Abortion; the issue that will not go away

Here in America we live with dramatic religious diversity. Our Constitution clearly protects religious diversity. Each one of us is free to believe with heart, mind and soul whatever heart, mind and soul embraces. Immigration has multiplied religious diversity and we have no shortage of homegrown versions of faith.

Our American sense of morality is alive and well, but it is a secular kind of morality. It can be informed by religious persuasions, but must by design remain secular and humanistic. A devout American can quote from the Psalms, Leviticus, Paul, Jesus or Mohammad, but at the end of the day, not a single religious statement is privileged to have the last word.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade ruled the legality of abortion. The ruling of the high court has been challenged five times, and each time the ruling has been upheld. Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for 40 years. While political candidates will continue to rail against the Roe v. Wade decision, with each passing year it becomes more unlikely Roe v. Wade will ever be successfully challenged. Precedence has asserted itself. It is the law of the land.

The nation is now divided into two camps. They have given themselves names. One is Pro-Life. The other is Pro-Choice. I suspect these two camps decided the outcome of our recent presidential election. President Obama is clearly supportive of the Roe v. Wade decision, and former Governor Romney declared that he would attempt to reverse the Roe v. Wade decision. Obama won. There will be no serious challenge of Roe v. Wade in the foreseeable future. Is it possible for Americans to accept that Roe v. Wade is a permanent part of American law? Is it possible to have a more civil discussion of the issues involved?

If we are to have a more constructive conversation about abortion, we need to take abortion out of the realm of courts and laws. The issue must be passed to argument, persuasion, witness and debate. Listen carefully and it becomes obvious that the core issues are issues of religious belief. Attempts to write religious conviction into law do not work in a nation where religious diversity and freedom are guaranteed. There is a vast difference between freedom to inform our legislators of our religious convictions and demanding that our particular beliefs be enacted into law. The first is welcome. The second is religious arrogance.

Responsible pro-life advocates have done a good job in establishing the value of human life in the public mind. The case that they have made is a good foundation for a sensitive and caring society. Further, it is compatible with the humanistic values that are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

From the beginning of this great argument, I have identified with the Pro-Choice side. I have always reasoned that in a circumstance of a flawed or unwanted pregnancy, the woman who is carrying the child is in the best position to make a very difficult choice. In my role as pastor, I have been placed in the position of helping a woman make her choice. My hope was to express my faith’s value on human life, and at the same time respect completely the burden of choice placed on the mother. Under my counsel I have never had a woman make the choice to abort a pregnancy.

It is in the arena of religious discussion and argument that the key issue needs to be discussed. When does human life that demands protection begin? I am suggesting that this is neither a legal nor a scientific issue. Science has no ability to establish the value of a piece of human tissue, except as a phenomenon in the experimental laboratory. In the legal realm, the water is a bit murkier. The U.S. Constitution says that a person is a citizen in one of only two ways — by birth or by naturalization. There is no provision for the unborn.

Let the scientist do his work and let constitutional lawyers argue the legalities. At the same time, let theologians, ministers and every kind of religious person do their work as well. Clear thought and sensitive argument will be our best friend.

As a Baptist, I give significant weight to the witnesses of the Bible. When I began my journey on the issue of the beginning of life, I took a good look at my Bible and did not find much. It is very difficult to ask modern questions of ancient writings without a good bit of interpretation and cultural translation. I found only one verse in the whole Bible that might have some relevance.

In Genesis 2, there is a second account of the creation of human beings. Verse 7 says that God shaped a human being out of the dust of the earth and then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. With God’s gift of breath, the man became a living being.

As a working model I concluded that there is no human life until the first breath is taken.

I have felt reasonably comfortable with that starting assumption. The sooner we collectively do our very best thinking and sharing, the sooner we will achieve a society that values and protects human life and endows us all with the freedoms that we cherish.

The Rev. Howard Bess is a retired American Baptist minister, who lives in Palmer. His email address is hdbss@mtaonline.net.

Opinions expressed on the Faith page are the author’s and are not necessarily those of the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, its staff or its parent company, Wick Communications Co. To submit a column or other news for the Faith page, send email to news@frontiersman.com, or call 352-2268.