At a policy level, I was generally pleased with the answers of the candidates to the policy questions they were asked. They expressed commitment to domestic-poverty reduction, creation care, the abolition of torture, and efforts to combat AIDS. The fact that they were asked such questions in the context of a discussion of faith and values was itself important. It shows that the moral-values agenda is broadening and that faith motivates passionate concern for human suffering wherever it occurs. The Christian Right no longer has a monopoly on moral-values issues, and it is not only Republicans who can discuss their faith in the public arena.
I have argued in my book on faith and politics that the great majority of evangelicals (including the “evangelical center”) care deeply about abortion and that the default Democratic stance on abortion remains the key obstacle for many evangelicals in pulling the Democratic lever on election day. In reflecting on the answers that Senators Clinton and Obama offered on abortion, I am even more convinced that this is the case. Of the two, Senator Clinton did better on this issue. But neither candidate sent the kind of signals on the abortion issue that demonstrate to me that they really get how important this issue is at the level of principle for evangelical Christians.
Both Clinton and Obama were asked directly whether life begins at conception. Clinton said that the potential for life begins at conception, and Obama said that he had not resolved the issue of when life begins, while then moving on to speak in terms of “potential life.”
The problem with “potential life” language is that no one who wants a child and then discovers they have conceived one describes the entity as a potential life. “Honey, guess what, the doctor tells me I have a potential life growing inside me!” The “entity” is a baby in its very first stages unless we do not want it; then we seek euphemisms like “potential life.” Whenever we see euphemisms in use we can know that something morally dubious is going on. Torture is not “torture,” it is “enhanced interrogation.” Genocide is not “murder” it is “special treatment” or “ethnic cleansing.” And a developing human being in its first stages is not a “baby” but a “potential life.”
American law as it currently stands is based on a painfully transparent euphemizing of the status of unwanted developing human life. Perhaps Democratic candidates cannot say this. Perhaps they do not believe this. But they could say this:
“I recognize that many millions of Americans believe that a pregnant woman is carrying not just a potential life but an actual human being in its earliest stages of development. Many millions of other Americans do not believe this. But we live together in one national community, and we must respect the heartfelt convictions of one another, especially on matters of such gravity. And even those who believe that we are dealing with ‘potential life’ must acknowledge the great tragedy of abortion for everyone involved, and the great failure represented by a nation in which one out of five pregnancies ends in abortion. This makes it even more important that we craft public policies that reduce the number of abortions as much as we can.”
Here the now standard Democratic line about the various ways in which abortion can be reduced would have more resonance and integrity: abstinence-based sex education, age-appropriate and parentally controlled education about contraception, improved prenatal care, enhanced adoption services, greatly improved foster care, and every other ground-level effort required to protect the life of both the pregnant woman and the child she is carrying. The Democratic candidate could say:
“In light of the great social tensions created over the past 35 years by our unresolved national conflict over abortion, if elected I promise to initiate a comprehensive national effort to reduce the rate of abortions by 50 percent over the next four years—even if there is no change in the basic structure of the law created by the Roe v. Wade decision. Because abortion is at best a necessary evil, everyone benefits if we can reduce the need for it. Everybody ought to be able to get behind this effort to reduce abortion. Imagine fewer unwanted pregnancies; but then imagine also the pregnant teenager getting the support and counseling and health care she needs, the impoverished couple receiving the services they need to care for mother and child, the childless couple experiencing the joy of adoption, and of course the child herself or himself getting a chance to live out his or her life in a safe and loving family environment. Imagine a society no longer divided over the issue of abortion. I promise X billion dollars over the next four years to achieve this goal, and I declare abortion reduction one of my most important domestic priorities.”
Notice that no Republican or Democratic candidate has ever made an effort like this on abortion. Thirty-five years of pro-life efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade have never yielded gains like those promised by such an initiative. The presidential candidate who takes this path will not only improve the national conversation about abortion, make our country a better place, and save the lives of thousands of developing human beings, he or she might just win both the Catholic and the evangelical vote and therefore the election. If a moral argument won’t persuade, maybe an electoral one will?
-30-
— David Gushee is distinguished university professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University. His latest book, The Future of Faith in American Politics: The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center, debuts Feb. 15. www.davidpgushee.com