The promise of outlawing abortion is why Trump is president. With Ruth Bader Ginsburg gone, Trump will move to appoint a Supreme Court justice who will do what he can to outlaw abortions.
In 1803, the British outlawed abortions after the fifth month of pregnancy. Why five months? The soul entered the body at that point.
The issue of abortion is – for the individual – a religious question. And you don’t even have to be religious for it to be a religious question. At the moment after birth, we have a baby. Precious. Unique. Deserving of our protection and care. At the moment before conception, we have sperm and egg. No one mourns a period, the regular loss of eggs. No one decides to press charges over the fact that in a single ejaculate more than a billion sperm could be squandered by some horny teenager, enough to populate a planet. Other than the lunatic fringe, nobody argues that we should kill babies or save eggs and sperm – the flotsam and jetsam of everyday life. The debate is at what point between those sure compass points does this pass the threshold from living (sperm and egg are alive) to a life. The question of when sperm and egg deserve the same legal protection as a baby rests on your belief – whether or not framed as religious – about when human waste becomes human. The question is whether we can ever be as certain about the point at which this happens as the British Parliament was in 1803. The question is, who should make the choice about when it passes this threshold.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought that each individual woman should make this choice.
A woman recently told me about her abortion at 17. From this experience she has become a voter who supports any candidate who opposes abortion. For her, abortion was a traumatic experience from which she wants to spare other girls and women. I was a terrible listener for a host of reasons. But one thing I did not articulate was simply this: I don’t know how any 17 year old with an unwanted pregnancy avoids trauma. Let’s say that you decide to keep the baby, become a mother before you’re old enough to vote, make a commitment to help a little life launch into adulthood, a commitment you’re making that is longer than your own life at that point. That sounds really traumatic to me. Or let’s say that you carry this baby to term and then – your mind and body prepared to care for this new baby – you adopt it out. Or let’s say that you have an abortion, ending that pregnancy. I’ll never be pregnant and have this penchant for running what-if scenarios, but I don’t think I’m different from any other girl or women in that whichever of those three paths I would choose I would wonder for the rest of my life about what it would have been like to have chosen one of those other paths. And with that wondering might come some measure of guilt, grief and second-guessing.
And that would be for myself. I don’t even know how one goes about making such a choice for anyone else.
In the early days of its one-child policy, the Chinese government actually forced abortions on women who already had a child and became pregnant. In places where the church dominates – such as Ireland until recently – the Irish government actually forced women to carry a child to term. The only thing more traumatic than making a choice about what to do with an unwanted pregnancy? Having an abortion or pregnancy forced on you.
Sex is the stuff of pop songs and poetry. It’s wonderful. Rape is the stuff of crime and nightmares. It is awful. What is the difference? Choice.
Pregnancy, too, is a miracle. A little life developing. The promise of a new baby, the life to follow. A forced pregnancy is a nightmare. Wracked by questions of how you will provide for this little person about to come into the world dependent on you, the you who may feel completely overwhelmed at the thought of such a responsibility. What is one difference between a pregnancy that is a miracle or a pregnancy that is a trauma? Choice.
The question is, Who should make that choice? The evangelicals who support Trump know when life begins and they think they should choose for you. Ruth Bader Ginsburg believed that this should be the woman’s choice.
We could explore the question of when life begins, when the soul enters the body. I find it a fascinating question. (When does a boy become a man? At 12 like the amusement park ticket prices suggest or at 21 like the bars insist? When do sperm and egg become a baby?) But there is evidence that this question is not the issue for the evangelicals who want to outlaw abortion. For them, this is a matter of them deciding what is right for a woman. What is the evidence? These people protest outside of abortion clinics but never outside of in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics where even more embryos are destroyed than in abortion clinics. The state senator who sponsored a 2019 bill to ban abortions in Alabama carved out an exception for IVF because, he said, “the egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.” For him – and I’m sure everyone who voted on his bill – this wasn’t a question of when life began. It was a question of which choices society should allow a woman. As technology advances, we could conceivably make new human life from any cell and make viable an emerging life from about any stage. Science – like religion – has answers but does not have THE answer to the question of whether to treat this tiny potentiality more like a newborn or an ejaculate.
At the root of the question of abortion is the question of whether women have the right to define their own life. Ruth Bader Ginsburg graduated at the top of her law school class and had trouble getting a job because she was a mother. (Her husband, who graduated from law school a year earlier, had had no problem getting a job even though he was a father.) Ginsburg fought for gender equality. She thought that women should have the same options that men do. Society was happy to tell women who they should be and what they could do. She thought that it should instead be the woman who defined that and spent decades fighting for gender equality.
Of all the choices that define a woman’s life, it is hard to imagine one as fundamental to who she becomes as the choice about whether to have a child. Some people think they know better than the individual woman about how to reconcile the myriad questions wrapped up in this question. That boggles my mind. Choice is unavoidable in this question of abortion: the question is, Should the choice be made by a voter who has never met this woman or by the woman whose life is so profoundly impacted and defined by which choice she makes?
Yesterday I wrote about the first amendment. It begins by granting to the individual the choice about how – or even whether – to worship, which beliefs to have. Belief is inescapable on this question of when human waste becomes human treasure, and the real question is: whose belief should determine how you act? The first amendment clearly states that is not a job for congress but instead that beliefs and how we act on them is the domain of the individual. Even individual women. On this, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was clear.
R World (Ron Davison muses aloud)
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
04 September 2018
What Freedom of Religion Has to Do with Abortion
One sign that the Catholic Church is losing its monopoly over the opinions of the Irish is the vote there in May to end the ban on abortion.
Make no mistake about it, abortion is about religious freedom.
And on this side of the pond, here in the States, the Republican Party is strongly supporting a weak president for the simple fact that he'll get them Supreme Court justices who could overturn Roe v. Wade.
One group believes that at the instant a sperm and egg combine they deserve the legal protection of a newborn baby. For them, this is the start of life. At this point we can't even see this "baby." Even months later 99% of us would be unable to determine whether we were looking at an embryo that will later turn into cattle who we will later kill to eat or a child who we would later die to protect. The belief that a sperm becomes a human life at the moment of conception is essentially a religious belief.
Because we have religious freedom in this country, the group that believes zygotes at the moment of conception are no different from children are allowed to act on their belief. In this country women are not forced to abort. Their belief about when life begins is a religious or philosophical belief. We respect such beliefs in this country.
Because we have religious freedom in this country, the group that believes that life does not begin at the instant of conception but instead begins later (whether that be in the first or second or - in some states - in the third trimester) are allowed to act on their belief. In this country women are not denied the right to abort. Their belief about when life begins is a belief that we respect in this country.
The movement to ban abortion, to make it illegal, is a movement to end the religious freedom of people who believe differently from devout Catholics and some evangelists. Belief about when life begins falls into a category more akin to religion than science.
Curiously, it's not a ban against people who believe differently than Christ. We don't have a single word of Jesus pertaining to abortion. Abortion is something added since his time by some denominations of Christians. Most Lutherans think that abortion should be legal and most Jehovah Witnesses's think it should not. (And 57% of all Americans think it should be legal.)
Religious freedom takes many forms. Abortion rights is just one and it deserves as much protection as the right to be, to start being or to stop being a Muslim or Catholic or Jew or atheist. If you dig into the philosophy of someone who wants to take choice away from women you'll find someone who - at heart - does not buy into the notion of trusting individuals with religious freedom. They don't trust women who disagree that a sperm is just one moment away from having a soul.
And finally, let's talk about sex, pregnancy and raising a child. Sex is pretty awesome. A pregnancy with the expectation that you'll bring a little person into the world is kind of magical. But having sex forced on you - being raped - is one of the most traumatic things that can happen to a person. It rarely gets talked about, but it seems to me that having a pregnancy forced on you, being forced to have a child, has to be incredibly traumatic. Women know when they're ready to bring a child into the world and if this isn't that time, their lives are rocked. It's awful. Sex, pregnancy and children are wonderful ... when they're freely chosen. It's unconscionable to force them onto women.
All of progress results in more choice, more freedom. We have fireworks to celebrate national independence. We call this the land of the free. We fight for freedom. We've killed people from dozens of countries to "protect our freedom." Freedom is that cool and that important to the human experience. To deny women the freedom to choose when they bring a child into the world seems like a terribly medieval kind of oppression and one of the worst kinds of thefts of freedom, a theft even worse than stealing someone's freedom of religion.
Make no mistake about it, abortion is about religious freedom.
And on this side of the pond, here in the States, the Republican Party is strongly supporting a weak president for the simple fact that he'll get them Supreme Court justices who could overturn Roe v. Wade.
One group believes that at the instant a sperm and egg combine they deserve the legal protection of a newborn baby. For them, this is the start of life. At this point we can't even see this "baby." Even months later 99% of us would be unable to determine whether we were looking at an embryo that will later turn into cattle who we will later kill to eat or a child who we would later die to protect. The belief that a sperm becomes a human life at the moment of conception is essentially a religious belief.
Because we have religious freedom in this country, the group that believes zygotes at the moment of conception are no different from children are allowed to act on their belief. In this country women are not forced to abort. Their belief about when life begins is a religious or philosophical belief. We respect such beliefs in this country.
Because we have religious freedom in this country, the group that believes that life does not begin at the instant of conception but instead begins later (whether that be in the first or second or - in some states - in the third trimester) are allowed to act on their belief. In this country women are not denied the right to abort. Their belief about when life begins is a belief that we respect in this country.
The movement to ban abortion, to make it illegal, is a movement to end the religious freedom of people who believe differently from devout Catholics and some evangelists. Belief about when life begins falls into a category more akin to religion than science.
Curiously, it's not a ban against people who believe differently than Christ. We don't have a single word of Jesus pertaining to abortion. Abortion is something added since his time by some denominations of Christians. Most Lutherans think that abortion should be legal and most Jehovah Witnesses's think it should not. (And 57% of all Americans think it should be legal.)Religious freedom takes many forms. Abortion rights is just one and it deserves as much protection as the right to be, to start being or to stop being a Muslim or Catholic or Jew or atheist. If you dig into the philosophy of someone who wants to take choice away from women you'll find someone who - at heart - does not buy into the notion of trusting individuals with religious freedom. They don't trust women who disagree that a sperm is just one moment away from having a soul.
And finally, let's talk about sex, pregnancy and raising a child. Sex is pretty awesome. A pregnancy with the expectation that you'll bring a little person into the world is kind of magical. But having sex forced on you - being raped - is one of the most traumatic things that can happen to a person. It rarely gets talked about, but it seems to me that having a pregnancy forced on you, being forced to have a child, has to be incredibly traumatic. Women know when they're ready to bring a child into the world and if this isn't that time, their lives are rocked. It's awful. Sex, pregnancy and children are wonderful ... when they're freely chosen. It's unconscionable to force them onto women.
All of progress results in more choice, more freedom. We have fireworks to celebrate national independence. We call this the land of the free. We fight for freedom. We've killed people from dozens of countries to "protect our freedom." Freedom is that cool and that important to the human experience. To deny women the freedom to choose when they bring a child into the world seems like a terribly medieval kind of oppression and one of the worst kinds of thefts of freedom, a theft even worse than stealing someone's freedom of religion.
21 January 2017
Christians Who Understand Christianity Better Than Christ Did and America Better Than Our Founding Fathers
Without the support of the "abortion is murder" people, Trump would have lost. These people pretend to understand Christianity better than Christ and America better than our founding fathers. They don't.
In the first four gospels, the poor are mentioned 24 times and the rich 29. In Luke 18:24-25, for instance, Christ said,
In the first four gospels, abortion is not mentioned once. (Actually, it's mentioned nowhere in the Bible.) You might argue that abortions had not become as easy or common in his time as ours but keep in mind that Jesus's authority comes in no small part because he saw to the end of time and preached about all that would matter until then.
Evangelicals gave Trump the presidency. Without their vote, he would have lost. The central reason they voted for Trump is that these people believe that life starts at the exact instant that a sperm and egg collide and are appalled that Roe vs. Wade lets women follow their individual conscience about when that transformation occurs. To be clear, their belief is not based on anything Christ said. This is their own idea, one they've slapped the label of Christianity onto.
Many Christians don't share this belief. The Christians who see abortion as murder are less remarkable for their affection for Christ's teaching (again, this isn't even something he taught) than their personalities: these are the people who cannot tolerate ambiguity or gray areas. They need clear black and white boundaries and saying that life starts at a particular instant is very appealing to them. Such a belief is less product of soul searching than the compulsion of a particular personality type.
Nobody is arguing that we should kill babies. Nobody is arguing that we should protect the "lives" of sperm or egg cells. The argument is about when sperm and egg - the jetsam and flotsam of life - become a baby - the essence of life.
When does a child become an adult? 12 seems compelling. Until just a few centuries ago, every community around the world treated 12 as the legal age of consent, an age when young girls were commonly married off. Theaters and amusement parks still seem to believe a 12 year old is no longer a child. Or you might argue for 16, the age when we trust teens to have the cognitive capacity to drive, to stay focused on the road in ways that don't endanger the rest of us. 18 is old enough to let them vote or go off to war. 21 is when we trust them to drink to console themselves for the trauma of war or to celebrate the victory of the candidate they backed.
Most people can accept that the definition of when a child becomes an adult is fuzzy and might even depend on the context. Reasonable people disagree about when a child becomes an adult. Reasonable people also disagree about when a sperm and egg become a baby.
Our founding fathers gave us a government that provided freedom of religion and freedom from religion. What could not be proven through science or a vote - things that could be seen and verified objectively by other people - could be held as personal conviction but not imposed on anyone else. People were free to live according to their own conscience.
There are people who have a religious belief that the instant a sperm and egg collide those two tiny little cells too small for the eye to see are no different from a baby that you can't ignore. It's key to clarify two things. One, this is a belief, no different than the belief that the rich should sell what they own and give it to the poor or that when Venus intercepts Jupiter it is a good time to start a new relationship. And - this is really important so pay attention to the next few words - this religious belief about when life starts has nothing to do with Jesus's teaching. Like the guy in Times Square selling $12 Rolex watches, people have slapped Christ's name onto the "abortion is murder" belief but it did not come from Jesus's words. They made this up.
Force is central to this issue. Sex can be one of the most wonderful experiences of a woman's life and rape - sex forced on her - one of the worst. When force or chance terminates a woman's pregnancy it can be one of the most emotionally heavy experiences of her life; when she chooses to terminate a pregnancy it can yield one of her biggest reliefs. Sex and having a child can be radically different experiences depending on whether they are forced upon her or embraced by her.
Again, there is no way that Trump would have won without the vote of people who now believe that their definition of when life starts is God-given and true and that this revelation ought to be the basis for law. The truth? This definition of when life starts has nothing to do with Christ's teaching and even if it did, it wouldn't matter in a country based on religious freedom.
How do I know that it wouldn't matter? Because while Christ said nothing about abortion he was clear that divorce and re-marriage was adultery, a sin. Because of religious freedom, in this country a person is free to divorce and re-marry, as Trump has twice. The abortion is murder people seemingly want to live in a theocracy where religious beliefs are imposed on other people but it's essential to point out that the beliefs they want to impose are not based on Jesus' teaching. All theocracy is bad; theirs is a counterfeit theocracy.
Abortion is murder is a religious belief but not a Christian one. Like any Christian or non-Christian religious belief, it is something that people are free to embrace but not free to impose on others. It should not be the basis for law in this country. Unless of course you trust people who understand Christianity better than Christ and freedom of religion better than our founding fathers. I don't. Not any more than I trust Trump.
In the first four gospels, the poor are mentioned 24 times and the rich 29. In Luke 18:24-25, for instance, Christ said,
Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”In Luke 14:13-14 he told a host,
when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed.He left little doubt about his disdain for wealth and love for the poor and he expected his followers to have a similar ambivalence about wealth and compassion for the poor. There is no doubt about this.
In the first four gospels, abortion is not mentioned once. (Actually, it's mentioned nowhere in the Bible.) You might argue that abortions had not become as easy or common in his time as ours but keep in mind that Jesus's authority comes in no small part because he saw to the end of time and preached about all that would matter until then.
Evangelicals gave Trump the presidency. Without their vote, he would have lost. The central reason they voted for Trump is that these people believe that life starts at the exact instant that a sperm and egg collide and are appalled that Roe vs. Wade lets women follow their individual conscience about when that transformation occurs. To be clear, their belief is not based on anything Christ said. This is their own idea, one they've slapped the label of Christianity onto.
Many Christians don't share this belief. The Christians who see abortion as murder are less remarkable for their affection for Christ's teaching (again, this isn't even something he taught) than their personalities: these are the people who cannot tolerate ambiguity or gray areas. They need clear black and white boundaries and saying that life starts at a particular instant is very appealing to them. Such a belief is less product of soul searching than the compulsion of a particular personality type.
Nobody is arguing that we should kill babies. Nobody is arguing that we should protect the "lives" of sperm or egg cells. The argument is about when sperm and egg - the jetsam and flotsam of life - become a baby - the essence of life.
When does a child become an adult? 12 seems compelling. Until just a few centuries ago, every community around the world treated 12 as the legal age of consent, an age when young girls were commonly married off. Theaters and amusement parks still seem to believe a 12 year old is no longer a child. Or you might argue for 16, the age when we trust teens to have the cognitive capacity to drive, to stay focused on the road in ways that don't endanger the rest of us. 18 is old enough to let them vote or go off to war. 21 is when we trust them to drink to console themselves for the trauma of war or to celebrate the victory of the candidate they backed.
Most people can accept that the definition of when a child becomes an adult is fuzzy and might even depend on the context. Reasonable people disagree about when a child becomes an adult. Reasonable people also disagree about when a sperm and egg become a baby.
Our founding fathers gave us a government that provided freedom of religion and freedom from religion. What could not be proven through science or a vote - things that could be seen and verified objectively by other people - could be held as personal conviction but not imposed on anyone else. People were free to live according to their own conscience.
There are people who have a religious belief that the instant a sperm and egg collide those two tiny little cells too small for the eye to see are no different from a baby that you can't ignore. It's key to clarify two things. One, this is a belief, no different than the belief that the rich should sell what they own and give it to the poor or that when Venus intercepts Jupiter it is a good time to start a new relationship. And - this is really important so pay attention to the next few words - this religious belief about when life starts has nothing to do with Jesus's teaching. Like the guy in Times Square selling $12 Rolex watches, people have slapped Christ's name onto the "abortion is murder" belief but it did not come from Jesus's words. They made this up.
Force is central to this issue. Sex can be one of the most wonderful experiences of a woman's life and rape - sex forced on her - one of the worst. When force or chance terminates a woman's pregnancy it can be one of the most emotionally heavy experiences of her life; when she chooses to terminate a pregnancy it can yield one of her biggest reliefs. Sex and having a child can be radically different experiences depending on whether they are forced upon her or embraced by her.
Again, there is no way that Trump would have won without the vote of people who now believe that their definition of when life starts is God-given and true and that this revelation ought to be the basis for law. The truth? This definition of when life starts has nothing to do with Christ's teaching and even if it did, it wouldn't matter in a country based on religious freedom.
How do I know that it wouldn't matter? Because while Christ said nothing about abortion he was clear that divorce and re-marriage was adultery, a sin. Because of religious freedom, in this country a person is free to divorce and re-marry, as Trump has twice. The abortion is murder people seemingly want to live in a theocracy where religious beliefs are imposed on other people but it's essential to point out that the beliefs they want to impose are not based on Jesus' teaching. All theocracy is bad; theirs is a counterfeit theocracy.
Abortion is murder is a religious belief but not a Christian one. Like any Christian or non-Christian religious belief, it is something that people are free to embrace but not free to impose on others. It should not be the basis for law in this country. Unless of course you trust people who understand Christianity better than Christ and freedom of religion better than our founding fathers. I don't. Not any more than I trust Trump.
27 February 2011
Well? Is He or Isn't He Bald?
What most people think is true of baldness they cannot really explain or defend. I think it is the same with abortion.
Unless you take extreme positions on baldness, yours is an inexplicable one. Or, at least, it defies easy explanation.
If a man loses one hair, he's not yet bald. Yet if he has only one hair left, most people would agree that he is bald. Where in the process from one hair gone to one hair left does a man become bald? Most of us have some sense of it, but our definitions would likely vary and never be precise or easy to explain.
If a sperm and egg come together, do they instantly deserve all the rights of a human life? Or in the minute before birth, can that baby be treated like a sperm and egg and be easily discarded? Most people would say no and no. But of course, that leaves the majority of Americans with inexplicable positions on abortion left to make a seemingly arbitrary decision about when the line between disposable zygote and precious baby should be drawn.
And yet this is one of those instances in which what is hard to explain seems to make more sense.
Unless you take extreme positions on baldness, yours is an inexplicable one. Or, at least, it defies easy explanation.
If a man loses one hair, he's not yet bald. Yet if he has only one hair left, most people would agree that he is bald. Where in the process from one hair gone to one hair left does a man become bald? Most of us have some sense of it, but our definitions would likely vary and never be precise or easy to explain.
If a sperm and egg come together, do they instantly deserve all the rights of a human life? Or in the minute before birth, can that baby be treated like a sperm and egg and be easily discarded? Most people would say no and no. But of course, that leaves the majority of Americans with inexplicable positions on abortion left to make a seemingly arbitrary decision about when the line between disposable zygote and precious baby should be drawn.
And yet this is one of those instances in which what is hard to explain seems to make more sense.
08 March 2009
Power and Abortion - the Politics and Religion of Choice
What is the quote? Good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things. In order to get good people to do bad things, you need religion.
Abortion is an issue of power.
First of all, Christ clearly speaks out against wealth. He never spoke out against abortion. Ever. It would be much easier for Christian anti-abortion rights activists to speak out against wealth than abortion - assuming they were actually interested in Christ's teachings rather than politics. Why don't they speak out against wealth? You cannot anger the people with money and power and, yourself, retain power. Pregnant women, by contrast, have little power and are easy targets for expressions of self righteousness.
The only Biblical mention of the evil of taking an unborn life is in the Old Testament (where shell fish is forbidden and slavery encouraged). If someone injures a woman in a way that terminates her pregnancy, he is to be punished. Even in this case of ending a pregnancy against the woman's wishes, the punishment is not the same as for someone killing a person already born. The Bible does not equate the life of a fetus to that of a born infant, even though many religious activists do.
But there is another dimension of power here - the power to define when life begins. At one instant, egg and sperm are potential life that are no more deserving of rights than lost fingernails or expectorant from a sneeze. At the instant they come together, they are suddenly accorded the full rights of a human being. Or so people who believe that life begins at the instant of conception would have us believe.
I do not think that this is an unreasonable position. It is certainly clean. It gives us a clear instance in time for the beginning of life and I think that this - alone - accounts for a great deal of its appeal.
By contrast, saying that life begins sometime between the instant of conception and the instant of birth is fuzzier - harder to defend or define. Yet I think that choosing some point of time within that range is also reasonable.
The biggest difference between self proclaimed conservatives and liberals is their tolerance for ambiguity. Conservatives need a world more clearly painted black and white. It is no coincidence that conservatives tend to side with the position that life begins at the instant of conception. It is clean. It is black and white. And it has no basis in science or scripture. Again, there is nothing wrong with this position. Where I take issue is in the imposition of this view onto others.
In this way, abortion has to do with power at the most fundamental level: the power of a person to define when life begins.
Now you might say that we can't just let anyone define when life begins. I think that is reasonable and would agree. We don't want exasperated parents deciding to "abort" 14 year old children they've wearied of. But I cannot agree that it is unreasonable to give people a choice about when life starts as long as they are choosing some instance between the moment of conception and the end of the second trimester.
Let me repeat: you won't find a definition of when human life starts in scripture, philosophy or science. Why, then, not let individuals make a choice within reasonable boundaries? And, of course, it is absurd to make the argument for the right to abortion in the modern world. We have already reached this conclusion and it is reflected in our laws: most Americans believe that abortion ought to be an option through the first trimester and are more conflicted about it as an option through the second trimester.
Even the persistence of religious beliefs that have little or no basis in scripture is not the problem. I don't protest the bishop's choice to excommunicate this poor girl's mother. (I think it is absurd, but churches are free to define the basis for inclusion or exclusion of congregants.) My only protest is with the religious folks who feel compelled to make their personal beliefs the basis for laws that apply to everyone.
The abortion controversy is about power. The solution to power in early civilizations was to concentrate it with those who had unique insights to God's will. The solution to power in liberal societies of the West is to disperse power to the individual. It is no wonder that the solution within churches looks so different than the solution within countries. It seems best to keep it that way.
---------
Addendum: a new poll indicates that in Massachusetts, the percentage of Catholics has dropped from 54% in 1990 to 39% last year. Meanwhile, the percentage of folks with no religious affiliation nearly tripled, from 8% to 22%. Once people get a taste of defining issues for themselves, it is hard to keep that impulse contained.
A 9-year-old girl in Brazil was raped by her stepfather and became pregnant with twins. So, naturally, the local archbishop’s first response is to excommunicate the girl’s mother for opting for abortion, and her doctors, who believed the girl's life was at risk, for performing the procedure.
Abortion is an issue of power.
First of all, Christ clearly speaks out against wealth. He never spoke out against abortion. Ever. It would be much easier for Christian anti-abortion rights activists to speak out against wealth than abortion - assuming they were actually interested in Christ's teachings rather than politics. Why don't they speak out against wealth? You cannot anger the people with money and power and, yourself, retain power. Pregnant women, by contrast, have little power and are easy targets for expressions of self righteousness.
The only Biblical mention of the evil of taking an unborn life is in the Old Testament (where shell fish is forbidden and slavery encouraged). If someone injures a woman in a way that terminates her pregnancy, he is to be punished. Even in this case of ending a pregnancy against the woman's wishes, the punishment is not the same as for someone killing a person already born. The Bible does not equate the life of a fetus to that of a born infant, even though many religious activists do.
But there is another dimension of power here - the power to define when life begins. At one instant, egg and sperm are potential life that are no more deserving of rights than lost fingernails or expectorant from a sneeze. At the instant they come together, they are suddenly accorded the full rights of a human being. Or so people who believe that life begins at the instant of conception would have us believe.
I do not think that this is an unreasonable position. It is certainly clean. It gives us a clear instance in time for the beginning of life and I think that this - alone - accounts for a great deal of its appeal.
By contrast, saying that life begins sometime between the instant of conception and the instant of birth is fuzzier - harder to defend or define. Yet I think that choosing some point of time within that range is also reasonable.
The biggest difference between self proclaimed conservatives and liberals is their tolerance for ambiguity. Conservatives need a world more clearly painted black and white. It is no coincidence that conservatives tend to side with the position that life begins at the instant of conception. It is clean. It is black and white. And it has no basis in science or scripture. Again, there is nothing wrong with this position. Where I take issue is in the imposition of this view onto others.
In this way, abortion has to do with power at the most fundamental level: the power of a person to define when life begins.
Now you might say that we can't just let anyone define when life begins. I think that is reasonable and would agree. We don't want exasperated parents deciding to "abort" 14 year old children they've wearied of. But I cannot agree that it is unreasonable to give people a choice about when life starts as long as they are choosing some instance between the moment of conception and the end of the second trimester.
Let me repeat: you won't find a definition of when human life starts in scripture, philosophy or science. Why, then, not let individuals make a choice within reasonable boundaries? And, of course, it is absurd to make the argument for the right to abortion in the modern world. We have already reached this conclusion and it is reflected in our laws: most Americans believe that abortion ought to be an option through the first trimester and are more conflicted about it as an option through the second trimester.
Even the persistence of religious beliefs that have little or no basis in scripture is not the problem. I don't protest the bishop's choice to excommunicate this poor girl's mother. (I think it is absurd, but churches are free to define the basis for inclusion or exclusion of congregants.) My only protest is with the religious folks who feel compelled to make their personal beliefs the basis for laws that apply to everyone.
The abortion controversy is about power. The solution to power in early civilizations was to concentrate it with those who had unique insights to God's will. The solution to power in liberal societies of the West is to disperse power to the individual. It is no wonder that the solution within churches looks so different than the solution within countries. It seems best to keep it that way.
---------
Addendum: a new poll indicates that in Massachusetts, the percentage of Catholics has dropped from 54% in 1990 to 39% last year. Meanwhile, the percentage of folks with no religious affiliation nearly tripled, from 8% to 22%. Once people get a taste of defining issues for themselves, it is hard to keep that impulse contained.
05 June 2007
Quality of Life is More Important Than Life Except When Quality of Life is Less Important Than Life
In tonight's Republican debate, the hopefuls were asked about the most pressing moral problem: other than Ron Paul, all singled out the reverence for life, a reference to anti-abortion. The quality of the life of the mother deserves no consideration if pursuit of that threatens the life of a fetus.
Ron Paul, however, was just rude. He claimed that the most pressing moral problem was that his fellow Republicans wouldn't rule out a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that was no direct threat to us.
There are, last I heard, children in these countries we have bombed and would be willing to bomb. Why do we accept this "collateral damage" in the execution of war? Because we feel that people in these countries deserve freedom and deserve economic prosperity. That is, quality of life is more important than life itself.
If you can crack the code on that one, you might have a future as a Republican candidate.
Ron Paul, however, was just rude. He claimed that the most pressing moral problem was that his fellow Republicans wouldn't rule out a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that was no direct threat to us.
There are, last I heard, children in these countries we have bombed and would be willing to bomb. Why do we accept this "collateral damage" in the execution of war? Because we feel that people in these countries deserve freedom and deserve economic prosperity. That is, quality of life is more important than life itself.
If you can crack the code on that one, you might have a future as a Republican candidate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)