discipled living

The challenge presented in the debate, which has become a war posting loss of life on both sides is establishing a common moral or philosophical ground upon which the divergent views can meet.

Many believe that the issue of abortion is neatly split along Faith vs. Secular lines. Not so, there are adamant faith based supporters of “Reproductive Justice” which advocate for women’s rights to determine for themselves when they have children.

The Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, President, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, in an interview with the Pew Research Group said,

We must ensure a woman can determine when and whether to have children according to her own conscience and religious beliefs and without governmental interference or coercion. We must also ensure that women have the resources to have a healthy, safe pregnancy, if that is their decision, and that women and families have the resources to raise a child with security.

Based in Washington, D.C., the coalition advocates for reproductive choice and religious freedom on behalf of about 40 religious groups and organizations.

Rev. Veazey says that he is neither pro-abortion nor is he pro-choice. He further asserts that there are differing views about the moment of life, citing the Roman Catholic doctrine that life begins at conception and that Judaism teaches that it begins when the first breath is drawn.

Sorting out the issues between the Faith stances on abortion and pro-life present unique challenges as each is predicated upon the differing camp’s unique interpretation of the Bible.

Can the interpretation of the reference Scriptures be refuted to the degree that a believer can advocate for abortion? Is the issue different from the interpretation of Scripture? Rev. Veazey says that

“...the religious, pro-choice position is based on respect for human life, including potential life and existing life.

But I do not believe that life as we know it starts at conception. I am troubled by the implications of a fetus having legal rights because that could pit the fetus against the woman carrying the fetus; for example, if the woman needed a medical procedure, the law could require the fetus to be considered separately and equally.”

Can the issue be reduced to a battle of the rights of the unborn over against the rights of the mother? The Impasse created by the existential tug of war may never be resolved.