Monday, June 9, 2008

"Lord Save Us From Your Followers" Book Review & Discussion (3 of 4)

Abortion

One of the more intriguing interviews Dan Merchant included in his book was that with former Republican Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum. Santorum, along with Senator Sam Brownback (KS-R), were voices for Christian conservative causes like abortion, same-sex marriage, and intelligent design versus evolution. Santorum is a self described Compassionate Conservative. In an op-ed piece published in November of 2005, he said, “Compassionate Conservatism relies on… a focused government to achieve noble purposes through definable objectives which offers hope to all.” It sounds noble, but this talk comes from the same man that tried to insert language into “No Child Left Behind” that would have sought to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Santorum lost reelection to Democratic candidate Bob Casey, Jr. in 2006. Santorum left much to be desired during the interview, for reasons I will go into during the discussion on Creationism, but I gleaned some respect for Santorum from his comments on abortion.

He states, “Let’s have a real discussion about the moral and worldly consequences [of abortion] instead of just saying, ‘Well, God says we can’t do this’ and just lay down the law. We have to engage people and help them think through the consequences.”

Yes, I say! Absolutely! That’s what I am trying to accomplish. We must be cerebral in our discussion on abortion, not just spout biblical verse and shout, “Abortion is murder!” I love enthusiasm, but I hate blind faith.

Let’s start the discussion about the moral and worldly consequences of abortion Santorum was referring to. Two points:

First, a human life begins at conception, when sperm meets egg. This produces a cell containing 23 sets of chromosomes, a cell that will divide and differentiate to form every cell in the human body. There is no disagreement with this fact, even between religious fundamentalists and scientists.

Second, in the eyes of the law, an embryo will never have the same rights as the mother. It is impractical to put mother and embryo on equal footing under the law.

This is an unsettling reality. Moral thinking tells us abortion is wrong. Unfortunately, it’s not enough to simply say “abortion is wrong, so it should be illegal” because the consequence of overturning Roe are daunting. Where are you sending women seeking abortions? What happens to the babies from unwanted pregnancies? History tells us women will seek abortions despite the law often in unsanitary conditions performed by people less than professional. Women should never be forced into dark back alley procedures. And the products of unwanted pregnancies should be placed in loving homes with people who can feed, nurture, and care for the child. The feds cannot provide this, no more than religious organizations. Until these problems can be resolved, abortion will remain legal.

I have a problem with the Pro-Life stance on abortion because it doesn't offer solutions to the problems listed above. Pro-Lifers are merely trying to force their agenda on others. It is as restrictive as the opposite stance, and I'm not referring to Pro-Choice. The opposite stance to Pro-Life is a birth ban, where conception is prevented. Funny? Imagine a society where everyone is strung out on contraceptives and it is against the law to have children. This could be a plot for a sci-fi novel. Scary, isn’t it? But is it any scarier than a society where you can be brutally raped and impregnated and the state mandates that you deliver the baby? Pro-Choice is the more moderate stance. It puts the decision to give birth in the hands of every American woman instead of the hands of the state. It supports the woman’s power to choose. It empowers people instead of restricting them. Abortion will remain legal.

I’m not sure if Santorum would agree with this string of reasoning, but I respect him for at least opening the door for discussion. It is short sighted to make or change a law without understanding the consequences of the action. We must not be blinded by our faith.

2 comments:

Unknown said...

Francis - you make my head hurt from thinking so much! But I do have to agree at least on a certain level about some of what you say here. It has always disturbed me when politicians want to spout anti-abortion rhetoric (generally to gain votes) but they don't address the issues of the children after they are born -- or fund programs to address those issues. If you're going to promote an anti-abortion agenda, which I don't necessarily think is bad -- then you HAVE to include programs, funding and solutions for those babies that will be born and their mothers and/or other family. You can't bring them in to the world and then leave them to fund for themselves.

nummynummysoup01 said...

Yeah, things are not black and white. While I feel abortion is wrong, do I think someone who is raped should have to have the baby? No. But for a lot of unplanned pregnancies, adoption is a good solution.

I like the new banner..just finally really noticed it. Takes a while for me to notice things these days besides diapers and bottles.