Pro-Choice Christian

My wife was doing some research recently when she stumbled upon a blog entry arguing that there was nothing contradictory about being a pro-life Democrat. Reading the entry, I realized that the blogger's argument required courage - given that he was writing to people who probably disagreed with him. That made me admire him.

One thing I've learned in my life is that whenever we find ourselves admiring someone, its a good idea to look inward and ask if we should emulate them. In my case, the answer was both obvious and topically related - I am a pro-choice Christian. Some of you knew this. Some of you didn't. Some (most?) of you find this incomprehensible. Some of you understand. But regardless of what anyone else thinks, its true.

So, I've decided to dedicate several upcoming posts to a defense of my position - and perhaps stimulate some debate.

But first things first. In any discussion of abortion and/or abortion rights, it is crucial to draw distinctions regarding what is being discussed and what is not. There are, after all, constitutional, legal, and moral questions that tend to become intractably conflated in such discussions. Additionally, the terms used in abortion discussions are often vaguely defined, if they are defined at all.

So, let me begin with my first two definitions:

Pro-choice: The view that abortion should be legal;

Pro-life: The view that abortion should be illegal/criminal.

Many people in the pro-life community will complain that these definitions are too narrow. They'll complain that "pro-life" represents a moral/spiritual outlook as well as an opinion about what the law should be. I'm sure this is right - that pro-lifers are arguing from a moral/spiritual perspective (as are pro-choicers, by the way). However, for purposes of clarity, its critically important to use terms precisely - and there is a significant difference between being morally opposed to abortion (which I call being "anti-abortion") and wanting it to be illegal. This is because there are a variety of moral arguments offered against the morality of abortion, and it is possible to accept (and be persuaded by) some of those arguments but not others. It is also possible to conclude that the persuasive arguments do not justify a legal prohibition on abortion. (Trust me on this for now if that claim seems incomprehensible to you - I'll demonstrate what I have in mind shortly).

These two definitions get right to the heart of the legal issue without inviting confusion about the variety of related moral arguments. If someone thinks abortion should be a legally available option, irrespective of (or even contrary to) their moral sentiments, they are pro-choice. And if "pro-life" is to identify the opposite view, it has to identify one's opinion about what the law should be.

Moral arguments are critically important elements of this discussiion, and I intend to cover them. However, if we're confused about what the central terms of the debate mean, discussion won't get very far.

So, in all future uses by me, "pro-life" and "pro-lifer" will mean opposition to (or an opponent of) legal abortion. "Pro-choice" will mean support for legal abortions. Nothing more or less.

More later.

Joe H.