Don't Rush to Judgement

The leak of the draft Supreme Court decision has been at the top of the news for several weeks now, even eclipsing the war in Ukraine and the price of gasoline. The draft seems to indicate that the famous Roe v Wade decision will be overturned and states will be allowed to regulate and or curtail women’s rights to abortions. I generally try to avoid super controversial issues from this pulpit and stick as close to possible to scripture. However, at risk of upsetting some of you and alienating most of you, I am going to discuss this current topic. I would like to approach the subject from two separate angles. First as a point of law and second as an issue of theology. In all cases my bottom line is, “Don’t rush to judgement.” I will come back to that statement at the end of my discussion.

How many of you know what Roe v Wade says? Can anyone give me a brief summary of the decision? Probably not. The only person I have asked that question who knew the answer was my daughter. As some of you know, she was an RN for several years before she went back to school and earned a masters degree in medical law. After she gave me the answer, she went to her library and pulled out her text on bioethics and checked to make sure she was right. Roe v Wade does not, as many believe, say that women have an absolute right to abortion. The 1972 decision was primarily concerned with a women’s right to privacy. An expectant mother who wanted to terminate a pregnancy didn’t have to tell anyone about it. Not her parents, nor the baby’s father, not her husband. It was a privileged private decision. The decision then went on to grant states the rights to regulate abortions based on a complicated trimester system. The closer the baby came to the due date; the more restrictions local governments could impose on the mother. In my mind, the most significant thing in the Supreme Court decision was the ruling that a fetus, any fetus, is not a person under the law. Although the fetus has no legal rights, the court ruled that government has a limited obligation to protect the unborn child. I have long wondered when an unborn child is covered by the constitutional guarantee of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?” The answer per Roe v Wade is never; not until it exits the womb and takes its first breath. You should note, I’m not saying the ruling is right or wrong, I am only saying that is the Supreme Court’s decision.

Twenty years later in the lesser-known case of Planned Parenthood v Casey the Court confirmed that the fetus was not a legal person under the law and replaced the trimester system with the concept of “viability.” In other words, the state may regulate abortions after the fetus has developed to the point it is capable of life outside the womb. Prior to “viability” the expectant mother may terminate her pregnancy at her discretion. In a 5 to 4 decision, the court used that part of the 14th Amendment that says no state shall, “deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Pro-life advocates can’t find the logic that prohibiting abortions deprive expectant mothers of their life, liberty or property. But it has been the law of the land since 1992.

Next, I researched Scripture to see what it said. As with the Constitution, Scripture can be stretched to fit almost any preconceived opinion. Abortion as we know it was not medically possible in Biblical times. Therefore, I did not expect to find much. There are several passages that says God created life in the womb. Tie that to “thou shalt not kill.” And it would seem to prohibit abortion. On the other hand, “Thou shall not kill.” is not absolute. Recall that when Moses led the Hebrews to the promised land of Canaan, God told them to drive the inhabitants out and kill them all. Weren’t the Canaanites also creations of God? I did find one that is very close, however, in the 21st chapter of Exodus. The Law of Moses says that injuring a pregnant woman has no additional consequences if the unborn child is aborted but unharmed, but if the child is injured, the punishment is the same as for a living person. Eye for an eye, life for life...” I am left with what I think God intended and is just my opinion and not proof.

I listened to a sermon 30 plus years ago in a Methodist Church in Alaska. The minister said that abortion was wrong, but so was destroying the future of a 14 yar old pregnant girl? He then asked what the congregation would do if they were the parents of a pregnant teen. I have never been in that position. My parents have, and I know what they did. Many of you are familiar with similar cases, teenage expectant mothers haven’t been that uncommon in the past fifty years or so. That preacher encouraged me not to be quick to judgement, even if I disagree. I think Jesus said something every similar.

What is the position of the church? It depends on what church. Remember a few weeks ago I mentioned there are sixteen patron saints of mothers, fourteen of which I had never heard of. Did anyone research the list as I suggested? I rally didn’t expect you to, but I hoped. Two of the 14 were canonized because they were ill and refused to give up their unborn child to save their own lives. The last time I looked, the Catholic Church opposed abortions for any reason. The unborn fetus is a living person. The Pacific Northwest Conference of the United Methodist Church is staunchly pro-choice. They agree with the Supreme Court that the fetus has no rights under the law. The new Global Methodist Church is strictly pro-life.

The signs at many televised pro-choice demonstrations read, “My body, my choice”. When does the unborn child become a person? In Roe v Wade the fetus gradually accumulates rights as it develops. The 1992 Casey decision says the fetus has no rights until it is capable of life on its own. As a question of theology, is the developing child part of the mother’s body or is she the caretaker of a new life? If she is the caretaker, then the new life, God’s creation, is a sacred individual. If, on the other hand, the fetus is an integral part of the mother’s body, she can have it excised the same as she would any unwanted growth.

Where are we? I think I have touched on all sides of the issue I can think of. I have no official standing for my opinion, I’m not an expert and have no special training or credentials, my opinion doesn’t count for much. But I will give it to you for what it is worth. I think abortion is a very sticky wicket for government to regulate. I don’t think government can regulate morality. It just can’t. Every time they try, they screw it up. The mother can terminate the life an unborn, but if others can be prosecuted for doing the4 same. Drivers who cause an accident that terminates a pregnancy are subject to punishment the same as if they had taken any life.

What to do about an unplanned pregnancy is a moral issue and the moral of both the individuals involved and society come to play. Personally, I believe abortion as a routine means of birth control is as wrong as wrong can be. To some degree the mother is a caretaker of the unborn and can’t have the arbitrary right to destroy God’s creation as she would a cyst or a polyp. She just can’t. But it isn’t normally as simple as that. I cannot condemn the parents of a young girl for protecting the future of their daughter, nor would I condemn the girl. I don’t have that right. I think my parents did it about as right as it can be done. They prayed on it and included all the parties involved then made a joint decision. I don’t know if God agreed with them or not. I think He did.

No matter what side of pro-choice, pro-life you are on, there is danger in rushing to judgement. The extreme ends of any position are usually both wrong. If we are forced by circumstances to make a choice, we should include God in the decision. It is after all His creation. Then we should make the best decision we can, and not worry about the opinions of others.