Post-Roe Confusion and Grief

Then the man of God began to weep. (2Kings 8:11)

I grieve. I have never been able to comprehend the hard positions over abortion, the binary world of all this or all that. The human, political, spiritual and ethical issues are much too complex for the sign waving, name calling, rush-to-the-extremes mess we have now. Sides have hardened again, as if at war with one another at the expense of both women and babies and I grieve. We're plunging into chaotic positioning in every state. There is much I don't understand and I have questions—many, many questions—some have been with me for a long time.

•  How can someone call themselves pro-life and oppose universal health care especially for women and children?
• Why doesn't supporting health care get the same energy as criminalizing abortion?
• How can someone call themselves pro-life and support allowing eighteen year olds to obtain military grade weapons with few if any controls?
• How indeed can they call themselves pro-life and refuse to allow common sense gun laws of any kind?
• How can people call themselves pro-life and attack or vandalize people who disagree?
• Are the lives of the unborn somehow more valuable than the lives of children in a fourth grade classroom, or teenagers on the streets of Philadelphia?
• How can the pro-life political movement call measures to prevent abortion, especially for poor mothers, a "distraction" from criminalization?
• Isn't hunger a pro-life issue as well? Don't mothers need to feed their babies?
• Isn't a living wage for families a pro-life issue for that matter?
• Where are the pregnancy support services?
• How can a pro-life position include no exceptions, even for the life of a mother?
• Where the pro-life voices advocating for women's absolute control over their own bodies up to the point of conception?
• Do women really believe that legal abortion protects them from abuse and neglect of their bodies?
• When did abortion become the end all and be all of women's rights, pulling all the passion and energy from other things--equal pay, adequate medical services, domestic violence, rape prevention and care, living wage?
• Has that laser focus on one issue actually harmed progress on women's rights?
• When did abortion become become "reproductive health," as if it were simple birth control or a substitute for fully robust women's health care?
• How did the unborn begin to be defined away as non-human even though each has unique human DNA at conception and is viable by the sixth month? Why?
• How can people demand "choice" and vilify people who disagree with their positions, even to the point of violence?
• How did we get from 'safe, legal, and rare,' to 'anyone, for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy?'
• Is abortion the BEST we can offer desperate poor women? Seriously?
• if we give ourselves the right to define who is human and who is not what are the implications for the infirm, the disabled, the elderly? 

• When did the rights of one person include the right to take other rights from other people?
• How do legal protections for the unborn harm women who also need protection?
• How is late term abortion not infanticide when those little people are capable of their own unique lives?
• How did we get into this mess?

We seem to be at war. The first casualties in war are truth and common sense. Those who attempt to stand in the middle end up shot full of arrows. I expect no less with his post. I grieve and can only pray.

Life

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 14:6

Let me make on thing clear up front: abortion is the deliberate killing of innocent human life. It is an abomination. I make that statement as bald as I can because I am about to outline thoughts that may challenge many in the so-called pro-life movement.

I believe that, as heinous as abortion is, there are circumstances in which it is the least evil choice. Women who find themselves in desperate straits have sought to terminate pregnancy throughout history. In our own day the both sides of the issue talk about "cases of incest and rape," to describe particularly desperate cases of pregnancy, often at the expense of a woman's mental health. Both those cases involve coercion and forced unwanted pregnancy, a violation of a woman's right to the integrity of her own body up to the point of conception.

There are also cases in which a woman must choose between her own life and a child's. Choosing for the child, as Saint Gianna Molla did, is unquestionably heroic. However, what if she has other children who need her, children who don't have anyone else, the choice isn't as clear. To this list I would add, hunger, poverty, and the inability to care for the children a woman already has. The tough ethical question for each woman becomes, "When is abortion the least bad thing to do."

That desperation is not what the so-called pro-choice movement defends, however.  They wave the flag of abortion on demand, no questions asked. Abortion has become the first recommendation in cases of teen pregnancy, career demands, inconvenient pregnancy, and, God forbid, a baby that is less than perfect. The attitude is symptomatic of a corrupt culture whose driving sins are greed and self gratification, putting self above life-giving generosity.

As complex as the moral issues can be, politics has made the situation worse in the United States. One party has used "pro-life" as a whip to flog its base to turn out and vote. They have no vested interest in overturning Roe vs. Wade because it is entirely too useful politically. The other has used "pro-choice" as a threat to frighten women that other rights are at stake. They have no vested interest in focusing on prevention, women's health care that does not include abortion, or any other solution to underlying problems.

If either party truly put human life at the center, they would oppose the death penalty, support common sense gun control, work to get guns out of the hands of teenagers, and support universal health care, particularly for the elderly and children—as well as working to oppose legalized abortion. Better, they would  support laws that eliminated abortion on demand clinics, required both ultrasounds and consultation that includes referrals to organizations who can help women with their pregnancy, and other measures to eliminate the need for it.  Neither party does that. The Enemy laughs in victory either way.

As I write this we are in the midst of another election in the United States, this one uglier and more distasteful than any since perhaps 1968. Archbishop Chaput put it perfectly when he quoted a friend as saying our choice is between:

A vulgar, boorish lout and disrespecter of women, with a serious impulse control problem; or a scheming, robotic liar with a lifelong appetite for power and an entourage riddled with anti-Catholic bigots.

Our choice is an ugly one. We've been told by pro-life friends and family that they will vote for the disrespector of women because he has promised to appoint people to the Supreme Court who will rule on the pro-life side.  Here's what I think is wrong with that:

Assuming he is elected (and that is looking unlikely), and assuming he does what he says (and his past history argues that we ought not rely on any word that comes out of his mouth), and assuming the persons interpret the law as he assumes, what then?  The court might rule as we hope, at least on laws such as I described to slow down the rush to abortion. It is unlikely to over turn Roe vs. Wade in any case. Even if it did, that would merely push regulation back to the states. If all this happens without great conversion of heart across the country and without putting a widespread network of pregnancy support centers and adoption services in place, we might find the situation is as bad or worse than before the appointments.

Belief that the Supreme Court is the answer to a horrific moral problem is foolish at best. If such a belief allows pro-life people to wipe their hands of the problem and feel self-righteous it is downright sinful. Belief that criminalization will fix the problem is at best foolish, and at worse shows a lack of compassion and care for underlying problems. Punishment without compassion not only inadequate, it is a sin of omission.

The Supreme Court won't fix the problem; people of faith have to. What should we—or what's more to the point—what should I—do?

• Some evils can only be driven out by prayer and fasting. 40 Days for Life provides and opportunity to fast and pray for 40 days twice a year.
• Read and think about the underlying issues of women. Don't oversimplify the problem.
• Sidewalk witness at clinics and hospitals, if done with joy, compassion, and openness can be very effective.
• Speak up in secular situations such as university, school, or work.
• Adopt children or support people who do. It is a tough thing to do.
• Support pregnant women in need, financially or better, with our time and attention.
• Work to develop pregnancy support services.
• Watch our state legislature as well as the Congress. Lobby for laws supporting pregnant women or regulating abortion. Write letters, call, email—make your voice heard.
• Give witness to the joy of family in your own life.
• Think about the whole of life and the impact of being pro-life on the death penalty, health care, the policies of the pharmaceutical industry, refugee crises, war, and gun control to name a few.

 I'm please to note that I've done some of all those. I'm ashamed to say I haven't done enough. I remember that it is Jesus who changes hearts, and ask Him to use me as he sees fit. We can only be his hands and feet.