fbpx
Articles

Another abortion video goes viral: Virginia and the Repeal Act

/
January 30, 2019

This week, a second video about abortion went viral. But instead of New York, this one was from the general assembly in Virginia. The video features a Democratic member of the Virginia House of Delegates offering comments in defense of proposed legislation that would dramatically expand abortion laws in the commonwealth.

Like the legislation passed by the New York State Legislature last week and signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the bill put forward in Virginia would remove nearly all restrictions on abortion up to the child’s actual birth. And as with the first, the exchange captured in the video is chilling.

What’s does the video reveal?

Under current laws, abortions may only be performed in Virginia during the first and second trimesters of pregnancy. Abortions performed in the second trimester must be performed in a hospital. But the proposed legislation being debated in the general assembly, which proponents call the Repeal Act, would remove these restrictions.

In the video, House Majority Leader Todd Gilbert asks the sponsor of the bill, Kathy Tran, “How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?” Tran hedges in response, indicating that the bill allows for abortions based on either mental or physical health. But when Gilbert presses for an answer, Tran responds, “Through the third trimester. The third trimester goes all the way up to 40 weeks.”

Following that statement, there is a long pause.

Gilbert then asks the following, “Where it’s obvious a woman is about to give birth, that she has physical signs that she is about to give birth—would that be a point at which she could still request an abortion if she was so certified? She’s dilating.” Tran replies, “Mr. Chairman, that would be a decision that the doctor, the physician, and the woman would make at that point.” To which Gilbert immediately asks, “I understand that. I’m asking if your bill allows that.” And just before the clip ends Tran states, “My bill would allow that, yes.”

Watching the video is difficult. And it is little wonder that it is the second in as many weeks to go viral and draw attention to the issue. Abortion has long been a contentious issue in the United States, but there is an element featured in both of these videos that stirs our humanity: cruelty.

Abortion advocates once called for abortions to be “safe, legal, and rare.” But the goalposts have moved. We now live in an age where women are encouraged to “shout” their abortions. Last week we watched members and the gallery of the New York State Legislature stand and cheer when its version of this bill was passed. And here we see a member of the Virginia General Assembly defend a bill that would allow an infant’s life to be ended only days, hours, or even moments away from birth.

And this is simply too much to abide. How could one possibly help but imagine the kind of barbarism involved in taking the life of an innocent person—one well past the point of viability? For many, if not most, simply contemplating such an act makes them shudder.

Not only would this bill sanction abortion on demand through the third trimester and eliminate requirements that these procedures be performed by doctors in appropriate medical facilities, it would also remove Virginia’s informed-consent, ultrasound, and 24-hour waiting period policies.

Speaking in support of the bill after the video began circulating widely on social media, Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia appeared on a radio show to comment on the legislation. Northam described the public reaction as “out of proportion” to the substance of the bill. But far from quelling the opposition, the governor’s remarks drew further criticism as he explained what would happen under the proposed law should a mother choose to seek an abortion while in labor: "If a mother is in labor . . . the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated, if that is what the mother and the family desired."

At issue here is not privacy or safety, but barbarism. Simply put, this bill would further legalize violence against the vulnerable. And it is a tragedy that this is not apparent to all of us.

After the New York bill was passed, Russell Moore commented, “The closer one gets to the issue, the more one sees just how blinded by injustice people can get. Some who claim to be about protecting the weak from the strong are able to nonetheless completely ignore those, the unborn, who are politically unpopular in their tribe.” And this is certainly true. We live in a world that is fallen. All of us are blinded by sin.

Hope amidst evil

But even in the face of this rising tide of abortion activism, there is good news. Polling shows that young adults are more likely than other demographics to support abortion restrictions, including the gradual implementation of pro-life legislation. These efforts to expand access to abortions in New York, Virginia, and elsewhere do not necessarily represent the future or a permanent trajectory.

What is required is vigilance and commitment. Those committed to the cause of life, who would see this dreadful movement reversed, must continue to work and pray. Advancing the cause of life takes many forms, from voting in elections to supporting crisis pregnancy centers. It includes showing up at city council meetings and cultivating churches that are prepared to receive and care for women, children, and families in need. It means showing the love of Christ and being a neighbor.

Those videos were chilling. And so is the abortion clinic. The church is the body of Christ, and we can offer the world something better by opening our arms to the vulnerable.

Josh Wester

Joshua B. Wester is the lead pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Greensboro, North Carolina. Read More by this Author

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24