I write this in order to give a different perspective on the recent “my thoughts” op-ed written by Robert Townes. I write recognizing that, as they were described, his credentials and those of his wife include divinity school. From that description I understand that he has been and may still be active in Episcopalian ministry. Being without credentials by academic degree or ordination, I am writing merely to express a point of view and belief differing from his. This is respectfully intended. And, in that regard, I can volunteer that I have a brother-in-law who is a retired Lutheran minister and whose opinions on Roe v. Wade and the broader subject of abortion seem to follow that of Reverend Townes. We do not agree, but we maintain mutual respect.
Reverend Townes offered his opinion and belief on the political and confessional sides of what he accurately called “a very deep division” in this country over the constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and the confessional aspect of the subject of abortion and rights. As I understand the term, “confessional” refers to professed beliefs that are sworn or “confessed” in creeds, brief doctrinal statements, such as those contained in the Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed. Churches whose basic doctrines of belief are set forth in creeds are called confessional religions as opposed, for instance, to those which profess sola scriptura. (I invite correction if my understanding of the term is inaccurate.)
The reverend stated his opposition to “taking away the right of a pregnant woman to make her own choice as to whether she gives birth or ends her pregnancy,” and explained how he came to that position. And this past July the Episcopal Church General Convention adopted a resolution affirming access to “abortion services and birth control with no restriction.” It is sometimes hard to keep clear the meaning of “right” in the context of Roe and abortion. Some rights may be considered only in a legal context and others in a moral one, with the possibility that people can wind up arguing or discussing what they think is a single issue and agreed terminology when the issue is actually broader and the definition of key terms is not shared or uniform.
I agree with the reverend that there is a deep division over this national debate in our country. But I think that division covers the whole Western world, because the subject goes beyond a court decision or legislative enactment in the United States. I disagree with his statement that “the issue we are nationally debating is ‘morally ambiguous.’” In my opinion, any ambiguity which exists today lies in the confusion of political rights with human rights, the rights allowed by government as compared with those granted by God.
As referenced, the Book of Common Prayer’s Baptismal Covenant requires affirmation that the baptized will “respect the dignity of every human being.” Therefore, I am confused when I read his statement, to include medical doctors and theologians, that it is difficult to agree “when life begins.” To the contrary, there is no genuine scientific debate about when human life begins.
Scientific proof shows that when the sperm and ovum unite there is created one cell, or embryo, which is a life separate from the mother. Instantly at conception an embryo shows the behavior and complexity of an organism, distinguishing it from other human cells and other human beings. DNA is unique in that new life from the start, and remains a part of that life to the end and even beyond.
Although in a different circumstance, I can understand and relate to Reverend Townes’ description of “every insulting test the medical professionals threw” at him and his wife concerning their efforts at pregnancy. I experienced several insulting tests concerning a diagnosis of cancer. They were also conducted by medical professionals and, eventually, the course was concluded by a surgeon. Despite the procedural insults, I feel confident we would agree that with healthcare it is wiser to rely on a doctor for diagnosis and treatment compared with alternatives out of the mainstream, as was sadly illustrated by the tragic case of Steve Jobs. But just as one shouldn’t rely on those outside the medical profession to analyze, diagnose, and treat medical conditions or illnesses, so too moral analyses and decisions should not be based on the opinions of unqualified sources, particularly, political or societal ones.
The secular-religious debate over Roe has to do with abortion on demand. My objection is solely over unrestricted elective abortion, not life-preserving, medically necessary abortion. In part, this also comes from personal experience. In my family there was a medical condition that necessitated the mother’s emergency hysterectomy after her baby daughter’s birth. Had the medical emergency developed before a term birth the procedure would have been just as necessary to save the mother’s life, else she would have bled to death. Much earlier in the pregnancy, left in utero the baby’s life would have certainly been lost as a result of the procedure. In either case, the intent and purpose of a medically necessary hysterectomy would have been the same -- to preserve the mother’s life. And despite the outcome, its purpose would not have been to lose the baby. Whereas, the goal of elective abortion is always to lose the baby.
Further in his remarks, the reverend says that it is his belief that “we are ultimately saved by God’s grace and not condemned by the actions we take or fail to take.” Given, all Christians share the belief that we are saved by God’s grace. However, we can reject God’s grace. And God’s grace is not a license to sin.
Based on scientific proof, and without concern for politics or legal theory in the matter, the American Medical Association opposed abortion for over a century. Calling it “popular ignorance” and inaccurate “belief that the fetus is not alive until after the period of quickening,” the AMA announced its “abhorrence of the unnatural . . . crime of abortion” in 1859. (Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol.XII-6.)
Because, in biology and medicine, the question about when life begins can be answered by objective science, it is my opinion that the morally ambiguous issue that needs to be addressed is not when human life begins, but this one: when does that human life acquire a soul? This is a theological question. To answer the question and make a decision based on one’s opinion, absent theology and science, would be like self-diagnosing cancer.
If the moral agency position, described in the op-ed as being “the ability of a moral agent to make a choice,” recognizes that the choice can be right or wrong, moral or immoral, then I would offer that moral agency is free will, the exercise of which requires accountability. And the ultimate deciding question would be, and will always be, what is the eternally correct choice (not the expedient temporal one) for the moral agent to make? Clearly, the answer is that he chooses right over wrong; i.e., His will over his will. The great Anglican theologian and bishop, later Catholic theologian and bishop, John Henry Newman said this about choices of right and wrong, God’s will and self-will: “We can believe what we choose. We are answerable for what we choose to believe.”
Based on when life begins and the moral discernment called for when considering to end life, it is my conclusion that there is no moral ambiguity when it comes to the subject of Roe v. Wade. And although I am sure that Robert Townes holds his stated beliefs and opinions just as deeply as I hold mine, we both can’t be right. The words of another English churchman come to mind: “Opinions alter, manners change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral law is written on tablets of eternity.” The puzzling part of it all is that we are reading the same tablets.
Chip Williams is a Northsider.
"Opinion" - Google News
September 10, 2022 at 02:02AM
https://ift.tt/Lowjx9b
Opinion: Life begins at conception - Northside Sun
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/yzipt19
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
No comments:
Post a Comment