Hey all! Since no one responding to my blogs I thought I would start publishing more inflamitory material - Ha ha! Just kidding!
Anyway - Here is a paper that I'm working on - I invite you to comment (If you have the paitience to read it ALL the way through). Please feel free to disagree - I'm still working on this so any feedback would be much appreciated!
Rethinking Abortion: A Christian Response to the Abortion Debate
I cannot remember the first time I heard about abortion, but I was probably about nine or ten. My mother, a fairly new born again Christian was involved with a group called “REAL Women”. It was an organization that was feminist in many respects; demanding support and tax credits for stay-at-home moms, protesting outside of adult video stores, and encouraging women to get involved in politics. I’m sure, however, that many feminists disregard this group because of their anti-abortion stance. It was through my mother’s involvement in this group that I first learned what abortion was. Like any young child, the thought of an unborn baby being ripped from a mother’s womb was disturbing to say the least. I unquestioningly agreed that it was wrong.
Growing up, my moral stance was supported by my church and by most people who shared my beliefs. I am a Christian and what some people would call “religious”. I was raised in a fairly fundamentalist church and went to an evangelical interdenominational college for theological and ministerial training. I married after a year of Bible college and my husband is now a youth pastor. I don’t see myself as any better than others and I certainly don’t believe that I’ve arrived. But I am different than most people (including many who categorize themselves as Christians) because I choose to see the world through my faith. For me, faith is more than a set of doctrine and religious practice. It is a deep relationship with God that calls me to live in a way of love toward all people. This is broad mandate. I have to make practical and moral decisions within this worldview everyday.
My faith has played a key role in every aspect of my thought development. My years at Briercrest Bible College and the University of Saskatchewan led me to question everything about religion, theology, dogma, doctrine, feminism, politics, society, economics, art and the list goes on. Basically I had to confront the views I had never questioned.
My struggles have often centered on the actions and history of the church. What is the church? Well, it is very difficult to define. There are so many factions and denominations – many of them who claim “true Christianity” in response to all others. The church, as an institution, is group of people adhering to a form of Christianity. Though theology may differ, Christian churches generally believe that scripture is God-inspired and that Jesus Christ is the son of God. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but, as in any religion, Christianity varies according to culture and country. As most Christians believe, the institution of the church along with its various denominations and factions is a necessary structure. But the true church, or the invisible church, consists of followers of Christ – no matter what their denomination or adherence. In my opinion, the invisible church is what God is really interested in. Christianity is a religion of the heart and not of institutions. When I refer to “the church” in this paper, it is not to a specific denomination, but to the general community of those who claim Christianity as their religion. This community has responded to the issue of abortion in many ways, but in general the church has defined itself as pro-life.
It is also important to note that the issue of the abortion debate, as discussed in this paper, focuses on the experience of the North American church. The North American church is a complex institution, not only because of the myriad of denominations but also because the church has been tied to political power in the past. Until perhaps recently, the United States and Canada have been seen as “Christian” countries. Christianity was, in a sense, a state religion, and as such was a participant in maintaining social order. Part of this social order was the role and position of women.
Through my whole life as a Christian, I always felt that women were seen as “second class” by the church. The role of the woman was much more defined and constricted than the role of men. Motherhood (the idealized type) was expected. Anything else was outside of what God intended. Women were not allowed to preach, yet their role in the spiritual education of children was often devalued or seen as not nearly as important as the role of educating Christian adults (particularly males).
Explaining how this made me feel is difficult, but I am sure that many Christian women could relate. I felt that somehow, my gifts and abilities were not allowed to be used and I just didn’t understand why. As someone who has leadership ability and also a desire to lead, it was very disheartening to be told that women could not be pastors or Bible College professors. It was also discouraging to be told that I would be better off serving in some sort of children’s ministry when I had no desire, nor talent, to do so. My husband, Paul, who was also raised in a fairly conservative church, began to question these tactics in his profession as a youth pastor. He said that as he grew to know the young women in our youth group and began to see leadership potential in these women, he could not deny them use of their gifts. Now he joins me and many leaders in our church who believe that women, if they have leadership ability, should be encouraged to take leadership positions.
Another issue of sexism in the church is its view of female sexuality. I felt like female sexuality (or sexuality in general) was seen as dirty and sinful. In youth group, youth leaders would often stress the importance of dressing modestly. Though I do believe in the benefits of modesty, the church has categorized the spiritual value of women based upon how they look and how well they fulfill their intended roles. I remember being told by the resident assistant in my dormitory at Bible College that my favorite black dress was simply inappropriate for the Christmas banquet. I had to search my closet for something else that “wasn’t so tight”. I felt terrible. I felt like a bad Christian. I felt that the value of my person was being judged by the clothes I wore.
Church leaders have also used scripture to encourage women to expect a subordinate role in marriage and even to remain in abusive relationships out of the virtue of “submission”. I can personally relate to this exploitation of scripture. I felt pressure to accept an emotionally abusive relationship. I struggled with this relationship for a long time before I had the courage to stand up to it. These passages have not been used to “support the family” as so many have claimed, but to keep women in their place – no matter how terrible this place is. Church leaders have either deliberately or inadvertently told women that God has willed that they be subordinate and open to abuse. Women are trained to give in to selfish or even abusive behavior by their husbands, boyfriends and fathers. Not only are women robbed of healthy and supportive relationships, men are robbed of the benefits of egalitarian relationships – equal treatment for women benefits both sexes. The Christian doctrine of submission is intended to be mutual. Marriage is described in the Bible as a mutual submission, coming from both sides simultaneously. In fact, it almost seems like husband may have the more difficult role. They are told to “love their wives as Christ loved the church” (Ephesians 5:25). This is a pretty drastic commandment when one realizes that Christ gave up everything, even his life, for the church.
Because of the lack of voice given to the pressures and concerns of Christian women, they have been silenced. They feel as if they cannot question leadership and that they cannot show any sign of spiritual weakness. I have seen this in the young women I’ve worked with in our church. They are afraid to speak up and ask questions. They are afraid to say when they’re upset or angry. They feel as if they have to put on a “face”; they have to be sweet, passive and pure. Any crack in this mask would, in their minds, lead to judgment and eventually rejection. The girls who cannot hide behind these masks are seen as unspiritual or troubled. They are headstrong, honest and speak their minds. Because of this, other church members and often the girl’s parents will worry that she is “back-sliding” – not because it is so, but because she has failed to hide her true personality or the growing pains of her spiritual journey. Often, judgment can come from sources who are genuinely concerned about these girls. They want to protect the purity and innocence of young women. But in doing so, Christians can forbid girls from making mistakes and encourage them to hide their true feelings and doubts. This robs them from any true intimacy or accountability with other Christians.
The only outcome of these oppressive tactics is guilt – guilt about being a woman.
Questioning these ideas was both a painful and liberating experience, but I feel that this process has deepened my faith and also my concern for women, both in the church and in greater society. I am now a member of Hepburn Mennonite Brethren Church. It is a community of Christians who are the concerned about the issues women face and whose leadership is actively fighting inequality. Though there is a long way to go, I believe that the church as a whole can change its course. But in order to do so, Christians must carefully consider their political response to issues that concern women, particularly abortion.
Recently, a young woman who used to attend our church came to my husband for help. She was pregnant, unemployed, her boyfriend had left her, and her family had rejected her. We began trying to help by finding her a place to live, helping her get social assistance, finding her rides to appointments, and connecting her with other women who could mentor her. We gave her a little bit of material stability, but could we give her a life? I know the sacrifice that motherhood can be – I couldn’t imagine doing it alone.
What if she had wanted an abortion? What would I say? What could I do to make better a woman who was inexcusably wronged?
This is how I decided to write about abortion. Like any other issue that intermingles politics, feminism, social problems, the economy and religion, abortion calls into question how I live my life as a Christian in this world. As a “pastor’s wife”, young women come to me for spiritual and emotional guidance. Working with these women has opened my eyes to the pressures they face and has led me to question both feminist and Christian dogma.
I am left with two important questions. Can I be both a feminist and a Christian? Can I be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time?
The answer to the first question is a definite “yes”.
Feminism has been seen as a dirty word in Christian circles because it is assumed that feminism is anti-motherhood. In the eighties, feminist did seem to reject women who chose a more traditional lifestyle, but now most feminists would agree in supporting the family- both traditional and non-traditional forms. In fact, many feminists fight for legislation that would make child rearing easier on families. The goal of feminism is not to obliterate the “family”; it is to have healthy families that encourage both women and children to thrive (Cannold, 1998, 83). Legal access to safe abortions is part of this goal (Morgentaler, 1982). Other means by which this is accomplished is through adequate government support for parents, contraception, and equal standings in the work force. Though Feminist Theory is varied, in its most basic definition feminism is a doctrine advocating for equal rights for women.
I have long struggled with the relationship between feminism and Christianity. Christians need to stop writing off feminist theory as “anti-men” or “anti-family” and begin to realize that feminism should and can be seen in both scripture and in church history. This is not only a disservice to women, who are highly valued in scripture, but to everyone in the church. Inevitably when reconciling feminism and Christianity one must confront the seemingly sexist passages in the Bible and question if these passages should be taken literally.
The Bible is essentially the root of all Christian theology. Christian doctrine and dogma come from a combination of culture, tradition, and the interpretation of scripture. The church’s opposition to abortion, like many contentious issues, is formulated through the interpretation of scripture. As a Christian, the Bible is the key to understanding my faith, and as such, if I wish to address the abortion debate from a Christian perspective, I must also address scripture.
I would argue that, in its truest form, Christianity is radically feminist. One has to read the scripture (the gospels in particular) in a way that acknowledges the historical and cultural contexts in order to appreciate the radically liberating nature of Christianity. Interpretation of scripture has always been problematic because people from different backgrounds will interpret passages differently. If one is raised in a society where the role of women is structurally defined, then it is easier for that person to elevate the importance of loan verses that support this worldview. However, in order to properly interpret scripture, it is necessary to understand the intent of the author and the themes that recur again and again throughout the Bible.
The Bible is full of examples of how God lifted women up in a society that placed women in subordinate and often oppressive positions. Instead of comparing Biblical passages to our present day view of feminism, one needs to compare the depiction of women in the Bible to the culture in which it was written. The Gospels (the accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry) have countless examples of the feminism within the historical context. Jesus had theological conversations with women (Heron). This was unheard of in Jewish society. The story of “the Woman at the Well” is a prime example of this (John 4). Jesus talked with a Samaritan woman, a half-breed in 1st century Palestine, who had several partners. A woman such as this would be viewed as extremely immoral, incapable of having any valuable theological insight. Jesus chose to reveal spiritual truth to her rather than the male religious elite. Jesus’ ministry was largely funded by women and women followed him in his ministry. Jesus also prevented a woman from being stoned by the religious authorities for adultery. Jesus’ resurrection was first revealed to women; and it was the women who believed when the male disciples who doubted.
In my opinion, Jesus and the writers of the gospels believed that women should have a voice when it comes to spiritual matters. In Judaism as well as other religions of the time, women weren’t allowed to participate fully in ceremonies and gatherings. The introduction of the Lords Supper (or communion) required that all members of the church be participants on equal ground “slave nor free, male nor female” (Galatians 3:28). Husbands were commanded to love their wives and sacrifice their own needs for the needs of their spouse. They were commanded not to be harsh with their wives. The church also forbade men to flippantly divorce their wives and thus depriving them from economic or social mobility.
The tradition of Christianity has also had feminist leanings. Christians were to pool all their resources and support women who were widows or were abandoned by their husbands. The supportive nature of the early Christian community must have been a haven for women who were often victimized and oppressed. Later, through the institutions of the Catholic Church, women were given a voice and religious training through convents. Some of the greatest Christian thinkers of Western Christianity were women. For example, St Theresa of Avila, was a writer and mystic who was profoundly influential in the Carmelite order. Even though women were participants in the church, they did so within an institution that was extremely paternalistic. In St. Theresa’s autobiography, one can see the effect of this paternalism. In order to avoid the consequences of the Inquisition (for which her autobiography was ordered), she often follows a profound thought with "But what do I know. I'm just a wretched woman” (Matz, 2000).
How did the church let such paternalism enter a faith that is, in its essence, liberating? The idea that women cannot make their own decisions is one of the main faults of “Christian” thought. This comes primarily from a misreading of the Genesis passage in which Adam and Eve were deceived. The church tended to put blame on Eve as the main perpetrator of original sin. Though Adam is described in the New Testament as equally if not predominantly at fault, women were branded as easily deceived. Women were seen as emotional, irrational beings, unable to properly function without the countenance of a father or husband (Peters, interview, 2005).
The church also has tended toward an idea of motherhood that is not expressed in scripture, but is rather an idea that has evolved in Western culture. The “ideal” mother is self-sacrificing. She puts the needs of others ahead of her own. Though this is a Christian philosophy, scripture expresses that both men and women should submit to one another, not just woman to man (Ephesians 5:21). A problem arises when it is only the woman placing the needs of others ahead of her own and when this “ideal” becomes what is expected.
Our Western culture expects women to mother without support and without extrinsic motivation (Cannold, 1998, 101). Mothering is seen as a natural phenomenon – you become a mother when you have a child (Luker, 1984, 174). Unfortunately, because of the condition of our society, just because you become a parent doesn’t mean that you should be a parent. The fact is most women struggle constantly with parenthood; even if they have a supportive family and community. They either feel pressure to become a “supermom” – balancing career, childcare and home-cooked meals – or they define themselves as “just a mom” – feeling worthlessness and isolation in a role that holds no honor in our society unless it is done perfectly (Cannold, 1998, 100).
The church tends to hold on to the traditional roles of women while our society has not retained the support network in order to make traditional motherhood a healthy possibility. In the cultures of the New and Old Testament, women gained rights and recognition through childbirth. In our society women often loose their social and economic mobility when they become mothers. In more traditional societies, pregnancy and child rearing had extrinsic benefits, as well as intrinsic. Through children, a woman brought honor to herself and her husband and ensured the family’s economic stability (Luker, 1984, 124). Women did not raise children in isolation; they had a network of family support and child care.
The idea that “good” mothers are always self-sacrificing, putting others needs ahead of their own, with little thanks and little reward, is a double standard. Fathers are not expected to quit their jobs, put their personal dreams on hold, and give up financial and social autonomy when they become parents (though some do). Fathers are not required to live in isolation and parent on their own. Any father doing such would be commended as exceptional, yet we often expect women to take on this role as if it was second nature. The truth is, when looking at human history, this was never “natural”. By elevating motherhood to such unrealistic heights, women who fall short of the self-sacrificing role can be seen as immoral. This is a dangerous idea in a society that can no longer offer the needed support of the woman in a traditional role.
While traveling in Ukraine, I saw the terrible implications of this. A respected deacon of a Baptist church was concerned about the health and well-being of his wife. She had bore him seven children. They had to build an extra house on their property in order to provide space for their family. Her youngest child was four, but the church leadership started to question why she was not yet pregnant again. Contraception is not seen as an option for Christian families in Ukraine. The husband was emotionally and spiritually torn. He loved his wife and did not wish to burden her further. He was concerned about her physical and emotional health, yet the church said that it was immoral to prevent her from fulfilling her traditional role. Perhaps in a different time and place, her role as a mother would have been less burdensome and her many children would have ensured her future. But in a country where she could only afford one set of clothes, and she remained mostly in the isolation of a never-ending workload, another child could have killed her.
Despite the hypocrisy of church in this instance, this woman did have one advantage that so many are deprived of. She had a loving and concerned partner, who could work full time in order to help provide for their large family. A young, single mother has little hope of adequately providing for her child. Single mother households make up the majority of families living in poverty. They are more likely to be victims of abuse and because of this and because of a lack of emotional and physical support they are more likely to abuse their children (Heidebrecht). Yet if they fail as mothers, the blame is on them. These are structural inequalities built into our society. The long term effects of an unplanned pregnancy affect women much more drastically than men. Unplanned pregnancies can alienate and isolate women. The economic, psychological, and emotional impacts are drastic.
Perhaps the most dangerous misinterpretation of scripture is seen in the doctrine of sin. “Sin” has many connotations and means different things to different people. Many see sin as an action: murder, adultery, stealing. However, not all things immoral are actions. Scripture says that thoughts, words, and the lack of action can also be wrong. In talking with the senior Pastor at my church he explained sin in a different light.
Christians explain “wrongness” or immorality in terms of “sin”. It is sin that has caused things to go wrong, for women, men and children. Yet sin cannot be defined merely as an individual action. It is the condition of the heart and mind. It is the direction of the soul – am I moving toward God or away? Often the church misidentifies something as a sin, when it is actually the result of sin.
For example, I decide to cheat on my final exam. I do so because I have been skipping classes all year because I had to work to pay for the class. Which act was the sin? Is it sin that the government has made education financially inaccessible to me? Is it sin that my callous employer refuses to work around my school schedule? Is it sin that I have been irresponsible in my studies? Or is it because my professor refuses to take the time to help me in my difficult situation? There are a number of factors that lead to the wrongness of situations. If the church chooses to take a pro-life stance, it cannot make the issue black and white. Life doesn’t work that way.
Defining abortion as “sin” or “against God’s will” automatically labels the pro-choice side as “godless” and immoral. The church has placed itself in a position to judge the actions of those both in the church community and those outside that community. There is no acknowledgement of the important doctrine that everyone is guilty of sin. When the church makes the issue black and white, the church is seen as sinless and pro-choice advocates and women who have abortions are labeled as sinners. In theological terms, I would define abortion in itself as a result of sin. The sins of selfishness, greed, and pride cause our society to be a toxic place for women when they become unexpectedly pregnant. The church has essentially misidentified the problem. The problem is not abortion; it is the structural inequalities that cause abortion to become a necessity.
Sherry Heidebrecht is a respected member of my home church. She is highly educated and her husband is one of the leading voices for women’s rights within our denomination. She is one of those women who did not fit the mold the church had prescribed for her. She is now a counselor for Saskatchewan Mental Health and works with troubled women within our rural community. She is also a deeply committed Christian. I asked her if she defined herself as pro-life, and she was very hesitant to do so. She said that is was difficult to define the issue in such black and white terms. She said she believed in the sanctity of life but that also she was in the least position to judge someone else’s actions. I asked about her experience working with young women who were dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. She said that all too often she sees very unhealthy individuals choose to keep their child. The only women in her experience who chose abortions were married women whose spouses had pressured them into the decision. The only single woman to choose an abortion was a young woman from a Christian background. “She was adamant about it from the beginning”, Sherry said. The pressures of the family’s values and the shame she would bring onto herself over-rode her “pro-life” philosophy.
How incredibly sad that Christian culture has made “sexual” sin so abhorrent, that women are willing to deny their values in order to cover it up. Sex has been taboo in the Church for a long time. Perhaps it is a reaction to a shift in sexual values within Western culture. By reacting without acknowledging that issues are more complicated that black and white, the church makes sexual sin the greatest sin. In a society that expects people to wait until their mid twenties to get married, abstinence can be a daunting task in a culture that equates love with sex. Guilt and shame follow women in Christian communities who have children out of wedlock. Not only are they burdened with economic and social pressures, the pressure of their faith brands them as sinners.
The church has, in just the last two hundred years, taken a stance on abortion. Though abortion has been practiced for thousands of years, the church has only reacted to it in recent history. This is partly because of advancements in science and a clearer understanding of reproduction. Reproductive therapy had long been the domain of the midwife and remained “women’s business” and as such, the church saw no need to interfere (Brodie, Gavigan and Jenson, 1992, 7).
The whole idea that life begins at conception is actually relatively new. In the 1700’s, the church commonly agreed that a baby’s life began at the moment of “quickening” – when the mother felt fetal movement Generally fetal movements are felt around the beginning of the second trimester. In 1803, England made abortion committed after “quickening” criminal and punishable by death. The “quickening” distinction was eventually dismissed because it relied on the testimony of women: the mother and a jury of matrons (9).
The truth is there are no concrete examples of abortion in the Bible. In my opinion, the Bible does not clearly support the idea that life begins at conception. The passages often use to argue this fact are a passage in Psalm 139 referring to how “You (God) knit me together in my mother’s womb” and an example from Covenantal law whereby if a man attacked a pregnant woman, causing her to abort, he would be held accountable for the loss of life (Exodus 21:22).
Theologically, it is very dangerous to take a few passages of scripture (of which the meaning is not completely clear) and turn it into a political mandate. The Psalms passage could actually support what many pro-choice supporters explain as the status of the fetus (Shrage, 2003). Psalm 139 speaks about the process by which God predestines the life of every human being and is actively involved in their maturing in the womb. There is a process of becoming – a process that is initiated and followed through by God. A fetus could be seen as not yet a person but a potential person. The Covenantal law, I would argue, both protects the life of the woman and the life of her unborn child. As I mentioned before, women (and their husbands) gained status and stability in the birth of a child. If the child was harmed, the woman’s well-being was harmed. Again, there is no clear distinction of at which point in the pregnancy the law was to come into play. But this is not a passage about abortion. It is a passage about abuse toward pregnant women and the social responsibility toward the family and the unborn child.
The point is that the church needs to look at the intent of these passages. The intent was to express high value for human life. The intent was also to show that the process of coming into this world (the process of pregnancy) is something that God is involved in. There was never a clear statement of exactly when human life begins; only that human life is precious. Unfortunately, the author’s intent gives the church no clear cut answers, and it certainly does not encourage the church to take these passages and use them for some political mandate. Was there ever intent for Christian to try to legislate their beliefs on a secular government? NO.
What is important for Christians to realize when they look at these passages, often used to support the pro-life agenda, is that the church is under a new covenant. Christians do not abide by legalistic rules any longer, but instead hold to the two greatest commandments “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and love your neighbor as yourself”. The church must learn to question if its actions are out of love or simply out a need to control. The church must also be aware that certain aspects of the pro-life movement may be doing a disservice to women in the name of Christianity.
But in order for the church to re-evaluate its stance on abortion, they must first understand the nature of the debate.
The language of the abortion debate divides women who might otherwise agree on many issues. The term “pro-life” is problematic. It implies a sense of moral authority. After all, who can be against life? The logical conclusion of this term is that all those who oppose the pro-life agenda are “pro-death” (Ridalls). The term “pro-choice” also leads to misinformation. “Pro-choice” denotes a sense of flippancy about an unplanned pregnancy. It is like the choice of whether or not to get a wart removed, buy a dress, or choose a cell-phone plan. Perhaps better terms for the abortion debate is pro-woman (pro-choice) and pro-baby/fetus (pro-life) or as many feminists define it, pro-choice and anti-choice. The terms are still a minefield because both sides see themselves on the side of “life”; it is whose life that makes the difference. There is also the question of “rights”.
“Rights” is a commonplace word in our society. They are seen as the basis for Western democracy. We take pride in the rights and freedoms our country allows. However we often forget that rights carry responsibilities – particularly the responsibility to uphold the rights of others. The right to privacy hinges on our responsibility to refrain from crime, terrorism, or exploitation within our private spheres of existence. The right to be able to speak freely and hold an opinion is dependant upon our responsibility to not breed hatred or violence through our words. Our rights exist within a community we have responsibilities toward. Feminists have rejected the community in insisting that their body and their reproductive capacity is “private property”. Pro-life advocates have also isolated themselves from the community in that their advocacy for the fetus ultimately serves themselves and not the pregnant woman. “Fetal life is valued and protected, but the obligation to support the newborn, adolescent, or adult life is absent” (Cannold, 1998, 27-28)
The rhetoric of “rights” can unfortunately reinforce the idea that child bearing and child rearing is only a woman’s responsibility (Shrage, 2003). If the woman is the only one who can choose, then the father can be seen as having little responsibility in the pregnancy and birth of a child. Pro-life advocates stress that the woman looses her freedom of choice when the life of her fetus hangs in the balance. The family and the government should regulate that the fetus should live. But it is nearly impossible to find a solution to the abortion question that supports the rights and responsibilities of mother, fetus, and community. Almost every alternative leads to oppression in some respect.
“Rights”, from a feminist perspective cannot be given individually to the unborn. Because the fetus exists within the mother, the rights of the mother take precedent over the fetus. What is good for the pregnant woman is good for the fetus – even in cases of abortion. If a woman chooses to abort because she is in an abusive relationship or because she is not financially or emotionally ready for a child, the abortion is seen as in the fetus’ best interests. The argument is that even if a woman has bad reasons to have an abortion; for example, to look good in a bikini; this woman was obviously not fit to be a mother in the first place. It is not just a question of life and death; it is a question of quality of life.
The quality of life argument also raises important moral questions. Taken to its logical conclusions, a fetus aborted because of an issue of quality of life can devalue the lives of others. For example, aborting a fetus because of a profound disability can devalue the lives of those with disability. It is saying that it is better to be terminated than to live as disabled. It can also say that the value of a life is based partly on that life’s ability to be productive. This is a disturbing conclusion indeed.
The fetus can represent the most vulnerable stage of human development. It is completely dependent on the mother. Should the mother’s body reject the fetus, the result is a miscarriage, or a natural abortion. What anti-abortionists argue is that because of the fetus’ vulnerability, someone else must voice the rights of the fetus. The fetus cannot assert its right to life. Abortion is murder and as such, the church and those who hold a pro-life viewpoint need to stand up against any legislation that allows abortion. They equate abortion to the holocaust – mass murders that are unrecognized by greater society. But can one really equate abortion to murder? If one does recognize abortion as murder, then no abortions can be tolerated – not matter the circumstance.
I simply cannot equate abortion with murder. The evil intent is not present and there are so many social and emotional factors at play. If I was to come to the conclusion that abortion was the same as killing a full grown human being, the person at fault would not be the mother, because of this issue of evil intent. It would be the leaders of our society who refuse to support the poor, or who place women in the position of feeling like they have no choice, except for abortion. The other problem with equating abortion to murder is that the point at which most abortions happen is so early in pregnancy that the fetus hardly resembles a human being. But I am in a dilemma. I can remember viewing, at nine weeks, an ultrasound of my son. He resembled a small bean, somewhere inside me. I knew it was life. I knew it was sacred.
The moral questions that intersect this issue of abortion are troubling. Anyone who has viewed an ultrasound and seen the beating of a fetus’ heart knows that abortion would stop its tiny palpitations. Anyone who hears the wretchedness of existence of an unwanted child realizes that, this to, is wrong. Life is more than just a beating heart. But choice is also more than a self-serving decision.
I would argue that, at its heart, abortion is a moral issue, no matter where you stand in the debate. The legal and medical issues are necessary but they are secondary. When a woman makes the choice to have an abortion, it is a careful weighing of values. Medicine and Law are only institutional expressions of these values; women have had abortions far before it was made legal or even talked about. There are very real and frightening legal and medical consequences to any legislation on abortion; both pro-life and pro-choice supporters must be aware of this. Over 700,000 women die every year due to unsafe abortion practices, not including the thousands who are made infertile. In my opinion, it is partly because of the drastic legal and medical consequences of criminalizing abortions that make abortion a moral issue.
Feminists have been reluctant to deem abortion as moral or immoral because it opens the woman up to the judgment of others (Cannold, 1998, 30). I believe that there are bad reasons to have an abortion and that other reasons are much more understandable – but whose job is it to decide? This is not something that can solely be legislated or medically determined. Nor do I believe that anyone really has the moral authority to decide if certain reasons for having an abortion are better than others. Just because there is no just and fair way to make a moral judgment in the legal sense does not make the issue non-moral. Abortion is profoundly moral in an individual way.
Tracy Ridalls, a sessional professor in the Women and Gender Studies department, grew up in rural Saskatchewan. She was always encouraged to think critically about issues from a very young age. Her mother was instrumental in this. Women’s issues have always been important to her and she spoke with great passion about the inequality that women face, particularly when it comes to reproductive rights. Even though she did not see herself as a “religious” person, I wanted to know what she thought about abortion from a moral standpoint. I asked her if she believed that there was a bad reason for having an abortion. She said that the only bad reason was if the woman was somehow coerced. This made me think of Sherry’s experience in working with married women who had chosen to have abortions. Tracy said that in her experience, the people she knew who had abortions did it for the right reasons. “They made a good choice. It was the right choice for them.”
Certainly women do have a choice, but sometimes they do not feel like they do. Uncomplicated motherhood is a luxury only the well-off can afford. In such a world, where child rearing must not interfere in your ability to earn a living, abortion could be seen as a necessity. Can I expect any woman to cut her life short in order to have a baby? Could I expect her to choose a life of poverty and uncertainty for herself and her child?
It is becoming harder and harder to become a parent in a society that places so much value on productivity. Pregnancy, or the ability to become pregnant can be seen as, not an asset, but a disadvantage. This is particularly pronounced in the workplace.
Women found themselves segregated in what were now seen as relatively unattractive jobs or denied opportunities for reward, or advancement because they were mothers or potential mother. When they began to compare themselves with men who had roughly the same “human capital” advantages, they found they were paying a very high price for being a woman.
This fact was made all too clear to me when I went to a meeting about my internship next fall. As a parent, I had a myriad of questions about how my internship would affect my most important role as a mother. How much time would I be spending away from home? How many extra-curricular activities would I be expected to be involved in? How far away would my placement be? The School-Based Experience Coordinator assured me that they would not move parents away from their children in the placements but also that I was expected to be at school from 8am to 5pm everyday. She said there was no leniency in this area because “If you were at any other job you would be expected to put in the same hours as everyone else, regardless whether you have children or not.” Having family responsibilities at the “wrong time” is seen as an inconvenience for many employers, and not many people are willing to make changes to compensate those trying to get ahead. The young woman who came to my husband for help had been fired from her minimum wage job two days before her probationary period was up because she missed a day and a half of work. Her reason: severe morning sickness.
As long as the church remains fixated on the issue of abortion, many will be prevented from enjoying the benefits of feminism. The church should also learn to look past the abortion debate and begin to understand the experiences and the world views of women.
The abortion debate can be described as a clash of world views. A woman who defines herself as pro-life often fits into the role of the mother or is looking forward to that responsibility. She sees it as a worthwhile and beneficial role. Her community and family may support her in this role. If she gets pregnant, she has a life that is more flexible for the addition of a new member. She sees pregnancy as bringing a child that will be loved. She cannot understand how someone could abort this child. It is wrong to her. “Her life is arranged so for her this belief is true” (Luker, 1984, 198). The pro-choice woman comes from a completely different world view. She is usually more concerned about the structural differences and inequalities between women and men, perhaps because these inequalities have manifested themselves in her own life (199).
As a society, we need to resist the urge to stereotype the sides of the abortion debate, but we also must acknowledge that part of misunderstanding each other is because we do not see where the other side is coming from.
Just because you are pro-choice doesn’t mean you’ll have an abortion. Many women who advocate a woman’s right to choose believe that it would be personally wrong to have an abortion. Consequently, often women who believe that abortion is wrong end up having an abortion because of social and economic pressures. It is easy to take a stand on something that you will never be in the position to do. One can’t really understand the difficulty of the choice unless put in that position.
Because of this clash of worldviews, feminism tends to deny certain experiences of women. Because feminists often recoil from a moral debate, they alienate not only the women who define themselves as pro-life, but also those who have had to make the difficult moral decision of having an abortion.
Abortion is an issue that is close to a woman’s heart, on whatever side she may stand. It is about her body and the body of her fetus. The two cannot be separated. As hard as some in the church and pro-life supporters try, they cannot say that abortion is not about a woman’s body. This would deny the important biological, emotional and spiritual role that a woman plays when she becomes pregnant. This is what pro-choice women mean when they refer to the pro-life agenda as degrading women to “walking wombs” (Cannold, 1998, 45). While pro-life supporters value the life of the fetus, they disregard the life of the mother. If the fetus becomes more important than the mother, the mother can be seen as only a container for the fetus. It is difficult to avoid this when one believes that human life begins at conception and that the fetus has a right to life over the wishes of the mother.
At the same time, pro-choice supporters cannot claim that the abortion issue is only about a woman’s body. No matter how heated the debate gets, pro-choice advocates cannot define a fetus as merely a blob of cells. The vast majority of women who have an abortion do not see it this way. This rhetoric denies the miracle of procreation and the painful experiences of women who have had to make this choice. The fetus is in the process of becoming a human being, becoming more human as the pregnancy progresses. It is a sacred process, one that cannot be taken lightly.
The truth is that women struggle their entire lives with the decision they make about an unplanned pregnancy. In The Ambivalence of Abortion feminist Linda Franke (1978) reminisces about her decision to terminate an unplanned pregnancy:
And it certainly does not make sense to not be having a baby right now – we say that to each other all the time. But I have this ghost now. A very little ghost that appears only when I’m seeing something beautiful, like he full moon on the ocean last weekend. And the baby waves at me. And I wave at the baby. “Of course, we have room, I cry to the ghost. “Of course we do.” (120)
The abortion debate has denied the experience of these women. It has made abortion solely about rights, when actually, there is so much more involved. The truth is that not matter how women deal with unplanned pregnancies, there are no easy answers and there is no way to resolution without hurting someone.
Pro-life and pro-choice advocates are not the only ones who have been denying the experiences of women. As I explained before, the church has silenced women in many ways. But perhaps the most disturbing trend in the abortion debate is when political parties use the issues of abortion to their own advantage.
I have long been suspicious of politicians who use religion to gain votes. The Conservative party has done it and the Republicans are masters at it. The church has been enticed into supporting the so-called “pro-life” agendas of the political right. Those in these parties may seem to take a stand on moral issues, but they refuse the morality of supporting the poor and oppressed in our country and in others. And let’s face it, the vast majority of poor families in North America are headed by single mothers.
The most blatant hypocrisy can be observed in the Bush administration’s growing desire to reverse the Roe vs. Wade decision. They used church leadership and manipulation of the media to convince Christians to vote for them. They used a pro-life philosophy as a selling point for their campaign. Many of my American friends completely disagree with Bush on almost every issue except for abortion; and for this reason only, they voted for him. Now the Bush administration plans to limit access to abortions while simultaneously cutting social programs and education. With one hand they take away choice and with the other they take away supports for women and families. Don’t they know that cutting social spending will only increase pressure on women and make it more difficult to keep a pregnancy? Don’t they know that by their actions they will actually increase legal and illegal abortions? Of course they do. Unlike true Christianity, they have no value for human life – not for women or for the unborn. They simply wanted votes. They could care less about the condition of women in their society.
The use of anti-abortion rhetoric in order to gain votes is not foreign to Canada. The church must refuse to become a part of this political game where the lives of women hang in the balance. The “Americanization” of the church is a dangerous trend. American churches believe that it is their mandate to make society “Christian” through legislative means. They also believe that invading other countries can be rationalized because they are bringing “God’s Way” to the “heathen”. Have they forgotten that Hitler used similar tactics to gain support from the church?
By no means am I suggesting that Christian should completely separate themselves from the political sphere. But the church should not encourage its members to vote a certain way or sign certain petitions. Rather, the church should encourage Christians to critically weigh the value of political movements and question if these movement embody the mission of Christ or are they simply distractions from the real issues the church should be involved in.
I think Christians in the West need to re-examine their priorities. We need to remember the terrible consequences of using religion in order to dominate the wills of others. My own Pastor, Jeff Peters, reminded me that Jesus had no political agenda, though his followers and others tried to make him out to be a political messiah. “Christ was not involved in a political revolution but a revolution of the heart.” The premise of Christianity is that politics, religious dogma, or any other man-made solution cannot transform society. Society can only be transformed if people’s hearts are changed – and no legislation can bring this about. As Tracy Ridalls passionately said (interview, 2005), “If the church wants to limit abortions, they better damn well make this world a wonderful place to have a baby.”
What the church should be involved in is supporting the poor in our society. The church should stand for the equal and fair treatment of women and should reflect this within its own institution. The church should show value for both traditional and non-traditional mothers and provide material and emotional support to women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. The church should stop judging and devaluing women who do not fit into traditional roles or who have experienced pregnancy out of wedlock. Through these means the church will save far more lives than any anti-abortion campaign.
Abortion is clearly not the way it is meant to be. Babies are meant to be wanted. Parents are meant to be willing. Yet this is not the way things are.
Just because the church may believe that abortion is wrong doesn’t mean that Christian should push for legislation. It has never been the intent of Christianity to create a “Christian Government”; those who support this idea are usually using religion as a selling point in a campaign. The point of Christianity is the choice to follow the principles of Christ. The church cannot force people to take up the principles of a faith they might not share. This would not be out of love for God or for fellow human beings. Free will exists. We cannot despise it because it is free will that allows us to make good decisions.
Free will is a difficult problem. While some would argue that thislegislative bias toward more inclusive, more pro choice type laws are asign of moral degradation, I think these laws are evidence of our desireto demonstrate free will. On one hand we want to harness free will andset up boundaries and laws for everyone to obey. Christianity in the 50sloved to legislate what it was to be a Christian. But didn't Christcome to simplify the law - allow us more expression of our free will? Itis this free will that pleases and saddens God. How more pleasing is itto God if we are not aborting babies because it is illegal than if weare not aborting babies because we chose to honour His creation. (Bendell, personal email, 2005)
I have come to this conclusion. I believe that abortion is a symptom of inequality and oppression in our society – both in the secular and Christian realms. It is wrong; it is not the way it is supposed to be. But limiting choice is also wrong. So now I can define myself as both pro-choice and pro-life because both life and choice are sacred. Women should be free to make these decisions because it is through these decisions that we often find God.
References
Bendell, Colin. Personal Correspondence. January, 2005.
Brodie, Janine, Shelley A.M. Gavigan, Jane Jenson. (1992) The Politics of Abortion.
Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press.
Cannold, Leslie. (1998) The Abortion Myth: Feminism, Morality and the Hard Choices
Women Make. Hanover, NH: Wesleyen University Press.
Francke, L. (1978) The Ambivalence of Abortion. New York, NY: Random House.
Heidebrecht, Sherry. Counselor at Saskatchewan Mental Health. Interview. February 2,
2005.
Heron, Joyce. “Jesus: Not Just Another Gandhi.” Seminar. January 30, 2005.
Luker, Kristen. (1984) Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkley CA:
University of California Press.
Matz, Terry (2000). “St. Teresa of Avila: Doctor of the Church.” http://www.catholic.org.
Morgentaler, Henry, Dr. (1982) Abortion and Contraception. Toronto, ON: General
Publishing.
Peters, Jeff Rev. Senior Pastor, Hepburn Mennonite Brethren Church. Interview.
January 21, 2005.
Ridalls, Tracy. Sessional Professor, Department of Women and Gender Studies,
University of Saskatchewan. Interview. February 16, 2005.
Strage, Laurie. (2003) Abortion and Social Responsibility: Depolarizing the Debate.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
"Cemetery at Batoche" - Lafferty, Herb
