Last
week, I watched two events closely. On Capitol Hill, legislators interrogated
Planned Parenthood and considered cutting funding for one of the nation’s
largest women’s health care providers. In Georgia, Kelly Gissendaner was
executed – the first woman to be killed by the state of Georgia in 70 years. I
weighed in on both stories in a variety of settings.
A
friend asked me to help think through an apparent contradiction that we both
share: We oppose the death penalty; yet, we also believe that abortion should
be safe, legal, and rare. It seems inconsistent: You’re either “pro-life” or
not. Roman Catholic social teachings are exceptionally consistent on this
account – opposing war, capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia, birth
control, etc., with one ethic that promotes a “seamless tapestry of life.” It’s
beautiful in its simplicity and breadth.
It’s
also only one way to think through these issues. Here is my attempt at another:
1.
My Lutheran tradition believes that “sin” is not
so much an act as a condition. That is, individual
acts are not “sinful”; rather, all
actions take place in the context of the brokenness of humanity and creation itself.
(We tend to have a very low anthropology.)
2.
Thus, context
matters. There are often no
good (ethical, moral, “sinless”) choices. Luther (and, famously,
Bonhoeffer) approached ethics contextually and situationally, not universally.
3.
Women (and men) have proven an innate desire to
have control over their own bodies and reproductive health. Not only is this a
basic human right, it is a social good. Planned, healthy pregnancies and family
life are basic building blocks of a strong society.
4.
Still, girls and women often get pregnant –
sometimes by accident, sometimes by force – without wanting to. Absurdly, there is a broad
spectrum of opinion among people, including (mostly male) power brokers, about
what constitutes “consent” or “rape.” Until that gets settled, I don’t want
legislators anywhere near my wife or my daughter’s body and reproductive health
– not if they don’t trust her to decide when or how she actually wants to have
sex, let alone get pregnant.
5.
A zygote, implanted in the uterine wall, is a
distinct human being – genetically speaking. Quickly that distinct being begins
to develop all the signs of what would – if uninterrupted – be real, viable human
life – however, when that line is crossed is a matter of debate and equal
access to medical technology.
6.
When an otherwise viable pregnancy is terminated,
death occurs. This is not immaterial to the conversation. This reality
complicates the pregnant woman’s exclusive claim to ownership over her body and
reproductive health, but it does not
mitigate or dismiss that claim. It means, simply, that we have two
competing concerns: a woman’s ownership of her body and reproduction; and the
life potential of a fetus that would, if uninterrupted, likely develop into a
healthy baby.
7.
This choice is not to be taken likely; however,
it is impossible to legislate how an individual woman can or should wrestle
with the weight of this choice. Too many factors are involved, and any attempt
to externally control the decision would violate a woman’s ownership over her
own body.
8.
Every study indicates that instances of
unplanned pregnancy (and, thus, termination) decrease dramatically when all
children, youth, and adults (of all genders) have ready access to comprehensive
sex education and a wide range of birth control options. Alas, this is not the
case everywhere (really, sadly, anywhere). This is precisely why organizations like Planned Parenthood should
receive more, not less,
funding – because this is their primary work: to foster a culture of healthy
bodies, sexuality and reproductive life.
9.
I live in a world where children are longing to
be adopted – and folks of all kinds are longing to adopt – and every kind of
bureaucratic obstacle stands in the way. I’m also aware that even if the red
tape disappeared overnight, there are not enough homes with willing and able
adoptive parents in the world to
receive the babies that would be born if no one ever made the choice to
terminate a pregnancy. Not even close.
10.
Even if we could assure that every zygote could
have a home, history proves that abortion will still happen. It always has. For
the vast majority of human history, it has happened in excruciatingly unsafe
ways and places. Regulating and restricting access to abortion has never
eliminated abortion; it has only made it less safe. Until every fetus results
from sex (not rape) among people who are ready and prepared to have and raise a
child (or other means that enable non-fertile couples to conceive), then
abortion will happen. If it is
not legal, it will not be safe.
11.
Thus, while we continue to work toward healthy
bodies, sexuality, and reproductive life for all people everywhere – to make
unplanned pregnancy rare, we
have a moral obligation to provide safe
and legal options for
pregnancy termination. To fail to do so not only jeopardizes women’s health,
but also places women under state control and violates their right to own their
own bodies and lives.
12.
That does not mean that we must believe that
abortion in and of itself is “good” (I don’t know anyone who believes that). It
means we believe it is one hard choice among many in a world that is broken and
longing for redemption. We have to do ethics in the world as it
actually exists, even while we hope and trust in the coming of a world that will
be better.
Now, as for the
death penalty:
a.
Killing is wrong.
b.
However, there are times when it is
morally legitimate (not “good,” but legitimate and, even, necessary) to take
life. Bonhoeffer famously joined the plot to assassinate Hitler, not because it
was the “good” thing to do, but because it was necessary. If a sociopathic bus
driver is driving a bus full of children toward the edge of a cliff, one has a
moral obligation to stop him – which may mean taking his life. That doesn’t
make it “good,” but in context, it was legitimate and even necessary.
c.
If possible, it is in everyone’s best interest
to capture a killer alive. S/he could be connected to a larger plot; motive
could be discovered; bombs may be planted, etc. Not to mention, killing is
wrong, and even murderers have a right to live – and maybe even change. As a
Christian, I believe in the capacity of God to transform and redeem even the
most corrupted life.
d.
Once a killer is in custody and incarcerated, s/he
ceases to be an imminent threat. At this point, killing him/her is unnecessary.
It serves no purpose other than vengeance and punishment. It becomes a pre-meditated
act of murder committed by the state.
e.
Study after study have shown that capital punishment
has no deterrent effect. Societies with the death penalty are more, not less,
violent. (Correlation does not mean causation, but it’s worth pondering if
there is a connection there.)
f.
Capital punishment is exceedingly expensive and
draws out the grieving/healing process for all involved. Yet, the appeals
process is absolutely necessary, because the only thing worse than the state
plotting to murder a guilty killer is for the state to plot and kill someone
who was actually innocent of the crime.
g.
Capital punishment is imposed by a justice
system that is corrupted by racism and classism. Even if everyone on death row
were guilty (and not all are), the folks who end up on death row are not
representative of society as a whole or of those who commit violent crime. As
such, intentional or not, the death penalty is one more tool of historic injustice.
h.
Capital punishment removes the possibility of
reform and rehabilitation. Kelly Gissendaner is a perfect example: She became
an agent of grace and mercy, while owning her crime and seeking forgiveness and
amendment of life. Nevertheless, even hardened criminals with no remorse should
not be killed by the state – it simply brings the state down to the level of
the murderer. That’s not company we should seek to keep.
i.
There is no context in which it is morally
right, legitimate, or necessary for the state to kill a person who is safely
sequestered and posing no meaningful threat to public safety. Unlike in the
case of abortion, there are no mitigating factors or contexts that introduce
any moral ambiguity into the situation: This is taking life for no good reason
other than vengeance. Nothing good can possibly come of it.
These are two completely different
issues, calling for different moral considerations. Complicated, to be sure,
but we live in the world as it is, not as we wish it were, and the world is a
complicated place.
