Helen Alvaré is an articulate pro-life voice who believes in the search for common ground with those whose first commitment is to choice. She was a keynote speaker at a ground-breaking conference held at Princeton University, on October 15th and 16th, 2010, entitled “Open Hearts, Open Minds, and Fair-Minded Words,” which brought together people from a variety of points of view, including a philosopher, Peter Singer, who has come out in favor of infanticide. Here are two key excerpts from her speech.
A person who spends even a little time in the company of post-aborted women and clients of crisis pregnancy centers will come away convinced that these women experienced their pregnancies as motherhood-dilemmas. Their internal debates about abortion did not revolve around the question: “Should I kill?” Rather, they wondered, “Should I, can I, be a mother now?”
[I]n … affidavits filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the second partial-birth abortion case, Gonzales v. Carhart ... [180 women] described how abortion affected their mothering, how siblings of aborted children experienced repercussions of the abortion, and how they became pregnant again quickly after the abortion in order to have a “replacement baby.”
End quote. Alvaré advocates for a “return to family law’s longstanding norm that adults’ rights with respect to children are always derivative from and secondary to their duties.” It’s hard to disagree with this call; we live in an "adults-first" society; children are the first to suffer.
What would a children-first society look like? Alvaré may not have the best answer to the question, but I think the question she explores is the best question.
Will Saletan of Salon is currently doing a series on how the politics of abortion protect clinics whose practices are immoral by anyone's standards. Part 8 came out today. The good news: Tom Corbett, the pro-life governor of Pennsylvania, is winning accolades all around for the reforms he has implemented by executive order.
Below, an outline of a 90 minute module in a course entitled "The Bible and Current Events." Follow the links and you pretty much have it.
The Bible and Abortion
In what sense the Bible has much to say about abortion
Under What Circumstances Abortion is Permitted in Jewish Tradition
Clips: Maggie Little on the Moral Status of the Fetus; Singer, Little, and Finnis
Small Group Discussion
Assigned Texts: Exodus 21:22-25; Exodus 1:15-21; 2 Kings 8:12; Isa 40:10-11; Ezekiel 18:32;
Amos 1:13-15; Psalm 72; Matt 2:1-16
Essay Topic: Religious Voices on Abortion
Jewish Tradition and Catholic Tradition: A Comparison
Required reading: Abortion according to the Catholic Tradition
Helen Alvare on Abortion Law
Charles Camosy on the Princeton Conference
I hate the word abortion. Sorry for the using the word hate, because I don't like using that word, but it's because I don't understand why people have to abortion their babies. There's always an option to give it away for an adoption. Just by killing a baby is like not accepting God's gift that He's given to that person. And there's a reason why He gives that gift to those people. This is life and we should see babies like someone who you created and have given life to live. It's just sad to see babies die.
Posted by: Chariots Of Fire I | February 28, 2011 at 04:09 PM
Oh, this conference was going on when I was visiting my brother for Freshman Parents’ Weekend!
Posted by: Lue-Yee Tsang | February 28, 2011 at 07:03 PM
After reading this blog post, I do catch myself wondering how I would react in this situation. Depression, sadness, and an overall tough situation can result from going through an abortion for any reason at all. It can affect all family members, not just the mother. The mother’s mother, the father of the fetus, and the future siblings of the fetus all can show signs of loss in their lives. From the moment a zygote is created, that group of cells has a future. You will be very unaware of how successful of a future it will have in store when it is aborted at any stage during pregnancy. Abortion is a very versatile topic, and it is very best to remember the emotional, physical, and mental effects of this procedure.
Posted by: True Grit 1 | February 28, 2011 at 07:56 PM
I would have to agree to disagree with Chariots of Fire's response. I also hate the word abortion, because I feel like most women take advantage of the option for their own doing. On the other hand there are some scenarios that women just did not ask for such as being raped is one. I personally don't think one of God's gifts would be going through the horrible experience of being raped then having a baby by a family member or just any sick and twisted person that would rape someone. I'm not agreeing with abortion, but I do agree that in certain circumstances it should be greatly looked upon.
Posted by: Nell 4 | February 28, 2011 at 08:09 PM
Yeah I see your point Nell 4. But if you don't call a baby that is a gift from God then what else would you call it? Mother nature? Science? Just got to think that this is reality and we live in a world with sin. God hates the sins we do, but not the sinners. So you can also say that sinners are blessed and yes even rappers. I even heard from a pastor saying that killers and murderers can be forgiven if they believe in God and can also ask God for forgiveness.
Posted by: Chariots Of Fire I | February 28, 2011 at 09:59 PM
I am not for or against abortion. I agree wtih Nell 4 that in certain cases, abortion should be an option for the mother, for example, rape. The mother is not asking for that situation, and if she by any chance gets pregnant and is not ready for the baby, then she should be able to choose. Especially if the mother knows she cant take care of the baby and she doesn't have the means to rasie the baby, it should be her choice.
Posted by: Shawshank Redemption 4 | March 13, 2011 at 05:01 PM
Yeah it's a choice for a mother, but do you think that God will be happy if you killed the baby too? Even if it's His creation? Will women go to hell if they kill their own babies?
Posted by: Chariots Of Fire 1 | March 16, 2011 at 12:28 PM
I agree that abortion is a touchy subject and it is easy to say that it should be acceptable in some cases (rape, incest…etc,) but what does the Bible say about these cases? I personally am Pro Choice but I interpret the Bible to be against abortion under any circumstance. Does the Bible make exceptions for cases where children are conceived in an immoral way? Another question would be who decides what is immoral? In some cultures incest isn’t taboo and is practiced regularly. Everybody has the right to have his or her own opinions on when/if abortion is acceptable. The question now would be is there any case in which the bible would find abortion acceptable?
Posted by: Breaker Morant 5 | March 16, 2011 at 11:49 PM
Breaker Morant 5: The Bible does not cover an extensive set of laws for how to deal with unwanted pregnancies. It would be easier for us to find an answer to the questions you ask if the Bible did, but that's not how it works.
If the Bible is to be used as a moral authority, and the Bible does not directly address the issue, then coming up with an answer of "what the Bible says" on the matter involves two more complicated questions:
1. What was the biblical worldview on related issues [childbirth, pregnancy, marriage, male-female relationships]?
2. What biblical principles could we appeal to in order to synthesize a biblically-informed response to the issue?
I will only address the first question in this comment. Personally, I would agree with your conclusion that the Bible would be against abortion under any circumstance. Childbirth is a blessing that is worthy of song in the Bible, at least as much song as winning in battle. It is during conception/pregnancy that God delivers a message saying that this child will be blessed as a unique servant. So, childbirth is given a fairly positive spin in the Bible.
In a world without tampons, imitation breast milk, diapers, or pacifiers, women lived a very different life.
Babies instinctively must be kept close to their food source at all times in order to feel secure, even if they're not hungry at that moment. Today we trick that instinct with pacifiers, but in the old days a woman had to keep the baby at her breasts most of the day. This also means babies did not crawl: they learned to walk when they were weaned. Until then, they were carried around by their mothers at their breasts pretty much all day long.
In a society in which only women can feed babies or even keep them quiet, the biblical worldview would rather obviously say women are meant to be mothers and are specifically made by God to take care of children.
In a world without our technology, such as the biblical worldview, women would draw a massive amount of their self-identity and self-esteem from motherhood. The thought of purposefully preventing or terminating pregnancy would be unthinkable in nearly any circumstance -- however: they did not have doctors back then who were able to tell them "if you continue this pregnancy, you could die" or "this child will have cerebral palsy". In the absence of such forewarnings, every labor was in God's hands.
And also: when someone's bleeding, our gut reaction is to say "you're not healthy -- you need to see a doctor." Gynecology today declares that menstruation is an exception to that maxim, but let's take gynecology out of the picture for a moment.
Menstruation happens to women of childbearing age about once a month, but only if they're not pregnant/nursing. If bleeding is a sign of poor health, and women bleed when they are not pregnant/nursing, then what wouldn't the natural conclusion be that pregnancy is better for women's health? I believe that this would be a perfectly logical line of thinking if there was no such thing as a tampon and we had no gynecology.
While it's true that women who are pregnant or who are caring for small children are in some sense handicapped in movement and have their attention divided at all times, it is not as if non-pregnant women were consistently capable of moving around unimpeded and performing work outside the home.
This was the world before tampons, and it was called being "on the rag" for a reason. Women were simply less capable than men of (consistently) leaving the home and performing outside tasks.
I believe that this line of logic would be natural for people in biblical times, and would lead to these conclusions:
1. Women are naturally meant to stay near the home. If a woman is pregnant/nursing, she obviously can't travel on horseback or on foot very far. And if she's not pregnant, she'll go through her cycle eventually. It's not good to leave a blood trail outdoors that animals might scent, and the best and safest thing for her is to stay home during that time and keep close to the womanly necessities; that way only a few items would be at risk of getting blood stains on them, and animals won't try and attack her/us/the kids/the sheep. [Here I'm thinking specifically of country folk who would be at risk for lion/wolf attacks. Even if neither of these animals actually do follow blood trails, someone could still worry about it and seek to prevent it.]
2. Pregnancy and childbirth are central to women's identity as persons who have made a contribution to society -- they're the only ones who can do it.
3. It seems to me that God interacts with women in the Bible in order to talk about her child's future more than for any other reason.
I realize I've blended anthropological arguments with textual ones, and feel free to pick me apart for it.
In any case, today's question of "can I afford to be a mother right now?" would not make sense to the Bible, if it were able to hold a verbal conversation with us. The question is simply unintelligible. Men are supposed to take care of women, so a woman should never feel burdened by "can I..." because she shouldn't have to handle it alone in the first place.
Men are not without blame in this crucial difference between then and now. Women felt absolutely responsible to have children, and men felt absolutely responsible to take care of women. Abortion absolves both of the natural responsibility that arises from sex.
Posted by: Gary Simmons | March 17, 2011 at 01:46 PM
In regards to Chariots Fire 1. I think you need to realize that people have different views on what babies are. I agree they are a gift from god, but that doesn't go to say that someone may not think that it could be science, mother nature. No one knows the answer so I think we should be more lenient on what people believe. I also don't believe that people should say that mother's will go to hell if they get an abortion for certain reasons. God should accept us for who we are. So yes I still believe that abortion should be accepted in certain cases.
Posted by: Shawshank Redemption 4 | May 03, 2011 at 07:21 PM