A New Conversation on Abortion

In Wednesday's presidential debate, the first steps were taken toward a new national conversation about abortion. For too many years, the old one hadn't changed very much. It came up every four years during elections and seldom in between. The Republicans repeated that they think abortion should just be completely illegal; and the Democrats repeated their only mantra of a "woman's right to choose." And the number of abortions remained mostly unchanged.

"Pro-life" battled "pro-choice" when neither party was really either one. Those positions were more like postures, and they didn't lead to solutions. What if "pro-life" really meant policies that would protect the precious gift of life wherever it is threatened and aim at dramatically reducing the number of abortions in America? And what if "pro-choice" meant extending the range of real choices available to women -- not only to terminate a pregnancy, but also to make the decision to have a child with the necessary economic support, health care, and adoption services?

Last evening, both Barack Obama and John McCain took steps toward finding some possible common ground.

Both said that they would not use Roe v. Wade as a litmus test for appointing Supreme Court Justices in the future.

And both suggested some cultural commitments and policy directions that could be most effective in dramatically reducing abortion. Last night's debate got that conversation started.

Barack Obama said:

I think that abortion is a very difficult issue, and it is a moral issue and one that I think good people on both sides can disagree on.... This is an issue that -- look, it divides us. And in some ways, it may be difficult to -- to reconcile the two views. But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, "We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby." Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation. We should try to reduce these circumstances.

Then John McCain said:

We have to change the culture of America. Those of us who are proudly pro-life understand that. And it's got to be courage and compassion that we show to a young woman who's facing this terribly difficult decision. ... But that does not mean that we will cease to protect the rights of the unborn. Of course, we have to come together. Of course, we have to work together, and, of course, it's vital that we do so and help these young women who are facing such a difficult decision, with a compassion, that we'll help them with the adoptive services, with the courage to bring that child into this world and we'll help take care of it.

There are indeed profound moral issues involved in the decisions to have or not to have an abortion, and most Americans believe that. Most also believe the abortion rate in America is far too high but are hesitant to completely deny the difficult choice to have one.

Abortion reduction is the clear common ground that could unite the pro-choice and pro-life polarities and bring us together to find some real solutions and finally see some results. John McCain and Barack Obama last evening opened up the possibility of finding some new common ground in reducing abortions, reflecting the 2008 Democratic and Republican platforms. There is also now some movement in the Congress with pro-life and pro-choice members looking for common ground solutions for reducing the number of abortions that are proven to work. New and compelling studies make the clear connection between abortion and poverty, with fully three-fourths of the women who have abortions saying that they just couldn't afford to have the child. It will be a great day when both poverty reduction and abortion reduction become non-partisan issues and bipartisan causes.

Life is precious. John McCain believes that, Barack Obama believes that, Sarah Palin believes that, and so does Joe Biden. In fact, I'm not sure I have ever met a person who believes otherwise.

Freedom is fundamental. John McCain believes that, Barack Obama believes that, Sarah Palin believes that, and so does Joe Biden. Again, I'm not sure I have ever met a person who believes otherwise.

Americans are for life. Americans are for choice. The challenge for our political leaders, our religious leaders, and every American is to hold freedom and life together even when they seem to collide. We should do all we can to make sure we have as much of both as possible. And we can start by having a better conversation about abortion in this election and beyond. Thankfully, the first steps toward that conversation were taken last evening.

Jim Wallis is the author of The Great Awakening, Editor-in-Chief of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com.

Click here to get e-mail updates from Jim Wallis

Comments

[Philly Gadfly]

McCain's position that he would not have a litmus test for a potential supreme court nominee based on Roe vs. Wade is inconsistent with his claim that he will favor strict constructionist judges. Stict constructionists will reject the notion that the constitution grants a right to privacy. If you reject the notion of a right to privacy, you will reject the basis for the Rove vs. Wade decision. In effect, he has a litmus test in mind even if he says that he doesn't.

[LizM]

That was extremely well said...sums up the debate in a nutshell.

[maryhaze]

unless & until every single anti-choice person has take every single child out of the adoptive & foster care system, they have no damn say in anything at any time on any level! quit spawning & start adopting! & by the way the kids will not look like you & they will (more than likely) have physical & mental issues. but hey, that's the life, right??? i've got two adopted & a foster & my oldest adopted has some major learning problems. the birth mother was on drugs, my son has 3 possible sperm donors all of which are in jail. she was 19 & this was her 3rd kid. frankly, i'd much rather see her abort than have any more.

[kcolumbusgirl]

John McCain also stated that anyone who believed in Roe v Wade being the right decision would be unqualified to be appointed...

That says a lot about his willingness to "reach across the aisle", does it not?

[TheAlchemist]

Once a pro-life gentleman advised me I was "pro-abortion."

I was astonished.

I don't actually know anyone who is "pro-abortion," although I am aware that in a nation where abortion is safe and legal one natural consequence is that some pregnant women will have safe and legal abortions.

I would never think of referring to someone who is pro-life as "pro-knitting needles," although one natural consequence of making abortion illegal is that some pregnant women will render themselves infertile or die of hemorrhage or sepsis as a result of their approach to ending an intolerable pregnancy. Where is Jung's Transcendant Function when we need it?

While John McCain referred to himself as one among a group of proudly pro-life people, his voice tone betrayed him. There is nothing pro-life about war. There is nothing pro-life about the death penalty. His use of the term pro-abortion demonstrates either contempt or ignorance or both.

[emjay1954]

Isn't it odd that none--not a single one--of the major anti-choice organizations is pro birth control?

These people aren't against abortion as much as they're against sex.

[TheAlchemist]

Interesting study: What's the birth rate among this group?

[libwingoflibwing]

Two systematic changes that would reduce the need for abortion:

1) Men being as responsible for parenting their children as women.

2) An end to our cultural rejection of infants and children in the workplace with their parents.

I can't wait for the day that seeing a lawyer arguing his or her case in court with a baby in a babypack is normal, or a playpen next to the office worker's desk, or a play area in the factory with a monitor.

Until we have a total consciousness change like that, how about these more achievable changes:

1) free public pre-school
2) required parential leave for sick children
3) full health care for all children
4) higher minimum wage
5) free afterschool and beforeschool programs
6) infant daycare subsidies for working parentings
7) Fair Trade and tariffs to restore American Industry and good jobs for working people
-the Employee Free Trade Act so we can restore unions so #7 can happen

[Pippilangstrumpf]

Sorry...I meant to write "Pro-abortion", not 'pre'

[Pippilangstrumpf]

During the last debate, when McCain used the phrase "pre-abortion" it almost sent me through the roof.

I just can't stand the way they twist words around to serve their agenda. Nobody is pro-abortion.
Pro-choice is something completely different. And they know it, which is why this sends me over the edge.

Do they think that women are just sitting around feeling bored and decide to go out and have unprotected sex just so they can go out and kill a fetus the next day? It's just ludicrous and McCain knows it. They all know it. They're pandering to the lowest common denominator and I hope it backfires on them come election day.

[Dave24]

The fetus is inside a woman's body. It is inside, her body. No one has the right, especially the government, to dictate what she can or cannot do with her own flesh. If there is any guilt, it falls squarely on her (and the relevant partner's) shoulders and no one else's.

Everyone needs to mind their own business, and those who think like James Dobson need to "focus" on their own damn family.

[sdskelton03]

Dave, you've made a great argument against mandatory child support.

[Rimser]

Wrong -- the basic premise is if you play, you pay. Maybe if "men" thought through the consequences of unprotected sex, we would have fewer unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

[Dave24]

I think your comment is a bit of a non sequitur. I believe strongly that men must be responsible, at least monetarily, with the well-being of their children; so if my comment supports the opposite, that wasn't my intention.

My point was to say that the ultimate decision on whether the child is born (or, rather, whether the cells are allowed to develop) belongs solely to the mother. She has veto power, precisely because it's her body.

If she decides to keep it, the man has to be responsible: that kid is composed of both their DNA.

[texanna]

When will men get it -- you all do not have the right to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies. Why is there never a conversation about controlling the ability to father children? I think we all know the answer to that question. I think that any "new conversation" about reproductive rights has to include those of men as well as women. Until that time, my body is not a subject for any conversation except the one I have with my doctor.

[Oregon Ivy]

No uterus, no opinion

[sdskelton03]

It is absurd to opine that just under half the people should have no say in how we value life in our society.

[texanna]

You can value life all you want to sdsketono3, you just can't tell women what to do with their bodies in order for them to conform to your opinions.

[Dap]

Rationalizations, the art of persuasion, how to be reasonably, unreasonable.

[clevelandchick]

Mr. Wallis,

When John McCain used the sarcastic air quotes referring to women's health exceptions I was profoundly dismayed. That's why this is a private agonizing choice a woman discusses with her doctor, husband or maybe even a spiritual mentor but not her Senator or the government.

There are many instances where a pregnancy goes wrong and the mother's health and life are at risk. Not every pregnancy is viable and it's frightening when a candidate for president mocks these conditions or implies they do not exist.

I agree with the connection of abortion to income level. One candidate plans on giving the richest among us huge tax breaks and the other plans on giving every else one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

Yes, all of the candidates are for life and for freedom. But the two willing to address the financial component of abortion are Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The Democratic platform on abortion has always been: rare, safe and legal. It's getting the other side to agree that the mother's life matters too that's been the problem.