History has many surprises. Things that we take for granted today were not always taken for granted. Contraception became CONSTITUTIONAL for MARRIED COUPLES on June 6, 1965 through the SCOTUS decision in Griswold v. Connecticut rejecting a Connecticut law criminalizing the provision of counseling and medical treatment to married persons for the purpose of preventing pregnancy. So when legislation that would restrict access to BC is proposed, this action confronts a right that has not even been recognized for 50 years. Returning to the time of prohibition would then not be going back that many years.
After all of the fire and smoke back in February 2011 surrounding the facebook postings about the Mother Jones web article (it was about a news article) that I copied to facebook, where a GOP Representative was trying to redefine rape and what insurance can cover, I think is appropriate to address in more detail SOME of the issues raised and to attempt to dissipate the fog of debate.
My opening anti-GOP critical ploy was intended to set the stage for recognizing the inequity that such legislative action would entail with a rape victim by victimizing her once again. My ploy evoked this response which I did not even notice till later in the week. Crystal 'Erickson' Egland commented: “I didn't know you were pro-choice.” I have never thought of my position as pro-choice, especially taken in the sense of being pro-gun, pro for-profit health insurance, or pro free trade. To be clear I do not think the medical procedure of abortion should ever be chosen as a birth control method. This is a very uninformed and expensive substitute for the various contraceptives currently available on the market. Instead I hold a position that 70% of Americans would follow. This procedure should be chosen as a last resort in a very limited range of concerns where the life of a mother is threatened by a pregnancy, rape, incest, or when VERY substantial birth defects are identified and expected, such as the fetus is missing a brain. Thus I would view myself as pro-life not pro “innocent” life, since I personally have serious doubts about the ethical legitimacy of executions, police actions, wars, and other acts of state violence where the lives of living, breathing human beings are taken. Such are done without my approval. I would oppose spending my tax funds for such activities. How many died in the invasion of Iraq predicated on false claims but potentially great profits?
As far as scriptural teaching, abortion must be categorized as a “conscience question” (see I Cor. 8-10, Rom. 14-15) since it is not identified specifically within any of the sin lists or torah codes. Moral discussion about this or any other non-addressed act must be the product of reasoned theological extrapolation of relevant texts. Most and many debates within the Christian community involve heated discussion where all too often the parties assume that they promote “the one and only Christian” position when by contrast the apostle taught these concerns are really a matter of conscience. This is true even when some Christian communions and denominations promote the dogma that abortion is a sin. Such traditional claims still cannot really supplant the actual scriptural lack of evidence.
There were other comments in the chain that I would identify as logically questionable but this is all that I want to address now. Some others I might take up later.