"An Uneasy Choice"

It is not immoral to choose abortion; it is simply another kind of morality.

Attitudes toward abortion have become polarized.  On the one hand, there are those who favor abortion, who see it as something private and medical, a matter of individual morality.

At the other extreme, the Pro-Lifers oppose abortion from a religious and collective point of view.  Obviously everyone has a right to his or her religious beliefs.

There=s a difference between respect for the convictions of a religious group and being forced as a community to take responsibility for its choices, but when that means that women and the integrity of the social fabric and the planet itself have to bear the consequences of unwanted children, then we all need to be heard.

If we want to point the finger today at morally unacceptable behavior, it would be those persons who force others to reproduce without taking responsibility for the consequences.

Anti-abortion groups impose their values on the overall community on the pretext of holding sacred religious beliefs.  We can respond by invoking another moral standard which is just as sacredBrespect for the mother/child connection.  Because this relationship is the most intimate of all relationships and because a woman=s womb is sacred, it is an unacceptable moral violation to force any woman to carry and raise a child against her will.  It=s a very serious matter to damage this sacred link right at the beginning of life because the seeds of bitterness are sown at a time when love and receptivity are called for.  Forcing a child to live in a body that is hostile to it must be denounced as cruel.  Forcing an unwanted pregnancy on a woman is one of the deepest wounds to the spirit that can be inflicted on a human being.

                                                ‑ excerpted from Ginette Paris, The Sacrament of Abortion

                                                                                             (Spring Publications, 1992)

SERMON

This coming Saturday, I am signed up for another Messages of Faith column in the Plain Dealer.  I submitted the article this past Thursday, after consulting with the page=s editor about its topic.  A couple weeks ago I emailed her and said I could write something about love in anticipation of Valentine=s Day, or about faithful choice in recognition of the recently passed 39th anniversary (on January 22nd) of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.  She wrote back saying that if I was prepared for the onslaught (her word) that would follow, she would be interested in seeing a piece on faithful choice.  I thought: let the onslaught begin!

There seems to be very little gray area with folks when it comes to abortion rights.  The majority of the time you are either for them or against them and there is nothing much in between.  I have been remembering lately a time several years ago when I was in Buffalo and participated in a conversation called AIn Search of Common Ground.@  This conversation brought together players from both sides of the street to explore just what the title said.

I had been active in the local Clergy for Choice group, in part participating in what the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice calls Apeaceful presence@ outside one of the particularly beleaguered clinics in town.  I had even gotten denounced by name one Saturday morning by one of the fundamentalist preachers who frequently showed up waving his Bible and promising God=s judgment on all the sinners there.  He pointed that Bible of his at me one morning and told everyone how I much I was a wolf in sheep=s clothing, etc. etc.  It was nice to be noticed.

So I got paired at this Common Ground conversation with the woman who was one of the leaders on the anti‑choice side.  She and I sat down a bit tentatively with one another and began following the script of questions we had been given.  We did find many areas where we were in agreement, or somewhat in agreement, but there was nowhere anywhere within the issue of abortion rights that found us even close to consensus.  We parted amicably enough, each of us no doubt wondering just how it is that the other cannot recognize the validity of our own perspective.

And that perspective for me is thoroughly pro‑choice.  I like to call it Afaithful choice,@ because it is a choice that can be made by faithful people with honesty and integrity.  Faithful choice means that I trust women to be responsible moral agents.  That may sound a bit strange (as in, well, why wouldn=t you?), but apparently not all clergy nor all people of faith hold such trust.  The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, an organization I have served off and on over the years, says it this way:

Abortion is a personal decision best left in the hands of a woman and her God.

I have faith in that relationship, faith that the decision which comes from it will be responsive and responsible to a woman=s particular circumstance.

In addition, as a Unitarian Universalist, a faith without coercion is the heart of my religion.  It is at the heart because I value choice B informed, deliberative choice B and believe it is one of our most precious gifts as human beings.  Thus, as one=s faith necessarily informs one=s ethics, choice is a critical factor.  As the late Rev. Forrest Church once said,

In as many instances as possible, choice is favored over coercion in order to preserve the greatest possible range for uncoerced ethical behavior, coerced ethical behavior being a contradiction in terms.

Uncoerced ethical behavior, like democracy, depends upon the free availability of information and a variety of available options.  We must be free to choose if we are to choose life with integrity, un‑coerced or compelled by any form of intimidation, liberal or conservative, righteous or otherwise.

Choices and decisions, as distressing and profoundly difficult as they can be, are a vital part of our humanity, of growing a soul, of being free and able to nurture our fidelity to the law of our being, that is, to our conscience. 

Francis Davíd, the leader and organizer of the Unitarian church in 17th century Transylvania, taught that Aconscience is a gift of God, and not to be coerced.@  So has that been a basic tenet of our free faith ever since.  It is what makes choice, for me, faithful.

Now, faithful choice does not mean that I am Ain favor of@ abortion.  Rather, it means that I recognize the decision to terminate a pregnancy as an extremely difficult decision that should never be reached without much soul‑searching and consulting with trusted loved ones, one=s physician, one=s minister, and accompanied by (if it is part of your religious practice) lots of prayer or meditation.  Again, what is crucial is that the option and ability to freely and responsibly make such a decision be always available.

There has been a lot of effort lately to restrict the work of Planned Parenthood by Adefunding@ them because a very small percentage of what they do B a very small percentage B is provide abortion services.  This small part of what Planned Parenthood provides overshadows the fact that the majority of what it offers are services that support women, and men, to lead informed and healthy lives so they may be a part of healthy and sustainable families.  For me, this is what it means to be pro‑family, to be pro‑life.

 Faithful choice recognizes the various and varying beliefs in the vast diversity of our religions.  All along the spectrum of opinion about abortion you will find sincere people of faith who hold carefully considered beliefs about it.  To legislate in any way that favors one religious view over another goes against the very foundations of our country.

This past week in the Plain Dealer, one of their columnists was making the very opposite claim.  He was complaining about the Obama administration=s ruling that all employers must offer their employees insurance coverage that provides contraception at no cost.  Mr. O=Brien claimed that this Ashreds@ the constitution and puts an end to freedom of religion.

Well now, can you spell Ahyperbole,@ ladies and gentlemen?

The only thing that is shredded here is Mr. O=Brien=s logic.  To begin with, no one is being forced to use it, no more than anyone is forced to use any other part of their coverage.  And depending upon your faith perspective, there may be any number of things in one=s insurance coverage one could object to.  The main point of universal health care, it seems to me, is that it is universal!  Duh!  It is meant to be as inclusive as possible for as many people as possible.  If there is something in it you do not like, do not use it.  Simple as that.

Besides, it baffles me no end that so many people who are anti‑choice are also against family planning and the services that organizations like Planned Parenthood provide.  Those very services are available to enable women and men to decrease the chances of unwanted pregnancies and to help maintain healthy and sustainable families.  Why is that not pro‑family and pro‑life?  Family planning is an essential element in lessening the incidence of abortion.  One would think that if you were against abortion altogether, you would be for whatever would help prevent it.

I know, I am making some pretty big assumptions here, but one of them is not that I am preaching to the choir.  The first time I was going to preach on choice here, I got a call from a woman who had read the newsletter and noticed what was obviously going to be a favorable and supportive sermon concerning the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.  She told me that she and her family could not be part of a church that accepted the pro‑choice position, and especially not part of a church where the minister proclaimed it as well.

I tried to tell her that I suspected we did not all hold a uniform view on this, any more than we all hold uniform views on any social or political topic.  That is just who we are here.  But that did not dissuade her.  I was pro‑choice, and that was enough.  As far as I know, they never returned.

I mention this to acknowledge that, as with just about everything else, we all hold varying views on a variety of subjects, and I suspect that abortion rights is one of them.  So let me be clear that that these views are my own, that I am passionate about them, and I can get a little snarky in expressing that passion from time to time.  But that is ok.  The important thing is to remain in right relationship, even if in disagreement, and remain open always to exploring our beliefs and perspectives, as well as hearing those of others, together B even if we probably will not be persuaded, the important thing is that we not be coerced.