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.
This site is dedicated: To the study of the nature of Truth, for which the term, Veritology is coined; To the proposition that both objective Truth and subjective Truth exist in compatible forms; And that Truth and God, if such a divine being exists, are equivalent. Amazingly, we have formal academic disciplines for almost any subject imaginable except Truth--which is usually given piecemeal lip service and dismissed.
Showing posts with label pro-life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pro-life. Show all posts
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Monday, September 24, 2012
Is Sex Unholy?
On what basis can sex be considered unholy while claiming that contraception is unholy as well. Who decides that birth control stops at conception? If not, then when does abortion become evil?
Look to the extremes. Is "aborting" a one cell zygote when the mother is pregnant as a result of being raped by her father, immoral? Is partial-birth abortion of a healthy baby in the process of being born anything but murder? Abortion is the most difficult moral issue we face because it involves the rights of the mother, and the question of when an embryo acquires its rights.
Those who say human rights begin at conception based on divine revelation will be as intransigent in that belief as on all their other beliefs based purely on blind faith in the infallibility of scripture that is fraught with contradictions. So too those who say an embryo gains it's rights somehow instantly once outside the womb, are just as tied to their blind faith of convenience as those to religious revelation. "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" are simplistic labels which are as evil in their simplicity as the immorality they claim to oppose.
There are no simple answers to the issue any more than sex can be reduced to being simple holiness or Original Sin.
Look to the extremes. Is "aborting" a one cell zygote when the mother is pregnant as a result of being raped by her father, immoral? Is partial-birth abortion of a healthy baby in the process of being born anything but murder? Abortion is the most difficult moral issue we face because it involves the rights of the mother, and the question of when an embryo acquires its rights.
Those who say human rights begin at conception based on divine revelation will be as intransigent in that belief as on all their other beliefs based purely on blind faith in the infallibility of scripture that is fraught with contradictions. So too those who say an embryo gains it's rights somehow instantly once outside the womb, are just as tied to their blind faith of convenience as those to religious revelation. "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" are simplistic labels which are as evil in their simplicity as the immorality they claim to oppose.
There are no simple answers to the issue any more than sex can be reduced to being simple holiness or Original Sin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)