...what would she do if she was pregnant. Any woman can be pro-life (or anti-choice, which I don't think has to be the same thing) when she is not having to directly consider what that choice means.

I am not supposed to be pro-choice, I've been led to believe, because I am a Christian and because life is sacred and a gift from God. But anyone who knows me has heard me say that if I were to become pregnant untimely (that is, before marriage) I would get an abortion in a heartbeat. Wrong as it may be, my attitude has been that if this is indeed the choice I would make, I should work my hardest to not have to make that choice. It's like if you were to wonder and/or predict how you would react in a hostage situation and to avoid having to find out you stay away from international flights, or, say, flights to certain unsavory countries.

With the approval of the RU-486 this month, I am again caught between two schools of thought. My first reaction was to shake my head and shrug at society's need for such a drug, but then I sighed and felt that if we claim to need it, it's probably better that we have it available, a lesser of two evils.

I think about how things like this affect society on a large scale. For example, when I heard on NPR that scientists were trying to find a way to infuse rice with Beta-Caroteneso that the children in Third World countries would not die in such large numbers to vitamin deficiency and malnutrition, on the surface, it looks like a great idea. But then I think about how if those countries are overpopulated as it is and impoverished, uneducated, etc., how will the extended and lengthened life span affect them in, say, 30 years?

The ideal application of RU-486 would depend on if it can be made available to the poorer majority, since it is often their class that suffers most from unwanted or teen pregnancy. And, if it can prevent having to get an abortion, which usually runs the risk of rendering the mother barren, is that also a positive thing?

I seldom like medicinal agents like these which are often used to take the focus from common sense and apply it to convenience, and therefore de-humanizing what it means to get pregnant, and the responsibilities that go with being sexually active. But when I try to discern, I think about what Jesus had said in the Gospels about marriage and divorce. He said that Moses gave the people this law because their hearts were hardened, that the permission to divorce was not God's intention for man and woman, but for them to be bound for the duration of their lives. The same could be said of abortion, birth control, and RU-486. That while they may not be options which were intended for us, they have been granted us because our hearts are hardened. Jesus also told us, I believe, to obey the authorities over us, but to watch that we do not do as they do.

All that said, I hold my position that if I were to get pregnant right now, I would like look into RU-486, now that it is available. If it wasn't, I'd look into an abortion, and I wouldn't wait. I'm not trying to gain the respect of non-Christians or the judgement of pro-life Christians, since I believe the issue of abortion is not a Christian one, but one that the whole of society has to account for. I have no desire to promote either side with deep seated devotion either, so perhaps I am more a member of the majority than I originally thought.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.