Tough Questions on Abortion - My Response: Take the Debate Out of Their Court

In a recent discussion on my University's email list-service, the question came up about whether abortion was ok in the difficult situations involving rape, incest and the where the life of the mother was at risk. I personally do not agree with abortions in these circumstances because I embrace the core belief that life begins at conception. However, I also understand that a person faced with this situation is in the most horrible moral dilema a person could ever face.

It is one of those times that society as a whole has to suspend their judgment and leave this to divine wisdom alone. The person facing this choice has to come face to face with God and make their decision before God alone and leave it to his judgment as to whether it was wrong or right. In the event the effected person is a Christian, I would hope that their faith holds fast to trusting that, "he works all things together for their good," but even if their faith falters (we all have been there and fallen short of the mark ...) that his mercy and grace offers forgiveness.

In the context of the abortion debate, I feel that Christians and pro-life groups have fallen into a carefully laid trap by the other side, pushing for a complete ban ignores these tough questions which are often faced by non-christians who do not have the benefit of faith or a strong moral compass. Even the most secular individual is hard pressed not to feel empathy for a person facing this situation. At times we as believers, fail to show that same empathy for people in these situations and the other side has beat us up one side and down the other over it.

The reality is that there will be those (both believers and non-believers) who will not see the "clear line" between right and wrong and will be swayed by these truly difficult situations. In the meantime, millions of unborn children who do not fall into these "moral dilema" areas are destroyed because we selfishly refuse to compromise in any measure.

Although I would prefer there were no abortions, I can more readily accept abortions occurring only in the cases of incest, rape and threatening the life of the mother. Rather than falling upon our sword accepting defeat while maintaing that we have fought the fight without giving an inch, we could re-align the argument and take away the easy out we have supplied to the opposition.

Its time the argument was focused upon the 98% of the abortions performed for purely selfish reasons instead of the 2% that are truly moral dilemas that no one could face without divine intervention and mercy.

I realize that this position will likely be opposed by many pro-life people, who I honestly and completely agree with in the stand that they have taken. However, we should be wise and discerning regarding how we deal with the world. Christians are often naive when they expect the world to accept biblical mandates as authoritative. We have forgotten that our "open eyes" are a gift and were it not for the Lord's mercy we would be stumbling in the dark as well. We have to expect the world to act like the world and not be surprised when they refuse to do something just because it is the right thing to do.

Along these lines, I know that many pro-lifers are opposed to these concessions because the other side will "create" the necessary circumstances to justify the abortion (i.e. claim it was rape or that the mother's life is in danger when it really is not), while these concerns are justified and plausible, the fact remains that their actions will be against the law. In this world, people will commit crimes for their own evil purposes (it will not change until the Lord returns) but it does not invalidate that the law is in place and society has asserted its opposition to that activity. At this time, no such restriction exists and judging from the recent elections, it seems unlikely that pro-life advocates will be able to muster the necessary public mandate to achieve a complete prohibition on abortion. Not to mention that any successful law would quickly be struck down by the Supreme Court.

I merely contend that the concession of these "gray" areas (as defined by most of secular society) will eliminate the "smoke screen cover" that the pro-choice movement has hidden behind. In the end, it will make them come out and have to admit that their agenda is "abortion on demand for any reason at any time." I sincerely believe that we can win that argument in the hearts and minds of the average American (even those without any discernable moral compass) but until we are able to strip away these "false issues" we will continue to have our initiatives fail because moderates of little moral conviction are swayed by emotionalism involving gray areas that are not truly the determinative issues.

These questions are relevent because its the biggest and most effective argument used by the pro-abortion forces. However, the reality is that it makes up less than 2% of the abortions performed while it is 98% of their argument.

The stark truth is that abortion has for the most part been a "choice" of convenience and founded upon the ultimate act of selfishness. The impassioned pleas from the pro-choice movement focus upon these rare circumstances but in reality their desire is based upon the refusal to accept responsibility for their prior choices. They have just wisely not brought it up because they know that the average person will not support it for those reasons. Let us take this facade away and bring them the fight that they have feared.