This is not a simple issue with a simple solution. So there's no way a single blog post can possibly articulate the complexity of this issue. So, now that I've stated how inadequate this will be, I'll start!
First of all, let's stop pigeon holing those we disagree with, I've never met someone who was anti-life or someone who was anti-choice but the labels each side has chosen for themselves has been deliberately used to demonize the other side. This dehumanizing of the other side must stop!
When Pat Robertson said he thought the Alabama abortion bill went too far I was taken aback. I thought he believed that all life was sacred. If all life is sacred and begins at conception, then the only logically consistent position is that abortion is morally wrong under every circumstance. The manner in which the child was conceived is irrelevant to the question of the value of that unborn child's life. Robertson’s statement reflects what I see as the inherent problem faced by those who seek to legislate their moral code, they are compromising what they believe in order to get as much legal protection for their position as they can.
If the goal of the pro-life movement is to see an end to abortions then I believe it is time for them to rethink their strategy. No law has ever prevented crime, law simply criminalizes certain behavior. We have laws against killing, but people still kill; we have laws against theft, but people still steal. If laws are put in place that prohibit abortion it won't end abortion. There was abortion before Roe vs. Wade and there will still be abortion even if Roe vs. Wade is overturned. If the pro-life movement wants to see abortion end then it is the battle for the hearts and minds of the people that must be won, not a legislative battle that posits one side against another.
If you want to see how this works look at the seat belt laws. When I was a kid I loved riding in the back of the car, my brother, sister and I would bounce around the back seat, sometimes we'd climb up on the ledge under the rear window and when we road in a hatchback we'd beg to ride in the trunk. This was considered normal in the 1970s even though the British public service announcement on seat belt safety had started in the summer of 1970. There was almost 15 years of solid work to change people's minds on this issue before a law was passed requiring the wearing of a seat belt in the front and it wasn't until 1991 that wearing a seat belt in the back was required. The change in society began with a campaign focused on the hearts and minds of the people. Almost fifty years on we still see roadside signs reminding us that we need to buckle up. Today, most of us who grew up without wearing a seat belt feel a sense of moral outrage when we see someone without one.
A number of years ago I attended a conference in Washington DC. There was panel discussion featuring Jim Wallis, Anne Lamott, and Father Richard Rohr, E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post was the moderator. During the Q&A session someone from the audience asked a question on abortion which Rohr answered with an affirmation of his pro-life position and Anne Lamott responded with, "No is going to f@&%&* tell me what to do with my uterus!" The tension was palpable, Jim Wallis stepped into the middle of it by suggesting that we would all like to see an environment where abortion was no longer necessary and in which life could thrive, in the meantime he invoked the Clinton idea that it should be, "safe, legal and rare." It felt like a collective exhale as calmness filled the room. Everyone agreed we'd like to see fewer abortions.
What followed next was a brief discussion on the social changes needed to continue to see abortion rates fall. Issues of education, poverty, health care, support networks, crime, and social stigmatization were among the many factors discussed. Any claim to be pro-life has to be based on being for life in every aspect of providing dignity to humanity.
I fear that many Christians who claim to be pro-life and are primarily fighting for legislative change are hurting the witness of the church to Jesus Christ. Instead of publicly loving the people they say they want to help they are, in fact, alienating them, pushing them away from the church and oftentimes Jesus too. They have lost sight of the primary calling of Jesus to "seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness." They may not see it this way, it may not be their intention, but to the outsider, the non-Christian, the post-Christian, they are seen to be preaching law and not offering grace. If you don't believe me just take a look at social media or talk to someone who is radically pro-choice.
My suggestion is that if we really want to see the number of abortions drop we stop the legislative fight for the foreseeable future and work harder to come alongside the people who are seeking abortions offering them support, counselling, financial help, providing affordable health care, covering daycare costs so they can go to school or work. In other words changing the broken systems that lead people to feel they have to have an abortion in the first place.
Let's make sure we don't diminish the humanity of the person seeking an abortion any more than we don't want to diminish the value of the life they carry.
This story from the Washington Post puts it well, I got Pregnant. I chose to keep my baby. And my Christian school humiliated me.
