Conflict between Belief and Behavior. Why so many ‘Pro Life’ people get Abortions.
http://blog.wired.com/photos
One of my favorite sayings if from the Book of James. Show me your faith without deeds and I will show you my faith by my deeds. What it means to me is that there is a religion that we profess and there is a religion that we practice. Too often the two are not the same.
The contradiction between the strong belief and getting an abortion (in some cases it is the father who is strong anti-abortion but getting an abortion for his daughter. Also 4 out of 5 abortions are performed on unmarried women, which seems to place a large responsibility on the absent male partner contributing to the decision) is hardly surprising. Most of us exhibit small and greater contradictions between what we believe and our actions. Still the study by Joyce Arthur “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion” makes for illuminating read. Here are a couple of excerpts.
http://z.hubpages.com
“In 1973, after Roe v. Wade, abortion became legal but had to be performed in a hospital. That of course was changed later. For the first ‘legal abortion day’ I had scheduled five procedures. While scrubbing between cases, I was accosted by the Chief of the OB/Gyn service. He asked me, ‘How many children are you going to kill today?’ My response, out of anger, was a familiar vulgar retort. About three months later, this born-again Christian called me to explain that he was against abortion but his daughter was only a junior in high school and was too young to have a baby and he was also afraid that if she did have a baby she would not want to put it up for adoption. I told him he did not need to explain the situation to me. ‘All I need to know’, I said, ‘is that SHE wants an abortion.’ Two years later I performed a second abortion on her during her college break. She thanked me and pleaded, ‘Please don’t tell my dad, he is still anti-abortion.’” (Physician, Washington State) “
“Although few studies have been made of this phenomenon, a study done in 1981 (1) found that 24% of women who had abortions considered the procedure morally wrong, and 7% of women who’d had abortions disagreed with the statement, “Any woman who wants an abortion should be permitted to obtain it legally.” A 1994/95 survey (2,3) of nearly 10,000 abortion patients showed 18% of women having abortions are born-again or Evangelical Christians. Many of these women are likely anti-choice. The survey also showed that Catholic women have an abortion rate 29% higher than Protestant women. A Planned Parenthood handbook on abortion notes that nearly half of all abortions are for women who describe themselves as born-again Christian, Evangelical Christian, or Catholic. (4)”
“Many anti-choice women are convinced that their need for abortion is unique — not like those “other” women — even though they have abortions for the same sorts of reasons. Anti-choice women often expect special treatment from clinic staff. Some demand an abortion immediately, wanting to skip important preliminaries such as taking a history or waiting for blood test results. Frequently, anti-abortion women will refuse counseling (such women are generally turned away or referred to an outside counselor because counseling at clinics is mandatory). Some women insist on sneaking in the back door and hiding in a room away from other patients. Others refuse to sit in the waiting room with women they call “sluts” and “trash.” Or if they do, they get angry when other patients in the waiting room talk or laugh, because it proves to them that women get abortions casually, for “convenience”.”
As I said this contradiction in actions and belief is not surprising; we all exhibit it. The question though that does come to mind is how does anyone expect behavior to change by making abortions illegal. If we are going to drive fast, and most people do, having a 60/55 MPH speed limit (and fines etc.) does not seem to deter many people. When even those who believe abortions are wrong are getting them in fairly large numbers, how do we expect to make any change by changing the law? Wouldn’t concentrating on ways to change our behavior have a much greater impact?
Khalid Shah, 50, is an American Muslim who came to the U.S. 32 years ago. He and his wife have lived in the St. Louis area since 1990, and have been active in a variety of interfaith activities as well as in the local Muslim communities. They have both spoken about Islam at a variety of houses of worship. After working as an engineer for most of his career, he is currently a small business owner. 
This is an interesting topic, but what might be more relevant would be to find a study of a large group of women who consider themselves “pro-life”, and then find out what percentage of that group had received an abortion.
This information may actually support the claim you make in the title of this blog that “so many pro-life people get abortions.”
The statistics you show are telling, but I think it is kind of a round-a-bout way to get there…
Joey,
There is enough here to support the claim ’so many’. We don’t have to be exact unless we want a tit for tat mudslinging. That is not my objective. I am asking the question at the end. Can we expect changing the law to change behaviors? Who are we kidding?
Khalid,
Interestingly, your chart indicates that those who define themselves as ‘Protestant’ are responsible for 42% of the abortions, while the category ‘Jewish/Born-Again’ (somewhat of a misnomer catch-all category; you normally wouldn’t put ‘Jewish’ and ‘Born-Again’ in the same group) is only about 7%.
Contrary to the title of your post, in my opinion the chart STRENGTHENS the correlation between deep religious values and behavior. Over my 48 years of life, I’ve found that - overwhelmingly - most churchgoing people (folks who would claim to be ‘Protestant’) are, sadly, biblically illiterate - and I would have included myself. Although I went to a Protestant church for years, I didn’t know beans about the Christian faith - and I would have called myself a ‘Protestant Christian’ (largely because I wasn’t Jewish - and was born in America (!)). Although I was aware of the ‘pro-life/pro-choice’ debate, I wouldn’t have had a passionate opinion either way.
I had a ‘Born-Again’ experience at the age of 18 and - for the very first time in my life - began to read the Bible with a rapaciousness. It would have been at THIS time that I would have begun to develop a ‘pro-life/anti-abortion’ worldview - not before - and the thought of getting an abortion would have been out of the question.
Do ‘Born-Again’ Christians get abortions? Of course; I’m fully aware of my own sin and the sin that I see in others. We’re all capable of it.
I simply believe that the deeply religious Christians (regular Bible readers to some degree; knowledgeable about the ways of Christ) represent the smaller number of people obtaining abortions. Nominal believers, I feel, are less zealous or passionate about this issue - and I believe your chart supports this idea.
‘Can we expect changing the law to change behaviors? Who are we kidding? (Khalid Shah)
Contrary to the idea that you can’t ‘legislate morality,’ every single law we pass is a legislation of moral behavior; it’s only a matter if we choose to obey the law and have an idea as to the punishment of the crime.
If all laws could be negated and reduced to simply a matter of personal choice, then your ‘Against Abortion? Don’t Have One’ bumpersticker could, logically, have many substitutions to it:
‘Against Slavery? Don’t Own One!’
‘Against Murder? Don’t Kill Anyone!’
‘Against Stealing? Don’t Do It!’
I have no doubt that if abortion was found to be illegal, there would be far fewer abortions.
From this:
“7% of women who’d had abortions disagreed with the statement, “Any woman who wants an abortion should be permitted to obtain it legally.” ”
I’d say that 93% of women getting abortions are pro-choice at least by somebody’s standard. My point is that a title means different things to different people. How many times have you heard “I consider myself a BLANK, but I think BLANK” I got news, sometimes you cant be a BLANK and think BLANK. Sometimes, meaning words and titles have meanings and it’s the meanings that are important, not just the word or title. There are essential concepts to any ideal.
Regardless I agree with John C that it’s American “christians” tend to buy into the nonsense that religion or faith is a thing you lock in the closet for Sunday, and it can’t change how you live, vote, or think. It’s an epidemic that affirms for me anecdotal evidence that Catholics are particularly bad about this.
In reality it’s not about what we call ourselves, but what Christ calls us. We know that not everybody that takes His name will be saved (from his words.) That with concept of spiritual regeneration (born again - in the true sense of it) explains why all the surveys about religion in America give really wierd results. It’s because people claim to be something they are not or don’t understand.
PS - Kahlid I’m the Mike that normally argues with you, not the one from your last abortion posting. Just wanted to clarify.
John C,
Yes, the “dont’ like abortions” slogan is up to about a second grade level of argument. It skirts the real issue (is it alive or not) and makes morallity or ethics an outcome based concept. So as long as nobody gets hurt or it turned out okay for me. then my choice was morally acceptable. That’s not the kind of Truth that works in society.
And abolition seemed to end slavery pretty well. So I guess laws can have a causal effect towards behavior. If they didn’t then I’d say Obama’s Wall Street reforms won’t have a chance at straightening out the bad policies plagueing our financial system.
JohnC,
Thank you for sharing your story. A little bit about the numbers, even though that I hope is not everyone’s focus. Here is a clearly anti-abortion website. According to their numbers catholic and born/again evangelical account for 49.3% of all abortions. http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html That is to say, the original statement that a lot of people who personally believe abortion to be wrong are getting/procuring abortions. Joyce Arthur catalogues a lot of cases where right after getting the abortion they are back working to oppose abortions.
The issue of laws changing behavior you (and Mike) site some valid examples. The difference in each case cited is that there is/was overwhelming agreement on the issue. I hope you do agree that in the case of abortion there are very large numbers on both sides and the debate is at loggerheads for the past 30+ years. As I mentioned before, the Islamic position permits abortion during the first 120 days. It is permissible but undesirable. Personally I consider abortion a poor option. However it should always remain the choice of the person and should remain available. I guess it would be my wish that we could all work together to reduce the abortion rate in our country, which is extremely high. But that can only happen if we agree to disagree on the ethical issue and join to work on what we can agree upon.
I know of one woman who at one time contemplated having an abortion but never did. She is now Pro-Life.
Her name is Norma McCorvey. She is better known as Jane Roe.
It’s my observation, and I’ve made it many times, that Abortion is being used by folks on both sides to score POLITICAL points. My current favorite example: Between 2001 and 2007, the “Pro-Life” party ran both houses of Congress AND the White House. This would have been a perfect opportunity to actually bring up the Right To Life amendment for a vote. That it would have failed to get a 2/3 majority in both houses and the required 3/4 of the states to actually turn into a constitutional amendment is, to me, secondary.
They never even brought it out of committee. Why? Because they really don’t want to end abortion. They want only to use it as a cudgel to beat up their opponents.
The numbers cited in this article bear out something I’ve thought for a long, long time. Other sources have reported on this as well. There are an awful lot of otherwise conservative career women who either have had abortions or would like the option for themselves or their daughters. The politicians know this, so they won’t do anything to end the practice.
I’m with Mr. Shah here: why is it so difficult to have an honest conversation about this subject? Why is it so difficult to get people to move past emotion and actually agree on something really basic. Like this basic statement: “There are too many abortions in this country.” Or even this one: “Abortion should not be used as a method of birth control.”
Why not agree on those statements and actually work from the edges on the issue rather than hammer on each other? It might actually do some good.
John C,
You make an interesting point about law changing behavior. It has not proven to be the case in many catagories. Prohibition was one, drugs, prositution, and gambling or others.
I would like to see a study about the impact laws have on certain behaviors. Also, a distinction in that study between laws of morality, and those of immediate self interest and protection, i.e. murder, robbery, assualt, property damage.
Those laws that we agree upon from a self preservation commitment seem effective in maintaining agreement. (An eye for an eye, the golden rule.)
Those laws that legislate moral behavior with a finer intellectual edge seemed doomed to be ignored, compromised, or worse, they generate an intellectual resistance by reflecting the position they try to abolish.
Abolition is a intersting example. I would argue it came after the fact. Lincoln, the consumate politician, enacted it only after there was broad enough support, and was forced into it. It was a law of military means. Civil rights came much later, and was an agreement inspired by those who shared through who they were being. There was little righteousness in that movement. The righteousness came later and fostered a backlash that we are still recovering from.
My personal conclusion is that the efforts of Christians are best modeled after those of Jesus if we wish to make a difference with this issue. He was clear about the effectiveness of law making. Abide them, and there is another way.
Being who we say we are is more effective than telling people who they should be, especially, when you accompany it with a detailed and intellectual argument. It only calls forth the same in defense.
To this post, attempting to manage other’s behavior is a diversion for being responsibile for our own. Hypocrisy is the issue here, and it flirts with righteousness, but avoids it by calling on self reflection.
Who has been inspired recently by another’s commitment to not have an abortion? When presented in the context of righteousness and judgment, nobody will be.