These days it seems every spiritual path must have a position on the issue of the ethics or moral rightness of abortion.
As with most issues, this one has more sides than the two extremes with which we are often confronted. Perhaps clearly stating those aspects of the issue will help someone to clarify their own beliefs on this issue. We do not believe that we have the right to dictate a decision to others on this issue, or any other for that matter; the most we can do is to, perhaps, help clarify the issues that are raised when making such a monumental decision.
Before we can accomplish much toward that goal, we need to define our terms, starting with the biggie -
To abort something is to bring it to terminate it before it's normal process is completed. Pregnancy is subject to termination in three ways: it may culminate in delivery, or it may be terminated before that point, either by spontaneous abortion, also known as miscarriage, or by intentional abortion, using a substance or procedure to terminate the pregnancy.
The womb is a mysterious place; it is Nature's testing ground for genetic combinations, many of which never see the light of day. In the normal course of things, one third of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage, often too early to be detected as a pregnancy. At any time in the course of development, a flaw in the genetic combination or environmental factors may manifest, causing the pregnancy to terminate in Nature's own spontaeous abortion. There are a variety of ways in which these circumstantial difficulties can affect the pregnancy, causing termination when the new life would be unable to develop or function properly.
There are cases in which people feel that the circumstances of a pregnancy are such that grave problems would arise from the pregnancy itself, or that the new life would be unable to develop or function properly, but nature does not have a mechanism to detect problems of the type involved, or to let it affect the course of the pregnancy. In these cases, the pregnant woman may choose to consider one of the methods known to cause the pregnancy to terminate. This is known as "elective abortion", and is the type generally under discussion when the abortion issue is raised.
From that perspective, then, here is my view of the abortion issue.
Some say that a developing human being has an innate right to live, whether born or unborn. Others say that a woman has the right to make any choice she wants regarding her body and any life within it. Clearly both these positions have merit, or they could not have succeeded in gaining so many adherents; what we do not believe is that these positions are diametrically opposed, or even incompatible.
We believe that the actions of each person return to them with the added energy of each person impacted by the decision or action. Clearly, a decision to murder another person would violate that person in the greatest degree possible, and the energy that would be returned to the murderer in such an act would be terrible and devestating, and possibly result in the death of the murderer, among other possible repercussions. Clearly, a decision to murder another person is a harmful act, and morally wrong. Without respect for the rights of others, we cannot exist in any form of community or society, because we are robbed of the basic elements of the trust necessary for interpersonal interaction.
But what constitutes murder? Murder is the willfull decision to take the life of a human being, without any mitigating circumstances to render the decision an act of self-defense. In order for abortion to be murder, we must establish that each of these qualifying points must apply.
As has been pointed out by others before me, abortion is a willful, deliberate action on the part of the person choosing the abortion. It is rare in this era for abortion to be inflicted on an unwilling and uncooperative pregnant woman, so in general the abortion may be considered a deliberate action by the mother. Thos rare cases where it is inflicted on an unwilling woman are a horror of another kind, a violation and mutilation from any point of view that respects the rights of others.
So we have established that induced abortion is a willful act on the part of the pregnant woman for the purposes of this discussion. But is it a decision to take the life of a human being? What defines a human being? I think we can all agree that a living person with human DNA is a human being; I also think that we can agree that a cancerous tumor is not. So, simply being a discrete collection of living human cells that are distinct from the host body is not enough to qualify as a human being. Is a human being defined by having it's own unique DNA fingerprint? Every set of identical twins ever born is disproof of that belief - they are two seperate people, yet they share identical DNA. Those individuals who contain elements of a twin who began to form, yet never fully seperated, are proof that containing forming elements of another human being, whether those elements are alive or not, does not mean that those elements constitute another person, with seperate rights. Only living human beings have rights under our legal system, and only killing a living human being can constitute murder.
So we have seen many things that are not living human beings; do we have any guidelines as to what is? In fact, we do; they come from the other end of life. Our legal system, and our ethics, have long been called upon to define the point of death for a human being at the end of their life. Under our current system of understanding, a human life is ended at the point of "brain death" - when the brain no longer forms the signature electrical signals characteristic of the most basic level of functioning of human life.
If we apply this logic to the question at hand, we determine that a human being cannot be murdered if there is no human life to be taken. Human life, according to our legal system and our current medical understanding, does not exist where there is no "signature electrical signals characteristic of the most basic level of functioning of human life" being formed by the brain. In other words, a developing fetus does not constitute a human life until such time as the brain and nervous system has formed to the point where it can create the "signature electrical signals characteristic of the most basic level of functioning of human life".
This is my viewpoint according to the understandings of science: prior to the development of the nervous system to the point where it forms human brain waves at the level that is necessary to prove life at the end of life, the fetus does not yet constitute a living human being, and has the same legal and ethical status as any other portion of the living tissue within a woman's body - it may not be harmed or risked by any person other than the woman whose body it is, without violating her rights in a most basic way, but it is hers to retain or remove at her will, just as with any other part of her body. At-will abortion is, and should be, legally and ethically acceptable up to the point where the developing fetus forms consistent human brain waves. Murder is not possible, because the fetus does not yet meet our most basic standards of human life.
That is my scientific view - but what of my religion? What does my spiritual side say on the issue?
I believe that human beings are energetic life forms expressed in our three-dimensional world as three-dimensional bodies. I believe that the energy that flows through and around our bodies is as demonstrable and provable as our blood flow; without the energy that flows through our bodies, our brains would not produce measurable brain waves, and our hearts would not be stimulated to beat by an energetic pulse that can be simulated by an electronic pacemaker. Our most basic definition of human life, our brain waves, depends on the energetic nature of human life.
Throughout the world, cultures of all kinds have acknowledged that our bodies, which remain after our death, do not constitute the sum of our life, but instead provide vessels or representations of our energetic selves. This energy that constitutes our true life essence may be known as prana, or chi, or kundalini energy, or as the soul; when it is present, we are alive, and when it is absent, we are not.
Those traditions that recognize astral travel refer to the spiritual energy of our selves as being tied to our bodies by a "silver cord", even during astral travel. Interference with, or breaking of, this cord can pose a real threat of damage or even death to the person who is seperated from their body. Clearly, even those groups that recognize that the energetic essence of our selves can be seperated from our bodies through the means of astral travel, also recognize that when our energetic essence cannot connect with our bodies, we cannot survive the seperation.
The human body, without the life energy that constitutes our selves, and forms the brain waves that are our most basic definition of life, is nothing but a lump of dead flesh. People hold differing theories as to the point at which the soul comes to inhabit the body, ranging from conception to birth. I believe that the truth is somewhere in between, that the soul may be present from the moment of conception, or even before, if there is a strong bond with the family into which the soul is to be born, but that it cannot inhabit the body until the pathways of energy conduction within the body, the nerves, have formed adequately to support the complex pattern that is the energy of human life. It can guide development, perhaps, and present a comforting presence to the mother or other family members; thus, the soul that is to bring life to the body can shape the vessel into a suitable container, just as the pressure of the water shapes the channel through which it flows.
So my spiritual side tells me the same thing that my scientific view does, that human life begins at the moment when the human body can and does consistently support the energetic flow that is our most fundamental essence.
Whether we wish it to be that way or not, there continue to be circumstances in life that cause pregnancy to constitute a threat to the woman who has conceived. This is an unfortunate horror, but it has been true throughout history, and it remains so to this day with no foreseeable change in sight. Also true is the fact that not all women will have a chance to learn of their circumstances, or of the dangers posed by them, before the point where human life has entered the conception within their bodies. So, the question of abortion past the point where the necessary neural and other connections have been made within the forming body will continue to arise, and must be addressed.
Unlike human life at any other point in development, a developing fetus is completely dependent on a single, specific other human being. After birth, a baby may be adopted, or fostered, an aging parent may be cared for by other relatives, there are always choices and options. But before birth, all choices come down to one: can the mother care for the pregnancy in the manner needed by the developing fetus, or will the tissue inside die, and never be born into the world as a baby?
So, if there is a threat posed to the mother by the developing fetus, the situation must be evaluated very seriously, because the fetus that has reached the point of neural development to support brain waves, like every other living human being, is subject to the repercussions of its actions as well. If, by its actions, including the action of growing and developing, it poses a threat or serious danger to another person, its mother, then it is subject to the consequences of its actions, under the same laws that bind us all.
Since any threat posed by the developing fetus cannot be alleviated through any means other than ending its life, the threat or danger must be quite serious and significant before such drastic action could be warranted. The danger could be a medical threat to the life of the mother, or a psychological damage from the source of the pregnancy, such as a pregnancy due to incest or rape; it is even conceivable that a woman could suffer from a mental illness that would cause her to suffer irreparable damage if she were to carry a pregnancy to term, or that a woman might be unable to support or care for her existing children through another pregnancy, and is without other options. Given the alternatives, in this last case, serious effort should be made throughout every society to remove the possibility that any woman might be placed in this position. In any case where the damage or threat is a real one, and the danger arises from carrying the pregnancy, the possibility exists that the balance of harms is such that abortion of the pregnancy, ending the life within, still causes less harm than would be created by carrying it. This is a sad truth, but it exists and must be acknowledged.
In those cases where the only threat or danger created by the pregnancy arises from problems that arise after the pregnancy is brought to term, and the baby born, such as cases where a woman is unable to care for a child, adoption is a viable alternative. In fact, any problem that can be addressed through adoption or fostering would not, in my personal opinion, qualify as a reason for post-brain-wave-development abortion, because an innocent life should not be terminated if there is another answer to the problem created, however serious. Sometimes, however, adoption is not an option that would serve to address the problem adequately.
Since the point of viability, where the fetus can survive outside of the mother's womb, clearly comes after the point when the body has formed to the point where the energy of life can create human brain wave patterns, it falls under the arguments given for later-term abortions, which cannot be "at-will" from an ethical standpoint. Under these arguments, abortion constitutes an acceptable option only when there is no other way to alleviate the threat or danger posed by the pregnancy, and only because the fetus cannot survive outside of the womb of the mother, whose life is thereby clearly impacted and must be considered. Once the fetus can survive outside of the womb, the issue in almost all cases ceases to be one where abortion is the only option, because the fetus can be delivered, and the baby cared for by persons other than the mother, ceasing to impact her. Only in cases such as incest and rape, where the mere existence of an offspring from the pregnancy could result in serious, even life-threatening damage to the mother's psyche and well-being, is there an instance where abortion remains the only true solution after the point of viability.
I believe in reincarnation, that our fundamental energy remains in existence before and after death, and that it can return to life in another body. This belief affects my view of abortion, in that it makes me inclined to believe that the soul which is coming to inhabit a newly conceived body is not permanently snuffed out or otherwise permanently impacted by the termination of the pregnancy that was to provide it's new life as a human being. This opportunity for life might not be worth the cost, to it or to its mother. I know of no child who would choose a dead or injured mother, injured by their birth or their very existence, over life with parents who are prepared to love, cherish, and raise it well. An unborn soul, in my understanding, is not incapable of compassion and love, and is capable also of waiting until the time is right.
This also leads me to the belief that, as sad as it is when women have unnecessary abortions, by choosing abortion where it is unnecessary, these women have shown that they were not capable of making the decisions that put the child first, and the souls that would have been born to them are probably better off. This does not excuse these women for their actions, or alleviate the price that they will pay for their choices; at the very least, these women will never know the love of the child they could have borne, and they will also wonder, and perhaps regret for the rest of their lives, what could have been. Each time they pass a loving mother and child, they will know they could have had that, and each time they meet an adopted child in a happy family, they will know they could have given that to their child without giving up the life they have built for themselves.
It is difficult enough to evaluate these decisions when one has all the facts, we must never presume to judge a situation on superficial knowledge, however much we think we know about the situation at hand. What looks unnecessary to one person may have been the most devestating experience another has ever known. The price that is paid for abortion is not ours to exact; the laws which govern such things are laws of nature, and need no more enforcement than does gravity. When a pregnant woman has reached the point of considering abortion, our responsibility is only to see that whatever choice is made is as safe for all concerned as it may be.
Before making any decision, each of us is responsible for informing hirself about the possible options and consequences. This applies to sex as much as to any other serious and potentially life-altering decision.
It is the responsibility of each and every woman to avoid conceiving if she knows that she is in no position to safely or reasonably bear a child. For this reason, each woman should educated herself about all of the available methods of avoiding conception, and choose the safest, most effective option for her life, her body, and her circumstances. Since no contraceptive is 100% reliable, even with the use of contraceptive, sex should only be chosen if both parties are prepared to accept all possible results, and act responsibly if pregnancy should result.
Pregnancy is not the only potentially serious result that can arise if people choose to have sexual intercourse. Many illnesses are more easily transmitted through contact with bodily fluids, which is a common element of sexual intercourse. It is almost impossible in this era to ensure that any person is completely free from any illness that can be transmitted this way, so the use of those contraceptive devices which restrict contact between bodily fluids can be a wise choice even in those cases where there is little or no risk of pregnancy. If a woman knows that she has or may have an illness that may be transmitted through sexual intercourse, it is her responsibility to protect others from infection by seeking diagnosis and treatment where available, and avoiding risky forms of sexual contact.
Where sexual contact is chosen with the knowledge of the danger of infection, it is the responsibility of each partner to protect themselves and each other person who is or may become involved. Many sexually transmitted diseases can be transmitted to the developing life during pregnancy, or to the baby at birth. This is a serious problem that should be taken into account, should precautions fail and pregnancy ensue, in a situation of known risk to the mother or potential child.
If she should become pregnant, it is the responsibility of every woman to thoroughly and rapidly evaluate the conditions and circumstances of the pregnancy, and choose the course that will be safest for all concerned, bringing the least harm possible, and making sure that she considers the degree of harm inherent in each possible course before making her decisions. Ideally, she should be prepared for the possibility of pregnancy, even if she is avoiding it, and have chosen the course of action as far as might be done in advance. If she determines that terminating the pregnancy causes the least harm to all involved, it is her responsibility to do so before the conception has formed to the point where there is a fetus whose nervous system produces the brain waves showing that it contains the most fundamental human energy, or soul, and is a living human being. If the timing does not allow this, it is each woman's responsibility to face her own situation, weigh the harm that results from each course of action, and make the decision that meets with her conscience.
It is the responsibility of every man to consider his ability and desire to parent a child, and educate himself about the available methods and techniques to avoid conceiving if that is his desire or that of his female partner. Since no contraceptive is 100% reliable, even with the use of contraceptive, sex should only be chosen if both parties are prepared to accept all possible results, and act responsibly if pregnancy should result.
As discussed in the section on women's responsibilities, pregnancy is not the only potentially serious result that can arise if people choose to have sexual intercourse. Many illnesses are more easily transmitted through contact with bodily fluids, which is a common element of sexual intercourse. It is almost impossible in this era to ensure that any person is completely free from any illness that can be transmitted this way, so the use of those contraceptive devices which restrict contact between bodily fluids can be a wise choice even in those cases where there is little or no risk of pregnancy. If a man knows that he has or may have an illness that may be transmitted through sexual intercourse, it is his responsibility to protect others from infection by seeking diagnosis and treatment where available, and avoiding risky forms of sexual contact.
Where sexual contact is chosen with the knowledge of the danger of infection, it is the responsibility of each partner to protect themselves and each other person who is or may become involved. Many sexually transmitted diseases can be transmitted to the developing life during pregnancy, or to the baby at birth. This is a serious problem that should be taken into account, should precautions fail and pregnancy ensue, in a situation of known risk to the mother or potential child.
If conception should result from his actions, it is the responsibility of every man to provide the best possible circumstances for the pregnancy and child, ensuring that any alternative to abortion is made available as an option if it can be. It is also the responsibility of every man to support any woman conceiving by him through the results of the conception, whether that means supporting her physically, emotionally, and financially through abortion, or through the pregnancy and child-raising that follows it. This is the responsibility that is the counterpart to sexuality.
If a child results from the pregnancy, he is responsible for providing the best possible circumstances for that child to grow up, including ensuring that his involvement with his offspring's life is to the benefit of the child. If his involvement is to the child's detriment, he is responsible for changing either the results of the involvement, or the fact of the involvement itself, as a last resort.
Pregnancy comes at a high cost to a woman, both in her body and in her life. Nature has equipped the burdened pregnant woman with a mate to provide for her for a reason. There is no equivalent counterpart cost to the man's body, but he faces a risk his partner does not - he faces the risk that his partner may not share his views on the conception, and may carry a pregnancy he does not agree with, or abort when he thinks she should not. This is the risk that nature has given men, a helplessness in the face of pregnancy or influencing its outcome.
It is the responsibility of our medical professionals to provide each and every fertile man and woman with the information they need to make safe and responsible decisions regarding their fertility and the results that may ensue. This means providing as many safe contraceptive agents and methods as are known to human beings, and educating each fertile person as to their use and effectiveness. Neither men nor women can make responsible decisions without adequate information.
Where a woman faces the risk of pregnancy, her doctor is responsible for sharing with her all relevant and accurate information that is available. This includes the information that is necessary for assessing the balance between the risks assumed and the benefits that result from any decision that involves her health. This includes abortion; if the pregnancy poses a great enough risk of harm, the benefits of a medical abortion can outweigh the risks.
In addition to helping the woman involved by sharing with her all information relevant and necessary to the health-related decisions she faces, the doctor is responsible for assuring that any harm done by medical procedures is outweighed by the benefits. In the case of abortion, which can involve balancing the interests of more than one person, the doctor is bound, as always, to consider the harm that may result from hir* actions, and ensure that the risks and harm of action are outweighed by the risk of harm from inaction, and to ensure that all persons assuming risk have given their informed consent, where possible.
If a procedure seems ethically questionable to a doctor or medical practicioner of any kind, he or she is free to refuse the procedure, unless there is no alternative practicioner available and there is threat to human life or health involved. This is true of abortion as well. Each medical practicioner is responsible for the decisions he or she may make. If a life comes to harm through their choice of inaction where they have assumed responsibility, they are as responsible for the consequences as they would have been had they chosen to act in a way that caused harm.
It is the responsibility of society to refrain from legislating restrictions on the decisions a woman might be called upon to make in caring for, or terminating, her body and/or any life therein.
The most fundamental rights we may be considered to have are those over our own lives and bodies. This means we have the right to freedom in our medical decisions, as long as they do not harm other people. We have the right to end the life we lead, or at least the portion that is connected with the bodies we inhabit. Any life within us that can survive outside of our bodies, or without our life-force, is free to do so. And that means that we have the right to end and prevent pregnancy, as long as that decision does not harm another human life.
Where another life is affected, it is the responsibility of the society to ensure the rights of all parties. This means ensuring that women remain free to terminate a pregnancy that causes harm, in a way that minimizes the harm caused by the situation, and ensuring the rights of any lives involved. This includes the responsibility to ensure that no woman suffers avoidable harm at the hands of another human being, whether or not that person is her child, unless that harm or risk is freely chosen. A woman may choose pregnancy either through choosing unprotected sexual intercourse, or through choosing not to terminate a pregnancy before the point where a human life has developed within the womb. If that choice has been freely made, society has no right or resposibility to interfere in its results, whichever option is chosen.
No pregnancy or abortion is without risk to the mother, risk greater than can be inflicted or enforced on one person by another, or by society. Therefore, neither can be enforced on any woman by law or other social action. This means that laws regarding abortion must be restricted to ensuring its availability to all women, and protecting any life that may survive the transition from inside the mother's body to the outer world.
The responsibility faced by society, then, is to ensure the rights and well-being of those persons who result from pregnancy, not to attempt to second-guess the women and medical professionals who must make moral and ethical decisions about pregnancy and the harm and/or life that may result from those decisions. To ensure the rights of women, who result from pregnancy as well, it is important that society take the responsibility of protecting the access of all persons to those medical procedures that may be necessary to protect them from harm or serious risk. For those women who face a need for abortion, this procedure must remain available; the responsibility for weighing the risk/benefit ratio, and therefore the need for the procedure, must remain with the pregnant woman and her medical practicioner.
Therefore, society is responsible for protecting all lives involved, by protecting any human life that may survive the process of leaving its mother's womb. Prior to that point, all involved are responsible for minimizing the harm done to all involved, as always, with each person bearing the right and responsibility for actions involving their body and its contents. Society as a whole is not in a position to make an informed decision.
