Why Pro-Life Christians Still Have a Hard Decision on November 4th

I was bothered by Barack Obama's answer to Rick Warren when asked about abortion.

Warren: Now, let’s deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

I'll be honest. I cringed when Obama put it that way. Above his pay grade??? Ouch. Many people, like myself, find the issue of abortion to be one of the most (if not the single most) important moral issue of the last 30 years. While I truly resonate with Obama when he talks about America's need to focus on the needs of others and that his assertion that we need to obey the call of Jesus when He tells us to protect "the least of these", I wonder how is it that Barack cannot bring himself to make a judgment call on when life begins.

I think most everyone would say that in a scientific sense, "life" begins at conception. The moment a sperm and egg join and the first division of cells occurs - well, that's life.

Is it a "human" life, or more directly, does it have a soul? Well, Barack is correct - that is a spiritual question...and to be fair, one we Christians haven't always answered in the same way we do now. For most of human history, people have believed that babies have souls upon "quickening"; that is, the moment the mother first feels a baby kick. In fact, we still use the term "quickening" even though it originally meant "to become alive". (Think of its KJV Biblical usage; ie. "judge the quick and the dead". )

Obviously this brings us back to science, because (unlike most of human history) we now can detect pregnancy sooner than even the first missed period. Also, ultrasounds are now so common that nearly every mother in America has a blurry black and white picture of a little 10 week old bean shaped fetus...with the word "baby" typed in beside of it.



By the way, 10 week ultrasounds don't really even serve much of a medical purpose (unless there is a complication). They are actually more of a psychological aid - Dr's use them as an unspoken way to encourage women to begin eating right and taking care of themselves. The idea is that if a woman can actually see that she has a new life growing inside of her, that she is more likely to take charge of having a healthy pregnancy. (I suspect they are trying to also pay for that expensive ultrasound equipment as well!)

So we are now aware that long before a baby is felt kicking, she has movement, brainwaves, a heartbeat...

All this to say that Barack Obama's answer to Rick Warren was not only disappointing...but it was nearly insulting. Above his pay grade??? I'm pretty certain that any minimum wage mother who is even a month pregnant would be quick to tell Obama that what she has inside of her is a human life. I guess A Harvard Law degree and a net worth of $1.3 million don't pay for much.

But then there is the rest of his answer:

OBAMA: But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion, because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.

But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they — they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members. And so, for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground. And by the way, I’ve now inserted this into the Democratic party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions? The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address.

WARREN: Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?

OBAMA: I am in favor, for example, of limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother’s health. From the perspective of those who are pro-life, I think they would consider that inadequate, and I respect their views. One of the things that I’ve always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then — and you are consistent in that belief, then I can’t argue with you on that, because that is a core issue of faith for you.

What I can do is say, are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, so that we actually are reducing the sense that women are seeking out abortions. And as an example of that, one of the things that I’ve talked about is how do we provide the resources that allow women to make the choice to keep a child. You know, have we given them the health care that they need? Have we given them the support services that they need? Have we given them the options of adoption that are necessary? That can make a genuine difference. *emphasis mine.

A few things strike me about the rest of his answer.

First, he points out the need to find common ground.

I think most of us can agree that regardless of who becomes president, four years from now, abortion will still be legal. Reagan was pro-life, the first Bush was pro-life, and the second Bush is pro-life...and yet, there has not been one significant step toward overturning Roe v. Wade or outlawing abortion at the federal level. I suspect that this is because, while the majority of Americans want abortion to be rare - very few actually want it to be illegal. Republican politicians have learned that all they need to do is pander to the conservative evangelical Christian base of their party during election time, and then ignore the abortion issue once they get elected - and we will send them back to Washington to do nothing every time. Because, "Hey, he's pro-life!!!" Obama addresses this when he points out that we have had a "pro-life" president for 8 years and abortions have gone UP!

So, yes, we need common ground. Abortion isn't going away so what can the common ground be on an issue that seems so black and white? I think Obama gets it right when he says we need to work together to reduce the number of abortions.

Tony Campolo, in a recent blog said the following:

If 10 children are drowning in a swimming pool, and you can only save six of them, should you save the six? Or, should you wait until help arrives that can save them all, even if you know that the six you could save will be lost in the meantime?

So are we willing to work with those who may hold different beliefs about "choice" in order to actually find the common ground and save lives in the process? Or will we hold dogmatically to our religious and political stance even if it means we sacrifice the unborn - all in the name of being "right"?

On the other hand - John McCain is very clear that he stands on the other side of the abortion issue from Barack Obama. Answering the same question he said:

MCCAIN: At the moment of conception. (APPLAUSE). I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president. And this presidency will have pro-life policies. That’s my commitment. That’s my commitment to you.

I applaud McCain's willingness to clearly state when life begins (although it probably didn't take much courage in Warren's predominantly Republican church). But Obama's words still haunt me. Haven't we had a "pro-life" president in the Whitehouse for 8 years and hasn't the number of pre-born babies killed actually increased over that time?

What does McCain mean when he says that his administration will have "pro-life" policies? If, in fact, our goal is to reduce the number of abortions, and we realize that poverty is the number one increaser of abortion, then wouldn't making health insurance available to people of all income levels be a "pro-life" policy? And wouldn't complete funding of the State Chidrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) be a "pro-life" policy? Would it also not be a "pro-life" policy to encourage comprehensive sex education - when we have found that the conservative "abstinence only" curriculum doesn't work any better than the liberal teach-everything-but abstinence programs?

I have stated in previous posts that it seems as if many religious conservatives are willing to allow more abortions because they are afraid that their children will have sex if condoms are available in school. There are times when our ass backward stubbornness defies common sense!

Finally, I really feel as though pro-life Christians have a difficult choice in November because the pro-life issue has been too narrowly defined.

I know many pro-lifers who draw a direct correlation between evolution being taught in school and the disregard our society seems to have for human life. The theory is that if students are taught that we are nothing more than evolved monkeys, then no wonder we do not care for the unborn.

But a consistent ethic of life would also question how our acceptance (or even praise) of war cheapens life. If we brush aside the thousands of innocent children who have died in Iraq as simply collateral damage - don't we make it even easier for a woman to end the life growing inside her.



This is a complex issue; one that needs to be removed from the partisan politics of Republican vs. Democrat.

I am sad that Barack Obama feels that it is above his pay grade to decide when life begins...but I am equally saddened that John McCain doesn't seem to understand what being pro-life should really mean.