Feb. 9, 2009 issue
Abortion and openness
The combination of a Democratic Congress and a pro-choice Obama administration is raising concern that abortion will become more normalized and that some existing restrictions will be lifted. For peace-church members, this time of change is an opportunity to recommit to efforts to reduce abortion.
In the current debate, the Freedom of Choice Act is a particular flashpoint. According to the legislation’s text, FOCA would mandate that government may not interfere with a woman’s decision “to bear a child; to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.”
The act defines viability as the point during pregnancy at which a physician determines that a child could survive outside the womb. It further specifies that it would retroactively apply to all levels of legislation or government actions, yet it would not overturn the federal ban on late-term abortion when the woman’s health is not in danger.
Legislation as far-reaching as FOCA — which didn’t have a hearing in the last Congress and hasn’t been reintroduced in the current one as of Jan. 30 — is unlikely to pass Congress. However, on Jan. 23 Obama rescinded the rule against U.S. family planning funds going to organizations internationally that provide abortion information and services, while promising to work to reduce abortion rates.
Abortion violates Anabaptist Christian ethics, based on belief in the sanctity of all life. Mennonite Church USA adopted a statement opposing abortion in 2003, and the U.S. Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches includes objection to abortion in its Confession of Faith.
Yet, the conviction that abortion is wrong does not mandate only one kind of response for Christians in relation to society and government.
Those who disagree about whether abortion should be legal can still work to reduce the number of abortions. Some aid women facing unintended pregnancies. Others protest and lobby legislators. Others advocate for economic justice and health care access. Some undertake all these efforts.
One action too few Mennonites take is to talk honestly and regularly in our churches about sex and relationships. Sunday school classes, sermons and individual conversations should be venues for talking about the role sexuality plays in the lives of all — young, old, married and single.
All of us, especially children and youth, need full factual information about sex, pregnancy, parenthood, adoption and abortion in order to make healthy choices. Churches can teach and discuss their own ethics and biblical values alongside the factual information.
Our congregations need to provide spaces where people can listen to each other’s beliefs about and experiences with sexuality. Members ought to help each other make and keep commitments to healthy sexual behavior. Churches should foster healing for those hurt by sexual abuse and unintended pregnancy.
President Obama has said he is ushering in a new era of openness and transparency in government. It is time Mennonites reflected a similar openness in our churches about matters elemental to our lives and faith.
Comments
-
The pro-life issue is not primarily about sex. It is about the sanctity of human life. We must never kill a human being for any reason under any circumstances, therefore we must oppose war, the death penalty, euthanasia, and the killing of the unborn fo any reason under any circumstances. For pacifists, these are all black-and white issues without any shade of gray. To be a pacifist is to be a hardcore absolutist on the unacceptability of taking human lives.
-
I agree with you, Jerry, that pacifists ought to oppose all those actions that destroy sacred life. Yet in all the situations you mention, it is not merely a matter of a wrong in the abstract, but of people making decisions, some after discernment and some in desperation. Being clear-sighted about our ethics does not preclude responding compassionately to those facing such decisions, or who have made mistakes. In the case of abortion, sharing full information about sex has the potential to prevent unintended pregnancy and make our churches safe places to talk about our decisions. If we expect women facing unplanned pregnancy to accept the church's counsel against abortion, it helps to have started the conversation earlier.
-
The editorial title "Abortion and Openness" conveyed to me the writer was suggesting to MWR readers that an "open" mind is needed when thinking about abortion. I find it interesting that Ms. Shank does not refer to the violent killing of an unborn as sin, but rather states it violates Anabaptist Christian ethics. How can she ask MWR readers to take seriously Obama's claim to reduce abortion, while he recently issued an order that takes our taxes to support groups overseas that promote and perform abortions. Where is Anabaptist outrage? Why does Ms. Shank accept FOCA about "viability" as if it is acceptable to kill an unborn baby in the first 22 weeks of life in the womb? Ms. Shanks states Obama is ushering in a new era of "openness" and transparency in government, therefore, it is now time for Mennonites to reflect a similar "openness" about matters elemental to our lives and faith? Please, what does that have to do with violating human rights of the unborn? I find little in Ms. Shank's editorial that indicates she has any passion about protecting the human rights of the unborn. The Bible clearly states that "If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrightousness". This includes forgiveness to those who sinned by killing the innocent unborn in the womb. That is the message of love and compassion that should be communicated to guilt-ridden women for their healing.
-
Mr. Welty, please respond to my arguments rather than making assumptions. I do not write in the editorial that readers need to keep an open mind about abortion nor that the viability provision of FOCA is acceptable. The openness to which I was referring was our openness among members of our churches in educating ourselves about sexuality. And I described FOCA factually, because I have read numerous misconceptions about what the law would actually do. Finally, a further clarification: for me to say something violates Anabaptist Christian ethics is to say it is a sin. I agree that all of us need to seek forgiveness from God for our sins. I do not agree that using outraged language is required to indicate passion on a subject.
-
Don't forget that abortions to preserve a woman's health have been a loophole to allow abortion on demand. If a woman says, "I'll be depressed if I don't get an abortion! " she will find someone who will give her an abortion to preserve her mental "health."
-
Ms. Shank, First, calling abortion sin is not using outrageous language. Please list the specific points you wish for me to address and I will do my best to respond in an enlightening and timely manner. I gather from your comments that I am not open-minded as I should be. I am uncertain as to what I am to draw from the three FOCA paragraphs. I reread them and concluded you believe, with your vast knowledge of FOCA, this legislation should be acceptable to people of faith because it would work to reduce abortion rates. Abortion clinics have weapons of mass destruction and therefore should be outlawed. Closing half of them in order to reduce abortions rates is not acceptable. The murder of an unborn child should be handled in a court of law. Sadly, abortion clinics are a very profitable business and Obama promised them tax funding in the election campaign. From your editorial title, Abortion and Openness, the three paragraphs on FOCA, the last paragraph, and your comments to Jerry Stanaway, it appears abortion is very difficult for you to address. Let me make it very plain. Abortion is the violent killing of an innocent unborn baby, also known as murder, with same human rights as you and I have. And yes, we need to extend compassion and forgiveness as we would in any murderous situation for the benefit of killer's eternal destination, just as Jesus did to the thief on the cross. This is a must.
-
1) Who has ANY personal knowledge in the past 20 years of any abortion performed to save the life of a mother? And what percentage would you guess, on a national basis? 2) The sanitized word, "Openness", seems to be synonymous to "Pro-Choice". Even 'Partial Birth' abortions. 3) It strikes me strange that we need to be 'open minded' in taking the life of the "Innocent", while firmly opposing any Capital Punishment for the guilty "Terrorists and Serial Killers".
-
Ms. Shank, please allow me to add some additional comments on your editorial "Abortion and Openness". I believe strongly in the Bible principle in reaping what we sow. Since Roe vs. Wade, this country has sown an unbelievable amount of violence in the killing of 50 million unborn. Since Roe vs. Wade, we have also seen an increase in violence resulting in a huge increase of murder. When you add thousands of murdered citizens to the 50 million, one can readily see that those who have been largely silent on the wickedness of abortion have also contributed to the increase in murder in the U.S. May I suggest you read the book of Esther. She risked her life in defense of her people. I believe it is time for you, others in MWR and church pastors to take Esther's example of defending her people and begin speaking loudly and boldly in defending the human and God given rights of the unborn. This effort should include letters to President Obama and members of Congress urging support for rights of the unborn and not use any taxpayer funds to support the wicked practice killing the unborn.
-
Two factual clarifications: It is not clear what Welty means by "increase in violence" but total violent crime rates in the United States dropped between 1973 and 2006, according to the Department of Justice. "Homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s," the department writes on its Web site.
Welty's use of the word "allow" could suggest I had taken down comments. I haven't taken down anyone's comments; I would indicate it if I had.
-
Thank you for your article.
-
There is no room for disagreement on whether or not abortion should be legal. To say that there is is like saying there is room for disagreement over whether lynching minority groups should be legal. Human rights should begin when human life begins-at the moment of fertilization. Th unborn must have personal rights not to be killed from thE moment of fertilization. This should be the law of all nations and it should be the official position of Mennonite Church U.S.A. Pro-choice means pro-abortion and pro-death.
-
Thanks, Celeste, for being willing to speak out and take heat. Hopefully your courage can inspire us all to work for common goals of honesty, love and care, whatever our individual perspectives might be.
-
So the church takes its cue from politicians as to our posture and practice on dealing with issues and each other? Nearly a shameful analogy. Query? The O talks about "open and transparent". So the logical leap--Mennos should do the same.
When do we get an editorial which says the W administration took umcompromising positions on certain matters--therefore Mennos should also take the cue and stand firm on its beliefs and convictions.
The abortion stance of O and his friends is a 180 degree off the official Mennonite stated position. So why not note that W and his friends found nothing wrong in prisoner torture (assume abhorent to many Mennos), BUT glean an important learning moment from the policy. We can do so much better. Mennos who live on Main Street can live and make decisions which ignore BOTH the failures of the past and the emotional hype of the prognosticators of "change".
Cheerio to all--Spring is coming.
-
For the sake of not fighting within Christ's body, let's affirm the value of life above all and agree that abortion is killing. God doesn't approve. It's not life-giving in any sense of the word. That debate does not need to continue.
Within the church, we do not make or enforce civil or criminal laws. We may feel vindicated when the government makes rules that agree with our morality, but in the domain of the church, we have an assignment that does not require state backing. What we can do within our group of believers is deal with individual women AND the individual men who, in every case, were on the scene at the critical moment of conception, or not long before. Men and women together create the fertilized cells that, in some cases, get successfully attached to the uterine lining and are nourished and grow. Let's start by acknowledging that a woman who carries an embryo is not in the predicament alone. Unwanted pregnancies involve both genders, so discussion of sex and its healthy use is unavoidable.
We should not assume that illicit sex is the only cause of unwanted pregnancies. Remember that married couples make many of the decisions to abort pregnancies. Neither spouse made love with the intent to bear a child. Both made a mistake in their use of birth control. Sanctity of Life, an anti-abortion group, estimated that one in five women in church pews every Sunday have had abortions because they and their husbands felt they could not raise another child. Perhaps we should a source of this problem and deal with it
Should the church have a word of advice for couples on what to do when they fail to use birth control methods effectively or consistently? Has the church talked about whether artificial birth control methods are acceptable means of family planning? Perhaps some believe it is a sin to impede conception except by abstinence, the official (and widely ignored) Catholic doctrine. It might be helpful to discuss our understanding of God’s will for couples in using their sexual union as part of his plan.
We can look on passively while our culture misleads us about sexual relations, but this is like standing by helplessly at the emergency room door and dispatching ambulances to pick up casualties of drug turf wars in the inner city having done nothing to offer spiritual light in that breeding ground of violence. Why would we wait to be involved with unwanted pregnancies only after the fetus exists? Do we mourn over the life of the unborn child but neglect the pain of men and women who come to this sad decision?
How should congregations assist couples towards healthy sexual expression, and should this mission be handled outside of the family unit and not always left to the particular couple's explicit and implicit model for their children? Should we be teaching in our churches what sexual attraction can and cannot do for the individual, the couple, and the family? If we attempt interventions to reduce unwanted conception of children, it will require love and empathy, because we will be redeeming men and women in the midst of conflict and confusion about sex. This outreach, I believe, is enough challenge for any congregation. Crusading for legal definition of abortion as murder sounds sadly reactive and distracting from investment in renewing people's lives.
Comment on the article Abortion and openness
The purpose of comments is to engage in dialogue. We expect commenters to treat authors and each other as each would want to be treated. Respectful criticism is welcomed; offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator. Name and comment will be posted; email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
Download
Download a free PDF showing the populations of
Mennonite groups and other Anabaptists.
