It can be argued that those with opposing views perceive access to abortion as a “blessing.” The justifications for this position vary considerably, but the underlying assumption that underlies this perspective for those with religious beliefs is that if God has bestowed upon us the gift of free will, it is our responsibility to exercise it. If, in exercising this, it results in the demise of one of His creations, He is then perceived as a God of grace. Furthermore, it is perceived as a “blessing.”
This leads us to consider the publication The Christian Century. The publication has consistently espoused liberal views, and its modest motto is “Thoughtful, Independent, Progressive.”
Annelisa Burns conducted an interview with Katey Zeh, the CEO of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC). The RCRC is described as a multifaith organisation that advocates for safe and legal abortion access, provides spiritual companionship through abortions, trains faith leaders and activists, and more.
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), formerly self-designated as the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR), has been the subject of several previous articles in this publication. In a previous statement, Pastor Paul Stallworth suggested that the purpose of the RCRC/RCAR is to provide religious justification for abortion on demand.
In an interview in which the subject was abortion access, Zeh presents a perspective that can be described as “seeing abortion access as a blessing.” How does Zeh square this circle? It is unnecessary to do so. It is a given that abortion access is a “blessing,” and we do not spend a great deal of time questioning whether God has an issue with abortion.
Burns then poses the question of what the RCRC does.
A lot of things. We bless abortion clinics. We work with faith leaders, giving them the language and understanding to become advocates in their own communities. We train a new generation of activists and have a whole programme for students. We’re also training people who have regular physical contact with people who have abortions, like abortion doulas, how to be there when people have spiritual questions about what’s going on, so they can do that work without going to seminary.
Zeh employs a plethora of buzzwords, including “intersectionality,” “reproductive justice,” and “liberation.” However, the discussion then proceeds to address the question of why so many people assume an opposition between Christianity and abortion. Her response, imbued with political rhetoric, provides insight into the nuances of the subject matter.
White Christian nationalists deliberately put abortion at the top of the political agenda in order to bring people together – people who would otherwise not agree – to vote. They’ve put forward a dominant narrative about Christianity and abortion: that they are antithetical, that to be a true Christian is to vote a certain way and hold this particular belief. And that has won them many elections. We’re all subject to this narrative – no matter what tradition we come from or what our personal beliefs are – that ‘Christians are anti-abortion’. But we know that statistically that’s not true. The majority of people of faith in the US, including Catholics, identify as pro-choice.
It is irrelevant that the dominant narrative has been in existence for approximately two thousand years.
As the pro-life movement became involved in the fight for life, the stereotype was that it was composed largely of Catholics. Over time, the movement became more ecumenical, due in part to the influence of individuals such as Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and theologian Francis Schaeffer.
Furthermore, Professor Daniel Williams introduced an additional layer of complexity. In his book Defenders of the Unborn, In his essays, Prof. Daniel Williams highlighted the portrayal of the pro-life movement as a Catholic cause by the media. However, by 1972, this stereotype had already become outdated. Furthermore, by that same point in time, the reform of abortion had largely stalled. Williams posited that the pro-life movement’s success was due to its utilisation of language associated with human rights, civil rights, and the value of human life.
It would be inaccurate to describe the individual in question as a “white nationalist”.
There are numerous other probing questions posed by The Christian Century to Zeh, yet she fails to provide satisfactory responses. In response to Burns’s question, “Is there a theological argument for being pro-choice?”, Zeh responds as follows:
The mysteries of when life begins and ends and what it means are ancient and timeless. These are the questions of what it means to be human. I think there’s a lot of hubris in being so clear about when life begins or what it means. These are beautiful mysteries that we really don’t have the answers to. In the Christian texts, people will point to things, but in reality there’s nothing specific about abortion or foetal life at all.
Zeh then proceeds to cite the ultimate authority for Christians, namely Jesus. The figure of Jesus is invoked.
As a person of faith, there is nothing unclear in the scriptures about the call to care for my neighbour – to be compassionate. Jesus cared for the person in front of him who was oppressed by state-sanctioned rules that did not honour his humanity. Jesus asked what they needed and centred them, rather than following rules that might’ve limited what he could do for them in terms of healing.
Which of course begs the question. Is caring for the unborn and that mother and passing laws that give her a chance to breathe before she makes a life and death decision, an example of “state-sanctioned rules that did not honor their humanity”?
There is a lot more to the interview including this dozy:
When I get caught up in the abstract, I think about all the people I met there, and the people who have told me their abortion stories since, and I understand that abortion is not abstract. It happens in the context of a real person’s life.
It is understandable that she is able to inform Burns that she has never experienced the internal conflict that he describes. It is therefore unclear why she would do so. The unborn child is not even a topic of discussion.
Zen ultimately reaches the following conclusion.
I talk about abortion as a blessing. People have told me that it saved their lives or was a catalyst for change.
A catalyst for change. One might be forgiven for questioning whether such a sentiment is appropriate to express to the unborn child.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
