also remember that the child is biologically half the mother's; it is her child, too. Abortion in the case of rape or incest is not an act of kindness or mercy. It is a second act of violence. It doesn't undue the rape and trauma that the woman endured - all it does is end the life of an innocent human being.

If you were abducted and knocked unconscious, only to awake hours later missing one of your kidneys, should you have the legal right to hunt down the person it was donated to (think black market), take a knife, and tear it out of them, killing them? After all, you didn't consent to donating your kidney to them. Compare this to pregnancy by rape. Yes, you are pregnant without consent, but the deed has been done. The only way to get your uterus back is to kill the child that is now growing within you. The analogy stops there because unlike the kidney donation that is permanent, a woman is only pregnant for nine months. Then she gets her uterus back and the child remains alive. A woman is not obligated to raise a child conceived in rape. She is free to place her baby with a loving, adoptive family.

Keep in mind that the rape/incest argument is often used as a smokescreen; a diversion. Statistically, less than 1% of all abortions take place for reasons of rape, incest and the mother's health combined.

Tip: Ask the prochoicer why abortion should be legal for any reason other than rape or incest. Then have them explain why a woman should be allowed to take the life of another human being for her own convenience (which is the case in 99% of abortions).

 

What they say: Abortion needs to be legal for all nine months of pregnancy in case the mother's health/life becomes at risk.

What they mean: If a woman feels even the slightest emotional distress over her pregnancy, she should be allowed to end it at any time. A woman's emotional well-being is more important than the life of the preborn child.

Should a woman be allowed to kill her toddler if the stress of parenting affects her emotionally/mentally? Obviously not. So why should she be allowed to kill her preborn child for the same reason? Remember, less than 1% of all abortions are done for reasons or rape, inceast and the mother's health combined. It is a rare case when a woman's life is at risk because of her pregnancy. In which case, she can deliver early by induction or ceaserean section, giving the child a chance to survive. If it is too early in pregnancy, and the woman needs immediate treatment (say, in the case of a fast-growing cancer), then the loss of the fetus is a tragedy. It is not the same as abortion. Many women opt to hold off on chemotherapy until the baby is born, but if waiting is not an option, then we must save whoever can be saved. To use Randy Alcorn's analogy, if two people are drowning and you can only rescue one of them, do you let them both drown or do you rescue the one you can get to? If a mother's life is truly at stake, then we must save her, even if that means the fetus will die.

Here's where the Partial Birth Abortion (PBA) comes into play. PBA is one of the most barbaric forms of abortion. A second or third trimester fetus is delivered live feet first to the head, at which time the abortionist punctures the base of the skull with scissors and then sucks out the brains with an aspirator. Now, if a woman had a rare condition in which her baby must be removed right away or else she will die, then why PBA? Why not early induction or cesarean section? If a doctor is going to take all that time to deliver the baby all the way to his/her head, why not just pull the baby the rest of the way out? What is the point in taking the extra time to brutally murder the child? There is no point, and that's the point. PBA for "a woman's health" is doublespeak for justifying infanticide should a woman decide late in pregnancy that she no longer wants her baby.

Tip: Ask a prochoicer to give you a legitimate medical condition in which PBA would be necessary. If they can come up with a life-threatening medical condition that involves the pregnancy, then have them explain why PBA should be performed rather than a c-section.

 

What they say: Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

What they mean: Abortion should be safe and legal.

Self-explanatory.

Tip: Ask a prochoicer why abortion should be rare. If there's nothing wrong with it, then why should it be rare?

 

In Conclusion:

This article is by no means exhaustive. Whole books have been written on the subject. This is just a collection of the arguments that I am faced with most often. If you have suggestions, please contact me and I'd be happy to expand this article.

 

(c) 2009 - Bekah Ferguson

Permissions: By all means, you are welcome to reproduce and distribute my articles in excerpts or complete format as long as you don't change any of the wording. If you do reproduce any part of my articles, please include the following information: by Bekah Ferguson, Ontario, Canada. http://www.bekahferguson.com/

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

by Bekah Ferguson
www.bekahferguson.com

For the first two years of my marriage, I used the Birth Control Pill (BCP). I really thought nothing of it. When the walk-in-clinic doctor first perscribed it to me, he said only that there was a risk of blood clots; a risk that was supposedly greater if actually pregnant. My only complaint in those two years was the evening nausea I often experienced as a side-effect of the hormones . . .

I first stopped taking the Pill when we decided to try for a baby. It took 8 months to finally conceive and after our daughter was born, my doctor perscribed me a lower-dose version of the Pill meant for women who are breastfeeding. Again, she laid out no side effects to be concerned about saying that because I wasn't a smoker or promiscuous, I was considered very low risk for side effects.

When my daughter was about four months old, I was working on the manuscript of The Starfish and my research at that time lead me unexpectedly to a website concerning the abortifacient nature of BCPs. I was shocked! No one had ever warned me that breakthrough ovulation is possible while taking the Pill and that pregnancy *can* occur, regardless of how careful you might be in taking your Pill each day. Here's the thing: the hormones in the Pill create a "hostile envirnoment" which make an embryo (a fertilized egg) unable to attach to the lining of the uterus. The conceived baby will starve to death and miscarry as a direct result (though an even smaller number of pregnancies will still thrive). A stronger menstrual period might be the only indication that an early abortion has occured; but being on the Pill, who would even assume such a thing had happened? I have no way of knowing if this ever happened to me, but as a Christian, I felt I could not morally continue to take the Pill knowing that if a pregnancy did occur, it would most likely miscarry.

Neither of the two doctors who'd prescribed me the Pill over the years had even mentioned that breakthrough ovulation was possible. Still uncertain, I asked my doctor if this information I'd come across was true. She said, "No, it's not," but didn't expand on her statement. She assured me the Pill was safe. So, I went to a new doctor and asked him the same question. He said, "There are differing beliefs over when life actually begins. Some believe at conception, others when a fetus is viable. But yes, breakthrough ovulation and pregnancy can definitely occur despite the Pill, and miscarriage will result." Now the exact beginning of human life may be argued with crafty semantics, but scientifically, who can deny that a unique life begins at the very moment of fertilization? Well, I'd done my homework and I'd found a doctor who'd admitted it was true. So, I decided that even though the likehood of pregnancy and miscarriage while on the Pill was rare, I could not take that risk in good conscience. And when you consider "rarity" in light of the population of the United States alone, the numbers do add up to a startling amount (see quote below).

I quit taking the Pill that very day and will never take it again!

Consider the following information (If the math doesn't make your eyes cross) from William F. Colliton, Jr., M.D., a Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at George Washington Univesity Medical Center:

Women on BCPs have 28-day cycles and thus have 13 cycles per year (365/28 = 13.3).  According to Facts in Brief from the Alan Guttmacher Institute (faxed 3/13/98), 10,410,000 U.S. women are current pill users, 26.9% of all methods.  This is second only to sterilization used by 27.7% of contraceptors. . . . Dr. Don Gambrell has informed us that there is a 14% breakthrough ovulation rate in females taking the 50 microgram pills (10,410,000 x 0.14 = 1,457,400 ovulations each cycle).  1,457,000 x 13 cycles per year = 18,946,200 possible exposures to pregnancy each year.  The accepted rate for "pill pregnancies" is 3-5 per 100 women years.  Noting the fact that there is a 60+% rate of spontaneous tubal abortions with an unfavorable implantation site in ectopic pregnancies, it is reasonable for us to calculate a rate of conceptions lost to early physician (BCP) induced abortion of intrauterine pregnancies in pill users as twice that of term "pill pregnancies", given once again, an endometrium that is "less vascular, less glandular, thinner" than normal.  Thus the possible abortion rate induced by BCPs is 18,946,200 « 0.06 = 1,136,772 or 18,946,200 « 0.1 = 1,894,620 per year.  We are convinced that the reasoning with regard to the math on this issue is sound.

_______________________

>From the "Physicians' Desk Reference" (Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics, 1998:

Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and changes the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation [emphasis mine].

_______________________ 

And Dr. Kristine Severyn, of "Abortifacient Drugs and Devices: Medical and Moral Dilemmas" Linacre Quaterly, August 1990, pg. 55, wrote:

The third effect of combined oral contraceptives is to alter the endometrium in such a way that implantation of the fertilized egg (new life) is made more difficult, if not impossible. In effect, the endometrium becomes atrophic and unable to support implantation of the fertilized egg. . . . The alteration of the endometrium, making it hostile to implantation by the fertilized egg, provides a backup abortifacient method to prevent pregnancy.

________________________

If you're a Christian woman using a hormonal birth control contraceptive, I urge you to research this subject. There will always be those who argue for or against any one thing and it can be confusing to read two "scientific" articles which directly contradict each other. Nevertheless, I urge you to research this issue prayerfully and with an open mind. The following is an excellent article to get you started:

"Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? " by Randy Alcorn, Eternal Perspectives Ministries.

________________________

(c) 2008  - Bekah Ferguson

Permissions: By all means, you are welcome to reproduce and distribute my articles in excerpts or complete format as long as you don't change any of the wording. If you do reproduce any part of my articles, please include the following information: by Bekah Ferguson, Ontario, Canada. http://www.bekahferguson.com/

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

• In 1971, there were 16,172 abortions and 422 reported cases of child abuse.
• In 1978, there were 38,782 abortions and 1,762 reported cases of child abuse.
• In 1994, there were 104,403 abortions and 30,366 reported cases of child abuse.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

by Bekah Ferguson
www.bekahferguson.com

Self-esteem is the overall appraisal of one's own worth as a person; his/her measured degree of confidence in and respect for his/her self.

If self-esteem is based on chartable successes alone, it will inevitably fall short or precariously totter, as life is full of mistakes and failures. It won't remain stable but will go up and down in line with the ups and downs of life. As such, it is vital that self-esteem be clearly differentiated in our minds from self-confidence, which is vulnerable to conceit and narcissism (ego based on self-image). In the same way, self-esteem based on body image will be weakened with every perceived physical flaw.

Legitimate self-esteem must come from internal sources, not external ones. Those who truly value themselves and believe in their intrinsic worth as human beings, do not need validation from external sources in order to maintain that esteem. And so we find that self-worth is the core of self-esteem.

Many of us have placed unstable contingencies on our self-worth. For example, we measure our worth as a person by how much we are loved by our family, how much we are loved by our husband/boyfriend, how much we are valued by our friends, coworkers, society; or how competent we are academically, our career successes, our physical attractiveness; and perhaps more obscurely, our virtue.

Many of us struggling the most with a lack of self-worth are ashamed (past or present sins), have been shamed (abuse, neglect), or have experienced the sorrow of infidelity (devastating to both body image and self-worth).

Ashamed 

Some of us live with regrets that continue to sting to this day, no matter how much time has passed. Every time we recall what we did, we despise ourselves for it. Though we've genuinely repented of wrongdoings and know God has forgiven us, we still find it difficult to forgive ourselves. And even if we have forgiven ourselves, we continue to believe we are undeserving of peace and well-being because of the sufferings we have caused others.

Consider Psalm 103:10-12 which says, “He has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor punished us according to our iniquities. For as the heavens are high above the earth, so great is His mercy toward those who fear Him; as far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us.”

You may not feel like you deserve happiness in your life because of the unhappiness you have caused others in the past, but the truth is, we have all hurt others in our lifetimes, we have all sinned against God, and none of us deserve anything. Romans 3:10 & 23 says, ”For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God . . . There is none righteous, no not one.” Yet Romans 6:23 assures that though "the wages of sin is death, the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Jesus paid the price for our sins on Mount Calvary. It is done, paid for, finished. God loves you and I so much and considers us so valuable, that he sacrificed his one and only Son for us (John 3:16)! Our Creator has assured us that through the blood of Christ, we are made worthy of love, peace and well-being.

What if the sins of your past were not so much ones that caused others to suffer, but rather caused you to suffer? Perhaps sexual sins left you with deep-rooted feelings of guilt, impurity and insecurity that continue to this day. Or maybe you lost valuable time, possessions and relationships due to drug or alcohol addictions, gambling, and the like. I urge you to memorize 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, so that you can remember it whenever false guilt rears its ugly head:

"Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." You have been washed and sanctified. You are clean. You are pure.

1 John 1:9 says, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." And in Isaiah 1:18 we read, ” ‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the Lord. ‘Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.’ ”

Regardless of your past, which is now as far as the east is to the west removed from you, you have been made worthy of love, honor and respect though the gift of Salvation we have graciously received from Christ. In Jesus alone, we find inexplicable value and worth as human beings.

Shame 

Some of you have been physically, mentally and/or sexually abused as a child, a teen or an adult. Some of you may even now be in an abusive situation with a husband/boyfriend, a friend, an employer, a parent or relative, or a caregiver. Ongoing or longterm abuse can lead us to believe we are unworthy of love and consideration. We come to the conclusion that there must be something so terribly wrong with us that we deserve to be treated this way. And if we are not valuable enough to be loved by those we should be able to trust, then we must be worthless.

Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, is intimately acquainted with physical and emotional abuse. He knows exactly what you've been through and what you are even now enduring. The Son of God, pure and blameless, holy and just, was a "man of sorrows" and "despised and rejected by men." Like you (and any innocent victim of abuse), Jesus did not deserve the treatment he received at the hands of others. He was not unworthy of love and respect. On the contrary. Nevertheless, not only was he mocked and spit upon, and falsely accused, he was eventually tortured and crucified by those he had come to save.

"He [Jesus] was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not . . . he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed . . . He was oppressed and afflicted . . . he was led like a lamb to the slaughter . . . By oppression and judgment he was taken away . . . He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth." (Isaiah 53)

Dear friend, if you have been abused in the past, I urge you to seek counselling from a qualified Christian therapist or pastor. There is nothing shameful in needing therapy. In the same way that a physically-ill person must take special care of their body through nutrition, medication, bed rest, and the like, a person who is suffering with mental and emotional trauma needs equally important care and treatment of their minds and heart! We are not just physical beings. We are body, mind and soul. The first step to recovering your self-worth then, is to talk things out with a trustworthy counselor.

Are you in an abusive or neglectful relationship right now? Is there someone close to you, perhaps a husband/boyfriend or a parent who is verbally or physically abusing you? You must find a way to distance yourself from such people. If you have an abusive parent or guardian, do you have a close friend or relative you can move in with until you are able to find a place of your own? You don't deserve such treatment, regardless of what your abuser says. Cruel, selfish people are unable to love others in a healthy way. Their treatment of you is not a reflection of your worth as a person: It is a reflection of the dark sin in which they have become enslaved. Always remember that.

Is your husband/boyfriend emotionally/verbally abusive? I recommend marriage or relationship counselling. If he refuses to cooperate, do you have a close friend or family member with whom you can move in with for a time? Scripturally, we know that adultery is the only grounds for divorce (Matthew 19:9) but this doesn't mean we have to remain in an abusive relationship. The Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband." If your husband is continually degrading you and refuses counselling, it is in your best interest to separate from him for a time in the hopes that he will eventually seek counselling and reconciliation. If your husband is not a Christian, however, the Apostle Paul goes on to say in verse 15: "But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace."

If your husband/boyfriend is physically abusing you, you must leave immediately. How many times has he promised not to hit you again only to break that promise with yet another bout of violence? His word is untrustworthy. If he truly loved you, he would never lay a hand on you. Always remember that. Would you beat someone you love? Not a chance. Perhaps the first step to restoring your self-worth is to love yourself enough to get away from an abusive relationship! If your child or a close friend was being abused by someone, you would do everything in your power to rescue them. You deserve to be rescued too.

Infidelity

Discovering your husband has betrayed you with an extramarital affair must be as shocking as being told that your child, close friend or relative has died suddenly. And I am sure that a husband's unfaithfulness is more painful in the long run than losing him to death. All the love, trust, security and intimacy you have known is, just like that, utterly destroyed. And not only that, you are left with the conclusion that you are unworthy of his devotion, not valuable enough to be loved, and not physically attractive enough to have kept his interest. Adultery is a fell blow to one's entire self-image, and the road to recovery is long and hard; a roller coaster of intense anger, jealousy, and grief. Time does not heal these wounds and unless proactive measures are taken, a woman may live out the rest of her life having never recovered from the mental and emotional injuries she endured.

If you haven't already done so, I urge you to seek counselling with a qualified Christian counselor or pastor experienced in this area. You can not recover from this on your own. Counseling will help you address and come to terms with the issues already present in your marriage that influenced the affair (in order for healing to come, you must be willing to address these issues, especially if you wish to avoid them in a future relationship). Moving past blame, bitterness and hurt won't be easy, but it's a critical step to being able to forgive and heal. A therapist will also help you work through the turmoil of grief, jealousy, insecurity, and loneliness resulting from a broken relationship. While a marriage can survive an affair, coming out stronger than it was before, one or both members of the couple may decide to end the marriage. Perhaps you are already divorced and remarried, or single.

Whether you've experienced the heartbreak of adultery just recently or years ago, it is vital that any residual damage to your self-esteem be recognized, acknowledged and worked through. Our thought life is a breeding ground for either a healthy well-being or a diseased one. It has oft been said that whatever you feed, will grow. If you feed negative thoughts, they will eventually consume you. Now, this is not to say we should put our heads in the sand or live in denial, but we must be very careful how much time we spend indulging painful memories and thoughts.

Proverbs 4:23 says, "Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life." And Philippians 4:8 says, "Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."



Permissions: By all means, you are welcome to reproduce and distribute my articles in excerpts or complete format as long as you don't change any of the wording. If you do reproduce any part of my articles, please include the following information: by Bekah Ferguson, Ontario, Canada. http://www.bekahferguson.com/

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I was watching NBC's Heroes the other night and was inspired to write about one of the scenes.

A dejected Angela Petrelli is sitting on a front row pew in a dimly-lit Roman Catholic church with her son, Peter Petrelli. She says something to Peter like, "I know you hate me." He hesitates and says, "I don't hate you. You're my mother." She thinks about that a moment and then breaks eye contact, stating miserably, "Unconditional love isn't real love."

I understand the point she was making here and it makes sense at surface level. But if you dig a little deeper, you'll find the obvious misconception. See, what Angela really meant was, "You might 'love' me, but you don't like me. If I weren't your mother, you wouldn't love me at all. To me, that isn't real love; it's just a duty."

But here's the thing: Loving someone because we "like" them is only a feeling - an emotion - and emotions are fickle. This is why people can fall madly in love and then years later, mysteriously "fall out" of love. It's because their love for one another was based on feel-good emotions. In other words, what can you do for me? As soon as those strong emotions fade away, perhaps during a time of difficulty, they believe they no longer love one another.

Do we honestly believe that love based on feeling is real love?

Real love is a choice. A commitment. It's true that we can't choose our family, but we can choose whether or not to love our family. Angela believes Peter only loves her because she's his mother. But Peter loves her because he's choosing to. He's commited to her because he loves her (when he first grew to love her, it was before he knew about the dark side of her life) - and even though he despises what she has done, he has made a conscious choice to keep on loving her; even though he doesn't currently "like" her or have any warm feelings for her. She thinks this unconditional love isn't real. But what would she rather? For him to literally hate her? She knows he doesn't approve of her choices but even she doesn't approve of her own choices. So, why does she want her son to love her for what she does? She personally doesn't like who she is, so why does she want her son to love her for who she is? I would argue that real love is consciously choosing to love someone regardless of whether or not they deserve it. This kind of love is strong enough to carry us through those times when we don't feel any warm-fuzzies; when we've been wronged or disappointed or pushed to the limit. It gets us through the difficult times so that we can still come out on top. It is completely self-less. This kind of love says, "even though I don't like you right now, I choose to keep on loving you."

I don't know about you, but that's the way I want to be loved. This kind of love brings security. Imagine being in a relationship where you always have to worry that if you make one too many mistakes, your friend, or spouse, or family member is going to ditch you. Talk about subordination: "If you don't please me on an on-going basis, I won't like you enough anymore to keep on loving you." Is this real love? If it is, I don't want it.

Angela Petrelli is miserable because her son loves her unconditionally, rather than liking her conditionally. Real love can be (and often is) an impetus toward redemption. Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade was won to the Lord by unconditional love. It is the most powerful form of love mankind can experience - or should I say, be privileged to experience. Love based solely on feelings is nothing but a counterfeit. It is sure to disappoint, time and time again.

See, "eye for an eye" is human nature. When someone is rude or grumpy or selfish; or does something negative on a regular basis; or is stubborn and hard-headed; or is sinful in some ongoing way that affects me personally (whether directly or indirectly), the natural reaction within me is to pull away, put up a wall, act cold, and *feel* less affection.

If I don't approve of what someone says or does, I begin to feel like love and grace and affection is somehow endorsing their "bad" or unattractive/unlikeable behavoir. Or more specifically, something akin to passivity. For example: He/she just did this/that, so if I remain lovey-dovey with them, it's as if I'm letting them "get away" with bad behavior. There's this tendency to feel like, well, if they apologize, if they clean up their act - then I'll be warm and loving with them again. Or: give it a few days (the cold shoulder) until I cool off a bit . . . Once I start to feel some renewed affection toward them (this, reliant on good behavior), then I'll love them "unconditionally" again. Ha. This isn't unconditional love at all. Imagine if God "loved" us this way! Scary thought.

That being said, He does discipline us. He allows us to face the consequences of our sin. But He never withholds His love and affection if we seek it. "I will never leave you or forsake you" he says, and " surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age" (Joshua 1:5, Matthew 28:20). The only time He seems distant is when *I* have drifted away or withdrawn or put up a wall - not the other way around. When I am nasty, self-serving, grumpy, sinful - He still loves me just the same. He never gives the cold shoulder. Yes, "if I had cherished sin in my heart, the Lord would not have listened" (Psalm 66:18), but His love for me remains the same - in other words, he doesn't love me less, but He isn't a pushover either. "God is love" (1 John 4:8) and He loves generously; with heaps of compassion, grace and mercy. Psalm 145:8 says, "The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love."

In the same way that Jesus came "full of grace and truth" (John 1:14), we must learn to love others with "grace and truth." What does this mean? Well, we must be open and honest when we see our loved ones doing wrong - in this way we do not tolerate or "enable" their sin - however, we must not withdraw our love and affection. If we are truly loving them unconditionally, then they shouldn't have to "earn" or "deserve" our love. We did not "earn" our salvation, for it is "by grace [we] have been saved, through faith—and this not from [ourselves], it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, in the same way, our love for others must be a gift that isn't contingent on works. We must make a continual effort to keep that shoulder warm at all times, regardless of worthy behavior. This will feel unnatural, because it is unnatural - but like anything, we can learn to make a habit of it if we set our minds to cultivation.

I'm thankful God loves me unconditionally - and what better way to witness for Christ than to love our friends, family and enemies with unconditional love.

"Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing" (1 Peter 3:8-9).

"Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins" (1 Peter 4:8).

 

(c) 2009 - Bekah Ferguson

Permissions: By all means, you are welcome to reproduce and distribute my articles in excerpts or complete format as long as you don't change any of the wording. If you do reproduce any part of my articles, please include the following information: by Bekah Ferguson, Ontario, Canada. http://www.bekahferguson.com

Permalink | Leave a comment  »