Tag: abortion

In 2019, eight states have passed new restrictive abortion laws, most notoriously Georgia and Alabama. Alabama’s law would, if allowed to go into effect, ban nearly all abortions, with no exceptions for rape, incest, or mother’s health. Women are legitimately outraged, and I’m wondering how in the 46 years  since January 22, 1973, we’ve not just come full circle but gone to a point way beyond the way things were before 1973. Never do I recall women facing possible criminal charges for miscarriages or doctors being sentenced to life prison terms for performing abortions. Never did I hear of a case in which a 12-year-old girl was forced to bear her rapist’s child. How did we get here, and why, given 46 years to figure this out and come to some agreement as a nation, are we even more deeply divided now than we were a half-century ago? Possibly the most deeply divided our nation has ever been on any issue?

The answers to those questions are more complex than can be covered here, but I’d like to propose that one of the main problems is our inability to have any real conversation, especially on topics as fraught with emotion and tension as the subject of abortion is. I strongly dislike the false equivalence arguments–the “both-sides-are-equally-guilty”–because that’s rarely the case; and “Well, everybody does it” never moves any debate closer to resolution. On this subject, however–the subject of having an intelligent, unemotional conversation in which everyone listens with respect to the other side’s point of view and gives a thoughtful response–it’s been my experience that virtually no one has done that, especially not on abortion.

I’m going to begin with a confession: I have wrestled mightily with this subject. I do understand desperation, poverty, life passion, and goals to pursue which might have to be put on hold while raising a child. I understand feeling overwhelmed by life, and I really understand resistance to being forced into doing something I didn’t choose. Yet the thought of tampering with a human life at any stage makes me nauseous. There, I said it, but don’t slap a label on my forehead just yet.

It also makes me nauseous to think of a 12-year-old girl being forced to endure pregnancy and the pain and fear of childbirth, along with the bodily changes resulting from that experience. Those of us who welcomed having babies and raising those babies into our favorite adults have accepted that having a slightly less sleek body, in which the internal parts may have been somewhat rearranged, is one of the prices required of us. We’d pay that price a thousand times over for what we’ve gained in return: the lifelong love of some amazing humans who call us “Mama” and “Mimi.” However, to impose that bodily harm on a 12-year-old whose own body is not finished developing and whose pregnancy resulted from violence, not love, should in itself be criminal.

Any law which makes no exceptions for rape, incest, and threat to the mother’s life is unconscionable. While I believe life is precious and sacred at any stage in its development, common sense must be applied to every situation; nothing in the world is black and white. Humans are always called upon to choose among shades of gray; having the intellectual ability to reason and make fine distinctions is what separates us from other species. It’s what makes us human.

As one who has wrestled with my feelings about abortion on demand (always allowing for the exceptions mentioned above), a couple of things have troubled me. One is the lack of real conversation, which I mentioned above. The other is framing abortion as a religious issue, which I believe has been one of the main contributors to the shutting down of reasonable conversation. In fact, in my mind, the worst thing that has happened to this long-running debate is making it a religious issue. Religions are based on faith, on certain accepted precepts which do not require defense and which in most cases can’t be logically defended. Abortion is not one of those precepts. Abortion does demand logical explanations from all who have opinions about it.

I find nothing in the Bible about abortion, and as far as I know, none of the other major religious texts address the subject either. The closest thing I’ve found is a few passages in the Old Testament which discuss harming or killing a pregnant woman and which treat the resulting harm to her unborn child as a separate issue. But those passages are part of Jewish law, not divine proclamation (if there is such a thing), so I don’t think they count.

One does not have to ascribe to any religious belief to live according to a moral code; in fact, many non-religious people are deeply moral. Abortion is a moral question and a community-values question, not a religious one. Framing it as a religious issue has only perpetuated the division and shut down any attempt at reasonable conversation. Those who favor no restrictions on abortion can simply dismiss those who might feel squeamish about it as religious fanatics who are trying to turn our country into a theocracy. And those who question the morality of certain types of abortion can ignore those “baby killers” as too horrid to sit at the table with.

My own church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), has an official position on abortion, as do many other churches. That doesn’t make it a religious issue; it makes it a social and community-values issue on which moral agencies take positions, because they are part of the social order. Morality, ethics, values, and religion overlap but are distinct disciplines which should be recognized as such. The Bible speaks about and sets forth rules regarding theft, lying, and murder, and it seems the Quran prescribes even more strident penalties for those actions; but I believe our civil laws would forbid these things with or without the religious mandates. These are actions which are governed by generally agreed-upon community values. Adultery is also forbidden in religious texts and is technically illegal in most states (try enforcing that!), but I believe those civil laws rose from individual morals and community values, not from religious prohibitions. Is it possible that the religious prohibitions grew out of those community values, rather than vice versa?

Any relationship, as all adults have learned, requires patience, understanding, and respect to survive and to resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise from trying to live in tandem with another human: spouse, child, parent, co-worker, or whoever. And every adult has learned, either by experience or by observation, that shouting matches, throwing objects, slamming doors, eye rolling, ridiculing the other person, and disrespecting everything the other person says do not resolve anything; such tactics only exacerbate problems.

Yet little if any of that knowledge has been brought to bear on our relationship with our fellow citizens and the need for us to form some consensus on abortion. Instead, on the one side, you have a group that quotes irrelevant scriptures, waves their Bibles, accuses desperate people of murder, and advocates punishments which have now found their way into law–with no exceptions for those situations which seem obviously should be excepted. On the other side, you have a group whose whole case is based on slogans and whataboutery and who view the other side as religious fanatics unworthy of their respect or their time. We don’t listen; we shout. We don’t reason; we chant slogans. We don’t confront; we deflect with “but what about these people?”

Is it too late for us to start that conversation? Is it too late for us to start listening to each other and directly responding to the other side’s questions instead of shouting, hurling insults, and disregarding genuine concerns? I hope not.

Let’s all sit down at the table, shall we? Although the terms pro-life and pro-choice may not be the most accurate, they are the most widely recognized, so let’s use them. Pro-life people, you’re on one side of the table; and pro-choice people, you’re on the other side. Take a moment to really look at each other, to acknowledge that the people who sit across from you (who in real life are your family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers) are people just like you who are trying their best to make sense out of a chaotic world, who genuinely want to live good, decent lives and who want their world to be governed by laws rooted in morality and respect for the welfare of all. See if you can find just a little understanding in your heart for the conclusions they have come to, conclusions which are very different from your own but no less sincere or well-intentioned.

Pro-life people, you are accused of hating women, of wanting to control women’s bodies and to strip them of their autonomy. That’s a legitimate point. Can you just for a moment acknowledge its legitimacy? How do you respond? You are also accused of caring more about embryonic and fetal humans than you care about humans being shot in schools, humans locked in cages, humans who desperately seek refuge and asylum in our country, and humans in the foster-care system. All legit. How do you defend your positions?

Pro-choice people, you are accused of killing babies, of failing to recognize the sanctity of life. Those are legitimate concerns. Can you just try to understand why others feel that way, why they have qualms about tampering with a developing life? How do you respond? Can you acknowledge the fact that we’re talking about a human life, not a gall bladder, and then frame a coherent argument which explains why certain circumstances warrant terminating a life– an actual argument which doesn’t rely on slogans, catch phrases, and whataboutery?

Here are a few things you might want to consider as you prepare your counterarguments.

First, contrary to what many believe, Roe v. Wade did not give unrestricted right to abortion, except during the first trimester. During the second trimester, abortions were to be limited only to pregnancies which posed a risk to the mother’s health. And abortions were not allowed during the third trimester, because at that point, a fetus is viable. So apparently the high court did give consideration to the questions of life and personhood and included those concepts in their ruling, yet the loudest supporters of that decision rarely mention these three different levels of legality. What do you think, pro-choicers? Have you gone too far? Have you gotten too casual, too cavalier about letting women do whatever they want with their bodies, with no regard at all for the other body in temporary residence?

Here is the Primary Holding which begins the text of the Roe v Wade decision:

“A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception.”

Those who claim to champion Roe v Wade might want to read this, because all I’ve been reading lately is a lot of angry (often justifiably) women who reject any talk of restrictions, who make blanket statements about women’s right to autonomy and reproductive freedom and ignore any recognition of the point at which a fetus reaches personhood and is entitled to its own protection under the law. They talk as if it’s a gall bladder being removed, not an embryo or fetus with its own DNA, connected to the mother only by the umbilical life-support system. I hesitate to make this comparison, but since I’m already out here in the deep end, what the hell? This is a little bit like the people who read the end of the second amendment and skip over the first part, the part that places restrictions on the second part.

As for pro-life people showing greater concern for the unborn than for other suffering people and for giving the rights and welfare of the unborn a higher ranking in their legislative agendas than they give foster children, school children, immigrant children, and others, hey pro-lifers, why aren’t you responding? These claims are true. You’re guilty. You carry your placards demanding protection for the unborn, but any mention of legislation to curtail gun violence is met with a collective “Meh.” Why are you not even attempting to demonstrate that we as a nation can in fact walk and chew gum at the same time: we can address a whole spectrum of social issues, of which abortion is only one? If we really believe that all lives matter, why can’t we intelligently address the abortion problem at the same time we strive toward justice for other groups?

And pro-choice people, although you’re right to point out the inconsistency and hypocrisy of those seeking greater protection for the unborn while shrugging off protections for children and adults who are already living, that can’t be your entire argument, because it’s not an argument. We need to hear you explain your justification for terminating a life. I’m not saying you don’t have good reasons; I’m just saying I’d like to hear them more clearly stated and knock it off already with the whatabouts.

It seems the greatest source of controversy is abortion after the first trimester, for understandable reasons. My second grandchild was delivered by emergency C-section at between 35 and 36 weeks, a full month early. His lungs still needed a little time to develop, but he was healthy and whole; and I can tell you that at age 11, there’s nothing wrong with that boy’s lungs or any other part of him. He’s a smart, healthy, thriving, loving fifth grader. Everyone knows someone who was born prematurely who lived a long, healthy life, so why should it surprise anyone when some people are resistant to the idea of “late-term” abortion? Really! Pro-choice people, you don’t get that? That makes no sense to you?

When announcements are made, as has recently happened regarding New York and Virginia, that a state has legalized late-term abortions or lessened restrictions on those procedures, many are aghast. Come on, pro-choicers, you didn’t kind of see that response coming? Most such initial pronouncements include few details, so hearers are left to their own imaginations. Is it really surprising that some may fear this means a woman can change her mind a week before the due date? You didn’t say. You didn’t qualify the announcement with the details that such abortions are limited to pregnancies which would end in the severe deformity of the child or in the death of the mother, the child, or both. I have read accounts by mothers who made the painful, agonizing choice to terminate their pregnancies when they were told that the baby was in distress and would either not survive, would die soon after birth, or would be so severely deformed as to preclude any quality of life. My heart goes out to those women, and I support their decisions; yet I’ll admit I’d like to get more of this kind of information up front when people talk about late-term abortion.

Arguments which pit restrictions on women’s rights against the lack of restrictions on men’s rights, and which claim that only women are the subjects of laws which restrict what they are allowed to do with their bodies, ignore certain facts. There are many laws which restrict what all of us are allowed to do with our own bodies. There’s a whole list of controlled substances which neither I nor my male friends can legally take into our bodies–or even into our suitcases. In 49 states, prostitution is illegal, and I’m assuming those laws apply equally to men and women, restricting their right to make a living using their own bodies. In 21 states, adultery is illegal. Never mind the obvious futility of enforcing such codes, those states are telling men and women what they can’t do with their bodies. Necrophilia (sex with a dead person) is legal in eight states, making it illegal in 42 states. Putting aside the question of how widespread a problem must be to actually have to make laws about it, 42 states do tell both men and women that necrophilia is something they are not allowed to do with their own bodies. A handful of states do not make sex with animals illegal, but most states do, adding that to the list of things people can’t do with their own bodies. The expression “victimless crime” applies to all laws which attempt to restrict what individuals can or cannot do when the action affects only themselves or another person who participates consensually.

We don’t live in the Dark Ages. We have technology which has removed all mystery surrounding what goes on in the uterus. A pregnant woman can visit hundreds of websites which show her exactly what her little peanut looks like and is doing on any given day during the forty weeks of gestation. With knowledge comes responsibility. Biological life begins at conception. We can see that. I had an ultrasound in the eighth week of pregnancy with my daughter. If I hadn’t known what I was looking at on the screen, I’d have thought it was a tiny, fuzzy video of a newborn baby. This knowledge raises understandable concerns, and somebody needs to calmly sort it all out and bring to the table some reasonable arguments by which we can set guidelines. Shouting, slamming doors, name calling, eye rolling, and ridicule aren’t working.

So the next time someone makes a statement about abortion which conflicts with your opinions, before you roll your eyes, make disgusted sounds, and begin hurling insults at the speaker, try saying this instead: “Can you tell me more about why you feel that way?” Then after listening carefully and objectively to the response, try saying this: “Yes, I hear you and I understand why that would upset you. Do you mind if I give you a different perspective?”

We need to talk. Oh, I know there are some who will never have a reasonable conversation. Some are so stuck on this being a religious thing or a Republican thing that they’re incapable of logical thought. Some are so stuck in their perception of a War on Women that they’ll never listen to anything else. But I have to believe there are still enough people out there who, like me, truly seek to understand, to hear other points of view, and to find consensus that they will have a conversation if only someone will initiate it. Hey, Americans on all sides of the abortion debate, what we’ve been doing isn’t working. Let’s try something different.