Hi E. The LAST thing I care to do today or any other is get into the abortion issue. But then, like you, I have strong views and feel it would be cowardly not to affirm them.
My fundamental view about "The Issue," is that there is not ONE issue. At the risk of oversimplifying, I find pro abortion elements focus primarily on the rights, and choices of women, along with consequences of child bearing. To me, those are very difficult positions to dispute.
Anti abortion people, on the other hand, base their position on the belief that abortion is the taking of a human life. Hard to be against that.
I see no hope that the sincere and intelligent people on both sides of the divide will ever agree on the terms of the argument, much less its resolution.
By the way, E., I do admire you for bringing human life into your remarks. I don't agree with your conclusion, but, as I've said in other arguments, you do seem to have a gift for seeing the big picture.
Some personal thoughts --
Why is taking the life of a human wrong? I think, in large part, because we don't want anyone to take OUR life. It is perhaps easier to deny the "humanity" of the being that we can't see.
I've heard it argued that the Mother has the absolute right to destroy the budding human in her body because that being would not survive outside the Mother's body. I have yet to see a one or two year old that would have the remotest chance of survival without the constant benevolent intervention of other humans.
If, there is a point in the growth of the human form, when it is regarded as "human," what is that point and who will establish it. Hard for me to imagine a more harsh and arbitrary form of determinate sentencing.
The fact is, if left alone in its natural form, the earliest bit of humanity will not only inevitably become a person, but is, itself, an absolutely necessary part of every human who ever lived.
Although many churches condemn abortion, in my mind, that is not the foundation for opposing it. Many, many people just have a gut feeling that it's wrong. I am a Catholic (sort of a recovering wild man, really) but my views on abortion are long standing and were formed sometime in the 30 years or so that I went nowhere near ANY church. I will add that (as many of you know) the Catholic Church still teaches that birth control by artificial method is wrong. I think that is just plain nuts and have so discussed with the wonderful old Jesuit priest (and friend) who participates in my spiritual discovery.
By the way, E, as much as I seek a genuine reconciliation with the church I was raised in, I am not blind to its own institutional sins and outright goofiness. I rule NO spiritual premise (of any religion) out, but, I am not much of a "dogma" guy. Not trying to have it both ways, but -- WHO KNOWS?
E, I wonder (and, I assume nothing and am not asking for an answer from you) how many women might see the result of the miscarriage or abortion and find it imperative to their own emotional health to describe it as "not possibly human." I certainly do not know but I would think the number rather large. I don't think this possibility is of any small consequence.
If I was asked to come up with a practical solution, mine would condemn abortion but allow the woman the absolute right to assert that her health (physical or mental) would be at great risk if the child were allowed to continue to develop and be born ( sort of a very liberal self defense thing). I don't know how I could go any further toward accommodation. Unfortunately (to me) I think many women would still object to "getting approval," even though the approval was blanket and automatic to the point of being an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Just two more items, E. I hope you don't think I am attacking you or suggesting that you or anyone else defer to any teaching of my church or any other church.
The first of these may seem a stretch at first, but let's see. You have a strong and sincere interest in the environment, I believe. A foundation of environmentalism is that you can't screw with even the lowliest life form in any environment because of the ripples that would go through other life forms that were present. Many, many millions of dollars are spent and the path of human development stalled or changed because of the smallest and most inconsequential of bugs. As I was trying to posit here a few weeks ago, are we willing to afford humanity the same protection that we believe is deserved by other living things. Do the most elementary "humans" deserve the same protection as the larvae of fairy shrimp that might be found in a vernal "pool?"
My final comment is strictly personal. About a decade ago I received a letter from my son ( a cause for great rejoicing in the before e-mail era! Anyway my son was going on about his doctoral studies at UCLA, his new marriage, the fact that he was playing in a rock and roll band, painting, surfing and enjoying the company of great friends. It was a definite, "don't pinch me, Dad -- I don't want to wake up" letter from a young man with the world on a string. Like any parent, I was beside myself with joy for his success and happiness. In no way was I prepared for the last paragraph of the letter -- a simple thank you for wanting him to be born and making sure that he was.
Don't forget religions have always had an interest with our private parts. I doubt civilization would have been possible otherwise. Some of this "regulation" may have outlived its usefulness. And, yet......
Others can and have stated my position better than I. Regardless, I've had my say and don't wish to say more.
Mike
|
