A Christian Liberal is NOT an oxymoron.

Posted by XT on August 22nd, 2008 in Progressive Faith

I have to take exception to Jim Wallis’ response to his readers:

Support for women caught up in difficult situations and tragic choices is a better path than coercion for really reducing the abortion rate. Yes, I agree there is never a “need” for abortion except in the case where the health of the mother is threatened. But until we can reach out to women who “feel” the need for abortion and support them in alternative choices, we will never change the shameful abortion rate that both sides seem content to live with while they just attack each other. It is time to move from symbols to solutions.

The emphasis is mine. Given my personal experience, it’s difficult for me not to shoot of something snarky like, “There are more things, Jim, than are thought of in your philosophy.” But the bolded part of the statement is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard in my life.

Twice while she was pregnant with our twins, my wife came close to losing them. Each time the cause was a sibling (they began as quadruplets) that was in distress. One was early enough in the pregnancy that it was little more than a sac of fluid – but it was far enough along for us to grieve after a hurried visit to a hospital where we spent eight hours in the emergency room. The second time was further along, and was a planned reduction based on statistical analysis, cellular activity, and the stress measurments of the uterine wall.

Our choice was simple, we could abort one of the three remaining fetuses and have a good chance at having two healthy babies or we could ignore our responsibility as parents and face the birth of three babies prior to viability.

No “need”? It was the health of the children that created a need, Jim. The rest of the pregnancy didn’t go easily, by the way. One of the twins began leaking fluid at about twenty-five weeks. For some reason, the healthy twin moved in the uterus and literally held his brother up with his tiny little body. The doctor was amazed. My wife went back on complete bedrest and we managed to get them to the thirtieth week before they were born. We were incredibly fortunate that the only problem they had was that they were small.

Is our case a minority example? Absolutely. Is it unique? Absolutely not. But my wife and I prayed over it, talked over it, and cried over it. It is, and was, fully our decision and no one on earth has the right to insert themselves into that consideration without our invitation. No one.

If one considers a fetus to be a complete and whole person, that’s fine. But if you give a parent the choice between losing both children or saving one, they are going to save one every time. Anyone who can’t make that decision has no business having children. Your kids are in a car wreck. One has a damaged heart that will kill him and the other has a traumatic brain injury that will kill him – do you opt for a heart transplant and save the one? It’s exactly that kind of choice.

This is the problem I have with the move to moderate to some new position on abortion: Too often the position is determined by some well-meaning twerp who has no medical expertise and no personal experience in dealing with the issue. It’s all academic. So they can real off lines like “there is no real need for abortion except in cases of the health of the mother”. Nothing in their lives has challenged that understanding. All I can say is that you’re damned lucky to be in that position. Get on your knees and thank God – and in the process, get off of your feet and stop preaching to me about how morally superior your position is.

I don’t support welfare because it will encourage more women to not have abortions – that seems kind of mean-spirited to me. I support welfare because it is the right thing to do. Morally. Ethically. Regardless of what goes in or out of a woman’s pu-nay-nay, she has the right to have to life – and that includes a modest welfare payment to make sure she doesn’t starve or die of exposure (or resort to being a prostitute).

Age-appropriate sex-education (which will be attacked by the hard right regardless of its content or reason) is a good idea regardless of whether it reduces the abortion rate or not. People have a right to know how their body operates, even if their parents are afraid of what go in or out of their daughter’s pu-nay-nay. Contraceptives are a good idea because we simply can’t live in a world where every married couple has thirteen kids. Abortion is tangential.

I’m willing to give some wiggle-room on wording because I recognize that some people need to get the warm-fuzzies on this issue to go along. That’s fine. But don’t insult my intelligence, Jim.

And don’t ever – ever – tell me that saving my kids’ lives was not a “need”.

Sphere: Related Content