|
VOW |
by Marie Bowen Director, Presbyterians Pro-Life Sylvia Thorson-Smith would like women in the PC(USA) to redefine the term ‘pro-choice.’ Writing in the May/June 2006 Horizons magazine (“What Does Pro-Choice Really Mean?”), she rejects the definition of ‘pro-choice’ in Webster’s dictionary--“favoring the legalization of abortion” and says it now describes “those who support the right of women to make decisions about the full range of options regarding their reproductive lives.” By “full range of options” she means including abortion. So, what is the difference? None. Why bother to try to re-define “pro-choice”? Maybe Thorson-Smith realizes the pro-choice movement has an image problem. Abortion is an ugly word and in today’s information rich society we are graphically acquainted with what it really means. It is not so popular to align oneself with a woman’s right to choose abortion in 2006 as it was in the 70s or 80s. Young adult women whose missing peers and siblings have been aborted by the millions have a different view of life within the womb than the “women’s lib” advocates of the 1970s. The new generation has had the benefit of the knowledge of modern science and medicine and the technology of 3-D ultrasound and they acknowledge that life begins at fertilization. They learned it in elementary school! They are not confused about when “ensoulment” or “personhood” takes place—they understand that a genetically unique person is created when the sperm meets the ovum. So, in order to continue to promulgate a now indefensible policy on abortion in the church, those who are “pro-choice” want to redefine the terms. It’s an understandable self-preservation tactic, but it’s not honest. The issue is still whether or not abortion is morally acceptable for Christian women! Abortion takes a human life—every time—a life created, planned and purposed by God and for whom Christ died. Women may choose abortion. Women choose abortion every day, but no advocacy effort can make it right to do so and that truth is more difficult to defend every passing year. Thorson-Smith makes a point of the 30 years that the PC(USA) has held a ‘pro-choice’ (according to Webster) policy and advocated strenuously for abortion rights. She conveniently ignores the 100 years from 1869 to 1970 when the church viewed abortion as “a crime against God and against nature” (1869) and understood that “the fetus is a human life to be protected by the criminal law from the moment when the ovum is fertilized” (1962). The article ends with a discussion of the principles that Thorson-Smith sees as being the heart of the pro-choice position. She makes an effort to distract us from what we all know is meant by ‘pro-choice’ or ‘reproductive rights’ or ‘full range of reproductive options.’ First she states that pro-choice advocates are committed to “redressing the historic oppression of women”. What she hopes to accomplish is to broaden the base of support by convincing her readers that what ‘pro-choice’ women are about is freedom and equality for all women. Secondly, the article claims that pro-choice is not the opposite of pro-life. Yet, every abortion takes a life. Over 40 million lives have been lost in America because women have chosen abortion over the last 33 years. Third Thorson-Smith states that abortion is a morally faithful option, ‘in certain conditions.’ Does she mean that our circumstances change God’s principles? “Morally faithful” means trusting God, being faith full in tough circumstances obeying God’s principles even when it costs us something to do so. “Pro-choice and right to choose do not mean “pro-abortion”,” Thorson-Smith says. Her words may express something she wishes were true, but the reality is that in America and in the PC(USA) most people understand ‘pro-choice’ to mean someone who defends the right of a woman to abort a child. This article reveals that even those who have invested 30 years in pro-choice advocacy know that abortion is an ugly thing with which to be identified. If ‘pro-choice’ women are tired of defending abortion they can choose to stop. I would rejoice in that. But, let’s be honest about what we mean and choose definitions that mean what we mean---not that will win us the most support. Let’s speak the truth about our differences and let women choose with whom they wish to be indentified.
|