I recently read this article by a Christian doctor who continues to perform abortions. I was struck by this line:
I wrestled with the morality of it. I grew up in the South and in fundamentalist Protestantism, I was taught that abortion is wrong.
Yet as I pursued my career as an OB/GYN, I saw the dilemmas that women found themselves in. And I could no longer weigh the life of a pre-viable or lethally flawed fetus equally with the life of the woman sitting before me.
In listening to a sermon by Dr. Martin Luther King, I came to a deeper understanding of my spirituality, which places a higher value on compassion. King said what made the good Samaritan “good” is that instead of focusing on would happen to him by stopping to help the traveler, he was more concerned about what would happen to the traveler if he didn’t stop to help.
I became more concerned about what would happen to these women if I, as an obstetrician, did not help them.
I just blogged about how the Pro-Choice movement needs to rethink its strategy about how it presents itself to a new generation. This is one example of moving the debate into a moral playing field instead of a policy one, albeit a consequentialist perspective. This type of debate occurs on economic policy for instance. President Obama and Rep. Paul Ryan offer different perspectives on how to balance the budget and when to raise taxes. On gay marriage, people quote lines in Bible about the sinfulness of homosexuality who oppose gay marriage and people quote the inclusiveness of Jesus and his followers to support gay marriage. Moralizing is not hard to do and quoting Jesus is not hard to do either, it just requires various frameworks to discuss specific topics.