Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Maynard on April 19, 2010 at 2:33pm

Hi Bel,

I will share a personal belief that it is mighty difficult to legislate personal ethics or morality. Furthermore, the legitimacy of legislating an ethical standard is that people don't always share the same standard, nor should they in most cases. Do you want civil laws which require you to adhere to the moral mandates of others? or which outlaw your personal religious expressions? It's not that I think abortion fits into either of those categories, but I offer them as examples of how difficult it can be to draw the line when contemplating the legislation of morality.

Governments get away with legislating against things like assault and murder on the basis of protecting the rights of their citizens. While the humanity of unborn fetuses is yet being debated, I haven't seen much argument about whether or not they're citizens, for which the common definitions may likely require at least a birth certificate.

I don't know of any organized religion which considers abortion acceptable, though there may be some. It is evident to me that many religions stay completely of out politics, perhaps for a variety of reasons. And I understand that legislation is political.

in Peace,
--Maynard

Permalink Reply by Maynard on April 20, 2010 at 10:08am

Bel,

You may find this reference useful to your research.
http://www.religiousinstitute.org/search/statements/results/taxonom...

--Maynard

Permalink Reply by Belén Larrosa on April 20, 2010 at 10:43am

Hi Mynard,

Thanks a lot for your sincere answer and for the link! I'll check it out.
I see what you mean about de difficulty of legislating personal ethics or morality. But then, if we didn't draw some sort of line then.... well pretty much anything, any kind of deed, would be accepted... and to be honest....such a fierce "relativism" gives me the chills. It's difficult.... But even when he was against any kind of laws, Sartre, a complete atheist, talked about acting for some sort of "general welfare" for all human kind. The problem I find to such a theory is that, for practical purposes, it's not feasible within the human race. Hence... the so controversial legislation. But ok...I'm drifting apart. Don't mind me.
Just, thanks for sharing an opinion.

Take care,
Bel

Permalink Reply by Richard Boothe on August 27, 2011 at 6:56am

While I agree with you that abortion presents many problems, I think what's missing in most discussions about it are the alternatives.  Rather than waiting until someone is pregnant to deal with the issue, it makes better sense to take a fresh look at ways to prevent pregnancy which don't violate any religious principles - especially in the case of marriage and other long-term relationships.  Frequently, churches get involved with birth-control solely in the context of school programs - where, in the U.S., their chief doctrine has been "just say no."  The problem with this approach is that many young people will go into adulthood with a negative attitude toward sex, and no education about preventing pregnancy.

One answer lies in learning ancient and modern methods of avoiding pregnancy - such as cervical mucous testing - which tell a woman whether or not she is fertile; another teaches men how to control ejaculation.  Combined, these two methods work far better, in my own experience, than artificial means.  They are easier to use, are always available, and do not interfere with either intimacy or enjoyment.  The latter one is found in many different ancient cultures, along with an entirely different view of what sex is all about, stemming from its spiritual aspects, which can elevate one's consciousness to extraordinary heights, and greatly deepen the love relationship.

There are, thus, positive alternatives to both artificial birth control and abortion that should be examined more closely, and made public.  These should, moreover, be taught in secondary schools, as many students may marry right after school, and require such knowledge immediately, while others enter sexual relationships of a more temporary nature, and are often unprepared when the time comes.

Richard Boothe

Permalink Reply by Mystic Tourist on August 27, 2011 at 9:43am

I do agree with Maynard. From a purely religious position abortion is unacceptable but many people are not religious. Others are not devout and religion is more casual, a social contract. I think a woman needs to be the sole proprietor of her reproductive rights. I am not a proponent of abortion but I am a rights proponent. Who am I to decide that every pregnancy should be carried to term? This should be a matter between a woman and her doctor. Obviously it is better to avoid being in this position. 

I do not believe that there is a person present until after the first trimester. I therefore do believe that it is a different question after that. I believe questions regarding the woman's health and the viability of the fetus become the determining factor after the first trimester. Once again, it is a matter between a woman and her doctor.

There are far to many things to consider in every individuals' circumstance for politics and law to decide these matters arbitrarily for each and every pregnancy. God will forgive this as should we as we work to create a more just and equitable world where abortion is less likely.    

 

Permalink Reply by Richard Boothe on August 28, 2011 at 1:45am

Regarding when a 'person' is present, one of the most ancient religious beliefs is that we, as spirits, actually enter our bodies at birth.  The soul level has been regarded as separate from spirit in some cultures, such as ancient China's, which viewed the soul as arising from the earth, while the spirit came down from heaven.  They described human beings as a 'flute' between heaven and earth - and that our goal was, thus, to unite the two. This appears to be a more advanced concept than what currently exists in Western cultures.  I'm unaware of any attempts in the West to deal with this apparent duality, but various Native American belief systems resemble the Chinese one, and consider males as representing spirit, with women representing the earth.  So the actual issue of abortion is perhaps deeper than most of us think.

As we all know, we are more than our bodies, and religion, in the West, tends to deal with the spiritual aspect of being, rather than the physical.  This is not to infer that the physical is unimportant but, rather, that the main goal of Western religion has been to help us transcend the physical and connect with the spiritual.  Perhaps it's time for us to adopt the Chinese system, and focus on uniting the two - which, incidentally, seems to agree with with Jesus' statement, in Luke, that the kingdom of heaven is not in the sky, but lies within us.  Actually, most of Jesus' references to heaven appear to be mistranslations of the Jewish word, Pardes, which means Paradise - the traditional goal of Judaism - and differs from the Gentile skyward heaven, in that it's a transcendent spiritual reality which can only be found here on earth - the virtual Garden of Eden.  This knowledge has apparently been lost in the West, and today even spiritual Jews lack any knowledge of it, despite the fact that their most famous Rabi (Akiva) was said to have entered Paradise, and returned.  My personal knowledge of this comes from unexpectedly entering that reality when I was 29, at the end of a 12 year spiritual path following Jesus' teachings in his Sermon on the Mount.  As did many, back then, I also took what I could from other traditions, including Buddhism and Islam, and have since concluded that most, if not all, ancient religions originated from that very experience.  Hence, placement of the story of Paradise at the very beginning of the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic Bibles (yes, in addition to the Koran, Muslims also use the Bible).

Mystic Tourist said:

I do agree with Maynard. From a purely religious position abortion is unacceptable but many people are not religious. Others are not devout and religion is more casual, a social contract. I think a woman needs to be the sole proprietor of her reproductive rights. I am not a proponent of abortion but I am a rights proponent. Who am I to decide that every pregnancy should be carried to term? This should be a matter between a woman and her doctor. Obviously it is better to avoid being in this position. 

I do not believe that there is a person present until after the first trimester. I therefore do believe that it is a different question after that. I believe questions regarding the woman's health and the viability of the fetus become the determining factor after the first trimester. Once again, it is a matter between a woman and her doctor.

There are far to many things to consider in every individuals' circumstance for politics and law to decide these matters arbitrarily for each and every pregnancy. God will forgive this as should we as we work to create a more just and equitable world where abortion is less likely.    

 

Permalink Reply by Shaheen Khan on April 10, 2012 at 2:34pm

Hi Bel. If we think from a rights point of view then the child has a right to live. If you think from a women's right point of view than if that child would have been a daughter she has a right to live. No religion promotes abortion. Being a Muslim,  The only exception that Islam allows abortion is when the mother's life is in danger. This exception is allowed only because it saves at least one life verses two lives. Like Argentina, Muslim states look at this condition before allowing abortion. 

Permalink Reply by Ron Krumpos on April 10, 2012 at 6:08pm

I agree with both Maynard and Mystic Tourist...long time friends and whose opinions I respect. The rights of women and of unborn children must both be considered, regardless of religious (or nonreligious) beliefs. Where do we strike the balance? Unless state or federal laws dictate otherwise, the decision is personal for the parents and their physicians.

Most people expect you to make a choice: are you for abortion or against it? There is a middle ground that considers the circumstances of each pregnancy and multiple factors which may weigh in favor or in opposition. The list I would make - pro and con - would probably differ from that of others.  

Permalink Reply by Jim Brown on January 12, 2013 at 7:56am

Ron Krumpos said:

I agree with both Maynard and Mystic Tourist...long time friends and whose opinions I respect. The rights of women and of unborn children must both be considered, regardless of religious (or nonreligious) beliefs. Where do we strike the balance? Unless state or federal laws dictate otherwise, the decision is personal for the parents and their physicians.

Most people expect you to make a choice: are you for abortion or against it? There is a middle ground that considers the circumstances of each pregnancy and multiple factors which may weigh in favor or in opposition. The list I would make - pro and con - would probably differ from that of others.  

Permalink Reply by mary jane miller on May 11, 2013 at 5:37pm

I agree with all of the above. I live in Mexico and what is disturbing as well as abortion is the number of unwanted children being born from girls who are only 14 years old. I do  not approve of abortion, and do not know the statistics on who is having them. With nearly 8 billion people on the planet we are in a crisis and need educated, healthy and strong people walking around to make sense of the future on the horizon. Children having children is sad.

Mexico City has 26million people living there and it is said 26 % is under the age of 14.