Other "Thinking Drafts" and writing by Keith Drury -- http://www.indwes.edu/tuesday .

About abortion, that is. It's so confusing. I wish somebody would explain it to me. For instance, I'm confused on why liberals aren't pro-life. They're pro-life when it comes to prisoners on death row. Why not unborn kids in the death womb? I always figured liberals were supposed to stick up for the little people (even animals and trees). You know, those too weak to stick up for themselves - the weak and the helpless. Who is weaker, and more helpless than a fetus? They have no self-defenses. It seems to me that a true liberal would want to protect a tiny child inside a big grown-up... even if the big grown-up was a woman. See why I am so confused? Why don't the liberals stick up for the weak, unborn kids, and protect them from the strong? I wish somebody would explain it to me.

But conservatives are confusing too. It seems to me if they followed their principles they'd be pro-choice, not anti-abortion. You know, 'get government off our backs'... 'get government out of our wombs.' It seems to me that a true conservative would say, 'This is a family issue' or, at least, 'it should be up to the states.' This is confusing for me. Why are the conservatives on the big-government-intervention side of this issue? I wish somebody would explain it to me.

But the evangelical church is confusing too. We say, 'The fetus is life.' We call it an 'unborn child.' And, by extension, we say that taking the life of an unborn child is 'taking human life.' Some even call it murder. But what confuses me is how evangelicals act. They don't act like the fetus is the equivalent of human life.

For instance, when a one-week old child dies, we have a full-blown funeral, people take off work, and send sympathy cards. Why don't we do this for miscarriages? These are treated completely differently. Are we saying by our behavior that a lost unborn child is somehow less serious than a born child who is lost? OK, sure, I know some mothers have had a dozen or more miscarriages, and it would be a financial burden to them if we acted otherwise. But, wait. Re-read that argument. Remember who normally gives it? It seems like our behavior communicates something different than our opinion. I wish somebody would explain this to me.

There are other things that confuse me too. For instance, if we really believe that 'life begins at conception' why don't we announce pregnancies like we put roses on the altar at birth. And, why do we kiddingly call a family of three a 'family of three and a half,' when the mother is pregnant? Half? Do we mean that? I think sending out birth announcements is a nice thing, especially those newly adapted Hershey bars. But why do we do it only after the birth? Do we mean that something happened at 'birth' which made this life more of a life? What do these behaviors teach?

There's more. How about when we fuss over the 'three week old' baby at church when the life is actually about 40 weeks by now, if we believe what we believe? Or, when we dedicate or baptize the child we say, 'Welcome to the newest member of our congregation' Really? Newest? Doesn't the first 36 weeks count?

Speaking of 'counting,' that's probably the only place where evangelicals are consistent. Most pastors would like to count pregnant women as two. Maybe three --could be twins, you know.

So, even after writing this insightful and provocative article I am still confused. I wish somebody would explain these things to me. Maybe you can clear it up.

So what do you think?

To contribute to the thinking on this issue e-mail your response to Tuesday@indwes.edu