The vast majority of those opposed to ROE V. WADE are largely representative of that political entity known as "the Christian Right." As I have addressed the Supreme Court's majority opinion in DOBB VS. JACKSON WOMEN'S HEALTH (DOBBS) in my previous post, I will not do so here, but rather respond to those individuals and their religious communities who opposed ROE V. WADE as a matter of Christian principle.
It is curious that Jesus is rarely, if ever, brought into the abortion debate. That many of the people who opposed ROE are Christian and the six justices who overruled ROE are not only Christian but are associated with Roman Catholic Church, an outspoken critic of abortion, unfortunately frames Jesus as also being anti-abortion. That the Court's majority opinion cited in their ruling the "moral question" surrounding abortion as a basis for overruling ROE. As such, it begs the question what Jesus would have said regarding their ruling; especially, amongst those of us who take Jesus seriously.
There are some issues that it is easer to leave Jesus out of. Jesus' way of forgiving people and accepting people for who they were as children of God like him, regardless of what they had done or failed to do can be down right annoying when one insists on preserving one's sense of moral outrage over a particular issue. If one claims to follow Jesus, then one must measure one's sense of righteous indignation and moral outrage against the teachings of Jesus.
That Jesus forgave people out-of-hand without questioning their personal life choices is relevant to how Jesus viewed perceived moral questions as a whole. Jesus didn't see a need to quiz people about their moral choices because he was the omniscient Son of God who knew everything there was to know about everyone's sins. Jesus forgave people, out-of-hand because he wanted to remove any sense of guilt or culpability they felt which most believed caused their infirmities and suffering; a belief many religious people (including some Christians) still believe. Forgiving sins as his first order of business was Jesus' way of removing any mental and spiritual obstacles in order to open people to healing their suffering.
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Matthew 7:1-55
One general observation about Jesus that needs to be said is this:
JESUS NEVER LEGISLATED MORALITY, BUT JESUS WAS CONSISTENT IN POINTING OUT THE HYPOCRISY OF THOSE WHO DID.
That the recent Court's majority opinion in DOBB's presented its ruling as an answer to what Justice Alito stated was a "moral question" should give every follower of Jesus reason to pause. How might Jesus have responded to those who, in his name, opposed women having a right to seek an abortion on moral grounds alone?
We cannot know for certain what Jesus' response to the issue of women seeking abortion would have been. The topic was never brought up in the Gospel and we can't be sure Jesus was aware of abortions being performed during his time, but we do know something about how Jesus treated women in general and, in particular, those who were considered of questionable character.
We also know that Jesus was, himself, treated a questionable character by the religious authorities of his day. He was regularly accused of breaking Sabbath laws because he healed on the Sabbath, and in one notable instance deliberately snubbed his nose at such laws by walking with his disciples through fields of grain and plucking heads and eating them as they did so. [See Mark 2:23-28] In today's world we may not think much of Jesus doing so, but in Jesus' day and time his behaviors were outrageous to the religious scholars and authorities. He was largely viewed as an unrighteous law breaker.
Jesus' treatment of women is well documented in the Gospels, which is remarkable given the fact that Jesus conducted his ministry in a part of the world that was and remains patriarchal. We know that men talking to women in public was usually done only if there was a clear need to do so, mostly to address some woman's infraction of religious or social norms.
Women and children were largely treated as the property of their fathers, their husband, or some male figure in the family. If they didn't have an adult man in their life they didn't have much of a life. To be a widow or an orphan without a male figure to protect them was a virtual death sentence, which the led prophets to specifically address their needs.
Women were expected to keep to "their place," which meant the kitchen or tending their children. One can only imagine the shock of the men Jesus was dining with when a woman approaches Jesus and washes his feet with her tears and dries them with her hair or, in another instance, when woman pours an expensive, perfumed ointment over his feet and wipes them with her hair. What was going through their minds during such flagrant displays of affection? What would go through our minds today if we saw a woman doing something similar to man?
* * *
One of the most poignant stories about the legal rigidity women had to navigate their lives around in such a cultural setting is the story of a women with a chronic menstrual issue. In essence, she was in a constant state of ritual impurity because the bleeding never stopped long enough to meet the required purification period. Any one she touched or touched her while she was bleeding or within the period of purification would be considered ritually unclean. If she touched a man while she was bleeding, the man would become unclean as well. How could Jesus heal her without touching her and becoming unclean in the process? If she would have deliberated touched his skin or if he would have touched her or even sat on chair where she sat, he would have been unable to touch and heal others for a considerable period of time and she would have been accused of deliberately defiling Jesus. Her solution was to merely touch the hem of his cloak and hope for healing. This she did and she was healed. Jesus praised her for the risk she took and the faith she exhibited. What gets lost in its telling during a Sunday morning sermon is the risk she took in making the choice she did. [See Matthew 9]
One could question whether her choice to approach Jesus who was surrounded by a crowd and the crush of people trying to get close to Jesus risked exposing them to her "uncleanliness" was a morally correct decision or if it was an act of selfish desperation that risked breaking the purity laws. Her story resonates with women who in years past risked their health to preserve their lives and livelihood, whose solutions to the choices they and/or others made placed them in an untenable situation like this woman. That Jesus praised her desire to live her life to fullest extent possible and made a choice that risked exposure of a mentally and physically painful condition is telling and relevant to women who, like her, are trying to live their life to the fullest extent possible.
* * *
Perhaps the story that provides the clearest understanding on Jesus' treatment of moral issues is the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery who was destined to be stoned to death. The legal experts and religious authorities decided to bring her to Jesus to see whether he would condemn her also because there was no denying that her being caught in the act of adultery was a capital offense in Judaic law that regularly resulted in both the man woman being stoned to death (See Deuteronomy 22:22-24). In this story, the missing element in this "being caught in the act" is the man. Why is there no mention of him, as he had to be caught in the act if this woman was?
We can only speculate as to why there is no mention of the man, but in a patriarchal society where women were easily accused of wrongdoing, the possibility exists that she was considered the reason for the act and the man was either excused, escaped, or allowed to escape because they had their victim.
When this woman's accusers presented their case against her Jesus appears ambivalent, neither recognizing the women or her accusers by looking to the ground as he doodled in the dust. When the legal experts and religious leaders pressed him for an answer, Jesus says, without looking up, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
Since this event took place in a very public setting just outside of the Temple precinct, those who were oldest (who knew they had during their lifetime committed offenses punishable under their laws) began to drop their stones and walk away, with youngest accusers leaving last. When everyone left, Jesus looks up and asks the woman if there was no one left to accuse her. When she answered that there was no one, Jesus responded that he didn't condemn her either and sent her on her way with his liberating absolution, " Go and sin no more." [See John 8 1-11] Without saying a single word about immorality, Jesus exposed the hypocrisy of the men who brought this woman before him.
"Go and sin no more" is not a moral indictment. The lack of specifically saying "Go and refrain from committing adultery in the future" would have been an unambiguous moral statement, but Jesus broadens the statement that reflects his ethical perspective on personal conduct that leads the individual into trouble with others. God is always forgiving. People are much less so.
CHOICE
“Woe unto you, (legal experts and religious authorities - nw), hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." Matthew 23:27-28
Abortion is a legitimate medical procedure which is designed to protect the lives and the livelihood of women that becomes threatened by an unwanted pregnancy. Abortion, like any medical procedures is surrounded by ethical issues. The life that is taking shape in a woman's womb demands ethical considerations and there are personal moral issues that a woman or a husband and wife often struggle with in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, whether it poses a risk to the mother's life or risks having a child with debilitating genetic defects that would result in a life of misery for the child and the child's family.
I am confident, however, that Jesus would not have condemned a woman seeking an abortion any more than he would not condemn a woman who was caught in adultery. In a world that condemns sex outside of marriage, women, more often than not, are vilified than men when it pertains to issues of sexual conduct for the obvious reason of women literally bearing the brunt of perceived sexual misconduct should a woman become pregnant. In that regard sex is not treated equally. As in the story of the woman caught in adultery we often hear nothing of the man who was involved in the affair. John 8:1-11 is emblematic of the hypocrisy that exists in the United States and fomented by the religious right in the name God, if not Jesus.
* * *
In a speech in Nashville Tennessee on Dec. 27, 1962. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless." While Dr. King's comment was made in relation to the civil rights movement, it underscores the reason why seemingly personal moral choices should be legalized. Because once legalized, personal moral issues are removed from being treated concretely as strictly right or wrong matters. When legalized they become issues the are contingent upon the conditions under which people make the choices they do and the outcome of their choices on their lives and the lives of others. Regulation, in this sense, means having guidelines and engaging in ethical discussions, which is what ROE led to.
The question Dr. King's statement begs is which Court, the one that that ruled in ROE or the one that ruled in DOBBS proved to be heartless? Undoubtedly that is a debatable question, but Dr. King's statement recognizes what the current Court failed to recognize; that morality cannot be legislated. What is implicit in his recognition is that legislating morality ultimately reduces complex issue being solved by a one-size-fits-all solution which in the case of DOBBS remanded the moral question around abortion to individual individual States to figure out an answer. This majority's ruling in DOBBS is both an act of judicial cowardice and willful ignorance regarding the Constitution. If the Court felt ill-equipped to answer the moral question they posed, what makes any of us think that States are more equipped or that the American public in general are better equipped to do so?
As I have stated in previous posts, Jesus was an ethicist in applying the concept of loving one's neighbor as oneself to include the whole of humanity and the whole of creation; an ethical perspective that recognized the interdependence each us has on the other. None of us understand the complexity of our personal lives; much less, those of others. Unconditional forgiveness and love was not just a frivolous ploy to avoid issues but rather became for Jesus the launching pad by which to address them. Jesus' unconditional forgiveness, like his unconditional love is a powerful tool in finding solutions to the difficult questions we face today that avoids finger pointing and blame games. Reconciliation is giving breathing space in an environment of love. Moral condemnation of the personal choices regarding one's personal lives meant to improve the quality of one's personal life, in the parlance of Jesus' teachings, serves only to bury that life under a mound of guilt and shame.
ABORTION
For it was you who formed my inward parts:you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works that I know very well. Psalm 139: 13-14
‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.’ Jeremiah 1:5
Biblical literalism is problematic for fundamental evangelicals and the political religious right. Just as abortion is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, abortion is not mentioned in the Holy Bible. The concept of the "Pre-born" is likewise not mentioned in scripture.
The two scriptural verses taken from the Psalms and the Book of Jeremiah, are often cited as supporting the concept of the "Pre-born" or as cause for prohibiting a woman from obtaining an abortion. These verses, however, are a reflection of the person who had a natural birth and who felt called to serve God in a specific way. Psalm 139 is a psalm attributed to King David who sees his life as something preordained from the moment of his conception. Jeremiah goes one step further by saying that he was known by God before he was even conceived. Neither one of these verses were intended to apply to all births or are in any way a definitive ruling on the concept that sentient life, the life of these who wrote these verses, begins at conception.
In David's case, the thought of formed to be knit together by God and to fearfully and wonderfully made is in reference to his becoming the King of Israel. For Jeremiah to say that before he was conceived, God knew him and was consecrated before his birth as a prophet is less exciting as it resulted in Jeremiah leading a life of misery and persecution and it is conceivable that there were times that he wished he hadn't been born.
For those of us living, we can arrogantly attribute the blessing of life the life we enjoy as God's plan for us and the world. But what of those who consider their lives a form of living hell, who are born into extreme poverty, hunger, homelessness, and vulnerable to violence in a multitude of form, who never wanted the life they are living and who wish they were never born?
Consider the story of Job who says in the Book of Job, "... why was I not buried like a stillborn child, like an infant that never sees the light? " (Job 3:16) The writer of the Book of Ecclesiastes writes, "A man may beget a hundred children, and live for many years; but however many are the days of his years, if he does not enjoy life’s good things, or has no burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he." (Ecclesiastes 6:3) These scriptures speak of the quality of one's life; that if happiness and joy are not a factor it were better to not be born than to have a life of misery.
Perhaps the most illustrative understanding of the pain associated with giving birth to a stillborn child is recorded in the Book of Numbers; in the story of Aaron and Miriam, the brother and sister of Moses who spoke against Moses for marrying a Cushite woman. As a result, God is said to have become angry with both and cursed (as is usual in a patriarchal setting) Miriam with leprosy. Aaron goes to Moses and pleads for her, "Oh, my lord, do not punish us for a sin that we have so foolishly committed. Do not let her be like one stillborn, whose flesh is half consumed when it comes out of its mother’s womb." (Numbers 12:11-12).
The horrible imagery of woman having to give birth to stillborn (dead) fetus which had started to decompose in the womb had to add to the trauma of giving birth to dead infant. What would a woman back then have given to be able to abort such fetus in those days if the means to do so was available like they are today?
Life, according to the scriptures, begins at birth when the infant left the womb. There are any number of verses in the Bible to substantiate that: "Yet it was you who took me from the womb; you kept me safe on my mother’s breast." (Psalm 22:9) and "Upon you I have leaned from my birth; it was you who took me from my mother’s womb. My praise is continually of you." (Psalm 71:6) Job's lament as noted above also demonstrates that he considered life beginning at birth. In scripture the life of an individual begins at birth, when life is viable outside of mother's womb. Up until that point the life taking shape in the woman was considered part and parcel of the woman; in that, the embryo and fetus are one with the woman until birth when the infant begins his or her life journey as an individual. We know that what effects a woman will effect the life forming in the woman's womb. Life "begins" at conception but a beginning cannot be equated as having a life until that beginning life reaches a stage where it can survive on its own and is not longer dependent nor a part or parcel of the mother's life.
As mentioned in my previous post, modern medical science is increasing the viability of a fetus living outside of a woman's body at a much earlier point in a pregnancy than in times past, but until viability is reached, the fetus is part and parcel of the mother who is carrying it and is dependent on her and is affecting every aspect of her life, just as every aspect of her life has an affect on the fetus' development. Whether a pregnant woman wants to be pregnant or wants the pregnancy she is experiencing is something she can choose and whether a given State where abortion becomes illegal will not afford her a legal choice, she retains the ability to choose, either by seeking a State that permits an abortion or reverting to back alley abortion procedures or home remedies for causing an abortion. As such the court's ruling in DOBBS served only to be an unnecessary moral obstacle that reveals an immoral objective to burden women who are choosing an abortion to prevent them doing so.
We live in a much different era where medical procedures are much safer. While the idea of ending a pregnancy may be repugnant to women and married couples who want children and choose to have children, there are situations where a woman or a married couple may wish to end a pregnancy that is unwanted for a variety of reasons.
* * *
I am a father of two beautiful daughters. My wife had difficult pregnancies with both girls and there was never a question in our minds about wanting those pregnancies to go full term. Her first pregnancy ended in the premature birth of our eldest daughter and we almost lost her due to the timing of her birth and numerous complications that occurred within the first couple of days of her new life. It was heart wrenching and the thought and possibility of losing her was more than either of us could bear. That things suddenly changed around was nothing short of a miracle.
My wife and I love children. My wife and my children are my life. Fortunately, my wife and I were not faced with the difficult decision other married couples sometimes face. I know that my wife's life was my first concern throughout each of these pregnancies and if her life would have been threatened because of being pregnant I would have saved her life even if it meant experiencing the pain of going through an abortion in order to do so.
The reason is simple. The love I have for my children directly proceeds from the love I have for my wife. They are a living testament of that love and they embody the love we have for each other and for them. We were advised to not have more children due to the risks pregnancy posed to my wife and we followed that advice and our lives are full with joy.
* * *
There are moral values that can be attached to literally everything we humans do, from choosing the food we eat to one's choice of sexual activity. Food and sex have become the control levers by which many religions keep adherents under their thumb. The decision to end the right of woman to choose an abortion falls under the category of the Supreme Court bending to such religious control lever have over the choices people make; the type of control issues Jesus defined as hypocrisy.
* * *
Until next time, stay faithful.
Norm
Norm
