
          Keeping The Faith On Abortion
          
            
              Ledbetter, BrownieBrownie Ledbetter
            
          
          Vol. 12, No. 1, 1990, pp. 1-4
          
          The argument about abortion must develop into a substantive
debate. We must deal with questions of morality, medical ethics,
medical technology, health_care, environment, economics, separation of
church and state, individual rights, and women's rights, to name a
few.
          What decisions about life and death should we make now that we have
choices we have never had before as a result of increased medical
technology? Who should make them? Are the laws regulating such
questions adequate protection for individual rights? for doctors? for
hospitals? for family planning and abortion clinics? should we put
limits on medical research? what about the effects of overpopulation
on the environment?
          Who pays for welfare, health_care, and education of the increasing
number of poor women and children in this country? in other
countries?
          If a fetus has civil_rights does that include inheritance? Does
extending legal personhood to fetuses mean that women of childbearing
age must be prohibited from any job that could endanger a fetus or a
woman's right to become pregnant?
          Issues relating to human sexuality in this country have become so
complex and frustrating to many of us that we advocate single-issue
solutions. We do this, generally, out of abysmal ignorance of the
biological and social development of human life. We have allowed only
minimal education on human development in our public_schools and that
little is way out of date now. It must be nonexistent in many
sectarian schools. We are 

bemoaning the fact that few high_school
graduates know where Florida is. How many ever even heard of DNA?
          But changes have come about awfully fast. I can remember when
virginity was a requirement for marriage (for women only, of course),
when movies could only show stars fully clad in separate beds, and
even two-piece bathing suits covered most of women's bodies. And I'm
not even sixty yet! Now you take a person like me and jerk me up into
the '80s and '90s with pornographic TV ads and movies in which stars
have intercourse right there on the screen and you are talking major
shock treatment.
          Young folk have trouble coping with all this sexual activity as
well. They need some support if they are going to be able to "just say
no" when they believe none of their peers would and certainly very few
adults do. Besides, all that stuff on TV looks pretty tempting. Kids
do mirror our values, after all.
          A lot of folk in my vintage-and younger-just figure we have to put
our collective foot down. If we look for a nice simple reason for all
of this "moral degradation," the 1973 Supreme_Court decision
protecting a woman's right to choose an abortion is a pretty good
target. Throw in the women's movement-all that freedom for women-and
you have yourself a good, clear, scapegoat. Up to date, too: it can be
characterized in a broadcast sound bite-"abortion on demand"-now used
by the media as if it were an objective description of the pro-choice
movement. Well, if every woman would just stay home and teach these
children the right moral values everything would be back to normal,
right? Wrong.
          Arguing over when life begins as a basis for solving this moral
controversy is taking the issue out of context, the context being the
welfare of the species, the planet, the creation and sustenance of all
life forms. The context being the lives and relationships of human
families...mother, father, and children already born and living...the
unborn child herself...the very child over which this irrational
conflict supposedly rages. What effect will an additional sibling have
on the family relationships? On the well-being of existing children?
On the contributions the mother is making to the welfare of the total
family? What will be the new child's acceptance by the rest of the
family if the mother's health is affected or if she dies in
childbirth? What child would trade her or his mother for an unknown
baby? What husband would trade his wife for a new child?
          What is responsible about requiring a mother to complete a
pregnancy regardless of the health risk, or the economic risk, to the
family in order to bring another life into being? Is that not
potentially destructive to existing 

family relationships? And what if
the mother is a single parent? Is there a clear moral answer to these
concerns that fits every situation?
          AND IF THE PREGNANT woman is single? Even irresponsible in her use
of abortion after a carefree sexual encounter? Would she make a good
mother to this unwanted child? Why is it more morally responsible for
her to give birth to a child she does not want or is in no position to
raise responsibly? Is it that she should be punished by having to go
through nine months of pregnancy? Is pregnancy a punishment? What
respect does that attitude show for life? What does that do for the
child?
          What ever happened to the belief that one has no right to bring a
child onto this earth unless she and he are committed to
providing for the welfare and education of the child? Is that an
immoral belief? I thought it was Judaic-Christian stewardship.
          The furor over abortion has little to do with the welfare of
babies, born or unborn. If it did we would spend more than a token
amount on the welfare of children in this country so that we could
bring them up to be the responsible citizens and leaders we need. If
the folks calling themselves "pro-life" who are
raising the issue of abortion as a child-centered concern had child
welfare in mind they would not oppose public spending for child care,
for pre-school education for every child, for school lunches for poor
children, for prenatal care for pregnant women and other measures to
decrease infant mortality, for an adequate national immunization
program. for identifying and treating child abuse, for accessible and
medically safe birth control, and above all, for increasing funding
for public_education and health_care.
          Unfortunately, they are joined by many other American voters who
appear to have little sense of responsibility for the welfare of
children other than their own...especially if it means paying more
taxes.
          There is an area of agreement even among the more vocal and
polarized movements. We would all like to see an enormous decrease in
the incidence of abortion. But here again there is conflict in how
that goal should be reached.
          Pro-choice groups believe that could be accomplished by increasing
the use of medically safe birth control methods and education about
the reproductive process and responsible sexual behavior. Anti-choice
groups, believing those methods to be an inducement to increasing
sexual activity, advocate abstinence enforced by law and outlawing
birth control as well as abortion to accomplish that goal.
          I believe the rhetoric about unborn babies is yet another way to
exploit children, to tug on our emotional reaction to perfectly formed
and adorable little babies (usually white) for other purposes. If we
can use babies to sell everything from soap to long distance telephone
service, why not?
          For some this tearful rhetoric about unborn babies is a way of
avoiding the tough new choices we can make about life and death rather
than being able to dismiss them as "God's will." For others it is a
way of punishing those who sin. For still others it is simply a way of
resisting change. For many it is a method for re-establishing a more
subservient position of women, a way of stopping the increasing
independence of women.
          And where are the churches on this 

moral question? Protecting their
institutions, whatever their doctrine. That appears to be the one
common denominator among our diverse religions. The linchpin of the
great American experiment, separation of church and state, protection
for individual diversity, is in danger yet again. Cries of "this is a
Christian nation" are heard once more across the land. And where are
the clergy and lay leadership alike who are not ignorant of the
historical fact that many of our most-revered founding fathers were
not Christian or that they created constitutional
protection for the diversity of religious citizens as well as
non-religious citizens?...They are silent. Even those religious
leaders who represent a faith with long-held positions of support for
the separation of church and state are silent, or outvoted by newly
organized voices as in the Southern Baptist Convention.
          That is not to say that there are not groups of religious clergy,
laywomen and men within many faiths who are trying to speak
responsibly to these issues. There are many traditional women's
organizations within a variety of religious institutions across
religious faith groups struggling as catalysts within their
institutions-all of which arc male-dominated. But rarely are they
heard by the general public because they are not the established
leadership.
          I have always believed that religious faith is a very private and
personal matter and although it is the basis of my moral value system
and I see it as the reason for my work as an activist, I do not feel
comfortable articulating my faith in secular settings, or to
religiously diverse groups unless it is the stated topic for
dialogue. However, since so much of the debate on abortion is
characterized as "religious" I may be wrong about
that.
          Probably my own reluctance is a mirror of the unbelievable
reluctance and inaction of religious institutions like my own who
claim to be "mainstream" and yet allow absolutist
groups to speak for Christianity as if there were no other Christian
perspective. There is also a certain "classism" 
among our so called "mainstream" Protestant
denominations. Perhaps guilt over our mild contempt for
"lower class" evangelical or fundamentalist
denominations has motivated the current efforts of mainstream
denominations to work towards some sort of vague coming together. It
also may have something to do with the fact that we are losing
membership.
          THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT has every right to speak for their position,
but so does the rest of Christendom-not only the right, hut the
responsibility.
          The culture in which we exist in this world and the circumstance of
our lives have such enormous bearing on our religious preferences that
I have always believed separation of the church and state to be the
only way we can coexist. It is also the only way of avoiding religious
wars. Religious wars, whether they are fought with words or weapons,
are clearly blasphemous in that any group who claims to be defending
the only religious truth is pretending to be God. That kind of
arrogance must feed the very devil that they are so busy
personifying.
          Human life cycles are longer than those of many of God's creatures,
and we have perhaps more ways to affect life and death, but we are
still within the constraints of mortality, just like all other living
things. Human life gets renewed just like all other forms of life. We
are not unique in that sense. After all, every form of life is unique
in its own characteristics. The Christian insistence that we are
superior to other forms of life we believe to have been created and
sustained by God seems to me to be the height of arrogance. Maybe that
is our "original sin." It is surely a part of our
self-centeredness.
          Most human religions advocate some level of responsibility for or
toward other living things. We humans are finally beginning to be
concerned about our environment. But until we realize that we arc only
one of the many forms of life created by God with considerably greater
options in our reproductive processes than other creatures, and learn
to use those options in more morally responsible ways, we are
incredibly poor stewards of life.
          We Christians should speak out with different perspectives, as
citizens who have honest disagreements. Instead we swallow our
commitment to our own beliefs. We try to reconcile ourselves in some
way with those of our faith who want to enforce their particular
religious beliefs in secular law and thereby separating the goats from
the sheep as if we had that kind of authority.
          After all, the pro-choice movement does not advocate laws forcing
women to have abortions. But what is being advocated by the
anti-choice movement is forcing women to complete a pregnancy
regardless of the circumstances that brought about that pregnancy, her
circumstances, or the circumstances of her family. Those among us who
believe abortion is immoral no matter what the circumstance are free,
as they should be, to practice their belief within current legal
requirements. Why should they force those of us who do not share their
belief to conform to their absolutism? We advocate personal private
choice, not abortion.
          Dialogue among religious faiths and denominations is vital and it
can solve a lot of conflicts. Heaven must know that we Protestants
have a proclivity for starting a new denomination over the silliest
disagreements. But at some point judgments must be made, not
postponed, in the name of avoiding conflict. Often that strategy only
prolongs and exacerbates the conflict. l he public welfare is at
stake. Prolonging the debate has become destructive.
          Somebody has to call for the question. I so move. 
          
            Brownie Ledbetter is a Presbyterian elder in Little Rock,
Arkansas' and a longtime civil_rights activist.
          
        
