I Agree With Shane Raynor . . .
that The United Methodist Church needs to be careful not to become a pro-choice advocacy group. As someone who refuses to identify himself as either "pro-life" or "pro-choice," I like The Book of Discipline's somewhat ambiguous non-stance on abortion:
Considering the above statement, The United Methodist Church's presence at pro-choice rallies and affiliation with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) make me very nervous, particularly given the beliefs of many of the people in the pews. (I should note, however, that our involvement with the RCRC is the result of a resolution passed by a General Conference.) Personally, I feel that abortion should remain legal, and I have no problem with the church affirming that abortion is justified in some circumstances. However, the church needs also to affirm that abortion is not an acceptable means of birth control, acknowledge that too many pregnancies end in abortion, and make a serious effort to reduce abortions.
Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection.
Considering the above statement, The United Methodist Church's presence at pro-choice rallies and affiliation with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) make me very nervous, particularly given the beliefs of many of the people in the pews. (I should note, however, that our involvement with the RCRC is the result of a resolution passed by a General Conference.) Personally, I feel that abortion should remain legal, and I have no problem with the church affirming that abortion is justified in some circumstances. However, the church needs also to affirm that abortion is not an acceptable means of birth control, acknowledge that too many pregnancies end in abortion, and make a serious effort to reduce abortions.
posted by Tinley | 8:48 PM
1 Comments:
Hi Josh,
I'm building up my list of Methodist bloggers, especially ones with a connection to Vanderbilt and Nashville so I checked your site out. Nice site!
I also followed along with your post concerning Shane Raynors article on abortion and the GBCS and RCRC, etc.
I was a part of that discussion and hope that I contributed greatly to a deeper understanding of the issue. I read Ciona's post with great appreciation in what she acknowledges. However, unlike her, I do believe that the Church must dirty itself up by becoming intimately familiar with the men and women affected by abortion after the fact. That would be the support group method that she refers to. There would be several reasons for doing this. 1) we need to know the reality of the various circumstances that women face when choosing abortion. 2) We need to know how men and women are affected by this choice over the long term. 3) We need to know if women who choose to terminate a life for the sake of their own life have fulfilled the reason for the sacrifice. That last point is a predicate for our Church's position on abortion. If we cannot test that then we risk dehumanizing ourselves. We are far more searching in evaluating are actions in other areas of life than we are in regards to abortion. Our concern for the act usually stops once it has been completed and we show limited concern for the mother and no concern for anyone else that it affects. That is a classic sweeping under the rug of collective conscience.
I think Ciona and I agree about the need to create a more open and loving atmosphere that surrounds the parents involved in pregnancy and the possibility of abortion. The extreme condemnation and judgement for merely considering the procedure helps no one. Nor does the blind encouragement to abort nor the lack of accountability to the parents of those we might encourage to abort. Simply saying we allow them the freedom to be messy with their lives is wreckless stewardship. We must be more upfront with them about how negatively abortion often affects those who choose it. We must affirm life to the last minute by pledging our support to choose life. We must assure the parents that we will always love them even though we do not always approve of their choices. And in those rare cases where an abortion may be an ethical and morally justified choice we should console them for their loss yet assure them of their integrity.
The passive approach promoted by the GBCS does encourage abortion because it does not encourage the choice of life above all other concerns - save the most extreme threat to the mother. That reality is something that can only be understood within the intimate context of women facing that choice and a knowledge of their mates involvement. The truth is that in the absence of great encouragement and support a mother facing uncertainty about her pregnancy will seek out the easiest short term solution to her problem. We fail both the mothers and fathers when we do not offer strength and moral courage to support life in the midst of their personal crisis. We must help them to see the great opportunity the unexpected challenge pregnancy presents them with. That opportunity is no less than the chance to experience the creative process of God in all its glory - a gift that all loving parents know to be true. And we must not paint such a negative picture of their sacrifices of school, career, and other dreams they had before. Pregnancy doesn't destroy those dreams, it merely reshapes them in a way that extends the person beyond their own simple-self concerns.
Post a Comment
<< Home