The issue of abortion in this election has created an agonizing dilemma for many Christians. A number of our readers have written us to express their anguish over it and to encourage us to deal more directly with the problem in Sojourners.
We, too, have struggled with the political and moral dilemma of abortion in this election campaign. We find no easy answers or clear choices, only difficult questions. Our readers have sensitized us further, as they often do, to the depth of these questions.
At Sojourners we hold the conviction that abortion is morally wrong; we believe abortion to be a great social evil that must be abolished. We attempt to take a consistent pro-life stance that regards all lives as precious and seeks to defend life everywhere and anywhere it is threatened, either by weapons of war, abortion clinics, electric chairs, or the specter of poverty.
We do not yet have a clear or satisfying position on the complicated question of abortion legislation. While we are not "pro-choice," we find the anti-abortion legislation currently offered to be quite offensive in its obvious biases against women and the poor. We are searching for a way out of the political and legal impasse in which we now find ourselves, and that makes the abortion question especially difficult as a focused election issue. An alternative is desperately needed, and we are ready to work with other frustrated, pro-life people to try to find one.
The following is a guest editorial from one of our readers and friends who has helped us with this struggle. It is a heartfelt statement of the dilemma that many of our readers feel and that we share. It expresses well the difficult position that many of us face. We offer it as part of the continuing dialog we believe is necessary if we all are to find better answers to such a deeply felt moral problem. —The Editors
Abortion has become an explosive and divisive issue in this year's presidential campaign, as well as in countless congressional races. For many, abortion is emerging as the key issue in the campaign. It has become widely discussed as each candidate attempts to outdo the other on the basis of compassion, personal freedom, personal morality, and religious belief.
For those of us who strive to make connections between the violence of our foreign policy, the violence toward the poor in our neighborhoods, and the violence of abortion, it is a familiar and disheartening manipulation of the issue. And, once again, in our attempt to be faithful to the Lord of Life, in our attempt to "choose life," we are on the outside. We are unwanted by both sides in the debate, and our prayers and our cries have no place of legitimacy in mainstream American politics.
Our hearts are with our "progressive" friends on most issues. We work together for peace in Central America. We work together for an end to the arms race. We work together in an attempt to empower those who have no power. We work together to meet the needs of the poor and destitute.
Yet when the subject of abortion comes up, our shared energies and values come to an awkward and embarrassing halt. Our friends tell us that they are personally opposed to abortion, but they do not feel they have the right to tell others what to do. And then they cite all the arguments: the suffering of women who have illegal abortions, the discrimination against poor women epitomized by the Human Life amendments, the lack of alternatives for unwed mothers, etc.
However, I think those of us who try to make the connections, those of us who try to be consistently pro-life, understand these arguments. Many of us, because of the circles in which we work, used to be similarly pro-choice, or at least pro-life with strings attached. We care for women faced with bad choices and few alternatives. We are sensitive to the plight of poor women. We know that pro-life forces, especially in Congress, are often blatantly anti-women, anti-poor, and in the end, anti-life.
We know all of this because, as Christians and as feminists, we care deeply about the quality of life for women, especially poor women. But with the question of abortion, in the end, we feel that we must advocate for the person whose very existence, not just their quality of life, is at stake. We must advocate for the life that is within the womb.
So, we are on the outside. Pro-lifers don't like us because we push them to embrace a consistent pro-life ethic. Our friends in the justice and peace movement don't like us because we make them uncomfortable with our anti-abortion talk.
The presidential campaign forces us to focus on this. We have no clear choice. Neither candidate is genuinely pro-life. Neither comes close. A Mondale presidency offers an end to the violence in Nicaragua, some limited hope for the poor, and some even more limited hope for an end to further escalation of the arms race. But it also offers a continuation of the slaughter of innocents. A Reagan presidency offers invasions of countries that are not friendly to our interests, an escalating arms race that threatens the human race, and pro-life rhetoric that stops caring for the child as soon as she or he is born, by cutting nutritional programs, child care for low-income mothers who are trying to get job training, financial aid for low and middle-income students, and much more.
The issue is clouded even further by the fact that Reagan's commitment against abortion has been, so far, more symbolic than substantive. Even many of his critics on the right complain that he has never really put the might of the presidency behind anti-abortion legislation. And to complicate things more, if Reagan were successful against the pro-abortion majority in the polls and the Congress, his anti-abortion legislation would come with a whole social agenda that would, in all likelihood, be reprehensible to many of us.
So, what are we to do on November 6? It is estimated that last year 1.4 million lives were aborted. At least one and a half million children never got their chance for life. For those of us committed to a pro-life ethic, this is a violence of immense proportions. Phrases like "slaughter of innocents" are consciously chosen, not to convey emotionalism, but to convey the depth of anguish that pro-lifers feel when faced with such callous disregard for life.
To vote for either party in this election is to seriously compromise some aspect of our pro-life stance. Yet not voting is in essence a vote for Reagan and his war on the poor and the Third World. In the end we must all seek God's spirit for counsel and ask for forgiveness for our part in a world that leaves us with choices such as these.
Bill Weld-Wallis was a member of Church of the Messiah in Detroit, worked with Jesuit Volunteer Corps, and was active in the Detroit Peace Community when this article appeared.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!