I’m glad to see Joe Carter, one of the pioneers of the Christian blogosphere with his Evangelical Outposts, blogging at the First Things blog. In a recent post, he notes that pro-choicers are now articulating some of their moral qualms about abortion, citing some comments at Slate and Salon.com. (Follow the links.)
On matters of policy, the election of President Obama has been a decisive setback for the pro-life cause. On the rhetorical front, however, he may provide some indirect benefit. Because he promises to hold the line on the legal front, Obama provides a cover for pro-choice advocates to express their moral qualms about abortion. For example, both Slate and Salon.com have recently published articles by morally serious pro-choice advocates expressing reservations about the culture of abortion-on-demand.
Sample from the pro-choicers:
If you’re unhappily pregnant, you should look at an ultrasound of what you’re carrying. That goes for the potential father, too. Nobody can make you look, nobody should make you look, and you certainly should ignore bogus “information” scripts like the one concocted by a bunch of U.S. senators two years ago. But there’s nothing bogus about an ultrasound. It will make you face what’s growing inside you and the urgency of deciding whether to terminate it, even if termination is still the right choice. Otherwise, you risk sliding into the mentality of denial.
Another:
But tough questions come up more frequently than they did in the first years after Roe, as more is known about the choices some women and couples make, and fetuses have become as visible as women. Sex selection is only one of many tough issues. Abortion when the fetus has mild disabilities—or even when the fetus has no disability—is another. What about deaf couples who do not want a hearing child? Or as Ayelet Waldman reported on DoubleX, the woman in her support group who had an abortion because her fetus’ hands were deformed. These things should make us pause and think hard.
Another:
There’s always been a fear in the choice movement that if we deal with “morality” we are going to lose.
Joe comments: “The reason for such fear is well-founded. The choice movement—as even the name implies—relies on a rights-based rhetorical ploy that shifts the focus away from the morality of abortion to the legal question of individual autonomy. When pro-choicers are forced to deal with the morality of abortion they invariably lose—for even they know the practice is morally questionable. (This is why even the most ardent abortion rights advocate will claim that no one is for abortion.)
But while this shift in focus from rhetoric to morality will ensure that the pro-choice movement will lose ground, it does not necessarily mean a win for the pro-life cause. . . . The bar for what constitutes moral seriousness has been set so low for the pro-choice cause that people like Saletan and Kissling can admit that a viable fetus is a living human being yet still maintain that people should have the legal right to kill them.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
I was recently in a discussion with someone about when life begins. She asserted that life does not begin until that baby takes his first breath, whereby he breathes in his soul. When he takes his last breath on his deathbed, his soul leaves his body. She said that until then, the baby is just a body and not completely human. I was so speechless that a woman who has given birth to two children could see those babies as mere parasites. This sort of pro-choice argument will never fly in popular culture because too many pregnant women experience their pre-born babies as real babies. Pro-choice advocates only have one viable argument now and that is “that a viable fetus is a living human being yet still maintain that people should have the legal right to kill them.”
It’s a pretty harsh argument, but people are terrified to restrict the reproductive “rights” of anyone.
I respectfully disagree with the conclusion of this post. The moment one admits that the “fetus” is fully a “living human being” is the moment the pro-choice argument collapses into the vacuum of its inherent immorality.
I think the problem is that people have gone from supporting abortion to the point where some are now even advocating infanticide. I can’t say that I am all that surprised by this though. It was a well accepted policy in the ancient world. People do not value life any more. They see it as a burden. Laws aren’t going to change that either. Not saying we shouldn’t try to pass laws that protect the unborn, and those who can’t speak or defend themselves. But the laws are not going to change attitudes toward life. We need to get the gospel out in the world again. We need to let people know about the God who became one of them to secure a better life for them in heaven, and has given them eternal life even now, by dying on the cross. Only when people see the value of life given to them in the blood of Christ will they ever value life again.
I do believe, that, over time, the pro-life side is winning this issue. Certainly, improved technology has vitiated the contorted reasoning that was the underpinning of Roe v. Wade. But even more dramatic is the improved imaging technology, which permits a mom to see the humanity of her very young fetus. It is the younger generation that truly appreciates that a baby is human at conception, so as time marches on we will see a more dramatic shift toward life in public opinion.
I agree, Don, here as always, good medicine and science confirm reality and truth and make it harder for us to live in denial of what is. To be a good parent for that little baby is truly one of the highest callings which God gives in this life. Lord, have mercy.
i wonder if maybe in our paganizing society if maybe what is happening is that authority over decisions of life and death over family members is merely returning to the head of the household , where it was before christian eras.
to what extent should the state be intervening in family affairs. spanking, education,etc. ?
infanticide and abortion were common in the first century. I am glad that those standards have shifed in a christian direction, but I wonder if we christians will be successful in our current strategie without thinking through the entire picture…