Shedding ‘Pro-Choice’ and ‘Pro-Life’ Labels

by Julie Polter 05-21-2009

In his commencement speech at Notre Dame, President Obama spoke of “the possibility of common ground” in the abortion debate.

In small but concrete ways, some pro-choice and pro-life activists in the 1990s made that possibility a reality. At one point 20 cities, under the umbrella of a project called the Common Ground Network for Life and Choice, had small groups of pro-choice and pro-life partisans meeting together to speak and listen respectfully to one another about what they believed and why. The purpose was not to convert the other side, but to understand and be understood in the midst of a larger debate that was contentious and chaotic. In some cases, these relationships provided a foundation for shared action on issues such as preventing teen pregnancy or promoting adoption.

Adrienne Kaufmann, a Benedictine sister with a doctorate in conflict resolution, was a co-director of the Common Ground Network. She is cautiously hopeful about the renewed interest in common ground.

“At the heart of the common ground experience is respectful speech and behavior and not demonizing,” she told me in a recent interview. “He [President Obama] has certainly set a climate for that.

But the challenges begin at the level of the terminology of the abortion debate for Kaufmann. While she is committed to following a consistent life ethic, she refuses to label herself pro-life. “Those labels have been stripped of nuances,” she said. “When I accept a ‘pro-life’ label, I accept all the stereotypes of both pro-life people and pro-choice people about pro-life people. The same with ‘pro-choice.’” Those labels, she believes, are almost purely political now—diverting from the inherently moral content of the issues at hand.

For more of my interview with Kaufmann click here. For more about the Common Ground Network for Life and Choice, including the manual co-written by Kaufmann, click here.

Julie Polter is an associate editor at Sojourners. Read her article about abortion reduction in the latest issue of Sojourners Magazine, including an audio clip of her interview with Rep. Rosa DeLauro.

Categories: Abortion, Faith and Politics

JoannaCW

Thank you for this post. Bridging can be lonely work; it's good to hear from someone who has been doing it longer, with more wisdom and grace than I.
The next question would seem to be, How do we go about forming deep and trusting relationships with people with very different views?

letjusticerolldown

Do you have such relationships?

Most of mine are not defined by our views on reproduction and abortion.

JoannaCW

Yes. I wouldn't say that any of mine are 'defined by our views on reproduction"; but often I've had the experience of working with someone, building mutual respect and trust, and then getting into conversations about war, sexual ethics or other sensitive issues. And it's much harder to totally dismiss someone's perspective once I know them as a whole person rather than knowing only their opposing views.
more

letjusticerolldown

The language of our public discourse is largely framed by politicans and journalists. Neither of these groups has been particularly interested in solving problems. They have been very interested in labels and conflict.

I believe Jim Wallis is so exuberant with Obama because he sees someone who talks, listens and has a strong dose of pragmatism. Someone willing to work beyond the labels.

I think many see Senator Obama.

What I mean by that is the Senate has this long history of cordial deliberation. They like each other. Mostly a club of good ole boys.

So why can't they appreciate opposing views, understand the complexity of issues, etc etc. Because at the end of the day, their voting life is not about solving problems. It is about political power. There votes are down party lines and ideological lines. The legislation they introduce is about playing to varying constituencies. It is not about common ground and problem solving. Smart people act as fools.

Is Obama about common ground and solving problems. Or is he about a cordial, deliberative, listen-to-all-sices, understand-the-complexity style that wins people to his side--and then exercising his power not in a way to solve problems but to build his own power?

I will grant him the benefit of the doubt. I will also note that a presidency facing many crises, with big ideas for what big government can do and be, who thinks he can walk, chew gum, talk, and text at the same time--will be naturally tempted to concentrate as much power as possible. Pray for wisdom.

ando

Why is it always the abortion issue that Sojo seeks to find "common ground"? They seem to know how to deal with poverty, climate change and other issues without trying to find compromise. That's because they're pet issues for Sojo. Sojo wants to end poverty, but find a consensus on abortion. As is reducing the number of abortions becomes a righteous act in itself. Sorry, Sojo, but for the first time in years the majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life. Many of us are independents and Democrats. So if you don't like the pro-life label, don't wear it. I can't imagine anyone at Sojo saying they're not pro-poor.

Eric77

Because it's on the issue of abortion that most progressive Christians depart from the "seamless garment of life" ethic. It's wise strategy. Instead of trying to defend the position of supporting abortion rights, which seems too callous, they seek to try to get those who criticize their position to quiet down and stop being such harsh critics.

hammerud

I agree. Abortion is 100% wrong, period. There is no common ground on the issue when it comes to the shedding of innocent blood, an abomination to God. We can try to be courteous, but there is no common ground, and playing the "common ground" approach is to bow to evil. As it says in Proverbs, "the righteous bowing down before the wicked are like a troubled stream."

BlueDeacon

The trouble is that abortion isn't addressed directly in Scripture, so when you try to find a link you necessarily have to consider other segments of "life." For ideological reasons, many of the same people who oppose abortion today favored slavery and in fact opposed civil rights for racial minorities -- and, ironically, they are often the first today to complain about abortion in the black community. This is complete hypocrisy in my book.

Eric77

Huh? Who are the "many" who oppose abortion today and favor slavery? And, a separate question, who are the "many" who oppose abortion today and opposed civil rights for racial minorities? There are millions of Americans who have been born since the civil rights (50s-60s) era who oppose abortion. Is "many" more than that? And what does any of this have to do with hammerud's statement that abortion is wrong and an abomination to God? I know that you actually agree with him so why are you arguing with him on this?

BlueDeacon

I'm arguing because of the blatant hypocrisy. Do you think, for example, that the "pro-life" Republican Party is largely white for no reason? GOP candidates up and down the line, especially in the South (too many to mention), have at times run racist campaigns to get elected -- and almost all of them were "pro-life."

Eric77

I note you ignored most of my questions. The only way you can claim "hypocrisy" is if you know hammerud's position on civil rights and/or slavery. Also, when you say hypocrisy, I think you mean inconsistency. Hypocrisy would be being against abortion and then helping someone you know get one. Inconsistency would be saying you're against abortion because it destroys innocent life, but, at the same time, failing to apply that principle across the spectrum of issues.

Yes, there are a lot of hypocrites and people who fail to apply principles consistently out there - and they exist on all sides of the political aisle. I'll grant you it's easier to debate them than actual people here and I understand your desire to do so. But I still don't get how they relate to hammerud's specific, personal belief that abortion is wrong - unless, of course, you either know he's helped people obtain abortion or has supported slavery or opposed civil rights himself.

BlueDeacon

Actually, I didn't ignore them. I was not speaking specifically about hammerud but generally about an ideology that pits one set of lives above another for the sake of cultural authority -- which is the real reason why abortion has become not only a hot topic generally but the linchpin of conservative ideology (even though it became such only in the late 1970s). As such, I describe "hypocrisy" a little bit differently than you do, in large part because the issue is often used to demonize and defeat the other side.

Anyway, the issue is not hammerud's belief that it's wrong; it often comes across as the only "life" issue worth fighting for. I would hope that someone who was consistently "pro-life" would have a well-developed sense of that; truth be told, however, that it's generally not the case. (I have known cases where anti-abortion politicians have actually secretly had their daughters get abortions, which didn't surprise me in the least for reasons I've already mentioned.)

hammerud

Blue - It is addressed by inference -- "the shedding of innocent
blood" phrase in Scripture covers it. Also Exodus 21:22 and 23 and
Luke 1:44. It is interesting that those who rationalize abortion
already have been born. I am not saying we should not have compassion
for misguided people, particularly many of our young people, but I
don't have compassion for people who have capacity to know better.

BlueDeacon

It is addressed by inference -- "the shedding of innocent blood" phrase in Scripture covers it.

Sorry, but it isn't. The immediate reference is to those who were unjustly convicted of a crime punishable by death, which in context included people who out-and-out lied (especially considering the strictness of Mosaic Law when it came to executing capital punishment). Basically, those specific Scriptures are referring to a conspiracy, not necessarily abortion. (Keep in mind that I do oppose legal abortion.)

hammerud

Blue - The phrase is often repeated in Scripture and stands on its
own. The immediate context here or there may refer to what you point
out, but not everywhere. Abortions result in the shedding of blood,
innocent blood, which is an abomination to God. The specific
Scriptures I pointed out make the fact that a human being is in the
womb clear.

BlueDeacon

Please refer to my post above -- even my arch-conservative former denomination, which knows theology inside and out, admitted it could not find a specific Scriptural reference that addressed abortion. Besides, there also has to be a penalty, because if you're going to justify something using the Scripture you have to go all the way -- which means you need proof. Good luck with that.

hammerud

Blue, I just respectfully disagree. I have been reading Scripture
daily (about 45 minutes on average a day) for over 35 years now. Truth
can be deduced by inference and meditating on Scripture. Jesus used
inference from Scripture in making points -- "God is the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," in making the point about the validity of
resurrection is an example. We just disagree. The Scriptures in Exodus
and Luke I gave do not require much deduction on the abortion matter
though.

BlueDeacon

With all due respect, I'm not impressed because I have a similar background with the Bible. The difference is that, over the past decade or so, I've tried to read it without my Western cultural blinders (which turned out to be significant), and there's so much we can learn when we read what it says to its original audience. The seminary student I mentioned in another thread believes in imposing Old Testament law on civil society; that cannot work for a number of reasons.

This is why I say that proving a specifically anti-abortion stance, though I personally agree with it, is not possible using Scripture -- even the concept of "life" has to be taken as a whole. Besides that, Middle Eastern society even to this day is far, far more collective and "intrusive" than we would ever accept here in the West, especially the U.S., which values personal freedom and sovereignty above all else (even at the expense of the rights of others).

hammerud

Blue, You're a good man, but we just disagree. The "Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob" reference that Jesus used to validate the truth of life
after death is an example of deriving truth from a Scripture that is
not in the immediate context. Also, Jesus reference to the Psalm where
it says "the Lord said unto my Lord" to point out a truth about the
nature of Christ. The immediate context of Scripture does not limit
the scope of the truth that can be inferred from the Scripture.

BlueDeacon

However, it also doesn't easily lend itself to political ideology. Nor does it mean that we can focus like a laser beam on one issue or set of issues without considering the whole -- which is what anti-abortionists tend to do (and also why it doesn't get anything done).