Can Anything New Be Said?

The prolife and prochoice arguments on abortion have been aired so thoroughly for so long that one doubts if anything new can be said.  In an effort to avoid rehashing old, tired arguments let me suggest two observations and the conclusions to which they lead that may actually introduce some new perspectives.

The first observation is that, somewhat surprisingly, both Republican and Democratic voters are deeply divided on the abortion issue.  Poll after poll demonstrates this fact.  For example, a recent poll by the respected Pew Research Center found that 30 percent of Democrats are prolife—they believe abortion should be illegal in most or all cases—and 39 percent of Republicans are prochoice—they believe abortion should be legal in most or all cases.  Other polls show similar results.  Yet the national leadership of the Republican Party is near-unanimous in taking a prolife position on abortion; the national leadership of the Democratic Party is near-unanimous in taking a prochoice position on abortion.  This fact is also reflected in the two parties’ platforms. 

This first observation leads me to conclude it is an error for the prolife movement to tie itself too closely to the Republican Party, as has increasingly been the case. When this occurs many among the 30 percent of Democrats who are prolife will be left politically homeless and—unless they go against their political leanings and their positions on many other issues—their efforts to support the prolife cause by their votes will be lost.  They will be tempted to write off the prolife position as a Republican issue and something they can do little about. 

And Republican politicians, once in office, will be tempted to temper their actions in support of prolife policies in order not to alienate the 39 percent of Republicans who are prochoice.  For example, both Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush appointed prochoice justices to the Supreme Court (Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy; Bush appointed David Souter).  The prolife effort is strengthened to the extent it can be a bipartisan effort.

My second observation is that both prolife and prochoice advocacy groups often miss what I believe is a crucial point.  Obviously for those of us who are prolife, our religious—and for most of us—our Christian views clearly influence our thinking on the abortion issue. This has led many prochoice advocates to conclude that prolife persons are seeking to impose their religious beliefs onto all of society.  There is some truth, but more error in this position.  And it is important to be clear why this is the case.

Two quite different issues are at play when considering abortion.  One is what in a medical, physical sense is taking place.  And here modern science has not been kind to the prochoice position.  As science has learned more about fetal development, it has pushed back to the very early stages of pregnancy the presence of a very small, but complete human being—to within the first seven weeks.  One must turn to science and its study of God’s world, not God’s Word, to uncover answers to the facts of human fetal development.  Our faith does not tell us that a fetus is a human being, science does (although there are places in the Bible that indirectly confirm or assume this).

Where religious truth—and for the Christian, the Bible—enters in is in determining the value that should be attached to the human life that abortion ends.  And the Bible and the entire Christian tradition are very clear: human beings have been created in the image of God and as such possess an inherent worth that no other creature possesses.  Their lives are of enormous value in God’s sight; they must be of no less value in our sight.

Thus for the prochoice advocates to say we are simply seeking to impose our religious views onto all of society is much too simple.  We do not believe almost all abortions should be illegal simply because we believe they are wrong and against God’s will.  There are many other things we believe are wrong and against God’s will—such as taking God’s name in vain, fornication, and gossiping—that we do not believe should be illegal.  What is different about abortion is that it involves taking another human life and our faith causes us to value human life very highly. 

Prochoice advocates should recognize this. To be honest in their argumentation they need to argue their case on the basis that they disagree with us on the value we attach to pre-birth human life.  The issue is whether human rights and their protection by government should extend to all human beings or only to some—to those who have been born.  It most assuredly is not a matter of one group seeking simply to impose specific religious beliefs onto all of society.

And we Christians who are prolife also need to do better.  We need to argue our case on the indisputable facts of fetal development, combined with our faith’s high value it places on human life.  Our faith tells us what value to place on that life, and this is where we disagree with our prochoice fellow citizens.

This also means that our position on abortion should be only one way in which the high value we place on human life shows itself.  Some who are prolife see issues such as limiting the easy availability of guns, feeding the hungry, providing medical care for the aged and disabled, and overly quick resort to military action as distractions from the “truly important” work of opposing abortion.

If one’s position on abortion is rooted in a thoughtful commitment to human life it becomes difficult to be prolife in the case of human beings before birth and adopt an individualist, “every-person-for-him-or-herself” after birth—or even to relegate concerns for the protection of human life after birth to a secondary status. I am convinced that to the extent we who are prolife Christians link our prolife position on abortion to a heartfelt, active commitment to the sanctity of human life in other settings, our position on abortion will gain increased respect and a renewed, serious hearing.