David Gushee and Frances Kissling — Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Pro-Dialogue
July 25, 2013

No issue is more intractable than abortion. Or is it? Most Americans fall somewhere between the absolute poles of “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” A Christian ethicist who advocates a "consistent ethic of life" and an abortion-rights activist reveal what they admire in the other side and discuss what’s really at stake in this debate.

comment

71 reflections
read/add yours

Share

Shortened URL

Selected Video

In the Room with David Gushee and Frances Kissling

Watch the entire public discussion between Krista and her two guests at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs on the campus of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, Minnesota. And see what people were seeing in our interactive chat as the event unfolded.

Selected Shows

The Civil Conversations Project (CCP) ~ Season 2

This show is part of The Civil Conversations Project, a series of four public discussions offering ideas and tools for healing our fractured civic spaces. Listen to our other CCP dialogues:

» The Future of Marriage
» Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Pro-Dialogue
» The Next Christians
» Political Bridge People

Pertinent Posts from the On Being Blog

Upon being told she is obese by a viewer, a television anchor uses the opportunity to talk about bullying and the need to be kinder to one another.

Activists from two embattled sides find their way to the same table following a public tragedy. The intention? Communicate openly, without necessarily finding common ground.

A nourishing story of forgiveness, mercy, and redemption. Yes, StoryCorps does it again.

Jon Stewart speaks from the heart on the seriousness of political civility following the assassination attempt on Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

Our thought experiment for the week: draw on your own memories of a simple human encounter — unlikely relationships with non-like-minded people — that you may not have pondered as formative and important.

How might we set up a website in which people could find political pen pals for civil, substantive conversations? Offer your suggestions and please share with others. They might have the answer!

A video report from USC's Bethany Firnhaber, Rosalina Nieves, and Robyn Carolyn Price.

1

Video of Obama's speech and how it came up in our live event with Joshua Dubois.

On the 40th anniversary of the momentous court decision, a telling graphic on public thinking around abortion rights.

About the Image

David Gushee and Frances Kissling in dialogue at the Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota.

Your Comments

Filtered HTML

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><span><div><img><!-->
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Embed content by wrapping a supported URL in [embed] … [/embed].

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Comments

I appreciate when Francis Kissling said, "People don't read what you write, they read what they think what you are saying". I agree, but this has more to do with the current static method of authorship. It doesn't have to be that way and I have a prototype of a website to prove it. I've applied this On Being episode as an association to my essay on abortion.

The Do Good Gauge use association to keep a thought moving. Instead of misunderstanding an author intent the Do Good Gauge allows the intent to be explained or even changed.

After reading my polarizing essay on the abortion topic, please click "View" to understand how Association can revolutionize multi-media.

The Collateral Damage of the Anti-Choice Agenda -- Association to the Essay.

I intend to use Krista's questions about exploring what makes you uncomfortable on your own side, what you admire in the other, to proble more deeply into areas in which I'm so sure I'm right. The answers were wonderfully open, vulnerable and honest. I hope I can be use the openness as a model and find others who want to dialogue in this way. They're not easy to find. Great program as usual. Thanks.

I agree that different points of views, but this is basicly a moral dilemma. A zygote most likely will not have the same rights unfortunately.

Thank you, Krista and your crew, for crafting a different kind of exploration of truth and understanding. It seems to me to be desperately needed and profoundly important. Could you possibly do something with the Senate and the House of Representatives (mostly joking but wishing someone could move them to ways to work together for a common good)?

2 Extreme absolute positions? Position #1: a person exists at conception and therefore there should absolutley be no abortion allowed whatsoever. #2: there should absolutely be no absolute ban. Hmmm... What's wrong with this? Am I missing something? It reminds me of 2nd amendment "absolute" positions.

If our presidential debates were as intelligent, reasonable, thoughtful, and thought provoking as this discussion was, I would watch them. I long for political discussions to get back to this kind of dialogue. This program, this series of discussions, this type of work which brings true dialogue to the public, this is why ON BEING received and truly deserves its Peabody Award.

I love the spirit of the CCP. We have been trying to do a similar thing at the high school level with Socratic Seminar. I was trying to track down "Talking to the Enemy" that was referenced this morning. I'd like to share some parts of that with my students I think I may also play the last few minutes of this conversation with my students. Models for real civil discourse (vs. screaming talking heads) are so hard to find in the media-sphere today, so thank you.

Trent Gilliss's picture

James, here's the link to the article: http://www.publicconversations.org/resources/talking-enemy. Sounds like a great project!

In 1972 I told my priest that I was no longer confessing birth control as a sin-that when the Catholic church paid for me and my child(ren) from conception to college graduation, I would have as many babies as my body would bear but until then I will take care of and enjoy the two children we have. I feel we need to positively emphasize contraception to avoid abortions. Young people today are no more promiscuous than my grandparents who married at age 15 and had their first of seventeen children at 16. Females marrying before 16 was natural because that is when females are sexually heightened. If you were 18 and unmarried, you were an "old maid". What has changed is our expectation of females. We are now expected to graduate from high school and go on to higher education before we start reproducing. To expect females to restrain from the pleasures of physically consentual sex is as preposterous as it is to expect males to restrain their sexualilty. Promoting safe and proper techniques for contraception will drastically reduce the need for abortion. Developing male contraceptives that will allow males to control their ability to fertilize will give males control of their own reproductive responsibilities. We need to advertise widely (like we do for cars, fast food, etc.) the value of contraception. Creating another human being is an awesome responsibilty that we should only take on when we are mentally and physically prepared-we need to teach this too all at all ages.

Unfortunately it seems to bear out that as we increase the availability of contraception, the number of abortions increase, not decrease. The same holds for condoms as a solution to the AIDS problem in Africa. As Pope John Paul II wrote, the problem is not with the body, it's with the heart. You might consider looking in NFP, it's endorsed by the Church, and, when pregnancy is not a good idea for serious reasons, is, with today's knowledge, the most reliable form of birth control.

"For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," - 2 Timothy 2:5

Confessing to a priest does nothing for you anyway, they can not absolve your sin. Only faith and trust in Jesus Christ ALONE can save you.

Contraception is a band aid for the real issue and that issue is we are forcing our young people to remain 'children' for far to long. And besides who are you to tell God 'no' to more children.

Who are you or I to say when a girl or boy are ready to become a woman or man?

In this Godless society of course young people are rebellious as well as having people who are also older and wicked who take advantage of them.

Parents aren't doing their jobs right and raising their children to be God fearing. Thus this huge societal break down.

What a thought-provoking conversation! I really enjoyed this show. I appreciate how each guest was asked to find something admirable in the other side. Some years ago, I worked as a counselor in an outpatient surgical facility that provided abortions. I saw women from all walks of life. I do think that talking about the medical/scientific side of abortion can add value to the conversation. It's not until 16-25 weeks of life that a fetus develops a central nervous system, and this, I believe is important. I agree with Ms. Kissling that being pro-choice can be nuanced. While it was rare to see a woman seeking a late term abortion, those occasions gave me pause. I also think it's helpful to trace the history of the abortion debate in this country from its roots as a service provided midwives until doctors passed a law to corner the market. Also, at that time in history, there was a xenophobic component to the anti-abortion movement. Understanding all facets of this complex issue will further increase meaningful dialogue. Thanks for a great show!

Thank you so very much for a nuanced conversation on this important topic. I have been fed up with both sides of this debate on the surface, knee-jerk level of my consciousness for years, finding myself consequently paralyzed mentally and unable to think more deeply about it. The points David and Frances make are self-evident and wonderfully helpful, once the time and self-confidence emerges to allow them into thought.l

It’s difficult to see how our country will ever resolve this issue, but reasonable dialogue and respect for the positions of others sure helps.

I am currently rehearsing a play (called a “generous and compassionate comedy”) that Gadfly Theatre Productions hopes will lead to further thought and discourse. In Mitzi’s Abortion: A Saint’s Guide to Late-Term Politics and Medicine in America by Elizabeth Heffron, the main character faces the possibility of a late-term abortion after discovering that the baby she is carrying is anencephalic and would not be able to survive long after birth. Those around her with a variety of opinions include St. Thomas Aquinas (who, among other things, laments that the Church has dropped the idea of “delayed ensoulment” – that is, that a fetus does not get a soul at conception) and my character, a 17th-century Scottish midwife who was burnt at the stake.

I’ll be interested to see how the Friday night post-play discussions go later this month.
http://minnesotaplaylist.com/performance/audience/mitzis-abortion

I hope people will be as respectful and thoughtful as your guests on today’s program.

One note is that the Church has always condemned abortion (and artificial contraception), from the beginning of the Church. See the Didache around the year 100. St. Thomas' idea of delayed ensoulment is, even in his view, a theologian's speculation on the subject, and does not weaken the Church's teaching, which is based on the revelation of God and the interpretation of the Church's Magisterium, but is an attempt to understand it better.

I think one reason people don't often discuss what happens after an abortion is that it's uncomfortable to admit that many women's primary emotion is not regret, but relief. If a woman has an abortion, she should at least have the decency to feel terrible about it for the rest of her life, right? Yet this is not the case for the vast majority of women I know who have been through this complex, emotional, and exquisitely private experience. Regret that circumstances led to the need to make a decision – yes. Regret for doing what was right for her at the time – no. I do agree that more talking about it would be a good thing, regardless of how each person feels. The experience of abortion can evoke a huge range of possible emotions, including regret, anger, grief, relief, gratitude, hope, happiness, and many others – none of them mutually exclusive. Podcasts like this may help make those conversations easier. I hope so!

This is the first time I've tuned into APM On Being. Listening to civil discussion about issues that have become poloarized gives me hope that we as thinking, feeling, spiritual, and physical human beings can actually learn to listen and understand one another. My other hope is that a constructive response can be cratfed both personally and publically. As a Christian and a mother I value both a respect for life and the weighty responsibility of raising children, espeically when there can be so many negatives of an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy with or without the option of abortion.

I never thought that there can be civil conversation about abortion in this country. I am really glad that there are people like Dr. Gushee and Dr. Kissling. I enjoyed every word of it. IIf all our politiciamns both Republicans and Democrats would start thinking like this, we can move this country way beyond the full potential.. Great program Krista.

I have been waiting for years to hear a dialogue on this issue of abortion. Thank you! Thank you! Krista handled the interview of these two amazing guests with sensitivity and grace. This program needs to be broadcast over and over- picked up by other media so folks all over the world finally hear some intelligent discourse instead of all the yelling and screaming that surrounds this deep issue that has become political fodder.
I hope this program ignites the hearts of millions - moves people to dialogue, authentic listening and asking the questions concerning all issues sacred. Blessings to David, Frances and Krista et al.

My sentiments as well. Krista continues to amaze me with her masterful interview skills. I was so intrigued with the title that my wife and I went to the live presentation on this. It truly was a conversation where you could see some movement. I wouldn't call it dialogue, since I didn't see either party completely lay down their belief systems, but it sure was a lot better than the monologue we usually hear on this topic. I've studied 'dialogue' for forty years and have watched it wither in our society as we polarize. This program is such big work. I used to believe things could be fixed, that static beliefs were healthy and that someday I'd have the answers. I now know that nothing's fixed, every thing is moving. It's what makes the world go round and why circles don't have sides. I know that the more rigid I become in my beliefs and answers the harder I break when deeper mystery shatters them. Thanks to all for the courage to open to the mystery, to that which is bigger than us. As Fances said, to 'common grapple', to let down our advocacy and ask more questions, to help one another go deeper. I would suggest a period of silent meditation next time, before words are spoken. There we can meet before the separating influences of language and thought could arise. It really seems to help the listening/dialogue process, beyond our notions of 'right knowing' and 'wrong knowing'.

This is all very postmodern of you Randy. It is great to dialogue instead of shouting at each other, which is becoming a big part of our culture especially in online forums. Great. But are you seriously suggesting that knowing right or wrong is a waste of time merely because we have an infinite number of opinions in this world? Things ARE right or wrong or neutral, irrespective of our opinions. For facts that are morally inconsequential like ‘does China exist?’ we don’t dispute them. I can easily go to China & find that out for myself. Knowledge is the key to right or wrong opinions. Can we be deceived? Of course, and we unfortunately usually are. But to act like it’s more important to discuss than get it right is sloppy thinking that does have consequences. If the legislators who turned the tide on slavery had spent 100 years talking about it, that would have been 100 years of people being enslaved when they should not have been. And to argue that moral issues are all relative is false. That would mean that before slavery was abolished it was moral. There IS right and wrong in an absolute sense even though that concept is increasingly unfashionable.

One brief positive insight: Frances Kissling explained how generally women have an abortion not because they feel they have the right of choice, but because they feel they have *no other choice* due to their social or economic situation. Though I do not support the outcome, we should understand and address those other real challenges.

And a disagreement: while David Gushee said that abortion let's men "off the hook" and Frances Kissling says that men are off the hook either way - implying that men are socially enabled to not be responsible for sexual decisions, conception, pregnancy, birth, or children... on the contrary, men are "ON the hook" and responsible for every child born - to fully embrace fathering that child (if the mother allows) - and he is "on the hook" and responsible for the outcome of every abortion. because regardless of how it occurs, he is as much a partner in that outcome as he was in the cause. If only all men took this responsibility. Unfortunately, Mr. Gushee nodded as Ms. Kissling made her point. They were disagreeing about grades of an erroneous point. I'm personally tired of men being portrayed and excused as being not responsible. In fact, according to Jesus' teaching, God will hold men *more* responsible.

The picture of the two people above look like Jesus being tempted in the desert. And for good reason. Ms. Kissling has for years confused Catholics about the teaching of the Church, a real dis-service.

The idea of a nuance on this issue can be overstated. It's like the slavery issue in the 1800s, either you thought a white man could own a black man, or you didn't. There's not much of a nuanced position available. So here, one can civilly state one's views, and identify geniune concerns of the other side, but I don't see much room for a nuanced position.

Not much to say here, but thank you for a refreshing (and civil!) conversation on such a divisive issue. I loved Ms. Kissling's reference to Thich Nhat Hanh: "In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change." So true, and a rare sentiment in our political climate.

Murder is wrong, end of story. There should be no dialog for this.

Could you elaborate on this?

The wealthy will always have access to safe abortion. Making it illegal, pushes it underground, putting the less advantaged at high risk.

Wow I am so grateful for Frances' insights about how this pivots on sexual behavior, how this isn't simply about a woman's right to choose, and yet we choose, I chose, not to be a mother (until I became in middle age an adoptive mom) and that is a legitimate decision that deserves protection.. The conversation opens up new space and illustrates how hard it will be to move forward.

"People don't read what you write, they read what they think what you are saying".

"We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are"

I am not what I think I am
I am not what you think I am
I am what I think you think I am

Well, I made you take time to look at what I saw and when you took time to really notice my flower you hung all your own associations with flowers as if I think and see what you think and see of the flower - and I don't. ~Georgia O'Keefe 1960

An artist cannot and does not prepare for a certain response. He does not consider the response but simply follows his inspiration. Works of art are not purposely conceived. The response depends on the condition of the observer. ~Agnes Martin

Conversation at its best is an art. You guys were trying to get Apollo and Dionysus to dance together...and that ain't easy. I admire the effort.

What I find missing in conversations like this is the reptilian factor. The conversations are carried on as if the prefrontal cortex (the conscious self) rules the unconscious self. And so I am sure many people listen to such conversations thinking we can think our way out of this situation. Sex falls right after food and just before plunder on the habit scale. The elephant in the room is the population explosion.

That tirade behind me - I deeply respect the attitude of your conversation. Ms Kissling, I loved your quotes and hope the others make a connection. We all live an illusion. That is a humbling statement and we all need humility.

Thanks

...and you can watch all of Francis Kissling's credibility as a moderate evaporate precisely 30 minutes into the interview:
"Men are off the hook. Men are off the hook if you have a baby, and they are off the hook if you have an abortion."
Sweep aside the millions of men who are suffering under unfair child support laws. Ignore all those who cannot have a relationship with their children because visitation laws are not enforced. Forget about the approximately 25% who are not even the father of the child they are supporting.
Avert your eyes from all the men who wanted to be a father but were denied the opportunity because they have no choice in whether to carry their child to term. Try not to think about all the men who's children are adopted away by the mothers secretly and/or against their will.
Do these things, live in willful ignorance, and you can continue to claim that men are "off the hook". But its shameful that Ms. Kissling made that statement. It's shameful that she was not challenged on it. And it is shameful that she is put forth as representing a moderate opinion.

I'm woefully ignorant of your point of view. Be assured I did read your comments and respect there are perspectives such as yours worthy of consideration. I get that you are seeking a middle ground and hope others will consider you worthy of reaching that destination. Good luck my friend and for all those with an intent of fair compromise. I suggest Michael Sandel's Harvard University public course called Justice if you have not already examined it.

I am extremely grateful for the Civil Conversations project (and On Being in general). Dr. Gushee was my ethics professor at seminary and the man you heard in this conversation is the man I know and respect. I don't always agree with his positions, but I always respect his way of arriving at them and of presenting them. After all these years, I learned new things about his "whole life" perspective. Bravo, On Being - keep up the good work.

After listening to the show, I was concerned by the holes in this nonetheless admirable conversation, that I listened to the unedited version. That was a bit more reassuring. Ms. Kissling's discussion about the pain of abortion (before, after and during), her mention of the broader issues of killing including capital punishments, etc. I would strongly urge a second show with some of the cut sections which are hugely important and respond to some of the comments people have posted. I did note that Mr. Gushee did not include abolishment of the death penalty in his discussion of the absolute sanctity of life nor a discussion of war. His position does not hold much water without these. Ms. Kissling acknowledged these tensions and I was grateful for that.
It is also very difficult to divorce the subject of abortion from political and economic discussions. Who is going to provide healthcare, education, and life-long care and support for those disabled fetuses that according to Mr Gushee have an absolute right to life?
Thanks to all for this compelling conversation- one I hope is just the first but not the last.

It is a mark of how civilized a society is in how it takes care of it's vulnerable members. Economics can hardly be a prerequisite to the right to live. Where are you going to draw the line on that one?

For ten thousand years, humans have acted like predators after learning by watching other animals, to be carnivorous. FOr ten thousand years, since the shift to "domesticating" (neat euphamism for enslave for human purpose, anthropocentrism) wild animals and learning the use of force, subjugation, and turning living beings into human property, our species has been plagued by it's own superiority complex. This very superiority complex, what we in animal rights call "speciesism," has paved the way into human culture and manifested into diseases of the heart. One symptom of this heart disease is a tragic lack of nurturing our young to live in harmony with nature and animals. We actually teach and nurture a DEVALUATION of LIFE. When the ideologies of a species contain accepted use of force over others, as we see everywhere in animal abuse and exploitation, (see all the web sights with pictures and video's of current animal torture in labs, farming, fur, medical research)it is also plagued by the same behaviors in its own midst. With years of abortion rhetoric, we NEVER quite get to the bottom of human sexual desire, and how it is affected by so many things.
Beyond abortion, if humans are ready to grapple with the history of our devaluation of LIFE, even fetal life, we MUST be willing to look at our own cultural failures to raise children who DO Value life, all life. When children grow up with no value of their own bodies,( which our food system does NOT allow or we'd be vegan and healthy inside and out) and sense of responsibility to protect nature( themselves as part of the connected ecology)everything becomes about self satisfaction and external gratification. YES, sex IS USED to fill a void that was created very young. Sex IS USED for validation, where there was a hole from early on. Why would we grapple with our failures? Why would we admit that "health care" has NOTHING to do with diagnostics or treatment but IS everything about nourishment that keeps organs healthy? These issues cause us to look in the societal mirror and understand how retarded human hearts have become in a selfish, me oritented, consumer cult. Want fewer or no abortions, teach that life is sacred, our bodies are sacred, nature is sacred, and we are to protect all aspects, not just economic interests. So frustrating to hear the same discussions. Teach reverence for life, all life. Teach children to love themselves and the natural world, NOT that it is a commodity for consumption. Read The World Peace Diet, as it explains WHY we have these issues instead of skirting them with thousands of words that go nowhere...

Reflection By: Ali Gustafson
12/13/12

This was a discussion between David Gushee, a Christian ethicist and Frances Kissling, a lifetime reproductive rights activist. It covered the things that people usually avoid talking about when abortion is the topic.
Abortion is a topic that we will never arrive at a universal set of convictions. Many people (60 %, both democrats and republicans) do not feel completely for or against this topic and have mixed opinions, others have their mind made up completely in one direction. This topic is a human problem that deals with relationships, sexuality, relationships, economics, etc.. It is seen as a culture war because people are taking an impoverished approach to an intimate civilizational question.
The conversation starts with David. He was raised Catholic and is now a Baptist minister. He became pro-life when he entered into the evangelical world, where there is a holistic ethic of life. Christians at taught to believe that every life matters and should be protected, and a fetus is a life from the time of conception.
Frances, was also raised catholic, and actually became a nun, but then left the convent. Her position as pro-choice is due to her own life experiences. Her mother was 17 years old and unmarried when Frances was conceived. Her mother was bitter and damaged from parenthood and this carried over into her children's lives.
This is a topic I usually choose to avoid, because I agree that this is an unsolvable problem, because there are too many factors that lead people to make drastic decisions when it comes to abortions. I am apart of the 60% that fall in the middle ground on this topic. I really enjoyed this discussion, as they were able to have it civilly and both admitted to seeing certain parts of the others point of view.
They approached this discussion with the thought that, you “need to be vulnerable in front of those whom you passionately disagree with.” David and Frances both agreed that procreation is sacred, and that both men and women needed to be more responsible. Frances stated that, “making babies is a serious business and sex is a pleasurable and meaningful activity with social consequences.” They felt that is society focused more on increasing health care and contraceptive use, if more attention was focused on caring for women during their 9-months of pregnancy, adoption rates may increase while abortion numbers would probably decrease.
I was able to relate to both participants during this discussion, and thoroughly enjoyed the entire thing. The question remains, what is the best thing to do in difficult situations? It is a question that will never have a definite answer, but as long as people are able to open their minds and see the other side, worthwhile answers can be found, and certain decisions might be made a bit easier.

On Being
Transcript for Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Pro-Dialog with David Gushee and Frances Kissling
Reflection By: Ali Gustafson
12/13/12

This was a discussion between David Gushee, a Christian ethicist and Frances Kissling, a lifetime reproductive rights activist. It covered the things that people usually avoid talking about when abortion is the topic.
Abortion is a topic that we will never arrive at a universal set of convictions. Many people (60 %, both democrats and republicans) do not feel completely for or against this topic and have mixed opinions, others have their mind made up completely in one direction. This topic is a human problem that deals with relationships, sexuality, relationships, economics, etc.. It is seen as a culture war because people are taking an impoverished approach to an intimate civilizational question.
The conversation starts with David. He was raised Catholic and is now a Baptist minister. He became pro-life when he entered into the evangelical world, where there is a holistic ethic of life. Christians at taught to believe that every life matters and should be protected, and a fetus is a life from the time of conception.
Frances, was also raised catholic, and actually became a nun, but then left the convent. Her position as pro-choice is due to her own life experiences. Her mother was 17 years old and unmarried when Frances was conceived. Her mother was bitter and damaged from parenthood and this carried over into her children's lives.
This is a topic I usually choose to avoid, because I agree that this is an unsolvable problem, because there are too many factors that lead people to make drastic decisions when it comes to abortions. I am apart of the 60% that fall in the middle ground on this topic. I really enjoyed this discussion, as they were able to have it civilly and both admitted to seeing certain parts of the others point of view.
They approached this discussion with the thought that, you “need to be vulnerable in front of those whom you passionately disagree with.” David and Frances both agreed that procreation is sacred, and that both men and women needed to be more responsible. Frances stated that, “making babies is a serious business and sex is a pleasurable and meaningful activity with social consequences.” They felt that is society focused more on increasing health care and contraceptive use, if more attention was focused on caring for women during their 9-months of pregnancy, adoption rates may increase while abortion numbers would probably decrease.
I was able to relate to both participants during this discussion, and thoroughly enjoyed the entire thing. The question remains, what is the best thing to do in difficult situations? It is a question that will never have a definite answer, but as long as people are able to open their minds and see the other side, worthwhile answers can be found, and certain decisions might be made a bit easier.

If you are Pro- Abortion, then you must be obligated to TEACH the children in health class exactly WHAT IT IS. I went to a mortuary in 8th grade for a field trip; I saw the embalming tools. I learned about death. Make it mandatory - include a trip to an abortion clinic so these children are armed with the TRUTH; show them the tools, show them pictures, make them truly aware of what takes place. Teach them that the destruction/killing/ ABORTION of an embryo...fetus...baby...human...A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL A ROSE...is more than just a word. If my observations are correct, these children (like myself and my friends were) are so disconnected from the reality of the word. Give them a TRUE choice.

I read a written radio show about abortion, featuring David Gushee, he is a Christian ethicist, and Frances Kissling, a longtime reproductive rights activist. They each told their stories, how they came to be where they are, and spoke about how it shouldn't be a subject that is sliced neatly into two groups. And it really isn't.
They both were understanding to each others chosen sides, they didn't argue that 'life is life and it should be holy' or 'it's the woman's choice leave it alone'. They actually talked about how it's not a subject that splits into two groups, how there are many that believe both sides are right, in their own way. Being in poverty is a really big reason many women get abortions; they don't have the money or resources to take care of a child.
Kissling did not blame men, but defined them as being constantly 'off the hook', whether they marry the girl or tell them to get an abortion. And Gushee agreed that in this society it shouldn't be because women are in poverty that they can't take care of the child. That is where the man should step in and help, no matter if he does marry her or helps her keep the child alive.
They also think that having two sides isn't helping this subject come to a close any faster. Legal or illegal there has a be a compromise between the groups, it can't go on being so deeply two sided. Many of the people on either side only know half of what they should to be pro-choice or pro-life. And then there is everyone else who believes in both sides, and some who think that there should be limits to abortion. Not as in how many one woman can have, but as in how long in the pregnancy they are before it's too late to have an abortion.
What I have taken from this talk between the two is that the divide between the groups is deep, yet shallow. There are points on either side that are valid, but they need to come together to make better choices. Women are in the middle of the controversy, and they should be allowed to do as they wish. If they had more power it wouldn't be an issue, if men would take up responsibility it wouldn't be an issue. Women are allowed to have the choice, but that is exactly what it should be. A choice.

I understand both points of view, teenage girls who become pregnant wish him his life back to this event, but it is only fair to pay the baby a mistake made by the mother.

This moral dilemma has a very wide line, when will a zygote have the same rights as a human being born?

I agree that different points of views, but this is basicly a moral dilemma. A zygote most likely will not have the same rights unfortunately ...

The idea of a nuance on this issue can be overstated. It's like the slavery issue in the 1800s, either you thought a white man could own a black man, or you didn't. There's not much of a nuanced position available. So here, one can civilly state one's views, and identify geniune concerns of the other side, but I don't see much room for a nuanced position.

Pro-Life, Pro-Choice

Before available birth control unwanted pregnancies could result in babies being given to programs, such as existed when I was growing up, St. Mary's Home for unwed mothers. Many such program exists today.

The nature of forced marriage in unwanted pregnancy situations is not as prevalant as in past years, in fact most single "mothers" have one or two children and remain unmarrried.

What is disturbing in the "pro-life" "pro-choice' debate is the alarming use of abortion by women who have birth control available to them, fail to use it, and who then resort to abortions.

The examples of other women, with less choice, poverty level economic circumstance, and rape is predominately used to advance a pro abortion platform. Research on these uses of abortion don't support the more better off women relying in abortion as birth control. I could be wrong and supported research could be limited and outdated?

Abortion will always be a dividing issue, but the trends and uses of it should be presented in any discussion.

The morality of abortion needs to be addressed more clearly, needs to deal more directly with issues like personhood, like pain to the fetus. With God (or no God), with whether we are the product of chance or not. This can be done. I did it for myself and have been comfortable and unconfined with my own conclusions ever since. It took roughly 20 years to get there, but now I am not only unconflicted, I am spiritually inspired by my 100% pro-choice and 100% pro-life position. And I have been direct. I have not "compromised." For me, now, it is very clear, very comfortable. I've even written a dlalog explaining it: "The Sureness of Heaven." It has continued to be edited over the years and I think it's helped some people.

I would like to see religious leaders promote the understanding that contraception prevents abortion.

Fascinating discussion -- though the interest for me was more in what Gushee and Kissling were willing to state from the beginning than in the actual dialog, which frankly didn't seem to confront any serious disagreements head on. Gushee in particular seemed unwilling to explore his areas of disagreement with Kissling. Does he think abortion is murder, or doesn't he?

Despite the fact that this dialog was intended as an encounter between two people who disagree deeply, in reality the "civil" character of the conversation seemed to have a firm foundation in the belief of everyone involved that the pro-life movement has badly damaged politics in this country. That's a truth I also consider axiomatic. But it's hardly a real dialog when everyone's already-agreed-upon enemy never shows his face.

"There is no safe space." says Frances, tellingly. A womb is definitely not a safe space.

I wish she'd have respected Krista's offer of a moment without fear. Rather, her fear overran David, I found.

This was a wonderful episode. It made my Sunday morning much brighter. Thank you all for the thoughtfulness and wisdom that was expressed.

Great abortion discussion. More intelligent than most exchanges, but the issue is still irreconcilable. Either a woman has a right to control her body, or not. The Supreme Court got it exactly right. Early in a pregnancy [first trimester], abortion on demand is a woman's right, no questions asked. Midway into a pregnancy [second trimester], let each State's voters decide through their elected representatives. Near term [third trimester], problematic given the rights of the mostly developed fetus.

Pages

Voices on the Radio

is Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics and Director of the Center for Theology and Public Life at Mercer University in Macon, Georgia. His books include A New Evangelical Manifesto and The Sacredness of Human Life.

is president of the Center for Health and Social Policy. She was President of Catholics for Choice from 1982 until 2007.

Production Credits

Host/Producer: Krista Tippett

Senior Editor: Trent Gilliss

Technical Director/Producer: Chris Heagle

Coordinating Producer: Stefni Bell

Episode Sponsor

The Civil Conversations Project is sponsored by the John C. Danforth Center on Religion and Politics, and the Lilly Endowment.

apples