Choice? Life?
Abortion has been at the forefront of social debates for as long as I can remember... my entire lifetime, for sure. Most people separate this debate into two sides: Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. But what is one to do if they are both pro-choice and pro-life? In fact, my faith tells me that God is both pro-choice and pro-life. I would venture to say God is pro-choice because he* - to a fault - always lets us choose. But he also created life, and therefore I would imagine is pro-life.
And so the debate goes 'round and 'round. Every life has value. Every woman has the freedom to choose what to do with her body.
Let's look at the politics. The Republican party stance is:
As for my opinion... I have never been asked to accompany a friend to have an abortion, but I do have friends who have opted for an abortion. I don't like the idea of abortion - there are so many people who would love to welcome your child into their home as their own - but I believe 100% in a woman's right to choose it.
Your first question might be: "How can a Christian not believe abortion is wrong?" I didn't say that abortion is the correct choice. I said I believe in a woman's right to choose it. I also didn't say that abortion is the wrong choice. I believe there are circumstances that call for it.
I don't presume to know the point at which the soul enters the body, or the exact moment that life becomes life. I'm not God. But I do know that there are many, many circumstances in which an abortion is the best choice for the well-being of the woman. Whether the need is because of the source of the pregnancy (rape, poor choices, abuse) or health problems with the mother or fetus... there is no way to allow for all of the possible contingencies within the law. I believe that there is no fair and compassionate way of banning abortions.
In an ideal world, people would choose life in every situation. But our world is not ideal, and we must deal in realities. The reality is: if abortions were banned there would be great detriment to the women who are desperate enough to choose that option. By granting protections to a fetus, you effectively dehumanize the woman and remove her most basic right of controlling her own body, her own life, her own self. She becomes less-than-a-person... a slave to the will of society and laws and legislation. In order for her to regain her basic human rights, she is now compelled to make a decision which will risk her life and liberty... either by forcing her through the pregnancy or forcing her to break the law.
In Rachel Held Evans' article about learning how to follow Jesus, her first mantra was, "Love the person in front of me." In this case, the person in front of me would be a living, breathing person... a woman who has the unthinkable choice of doing away with a part of her. It's no easy choice. She'll labor over it and cry over it and eventually come to some resolution about what to do. And if she chooses abortion, our job is to love her through it and help her - in some small way - to find peace.
* Note: Some readers may take issue with referring to God as "he" because of a held belief (which I share) that God is neither male nor female. I use male pronouns in reference to God for convenience, not because I'm saying God is male. I would feel odd using the gender-neutral "it" in reference to God, and "she" would be saying I think God is a woman. I know, I know... can of worms.
And so the debate goes 'round and 'round. Every life has value. Every woman has the freedom to choose what to do with her body.
Let's look at the politics. The Republican party stance is:
"The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed." Republicans oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or to fund organizations that perform or advocate abortions. It says the party will not fund or subsidize health care that includes abortion coverage. They state that they "stand firmly against it" [i.e. abortion]. The Republican 2012 platform uses the word "abortion" 19 times. The platform never clearly states that they would ban all abortions. However, they state in various ways that they would extend the definition of life, health coverage, etc. to fetuses in the womb and legislate various measures that would, in effect, make it next to impossible to legally obtain an abortion. (i.e. 14th amendment coverage, remove funding, limiting access to information, instituting waiting periods, requiring parental consents, etc.) "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage." So, basically... yes they would make every effort to ban abortions.As for the Democrats, their official (i.e. full searchable pdf) platform for 2012 is not yet online, but I imagine nothing has changed since the 2008 edition, which reads:
"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs."One of the articles that got me started thinking about this issue in earnest was Wayne Self's post on his blog Owldolatrous: "Akin, RNC Comments and Policies Remind Us: Abortion is a Gay Issue." It's an interesting read and even points to a couple of scriptures of relevance to the Pro-Choice stance:
In the Bible, even the idea of an immortal, individuated soul is confused, at best, since the ancient Hebrews had no such concept. Instead, they had ruah, the “breath” of God, which gave life to flesh. This concept would suggest that life might enter the body at the moment of first breath, not conception.In fact, it was the presence of ruah in the newborn that explained the Hebrew’s valuation of newborn over unborn. In Exodus, the penalty for killing a baby was death, but the penalty for killing the unborn was this:“When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.” – Exodus 21:22The concept we have of the soul today–immortal, imbued with a sense of self, and separate from the body–came from the Greeks, not from the Old Testament. This may explain why the Greek-influenced Jews who wrote the New Testament gave us a diversified and perhaps confused view of the soul, and why there are many Christian traditions today that deny the existence of the immortal, individuated soul.Even where the immortal soul was mentioned, the concept invited an indifference to the body (or zygote), not a special effort to preserve it:“Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28)
Your first question might be: "How can a Christian not believe abortion is wrong?" I didn't say that abortion is the correct choice. I said I believe in a woman's right to choose it. I also didn't say that abortion is the wrong choice. I believe there are circumstances that call for it.
I don't presume to know the point at which the soul enters the body, or the exact moment that life becomes life. I'm not God. But I do know that there are many, many circumstances in which an abortion is the best choice for the well-being of the woman. Whether the need is because of the source of the pregnancy (rape, poor choices, abuse) or health problems with the mother or fetus... there is no way to allow for all of the possible contingencies within the law. I believe that there is no fair and compassionate way of banning abortions.
In an ideal world, people would choose life in every situation. But our world is not ideal, and we must deal in realities. The reality is: if abortions were banned there would be great detriment to the women who are desperate enough to choose that option. By granting protections to a fetus, you effectively dehumanize the woman and remove her most basic right of controlling her own body, her own life, her own self. She becomes less-than-a-person... a slave to the will of society and laws and legislation. In order for her to regain her basic human rights, she is now compelled to make a decision which will risk her life and liberty... either by forcing her through the pregnancy or forcing her to break the law.
In Rachel Held Evans' article about learning how to follow Jesus, her first mantra was, "Love the person in front of me." In this case, the person in front of me would be a living, breathing person... a woman who has the unthinkable choice of doing away with a part of her. It's no easy choice. She'll labor over it and cry over it and eventually come to some resolution about what to do. And if she chooses abortion, our job is to love her through it and help her - in some small way - to find peace.
* Note: Some readers may take issue with referring to God as "he" because of a held belief (which I share) that God is neither male nor female. I use male pronouns in reference to God for convenience, not because I'm saying God is male. I would feel odd using the gender-neutral "it" in reference to God, and "she" would be saying I think God is a woman. I know, I know... can of worms.
Comments
Post a Comment