The passion and intensity that anti-abortion supporters bring to this political issue doesn't match the effort they put into figuring out how other ways of getting the numbers down besides just prosecuting it as a crime. That may prevent some abortions, though it is more likely to drive them underground, where the risks of complications are much greater and the problems that caused the issue in the first place are made much worse.
The belief that life begins at conception is an almost exclusively religious belief. As such, the argument that laws restricting access to abortion are a violation of the Constitution's establishment clause form the basis of the rationale behind abortion rights. It is not a violation of any religious person's conscience if a person who doesn't believe the religious principle about when life begins decides to terminate a pregnancy. On the other hand, forcing someone who doesn't believe life begins at conception to carry a pregnancy to full term based on religious convictions they do not practice or believe in does violate their conscience and their right to decide on their own.
Fixing the Root Problem
Every abortion has a root problem and a set of circumstances, from lack of education which limits the scope of one's ability to understand their choices, to mental illness or dysfunction, to the biggest root cause, statistically, which is poverty. During all the years of Roe v. Wade, there was not one thing preventing any religious denomination, organization or local church from providing the kind of ministry necessary for those women who feel their back is up against a wall and they have no other choice, to have some space and breathing room as they decide what they are going to do.
Conservative Christians will point to a scattering of denominationally operated social service entities as evidence they've been "doing something" about abortion besides just whining about its legality. The scope of these entities, which include crisis pregnancy centers that offer an ultrasound scan and a lecture that is a more of a guilt trip than counseling, a scattering of social service agencies that work with mothers interested in putting their children up for adoption and finding prospective parents to adopt, and a few other places that actually provide food, shelter and clothing, along with access to pre-natal care, counseling and job training, is to help some women have a choice they might not otherwise have.
Aside from the crisis pregnancy centers, many of which are just coercive and offer minimal real help, there's a lot of good being done by these agencies, some operated by churches, denominations or Christian groups, some operated independently of religious motivation or support. They offer both choices and opportunities, and many of them address the core issues which prevent many women from considering any other option except abortion. They actually help women deal with root causes, including providing education and training in essential areas where it is missing, a secure refuge during the pregnancy where women can feel safe and have time to decide how to move forward, and help for whatever steps they take in doing so.
But, if the people who believe that life begins at conception, devoted the time, energy and resources they put into politics to these kinds of ministries and organizations, and if they really were as serious and committed to the issue, beyond the right wing political implications, there should be hundreds of places like that, accessible from just about anywhere in the country, fully funded and helping thousands of women who need it. If they were serious, they'd put their money where their mouth is. And yes, I had to say that, because that's the issue. If someone is passionate enough to throw political slurs and name-call politicians who support abortion rights "baby killers," then I'd think they'd use their influence as a member of their church to forego a $10 million sanctuary that gets used once or twice a week for church services in favor of setting up a center that has the potential to prevent a thousand abortions.
If they're that passionate about the issue, then they'd avoid spending $60,000 on their own selfish desires for a gas-guzzling SUV and give part of that money to a center that helps women get to a point where they feel comfortable and able to support their infant. Or a place where they can live and work and get health care until the baby is born, and then, if they choose, put it up for adoption.
A For-Profit Business
One particular social service agency that I've encountered in that business, in Texas, operated and funded by a Christian denomination, processes adoptions. They have some women who live in two or three group homes scattered around the state, for pregnant women who were considering an abortion and got talked into giving up their child for adoption. I'm not sure what their capacity is, or exactly what they provide, but in order to get into the group home, women have to agree to give up their child for adoption.
The cost of the adoption, to prospective families, runs into the thousands of dollars, including lawyer's fees and a fee the agency charges which is applied to the housing and care of the prospective mothers. Yes, they charge prospective adoptive families for the mother's room and board. The agency also gets a fee for facilitating the adoption that reimburses them for any legal costs. So a social service agency that is pointed out as an example of what conservatives are doing to deal with abortion's root causes isn't out any of its contributed budget cash to provide the service. As a multi-million dollar a year budget operation, its adoption services probably save the lives of about 25 unborn children each year.
And that's one of just a small handful of similar agencies in Texas dedicated to this purpose. How can these people's anti-abortion position be taken seriously when that's all they are willing to do? If they are really serious about ending abortion, why aren't they doing it? What's stopping them?
Credit Where Credit is Due
I have seen some sincere, dedicated people who see the needs and commit their resources to making a difference. They operate on the belief that many women who choose abortion would welcome an opportunity to choose an alternative if their circumstances permitted. Because the fact of the matter is that few women have full control over the circumstances leading up to their decision. We forget that there must also be a man involved. What's he doing?
Just off one of the main drags, in a gritty, North Philadelphia neighborhood, there's a small congregation of about 100 mostly African-American, Latino and Asian members who worship in a building left behind by another church years ago. They worship in the church auditorium. Over a five year period of time, with mostly volunteer labor, they renovated the building next door which had some classrooms, a dining area and office space, into a community center. They distribute food and clothing. Once a week, a doctor volunteers time to see patients. They got a counselor to volunteer time.
Then the owner of an abandoned row house next door gave the church the deed to the property. It took several years, with the help of volunteer groups, sometimes one day at a time, sometimes a week at a time, to get the house in order. Initially intended as a women's shelter, it became a refuge for women who were pregnant and homeless. Other churches have stepped in to help now, but initially, this small congregation took care of up to eight women at a time, providing shelter, meals, clothing, medical care and counseling help. Ironically, their work isn't motivated by a political perspective on abortion. It's there to meet a need.
A Political Football
The problem with the religious right's lack of concern with any aspect of the abortion issue except trying to control it by making it criminal, is that it involves a disproportionate percentage of women of color, and women who are poor. Helping out with voluntary resources means dealing with women who may not share the Christian value of sexual abstinence until marriage. So criminalizing abortion is a way to compel or coerce behavior related to religious values.
If conservative Christians believed that their faith was the answer to all of the world's problems, then it would be reasonable to assume that winning converts to a redemptive faith experience based on forgiveness and grace offered by a God who the Apostle John defines as Love would be an effective way to change behavior, resulting in fewer abortions. Christian conversion, according to the early church's apostles, writing in the New Testament, comes by spiritual conviction, not legal coercion. It's hard for people to experience conviction leading to a conversion experience into a legalistic, rule-driven, coercive kind of faith. Perhaps if more churches got back to the business of preaching the Christian gospel, instead of extreme right wing politics, they would be more successful at evangelism than they currently experience.
I read somewhere that the current debt load carried by American churches on buildings that most of them use for just a few hours a week is somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 billion. So what that means is that a good share of offerings in the plate every Sunday go to pay interest on the debt. No wonder they're having trouble winning converts, and doing ministry. Maybe that's why some of them are turning to politics to do their work for them.
A Personal Note
I believe that many abortions could be avoided by resolving societal problems that include poverty, lack of education and presence of ignorance, moral issues that include a lack of respect for humanity, mental illness, even crime. If Christians believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the remedy for those problems, then their efforts need to match their claims. Christianity is a faith, and it is a faith that loses its character, its message, and its ability to bring about redemption when its principles, morals and values must be enforced by law, rather than lived out by choice. When abortion numbers in this country have dropped, it is because Democratic presidential administrations were able to get measures through Congress that dealt with the root causes of the problem. The religious right has had every opportunity to put its resources to work in the same way, and it doesn't seem to have made much of a difference.
I'm personally opposed to abortion as anything more than a means to save the life of a mother in a medical emergency. I may have an opinion and a belief, but I can't make a decision, nor would I have to live with one, in the case where someone got pregnant as the result of a rape. I can't understand how that would feel, so I'll stay out of it. I have been engaged in work that has aided those who are providing the education, and the help to combat poverty, that gets results. And I take the position that sanctity of human life means exactly that, and if one believes a fetus in the womb is human life, then one must also be opposed to the presence of assault weapons for the purpose of taking life. Can't have that both ways, it's philosophically and morally inconsistent.
No comments:
Post a Comment