I've got to preface this post with an experience I had this week. I love my family very much, and I consider all of my sibling dear, dear friends. They are also all very intelligent with the older two being a teacher and a doctor respectively. And they are all quite liberal leaning. My poor step-dad is the only Republican in my immediate family, and he bears that cross remarkably well.
I was chatting with one of my sisters about my plan to address abortion in my next blog post. An hour and a half later, I hung up the phone worried. If my sister, a very intelligent, liberal, independent woman has a hard time accepting my view on abortion, how will someone who doesn't love me no matter how annoying I can get and who is less left-leaning than my sister take this blog post? I introduce this topic with this preface because I know there are very well-meaning people with very different views about the issue of abortion and those views are often extremely passionately felt. I also need to be transparent in saying that I am a single man, so I obviously have't had, what I would imagine would be an incredible experience, the experience of having children nor have I held my own new born baby in my arms. I don't know how that experience might change my view on this issue. For better or for worse, we all live in the reality we have built for ourselves based on the context through which we view the world. This is my view as a single, 31 year-old LDS male. Take it for what it's worth.
There's something about the good 'ole days that people tend to talk about when they are reclining on their couches after eating a large Sunday dinner. The "good 'ole days" so labelled were when supposedly traditional values were kept and believed in. When young women and men still courted prior to marriage, where the family was the focus of society, where people prayed in public, including kids in schools--stay tuned for a blog post coming soon--and overall, life was better. Enter the upheaval of the 60's that ripped those traditional values apart and paved the way to today's godless, irreverent society.
I could go on for some time explaining how the good 'ole days weren't nearly as good as these rosy-tinted depictions like to convey them. I guess it was a decent time for Caucasian, middle-class, Christain men. It certainly wasn't all peaches and cream for people from minority backgrounds. People with moderate to severe disabilities were often sent to special institution, those with psychological disorders were sent to asylums, people of color were horribly marginalized and often violently oppressed, and women, who had kept America afloat during the Second World War found that the roles they had stepped up to fulfill were being given to men. There are several very well researched books which document the targeted marketing that took place to convince women to relinquish the roles they had filled very well while men were fighting in the War.
I don't claim to be an historian, however. I simply outline the history to juxtapose it against the unfair and false reality some folks like to create before they explain how bad things are now. In calling attention to the fact that things weren't perfect way back when, I don't mean to say that everything is necessarily better now or that society has just always been bad so we should just accept that. I just believe that things are more complex than that.
And my goodness, am I glad that we've progressed as a Nation. It wasn't until 1967, within the past 50 years, that an African American man could officially, nation-wide, legally marry a Caucasian woman. It wasn't until 1968 that most of the rights given to Native peoples were sanctioned and officially enforced by Congress. And yes, women have continued to get closer to equality in terms of professional and family roles within that same 50 year timeline, which is something that has proved to be of immeasurable value to our country today. The landmark case, Roe v. Wade, struck down all state laws that had previously made abortion illegal. There were many reasons for this ruling, but one reason I'm thankful for the ruling is that with abortion made legal, abortions could then be performed in sanitary clinics instead of the wide spectrum of settings were women previously resorted to conduct them.
So abortion is a very available option today. There are groups advocating strongly for and against its future. There's a lot of debate on when a fetus becomes human: is it right at the time of conception? Is it once the heart starts beating or when the brain is more developed or when fetuses develop fingernails or eyes that can be distinguished in ultrasounds or any range of asserted weeks or trimesters of the pregnancies? These questions are considered in depth in the insightful web article found here. One thing I know for certain is that abortion kills living cells regardless of when they become truly "human" cells, and I'm a vegetarian specifically because I don't like the thought of my choices hurting a living thing. I carry out ants when they find their way into my house rather than killing them, for goodness sake! So the thought of ending those living cells' lives bothers me for moral reasons. However, in most cases, I prefer it when government stays away from moral issues.
The phrase separation of Church and State gets thrown around with cheers or shouts of disdain. There have been supreme court justices who are divided on this issue, so that means that my meager understanding of legal processes do not make me an authority on the matter, but being a man of faith myself, I am so grateful that I live in a country where there is at least an attempted separation between religious belief and politics. In doing so, the United States is not belittling religious fervor nor is it endorsing it. Political leaders should not be asked to decide what God wants His children to do. At least not in our country. Freedom of religious expression means that we need to allow that which we personally consider holy AND that which we consider profane to be practiced as long as that practice does not take away others chance to life or liberty. What a horrible thing it would be if a large caucus of radical fundamentalist Christians took control of Congress and declared that Christianity is the only religion that would be tolerated in our country and therefore only Christain values would be allowed. By giving room for all beliefs to be given space in the public square, it makes it so that all religious beliefs are safe from persecution. All we have to do to see what happens when the government dictates and defines morality would be to look at Spain during the Inquisition or England during the Reformation or Russia under Stalin's dictatorship.
I think Jesus Christ actually said it best. “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's” (Matthew 22:21). It's not the government's place to tell a woman that a fetus is a child of God therefore must be carried to full term anymore than it is it's place to tell the country that citizens shouldn't watch rated R movies or get addicted to caffeine because some people in Congress might believe that that's a commandment from God. One of the greatest things about the American experiment is that no one way of believing is necessarily "right" in the government's eyes meant exactly so that no one person's beliefs are marginalized. In so doing, all of our healthy expressions of religious belief or non-belief can be expressed safely and free of governmental attack or interference.
Bottom line, people can teach families and religions, like my own, can preach that abortion is wrong and, at the same time, a woman can choose to end a pregnancy and both beliefs and actions are protected. The place where I think the government should focus is incentivizing wise decision making. I've always agreed with President Clinton's statement that "abortion should be rare but should be legal and safe" (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton, 1995). Given the current reality, my Mormon faith can and should teach that abortions should only happen under extreme circumstances such as rape or incest given the fact that that is the doctrine it teaches, and, at the same time, it should, and it does, give me free reign to vote my conscience when it comes to political matters. I can vote for a pro-choice candidate if she/he possesses qualities, skills, and other attributes I find appealing because I can trust that my belief system will still be protected, my membership in my faith will remain intact.
There are no perfect candidates anyway. In fact, I always find it extremely suspect when I see candidates trying to project an "I'm everything for everybody" campaign because it makes me worried that: 1) the candidate really doesn't have convictions just a desire to win the office or 2) the candidate is just doing whatever it'll take to get into office and then once in, she/he will do whatever she/he wants. I personally don't find either very appealing.
So let me pull out of the weeds and end with a philosophy I have found to be very helpful when it comes to complex issues like these. I don't have all the answers. The experts on prenatal development are not certain of when human life begins. There are many other stances that qualify or disqualify a candidate's privilege of receiving my vote. And I like looking at each candidate as holistically as I possibly can. While I can understand, to some degree, one's decision to not vote for a candidate merely based on their stance on abortion, I feel doing so is actually cheapening our incredibly valuable right to vote. Hearing that a candidate is pro-choice often leads to many Mormons blacklisting her/him before they know much of anything else. This is dangerous because the opposite then holds true: I grew up in Utah where getting the Republican party stamp of approval is almost a surefire way into office. And that's why you get politicians who approve of the State taking over National Parks and National Forests and proposing the Great Salt Lake be drained. Democracy requires more vigilance than that.
So when things are uncertain, and when the issue is not at the core of why I believe what I believe, I put it on the shelf as a thing I need to go back to periodically, revisit it and reevaluate it based on whatever new information I might have gained in the interim, and, if it is resolved and I feel peace with my view, that's wonderful, but if not, I put it back on the shelf. The act of shelving an issue does not mean for me that the issue doesn't matter or warrant attention. It means that I don't have all the answers but I'm going to continue to live my life the best way I know how given what I know at the present time with the hope that, over time, I'll gain greater insight and more information that will help me make an even more informed decision in the future. Until then, I feel comfortable with my somewhat left of center view on abortion and being a Mormon.
