In this article, Douglas Kmiec discusses the difficulties of reversing Roe v. Wade and solidifying a pro-life stance in
I can’t help but connect this post to King’s essay “Letter from Birmingham City Jail”, in which he states that “there are just and unjust laws… ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’” Being relatively religious, I understand that God’s laws hold the utmost importance for many in the religious community. In the face of the opposition (pro-choice supporters), God’s creed holds much more power of influence. Additionally, realizing that the situation parallels that of the successful Civil Rights movement gives it even more power. Kimiec’s proposal to give the unborn fetus rights is one that is hard pressed, but if successful, would effectively shut down the efforts of pro-choice supporters. I can’t think of anything that would silence the pro-life supporters in the same manner.
I know that abortion is a delicate subject, and I actually am not partial to either side of the debate, but I can’t really imagine pro-choice winning out in the end. For many, this is a Civil Rights issue, and in the face of that, it seems as though religious supporters of pro-life will never back down even with legislation allowing abortions, as their duty towards God’s law overrides their duty to human laws that they find unjust.
Posts
2 comments:
I agree with your thought that it's hard to imagine pro-ife winning out in the end. Abortion is often seen as a black and white issue when in fact there is much gray area in the fields of social acceptance, healthcare, poverty, family planning and many others.
Kmiec discusses criminal punishment; on whom will the burden fall? Will we prosecute women who decide to get abortions- many of whom will be single monthers and can't afford to support the child, or shall we criminalize doctors and abortion clinics that are only secondary aids in the process?
If pro-life churches believe they have a calling to promote life and restrict abortion as much as possible, if not abolish it, what is their best strategy? It would take something more nuanced. Perhaps churches should reach out to prevent the causes of abortion rather than the political issue itself, which is very contentious and could hurt the religious cause rather than help it. When two opposing sides are on such far ends of the the spectrum, arguments can become rash as well; weakening themselves by being emotionally fueled rather than having a strategy that makes sense to both sides.
The church can still use its moral arguments in the political realm but if it targets them towards the social welfare of single mothers and family planning, it may have a stronger chance than trying to put ammendments for the unborn fetus in the constitution, criminalize women, or try to reverse Roe v Wade.
I think this was a well-done post with a fascinating historical connection, though I question the ease with which we can draw a line between "God's law" and "human law". As with almost any political position, there are metaphysical and theological cases being made on both sides of the abortion debate; the question is really a matter of competing theologies more so than one of religious values versus secular (viz. non-religious) values. When it comes down to a matter of the motivating power of "God's creed", advocates on both sides can feel that they have divine sanction to uphold one value (e.g. gender equality, individual choice) over another (e.g. unborn human life). God's law may be definite and unitary, but its interpretations are legion and thus advocates on both sides who claim religious or metaphysical justification are unlikely to "back down" anytime soon. Without relativizing the contents of the debate, it's important to note that both pro-life and pro-choice rallies feature signs, the song "We Shall Overcome", and attempts at religious justification.
Post a Comment