Roe v. Wade

As a preface, this blog article is not about the Roe v. Wade case itself or its merits and/or its wrongs. That is an issue for the courts. But as of two days ago -- May 3, 2022 -- a leaked document emerged from the US Supreme Court that suggested the case may be overturned, effectively banning abortion in the country. 

Now, I am pro-life. I am 100% convicted that the life of babies matters and should be preserved. At the same time, I recognize matters of viability. I recognize that medical conditions can threaten some mothers if they carried babies to term. I recognize exogenous factors like rape, incest, disease, poverty, and so forth that lead many women to seek after abortion. There are real financial, physical health, and psychological concerns at play. Far too often, people from my side of the fence offer terse over-simplifications and abstractions in trying to defend life. It usually boils down to 1. a willful ignorance of these other factors, and 2. a blanket statement stating that people ought not have had intercourse if they weren't ready for the consequences. 

Here's where I stand on this matter. First, I cannot accept abortion per my theological framework. Contemporary people like to toss out that in Judaism, life begins at birth when the first breath is taken. I agree symbolically that this is the case, since in Hebrew breath or ruach is connected with the Genesis 2:7 when God breathed into man his life. Yet, this is a knee-jerk apologetic for abortion's case. It is true that the majority of Jews today (not all) have accepted that life doesn't begin until after birth. Also cited is the Talmud, which was written 200-500 years after Christ (see Yevamot 69b), which posits that a fetus is deemed merely water until after 40 days of pregnancy. Yet, these arguments are proof-texts for abortion rights and are often used against Christianity as gotchas, since Judaism predated Christianity. This presupposes the expectation that Jewish theology should interpret Christian theology. 

[For additional thoughts on Judaism and abortion, click this LINK]

My issue here is that these pro-abortion Jewish arguments are founded in rabbinic commentary that came later than Christianity and ignore that Christianity was at a time a Judaism within the earlier Second Temple period of Jewish thought. Plus, in the context of fetus related discussions in the Talmud, viability of life is what's truly weighed, not the outright rejection of a fetus's humanity. Context matters.

For Christians, the early Christian catechism called the Didache -- likely originating in the late first century -- states in chapter two, verse two, "Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not corrupt youth; thou shalt not commit fornication; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not use soothsaying; thou shalt not practice sorcery; thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born; thou shalt not covet the goods of thy neighbor." Christians cannot be consistently pro-choice. But that doesn't mean Christians cannot be sympathetic or positively responsive.

For Christians, a child in the womb is as much a life as when born. Even the unborn John the Baptist displayed agency when his mother was near Mary, who was pregnant with Jesus (Luke 1:41). The theology of the unborn being alive in Christianity predates rabbinic debates. This doesn't mean that Christians have always disregarded severe circumstances or the weight of a mother's life in balance with the unborn with regard to viability. Christians can acknowledge exigent circumstances on a case by case basis. This is not what Christians should object to. What Christians unanimously reject is the use of abortion as mere birth control, which accounts for the vast majority of cases. Unfortunately, where many pro-life Christians have failed is in understanding the reasons behind these decisions. Christians often lump all abortions into an argument of convenience. For some women, abortion may very well me a materialist way out, but for many others, it is an unanticipated and even unfortunate lifeline. No two cases are identical.

I do take a 100% pro-life stance, which means that I need to also consider the factors that lead to abortion. I will never accept the use of abortion as a mere way out of  responsibility, but this is an oversimplification of other real factors. Some women have abortions because they fear the financial weight of life, social stigmas within certain family or cultural dynamics, genetic predispositions, failed birth control, and so many other reasons. I may disagree that most reasons are worth the cessation of a life, but I must still consider the burden women often have.

If abortion is made illegal, then Christians need to be the first to offer cushioning for the hard crash. Christians need to be willing to step-up in adopting. Christians need to abandon their fiscal conservative rejections of welfare, as impoverished mothers will use programs like WIC more readily. Christians need to fill in the mental health gaps, because trauma related pregnancies that come by way of rape, incest, and so forth will require women to have added help. Christians cannot just revel in a victory for the unborn, because it's only half the equation.

My acknowledgement of these things does not mean I am pro-choice (that's too polemical for me), but that I am even more pro-life. I think abortion is absolutely evil, but so too is the abandonment of women in dire need or the dismissal of the human stories that lead women to choose to abort. I wish it wasn't so complex, but life is messy and we are all in this together. Dialogue and compassion are needed all the way around... And prayer. 

Nonetheless, Christians should still exercise their opinions in the marketplace of ideas, civil society, and in politics. James Madison called for a plethora of competing voices in Federalist Paper # 10, because the more voices that speak, the more a tyranny of the majority will be tempered, while simultaneously limiting a tyranny of the minority. It is perfectly fine that this remains a contentious issue. It's an important one. But, Christians must avoid reducing the argument in ways that ignore the pains of women in need. Rather than politicizing the matter first, Christians should be the first ones to hold the hands of women in need and pain, rather than lobbing pejorative "baby killer" monikers at people or seeking legislation that addresses only one element of the issue. Ultimately, Christians need to pray, because life matters and that means the life of both babies and moms. 

Abortion is a societal ill. I have no problem calling it evil.

But, I believe Christ is the cure. And Christians are still patients under the Great Physician. We ought not act like we're the doctors, because our medicine is incomplete. But we cannot provide aid with band-aids applied to sucking chest wounds. To ignore the ramifications of banning abortion is to posit that Christians do not care beyond the baby element. This is not a game of chess where there is a clear winner. 

Lastly, Christians need to be consistent with their theology, but that includes compassion and grace and the caring for the marginalized, which includes the many women who succumb to the consideration of abortion. We need to walk with people, not reject people as we wave the banner of war. Our fight is not against flesh and blood, but powers and principalities (Ephesians 6:12). In other words, spiritual warfare doesn't mean we war against the victims of sin and death (i.e. people). Christians are called to love first. It doesn't mean agreeing with people on all matters, but it does mean walking with people regardless of matters.

My two cents. Much love.