I have received some excellent questions related to my last Blog on abortion. They invite immediate further explanation of my position on this controversial subject.
One question that came to me directly from a good friend was whether I meant to say the Roe v. Wade decision was a major victory for “freedom” rather a victory for “morality.” The answer is no, I meant “morality.” The reason is because moral principles and standards are sustainable only when those who promote them use persuasion rather than coercion. Having a law that says abortion is illegal is a form of coercion. The government is forcing women to carry a pregnancy against their will. In the long run this will not convince women that abortion is wrong. Morality cannot be legislated even though the church has tried in one form or another to do it for centuries. My view is that the state should avoid making the same mistake.
The second question had to do with where the Bible says life begins at birth. I have already answered this good question through my Blog comment you can read for yourself. The main point of that comment, though, is the fact that the Bible doesn’t speak directly to the issue of abortion at all. Any use of scripture to support a position one way or another is an interpretation of texts. Therefore, anyone who says “the Bible says this or that” when it comes to abortion (and many other controversial subjects) is being disingenuous or downright dishonest.
But a further point is this. What the Bible says or doesn’t say about abortion (and those other controversial subjects) is not binding on American law. It may be instructive, but it is not a moral imperative the law must incorporate. We do not live in a theocratic state. Individuals have the freedom to believe what they want to, but that does not grant them the right to impose on everyone else moral beliefs rooted in their religious tradition. This is something Christians have found difficult to accept throughout history, but that is a topic for another day.
But let’s consider the full implications of eliminating women’s freedom of choice when it comes to their own bodies. If this is not a basic right guaranteed by the Constitution, then it would stand to reason that men don’t have this right either. As they say, what is good for the goose is good for the gander (sorry about that). Thus, the state could rightly pass a law requiring men to undergo a prostate exam before having a vasectomy. Indeed, relying on Catholic teaching regarding artificial birth control, the state could make vasectomies illegal altogether. This will not happen, of course, because men and women would vehemently object on the basis that it would represent an invasion of privacy and an unacceptable intrusion of government into their personal lives.
And that is precisely the point when it comes to abortion. Rejecting any restriction on the freedom of women to choose to have or not to have an abortion is to acknowledge the right of both women and men to control decisions about their own bodies (and no one else’s!). In the process it preserves the role of morality in influencing those decisions. In the long run a woman’s right to choose is a freedom precious to all of us for the simple reason that it doesn’t allow me to tell you how to live your life when I don’t have to live with the consequences my decision might impose on you. That is better for you and for me. Moreover, it is the morally right thing to do.
linnposts.com 
Deeply personal, anguishing!
Fundamentally balancing potential life with actual life. A fetus inside a mother!
Deep contemplation, reflection, projection by most mothers…and fathers is involved!
Decision reflect both the individual and the collective! Are both in a position to nurture?
Are society and biology in sync?
Is the mother’s well-being, at all levels, in jeopardy by not aborting?
Ultimately, the choice is a verticle one, between the Creator and Created!
I find it most interesting that so few have left comments about this sensative and important subject. I think this is indicative of its difficulty for most and how it is so very personal.
I very much agree with your points here. However, I think the problem with persuasion vs coersion is akin to views on evolution vs creation. Both evolution and persuasion require patience to allow either a natural or reasoned unfolding. Many minds lack the capacity or intuition for this approach, especially when some quick answer seems correct and decomes codified in belief and doesn’t have to be thought about any longer. Hence, the chaotic tug-o-war between differing arguments. PATIENCE – an agelong human struggle!
Bob, I have been curious about the same thing. I was expecting many responses. My guess is you are right on when you say this is a difficult subkect for most people. That is precisely why I raised it. Unless we discuss it, we will continue to rehash old arguments as a nation without making any progress toward resolution. I plan to leave it there a few more days before writing anything else to see if the dam will break and comments will flow.
Some people find it so easy to just say yes, no, like, dislike, as in voting or social media responses that they don’t have to provide reasons. This reinforces lazy habits or shallow thinking. In depth thought and conversation will lead to solutions approaching deeper truth.