Many people can agree that abortion is a bad thing. Many people can agree that we should have fewer abortions in the world. But how can we reduce the number of abortions?
There are two main methods: social and legal.
How can we work socially to reduce abortions? I asked: why do women have abortions? The Guttmacher Institute offers some clues:
Fifty percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25: Women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 17%.
Women who have never married obtain two-thirds of all abortions.
The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
It’s clear, then, that many women choose to have an abortion because they either feel unable to afford children or feel unable to give the children a good life. That offers us two main routes for improvement.
First, we need to do a better job of helping young, single women afford children. Children have a lot of start-up costs: a crib, crib sheets and pads, diapers, wet wipes, bottles, formula, warm winter clothing, cool summer clothing, etc. There are doctor visits, delivery costs, pre-natal vitamins, post-natal vitamins, vaccinations, and so on.
All of this can be tremendously overwhelming and scary for a young, single woman with no social support network. Planned Parenthood and the majority of the Democrat Party send the signal that there’s nothing wrong with abortion. Is it any wonder then that many of these women choose abortion?
We need to make pregnancy and child-rearing less scary and less expensive. We middle-class Christians need to do a better job of helping poor women afford pregnancy and child-rearing. We need to do a better job of being their emotional support network: comforting them, accepting them, and supporting them. We need to provide enough structure that they don’t feel like abortion is the only way out of an unexpected pregnancy. If we can’t be bothered to help then I think we bear part of the blame for the abortions.
Secondly, we need to change the way our culture views life. It seems clear from the Guttmacher Institute’s data that many women are afraid that they won’t be able to give their child a good life. I understand their concern but I strongly disagree with it. A life is far better than no life at all. Don’t believe me? Start asking everyone you meet if they wish that their parents had chosen to abort them. I doubt you’ll find many takers.
We need to recreate a respect for life in our culture. Every single life is precious. Whether a Down’s Syndrome baby, a baby born to a poor single mother, or a baby born to wealthy parents — every single life is precious. Every single life is worthy of respect, honor, and love. Every life lost is a tragedy and every person that would take a life is a villain. If we inculcate those attitudes, I suspect that the abortion rate would drop precipitously.
That’s the social angle. What about the legal angle? We could pass laws making all abortions illegal for any reason whatsoever. But that wouldn’t end abortions. Women have given themselves abortions throughout all of human history. Women were buying illegal abortions for centuries before Roe v. Wade was decided.
Does that mean that we should give up on making abortion illegal? Is it true that we can’t legislate morality and that it’s misguided to work for political and legal change? Should we instead work for the social changes mentioned above?
No. It’s not misguided and it’s not useless to work for legal change. It’s very silly to say that we should give up on outlawing abortion because outlawing abortions won’t end all abortions. People are raped, murdered, and robbed every day of the year even though these crimes have been outlawed since the days of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and Jamestown. We call certain actions crimes not because doing so will eliminate them but because doing so allows us to punish those who engage in such evil behavior. When we criminalize behavior we want to demonstrate the high value that we place on the victim’s rights.
Should we put abortionists in jail? Yes! Absolutely! If a doctor murders granny, at the request of her daughter should we put the doctor in jail? Yes! Will doing so bring granny back? No, but it demonstrates just how heinous the crime was. It also prevents that doctor from murdering any other “patients”.
I also believe that we should punish women who seek out abortions just as we would punish a woman who hires a hitman to murder her husband. The Guttmacher Institute’s data indicates that many women seek abortions for reasons of convenience: “three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents”. Killing someone to stay in school or killing someone to keep a full time job is evil. So is seeking an abortion to stay in school or seeking an abortion to keep a full time job.
We should work very hard — we should give very generously — to provide alternatives to abortions. But we should also recognize that some women can afford children but don’t want to go through the inconvenience of a pregnancy. We should recognize that evil for what it is and punish it accordingly. If Christians aren’t willing to recognize and confront evil for what it is who will? And what good are we?
Obviously we can’t change everything overnight. I’m perfectly willing to work for incremental improvements in the laws. We’ve already outlawed partial-birth abortions and protected infants born alive. Those are very good first steps. We should work to protect doctors, nurses, and pharmacists who don’t want to perform abortions. No medical professional should ever be forced to take a life. After that, we can start working to put limits on third trimester abortions. If a baby can be delivered and live — and most third trimesters babies could — then it should be illegal to abort that baby. After we’ve achieved that goal, we can decide what comes next.
Arguing against murder, rape, or robbery laws is silly. Arguing against abortion laws is just as silly. To say otherwise is to say that you don’t value the life of an infant as highly as the life of an adult, rapee, or personal property.
9 Comments
1) “We need to do a better job of being their emotional support network: comforting them, accepting them, and supporting them.”
And how do we do that?
“punish women who seek out abortions just as we would punish a woman who hires a hitman to murder her husband.”
Sounds very accepting and supportive. I wonder how many women would hear this and then come to you for comfort. I wonder how many of them would characterize your words as accepting and supportive. Would you consider yourself an accepting and supportive person?
2) Your implication that the primary things making abortion hard are start up costs, baby supplies, and doctors visits makes me think that you’re totally clueless. I would encourage you to spend some time with women who have had an abortion or who are considering one. You might learn something about the subject you seem to have all the answers on. Just a tip, I wouldn’t start that conversation by saying that you believe we should “punish women who seek out abortions.”
3) “We should recognize that evil for what it is and punish it accordingly.”
That sounds like Jesus to me.
(And don’t quote for me a dozen verses of Jesus talking about evil. You’re not Jesus, and Jesus didn’t teach us to “punish evil.” Read the Bible.)
4) It’s not your job to change people. Too often we try to superimpose holiness onto others. We do this because we don’t really believe that God will bring change. Perhaps we don’t believe God is capable. He needs our help?
You want a county without abortion? Don’t throw people in jail, introduce them to Jesus.
joe, I’m honestly not sure if there’s a difference in our moral viewpoints or not. So I’ll keep this simple.
Do you think that a fetus is a human being with all of the rights and privileges of a human being?
Do you think that abortion is morally equivalent to murder? If not, why not?
Once you respond to that, I’ll post my response to what you wrote.
Joe 2 is, as you pointed out in your post, a little unclear. Is he just saying that political wrestling for the power to outlaw abortion is a bad move that will drive people away from Jesus instead of bring them closer? Then he may have a point, because the moment you engage in a battle with someone for power, you become an enemy, a secular force, and people stop listening.
But is that wrong? If Congress were to put the question of whether we should eradicate all of America’s Jews to a floor vote in the Senate, every Christian should demand that their representatives stop the bill.
But concerning a point of which I’m sure and must correct you, Joe 2:
In your post, you state that Joe Martin is “not Jesus”. I happen to know that Joseph Martin is a disciple of Jesus Christ - officially! It’s in a big book up in Heaven! - and it’s the job of the disciple to be just like his master. So yes, technically, Joe has incumbent upon him all rights and responsibilities pertaining thereto. So to quote the Good Master (I’m a disciple too), “Get behind me, Satan!”.
As for it not being Joe’s job to “punish evil” because Jesus didn’t, it’s an interesting question raised by your two different points of view. You are no doubt contrasting in your mind Jesus’ defense of the woman who committed adultery to Joe’s stance here, but Joe is not really concerned with punishing, just protecting.
Laws only work through punitive measures. He wants a law to protect millions of children from being killed. Like me, Joe is perfectly willing to let gay people get married - but he’d agitate that the government protect them if the government passed a bill saying we could kill gay people at our convenience, too.
The idea that Joe is trying to work through a government apparatus to see that done, you liken to not trusting God - but God’s often worked through people’s efforts. In fact, it’s often through human efforts, rather than waiting around for God to do everything, that God does work in the Bible.
I do take the point (as I’m sure Mr. Martin does) that the Gospel must never find itself in second place to a social cause, including Abortion.
I think this will be my last post guys. I didn’t really intend to get sucked into an abortion debate. I just stumbled upon the blog and felt compelled to challenge some of your assumptions. I stand by those challenges.
With all due respect I think making your candidate selection all about the abortion issue is a bad idea. I understand it, and I’m not surprised by it. I simply think that you must take things on balance and that there are issues of pragmatism that must be considered. I would encourage you to also think about health care, war, welfare reform, foreign policy, climate change. Each of these issue are also of great importance.
I would also encourage you to offer a little bit more charity to apposing views. I love this country and believe firmly that we must work together in order to make it great. We are far too divided over many of these issues, we have to learn to disagree with charity. Christians should be the leaders in this regard. Please forgive me if I came across as being harsh in any of my posts.
To your posts:
To be frank, I’m rather surprised at how much you missed the point of my post.
1) Adam - Christians do not have “all [the] rights” that Jesus has. I’m afraid you’ve gotten your hands on some bad theology here. I would again encourage some Bible reading. You may also want to revisit Joe’s post. The word was punish, not protect.
2)Joe, you’re right we don’t really disagree about the morality of abortion. I wouldn’t say it the same way you do, but I think we’re basically on the same page. Our big difference is this:
I’m choosing to place my vote strategically. Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned in the next 8 years. The only viable solution at this point is to reduce the number of abortions in America. Both McCain and Obama agree that this needs to happen.
In the past I’ve voted based on the abortion issue, and I now feel foolish. I feel like I was duped.
This year I’m choosing to vote for someone who can restore America’s image abroad and start to re-build our allies across the globe. This is crucial for out financial future, and our security as a nation. I believe Obama will be more effective in rebuilding our image abroad after the failed policies of George Bush (policies McCain has supported).
I’m also very concerned at the millions of Americans who have no health care, especially children and underprivileged. As a Christian I find it morally reprehensible that we, one of the wealthiest nations in the world, would leave citizens without proper health care. And I would gladly pay more taxes, stand in line a little longer, share my doctor so that more people could have health care.
As you may have noticed I tend to be very pragmatic in my ideas, must be my Midwestern roots. This has lead me to think that it’s time to give the Democrats a shot at the White House. The Republicans have had their chance to make their ideas come to life, and frankly things aren’t going so great right now. I for one am more than willing to give the other guys a try. Fair is fair, and that seems pretty fair to me.
Finally, I do wish you had responded to more of the points I raised in my previous posts. I can only assume you recognized some of your inconstancies and decided to avoid them.
There are a couple issue I’d like to raise again. God does wish to do things through human efforts, but it is at his pleasure and through his timing, not ours. God could use John McCain or Barack Obama to accomplish his purposes on this earth. To suppose that only one of these candidates could be used by God would be a mistake and it would reflect a very small view of God.
We are not called to create laws that will force our beliefs upon others. In fact Jesus displayed the opposite. He opted for humility and service, not the powers of laws. Jesus taught that the most important thing is the heart of the individual, to have the law written on your heart. Abortion laws simply won’t do that, only Jesus can change a heart. You want a nation with no abortion? We don’t need more laws, we need Jesus.
Typically on the abortion issue I try to not take a position, but try to let my actions be my position.
Ah, what the h…while I’m going I might as well make one more point. You seem slightly interested in making moral equivalents. While I’m not entirely sure that God sees degrees of sin. To God sin is sin, and we are all sinners. But this is a point debated amongst some, so either way I’ll play along with the degrees of morality.
If there are degrees of morality I would suggest that the thousands of Iraqis and Americans killed in the war in Iraq (a war that hardly qualifies as a just war, even under the loosest of standards) represent a greater moral travesty than an abortion. I realize this is debatable and highly controversial, I’m not even 100% I buy it myself, but it’s interesting.
I’m suggesting this because it’s possible (if you believe in an age of accountability, another debated topic I grant you) that those aborted babies go to heaven and those who died in Iraq may very well go to hell. What is the greater tragedy? An aborted baby in heaven? A killed Iraqi in hell?
They’re both pretty bad right? Again, our actions should speak louder than our words here. Food for thought.
joe, thank-you for your comments. I do appreciate it when visitors stop by to offer their input. It helps to sharpen and clarify my own thinking. I do apologize if I have been uncharitable towards you. I’m trying for a more humble and civil tone in my writing.
I very much got the point of your original post: you believe that it is tactically unwise to eliminate a candidate based on a single issue. Adam, James, and I all disagreed. We all offered examples of valid criteria: murderers, rapists, those who accept bribes, etc. I then asked you — would any of these criteria eliminate a candidate in your eyes? You refused to answer the question on multiple occasions.
I am not unwilling to acknowledge or debate your other points. I am simply waiting for a reply to my first question. As soon as you answer that, I will be more than happy to respond to any other issue you brought up.
Since I’m not going to hold my breath, I will (briefly) address two points you raised this evening.
On the issue of Christian charity and healthcare:
That sounds very generous of you — but it is not. You see, your taxes affect me, not just you. You are proposing to be generous with my money. I don’t think that’s a Christian attitude in any way. I’ve read Jim Wallis, I’ve read Brian McLaren, and I’ve read Tony Campolo. All three of them have convinced me that Christians should do more to help the poor. All three of them have convinced me that I need to do more to help those who have not been blessed with a comfortable suburban life. None of the three have convinced me that forceful confiscation of wealth is a valid way for Christians to finance charity. There are many voluntary medical charities. I know — I’ve donated to several of them. I urge everyone to donate to them. And I strongly believe that voluntary charity is a more potent force for good than confiscatory taxation ever will be.
For a broader explanation of my political philosophy, I’ll just point you to an essay that Adam and I co-wrote several years ago: A Theocratic Manifesto.
On the issue of abortion:
Obama says that. But his pledged actions contradict it. Last year, Obama pledged to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. This bill would remove all of the restrictions on abortion that have been put in place over the last 20 years. This would increase — not decrease — the number of abortions performed in the United States. Roe probably won’t be overturned in 8 years. But what little progress we have made can be completely overturned at the stroke of Obama’s pen.
Finally, on the Iraq War. I’ve read many of the arguments against it. I’ve also read a lot of independent reporting out of Iraq. I specifically recommend Michael Yon and Michael Totten. Both men have funded their own trips to the Middle East and have written about what they’ve seen with their own eyes. Both men have infuriated both the right and the left at various times with their “call it like I see it” reporting. Before you accuse our troops of destroying Iraq, please take a minute to read about what they’ve actually been doing over the past several years. Please.
But, first, would you vote for a rapist, a murderer, or a racist? Or are there some issues that are simply beyond the pale?
This really will be my last post. I fear we’ve already started to be unproductive.
1- I did address your question, I guess I should have been clearer. No I wouldn’t vote for a rapist, murderer, or a racist. When someone breaks the law (especially a severe law like murder or rape) they should not hold public office. Here’s the difference: being pro choice isn’t against the law. We’re talking about two different things here. Sure, if someone breaks the law they shouldn’t be voted in. That is not an “issue” like I’m talking about. Surely you can see the difference. I know you think that abortion is the same thing as murder, but being pro-choice doesn’t make Barack Obama a murderer. It just doesn’t. It’s not an intellectually fair comparison. It’s frankly a little silly.
2- I do donate a large percentage of my income, I agree with you in this regard. However, it’s not just about what I do personally. As Christians we are also called to fight for systemic change. Read the Bible. Furthermore, we’re part of a country. We don’t live in isolation from each other. Read the founding fathers.
3- I NEVER accused our troops of destroying Iraq. Don’t play games. I didn’t say anything about our troops. I simply said that Iraq hardly qualifies as a just war, and it doesn’t. Read the Bible. Sure our troops are doing good things, and sure good will come out of it. That doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do in the first place.
4- I’m not all that concerned about your charity towards me. I’m much more concerned about your charity towards the groups of people you disagree with: Obama supporters, Democrats, Republicans, pro choicers, abortionists. Remember we’re called to love these people. Some of the things you’ve said make me think you don’t really understand that, or don’t really believe it. That’s why I made the comment about charity.
I’m willing to believe that you do understand our call to love, but that means you need to be a little more careful with what you say and how you say it. Remember, you’re on the world wide web here. People are watching and you’re representing Christ. Also remember that you’re dealing in areas that are not absolutes. There are sincere Christians who disagree about these issues.
IN ESSENTIALS UNITY, IN NON-ESSENTIALS LIBERTY, IN ALL THINGS CHARITY
1 - I’m glad we’ve reached an agreement. We’re both single issue voters, we just have different lists of what single issues would disqualify a candidate. There’s nothing wrong with that though.
2 - I’ve read the Bible. And I’m not sure where it empowers me (A) to take from you (C), to benefit someone needy (B). Our political system seems to focus on the politicians who propose and the needy who receive but rarely on The Forgotten Man who pays for it all.
I also agree with fighting for systemic change. But how? Is a national single payor system really the best way to ensure that everyone gets access to health care? I respect Christians who want to help, but I’d respect them a lot more if they spent more time reading economic studies and paying attention to the various costs and downsides of each system. If you’re interested in discussing this more, I can start writing more posts on the economics of health care. It’s a fascinating area.
3 - Just War theory is a whole other issue that I’m not going to touch with a ten foot pool. I’ll just say that there are scholars who would say that Iraq was a just war. I only mention that to indicate that there are always two sides to every argument.
4 - When I look at people, I don’t always see the “Weight of Glory” that C.S. Lewis referred to. I’m still working on it. I have a tendency to characterize my opponents as blind morons willfully walking into ditches. But that’s unfair and un-Christian. My wife chides me about it daily and I am working on recognizing my own intellectual limitations instead of focusing on the limitations of others.
Part of my passion comes because I love each of the 48,589,993 babies that have been murdered through abortion. My anger at the “doctors” who perform abortions (and the “parents” who request an abortion) is born out of the love I hold for those that have been killed. I, personally, have a hard time showing love both the murdered and to the murderer.
Instead, I more easily focus on fighting for justice for the slain. I see that fight as little different from the fight to punish rapists or the fight to punish murderers.
I freely admit that I should show love to both the victim and the criminal. Jesus showed love to me when I was supremely, infinitely unlovable. I should do the same. But how do I — how do we as a society — balance the demands of Christian love and Christian justice? It’s not an easy question and I don’t know what the right answer is.
I don’t know what the right answer is, but I want to err on the side of protecting the innocent. I side with Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver
good post joe. i like that quote from chaput. i understand these are really complicated issues (some of the most) and I respect that we can disagree. we live in a really cool country. we also have an amazingly gracious God. i pray that he’ll show mercy on me for all the things i’m wrong about. thanks for your thoughts. it was nice interacting with you.
hey. i thought of you the other day when I came across this website. hope you find it helpful.
http://www.matthew25.org/paf/index.htm