Another site at which I post material has writers who tend to be impervious to arguments from alternative political, social and economic views. One of the people with whom I have attempted to conduct civil and mutually respectful exchanges of opinions is S. L. Bradish, a prolific blogger and author and politically far, far to my Right. I reproduce the exchange of views over the next several posts. I welcome thoughtful responsive comments to any of the posts in this series. We have agreed to a “debate” of the issue of abortion; the original post can be found at http://www.myapologetics.com/the-great-debate-2-jim-verses-slb/.
Date: June 8th, 2009
Opening statement – Abortion rights in the United States.
S. L. Bradish and I have agreed to an exchange of views on the topic of abortion. I invited her to choose a topic and she did so. Perhaps this will start a series of articles in differing viewpoints covering a number of issues written by a number of individuals. Perhaps….
One of the most, if not the most, divisive issues in the United States is that of the law concerning abortion. I would suggest that there are a number of preliminary questions that should be addressed. The first of these can only be answered by the woman:
Has the pregnant woman, after consultation if she wishes, with her religious or spiritual adviser, and considering her health or that of the future and eventual child, age, marital status, economic status and ability to provide for a child, or any other factor that she feels relevant, made a decision to have an abortion?
I cannot think of a more personal decision or one which can be answered by anyone other than the woman. If the answer to this opening question is “no”, then all discussion is over. No one has the right to force an abortion on anyone. Compulsory abortion is not unheard of in other countries and this is, I would think, to be universally condemned.
The second of the preliminary questions is one that is intertwined with politics in the United States and has a tendency to generate more heat than light.
If, after a woman has consulted with her physician and perhaps her spiritual advisor and has decided to seek an abortion, whether government (i.e. laws) should veto her decision.
At the outset, there is one bit of terminology that is important. I am not pro-abortion; I would not expect there to be any rational person in this country to be in favor of abortion as an ultimate societal goal. The term I prefer is “pro-choice”.
The discussions often get off track at the beginning. How do I, for example, define “pro-choice? What do I mean by “pro-life”? I consider myself both. I find myself personally uncomfortable with abortion (pro-life) but nonetheless am more uncomfortable with the arrogance that would allow my views to be more powerful than the considered decision of the pregnant woman.
Every abortion starts with choices and ends with consequences. The issue is whether government ought to be able to completely override the cogent and deliberative choice by the pregnant woman. Much of the failure to reach some accommodation between the disparate groups is the failure to find common terminology. We often speak at cross purposes, neither side willing to listen to the other, an impossible task if one group uses the same words to mean different things.
Once at this point, there are a series of sub-issues that arise.
What is the basis or rationale for government involvement? We, and those who profess to be the most conservative, tend to assert that we have a Constitution that limits the scope and power of federal, state and local government. The Bill of Rights limits government and does not grant general authority. The most common suggestion is abortion is a killing of a human being and is a sin. However the “killing of a human being” concept is not universally accepted.
When do a bunch of cells become a person? Over the centuries, there have been a variety of opinions with regard to the start of a human life that is granted civil rights, including the right to live. People and societies have different opinions about the point at which human life becomes a human person. There is a consensus that a newborn is a human person. (We do not, in the United States or in most countries, allow the killing of newborns based on their gender.) However, people disagree about whether a zygote, embryo, or fetus is also a human person. This is the main point of disagreement that causes conflicts over abortion access.
Most people who put themselves in the in the always “opposed to abortion” group speak in religious terms, referring to the procedure as a “sin”. But among the faiths of the world, there is no uniformity. Some religious groups oppose abortion; some support access to medically supervised abortion; some oppose government restrictions on abortion; and some have no opinion.
Christians, including both the Roman Catholic Church and evangelical Christian churches, usually oppose abortion. Some Christian churches that have become more theologically liberal in the last century hold a pro-choice stance.
Buddhists also usually take an anti-abortion stance, citing the Pali Canon which states that life begins at conception. Moreover, in Buddhism killing of, say, a mosquito would be a direct breach of the precept which forbids destruction of life. However, since killing a mosquito is not as serious as killing a person, ending the potential life of a fetus may not equate to murder. In addition, they consider that abortion is preferable if the woman’s life is at risk.
Islam generally has the stance that if the woman’s life is at stake, abortion is permissible under the principle of Shari`ah, the lesser of two evils. Moreover, there are a number of traditional scholars which state that quickening is a sign that the soul has entered the fetus. Otherwise, there is a wide range of positions within Islam. Abortions are usually not prohibited through the fourth month.
Judaism traditionally holds the life of a fetus as sacred, and does not permit abortion purely on demand. However, it sanctions (or mandates) abortion under some circumstances, namely when the woman’s life is threatened or when the woman is under significant stress from pregnancy. Some distinguish between Judaism’s view of what’s wrong and a Jew’s view of what should be legislated as wrong. Many Jews, including Orthodox Jews, believe in separation of state and church (mostly because Jews historically fared better in the societies whose political views were not influenced by religious views), and believe that unless something that is prohibited by Judaism can be logically proven to a non-believer in Judaism, it cannot be legislated — otherwise, eating non-kosher food, violating of the Sabbath, masturbation, homosexuality, the wearing of fabrics mixing wool and linen and the rest of prohibited activities should be lobbied to be illegal. A middle view says that although all Jewish laws cannot practically be lobbied to be legislated, those that can be (due to an already existing strong public opinion, such as in case of abortion) should be lobbied thus promoting the Torah’s view when practically possible. What makes it a difficult policy to discern is that the Bible does not explicitly mention abortion; the policies are treated in the subsequent commentaries.
A number of churches and religious groups in the United States support or at least accept the limited right of women to obtain a safe, legal, medically supervised abortion.
So if the objection to abortion is grounded in one’s faith, then a general statute that incorporates a principle of religious dogma would hold that non-believers of that particular faith or an agnostic or atheist is also bound. Imagine if a Court or law held that a Roman Catholic must allow abortion simply because an atheist approves of the procedure.
Do you think some of the more Conservative among us would agree to that?
And, to take the argument further, would Conservatives feel it appropriate if the government banned the sale and ingestion of bacon?
Finally, if abortion were illegal, what punishment is considered? To the person whose faith prohibits abortion, there is the possibility of eternal hellfire, damnation. What would be additional, meaningful punishment? Imprison the mother? Imprison the physician?
As I have noted previously, no rational person supports abortion as a goal. However, if a pregnant woman were advised and counseled in the manner outlined above and then makes her decision, that choice should be honored.
Want to diminish the need for that choice? We have, in our power, ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies. There is no way to prevent 100% of abortions. The procedure is and has always been available; the real choice is whether the procedure should be performed in a safe and sterile medical setting by well-trained physicians or relegated to the back room somewhere without such safeguards. There may be ways to reduce the need for abortion.
First, insist on practical and complete sex education in schools and demand that these programs do more than preach abstinence. Leave “morality issues” to be discussed at home or church or synagogue.
Second, insist that those programs are adequately funded.
Third, provide unemotional and amoral access to contraception, including to the furthest point your conscience allows access to the “morning after” pill. Abortion as a substitute for contraception is not something that should be necessary.
Third, stop making unprotected sex with multiple partners acceptable or, even worse, worthy of positive recognition. Cases in point would be the television programs that glamorize pre-marital and casual sex, the tabloid magazines and gossip programs that do the same.
In my day, the disclosure that a “personality” was pregnant outside of marriage would destroy her career. Why, for the most part, were there fewer pregnancies outside of marriage in my community? It would have brought shame upon the family, approbation from neighbors
We are not going to turn back the clock 70 years. But we could try and find a middle ground and work together to make abortion safe, legal and rare.
I apologize to those who expected to read an ideologue’s statement of principles, according the “other side” neither respect nor validity. This issue has already been the object of excessive heat and absolutism and both Conservatives and Liberals have a bit of trouble in not adding to the fire.
For a relatively unbiased outlook and rational discussion, I refer those interested to check out:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm#menu
http://www.quickoverview.com/issues/abortion-debate.html
The first site has far more detail as to the religious factors involved and far more extensive discussions; the second is broader. Both are excellent sources for information, essays and documentation.
I look forward to the position statement by S L.
