A Lutheran contribution to the public policy debate— On Abortion: Sorting Out the Questions © 'T 18 NOT, MANIFESTLY, an easy as- ee of the issues raised by the de- mand for abortion. Neither the nation nor the Church has heretofore been able to shed much light on them. But the attempt is perhaps not quite such hybris as it may seem. For—I am convinced —much of the matter’s ob- scurity is ofa kind that can be lifted by mere attention to order. That at least the comfort for myself and readers with which I will begin: much of our difficulty results merely from not dis- tinguishing questions that are very different, sorting them out and con- sidering them in appropriate se- quence, if The questions that must first be distinguished are those the confusion of which has undone much of the Protestant Church. One set of qu tions is pastoral: What may an in vidual choose in such-and-such cumstances, and again in such-and— such circumstances, and again. And what may or should I counsel individuals in these various circum- stances? Another set of questions is that of public policy: What acts are to be prohibited by law? What acts are to Robert W. Jenson is professor of system- atic theology at-hutheran Theological ‘Seminary, Gettysburg, Pa: This article is based on a presentation he made to the ‘Maryland Synod of the Lutheran Church in America By Robert W. Jenson be commanded by law? And in the vast area between prohibition and command, what standards and pat- tems of behavior are to be encour- aged by community sanction, by sub- sidy ‘or taxation, by judicial inclination? These two sets of questions are very different. As many of us know all too well, it is one thing to consider largely and abstractly whether the law should approve abortion; it is quite something else to sit with a pregnant child and try to help. But also vice versa the wisdom of the coun- seling chamber does not directly translate into just law or wise policy Itis hard for pietists ike us toremem- ber that second point. For us, the in- ner struggle of the heart and the dis- course of pastoral love tend to provide the paradigm of reality; and it Four standing temptation to think they are the whole of reality. But it is not s0. Good public policy does not automatically determine good pasto- ral care; ror does good counseling practice automatically determine ‘goed public policy. Of these two sorts of questions, it is the issues of public policy that o- day make a moral crisis of the Ameri- can republic and the American reli- gious bodies. Our nation is not ‘wracked by the problems of the con- fessional but by Wade vs. Roe and the Hyde Amendment. And moreover, it is over against Wade vs. Roe and the Hyde Amendment that the Church is failing its people and the community. It is sometimes supposed that the Church, in principle anti-abortion, should have a strong interior witness against abortion but a less strong po- litical position against it. But of course, once we remember that the two positions may indeed be distinct, which should be most principled re- mains tobe seen. Pastoral care in gen- eral allows acts that just law cannot. Thus, e., the LCA’s statement on abortion is directed to the pastoral problems, and does not even notice that there are any others. That was, perhaps, just barely excusable when the statement was formulated, before the character and magnitude of the public problem was apparent to any but the clear-sighted. In its own terms, as advice to pastoral practice, the statement is perhaps tolerable— though I doubt that many have found much help in it when help was needed. The problem with the state- mentis thatithas hung on intoa ime when the public problems are domi- nant, and tempts us pietists to sup- pose that it has something to say to these problems, So—the question actually before us is American public policy, and what the Lutheran part of the Chris- tian Church might have to contribute in the public debate. And immediately we have to extri- cate ourselves from another confu- sion. The near-unanimous recent sition of the American liberal establishment—to which I confess my own usual adherence—is that moral and theological convictions are illegitimate in the area of political debate—which must, of course, finally mean that the Church is there LurHERAN Forum /9illegitimate, Thus the publicinterven- tions of the Roman Catholic bishops on abortion and nuclear armaments, and of politically reawakened funda- mentalism on a range of issues, have stirred a regular frenzy. To see more clearly here, we have briefly to con- sider the very nature of politics, Politics are the process by which a community joiny decides by what rules it wishes to live in future, what sort of community it wills to be, whether this occurs in public assem- blies, a monarch’s bed-chamber or the recesses of a bureaucracy. Thus politics are precisely the process of ‘communal ethical reflection: the proc- ‘esses by which a community decides what its children should be taught, how punishment should fit crime, whether abortion is a crime, ete. Political participation consists in participation in this public moral ar- gument. That is, political participa- tion consists in advocacy of moral pos tions; it consists in saying, "We think our community should...” As for theological advocacy, no consistent and stable ethical position is indepen- dent of theological conviction. Thus litical participation is always theo- gically based. ‘A democracy is simply a polity in which we are all invited into the above argument. Thus the Roman Catholic bishops and Jerry Falwell are merely belatedly responding to the political mandate. The liberal editori- alists and churchly lobbyists who are so shocked by them speak for a 1up—to which I belong—that is so {sed to tanslaing our-own mon opinions into public policy without the inconvenience of discussion, that we donot recognize democracy when we trip over it. ‘Therefore, if the Lutherans in this country have any theologically en- abled moral insight into the matter of abortion, we must publicly and polit cally advocate it. Ina democracy, that is how obedience to the authorities ordained by God takes place. Can we have any such insight? Here there is yet one more prelimi- nary confusion to dispel. There is a degraded form of the “two- Kingdoms” doctrine, which observes that arguments about abortion and such matters occur in the “kingdom con the left,” where reason is to rule and where believers and unbelievers discourse together, and concludes 10/ Lent 1983 that the Church can have no special insight about such affairs. But that in the left-hand realm we deal by reason and observed fact, does not mean that faith does no good to reason or even that it does not uncover new fact. And the ecumenical teaching of the Church is that faith indeed illu- mines both observation and logic. Thus in what follows, some of my dis- ‘cussion will take paths markable by anyone and some will take paths of Christian theology. vi6 Finally, then, to the issue itself. There are up to four questions to be distinguished and discussed, the number depending on how each in tum is answered. (Question 1: Is the fetus, atany given Lutherans have a theological warrant for not drawing a line between person and not-yet-person. term, an entity deserving the protec- tion that the law gives to human per- sons? If we decide that the fetus at no term prior to birth deserves the pro- tection of law, we have iio more wor- Hes. Butif the fetus is at some term an entity deserving the protection the law gives persons, then with respect to such prenatal children we have at least one more questions. ‘Question 2: Is the abortion of such a child ever permissable? If we answer No, again our reflections may end. If we say Yes, another question must be faced.” Question 3: Who shall decide whether in fact to abort a fetus whose abortion someones desires? If we say it is the one who desire it, again our thinking has reached its terminus. If we say anything else, one last ques- tion emerges. Question 4: Whoever decides, by what standards shall they do so? Ir Iwill pay most attention to the first question. tt must be decided before any other can meaningfully be raised. And it is the one the obfuscation of which has turned the great American debate into mush and fanaticism. ‘One thing is clear; and it may be the only thing that is initially clear. The fetus is an entity that in the course of its history will-be granted and deserve the protection the law gives persons. That noted, one more point surely becomes clear: If we are to say that at some point the fetus is not yet deserving such protection, we must be able to describe a determin- able demarcation and have convin ing reasons why that particular line should have such life-and-death con- juences. What are the possibilities? rth itself has often been pro- posed as the demarcation between personhood and pre-personhood. This proposal is a clear non-starter, since it begs the question. In ate abor- tions, the emergent entity is often via- ble; so that whether a given proce- dureis a birth or an abortion depends entirely on the instructions given the hospital staff. But it is precisely the teria of these instructions that isin question. The attempt is sometimes made to save this proposal by fiat, by sayinj thatthe chld after birth i an ndoper, dent entity and before birth is not, and that we will decree independence to be an essential component of per- sonhood. But neither will this do; for, apart fronts arbitrariness, itis not at alvcbvious that the emergent is more independent after birth than before Only the location and plumbing of its dependence has changed. Further reflection on the above points regularly leads to the proposal Ria oubiiy isthe demarcation’ Nex ther will this do. For of course, at what term a fetus is viable depends entirely on the state of technology. Thousands of viable fetuses are now aborted monthly. And the day may not be distant when the fetus will be viable at any termat all. 1, like many others, once argued for a variant of this latter proposal, which we may call social viability. The human organism, I said, only be- ‘comes a person when it enters com— ‘munication with other persons, and soafter birth. Trying to defend this in presentations to Washington-area pastors, I talked myself out ofit. Forit will justify not only abortion but in- fanticide and arbitrary euthanasia Moreover, it is in fact far from clear that the fetus is at any term merely social There remain what were once very popular, what we may call the gyne- ological criteria: quickening, organ- development, neurological thresh- olds, etc. These have all been eliminated by the mere progress of embryological knowledge. We must recognize that there is no clear jump in the fetus’ development between fertilization and birth. The only plau- sible candidates are segmentation in the case of identical twins and coales- cence in the case of mosaic individu- als; and both occur so early as to make no practical difference. The medical ind other scientists who testified be- fore Helms’ committee were in fact ‘unanimous—though neither the sen- ators nor the press were smart enough to notice. One group, the anti-abortionists, said human’ per- sonhood begins at fertilization; the others said there is no way to sp alater point at whichitbeging There can be, of course, no end to| the arbitrary inventing of new pro-| posed criteria of demarcation. But I think I may fairly claim to have re- ported all proposals to date that have any claim to be more than frivolous. ‘None stands examination. Nor is this judgment in any instance the out- come of difficult reasoning or delicate balance of evidence. If we have any concer for truth, we may not ignore the fact: we possess no stipulation ofa determinable line between person and fetal not-yet-person. In its 1973 decision, the Supreme Court wisely began by decrying any attempt to say when personal human life begins. Then the Court, with its usual inconsequence when dealing with important matters, leaped intoa ‘morass of arbitary postulating and in effect said that humanity begins at birth. Not therewith content, the Court further introduced a shadowy “potential” human life, which, for no stated reason whatever, it said be- comes important at viability. They had it right the first time. And the Fouts Fubrolgh iniproved interp ited By verb Lloyd R. Bailey $6.95, paper Lloyd R. Bail Murphy , Psalms, Job, and only rational conclusion from that in- sight is that there can be no warrant for withdrawing the protection of law at any term. The argument so far has been of a sort that any rational person should be able to conduct. Lutherans, how- ever, have specific theological war- rant for not being surprised at the result—and our uncertainty in the judgment of abortion is but another ‘case of our ignorance of our own heri- tage. The supposition that the fetus or child is at any term a mere organism, and that personhood is a separate something added at some later time—ice,, the supposition of all pro- pposals to treat the fetus or child at any term as undeserving of legal standing—is but a version of the an- Gent body-soul dualism, of the ontol- ogy that classifies the organism—the "Body'—as one sort of reality, the personhood—the “‘soul’—as an- other, and teaches that either can at need subsist independently of the other. This dualism has always been suspect in Christianity. But of all the- ‘ological traditions the Lutheran tat tion is most specifically and clearly Samuel, and Kings, 7.95, paper S23 “les "inthe series cre ion jos be bois 201 Eighth. Ave ‘Box 80% Nastville, TN 37202" zi ? el Abingdon Pres Be LuTHERaN Forum / 11committed [Link] old theo- logical puzzler: When does God add the soul to the body? The Lutherans have heretofore unanimously an- swered: Never. To use the old theo- logical technical vocabulary, the Lu- therans have been “traducian”; they have taught that the soul— personhood—is not the kind of thing that can be added to the organism, that the act of the parents in conception is God's one and only act to initiate new human reality, to initiate the one hu- man person of whom body and soul are merely aspects. (See, ¢g., Johann Gerhard, Loci theologici, VIil,116.) ‘America, I submit, needs this theo- logical insig) ug Thus we must indeed move on to Question 2. There is no way but to re- gard every abortion asakilling. Those Who are “protfe” should not rejoice and just society is one that intrudes it- self between the life liberty and well- being of each individual and the will ofany to whom these area burden. In the present case this means: a civi- zed society will intrude its own, maximally disinterested, agencies of decision between the fetus and all who have personal cause to desire the fetus’ death, Bluntly: the persons who must have nothing whatever to say about whether an abortion is in fact to be performed are the parent or parents who request it and the doctor or clinic whose practice would be enlarged. The legal situation into which we have drifted, of abortion practically ‘on demand, ‘makes the complainant judge of his or her own case, in an action where if the complaint is ap- proved another person will be exe- ‘cuted. This is the one legal situation wholly and irredeemably incompati- ble with justice. trusion of society between those whose life or liberty are threatened, and the choices of those whose needs or wants or even “rights” constitute the threat, has been the one great pil- lar of our civilization’s specific civiliz- ing humanism. And the refusal to deal differently with any human life because of my or our judgment that it is defective, has been the other pillar. The “pro-choice” movementisa mas. sive assault on our civilization’s foun- dational humanism, The assault is made in the name of a principle very different from that of any humanism, a principle already revealed in the movement’s—self-chosen!—name and vocabulary, the principle of “my right to do what I choose with my own” whatever—the property pric ple, ‘Often our own period of history is too close for us to diagnose it directly. Then itis helpful to look back. In civi- izations lacking our technology, the That women should escape bondage as property of their fathers or husbands, only to claim the same “right” over their offspring, would be one of history’s truly evil ironies. too soon. It does not follow that no abortion should be performed. The “prolife” movement usualy cals ll abortions murder. But insofar as a community approves abortions, they are not murders but executions. And itis unlikely that any community can doaltogether without executions: ata minimum, the use of deadly force by police officers or by troops against reign enemies. With respect to executions, the true problemis to devise laws that im- pose execution justly and only justly. ‘Therefore the true question about abortion is the question of justice, the question of who is to be aborted, if any, and why. Since the question about abortion isa question of justice, ‘we must take up also the third and fourth of our possible questions ‘About each of them I have only one point to make. Question 3: That sort of execution we call abortion may sometimes be necessary; who shall decide when it is? Here there is unanimous counsel from the whole tradition of our civili- zation, supported by the ecumenical wisdom of the Church. A civilized 12/ Lent 1983 Question 4: The sort of execution we call abortion may sometimes be necessary, and the decision that in a given case it is or is not necessary must be made by maximally disinter- ested public tribunals; by what crite- tia shall the tribunal decide? Here I am sure of one thing only. We must adopt no criteria which compel us to ‘weigh the comparative value of hu- ‘man persons against each other. We ‘must never abort because of such rea soning as, ‘This child will not be loved,” or “This child will be handi- capped.” We must eschew such crite sa whether the weighing of human persons is determined by their ‘convenience/inconvenience fo us or by our pity for them. Only God can make such evaluations; if there is no God, no one can v Itis time for me to drop the mode ‘of cool analysis and state the passion which manifestly moves me in this ‘matter. Itis revealed above all in my last two and briefest points. The in- favored means of abortion has always been infanticide—and the more ana- lytical “ ice” advocates have Jong admitted what anyway is clearly the case, that no real distinction can ‘be made between abortion and infan- ficde. Infanticide has always been based on the property-under- standing of the family, that made wife and children “his,” the father's, to do with as he “freely chose.” The consumer-capitalist diction of the “pro-choice” movernent is thus but the continuation of a long tradition. And it is by no accident that the Su- preme Court's 1973 decisions were governed by a judicial principle, the Principle of “substantive due proc- ess,” whose previous applications were all to protect the right of pro erty, including most notably the right of Dred Scott’s owners and the right of employers to pay as little as the market would bear without union in- terference. That women should at last escape their ancient bondage as prop- erty oftheir fathers or husbands, only in order to claim the same “right” over their offspring, born or unborn, (Continued on page 32)‘with 51 other Americans, came home to cheering crowds and a carpet, s0 to speak, of yellow ribbons, from a 44-day ordeal as hostage of the Iranian revolu- tionaries. The excitement of those days hhas passed, but the message ofthis book, Thope, will not be overlooked. Guest ofthe Revolution, presenting—as Miss Koob is careful to emphasize—the story of just one hostage, is for anyone who ever experiences powerlessness and asks, “What can Ido? What should I do?” We get her answer early on. Having lived through the first tense days of the US. embassy's occupation after being seized from her own post as director of the cultural and educational Iran- American Society, she enters the second month of captivity in the compound fac- ing the impossibility of escape from her ‘solitary room and the frustration of litle knowing, let alone being able to assistin, the plight of her peers. “Certainly there ‘miust be something elsed could do,” she writes. “And as I pondered the dea came ome: You con pay Yu cn pry for at of “F" soon found out prayer was alot more difficult than I had thought it ‘would be. The difficulty was in running ‘out of things to say. After asking God to bless Mom and Dad and to cure the evils of the world, what next? “Alter several days of struggling Ibe gan to think more about focusing and Ecncentatingon God." “Throughout the ordeal ending in oy- ous welcomes home, Kathryn Koob's faith and experience of God's ove are the daly miracle within extraordinarily test ing Greumstance: constant fear, perpet- tad din of a hostle crowd outside the compound, severe physical restrictions, lack of privacy, deprivation of comforts and anwiety for fly, frends and col ieagues. : al benefits became major bess- ings: Holy Communion from 8 visting lest at Christmas and Easter, a Bible to Feep, books, precious letter, 20 minutes to stand outdoors in fresh at infequent showers in a grimy bathroom, the rare treat of fresh vegetables in place of more ical fare for American “guests” — Eat of chicken soup served undluted Straight from the can that “sat there and uivered” ‘Alone and—forthe last 10 onthe with fellow captive Elzabeth Ann Swit roommate, Kathzyn Koob celebrated the liturgical year, keeping careful record of days and seasons, Hardest were the periods before Christmas, ying not pray toohard tobe home, an jus after, Fealizing it didn’t happen. Other times Fints of possible release raised hopes BURIAL IN THE CHURCH — NOT FROM THE CHURCH The COLUMBARIUM in the LIVING CHURCH. Chris Sine ohn Church Cotembartum conse 64 bron niches n cpr a aug Aad eld peo te Gd Shaheed Treowet me 5 feande of ym Sin Eb pani w af 2 NA Coonan in US neal fom aon grt 12 10.96% in 1981. In Bruin 649% tn 1980 Weve for FREE Ki of Information 32/ Lent 1983, fhe Reverend Ronald R Mile {Chae SunJoba Church Wee New York Nes Jersey 07093-1608 ee scx geese te cea Sencar ea Sioa eee ares Ber esas cael ein te enemas eee eas SSS ue acearos shoe Surat al Bem eon tet Sean eee ar SnGende otra tart serge ort rc at SSeS cS Shahn Sp asuimeetoram le painter ae io itary Road Poa Bate NF 217 Prone 166752423 which were repeatedly dashed and sub- ‘sequently held in check. Ikathryn Koob's narratives frank and materolfac remarkable mow fori consistent integrity. Interspersed ‘wit Colorful accounts of interecions with rds are the details that make movin ven the more tedious aspects of here In captivity, Her story outlines the step- by-step process of leaming to give each day back to God and to receive his Te sponse: the “peace that passeth all un- derstanding,” That's a lesson for any of =Nhomt Frost Almost a Layman By Samuel, Hoard Drake's Publishing, xiv + 64 pages, paper S495 Sanus L. Hoago’s autobiographical ac- count of the travails (and encourage ments) of a Black seminarian and pastor ina predominantly White church body {in this case the LCMS) is the kind of story that we must never forget. Al thoiigh the bulk of this book recounts ex: ences in the 1940s and '30s, it hel Usrealize that to whatever degre the d- rate of racial atitudes has changed for the better in the past quarter century, there were pioneers—Doth Black and White—who put themselves on the line tomake it happen. And it helps us iden- tify the attitudes and actions which stil betray racial prejudice in today’s Church. tsa fascinating account—one wishes it were longer and fled out more in its final chapter on Pastor Hoard's years of service in the ordained Ministry. Here you will meet some of the “good guys” in the ory of Lutheran racial integration, ine duding several names quite familiar 10 readers of this magazine and its prede- cessor. (Mercfully, the cast of "bad guys” remains anonymous) But above allyou will come to rajoice inthe persist fence and largeness of spirit of the author who loves the Chureh-“was and al ‘GLeNw C. Stone (Tis book may be ordered from LVS Church Supplies, 109 Allamanda Ave, Lakeland, FL 33803, for $4.95 a copy (papertack, plus 51.05 for postage and hancling.) (continued from page 12) would be one of history’s truly evil ironies. The Church cannot simply join a “pro-life” movement that would pro- hibit all abortion. But it must, pri- vately and politically and on pain of apostasy, fight the “pro-choice” movementasan eruption from hell: self.