NARAL Needs To Watch Out

08/13/2005

Paul Munnis

Many Democrats are Roman Catholics while others belong to churches that have memberships that oppose abortion. We look at a woman’s right to choose as something that happens whether we like it or not. We acknowledge that abortion will still happen no matter what action is taken on Roe v Wade by the Supreme Court, G.W. Bush, John Roberts, or what is said by fire breathing preachers.

We don’t grant blanket approval of abortion but we have pragmatic recognition that if a woman wants an abortion then she will find a way to have it. Given that fact that some women will choose abortion then we want it to be a safe medical procedure and we do not want to prosecute those women as murders and to fill our jails with them.

Many of us agree with Hillary Clinton, “Abortion should be legal, safe, and rare.”

That does not leave us donating money to NARAL. It does not leave us touting abortion. We do not want abortion used as a routine method of birth control either. Many oppose the over the counter sale of the morning-after pill to teens. It also leaves us exposed to critics from our church over the fact that we refuse to demand that the Supreme Court change its ruling in Roe v Wade. So be it. Christians have always taken heat for what they believe. We know how extreme some branches of Christianity can be. We reject their extremism. We also know that two wrongs do not make a right.

Many of us know down deep that in many instances women will make the right choice. The majority will opt for life and not for abortion. The increasing population on planet earth stands as sharp witness to the choice that most women are making. When they do not choose life then we need to ask “why?” We also need to muse upon whether we as a society are doing enough to create meaningful options for woman.

We find that what we Christians call “sin,” is a key underlying reason for a decision to abort a pregnancy. For example, incest, rape, bad genetics or bloodlines, an unknown father, these are all contributing factors to the decision to abort. These are also social and moral failures. They represent a failure of the Churches in America to influence the public in their moral behavior. When the Church fails then society must deal with the consequence.

Another contributing factor is a mother who is mentally ill and unable to care for a child while in other situation’s poverty and homelessness are factors in the decision to abort. These issues of mental sickness, poverty and homelessness are areas that Democrats and fellow Christians who detest abortion can work to minimize, eliminate, or alleviate with social solutions and services. That action offers some hope to mothers to be that they can cope if they bring a child into the world. We feel that we must have the social programs that will support them and their child.

A major difference between Democrats and Republicans is a willingness to pay for needed programs that will thwart abortion by offering social support for the mother and the child to be. We find it odd that Republicans do not want to prevent abortion through the support of such social programs. What they say and what they do are at extreme odds with one another when it comes to abortion.

NARAL needs to watch it and not take Democrats for granted on this matter. Not every Democrat cheers the NARAL ads concerning Roberts bashing. We support “Choice” but not necessarily NARAL and often we oppose particular abortion decisions even as we accept a woman’s right to make a choice as her God given right and as the natural consequence of free will.

A term has been coined for this method of viewing particular cases and it’s called “Situational Ethics,” a belief that blanket out of hand condemnations are procedurally wrong and that determination should be made on a case by case basis depending upon the situation at hand. For that, one needs judges. We would judge Roberts on the degree of his willingness to consider the circumstances of a case. That is the proper criteria for selecting a judge.