A woman's life is a human life

One would hope that somebody teaching Christian theology would not be so challenged by basic Aristotelian logic. Let's scratch out "abortion" and say "theft." The law prohibits it. Nobody asserts that anti-burglary laws represent assault on "human autonomy" because they do not leave the "choice" to steal or refrain from stealing to the moral agent. Nor does anybody suggest that theft cannot be morally qualified as something wrong independent of the motivations of the moral agent. The same can be said of lots of other moral "choices" that are legally proscribed: rape, abduction, incest, perjury, assault. So why is abortion something sui generis, something so utterly unique that it is immune to moral qualification and that attempts to qualify it represent some sort of undermining of moral "autonomy?" Could it not also be argued that this unique "exception" constitutes question begging by those with a self-interest in evading the moral question?

One would hope that somebody teaching Christian theology would not be so challenged by basic Aristotelian logic. Let's scratch out "abortion" and say "theft." The law prohibits it. Nobody asserts that anti-burglary laws represent assault on "human autonomy" because they do not leave the "choice" to steal or refrain from stealing to the moral agent. Nor does anybody suggest that theft cannot be morally qualified as something wrong independent of the motivations of the moral agent. The same can be said of lots of other moral "choices" that are legally proscribed: rape, abduction, incest, perjury, assault. So why is abortion something sui generis, something so utterly unique that it is immune to moral qualification and that attempts to qualify it represent some sort of undermining of moral "autonomy?" Could it not also be argued that this unique "exception" constitutes question begging by those with a self-interest in evading the moral question?

Remember that Christianity formed, and the Bible was written, in a time where women were not equal to men. Women had very few rights in the Roman world. They had even less in the Roman client state of Israel. Many of the apostles were hostile towards women (i.e. Peter and Mary Magdalene). Christianity was initally embraced by women more than men because it taught that women were equal to men. Once the men started getting involved, all of that went down the tubes.

Nature or Nature's God is the #1 taker of everyone's life. That gives some rational for killing the unborn or those suffering from dementia, mental disease or Alzheimer's or anyone who might inconvenience our lives???

We constantly battle the forces of nature. We do not succumb to these forces by eliminating defenseless children!!!!!

With respect to saving the life of a mother vs that of her and her husband's child"

With modern technology, that situation is a rare event. When it does occur, the decision should be a made by the mother and father of the child. With no father in the picture, the decision should be left to the mother or her parents if the mother is incapacitated.

And it is very, very disturbing that we give legal protection to the fertilized eggs and the developing young of protected animal and insect species but give no legal protection to our developing young ones.

Again, some famous adoptees:

Andy Berlin - entrepreneur: chairman of Berlin Cameron & Partners
Anthony Williams - politician
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
Eleanor Roosevelt - First Lady
Eric Dickerson - athlete
Faith Daniels - news anchor
Faith Hill - country singer

"The only person who has the right to make any decisions regarding a woman's pregnancy is the woman herself."
Posted by: PSolus

Psolus, I think in law, that's the most straightforward position. I think you have to have a very high standard to invoke force of law in someone else's life. For me, the pro-life arguments don't reach that bar. Again, just my opinion.

One thing I think we all have trouble with is recognizing the difference between what we think is right, and what can be enforced in law. One example of a poorly thought out law is prohibition. Yes, people shouldn't drink their paycheck and beggar their families. Yes, alcoholism is a tragedy. Yes, alcohol contributes to crime and violence. And prohibition changed none of those things, while empowering organized crime and bringing about a disrespect for rule of law that we still have to deal with. Just an historical precedent to consider.

"I feel that you really can't have two people in the same body and give them equal weight."

You are correct. At most, you can have one or more fetuses in one person's body - a pregnant woman's body.

"One must take precedence. Most folks on the pro-life side seem to give more weight to the fetus. Most folks on the pro-choice side give more weight to the pregnant woman. I, personally, feel the actual life (the woman) must carry more weight than the potential life (the fetus.) Just my opinion."

The only person who has the right to make any decisions regarding a woman's pregnancy is the woman herself.

Lepi,

I e-mailed you with my personal e-mail, but I'm not sure it went through. If I don't hear from you, I'll post my e-mail here. (I'm a bit reluctant to do that, for obvious reasons.)

Cassie123, I'm sure you're correct about the spirit of Christ's statements, but I'm afraid you aren't correct about the history of the Christian Church. For most of it's history, (and among some folks today, you see them on this blog) Christianity held the view that women were inherently more sinful than men, that women were responsible for the fall from God's grace, and that they had to be under male control at all times. Women were told to 'feel shame that they were female.' They had to stay away from worship after the birth of a child, for 'purification.' They had to be 'purified twice as long if they gave birth to a girl. They were targeted for brutal attack during the witch hunts, based on belief in their inherent corruptibility. I'm afraid that's the history. If you're interested, I can provide you some links.

What I was discussing is that most Christians no longer believe that dogma. They are more in line with the belief that "...there are no male or female in Christ." However, they still cling to a divine 'chain of command' in the home. They have come up with new reasons for that command-structure. You cite some of them. They may, indeed, be more in keeping with the spirit of Christianity. (Or not, as an outsider, I really can't say.) But, in terms of actual, historical beliefs, they are new. New beliefs to support rules built around discarded beliefs. That was what I found interesting.

As to your views on abortion, as I have said before, I understand your concerns, but I don't share them. I feel that you really can't have two people in the same body and give them equal weight. One must take precedence. Most folks on the pro-life side seem to give more weight to the fetus. Most folks on the pro-choice side give more weight to the pregnant woman. I, personally, feel the actual life (the woman) must carry more weight than the potential life (the fetus.) Just my opinion.

I thought feminism was about self-determination and self-empowerment. But now if a woman doesn't believe in abortion she can't call herself a feminist? No wonder the movement struggles so.

The Christian history is quite different actually. In fact, Jesus was the one who initiated the radical view that women were on the same plane as men. Jesus saw men and women completely equal - both were sinners in the eyes of God and both could receive salvation and both were loved equally by God. I will concede that the "people" in the Christian church had (and some continue to) muddled what Jesus really taught, but Christianity as it stands does more to equate men and women than to differentiate them. The idea of submission in the Bible is often taken out of context. When you do not read the passages regarding submission in light of the entire passages and/or the entire Biblical teaching, then it will only lead to misunderstanding. One little mentioned fact is that science (Darwinian theory) actually contributed a lot to the idea of female inferiority. I am not saying that science in and of itself is evil...but...this is hardly every said -- it is a history that is never mentioned and therefore forgotten.

Anyway, as to the topic of the article - I do believe that viewing women as human beings is a wonderful way to start when clawing through the mess of feminism and faith and abortion. As a human, I cannot agree that taking the life of another is ok in any situation (my only exception is when the mother's physical life is at risk - and this should be considered carefully. Keep in mind that this is a very small portion of abortion cases anyhow).

My final point is in regards to the "always" statement Sarah Palin made. While I disagree with Palin on several things, I can't help but agree here. Abortion is abortion. Either you kill another life or you do not. There is no middle ground to reason. It is not ok for her to do but wrong for me. It is not ok in this situation and bad in anotehr. Also, maybe I have only heard from one or two types of feminists, but from what I hear...feminists are always saying "always". It is "always" their way or you are not a feminist. If you don't belive this way, then you clearly are an old Bible-thumping shortsighted idiot who is only contributing to the downfall of all women in the world. I will say that perhaps there are some feminists who can see that other women can disagree with them and still be feminists...but these are not the feminists that I hear from or about.

Gimpi, email me please at lepidopteryx@yahoo.com.

I also think it's fair to examine, in the context of the nun who was excommunicated, the historical Catholic position (no longer believed) that baptism was essential to salvation. It was honestly believed that a still-born child, or a child who didn't live to baptism was damned. The mother was presumed to be baptized (and saved). "The unbaptized before the baptized" was a fairly well-known position, I believe, before the Catholic church abandoned the idea of damnation of those not baptized.

The belief caused the development of rules formed around it, and as the beliefs are rejected, the rules remain. This often happens. In fact, we will often develop a whole new belief, formed specifically to support a rule that was built around a now-rejected belief. (I apologize for that sentence. It's the best I could do.)

Another example would be the idea of female submission. Throughout most of Christian history, women were regarded as inferior to men. Rules to keep them from speaking in public, from owning property or working in many professions were seen as protection, for the women in question, and society in general. Everyone knew that women were simply too weak, foolish and undisciplined to be allowed any real freedom. The only trouble was, what everyone knew was wrong. The rules restricting women were gradually eliminated, and we found out that women weren't any more foolish (or wise) than men. We can be trusted to exercise power just as much as men can. Or as little, take your pick.

For most of us, this is no problem. However, if you believe the Biblical model for life, women must submit to their husbands or fathers. You now know they aren't too stupid to make their own decisions, you know they aren't too gullible, weak-willed or over-emotional to be trusted. But you still need a reason for the divine chain of command. Now we have the "separate but equal" idea. Now, those who believe in female submission will cite "different roles" for men and women, all the while stating that neither role is more valuable than the other, and that they know full well that women aren't inferior to men. It's a new explanation for an old rule, one based on no longer believed dogma concerning feminine inferiority. New beliefs are being formulated to prop up rules developed around rejected beliefs. It's fascinating, when you think about it.