Do you think this writer is prochoice or pro-life based on this excerpt of a Star Tribune editorial?
"First Richard, a Franciscan priest, answered that this is indeed a painful issue [Abortion] but that it is not the only "pro-life" issue that progressives -- even Catholics -- should concern themselves with during elections. There are also the matters of capital punishment and the war in Iraq, and of HIV. Then Jim, an evangelical, spoke about the need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and the need to defuse abortion as a political issue, by welcoming prochoice and prolife supporters to the discussion, with equal respect for their positions. He spoke gently about how "morally ambiguous" the issue is. I sat there simmering, like a samovar; nice Jesusy me. The moderator turned to me and asked quietly if I would like to respond. I did: I wanted to respond by pushing over our table."
Am I the only one that would have wanted to push that table over too? The worst part of this story is that the writer, Anne Lamott is pro-choice. It is stunning to me that a professing Christian can write this,
"But then I announced that I needed to speak out on behalf of the many women present in the crowd, including myself, who had had abortions, and the women whose daughters might need one in the not-too-distant future -- people who must know that teenage girls will have abortions, whether in clinics or dirty backrooms. Women whose lives had been righted and redeemed by Roe vs. Wade."
She actually used the word "redeemed" to describe Roe vs. Wade!
If this woman can scarcely have a dialogue with "two priests with progressive spiritual leanings," how can we, stuck-in-the-mud Christians ever have a dialogue with this kind of woman? Lord, help us!
Update 02/21/06 - Al Mohler has written about Anne Lamott's editorial on his blog.