Abortion is a moral decision

There is nothing potential about the life of the child in the womb. That child lives by any biological definition. It is pure metaphysics that drives the secular doctrine of ensoulment known as "viability" or "personhood," a metaphysics that the "enlightened modern" would indulge in to impose their own tattered morality on others.

What self-serving sophistry to claim, "It is precisely because life and parenthood are so precious that no woman should be coerced to carry a pregnancy to term." If life is truly precious it will not be regarded as subservient to the desires of the mother not to bear the child. Something other than life in itself is in the driver's seat here. Convenience, waiting for another time and better situation, anything other than the naked life of the child already developing in the womb.

What justice is this for the half that are girls? Feminism aborts its own claim to justice when it tries, as in this post, to assert abortion as serving a higher good.

This article reaffirms my belief that humans are capable of convincing themselves that virtually any activity is morally correct.
This statement

Choosing abortion often means choosing life

could not be any more contradictory. Any yet, its written with full conviction of its truthfulness.

Perhaps we should be thinking in terms communicated in the prayer Our Father.

Thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

I am both PRO-WHOLE LIFE and I am also pro-choice. Most of the anti-abortion folks use a misunderstanding of the masculine-oriented Hebrew Scriptures to support their doctrine. The Jewish men of Bible times (and men until the microscope was invented) believed that a woman didn't have "seed" until she gave birth to a man's "seed."

Those men thought that their "seed" already had a fully developed tiny baby in it and the women's wombs were merely "seed beds" for their seed. Even the artist Leonardo da Vinci, in his human anatomy drawings, drew a sperm with a fully developed baby in the fetal position in the head of it.

In my theologically educated opinion (Master's degree level), it is up to a woman and her higher power, meaning God, to make a choice to remain pregnant and not up to another human being.

And, the doctor who performs an abortion procedure should do what God wants him to do, too, after the woman has made a choice.

If a woman does NOT want to have a baby after getting pregnant, that has an effect on the development of the fetus in her body. A person does not become a living soul until he breathes. That's in the Bible, too.

A girl or woman should NOT be forced to carry a baby to term if she has been raped or is a victim of incest. Some ignorant "Christians" will say that while God didn't approve of the rape, he must have approved of the girl or woman getting pregnant. That's stupid! It's like punishing the person twice.

Most so-called "pro-life" persons are only pro-life when a woman is pregnant. They are NOT interested in making sure that the child after it is born has a quality life until he or she is able to be a responsible adult, anyway until age 18 years old.

When I talk to my classes about abortion, I often say, "If you can't think of a time when abortion would be the morally right and proper choice, then you should thank God you have lived such a sheltered life. If you can't think of a time when it would be morally wrong; then you need to stop being lazy about things."

An expansion of my thoughts can be found at: http://xpatriatedtexan.com/blog/2010/05/23/what-to-do-about-morality

Some famous adoptees

Aristotle - philosopher
Art Linkletter - comedian
Bo Diddley - musician, performer
Buffy Sainte-Marie - musician, actress
Carl-Theodor Dreyer - Danish film director
Charlotte Anne Lopez - Miss Teen USA
Christina Crawford - author
Clarissa Pinkola Estes - author
Crazy Horse - Lakota war chief
Dan O'Brien - decathlete
Daunte Culpepper - football player
Dave Thomas - entrepreneur: founder of Wendy's
Debbie Harry - singer
D.M.C. - hip hop artist
Edgar Allan Poe - poet, writer
Edward Albee - playwright
Eric Dickerson - athlete
Faith Daniels - news anchor
Faith Hill - country singer
Freddie Bartholomew - actor
George Washington Carver - inventor
Greg Louganis - athlete
James MacArthur - actor
James Michener - author
Jean Jacques Rousseau - philosopher
Jesse Jackson - minister
Jesus - adopted by Joseph the carpenter (Bible)
Jett Williams - country singer and author
Jim Palmer - athlete
John J. Audubon - naturalist
John Hancock - politician
John Lennon - musician
Langston Hughes - poet and writer
Larry Ellison - entrepreneur: chief executive of Oracle
Lee Majors - actor
Leo Tolstoy - writer
Les Brown - motivational speaker
Lynnette Cole - Miss USA 2000
Malcolm X - civil rights leader
Mark Acre - athlete
Matthew Laborteaux - actor
Melissa Gilbert - actress
Michael Reagan - author, talk show host
Moses - Biblical leader
Nancy Reagan - First Lady
Nat King Cole - singer
Nelson Mandela - politician
Patrick Labyorteaux - actor
Peter and Kitty Carruthers - figure skaters
President Gerald Ford - politician
President William Clinton - politician
Priscilla Presley - actress
Ray Liotta - actor
Reno - performance artist, comedian
Sarah McLachlan - singer
Scott Hamilton - figure skater
Sen. Paull H. Shin - politician
Sen. Robert Byrd - politician
Steve Jobs - entrepreneur: co-founder of Apple computer
Surya Bonaly - figure skater
Tim Green - football player/commentator
Tim McGraw - country singer
Tom Monaghan - entrepreneur
Tommy Davidson - comedian
Victoria Rowell - actress
Wilson Riles - educator

Hmmm, all this and still the word "adoption" does not appear.

Reverend Haffner's thoughts are indeed a welcome explication of the important morality involved in any such decision. The world of moral choices is not black or white; there are always compelling arguments for both sides -- else there would not be this long-running argument. Those who denigrate the ethics or morality of people who hold a different position do an injustice to reasoned discourse.

Thank you so much, Reverend Haffner, for this intelligent and rational approach to "morality." Education is absolutely the key to reducing the need for abortion.

www.preparetomorrowsparents.org

promotes the inclusion of parenthood preparation and relationship skills education in our schools. When all students receive truly comprehensive sexuality and relationship education, the need for abortions will naturally decline.

No one benefits from the abortion debate as it currently stands in this country, except the politicians who manipulate it.

You wrote that despite numerous legal challenges and social, scientific and medical advances, a theological commitment to resolutions courageously passed 30 years ago remain. Perhaps it was courageous within the restriction and dogma of religion, but the courage was not shown by religion, it was shown by those women and men who fought for the rights of mothers to make their own ethical decisions despite the attention of zealous evangelical christians and most other denominations bullying them, screaming at them, and threatning violence in many cases.

The legal challenges you mention were primarily from religious groups who try to force individuals to follow their particular rules and dubious morality. It is the secular fields of science and medicine, as well as more modern and sophisticated ethics which supports the stand that you, to your credit, have embraced.

Women will have abortions as long as they lack control over their reproductive lives. Before birth control became generally available, a woman's period, sometimes referred to as 'the curse' nowadays because of physical discomfort, was called 'the blessing' because it meant she was not pregnant. The choice of whether to have an abortion is one of the most terrible (that is, full of terror) ones any human faces. As a person of faith I appreciate Debra Haffner's thoughtful comments.

Instead of advocating killing fetuses and babies in the womb, why don't you focus on preventing the exploitation of women?

Shortly after my ordination to the priesthood, I was asked to speak at the National Abortion Federation’s annual meeting, on a Clergy Panel, with the theme of “Abortion as a Moral Choice.” I wondered skeptically who would attend such a panel, but to my surprise, the room was packed with people – abortion providers and other clinic workers. Our audience was so eager and grateful to hear their work affirmed, to hear religious authorities assuring them that God was on their side! I understood that I had a responsibility, indeed, a call, as a pro-choice religious professional, to speak out and to advocate publicly for women’s reproductive rights and health, and I have tried to be faithful to that call.
To talk theologically about women’s right to choose is to talk about justice, equality, health and wholeness, and respect for the full humanity and autonomy of every woman. Typically, as moral theologians, we discuss the value of potential life (the fetus) as against the value of lived life – the mature and relational life of a woman deciding her capacity to continue or terminate a pregnancy. And we believe that, in general, the value of that actual life outweighs the value of the potential.
I like to talk, as well, in terms of gift and of calling. I believe that all life is a gift – not only potential life, but life developing and ripening with its many challenges, complications, joys and sorrows. When we face difficult reproductive choices we balance many gifts, many goods, and to fail to recognize the gifts of our accomplished lives is to fail to recognize God’s ongoing blessing. I believe as well that God calls us all to particular vocations, and our decisions about whether and when to bear children are part of that larger pattern of our lives’ sacred meanings.
The Reverend Anne C. Fowler
Rector, St John’s Episcopal Church, Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts
Chair of the Board, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts

Thank you for this excellent essay, Ms. Haffner.

It is encouraging to finally see the UU perspective represented on this blog.