WASHINGTON NORTH IDAHO CONFERENCE,

UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, Seattle, Wash., February 25, 1974.

Hon. Senator BIRCH BAYH,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments,

363 Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR BAYH: It is our understanding that on March 6 you will begin hearings on the constitutional amendment against the right to choose abortion, proposed by Senator Buckley.

Since the state of Washington is one of the few states to have a public referendum of all its citizens on this important issue, we have had to give serious thought to this matter.

Enclosed is a resolution which was passed overwhelmingly at our annual meeting in 1970 and a theological position paper, which gives our rationale, which was also prepared for that meeting.

Since you will be considering testimony from various religious leaders, including the Catholic Archbishop of Indiana, we feel it important for you to have this testimony before your committee, so that you understand that the Christian church is deeply divided in its theology and its pronouncements on this issue.

It is unfortunate that this polarization is being pressed in the public arena you are creating. I have personally a great deal of sympathy for the Catholic position, and admire their witness for human life. But I am well anchored in the theology of my own church, which says that this matter is much more complex than Senator Buckley believes, and that the theological and legal rights of the mother vs. the fetus vs. the father cannot be sorted out with the sledge hammer constitutional approach which you will be considering.

It is good to further the public debate on these issues, but it would be disastrous to have the solutions of one religious group forced on another religious group. Therefore, please accept the enclosed as testimony against the amendment.

Sincerely yours,

JAY LINTER,

Associate Conference Minister.

A RESOLUTION CONCERNING ABORTION REFORM LEGISLATION

(A detailed statement which elaborates upon the rationale behind this proposed resolution has been prepared by a task force of the Department of Ministry to the World for advanced study by the Annual Meeting delegates.)

Whereas our biblical-theological tradition speaks of human life created in the image of God, which is to say that men and women are free and responsible; and Whereas an ecological fact of the inter-dependence of all life confronts us with both the need for a reverence for life and the constant necessity to choose one life over another; and

Whereas human life is enhanced by increasing the range of responsible choices possible in a society; and

Whereas we have already filled the earth and subdued it to the extent to which the limiting of family size has recently become a positive social value; and Whereas birth control as a means of family planning is not entirely reliable, and

Whereas the removal of the fear of an unwanted pregnancy grants greater sexual freedom to a man and women; and

Whereas the present legal requirements which force a woman to bear a child against her free choice is unnecessarily discriminatory against women and is a violation of her rights as a human being; and

Whereas the biblical tradition always emphasizes quality of life over quantity of life (that is, the main question is not when life begins or ends, but what makes life human); and

Whereas the law should protect rather than invade private life; and

Whereas the final authority for deciding whether or not a pregnancy should be terminated is the one who is pregnant, with the consent of a physician since performance of an abortion is a medical procedure; therefore be it resolved, That the Washington North Idaho Conference of the United Church of Christ assembled in the 1970 Annual Meeting gives general support to abortion reform legislation which takes the matter of abortion out of criminal law and

43-245-75 -39

places it in the doctor-patient relationship; and specifically gives its support to Referendum #20 which will be presented to the people of the State of Washington on November 3, 1970.

Be it further resolved, That this Annual Meeting urge its congregations and individual members to reflect upon this ethical issue in the light of the biblicaltheological tradition and take appropriate public action, both corporately and individually, regarding the issue of abortion in general and Referendum #20 in particular.

BROAD THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF THE ISSUE OF ABORTION

The first chapter of the Book of Genesis provides the Church with a compact summary of all the major theological concepts most pertinent to a responsible discussion of the ethical issue of abortion. This chapter is, of course, about Creation. Of most concern to us in this chapter is the paragraph about the creation of human life which speaks of the "Imago Dei," meaning "image of God."

Then God said, "Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth. . . . And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good." (Genesis 1: 26 ff.)

This paragraph describes human life as being free and responsible, sexual, and procreative. The issue of abortion should be viewed within this theological context of Creation.

"Imago" in the ancient near-East was a technical term referring to the symbol which a representative of a ruler carried with him, or which preceded him as the emblem carried by his standard-bearer. This "image" entitled him to speak on behalf of his ruler, even including the freedom to make decisions with full authority of his ruler. To say that human life is created in the image of God is to affirm that man is God's representative on this planet Earth.

Man has been gived dominion (lordship) over the whole Creation. This means he is free to decide in any given situation. He is not a programmed automaton which has built in correct, absolutist responses to various issues. He is rather a free agent who daily lives with the terrifying risk of having to assume responsibility for his own life. God does not take that freedom and responsibility away from an individual; nothing in all Creation has the right to violate that freedom or deny that personal responsibility.

Human life is sexual. To say that we are human is to affirm immediately that we are sexual. There are only male human beings and female human beings. In human life sexual differentiation goes bar beyond the biological function of reproduction alone. There is a prior spiritual function in that it becomes the means by which persons discover and celebrate their full humanity. Whatever age one is or commitments one has, self-discovery and self-fulfillment depend upon free and responsible use of our sexuality. Sexual freedom and responsiveness are integral to a religious understanding of humanity.

Human life is also given the capacity to propagate. Men and women are called by God to be co-partners with him in the act of Creation. "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it." The account in Genesis describes this procreative function in terms of a blessing which is received from the hand of God. The author of this passage has very carefully separated the sentence about sexuality from a later sentence about child-bearing. As important as this blessing is, Genesis suggests that it is secondary in importance to the prior fact of sexual differentiation and expression. Within their freedom and discretion. human beings are given the opportunity to use their sexual powers to bring children into the world as they so choose. And by reverse implication, each individual is given the freedom to refuse to bring new life into the world if in any given situation one should so choose.

Finally, there is the conviction expressed throughout the first chapter of Genesis that everything in the Creation is good. It's all right to be free and

to make one's own decisions. It's all right to be male or female and to express this sexuality as one freely chooses. It's all right to have children. By implication it is also all right to limit the size of one's family according to the parent's free choice. This is a good place to be.

THEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE ISSUE OF ABORTION

Abortion is the expulsion of the fetus prematurely, thus arresting the development of life. This raises a number of moral questions, all of them centering on the exercise of freedom and the taking of human life. What specific guidelines for approaching this issue can be derived from the Doctrine of Creation?

When speaking of abortion, the matter of taking life should be faced squarely. In our pluralistic society there are conflicting perceptions regarding the status of the fetus, arising in part out of our sophisticated understanding today of embryonic development. This leads some to speak in terms of the human rights of the unborn. But it must be recognized that there is no final answer to the complicated arguments about when life begins, about the difference between potential human life and actual human life. In fact, it can be destructive, for it may be an effort to play God by determining who is and who is not made in his image. (Are mentally retarded persons and coma-ridden stroke patients human? Is a four-month old fetus less human than a five-month old fetus? And so on.) At whatever point in fetal development from conception to birth, abortion is the willful taking of life.

Are there any circumstances in which this taking of life can be justified? The question itself implies an intensely painful process which must of necessity enter into any such decision. It is no casual matter to choose to end a life. This is not so much a physical as it is an emotional reality. The unseen fetus necessarily remains an abstraction. But with an awareness of pregnancy, the husband and wife experience with a wide range of feelings something radically new in their lives. This new life becomes emotionally real as someone who is pictured in the family, as a boy or a girl, as a brother or sister to present children, as a child in relation to parents, as a person who hopefully would grow into an adult. To decide to take away this life is done only with deep anguish.

A modern ecological perspective helps bridge the Creation narrative with the abortion issue. All life is precious. We are realizing in a new way that all life is interdependent, and furthermore there is an inter-dependence between living organisms and natural resources. We have been causal for too long about the environment and the various kinds of life. The theological concept of dominion has even been mis-used to rationalize gross abuses of the environment. Now the degree of ecological imbalance threatens the very existence of the human race. In this age of the moon-shot we have a new vision of the planet earth as a lonely space-ship with limited resources traveling at high speeds through the galaxy. The slogan "reverence for life" has assumed a special urgency.

From this ecological perspective it must also be asserted that life comes in conflict with life. We must constantly choose one life over another in a myriad of complex situations. One person's continued existence becomes the occasion for another's death. The tons of noxious gasses released through the automobile exhaust by a family on a cross-country vacation are bound to kill other life, even human life whether directly through respiratory illness or indirectly through killing essential vegetation. Soldiers on the front lines in Viet Nam directly chose their lives over the lives of the enemy, and indirectly each citizen of this country chooses his life over that of the Viet Cong merely by living in and receiving his livelihood from this society. As world population increases and natural resources remain limited, the choice of one life over another which occurs now will of necessity become even more obvious to all. The image of the planet Earth as a space-ship with the human family as its passengers makes it clear that hard day-to-day decision of what shall live is a real fact of life.

It is a denial of human freedom and responsibility to take the absolutist statement, "Thou shalt not kill" and attempt to apply it literally in every situation. The fact of the matter is that we constantly choose who and what shall live. The problem is that too often this is done entirely unconsciously with no individual awareness of how life is inter-dependent and in conflict. Or such a decision is made with a callosued attitude which is only too obviously a denial

of the awful pain which any alive person surely must feel. The concept of dominion implies that we must exercise responsibility for our own lives, that daily we must choose one life over another, and that such a free choice should be as conscious and informed as possible in order to be most responsible.

Within this context, abortion in certain circumstances is not only a necessary evil; abortion can be a positive good as a means of responsibly fulfilling human life. The possibility of abortion expands the range of alternatives which individual persons may use according to the dictates of their own sense of responsibility. By increasing these possibilities to exercise freedom of choice, human life created in the image of God is actually enhanced.

We have already filled the earth and subdued it. No longer is it imperative for social survival that every fetus fully develop into a child. To the contrary, the population explosion is endangering the future of human society to the point of its possible extinction. The limitation of family size has recently become a positive social value. In certain circumstances it is possible that abortion as a means of family planning would be the most responsible course of action and not to have an abortion would be an irresponsible act.

Birth control before conception is vastly improved but still is not by any means a certainty. The possibility of abortion extends the ability of husband and wife to make responsible decisions about the size of their family according to their age, income, emotional limits, moving plans, larger social needs, etc. (It should also be noted that birth control and abortion are medically moving so close as to be indistinguishable with developments in the so-called "morning-after pill."

The possibility of abortion encourages greater sexual freedom. Just as the development of advanced birth control methods have helped to remove the fear of an unwanted pregnancy from the sex act, so too abortion could grant greater freedom to a man and a woman in their sexual expression.

Abortion as a moral possibility also removes a burden which unnecessarily discriminates against women. As the one who carries the fetus, the woman has an obvious right to remove the threat of an unwanted pregnancy from her expression as a sexual creature. Every woman has the God-given right to enter fully into sexual expression as she chooses, but no one has the right to require a woman to complete a full nine-month pregnancy against her will.

While moral censure against the unmarried mother has probably relaxed, it still is a vicious social inequity. Having to carry the fetus full-term and giving the child up for adoption is a horendous emotional crisis and at least temporarily drives a woman into seclusion. No woman should be required to be in either of these positions against her will. The punishment-motive is only thinly disguised in the often-repeated retort that no woman is required to enter into sexual relations either, implying that if she's immoral enough to have sex she deserves having to carry a full-term pregnancy. The possibility of abortion removes this insidious, although frequently inadvertent, opportunity for society to inflict punishment.

Finally, the biblical injunction from Genesis always emphasizes quality of life over quantity of life. We are called to be free and responsible. To speak of the human spirit is to speak of a quality of relationship with the Creator. The decision to bring new life into the world must consider the question of the quality of life: are there adequate resources available to provide for this new life, is there a social unit present which wants the child and can give it the love so essential for human survival? Abortion is a means to prevent a child from entering the world when in the best judgment of the mother there is not a world big enough and loving enough to provide for this life.

A CRITIQUE OF REFERENDUM NO. 20

In the light of the general statement about abortion, how does the particular piece of proposed legislation entitled Referendum #20 look?

In summary, this referendum which will go before the voters of the State of Washington on November 3, 1970, includes the following basic provisions:

"Abortion would be legally possible before 'quickening' (perception of fetal movement, around fourth or even fifth month) by the decision of the mother with the following conditions: residence in this state for at least ninety days, performed by a physician in a hospital or clinic, with the permission of the husband if they are living together, with the permission of parents or guardian if under age 18; also, no hospital physician, nurse, hospital employee or any other person shall be required to participate in a termination of pregnancy.”

This referendum is a constructive step toward abortion reform. The wording of the referendum is couched in double-negatives. (i.e., it will no longer be illegal to have an abortion under certain conditions.) Strictly speaking, it is not so much a move to legalize abortion as it is a move to remove the historical legal prohibitions against abortion.

All political decisions are less than ideal. This referendum is no exception. It obviously is a compromise proposal including both good and bad points. While this referendum is not as good as the legislation in some states, it certainly is better than none and is a step in the right direction.

On the plus side, it is a move toward removing the absolute prohibitions against abortion' It is certainly not "abortion on demand" as many are claiming. There are certain restrictions (some of them less than helpful as described later), mainly that the decision is up to the mother with the consent of a physician. Moral factors which enter the mother's decision and professional judgments which enter the physician's decision result in it being far more complicated and thoughful than what is suggested in the phrase "abortion on demand."

By eliminating some of the social and moral stigma presently attached to abortion, it becomes possible for a woman to receive the best medical help possible for this critical aspect of her life. If a woman should decide that she wishes an abortion and it is not legally sanctioned, then she is left with the dilemma both of having to violate the law and quite likely being forced to receive help from an abortionist which is frequently less than safe. For one carrying a fetus less than five months old, this referendum would take the health needs of the woman much more seriously than is presently the case.

It is also a step towards greater civil liberties, removing the degree to which the state dictates personal life. Any decision regarding an actual abortion is essentially a private concern of the mother which she shares with her husband. Any intrusion by the state into this private family matter is a violation of individual political freedom. Legislation prohibiting abortion also is an intrusion into the physician-client relationship, making it impossible for the physician to give professional help to a client in this important matter. The referendum is an attempt to correct this historical abuse of state-authority by placing the decision with the individuals directly involved, viz., the mother, and because it is a medical issue, also the physician. The referendum also recognizes that within our state there are individuals in the medical field who would find it impossible to participate in an abortion due to their own religious convictions in the matter. The referendum protects the civil liberties of physicians, nurses, hospital employees and anyone else by not requiring anyone to participate against his wishes, and furthermore the referendum goes on to guarantee that no one may be discriminated against for refusing to participate in an abortion.

On the negative side, Referendum #20 includes several conditions which are unnecessarily restricting and have a detrimental effect. The ninety-day residency requirement is a special handicap to the highly mobile lower class and discriminates against the poor. This makes it virtually impossible for a woman to receive an abortion in this state if conception takes place before moving here. Those who are relatively affluent can resolve this problem by flying to another state or country with more relaxed abortion laws. It furthermore leaves the impression that there still is something necessarily immoral about abortion, and the good image of the State of Washington might be tarnished if residients from neighboring states with prohibitive laws would come here to receive an abortion. The ninety-day residency requirement is both discriminatory and prejudicial. The requirement that the husband give consent to an abortion if living with his wife is grossly chauvanistic. In any normal husband-wife relationship there is mutual trust in which decisions regarding the family life are reached together. But the law is concerned with pin-pointing final responsibility for acts which effect the social sphere. Biologically and theologically, the male entrusts the life of the fetus to the female. To establish a legal right for the husband in this matter contributes to a confusion as to who is pregnant. If for any reason there should be irreconcilable disagreement between the husband and wife regarding the advisability of an abortion, the woman should have the authority to make the final decision. Under no circumstances should anyone, including a husband, be able to require that a woman bear a child against her will.

The requirement for parental consent in the case of a pregnant woman under age 18 should be seen in the larger context of legal liability. Medical services of any kind cannot legally take on a counselling case with someone under age 18