It is difficult to discuss abortion because the conversation often shifts into a “right/wrong,” “my side/your side” argument.
This is generally hopeless because it forces us into a winner-loser scenario. If one must win, the other must lose. It is a game of attack and resistance.
I have been trying to come up with a different framework for discussing this issue, as well as any other controversial issue. I concluded that nobody is asking the right question. The question we should ask ourselves as a starting point of any discussion is: “What does kindness call me to do in this situation?”
That question applies, by the way, to both what is being discussed and to the discussion itself. It allows for discussions instead of arguments.
One place I get stuck in talking about abortion is that I don’t know how to be kind to people who say that life begins at conception. I suppose all one can do is say the truth as he sees it, without belittling the other. So here goes: Some arbitrarily say that life begins at conception. It does not.
The sperm and egg are not dead beforehand; they are alive. Two dead things did not come together to produce a live thing.
With abortion, others besides the embryo are involved – for instance, the mother! What does kindness call us to do toward a woman who is the victim of incest or rape, or for whom birth control didn’t work? Kindness doesn’t say: “Oh, too bad. You are stuck with it!”
My sarcastic side is now revved up: Men have controlled women’s bodies forever. We have said: “Oh, I did my little part for two or 10 minutes. Now, you carry on for nine months of gestation in your body, give birth, nurse the child from your body for a year, and take care of the child for 18 years.” It isn’t kind for men to do that!
It is also not kind for those not even involved to say: “We decide what an embryo is or isn’t. We will tell you what to do with your body and your life for the next nine months, or 18 years, whether you like it or not.” To me, this is unkind to do, even though I may be saying it in less than kind words.
Following the rules of a church or court, governed more or less by men forever, do not necessarily lead to kindness. The following two instances (which I have personal knowledge of) don’t involve abortion specifically, but both involve counseling of women by priests. In one instance, kindness was used, but not in the other.
One woman was married to an alcoholic and physically abusive husband, and she had one child. She asked her priest if it would be OK to not have any more children with this man. He said that the church required her to have as many children as she could. The question is: Did the priest act with kindness in this situation? She didn’t listen to him and eventually got divorced — which made her no longer a member of the church.
In the other situation, a married mother who had four children was frantically trying to raise them. She asked her priest if she must continue having children. He answered, “No, you don’t have to have any more children.” He looked into his heart, not into church teaching, and acted with kindness.
It takes courage to follow kindness. It sometimes also takes courage to follow the rules as well. But what if the rules and kindness are contradictory in a situation? Rules and beliefs change, but kindness doesn’t. Rules are made by men, mostly. Some men have been kind, some haven’t.
Churches and courts sometimes create arbitrary rules. For example, one day in my history, it was a sin to eat meat on Fridays. After a proclamation, on the next Friday, it wasn’t. Why? Simply because men in charge said so.
The difference between church beliefs and human beliefs is this: I do the first because men in charge say so, and I go along with them. I do the second because I say so. I am responsible for my actions. I am responsible for where I draw the lines of human kindness. Asking what kindness calls me to do right now is always the right starting point. Looking at the rules others, or even I, drew up in the past is useful, but it is not the ultimate question. Kindness is.
When more than one person is involved in a situation, kindness is required to all, not just to one. It is not “required.” It just seems like a good idea. You can’t make rules for all situations. However, my judgment as to what is kind is always in my power to decide at any moment. That is the criterion the Supreme Court should use as well.
Another fellow in the past made a statement about punishing a woman caught in adultery. It is the kindest I have ever heard: “Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone.”
I like it when kindness takes precedence over precedents!
Frank Sanitate
The author lives in Santa Barbara.
