Right now, the Illinois House and Senate have just passed a bill which would go after pregnancy centers in a way unmatched even by California and Massachusetts. SB 1909 attempts to criminalize, as fraud, attempts by a PRC to convince a woman to choose them over an abortion facility or not to have an abortion.
Recently, we’ve gotten comments asking us to address whether or not “selective reduction” is an ethical practice (or perhaps more to the point, to explain why it is not). On one hand, this makes sense; we don’t have material specifically addressing selective reduction or assisted reproductive technologies, and it’s worth talking about those things in detail. On the other hand, I’m a bit surprised, because selective reduction is just an abortion being performed in a specific context that still fails to provide a justification for killing.
Pro-life people really don’t like abortion. Shocking, right? But I don’t just mean that pro-life people believe abortion is morally wrong, which we do; pro-lifers have a strong emotional reaction—a moral aversion—to abortion which is often right and healthy.
Photo by Joshua Eckstein on Unsplash
Pastors very often, I think, would rather not speak publicly about abortion, even if they personally support the pro-life cause. This isn’t usually because they want to hide from the issue or because they don’t think it’s a truth worth defending, but because they are afraid of putting a stumbling block in the way of someone’s salvation. Pastors want pro-choice people to turn to Jesus because they need Him just as much as pro-lifers do. Ministers don’t want to be responsible for someone’s refusal to accept Christ because they pushed them away with a political position.
People often have trouble recognizing when two seemingly contradictory statements are both true and not at all contradictory. (Christians ought to have a bit more practice with this, since the nature of the Trinity, for one, is a hallmark example of this kind of thing.) But it’s not enough for things to seem contradictory, nor for someone to just assert that they can’t possibly coexist; it’s important to drill down to what the statements actually mean and whether those meanings are or aren’t compatible. Unfortunately, as is often the case in arguments about abortion, people like to stay at the “seeming” level and share snarky memes rather than engaging in this next level of critical thinking.
And so one side of the debate tells us that abortion is a complex issue, too complex for simply banning it to be an option (but, it bears mentioning, not too complex to label those who oppose abortion as “anti-choice”). Every abortion situation is unique, they say, and every possible regulation on abortion could affect a woman’s life in myriad ways, so it’s best to keep our noses out of other people’s business and simply “trust women!” The other side maintains that abortion is fundamentally simple, and anyone who says otherwise is trying to distract from the fact that “babies are murdered here.” The assumption is that one or the other of these statements is correct; either abortion is simple, or it is complex. The reality, however, is that both statements are true: abortion is a simple issue and a complex issue.
