the complexity of abortion...

Abortion at the RNC

I would highly suggest you follow the link above to a recent blog post from Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners and Call to Renewal.
If you don't know who Jim is, you can check out his bio here.

The number of abortions that take place in our country each year is both astounding and appalling. Recent studies put the number at around 1.3 million per year. This is nothing short of a tragedy.

So what do we do to stop this? And better yet, do any candidates truly seek to reduce the number of abortions, and how? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is safe to say that if a woman chooses abortion, it is plainly evident that her pregnancy was unwanted. The reasons for not wanting to keep the baby could be one of many (harm to the mother, lack of resources to raise a child, product of rape, etc.), or a combination thereof. But the point is that at some point the mother decides she doesn't want to keep a child. This decision is made 1.3 million times per year in our country.

To me, there are two ways to treat the problem of unwanted pregnancies. The first is to ensure that a woman who doesn't want a baby (for whatever reason) doesn't get pregnant. The second is to ensure that when a woman does become pregnant, she carries the pregnancy to term. It seems to me that there are many ways to tackle each of these treatments, but let me cover just a few. In regards to the first treatment, we must embrace a comprehensive sex education for all young people. This education would show all sides of the issue of sex. This includes teaching about abstinence as the only way to 100% prevent pregnancy (and sti's) but this education shouldn't stop there. Eventually, these young people are going to have sex. Some at a young age. Some on there wedding day for the first time. Regardless of when they become sexually active, they will need to understand their own anatomy and that of their partner. They will also need to understand the dangers of sti's (including hiv/aids) and how to practice safe sex. Again, these people will probably have sex at some point, and if we don't educate them when they are mostly in the public school system, when will we? We have a prime opportunity to reach young people as they physically and emotionally begin the journey to adulthood, and when the majority of them are in the public school system.

To share an example of how abstinence only sex-ed can fail people of all walks of life, I'll share an example of a young Christian boy...me! In high school, my parents opted to place me in the abstinence only class for sex-ed. At the time, I was fully in favor of this decision, as I was abstaining and choosing to wait until marriage to have sex. So what did I learn in abstinence only sex-ed? I'm not really sure. I already was choosing to abstain, and then some grad students from PLU came in and urged us to abstain. (Um, I think we were already choosing that seeing as we were in the class, yes?) Fast forward. I got married. I had sex. I had never been taught how to use contraception. I didn't get to see the student advisors (trained by medical professionals) demonstrate different forms of contraception during sex-ed using props. Now this may also speak to a larger problem (that being parental units who found it extremely difficult to discuss sexual matters) but I'll save that for a different post. Just wanted to share with you a story about the shortfalls of abstinence only education.

The second treatment is one that will certainly require an enormous amount of sensitivity. The process would involve convincing a woman who may be thinking about terminating a pregnancy to not go through with it. This would require an examination of her reasons for her decision, and this again would require an enormous amount of sensitivity. The obvious example is a woman who wants to terminate because of some reason other than her own health or rape. It should certainly be pointed out that there are thousands and thousands of couples strongly desiring to become parents through adoption, and that this woman can give one of those couples that gift. This in turn opens a can of worms regarding our adoption/foster child systems and how each candidate/political party would address their many problems. Saving that for a different post. However, a lesser heard side of the story in regards to a woman terminating pregnancy for a reason other than health or rape is this: cost. Is the woman covered under any kind of insurance? Will the adopting family be asked to pay for the birth mother's medical bills? Can they afford to do that? There are many complex issues surrounding adoption, and we should examine where the candidate we vote for stands on these issues.

And then of course there are the two instances that may stir the most discussion. What if the mother may face adverse health issues because of the pregnancy/delivery? What if the mother faces a possibility of death in pregnancy/delivery? I don't think these questions can be answered simply or cleanly. Philosophical and religious debates about the value of one life versus another, about God's will, etc., will certainly arise when this issue is discussed. And in the case of rape, the necessity of sensitivity reaches it's highest importance and the can of worms only gets bigger and messier.

So what's the point? The point is that abortion cannot and should not be reduced to two warring ideological factions. No political party or candidate is running on the platform that more abortions should be performed. However, one party is clear that they do not want to openly call for a reduction of unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions, but instead is content to play the old ideological game and talk about pro-life issues but not make an effort to do something tangible and practical.