"Seeking Common Ground”

A sermon by Dave Weissbard

delivered at

The Unitarian Universalist Church

Rockford, Illinois

This is the assignment given me by Pete Anderson, the successful bidder in our service auction for the right to choose a sermon topic:

Of all the issues that consume the time, energy and passion of the American public, none is more controversial or divisive than that of abortion. The country seems to be divided into two camps, each angrily dismissive of the other side with no seeming ability to reach out to the other, as if any effort to do so would weaken ‘the cause’ and allow the other to dominate with its core beliefs and agenda. The lines are clearly drawn and no middle ground seems possible. Such a continuing state of animosity is harmful to the nation and there are precious few efforts on the horizon with the aim of bringing understanding and agreement to the situation.

The word ‘compromise’ must seem to be a betrayal to each side, but that is what is needed if there is ever any hope of reaching common ground. I am well aware that such a task would be monumental, but I truly believe that it should be attempted, with the understanding that here will always be those who can never see any good in what the other side believes.

I present two principles that are key, in my opinion, to such understanding, with a realization of how ‘loaded’ these tenets are:

How then could anyone reconcile these two positions? Only with efforts of understanding and a willingness to compromise: a very difficult proposition indeed. To do so proponents would have to consider some secondary tenets on both sides.

There is a sacredness of life within the womb, yet the degree of development of the fetus should play a factor in any woman’s decision about her pregnancy. Pro-life people should acknowledge that ending a pregnancy at day-one after conception is much different from, say, day-two-hundred; that the sooner such a decision is made, the better. Pro-choice people should acknowledge that the closer a pregnancy gets to full term, the more abhorrent an abortion becomes. The procedure known as “partial birth abortion” should be limited to the situation of the health of the mother being truly at risk.

Sex education must include an emphasis on abstinence but must be accompanied with age-appropriate information giving as good overview of the very complicated subject of human sexuality. This is the basis of th4 UU OWL programs which are taught here in our church. Many Christian conservatives believe that any kind of sex education that goes beyond abstinence is nothing more than “how to” instructions. Such attitudes only makes the seeking of common ground more difficult. Yet certainly many Christians accept the necessity of comprehensive sex education. Jimmy Carter in his recent book has advocated both the right to choose and the need for comprehensive sex education.

. . . . President Bill Clinton, during his term in office, struck the basis of a compromise when he expressed his belief that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.”. . .

One recent article . . . by Eyal Press [whose father is an ob-gyn who performs abortions] . . . in the New York Times Magazine . . . does call for a new tack. “It might even become possible for Americans to have a more practical conversation about how to create a society in which fewer unplanned crisis pregnancies happen in the first place. . . . The one exception to the trend of declining abortion rates in America is women below the poverty level, among whom the numbers have actually increased. Grappling with the reason for this, and how it might be addressed, would force both sides in the abortion debate to wrestle with things they might not like to.

I have a last question in this expression of my ideas: How much trouble are they going to get me into? I trust that it’s not much.

As I noted in our newsletter, Pete Anderson did not give me an easy assignment. Pete, of course, has no responsibility for the outcome of the sermon – only the subject is his. What I do with it is my responsibility.

What Pete subjected me to, of necessity, was hours of reading evangelical websites so I could be sure I was representing the “Pro-life” position fairly as I seek to find a middle ground between it and the “Pro-choice” position with which, not surprisingly, I identify, as obviously does Pete.

I believe it is useful to spell out the extreme positions at the ends of what is clearly a continuum of views toward abortion – there are not just two positions, as the convenient labels suggest, but they establish the parameters.

I believe many people do not understand what the ultimate “Pro-life” position is. The Roman Catholic Church, which was in this struggle before the Evangelicals signed on, teaches that for sexual activity to be legitimate, there must be the potential of reproduction. That is why the church opposes masturbation - because there is pleasure without risk, and why the church teaches that any effective form of contraception is evil, because it interferes with what the church identifies as God’s will.

I still remember a Massachusetts legislator who, when a group of Unitarian Universalist ministers, including Karen’s father and me, was testifying on what I think was just removing an archaic and unenforced prohibition on birth control (although it may have been abortion), insisted that “Anyone who dances must be prepared to pay the piper.”

The Roman Catholic Church is fundamentally opposed to sexuality except in the context of reproduction. [I’m not going to go into how that relates to the sexual abuse of young boys by priests.] It must be noted, of course, that Roman Catholic opposition to abortion is not ancient, but dates only to the late 1800's. For a long time, Catholic canon law approved abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. Some try to justify that by saying that their science was just primitive, and now they know better.

Evangelical Christians transformed the anti-abortion movement which had been steady, but peaceful in Catholic hands, into a battle. Some have suggested that the point at which Evangelicals got on board was when women began to press for equal rights, rather than being content with traditional roles. The anti-abortion movement is committed to biological determinism - women’s role is to produce babies and to stay in their place. There do not appear to be a lot of women in the professions who take a “Pro-life” stance. (Note I did not say none.)

The anti-sexual nature of the “Pro-life” movement is reflected in its opposition to effective sex education and most blatantly in the recent opposition to a movement to innoculate women against a common virus that appears to be linked to uterine cancer. Opponents would rather have their daughters die of cancer than offer something that would protect them from serious harm when they become sexually active - which might mean only with a husband who has been exposed to the virus. Sex is a source of great fear for many.

I do want to be clear that many “Pro-life” advocates sincerely believe that human life begins at the moment of conception and that therefore anything that interferes with the full development of an embryo or fetus is, in their eyes, murder. If you believed that, you too might feel compelled to do something to prevent it.

An analogy one pro-life website offered is that there were people in Germany who did not believe that Jews were fully human and that their lives could be ended without guilt. Would it have been persuasive to those who saw Jews as human for a concentration camp guard to say, “We do not share the same view. You cannot impose your morality on me. I will follow my conscience and you follow your own.”

One of the troubling dimensions of the extreme end of the “Pro-life” movement is that it is demonstrably “Pro-Life” only in the womb. They demean single mothers – those who carry to term babies they cannot support. The leaders of that movement are equally adamant about denying food and medical support to poor children. They strongly support President’s Bush’s Robin Hood Reversed budget which takes from the poor and middle class to line the coffers of the wealthiest. They are also strong supporters of war and capital punishment. These are strange ways to demonstrate being “pro-life.”

Let’s look at the other extreme. At the far left end of the continuum are those who refer to the product of conception as conceptus and to whom it has no moral value – it is nothing but a mass of cells, the removal of which has no more meaning than the removal of a tooth. Remember, just as I defined the extreme of the “Pro-life” position, I am defining the extreme of the “Pro-choice” position. It is characterized by the statement that “a woman should have control over her body.” While the extreme “Pro-life” position ascribes personhood to the fertilized egg, the most extreme “Pro-choice” position I encountered, articulated by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, holds that personhood does not begin until there is consciousness and he believes that takes a few weeks after birth to develop. Singer writes:

In the modern era of liberal abortion laws, most of those not opposed to abortion have drawn a sharp line at birth. If, as I have argued, that line does not mark a sudden change in the status of the fetus, then there appears to be only two possibilities: oppose abortion or allow infanticide . . .

When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second.

Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effects on the others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him. The main point is clear: killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.

That is, of course, exactly what the “Pro-Life” people say – that there is no difference between abortion and infanticide. Singer is not supporting their position. Most “Pro-Choice” advocates are more moderate in their proposals than Singer is. Historically, the Jewish position has been that a fetus becomes a person when it is more than half way out of the birth canal. Others maintain that it becomes a person at the point of viability – that is, where it is capable of existing outside the uterus. That is, of course, a moving target as medical science has moved that point back and back. Some say it has to do with brain activity. Of course, there is brain activity and brain activity – the so-called primitive brain begins to function long before there is anything that might be called consciousness, but for some that is enough.

One of the best sources for perspectives on abortion that I found is the Canadian site: ReligiousTolerance,org which fairly presents all sides of the issue. [I have to note that the first site that comes up on Google is “www.abortionfacts.com” which purports to be unbiased but which is in fact a very “Pro-life” site. It has a lot of information from Dr. & Mrs. JC Willke, long time “pro-life” advocates with whom I was on a panel on a tv talk show in Boston back in the 60's.]

As ReligiousTolerance, which is run by an interfaith group including both perspectives, points out, the critical issue in the abortion debate is the question of personhood: when does it begin. Even Dr. Singer with his extreme view, bases it on his belief that it takes time to develop personhood while the pro-life position is that it comes instantly with conception (if not even the potential for conception.)

The bad news for Pete Anderson is that the sponsors of this balanced source maintain, “There is a wide diversity of beliefs on when, if ever, an abortion is a moral choice. No consensus exists now; none appears to be possible in the future.”

That’s the bad news, but it is not all bad. We have been talking as if it is an “all or nothing” situation, which it is not. You know how a normal curve goes: you’ve got 1/6 on the far left, 1/6 on the far right, and 2/3 in the middle. Guess what the most recent survey on attitudes on abortion show: 19% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all cases, 16% said it should never be legal, 6 percent did not know, and the remainder (59%) were somewhere in between. Looking at it another way, 52% said it should be legal most or all of the time and 43% said illegal most or all of the time. Pollster Karlyn Bowman, from the conservative American Enterprise Institute, suggests that Americans are “Rock solid in [their] absolutely contradictory opinions, since most believe it should be a personal choice, but also consider it murder.

The most recent Gallup poll had a slightly different overall view, showing that 55% believed it should be illegal in most instances with only 42% saying legal in most. But there was still wiggle room since 77% supported abortion when the life of the mother was in jeopardy, and 76% supported it in cases of rape or incest. Only 35%, however, supported abortion when the family could not afford to raise the child. When the Gallup folks asked not in the context of circumstances but according to the stage of development, 66% said it should be legal in the first trimester, 25% in the second, and 10% in the third.

Where all this takes me, in the context of seeking middle ground, is that while there is little hope of getting the extremes together, there are far more people who are open to discussion than the volume of the far right opponents of abortion would lead us to believe.

Remember that not only Unitarian Universalist, but also Episcopal, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Quaker, Jewish, United Church of Christ, and Presbyterian churches support the right to choose. But even within those movements, there is diversity. Few Americans support abortion after the second trimester, but the truth is that this is a red herring since there are very, very few abortions after that date - something like 8 out of 10,000. On the other hand, there are also very few abortions because of rape or incest - perhaps 1%. Both sides have chosen extreme and rare situations on which to focus attention in the quest to persuade.

I was delighted and relieved when I discovered the “Third Way Culture Project” on the internet. The third way is committed to working “to dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America while protecting personal liberties.”

Let me share with you some of their statistics to put abortion in context. I don’t want to inundate you with numbers, but these help us know what we are talking about:

● 65% of pregnancies end in a live birth, 14% in miscarriages, and 21% in abortions.

● Abortion rates in America have been declining from 1.6 million in 1990 to 1.3 million in 2000. Most of the decline is attributed to a decline in teen age sexual activity and the increased used of contraceptives by them.

● 67% of women who have abortions are single and never married, 16% separated, widowed or divorced; and 17% married.

● 52% of women having abortions have had one abortion previously’; 28% two, and 20% three or more.

● I was distressed to learn that 48% of pregnancies are accidental, and 54% of them are aborted.

● It was fascinating, but not surprising to learn that parents favored abortion for pregnant daughters by a 4 to one ratio. The attempt to reduce abortions by requiring parental consent is probably irrelevant – they may demand it even when the daughter doesn’t want it.

● 88% of abortions are performed within the first trimester. 5.8% are performed after 16 weeks, mostly in cases where the woman did not realize she was pregnant – and most likely to be in that group are women/girls under 15.

● 97% of all abortions occur outside of the US and almost half of them are in countries which ban abortion.

The target of the ‘third way” is those who see abortion neither as black nor white, but as gray which, as I said, is almost 2/3 of the American population. The fact is that the gray’s now tend to support pro-life candidates because they find them more compatible than those who imply unrestricted support of abortion as if it has no moral meaning at all.

The Third Way folk are critical of candidates, like John Kerry who say they personally oppose abortion but support the right to choose. Bill Clinton, as Pete Anderson suggested in his assignment, almost hit the nail on the head when he urged that abortion be “safe, legal, and rare.” As I said earlier, the Third Way message is “I will work to dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America while protecting personal liberties.” That statement faces the moral complexity while also preserving the right to abortion, which is what the great majority believes in. They propose seven steps for candidates who support choice and want to get elected:

1. Realize that avoiding the issue does not avoid the issue. If you say nothing - people will assume you are a radical supporter.

2. Define yourself as seeking to reduce the number of abortions. That can mean through effective sex education and through providing support for the poor.

3. Establish your liberal credentials by supporting Roe v. Wade. The majority of Americans support Roe, even those who have some opposition to abortion. It may well be that Roe was not the best thing for the Pro-Choice movement. We were making significant headway state by state when it trumped all the opposition and declared an endgame. It is the same phenomenon as the sudden ending of capital punishment which caused a backlash.

5. Stress that the alternative to choice is the criminalization of abortion, putting women or doctors in jail. [I would add, though the Third Way does not, that it is a matter of safe or unsafe abortions as women have always found ways, many of which resulted in death or sterility.]

• An abstinence-emphasis but also medically accurate information on contraception for teens and young adults

• supporting women who wish to carry their pregnancy to term and to remain in school

• increase child care grants for low-income families – grants which are being reduced drastically in the new Bush budget

• increase the WIC (Women, Infant, Children) Program which provides nutritional support

It seems to me that that political advice goes a long way toward the challenge that Pete Anderson set out for us. Pete was concerned that he might get in trouble with some people for his seeking a middle ground. Some did take offense 27 years ago when I suggested that abortion was never good, but was sometimes the least bad solution. When I was in my first church, before Roe, I was engaged in abortion counseling through the Clergy Consultation Network in which we referred women first for illegal abortions from what we deemed safe providers, and then when safe and legal opportunities developed in Canada and England and then New York State, to those sources. We knew we were potentially risking jail, but we believed that choice had to be available. I was, however, always uncomfortable with the attitude some adopted which was “It’s no big deal.” This was almost 4 decades ago, before AIDS was a problem, but I was troubled by those situations in which the cause was not contraceptive failure, but what appeared to be irresponsible behavior. Some seemed not to take their sexuality seriously. I did not want to judge, and I never turned anyone away, but I was uneasy in some cases.

I do firmly believe that every child that is born has a fundamental right to be wanted. I fear that many of those who are not wanted will get the message that they were not, and I believe it to be a damning one. I have always been intrigued by the message I have received from many Unitarian Universalist women who support choice, but say they would not personally have an abortion, while I also know a number who have had them. Why would people say they would not have an abortion? Because there is some moral dimension to the choice. Acknowledging that is, I believe, the opening for dialogue with those who are in the gray area.

While I said two weeks ago that I no longer believe that sexuality is the driving force in society for most of us, I do believe that it plays a major role in self concept. That is why I devoted many of my early and some of my later years in the ministry to sex education – actually, having Unitarian Universalist parents, I was a sex educator while I was in grade school. Having been given more information than most of my peers, I was always ready to share it.

One of the appalling moments I recall in my ministry was when a vacationing college student interjected into a high school group discussion of sexuality that he couldn’t see why we were making a big deal out of it – “Sex is just like eating a meal,” he insisted. “It’s no big deal.” Some of the kids thought he was cooler than the minister.

As Pete pointed out, our new sexuality curriculum is, indeed, abstinence based. We don’t believe that sex is just like eating. We believe that there are issues of physical and mental health involved in our sexual behavior which make a good case for being responsible in our sexual relationships. That curriculum is, however, not limited to abstinence. We also discuss contraception at length and pregnancy and abortion. The title of the revised course is “Our Whole Lives” OWL - owl. We do not delude ourselves into believing that reliable information is a cure-all for teen pregnancy, but it sure beats ignorance. And I rejoice that the rates of teen pregnancy are falling.

Every unplanned pregnancy represents a kind of failure – a failure to take seriously the power we have as human beings, or in some cases, a technological failure. A baby, however, is not a fitting punishment for such a failure. A baby should always be a prize. There are too many abortions today, but they need to be available, “safe, legal and rare.” The enormous energy that has been drained into the abortion conflict needs to be redirected into working together to create a society in which people are encouraged to take their sexuality and their responsibilities seriously. That, I believe, is where we can find common ground.