No issue is more contentious or morally complex than abortion because it deals with the rights of two individuals and when we achieve our moral right to life, liberty and property. As with almost any issue, moral or otherwise, when trying to think through where we stand on it, the place to start is the extremes.
Aborting a healthy fetus in the process of being born can only be considered murder. On the other hand, forcing a 13 year old girl who is 1 hour pregnant as a result of being raped by her father to carry the baby to term, is nothing short of a moral travesty. Yet we insist on reducing abortion down to Pro-Life and Pro-Choice labels. The fact is we don't have the necessary information to make an informed moral choice in many cases. We can draw an artificial limit, say the first trimester, but that won't cover all situations in determining by whose or what authority we make these decisions--God, the Law, or a family and their doctor.
Any claim to divine authority is specious given that there is nothing in the Bible about it, and all we have are those putting words in God's mouth that the human right to life starts at conception. Some even claim that divine determination is violated by contraception. On the face of it, for those appealing to revealed religion for their authority, abortion is being used as an instrument of power and control.
At the other end, the same could be said about statists who would use the law to give complete authority to the mother with no rights whatever for the baby until it is born, which is no less an artificial limit, or less "holy", than conception.
The fact is we already limit human rights according to age, and few would argue with it. We limit a child's right to liberty and property until they reach some arbitrary age of majority at which point they legally acquire the rights they didn't have a few moments before. Some would say the right to life is different, but tell that to the billions throughout history who lived under horrible oppression, and others who risked or lost their lives in an effort to achieve that liberty. The question this raises is, why isn't there some theological, or secular, explanation for the arbitrary acquisition of our rights to liberty and property? The Bible says that you must not commit murder and that you must not steal. But then it also gives tacit approval to slavery and human sacrifice.
The Golden Rule is the only moral guidance we have, or need, except for the moral complexities of dealing with our children--born and unborn.
This complex issue pushes to the limit the principle that the only thing that should be legislated is morality. It would seem, at this point, that all we can legislate would be in the realm of the previously mentioned extremes, and each of those come to a point where that legislation would be arbitrary and thus without moral authority. We must acknowledge the complexity of this issue and come, somehow, to realize that this must be done on a case by case basis, with the mother making the decision in this area where the law cannot reach, with the advice of her family, her doctor, her society and her faith.
In this "no-man's land" or grey area (between the extremes which can be legislated), the woman must have the final authority, not because it's her body, but because it's her child. And since it is still ultimately a moral issue, the freedom of religion is the final legal authority for her moral authority. The current legal problem here in the US where a retail store chain (Hobby Lobby) is being forced at the cost of over a million dollars a day to provide health care funds for abortions against the religious beliefs of a private company and any number of its employees, is an egregious example of the violation of the necessary separation of church and state; not to mention the First Amendment to our Constitution.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Religion vs. Philosophy
Why is religion, and philosophy for that matter, important?
Originally, somewhere back in civilization’s deep, dark past, religion was the equivalent of science. Grog, in his cave, tried to make sense of the natural world around him; a nature that appeared to be a benefactor and source of fear at the same time. Truth and knowledge were sought. But it wasn’t long before some were able to use that fear and confusion as a source of control if it was manipulated properly.
Later still, someone developed the carrot and stick idea and added rewards from the gods in this life as well as the next, for proper behavior. The original morality consisted of a simple form of the Golden Rule, but it was necessary to include honoring and providing for the gods as part of that favored behavior; and as time passed many more extraneous rules were added to the code of behavior, which eventually ascended to greater importance than proper behavior towards each other. Then finally someone consolidated all the rules from all those gods into rules from just One God, and that mixture of mono/polytheism is where we stood at the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment and the ascendancy of science and the scientific method.
While science has been very successful at acquiring knowledge, the issues of morality (a code of conduct for how we treat each other), virtue (a code for our personal behavior), and of fulfillment and purpose in this life (and perhaps the next), appeared to be beyond the reach of the scientific method. So religion, with all its baggage, maintained its position of spiritual authority—albeit a reduced one.
Enter philosophy, the attempt to use reason to combine knowledge and the metaphysical. But the latter wasn’t subject to reason since there was no knowledge available (other than pure hearsay) with which we could deal. Thus two usually unstated assumptions were made: Human life is of ultimate value, and a laissez faire divine being created the universe. If neither of those was the case there was no possibility for good order or hope for an ultimate purpose.
Today, we stand on the verge of the realization that morality is the only thing that should be the subject of civilization’s legal code—we should never legislation personal virtue. Organized religion continues to fight this principle as if its life depends on it, which it does. It won’t submit to the ascendancy of philosophy for the same reason that governments resist submission to political and economic reason…..the ability to use power to favor an individual or an elite class structure.
Though we have made great strides in science and technology, it appears that we are no closer to conquering evil with good because we still depend far too much on emotion to make our decisions. Progress will not be made until we learn to employ our emotions as the engine to pursue our goals, with reason at the wheel.
Originally, somewhere back in civilization’s deep, dark past, religion was the equivalent of science. Grog, in his cave, tried to make sense of the natural world around him; a nature that appeared to be a benefactor and source of fear at the same time. Truth and knowledge were sought. But it wasn’t long before some were able to use that fear and confusion as a source of control if it was manipulated properly.
Later still, someone developed the carrot and stick idea and added rewards from the gods in this life as well as the next, for proper behavior. The original morality consisted of a simple form of the Golden Rule, but it was necessary to include honoring and providing for the gods as part of that favored behavior; and as time passed many more extraneous rules were added to the code of behavior, which eventually ascended to greater importance than proper behavior towards each other. Then finally someone consolidated all the rules from all those gods into rules from just One God, and that mixture of mono/polytheism is where we stood at the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment and the ascendancy of science and the scientific method.
While science has been very successful at acquiring knowledge, the issues of morality (a code of conduct for how we treat each other), virtue (a code for our personal behavior), and of fulfillment and purpose in this life (and perhaps the next), appeared to be beyond the reach of the scientific method. So religion, with all its baggage, maintained its position of spiritual authority—albeit a reduced one.
Enter philosophy, the attempt to use reason to combine knowledge and the metaphysical. But the latter wasn’t subject to reason since there was no knowledge available (other than pure hearsay) with which we could deal. Thus two usually unstated assumptions were made: Human life is of ultimate value, and a laissez faire divine being created the universe. If neither of those was the case there was no possibility for good order or hope for an ultimate purpose.
Today, we stand on the verge of the realization that morality is the only thing that should be the subject of civilization’s legal code—we should never legislation personal virtue. Organized religion continues to fight this principle as if its life depends on it, which it does. It won’t submit to the ascendancy of philosophy for the same reason that governments resist submission to political and economic reason…..the ability to use power to favor an individual or an elite class structure.
Though we have made great strides in science and technology, it appears that we are no closer to conquering evil with good because we still depend far too much on emotion to make our decisions. Progress will not be made until we learn to employ our emotions as the engine to pursue our goals, with reason at the wheel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)