Summary

The article calls for a middle ground in the abortion debate, emphasizing the need for compromise and respect for diverse beliefs amidst growing division and extremism in the United States.

Abstract

The author of the article expresses concern over the increasing polarization surrounding the abortion issue, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. The piece criticizes both Republicans and Democrats for exacerbating the divide and failing to find a moderate solution that respects the rights and beliefs of all citizens. The author suggests that the country's diversity necessitates a compromise, such as the one proposed in the Collins-Murkowski bill, which would have codified Roe's protections up to the point of fetal viability. The article also touches on the importance of not legislating morality and instead focusing on setting a positive example within the community. It underscores that rights come with responsibilities and that the art of being free involves respecting others' freedoms as well.

Opinions

The author is dismayed by the extreme positions taken by both sides of the abortion debate and believes that these positions contribute to division and hostility.
The article suggests that President Biden's response to the Supreme Court's decision did not adequately represent the entire country and contributed to stoking division rather than calming it.
The author sees the Supreme Court's decision to return the issue of abortion to the states as a return to constitutional principles rather than an outright removal of a constitutional right.
The author views the Collins-Murkowski bill as a reasonable middle ground that was unfairly dismissed by Senator Chuck Schumer in favor of a more expansive bill that was unlikely to pass.
The piece argues that extremists on both sides of the abortion debate are not serving their cause well, as they ignore or dismiss the validity of opposing beliefs.
The author, identifying as a Christian, personally opposes abortion but recognizes the importance of women's freedom to make their own choices and acknowledges the diversity of beliefs on the matter.
The article quotes Andy Stanley, who encourages Christians to focus on winning hearts and minds through example rather than through political legislation or force.
It is emphasized that legislation of morality is not effective and that the early Christians focused on action rather than legal change.
The author advises progressives to consider the rights of the unborn while acknowledging that most rights are balanced against the rights of others.
The author concludes that both unborn babies and pregnant women matter and that finding a middle ground is essential for progress, even if it is not perfect.

We Need a Middle Ground on Abortion, and We Need it Fast

The country is getting uglier, and our politicians could do something

Most Americans want the same things in life; safety from crime, good health care, an opportunity to earn a living and get ahead, and the freedom to make our own decisions.

We have more in common than the issues that separate us.

But the extremes on both sides are vocal and radical, and our lawmakers are gravitating to those extremes. Extremism and division stir up hostility, cement party loyalty, and raise money.

Andy Stanley says in his new book, Not In It To Win It, “The sad truth is, the fear fueling our division has been created, cultivated, and stoked by those who benefit from it. Fear is profitable.”

Both Sides Stir Division

I’m dismayed at both sides of the Roe Versus Wade debate. Extreme Republicans, rather than taking a victory, have already started talking about passing laws to keep women from crossing state lines to get an abortion.

What are they going to do, set up checkpoints for women heading to another state, or question them when they get back? I thought it was silly when women mentioned deleting apps that might record their menstrual cycles, but now I think it’s smart.

Democrats aren’t off the hook, either. They are playing politics and stoking division.

Riots are getting ugly and protestors are growing more aggressive. A wise leader, with the good of the country at heart, would have calmed tempers instead of fanning the flames of division.

But President Biden, who is supposed to represent the entire country, said, “Today the Supreme Court of the United States expressly took away a constitutional right from the American people that it had already recognized.” He went on to add that “the health and life of women in this nation are now at risk.”

Yet that’s not true. Roe v. Wade did not make abortion illegal. The Supreme Court tossed the issue back to the states, where, according to our Constitution, it belongs. If our elected members of Congress want something more uniform than a patchwork quilt of varying state laws, they can pass a federal law.

But Senator Chuck Schumer dismissed a bill by Republican Senators Collins and Murkowski that would have codified Roe into law. Instead, he pushed a much more expansive bill that he knew did not have enough support to pass.

The Collins-Murkowski bill was middle ground. It would have allowed abortion up to viability. But this wasn’t good enough for extremists who insist on all or nothing.

We can’t have everything we want. In a diverse and free country almost evenly divided between two political parties, we frequently have to meet in the middle.

Will this satisfy everyone? No. Will it allow us to move forward in a civil manner? Yes.

“We must learn to live together as brothers and sisters or perish together as fools.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

Extremists who claim “A fetus can’t feel pain,” and “We need to be free to have sex as often as men and not be forced to have a baby” aren’t doing their cause any good. They are disregarding those who believe abortion kills a baby.

Extremists on the other side who say, “Life starts at conception” and “A morning after pill is the same as abortion” aren’t doing their cause any good, either. They are forcing religious values on others who don’t believe as they do.

I am against having an abortion myself, because, as a Christian, I believe each life is precious, even before birth. But I also recognize that not everyone feels this way. I also believe women should have the freedom to determine the course of their own lives.

My husband was an atheist when we married, and he didn’t believe a baby was a living, sentient being until after it was born. It never crossed his mind that a fetus still in utero had the right to life. He changed his mind after he became a Christian, but because of his genuine earlier beliefs and his concern for women’s rights, he is pro-choice to the degree that Roe v. Wade allowed abortion.

Most Americans believe in abortion during the first trimester. The majority, according to polls, don’t believe in abortion late in the pregnancy unless there are exraordinary circumstances.

In most European countries, abortion is allowed through the first 12–14 weeks. Yet the Supreme Court case that led to the overturn of Roe V. Wade began with objections to a Texas law that would have allowed abortion up to 15 weeks. To many, the Texas bill isn’t radical. It falls in line with what other countries are doing. But to some, it is far too limiting.

Too many arguments, both for and against abortion, ignore or dismiss the validity of beliefs on both sides.

Pro-choice people dismiss the concerns and emotions of those who believe abortion is killing a baby.

Pro-life people dismiss the valid needs, concerns, anguish, health and well-being of the pregnant woman.

A middle of the road approach considers both sides. Will this approach satisfy everyone? No. But we are a culturally diverse nation that demands some compromise if we are to continue as a nation.

To the Religious Right

We cannot legislate morality. The early Christians did not try to change the laws of Rome that allowed parents to discard unwanted children. Instead, those Christians rescued unwanted, abandoned babies and raised them as their own.

Rather than legislate our beliefs, we should adhere to our own values while trying to win the hearts and minds of those who don’t believe as we do.

Andy Stanley said, “We choose to stand with Jesus in the messy middle, where problems are solved, rather than capitulate to divisive, broad-brush political talking points.”

He doesn’t mean that Christians should compromise their faith. What he’s saying in his book is that Christians should focus on the Great Commission of Jesus, which is to win the hearts and minds of people through the example we set in our own lives.

In Corinthians 5:12, Paul said, “I’m not responsible for what the outsiders do, but don’t we have the responsibility for those within our community of believers? God decides on the outsiders, but we need to decide when our brothers and sisters are out of line and, if necessary, clean house.”

In other words, it isn’t our business to judge those outside the church. We vote. We state our truth. We live our truth. But we don’t insist on forcing our truth on others.

To the Progressives

We cannot disregard the fact that a pregnant woman carries a separate human being, and most of the time some choice was involved. Women who scream that abortion is an unfettered right without constraints are not considering that most rights are on a continuum. Our personal rights are calibrated by considering the rights of others.

“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” Nelson Mandela

Rights come with responsibilities.

“Nothing is more wonderful than the art of being free, but nothing is harder to learn than how to use that freedom.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville

Unborn babies matter. Pregnant women matter.

When we realize that both these statements are true, maybe we can compromise on a place in the middle. It won’t be perfect. Nothing this side of heaven is. But it will be progress.