THINK ABOUT THIS: How Culture Got to the Point of Joking About Killing Unborn Babies
This essay by Natasha Crain first appeared on her web site November 10. Given the arguments being heard today before the Supreme Court regarding abortion, it seems totally appropriate to direct HillFaith readers’ attention to Crain’s superbly perceptive analysis about how America got to this day:
Screenshot from Natasha Crain website.
This weekend, Saturday Night Live cast member Cecily Strong played a character called Goober the Clown who had an abortion when she was 23 and now talks to people about how normal abortion is in between clown jokes.
Goober explains that it’s a “rough” subject, so she does fun clown stuff to make it more “palatable.” In the context of her skit, saying that it’s a rough subject wasn’t a tacit admission that abortion is in some way wrong; it was a condemnation of those who make it rough to talk about because they have a problem with it.
If you can stomach it, you can watch the 4 minute clip here.
Yes, the intentional killing of pre-born babies has become fodder for a comedy skit—something literally worth clowning around about. Every single one of us should be asking how on earth we, as a culture, have arrived at such a moment.
I watched the entire clip. The first thing I would note is that I didn’t find it funny at all. This is not due to the subject matter, but simply that it was entirely flat, lame and without any humor.
That said, I do think it was an artistic choice to try and give a different perspective on the debate (making it clowns, not women was an attempt to cause allow people to see the issue in a different way, an attempt that largely failed because the skit was so lame and unfunny but an attempt nonetheless.)
Personally abortion is a troubling issue for me. On the one hand I definitely see the value of human life and think that we as a culture should celebrate it. On the other, using the heavy hand of government as a tool for enforcement bothers me. I do think this is a case where rights conflict, a fetus is in many ways a part of a woman’s body and certainly carrying a baby to term is a very personal issue and society demanding a woman do so is an attack on the individual autonomy. As for the other side, the fetus being a human life is obvious.
From a theological point of view I question many Christians almost obsessive focus on the subject and wonder if it isn’t in fact counter productive to the goals they should be pursuing. To the best of my understanding, the focus should be on saving souls and I don’t see how government punishment furthers that objective. If a woman chooses to not have an abortion because the celebrate life and are acting in accordance to God’s will one could see that as a moral good, if on the other hand they choose no to have an abortion either because they fear secular punishment or are simply unable to procure one that seems like a wash at best. Of course the fetus may be better off, but I think one of the central points of Christianity is that we can trust God to make that all work out in either case.
I think their is also a contrast between convincing and forcing. If Christians were to accept the legal freedom of women to have an abortion they might in fact have a better chance of convincing individuals of the sinfulness of abortion. Having that choice secured might make them more willing to listen.
As an illustration of this, I got the coronavirus vaccine last spring well before any mandates. It seemed light the right choice for me. As government pressure and mandates became a thing I regretted that at least to a degree. This wasn’t because I felt the vaccine was dangerous or anything like that, or that I no longer felt that it was wise to protect vulnerable members of my family and the community at large but simply because if someone says ‘you must’ my inclination is to say ‘hell no’.
Christ met people where they were. He accepted them as valued individuals with inherent dignity regardless of what society thought of them and regardless of what sins they may have committed. His first step was to affirm his love for them individually and only then would he teach and instruct. I think there is a parallel here.