For more than thirty years, the abortion issue has polarized America. Not since the slavery issue have we been so resolutely divided over a human rights issue.
Like the slavery debates of the 19th Century, churches are weighing in on the issue and activists, both individually and as groups, identify their stance with their beliefs. Now, their opponents cannot separate their religion from their position. In fact, many of them cannot make the distinction themselves.
Abortion opponents have thus set themselves up for easy defeat. In a society that has been lectured on “Separation of Church and State” all one must do to undermine the pro-life movement is point out that not everyone share the same religious views. They’ve built the straw man for abortion supporters, and for over 30 years pro-abortion activists and politicians have been happy to burn the effigy. The abortion debate has been characterized as one of differing religious values, instead of human rights.
The religious nature of the debate has been actively cultivated by an anti-abortion movement that has endured internal strife over religious positions. When Vasu Murti, an active member of PETA, the ACLU and Feminists for Life wrote his book, The Liberal Case Against Abortion, the Christian magazine Touchstone published a scathing review saying that his views and efforts “do not help the unborn,” because his book was a call to animal rights activists to join in the fight for unborn humans, and vice versa. The reviewer expected Murti to change his own views on other issues before joining the cause, rather than celebrating the diversity of creeds among those who oppose abortion. For them, opposing abortion was something Christians did, not leftist vegetarians.
This is not to say that religious organizations should be kept out of the debate. As in all social issues, religious leaders should, as they have throughout history, influence social and political attitudes to conform to a vision of a world that betters humanity. However, individual citizens and organizations devoted to a political or social cause should use common ground, in this case reason-based arguments, instead of quoting scriptures and citing religious authority to make their point. They also should not be limiting membership in their ranks to those who hold certain religious beliefs.
It would seem more expedient to oppose the practice of abortion as a united front, instead of trying to convert those of differing religious backgrounds before letting them join forces. So long as the pro-life movement remains fixed on religious motives, they will continue to isolate allies and provide ammunition to those who oppose them in the public and political arenas.
That, I can say with certainty, is no help to the unborn.
Comments