The abortion debate is once again coming to the forefront…perhaps rightfully so.
I don’t really look forward to hearing people lie to themselves to justify abortion. I also don’t look forward to the debate, even from those that I agree with. The extreme pro-life side is just as crazy and so often off the mark as the pro-abortion side.
I’m going to state my opinions, kind of thinking onto thru the keyboard onto the screen. I’ve just got to organize my thoughts and emotion by verbalizing them, so here it goes:
► Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.
► I believe in the sanctity of life whether born or unborn.
► I define the soul of man as the spirit and body combined together. I don’t think that the spirit of a person enters the body at the time of conception, but even according to scientific definition, a fertilized egg is the beginning of a new life. This new life…although dependant on the mother…already has certain inalienable rights as an independent being.
► God has never revealed to mankind the exact time that the spirit enters the body to create a soul, but I would rather err on the side of supporting the time of conception theory than be wrong when I stand before my maker to be judged of Him.
► Abortion should not be a form of birth control.
► Adoption is a great alternative to abortion.
► People who have abortions and participate in abortions feel a natural or God-given guilt…at least for awhile…until they are spiritually deadened to it by repetitive abortions and by pro-abortionists who evangelize the guilt out of them.
► Abortion would only be acceptable to me in the cases of the mother’s life being in danger, the fetus not being able to survive child birth, and rape and incest. Even then, abortion should not automatically be the first alternative. I know that God will guide the family affected by any of these scenarios, and that the right decision can be made with His guiding influence. This is the true definition of pro-choice.
► Every aborted child could have been the one to cure cancer…could have been the one to bring about world peace…Every aborted child could have been then one!!!
► The things God seems to care most about is how we come into this world and how we go out of it. Both are divine and should be treated us such. The sexual actions that lead to procreation should be respected as sacramental and should only be had between a man and a woman legally and lawfully wed. The termination of an unborn child is not the choice of the mother. That decision belongs only to God.
► More people have been killed by abortions than by all of the wars in the history of earth. I have read statistics that 25% or more of all pregnancies result in abortion. It sickens and saddens me so profoundly, that I can hardly bear to think it.
► I have seen ultrasounds of my three beautiful children at early stages of pregnancy. You cannot tell me that there wasn’t a little life there.
► My wife had a miscarriage not too far into our marriage. We didn’t even know she was pregnant until she miscarried. Regardless, we felt a loss of life. Those were real and incontrovertible feelings.
► Abortion, prior to the spirit entering the body, is not equivalent to murder, but it is “like unto it.” I believe that mid and late term abortions are murder.
► Whether or not abortion is legal or illegal, abortions will continue to happen. I will leave justice and mercy up to God. As for me, abortion as a birth control method should be abolished.
There is not a single argument in favor of abortion that I cannot refute with truth. The question is…will you accept or reject the truth when it presents itself to you?
3 comentarios:
The South Dakota legislature recently passed a bill banning all abortion except in the case of danger to the mother's health, and the governor signed it. Your testament of conscience does not go this far, this seems dangerously close to what another commentator called, "moral relativism", or perhaps what I would call shades of gray, as not everything being black and white? Just curious as to this point.
In spite of the fact that I would not go as far as you or the South Dakotans in legally banning abortion, I think your thoughts on the subject are well considered, and while I'm in the other camp on this subject I don't feel so far from your feeling on it.
Thanks for your comments David.
My view did not display any form of "moral relativism" as I am definitely not accepting of the opposing view point, nor do I consider all stands on this issue as valid. I don't stand back and say, "If you feel its good for you, than I agree that it is good for you." I simply stated my thoughts, which may slightly differ from that of either national platform.
I admit that there is some "unknown" for me about when a fetus becomes a soul having both body and spirit, but I hope I was unequivocal that abortion is wrong.
The real question that I was waiting for you to ask me was, "Why would you even consider the possibility that abortion would be allowable if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest? Isn't murder murder?" Ah, therein lines the most difficult question...a question that I haven't fully been able to verbalize, but what I know to be true.
I need to spend some more time pondering this one. I know the answer is there, but its so deep inside that I can't yet pull it out.
Abortion is a troubling issue on a personal level… if it isn’t, chances are you probably haven’t given it the serious consideration it deserves. I admire Robert’s entry because it is reflective of the necessary soul-searching such topics require. Of course, as a political issue, abortion is pure Hell, but that’s what comes from establishing national policy on a flawed process… more on that later.
I am not a religious man, so my concerns on abortion may differ somewhat from Robert’s. I have a rather strong scientific background, and am highly skeptical of all things “supernatural”. However, I consider the ethics passed down to us from religious texts to be the condensed wisdom of the ages, and as such hold them in the highest regard. As I do not subscribe to a strict adherence to any codified text for specific moral guidance, I must establish my “moral absolutes” through applying to my conscience and personal understanding of common sense alone. Lest I be misunderstood, let me make it clear that I’m not implying that those who are devoutly religious in any way avoid this process… on the contrary! One of the great benefits of the regular practice of religion is that it provides a structure within which an individual, consistently and regularly, consults their conscience and thinks deeply on matters of ethics. As with any intellectual pursuit, application is necessary for improvement, and there is no more important responsibility than the conscious development of character… I think a very compelling case could be made that religious people have a distinct advantage in this area, at least in terms of method, if not necessarily result. My point is, that for those of us lacking the structure religion provides, special care must be taken not neglect this important task.
That being said, here are some of my thoughts on abortion.
• I am pro-choice within limits, but I find the current “don’t ask, don’t tell, anything goes” policy irresponsible, and in some cases downright horrifying and brutal.
• Unlike Robert, whose “line in the sand” is when the soul enters the body, mine is when the baby can “feel” distress, either physically or emotionally, or what I would call “consciousness”. At some point the nervous system and the brain develop to the point where the baby becomes “conscious”. The life of the mother should be the only justification for abortion once the baby is “conscious”, and certainly once it’s viable outside the womb.
• My wife is in the medical profession… she has educated me on this question. The occurrence of death in a mother during childbirth has become exceedingly rare… in the US, the chances are astronomically low. For those deaths that do occur, the majority are from post-operative complications that every woman faces giving birth… in other words, most were not predictable. This universal, non-specific risk must not be exploited to abuse the “life of the mother” exclusion.
• “Partial-Birth Abortion” is murder of the most despicable and callous sort.
• Due to its’ incomplete development, I believe a fetus is not “conscious” in the first trimester. First trimester abortions should be easy and accessible… if an abortion must happen, the sooner the better.
• Parents have the right to know if their minor daughters are seeking (or sons are aiding in seeking) an abortion.
• Abortion as birth-control is a foolish and irresponsible act. It should only be tolerated in the first trimester.
• Whatever two consenting adults choose to do with each other sexually, as long as it’s conducted in private, is their own damn business.
• Adoption is a preferable alternative to abortion almost without exception.
• If it can be determined to a reasonable degree of certainty that the baby will be non-viable if taken to term, this could be a possible exception to the “life of the mother” exclusion on late-term abortion.
• There is nothing to admire about abortion… it’s never a “happy” occasion… no “right thinking” person would regard it as anything other than the lesser of two evils, regardless of their level of support for its’ lawful existence.
I offer the above “Testament of Conscience” (as David appropriately calls it), and I do so in the same format as Robert intentionally. Just to say, “Well, I’m pro-choice” or “I’m in the other camp” would be apathetic, and would do nothing to advance the conversation… I might as well put a big, red “SEE PARTY LINE” label on the page and move on to the next rubber stamp opinion. Personally, I acknowledge no “camp” where my conscience is concerned… it’s too important a concern to subordinate to anyone else’s care. I found it interesting that it would be considered tantamount to “moral relativism” for Robert to deviate from someone else’s opinion on abortion. I thought Robert’s response to the charge was excellent.
If you compare Robert’s “Testament of Conscience” to mine, it’s no surprise that there are certain areas of common ground, some areas where we are close, and others upon which our differences are, respectfully, irreconcilable. Since Robert and I have some serious disagreements, does this place David and I in the same “camp”? Who knows… maybe… David has told us nothing of substance on his opinion. In any case, it’s a good bet we don’t agree on every particular, so probably not. Would anyone doubt that this variety of opinion would manifest itself millions of times over if similar “Testaments of Conscience” could be gathered from the voting public? Of course not. This is precisely as it should be, and exactly the circumstance our mode of government was designed to manage. Through the process of legislation, our system is uniquely suited to sort through this seeming chaos to discover public consensus… this multiplicity of opinion is the great trove of wisdom from which the moral sense of the community is deduced and defensible laws are crafted. It is because the moral sense of the community was bypassed by an activist Supreme Court decision that the question of abortion continues to be so controversial and unsettled.
One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825
Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free Government.
George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796
Why is Roe-v-Wade considered so sacred? Does anyone else find it interesting that even rights that are expressly cited in the Constitution (right to bear arms, freedom of the press… pick one) are subject to thoughtful legislative boundaries, but any attempt to restrict even the most heinous abortion practices is considered a violation of civil liberties? How is it that implied “privacy issues”, creatively interpreted from the Constitution, are less susceptible to the moderating influence of public consideration than those that are clearly stated and require no interpretation at all? Is it any wonder that such a blatant example of judicial activism is so rife with hypocrisy? I am a firm believer that the Constitution is a “Living Document”, but only within the rigid and demanding constraints established for its’ evolution.
At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Monsieur A. Coray, Oct 31, 1823
The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.
George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796
The arguments in support of Roe-v-Wade are inevitably of a convoluted, abstruse political nature… constitutional scholars have been arguing the decision for decades to no avail. The ethical arguments are also abstract… they seem to revolve around the rather strained notion that, lacking unrestrained access to abortion, women would be returned to some 17th century, oppressed sub-class of victims, forced into the helpless role of “human incubators”. With the ever expanding range of birth control options at our disposal and nearly universal insistence on women’s rights in the general public, this position hardly seems persuasive. Even though I do not support the extreme wing of the lobby, the anti-abortion arguments are at least understandable and grounded in compassion… and unlike the current national abortion policy, they at least acknowledge that there is a real, and truly helpless victim… and it’s not the woman.
Unfortunately, there’s never been a public debate in the legal sense. Due to its’ “innovative” birth, abortion policy exists in a state of limbo lacking any considered boundaries or limitations, other than it has been declared “legal” by the Supreme Court. This undefined character favors the extreme pro-abortion lobby, which has exploited this opportunity to impose its’ open-ended agenda on the public. What has emerged from this incomprehensible politico-babble are laws that insult the sacred trust between parent and child, and sanction such disgusting excesses as partial-birth abortion, a horror so repugnant that it assaults the sensibilities of all but the most callous pro-choice advocates.
Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense and justice. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823
By definition, when laws are imposed that are not the product of public approbation, this is called oppression, regardless of whether or not you agree with all or part of them. But, a dear friend of mine of 20+ years (David and he would find little to disagree about) would argue that abortion law simply cannot qualify as “oppression” since it imposes no restrictions on anyone… it simply enlarges their range of choice. After all, he would say, why should he tolerate any restrictions on his behavior (or his wife or daughters) just because someone else may find it “offensive”… government has no business “meddling” with morality! I see three flaws in this logic.
First, it exposes a lack of understanding of the absolute necessity that the separation of powers be maintained.
Second, it fails to recognize that, for many if not most people, at some point in the development of the baby, it ceases to be an abstract question of “morality”… it’s a question of life and death! What parent would accept, holding their newborn just moments after birth, that mere hours, or even minutes before, the precious child in their arms was nothing more than a piece of meat to be butchered with impunity… “offensive” doesn’t even come close… this is a crime!
Thirdly, it begs the question, “How can government not “meddle” in morality?”… one of its’ primary roles is to enforce the law, and legitimate laws are a reflection of the moral sense of the community. What are laws if not restrictions on behavior, imposed on the community by the community itself, in order to construct an environment consistent with the prevailing public vision of civil society?
It is certainly true that a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people.
Richard Henry Lee, letter to Colonel Martin Pickett, March 5, 1786
The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be, liberty.
Fisher Ames, speech in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, January 15, 1788
As citizens of a republic, our highest responsibility in the public sphere is to defend and promote those things we consider right, and condemn and defeat those things we deem wrong… this is the most important contribution we make to our society! The government relies on the vigorous exercise of ethical judgment by the citizen to discover its moral compass. To deny the necessity of strict moral boundaries in governmental behavior is to expose a distinct lack of attention to your own… too often these days, passive acceptance and an unwillingness to form judgments masquerade as “tolerance” when in fact they are distinct species of vice.
Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue.
John Witherspoon, The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men, 1776
N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.
Samuel Adams, essay in The Public Advertiser, Circa 1749
It’s quite possible that the South Dakotan bill will put Roe-v-Wade in front of the Supreme Court, and given its’ current make-up, I think there’s a good chance it will be overturned. Contrary to the demagoguery from the pro-choice lobby, I believe, as a pro-choice citizen, that this will be a positive development. I do not fear the issue being debated in the public square. I think the average citizen, if given the opportunity, will accept and pass legislation allowing for early pregnancy abortion, and will reject much of what is now objectionable. If I’m wrong, and the extremists on the pro-life side prevail, at least the law that ensues will be the product of the public conscience and legitimate. Personally, I’d prefer to see abortion abolished completely than to lend my voice to an advocacy that would allow partial-birth abortion to continue.
The virtues of men are of more consequence to society than their abilities; and for this reason, the heart should be cultivated with more assiduity than the head.
Noah Webster, On the Education of Youth in America, 1788
Publius
Publicar un comentario