Third Way on Abortion

I’m with Schultz in seconding First Things‘ Keith Pavlischek’s call for Jim Wallis to straighten up and tell the world what his own actual position on abortion is, and how it relates to his support of the emerging health reform bill. Following the twists and turns of Pavlischek’s account, it’s pretty clear that Wallis wants […]

I’m with Schultz in seconding First Things‘ Keith Pavlischek’s call for Jim Wallis to straighten up and tell the world what his own actual position on abortion is, and how it relates to his support of the emerging health reform bill. Following the twists and turns of Pavlischek’s account, it’s pretty clear that Wallis wants to avoid doing so. For fear of alienating his fans on the left? Burning his bridges to the right? Limiting his prophetic access to the king? Or just playing the old common ground game?

There actually is a third religious way on abortion–the traditional Jewish view. It’s that abortion is wrong but not murder, and is permissible when the pregnancy creates physical or psychological problems for the pregnant woman. This rejects the scientistic idea that “life” begins at conception, as well as the theological belief (currently embraced by the LDS Church) that there is no ensoulment–and hence no person–until implantation. But neither does it see abortion as a morally neutral medical procedure whose availability enhances the liberty of women. And it does not rely on distinguishing one’s personal opposition to abortion from what one is prepared to impose on others.

Those who embrace this third way would be consistent in supporting restrictions on the use of federal funds to pay for abortions in the health care bill while not regarding their absence as a deal-breaker. I have no idea whether Wallis (or any other prominent commongroundnik) holds such a position. But it would be interesting to know.


Note to Schultz: Gilgoff is a reporter, not a “public religious voice,” and so, by the traditional canons, under no obligation to say what his personal positions are.

Comment from Schultz (apparently the comment function isn’t working):

I may have created some inadvertent confusion
here myself. As you say, Gilgoff is a reporter, not a religious voice. I’m
awaiting answers from him and Rachel Laser
on another matter tangentially
related to this one.

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4


/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4


/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}


My question for him wasn’t about his personal beliefs, but what independent
evidence he had to accept Rachel Laser’s perspective on voters being worried about
Democratic overreach on abortion. That doesn’t seem supported by the polls, and
I wonder what they have to support the position.

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!