Nothing is more divisive in today's American political debate than the issue of Abortion, which has been legal throughout America only for a little more than the past 20 years, since the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973. The polarization of the issue has been accomplished by two groups opposing the activities of each other, each of whom have claimed to be "pro-" something. So the people who believe that a woman should have the legal right to choose whether to have an abortion are called "pro-choice" and the people who believe that the unborn fetus has a right to be born as a human being are called "pro-life". Fighting for different causes, they came into direct conflict. The result has often been violent. Tragically, it is some misguided people coming out of the "pro-life" camp who have on occasion proved themselves willing to use self-contradictory violence in order to stop the abortions of unborn children.

But an even deeper tragedy is that the overal political goal of the "pro-life" movement, which seeks to make abortion a civil crime subject to civil penalties analagous to those we have for murder, is itself anti-life. This is because, to the extent that they want to use the force of Government to prevent women and doctors from making morally wrong choices to abort perfectly viable babies, they must rely on the Government's wilingness to use violence and force to "enforce" those laws. Therefore, so-called "pro-life" activists, many of whom are also deeply convinced that Capital Punishment is an acceptable form of civil justice applicable to murderers and abortionists alike, actually envision a society wherein medical doctors who perform abortions face the death penalty, mothers and families who help mothers seek abortions face prison time, and those women who find people willing to perform an illegal abortion face all the risks associated with being a part of illegal commerce, including unsanitary conditions, criminal elements, the possibility of death, and the violence of intrusive police enforcement of those laws. So much for being "pro-life".

To be Truly Pro-Life is to be both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice

I am proud to shock liberals by saying, nay declaring in a loud voice, that I am opposed to abortion by personal conviction. My faith says that God values all human life equally, and my own eyes have seen that there is no convienient point in the developement of a foetus where you can say, "before this time, the foetus isn't human". Therefore I wouldn't ever encourage anyone to get an abortion. I would teach my children never even to entertain it as a possibility. I would counsel my wife not to have one. And I would exhort my fellow Christians and my fellow Americans to respect human life and to shun this unholy practice. That is the meaning of being pro-life, with respect to the issue of Abortions.

But that is my religious faith, which I will not seek to impose on others through the coercion of Law. Imposing written codes on others is not my calling! (2 Corinthians 3:6). In our country, the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness has and must continue to take place in an environment of religious freedom. To be truly pro-life, with respect to abortion policy, the conscientious Christian must also be pro-choice, and leave this undeniably moral choice to the individuals who are making it and their own religious values. We must also, in accordance with our divine mission, continue to speak out on this matter. Anti-abortion protestors are not a threat to American society per-se. They have a right to make their voices heard, to call out to women who are making that choice which we regard as immoral, and to offer alternative ways to understand the precious gift of life, and to continue to offer networks of support for women who are facing the decision about whether to keep an unwanted baby. Christians have a calling to use spiritual persuasion, not physical force or force of law, to preach the Gospel, to bring people into reconciliation with God.

If Christians persist in trying to force America to make abortion illegal in all cases, then they protect the lives of the unborn at the possible expense of the lives of mothers, doctors, and family members who are involved in what our Courts have decided was a private, not a civil decision, however moral. They condemn "life", as it is broadly conceived, for "life" consists precisely in the dignity of the person to choose their own destiny and to have their own relationship with God. One cannot coerce moral behavior. The people who object to abortion do so on the basis of the theological idea that God despises abortion. And this idea surely has some purchase on the truth. But to seek to make laws substitutes the Paternalism of the State in the place of the Fatherhood of God. Instead of letting God evaluate the moral decisions of free people, and of teaching people what our understanding of this standard is, we make the state the judge and the standard, and substitute the inflexibility of law for the flexibility of the spirit.

Laws, Privacy and Public Safety

It is true that we do legislate some MORAL values. We do not allow MURDER, for instance. But the choice to have an abortion is not the same as the choice to MURDER! Murder is a clear threat to public safety. The autonomous person who murders another autonomous person has endangered a member of the public. It is reasonable to infer that people may seek to avenge murder with more killing. As Jesus said: "whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword"... it is clear that this is a general principle. Laws against murder help prevent the spiraling of violence that can come from people killing each other. Murder is never a private decision. It cannot be done alone in a room. The victim of murder leaves behind brothers, sisters, mother, father, friends, co-workers, and neighbors, all of whom have an established relationship with that person, and who are publicly affected by the decision of the murderer to kill. Muder is illegal because no autonomous person has any rights over another fellow person. So society has a clear civil interest in prohibiting murder and offering some means of punishment for it: that is justice. The network of friends supporting the victim will typically seek vengeance or retribution of some kind, and the law allows them to do so through the power of the state, in order to assure that they violate nobody else's rights in seeking justice.

Not only murder, but theft, assault, fraud, endangerment, and a host of other actions which people choose to do involve issues of public safety, and therefore they are prohibited by law. Of course, there are moral components to the decisions which people make when they do such things. But they would be illegal even in societies which, through atheism, nihilism, scientism or what have you, rejected all ideals of morality. They would also be illegal in a society which, although strongly moral and religious in its populace, nonetheless decided to keep religion and morality out of civil lawmaking, in order to preserve freedom.

It is undeniably true that the mother does not have the same relationship to the unborn child as does one autonomous person to another. The unborn child depends on the mother for every single thing: nourishment, air, blood, water, warmth. The unborn child, for most of the period of pregancy, is absolutely un-viable without the mother; functionally, the unborn child is a part of the mother, and it depends on the good will of the mother to live. If a mother so decides, she can remove that unborn child from its protective sanctuary with drugs, herbs, violent movement, or surgical proceedure performed by a willing doctor. It sounds awful, and it is awful. Like it or not, women can make this decision even if it is illegal. Frequently, aborting an unborn child proves to be an awfully traumatic experience for many women who later regret their decision. Nevertheless, the decision differs wholly in kind from the decision made by one person to kill another. The motives are (usually) different. The methods are different. The results are different.

One of the reasons why the results are different is that the unborn child does not have the relationship to the protective network of society in the same way that an autonomous person does. The unborn child has no friends, has met no relatives, has never worked, knows no neighbors. This is why pro-life activists poignantly say they are seeking to protect the defenseless! There is nobody to speak for the unborn child, unless the mother, the father, and their network of freinds and neighbors speak for it. Because the unborn child depends on the good will of the person it is dependent on for life, the mother, it is helpless and defenseless for itself. However, from the standpoint of civil law, this is precisely why abortion is and must be considered to be a different kind of action than murder. When a mother chooses to abort the pregnancy of her unborn child, no enraged friends and relatives will seek to put her in jail or have her killed. The unborn child has no such dedicated defenders. In fact, the abortion can and frequently does take place without the knowledge of anybody who might ever have that relationship to the unborn child. It can and often does take place PRIVATELY. In order to enforce laws against abortions, the privacy of public citizens who are presumed innocent until proven guilty must be violated. The authorities will usually not even be aware that an abortion has taken place. This is not the case in murders, where usually, the body is publically discovered, publically identified, and the threat of a killer in our midst instantly becomes a matter of public concern.

Quite to the contrary, when an abortion happens, usually nobody knows and there is no outcry from friends and family for vengeance. There is no danger of public retaliation, or the cycle of public violence developing around an unsolved abortion as there is when murders go unpunished. An unpunished abortion is not a threat to public safety. It is a moral issue, involving the state of the woman's and the doctor's souls before God. But the civil courts in this country have decided, quite rightly and in accord with the realities of a free society which values privacy and autonomy for its citizens, that prohibition of Abortion, however morally indefensible abortion is, is not in the interests of a free society. Prohibition of abortion is as morally indefensible as abortion itself. To try, as pro-life activists have, to limit personal freedom and place the rights and life of the unborn child above the rights and life of the living mother is in effect to declare that the woman has no rights and no life of her own. That is not Christian, and besides it places the interests of men and progeny first. It declares, in a most unforgiving manner, that women's lives are only as valuable as their ability to produce Children. But in Christ, all people, of every gender, are equal (Galatians 3:28), and have an equal right to make their mistakes before God.

The Forgiveness and Flexibility of God the Holy Spirit

While Law can only draw a line and declare that what is on one side of it is legal and what is on the other side is illegal, the Spirit can recognize that what is legal is sometimes immoral, and what is illegal is sometimes morally indifferent or in some cases could even be just. That is why Christians rejected the casuistry of the tradition of the Torah in favor of a Charismatic faith. That is the meaning of the frequent and important emphasis on freedom which is found in the New Testament. In God's desire to reconcile sinful humanity to God's self, God has paved the way to heaven for all who live life in faith as a response to God's loving gift of life to us all, regardless of our sins before the "Law". There is hope for people who are wrestling with their feelings of guilt after having chosen to have abortions. Furthermore, there is hope for people who, God help them, see nothing wrong in principle with a woman ending the life of her unborn child. There is also hope for "pro-life" people who wish to use the violence of the state to control their fellow human beings. God's grace is sufficient for all.

And yet, what most pro-life activists fail to acknowledge is that, as surely as it is different in kind of action than murder, and as surely as a foetus goes from being a single cell of protoplasm to a viable independent human being gradually over nine months of time, there are shades of grey which would prevent God from condemning every abortion in every case, as surely as we should be prevented from condemning them. For instance, the unborn infant can threaten the life of the mother. In other cases, the unborn infant could be incapable of ever becoming a viable life outside of the womb, unless the science of medicine and enormous resources are used to sustain a "life" that is essentially without meaning, mind or soul. Only the mother, in consultation with her God, the father of the child, and in most cases her doctor, her family, friends and community, can possibly know what is at stake in the choice of whether to carry an unborn child to term. Only she has the right to be concerned about her own life (whether the pregnancy puts it at risk) and the quality of the future "life" of the "child". For some mothers, choosing to carry a foetus to term or to abort it seems to be a "lesser of two evils" kind of decision. The flexibility of the Holy Spirit in this matter cannot be known or truly understood.

We must be clear about this matter: choosing to have an abortion as a convienience, as a form of birth control "after the fact" to correct the mistakes of intemperate youthful uncommitted sexuality, is never acceptable before God. From the Christian perspective, to choose to have an abortion must be viewed in most cases as immoral and in any and every case very unfortunate and sad. Christians should be clear about the moral implications for any person who chooses to have an abortion. But the reality of most people's moral reasoning is that for them the issue becomes clouded in cases of failed birth-control, even more murky in cases of date rape, rape, or incestuous sexual abuse, and finally becomes very troubling indeed when medical science reveals that certain children will be born with severe congenital defects that threaten the life of the parents and the child alike.

Christians should be concerned and in a mode of ministry with people who are making this choice and who have, unfortunately, made this choice. We must be understanding when we are counselling people who are facing the grey mists of confusion that surround this choice. There are alternatives for women and families who are going to have unwanted pregnancies, adoption being the primary option. But we must avoid making the hysterical judgement (no pun intended) that any wavering or consideration of options by a woman in a difficult situation means instant eternal damnation from God. The Holy One is holy precisely because the Spirit knows the value of Mercy, Compassion, Consolation and Comfort. We must reflect that reality in our own lives. That means acknowledging that we do not always offer answers, only love and acceptance.

Being Pro-Life Means Being PRO-ALL-LIFE

The Hebrew Tradition: Blood For Blood. The basis of the high value which Christianity places upon life begins with the Hebrew tradition. It begins with the creation of human beings by God, who is said to have created them in the divine image. The Hebrew tradition contains the famous commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill", but it also bequeaths us the law of blood and retribution (Genesis 9:5-6). According to the Hebrew scriptural Law, a shocking number of moral and civil crimes, but especially murder, are to be penalized with the death penalty, with blood for blood. Therefore, although the divine image is the justification for valuing all life, it values life in such a way that when blood is shed, more blood must be shed in return as a "reckoning". The problem with this tradition which is bequeathed to us from the "Judeo-" half of the Judeo-Christian value system is identified by Ghandi in a most memorable phrase: "an eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind." Surely the prophetic tradition recognized a truth similar to this. The true notion which comes out the Hebrew tradition is that which Jesus says at the moment of his being taken away: "whoever lives by the sword dies by the sword".

Christ Changes Everything. Christ is the fulfillment of the Law for Christians, and his way changes everything and adds a new mode for understanding the high value which Christians place on life. Christ is given to humanity because "for God so loved the world" (John 3:16) that he wants to save all human beings, regardless of their moral or social value. Jesus, himself a victim of the death penalty, refuses to allow the death penalty to be given to a woman caught in Adultery, on the grounds that human beings do not have the moral holiness necessary to justify their application of that supreme penalty (John 8:1-11). This recalls God's protection of Cain, God's promise to Noah never again to destroy the earth for its violence, and the mercy God showed to the Israelites in their exile.

Jesus, at the moment of his being turned over to the authorities, to executed quite without Justice, refuses to allow violence to be used to protect himself (Matthew 26:51-54). In so doing he reinterprets Genesis 9:6, which in saying "whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed", seems like a commandment. In retrospect, as Jesus reinterprets it, it becomes a law of the nature of fallen humanity, not a divine Law of God. The challenge is to "put away" our swords, to avoid being caught in this vicious circle. Henceforth, humans are to follow the newly revealed will of the supreme divine God: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, DO NOT RESIST ONE WHO IS EVIL... you have heard that it was said, 'you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy'. But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5:38-39a; 43-44).

The new way of Christ forms the real foundation of the Christian respect for and valuation of life. The "-Christian" side of the Judeo-Christian system of values completely precludes ANY kind of killing of human beings FOR ANY REASON. The heritage of Jesus means, even if faced with death, we prefer to "lay down our lives for our friends" (cf. John 15:13), and our friends are every living person, even condemned murderers, even vicious enemies bent on destroying us, just as Jesus laid down his life for all the world. To live in this manner demonstrates the divine will, which forgives human sin, which sacrifices self before bringing vengeance and demanding a reckoning. As Jesus himself teaches (Matthew 9:13) the prophet said it well, when he said "I desire Mercy, not a sacrificial offering" (cf. Hosea 6:6), for mercy is sacrifice of the self, the best kind of sacrifice (Romans 12:1). The heart of the tradition, the true will of the Holy Spirit, had been covered over and hidden in the Hebrew scriptures. It was to be discovered only "between the lines", so to speak, in the dusty, forgotten corners of the best prophets, in the original spirit of Mercy hidden in the shadow of the Law. Now, if you imagine, as some people do, that God demands that we kill all murderers, I urge you to recall God's response to Cain's killing of Abel. God protected Cain. Why? Why did God protect the life and freedom of the first murderer? Becuase Mercy was present even from the beginning. Now Jesus has proclaimed it loudly.

To Be Truly Pro-Life

A consistent pro-life policy stance would involve more than simply opposing abortion. It would involve the following points, and it would understand that different means would have to be used to oppose each reality. It would understand that some things are more or less appropriately in our power to control, as a public, and that certain things are beyond our complete control, unless we are willing to betray our own cause. Things which the public bears responsibility for controlling we should oppose politically. Things which the public cannot reasonably control without restricting freedom we should oppose personally and spiritually.

A full PRO-LIFE stance would involve the following issues:

1.Actual political opposition to all offensive war, and personal opposition to absolutely all wars in principle.2.Political opposition to the death penalty, and personal opposition to murder, vengeance, vigilantism, all violence, abuse and abortion.3.Political opposition to police brutality and correctional system abuses.4.Political opposition to corporate and government desecration of the natural environment, and personal opposition to the mentality of materialism and disposability among private citizens which devalues the divinely created world's treasures.

How can we say we are pro-life and love a militaristic and imperialistic national government? How can we shoot abortion clinic doctors, and be pro-life? How can we say we are pro-life, picket abortion clinics, and not also go out to picket and speak out against the executions of murderers? How can we say we are pro-life, and not march to protest against our boys and girls being sent to die and kill in a war in a foreign land? How can we say we are pro-life, and allow nuclear bombs to be built and harbored upon our soil? How can we say we are pro-life, but look the other way when corporations dump lethal toxins in our waters, belch horrendous radiation and industrial exhaust into our air, and when the government gives away natural resources for a song to be raped and left desolate? How can we say we are pro-life, but call for crushing the spirit of the prisoners in ever more oppressive maximum security jails? How can we say we are pro-life, but oppose those simple and relatively unobtrusive measures which might keep weapons out of the hands of convicted criminals? How can we say we are pro-life when we advocate expanding intrusive police powers to search and seize, to stop and question, to listen and snoop? To kill? And how can we say we are pro-life, when we seek to use the force and violent power of the state to solve all our problems? How can we say we are pro-life if we impose our views and our faith through written codes? "For the written code kills!" (2 Corinthians 3:6). How can we say we are pro-life and be anti-choice? How can we say it? We cannot!

We can only say we are pro-life if we stand for life consistently and fully in our own being. We must believe in and practice and stand for non-violence and eliminate all hate. Love our enemies. And we must speak out and share our faith, but never use the sword of the state to impose it. For at the moment that we do so, we give up our moral high-ground, we cease being pro-life, and we become death.

When there are no more abortions, if the pro-life movement has been truly successful, it will not be because of law, but no woman will ever choose an abortion because of her personal faith. At the same time, the movement will have failed if those same pro-life women attend the public executions of the killers, terrorists, and rebels and chant with the crowd "crucify him", if they have many babies to feed the war machine of the state, or if they live a disease ridden life in a world made poorer for the destruction of its environment. All life is valuable. All life, even the lives of the killers.

Dirty Hippy Liberal Christian Home Journal -- Anti-Copyright, May, 1997 Have any comments? Please send email -- mbaldwin@midway.uchicago.edu.
__________________________________________________________


Now that you have read that, I just wanted to say one thing that I heard this anit-abortion guy say once in reply to a womans rights argument. It went something like this "I support the rights of all women, that includes unborn women". Although I would never ever lobby for abortion to become illegal, I still like that little statement


Back to My Views
Home