Abortion - Morality vs Pragmatism vs Moral Pragmatism

The abortion topic is one of much contention. People from all walks of life can weigh in on this subject, and it most often starts as a healthy debate but quickly degrades into a heated argument. In the last 5 or so years there has been a resurgence of the abortion debate, especially within the Church. This is largely to do with the fact that the right wing is no longer synonymous with Christian morality and more and more Christians find themselves questioning many of the basic ideas of conservative politics (from taxation to abortion to capital punishment).

Primarily in the past we have seen three main views within the Christian community. The first is that abortion is wrong and therefore should be made illegal. End of story. The second is that abortion is wrong but people are going to have abortions anyways so we might as well provide a safe environment for them to do it in. The third view is that abortion is a personal moral decision and the state should not legislate on decisions of personal morality. Sadly all of these positions are equally as flawed in my mind. The first two employ deeply flawed and over simplistic logic on the repercussions of morality and the third one simply wipes ones hands clean in a very Pontius Pilate-esque way.

Jim Wallis said it best when he said that on the debate regarding abortion we can all agree on one common idea (as all resolution must begin on common ground), that abortions (while not necessarily right or wrong) should not happen. That every child should be wanted and given a chance at a healthy, productive, and enjoyable life. He also stated that abortions are merely a symptom of a deeper problem of lack of education and social and financial inequalities. The argument for that abortions should be made illegal is a strict moral decision. Abortion=Wrong, Wrong=Bad, Good Society=No Bad, therefore Good Society=No Abortion. In this logical process there is no room compassion or dignity, merely black and white. This is in itself is a great evil as it inherently requires judgment, something the Church is strictly instructed not to do. The second argument is completely pragmatic. It claims that ultimately there is nothing we can do about abortions, we it with sterilized equipment or with a coat-hanger, its going to happen. So we might as well choose the lesser of two evils. They also argue that while abortion is wrong it must happen because in the real world one cannot always get what they want, and in reality not every child will be wanted or cared for. As a Christian this is possibly the only line of logic find incredibly offensive. We are called to live in the world, but not be of it. The entire basis of Christs teachings are to not accept the harsh realities of the world, but rather to change them. To simply suggest that we should fold to the pressures and evils of our world is to deny the changing power of God's love. Such a denial is detrimental to the core theology of Christianity, that Christ came not just to act as a sacrifice, but to transform the world to more resemble his kingdom.

What I suggest is a common middle ground - I call it moral pragmatism. Its the idea that a strong moral center can exist within a pragmatic world view. That we can hold fast to our ideals and beliefs and at the same time do what we believe is best. Is it hard...yes, much harder than taking a firm stance on either side. It recognizes that abortion is wrong, that no child should die. But at the same time its compassionate towards families and women found in poor circumstances (due to lack of education, stupid mistakes, or even rape). It recognizes that fact that in the United States under Democratic presidents the abortion rate is significantly lower than under republican ones. That simply saying "no" doesn't solve the deeper problems, but at the same time saying "sure its your choice and your body" is equally as damaging. Instead it provides women and families with viable options of pre and post-natal care, financial assistance, training and comprehensive education. Instead of discussing how to resolve a symptom it attempts to cure the larger problems of our society. What I am suggesting is bed-rest for a society that seems perfectly content with just downing Advil and heading off to work anyways.

If anyone wants to read further about this idea I suggest giving Jim Wallis and his staff at Sojourners a read. You can find there blogs at http://blog.sojo.net/ - just type in abortion and you will have reading for days.