Abortion, along with gay marriage, has been the foundation of the "religious right's" efforts. These are the two non-negotiables, or at least that's been the sentiment of late.
Garry Wills suggests in an
LA Times op-ed piece that the equation of abortion and religion isn't really relevant. Pointing out that no where in the Bible is abortion discussed, nor is it an issue found in any of the creeds, he asks the question about the theological basis for the opposition (or support for) of abortion.
Instead of being a matter of theology, he suggests -- following Thomas Aquinas -- that it is a matter of natural law, and matters of natural law are to be decided not by Popes or theologians, but by philosphers and scientists.
If we are to decide the matter of abortion by natural law, that means we must turn to reason and science, the realm of Enlightened religion. But that is just what evangelicals want to avoid. Who are the relevant experts here? They are philosophers, neurobiologists, embryologists. Evangelicals want to exclude them because most give answers they do not want to hear. The experts have only secular expertise, not religious conviction. They, admittedly, do not give one answer -- they differ among themselves, they are tentative, they qualify. They do not have the certitude that the religious right accepts as the sign of truth.
So evangelicals take shortcuts. They pin everything on being pro-life. But one cannot be indiscriminately pro-life.
I realize that abortion is a difficult issue for the church to deal with. It is wrapped up in a lot of other stuff -- including our understandings of sex and the nature of human life. Will makes a distinction that is helpful between life and personhood. In a sense semen is human life and so is hair, so what we're talking about is personhood, and science suggests that the brain begins to develop at about the 6th month, which is essentially the point of viability of the fetus. And interestingly, 99% of abortions take place prior to this point (end of 2nd trimester).
So, who ultimately is best able to make the decision about abortion? Wills writes:
Given these uncertainties, who is to make the individual decision to have an abortion? Religious leaders? They have no special authority in the matter, which is not subject to theological norms or guidance. The state? Its authority is given by the people it represents, and the people are divided on this. Doctors? They too differ. The woman is the one closest to the decision. Under Roe vs. Wade, no woman is forced to have an abortion. But those who have decided to have one are able to.
I do believe that he is right. It is never an easy decision and I think for most American women it is never taken lightly. Unlike some other countries, it is not generally used as "contraception." It is a response to a difficult situation -- and for many women who choose this it is an economic issue. They simply cannot afford to keep the baby. Natural law requires the use of natural reason -- perhaps we'd all be better off if we used a bit of it!
Comments
I knew that such wisdom from George Will was just too good to be true.
I can't believe I did that! Thanks for pointing this out. Sometimes George Will says things that I totally agree with and for some reason as I read the essay (without a picture obviously) my eyes went batty. It is now corrected!
The abortion issue is very complicated, and I find myself caught in the middle as a prolife feminist who wishes to see abortion rates decrease through empowerment of women and comprehensive sex education rather than criminalization. Many women find abortion a very painful experience and not a free choice at all, but one dictated by poverty (women and their children make up the vast majority of the poor), stigma in the church against single motherhood by the same folks trying to outlaw abortion, or coercion/heavy pressure from male partners wishing to avoid child support, or parents in the case of some younger women.
You are right that those who only care about preborn life--and certainly those few who engage in heinous violence against abortion providers or clinics--don't deserve the term prolife (just as IMHO those who ignore the above factors and don't try to ensure that no woman has an abortion she doesn't truly want are not fully pro-choice). But there are also consistent and feminist prolifers out here who oppose war, the death penalty, poverty, etc. We value women's lives as well as those of developing babies. And we are concerned that some prochoice people are so committed to the view that abortion empowers women that they downgrade fetal life, even in mid and late pregnancy, and dismiss the grief of the many women who regret their abortions and consider their lost babies to be real and valuable, just as I cherish the child I lost to miscarriage. The majority of prolife activists at both leadership and rank and file level are women, who sometimes feel that mainstream feminists don't honor the place of motherhood in ther lives, and we need a lot more dialogue between people of good will. There are also some misconceptions about fetal development circulating--for instance, brainwaves are actually detectable at eight weeks, not six months, and by the end of the first trimester the fetus is tiny but quite recognizable--by no means a mass of tissue or "blob" (as the inconsiderate ultrasound tech called the child I was bleeding out).
Hope this isn't too long--this stuff is really important to me and I am always looking to get more dialogue going. I need to post more on it at my place, but am trying to be really careful not to get polarized on the politics, and especially not to make any woman who has chosen to end a pregnancy feel judged, cause I love and respect women who have made all kinds of choices in that regard. Thanks for listening!