The abortion debate: ‘Pro-choice’ does not mean irreligious

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to relitigate Roe v. Wade and the flurry of legislated restrictions on abortions in red states has once again elevated the question of abortion in the public square.

This debate often is depicted as “pro-life religious voters” versus “pro-choice secular voters” — just another issue where the fault lines in America are defined by religion. The reality is more complex, and more interesting, than this simplistic dichotomy.

The assumption that religious voters are anti-abortion is true only if one limits the category of “religion” to conservative Christians, particularly conservative Catholics and Evangelicals.

In fact, many religious groups in America are decidedly pro-choice: in recent polls, 83% of Jews, 68% of Hindus, 82% of Buddhists and 55% of Muslims in America think abortion should be legal in most or all situations. Even traditional or “mainline” Protestant Christian groups are pro-choice by a measure of 2 to 1. We should recall that conservative Christians should not define “religion” for all of America.

While Catholics have long been anti-abortion, Evangelicals were initially largely supporters of a woman’s right to choose. In the early 1970s, the largest Evangelical group, the Southern Baptist Convention, repeatedly released pronouncements arguing for increased access to abortion rights; in 1968, the conservative Christian publication “Christianity Today” dedicated an entire issue that concluded a fetus is not a person and thus Christians should support the choice of a woman.

While some Evangelicals were critical of Roe v. Wade, most Evangelicals leaders were reluctant to get involved in this “Catholic” issue. The switch toward strong pro-life positions happened only later in the late 1970s and early 1980s when Evangelical leaders recognized the political power possible in an anti-abortion position.

Today, conservative Evangelical and Catholic arguments against abortion rights for women, which usually center on the humanity or proto-humanity of the fetus, are well-represented in our society and worthy of thoughtful engagement. Religious scholars across religions offer diverse opinions on the beginning of life, but other religious arguments for being pro-choice receive less public attention. They usually fall along three lines:

The Faithful Pragmatist. Since abortions so often occur during some of the most trying times in the life of a woman, many faithful Americans wish for a world in which no abortions are necessary. However, is making the procedure illegal the most effective way to reduce abortions?

Some pro-choice religious voters point out that the best way to limit abortion is to invest in women’s health and education, provide easy access to birth control and create programs to lift up the poor; that is, alleviate some of the conditions that most often lead to abortion. It is simply more effective, it is argued, to reduce the causes of abortion than to criminalize the women who are most often victims of circumstance. A return to back-alley abortions will only increase overall suffering and not pragmatically reduce the number of abortions.

The Inspirational Power of Believers. Some pro-choice religious voters hold that the personal choice to have an abortion itself may be immoral, but it still should not be made illegal. They point out that there are many behaviors that biblically inspired voters could consider immoral but are not illegal, such as adultery, divorce, gluttony, lying and blasphemy. Why are these virtues not legislated? Primarily, Christians have decided that the most effective way to transform society is not ultimately to legislate morality but inspire good moral choices. Why not apply this to the question of the abortion? Do we doubt the ability of God’s people to inspire godly behavior? The most potent weapon against abortion is the power of persuasion, not penalty of the law.

Choice as Religious Liberty. Even anti-abortion voters will recognize that people of genuine good-faith disagree on the morality of abortions, despite sometimes claiming the same Bible. Many leaders from prominent Christian groups, as well as Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist representatives, have carefully considered the morality of abortion and decided that the availability of safe and legal abortion is consistent with their ethical system and their understanding of the human person. In light of a genuine debate by people of faith and good will, the default position should be given to the individual to make their own moral choice, which, in this case, is the pregnant woman. The choice is between this woman and her God. Isn’t the ability to follow one’s own conscience the very definition of religious freedom?

If abortion becomes illegal at the hands of judges or Congress, then the religious freedom of many religious Americans to live consistently with their faith would be compromised. If people of faith are asking others to support their unbridled religious liberty in other areas, it is only consistent for them to support the religious liberty of others who have come to the conclusion that legal abortion is consistent with their religious worldview.

While arguments opposing these positions of pro-choice religious voters can be mounted, my purpose is only to encourage discussion among all people of good faith. Let’s remember: One is not religious because one is anti-abortion and one is not irreligious if one is pro-choice. It is time to move beyond simplistic dichotomies and listen to each other.

Tribune columnist Stephen Lloyd-Moffett is a professor of religious studies at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo.