Friday, October 28, 2011

The argument matters

I recently wrote a post about abortion, and since then I have been considering the stereotypical pro-life voice and why it makes me want to fight against it even when I think we agree that part of our well-wishes for the world include the wish that that there weren't abortions.  I have realized that, oddly enough, it is the way that logic is used to support the pro-life cause that is one of the biggest reasons that I felt like I couldn't support it.  I'll give you some examples that you almost undoubtedly have heard before.

"Life begins at conception."
This is certainly a valid viewpoint.  Certainly we can all recognize that a human life begins somewhere.  It is the use of the Bible to back this assumption that bothers me.  I don't think that there is any verse in the Bible to back this up.  I once had a person tell me that "God told us that He knit us together in the womb", and this was part of his/her rationale for the biblical support of a fetus being a human being.  From what I can tell, there are a few errors in that logic.  First, the verse in the Bible that he/she was referring to was Psalm 139:13 where the psalmist (David, in this case) told God, "For your created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."  So, this is not God speaking, but David.  Of course, if one believes that what David was saying was inspired, inerrant truth from God, then the point still stands.  (However, I request that you read Psalm 139:21-22 and ask if the same logic can be used to say that God wants us to hate our enemies.)  Regardless of whether this was God's inspiration or simply David's poetic devotion to God, this verse says absolutely nothing about when God starts knitting us. It is still an unjustified claim that it is at conception when this process begins.

"Abortion is MURDER!!!"
This is of course assuming the first point, that life begins at conception (or at least by the time you realize you're pregnant.)  Of course, I'm not going to bother with discussing the point that murder is wrong.  However, I think that the question, "What is murder?" has been left unanswered or is incomplete, and this is fundamental here.  I think that the Christians saying this would probably answer that murder is the killing of an (innocent) human being.  (Tell me if I'm wrong!)  I add innocent because the pro-life camp generally tends to be for capital punishment (justified by the Old Testament stonings, or at least that was how I justified it in my past).  From what the Bible relates to us, God told Israel to go into nations and kill all men, women (including the pregnant ones), and children (including infants).  I think that infants are generally considered fairly innocent, so is God now commanding Israel to commit murder?   What about soldiers killing civilians (again including pregnant women and infants) in wars?  By supporting any war, are we supporting murder?  Perhaps at this point we redefine murder to be illegal killing or killing with malice aforethought, but then we've now defined murder to not include most abortions.  I suppose there is an occasional women who has malice aforethought when having an abortion, but as far as I know, most are just scared and concerned about the implications of bringing a baby into the world.

"If you believe in legalized abortion, you are going against God/are not Christian/are for murder/etc!"
I personally have never had anybody explain to me why followers of Jesus are required by the Bible to push for their own morals to become state/federal law.  I mean, I think we are all glad that we don't have some laws about morality so that we can stand together as a nation in the support of people not shooting people and not stealing others' possessions.  However, I have not yet heard, or found for myself, biblical justification for being mandated to regulate people at all (especially those outside of the Christian church).  Feel free to point me to a verse if you think that it provides the mandate to regulate.

It is funny for me to write this post since I have actually proclaimed all of these italicized things with righteous certainty at some point in my life.  I knew I was right and that I had God on my side, and it was a powerful feeling.  It was also really nice to feel like I could have all of the answers.  Doubt and ambiguity lead to some serious wrestling, and it's not always easy.

I write this post mostly to those of you who feel like I do: Concerned about women, concerned about babies, but also put-off by the pro-life arguments including the ones I listed, and many others, that we hear over and over.  I am personally worried that these arguments that we hear are doing damage as they frustrate people and damage the credibility of a legitimate cause.  For what it's worth, I personally feel like abortion, like miscarriage, is not the way God wishes for a pregnancy to be ended.  I believe that regulation for abortions should be on the political table; however, I think it is equally important to consider the underlying causes of these abortions so that we can serve women in a way that prevents unwanted pregnancies and supports and enables women once they become pregnant.  In the end, I can't find a verse in the Bible that tells us not to have abortions, and I certainly can't find a verse that tells us that we have to regulate abortion.  It is through various teachings about love, life, and helping those around us that in my heart I reach my conclusions about abortion.  It's subjective, but most of the decisions we make in life really are.  I'm doing my best.

Last night I stumbled upon this website, and I read a bunch of what they have on their website.  Gosh, I love that they make it clear that their genuine interest is in respecting and valuing women as well as babies.  Their target group is college-aged women since apparently that is a the group in which about half of US abortions occur, and I was filled with joy when their methods to help prevent these abortions was to empower women to be able to have their child and stay in school.  They also graciously acknowledge that most women really don't want to have an abortion, but the women also don't want to drop out of college, and women tend to think one or the other needs to happen.  It just thrills me that this organization works to help people in a way that does not condemn or judge them but rather gives women a new perspective about their worth and their ability to raise a child and not spend the rest of their lives in poverty.

4 comments:

Kenny said...

The Feminists For Life site is quite interesting, although I wish they were more vocal in their promotion of contraception. I think that one thing a lot of people on both sides of the abortion issue can agree upon is that fewer unwanted pregnancies are better.

That said, I am a little irked when sites go into great length and detail about the complications involved in abortions, then say nothing about the incredible complications that birth can cause.

Karen said...

From what I've read, it sounds like they focus on supporting already pregnant women simply because campuses generally had no system in place to do so. (Whereas contraception/birth control is fairly widely available.) In fact, I just searched their FAQs and found this:
What is your position on birth control?
Feminists for Life advocates practical resources and support to address the unmet needs of pregnant women and parents. Preconception issues are outside FFL’s mission. Feminists for Life members and supporters hold a broad spectrum of opinions regarding preconception issues, and FFL welcomes anyone committed to working alongside us in our shared mission.

I looked for a page where it discusses complications in great length and detail, and I couldn't find it... Link? Why do you think that they should provide information about complications from childbirth? Personally, I feel like the ethics are very questionable when a person weighs the general risks of abortion vs childbirth as part of a person's decision. I don't mean ones that the doctor is concerned about for a specific woman's case, but the ones that all women face when delivering a baby. FFL seems to be under the assumption that once pregnant, it's a baby. As such, it seems like we shouldn't consider ending the life of a person simply because their life might possibly lead to complications in another's life? I mean, for example, small children can get under your feet and may cause you to trip and seriously injure yourself, but we don't give parents of toddlers a choice to kill their toddler so that they don't have the risk of sustaining that injury.

Kenny said...

Well, I think that it is true that contraception use is a more effective method of preventing abortions than even outlawing them (I could be wrong about this, but I know that contraception use reduces abortion rates), so I have to question the real motives of any anti-abortion group that doesn't promote contraceptives.

In my search for their contraception opinion I wandered to a link on pregnancy centers, then decided to see what it said about abortion, and found myself here: http://www.optionline.org/questions/considering-abortion/

Suppose you were a website trying to help people make a decision about whether or not to wear a bike helmet when motorcycling. And suppose you listed all sorts of cases when the helmet didn't help, or when someone got hurt by their helmet. But you completely didn't talk about the times when a helmet saved someone's life. Would you be a good help in making that decision?

Karen said...

Yeah, I don't know. Maybe they don't want to ostracize anybody based on beliefs about contraception? I am just guessing that they are spending all their energy on the one purpose of supporting already pregnant women. *shrugs* If you start a similar operation, you can run it differently. :) Based on what I've read, I think they really do want to help people, though.

Oh, so you are upset about Option Line's discussion about abortion risks but not childbirth's risks. It sounds like they list those risks because women expressed regret about not knowing them before having an abortion. If women complained about not knowing about risks of childbirth, perhaps they'd put that up too. I don't know. However, I think that doctors are likely to tell women about risks and complications of childbirth (perhaps too much so, since this can be a good way for them to make money), whereas abortion clinics are known for not giving women all of the negative information about abortions (in this case, telling women about complications loses them money).

I'm not quite sure how your helmet analogy applies. Wearing a helmet isn't particularly comparable to aborting a baby, in my opinion. Additionally, as mentioned, doctors are likely to tell a woman if they are concerned about her life. In our country, death from childbirth is rare. Other complications are more common, but I'm thinking that these sites simply don't encourage considering the (nonlethal) issues of the body over a baby's life. Does knowing that you might have some tearing while giving birth really help you make a good decision about whether or not to abort the baby?

That being said, perhaps we agree that it is sort of odd that any pro-life group uses the risks of abortion as an argument against abortion. You're right, there are risks to the woman both ways, and I think that scaring people away from abortion won't help them make a good choice about how to care for their baby. Even adoption has serious emotional risks. Once pregnant, all options include risks.

That all being said, I'm kind of a fan of making any potential risks clear for any medical circumstance. I think that abortion clinics should be required to give women information about the short and long term risks to abortion. Likewise, during prenatal care doctors should be informing women about risks and helping them to take steps to avoid them.

Post a Comment

 

Blog Template by BloggerCandy.com