Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
The right and wrong place for personal religious views
The U.S. House of Representatives voted last week to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions, along with a variety of health care services for women. The Virginia General Assembly last week approved legislation that requires abortion clinics to be regulated as hospitals, and providers say the stricter regulations will force many of them out of business. Both measures were pushed by anti-abortion activists. Should personal and religious views be allowed to prevent women from having access to a legal medical procedure?
The answer to this question is one that I hold dear, both as a Christian minister and as an American. And in a country like ours that has a fundamental constitutional value of separation between church and state, it couldn't be more important.
The answer is No. Personal religious views cannot and should not prevent a woman from having access to a legal, medical procedure. I trust that left, right, center, religious and secular all agree upon this fundamental principle of our constitution.
Because we can agree that church and state are separate, the anti-choice forces are taking a new tack by attempting to make their personal religious beliefs extend to the whole country through a façade of deficit reduction. We can all see that personal religious views drive these efforts, not the size of our national debt. After all, waste in the military is a much better place to find meaningful cuts to the budget.
It is equally clear that the new regulations passed by the Virginia General Assembly are meant to limit access to legal medical procedures. Concern for the safety of women is a transparent ruse. How can anyone believe that the well-being of women is a priority to those who diminish the lives and choices of women based on fantasies concerning their medical situations?
There is an appropriate place in our lives for personal and religious views regarding life and death, mother and child, modern medical procedures and what is right to do. It is not in the halls of Congress or the Virginia General Assembly. It is in the living rooms of families, at the bedsides of women facing dangerous pregnancies, in the doctor's office or pastor's study. As Rep. Jackie Speier said so poignantly in the well of the House, women know what is at stake.
Foes of choice would fare better in reaching their goals by respecting the personal religious views of women and their loved ones as tough choices are made. Step back, exercise the restraint of love put forth by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13, pray. This is the way to exercise your personal religious views in America 2011.
By
Janet Edwards
|
March 3, 2011; 3:38 PM ET
| Category:
abortion
Save & Share:
Previous: Abortion: pro-choice and pro-karma |
Next: Abortion and thinking Americans
Posted by: Mooody | March 14, 2011 11:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
.
V░O░T░E░░M░I░T░T░░R░O░M░N░E░Y░2012+
.
D░O░I░N░G░░M░O░R░E░░F░O░R░░K░i░D░S
.
&░░H░E░L░P░░G░O░O░D░░P░A░R░E░N░T░S
.
Posted by: ITs-TIME | March 6, 2011 11:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hmm. The logic is weak. Very weak.
If you believe that abortion is murder, it is not a matter of "personal views" any more than would be the murder of a newborn.
The truth is that many of us oppose abortion for bio-ethical reasons and faith has nothing to do with it. Get out of your bubbles and stop foisting silly stereotypes on others who dare not to share your intrinsically correct views on the nature of life.
Posted by: clydle | March 5, 2011 6:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As an atheist and a staunch proponent of church-state separation, I agree that our laws must have a secular basis. I'm a big fan of the Lemon Test. However, there are secular reasons to oppose abortion on the grounds that it kills a human being -- that is, an organism that is a member of the species Homo sapiens.
Posted by: Jen_R | March 4, 2011 2:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
No, Rev. Edwards, we cannot all agree that a woman should not be prevented from receiving a "legal medical procedure." That "procedure" you're talking about in euphemisms is the taking of an innocent human life. There is no disease that abortion cures. To grant a woman a right to kill her child forces pro-life doctors and nurses to be forced to provide her with an abortion, abortion pills, and referrals to abortionists against our deeply held medical beliefs.
I hardly think that your advice to abolitionists of the 19th century would be to "step back, execise the restraint of love put forth by Paul... and pray."
Babies are dying, not by the ones or twos, and not even by the dozens or hundreds, but by the millions: over 50 million since Roe v. Wade was decided. It's horrible, and we cannot stand by helplessly as the pro-abortionists like this minister wants us to.
Posted by: Apoorsinner | March 3, 2011 9:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Chickens sh.ts ran away, when shown their REAL FACE... blocked the blog... up goes your freedom of speech. LIARS/KILLERS
Chicken sh.ts slandering Islam. Now why not keep it open and get the taste of truth. AFRAID THAT EVERY COMMON PERSON WILL KNOW YOUR FEALTHYNESS.
99.9% baby killer once pregnant proud womens of whole West. One can imagine your weird laws and practices and lawlessness.
UNO keep silent and do not pass any resolution when its Pimp USA keeps bombing innocent Muslims children and women all over world. But butcher Kaddafi do something like this whole racist west including UNO starts whining...