Every time abortion is debated I have this wish, this longing, which, forgive me, I’m going to articulate as a list. As with many polarizing debates, people tend to hunker down in their camps pointing at the most extreme versions of their opponents’ views (possibly fictional): “She had a ninth-month abortion so she could fit into her prom dress!” / “He thinks people shouldn’t even use contraception!” We know the stereotypes: Pro-choice people are just callous and selfish and eschew personal responsibility. Anti-abortion people just hate women and fear sex.
I believe (and fervently hope) that there is a vast realm of people who do not all agree about the ethics of reproduction but do share the following values, or strive for them, even though we get very nervous about how others might exploit them to ends we don’t share:
(1) We think sex is a valuable and precious part of adult life and should be enabled and celebrated. We want people to rejoice in their sexuality, not be ashamed.
(2) We value the lives of people living in the “fourth trimester” and beyond.
(3) We believe that somewhere between conception and birth, the human zygote / embryo / fetus takes on qualities that obligate us to it in ways that we are not obligated to our appendix or spleen. This does not necessarily mean that it has the same moral claims as an infant, just that it is not the moral equivalent of an object.
(4) We believe that women’s autonomy is as important as men’s.
(5) We believe that the person whose body nourishes and is inextricably bound up with a growing fetus has a unique relationship to that fetus and the issues surrounding it that is not equivalent to the biological father’s, other parent’s/parents’, or anyone else’s–which is not to suggest that others have no relationship or obligations to that being.
(6) We harbor deep questions and uncertainty about where the dividing line is between not-living and living, about what and who has moral claims on whom, and about how much some frequently-debated questions even matter to the question of abortion.
(7) We believe in two principles that are often in tension with each other: people have a moral obligation to accept the consequences of their actions, and people need the space to start afresh after mistakes. We want to live honestly with this tension and seek neither irresponsibility nor punitive rigidity.
(8) We believe that in an ideal world, people would choose if and when they want to reproduce, be enabled to reproduce when they wish it, be able to enjoy their sexuality without unwanted pregnancy, and be supported in raising wanted children. We commit to work together toward such a world.
(9) While recognizing that pregnancy is too often a sorrow and a burden, indeed sometimes a tragedy, we also see the profundity and beauty in it and feel a deep sadness about the loss of a pregnancy, however it comes about.
(10) We recognize that legality and morality are not exactly the same, nor can they be, nor should they be. There may be illegal actions that are morally right. There may be immoral actions that are perfectly legal. This will always be so in anything other than a totalitarian society.
(11) We would like to move beyond rhetoric and dismissively pat solutions and slogans.
(12) We believe these issues are important and difficult.
(13) We wish to talk with others who struggle with these issues, not in order to concede to intolerable positions nor make peace with every opponent, but because they matter to us, and it is the duty both of a government and a civilization to grapple honestly with such questions.
I would love to attend a forum where people engage with these issues, respectfully, setting aside fear and righteousness as much as possible in order to come to a deeper understanding for ourselves, which may help our public policies be wiser as well. At our best, we Unitarian Universalists have a commitment to the inherent worth and dignity of all people, embrace moral complexity, trust that reason and relationship can get us to a better society, and believe that it is our calling to help make that better society. And we are currently working, as a denomination, on the issue of reproductive justice. So what better time to host such forums?
Please comment respectfully.
Sermons in Stones 
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 3, 2014 at 9:52 am
joannevalentinesimson
Beautifully stated. If you organize such a conference, I will do everything I can to attend. I have done a couple of blogs on the abortion issue from a biologist’s point of view, and I’m thinking of doing another, looking at it as a health-care issue. I may be a little more strident than you might want in a conference participant, and I have pretty definite ideas about what constitutes a living human person (having been trained as an anatomist). But I do agree that most of the other complexities you list above are really open for rational, non-judgmental debate.
http://solowomenathomeandabroad.blogspot.com/2011_04_01_archive.html
http://joannevalentinesimson.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/on-being-a-woman-abortion-can-men-speak-part-1/
Thank you! A biologist’s perspective is important. I don’t believe science alone can take us from “is” to “ought.” The debate sometimes gets stuck on “What makes a living person?” (a question I do not even think science can answer alone, though I will eagerly read your posts) and doesn’t move on to “Is person A responsible for the life of person B?” For example: I am indisputably a human being, and I also indisputably have a right to live. Nevertheless, you do not have a moral obligation to keep me alive–at least, not at significant cost to yourself. My innocence, worthiness, etc. have nothing to do with it. Judith Jarvis Thompson argued this persuasively many years ago, in the essay “In Defense of Abortion.” -AZM
LikeLike
July 3, 2014 at 10:11 am
erika
Amy, I so wish this were true. Also a recognition that people’s personal views (meaning what they would do themselves) can change over time/situation, but that there is a greater, and more essential, need to have legal systems/provisions that recognize basic rights to autonomy, etc. that are not founded solely on a narrow morality. Unfortunately, in my personal experience, the anti- faction does view the matter as one based on a narrowly-defined, absolute moral view, not only of “when life begins” (debated and non-absolute, even among religions) but of sex and sexuality (virginity until marriage, sex other than the “norm” (aka married male and female in the marital bed and very vanilla), as well as a deep-seated anti-feminism/sexism that sees the sexes as having clearly defined roles. I’m about to spend a week with (in-law) family members who hold some of these beliefs, and don’t see where even their own kin deviate from their defined “norm.” Ouch. I wouldn’t aim to have the boards of NARAL and the National Right-to-Life Committee find much common ground. Maybe the same is true for members of one family. I don’t see it as a question of just one faction, though–which is where I have hope for useful dialogue. People occupy many positions on a spectrum, and I don’t have to be convinced that there are people who have positive views of sex, have more fluid ideas of gender roles, favor contraception, AND oppose abortion; I’ve met them. I’d like to start a conversation with that ground we share. Never mind the people who think the problem would be solved if women would stay home, wear skirts and keep their knees together. But the rest of us can talk, yes? Good luck with the relatives . . . –A
LikeLike
July 3, 2014 at 1:35 pm
donbi33
I like your third point — I have pointed out that my thumb is indisputably alive and human, but it is not a person. The National Institutes of Health report that “around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant.”[10] Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is roughly 15-20%. So, about 60 percent of those “persons” don’t survive the first trimester.
Extreme cases make interesting discussions: a pregnant woman (maybe a mother of three) whose doctor tells her that she has only a slim chance of surviving her pregnancy. I would like to ask the hard-core anti-abortionist whose decision this should be: theirs or the woman’s. All good points, thanks. I think we should all be challenged by the hypothetical extremes of our own positions. We tend only to bring them up as hammers to crush another’s position, but as you say, they are useful, so perhaps we should invite them ourselves.
I don’t think the hard-core anti-abortionist is going to be swayed by such a discussion, or attend one. The rest of us, though, could learn a lot by engaging together in conversation about hypothetical situations (which are of course not hypothetical at all for millions of people). One thing I get from all the hypotheticals is an awareness of how complex the situations are, which is one of the core reasons I’m pro-choice. There are just so many “it depends”es.
So, is a fetus like your thumb? Namely, do you have the right to dispose of it, or does it have a being separate from yours? Or does it depend . . . ?–AZM
LikeLike
July 5, 2014 at 8:28 am
donbi33
Well, I have no intention of disposing of my thumb. My intention was to address the arguments that life begins at conception, so a fetus must have legal protection as a person.
I hope that everybody won’t mind my bringing up another issue. you say ‘As with many polarizing debates, people tend to hunker down in their camps pointing at the most extreme versions of their opponents’ views (possibly fictional): … “He thinks people shouldn’t even use contraception!” If I understand correctly that the Catholic Church opposes contraception as a sin, then I don’t thank that statement reflects an extreme view. It seems extreme to me. Not rare, perhaps, but still out on one end of the spectrum. Although it may be rare also. In all my years living in heavily Catholic areas and talking with many Catholic friends, I have met exactly two whom I know to adhere to their church’s teaching on this point. They don’t strive for a contraception ban to be public policy; they just think it’s important to their faith to observe it personally.
In any case, the Catholic Church’s view doesn’t affect my hope that some of the vast number of people who do think contraception is fine (and share the other attitudes listed above) will get together and talk. –AZM
LikeLike
July 3, 2014 at 2:35 pm
erika
The hard-core anti-abortionist says that the life of the fetus is ALWAYS paramount to that of the woman. That’s why we now have a law in Louisiana that says that a woman can — nay, must — be kept on life-support until her fetus can be safely delivered, regardless of her, or her family’s wishes about her (or the fetus’) life. Amy, I’d love to be able to have “dialogue,” but the lines have been drawn so deep. I’m just thankful to the people I know who don’t let their personal abortion beliefs keep them from voting for candidates who are pro-choice (unfortunately, I know many who will never vote for a candidate who is pro-choice, no matter his/her views on other issues.) You’re in the belly of the beast, all right. I would be scared to be pregnant in Louisiana. –AZM
LikeLike
July 3, 2014 at 6:49 pm
uuresource
The religious Education Director at the church I belonged to in college shared a story with me that has remained with me and may be quite where such a conversation like you envision might begin. She told me that she was vocal in her pro-choice stance for her whole adult life and she would have told you that the fetus or embryo is part of a woman’s body and not a person. Then she had her first child. During her pregnancy one thing that struck her was an awareness that this was an actual person – not part of her but a person of its own growing and developing inside her and that in a very real way to abort her pregnancy would be to kill another life and one that is or would surely be a person a human person. And she was also aware that she still believed it was her right and responsibility to chose weather or not to continue her pregnancy. That was when she said she realized the full weight of what her stand meant.
LikeLike
July 4, 2014 at 5:28 am
Elz Curtiss
Brava, uuresource! The nut of the issue is that terminating a pregnancy is an inherently zero-sum decision. A few years ago, on some anniversary of Roe v Wade, the president of our denomination (a male, but probably a caring one) sparked me to write an angry blog post by issuing a public statement of joy and congratulations. This might be appropriate for groups like NARAL, but not for a religion. Ours should be the space where people ruminate on more subtle complexities, grieve the lost hope of any unfulfilled pregnancy, rage at the powerlessness which drives most decisions to terminate deliberately.
LikeLike
July 4, 2014 at 5:34 am
Alix Klingenberg
Thank you for this! What an incredibly thoughtful set of values. I particularly agree with point 8. I might add that access to healthcare and education are basic human rights being denied to people based on race and income. This issue is a class issue as much as it is a women’s one. Thanks for making explicit what I only implied.–AZM
LikeLike
July 4, 2014 at 5:49 am
Elz Curtiss
Reblogged this on Politywonk and commented:
Well done, Reverend Amy.
LikeLike
July 4, 2014 at 11:44 am
irrevspeckay
I am reminded of Krister Stendahl’s rules for interfaith engagement, of which there are three, but I think only the first two are of interest here: 1.When you are trying to understand another religion (here: holder of a different political opinion), you should ask the adherents of that religion (here: political opinion) and not its enemies. And 2. Don’t compare your best to their worst. Wise advice. Hard to follow. I’ve seen a corollary to 2. on a guide to good argument on UU e-mail lists: respond to the strongest lino in your opponent’s argument, not the weakest. –AZM
LikeLike
July 4, 2014 at 11:47 am
irrevspeckay
Reblogged this on irrevspeckay and commented:
I have not been blogging much, given my current obligations elsewhere. This blog post caught my attention and I feel it is worthy of a larger audience, so I am reblogging it here. Thank you, Amy, for writing it and sharing it.
LikeLike
July 7, 2014 at 12:07 am
Andrew Mackay
I wrote a piece in March entitled “There is no abortion debate” (http://unspokenpolitics.net/2014/03/08/there-is-no-abortion-debate/) which gets to my main issue with the debate, or the conversation, or however you term it.
At the macro level, I think people talk past each other, and that really hasn’t changed much, at least in my lifetime. Common ground is helpful as the beginning of some kind of dialogue, but ultimately you stake out a series of value judgements that aren’t necessarily in conflict, but don’t come together either.
This is to be expected from an issue that is, writ large, a mess of different subjects and concepts.
Certainly, in the evolution of abortion issue discourse, there has been a shift from finding common ground on women to finding ground on the parameters of human life. There needs to be a force pulling focus to the nexus of everything, rather than to what is only one of many parts at play.
On a purely English use level, I do applaud any series of statements on abortion, life, and women that doesn’t wrongly use the term “mother”, which frequently happens without thought as to what that means.
The hope I’d have from the conversation I describe is that we’d have more use of contraception and fewer unwanted pregnancies. A lot of us with a wide variety of convictions on abortion can agree on those outcomes. I think we could make them more common if we worked together.
“Mother,” like “baby,” doesn’t have just one agreed-upon meaning. I felt like a mother to my daughter before I even knew I was pregnant. That doesn’t mean I’d call every two-weeks-pregnant woman a “mother” except in the strictly biological sense. –AZM
LikeLike