A correct assessment in the abortion debate

The abortion debate is a sticky one, with one side asking how anyone could want to kill a baby while the other side says that's the last thing it wants, but yet.... Neither side can get the other to back down. And any advantage to one side or the other can quickly raise emotions.

That's why the issue of Tim Tebow appearing in a commercial (to be run in the Super Bowl) that supports pro-life movements has brought so much controversy. Pro-lifers see nothing wrong with a guy talking about his mom choosing to save his life by turning down an abortion years ago. What a great testament to anti-abortion stances!

Meanwhile, pro-choice women's groups are fuming, because they think it's not always that clear-cut. And, as this Slate article argues, it isn't.

Part of the problem with the abortion debate is that it isn't one or the other, as much as pro-lifers want to make it out to be. They say it's either killing a baby or not. If you kill it, you're terrible. Even if not killing it could kill the mother (also leaving her current children mother-less), or could keep her from having more kids, it's still terrible. In their eyes, you should have faith, and if you're a champ and choose the baby, it will all work out. The mother will survive, the baby will grow up healthy, or plenty of parents looking to adopt will have their dreams realized.

But life is often much tricker, and as the Slate article shows, Tebow's mom got lucky (or God chose to let her have her son, but if you want to advance that argument, why does God not allow all those mothers to have their sons?). What about the other women whose "chose life" and found other lives taken away, whether it be their own or the life of that child who now grows up with defections?

In no way do I support abortion, even if you know it's dangerous or the kid is going to come out hurt, but I think it's a question worth asking. We're not in a world where you choose one thing and get the same effect. Every choice has multiple, serious implications.

But here's what I will argue against: Pro-lifers who use stories such as this to try to advance their point.

When I went to Liberty, the "abortion" part of our "Contemporary Issues" class was not treated in a balanced way, such as "this is what the pro-life camp thinks," and "this is what the pro-choice side thinks." It was "pro-lifers are right," and "pro-choicers are hideous human-killers who only care about themselves and would rather kill a baby than take on an added expense." No discussion was given to rape victims or disease-ridden fetuses or the litany of other factors that go into the debate.

Worse yet, the main crux of all pro-life arguments was the teacher pulling some adopted kid out of the crowd and having him or her share with us how he or she wouldn't be alive if someone hadn't chosen to let them live and be adopted by someone else who wanted them. It was all economical, all healthy-babies-no-one-wants.

Christians are well-known for having their heads in the sand, and this issue is one of the worst. Yes, you can be pro-life, but your whole argument can't be sob stories of adopted kids. There are many, real issues out there surrounding the abortion debate, and none of them will be solved if this is the only approach to abortion.

What of the pro-lifer who knows her child will be born with a terrible disease?

And what of the pro-choicer who has just decided, despite all her support for women's rights, to have a baby because she's far enough in her pregnancy to know it just wouldn't be right?

Who's right?

I think the one who's right is the one who listens to all sides, not the one who pickets or runs one-sided Super Bowl commercials. I'm happy things worked out for the Tebows, but can I dare say they may be bringing great pain to those who didn't have the same fortune? How can we solve this debate?