Faithful Democrats
In this third part of my five-part series—in which I look at abortion through the lens of each of the five books of the Pentateuch—my goal is to take a step back from the “pro-choice” versus “pro-life” abortion debate and consider one of the less talked about issues surrounding abortion.
A few years ago, when I shied away from taking a firm stand in the abortion debate, I would make this argument: the issue we should be talking about isn’t whether we should or shouldn’t allow abortions, but rather what socioeconomic factors go into women needing abortions. Although I have since taken a “pro-choice” stance on abortion, I don’t disagree with my earlier assessment or think it is any less valid. This essay revisits my argument of old, stepping back from the choice versus life to look at the bigger picture, and in the process to think about one of the major issues that causes women to have abortions.
According to surveys, from both conservative or liberal sources, in the majority of cases the root cause why a woman has an abortion is economic. This includes cases in which a woman believes she is not ready for the responsibility of a child, believes she cannot afford to have a(nother) child, believes the child’s father will not support the child, believes a child will disrupt her professional or educational opportunities, and so on. In each of these cases, economic issues are at play that may affect how a woman chooses whether or not to keep her child. In other words, how the United States supports and assists women who are pregnant has direct bearing on the number of abortions in this country. These economic factors are at least partly based on cultural attitudes, i.e. how we as a society view and respect (or not) pregnant mothers and mothers of infants and small children. But it is the economic realities that in many cases drive the decision to have an abortion. Following, for now, the general wisdom (which we hear increasingly from the political left-center) that abortions should be “legal, safe, and rare,” I propose this thesis: if women were given greater economic support when they choose to have a child, far fewer abortions would happen.
Now, it is time to introduce Leviticus to the mix. In the midst of Leviticus’ holiness code—which lays out graphic laws for the people of Israel with corresponding punishments—an oasis of peace opens up in the text when the Year of Jubilee is described. After the holiness laws which proceed it, the description of the Jubilee Year seems (at least to this reader) like a warm fire in a harsh snowstorm. Leviticus 25 describes the precepts for the Year of Jubilee, and it is remarkable enough to quote at some length here: “You shall hallow the fiftieth year and you shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you: you shall return, every one of you, to your property and every one of you to your family. That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you: you shall not sow, or reap the aftergrowth, or harvest the unpruned vines. For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy to you: you shall eat only what the field itself produces… When you make a sale to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor, you shall not cheat one another…. You shall not cheat one another, but you shall fear your God; for I am the Lord your God.”
After the Year of Jubilee was proclaimed to the people of Israel, it was practiced at least for a time. But it proved to be a difficult statute to follow: by the time Israel was returning from Babylonian exile it had fallen out of practice and needed to be renewed (see Nehemiah 10:31). And today, from our modern viewpoint, the Year of Jubilee seems utopian at best, and ridiculous at worst. Nevertheless, it is an inspiring vision: a regularly repeating time in which all debts are forgiven, and the land has rest from being plowed and worked. Neighbors are conscious of being fair toward each other, people return to their own property, slaves are released—all is at rest and at peace. The point of the Year of Jubilee was that no Israelite would ever be disenfranchised, would never be so destitute that she or he would be totally mired in poverty and/or cut off from the community for economic reasons.
The United States has no policy or law that comes anywhere close to approximating the Year of Jubilee, and most lawmakers and politicians would undoubtedly say that such a law is unrealistic. (I am sure they are right.) But I do want to stop and consider: what would the issue of abortion look like if the United States did have a cultural and economic model like the Jubilee to look toward? Forget for a moment about the specifics of the Year of Jubilee named in Leviticus: broadly speaking, Jubilee offers an inspiring ideal for a community-nation striving to take care of its members and ensure their economic well-being. In other words, Jubilee proclaims everyone valuable (cultural attitude) by virtue of their participation in the community, and therefore provides direct measures to ensure everyone’s well-being and good community standing (economic result).
What if our country provided such a Jubilee for women? What if our churches did? If women knew that they would never be alienated from their community for economic reasons, wouldn’t this have a drastic effect on some women’s choices whether or not to have an abortion? An examination of the Year of Jubilee in light of the issue of abortion can only conclude as follows: If we want to be serious about making abortion “legal, safe, and rare” in this country, we have to provide basic and ample economic support—in addition to cultural respect and love—for women who are pregnant. Without such a Jubilee, is it any wonder that the vast majority of reasons given for abortions have economic bases?
—
Next week: Abortion by the Numbers
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In