Many people can not talk rationally about abortion, and I don’t blame them. It must be hard to have an open-hearted conversation with someone if you think they are oppressing women or killing babies. However, having that open-hearted conversation is required if we are to be intellectually honest people, and furthermore, that conversation is a necessary and subversive act against the manipulations of the powerful. Clearly, it is convenient for certain people if we continue to believe that abortion is a clear-cut issue of good and evil. For these people, debate over abortion has little to do with protecting the unborn or defending the autonomy of women. For these people it is a way to manipulate us to vote for one political party and not for the other political party. The internal consistency of a prescribed set of views does not matter. What matters is the acquisition of power. I find it endlessly strange when a person whose politics strongly emphasize fiscal pragmatism, even occasionally at the expense of human life, is opposed to abortion, which is, if we are to be frank, fiscally responsible. Likewise, it has always troubled me that so many otherwise “liberal” people, opposed to the death penalty and militarism, can be so comfortable with abortion, which is, if we are to be frank, an act of violence.
Much of our public conversation on abortion in the US has to do with religious arguments, primarily arguments from an ostensibly Christian standpoint. What the Christian standpoint should be, however, is not always obvious.
In an essay titled “On the Soul of the Embryo” Umberto Eco points out Thomas Aquinas’s view that an embryo is given a vegetative soul, then a sensitive soul, and finally, in a body already formed, a rational soul. A supplement to Summa Theologiae says that an embryo that dies before it is infused with a rational soul will not take part in the “resurrection of the flesh” while even those born dead will take part. The pre-rational-soul embryo is not human. Eco makes a connection to Catholicism’s reluctance to accept evolution, not because it conflicts with a literal understanding of the creation story, but because it erases the distinction between human life (possessing a rational soul) and life more generally. The position that the embryo qualifies as human life because it will eventually become human is, according to Eco, the position “once adopted by the materialist-evolutionists of the past” and a position that contends that “there is no dividing line… in the course of evolution from plants to animals to humankind.” Defending human life is a noble goal, defending ALL life is impossible unless we become motionless, and starve ourselves so as not to kill any insect or plant.
Modern believers are less likely to believe in the literal “resurrection of the flesh” believed by Aquinas, either because we no longer subscribe to his pre-modern world view or because our ideas of the afterlife are more informed by diluted Dante than any theologian. Regardless, Eco’s essay raises quite eloquently the difficulty of defining the limits of personhood in a way that allows us to defend a consistent and tenable position on human rights.
The history of Christian thought does contain a precedent for opposing abortion. “We are so forbidden to murder,” Tertullian said, “we may not even kill the fetus in the womb.” His phrasing implies that even if abortion is the mildest form of murder, Christians are still not allowed to do it. Like many early Christians, Tertullian’s opposition to abortion was a logical extension of his pacifism.
The refusal of Christians to serve in the military is not an invention of Quakers or Mennonites or Jesus-hippies protesting the Vietnam War. It is a tradition dating back to the early centuries of the Christian faith and precedent can be found in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, Origen, and Justin Martyr. Even under the ostensibly “Christian” rule of Constantine, Bishops like Basil of Ceserea called for soldiers to be excommunicated. Athanasius (who so famously gave Arius the verbal smackdown of a lifetime at the Council of Nicaea, thus defining Christian doctrine for centuries to come) believed Christianity was inherently non-violent. Martin of Tours asked to be released from military service saying “I am Christ’s soldier; I am not allowed to fight.” When his conscientious objection was refused, he offered to stand on the front lines without a weapon. This refusal to serve had to do, in part, with a generally untrusting attitude towards the state, which was understandable considering the on-again, off-again persecution faced by Christians (a persecution which was typically met with non-resistance) as well as passages in the canonical gospels such as Christ’s command to “turn the other cheek” and his forbidding Peter to use a weapon in the Garden of Gethsemane. Before Christian pacifism buckled under the influence of the “Just War” theory of Augustine, Christians were considered bad citizens in Rome because of their refusal to serve in the military. Centuries later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau would state in “On the Social Contract” that Christians are of no use to the state. Along those lines, Christian anarchists like Leo Tolstoy have pointed out that the state is of no use to Christians. Both of these points are somewhat correct, but neither is reflected in the values of our present situation, one in which Rousseau’s vision of a diluted State-religion compatible with the best interests of the state has been fulfilled by the pop-Christianity that overlaps so greatly with the Pro-Life movement.
Not only does the Pro-life movement overlap with many pro-military sentiments, this movement is bent on changing the law, which puts the focus not on questions of love and compassion (the priorities of a Christian) but on issues of legality and power (decidedly NOT the priorities of a Christian.) Christians are to respect worldly authorities and submit to them (“Resist not an evil man”) but only God is to be obeyed, because one can not serve two masters. How should a Christian respond to abortion, then?
One of the forms of abortion to which the early Christians reacted was the act of abandoning unwanted infants to die. This is not what we are referring to when we talk about abortion, but those early Christians did not make a distinction, and the situation offers a precedent. The early Christian Church was disproportionately populated by women and orphans, abandoned babies rescued from garbage dumps and raised by the communal Christians who shared all of their property (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, you might say…) All things considered, it wasn’t a bad life for these orphans (other than the potential for being burned alive or fed to lions on account of their faith, of course.) This was a case of people passionately sacrificing whatever they had to defend and maintain human life.
Standing outside of a clinic and hurling stones, demanding that a woman carry her child to term, give birth, and then raise that child, despite the possibility that she may be psychologically or financially incapable of doing so, is bald hypocrisy. Until we cultivate communities that offer a guarantee that all children will be cared for, we have no right to express moral outrage over abortion. In our situation, corrupted by inexcusable economic disparity (as exemplified by the public school system) and a culture founded on individualist selfishness and “poor-by-choice” Protestant-ethic mythology that blames people for their own hardships, Christians have an obligation to oppose this conventional wisdom and give everything to care for anyone in need. Anyone can say they support life, but it is only very few who will open their home to unwanted children and struggling single mothers. In fact, most people won’t even spend a Saturday volunteering.
There are people, shining examples, who are willing to make sacrifices for the life of another. They are not exploiting the abortion debate to seize power, they are not sitting in judgment, and they are not carrying signs or threatening doctors. These few distribute food and diapers to struggling parents, arrange meetings with adoption agencies, and lobby to fix the foster-care and education systems that so frequently allow children to slip through the cracks.
Human life is precious and should be defended. Human beings have a moral obligation to protect each other from violence, be it the violence of abortion, the violence of militarism, the violence of social stratification or the violence of state-sanctioned executions. Preventing the act of violence isn’t enough though. Anyone can rage against death, but supporting life, anyone’s life (the truly “pro-life” position) is a long-term project that will demand everything from us.
Much of our public conversation on abortion in the US has to do with religious arguments, primarily arguments from an ostensibly Christian standpoint. What the Christian standpoint should be, however, is not always obvious.
In an essay titled “On the Soul of the Embryo” Umberto Eco points out Thomas Aquinas’s view that an embryo is given a vegetative soul, then a sensitive soul, and finally, in a body already formed, a rational soul. A supplement to Summa Theologiae says that an embryo that dies before it is infused with a rational soul will not take part in the “resurrection of the flesh” while even those born dead will take part. The pre-rational-soul embryo is not human. Eco makes a connection to Catholicism’s reluctance to accept evolution, not because it conflicts with a literal understanding of the creation story, but because it erases the distinction between human life (possessing a rational soul) and life more generally. The position that the embryo qualifies as human life because it will eventually become human is, according to Eco, the position “once adopted by the materialist-evolutionists of the past” and a position that contends that “there is no dividing line… in the course of evolution from plants to animals to humankind.” Defending human life is a noble goal, defending ALL life is impossible unless we become motionless, and starve ourselves so as not to kill any insect or plant.
Modern believers are less likely to believe in the literal “resurrection of the flesh” believed by Aquinas, either because we no longer subscribe to his pre-modern world view or because our ideas of the afterlife are more informed by diluted Dante than any theologian. Regardless, Eco’s essay raises quite eloquently the difficulty of defining the limits of personhood in a way that allows us to defend a consistent and tenable position on human rights.
The history of Christian thought does contain a precedent for opposing abortion. “We are so forbidden to murder,” Tertullian said, “we may not even kill the fetus in the womb.” His phrasing implies that even if abortion is the mildest form of murder, Christians are still not allowed to do it. Like many early Christians, Tertullian’s opposition to abortion was a logical extension of his pacifism.
The refusal of Christians to serve in the military is not an invention of Quakers or Mennonites or Jesus-hippies protesting the Vietnam War. It is a tradition dating back to the early centuries of the Christian faith and precedent can be found in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, Origen, and Justin Martyr. Even under the ostensibly “Christian” rule of Constantine, Bishops like Basil of Ceserea called for soldiers to be excommunicated. Athanasius (who so famously gave Arius the verbal smackdown of a lifetime at the Council of Nicaea, thus defining Christian doctrine for centuries to come) believed Christianity was inherently non-violent. Martin of Tours asked to be released from military service saying “I am Christ’s soldier; I am not allowed to fight.” When his conscientious objection was refused, he offered to stand on the front lines without a weapon. This refusal to serve had to do, in part, with a generally untrusting attitude towards the state, which was understandable considering the on-again, off-again persecution faced by Christians (a persecution which was typically met with non-resistance) as well as passages in the canonical gospels such as Christ’s command to “turn the other cheek” and his forbidding Peter to use a weapon in the Garden of Gethsemane. Before Christian pacifism buckled under the influence of the “Just War” theory of Augustine, Christians were considered bad citizens in Rome because of their refusal to serve in the military. Centuries later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau would state in “On the Social Contract” that Christians are of no use to the state. Along those lines, Christian anarchists like Leo Tolstoy have pointed out that the state is of no use to Christians. Both of these points are somewhat correct, but neither is reflected in the values of our present situation, one in which Rousseau’s vision of a diluted State-religion compatible with the best interests of the state has been fulfilled by the pop-Christianity that overlaps so greatly with the Pro-Life movement.
Not only does the Pro-life movement overlap with many pro-military sentiments, this movement is bent on changing the law, which puts the focus not on questions of love and compassion (the priorities of a Christian) but on issues of legality and power (decidedly NOT the priorities of a Christian.) Christians are to respect worldly authorities and submit to them (“Resist not an evil man”) but only God is to be obeyed, because one can not serve two masters. How should a Christian respond to abortion, then?
One of the forms of abortion to which the early Christians reacted was the act of abandoning unwanted infants to die. This is not what we are referring to when we talk about abortion, but those early Christians did not make a distinction, and the situation offers a precedent. The early Christian Church was disproportionately populated by women and orphans, abandoned babies rescued from garbage dumps and raised by the communal Christians who shared all of their property (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, you might say…) All things considered, it wasn’t a bad life for these orphans (other than the potential for being burned alive or fed to lions on account of their faith, of course.) This was a case of people passionately sacrificing whatever they had to defend and maintain human life.
Standing outside of a clinic and hurling stones, demanding that a woman carry her child to term, give birth, and then raise that child, despite the possibility that she may be psychologically or financially incapable of doing so, is bald hypocrisy. Until we cultivate communities that offer a guarantee that all children will be cared for, we have no right to express moral outrage over abortion. In our situation, corrupted by inexcusable economic disparity (as exemplified by the public school system) and a culture founded on individualist selfishness and “poor-by-choice” Protestant-ethic mythology that blames people for their own hardships, Christians have an obligation to oppose this conventional wisdom and give everything to care for anyone in need. Anyone can say they support life, but it is only very few who will open their home to unwanted children and struggling single mothers. In fact, most people won’t even spend a Saturday volunteering.
There are people, shining examples, who are willing to make sacrifices for the life of another. They are not exploiting the abortion debate to seize power, they are not sitting in judgment, and they are not carrying signs or threatening doctors. These few distribute food and diapers to struggling parents, arrange meetings with adoption agencies, and lobby to fix the foster-care and education systems that so frequently allow children to slip through the cracks.
Human life is precious and should be defended. Human beings have a moral obligation to protect each other from violence, be it the violence of abortion, the violence of militarism, the violence of social stratification or the violence of state-sanctioned executions. Preventing the act of violence isn’t enough though. Anyone can rage against death, but supporting life, anyone’s life (the truly “pro-life” position) is a long-term project that will demand everything from us.
No comments:
Post a Comment