The Rev. Dr. Kendyl Gibbons recently wrote in the Star Tribune about abortion:
About 15 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (before the 20th week of gestation) or miscarriages (after the 20th week). The failure of conception to result in a live birth is a common and natural event.
There’s no reason why human aspiration and necessity shouldn’t also be a factor in determining whether or not a particular pregnancy is brought to term by potential parents.
We don’t hesitate to intervene drastically in the normal biological process in the service of achieving or sustaining conception when a child is desired. It’s equally legitimate to intervene when a child is not intended.
I’m really not certain what Rev. Gibbons was trying to communicate through this example of spontaneous abortion and miscarriage. It fails to add anything to the issue of abortion, which is about the purposeful, active destruction of unborn human beings by other human beings.
And equating miscarriage with abortion is just cruel. We have experienced miscarriage – those little human beings were very much wanted.
In the end, Rev. Gibbons is simply offering the same, tired argument that comes up whenever we become untethered from standards given to us by the One who is eternally wise, knowledgeable and good. “Human aspiration and necessity” is completely defined by those who are stronger than those who are weak, or in this case, entirely defenseless. There is no assumed sacrifice for the sake of the weaker person; there is no dependency on God. Only raw, violent, pride-filled, arrogant power dressed up in modern language.
On the contrary, God tells us that the weak are indispensable (1 Corinthians 12:22) and that fathers should show compassion to their children (Psalm 103:13). Jesus, the Lord of the universe, told us that “I am among you as the one who serves (Luke 22:27b).” This eternal standard considers the needs of the weak.
The Rev. Dr. Gibbons is a minister of the First Unitarian Society of Minneapolis, so I know she does not consider the Bible to have authority. But I assume she uses the term ‘Reverend’ to demonstrate some religious authority to instruct or lead others. If that is the case, she may want to consider the higher standard that is applied to those who teach:
Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. James 3:1