Détente in the abortion culture wars?
The cover story of a recent Time magazine concerns one new version of anti-abortion/right to life advocacy. It focuses on compassion rather than condemnation for pregnant women seeking abortions in the U.S. The process is to set up women’s health clinics that strongly promote a woman carrying her child to term. These centers often provide both money and support for (at least) several months after a child is born. They are strongly religiously (Christian) grounded and receive funding and support from several sources on that basis.
Reading this article got me thinking. Independently of whatever my own views on abortion may be, these clinics seem like a (small?) step toward middle ground. Those who staff such centers firmly believe that their job is not only to stop abortion, but also to provide real aid and compassion to often scared and sometimes desperate women who may have few other options. Although I claim no authority on the subject, this change in emphasis seems profoundly Christian to me in the best sense of the term.
On the other side of the divide, staunch supporters of abortion rights/a woman’s right to choose are now moving a bit more toward the middle in their own right. In 2005 Hillary Clinton stated, “I believe we can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women.” And she was talking to family planning providers in New York State. And they didn’t throw things at her.
The Time article closes with a story concerning the staff of a family planning clinic (i.e., provides abortions and birth control) meeting with staff of one of the new pro-life clinics. They talk about women, babies and abortion. Oddly enough the sky has yet to fall and friendships have developed. Sounds a bit Brave Humans, which brings me to my point.
One additional quote in the article really struck me. In reference to birth control one staff member of the pro-life clinics stated that they will not provide or discuss birth control because “ Most of our clients are unmarried and the Bible clearly states that sex outside of marriage is against God’s will for our lives.”
This quote points out that these new compassionate Christian centers are trying to serve two goals that are at fundamental cross-purposes. On the one hand they view abortion as murder and are utterly committed to stopping it entirely if at all possible. On the other hand they are also committed to a separate social agenda that views non-marital sex as a sin that they cannot condone. The conflict here is one that pro-choice advocates have been yelling about for years. If the unmarried women that come to the pro-life centers had used birth control effectively, this would have prevented their pregnancy and any possibility of abortion. The traditional Christian response is that access to birth control promotes non-martial sex and they therefore cannot condone or promote birth control in any way.
I am by FAR not the first person to notice this conflict, but maybe this is the time to do something about it. Both sides have meaningfully softened their positions on abortion. Could they come a bit farther and make real progress? The idea is a simple one: Could both sides agree to legislation that a) significantly limits access to abortion and b) promotes both the acceptability and availability of reliable birth control? BOTH sides give a great deal here AND abortions significantly decline. I’m not even going to try and sketch out what this legislative Nirvana would look like, and it would likely take years to work out, but I would profoundly respect those individuals within the conflict who would sit down and start talking about it in some serious manner. Talk about a Brave Humans sort of moment.
On separate notes, I’d love to hear what our friends outside the US think about this, and here’s a link to U.S. abortion stats for anyone who’s interested.
Be Brave. Be Human.
-Grant
March 3rd, 2007 11:00
Grant, I completely agree with you here. In fact I made a similar, if much less eloquent, observation on another site. Very well said on your part. Wish I’d been as thorough.
March 3rd, 2007 14:48
Who thinks that abortion isn’t a terrible thing. It’s a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. Deny unborn children the right to life or deny women the right to choose. I’ll talk about it on the Abortion Forums.
March 3rd, 2007 18:28
The idea that these clinics are new is kind of interesting to me. We’ve had one near me, a “crisis pregnancy center,” that’s been running since 1984. There are many many more acrossd the country. Unfortunately, they don’t generate the publicity that bombing or screaming do, and you have to admit a certain reticence to depict “Christians” as peaceful, loving folk.
Personally, I like the “CPC” approach over the screaming and shouting (and the bombing…). So on that I think we agree.
But…
You mention a conflict. I don’t see the conflict.
Places like Planned Parenthood like to talk about some form of birth control. Other places, like the cpc’s talk about the only 100% effective method for birth control and STD avoidance: Abstinence.
There’s no conflict there.
You say “If the unmarried women that come to the pro-life centers had used birth control effectively, this would have prevented their pregnancy and any possibility of abortion.”
You’re mathematically wrong. No method of birth control can guarantee what you’ve promised, with the exception of abstinence, which, for some reason, goes over like a lead baloon in the public.
And lastly, why in the world would anyone want *legislation* that “promotes both the acceptability and availability of reliable birth control?” Does *everything* have to have a law about it? Whenever a person says “there ought to be a law” they are, perhaps unwittingly, advocating for the restriction of freedom. The availability of current birth control is fine. There does not need to be, in any way, shape or form, legislation relating to it.
I believe this should be an issue for the states to idividually decide. States rights and community standards and all that….
Scott
March 3rd, 2007 19:32
Grant,
Many people look at Christianity as a social movement. When viewed in this perspective, Christianity looks to have a number of paradoxes. Unfortunately, many Christians and non-Christians alike look at the social aspects of Christianity, and, therefore, fully fall short of understanding it.
What is Christianity? It is that Jesus Christ died and rose again in payment for the sins of all, and that salvation comes for those who believe this. Not some. Not the special people. Not the wealthy, the educated, the wise, the theologically correct, but all. Not for the sinless, because there aren’t any sinless people. I do that which I shouldn’t (sins of commission), and I don’t do that which I should (sins of omission). No one is excluded.
So, whereas your position looks at abortion and birth control as two separate issues, and causes you to see the issue as folly, they are one: the condition of imperfect man. So, with that thought in mind, why would I protect against one sin – murder – and turn a blind eye to another – adultery? As a Christian, that would be disingenuous, regardless of how practical it would be.
I believe you are looking at Christianity through the contemporary, American, reformed version. It’s the perspective that turns what Christ did for all into what I can do for Christ. Kind of silly, isn’t it? I can’t do anything for Christ. I can’t do anything but foul up, just like adulterers, rapists, murderers, thieves, etc. The contemporary Christian community is willing to cannibalize itself when one of their own strays from the faith via adultery, etc. They do not live by what is an appropriate if overused mantra: hate the sin, love the sinner. This mantra is what the personnel working the pro-life clinics are fulfilling. However, as I stated earlier, they are not promoting one sin as being slightly better than another one. Is it better for my son to steal or lie to me? The answer is neither, they are both wrong. So, in Christian love, these people are trying to re-educate the expectant mothers about other things they can do to improve their lives. I don’t understand why you think that is a paradox.
Rick
March 3rd, 2007 19:40
Grant,
One more point…if you eliminate conception before marriage, you eliminate 80% of your abortion problem. (I’m looking at the stats from your CDC link.) Why is it bad to work toward that?
Rick
March 4th, 2007 09:05
I am an athiest, and a 98 % pro-lifer.
Largely pro-life due to my belief that life for “me” began at conception, that was the start of my existance, that was my own personal “big bang” (pardon the pun).
Three weeks after conception my heart started to beat.
First brain waves were recorded at six weeks after conception.
Seen sucking my thumb at seven weeks after conception.
You see, although moments after conception I was no more than a clump of cells, that clump of cells was me, I might have had a lot of growing to do but that clump of cells was me just the same.
I am glad I was left unhindered, to develope further,
safe inside my mothers womb until I was born.
Shouldn’t they all be so lucky ?
They are our equil, no more or no less.
March 4th, 2007 16:54
Bruce,
Welcome to the site. Yes, we were all that lucky, as we are alive. On the abortion issue, my line of demarcation is the same as yours.
Come back again soon.
Rick
March 5th, 2007 15:12
Hi Scott,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. First, I’m gratified to know that the more compassionate centers have been around for a long time. This is the first I’d heard or read about them. As far as reluctance in the media to tell people about more compassionate and loving Christian acts, I’m not sure that’s true. Regardless of its source, kindness generally doesn’t sell news. That being said, I think many in the media wait in the tall grass for ANY “Christian” problem and pounce on it like wolves.
Concerning legislation, I apologize if I implied some need for federal legislation on this topic. I don’t think that’s going to happen. If changes occur they will occur at the state level. This would, however, still entail legislation at the state level.
OK, that’s the easy stuff. Let’s get to the hard stuff.
First, you’re absolutely right. Abstinence is the ONLY perfectly effective way to prevent pregnancy. In addition, independent of pregnancy, sexual intercourse (especially prior to age 16) is associated with a host of behavioral and academic problems in the U.S. I think we SHOULD teach abstinence to kids. The best choice is not to have sex as a teen. Period. So far, I think you and I are still on the same page (or at least in the same chapter).
Here’s the problem and you said it yourself.
“…..abstinence, which, for some reason, goes over like a lead baloon in the public”.
I think teaching abstinence will likely reduce the occurrence of both non-marital sex and pregnancy. But it will never in any conceivable human society, come even close to stopping these activities entirely. We can get into a stats war with dueling researchers and opinions, but I don’t think that’s useful. I agree up front that teaching abstinence can lower the rate of teen sexual activity. I don’t think it’s useful to argue about percentages. They can and will change radically depending upon a host of factors. I’m sure each of us could come up with competing research if we tried. The point that I’m standing on is simply this: Regardless of the level of abstinence education (or any other education or intervention provided), humans will continue to have sex outside of marriage. My only argument in favor of this position is this: They always have. Always. Societal mores can push this around a bit, and individual parents, teachers, friends, etc. can (and do) have significant impact on individual cases, but that’s it. When faced with what I may like humans to do vs. the entire history of the race, I have to give in. This, I think, is where we disagree and where the conflict between combating abortion and refusing to even consider birth control arises. Let me be as clear about this as I can:
a) Given that non-martial sex will occur
b) Given that non-marital sex can and does lead to unwanted pregnancy
c) Given a fundamental moral stand that abortion is murder
Then
d) Any effective stand against abortion should include alternative ways of avoiding unwanted pregnancy that do not require murder.
e) These methods should include birth control as one proven method to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
Implicit in this is a belief that although non-marital sex is a serious problem that I or others want to deal with, this is both a) independent of any stand on abortion and b) a significantly lesser evil than abortion, because it does not entail the killing of babies.
-Grant
March 5th, 2007 15:54
Rick,
Wow. That’s both powerful and clear. I do look at Christianity as a social phenomenon. I can see your argument and why it removes the conflict I’m writing about. My only quibble is that I can say without question that I have never thought of what I can do for Christ, but that’s a quibble that doesn’t really detract from your argument. You really made me think. Thanks.
But I still have a problem.
If I understand your position (and I admit up front I may not), then I think many on the anti-abortion/pro-life side of things are being profoundly disingenuous. If I’m understanding you:
a) The Christian position is about sin and helping people to see a way out of/away from sin.
b) To a very great extent, sin is sin and we shouldn’t differentiate. c) You cannot enable one sin for the purpose of combating another.
If I’ve got this right, then the anti-abortion movement is not about abortion. It’s about combating sin at a much broader level that includes non-marital sex and likely other aspects of the lives of the pregnant women involved on an equal footing with abortion. If this is true, Christians who claim to be fighting abortion are doing so only in the context of a broader Christian social agenda. If this is true, they should call the movement what it is: A broader goal of fostering Christian moral values within those they help. To put as clearly as possible these folks are not fighting against abortion. They are fighting for a Christian value system. You may then claim that these are essentially the same thing, but that’s where you run straight into the folks who don’t have the same Christian value system and are pushing birth control as a way to combat abortion.
On a separate note, this interchange is (for me) what this whole brave humans experiment is all about. Thanks.
-Grant
March 5th, 2007 19:04
Thanks for your reply to my comment, Grant. I think we agree more than we disagree.
As for the popularity (or not) of abstinence, you’re right, we’ll never completely avoid extra-marital sex and pregnancy. From my point of view however, you can probably reduce it significantly if society would back it up like they back up a “free sex” paradigm.
The last issue is whether or not the Christian pregnancy centers should include birth control in their program. I can see why they don’t, and given that they are private organizations, I can’t see forcing them.
Is it beneficial or harmful to the pro-life cause for them to avoid the BC discussion? I don’t know. I wonder how many “repeat customers” they have. I know that somewhere there is a statistic that says most women who have an abortion have already had one in the past, but I don’t have any idea what that stat would be for a woman who carried to term. I kinda suspect it would be lower, but I have nothing to back it up. I guess I hope that the woman who carries to term learns about responsibility for her sexual actions and the rights of even the “littlest” people.
I also wonder how much education occurs in the places that offer abortion services. Do they show pictures of the various stages of development? Do they let the mothers see ultrasounds? Is there any long-term counseling/support groups?
A long way to go to say “I dunno.”
I do know my own opinions. They include a tendency to agree with the Christian folks to stress the importance of responsibility and the right to life, and not emphasize BC.
Scott
March 5th, 2007 19:11
I’d also like to comment on your response to Rick.
“If this is true, Christians who claim to be fighting abortion are doing so only in the context of a broader Christian social agenda.”
I don’t think the conclusion is on the mark. Christians are fighting abortion specifically and intentionally. The thing is that sex is so closely related to pregnancy, that one way to stop abortion is to urge the cessation of the behavior that leads to pregnancy. It’s a fact that if you don’t have sex, you won’t even have to consider killing the baby.
Hopefully that makes sense. They are treating the symptom (pregnancy) and the cause (sex).
Scott
March 5th, 2007 19:19
Grant,
Your first paragraph and three following points are correct. Where reality fails you - not where you fail reality - is in your assessment of the anti-abortion movement.
For many, the anti-abortion movement is about eradicating abortion, nothing else. There are many single-issue Christians, just as there are many single-issue political groups.
To take a step back, generalize, or whatever we should call it…yes, all Christians in general desire a system that has Christian moral values, just as environmentalists want environmental values, Muslims preach the values of Islam, etc. So, I don’t believe Christians can be singled out; it’s just easy to categorize them because they are an easily defined and stereotyped group.
The problem with tagging an issue as a Christian morality play is that it stifles valid debate about the socioeconomic issues surrounding our human flaws. (And, believe me, Christians are as guilty of this as non-Christians, if not more so.) If we never mentioned Christianity, but purely talked about the pragmatic causes and effects of these human flaws and attempting to curb them, every left-wing organization in the world would be rallying around them. But, because there is the stigma of “a boundary”, people won’t discuss these matters.
As an example: if the “Moral Majority” had come out against smoking twenty years ago, marshaled all their forces against it, and took the lead on the issue, would the left have even considered the issue? Or would they have taken the side of liberty soley to avoid siding with a Christian stance?
Freedom is the ability to do what we want, without it being forced up on us, as long as it is within the boundary of law. That’s the truth regardless of whether there is a religious heritage or not. However, our ability to curb our own desires is also a critical component of society, but it is one to which we expend less and less effort. Truly loving Christians will not force the issue down your throat, but will help you attempt to recognize the difference between freedom and self-restraint, and yes, they will use the Bible as the baseline. This is no different, though, than Bruce instilling the belief that life starts at conception to his children, even though he is athiest.
Finally, your quibble is not a bad one. I could write numerous posts about what is wrong with contemporary American Christianity, the most egregious issue being how much I have to do to be saved. If you have been educated about Christianity, and have been spared this teaching, then you are fortunate.
March 5th, 2007 23:01
Scott-
When anyone mentions statistics, I have to check them out. (That’s what this darned dissertation has led me to. “Stats? Stats? Who said it? Where was it published? When?” etc…..)
You hypothesized: “I know that somewhere there is a statistic that says most women who have an abortion have already had one in the past, but I don’t have any idea what that stat would be for a woman who carried to term. I kinda suspect it would be lower, but I have nothing to back it up. I guess I hope that the woman who carries to term learns about responsibility for her sexual actions and the rights of even the “littlest” people.”
As far as the first statistic, here’s what’s on the CDC website to which Grant linked:
“In 2000, of women who obtained an abortion and whose number of previous abortions was adequately reported, 53% were reported to have obtained an abortion for the first time. Eighteen percent of women were reported to have had two or more previous abortions.”
Being a mother myself, I would have agreed with your second point; the following is also from the CDC site:
“For women for whom data on previous live births was adequately reported, 39% of women who obtained legal induced abortions were known to have had no previous live births, and 86% had had two or fewer previous live births (Table 12). The abortion ratio was highest for women who had three previous live births (285 per 1,000 live births) and lowest for women who had one previous live birth (194 per 1,000 live births).”
Gotta say, that surprised me. I’m not asking anyone to take this for Gospel, but there will be some amount of rigor attached to CDC studies…
Food for thought.
March 6th, 2007 07:57
wow.
March 11th, 2007 11:07
YEA Susan, what surprises me so much is the fact that not only those are men talking about this subject and criticizing away… But, not only are they blaming the women, they are not even considering the fact that, most of the time, the initiative for sex is always the MEN’s.
I know, there are some women that take the initiative, sometimes, but please don’t generalize and don’t come telling me that all those poor man were not anywhere to be found when those women got pregnant!!!! Who initiated the SEX in the first place??
We, women, make love out of LOVE, you men … I hope you are old and intelligent enough that I don’t have to explain …
I am not American and reading your posts and your comments is really scarring me more and more about this. Even more when I see that you are adding God into the mixture!!!
I can see that you are all intelligent and cultivated people, well read and very interested about what is happening around you. Don’t you think, sometimes that you have gone away from the original meaning of the religion. This is not what it was meant to be. Rigid and unforgiving, willing to kill in order to prove a point. Puritanism is the worse form of hypocrisy but now this is going so far that it could become dangerous and this is very sad, some people don’t even realize their own contradictions. And we all have them at one point or another but when it comes to punishing other people and wanting to judge others… No, I say stop the madness, we are all humans and we all make mistakes, can we not all learn to live together and try to see why it happens and not try to punish and reprimand but help.
And thinking that you can prevent people from having sex!!! Get a grip please!!!! That would be the day!!! Can you stop???
My favorite method of education is EXAMPLE, children and young adults are going to repeat what they see and hear, if their parents smoke, don’t try to tell them not to… If you want your children, and the children in your society to be something you have to set a good example, something that they will be proud to follow.
That’s it, I did it again, I got on my battle horse (do you say that in English??). Hope not to be too long and boring,
nice Sunday and back to work on Monday…. hope you didn’t forget to change the hour!!!
March 11th, 2007 16:01
I was raised Christian–some quibble about this as I was raised Roman Catholic, and was taught by Jesuits, but let it pass– who was taught to respect and value life. I grew into a social progressive who respected the argument that women needed more say over their own bodies and whether or not to bear a child. As I’ve aged, and become a father, I have come increasingly to have significant reservations about abortion and to have questions about when ending a pregnancy is wrong. I don’t think it is at conception, but I know it is before birth.
That last sentence just crossed a line. Did you see it? Before that I was in the realm of fact. The last sentence used the words “think” and “know,”but both are used in a context that expresses opinion, or faith. Because I don’t “know” in the sense of Knowledge.
Therein lies one small problem in this discussion. Until we Know something, we use belief/opinion/ faith to fill in for our lack of Knowledge. But when we don’t Know, then don’t we have cause to be somewhat careful in creating policy. What Knowledge does anyone have that would justify taking such a choice–to bear a child- from the woman whose body will be used for nine months as the vessel? The presence of genetic potential is not necessarily the possibilty of human potential. Isn’t pregnancy defined as successful implantation? So, the use of barrier contraceptives should not be an issue. If it is, then are we headed towards supporting a stance that maturbation is also a potential legal issue , at least for men, as they are willfully destroying what would otherwise be the viable building-blocks of a human? After that comes the moral obligation of women to reproduce as often as possible so as to not waste the potential in each ovum. Obviously(I hope), we are not headed in these directions , which I intend only as hyperbole.
Further, (as Martine implies) social policy must be pragmatic, driven by the society that IS, not the society (Kingdom?) that is Wished For. Yes, we must be the peace in the world that we wish to create, but on a personal level, not a legislative one. To do otherwise, to create civil law based on one group’s religious mores and Gnosis, is shunned by our (American/Western) culture when we call it Sharia Law; let us shun it by any name.
By all means we should be seeking the Truth of the questions. Hey, twenty -or-so years after government doubting, questioning, and doing further studies, Global Warming (and the role of Humans in it) is now something we Know. Let’s get more science on the question of life, and soul. In the meantime, I believe that we should check our beliefs at the (Supreme Court) door, and ( as Martine also implied) be sure we listen to the voices of women on this issue, as they are the ones doing the heavy lifting.
For the record, I’m generally against abortion. I’m also against where we were on abortion before Roe V. Wade, which was just unfair.
As Brave as I am Human (fluctuating Daily)-
Nick
March 12th, 2007 21:53
Thank you Nick, I am not particularly “for” abortion, who would be? But I am certainly not “against” it if need be in the very beginning of the pregnancy. After, this is not something I ever thought about. The only thing I am really afraid of is fanaticism and I seem to see all the signs of that in the pro-life people. I have had the unfortunate pleasure to be able to talk to some of them while I was working in psychiatry. Hum… not a pleasant bunch…
Right now, there are much more pressing matters if we want to save our poor planet and leave something for our children and grand-children. And maybe, stop killing each other would be a good thing too…Love, understanding, compassion, sharing. I like those words a lot.
March 12th, 2007 23:46
Hello all,
First to Martine,
In some small defense of all the men talking about abortion, I would simply say that women’s voices were neither excluded nor unwanted. Just took a few more rounds for the women on the site to get into the mix. Welcome. Please come back.
Also, as one point of information, I THINK abortions are generally legal in the U.S. up through the 5th or sixth month of a pregnancy. Please, someone tell me if I’m way off base about this.
For all,
I wrote this post for the express purpose of getting a feel for the current state of the abortion debate. My goal was honestly less about abortion and more about the broader purpose of moving the U.S. national political debate beyond this issue. People on all sides are likely going to dislike whatever solution finally arises. Those on different sides of the issue simply believe profoundly different things and no amount of “evidence” of any kind is likely to move most folks off these fundamental positions. What I think will happen is a move to some middle ground that completely avoids the central question of when human life begins and is simply a pragmatic compromise that a bare majority of those involved are willing to tolerate (however unhappily).
The responses I got to the post (and those to Rick’s follow-up “sexual expression”) indicate pretty clearly to me that compromise on this is not yet an option for lots of folks. As I have said, that’s good to know. One way or another, the problem is not going away. In the meantime, can those of us who disagree on abortion see past this difference enough to work in other areas/issues? I hope so. This has not been the case at least for several years in U.S. politics and I think this is hurting us in the U.S. a great deal. We cannot continue to carve up the world into pro and anti-abortion or any other single issue.