Map of abortion law world wide photo taken from Wikipedia page on abortion.
On November 4th the L.A. Times printed an op-ed by Garry Wills titled “Abortion is not a religious issue“. The next day the NPR program Talk of the Nation interviewed him. In the article and during the interview, Wills argues that abortion is not a religious issue because there is no basis in the Christian Bible or theological tradition to definitely oppose abortion. His arguments are very interesting, I really recommend you listen to the podcast (and he has a wonderful sounding voice, by the way). When asked why so many Christians are opposed to abortion, despite the lack of scriptural basis for the argument, he said the following.
They say that because a religious authority, whether it’s the Pope, or a Pastor, or Evangelical congregation or group, says it, it’s religious, but that’s not necessarily the case of course. You have to have a religious argument and sanction to make a religious case. And, just because they have a religious role or religious office, that doesn’t mean that what they say is in all cases a theological matter. It isn’t, it’s an issue of natural law (he had earlier cited religious figures such as several Popes calling abortion a matter of natural law).
Our society has generally agreed to impose norms that protect citizens from violence, this is a huge part of our social contract. Perhaps the most astute aspect of Will’s argument is the statement that “killing” the human life found in a fetus is not different than “killing” the human life found in fingernails, unless we decide that a fetus is in fact a person. He writes “You should not murder, murder is the killing of a person. The question is, is the fetus a person, and when?” Scientifically speaking, a fetus begins to develop a central nervous system and concept of self only during the third trimester of pregnancy, but 99% of abortions happen before this stage. For this 99%, can a dime sized lump of cells that isn’t viable outside the womb, and doesn’t have a central nervous system, character, or self consciousness be a person?
The answer is yes, if your religion says so, and the answer is no, if your religion says so. Well’s argument that religion has no bearing on this question rests on the assumption that all practitioners of religions rely on the Christian Bible. This just isn’t the case. Many Christians believe that contemporary religious figures are active and valid contributors to the world view of that particular religion, even when those figures contradict scripture (just look at the religious right’s neoliberal economic platform vs. Jesus’s compassion for the poor).
What about people who practice religions other than Christianity? In a country that allows religious freedom (the constitution, remember?), who is to say that no religion may exist that includes a position on when a fetus becomes a person? The analysis of person-hood, whether in a fetus, a talking parrot, a monkey that uses tools, a mentally disabled person, or people of different races, is informed by social, emotional, historical, economic, and religious forces. We fought a civil war over the recognition of person-hood, we had a civil-rights movement to assert full personhood, and we are still arguing about it today. Religion definitely has a bearing on this debate.
I think Will’s arguments are incredibly useful, but they should be directed differently. That abortion is not a religious issue is the wrong meta-message. It’s just not true, and people are rarely convinced when they are told that their religious persuasions are not valid. The argument should be more focused if it is to be persuasive. Christians should revisit the scriptures they hold to be sacred, decide where their loyalties lie – with the texts themselves or with the religious figures who have claimed a monopoly on their interpretation, and only then should they decide whether they feel that God is calling them to prevent others from having safe abortions.
As you see from the picture, the legality of abortion varies a lot the world over. Here in Cuba it’s sometimes been used excessively. In an effort to achieve more impressive infant mortality statistics, doctors have occasionally advocated for it even when it might not be necessary. It’s like in the U.S. how we ignore the plight of the poor because it allows us to achieve a strong overall GDP – both cases loose sight of the needs of real humans.
As for my personal opinion? I would not stop a woman from aborting a 1st trimester fetus any more than I would stop someone from amputating a healthy finger. If that is the only way they see to be happy, it is not my decision. I would rather focus on affirming the rights of person hood for individuals who I am absolutely certain are humans – particularly non-citizens (why do we use the term alien, and so frequently act as if the term alien means non-human?). The rights of citizens are a subset of the rights of humanity, not the other way around. Anyhow, it sure would be nice if more of our politicians (ahem, republican party), would allow better education and birth control programs that would make abortion more rare though.
The unfortunate thing about sex-education and “reproductive health” education is that it’s been thoroughly co-opted by Eugenics organizations, entities that have a vested interest in abortion, and pharmacological outfits who are more interested in business than the safety of their products/procedures.
I’d also like to point out that the word “alien” does not connote “non-human”. If it did, then the phrase “aliens from outer-space” or “space-aliens” would be redundant.
Thus, the term “illegal alien” does not mean “criminal space-creature”. It means “foreigner who is not legally accounted for”.
Thanks for you comment!
I would agree that there are some organizations with vested interests; they now have financial/self preservation incentives to promote abortion. There are companies who would loose profits if they couldn’t sell as much equipment related to abortion, and many doctors, nurses, hospitals, and insurance companies would have less work if they performed fewer abortions. Some large organizations would collapse if they reconsidered or moderated their stances on abortion, so they must promote abortion to survive. I would not call them Eugenics organizations, but perhaps you could call it an abortion industrial complex (akin to the military industrial complex that has aligned itself with big wars=selling more weapons=good business).
I also think you are right about the term alien to describe foreigners; it doesn’t necessarily mean inhuman. My point was that I think sometimes we fail to treat foreign people with the full dignity and respect that every human soul deserves.
I happen to be Christian, and when I look to the Bible for direction it is clear that this ancient text doesn’t give direct advice for every modern situation. So, when I think about how I should apply the great lessons I find in this text, I try to focus on the areas where I feel very certain. Personally, I’m a lot less certain about the importance of a first trimester fetus than I am about a child or adult, one who can love and is loved, and who might be dying because they are hungry and can’t find work.