Someone recently wrote the following to me:
"Abortion is a legitimate part of women's reproductive health care and I despise the interjection of religion into this. There is, after all, a separation between church and state and it should stand firm. Just because you or anyone else doesn't believe in abortion doesn't give you the right to impose your beliefs on those who do not feel the way you do."
The following is my response. I would welcome any comments or thoughts on it:
Separation of church and state - a phrase frequently quoted but rarely understood. The original intent of the founders was to ensure that government did not impose any one religion upon all. In essence, it was to keep the government out of the church. However, it would be impossible to keep the church out of government since the government is constituted of the people, who naturally hold to their various religious persuasions. You don't have a church, you say? Still, this does not exempt you from bringing (in essence) religion into government. Why? Simply put, all of us have values. Some of us derive our values from the Bible, others from life experience, and some just absorb the values of those around them. Most of us espouse a value system that is some combination of our experience and what we were taught as kids. But in the end, we all have beliefs. And in the end, we all want the government to reflect our particular beliefs.
Many Americans believe that abortion is murder, since it is depriving a fetus the right to life. Many others believe that the rights of a woman would be violated by laws protecting her fetus, since the fetus is in her body. I believe that abortion is wrong because it violates an unborn baby's right to live. It is impossible for me not to consider a fetus a life, since it begins circulating and pumping its own blood - often with its own blood type - at about the same time most people are just noticing their period is late! We now know that babies develop their own unique fingerprint at 3 months gestation, and that babies in the womb are able to dream, remember, feel and express emotion through facial expressions long before they are ever born. I do believe in choice - in a baby's choice to grow up and make a life for him or herself!
I also believe in women's rights - including the right to decide who to have sex with, and when. We are all free to choose to do whatever we want, but we are not free to choose the consequences of our decisions. Therefore, it is up to us to choose wisely. I understand that there are cases of incest or rape where the woman did not choose to have sex, and I think perhaps those cases deserve special consideration, just as is the case when the woman's life is seriously jeopardized by pregnancy.
Ultimately, this post is not about my beliefs. It is about rebuffing the notion that the pro-life movement has no place in civil society because of its religious underpinnings. For someone to assert that a particular view point should not be considered because of where that belief originated - in this case because it originated with religion or spirituality - is both absurd and prejudiced. Laws should be considered alone on the merits of liberty. Does the law deny liberty or does it expand it? Does it go far in protecting the rights of some, while destroying the rights of others? This should be the gage.
The beliefs of a pro-life individual are not of necessity derived from their religious beliefs, but ultimately it does not matter why someone believes something. It is their belief, and as an American, they have the right to fight for laws that reflect their belief!!
Fighting for the rights of those who cannot fight for themselves is something I have to do to be true to myself. What is more American than that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Michelle, you said it perfectly! I love your response to the commentor. I believe full heartdly also in a Childs choice. And i love you how you said you believe in women's choice on who to have sex with and when. I do not agree with a women's choice to kill her unborn child because to make up for her poor choices. Now, i know there are many different cases and situations where abortion is considered and i speak so much more passionatley when referring to those not of a medical nature, but a pure selfish desires. Anyway, i know this is such a heated debate, but i too would want where I stand on the issue to be heard. Thanks for your post!
I'm so glad you're up and running again on this blog! I keep checking just in case.
My personal belief is that I pay taxes and thus have a right to say what I think my money should be spent on. And I don't want my money going toward abortion. Abortion has touched my own family in several ways, and that experience has taught me compassion for those who feel they have no other choice due to medical reasons. But it's also taught me that life truly is precious, and that we can learn a lot from giving life to babies who are physically imperfect, because EVERY soul that comes to earth has a purpose, even if the world would teach us a imperfectly housed soul has no value on this earth. And it's taught me that no abortion is performed without lasting consequences on the mother and her family. For example, I don't think at ALL of the wisdom teeth I had removed at 15. And the abortion of a baby, no matter in what condition, is so much more than the simple removal of a nusiance or an inconvenience.
I had to add something: three of my sisters-in-law are adopted. And all three were born out of wedlock, including one born to a mother on drugs. And they're amazing people with a lot to offer this world. You don't want a baby? That's fine. We all make mistakes. Why not pass off your mistake to a family who would take in and love a baby no matter what its origin or struggles? My home ward is full of families who've opened their hearts to children of all backgrounds, many of whom have serious special needs. How courageous of them. I've never once heard of a family regretting the presence of their physically or mentally challenged child, no matter HOW hard it is to care for them. Some of the sweetest lessons in life have been taught by those whose value in the world's eyes is miniscule.
And, hey...you think you can't afford to carry an unwanted baby to term and give it to someone who'll love it? Well, thank goodness Obamacare is here! It'll pay for your mistake so you won't have to.
Okay...enough sarcasm. I too feel sick at heart over how I've been "represented" by this government. Nancy Pelosi said outright that she knew better than I did what was best for me. Wow. That's SO not the reason I vote in my representatives. Servants of the people? I hardly think so.
I have been thinking a lot about these issues lately when I was again brought to the realization that some people do horrible things to their children before they are born with the idea in their heads that the baby has no rights, thoughts, feelings or even humanity until it has taken it's first breath. I was specifically reading about partial birth abortion which is about as evil as an act of violence can be.
Of course, I agree with Megan that there are plenty of cases that do merit a lot of sympathy; e.g. Girls that felt they were pressured into it and didn't have any other choice, and the rape and incest reasons you stated. These cases do require more consideration and thought and the affected parties doing what they believe is ABSOLUTLEY RIGHT, not just convenient.
I think the argument of separation of church and state is nil and just a ploy at trying to get those that are religious to believe they don't can't really think for themselves. The reality of the matter is that I do have principles and they don't just come from reading scripture, they come my very being! I know it is wrong to take a life, and yes, I do believe that God says so. But I would believe in the beauty of life and the protection of it weather I was religious or not.
Besides the fact that everyone has a religion, in that everyone has a set of values that they strongly adhere to. And many people that feel differently that we do may have had their ideas just as "brainwashed" into them beginning at a young age as they like to claim we have.
Anyway, I love what you have written and couldn't have written it better myself. Do you mind if I put it on my blog?
:)
Go, Michelle, go! We need more people like you, who can intelligently and respectfully, yet without fear or shame express their opinions and beliefs and defend their right to act upon their personal values. I have yet to hear someone explain satisfactorily to me why their values are superior to mine because theirs are not informed by a belief in a higher power. Our nation is seriously suffering as religious views and principles are being pushed out of the public arena in the almighty pursuit of secularism. I used to think that abortion was a negative thing in general but it wasn't my right to push my views on others. Then I read a talk by Russel M. Nelson (just last year) that changed my heart. I realized that it is my duty to uphold and protect the rights of those who cannot defend them for themselves, and that the argument of "when does a fetus become a baby" is irrelevant in a world where premature babies can be sustained outside the womb earlier and earlier into their development. We do not know when the soul enters the body, and methinks it is not up to us to hazard a guess and act on it. As a premature baby myself, given only a 50% chance to live when I was born, I appreciate the medical advances and the powerful love of my parents that allowed me to thrive even when I should not have yet entered the world. I strongly believe in a woman's right to choose - to choose to have sex or to abstain, to use birth control or not. I do not believe, however, that when that choice creates an independent life, that a woman's choices about her body trump the right of the tiny body within her to survive. And I thank you for your impassioned and excellent defense of the rights of children yet to live.
I have to snort with derision (and incredulity) when people claim that the Constitution prohibits religion in the public sphere or gives people the right to be "free from" religion. The actual argument is this: that people who ascribe to a religious belief or practice have less of a voice in the public sphere and less of a right to participate in the democratic process because of the supposed origin of their personal beliefs. That, my friends, is anti-Constitutional and anti-American, and not the other way around!
Way to go, Michelle! You rock!
First off, I hope whomever made that comment to you is reading this: You are must assuredly not "imposing" your beliefs or opinions on anyone! This is YOUR blog, and you have EVERY right to express exactly how you both feel and think. If this anonymous individual chooses to disagree, he/she can do so, but they need to do so with class and dignity! :)
Obviously, there are many people (myself included) who agree with you. I was rather horrified when my own OB-GYN, who is awesome, by the way, commented on how many women do the optional genetic abnormality testing during pregnancy because, should they test "at risk" for a Down's Syndrome child, they would most likely terminate the pregnancy! :(
I personally believe that there are very few situations, if any, that warrant abortion, though I have no wish to judge. Honestly, I think your comment, "I believe in a women's choice of who to have sex with and when" summed it up brilliantly! If so many Americans are willing to have unprotected sex (or even, in cases, protected) they need to be willing to handle the potential consequence of a baby! :) Bringing a child to life is such a precious and amazing responsibility, and I believe that everything in our power should be done to ensure that each conceived fetus has an equal chance at this wonderful thing we call life! :)
WELL SAID! when do you plan on running for public office??? I'd vote for you! ;)
Post a Comment