I believe the issue of abortion is blurred by the laws which govern our nation. In the United States, my limited understanding is that the law applies to and protects those who have rights. The debate begins with who 'those' are. Are unborn babies citizens or humans that have rights? If not, why? The second half of this aforementioned debate which helps to confuse or at least complicate the issue is that this organism--the baby--grows inside another human. This part of the debate centers around at what point does this organisms developing within her womb become a separate identity from herself? If the unborn organism threatens somehow the life of the woman, which life is the more important? I believe that yes they should be treated as a human, but that belief is not grounded in any legal definitiion of creation or life but rather my belief in God.
In my mind, because I see this as a religious belief, the issue of abortion being wrong for everyone is more nebulus in my mind. Should I force my belief on everyone else? I believe that the argument against this is that "this is murder", etc. Is it though? If one doesn't find the embryo or fetus to be a human with rights for them-the one with the different understanding of a developing fetus--it might not be murder. I believe this is not the same as just deciding that it is okay to murder someone who has been born already just because a person believes that it is okay to do so. This is not the same because under law once a person is born it is no longer ambiguous legally as to wether or not they should be treated humanely. The only near resolution to this conflict between religious beliefs and the law is for a new law to be created that defines a citizen or human at the moment of conception. Of course this would create a medical catch 22 when dealing with choosing between the mother or the baby in a situation where the life of one will only lead to the death of another. Whew! This is very tiring. I must plow forward.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
These comments apply to both Abortion posts.
The prevention of a baby coming to term was frowned upon by most every ancient society. Children were a measure of the success, wealth, and sustainability -- extending from the family unity all the way up to the nation.
Without children, agricultural production requires slaves. Without children, who will care for aging parents? Without sufficient population, there would be no soldiers to defend the land. Without population growth, the *church* would wither over time. (don't forget Genesis 1:28 --"be fruitful and multiply")
That being said, there have also been (and continues to be) reasons for terminating a pregnancy. The list is pretty long. Aside from risks to the life/health of the mother due to medical or physical problems, the vast majority of reasons stem from social inequties and economic hardships.
I would urge anyone that wants to prevent ALL abortions to work toward the social and economic forces that would sway someone to terminate a pregnancy for non-health reasons. Legislation is not the answer to this problem any more than prohibition (a constitutional ammendement) was the answer to alcoholic beverage consumption or the "War on Drugs" successful in erradicating drug consumption and production.
I've personally brushed up against the abortion issue. The first time was to drive a college friend to the doctor for the procedure. The second was during the pregnancy and delivery I coached of a woman who had been born with Spina Bifida and almost died from the experience.
The most recent was a discussion with my dad. He had stopped supporting some long-time Republican politicians, specifically Jesse Helms, because of their stance on abortions. Dad was unhappy with men (politicians) telling a woman what to do with her body.
============================
A brief digression...the Roe v. Wade case and decision was about the protection of physicians (and other medical staff) from prosecution for performing abortions.
============================
If the state has the right to force all pregnancies to full term, have we not become another Romania?
If a fetus is a human being at the moment of conception, is it because of the existence of the 23 paired genetic matrix pattern at the heart of the cytoblast? If that were the case, would any collection of human tissue constitute a human, much like a section of a hologram has all the data of the original hologram?
But where does it end? The zero-population growth movement has been ignored for the past 30 years or so. Eventually, we will reach a crisis if our fruitfulness and multiplication does not abate.
My sister lost her first child at 19 weeks. It was tragic. There was nothing they could do and eventually had two other children, one of whom is my Godson. But the loss of a child is an exception in America rather than the expectation of a prior generation. Children failed to come to term, died during childbirth, or never survived to adult. Vaccines and medical advancements have changed our expectations and have mitigated the very real necessity to try and have a many children as possible with the hope that some small percentage would survive to adult, tend the farm, and look after the parents. That environment barely exists in America today just as America does not resemble the world of biblical stories.
Abortion stats:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html
I am not sure that I would place my justification for abortion on the irresponsible or unthoughtful actions of humans or cultural dynamics over time based on environment.
For me much of this talk is a divergence from the simple issue of whether or not the destruction of a zygote, full-term fetus, or anything in between is moral neutral or has moral consequence. I still feel this is a position that one holds based on one personal faith and/or belief and thus cannot and should not be regulated by law but rather by example and advocation. We are often too easily convinced that legislation is the answer to create a force of change.
Paul-
what do you mean by this point?
"I still feel this is a position that one holds based on one personal faith and/or belief and thus cannot and should not be regulated by law but rather by example and advocation. We are often too easily convinced that legislation is the answer to create a force of change. "
- that the law should stay as it is and let those who wish to have or not have an abortion - let them make the choice using their own personal, moral standards? and those who don't support abortion can make a difference by advocating abstinence, safe sex, adoption etc? or like aikimark said:
"work toward the social and economic forces that would sway someone to terminate a pregnancy for non-health reasons."
In response to Gina's comment:
My point in the statement you refer to in your comment is that people's beliefs on abortion are mostly founded on moral paradigms set forth in their religious beliefs which cannot be proved or disproved for all. This means to create a law would be to impose your beliefs on others. I have explained in one of my other posts how this works.
I also believe that we can affect greater change by advocation, example, and demonstration than by legislating.
I would ask the question about why we don't have laws punishing people for having irresponsible sex leading to unwanted pregnancies? Or at least laws saying that it is illegal to create life without the ability to deal with the consequence responsibility.
How we choose to propagate is a moral decision that we do not legislate but has often times terrible consequences for the children. We don't legislate this. Why not? For the same reason you cannot legislate abortion. The boundaries on the issue are ambiguous and impossible to legislate.
Post a Comment