A large amount of things I believed that were teachings of the church that I belonged to, God seems to have gone out of his way to show me how they did not apply in particular cases. I was so annoyed by this at one point that I found myself praying a frustration prayer saying something to the affect of, "Really! Really! Do you have to challenge every bit of what I have learned of the church's teaching." I was sure about gays and God gave me a gay roommate in college who was struggling with his homosexuality. My young heterosexual brain could not understand what he was going through, but that experience changed my perspective away from what was taught by the church. Another time I was challenged where I was sure about polygamy, and God showed me two cases. One caused by our ridiculous Immigration policies and prejudices of the people who enforce them, the other by a sexless, but not loveless marriage. I had to come to the conclusion that they were understandable and forgivable given their circumstances. What they chose were in the end the best possible solutions for their particular circumstance. God also showed me how, in our modern world, the end of life has nearly completely become a matter of personal choice. We sign DNRs, (Do Not Resuscitate) orders/wavers so that we can die. We have living wills where you instruct your family to pull-the-plug if you are found to be in a permanent vegetative state. Etc.
<P>
In every instance the only teachings of Jesus Christ that seem to apply were the ones where he asks us not to judge and to provide love and support. There, except by the grace of God, go I. More often than not I have found myself in the real world in those places where the hardened positions we were taught as youth simply don't and can't apply. The best and most moral choice is often a delicate navigation of the circumstance. We do the best we can. I have come to understand that woman who find themselves making the choice of having an abortion nearly always find themselves in the very place that I illustrated above. The best choice is often a delicate navigation of the circumstance. They are doing the best they can. In these circumstances I’ve learned not to judge and to provide love and support.
<P>
How does this play out for the United States? The answer is found in our steadfast adherence to personal religious freedom. What the argument for the liberal access to abortion touches on is something that is vital to a society that values freedom, and in particular freedom of religion. The concept that I'm talking about is what I call the principle of "purchase." Morality, in a society based on freedom of religion, is spectral. Laws reflect a basic morality in our society, but those laws and morals have to be such that they allow for the maximum of freedom for religious expression to the limit where that expression doesn't restrict or prohibit the freedom of others based on their particular set of morals and beliefs or non-beliefs.
<P>
Let me use a clear example of this, an extreme example, but an example that is much easier to see. Let’s say you believe that your god prohibits the use of medicine because he does all the healing. That belief is personal to you. If someone else doesn't believe that about medicine and wants to use medicine, your belief should have no "purchase" on them. Trying to write laws that restrict the use of medicine because you and your fellow believers of your religion hold this belief very strongly violates the freedoms of others who don't believe this. Your religious group may be able to push through a law that would eliminate the use of medicine because you and your group hold the majority in a legislature or Congress. However, the courts should strike-down that law because making such a law violates the Constitution's 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…." The restriction of the use of medicine is a clear attempt by this group to establish a foothold of their particular belief and to have everyone follow their particular religion. Aside from this it forces a "purchase" of a particular religious belief by someone who clearly would not make that choice since it is not part of their particular belief system. In other words, this restricts the freedom of an individual to establish a personal moral system apart from one being forced upon him or her by the state. That purchase of being able to take medicine does not restrict that other group's desire and ability (purchase) to not take medicine. A good example of this is that most states allow individuals to abstain from taking vaccinations on religious grounds. It allows for those that don’t believe their religion restricts the use of vaccines to get vaccines, while allowing for those that do believe that their religion does restrict their use of vaccines to not take them.
<P>
In conclusion, what a person might believe is immoral action may not be what another person believes is immoral. Laws must allow for the greatest amount of freedom just as long as those freedoms don't impinge on the freedoms of others. — This, I think, is why arguments about when human life begins is front and center in the abortion debate. — Just because a person or group believes personally that actions are immoral and voluntarily restrict themselves to the parameters of those beliefs, their personal beliefs should not have purchase on others who do not have those beliefs. Because of the need to keep religion separate from those things that need to be decided by the state without the influence of religion the state has to keep this in mind when making laws. A religion or even a group of religions should not decide when human life begins. Science might provide some understanding of when human life begins, but most scientists disagree just when that is. There is no consensus in the scientific community, and many times an absolute designation of when human life begins is influenced by religion and not by their science. In the end the decision can only be made by the woman who finds herself pregnant. She may make the decision with the consultation of the doctors who are providing her care. The decision is hers to make. Outside of the that, if the woman is incapacitated and unable to make that decision, her doctors with possible consultation with her family would make that decision keeping in mind what the woman’s wishes might have been where she conscious, to the best of their ability.
<P>
In the end I feel for woman who have to make these decisions. I can’t judge them. I would rather provide comfort and support and pray for them.