It’s not my intention to tell you how to think on this issue. Rather I want to raise a broad range of issues which highlight the complexities of gender, reproduction and religion.  Why raise this issue now? 1. Depending on who wins the election, the number of Pro-Life or Pro- Choice judges in federal courts will shift. 2. The use of stem cell research, which generally speaking, conservatives have opposed as they would say that an embryo, even in a dish, is just as sacred as any other life. 3. The law which is known as the partial birth abortion ban, one of the most controversial of all abortion situations, was signed by the current President. Of the range of perspectives a person could hold on the issue of abortion, the most often spoken of are Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. We have been led to believe that our politics and our religion must guide our position. Many evangelical Christian groups have assumed that a Pro-life position is the only possible Christian perspective. Abortion is a far more complex set of circumstances than any such duality allows for. It is not satisfactory to say I am a Republican or a Democrat, therefore I hold a Pro-Life or a Pro-Choice position. We all know that there are Pro-Life Democrats and Pro-Choice Republicans and vice versa. Amongst some high profile Pro-Life Democrats is the Sojourners community leader Jim Wallis. The Catholic group known as Consistent Life- Voices for Peace and Life has given the Pro-Life perspective a liberal framework. This is its statement:

“We are committed to the protection of life, which is threatened in today's world by war, the arm's race, abortion, poverty, racism, capital punishment, and euthanasia. We believe that these issues are linked under a 'consistent ethic of life'. We challenge those working on all or some of these issues to maintain a cooperative spirit of peace reconciliation, and respect in protecting the unprotected.”

Among some high profile Pro-Choice Republicans are Arnold Schwarzenegger and the former NYC Mayor Giuliani who have built much of their political platforms on libertarian perspectives on a range of issues.

Similarly, it’s not satisfactory to say that I am an evangelical or a religious liberal and therefore I am Pro-Life or Pro-Choice.

The Bible does not have a clear voice on the issue of abortion - why would it? It was written in a world without knowledge of the legal and social complexities of our day and age. Why would we expect it to? In both Hebrew and Greek culture the life of any unborn baby was of no more significance than the life of a woman and mother. They were both subservient to the personal and social needs of men. So, our patriarchal tradition won’t offer much of a lead in either direction on this issue.  We might try, as some have done, to equate abortion with murder and say that the Bible condemns murder, but this is to oversimplify the issue. In any case, the teaching of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount would suggest that intention or motive is a factor in any ending-of-life situation.  Let me trace very briefly the theological movement from conservative to progressive as it might approach an issue such as abortion. The conservative position would state that God has absolute standards, and is sovereign over nature. Therefore, matters of life and death are God’s domain.  A liberal perspective would still claim that God has absolute standards, but the qualities emphasized would be liberation and compassion rather than the zero tolerance of a hardline, unchanging God.  A progressive perspective would say that God is subject, an experience, and that our values are relative and situational. So there is no once-and-for-all time morality or ethic which would be authoritative.  Last week Joel Toppen gave an excellent lecture here on international affairs and pointed to the differences between liberty and equality. He suggested that the conservative agenda emphasizes liberty while the liberal agenda emphasizes equality. I use the term liberation with a different nuance to liberty. I see the Christian history and origin as being one of liberation, but not a liberty which is set by the power elite. Rather, it is a liberation created by and for and in the interest of the minority or marginalized group.  How does this relate to an issue like abortion? Whatever we say, whatever our opinions, we must acknowledge that women’s bodies, and reproduction have been politicized, marginalised and used in patriarchal interests. Therefore it could be argued that Christian liberation means it is women who have to forge the nature of their own freedom from oppression in this case. The role of the church is to empower and embolden women to seek and demand this liberation.  This is not just liberty to choose. Rather, it is a liberation from the conditions of patriarchy which is the context of many abortion situations.  On the other hand, in the case of abortion, we are speaking about in some senses a potential future, and the needs of another marginalized group. So how do we balance the Christian call to liberation for women, and the rights of an unborn child? This is a case for situational ethics and for a careful understanding of all factors.

 It’s not satisfactory to say I am a feminist or not and therefore I am Pro-Life or Pro-Choice..

There are Pro-Life feminists who want REAL choice for women. A REAL choice where women have the option to *choose* effective birth control, effective being the key word. A REAL choice when it comes to having a career and a child - women should not be in the situation where they either have an abortion or risk losing their job. This is not a fair choice to have to make. As a statement from Planned Parenthood in this country has said, “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives."

One of the sanest voices I have heard in this debate comes from Naomi Wolf ,the author of The Beauty Myth and Fire with Fire, a strong advocate for gender equality in the last 10 years. Let me read you a short extract from an article where Wolf critiques the language of both pro life and pro choice perspectives.

"God” or "soul"--or, if you are secular and prefer it, "conscience" -- is precisely what is missing from pro-choice discourse. There is a crucial difference between "myself and my God" or "my conscience" -- terms that imply moral accountability -- and "myself and my doctor," the phrasing that Justice Harry Blackmun's wording in Roe ("inherently, and primarily, a medical decision") has tended to promote in the pro-choice movement.

 

Pro-choice advocates tend to cast an abortion as "an intensely personal decision." To which we can say, No: one's choice of carpeting is an intensely personal decision. One's struggles with a life-and-death issue must be understood as a matter of personal conscience. There is a world of difference between the two, and it's the difference a moral frame makes.   Now: try to imagine real gender equality. Actually try to imagine an America that is female-dominated. Since a true working democracy in this country would reflect our 54-46 voting advantage.  

Now imagine such a democracy, in which women would be valued so very highly as a world that is accepting and responsible about human sexuality; in which there is no coerced sex without serious jailtime: in which there are affordable, safe contraceptives available for the taking in every public health building; in which there is economic parity for women -- and basic economic subsistence for every baby born; and in which every young American woman knows about and understands her natural desire as a treasure to cherish, and responsibly, when the time is right, on her own terms, to share.