Abortion post Roe: One deacon's take

With apologies to both my readers, I readily admit to posting this here instead of on another platform (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, etc.) because relatively few people read my blog or, I suspect, any blog these days. That is not a complaint. It is a statement of fact. I am okay with it. As I've shared before, I figured out pretty quickly during my early days of blogging that it was something I do as much for my own benefit as for anyone else's. The phrase I employ to describe this is that blogging is "a vehicle of growth" for me.

Another advantage of blogging, but a major reason why most blog posts aren't much read (the primary factor is that posts, including mine, aren't particularly well-written), is that blogging is typically long-form. This stands in contrast to the "hot take" tweets and Facebook memes posted by people who think by employing these they've solved late modernity's/late capitalism's most complex problems by some smart alecky statement. One of the worst abuses perpetrated by this degraded form of public engagement is that it creates caricatures of the opposition, even ones that may apply to some, and lumps everyone who disagrees into a single position.

While it is simple for the minority of people who inhabit the polar extremes of the ideological spectrum, the same people who tend to dominate social media- the people who specialize in providing content for doom scrolling and who love nothing more than posting the outrages o' the day- abortion remains somewhat complex for most people.

The reason for the complexity is the perceived need to balance the well-being of women with that of unborn children. The matter becomes infinitely more simple when one lets one side go slack and focuses on one or the other. By insisting both/and, you accept the inherent complexity therein implied.

In terms of the evolution of the anti-abortion movement, I think a recent article in The New Yorker, "We’re Not Going Back to the Time Before Roe. We’re Going Somewhere Worse," gets it quite right when it comes to the demographics of the anti-abortion movement:

Half a century ago, the anti-abortion movement was dominated by progressive, antiwar, pro-welfare Catholics. Today, the movement is conservative, evangelical, and absolutely single-minded, populated overwhelmingly by people who, although they may embrace foster care, adoption, and various forms of private ministry, show no interest in pushing for public, structural support for human life once it’s left the womb

This is disheartening in the extreme.

Given the above, it is still a mistake to think that there aren't still a lot of people, though far from the majority, who carry on in the original, more socially conscientious, mode when it comes to opposing abortion. In fact, I will lay my cards on the table and identify as one of those people.

This brings me to what I found to be a very meaningful blog post by Father Robert Hart, an Anglican priest, on The Continuum- "A Strange Fundamentalism." I have to say, as I get older, I appreciate it when somebody does the hard work for me. If you find the length of the post daunting, skip forward to the "Postscript" (I also urge you to read his section entitled "Science and Superstition").

The first thing I want to note is that we can't act like that which many argue can be aborted (tongue-in-cheek) is of no moral significance. This is, in effect, to simply let go of one side of what we should seek to hold in tension. Acknowledging the moral significance of the fetus/unborn child only gives us a common place from which to start. It doesn't commit anyone to a political position.

Like the common recognition in years past, even by the NRA, that firearms are deadly and need to be regulated, there was a time when such a common recognition was the case when it comes to abortion. Any argument, as Trump times have clearly shown, can only happen when there is a shared basis of agreement. Only then can we address the point of contention. This loops back to the tactics of the minority who inhabit the poles of our political spectrum.

Second, I could not agree more with Hart's assertion, to which I reference the observation from The New Yorker article, that due to its radicalization, the anti-abortion movement, which, by my reckoning, began in the mid-to-late 80s, has "actually lost ground in recent years," despite the empirical evidence largely supporting the claims of those opposed to abortion.

Third, Hart's observation that politically, due largely to the tactics of politicians, we lump causes together. This is a purely ideological move with disastrous consequences. This is where the whole issue of rights is short-circuited as they pertain to abortion.

Fourth, I've long argued that what ails us more than anything presently is our increasing collective inability to make important and sometimes very fine distinctions. It is the obliteration of important distinctions that "hot takes" and memes aim at. For the pro-life cause, the result of this is people who oppose abortion and who also oppose any and all social policies that make having children easier for women, like universal access to healthcare, etc. The same policies that, when in effect, have proven to significantly reduce abortions. In the recognition that it is impossible to stop abortion, especially when it remains legal and protected in a lot of states, it might be more effective to address demand, which is what the anti-abortion movement did at the height of its effectiveness and before it was swamped by radicals, than trying to eliminate supply.

As a fellow minister, which is to say a servant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I can only add a hearty "Amen" to Fr Hart's insistence

Whatever happens in the legal realm, our most important focus must be on preaching the Gospel, and “teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you (Matthew 28:20).” Laws made by legislatures come and go. Power structures do not endure. Congresses and Presidencies flip back and forth between party majorities. Probably, even the Supreme Court will flip between parties more and more in the future. It is unlikely that advances made in those venues will have anything even remotely resembling permanence. Roe vs. Wade has been overturned; but this does not place barriers between state lines. The battle we must win is the battle for persuasion, to change hearts and minds. This requires the truth, and it requires credibility.

There is something to the antipolitics of a genuine Christianity. This antipolitics is not a call for disengagement. It is a call for engagement while being wholly cognizant of the transitory nature of political power. We believe, live, and teach the Gospel irrespective of whatever political regime we happen to live under. In my view, the credible example of the Early Church remains our best touchstone.

It goes without saying (but I'll write it anyway), that presently opposition to abortion lacks credibility. The overturning of Roe, which is not the catastrophe some think it is nor the victory others crow about, may well be the nadir of pro-life credibility when it comes to abortion in the United States. Whenever Christians stand in opposition to something, we must ask ourselves, What comes after "No"?

I imagine many who worked and prayed for the day Roe would be overturned have begun to realize that it isn't quite the victory they imagined. At the risk of being overly self-refrential, I have long been critical of reducing what it means to be pro-life to opposing abortion. I see opposition to abortion as a necessary but insufficient component of being truly pro-life. Beyond that, I have been highly critical of reducing opposition to abortion to the overturning of Roe for the reasons that are now very apparent.

As always, I offer my views for whatever they're worth. As my Integrity Notes indicate, I opine for nothing or no one apart from myself.