“I believe our society has a responsibility to defend the vulnerable and the weak. And I believe our nation should set a goal that unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected in law.”

–President George W. Bush

 

This post is as close to the political arena as I dare get. I’m writing again about abortion, with some thoughts previously expressed, and some new and predicated on what we’re hearing in this election year.

Somehow, issues that are moral or spiritual have been hijacked by the political parties, who’ve gaslighted us with their demagogic dogma.

The right to an abortion shouldn’t be a federal political issue. There’s no guarantee of it in the Constitution, but there is a provision that anything not covered therein should be left to the states. With the overturn of Roe v. Wade, we did just that, and the results have been surprising.

Even states considered to lean conservative have adopted legislation granting access to abortion. There are exceptions, requiring citizens of those states to cross state lines to access abortion. If there’s a silver lining to that inconvenience it’s that it requires effort and planning, giving the pregnant girl or woman time to consider her decision, and a chance to talk it over with medical professionals and/or family members and friends she trusts.

Even states with the strictest bans on abortion allow for an exception where the woman’s life is at risk. Many, of course, allow for exceptions due to the woman’s health, non-viability of the baby, rape, or incest–exceptions that polls show about eighty percent of Americans agree with.

President Clinton once said abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Governor Nikki Haley, hardly Clinton’s political ally, presented a measured stance on the issue during the Republican primaries, stating we have to compromise rather than stake positions the other side would in no way accept, and it must all be done compassionately.

At the very least, it’s incumbent on us as a nation to start a reasoned and considerate discussion between those who are pro-choice and those who are pro-life.

Why isn’t there more discussion about not vilifying a woman who chooses an abortion? Why don’t we debate how we can support women through an unplanned pregnancy, giving her the chance to participate in one of God’s greatest miracles? With all the couples and singles who long to have and raise a child but can’t get pregnant, why don’t we talk more about the adoption option?

Those who are firmly pro-abortion or pro-life will never persuade the other side to swing their way. I believe we’ll never have federal protection for abortion up to the ninth month of pregnancy; nor will we ever have a federal ban on all abortions. Those two positions are too extreme for a country of such diverse-minded people.

There are legitimate reasons for the termination of some pregnancies, but unencumbered access to abortions is morally wrong for one compelling fact: it’s not just the woman’s health to consider. You can euphemistically couch it in terms of “women’s healthcare” as much as you want, but her health isn’t the entire story. What about the life growing inside her?

Were we a society that advocated for euthanasia, would we wink and call it “elderly healthcare?” Would we give the family legal means for that process and ignore the fact that a life is being snuffed out? That sounds preposterous, right?

Our founding fathers thought the unalienable right to life was so important it was enumerated in the first sentence that followed the introductory paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. We can’t turn a blind eye to the fact that at some point–and one can argue when that point is reached–there’s another life whose welfare must be considered–an innocent and vulnerable human being no less.

And that’s the essence of the rest of the story.