Abortion: A pro-realist approach

I was talking about this issue with someone the other day who said she wasn't pro-life or pro-choice. She was pro-realist. I liked that. At least in terms of politics, you have to think in terms of what will be practical. If you don't, your laws, no matter how "moral" will fail. The most obvious example of this was Prohibition. There was a strong moral basis for banning alcohol. Also, drinking inflicts many other social ills and kills thousands of people a year. But trying to find a legal solution to a moral and social problem just wasn't the best approach.

First, before moving into my proposals, I want to finally state my moral position on this subject. I am pro-life morally. I believe except in cases where the mothers life or physical health is seriously endangered that one should not opt for an abortion. I don't believe that a fertilized egg is the equivalent of a human life. I don't think that occurs until the brain begins to develop toward sentence. However, I am at a loss as to say at what point that occurs, so I would opt for not pursuing abortion at all, with the exceptions already mentioned.

However, simply passing a law banning abortion is unlikely to work. If we are serious about solving the problem of abortion, the approach cannot be totally legislation-based. So, here is my solution.

1. Return to Roe

Roe, while allowing abortions in the last trimester, did not encourage them. Roe stated that a legitimate concern for fetal life could be considered in the last trimester. I would say a total ban on "late term" abortion is legitimate with the health exceptions already mentioned. It is hard to argue that by the time a child is moving independently in the womb that he or she is not a "person." Charges have been leveled against individuals murdering a late term pregnant mother for two murders in some states which has withstood challenge. It is inconsistent to not consider the fetus a person in a late term abortion

Penalties, however, I feel should not involve jail time for the mothers. Fines and community service should be adequate. However, doctors performing late term abortions should be held to a higher standard with loss of license, heavy fines, and possible jail time for repeat offenses.

2. Waiting Periods

I don't see anything wrong with a "coolingoff" period. A one-week cooling off period seems reasonable. It doesn't interfere with a woman's right to an abortion, but it gives her time to think about what she is doing.

3. Parental Notification

Okay, I agree that teenagers should be provided with contraception without parental notification. That will prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions. However, an abortion is a serious surgical procedure, parents of minor children should be notified. As far as that goes, they should have some say in the decision. I understand that there may be extenuating circumstances such as an estrangement or a non-custodial parent interfering, but a reasonable appeal process and medical emancipation could solve those problems.

On the other hand, I do not believe that parents should be able to force a girl to have an abortion against her will.

4. Pre-teen Sex Education

Okay, I'm not suggesting showing movies of the sex act in kindergarten, but with kids having sex at younger and younger ages, we need to begin to deal with the issue just as they are entering adolescence. What does this have to do with abortion? Research shows that the more accurate information a young person has about sex and sexuality, the longer they will delay first sexual contact and the more responsible they will be when they begin having sex.

Yes, I believe in pre-marital celibacy and as a Christian single I practice that, but again a pro-realist approach recognizes that kids are inundated with images of sexuality in the mass media and some accurate information about sex is necessary to make decisions about sex.

5. Informed Consent

A woman considering abortion should be given information about the risks, both physically and emotionally, of abortion. However, this should be research-based and not anecdotal in nature. We actually need more neutral research done. I would like to see long term outcome studies done by a coalition of pro-choice and pro-life researchers.

For instance, post abortion trauma seems like a legitimate outcome, but I have to wonder how many women are affected and how this compares to other types of post-surgical depression or even postpartum depression.

But, no one should make such a major decision without having all the information available.

6. More prenatal care

Women should have greater access to competent pre-natal care. Even though such is available, many are ineligible or don't know they are eligible. Many have concerns about pregnancy which knowing they had the costs covered would relieve their concern.

7. More Day Care programs

Cost is often a factor in abortions. Young women often worry how they will be able to take care of the costs of raising a child on their own. Many have jobs, but those jobs don't pay enough to cover a babysitter or preschool. Increasing the number of such programs and getting the word out about those that exist could help.

On a related note: family leave plans need to be required of employers. A woman should not have to choose between having a baby and having a job.

8. Liberalizing Adoption

Currently, only a few people find themselves eligible to adopt children. Adoption agencies prefer couples over singles, higher income individuals over lower income ones. The very process of adoption is long, frustrating and complicated. It is also expensive costing from $5000 to $20,000 and more. Many good loving families simply cannot afford to adopt.

While it is important to protect the child, that can be accomplished while streamlining the adoption process.

Telling a mother that she can opt for adoption over abortion sounds good, but the adoption process is fraught with peril. Many adoptive parents worry that the biological mother will assert parental rights several years down the road. Making adoption easier and more secure would help both adoptive families and the biological mothers.

Of course, adoption is not the absolute solution many pro-lifers make it out to be. Most adoptive parents are looking for white, healthy infants. A downs syndrome baby or an African-American child will find it difficult to be adopted. Still, by opening up adoption to more people the chances of an unwanted child being adopted increases dramatically.

8. Tone down the rhetoric

Someone has said that insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. By that definition, the pro-life movement is insane. Protests in front of clinics have been going on for three decades with no effect. Yelling at young women that they are murdering their babies has not reduced the numbers of abortions. Marches, insults, bombings and voting Republican has not done a single thing to impact abortion.

We need to show our concern for the young girl facing motherhood before her senior prom. We need to share the worry of a couple who have four children already and don't know how they will afford a fifth. We need to cry with the college student whose parents kicked her out of the house when she "got knocked up." These are generally ordinary people who don't see any hope except abortion. Insulting them is not going to help them make a rational decision.

9. Seek non-legislative solutions

Perhaps the best use of pro-life resources is for Crisis Pregnancy Centers (as long as they are honest about their Pro-life philosophy). Many women seeking abortions simply don't think they have any other alternative. Helping them see the alternatives, providing them with practical help with pre-natal care, planning, placement of an unwanted child with a family, or helping with paying for maternity clothes, and baby supplies. Just helping a woman solve some problems can go a long way toward preventing an abortion.

I'm sure this plan will not set well with everyone. The pro-lifers won't like it because it recognizes that abortion is not going away. The pro-choice crowd won't like it because of issues like parental notification and waiting periods. The fact t hat the extremists on each side won't like it probably means it is workable.

But in a diverse, democratic society, we have to realize that none of us are ever going to get everything we want. This plan does have the potential of reducing the numbers of abortion and maybe begin to change attitudes toward it.

Of course, I'm not in power, and my words may mean little to those who are in power, but this may be a starting point for a discussion with those who do have the power.

Abortion: A Reality Check

Since some changes in the high court there has been a lot of hand wringing on the part of pro-choice advocates and some cautious optimism on the part of the pro-life lobby. However, now is the time for a reality check. First, it is highly unlikely for Roe v. Wade to be overturned entirely. This is unlikely for two good reasons. First, even a court sympathetic to an anti-Roe position is unlikely to over turn a decision which has lasted 30 years. Both of the new nominees stated that they respected previous court rulings and it would take something extraordinary to entice them to overturn such decisions.

Most Supreme Court justices are loath to go against a previous court decision. Supreme Court decisions become the precedents on which other decisions are based. There needs to be a sense of finality or at least stability in those decisions which outlasts the terms of the justices themselves for the legal system to function with any degree of certainty. The justices understand this and, thus, will not easily overturn a previous court's ruling without some massive change in the cultural millieau.

This brings us to the second reason that Roe is unlikely to be overturned. This is a court decision that enjoys a great deal of public support. Polls repeatedly show 70-80 percent of the American public support legalized abortion. While the courts, theoretically, are to not consider public sentiment, and only the limits of the law and the constitution, they can't totally ignore the will of the public.

So, Roe is safe for the time being, however, as we pointed out Roe was much more limited than many current abortion laws and pro-choice philosophy would like us to believe. One could easily see a tightening of abortion regulations within the scope of the Roe limitations.

We could see parental notification (and possibly parental permission) laws be passed and survive court challenges. Late term abortion bans will likely stand scrutiny by the Supreme court if the laws are written well with safeguards for those women whose life or health is threatened. Informed consent and waiting period laws will probably find a friendlier hearing at the court than in the past.

However, even the overturning of Roe would not eliminate abortion in the U.S. Before Roe nearly 1/3 of the states had some sort of legalized abortion on the books. And the laws were not always vigorously enforced. If Roe was overturned, the majority of the states under pressure from constituents would probably pass their own abortion laws and the expedient of traveling to a pro-abortion state would return.

The pendulum is swinging back, but it has lost most of it's momentum. If we are lucky, it will land somewhere close to center ground.

Bringing Back the Sanity Part III

Critiquing the Pro-Choice Stance

I was riding BART a few weeks ago when I saw a poster by some pro-life group. It read something like "Because of Roe v. Wade a woman can be pregnant for nine months and still abort her baby. Abortion rights have gone too far." Okay, the message implies that Roe legalized abortion for the full term of pregnancy which is not the case. We already discussed the limits of Roe. But the basic idea of abortion rights having gone too far is legitimate.

Just as the pro-life group goes too far when they consider a single fertilized egg to be a human being, the pro-choice group goes too far when they consider an 8 month old "fetus" to not be one. Although, I feel it to be impossible to mark a specific point where a bunch of cells ceases to be a potential human being and becomes an actual human being, I have to say that any reasonable person knows that it does occur in the womb and not at birth.

Recently a couple I know had a baby born two and a half months premature. The doctors have worked heroically to save the life of this tiny infant. Yet, radical pro-choice advocates would say that child is only a child because it is outside the womb. That may make legal sense, but it is rational nonsense.

Pro-choicers have gone too far in several ways. First, they have gone too far in their rhetoric. The mantra of "A woman has a right to do what she wants with her body" is flawed logically. At some point, the fetus ceases to be a part of the woman's body and becomes a living human being. Since I could not determine exactly when that point occurs I would rather not take chances at all, but certainly after the first trimester, it is clear that there is someone inside the womb who while dependent on the mother's body is not part of the mother's body. Whether or not the woman has the right to make a life and death decision for that other person (which is another question entirely) she cannot claim that her decision only affects her.

Pro-choicers have also gone to far in defining the term "woman." Pro-choice groups point to a "woman's" right to choose even when the "woman" in question is a teenage girl. It is ironic to the point of lunacy, that a school nurse cannot give a teenager an aspirin without parental consent, but that same girl, in many states, can have an abortion. The teenage brain is different than the adult brain, and at time teenagers make impulsive decisions that the same person in later years would not. These decisions (and not just abortion) can leave scars that last for a lifetime. Certainly, there needs to be some limits on parental involvment such as when the life of the mother is at stake or some other serious physical or mental health issue is at stake. But the basic principle of parental notification is no infringement on the rights of an adult woman to make an informed decision to terminate her pregnancy.

Pro-choice advocates have gone too far in supporting late term abortions. This stance even goes beyond Roe v. Wade. In that decision, the justices agreed that there was a legitimate interest in protecting viable fetuses. Consider the so called "partial birth" abortion. The doctors induce labor, the baby is almost born, but before the head comes out of the mother, an instrument is inserted into the brain to kill the child. Three or four inches further and an abortion become infanticide. It would be laughably absurd, if it wasn't so tragic.

Finally Pro-choice advocates have gone too far in denying the humanity of the fetus. The difference between having a baby inside of you and having a fetus often turns solely on whether or not you want to keep the child. A mother desirous of having a child considers that child growing inside them as a person from the moment she hears the news. It is a legal fiction to deny a fetus, particularly after it is capable of independent movement, and has a well formed brain and nervous system, the status of a person. Any parent, who wanted a child knows it is a person. Any mother awaken in the middle of the night by a well place kick, knows it is a person, and any father placing his hand on the mothers abdomen to feel his child move beneath the skin, knows it is a person. It is only when the child is unwanted that it becomes a fetus and denied the humanity it is accorded when it is anticipated with joy.

So, yes, I feel the pro-lifers have gone too far in their rhetoric and have denied Christ by their hatefulness in pursuing what they consider a "holy mission." But the pro-choicers have gone too far. They have moved from a pragmatic approach to dealing with abortion laws which were inconsistent and outdated to actually promoting abortion as not only a viable alternative to birth control, but in some cases the preferred alternative. They have denied the humanity of the fetus far past the stages of pregnancy where such humanity is questionable. They have even taken the law on a ride where infanticide is called legalized abortion with the partial birth procedure.

So, no one has clean hands in this debate.

Bringing Back the Sanity Part II

Critiquing the Pro-Life Stance

Several years ago in an 60 Minutes commentary Andy Rooney said something like, "I generally agree with the position of the pro-life advocates, but pro-choicers on the whole are nicer people." It isn't a direct quote, but that is the essence.

Of course, Mr. Rooney was referring by and large to t he most vocal opponents of abortion. I'm sure, even he knew many very nice people, loving and kind, that held a pro-life stance politically.

But this does raise a significant issue with the pro-life movement. When Roe V. Wade was decided approximately 60 percent of the American public believed a woman had a right to choose to have an abortion. After 30+ years of agitation by Pro-lifers ranging from prayer vigils to bombings to murder, those numbers have risen to 70-80 Percent depending on how the question is stated.

Pro-life presidents, congressional representatives, senators, governors and judges proclaim their pro-life credentials, yet few are effective in making any substantial changes in abortion law, because in a democratic society, the majority viewpoint wields a great deal of power. You notice, after the primaries, republican candidates for office usually avoid discussion of abortion like the plague. They know that while it plays well with the party faithful, it doesn't play with the country at large.

Now, does this mean that the majority is always right? Hardly. Witness the election of Richard Nixon. However, it does mean that politically the pro-life movement fights an uphill battle. Now, there are subissues such as parental notification and late term abortion where the public sentiment rests more with the pro-life stance than the pro-choice extremists, but the core issue of the legality of abortion in general, definitely lies in the pro-choice win column.

So, it is no wonder that some frustrated pro-life advocates focus on intimidation, insults, and overblown rhetoric to make their points.

Just as a sid note, it would be unfair to judge the pro-life movement as a whole with the violent extremists who bomb clinics and murder doctors. They do not represent most pro-life advocates. However, on balance, I wonder how much of the heated rhetoric calling abortion clinc workers "Murderers" and comparing them to the engineers of the Holocost contribute to some disturbed individuals taking the cause to a violent extreme. Still, as a personal advocate of free speech and expression, I defend the Pro-lifer's right to use inflammatory rhetoric, while at the same time exhorting them to consider the potential consequences of such rhetoric.

And this brings me to my main criticism of the Pro-Life movement. Certainly, one has the right, and indeed the responsibility, to advocate changes in a democratic society they feel strongly need to be made. However, few think beyond the rhetoric. I teach public speaking and argumentation. So, I hear the pro-life/pro-choice debate ad infinitum, ad nauseum. All I hear are the same old tired "arguments" which are not real arguments since they are not based on any actual evidence, that abortion is murder, we could be killing the next Einstein (they never think we could also be killing the next Jeffrey Dalmer. That argument cuts both ways and thus is a useless one for either side to us), that human life is sacred and begins with the fertilzation of the egg by the sperm, and that the Bible says it is wrong (which is not technically true, but can be inferred from some passages of scripture which they don't even seem to know.)

In other words, they simply spout off the party line without any actual critical thinking going on. And they never present a plan. For instance, what will be the penalties for a woman having an abortion? Will she be charged with premeditated murder and be sent to death row? Will she be charged with second degree murder and spend 25 years to life in prision? Will it be manslaughter with a 5 year sentance? Or will she be fined. If abortion is murder, then it would need to be treated as such by the law. Most are unwilling to send a young girl faced with a desperate situation to jail for a first trimester abortion. Even my mostvehement pro-lifers hesitate to assign any jail time to the woman.

Yet, there needs to be a plan that is workable. This was one of the problems in the pre-Roe era. Women often simply traveled to another state or another country to obtain a legal abortion frustrating individual state laws. And local police departments were hesitant to spend limited resources hunting down college girls who went to a medical student for a "back room" abortion.

If one is going to change the law, then one needs a workable plan for doing so. But in leiu of a workable plan, most of the activists substitute inflammatory rhetoric for actual problem solving proposals. They stand at abortion clinics with gory pictures or yell at the women telling them they are murderers.

Is it any wonder that even people sympathetic to the pro-life philosophy have problems with the movement as a whole. It is supposedly based in large part on Christian principles, but very un Christ-like actions belie that basis. There are exceptions, of course. Pro-life sponsored Crisis Pregnacy clinics (which are open and above board about their pro-life perspective) providing assistance and counseling to unwed mothers and poor families, Christian adoption services matching infants with families (assuming the infant is white and healthy, it has a good chance of adoption.)

Some savvy pro lifers are now proposing laws which can stem the tide of abortion without banning it altogether. Proposals for informed consent, bans on late term abortions, waiting periods, parental notification all well within the bounds of Roe and enjoying some support from a plurality or even in some cases a majority of the public.

The pro-life movement needs to pull back from the wild-eyed fanaticism which has come to symbolize the movement and refocus on compassion, concern for the mother (and not just the child), and legislation which is actually workable.

And in general, for all of us, regardless of our beliefs on this issue, we just need to be a little nicer to each other and those we want to persuade.

Abortion: Bringing back the sanity

Perhaps no issue so fully defines the culture war as the debate over abortion. In the next several posts I'll be discussing this issue and I'm going to try to bring both sides of the debate back to a level of sanity which both pro-life and pro-choice extremists have abandoned.
In this post, I want to simply lay a historical groundwork for the debate, discuss what roe v. wade did and did not do, so that we are proceding with accurate information and not the distortions of history on both sides of the debate.

First, the practice of abortion is ancient. The Egyptians in dynastic days practiced it as did the Persians. Persian Law exacted severe punishments for abortion. However, in spite of the sanction in the Hippocratic Oath, Greek and Roman cultures were tolerant of the practice. When punished, it was largely based on the violation of paternal rights. In other words, the father claiming that he had been deprived of his offspring. It was not considered murder by any means.

The Hebraic Law is silent on the practice of voluntary abortion. The only reference to it in scripture is found in Exodus 21:22. The verse reads in the King James:

(Exo 21:22) If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

The Contemporary English Version clarifies this scripture:

Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve.

Neither of these treats the "abortion" as murder. Nothing is said at all about voluntary abortion that I can find.

Likewise, the early church did not consider life to begin at conception as most modern pro-life advocates do. They believed that the soul entered the body at some point about the 16th to 18th week when the mother begins to feel movement. This was called "The Quickening." and was used from ancient times through the 19th century indetermining proscription of abortion and/or it's penalties.

Under common law, abortions performed before "the quickening" were not considered actionable. In fact, in America, the first law banning abortion was enacted in 1821 in Connecticut, but it wasn't until 1860 that state criminalized abortions before quickening. The law in New York in 1828 made abortion before quickening a misdemenor, but after quickening, it became a felony. Such distinctions remained in American law up until the 1950's when the distinction by time was phased out. By the late 1960's, though, many states were liberalizing their abortion laws so that by the time of Roe v. Wade abortion was legal under certain restrictions in about 1/3 of the states and women who wanted an abortion could usually obtain one legally simply by traveling to another state.

In January 1973 Roe V. Wade was decided. In many ways it took a step back to the laws that postulated a "quickening" occurring some days or weeks into the pregnancy. Contrary to popular belief, Roe did not legalize abortion in all cases throughout the pregnancy. Here is the text of the critical court order:

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in waysthat are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in thepotentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

In other words, during the first trimester, the traditional period before the "quickening" the woman and her physician have virtually unfettered ability to choose to abort the fetus. After the first trimester but before viability, the state may regulate abortion based on the health of the mother. Once the fetus could live outside the womb, the state could regulate or ban abortion completely.

So, even conservative theologians over the centuries have debated when life begins and that debate has been reflected in the abortion laws up until the first half of the 20th century when abortion laws began to predicate that a fertilized egg was a living being with a soul. This is a belief that was not shared by the ancients nor by the early church.

Now, they may have been wrong. One can build a case that life begins at conception. One can postulate that the soul enters when the sperm connects with egg. Although, it is hard to really maintain that when one considers how many fertilized eggs never reach maturity. It would seem that God would not set up a reproductive system which destroys so many souls. The concept of "the quickening" I personally find compelling. The difficulty I find is that I'm not sure when that happens. That is one reason why I personally on a moral basis oppose abortion at any stage of development. However, I can see a legitimate argument that such a quickening is unlikely to occur in the first trimester.

We will be critiquing the Pro-Life assumptions in the next posting, but not to worry, the pro-choice people get theirs in the following. After that, I'll present a "reality check" on what it likely to occur with abortion laws in the future. Finally, I'll present my "solution" to the problem. So, please don't shoot me until you read the whole series.

The Politics of life

Perhaps the flashpoint that started the culture war was the issue of abortion. This issue pre-dated the famous Roe v. Wade decision by several years. By the time of Roe many states already had various types of legalized abortion on demand. Roe simply made it a constitutional issue. Any belief that overturning Roe would immediately make abortion illegal nationally is foolish thinking. It will simply return the country to where it was before Roe with a patchwork quilt of state laws which meant women seeking abortion simply crossed state lines to obtain them or, if poor, resorted to things like taking poisons or, as a friend of my mother's did, jumping off a kitchen counter on her stomach to force a miscarriage.

This was the beginning of the "pro-life" movement. The term "Pro-life" was a master stroke of public relations at the time. At that time there were many groups that were "anti" things such as "anti-war" and "anti-racism." Here was a group that was technically anti-abortion, but they turned it into a positive. They were saying, "We aren't against abortion, we are in favor of life, and abortion destroys life." At the time is was a subtle and effective way to set them apart from the "protesters" of the time which were identified with liberal causes.

Thus the politics of life was formed. One group claimed to be pro-life saying that abortion was murder because it took an innocent life. On the other hand the pro-choice crowd shifted the debate away from when life begins to a matter of freedom of choice. So, we had the battle of values. Life vs. Freedom. In American culture you can't imagine two more powerful archetypes.

The problem was that both sides, once again, were essentially hypocritical. The political religious right claims to be "pro-life" but apparently that stance only extends to the unborn. The PRR has not yet seen a war it didn't like, supports the death penalty, fights environmental regulations which can save lives, and some radical elements support assassination as a tool of foriegn policy.

Even on the abortion issue, the PRR doesn't even pay much attention to church history. Throughout the middle ages and rennaissance clerics argued about when life began with ideas ranging from conception to the sensation of movement in the mother's womb to one group that said it didn't begin until the baby took the first breath. This latter position was rooted in Genesis 2:7 where Adam becomes a living soul when God breathes the breath of life into him.

But what about all the other life issues. I'm not claiming that it is always wrong to go to war. Certainly, when the governmental integrity of a country is at stake, when it has been attacked with the intent of invasion and conquest as with Pearl Harbour, then the country has little choice but to go to war. However, initiating a conflict or simple military adventurism is hardly proper. The early church actually debated if serving in the military was ever justified. Many Christians died rather than be conscripted into the Roman army. I think that is a bit extreme, but it certainly shows that the church hasn't always been pro-war.

The death penalty is interesting because religious people from both sides of the fence call scripture to the foreground to defend or oppose the practice. Certainly, the Old Testament practices the death penalty, but it also requires blood sacrifices of animals and makes the eating of shell fish an abomination. The Law of the Old Testament we are told is fulfilled in Christ. And when Christ faced judging a death penalty case (the woman taken in adultery) he opted for mercy rather than judgement. Many will say, "But Jesus said, "An eye for an eye."" Unfortunately, they don't quote the entire verse:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
(Mat 5:38-39)

This is hardly an endorsement of retribution. At the very least, it means that there are justifiable differences on this life issue.

I could go on about the hypocrisy of the PRR's "pro-life" proclamations, but now I have to turn to the problems on the left.

With abortion, the pro-choice group sidestep an important issue: Is a fetus a living soul? Certainly, there is the legal fiction of a person vs. a non-person. But the law recognizes certain corporations as "persons" for the sake of discussion. I'm not talking law now, I'm talking philosophy.

Can even the most strident pro-choice advocate deny that when a woman is feeling movement in her womb, that the "fetus" is not a person? Can they deny the anguish that a woman feels when a wanted pregnancy miscarries? Do they deny the heroic work of the doctors who work with premature children to keep them alive?

There is an inconsistency here that says simply that one life is worth more than another. Whatever the questions about whether a fertilized egg or an embryo consisting of only a few cells constitutes life or life potential, when we get to the point where there is a possibly viable fetus that has movement and can respond to outside stimuli, can we deny this PERSON some sort of protection from it's own mother.

The knee-jerk response against any types of limitation on abortion by the left needs to be examined as critically as the hypocricy of the right.

Likewise, the various ways we have developed to justify cold blooded murder needs to be examined. Liberals have championed such defenses as the "twinkie" defense blaming the sugars in junk food for an uncontrollable murderous rage, battered spouse syndrome in which the wife is allowed to kill her husband as he sleeps instead of leaving him, blaming parenting, TV, video games and rap music instead of placing the responsiblity on the murderer belies any type of suggestion of honoring life on either side of the issue.

Life is indeed precious. I find it hard to justify abortion, while having sympathy with the desperation of the expectant mother. But I can't see that making abortion illegal is any solution. Providing more alternatives, setting a waiting period, providing full disclosure of objectively conducted studies of post-abortion trauma and medical complications makes sense as does requiring parental notification and approval. It seems ridiculous that a school nurse can't give a minor an aspirin without parental permission, but that same girl could have an abortion without the parents even being notified.

So, I must say I am Pro-Life, but I consider that to be universally pro-life. I'm morally opposed to most abortions, but also to the death penalty, wars of opportunity, assassination as foreign policy, and toxins in the atmosphere which kill people. I'm for the pre-born and the post-born being protected. Again putting me at odds with both the right and the left.

Conversational Intolerance

I was just watching author Sam Harris speaking on C-Span. He used a term about the religious right, but I think it applies to all parts of the culture war. He spoke about "Conversational Intolerance." In the field of conflict resolution we call them stoppers. They stop the conversation.

He used the example of stem cell research. He said, in essence, when you begin a conversation about stem cell research immediately someone raises the issue that a three-day old embryo is a soul and therefore use of those cells constitutes murder. No proof is offered. It is expected to be accepted on their word. No further discussion is possible. One cannot even continue the conversation about whether or not a handful of unformed cells is a human being with a soul. Thus, with a whole segment of society, the discussion ends right there.

He seemed to imply that only religious individuals are guilty of this conversational intolerance. I contend that the conversation stops not only because the religious right won't listen, but that the irreligious left won't either.

Perhaps it is only natural for us to avoid difficult ethical issues. By calling it sin by religious people or by simply labeling it as reactionary by the left we can avoid dealing with these tough issues and blame the other guy at the same time.

Truthfully, as a Christian, I feel in some groups intimidated by expressing anything other than the "party line" laid out by a handful of powerful televangelists and Christian activists. If I opposed the death penalty, say, in certain groups, or expressed an opposition to the war in Iraq, there would be no conversation of the merits of the argument, but a rather summary dismissal of my point of view as being unAmerican or even unChristian. We could not even engage in a Bible study on such questions. The article of faith is grounded more in a political religion than a Biblical one.

But I have found myself equally intimidated by the left. I am a college instruction. If I expressed a view that said that I believed that homosexual behavior is a sin, it would not be seen only as my opinion which I had formed through a study of my religion, I would be villified as a homophobe and bigot. It would be assumed I also opposed equal rights for gays and lesbians, job protection, fair housing and marital rights. Thatwould be wrong. I support all of that. One does not exclude the other. But the conversation would be stopped as soon as I expressed the less favored opinion among my peers.

In fact, the mention of God in any context other than some vague lifeforce of the universe in some settings causes people to pull away. Being a little religious is okay. Just don't let it interfer with your real life. And above all don't talk about a living, daily relationship with God. Certainly, don't talk about Jesus as anything more than a good man or prophet.

I remember back in college having some wonderful arguments with an atheist on the debate team. We were pretty evenly matched in terms of debating skill. Neither of us were ever condemned for our beliefs. Indeed, we didn't even condemn each other. I doubt such conversations would be approved of on either side of the political spectrum today.

It's time we start conversations about these difficult issues instead of stopping them by refusing to listen to the opposite site.

Infotainment and the Culture War

First, let me make clear that I am not one of those people who are constantly bashing the news media. I've worked in news at a local level, and I have found that most working reporters make every attempt to be fair and as objective as possible when writing their stories. A lot of handwringing goes on behind the scenes by reporters and editors over how to balance the people's need to know certain things in a democratic society against sensationalism and public interest. I heard one speaker on a conference panel entitled, "How We Get it Wrong as Journalists" say, "Can you imagine a panel at the American Medical Association conference entitled: 'Why do we kill so many patients?'"

Nor am I one who believes that the major media represent some sort of liberal or conservative conspiracy to hide or distort information. Again, you can find just about any political spin you want in the media.

No, I have respect for the members of the fourth estate. When they do their jobs right, they are criticized from both sides of the culture war for not reporting only their side of the issue. And they have to do their jobs under ever shortening deadlines making fact-checking and just basic writing more difficult.

What I want to address is not so much the reporting on the news as the way news is analyzed. News by itself is sometimes confusing. To tell the whole story one must put it into some sort of context. This means often interviewing people with differing interpetations of events. Fairness dictates that you need to allow different sides of controversial issues to present their interpretations and positions.

However, with the proliferation of cable news outlets, this attempt at balanced reporting often ends up being nothing more than a verbal fist fight between extremists with the moderators being referees and the network news organizations being little more than fight promoters. In journalism school we called this generating "more heat than light."

This brings us to the problem of "infotainment" a word which was coined to describe TV news programming which is mainly for the entertainment of the audience while presenting itself as news. At it's best, it can produce programs like 60 Minutes and 20/20. At it's worst it produces programs like Hard Copy, Scarborough Country and The Oreilly Factor. While I may enjoy watching these programs (even O'reilly sometimes), they hardly shed any real light on the subjects covered.

The typical show will bring together passionate proponents of different sides of a controversial issue to "discuss" it. Within a few minutes, the people are yelling at each other, interrupting one another, and trying to keep the others from talking. Often, the moderators are as bad as the participants joining one side or the other in the fight.

Certainly, this is amusing and entertaining. It really stirs the passions of the audience. You can root for the guy you agree with, and boo the one you don't like. But after the show is over what have you learned? Mostly, you have just been confirmed in your own belief on the subject without learning anything about the other side.

Perhaps more dangerous in this approach is that it reduces complex questions to a simple either/or proposition. Few issues are that simple. For instance, one might oppose the war in Iraq, as I do, but to simply pack up our bags and leave in the next 30 days is impossible at this point. However, that doesn't mean that a phased withdrawal over say 6 months couldn't work. When congressman Murtha proposed such a plan which was detailed and moderate, the debate was framed in the context of "get out now" vs. "stay the course." His plan called for the troops to be redeployed in the region where they could be called back when needed. There was no immediate abandonment of the mission, just a redeployment of the troops. Now one could argue the merits of such a plan, whether it would work or not, whether it is wise or not, but instead it was reduced to it simplest dynamic of "get out now, go home and ignore Iraq" which was not the entire plan.

We used to call television news "Talking Heads." Today, I'm afraid the cable news programs have turned that into "Yelling Heads." We need to reduce the volume and increase the analysis.

Persecution Complex

If you go out to a sporting match you will see people with big signs up reading "We're Number 1!" The team could be 0-6 in the season but you will still see those silly foam fingers pointing to the sky proclaiming their dominance. Likewise, political leaders during wartime will proclaim how successful they have been and how victory is within their grasp regardless of the actual results on the ground.

In this regard the culture war is rather odd. It seems like one of the main competitions between the sides is to proclaim how little power they have and how the other side is winning. Of course, I understand the dynamics. If you want to really energize a social force, let them feel that they are being persecuted or in danger of being crushed and they will really get out the workers.
Both the left and the right claim to be the underdogs in this fight. Both say the other has gained the upper hand. Ironically, they are both right to a certain extent. Certainly, Evangelical Christianity has taken it's hits over the years in the political world and especially in pop culture. Sometimes over-reaching court decisions and most particularly overly cautious interpretations of those decisions have hampered Christians even in their private observances of their faith in certain public governmental settings. Students have been denied a place to hold an on-campus Christian club meeting, even though it is perfectly legal. Some Christians working in governmental offices have been reprimanded for Bible verses on their desks or Bibles on their bookshelves.

However, one can hardly claim that Christianity is truly in danger of being eliminated in the United States by Government edict. Churches are found in abundance. The local TV cable company has two religious channels, politicians play to the religious right and the religious left to obtain support. An avowed atheist would not even make it past the primaries in a national election.

In some ways, Western Christians speaking of "persecution" is almost an insult to those around the world who have truly suffered for their faith. Those who have been imprisioned, shunned by families, starved, refused any but the most menial work, or who have been killed for their faith, those who must meet in secret to hear about Christianity, must be amused by our stories of "persecution" which amounts to little more than inconvenience and bad press.

The left, though, also complains of persecution. Certainly, the turn to the political right over the past 20 years has made it difficult for people to proclaim themselves as liberals. Liberal in many areas is uses as a dirty word and politicians will distance themselves from the word. Some liberals have claimed persecution from the Religious right. A story surfaced recently of pressure by "Christian" cadets at a military academy have been "harrassing" Jewish cadets. Whether such tales are true or not, it illustrates the fear on the left.

But again, if we look at the true legacy of liberalism, even "conservatives" stand to defend many of the classic "liberal" programs. People may talk about fixing social security, but no one seriously suggests doing away with some sort of government mandated retirement program. While many may worry about the costs of medicare, no one is willing to go back to the days when an older person would have to choose between food and a doctors visit or would just die rather than have a life saving operation.

Liberals certainly fare better than conservatives in most parts of the popular culture. In spite of Fox News and a few right wing programs on other Cable news outlets, the bias remains slightly left of center by most TV commentators.

The problem with this is that it paints the opposition, not as well meaning people who are simply wrong, but rather as evil people trying to crush us good people. It is part of the politics of division that has become all too common and threatens to tear us apart as a people.

On the Morality of Comparison

The other night I was channel surfing, and I heard some commentators discussing the lastest pictures from Abu Ghiraid prison. One of the men, a Christian activist, suddenly said, "Well, maybe they should show the torture chambers of Sadaam Hussein." Aside from the tacit approval of torture, if it is done by us, this illustrates what is a disturbing trend in our culture. I call it the morality of comparison.

We are familiar with it. It may even be human nature. How often a motorist is stopped by a police officer for driving 50 in a 30 mile zone only to self-righteously excuse himself or herself by saying, "Yes, but where were you when that guy went by me going 70?" The defense then is "I'm bad, but someone else is worse, that makes what I did alright."

It's not an excuse which will help our speeding motorist, yet, it seems to work in the political arena. I have found the whole debate about the American use of torture in Iraq and Gitmo disturbing for several reasons. First, the fact that we are seriously debating whether or not torture is okay is disturbing. Aside from it's general uselessness in obtaining reliable information, it has traditionally been seen by modern Western civilization as being inherrently immoral. If used, it is something that one ought to be ashamed of, and not defended.

But almost equally troubling is this diversion of saying, "Yes, we tortured people, but it was restrained torture. It certainly wasn't as bad as what Sadaam Hussein did." First, there is the obvious logical fallacy inherent in this argument. An action is or is not immoral regardless of whether or not someone else has committed the same act in a worse manner. I am not responsible for anyone's actions but my own. And a country is only responsible for its own actions. Just because someone else exceeded the speed limit by 40 miles per hour, doesn't mean I have license to exceed it by 20.

What I find even more disturbing is how many "Christian" personalities and those in the pews who buy into this. The infliction of pain, stripping men naked to humiliate them, forcing them to sodomize each other or appear to do so for a camera, attaching wires to their genitals, etc. should not be the type of thing any Christian can approve of regardless of the nobility of the ends.

Some in the political world, moving away from torture, have come to believe that immoral acts by ones opponents not only validate, but demand response in kind. I was at a Democratic strategy meeting several years ago for a candidate for state office. The candidate had pledged to run a clean campaign and avoid smear tactics. His opposition had begun to run personal attack ads having nothing to do with the candidates qualifications for office. For half this meeting we talked about how horrible and immoral it was for this man to do such a thing. Finally, near the end of the meeting, someone said, "Well, there's no choice for you now. He started it, but you have to finish it. You're going to have to be as nasty as him." I tried to point out the hypocrisy of this stand. If attack ads are immoral for a republican, they are just as immoral for a democrat. But in the end, the morality of comparison won out, and the election turned out to be one of the ugliest I ever saw.

This "tit-for-tat, he-started-it" childish exercise permeates politics, the culture war and even daily life. More than once I've visited a "Christian" discussion board to see individuals posting vile, vicious and even obscene messages and justifying themselves by saying "I'm just defending myself." I have to wonder how this is a defense. I mean, does it stop the attacks? On the contrary, it usually just generates more attacks. In fact, following the Biblical injunction to remain silent and turn the other cheek would likely stop the attacks much sooner and provide a better defense than responding in kind.

But we have good models. If even Christian activists can justify torture, and our political leaders can justify libelous campaign messages, by appealing to the morality of comparison, then how can we expect the man and woman in the pew to act any better.

Evangelical=Conservative? Not Necessarily

I was discussing this new blog with a friend in England the other day. He is an Evangelical Christian as am I. In fact, we both belong to the same denomination. He expressed his disdain for American news broadcasts that equate Evangelical with the political agenda of a certain group of conservatives in the United States. He pointed out that Evangelicals in the UK were not as likely to be linked to the same causes as those in the U.S. He mentioned that Evangelicals in the UK were generally opposed to the war in Iraq and would oppose the death penalty if it were reinstituted in England.

I have been in church all my life, and it has only been the last few years that Evangelicals have become totally identified in the public mind with a certain political position. This is not to say that evangelicals, as a group, haven't taken political positions in the past ranging from abolition to civil rights to prohibition to abortion. What has changed recently is the blending of theology and political philosophy so thoroughly that the public perception of Evangelicals is that these political positions are somehow written into our doctrine. Also, many have taken an all or nothing approach in the past few years which was missing for a long time.

The other day, someone wrote me politely criticizing something I had written and said something like, "Why I can't accept liberals as Christians is that they believe abortion to be alright." There are two problems with this. First, just because someone opposes the criminalization of something doesn't mean they approve of the action. That is a distinction lost on a lot of people. But more to the point of this article is the fact that this person has reduced the entire spectrum of liberal philosophy to a single issue. He mentions nothing about civil rights, governmental responsibility to aid the poor, health care, day care for children, curbing governmental intrusion into private expression, or the many other "liberal" issues out there.

The same happens on the left. People who reduce conservatism entirely to either opposition to abortion or making war. Indeed, the concepts of economic conservatism tend to get lost entirely in this debate over the other issues like abortion, war, and gay rights. Even many conservatives lose sight of classic conservative issues like small government, states rights, and economic restraint. Likewise, many liberals also will have nothing to do with Christianity because they have identified the theology of Christianity with the political philosophy of conservatism.

In reality one can build a case for liberalism as strongly from Christian scriptures as one can for conservatism. It kind of depends on whether one is an Old Testament Christian or a New Testament one. Although, it's not quite as simple as that either. But that's for another day.
So, what do Evangelicals believe? While there are minor differences, for the most part we accept the Apostles Creed.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic (meaning in this case the Universal church not the denomination) church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

We also believe that we are called to share this "Good News" with others. Admittedly, many of our leaders have more of a penchant for sharing the Bad News, than the good, but that's not part of the theology.

Jesus tells his disciples right before he goes into heaven, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20)"

The Greek word from which we get the words Evangelism and Evangelical means to "proclaim good news." It is the word used in the Christmas story when the angel says "Behold I bring you glad tidings of great joy." (Luke 2.10) We have found something wonderful and we are called to proclaim it to others. We do not have the option of sitting by and watching smuggly in our personal relationship with God in Jesus Christ, in our experience of peace, joy, freedom from guilt, and assurance of eternal life while others are ignorant of this great gift. Indeed, eternity would judge us harshly if we kept this a secret.

So, we Evangelize. We tell the good news to others.

Now, within this definition of Evangelicalism, you don't see any political agenda. Jesus continually sidestepped people who wanted to draw him into the politics of his day. He said, to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's" (Luke 20.25) This is actually, the first recorded statement of the doctrine of the separation of Church and State.

Being Evangelical does not require one to be of any political party, to vote a certain way, or to support certain political issues. What it requires is a personal experience with God through repentance and the acceptance of Jesus Christ as one's personal savior and a committment to live one's personal life by the precepts of the Bible.

I remember C.S. Lewis writing in The Screwtape Letters about how a person that a demon is supposed to tempt has come down with a bad case of "Mere Christianity." Screwtape laments that if they could just get him to add something to Christianity like "Christianity and Social Reform" or "Christianity and the War" they would have a way in.

Unfortunately, too many of our Christian activists have given the enemy an opening by discarding Mere Christianity for Christianity and Political Power. But please do not confuse that with what Evangelicalism really is all about.

Escaping the Culture War

Over the past 4-5 years particularly we have heard much divisive rhetoric from both the right and the left. Evangelical Christians have demanded their voice not only be heard but enshrined in law and represented by political appointment. Liberals in almost knee jerk reflex action have immediately assumed certain political and behavioral traits of Evangelicals. This has been described as "The Culture War."

It represents a type of polarization of society (and I am speaking primarily of American culture which I know best) that has resulted in a nation for which the motto "E Plurabus Unim" is an ironic joke. Although we give lip service to diversity, both right and left only want a nation filled with people just like them.

Ironically, the bulk of society does not fall neatly into one category or another. For instance, take the hot button issue of abortion. While national polls show that most people support the right to an abortion, they don't fully accept "abortion on demand" as an absolute right. They tend to agree that minors should not get abortions without parental notification. They are split on the idea of waiting periods. They generally oppose late term or "partial birth" abortions. But asked if they would support laws that virtually eliminated the abortion option, the answer is "No." So, where does this fall? Left (pro-choice) Right (parental notification, limits on abortion) or somewhere else.

I submit that many of us don't fit the neat categories useful for political discussion on the cable news networks. We don't take absolutists stands. And we are concerned about the politics of division and especially concerned when religion is employed as a tool of that division.

Just to clarify. I am a born-again, spirit-filled, Bible believing, Evangelical Christian. I believe the Bible from cover to cover to be the inspired and infallible word of God. But I also believe that folks from both sides of the political spectrum have co-opted scripture for their own purposes. I also believe that so much of the "culture war" has been an effective diversion by the enemy (that's Satan, in case you are wondering) to neutralize the effectiveness of the Gospel message by making it seem like a political agenda.

So in these articles, I'll be looking at the culture war and try to bring a bit more balance to the table. Sometimes that will mean looking like a flaming liberal. Other times it will mean looking like the most conservative of conservatives. But it should be thought provoking.

Now, I am interested in seeing "intelligent" and "respectful" responses. Any name calling or "You're going to hell" type of posts will be removed. But if you have a reasoned response or rebuttal I'm interested in seeing it. I may not respond to everything. But I will moderate the responses to maintain decorum. One part of the politics of division has been the language of division. I'll speak to that in a future article.

I am interested right now in what parts of the culture war concern you, not as an advocate of one side or the other, but in terms of what you see dividing our society and how we might be able to bring people back together even if they disagree.