The Harvard Salient -- 12 March 2007

The Harvard Salient
20 April 2007

Religious Pro-Choice Zealots

The religious argument for abortion is not so religious afterall

By Meghan E. Grizzle, Associate Editor

On Wednesday, April 11, 2007, Harvard Students for Choice hosted a panel entitled “The Religious Argument for Reproductive Choice.” The event was also sponsored by Harvard Seminarians for Choice and Spiritual Youth for Reproductive Freedom, which is a program of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC). RCRC members include the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, sects of the Presbyterian Church (USA), Unitarian Universalists, Catholics for a Free Choice, and the Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, and Humanist branches of Judaism. The panel featured Dr. Mary Hunt, a feminist Catholic theologian and co-founder of the Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics, and Ritual, and Dr. Sylvia Barack Fishman, Professor of Contemporary Jewish Life in the Near Eastern and Judaic Studies Department at Brandeis University.

Dr. Hunt’s presentation outlined three approaches to abortion within Catholicism. The first is the institutional church’s “anti-abortion” stance. The second is the moderate, pro-choice view, which Hunt asserts is increasing in popularity. The third, to which she belongs, is a progressive, contextualizing approach.

Hunt refers to the institutional Catholic Church as a “kyriarchy”, a term coined by feminist Biblical scholar and Harvard Divinity School faculty member Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. In her speech, Hunt defined kyriarchy as the “lordship” of a mostly white, all-male group over the Catholic Church. The “kyriarchal” view of abortion is that it is a grave sin; the Vatican thus explicitly condemns it, promoting the sanctity of human life, which begins at conception. Although she understands this position, Hunt believes that it is seriously misguided and overstressed by the Church. She lamented that even on Easter Sunday, her priest managed to slip abortion into his homily; she then elicited nods of approval when she proclaimed, “Gimme a break!”

The second, more moderate approach to abortion is one that recognizes that human life does not necessarily entail personhood, and that life does not begin at conception. Catholics holding this view may not support abortion, but they feel that they cannot impose their personal beliefs on others through the creation of moralistic laws.

Hunt’s personal approach to Catholicism is what she calls progressive—one that even sidelines the importance of the issue altogether. She believes that poverty, racism, war, and “ecocide” are much more pressing issues. Yet her version of Catholicism is still pro-choice and pro-sex, because, as she put it, “sexuality is a splendid thing.” According to Hunt, while the Catholic Church has moral and political power that has prevented the legalization of “reproductive choice” in many countries—particularly in Latin America—her understanding of Catholicism has the ability to free the religious tradition from the shackles of kyriarchy.

Hunt provided little real justification for the acceptance and legalization of abortion, except for that women have the right to control their own bodies, their own consciences, and their own lives. It is amusing that as a speaker on a panel on the religious argument for abortion, Hunt laid out no Biblical support for abortion. She said instead that her Protestant colleagues would be better sources of evidence from the Bible (unfortunately, the Baptist panelist, Reverend Irene Monroe, was unable to attend). Hunt’s answer was not surprising, considering that most Catholics turn to the Pope and the Church for guidance in practical and moral matters rather than studying the Bible. What is perplexing, though, is that Hunt does not follow the teachings of the Church herself. She blamed the “Vatican media conspiracy” for duping people into believing that Catholics are subject to the authority of the Pope and the institution of the Church. It is therefore nearly impossible to identify her as a true Catholic, and thus presenting her as an authority from Catholicism is misleading. Furthermore, her inability or unwillingness to cite the Bible reflects her lack of authority as a Christian in general.

Professor Fishman called herself “pro-choice but not pro-abortion” and cited Talmudic law to argue that Judaism is not averse to abortion. Before 40 days in the womb, a fetus is not considered a life, and from 40 days until birth, a fetus is living but is not a person deserving of rights. Thus abortion is not murder in the Jewish tradition, even in the case of partial-birth abortion (unless the head is exposed during the procedure). Abortion may even be required if the mother’s health is at risk. Fishman claimed that Jewish women have the lowest abortion rates in the U.S., despite being some of the most vocal supporters of abortion.

Professor Fishman was able to provide specific teachings and illustrations from the Talmud relating to abortion. As I am not familiar with Jewish law outside of the Old Testament, I must take Fishman’s description of the Talmud at face value. Hunt, on the other hand, has no such text to base her analysis, and her views are based solely on feminist interpretations of Catholic theology. It is difficult to accept her as a religious authority, and thus her arguments did not convince the pro-life Christians in the room that evening.

Hunt thus typifies the progressive “pro-choice Christian”. There is simply nothing—not in the Gospel, not in the writings of the early church fathers, and certainly not in the dogma of the Catholic Church, or any other mainstream Christian denomination—to support the pro-choice argument. And if one is going to take issue with such a fundamental tenant of the faith, then Christians must question the value of taking such people seriously in the first place.