A Christian Liberal is NOT an oxymoron.

Posted by XT on June 11th, 2009 in Progressive Faith

Debra Haffner has it right:

Let’s stop talking about reducing the number of abortions as a goal in itself. Such talk obscures what should be our principal objective—reducing unintended pregnancies—and leads to anti-women and anti-teen measures that would place restrictions on abortion access. Let’s keep talking about reducing unintended pregnancies. This is not only the better public health position; it is a faithful and moral one as well.

It’s easy to reduce abortions – the death of Dr. George Tiller did that. If all we wanted to do was reduce the number of abortions; then all we would need to do is to ban them. That, I think, is the heart of the problem between pro- and anti-choice arguments. For the anti-choice crowd, the number of abortions being any number larger than zero is The Problem. It doesn’t matter why a woman seeks an abortion, it’s wrong and should therefore be ended.

This is why I’ve written previously that urging greater spending on sexual education, social services, and adoption as a path to reducing abortions is wrong. Those programs deserve to be defended on their own merit. Plus, if the number of abortions increases, they will be targeted for reduction because they did not achieve their desired goal. So reducing the number of abortions simply doesn’t work as a common ground goal.

Debra’s position is both simply and eloquently stated: “The sanctity of human life is best upheld when we assure that it is not created carelessly.” It’s a good argument, based on deeply held conviction and moral values. But, while it is closer to the point than the previous point, I think it also misses part of the point.

The vast majority of pregnancies are not planned. In fact, if one defines a pregnancy as fertilization (which the anti-choice crowd does); then we don’t even know about the vast majority of pregnancies. A lifetime of careful sex can be overbalanced by one moment of protection failing. I don’t think it’s realistic to aim for a time when all pregnancies are “not created carelessly.” Honestly, I think we would have reached that point by now, pregnancy and child-rearing being such a heavy consequence.

I, obviously, agree that we should make it possible for women to have control of their bodies. I’m simply arguing that we shouldn’t overstate the case.

There are, also, some abortions that should not be targeted for reduction. Brad Hirschfield explains the concept of “rodef” as it pertains to Rabbinical determinations, and I’ll single out the horrible condition of Tay-Sachs. But there are any number of other medical reasons why even a very badly wanted pregnancy would need to be terminated. In fact, it can be argued that allowing a pregnancy to continue, in some case, is, in effect, a cruel form of child abuse and threatens the health and life of women. There is no form of punishment more cruel and unusual than being trapped in a body and sentenced to a lifetime of torment simply for having drawn a first breath.

It doesn’t matter if those abortions for medical reasons are a small minority of abortions or not. What matters is that one side says they are simply part of the problem and shouldn’t happen and the other side believes that is unconscionable. There really is no middle ground to be had. And I don’t see it coming around any time soon.

Technorati Tags: Debra Haffner, George Tiller

Sphere: Related Content