skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This blog series was inspired by the news Alabama just enacted a law that would prohibit abortion almost completely.
It is not surprising this comes from Alabama, or that other southern states are competing to see who can be the toughest on abortion. For many generations the Christian south had no problem going home from Church to live comfortably off the slaves they bought and sold like cattle. They were so outraged when the North wanted to free their slaves they precipitated a bitter civil war with enormous casualties. They lost the war but when the Federal government lost interest in monitoring their behavior, they replaced slavery with segregation, reincarnating the institutional subjugation of a people because of their race. Eventually segregation also got struck down by the Federal Government.
They can't seem to give up their self righteous belief they are entitled to judge and control the behavior of others. They went after Gays for awhile, and caused a lot of pain to a lot of people. Eventually they lost traction as the vast majority of Americans realized gays were people and the freedom we celebrate is fundamentally about letting folks make their own choices in life.
In this year besides Alabama, Missouri, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Georgia and Kentucky have passed or are near passing bills sharply limiting the right to abortion. Arkansas and Utah have passed bills somewhat limiting the right to abortion.
The six most stringent laws limit abortion almost from (or sometimes before) the moment the women knows she is pregnant. Those six states are , Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio.
Is it a coincidence that every one of those 6 states whose legislatures are busy passing bills limiting abortion are among the poorest states when measured by per capita income? The average per capita income in the United States comes in at about $47,000 per year. These 9 states average income ranges from $39,000 (Alabama) to $43,000 (Ohio).
21 States have set Abortion standards that are significantly below the current law that hinges on when a Fetus is viable. 15 of the 21 have incomes below the National average.
Those 21 states include 8 of the 10 most dangerous states to live in, according to Wallethub.com, a website that figures out which states are the safest places to live.
Of the 6 states with the most restrictive laws all are in the bottom 20 of the list of safe states to live in except Ohio who is 21st from the bottom
It is hard to escape the conclusion rich folks in those states don't want people thinking about what a lousy job their government does about providing decent wages, or better schools, or early childhood education - so they spend a lot of money whipping up a frenzy about evil women getting abortions.
Why would a woman would want to terminate a pregnancy?
I think it is safe to assume it is not a spur of the moment decision. Some fear is at work. It might be fear of shame. Ironically shaming is a form of coercion that often grows out of some of the same institutional religions that seek to ban abortion.
The fear may often be fear of the responsibility. Maybe the woman is having a hard time supporting herself, and does not have parents or a partner she can rely on. How will she support a child. What will another mouth, and childcare responsibilities do to her life?
Even in those cases where the abortion is simply about not being tied down by a child - what kind of life can a child born to a mother who doesn't want the child expect? How much greater is the risk forcing women to bear the child will doom that child to a life of neglect, or poverty, or drugs, or gangs? Was it just a coincidence that a generation after abortion restrictions were struck down in 1972 crime rates starting dropping?
It is understandable for a Christian motivated by the teachings of Jesus to be distressed by a woman wanting an abortion. But don't Jesus's teachings suggest the response should be about alleviating the concerns that would cause a woman to not want the child, so the woman would choose to be a mother?
The real irony is that politicians seeking to prohibit abortion are almost always hostile to social programs that might help a woman avoid pregnancy in the first place, or make a woman more comfortable with taking on the responsibility of a child. That hostility is often linked to cutting taxes. As the anti abortion movement has developed momentum in the last couple decades we have seen a simultaneous reduction in social programs aimed at assisting those with financial or emotional difficulties - to fund tax cuts. Doesn't sound like Jesus to me.
A justification for cutting government programs often offered is that religious organizations do it better than government - i.e government is incompetent. But since the 1980's when that justification became dominant, institutional religious have generally not exhibited the capability or willingness to undertake the financial obligations required.
Further, help from institutional religion almost always comes with strings attached. You buy into their view of the world or you don't get help. In essence the religions pre-judge sins and help only those whom they deem will not sin, and cast others out. More coercion. I never read a word from Jesus that suggests he approves of coercion.
Part 5 will look at the political economics of abortion.
Abortion opponents rely on the idea of the Sanctity of Life to justify taking away a woman's right to control her life.
As a country we drop bombs relatively indiscriminately in order to not put our troops at risk in war, killing and injuring civilians regularly. We spend lots of money on gear so we can hunt animals for sport. We farm animals jammed together in tiny spaces, animals with more ability to experience fear and pain than a fetus, then matter-a-factly kill them and eat them. Our most popular species of pets eat meat and are unabashed about killing smaller creatures - they are carnivores after all. Sanctity of Life is not a concern in these circumstances for most Americans. We recognize death is a part of life that may often leave us with regrets but must be accepted.
Why is a fetus so special it justifies allowing government to take control of a pregnant woman's body and life to protect the fetus? Abortion opponents often answer that humans are God's special creation because we have a soul.
1. Does a fetus have a soul?
Genesis (2:7) says that God forms man and then breathes in the breath of life. This would suggest that a fetus becomes a being separate from the mother, so gains a soul, at birth. That certainly makes sense with the physical process of birth - cutting the cord is a physical act that serves as a marker in our minds.
Nonetheless abortion opponents have taken to providing legislative definitions, in the extreme case that life as a separate being with a soul begins at conception. Suppose we accept that assumption that life begins at conception and examine the questions that raises?
2. Does an aborted fetus go to Heaven? Or Hell?
Christian belief is rooted in the notions of the afterlife - live a Godly life and you go to heaven, and a life of sin (without redemption) sends you to hell.
So if a unborn fetus has a soul, and the fetus is aborted, does that soul go to heaven or hell?
How can a fetus commit sin? So would not an aborted fetus go to heaven? If God judges the abortion as a sin, isn't the sin the mother's?
So what exactly is government intervention accomplishing? Creating an opportunity for the fetus to go to hell?
Perhaps an example of why the 10 Commandments don't say "..thou shalt not let others.."?
Part 4 will look at the ethics of abortion outside the context of religion.
I understand why many Christians push to ban abortion. That is what many institutional Christian organizations have taught for decades. Abortion is at best a tragedy. But when I turn to the words of Jesus the notion that we should give government the right to ban abortion begins to feel like it has more in common with the views of the Jewish leaders that pushed to have Jesus crucified than with the love and tolerance Jesus taught.
Here are my thoughts on a couple of questions that seem to me to be pertinent:
1. Do the 10 Commandments Justify a Government Ban on Abortion?
In the Biblical book of Leviticus Moses brought the 10 commandments to his people as a message from God. One of the 10 commandments says we should not kill another, so abortion opponents say abortion violates the 10 commandments, so we should ban abortion.
For me that interpretation does not seem consistent with the language of the Commandment. That interpretation makes the same mistake the Temple priests who pushed to have Jesus crucified made. The 10 Commandments were explicitly a message from God to each of us saying what we must do to remain in God's good graces. But the 10 Commandments don't say "..you shall not allow others..." The Commandments are not a delegation of authority to judge and punish sin.
As a parent when you make a rule for your children are you automatically delegating the authority to the kids to judge and prevent violations of your rule? To me that's an invitation to chaos. I retain the authority to judge and punish because the kids do not have the depth of understanding I have as the person who made the rule.
2. What did Jesus think about the idea central to Leviticus that we are deputized to judge the sins of others?
After Moses brought down the 10 Commandments folks started coming to Moses saying we should judge and punish this behavior, and that behavior. Moses went along.
It seems to me Jesus's entire ministry was a rejection of this idea rooted in Leviticus that God deputized us to judge and punish the sins of others. Jesus's ministry was about love, tolerance and taking care of people. He pointedly said we should not judge others, and directly debunked many of the petty rules that Leviticus imposed. He drew a distinction between laws of God that only God can judge, and laws of man that we create to define the boundaries of interpersonal relationships.
But Jesus could not say outright that Leviticus was wrong, that would have been heresy, punishable by death. So Jesus focused on being positive, preaching what we should do, and only indirectly suggesting the inherent falseness of the idea that God delegated the right to judge and punish sin to man.
That is explicit in the events described in the first four paragraphs of the 8th Chapter of John. Temple representatives set a trap for Jesus. They brought a woman who had been caught committing adultery to Jesus and asked Jesus what they should do with her. Jesus recognized the trap. Leviticus says she should be stoned to death. If Jesus said she should be treated otherwise he would be committing public heresy and subject to a death sentence.
At first Jesus just looked down and scratched around at the dirt and would not answer. I imagine trying to figure out how to deal with this trap. But the Temple folk kept insisting he answer - they were sure they had him cornered. He either had to renounce the principles of his ministry, or commit heresy.
When Jesus finally spoke he did not say Leviticus was wrong. Instead he said why Leviticus was wrong. He said the person who was without sin should cast the first stone.
Why is abortion different? Why are we authorized to pre-judge abortion as a sin and then stop it from occurring? Abortion opponents say it is about the sanctity of life. Sometimes those abortion opponents are fine with government executing criminals or killing civilians in our effort to bomb enemies. They may also be dedicated meat eaters or hunt for sport. So what is it exactly about the life of a fetus that makes it different?
Part 3 will discuss the Soul and the Sanctity of Life.
Abortion is such a divisive issue I fear it presents the gravest threat to our democracy this country has faced since slavery. Now many Conservative states are passing laws to try to eliminate abortion.
I don't believe Donald Trump, or most wealthy Republicans, really care much about abortion, or Gay rights, or even immigration one way or another. When you are wealthy it's not a part of your world. But opposition to these issues provide a tool the wealthy can use to get elected to pursue the personal and commercial interests they do care about. Gay rights is no longer an viable issue so President Trump leaned heavily on abortion and immigration to get elected.
To a much greater extent than earlier Presidents in my lifetime, President Trump is oblivious, even disdainful, of the institutions that have allowed our democracy to thrive for 250 years, and serve as an example for the rest of the world that the rule of law and democracy can thrive. It seems to me we moving toward becoming a dysfunctional and unstable democracy if we do not come to terms with this divisive issue.
I grew up a Christian and considered the ministry when I was around 14. Although I left institutional Christianity in my late teens I continued to use the teachings of Jesus as my moral compass. When I arrived in Law School in 1976 I did not even think about whether Government should ban abortion - that it was wrong was ingrained in my emotional view of the world. It was unquestionable, so government could prohibit it.
Many people in my class in law school were not of the same view. No problem for me, they were just wrong. But Constitutional law class required I read the Roe v. Wade opinion and think about the issues. It opened my mind to the fact the problem was far more complex than my simple notions from childhood Sunday School. It didn't change my view immediately but life experience and the more nuanced view of the world that goes with life experience has caused my thinking to evolve in the 33 years since law school.
This series of blogs will lay out where I am now in my thinking through a series of questions. My perception is the current media world buries quiet contemplation in an avalanche of gut instinct twitter messages and stories seeking your attention by outraging your emotions rather than inspiring your intellect. I hope to provide a framework for personal contemplation.
The following blog topics will be:
Part 2 - Since the anti-abortion movement is largely driven by Christians Part 2 will address what the Bible says, or doesn't say that seems to me to be relevant to abortion.
Part 3 will look at the justifications offered by the pro-life movement to allow the government of a country that cherishes freedom to take control of a woman's body and life away from her, and then address the pivotal religious issue of whether a fetus has a soul, a concept from biblical teaching that abortion opponents rely on to justify removing control of the woman's future from her.
Part 4 will address the broader ethics of abortion outside the ethical views of a particular religion.
Part 5 will address some curious correlations relating to abortion and the politics and economics of abortion.
I hope you will read and consider, and comment if so inspired.
