Abortion is a tremendously difficult subject to write about, particularly in an irenic tone and with care and compassion for those who have heartfelt feelings about it.

To put my cards on the table: I’m pro-choice, in that I recognize the complexity of the intersection here of women’s health, reproductive rights and freedoms, moral argumentation over the relative weight of scientific understanding of conception, gestation, “viability,” and medical advances (and the great grey area between “maybe viable” and “likely viable” depending on a host of factors) and differing faith views of the status of a fetus at differing times during a pregnancy.

I understand that, to some, a developing fetus has similar moral status as a living human being does from birth, and that to willfully terminate (all things being equal) a pregnancy is tantamount to murder. I get and respect the decision of those who hold this view to work against what they see as murder, insofar as it is respectful of the rights of others, calm and thoughtful, and within the law.

To others, there is not a similar equivalence in a moral sense between a newborn child and a gestating fetus (and in fact there are widely different opinions on the matter when you ask about it from fertilization to implantation to various stages along the way). In such cases, the moral calculus is generally not as clear cut, and many, many factors become part of the decision about whether to pursue an abortion. The history of the discussion goes deep when one looks at the legal, ethical, scientific and theological record.

In short, there is far more than enough in this debate to mount a credible argument for the latter: that women and families ought to be able to make such decisions for themselves, as part of their own health care decisions, in conjunction with their own faith and moral commitments, and respect for women as competent moral decision-makers.

This is, in fact, generally in line with the current position statements of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on abortion, though there is considerable debate and dissension from these statements–which have been a major part of recent cultural debates and schisms in our fair denomination.

I’m writing this after reading news today that the Wichita clinic once operated by murdered Dr. George Tiller, Women’s Health Care Services, will be closing for good. This means that people in Wichita who need abortion services will need to drive up to the Kansas City area for them, and that those who intend to pursue the relatively rare abortion after the first trimester (for more info, see this from the Guttmacher institute), and particularly in later stages of pregnancy, will need to find one of the two or so other doctors in the country willing to talk with them about it.

In an ideal world, abortions would be rarer than they are today. I’m on board with serious efforts to increase access to contraception, sex education, adoption efforts, and so on. I’m against tactics and laws that argue that increased barriers or access to abortion services (waiting periods, forced ultrasounds or literature, etc) will reduce abortions; these tend to render already difficult decisions more difficult and painful to make.

Generally, though, what strikes me is that Tiller’s work providing later term abortions was for women who really wanted children, but who faced horrible decisions because of major medical problems during their pregnancy. In many cases, it seems, these late term abortions enabled those who received them to get pregnant again and to have children later. That these women actually want children is generally true of those who actually have later term abortions: those who receive them don’t decide after a while that this pregnancy thing or parenting thing is not for them; they typically face a grueling decision after their hopes and dreams for a healthy delivery run smack into real world problems.

If you doubt this, read through some of the anecdotes Andrew Sullivan has been publishing over at his blog The Daily Dish. Not all of these posts I link to below exactly fit the above, but all of them add context to the complexity of such matters for women and their families. A good summary of Sullivan’s posts is provided by Kate Dailey over at the Newsweek blog The Human Condition, but some of the anecdots and reader responses are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. (In reverse chronological order of posting. I think I got them all; hard to say).

Even if you don’t doubt this, read through them. They’re a reminder, to me, of how these matters are not black and white for people, how people agonize over such things, and how we ought to protect and support them in their decision making on this. I’m in favor of keeping abortion “safe, legal, and rare,” and in keeping later term abortions available in cases of danger to the life and health of the mother, or when there is little likelihood that bringing the pregnancy to term will enable the child to survive.

I mourn Dr. Tiller’s death. I mourn the closing of his clinic. I hurt for the women and the couples who are faced with these grueling, life-altering decisions. I pray God’s mercy and grace for all of us.

Update, June 10: So long as I see them, I’ll add additional entries in this series. Such as this one on Holoprosencephaly. Or this one on Marfan Syndrome.

Interesting article, Even Evangelical Teens Do It, over at Slate:

…

Teenagers who identify as “evangelical” or “born again” are highly likely to sound like the girl at the bar; 80 percent think sex should be saved for marriage. But thinking is not the same as doing. Evangelical teens are actually more likely to have lost their virginity than either mainline Protestants or Catholics. They tend to lose their virginity at a slightly younger age—16.3, compared with 16.7 for the other two faiths. And they are much more likely to have had three or more sexual partners by age 17: Regnerus reports that 13.7 percent of evangelicals have, compared with 8.9 percent for mainline Protestants.

How is that possible? What happened to all those happy, young Christian couples from the ’90s swearing that True Love Waits? Partly, the problem lies in the definition of evangelical. Because of the explosion of megachurches, vast numbers of people who don’t identify with mainstream denominations now call themselves evangelical. The demographic includes more teenagers of a lower socioeconomic class, who are more likely to have had sex at a younger age. It also includes African-American Protestant teenagers, who are vastly more likely to be sexually active.

But partly the problem lies in the temptation-rich life of an average American teenager. The fate of the True Love Waits movement, which began with the Southern Baptist Convention in the ’90s, is a perfect example. Teenagers who signed the abstinence pledge belong to a subgroup of highly motivated virgins. But even they succumb. Follow-up surveys show that at best, pledges delayed premarital sex by 18 months—a success by statistical standards but a disaster for Southern Baptist pastors.

…

The results play out in the usual 19^th-century way. When evangelical parents say they talk to their kids about sex, they mean the morals, not the mechanics. In a quiz on pregnancy and health risks associated with sex, evangelicals scored very low. Evangelical teens don’t accept themselves as people who will have sex until they’ve already had it. As a result, abstinence pledgers are considerably less likely than nonpledgers to use birth control the first time they have sex. “It just sort of happened,” one girl told the researchers, in what could be a motto for this generation of evangelical teens.

My wife and I just watched Saved! again the other night. Interesting how right on that movie is in certain particulars…

The debate, I think, will be over whether sexual orientation is more like skin color or more like Parkinson’s disease. We are coming to understand more and more each year that sexual orientation–all of it, yours, mine, whether it be towards a member of the opposite or same sex–has some genetic foundation. The question then is what to do about it. For years, religious groups that argued against same sex practice said it was fundamentally a choice; now many of them are recognizing that in fact orientation (and the drives that stem from it) are more deeply rooted than that.

This simple fact, of course, must impact biblical interpretation, and should in theory change the way we argue over the matter. (I’ll point you, once again, to Kim Frabricius’ exposition entitled Twelve Propositions on Same-Sex Relationships and the Church)

But for those of us who argue for more inclusive positions for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, we can’t assume that because we had that matter right we’ll win the day. Some are going to argue that we ought to use various therapies to remove homosexuality from the human condition. In fact, some are even beginning to make that argument today. Here is Roman Catholic priest Rev. Joseph Fessio, editor of Ignatius Press, Pope Benedict XVI’s U.S. publisher:

“Same-sex activity is considered disordered,” Fessio said. “If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb, and a way of treating them that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science.” (from an AP Article linked at chicagotribune.com, free registration required)

Fessio is commenting on a recent article by Dr. Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who raised these sorts of questions on his blog (entitled Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?).

Mohler is clear that he himself is dead set against abortion or gene therapy to reverse orientation (of course, he thinks liberals wouldn’t be so against it), but would consider perinatal hormone treatment if it would do the trick. Here are his ten points to end his essay:

Christians who are committed to think in genuinely Christian terms should think carefully about these points:

1. There is, as of now, no incontrovertible or widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists.

2. Nevertheless, the direction of the research points in this direction. Research into the sexual orientation of sheep and other animals, as well as human studies, points to some level of biological causation for sexual orientation in at least some individuals.

3. Given the consequences of the Fall and the effects of human sin, we should not be surprised that such a causation or link is found. After all, the human genetic structure, along with every other aspect of creation, shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God’s judgment.

4. The biblical condemnation of all homosexual behaviors would not be compromised or mitigated in the least by such a discovery. The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible’s moral verdict on homosexual behavior.

5. The discovery of a biological basis for homosexuality would be of great pastoral significance, allowing for a greater understanding of why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations.

6. The biblical basis for establishing the dignity of all persons — the fact that all humans are made in God’s image — reminds us that this means all persons, including those who may be marked by a predisposition toward homosexuality. For the sake of clarity, we must insist at all times that all persons — whether identified as heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, or whatever — are equally made in the image of God.

7. Thus, we will gladly contend for the right to life of all persons, born and unborn, whatever their sexual orientation. We must fight against the idea of aborting fetuses or human embryos identified as homosexual in orientation.

8. If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.

9. We must stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice. We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation. We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation.

10. Christians must be very careful not to claim that science can never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation. We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior. The general trend of the research points to at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This does not alter God’s moral verdict on homosexual sin (or heterosexual sin, for that matter), but it does hold some promise that a deeper knowledge of homosexuality and its cause will allow for more effective ministries to those who struggle with this particular pattern of temptation. If such knowledge should ever be discovered, we should embrace it and use it for the greater good of humanity and for the greater glory of God.

One fundamental appreciation and two fundamental objections. He’s right about remarking that all human beings are made in the imago dei and must be treated as such. That’s helpful. And he’s right that our ethical landscape is about to be challenged with the new gene detection and treatment options on the horizon. We need more work done in this area.

But the rest of the argument isn’t consistent with that. Are we going to treat all of our orientation more like skin color or like a disease? Is our sexuality deeply something about who we are? The problem with this argument is that it isn’t consistent: if orientation has biological roots, the moral options for appropriate exercise of practices related to that orientation must be fairly offered. You can’t say that there is a morally appropriate route for fulfilling your God-given sexuality if you are straight, but not if you aren’t. The moral rules must apply equally; the must be able to be universalized. But Mohler falls into the argument that we mustn’t do that. And he does so because he falls back on an assumption of biblical condemnation of homosexual practice that is actually debatable. (Again, see above Kim Fabricius). Far better would be an extension of the biblical sexual mores towards homosexual partners, blessing unions and promoting monogamy among faithful couples and their growth into productive, mutually caring families. This would be to universalize the biblical teaching on human sexuality in a way that recognizes that the biblical authors didn’t write about same-sex relationships as we know them, but condemn what we all (should) condemn: gang-rape, pederasty, etc…

Second, this idea of treating away an innate human condition like sexuality is repulsive. This was experimented with in human history before with disastrous effects. I recognize that Mohler is against gene therapy and abortion for this matter, but how long until the next guy pushes this line further toward the abyss?

For what its worth, if I have a gay or lesbian child, I’m going to love him or her and encourage him or her to have a full, meaningful, grace-filled life, including one hopes a lifetime of happiness with a loving partner.

I’d commend E. J. Dionne Jr.’s piece in the Washington Post today. An excerpt:

American politics took an important turn last week at a church in the foothills of Southern California’s Santa Ana Mountains.

When Rick Warren, one of the nation’s most popular evangelical pastors, faced down right-wing pressure and invited Sen. Barack Obama to speak at a gathering at his Saddleback Valley Community Church about the AIDS crisis, he sent a signal: A significant group of theologically conservative Christians no longer wants to be treated as a cog in the Republican political machine.

…

And thus it came to pass that when Warren called a conference at his church last Friday on World AIDS Day, among those he invited were two potential presidential candidates. It was unsurprising that one of them was Sen. Sam Brownback, the Kansas Republican and a loyal social conservative who has taken up the AIDS issue with passion and commitment.

But when the other invitee turned out to be Obama, parts of the old evangelical political apparatus went after Warren as a heretic. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, declared that Obama’s views on abortion — Obama is pro-choice — represented “the antithesis of biblical ethics and morality” and insisted that Warren had no business inviting him to Saddleback.

Warren’s church issued a statement reaffirming its strong opposition to abortion, but Warren did not back down. Indeed, he seemed to revel in rejecting the old evangelical political model. “I’m a pastor, not a politician,” Warren told ABC News. “People always say, ‘Rick, are you right wing or left wing?’ I say ‘I’m for the whole bird.’ “

When it came his turn to speak, Obama took on the moral message of evangelical AIDS activists — and then challenged them.

“Let me say this and let me say this loud and clear: I don’t think that we can deny that there is a moral and spiritual component to prevention,”he declared. “In too many places . . . the relationship between men and women, between sexuality and spirituality, has broken down and needs to be repaired.”

Then Obama got to what “may be the difficult part for some,” as he put it, that “abstinence and fidelity, although the ideal, may not always be the reality.”

“We’re dealing with flesh-and-blood men and women, and not abstractions,” Obama said, and “if condoms and potentially things like microbicides can prevent millions of deaths, then they should be made more widely available. . . . I don’t accept the notion that those who make mistakes in their lives should be given an effective death sentence.”

That Obama received a standing ovation suggests that Warren is right to sense that growing numbers of Christians are tired of narrowly partisan politics and share his interest in “the whole bird.” In their different spheres, Warren and Obama are both in the business of retailing hope.

Great ending paragraph, too:

One more thing: If you read Obama’s speech, you’ll realize he demonstrates a much truer Christian spirit than the GOP masterminds who have recently tried to push people away from Obama by pointing out that his middle name is Hussein.

If you’re curious about that last reference, you can find more info, among other places, at Joshua Micah Marshall’s TPM Cafe.

In the nearby state of Missouri, Jim Talent and Claire McCaskill are neck-and-neck in a race for the US Senate. MSNBC argues that this might be the bell-weather election of the cycle, but even if Talent wins I think a strong showing by Democrats elsewhere is quite possible. Josh Marshall has a point, however, about the “irrational exuberance” of some democratic voices out there; still a lot of time before the election, and tides can shift quickly. There’s a lot of money flowing around, and who can predict events on the ground?

But back to the Talent-McCaskill contest. Its close; apparently, real close. Turnout by the bases and appeals to the swing voters will likely decide it. And that latter, I think, is why the race keeps coming down to the stem-cell issue.

I’ve not been following a lot of the ads on teevee (mainly because they’re back and forth about who has done nursing homes more wrong), but when Josh Marshall pointed out this McCaskill ad featuring Michael J. Fox, I was intrigued. It might make a big difference:

The stem-cell debate is complex, as are positions that support or oppose fetal stem-cell research. There are emotional components to the argument on both sides; the one in this ad, I wonder, might make the difference.

Ms. Kairos rarely approaches me with sermon topics, but she said I should think about preaching someday on all of this.

The day after I watched the PBS broadcast of The New Medicine a study on the effects on prayer for others (or intercessory prayer) is out, showing, at least with this sample, little medical benefit:

The largest study yet on the therapeutic power of prayer by strangers has found that it provided no benefit to the recovery of patients who had undergone cardiac bypass surgery.

In an unexpected twist, patients who knew prayers were being said for them had more complications after surgery than those who did not know, researchers reported Thursday.

The complications were minor, and doctors surmised that they could have been caused by the increased stress on patients worried that their conditions were so bad they needed prayers.

…

Dr. Herbert Benson, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and one of the study’s lead researchers, added: “Nothing this study has produced should interfere with people praying for each other.”

Interesting, for sure. But then again, what do we think prayer is all about (which is the fundamental question, I gather). Do we think that prayer must yield what we are praying for to be effective, or worthwhile, or heard by God? No. On the other hand, should we assume that God doesn’t have the ability to answer our prayers in this way? No.

Prayer is attention to and communication with God. We bring others to God in prayer out of our love and concern for both God and for them, in our hopes and beliefs that God will tend to their needs, and ours. The
assurance is that God will do so. Not always by better medical outcomes. Maybe not often by better medical outcomes. But God will so tend to our needs. And by praying we pay attention to God who is already at work in that situation, making all things new…

Watching a wonderful PBS series “The New Medicine” on the scientific evidence behind the benefit of meditation (and prayer) on stress and therefore health and medicine.

Now, I think this series is a bit strong in calling this “new.” I remember reading and discussing studies about these things during my CPE rotation. But its good to see some of this gaining ground.