Abortion Conversation

It's heating up now. Abortion has come front and center as states pass abortion restrictions, and the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have swung to the right. Other states have passed laws guaranteeing abortion rights. The NY Times compares the new laws in this article.

While many states legislate to restrict abortions, rallies across the nation this week called for abortions rights.

There are good-hearted, compassionate people on both sides of the debate. I know them. I have talked with them. Many pro-abortion folks care deeply about the young pregnant woman who feels trapped and confused. Many anti-abortion people recognize the fetus as human life and believe it should be protected as such.

So, both sides care about people. Unfortunately, many on both sides see the debate so clearly that they cannot imagine another point of view. In fact, they think, those with the opposing point of view are motivated by hate, ignorance, political agenda, or self-righteousness. Such people don't even deserve a hearing. They are stupid. We should silence them. They are the enemy.

The sides of the abortion debate seem more and more hostile to each other. The debate has become more about winning than truth or justice. Each side thinks that the other is unreasonable. No one is listening. Facts are used as weapons to beat down the opponent, while other facts are ignored.

If both sides really care about people, shouldn't we be able to have this conversation with more civility?

Here are some observations I have about the debate.

• Abortion is a moral issue, too often hijacked for political purposes.
• While both sides say the issue is simple, it is actually complex.
• Stances for or against abortion rights always include some motive, often obscure.
• One's views on abortion are informed by experience, beliefs, traditions, culture.
• The Bible does not directly forbid abortion.
• The life of a fetus is distinct from that of the mother. It is human life.
• The abortion process legally requires that this life be terminated in the womb before the tissue is removed. Because of this requirement, abortion is different from other surgical procedures.
• The abortion option only arises because something has gone wrong. A woman did not intend to become pregnant. A fetus appears to have abnormalities. A woman was raped. A woman doesn't want more children. Birth control failed. A woman fears the consequences of disclosing her pregnancy.
• There are different ways to measure when life begins: at conception, at the first beat of the heart, at the first breath. The most visible of these is the first breath.

I believe abortion is wrong, but I don't want to demonize people who disagree with me. I do want to persuade them.

Questions About Abortion

Why is abortion so divisive?
Why are people on both sides so vociferous in their arguments?
What is the emotional component of this debate?
Is a human fetus a person?
Does a woman have to carry a fetus just because she conceives it?
Is it the state's business what happens to a fetus?
Is it the state's business what happens to a child?
Why does the state protect any life?
Does the stage of development of a fetus change the value of that being?
Is it immoral to require a woman to bear a child conceived through rape or incest?
Should abortion ever be celebrated?
Does the federal government have jurisdiction that supersedes that of states?
Why has abortion only become an issue since the 1960s?
What actually happens during an abortion?
Are there any legitimate moral concerns with abortion?
Is there any situation in which abortion is always immoral?
Can abortion ever be moral?
Can the opposing sides of the abortion debate ever listen to each other?
Is one side completely right and the other completely wrong?
Can God redeem the abortion debate?
Are the lives lost in abortions worth mourning?
Are the lives of pregnant women contemplating abortion less valuable than their fetuses' lives?
What would the ideal resolution be for each side of the debate?
Is there any middle ground on the abortion debate?
Does humanity get to decide what is ultimately right and wrong?
What does God think about abortion? Can we know? Does it matter?
What does God think about women who have abortions? Can we know? Does it matter?
What does God think about fetuses that are aborted? Can we know? Does it matter?
Does harsh judgment and condemnation help or hurt anybody or anything?
What does love have to do with abortion?
How can love be expressed in the abortion debate?

Abortion and Personhood

The abortion debate is heating up again. Unfortunately the "debate" often consists of screaming and name-calling. Rarely does anyone approach the subject with a calm tone.

Abortion advocates speak of choice and reproductive rights. Abortion foes speak of murder and the "two victims" of an abortion procedure. Each side screams its point, joining others of like mind, until we have two choruses, deaf to any other point of view.

What is abortion? In the generic sense, to abort is to terminate. One might abort a mission or a job search. In this context, abortion is the termination of a human egg and sperm, united by fertilization. The termination of this unit must cause the natural progression of developing life to stop. The fertilized egg is alive in an interdependent sense. Abortion causes this life to cease.

It seems to me that the abortion debate hinges on the nature of this embryo or fetus. If we call this mass of cells a "person," then it has a whole range of value that sets it apart from, say, a tumor or a kidney. No one would argue that a vital organ is a person, in and of itself. So diseased kidneys are removed and defective hearts are replaced with transplants. The cells in these organs are alive, but they are not in any sense full persons. At most they are parts of persons.

The human embryo, however, has certainly the potential for personhood. No full grown kidney is an actual person. A full grown embryo is a human being. We agree in our society that once the fetus exits the womb, it is a person. Prior to that exit, personhood is debatable. If I understand abortion law correctly, a fetus may only be legally terminated in the womb. If that fetus, at any stage of development, exits the womb alive, then the fetus becomes a person. To kill that group of cells outside the womb is murder.

The mantra of abortion advocates is "choice." Women should be allowed to choose whether or not to carry a fetus to term and have a baby. We don't allow women to choose to kill their newborns. That is not a legal choice, because the baby is a person. If it is not a person, then to kill it is not murder.

The pro-choice argument, then, is that pregnant women may choose whether or not the life within them is a person. If it is not a person, then it has no rights, and it may be terminated without moral harm.

But allowing citizens to choose personhood or non-personhood for others is dangerous moral ground. This same reasoning was used by many to defend slavery. In fact, the Dred Scott decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857 declared that the former(?) slave Mr. Scott could not be a citizen of the U.S., and therefore had no legal grounds on which to petition the court. He was denied a key element of personhood, and his case was dismissed.

Although the language of "pro-choice" was not used in antebellum America, there were those who personally opposed slavery, but honored the right of others to choose to own slaves. The slaves could be owned because they were not persons. Now these slaves could speak up for themselves, but as long as their personhood was in question, their arguments and objections were also in question.

Throughout history, genocides are fueled by denying the personhood of others.

And our society debates the personhood of the voiceless fetus. If it is not a person, then it may be discarded. If it is a person, then it is sacred and worthy of protection. If this choice of personhood is left to each individual pregnant woman, then we have placed upon her the weight of life and death. It would be just as wrong to have a designated committee vote on the personhood or non-personhood of any woman's pregnancy. This is not a choice for people to make. This is a life created by God or by Nature.

Only a society intoxicated with the belief that it controls everything could make this a choice. But it appears we live in such a society.

No Pain, No Problem

The Little Red Hen understood the real world.  She asked for help as she planted, nurtured, harvested, milled and baked.  No one cared about helping with the work.  Everyone wanted to enjoy the freshly baked bread.  She rightly allowed only those who worked for the bread to  Sadly, she ate alone.  She understood that pleasure and responsibility go hand in hand. 

enjoy it.

These connections are self-evident to those steeped in the Protestant work ethic.  The pleasure of sex brings the responsibility of commitment and potential parenthood.  The pleasure of leisure comes after the responsibility of work.  The pleasure of beachfront property brings the responsibility of preparing for storm damage.  The “pleasure” of poor health choices creates the responsibility of dealing with diabetes, heart disease, lung cancer, or cirrhosis of the liver. 

Unfortunately today’s culture works constantly to sever pleasure from responsibility.  Pregnant and don’t want to be?  There’s a pill for that.  Hung over?   There’s a pill for that.  Sleepy?  Have an energy drink.  Distracted?  Choose your ADHD med.  Negative consequences must be avoided at all costs, even at the cost of human life.  The consequences of recreational sex, laziness, poor judgment, poor health choices, and economic risk must not be felt.  (This is actually part of the contemporary doctrine that all suffering must be avoided.)  Some corporations are too big to fail, so the taxpayers bail them out.  When hurricanes destroy their homes, uninsured property owners receive interest free, government guaranteed loans.  Many able-bodied adults choose not to work but collect electronic benefits transfer (EBT) payments every month.  Millions of babies die each year when abortion is used as birth control.  Though intended to help people, these pills and policies harm the individual and society.  They interfere with natural cause and effect.

Yet well-parented children know that the pleasure of a snow day means school work must be done at another time.  They know that chores come before play.  They know that living in a family obligates children and adults to help run the household.  This connection of pleasure with responsibility reflects the “real world.”  However, through science, marketing, and government programs, our society works to create the life of pleasure with no responsibility.  The real world is too cruel, so we must save people from it.  This sounds as appealing as having ice cream for breakfast and a staff of servants to do all the chores.  It might seem good in the short run, but ultimately someone must pay for it.  The servants must be paid, and poor health comes from a sugar-rich diet.

Therapists deal with those deprived of the proper pleasure/responsibility balance in childhood.  Those with no pleasure have been overworked; they have been robbed of their childhoods.  Meanwhile, those with no responsibility have never had to work; they never mature beyond childhood.

Our society moves steadily toward the latter.  Fewer people take responsibility because fewer people have to.  Looking at today’s pro sports, government, and prime time television, one must ask the same question:  Where are all the grownups?  There must be a pill for that.