There has been a lot of online discussion since CNN Belief blogs posted an item by Jonathan Dudley “My Take: When evangelicals were pro-choice.” Here, I shall add my two cents.
My immediate reaction is to disagree with Dudley. I do not remember that evangelicals were ever pro-choice, and it would seem out of character for them to have been pro-choice.
Here’s what Dudley uses to back his “take”:
In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:
“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: ‘If a man kills any human life he will be put to death’ (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”
The magazine Christian Life agreed, insisting, “The Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult.” And the Southern Baptist Convention passed a 1971 resolution affirming abortion should be legal not only to protect the life of the mother, but to protect her emotional health as well.
I am not in any way challenging that quote. But there is nothing in what is quoted that even hints that evangelicals were pro-choice. What it does show, is that around that time they were not as adamantly opposed to abortion as they are now.
I was, at one time, an evangelical though perhaps a somewhat liberal evangelical. I had already dropped out of religion before 1968. However, based on my experience, I think I have some sense of how many evangelicals would have thought about the issue of abortion.
- When a married woman becomes pregnant, they see this as an enormous blessing from God.
- When an unmarried woman becomes pregnant, they see this as God’s punishment for their sinful sexual relations.
When an unmarried woman seeks abortion, they are thus bound to see that as an attempt to avoid God’s punishment. And when an unmarried woman uses birth control, they are bound to see that as an attempt to seek pleasure, without suffering the consequences of their sinful activities.
That’s just the way evangelicals tend to think. So while they might have condoned abortion to protect the emotional and psychological well being of the mother, I don’t believe they ever would have condoned the possibility of unconstrained abortion that would seem to be permitted by the pro-choice stance.
Libby Anne, who was an evangelical more recently than I, says something along the same lines when she says: “It’s not about babies. It’s about controlling women. It’s about making sure they have consequences for having unapproved sex.”
What does seem clear from the Dudley article, is that the “pro-life” argument now being used by evangelicals is based on new theology that was made out of whole cloth; on new theology that appears to have been developed with a political motive.
For the record, I am pro-choice though I am personally opposed to abortion. The important point here is that the pregnant woman is a moral agent. Whether to have an abortion is for her to decide. It is not up to me to impose my opinions on that decision.
The Heretical Philosopher 