HOLY ABORTION?
by Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth
North Carolina Christian
Advocate, July 22, 2003
For over thirty years this
recently released book, Holy Abortion? A Theological
Critique of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
(Wipf and Stock, Eugene, OR), or one like it, has needed to be
written. Why? Because for over thirty years The United
Methodist Church has been officially associated with the
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), its
predecessor organization the Religious Coalition for Abortion
Rights (RCAR), and their radical pro-abortion ideology. At
long last, Holy Abortion? tells the truth about RCRC
and its pro-abortion program.
RCRC is truly pro-abortion.
That is, RCRC is not pro-choice: it does not see abortion as a
tragic event. Rather, RCRC is pro-abortion: it understands
abortion, for any reason and in any circumstance, to be a
good.
Having read through tens of
RCRC documents, the authors of Holy Abortion? -- Dr.
Michael J. Gorman, a United Methodist and the Dean of the
Ecumenical Institute, and Ann Loar Brooks, an educator with a
master’s degree in theology -- uncover six foundational tenets
of RCRC’s pro-abortion thinking. RCRC’s six tenets, according
to Gorman and Brooks, are: (1) “[an] absolute, God-given
sexual freedom, including abortion rights;” (2) “the isolated
woman or teen as sovereign moral agent;” (3) “the
trivialization of the moral status of unborn human life;” (4)
“the legitimacy of abortion as birth control;” (5) “the
holiness of abortion;” and (6) “a pro-choice God, attested in
Scripture, who blesses all decisions.”
Then Gorman and Brooks move
on to prove that RCRC’s pro-abortion position contradicts the
official positions of its affiliated mainline Protestant
denominations -- including the pro-choice position of The
United Methodist Church. Again, RCRC’s pro-abortion position
is shown to conflict with United Methodism’s pro-choice
position.
Gorman and Brooks state: “The
United Methodist Church, then, in contrast to RCRC, affirms
its reluctance to approve abortion, its belief in ‘the
sanctity of unborn human life,’ and the necessity of
assistance in decision making. It explicitly rejects abortion
as birth control and places restrictions on its being
considered at all (‘tragic conflicts of life with life’).
Partial-birth abortion is permitted only in extreme cases...”
“Furthermore, on the subject
of sex, the Discipline says that ‘[a]lthough all
persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married,
sexual relations are only clearly affirmed in the marriage
bond.’ This, too, is in stark contrast to RCRC’s position.
“In sum, then, The United
Methodist Church rejects RCRC’s approval of unfettered sexual
relations and abortion as birth control; it sanctifies what
RCRC trivializes (unborn human life); and it insists on the
Christian tradition as the context for decision making.
Although this position hardly rules out all abortions, it
clearly does not reflect RCRC’s theology or ethics.” (p. 36)
