Jess: Well, this post may just be the one that finally makes us lose half of the few followers that we have. Wes and I debated writing about the Susan G. Komen/Planned Parenthood controversy and decided that this is too important to not write about, especially from our theological perspective. If you don't know what I'm talking about, here's a link. Susan G. Komen has since changed their minds, but the issues still stand.
Here's my take on it, first from the Christian perspective:
God tells us "Do not murder." Yes, we all know this is true, and some people even know that this is the fifth commandment. This seems to be the thing people bring up most frequently when defending their pro-life stance. God tells us not to kill, so we can't kill--and then we have to define what counts as a living being. I totally agree with this stance. We are called to refrain from killing. Ignoring the fact that God also commands God's people to kill those who disobey certain laws, we still run into a problem: whose life is most important?
I'll be completely honest with you. I haven't worked out my own stance on abortion yet. I know a few things:
1. I could never bring myself to get an abortion.
2. I could never judge someone else for choosing to do so.
3. I do not believe that abortion should be used as a form of birth control.
4. I think there are situations in which abortion may be necessary.
This last one is the one I think a lot of people kind of ignore when they're choosing sides in the abortion debate, and relates to the question above. Whose life is more important? If doctors know that the woman bearing this child WILL die for whatever reason, does that mean that she must forfeit her life for the sake of the unborn baby? If a woman has been raped, became pregnant as a result, and cannot afford to care for this child, does that mean she should sacrifice herself for something she had no control over? Yes, there is always the choice of adoption, but I think most people can recognize the attachment that women develop to their babies as they carry them for nine months. The point I'm making is that, like most issues, there is a gray area.
Luther has an answer to this that probably just makes the gray areas grayer, but I like it so I'm going to bring it up. In his explanation of the 5th commandment in the Small Cathecism, he says, "We are to fear and love God, so that we neither endanger or harm the lives of our neighbors, but instead help and support them in all of life's needs." There is more than "don't kill anyone" to this command. We are also called to "help and support" our neighbors in their lives. This includes when they find themselves in situations where they have to make big decisions, including those about abortion.
Mark Hall, the lead singer/songwriter of Casting Crowns, a Christian band, also addresses this issue. Their song "Does Anybody Hear Her?" developed from Hall seeing a young woman coming out of an abortion clinic, probably hurting physically and emotionally, who was basically attacked by pro-life protestors. He points out that, as Christians, we cannot with fairness step in that late in the game. We have already failed that young woman. We cannot tell her that having an abortion was wrong when we weren't there for her before she hit the downward spiral when "In walks her Prince Charming and he knows just what to say/Momentary lapse of reason and she gives herself away." Where were we when she needed an education about sex? Where were we when she was making tough decisions? Where are we now when she needs to hear, "God loves you."?
The point is that, as Christians, we should stand up for what we believe. If that's taking a pro-life stance, okay. If that's taking a pro-choice stance, okay. But we should form these opinions based on Scripture, not what someone else tells us. And we should not be forcing our Christian lives on the secular world. That's no way to lead people to faith. We should be loving God and neighbor. Only when we have done this--which, by the way, we never can, because we are broken--can we say, "What you did was wrong, and this is why." Jesus told us to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves--and that's the best way to spread the Gospel news. Jesus healed people, cared for them, and saved them. Yes, he also challenged them, debated with them, and downright fought with them. But all this came out of his love for God and people. If only we could learn to do the same.
Wes: I grew up hearing from seemingly everyone around me that abortion is a sin and that anyone who gets an abortion is going to hell. Now, there is a very, very good chance that many of the people whom I heard say this never actually took such a stance, but this is what my developmental mind heard and registered as a Christian truth. I thought for the majority of my life that this was as black and white an issue as which of my hands was left and which was right.
My senior year of high school, I can remember driving home with a few friends of mine after a rousing trip to Walmart, where everyone in Burnet went for fun. We were talking, as many headstrong seniors do, about all of the problems in the world that we would soon solve once we were out of high school. We went through issues of war, of human trafficking, of poverty, etc... until we finally found ourselves on the issue of abortion. I remember making a sweeping comment about how one simple law could solve that problem and families could just step up raise their kids like God intended. My friends looked at me, and one of them, Eli, said, "Wes, I don't think it's that simple."
And it's not, is it? I mean, we can all agree that human trafficking is wrong. People starving to death is wrong. Needless killing is wrong. But abortion seems a little bit more complicated than that.
But then again, sometimes it is absolutely that simple. The result of copulation is supposed to be reproduction. We have a sex drive so that we can maintain population growth. It's one of the few instincts that humans for sure have. Therefore, if you engage in sexual activities, you have to be ready for the consequences.
It's like in Genesis 3 when God speaks to Adam and Eve after they have eaten of the fruit of the forbidden tree. God doesn't set out punishments for them. Instead, he shares with them the consequences of their actions. They chose a path contrary to God's command, and their lives changed because of it. Life will not be a walk in the Garden of Eden from now on, so women will have to give birth to more children to combat infant mortalities. The earth will not willingly bear food anymore, so men will have to toil at the soil unceasingly to produce enough to live off of. In the same way, because two people chose to have sex, they now have to deal with the consequences that sex can/does lead to babies.
Abortion as birth control--be it for the teenager who took messing around too far or a cheating spouse trying to cover his/her indiscretions or the couple who just isn't ready yet for a/another kid--is completely unacceptable. It's wrong. It's black and white.
But the complexity comes into play when abortion isn't just used for birth control. As Jess mentioned above, what happens if something is wrong with the mother or the baby and going through with the pregnancy and birth could/would lead to the death of the mother or the baby or both of them? Can we place the value of one life over or under the value of another life? Is the potential life of the one to be born qualitatively greater than the one already living? I feel like Spiderman, having to choose between saving Mary Jane or the cable car full of helpless passengers.
Or what happens in the case of a pregnancy that is the result of rape? Can we expect someone to bear the emotional and physical pain of carrying with her for nine months the constant reminder of a horrible event? Can we expect that person to pay the physical, emotional, and monetary toll that comes with childbirth, even if she ends up giving the baby up for adoption? Honestly, until our government or some other organization is willing to pick up the entirety of the costs for the routine check-ups, delivery, and post-check-ups as well as pay for counseling for the victim, I cannot bring myself to say that anyone in this situation should have to bear this burden.
The last point that I want to make is extremely important. And here it is: I'm a man. Thanks to God and the lack of breakthroughs in modern science, I will never have to have the experience of bearing within me another living soul or of giving birth to him/her. Whereas I absolutely can have a learned and weighed opinion on this matter, and whereas my voice absolutely should be heard in all of this, the final decision for this should not be solely on my shoulders, or the shoulders of one man or group of men. We participate in the miracle of conception, but the miracle of gestation and birth has been given solely to our better halves. I think that when we engage in conversations about abortion, we should keep this in mind.
The Susan G. Komen Foundation made a decision a few weeks ago to stop their funding of Planned Parenthood because a small portion of their resources (about 3%) are budgeted toward aiding in abortions. The Foundation made this decision because they were trying (as far as I can tell through the reading I've done) to uphold a moral stance against abortions. Truthfully, I have no problem with an organization making a decision like this. Yes, there are some negative consequences, and yes, Planned Parenthood does so much more than help young women who are seeking an abortion. But I can absolutely understand an individual or group who takes the steps necessary to stick to their morals and beliefs, even if I do not agree with them. A man that I truly admire recently left the United Methodist Church because he found out that the UMC supports Planned Parenthood. He decided that he couldn't financially support a church that in some way supports abortion. As is the case with the Foundation, I cannot hold it against him for staying true to his heart.
For this post, I decided to check out exactly what the UMC says about abortion. It was a comforting thing for me, and it solidified again for me that I am United Methodist: "Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection." (http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.2239163/k.A82E/Abortion_Overview.htm)
I am pro-life. I wholeheartedly agree that each living soul is sacred and should be viewed as such. But I also believe that too much of the time in this broken world there is a lot more gray than there is black and white. I pray that God will guide us through such areas, and that always and above all, God's love would shine through.
You stay classy, World Wide Web.
-Jess and Wes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We as human beings don't ever have the right to tell any woman (or man, for that matter) that a medical decision she made for herself is wrong. Period. Every single person has the right to make those kind of decisions for themselves, including the decision to have an abortion, no matter what the reason is for the abortion...even if the reason for the abortion is as a means of birth control. That is that woman's decision, and our opinions have no place in her decision making. Abortion should absolutely NOT be legislated. It should be treated as any other medical procedure. We don't have to have a law in place that tells us that we can have plastic surgery, or a gall bladder removed, or oral surgery, etc. Abortion should be treated the same as any of these procedures. It is a woman's own decision. We have no right to involve ourselves in her decision.
ReplyDeleteReligion does not belong in the abortion debate.
ReplyDeleteMegH,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. Even though Jess and I disagree with you, I'm glad that you shared your perspective. The rub for us in viewing abortion as simply a medical procedure is that there is another life involved than just the woman's. This is much more than plastic surgery or having a gall bladder removed, because those only directly impact the individual. Abortion directly impacts two lives, and one of those lives does not have any say in the matter.
The church's role in this discussion is to speak up for the life that does not yet a have a voice. This is the same role it has taken (or should have taken in some cases) throughout history--speaking up for the oppressed and those who either do not have a voice or who have had their voice taken away from them. As long as I am alive, I will do my best to live into this call, for Christ Himself calls me to it.
Again, thank you for your comment. God bless!
-wes
This is always a touchy subject. I want to start off by saying I completely agree with your opinion that there is a huge grey area. Abortion is a necessary evil. If someone is raped or could possibly have serious health complications from a pregnancy, I fully support the option of an abortion. Unfortunately, I believe these account form a small minority of abortions. I am sickened when people try to celebrate the idea of an abortion, like Planned Parenthoods “I’ve had an abortion” T-shirts. It is still a life being taken and should be mourned. To compare an abortion to a gall bladder surgery or plastic surgery, in my opinion, is absurd. It is NOT just a medical procedure and should NOT be used as a form of birth control. The biggest problem with this country today is a lack of responsibility. Sorry, but if you have sex without protection, you know what the consequences are. If the condom breaks, get the morning after pill. But once that embryo attaches to your uterus, you have a viable pregnancy. It is no longer just the women’s body. She is sharing it with her baby.
ReplyDeleteNow politically, I believe abortion should remain legal and available. Because there are so many grey areas, it is difficult to regulate. For example, a woman should never have to prove she was raped to have an abortion. But, those who believe that it is morally wrong should not be forced to pay for it. That is their right. Tax money should not go towards abortions.
With respect to current events, if I want to give money to breast cancer research, I want it to go to breast cancer research. I don’t think the Susan G. Komen Foundation should have been giving money to PP, or any other organization for that matter, simply because they are different charities with different goals. If I want to support PP, I’ll give money to them. I was upset that SGK decided to go back on their decision. I wasn’t against them for supporting PP, but if they chose to put their money elsewhere, they should have been able to. If you don’t agree then you can stop giving to them. Give your money directly to PP if that is where you want it to go.
Okay, I'm done. Sorry for ranting!
Susan Komen's decision to "defund" Planned Parenthood is not one I can get behind and am glad that they have reversed that decision and would like to see more of the people responsible for that removed. That is just me though. Komen is about women's health and cancer awereness/prevention. Cancer screenings are 16% of what PP does and "Other Women's Health" accounts for another 10% meaning roughly just over a third of what PP does is directly in line with what Komen is all about. If they are really concerned about "end[ing] breast cancer forever" as their mission statement says then should want all the help they can get. To turn down help means they are willing to to backtrack some on that mission statement to take a very polarizing and controversial stand against another organization that somewhat aligns with their goals. That casts shadows and doubts on what Komen is really all about. It's fine if people within Komen have personal political stances one way or the other about abortion but Komen is not about abortion and shouldn't be making forays into that area.
ReplyDeleteIt is understandable that some people will want to take a stand against certain activities or organizations that they do not support. Unfortunately it often comes off as posturing because the lines that one draws on what they will or will not stand for are often arbitrary and contradictory. Someone will boycott one company because of a questionable thing they support but then their money goes to another organization that supports something else questionable. It is unattractive at its best and hypocritical at its worst and often is a result of laziness and being uninformed.
Before we talk anymore about abortion it is important to look at some statistics about it like who gets them, why do they get them, and what percentage of women are getting them. Unintended pregnancies end in abortion 47% of the time and women with low incomes are far more likely to get an aboriton. Women who are already mothers make up a large portion of abortions (6 in 10 women who had abortions in 2002 were already mothers). In 2004, 74% of women who had an abortion said it was because a child would change their life dramatically and of those 74%, 32% went on to say having other dependents was their main reason. Another 32% said they weren't ready to raise another child. Also, of the women surveyed, 73% said they couldn't afford a child. Of those 73% less than half were unmarried (42%) and 23% said they couldn't afford the basic needs of life.
There are a lot of solutions that can be drawn from this data, some controversial and some not, but there is one fairly non-controversial solution: education and contraception. Americans actually like their birth control. In Mississippi this past election there was a "personhood" amendment on the ballot that, because of the way it was worded, could have potentially banned some forms of birth control in the state including the pill. It was defeated with 55% of Mississippians voting against it. The number of Americans who believe employers should be required to provide contraception and birth control at no cost is 55% and one thing all the data shows is the more educated one is and the more they make the longer they put off having children and the less likely they are to have an abortion. Comprehensive sex-ed should be taught in schools instead of abstinence only and condoms and birth control should be available to all for little or no cost. If unintended pregnancies from lower income women are the ones that end in abortions the easiest and best thing that can be done is education and access.
As far as making abortion illegal studies in England have shown that the legality of abortion in now way affects the number of people who get them and when looking at abortions world wide most are very unsafe and dangerous because they are illegal. Even here in the states we have plenty of precedents to show that prohibition does not make the behavior go away. It drives it underground and makes it more dangerous and more unsafe and puts the population as a whole at a greater risk.
ReplyDeleteI'll close with some quotes by the late, great Bill Hicks and some links.
"I'm not a girl, I'm a guy you know? But at the same time, I tell ya how you can solve this abortion issue right now. Ready? Those unwanted babies that single moms leave in alleys and in dumpsters? Leave about 12 of those on the steps of The Supreme Court. This is over. Like that. 'You guys said we had to have them? Then you guys... RAISE 'EM!' …You said I had to have it? Then it's yours...Take it"
We gotta come to some new ideas about life folks ok? I'm not being blase about abortion, it might be a real issue, it might not, doesn't matter to me. What matters is that if you believe in the sanctity of life then you believe it for life of all ages. That's what I hate about this child-worship syndrome going on. 'Save the children! They're killing children! …' What does that mean? They reach a certain age and they're off your…love-list? …. You either love all people of all ages or you shut...up."
"Here's my real theory: if you're so pro-life and you're so pro-child, then adopt one that's already here that's very unwanted and very alone and needs someone to take care of it, to get it out of a horrible situation. OK? People say, 'Why don't you do that!' and I say, 'Cause I hate…kids and could care less.' ... Don't care at all about abortion. It's your choice, case closed, the end, bottom line. . . . You're not a human till you're in my phone book. There. My hat is now in the political ring."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-planned-parenthood-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html?socialreader_check=0&denied=1
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/18/AR2005071801164.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/10/most_surprising_abortion_statistic_the_majority_of_women_who_ter.html
This is definitely a volatile and nuanced topic. I think it is prudent to consider this topic from both a "in the bubble" Christian standpoint and a societal/country standpoint. From a Christian standpoint, I agree with Wes that Christians should speak up for the oppressed and those who either do not have a voice or who have had their voice taken away from them. While I hold the view that this does not directly apply to the living tissue that is not yet a life in the early stages of pregnancy, I advocate on the side of giving that living tissue its opportunity to reach its fullest potential.
ReplyDeleteFrom a state/country point of view, we must remember that we live in a country of laws that govern a diverse people. An abortion procedure, from a scientific and legal standpoint, is not a capital crime...not a murder. Take away all of the religious undertones and it's really that simple. This procedure is not a crime. Therefore, the choice to have the procedure is protected as a right of women and families.
So, as Christians, we're stuck. We don't approve of this procedure. But, as Americans, we're bound to be civil members of society, living by and accepting the laws of our pluralistic society. The ONLY reason to make an abortion a criminal activity under the law stems from a religious point of view...which is why there is no possible way we can ever make having an abortion a crime.
The best way for us to act as Christians with this issue is to: 1)recognize that an abortion is a choice and will always be a protected choice, 2)accept that the choice is a federally protected right for women, and 3)work to convince as few women as possible to make the decision to have an abortion. We accomplish this by being pro-active in sex education, by being compassionate and not judgmental, and by making other options viable and attainable for vulnerable women.
So, like most pro-choice Americans, I am staunchly anti-abortion. I think, deep down, most pro-life people are actually anti-abortion folks (just like me) that happen to be in denial about recognizing the legal right for women to decide their medical fate for themselves.
I actually disagree that the only reason to make abortion illegal stems from religion. While I think it should be legal, this topic is probably the only "culture war" issue where conservatives can make a good argument that stands on its own merits when the religious aspect is removed.
ReplyDeleteDylan--I think you're right on that one. Although we tried to tackle this simply from the Christian point of view, that isn't the only group of people who are at least in part pro-life. Also, I want to remind everyone that our Christian point of view is not THE Christian point of view, and we are aware of that. But there are many other reasons to be anti-abortion at some level. For example, I would guess that there are doctors who are anti-third trimester abortion, because of the even more devastating effects on a woman's body at that stage in the pregnancy.
ReplyDeleteAlso, thanks for the statistics and links that you provided. One of the things that we both recognize is that there are going to be times when a woman is just simply not able to care and provide for the baby growing inside of her. As a couple already planning on adopting, I would want to stress as much as possible that even if a mother cannot keep the child, adoption is always a viable answer. I know plenty of families who are unable for whatever reason to have a child, and the blessing of adoption gave them the opportunity to grow their families. The thought of giving a baby away to strangers might not be ideal for people, but should be highly preferred over termination.
ReplyDeleteI think that adoption is the best solution for an unwanted pregnancy. An even better solution is to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to say (and as the high school Wes proves) that sex can result in pregnancy and "you have to be ready for the consequences." I think the statement above "copulation is supposed to be reproduction" should be "copulation can result in reproduction." You (Wes & Jessica) don't have to divulge more than you feel comfortable but I am sure that you don't use abstinence as birth control in your marriage because you don't want kids right now. If not, are you rolling the dice and having completely unprotected sex or is there some form of birth control involved? For millions of people in the U.S. in the exact same position there is a form of birth control involved.
Also in the original post there was a comparison between sex and the garden of eden and I think this is an example of a problem with the abortion conversation as a whole (not necessarily with the way Wessica is having the conversation since they never explicitly went here). Often caught up in the abortion conversation are peoples thoughts and opinions of sex and all that goes along with that. The abortion conversation is sometimes derailed or sidetracked with a conversation about the having of sex. Sex is sometimes used (mainly in religious communities) as shorthand for morality the same way religion in politics is shorthand for good person (goes to church = easier, more tangible way to ask if the candidate is a "good person," so having sex = imoral and not having sex or having married sex = moral). It seems the theory behind using sex to drive the conversation is to put forth an image of an unwed teenager who nonchalant waltzes into a clinic and gets an abortion and sees this as a better option that abstaining or using birth control. This opens the door to talking about the having of sex. The problem is that even though there is a large percentage of women who are currently unmarried that have abortions, the aforementioned image contrasts with what actually happens. It simplifies the discussion by glossing over the reality and thereby dumbing down the conversation. Part of what it overlooks is married people have "moral" sex and don't want to get pregnant. Married people sometimes have abortions. Mothers sometimes have abortions, but these facts go against what is considered to be common knowledge.
All of that obfuscates the discussion because then the conversation is lead back to birth control. This is something that many (at least many outspoken) conservatives are against. Birth control means the having of sex. Sex is "supposed" to potentially result in a child and now it doesn't so people who aren't married might now have sex (unmarried sex = imoral) so now this is a subtle way to talk about who can have sex and when and how and what the outcome should be. It's about control. It's also about creating a wedge. The number of people in the U.S. who support abortion being legal in all or most cases is 54% and that number skyrockets when asked about in cases of the woman's life (88%), health (82%), and rape/incest (81%) [ http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html ] But despite support there are still emotions that run deep and make this a sensitive topic that can divide people who are on the same side.
The conversations on sex, contraception, and abortion do overlap but progress forward can't be made until we can have mutually exclusive conversations about sex and abortion. In general the people who are the most outspoken against abortion are also against sex outside marriage and doing anything that could be seen as promoting that (contraception, birth control, Plan B, etc.) and that seems like very staggering cognitive gap to those on the other side of the fence on this one. This gap also keeps us as a society from moving forward and making strides on these issues.
Hey Dylan,
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify on a couple of things: I made sure to say that the result of copulation is reproduction. Instinctually, this is what drives it. We might have sex for other reasons, but biologically, the result of copulation is reproduction. That was my point in that small paragraph.
I mentioned the Genesis text to make the comparison between punishment and consequence. They are two very different things, and just like man's toil in the ground and woman's increased birth pangs due to the need to have more babies so that some will survive, pregnancy is not a punishment for having sex, but the result/consequence of it. I wasn't making a theological point, just using a biblical comparison.
Jess and I waited until marriage, but we also realize that many people--including a large number of those who are now demanding that others abstain until marriage--do not wait to engage in sex until then. Without bringing my personal beliefs about abstinence into the conversation, I do have to admit that extramarital sex is a reality in many people's lives. I do not think that this changes any of what we said above, though.
I agree wholeheartedly that our culture does not do a good enough job teaching adolescents about sexual education. I mean, just go watch Mean Girls and pay attention to what the coach says in health about sex ed. I think you're right that working to share a more comprehensive understanding of sexual education and contraception would curb the amount of people seeking abortions.
But the truth remains that abstinence is the only full-proof form of birth control that there is. If two people engage in intercourse, there is going to be a chance that is leads to pregnancy. When this happens, our point is that abortion should never be the next step in birth control. Does that make sense?
-wes
Oh dear, I thought we were having such a great conversation Wes (and Jessica?). Let's see if we can keep things moving on the right track.
ReplyDeleteI know that you and Jessica waited until you were married. Let me try again using Allison and myself. We are married. We don't want kids now. We don't want to abstain from sex either because we're married so we rely on birth control. I don't think that you were calling pregnancy a punishment. I don't think either of us think it is. I do understand the point was to say that pregnancy is a consequence and was not intended to be a theological point. I was just using that as a segue into something else I wanted to talk about. A jumping off point. You didn't go where I went and I point that out. I was just trying to bring more into the conversation. I also understand that you two believe that baring something like the life and health of the mother and possibly rape then abortion shouldn't be an option. I don't think that abortion aside from those instances is a great thing and is a symptom that points to something wrong in society. I'm also glad that we can agree on sex ed. I agree that not having sex means not getting pregnant.
Wow, we agree on a lot of things. I feel like our positions are very close to each other. I know where you guys stand. Hopefully you know where I stand now. Abortion is an issue in society that is touchy and doesn't really feel resolved. I get it. There's all these numbers I put out earlier that tell parts of the story. So we have your feelings, my feelings and some numbers but what does it mean and where can we go with this and what can we do about it? Is there more we can do with this conversation or has it reached it's depths?
This is why I like having these discussions with you Wes, we're so close and we're not going to agree completely, but let's see how far we can go and hopefully make each others beliefs stronger. Supposedly the people our age are going to be running the world one day so maybe these discussions with each other will come in handy one day when we're actually in charge of stuff.
There you go. I just wanted to make sure my original post had come across the way it was meant to.
ReplyDeleteI think maybe we've run it's course on this just because we are saying a lot of the same thing.
And, just to agree with you on another note, one that you didn't come right out and say but I know you'll agree with--:)...
I absolutely think that the way that "the church"--that thing that seems to get the biggest media attention and many times is not something that I would ever admit to being a part of--has handled this issue wrong for so long that it has ruined its voice in the matter. For the church to be taken seriously in this conversation (and in others), it has to take a step back first, admit that it has not always handled itself correctly, and re-engage the issue. This will be a hard step, but one that has to be done.
Because love wins. :)
You are leaving something out when you say “adoption is always an option.” “Always” is a pretty strong and unforgiving word. You are ignoring the physical psychological, monetary and possible professional consequences of carrying a baby to term.
ReplyDeletePhysical: pregnancy changes a woman’s body. In addition to the physical changes, physical complications are real possibilities and can have lasting effects for a variety of reasons. Think of possible bed rest, missed work, physical recovery after birth, the possibility of recovering from major surgery (a C-section).
Psychological: I won’t even go into the emotions linked with placing a baby for adoption. Let’s just talk about hormones during pregnancy and post-partum depression. Those are serious things that aren’t easily dismissed as soon as a baby is.
Monetary: Dylan’s statistics don’t particularly address overall wealth, but they do point to consciousness of finances. Prenatal care is expensive. Doctor’s visits are expensive. We do not have universal healthcare in the United States, so someone must pay for these things. Not everyone has insurance. I know many adoptive parents arrange for payment of care, but that isn’t a guarantee. Complications are expensive. Eating correctly is expensive, work adjustments are expensive, clothes are expensive, and childbirth itself is expensive.
Professional: I’m a scientist. I have worked in a few environmental labs. In every one of those labs there were things women who are pregnant or trying to become pregnant could not do. There were rooms they could not enter for fear that the chemicals used would damage a developing fetus. Luckily, arrangements for pregnant women were legally required to be made and I worked with women who had their job functions adjusted for some length of time because of this situation. There are plenty of positions, professional and non-professional that can be compromised due to pregnancy. Many high schools in the United States do not allow pregnant teens to attend class with their peers. These schools often face lawsuits, but the rules exist. You are fooling yourself if you think a pregnancy wouldn’t have some sort of effect on an educational career.
Yes, many of these factors can be overcome. No, not all of these variables are present in every pregnancy. I’m just pointing out that your statement that “adoption is always an option” is short-sighted and unfairly limits the conversion.
It took me a few days to put these thoughts into words and coherent phrases. I have simplified my points and examples for clarity. I am very impressed by your thoughtful responses and the civil discourse which I've seen in the comments.
Hey Allison. You're absolutely right. There is a toll taken out of any woman who bears a child to term. When my mom was pregnant with Katherine, she was diagnosed with gestational diabetes. Whereas this is not life-threatening, and it (usually) ends with the pregnancy, it did mean a good deal of lifestyle change for my mom and led us to fear that Katherine might be born with some condition that she would have to live with all her life. There are definitely extenuating circumstances and variables in every pregnancy.
ReplyDeleteJess talked a little bit about the emotional/psychological toll that any parent who gives a baby up for adoption must go through, but we did not cover much else when came to the other areas you mentioned. At this point, I think I should reiterate a point that I made in my original post because it bears repeating: I as a man should never be the final say in this. Yes, there are tolls on the guy involved in the pregnancy, whether married or not, but they do not come close to the tolls taken on the woman. This is one of the reasons that I made that comment. I just watched a clip from the Daily Show in which Jon Stewart talked about a group of clergy--all male--who sat down to speak out against having to provide health care options that included contraceptions and abortions. That should never happen.
Honestly, our hope would be that (especially for the extreme circumstances such as rape or extreme poverty) the government would help with any/all expenses involved with the creation of new life. There can be no future without it, right? But we know we're a long way from that. I am happy to hear that jobs do/must make concessions for pregnant women. I think this is a step in the right direction.
Above all, though, we would hope that the opportunity to participate in creation would be worth the toll. For some it is not, I understand. But I cannot imagine any temporary toll that would trump the ending of a life--even a life not yet begun.
Hope all of that makes sense! If not, chalk it up to an early morning response. :)
I appreciate everyone's comments on this blog. I think we've had an open, kind, loving conversation about this, rather than the attacks that usually happen. Thanks to everyone for keeping that going.
ReplyDeleteI would just like to say that we obviously weren't trying to comment on every aspect of this argument. Thanks for bringing everything to our attention, and thanks for the discussion. You've all made great points, and I think what we have to acknowledge is that this is more than just a discussion about abortion. Like Dylan said, your stance on this issue is automatically linked to your stance on sexual ethics in general. We can't talk about one without at least alluding to something else. There's no way to have a comprehensive discussion about abortion in this forum. Thanks for all your help, though!
Jessica
I'm sorry, this bugs me a lot, especially coming from one considering adoption. Please don't use the term "give up" when referring to adoption. The appropriate term is "place." the negative connotations of the outdated term causes many women to overlook a very excellent resource.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the correction. I did not know it was a bad term. I had always though highly of it because the mother is giving the child a chance at a better life. I did not know it was an outdated term with negative connotations.
ReplyDelete