Why religion frowns on abortion

[Guest guest]

>As tempting a concept as karma is to those who would prefer to abdicate

thought on current issues of the day, I'm not buying this idea that women

who abort are somehow punished in later lives. Sounds exactly what the

religious nuts on the right argue: you're goin' straight to hell!

 

(Sorry, was sent early by accident)

 

Are people on the religious right always wrong Chris, on everything they

believe?

 

-----------

 

See it like this: When you abort a child, you attempt to make life

easier by getting rid of a huge burden. Children are a massive burden. I

know, I have two. My friends have kids, and we all agree how hard it is.

This is not in question. This is the reason there is abortion, because

only a huge thing would have such a macabre avoidance process, like the

likes of only war, animal slaughter, hunting, murder, etc. Killing is

always a very strange thing, and abortion is killing...killing a baby human.

 

So far I haven't said anything religious.

 

Now this might be called religious, or perhaps something more along the

lines of "life science":

 

The art of life is surrender. We cannot control life, it controls us.

So, to get better at finding happiness within life, we have to perfect

surrendering to life as it is.

 

The reason "religions" tend to recommend against abortion is that

because it is such a major act in order to try to "shape" one's life so

that it is "easier". This mood is not actually intelligent because it's

never going to actually work.

 

People who see, see that by surrendering, one can actually find happiness.

 

And what's hardest about life is dealing with others. As we deal with

others, so we can expect to be dealt with back.

 

I myself find that the more I give, and get out of the way, especially

in terms of desiring results back, the more people want to give to me.

 

So, when it comes to a soul landing in one's womb, it's a cool "yogic"

mood to accept, rather than reject, this intruder in your life.

Accepting fosters surrender, fosters humility, fosters other good

qualities. And the planting father should stand by his squirt at least

in support, if not love, without trying to duck the job.

 

So it's not about morality so much as it is about success in life.

 

Then, if you do see that souls are on a long journey, if you believe in

reincarnation, then you believe that the process of accumulating merits

along the path, getting "better at" being one with Divinity, or "Energy"

that is all around us, well, you get into the "cumulative" nature of it,

which is hard earned, slowly.

 

So accepting the kid pays off, but later. I know some people who have

grown "almost aborted" children, and they are the loves of each others

lives. It's very wonderful to see the "almost aborted" baby being

SOOOOOOOOOOOOO very important to the Mother in the "now". Back "then"

the young mother didn't know how she'd survive, but that wasn't really

"real". Time moves on, hard times change, things change, new times come.

 

So the ability to dig in and "accept" when it's hard has a cummulative

effect on one's ability to handle life in general. Wisdom and other good

qualities are hard earned.

 

Cheap fixes for the now are called band aids.

 

Notice I haven't said anything about hell. It's not about hell, unless

we refer to the hell one creates when one becomes addicted to cheap

quick fixes, which is not ultimately how we find happiness.

 

This is the science of life, which religion is supposed to be.

 

As for the Christian conception of eternal hell, I don't believe that. I

do believe in hell, because I've been there in this life, and only due

to attachment, which is why I can talk like this. It's from experience,

though I'm fathering my only pregnancies, personally, and alone...a

single Mom/Dad. My hell came from other problems I brouth on myself due

to wanting something different from what God/Divinity/Nature wanted for me.

 

Thanks,

 

Das Goravani

[Guest guest]

Das:

 

At 10:24 PM 1/25/01 -0800, you wrote:

>

>>As tempting a concept as karma is to those who would prefer to abdicate

>thought on current issues of the day, I'm not buying this idea that women

>who abort are somehow punished in later lives. Sounds exactly what the

>religious nuts on the right argue: you're goin' straight to hell!

>

>(Sorry, was sent early by accident)

>

>Are people on the religious right always wrong Chris, on everything they

believe?

 

No, but I am uncomfortable with their logic, which always relies on *their*

interpretation of scripture. I don't think abortion is a great thing; it's

a sad failure. What I object to is people who wield the power of religious

ideas while passing judgements on others. To me, there isn't a whole lot of

difference between Jerry Falwell and the Taliban. Both are fundamentalists

in that they see right and wrong based on intrepretations of religious

texts. Since religion still has power in this society, that is a

disturbing propostion. I am a product of a secular pluralist society. I

fear theocracy and theocartic principles because they do not allow reasoned

argument. By definition, theocracies rule by text, and worse still, by

narrow interpretations by a select few of those texts. Witness the recent

islamic judgement against that 17 year old girl in West Africa for having

pre-marital sex. Good thing here sentences was reduced to 100 lashes (!)

Theocracies aren't democratic, at least they haven't been so far in

history. They are controlled a tiny elite of men (big surprise!) at the

top who decide what is to be the word of "God" (however defined) for the

masses to follow. There's no choice there, no room for discussion. It

just goes against the grain for me.

 

>

>-----------

>

>See it like this: When you abort a child, you attempt to make life

>easier by getting rid of a huge burden. Children are a massive burden. I

>know, I have two. My friends have kids, and we all agree how hard it is.

>This is not in question. This is the reason there is abortion, because

>only a huge thing would have such a macabre avoidance process, like the

>likes of only war, animal slaughter, hunting, murder, etc. Killing is

>always a very strange thing, and abortion is killing...killing a baby human.

 

Right. It's not a happy event. But banning something isn't informed

public policy and religious groups opposed to abortion want to make policy

based on their interpretation of moral correctness. People who have tasted

freedom will not go back to the darness of ignorance when they are denied a

say in their lives. Sure, they can be influenced by "pro-life" ideas so

that over time people find better solutions to unwanted pregnancies.

>

>So far I haven't said anything religious.

 

Right. My immediate objection wasn't to religion but rather using

"religion" -- in this case, astrological conceptions of karma to condemn

some poor soul to future lives of misery because she had aborted a fetus.

The power of the astrology misused. Of course, all astrologers are

entitled to their opinions. It's just a shame that karma is used as a

bludgeon in this way. Women who abort usually feel conflicted and guilty

enough in this life, as Mani has said, that they don't need somebody

telling them it's going to get worse in the future. It's not helpful, and

just serves to prop up the ego of the vengeful astrologer who passes

judgement on the woman. It says: 'I don't like what you've done and I am

going to assert my power over you by condemning you and your future

incarnations.' Gee, thanks. Love you too.

 

>

>Now this might be called religious, or perhaps something more along the

>lines of "life science":

>

>The art of life is surrender. We cannot control life, it controls us.

>So, to get better at finding happiness within life, we have to perfect

>surrendering to life as it is.

>

>The reason "religions" tend to recommend against abortion is that

>because it is such a major act in order to try to "shape" one's life so

>that it is "easier". This mood is not actually intelligent because it's

>never going to actually work.

 

Part of the human project is to shape our lives, to not surrender to nature

or to outside forces. That is what distinguishes us from animals. They

are helpless to resist their inner instincts. Thankfully we can mould our

lives to some extent. Astrology tells us differently, but that's a whole

other discussion.

 

>

>People who see, see that by surrendering, one can actually find happiness.

 

And some find misery in surrender too. There is no single path for all.

That is the difficulty with religious thinking -- unless of course we are

free to choose our gods and our answers to the mysteries of the universe.

No one God, no one mantra, no one deity. One world and one life: make the

most of it because it doesn't last long.

 

>So accepting the kid pays off, but later. I know some people who have

>grown "almost aborted" children, and they are the loves of each others

>lives. It's very wonderful to see the "almost aborted" baby being

>SOOOOOOOOOOOOO very important to the Mother in the "now". Back "then"

>the young mother didn't know how she'd survive, but that wasn't really

>"real". Time moves on, hard times change, things change, new times come.

>

 

Well said. Yes, this is very true and it is the hardest thing for the

"pro-choice" folks to accept. I think many do. Things happen, people make

choices, people adapt. I just don't think the state or any other

institutional power has the right to force women what to do with their

bodies. That's totalitarianism to my mind. We live in a liberal

democratic society. Will that change in the future? Will women ever want

to give up the rights over their bodies? Not if it's couched in that

language of rights, that's for sure. No one wants to relinquish a right.

 

I feel this is a no-win sort of topic that only gets people's emotions and

beliefs going unnecessarily. I know many on this list are devout in their

religious beliefs and that's fine with me. I guess I just wanted to remind

you all that there are some astrologers here who are not so attuned to the

spiritual vibrations of Jupiter and the 9th house. We see things according

to other belief systems. Maybe you could take comfort in the fact that our

spiritual karakas are afflicted! :-)

 

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/26/2001 8:22:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,

ckevill writes:

 

<< I just don't think the state or any other

institutional power has the right to force women what to do with their

bodies. That's totalitarianism to my mind. We live in a liberal

democratic society. Will that change in the future? Will women ever want

to give up the rights over their bodies? Not if it's couched in that

language of rights, that's for sure. No one wants to relinquish a right.

>>

Hi to Chris and List members,

I am galvanized to respond when people make excuses for passively

allowing the killing of babies, especially when the excuses are like the

above. The State should not force women to do or not do damage to their

unborn children, you say, because the State would be totalitarian to tell

people what to do with their bodies, you say? Read on:

 

You are FORCED by the STATE to WEAR CLOTHING ON YOUR BODY. You do NOT

have the RIGHT to GO ABOUT UNDRESSED. Your exterior bodily appearance, then,

is CONTROLLED BY LAWS of your STATE. Totalitarian? Or would you agree the

State has rights over your physical body!

 

This issue is a bit deeper than clothing won on the body. It addresses

what is within the body as well. Your state tells you thet you may NOT PUT

ILLEGAL DRUGS IN YOUR BODY. So the State controls what GETS IN YOUR BODY.

That's a lot of control so far that the State has, isn't it.

 

Then the State goes further in saying what can happen to your body!

YOU CANNOT TRY TO KILL YOURSELF. Why is this law written, to FORCE you to

LIVE? Does the State care if its citizens live or die, then, and FORCE the

natural longevity of its citizens?

 

YOU MAY NOT WRITE PRESCRIPTION MEDICINE FOR YOURSELF or others. Why

can't you be your own doctor? Why does the State care what you do to REMEDY

WHAT AILS YOU? It's your body that's ailing, isn't it! But the State FORCES

you to go to it's approved physician for that remedy. Seems as if the State

is awfully CONTROLLING, doesn't it!

 

As a layperson YOU MAY NOT PERFORM SURGERY. What? To hypothesize,

then, that I will go to prison for aborting someone whom I (in my stupor)

believe is thus never going to bother me karmically for aborting that

person's chance to live, is to show hypothetically the State's unwelcome and

what you might call totalitarian invasion of the happily cooperative

agreement between me and that person's mother to abort the person we didn't

want to live. Why does the State bother 2 persons in agreement about

something like that? The State is awfully controlling of a person's body,

isn't it!

 

It gets down to this: TWO PERSONS MINIMUM must be in harmony in order

for an abortion to take place. For the pregnant mother, her point of view is

colored by fear. I don't care if fear of ostracism or fear of inconvenience

or fear of inability to endure, it is a fear that grips her mind. I was

pregnant 3 times, and each time I had fears that I could not cope, either! I

needed support to strengthen me to undergo the full term births that graced

my life.

Fear is a healthy atmosphere in which to make a rational decision? No. The

mother is in a state of weakness and should be supported to OVERCOME FEAR.

For the willing surgeon, his point of view is not characterized by mercy,

since he does not even know this young mother. Rather his point of view is

that this makes money for him.

 

When do Pro-Choicers consider the grief felt by those who learn of the

abortion later on, whether they are relatives of the unborn baby or friends

of its parents, or even casual acquaintances who hear about the death of a

child when it happens, or many years later. The selfishness of the

movement---in which the mother's body is more vital than the family that

defines her as a mother, is a pure expression of misguided vanity being

touted as a 'right'.

 

Why do we care at all about the life that was taken from among us? It's

not a "religious" thing, it's instinctive, it's within one's heart. All of

us are interconnected as members of the human race. Instances of telepathy

prove that there is a "radio connection" between people on this earth. Why

do we regret the loss of even one baby? Why do infertile couples agonize

when unable to obtain a baby or must pay thousands to obtain an adoptee? The

precious human life, loved as soon as conceived, is a natural response and

you can raise people's awareness to this, or you can dull-wittedly drum out

that natural affinity through miseducation.

Regarding the title of this post, it seems to me that religious thinkers

do not frown on abortion, they CONDEMN it. Why is this important to those

who, in absence of philosophy of morality being taught in public educational

settings, discuss and promote the best examples of character and morality as

part of their curriculum?

What bothers me is the amazing attitude of the public schools towards the

religious schools! When both have much to offer, why is the one so opposite

the other that they act as enemies rather than co-schools duty-bound to

assist a person's education and preparation for life as a citizen of the

State as well as of the world?

There are examples of human abberations and corruptions in both mundane

and religious settings, but again, we look to the principle of the matter

being studied, when looking for enlightenment in such disciplines. If

abortion is a right to choose what to do with one's body, then the State must

give up all its other notions about what it may control, including the right

to carry any type weapons on my own body that I choose, as well as assembling

a mob of undressed citizens in the Town Square if we so choose! I trust

there is a political entity one may join, that would embrace such ideas.

Best to all,

Carol