Tim Johnson
Published 5:01 a.m. ET April 20, 2022
I am a Protestant minister who became an emergency room doctor and then Chief Medical Editor for ABC News. In those positions I saw the impact of abortion on individual lives and families. I have concluded that the best way to think about abortion – and to achieve possible compromise — is to be both anti-abortion and pro-choice.
Most of us are instinctively anti-abortion. I have never met anyone who thinks it is a procedure to be encouraged as an alternative to far less traumatic birth-control measures. Given that women choose abortion because they do not want their pregnancy to reach completion, the answer to preventing most abortions is to make other birth control measures widely and affordably available. To put it another way, if you are anti-abortion, you should also be pro-birth control.
Being pro-choice is far more complicated. It involves the unsettled and emotional issue of when life begins and what choices are morally acceptable. One way to get to the tough choices is to acknowledge that the entire chain of pregnancy involves living cells – from the fertilized egg and developing fetus to the stage when life in the womb is capable of existing outside the womb. Therefore, choice should not be determined by when life begins but instead, by what kind of life exists at various stages.
Obviously, it’s easier to see the difference in the status of life at the extremes. The early stages of fetal development are very different in appearance and “movement” than the last stages before birth. So, the question becomes: should choice depend on the stage of development? When does life in the womb reach a stage when abortion would be more logically thought of as “murder” or “evil?” For most, that stage occurs when the developing fetus is capable of life outside the womb.
There is another “choice” that is emotional and controversial — the choice between the unknown future of a developing fetus not yet capable of life outside the womb and that of a fully existing human being who has decided that having a baby is not the right choice for her. Let me make clear that I have no sympathy or support for women who glibly rely on abortion as simply another method of birth control. They might be better described as “pro-self” instead of “pro-choice.”
In contrast, I do have sympathy for the woman who carefully and thoughtfully concludes that another life to support will be destructive to life already struggling to exist – hers and/or her family. An example is a mother already overwhelmed by poverty. Society has no right to force her to give birth unless there is mutual arrangement between the mother and societal resources to arrange for adoption and support after birth. If we insist on the rights of developing infants to be born, we must also insist on resources to make those lives fully human once born. All too often, “pro-lifers” are simply “pro-birthers.” If we are truly pro-life and not just pro-birth, we should support child-health resources with our taxes and philanthropy.
I vigorously disagree with those who would force a mother to complete a pregnancy caused by incest or rape. Before Roe v. Wade, many women could only choose to have a relatively dangerous illegal abortion or to travel to where it was legal. My experience as an ER physician prior to Roe v. Wade made clear that many women in those circumstances chose back-alley abortions, even if it meant possible death. Under Roe v. Wade, a woman can choose to have a safe abortion.
My “pro-choice” opinion is based on the reality of an already fully existing human life versus the far less certain life outcome of a developing fetus incapable of life outside the womb. While all stages are “living,” the specific stage should be very much a part of the decision that makes both physical and moral sense.
After a lifetime of pondering this question — as a doctor and a minister – I believe that the life of the fully developed and struggling woman should take precedence over the early and undeveloped form of life in the womb. That is my “pro-choice” position.
Finally, I do not believe that government at any level should by law make this complicated and emotional decision for a woman. Abortion is a matter best made by a woman and her family using whatever counsel they choose – doctors, ministers, close friends – not by a group of strangers operating in an intense political environment. Under our clear constitutional separation of church and state, it certainly should not be made by those in power based on any specific religious beliefs. We are all entitled to our personal moral and religious considerations in making our own decisions, but we should not impose them by law on others who may think and feel very differently.
Dr. Tim Johnson, of Jupiter, is an academic, pastor, physician, and writer who was Chief Medical Editor for ABC News for 25 years.
This article originally appeared in the Palm Beach Post
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/opinion/2022/04/20/minister-doctor-and-medical-editor-weighs-abortion-rights/7359036001/