Theological Thoughts for Thursday

I read the most intriguing article today. Ok, the article is from Esquire magazine, but I found it through a link on Slate.

Warren Hern is an abortionist. The write up, while not written in my favorite style, takes a unique approach to an ubiquitously political issue. The author chronicles the life of the doctor, his mother, his wife and his clinic. Constantly reminding the reader that he can't give names, he can't divulge facts, and he must do everything possible to protect the safety of everyone involved. After the murder of George Tiller , who was, according to the article, labeled "George Tiller the Baby Killer" by Bill O'Reilly [Before he was shot and murdered while serving as an usher in his Lutheran congregation.]Warren Hern remains as the last abortionist to specialize in late term, medically necessary abortions.

The author writes about Hern's wife and mother in tones and hues that could be used to sell sweaters on QVC, but makes no qualms highlighting the destructive anger of a man so far swayed to one side in this debate that he can't even hear about the opposition without flying into a rage.

Abortion is a very difficult subject. The language we use is so tainted by politicized thinking that one can detect a position purely by word choice. "Baby" means you're pro-life, "fetus" means you're pro-choice. Or, Anti-choice and Anti-life respectively, un-respectfully. Do you support the murder of millions of innocent lives? Do you think a woman is a piece of property? We can't even think about the topic without using words, phrases, and rationals so steeped in the political culture that they are only good for fighting and not for thinking.

My own position is highly nuanced. It's evolved to the point where I need a car ride and two lattes to diagram my stance. I'm influenced as much by the songs of Ani DiFranco as I am by my conservative Evangelical education.

To summarize as briefly and carefully as I can; I am almost entirely against abortion from a socio-emotional perspective, but I am almost entirely in support of abortion from a legal-ethics perspective.

I think that every life is precious and worth saving, but I also believe very strongly that the government has zero right to anyone's reproductive health.

I love kids and can't wait to have and adopt my own kids (well, I CAN wait, and will do so until I am married at least). I celebrate the sanctity of life through political positions on abortion, health care, war, the death penalty, global poverty, HIV/AIDS, environmental concerns, GLBT rights, and international genocide. I pray that all Christians will some day grasp a broader definition of "sanctity of human life." I fully support ministries that work with pregnant teenagers and teenage mothers. We need to work on improving their quality of life. We need to be concerned for them before they have an unwanted pregnancy. Teenage girls must be taught to respect themselves. Condoms should be free and easily accessible. Technology and human opinion must advance until the term "unwanted pregnancy" is filed away with polio and smallpox: another term our grandchildren will never know or fully understand.

Christian groups often use China's one-child policy as evidence that abortion is a terrible practice and a slippery slope. I've read pamphlets in support of pro-life groups that belabor the fact that China forces abortion on women who get pregnant a second time. I've never read anything that points out that this argument is a double edged sword. Abortion isn't the culprit in China (which has, since the 90s, really relaxed it's one-child policy and deserves a better reputation now)the evil lies in the fact that the government has total control over reproductive choice. Forcing abortion, illiminating abortion, etc. if the government has the right to choose for individuals in these extremely personal decisions it will always have a negative result.

Perhaps if we could re-define our conversations. If we could call the positions Side 1 and Side A. Perhaps then we could see beyond the political discourse and see eye to eye on some common ground.