I love being a Unitarian Universalist. I love it that so many different faith traditions are embraced in UU churches and fellowships and by the UUA. Typically of a UU, I also love the fact that the intellectual and spiritual are both welcome. As it happens. I'm a theist, but even beyond that, I would not be comfortable as a Humanist, because I need the spiritual to be welcome. I would not be happy in most other faiths, because I need the intellectual to be welcome. Most pro-choice arguments are intellectual. Most anti-choice arguments are religious. But in this article. the UU minister who is the Dean for Religious Life at Stanford University makes a religious argument in favor of abortion. I love that my faith is home to so many views and that the Reverend McLennan is free to explain his position and support it with Biblical evidence--and few, if any, within Unitarian Universalism will call him a bad Christian, a bad minister, or a bad man. This piece will undoubtedly be controversial. But, like the editors of UU World, I hope that it will "give you a fresh perspective and help you in conversations with Christians about this controversial subject." As noted at the bottom of the introduction, the UUA has supported a woman's right to choose since 1968. I'm not really interested in hearing vehement and oft-repeated rhetoric from either side of this debate. But I would love to hear a discussion of what McLennan has to say.  | Wonderful,well presented thoughts on this controversial topic.
I've been interested in the religious,ethical and cultural input on abortion issues for so many years now. Our view on abortion is greatly influenced by where are in the big scheme of so many influences.It's okay to disagree on abortion ,but never at the expense of inflicting our biases on the choices of others...apparently McLennan values room for all opinions other than his own which is the true sign of an open and thoughtful mind.
Enjoyed this link Karen. |
 | I don’t think “a woman’s right to choose” is a sufficient answer to the claim that “abortion is murder.”
Wow! I have been of the mindset that abortion is wrong not for religious platform, but of how it adversely affects the woman. His points of contention is very interesting.
"I’m also personally compelled by the notion that it’s the breath of life that makes us full human beings. I’ll never forget the sight of each of my children emerging into the world blue and lifeless, being struck on the back by the doctor, taking their first breath, and becoming ruddy-colored as they began crying their way into life. Now they were tiny people. Now they had joined the human race, not before."
This is a point ive seen around by a friend of mine who says the very same thing.
Thanks Karen. |
 | Very interesting perspective. I'm inclined to agree with the writer. |
 | Thanks Karen. Very good article. I wasn't aware of the religioius implications of abortion from a biblical perspective. I also noted with pride the position and the movement toward social change by the Lutheran Women’s Caucus.
|
 |  I have been of the mindset that abortion is wrong not for religious platform, but of how it adversely affects the woman.  That's one thing that varies greatly. I know women who bitterly regret having had abortions and women who say it was the best thing they've ever done and still say it decades after the fact.
Physically, there shouldn't be any lasting ill effects at all.
I've been thinking about this since I posted it, and I want to add that the right to CHOOSE has to mean just that: The right to choose, not the right to have an abortion. It is the right to have one OR not to have one. In my experience (and it is limited, so it may not apply to your experience at all), the women who have problems because of abortions are the women who had them while wanting not to: Little girls coerced by their parents (which no medical provider should allow or be party to) or pressured by their parents or boyfriends to get abortions they don't want and shouldn't have.
When coercion is involved, abortion can feel like rape. And when pressure is involved, it can feel like a huge betrayal, of the self, by the self and, especially, by others.
That may not be what you were talking about, but on reflection, I wasn't comfortable implying that abortion doesn't usually have bad effects without addressing this exception.
|
| I'm inclined to agree with the writer, too, to the extent that I think anything Biblical is relevant--which isn't much. But I like the fact that, instead of just listening to the voices of the loudest extremists, he looks at the evidence and weighs it and also takes history and context into account. |
| I don’t think “a woman’s right to choose” is a sufficient answer to the claim that “abortion is murder.” When he puts it that way, I agree.
But when someone tells me that "abortion is murder, because the holy book I personally choose to follow says so," I've always thought "Well, what kind of substantive response can you even make to that?" and "Your beliefs shouldn't compromise other people's emotional and physical wellbeing, right to privacy, right to decide what happens to their own bodies, etc."
But this minister has provided a substantive argument that can be used when people haul out The Bible and say "my religion gets to tell you what to do, because it used the big, scary M word." Isn't it interesting that, in fact, the big, scary M word is NOT used in The Bible? Just by flawed humans who head human, and therefore flawed, churches. |
| Hooray for the Lutheran Women! |
| I've been thinking about this since I posted it, and I want to add that the right to CHOOSE has to mean just that: The right to choose, not the right to have an abortion. It is the right to have one OR not to have one. In my experience (and it is limited, so it may not apply to your experience at all), the women who have problems because of abortions are the women who had them while wanting not to: Little girls coerced by their parents (which no medical provider should allow or be party to) or pressured by their parents or boyfriends to get abortions they don't want and shouldn't have.
When coercion is involved, abortion can feel like rape. And when pressure is involved, it can feel like a huge betrayal, of the self, by the self and, especially, by others.
That may not be what you were talking about, but on reflection, I wasn't comfortable implying that abortion doesn't usually have bad effects without addressing this exception. That is what I meant I hope that eventually the Roe vs. Wade is overturned and acknowledged as a medical procedure. That is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. Will it have adverse effects? Yes. Will there be exceptions to that fact? Yes. I do think that most with hindsight are comfortable with their decision.
I do know this much...MY beliefs should not be imposed on others. If you want an abortion have it, if you don't then don't. |
| Well, their argument goes something like this:
(They think) The Bible says it's murder.
Therefore, it IS murder.
Murder is and always should be illegal.
There's no way to win that argument, except to pry them away from their first premise or have something like Roe v. Wade in place.
Because there is no hope of getting them to understand that something they think The Bible says is murder isn't murder. And murder isn't a First Amendment issue.
|
| Roe vs Wade is a privacy issue.
Its already on the books.
But I must admit you are right...these morons need a reminder that they cant overturn Roe vs Wade. |
| It would be nice if this argument spread further and gave these people a reason to understand that, just because their minister says something is so, doesn't make it so. |
| Before you have an argument you need a conversation and an open mind.
Im thinking that many lack the open mind part.
Its like how you saw that I can concede a good point...
That is not going to happen with many. |
 | Good reading. And I agree with sayntj and the open mind part. A lot of people see black and white and that's it.
|
 | one of these days, I am going to take this subject up in my own blog...but today isn't the day....(winks)
In short - it shouldn't be a 'first option' and it shouldn't be "convenient" - it ALWAYS involves multiple lives on multiple levels - and its not a simple issue. I wholeheartedly concur that we need to treat our women and especially our young girls as SACRED. Protect them as we can, educate and enable them - and I do not agree that abortion is a viable means of 'simple birth control' - i think the first option there should be - 'self control'
as for rape, incest, medical issues - that should be between the woman, her doctor and her Creator. to me that is a privacy issue.
I'll put it this way. I HATE the concept of taking the life of a child for any reason and if it is a fetus - guess what - its a life. Its not a rock...BUT - i also HATE putting a woman in an impossible situation where her life may be threatened - that isn't right either. I don't like abortion. But I am not God or a doctor - I do think the article was articulate and brought up some valid points. Would I recommend an abortion? NO. Would I hinder a woman to have one? NO. Would I drive my buddy to the clinic to have one? Probably would. |
| |
