Pro-life, pro-choice - shouldn't we listen with empathy to each other's concerns?
Honestly, I think it would be highly absurd if anyone tried to argue that Yeshua would in any conceivable context say to a pregnant woman: „Yes, go and get rid of the new life forming inside of you!“
Still, personally I came to the conclusion that it is important to distinguish two different spheres: the spiritual on the one hand and the social/legal on the other.
Unlike spiritually, where there is no question that life is to be nurtured and protected, not killed, legally or socially you have to outbalance the right of the mother to decide over her own body with the right of every unborn child to be born.
The right of bodily autonomy is intrinsically connected with our God-Given dignity: Thus, as we are as Christians called to respect this untouchable dignity every person has, I can only conclude that the woman’s right to bodily autonomy cannot be simply wiped out by well-meaning pro-lifers, who aim at completely banning abortion at all costs.
Two weeks ago I read a tweet from a former roman catholic nun, now a catholic theologian, who had been abused by a priest when she was still in the convent. She is generally very critical towards the Roman Church though she did not leave it.
In the tweet she was commenting on an article showing pictures of a 10 weeks old foetus. Her underlying message was clear: She accused those who show pictures of a developed baby in the womb in the context of abortion as being manipulative (in Germany abortion is legal under various circumstances with a time limit up to 12 weeks of pregnancy).
Furthermore there was, of course, the not so subtle message conveyed that abortion is not such a big deal at that stage, as only cells are being visible.
Her stance on abortion was obvious to me before, but I was really shocked about the message as it seemed so crude.
I have difficulties with the way both sides promote their view.
Can’t we all try to listen with love to the concerns of “the other side”?
Both have excellent and compelling points in my personal view.
At the moment, I am perceiving a deepening divide in society about this topic, and, honestly, I observe both sides are contributing to the divide.
Even though the tweet and the way she is promoting her view was really cutting into my heart, I still empathise with a certain indignation of her and her followers about the presumption/pretentiousness (unfortunately there is no word in English that really has the same connotation as the German word “Anmaßung”) of others who are denying a pregnant woman any say in the matter from the moment she conceives. Obviously, they have no problem at all annulling human dignity, reducing the woman to a kind of incubator from the second she conceived, no matter what the circumstances.
The former nun is now repeatedly warning people about rising theocratic tendencies.
Especially considering her Roman Catholic background I understand her feelings about it. The Roman Catholic Church is completely theocratic in its structure. The pope claims he has the right to interfere in every Catholic believer’s affairs, not only concerning matters of faith, but also concerning all spheres of life. This is called the „Jurisdiktionsprimat“, Primacy of Jurisdiction.
Believers who promote their pro-life stance fiercely, asking for a complete ban of abortion are, in my view, not helping the unquestionable noble cause of protecting life by their attitude. Quite the opposite:
Even though I am with them morally as a Christian, I cannot agree with them as a Christian at the same time.
Why do they never even care to address the issue of our God-Given dignity which is, of course, intrinsically linked to our right to decide over our own body?
I understand the former nun’s indignation:
Inalienable rights become alienable for „the higher good“ – but only according to and as long as it suits the world view of „pro-lifers“; not few of them oppose the intrusion into bodily autonomy (thanks be to God) for the „higher good“ when it comes to „vaccines“.
And by the way: the same is true for not few of those who promote their pro-choice view: While shouting out their conviction of „my body my choice“, they have no problem supporting mandatory „vaccines“ two minutes later,
So far I have never even heard anyone from the pro-life side address Holy Scripture.
Holy Scripture undoubtedly does not put the unborn on the same level as the born person:
Exodus 21:22-25. Verse 22: „And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders]. 23 But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life, 24 an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, 25 a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.“
The famous commentator Rashi says the following about Exodus 21:22
but there is no fatality: with the woman. -[From Sanh. 79a, Jonathan}
Exodus 21:23: But if there is a fatality: with the woman.
In other words: A man who hits a pregnant woman who then loses her child as a consequence has to pay a sum of money as a reparation. But if the woman (i.e. a born person) is injured or killed, he has to give life for life, wound for wound, etc. Clearly, the Bible does not put the unborn life on the same level as the born life.
Despite claiming to „stand firmly on Scripture“, pro-lifers have no problem calling women and their doctors performing abortion „murderers“. Thus, while judging others although Scripture tells us not to (Mat. 7:1), they themselves are clearly not standing on Scripture in their frenzy.
In my view, by trying to force their spiritual pro-life view on others, they make themselves vulnerable to pro-choicer’s very good points in the matter – and I do not even start to enumerate them. Many European Catholics know very well what harm overbearing, self-righteous priesthood can bring over people.
Just look through the ages of Roman Church history.
Catholic Ireland woke up in the 90s with a particular story: A young girl, who had been raped and wanted to go to England for an abortion with her parents, was ordered back by a judge. According to Peter de Rosa, a Roman Catholic priest and author, she was meant to be interned during her pregnancy to make sure the child was born (Peter de Rosa: Der Vatikan – von Gott verlassen? English version not available).
Abortion had been banned completely in Ireland at that time.
This ruling makes, legally speaking, only sense, if you put the unborn on the same level as the born person, the mother, as far as civil rights are concerned:
From a legal perspective, in a state under the rule of law, you have to outbalance the human right to life of the unborn with the human right of the mother to decide over her own body.
The only way you can convincingly come to the conclusion that the unborn completely wipes out the woman’s right - and her God-Given dignity along with it -, is by putting him or her legally on exact the same level as the born person, the mother.
And this solution, as I have already mentioned, cannot be reconciled with Holy Scripture.
The Septuagint version of Exodus 21:22-25 would ban abortion from the moment the foetus is fully developed.
21:22 „And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman’s husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. 23 But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.“
This distinction was, as I remember from law school, the reason for the time limit of twelve weeks in German law (with the exception for the so-called „medical indication“, an exception which is, in my view, highly questionable).
A wave of shock and rethinking hit Ireland, where Catholic inhabitants had voted themselves beforehand to ban abortion with a two-thirds majority, necessary to change the constitution.
Yeshua walking on earth told people what is right and wrong, which is the narrow path – but He never called for penalizing sin in any context; quite the opposite: Think about John 8:1-11, the woman caught in adultery.
He wants hearts to come to Him out of free will, not out of coercion.
Furthermore, putting life as an “absolutum” above everything else – haven’t we just seen what that means in the past two years? Internment, isolation, masks, never-ending testing, all to “protect granny”. There is beyond doubt something terribly wrong with this philosophy of protecting life at all costs, even putting it over human dignity.
Lastly, there are genuine spiritual experiences that indicate that in individual cases there seem to be exceptions to the rule.
I am thinking for example of Dr. Brian Weiss, author of “Many lives, Many Masters”. He mentions in one of his books that there can be something as an agreement between the mother and the child. They might agree that the child will come at a later time to the mother, when circumstances are more favourable.
No matter what you think of these experiences, the bottom line is: The masses cannot decide over the conscience of the individual, and it is not ours to judge the spiritual experiences or convictions of another person.