A friend of mine posted a comment in response to my previous post. (Click here to see his point of view and to put this in context.) I'm not yet sure how to reply to a comment without creating a new post--unless I'm supposed to submit a comment of my own under my own post while discussing someone else's comment. I'll figure it out. In the meantime, here are my thoughts.
I sharply criticized what John Kerry had to say about abortion when he said, "I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that."
My friend Terry commented:
While I in [no] way support Senator Kerry for President, I find this a little absolutist. Yes, we need moral fortitude in a President (which Kerry doesn't have.) However, where is the seperation of church and state? What sort of things should be left to individuals and what sort should be left to the lawmakers?
The "wall of separation between Church and State" protected a church from being run by the state, and vice versa. This does not mean that reasonable, traditional, time-honored morals shouldn't be enforced by our government.
We have laws against murder and theft, and even adultery. True, these laws coincide with directly stated laws of God (according to those of us who believe in God), but at the same time they can be deduced by reasoning. They are part of the natural moral law that can be found within all people in all cultures.
This natural law that we possess always needs some polishing, some defining from without. Christians accept divine revelation as the ultimate expession of moral truth. But even the non-religious see the need for civil governments to draw moral boundaries if their society is to prosper--or even survive. It simply isn't enough to say, "Do that which is good" and let everyone run amuck.
It is vital to understand this concept: Religious doctrine can define morals for believers, but the codified teachings themselves are not the source or substance of morality. In other words, you could say there's a separation of Church and Morals. There's a definite distinction. Otherwise, you wouldn't have so many different religions upholding so many of the same morals.
This distinction is important because it shows that a society can legislate certain morals for the common good without enforcing a particular religion, or even an express belief in a timeless Creator at all.
There are sincere agnostics who abhor cruelty and murder. They fiercely defend the family's integrity and its role in society. They believe in freedom. While these are also "Christian teachings," they don't belong in the same category as the doctrine of transubstantiation, the Resurrection, or the Trinity. There is a natural law and a divine law.
Now what about abortion? It can be clearly reasoned and deduced that abortion is the termination of human life. The Bible nowhere says explicitly, "Abortion is a sin," but historic Christianity upholds this moral teaching nonetheless. I'm no expert on world religions, but I strongly suspect that Judaism and Islam teach the same.
Therefore, for a politician to vote his conscience against abortion is not to advocate Islam or Christianity; it is to promote life, and is consistent with the opening sentence of the U.S. Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
These shared priorities (which are not distinctly "Christian") apply to all of us, no matter what stage of development we find our minds and bodies in--whether we are in the first few days of formation or in the last few days of life.
I say that protecting human life--even if we were to err on the side of caution--trumps the right to "reproductive health care" any day. And that belief doesn't arise only from my religious convictions, but also from my reasonable sense of morality instilled in me naturally as a human being.
One would expect John Kerry, a professed "Catholic," to feel the same when it comes to abortion.
3 comments:
To some, polygamy or even bestiality would not be considered "clearly" immoral or harmful to society, yet (for now at least) we have laws intended to protect the institution of marriage from these deviations.
Slavery of those considered only 3/5 of a person was once acceptable in this country, but sound reason and moral sense finally won out. The truth in this matter was always discernible to the reasonable and upright, even if it was clouded by generational bias.
Now don't most of us instinctively know that a newborn who still has a little toe inside the womb is a true life--and that "terminating" it is nothing short of murder? It's a brutal, repulsive thought, but at what earlier point in gestation is it acceptable to terminate the baby?
Let's say it isn't clear exactly when life begins: why risk committing murder by aborting the unborn?
The moral burden of proof should rest on those who are pro-choice; they should be able to "prove" (scientifically or otherwise) when life begins before advocating the choice to terminate a pregnancy. Otherwise the moral risk is too great to take.Why not, then, let the law of the land protect all innocent human life, even "just in case" life?
The prohibition against abortion is so much more than, as Senator Kerry apparently believes, a mere man-made "religious" rule. To many millions of sincere, morally attuned people, it's old-fashioned murder.
On the topic of when life begins, this is an excellent article:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0405fea2.asp
On the issue of when life begins. I honestly do not understand how anyone can question it. I have had three children and have had early ultrasounds. At less than 6 weeks old those babies are already living creatures (I personally believe at conception they are anyway). Using medical science you can actually see at 5 weeks after conception that the baby's heart beats and they move what tiny little limbs they have developed! Now if I'm not mistaken science declares us dead when our heart quits does it not? If you are brain dead they will consider you still alive so long as they heart is beating. So if the baby's heart is beating and we can easily see this via ultrasound I'd say an abortion is definently killing a human being!
I have to appologize fo being the voice of what many of you consider the immoral pro-choice people. I personally do not believe in frivolous abortions, and I know of very few women who do not have remorse over the pregnancys that they have aborted. It is partly due to normal post-pregnancy trauma, but it is also some genuine guilt. I believe there are very few pro-choice people who do not appreciate the moral responsibility engendered by abortion. But it is a responsibility that nature (or for those of us who are believers, God)placed in the hands (and indeed in the body !) of the woman/mother. And unless there are extenuating circumstances, I believe many women would choose to keep the baby.
Now, the key to my argument, are the extenuating circumstances. First and foremost, the most esxtreme: if we do not make a difference between unborn-life and born-life, how do we resolve the moral conundrum thatb we have when the birth of the baby endangers the life of the mother? Would one choose an unborn foetus over the life of a thriving human being? It is possible, but however less likely than the reverse option. In any case, the foetus not being able to stan for himself, we pro-choice people believe that it should be the mother's - or any person legally representing her -decision (considering she shares a body with the foetus), as opposed to the government's.
What about the public interest of the government to protect "Just in case" life, as someone put it? Well my problem, I guess, is that I do not see i as being moral to force a woman - and indeed a couple - to bear an undesired foetus to term. It does not serve the interests of the future child to have a carrying mother who despises it, because some man in DC wants her to carry it... All that negative energy cannot be good for that future baby. As to when the embryo becomes life, it depends really and genuinely on belief. I disagree with someone's comment stating that it is obvious to all. All agree, I believe, that when a baby is fully viable outside the womb, then we know it is a life. It is for earlier than that that we disagree, right?
We who believe in choice tend to believe two things: 1-that before that the potential life of the embryo is reliant upon the life of the mother. The embryonic cells, though built with the potential for life, cannot "live" (This is why I support embryonic stem-cell research too, just so I am upront about it). So we believe that its fate should be in the hands of its bearer, the mother. We believe that Nature gave that choice to the mother, and we want to leave that choice open.
Now, where I believe there is a strong public interest for government, is in prevention of unwante pregnancy. When ideology forces the government not to provide the people (and I mean all the people) with knowledge on contraception, condoms and planned parenthood, with the excuse that it only wishes to promote abstinence, it is an ostrich's sand, and it is a betrayal of the public interests. Very few mothers in condition to raise a child would simply abort it. So the public interest is in addressing the economic and social issues and taboos, that result in some of these women being pregnant, and push these potential mothers into having an abortion. We must stop to be blind to the fact that some teenagers, in all times, have had, have, and will have sex. Instead, we should convey to them through reason (and it is the use of reason in this article, that attracted me to it), and not simply through threat of the 7th plane of hell, why it might be better to wait, whil at the same time making them aware of existing protection devices, and their dangers (This is what my mum did, and it worked!)
In other words, we must reduce (and possibly eliminate) abortion, not by criminalizing it (and simply reducing the supply for a highly existing demand, thus creating a harmful, dangerous and indeed immoral black-market, on the basis of a moral assertion that not all believe), but by creating the social conditions that reduce the need for it, by making it irrelevant and unnecessary (thus reducing the demand). If your compelling interest is in the end goal of potecting what you ahve described as life, I believe this a more reasonable and efficient course. And for those who voted for President Bush instead of Kerry, I would like to point out that under the oh-so-liberal Clinton, the abortion rate dropped by almost half. We ought to ask ourselves why that was...
Sorry for the long post.
God Bless you all.
Post a Comment