Abortion and Christianity

 Given the Supreme Court decision to overturn the Roe v Wade ruling, let's embark on a journey of practical religion.  We can't practice our religion in a sandbox, we have to apply it to the real world, after all, religion effectively changes the way we view the world.

Roe v Wade background

"Jane Roe" lawyers filed a suite against the local district attorney Henry Wade claiming Texas law prohibiting abortion except to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional.  The Northern Texas District Court agreed it was unconstitutional.  Texas officials challenged this ruling, went to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court ruling was the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment was violated by Texas law which cites a fundamental right to privacy, which protects a pregnant woman's right to an abortion.  But the Court also held that the right to abortion is not absolute and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life.  Abortion was classified as a fundamental right.  The balance noted above has changed some over the years, but it allows for regulations within the state.  

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overruled Roe holding "the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion" and that "the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."

What is the real issue that is being debated?

This is not really an issue of morality.  Let me explain.  Most people would agree that life is sacred and should be protected.  Most people agree that abortions for convenience is wrong morally.  What people don't agree on is what is the best way is to handle this issue in our country.  Can this really be solved by legislation?  Could better education and resources be enough, or do we need fairly restrictive legislation to solve this?

Most Christian churches allows for possible moral exceptions for its members when:

Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

If you believe any of these caveats are acceptable religiously, then you would agree that abortion is a medical service that should be available to women.  Most I have talk with seem to agree.  However, here is the complicated part.  This I don't believe is a moral question, but an administrative one.  Even if I was going to suggest that everyone should live by my moral standard and allow for these caveats, how do you implement legislation to enforce it, without limiting access to this medical service to all women who need it?  For instance, who in the scenario determines who the "competent physician" is?  What is "serious jeopardy".  Which tests can we trust that identify severe defects?  Who determines if it is rape?  How does the medical system determine this without violating the woman's right to privacy, and without shaming her?

Now let's add in that not every religion shares these same values, so which one do we adhere to?  Answer, it can't be religiously based since there are many differences even within Christian religions, and differences between non-Christian religions.

It is also worth noting that very few churches openly support any given legislation.  They teach their moral code, and ask their members to live by it, but most don't support a particular bill or legislation.  Why?

We are all God's children

From a religious perspective, we are all God's children.  The pregnant mother is His daughter, and the fetus is his child also.  Whom does He love more?  Whose life is more important to him?  If your religion allows for caveats for having an abortion to save the life of the mother, it would seem to indicate that her life is more important to save.  If your religion does not have these caveats, then your religion puts more importance on the life of the baby.

If the legislation to restrict abortion now puts a mother's life in danger and unnecessarily is the cause of a mothers death because she can't access appropriate health care, that is a death caused by legislation (think this doesn't happen?).

There are so many issues with forcing women to have a baby she does not want.  She can decide if she will stay healthy or not during the pregnancy.  She can decide if she is going to drink or smoke, or starve, or any number of unhealthy practices.  Does the state get to regulate her health during that time?  There is also the studies that have shown that when women live in a state that has more restrictive abortion laws, and they cannot afford to go out of state for an abortion, there is an increase in the number of high risk at home abortions that results in severe medical complications or death for the women.  You can fault her, but if the baby will be aborted one way or another, it is better it is done under proper medical care.

The back and forth on this issue is whose rights are being infringed on.  The pregnant women, who obviously has rights to decide what kind of medical care, whether or not she will eat salad or ice cream, or drink alcohol.  At what point does the fetus have rights?  How do you balance the rights of each?

It is clear from most Christian policies that if the mothers life is in danger, her life is prioritized over the baby.  Shouldn't our laws then be the same?  Shouldn't our laws favor the life of the mother instead of the potential baby?

Summary so far .. 

So if you believe what I have written so far, I've established that 1) Even if you pick a single moral code, it is difficult to legislate abortion without denying the fundamental right woman have to health care, 2) The solution cannot be religiously based (at least at a government level).  3) The pregnant woman is valued by God.

Impact of Legislation: 

Why is it that more restrictive abortion laws seem to cause a larger number of abortions:

There seems to be a direct correlation to more restrictive abortion laws and an increase in the number of abortions?  I don't know that that is, but the data certainly seems to suggest that is true.  

Late Term Abortion: 

At first blush this I would say is an atrocity.  How could you after 21 weeks when the baby is basically fully developed then terminate that pregnancy?

Reasons individuals seek abortion later in pregnancy include medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion.  Late term abortion care needs to be preserved even under the religious caveats.  Legislation, if it doesn't impact a woman's ability to seek care when it is recommended by medical professionals, and the mother agrees, I agree should be implemented.  That is a big caveat though.

Late term abortions at the time of writing accounts for 1% of all abortions, so this is not a regular occurrence.  I also wonder, but have not looked into whether or not abortions care for miscarriages are considered abortions.

While initially this looks monstrous, again, the life of the mother, and the health of the baby are considerations at this point.  Let's not forget that when enacting laws.

Reasonably at this point the baby can have an early delivery if necessary.

Alternate solutions other than legislation 

Legislative restrictions on abortion are not the only solution to this problem.  You can employ broad legislative restrictions like was done in Roe v Wade, and later modified, and rely on other methods to reduce the number of abortions, and provide the needed support for pregnant women and new mothers.  Education can be the vehicle to cause powerful change in society.  Counseling for those seeking an abortion (which I believe is often available).

If you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

 

Russel M. Nelson and Dallin H. Oaks have been some of the most outspoken against the evils of abortion over the years, and they have advocated for legislation that restricts access to abortion.  This is no secret.  With that in mind, there was a current revision to the church policy on abortion.  Here is the current policy:

Previously, before Russel M. Nelson was ordained the prophet, the policy read "The church does not support any particular legislation on this matter".  It was updated to say "As states work to enact laws relative to abortion,  Church members may appropriately choose to participate in efforts to protect life and to preserve religious liberty."

Additionally, Dallin H. Oaks, in October 2012 General Conference said: "Many laws permit, even promote abortion, but to us it is a great evil".

Ok, how do we understand these comments.  They appear to be contradictory.  The policy clearly states that the Church allows for exceptions, therefore abortion services should be made available, and laws should be enacted to allow for women to be able to get abortions in these scenarios.  It is clear that any law that "promotes" abortion would be contrary to the Church's policy, but what about laws that "permit abortion".  Given the policy, clearly he can't be suggesting that abortions are completely banned.  That would be contradictory to the Church's official policy, which he was party to updating.

Clearly the church leadership would like to see appropriate legislation limiting abortion.  But also clearly the policies are in favor of having the services available.

Summary

It is clear that most Americans, and even most Christian Americans believe that abortion should be a medical service that is available.  To enact restrictive laws that don't permit abortions even in more extreme cases is not in-line with most Christian church policy (it is in line with Catholic policies to my understanding).  With that as the case, how does a religiously diverse population enact laws that satisfy each religions moral code?  Additionally, should the laws adhere to any religious moral code?

When abortion is addressed, it is often from the perspective of the fetus, and the fetus only.  Most seem to forget the mother.  God loves her.  God loves that fetus.  Life is sacred.  Don't forget the mother's life is every bit as sacred.  When it comes between a decision to save the mother or the fetus, most Christian religions, and certainly the Jewish religion favor saving the mother over the fetus.  If that is the case, shouldn't our laws also favor that?

Is legislation the right way to address this?  Can it be adequately addressed with education, and support for pregnant women, and new mother's for some time after the baby is born?

My summary is full of questions, and not a lot of answers.  That is because I don't have them.  The point of writing this was to point out that it is not as black and white, or cut and dried as many often make it out to be.

Don't be a heartless ghoul and get an abortion for fun.  Also, don't be a heartless ghoul and forget there are circumstances where abortion should be performed.  Denying that is monstrous.