Last night the Supreme Court refused to block Texas’s abortion bill (USAToday). This is not the court’s final ruling — the decision was on minutia — still the law will go into effect while legal challenges proceed.
As my newsfeed fills up, my personal opinion is in support of “heartbeat laws”. It makes logical sense, as we use heartbeat to determine the end of life. And in faith, I steadfastly believe the womb holds a baby, not a fetus. A person created in the image of God. (As to how the law will be implemented… 1)
Knowing my stance a stranger can imagine the rest of my views. But they would be surprised to learn my prolife stance extends past the womb! I steadfastly believe we should expand benefits. A new mom should not have to worry about hospital bills nor how she will feed this little life. For my family diapers and formula weren’t worries — essentials should not be a worry for anyone.
You may disagree with my opinions. But I hope you notice my core point. A person who is anti-abortion, most likely also wants lower taxes, deregulation, gun rights…. but if they are pro welfare, anti-death penalty, worried about climate change, then they are probably pro-abortion. Disparate issues – somehow united. Imagine seeing these issues for the first time — spread out like Jenga blocks on a table. We would all build a different stack. But somehow they stack into two (sometimes illogical) boxes? This is only possible because we have made politics a pattern for our beliefs.
I doubt any of us start out fitting into right or left boxes. We are passionate about a few issues, which lead to a party. As we gravitate toward one side or the other, we start to listen to one side. We start to trust one side. Soon we find ourselves slowly molding into one side’s box on all issues.
But does anyone honestly believe one political party holds all morality?!
So I want to propose another way to define our politics. Not another political party. But a way that does not see politics as a pattern for life. Instead a way that is truly pro-life. A way that seeks full life and THEN defines politics around that life.
“I have come that you may have life, and have it to the full” (Jn 10:10). This life, the Full life of Jesus, is our pattern. For every part of life… Jesus models our relationships. Jesus determines our ethics. Jesus guides our finances…. Rather than, I’m Republican or I’m Democrat, what does the party say… we listen to God. We allow Jesus to define our politics.
1 — On how this law will be enforced — I have no idea if it is constitutional. But empowering an individual to sue anyone they suspect is involved in an abortion… seems ludicrous. An invitation for frivolous lawsuits. The linked article stated the law was written to be difficult to overturn in court. But it certainly wasn’t written to serve the community. With neighbors suing neighbors, it will only further divides communities.
2 thoughts on “Another Way”
Few things –
1. Why do you think that your opinion on abortion is relevant? You are a man, so why does your input matter when it comes to a medical procedure on a woman’s body? Do you think it’s okay to control all women?
2. I certainly don’t think most people believe that one party holds all morality, but there’s certainly one side that holds more than the other. If basic human rights for everyone (not just white cis men) are a radical view, I’m not sure we’re playing on an equal moral ground.
3. Your proposal to separate church and state is a great idea…if only.
4. The term pro-abortion is misleading and outdated. No one is planning abortions for fun, but there are plenty of people (myself included) who believe that it should be the woman’s choice to make for herself. I think the term you’re looking for is pro-choice.
Hi! Glad you read and replied. My core point was that neither political party should define our beliefs. I am not sure we were able to agree on that point. But I very much support your desire for basic human rights for everyone. This includes women, whom I hope to always empower into leadership (as demonstrated by the many women leaders in our church – who have spoken from the pulpit). But your biggest concern seems to be my stance on abortion. I did use the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion, because I think the terms pro-choice and pro-life are advertising gimmicks. Pro-Life only seems to be pro-life in the womb (a point I tried to make in the blog). Pro-choice is only pro-choice for the woman, not what is in the womb. — And that begs the fundamental question, what is in the womb?? If a human life-which I believe-then it should have basic human rights. If just a mass of cells-which, I think, you believe-then it can be removed without concern. — Now this question comes with nuance. When does life begin? At conception, at heartbeat, at viability for life, at birth? — We may always end up at different places on this question. But it is a very important ethical question. One, I believe, that should not be decided by politics. And that is point of my blog, I hope we might agree on that. But if not, I am still very glad you read. Enjoy your day.