COMMENTARY: The Abortion Impasse

c. 2000 Religion News Service (David P. Gushee is director of the Center for Christian Leadership and associate professor of Christian studies at Union University in Jackson, Tenn.) (UNDATED) This week marks the 27th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that established abortion on demand as a new right in American life. Sometimes it […]

c. 2000 Religion News Service

(David P. Gushee is director of the Center for Christian Leadership and associate professor of Christian studies at Union University in Jackson, Tenn.)

(UNDATED) This week marks the 27th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that established abortion on demand as a new right in American life.


Sometimes it seems there is little more to be said about abortion. We have been stuck at an uneasy cultural impasse for a quarter of a century now.

The impasse looks something like this: The basic right to abortion is now enshrined in difficult-to-overturn law; it is more readily available and more widely used than most Americans are comfortable with; but there is not broad support for the ban or near-ban on abortion sought by many activists. So the situation changes little from year to year, despite a constant tug of war between the staunch supporters and adamant opponents of legal abortion.

In a democracy, it ought to be possible to argue our way to a middle-ground position in which abortion would be restricted more than it is today but not eliminated.

A variety of options exist for reaching such a middle ground.

One could, for example, forbid abortions after the first trimester, or restrict permissible abortions to a limited number of cases (such as rape, incest and threat to the physical health of the mother), or ban certain procedures.

Along with these steps, gatekeeping measures that would have the impact of reducing the number of abortions could be used, such as imposing a 24-hour waiting period, requiring that information about fetal development and abortion alternatives be provided, and requiring parental notification and/or consent for minors. Many of these and other gatekeeping steps are already in place in various states, and their legitimacy was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1992.

Some opponents of legal abortion, Christian and non-Christian alike, are appalled at any approach to the abortion problem that falls short of an absolute or near-absolute ban. I share the moral passion driving this perspective. But we live in a democracy in which decisions are made by those in various branches of government who represent our entire, quite diverse population.

Groups and individuals very rarely get everything they want when they engage in the political process. We should aim high and fight doggedly for our convictions, but then be willing to take the best outcome available until the next round, when we come back to the struggle once again.


Ultimately we are dealing with a moral and spiritual problem. When the Supreme Court abolished nearly all state abortion restrictions, it went much further than most Americans desired at the time. But a powerful advocacy apparatus fought hard to consolidate the gains won with Roe v. Wade. By the time the opponents of legal abortion really got organized, the abortion license, as it is sometimes called, was deeply entrenched.

And it was entrenched not only in law but also in the culture, as abortion became a fundamental element of the”sexual revolution.”Once licensed to end our own unwanted pregnancies, we were loath to give up the privilege.

The fine Christian thinker Frederica Mathewes-Green once offered a statement about the abortion debate that has not been improved upon. She said supporters of legal abortion argued the fetus is not a baby, that abortion is good for women, and that our society cannot do without abortion. Now, she said, advances in prenatal technology make it almost impossible to deny the full humanity of the developing child, and the testimonies of a generation of women reveal that abortion has actually led to less freedom and more heartbreak. Two of the three pillars of the case for legal abortion have fallen.

But those who oppose abortion have not yet convinced society as a whole that we can do without it. That is the next step.

I continue to believe that one day we will see a sharp rollback of legal abortion in America, because it violates our most cherished constitutional and moral principles and in our national soul we know it.

DEA END GUSHEE

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!