OrthodoxNet.com Blog

NCC Exit Poll: Why One Orthodox Church Left the National Council of Churches

Wednesday 22 Feb 2006 | Jacobse | OPF/NCC/Christian left |

9 Responses to “NCC Exit Poll: Why One Orthodox Church Left the National Council of Churches”

1. 1) |  Top | Feb 23 2006 | joseph

   I thought the article was a little heavy handed in calling the AARP a “liberal foundation”. I do agree with our Metropolitan Philip in our withdrawal from the NCC.

2. 2) |  Top | Feb 23 2006 | Dean Scourtes

   Like Joseph, I found a few characterizations in the article that I disagree with, but on the whole, I think that its central argument is undeniably correct.

   The NCC has used it’s advocacy role in a way that has been inappropriately partisan and confrontational. Not only has it embraced positions that that make a number of Christians, even moderate centrist Christians, uncomfortable, it has done so in a divisive and insensitive manner.

   When we come togther in Christian fellowship in any church-sponsored forum I think it is only prudent and polite to ratchet down the partisanship and try and make a sincere effort to understand and be sensitive to the viewpoints of others. We may never come to absolute agreement on all issues, but if we at least attempt to understand the underlying reasons and concerns that cause people to form positions different from our own, our respect for each other will grow, and we will be much closer to eventually bridging our differences.

   The NCC on the other hand seems to relish an “in-your-face” approach to communicating it’s views. It acts as if it has already decided that the people who disagree with its political views are wrong and so there is no need to worry about offending them.

   I disagrred with the article’s characterization of Greek Orthodox Senators Paul Sarbannes and Olympia Snowe as advocates “of partial-birth abortion and other culture-of-death positions”, and consider this description a blatant exageration.

   Sarbanes and Snowe have voted against past partial-birth abortion legislation in the past because they felt those bills did not made an adequete exception for the health and life of the mother. That in no way makes them advocates for the procedure or culture-of-death positions.

3. 3) |  Top | Feb 23 2006 | Jacobse

   Dean, it is more dangerous to a mother’s health to collapse the skull and extract the brains of a half-delivered baby than to allow the baby full birth. Sarbannne’s and Snowe’s position is nothing more than transparent political equivocation — which puts them on the death side of the calculation.

   Further, their refusal to adopt even minimal restriction when abortion spills over into infanticide, as it does with partial-birth abortion, reveals a rigid and inflexible conformance to the pro-abortion ideology.

   Don’t defend the indefensible.

4. 4) |  Top | Feb 23 2006 | JBL

   Sarbanne’s and Snowe’s insistence to defend all forms of abortion at any cost makes one wonder what is the true basis of their faith.

5. 5) |  Top | Feb 23 2006 | Glen

   Dean -

   Even ‘liberal’ European nations have greater restriction on abortion than does the United States. The partial-birth procedure would get you a jail sentence in the UK, for example.

   There is no ‘health of the mother’ rationale for performing partial birth abortions. As Father Hans said, the baby is fully delivered. For all practical intents and purposes, this is a full-term baby.

   There are cases in which an abortion is necessary to save a woman’s life. We had a case in my own family in which a mother of two developed severe complications in her first trimester. Between diabetes and high blood pressure, the developing pregnancy was practically killing her. However, all those complications manifested well before a ‘partial birth’ procedure was necessary. She had (very sadly).

   By the time you get to a partial birth situation, you just as easily do a C-section if necessary to end the pregnancy early and immediately. The child will have a good chance.

   That is, if you want the child born alive. The purpose of partial birth abortions is to kill the child, pure and simple.

   I find it stunningly ironic that ’secular’ nations with their defective Constitutions (”Ours is the greatest system of governance ever!” or so the nationalists say) protects an unrestricted right to abortion that even France couldn’t stomach. All hail the Supreme Court!

6. 6) |  Top | Feb 23 2006 | Dean Scourtes

   The Supreme Court Justice who believed that partial birth abortion bans should include an exception for the life and health of the mother just retired.

   In STENBERG v. CARHART, decided June 28, 2000, Justice O’Connor wrote:

   “First, the Nebraska statute is inconsistent with Casey because it lacks an exception for those instances when the banned procedure is necessary to preserve the health of the mother.

   ..Contrary to the assertions of Justice Kennedy and Justice Thomas, the need for a health exception does not arise from “the individual views of Dr. Carhart and his supporters.” Post, at 14 (Kennedy, J., dissenting); see also post, at 35-36 (Thomas, J., dissenting). Rather, as the majority explains, where, as here, “a significant body of medical opinion believes a procedure may bring with it greater safety for some patients and explains the medical reasons supporting that view,” ante, at 19, then Nebraska cannot say that the procedure will not, in some circumstances, be “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.” Accordingly, our precedent requires that the statute include a health exception. “

   http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-830

   I’m not a doctor but the evidence that there should be an exception to preserve the life and health of the mother was at least strong enough to persuade five Supreme Court justices. With O’Connor gone, however, replaced by Alito, and another partial birth abortion case scheduled to be argued before the SCOTUS, Stenberg v. Carhart may well be overturned.

7. 7) |  Top | Feb 23 2006 | Glen

   Dean,

   From the ‘Findings’ section of the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban law as enacted by Congress:

   (3) In Stenberg v. Carhart (530 U.S. 914, 932(2000)), the United States Supreme Court opined “that significant medical authority supports theproposition that in some circumstances, [partial birth abortion] would be the safest procedure” forpregnant women who wish to undergo an abortion. Thus, the Court struck down the State of Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion procedures, concluding that it placed an “undue burden” on women seeking abortions because it failed to include an exception for partial-birth abortions deemed necessary to preserve the “health” of the mother.

   (4) In reaching this conclusion, the Court deferred to the Federal district court’s factual findings that the partial-birth abortion procedure was statistically and medically as safe as, and in many circumstances safer than, alternative abortion procedures.

   (5) However, the great weight of evidence presented at the Stenberg trialand other trials challenging partial-birth abortion bans, as well as at extensive Congressional hearings, demonstrates that a partial-birth abortionis never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure is performed, and is outside of the standard of medical care.

   (6) Despite the dearth of evidence in the Stenberg trial court record supporting the district court’s findings, the United States Court of Appealsfor the Eighth Circuit and the Supreme Court refused to set aside the district court’s factual findings because, under the applicable standard of appellate review, they were not “clearly erroneous”. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous “when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed”. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, North Carolina (470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). Under this standard, “if the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently” (Id. at 574).

   (7) Thus, in Stenberg, the United States Supreme Court was required to accept the very questionable findings issued by the district court judge Ñ the effect of which was to render null and void the reasoned factual findings and policy determinations of the United States Congress and at least 27 State legislatures.

   The Congress is being charitable. While it is feasible that the pro-abortion judges were really bound by the rules concerning review of a lower court decision, the truth is most likely that they were simply looking for a way to overturn the statute.

   There is no documented case of a medical necessity to kill a child by sucking out its brain in its mother’s birth canal.

   None. Zippo. Zilch. Nada.

   Only pro-abortion radicals could possibly suppor this procedure. This is one of those things that everyone should agree on a ban for. Want to argue about first trimester abortions? Fine, I’ll argue about that in good faith, since it is possible that the life of the mother may hang in the balance.

   This? This is pure murder and the ‘life of the mother’ is just a pretext to keep it legal.

8. 8) |  Top | Feb 23 2006 | Jim Holman

   Glen writes: “There is no documented case of a medical necessity to kill a child by sucking out its brain in its mother’s birth canal. . . . This is pure murder and the ‘life of the mother’ is just a pretext to keep it legal.”

   My understanding is that there are a small number of cases, perhaps several thousand per year (out of millions of live births), in which this procedure would be appropriate. This is especially true in cases where the infant is anencephalic, severely deformed, or is severely hydrocephalic.

   Personally, I place a great importance on the physician-patient relationship, and we interfere with that relationship at great risk.

9. 9) |  Top | Feb 24 2006 | Glen

   Jim,

   The cases you mentioned are not cases in which the health of the mother is at risk. Rather, they are cases in which the infant is deformed and, therefore, deemed unworthy of life.

   Those are hard cases, to be sure, but they are not risks to the life of the mother.

   As for getting between the ‘patient and her doctor,’ the vast majority of abortions are performed at clinics. According to the CDC:

   In the US, 69% of abortions are performed at 441 abortion clinics

   In other words, in over 2/3’s of the cases of abortion, the pregnant woman has no prior, ongoing relationship to the abortionist. She shows up, signs in, gets an abortion, and leaves - never to see the abortionist again.

   In the less than 1/3 of the cases which are performed in a doctor’s office, there is a chance the woman has a prior relationship with the doctor, but I doubt that in most cases. The overwhelming reason why women get abortions is that they don’t want their babies.

   Typically no doctor is involved in the decision, only the execution.

   As for the woman’s health, try this statistic on for size:

   During the year 2000, in England and Wales, there were 175,000 abortions performed. Of these, 134 of these were performed because of a risk to the woman’s life. Over 162,000, (92%) were solely on the grounds of risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the woman. The latter terms are interpreted very broadly in England as they are in North America.

   175,000 dead babies. 134 of them were killed to protect the mother’s life. That is 0.077% of all abortions performed in England and Wales that year.

   Do you think the stats would be much higher in the U.S.?

   What drives abortion, if health usually isn’t a consideration? Un-wed motherhood:

   Abortions are relatively rare among married women (8.1 per 100 live births) vs. those by unmarried women (75 per 100 live births). These numbers were 7.8 and 65.5 in 1996. 4

   Cut premarital and extramarital sex, you cut abortion down to size as well. Since the availability of an easy alternative to giving birth is available, one would have to assume that legalized abortion and premarital sex are actually feeding off each other.

   Time to stop that in its tracks.