Who Are You Calling “Baby Killer”?

Oct 15

If there’s one subject I really don’t want to write about, it’s abortion. But, beliefs about abortion are of unavoidable political consequence (they matter); so, I’ll give it my best shot.

I am especially apprehensive about approaching this topic, as it is incredibly sensitive. And I don’t mean politically sensitive (an “issue” over which people argue), but sensitive for the real women who hang in the balance — who are given very little consideration when these debates ensue. Their humanity, their agonizing weighing of options, their desperate circumstances— is what I think we must keep in the forefront of our minds.

A Woman of Great Worth

To strip a woman of her humanity and call her a criminal, without seeking to understand or an ounce of empathy — that’s not the Jesus way. To SHAME and spew vitriol toward those who have had abortions, doctors who perform abortions, and anyone who supports a women’s right to choose…that’s not the Jesus way. It’s just not. We must do better.

Hate does nothing to prevent abortion; it only heaps shame on the heads of those already suffering. We must center dignity and humanity in the conversation instead, and check ourselves when these things start to slip. We must hold ourselves to a higher standard of compassion. We must add complexity back into the oversimplified and black/white.

We must remember Jesus’ piercing words to the scribes and Pharisees who drag “a woman caught in adultery” before him (TO MAKE A POINT). Rather than co-sign the command of Moses to stone “people like her,” Jesus challenges the basis of their right to judge, saying: “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” He takes all the humiliation and condemnation being directed at this nameless and “disposable” woman and turns it around on her accusers. Finally, when they all drop their stones and walk away, Jesus looks up at her and says, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”

His primary purpose here is not to enforce the law for the benefit of the law-keepers. It’s to remove the stigma and shame and restore dignity, for the benefit of the woman in crisis…a woman of great worth. We can’t afford to lose sight of her.

A Pro-Life Ethic

I’d consider myself pro-life, but I voted for a pro-choice candidate for president.

One explanation for this (which may look, to some, like a political mismatch), is that I believe a pro-life ethic should be comprehensive — including Black lives, Indigenous lives, lives seeking asylum, lives being exploited for their labor (in prison, or due to immigration status), lives on death row, disabled lives, LGBTQ+ lives, the life of the planet, etc., etc. I could go on and on. The point is: these are not lives I see being valued by the current Republican platform (despite its “pro-life” label).

But, that is to sidestep the question of abortion, so let me add another layer: I also believe a pro-life ethic should be restorative, rather than punitive. That is to say, I don’t believe law and punishment are effective solutions to our problems. More specifically, I don’t see criminalizing abortion as the best approach to reducing the number of abortions. I see the best approach being that which is born out of empathy. I’d rather we made abortion unnecessary, rather than illegal.

Side note: calling someone a “baby killer” is a clear sign of your lack of empathy. It is to dehumanize, distance yourself from, shut down the conversation, and pick up your own murderous stone. It does nothing but further inflate the self-righteous attitudes of those who already agree with you.

The Jesus Way

To advocate for the unborn, with no thought of the woman of great worth, removes us from the human messiness, complexity, and complications we’d like so much to avoid, but it’s not the Jesus way.

To focus on punitive “justice” over the kind of justice that restores is the easy way out. But it’s not the Jesus way.

I appreciate the way Dave Barnhart puts it:

“The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated…they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn…You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.”

Oof.

In contrast, to empathize is to ask: WHY does this woman have no other option than to terminate pregnancy? How can I help “give life” to her so that she might have the resources necessary to bring life from her womb? Or, in the case of a medical emergency, how can I help remove the stigma and obstacles of an already excruciating and devastating experience?

It also means asking imaginative questions of our systems like: How might we, as a society, increase the availability of education (including sex-education), reproductive health care (including contraceptives), and mental health care? How might we advocate for a living wage, maternity/paternity leave, and free/affordable child care? It’s these things that have been shown to reduce the number of abortions, as they reduce the number of unintended pregnancies.

Empathy requires acceptance of our role, our responsibility, our connectedness, to the circumstances of those less-advantaged, less-equipped, or those living in a heart-wrenching reality they never asked for, rather than reflexively casting blame and shame. It means wading into the complicated, the fully human, the messy.

This is the Jesus way.

A World of Memes

One reason I think the abortion conversation is so frustrating is that we live in a world of memes. Everything is oversimplified to the point that it can fit in a meme or tweet, or can be answered in a 2-minute debate segment. Nuance and complexity have been replaced by the quick and catchy.

Pro-Life simplistically means: Life begins at conception, thus to abort a fetus is to kill a baby — at any point, in any case. Based on this belief, pro-lifers advocate that the federal government/states uphold laws against abortion, the same way there are laws against murder.

Pro-Choice simplistically means: Life does NOT begin at conception, thus to abort a fetus is NOT to kill a baby. Based on this belief, pro-choicers hold that a pregnant woman (in the care of a doctor) should be the one to determine medical decisions regarding her own body — no matter what stage of pregnancy — without government interference or threat of criminalization.

Two oversimplified extremes, born of our two-party system (bc when voters dig their heels in on one side and demonize the other, it benefits the parties). But, most people don’t fall into either of these polarized extremes. In fact, previous to the emergence of the “Religious Right” (btw, please read: The Real Origins of the Religious Right), even conservative Christians were not uniformly against abortion in all cases!

In 1971, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution that called upon Southern Baptists “to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”

And, even after the Roe v. Wade decision, pastor W.A. Criswell (of the largest SBC congregation) stated, “‘I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had life separate from its mother…that it became an individual person.’ He further explained, ‘It has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.’”

Most people — Christian or not — would say that abortion is regrettable, but necessary on rare occasions, and should happen as early in pregnancy as possible. Most people are a mixture of pro-life and pro-choice.

These are not mutually exclusive ideas

Pro-life and pro-choice are constantly being pitted against each other (bc politics), but they’re not bitter enemies; they’re not even talking about the same thing! They’re answering entirely different questions. One being: when does life begin? The other: what is the role of the government? It’s no wonder the two sides are constantly talking past each other, trading insults, never getting anywhere…

Pro-life Christians can (and do) stand on both sides of the political divide, with the same goal of reducing abortions…but ascribing to different strategies/philosophies. It would be nice if we could talk to each other.

So, I’ll end with this challenge:

Re-center dignity and humanity, add some complexity back in the conversation, stop re-sharing memes, and think through your own pro-life ethic — in paragraphs and pages — not in catchphrases.

Further Reading:

The Real Origins of the Religious Right: They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation (Randall Balmer)

The Sharpest Drops in Abortion Rates in America Have Been Under Democratic Presidents (Neha Thirani Bagri)

Senator Gary Peter’s Shares His Abortion Story (Laura Bassett)

Policy Solutions for Preventing Unplanned Pregnancy (Adam Thomas)

Poll: Majority Want To Keep Abortion Legal, But They Also Want Restrictions (Domenico Montanaro)

How Americans Understand Abortion (Tricia C. Bruce)

The Jesus reference is from John 8:2–11; and info on the Southern Baptist Convention comes from The Color of Compromise by Jemar Tisby.