Muristek
The right to life is a human principle. Being against abortion is a religious principle
As an ex-monk, I have, perhaps, a different perspective on abortion than people who are against it.
First, I can’t imagine that anyone thinks abortion is a good method of birth control, especially women who have had abortions. However, I believe the assertion that all abortions are evil is a religious belief, not a human belief.
My religious history brought me to this conclusion. I was brought up in a strict Catholic family. I was taught, and believed, that it was a sin, to:
1. Have sex inside of marriage if you were doing it simply for pleasure and not for procreation.
2. Use birth control.
3. Have sex outside of marriage or solitarily.
4. Even wishing to have sex with someone, without actually doing it! This is probably what President Jimmy Carter was referring to when he said that he sinned because he “lusted” in his heart.
I suspect this list may seem like a fantasy to some readers, to those who live outside of that belief system. However, others may actually hold all of these beliefs. The underlying question is: Where do you draw the line? Are all four wrong, or just the last twp, etc.?
I was lucky to become a monk because it helped me to examine fundamental questions that many ordinary Christians never think about or don’t choose to look into. As one digs deeper, in church or society, the question gradually shifts from, “Where do you draw the line?” to “Who gets to draw the lines — you or your church leader?”
Concerning abortion, where do you draw the line? Those who are not bound by religious belief would probably draw a line at “viability.” That is, if a fetus/baby could survive outside the womb, it ought not to be aborted. I agree because it makes human sense to me, regardless of what the pope or any other religious teachers say.
On the other hand, the legislatures of Texas, Oklahoma and Idaho have decided that you can abort a fetus up to six weeks after conception, but after that it’s a crime. Florida and Kentucky legislatures have decreed that the sacred line is 15 weeks after conception. Many states now have “trigger laws” that would ban all abortion.
Roe v. Wade says the cutoff period is viability, which was about 28 weeks at the time of that decision. The judges didn’t just pull this cutoff out of the air or scripture. They picked it out of human common sense. It is when a fetus has a 50% or more chance of living outside its mother’s body. Advances in technology now make it earlier than 28 weeks.
That is why I say the backlash against Roe v. Wade comes from a religious belief, not a human belief. If it were a human belief, we wouldn’t have the different arbitrary numbers saying when abortion should be or should not be legal. If we come from a human belief, Roe v. Wade already decided it. Viability is a fact, not a belief.
To punish a woman who has made a mistake or has been raped, by making her life much harder, is a religious belief, not a human belief.
Why is it so hard to challenge and change a religious belief? The answer my life enabled me to come up with is that if you challenge one religious belief, all the rest can be challenged as well. Intuitively, you fear that your entire belief structure might be in danger of collapsing. Better to not challenge any religious belief!
Theologian Paul Tillich wrote a book entitled “The Shaking of the Foundations.” This title seems to capture the fear that I am talking about, the fear of asking fundamental questions that may lead to questioning the whole structure of your religious belief.
Mr. Tillich also wrote a book entitled “The Courage to Be.” The second title seems to capture the journey I have been taking in my life.
I have been fortunate enough to question beliefs that others have given me, and to choose to live by what seem to me to be good human principles those applicable to everybody. I haven’t read either of Mr. Tillich’s books, so I am sharing my thoughts, not his. I think he would say, though, that I got the point of both titles.
Finally, I said that the right to life is a human principle. Saying that life begins at conception, however, is not rational. It is not as if an egg and a sperm are not alive when they come together. Even if that premise were true, why is it OK to abort a fetus up to six weeks in Texas, but up to 15 weeks in Florida? Who gets to draw the line — and why?
I’m sure Supreme Court justices, six of whom are Catholic, tell themselves that they are reasoning from human principles, not religious principles. They should reconsider. If they don’t uphold Roe v. Wade, they will be shaking a foundation of the Supreme Court itself, that it is founded on human rather than religious principles.
Frank Sanitate is an ex-monk and a writer who lives in Santa Barbara.
The post Roe v. Wade and religious beliefs appeared first on Santa Barbara News-Press.