This morning – March 13, 2010 – on the way to work, I made my routine stop at a local gas station for coffee. Just like every other day, I walked into the store, stopped by the newspaper stand, and intended to read the headlines without making a purchase as usual. While reading the front page of the paper this morning I broke my habit and actually purchased a copy.
On the front page the title in bold font – “House Passes Abortion Ultrasound Bill” – caught my attention. Even though I’ve been keeping up with this issue and wanted to know the details of this decision, it wasn’t the actual decision that made me purchase the paper. It was the words of Delegate Bonnie Brown, D-Kanawha, which struck my attention and persuaded me beyond frugality.
In response to the passage of this bill, Delegate Brown quipped, “I cannot accept legislation that punishes, is patronizing, is insulting and is offensive.” She goes on to say, “Any kind of legislation that tells women that we are too stupid to make up our own minds and to make our own decisions, I can never support.”
I thought to myself, “Hmm, does this bill really imply all that Delegate Brown retorted? Is the passage of this bill actually an insult to women and a limitation of choice, because women are stu, stu, stupid?”
As the wheels in my head slowly turned without the lubrication of my second cup of coffee, all that came to mind was this, “Um, no.”
One of the foundational pillars in the abortion debate revolves around a woman’s right rather or not to follow-through with their pregnancy or abort their unborn child. This side of the debate is readily known as the Prochoice Movement.
Since I’ve spoken on the role of Government Legislators elsewhere, I will ignore the fact that Delegate Brown’s role is to represent the people of her district under the authority of God, then the Constitution. Not her own self-interest and agenda. Since the vast majority of WV Constituents overwhelming oppose abortion, I wonder exactly who Delegate Brown is representing? Less I regress, you get the point.
What I want to focus on today are these two points:
- What does it mean to choose?
- Do we – as individuals – have the right to freely choose as we will?
I believe that understanding these two points goes a long way into better understanding such comments as made by Delegate Brown and other proponents of abortion.
What does it mean to choose?
In the Encarta Dictionary on my computer, the verb “choose” is defined as:
Decide from among range of options (to decide which of a number of different things or people is best or most appropriate); and, to make a deliberate decision to do something.
For instance, this morning I was presented with a slew of “choices.” As my wife’s cell phone rang – which serves as our alarm clock – at 5:30 A.M., I had a choice to get up or to continue to lie in bed. After getting out of bed and slothfully shuffling my feet to the kitchen, I had a handful of options for breakfast: cereal, oatmeal, fruit, eggs, and a bagel. I could continue to go on and on but I will spare you the monotony of my day thus far.
Each and every single day we are presented with countless choices. Some of the choices we make are deliberate and reasoned through, while others are unplanned and carelessly made. What is more, even if we choose not to choose we are making a deliberate choice not to choose (Potentially confusing, eh?).
If a choice is considered a deliberate decision from a range of options to do something, how free are we to choose any option?
What does it mean to freely choose?
Considering all of the options that we are presented with day in and day out, can we make any choice that we desire? Do we – as individuals – have the right to freely choose as we will? The answer to both of these questions is, “Yes.” However, numerous choices are deemed socially unacceptable and many others are deemed illegal. The former may result in social ostracization, whereas the latter will result in legal prosecution.
Potentially socially ostracizing choices
Some people will have a hard-time grasping this, but it is still socially unacceptable to pick my nose or express different “bodily functions” at the dinner table in most cases in WV. Though these choices will not lead to legal prosecution, they may very well lead to people’s disfavor of me because I chose to do these acts in front of them.
Illegal decisions that we can make
Steve Monsma provided a short list of choices that we as individuals or groups do not have the legal right to make:
Whether or not to dispose of highly toxic chemicals in an unsafe manner, whether or not to take personal vengeance on someone who has stolen from us, even whether or not to play ear-splitting music at 1 a.m. in a quiet residential neighborhood (118).
Mr. Monsma goes on to explain why such choices by individuals and groups are not to be made:
These actions are not simply matters of individual choice. Why? Because they affect others. They interfere with the health, safety, or convenience of others (118).
Once our actions move beyond the realm of affecting ourselves and into the realm of impacting others health, safety, and/or convenience, then our ability to “freely choose” is be diminished.
There are times that I may eat something that upsets my stomach, but this does not give me the right to do as I will at the dinner table. If we choose to speed on the interstate or drink and drive, then we are not only putting our life at risk, but we are putting the health and safety of others at risk as well. This is why certain actions must be deemed illegal and enforced by the government so that we do not have anarchy caused by people doing “as they will.”
Since the choice to have an abortion moves beyond the individual sphere and into affecting the life of another, then, “The same principle applies to a woman contemplating ending a pregnancy by way of an abortion (ibid., 118.).”
With this we are led to conclude a new definition of prochoice
Choices: Pursuing the good of others, not ourselves
Today, our Western liberal individualism is captured best in the influential words of John Stuart Mill, who said in 1859,
The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to attain it (On Liberty).
The contemporary prochoice movement vociferously promotes a woman’s right to choose the pursuit of her own good in her own way. Even at the expense of aborting her unborn child and depriving their life by never allowing them to live it.
As observed earlier, if our choices negatively impact the life of others, then there are legal and societal consequences. Instead of promoting a freedom of choice that is centered on one’s own good, it is imperative that we consider a new definition of the freedom of choice.
Richard Bauckham provides an excellent definition of the freedom of choice in parallel to John Stuart Mills. He states that,
The only freedom that deserves the name is that of freely pursuing the good of others, not by depriving them of liberty, but by promoting their liberty (God and the Crisis of Freedom, pg. 20)
Instead of pursuing our own good in our own way, let each of us strive to pursue the good of others by promoting their liberty – especially the liberty and freedom of the unborn.
I am for those that strive to pursue the good of others by not neglecting them of their liberty, but rather promoting their liberty.
Such a notion of choice falls under the envelope of the First and Second Greatest Commandment: Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind; and love your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 22.34-40).
How this works out in practice was best clarified by the Apostle Paul, who said, “Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Phil. 2.3-4). Such self-sacrificial love was Truthfully demonstrated in the birth, life, suffering, and death of Jesus Christ (Phil. 2.5-11).
With this there is still one important question to answer that is all too often neglected, “What if a woman is experiencing a crisis or unplanned pregnancy?”
What if a woman is facing a crisis or unplanned pregnancy?
Since we are to go all-out and pursue the good of those that may be experiencing a crisis or unplanned pregnancy, then our pursuit of their good begins at home in our communities, not in the political process. The lives of the unborn are not only precious in the sight of God, but so too is the life of those that are experiencing a crisis or unplanned pregnancy.
I believe there are two ways that we can look to support women in these situations.
Two ways we can support women facing a crisis or unplanned pregnancy
First, we should look to support them during their pregnancy by providing acceptance, love, and encouragement, not disapproval, hatred, and discouragement which may all to often be done within the Christian community.
This type of support necessitates that we are not only aware of those in our community in this situation, but that we make ourselves available to them. Not only should this be done on a personal level, but pregnancy centers, churches, and the government should be involved in providing counseling and alternatives to abortion as well.
Second, for women who choose to follow-through with the pregnancy with the prospect of facing financial difficulties calls for the action of individuals, families, communities, pregnancy centers, churches, and the government to financially support and train these women in their parental efforts, or the choice of giving the child up for adoption.
For those of us that are prolife, I fear that many of us – including myself – are merely so in word, not deed. This comes as a shot across-the-bow as we juxtapose our position and practice with these words from James,
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is bead (James 2.14-17).
As Christians we are made right with God through faith alone, but not by faith that is alone. True repentant faith in Jesus Christ is preceded by a radical, internal change that gives us new desires to live, love, and please God (2 Cor. 5.17; Rom. 6.11).
Our love for God is not defined by our prayer life or Scriptural memorization. Our love for God is defined by our love for people (1 John 4.7-21).
Some Final Thoughts
Merely providing women with the option of seeing an ultrasound before an abortion procedure is neither deeming of women nor inhibitive of choice. As in the words of House Minority Leader Tim Armstead, R-Kanawha, this piece of legislation is about empowering people to make choices, not limiting them.
Enjoy this post? Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.
Consider sharing this post
