Catholic Life Ministries

By Robert Fontana

I often hear from my liberal friends who are Christian how confounding it is for them that conservative Christians, including Catholics (my faith tradition), support Donald Trump, whom the Christian Left considers the most un-Christian president in US history. The Christian Left does not seem to understand that they helped create the MAGA Right in which many conservative Christians find a home (and, of course, Christians on the Right do not understand that they helped create the Progressive Left).

This was vividly illustrated for me recently in a Seattle Times opinion article entitled, “How we can honor the orca Tahlequah’s grief.” The article  highlights the plight of the orcas whose food source, the chinook salmon, is in decline and whose way of life in the Salish Sea (Puget Sound) is continually challenged by commercial shipping and the ever-present whale-watching tourist boats. I share the author’s concern about the stress orcas are enduring and the sad plight of this mother orca who, for the second time in the past few years, has carried her dead calf weeks after the calf’s death.

However, what struck me about the headline is the vivid reminder to Christians on the Right that their brothers and sisters on the Left care more about the plight of orcas than about the unborn. One will never see in the Seattle Times a headline grieving the loss of the unborn child through abortion. The Left insists that a woman’s right to her body is absolute. “My body, my choice.” End of discussion!

The Christian Right is equally unwilling to dialogue. “We have science on our side; human life begins at conception:” this is not simply a religious conviction, it is a scientific fact. The fetus in the womb is a baby with the inalienable right to life. Oh, and, yes, it’s your body, but you don’t have an absolute right over how you treat your body. If you are pregnant, there is a baby whose rights outweigh yours. End of  discussion.

Other issues push each side further into its corner with no option for compromise, for example, racism, transgenderism, and immigration. The immovable stances fuel a culture war in a zero-sum game which  creates only winners and losers. Democracy demands uncomfortable compromises so that we do not actually end up with another shooting war like the one in 1861.

Long before I joined “Braver Angels,” an organization dedicated to dialogue between the Left and the Right, I had an extended conversation with a liberal friend that convinced me that dialogue, listening for understanding, and compromise were the only paths forward to end the culture war in our church and country on abortion. Here’s what happened:

Me: Pro-choice and pro-abortion. They’re the same.

Friend: NO!! I’m pro-choice, but I’m not pro-abortion.

Me: C’mon. You constantly use the phrase “fetus” when talking about an unborn baby. You know the science of conception as well as I do. The fetus in the womb is a baby from the moment of conception. Pro-choice means abortion on demand and the death of a baby.

Friend: If you would listen to me, I’ll explain. Yes, I agree with the science, and I also admit that I refer to the baby in the womb as a fetus and not a baby. I want to honor the dignity of the woman who has a crisis pregnancy. You seem to care little about her. (Pause)

Friend: I abhor abortion. To be pro-choice means to offer her (and her husband/partner if she has one) two options for saving the baby’s life, raising the child herself or giving the child up for adoption. The third option is tragic, but it is not the government’s call to prevent should a woman with a crisis pregnancy choose it. She knows her situation.

[My friend went into detail about a young white woman from a very conservative family who was secretly dating a young black man. When her father found out about this relationship, he hit his daughter and threatened to kill the young man if she didn’t break it off. Shortly after this she learned that she was pregnant; immediately she had an abortion.]  I don’t want a woman in her situation to have a back-alley abortion.

Me: No, I don’t want women to have a back-alley abortion either…I don’t think I have given enough consideration to the woman with a crisis pregnancy. So, there are two lives that must be considered, protected. Would you agree to that?

Friend: Yes, that’s why I say I am not pro-abortion. Abortion is a tragic choice especially as the fetus, the “baby” develops. Pro-choice means, in the end, the choice does rest with the mother. I will do whatever I can to help her choose life for the baby, but I will not throw a guilt trip on her either.

Me: Where do we have unity?

Friend: I suppose we can both agree that two lives must be valued and protected if possible.

Me: And I have a better understanding that pro-choice is not pro-abortion. And I also agree that the mother’s situation really needs to be honored and respected, though I do not agree with the idea that the government can not regulate abortion.  (Our conversation ended peacefully there.)

We did not solve the abortion debate with this conversation. But we did stop seeing each other as adversaries on this issue. We learned from one another, which allowed each of us to soften our positions. We both changed. Our next conversation might find some common ground on the legal boundaries of abortion that either of us may not like but could live with for the sake of peaceful coexistence.

I think dialogue and a search for common ground is the only path forward for ending the culture war between the Left and the Right. What do you think?

(Please post your thoughts and comments.)

Consider Joining Braver Angels. Its mission is to bring Americans together to bridge the partisan divide and strengthen our democratic republic. Go to: braverangels.org