I am a Christian, and I am pro-choice.

Go ahead and gasp. Get the shock out of your system. It’s true: I’m a pro-choice Christian. We do exist, although I’ll be the first to admit that we’re an endangered species. Evangelical culture is not friendly to our kind; in fact, to be pro-choice is, often, to be shunned. I would even go as far to say that pro-lifers are harsher on pro-choice Christians than they are on secular activists. We’re supposed to know better, or at least that’s what we’re told.

Evangelical rhetoric has declared abortion a sin without acknowledging the fact that the Bible is silent on the issue. It’s true that the pattern of the Scriptures shows that human life is valuable. That is why I am pro-choice. I believe that all human life is valuable, and that includes the lives of the women that seek abortions. A ban on abortion would not stop abortions from taking place, and illegal abortions often kill or maim the women who have them performed.

The implication of the pro-life label is that anyone who disagrees with a pro-lifer is anti-life. This is a ridiculous conclusion. How exactly can one be against life? It’s impossible. No one (no one alive, anyway) is against life. The abortion controversy is about choice. Women deserve the right to control their bodies. You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to agree with it. But if you believe that the lives of women are as important as the lives of men, you will protect their rights. These rights include access to safe medical procedures.

Until we have the ability to define and measure personhood, we do not have the right to condemn abortion. We certainly don’t have the right to condemn the women who have them. If we truly believe that human life is valuable, even sacred, then we will protect human rights. A woman is a human being. We don’t know if the same is true for a fetus. Therefore, we protect the woman first. There’s nothing unChristian about that.

My Christian university is big on abstinence-only education. We’ve got several ministry teams that go into the public schools to teach girls about ’staying pure’ till marriage. For some reason, we have no teams that minister to boys on the same issue. I think that’s odd, don’t you? It takes two people to have sex. Anyway, the reason I am mentioning this is because a brand-new study shows that (surprise, surprise) abstinence only sex education doesn’t work (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071107/ap_on_re_us/teen_sex).

 I decided to do a Google search for abstinence-only sex education. To my surprise, many of the sites listed in the results were also pro-life advocacy sites. This, my friends, is called irony. Kid sits in abstinence class and is told not to have sex. Kid has sex anyway. Since kid wasn’t taught about birth control or condoms, he or she could get pregnant or contract an STD. In the case of pregnancy, what do you think the girl is going to do? She can keep the baby and say goodbye to any semblence of a normal teenage life. She can experience nine months of hell (ie, pregnancy) and give the baby up for adoption, or she can abort. It seems to me that if you really intend to prevent abortions, it would be in the best interest of your cause to promote the method that is most likely to accomplish that goal.

 The fact is that teenagers are going to have sex.  Why not teach them to have it safely?