On Abortion

I sat at Peet's today, reading about the Democratic convention, thinking about the politics of the abortion issue. And my caffeinated mind began playing out my own views. I began to think about this divisive moral question from a spiritualist's perspective.

The question on the right to kill an unborn child is moot – no one would argue in favor of death. This is not a question of life vs. abortion. The question is: at what point does this collection of fertilized cells become “life”? Thus the argument gets tricky and turns into a highly subjective, immensely personal decision.

I personally believe that the inception of life is a Divine act which should be left to run its course. That’s why I will not, under any circumstances, have an abortion should I ever become pregnant.

And I’ll thank the government to let me make that choice on my own. Granted, as a man, this probably won’t come up in the foreseeable future. But those for whom this is a more immediate issue deserve the free will to make this difficult moral decision on their own.

The standards by which I decide on a definition of life come from my own instincts and experiences. When the existence of a soul is unprovable by universal standards, we have only our own experiences to lend guidance.

Unfortunately, many who seek to make this choice for others are not even guided by personal experiences but rather the influence of environment – family, peers, church, community. When social conditioning dictates a belief or course of action, that belief or action automatically becomes contrived. Valueless. False. And above all, unworthy as a measure for the actions of a stranger.

As sentient beings, we are each accorded free will and the right to discover our own moral code. As a society, we create laws to codify the obvious boundaries between one anothers’ free will. In other words, my free will ends where yours begins. When my personal choice limits yours, for example through murder or theft, then I violate the universal principle of free will. And in the US, I violate the law (unless I work for the government, where murder is called “death penalty” and theft is called “imminent domain”).

But what if one person’s actions do not blatantly impinge on the free will of another? When the boundaries are blurred – does a collection of fertilized cells have free will? – then we have only our self-discovered moral code on which to base our decisions. If that moral code somehow violates cosmic law, then who metes out the consequences? Again, the punisher, as with the crime itself, becomes a subjective perspective – God? St. Peter? Karma? Pluto/Hades? Extra-dimension aliens? Those with a framework for deciding the crime must rely on the same framework for deciding punishment.

In other words, where God judges a sin, let God punish it as well.

No human has the authority to be God’s moral advocate on this earth. Let God do God’s work. And let God’s followers follow. Those of us who screw up will be dealt with.