Tuesday, November 8, 2011

MS Initiative 26

Choosing to be theologically pro-choice was not a difficult decision for me. To me, it seemed self-evident. There are really two lives that must be considered when it comes to the issue of abortion: the life of the woman who is already living and breathing and working in the world, and the potential life of a child not yet born. Although my position is typically referred to as “pro-choice” rather than “pro-life,” I claim the title of pro-life. I am not anti-life. Instead, I argue for the life of the woman whose body has become a moral battleground. I argue for the life of the victims of sexual abuse and sexual assault. I argue for the life of the woman suffering from an ectopic pregnancy. I argue for the life of the woman who cannot afford the expenses associated with child-bearing and who refuses to bring a child into a world of poverty and suffering.

However, I can understand the perspectives and values of persons who claim a more orthodox pro-life stance on the abortion debate. Abortion is always a difficult decision, and never to be taken lightly. The truth is, most women who have abortions are not JUST having an abortion. It is not a minor chore for them in between washing the dishes and doing a load of laundry. No, abortion is a Big Deal. We want women to be thinking long and hard before choosing to have an abortion. It is a hard decision. But once that decision is made, we want women to have the freedom to pursue their choice without being made to feel even worse.

At this point, you have probably heard about the amendment being voted on right now in the state of Mississippi, titled Initiative 26. This initiative proposes adding a new section under Article III of the State Constitution, which is the Bill of Rights, defining “personhood.” The text of the amendment reads:
SECTION 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.

The implications of this seemingly innocuous definition are significant. The intent, as advertised by the “Yes on 26” campaign (http://www.yeson26.net), is to outlaw abortions. However, this is not the only outcome of this bill. Birth control, in vitro fertilization methods, and cryogenics may be affected, not to mention any number of other more complicated and possibly absurd implications (is a woman who miscarries guilty of involuntary manslaughter?).

The debate right now seems to center on the issue of moral law, but almost inevitably includes a tangential debate about the authority of the Bible and God in the “law of the land.” As a person of faith, I find this particular debate to be both frustrating and harmful, if not primarily because the Bible has absolutely nothing to say regarding abortion. Misinterpretation of the Bible aside, the question of religiosity influencing constitutional law within a country founded on the idea of separation of church and state is much more troubling.

The problem comes when the argument for banning abortion is founded on religious “truth.” The assumption made by such an argument is that there is a dominant religious view regarding the issue, and that particular religious view has the authority to govern the lives of people who may or may not agree with the particular issue at hand. Outlawing abortion because of religious zeal becomes a statement against any faith or non-faith that disagrees with that viewpoint. Being anti-abortion does not mean that you have to make it illegal to have abortions. Instead, you can choose to not have an abortion yourself, or you can choose to talk openly and honestly with a woman who may need help. Understand that your personal beliefs may not be shared by all.

The particularly troubling thing about Initiative 26 is that it’s only the first of several similar amendments. Six more states are already preparing similar amendments to go on the ballot in 2012. If Initiative 26 passes, it will be only the beginning in the fight against a woman’s right to choose. As a person of faith and a future minister, at this point I can only pray that Initiative 26 does not pass, and if it does, I will pray that it does not ignite a fire that spreads across the nation. Mother God, protect your daughters from the tide of hateful anti-abortion fervor, and welcome them into the safety of your loving embrace.

1 comment:

  1. This is great, Katelyn! I always appreciate hearing a theological perspective that isn't anti-choice, because they exist! And we don't hear them often enough.

    Also, regarding possible implications such as a woman's miscarriage being considered involuntary manslaughter - I think there was a case, maybe last year, where a woman in Utah fell down some stairs and miscarried and she was prosecuted for some form of manslaughter.
    Women are not just walking baby incubators. They're people!

    ReplyDelete