Many of the questions surrounding the morality of abortion have to do with language about rights – the right to life, reproductive rights, the right to choose, the right to bodily autonomy, personal rights vs communal rights, etc.
Abortion is not the only issue about which we use the language of rights. There are also notions of the right to bear arms, the right to self-defense, the right to free speech, the right to private property, the right to marry whom we will, the right to work, the right to unionize, etc. More recently we have had debates about the right to wear or not wear a mask and the right to refuse to be vaccinated. The list goes on.
On the one hand, the idea of rights has undoubtably been liberating. The Bill of Rights in the American Constitution was a welcome development in organizing political life and setting limits on government. The idea of individual rights has also been liberating for minorities, women, and others who have historically had the ability to exercise their gifts and pursue their dreams limited by laws or communal norms.
It is certainly the case that until very recently, women were accorded fewer rights than men and had their agency over their own lives constrained. Women were not “allowed” the right to vote until 1920 (though in many places it was much later for women of color). They were not assured of the right to open a bank account or have a credit card in their own name until 1974 and without a husband cosigning. Only in 1993 had the right to legal protection from marital rape in all fifty states. Women still do not always receive equal pay for equal work. And sexual harassment and assault, either publicly or domestically, is still all too common. The idea of personal rights is a powerful one and has often been the impetus for welcome change.
On the other hand, from a Christian perspective, no personal rights are straightforward or absolute. And some of the above might actually be suspect from a Christian perspective. If we look at the Bible, we can infer certain human rights, but the Scriptures are much less interested in our rights than it is with the will of God and our obligations to God and others.[1] In a society increasingly shaped by radical individualism, some have begun to point out the problems if the language of rights is all we have.
In the social ethic of individual rights, people
claim their rights over and against other people’s in an argument that quickly
leads into a trap. Are my rights more important than yours? Whose rights matter
more: the person who wants to carry a gun or the person threatened by the
proliferation of guns in our society? The person who says a hateful thing on
social media or the person forced to listen to such speech without recourse?
“When rights are taken to be the fundamental moral reality, we are encouraged
to take an ultimately degrading perspective on society,” writes Esther Reed.
“No real society can exist when its citizens’ only way of relating is in terms
of noninterference. The language of ‘rights’ . . . encourages us to live as if
we had no common interests or beliefs.[2]
From a Christian perspective we are not autonomous individuals with competing rights, but persons woven into a web of relationships. We do have common interests even with those with whom we might not have common beliefs. Our interests are bound up with one another and we are obligated to love and care for one another even when our immediate interests seem to be at odds. As Simone Weil wrote, “[There is a] "chain of eternal obligations that bind every human being to every other one."[3] And as Edith Stein wrote,
It is most peculiar how the very thing that
causes us to be totally on our own―our freedom―at the same time chains us
inseparably to all others and creates a true community of fate. We are
responsible for the well-being of all others. and they for ours.[4]
This is all relevant to the conversation about abortion. At least in some of the more partisan rhetoric, things get reduced to the competing rights and interests of just two individuals – the pregnant person and the developing person in her womb. But then these are pitted against each other and there is a temptation to minimize the significance of one or the other of these individuals.
The partisan political rhetoric surrounding abortion does not capture the complexities on the ground. Many who identify as pro-life are not dismissive of the difficult choices faced by women and their loved ones when with a difficult pregnancy and seek to give them aid. Among those who identify as pro-life there are those who hold to a consistent ethic of life that seeks to defend all life. Among pro-choice advocates there is often a recognition of the significance of the life developing in the womb and the recognition that ending a pregnancy is no small matter. Women who have abortions do not do so casually and the reasons for doing so are complex and varied. Acknowledging the complexities does not settle the moral questions but does keep our hearts empathetic and merciful as we engage those questions.
If we are not simply autonomous individuals with competing rights we need to recognize that somehow we are all in this together. Thus, the developing life in the womb is not insignificant. But, especially in the early weeks and months of a pregnancy, that life, which even official Vatican documents acknowledge is only “probably” an ensouled person, does not necessarily outweigh the realities of the actual person in whose womb it is developing. Before that, we are talking about a potential human being. As such, it is still sacred and perhaps increasingly so. The burden of deciding to bear it is mainly that of the mother, ideally along with the father. Still, “. . . the ends of all members of a relationship must be carefully considered. A woman facing the decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy must include a sense of what she owes to those with whom she shares or will share her life with. [This includes the father], the unborn, existing young human beings, as well as other people including elderly dependent relatives.”[5]
The Episcopal Church’s teaching is that abortion should be a legal and readily available option for women. But various resolutions passed by the General Convention also suggest that even in the case of a developing embryo/fetus that is not yet a fully ensouled person, abortion is not necessarily morally neutral or that all abortions at whatever stage of pregnancy are morally equivalent. Some reasons for abortion are morally problematic, others less so. But that is different from whether or not it should be a legal and safe option.
As the fetus develops, and particularly after the 20th week of pregnancy, the moral calculus shifts with the recognition that the fetus is now “formed” and has the capacity to be a fully ensouled human person. At this point, society as a whole has more of a stake in caring for the person in the womb as well as the woman bearing it and might enact legal restrictions on abortion as long as delivering the baby does not threaten the life or physical well-being of the mother. This 20 week distinction was actually the abortion statute in Wisconsin before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson.[6] I recognize that this is at odds with the most recent resolution passed by the Episcopal Church’s General Convention which emphasizes autonomy and advocates for “no restrictions” on the timing of an abortion.[7] But I would argue that that is inconsistent with many other resolutions passed by General Convention.[8] And it is inconsistent with the Church’s historic teaching.
But the rest of the community’s stake in the life of the unborn is not limited to whether or when or what restrictions on abortion might be desirable. Because of our fundamental connectedness, the social and economic environment we create affects us all, not least women who get pregnant. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was otherwise opposed to abortion, pointed out that the rest of the community is implicated when a woman feels there are few viable alternatives to abortion.
A great many motives may lead to an action of
this kind; indeed in cases where it is an act of despair, performed in
circumstances of extreme human or economic destitution and misery, the guilt
may often lie rather with the community than with the individual. Precisely in
this connection money may conceal many a wanton deed, while the poor [person's]
more reluctant lapse may far more easily be disclosed.[9]
Ours is a society content to tolerate an alarmingly high maternal mortality rate – far higher than any other industrialized nation.[10] There are no guarantees of prenatal or postnatal medical care. There is no guarantee of adequate maternity – let alone paternity – leave or affordable childcare. And there does not always seem to be the will to protect women from sexual harassment, assault, or rape including by partners and family members. Merely making abortion illegal and putting the burden on the woman is inadequate in such an environment. And then shaming women who resort to abortion regardless of the complex reasons that might lead them to choose abortion is unjust and unmerciful.
A critical flaw in the singular emphasis on autonomy and individual rights is that it reinforces a libertarian impulse by which everyone is promised noninterference, but everyone is also left to fend more or less for themselves. But Christians affirm that we are interdependent beings in communion with one another with mutual obligations. This is not just about the responsibility a woman (and the man with whom she has gotten pregnant) has toward the life in the womb. The wellbeing of mothers and children, born and unborn, are the responsibility of the community. There are things we as a community – whether in our churches, our states, or as a country – can do to address the reality of unwanted or difficult pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions. Including things like, better sex education and the availability of birth control, ensuring better prenatal and post-natal care, paid parental leave, subsidized daycare, etc. If we really believe we belong to one another and we truly care for women, couples, families and the life in the womb, we will create an environment of support and invest in that care.
[1]
John j Collins, What are Biblical Values?, (Yale University Press), pp.
40-44
[2] Jonathan
C. Richardson, “The Language of Rights and It’s Limits”, The Christin
Century, March 14, 2023
)https://www.christiancentury.org/article/features/language-rights-and-its-limits)
[3] Simone
Weil, The Need for Roots: Prelude to a Declaration of Duties Towards Mankind
[4] Edith
Stein, ‘World and Person’, quoted in An Edith Stein Daybook
[5] Susan
Martinelli-Fernandez, ‘Abortion, Polyphonic narratives, and Kantianism’ from Interdisciplinary
Views on Abortion, Martinelli-Fernandez, Baker-Sperry, McIlvaine-Newsad,
ed. (McFarland & Company), p. 113-114
[6] Madeline
Kasper, Jillian Slaight, Isaac J. Lee, A Brief History of Abortion Laws in
Wisconsin (rev. ed.), p. 7
(chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lrb/lrb_reports/history_of_abortion_laws_6_4.pdf)
[7] Resolution
2022-D083: Addressing the erosion of reproductive rights and autonomy (https://2022.vbinder.net/resolutions/326?house=HD&lang=en)
[8] An
Odd Work of Grace Blog, The Episcopal Church’s Stated Position on Childbirth
and Abortion (https://anoddworkofgrace.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-episcopal-churchs-stated-position.html)
[9] Dietrich
Bonhoeffer, Ethics (New York; Macmillan, 1965) 175-6
[10] Jamila
Taylor, ‘The Worsening U.S. Maternal Health Crisis in Three Graphs’, The
Century Foundation (https://tcf.org/content/commentary/worsening-u-s-maternal-health-crisis-three-graphs/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw1aOpBhCOARIsACXYv-e7Vf3C_uyO5KPt5GJyrZ5pdD6dEYg-8lVCC1A2fdookVsgS919c9YaAmW2EALw_wcB)
Next:
Part 10: Conclusion
Previous:
Part 1: The Episcopal Church’s Stated Position on Childbirth and Abortion
Part 2: Context
Part 3: Old Testament
Part 4: New Testament
Part 5: Tradition
Part 6: Tradition, continued
Part 7: Back to the Bible
No comments:
Post a Comment