In 1989, at my father-in-law’s 50th birthday party, something happened that permanently attached itself to my memory and shaped the code of conduct I hoped to follow. At a pause in the celebration, I sat down at a small table with three men I didn’t know, contemporaries of my father-in-law, although perhaps older. At my age of 27, I thought that everyone fifty or older was impossibly ancient.
I disagree with the characterization of the Roe decision as a religious matter. It may not be in line with the religious beliefs of some people, but that does not mean the decision is a religious matter. It was a constitutional matter and the decision, regardless of whether we like it or not, puts the matter of abortion in the hands of the states, closer to the people, to be decided by their elected representatives rather than by judges. Being unhappy with the ruling does not mean it was a bad ruling. In fact, Roe was a bad ruling resting on some right to privacy not mentioned in the constitution -- and it was bad because it was not decided in a legislature (Congress), where laws should be decided. This is neither a pro nor con argument about abortion, but about the law and the decision. Those who are unhappy with the law as it stands in their state, should work to change it by legislative means. The same should be done on a national level. The discussion of when life begins is a matter of conviction and belief, but that does not necessarily mean religion. Atheists have convictions in this matter, albeit non-religious. I am also Jewish but my convictions do not particularly stem from Judaism, so I find your basic premise incorrect at the same time that I recognize you are certainly free to hold that conviction.
We both know that in a group of 6 or 7 Jews, we are likely to hear 10 opinions on any topic -- including abortion. This, alone, proves that it is not a religious matter. I'm certain that in any religion, we can find adherents with different views on abortion. To try to make this into a religious issue in general (while it can be for some individuals) is not only wrong thinking but possibly terribly divisive even if in unintended ways.
Let us work to find a better solution to abortion. The path to that is not to enflame religious arguments.
I just read this line in today's David French column: Our nation will be far, far healthier if we don’t divide on sharp religious lines.
I stopped reading at that point to send this comment and I'll go back to it, but it goes to the heart of my point. If we argue this or that point through religious perspectives, it will go badly for us -- regardless of which side of an argument we're on. Our religion certainly can, should and does inform our opinions but we must be careful not to make religion the point of the argument.
After reading David's whole piece, I wrote this comment and perhaps it is a better expression of my concern.
David, there is an important distinction to be found in what I think you're saying. For each of our own sakes and for the sake of the country, we are all better off when our religious views inform what we say and do but are not the point of it. As an example, though our personal views on abortion may well be informed by our religious beliefs, we should not argue it as a religious issue. It is a legal issue on which it is difficult to find compromise. If we define it as a religious issue, finding compromise may well go from difficult to impossible and the conflict will spread outside the issue of abortion.
I think the distinction is that the hardline pro-life are imposing a religious view on others, while pro-choice advocates do not generally seek to impose anything on anyone.
Abortion as a sin, based on Catholic and later Evangelical teachings, is at the heart of the pro-life movement.
That's why it's hard for me to see this as a legal rather than a religious issue. And if I see it as a religious issue, then I want freedom for people to express their own personal beliefs about what to do with their own bodies.
As we live in a world of practicality, i was fine with the compromise of Roe as I'd be fine with any of the compromises worked out by most of the countries in Europe.
The fact of making the religious argument (sin) causes a reflexive reaction that is also religion-related. Either we don't want someone else to impose their religion on us or we argue against a religious belief. At best, it serves neither side. More likely, it makes things more difficult.
I am the son of a Conservative Rabbi and I grew up in a pretty traditional Jewish home and I'm certain all that informs my thinking. However, I do not argue abortion (just one example) as a religious issue. There is no need to go there and it only makes compromise more difficult.
I get that. You can't unsee it but you're not letting it get in the way of compromise, though I don't know how far (not asking here) you're willing to go to compromise now that Roe no longer available as that compromise.
Amen!
Great story and life lesson, but terrifying moment in our history.
And P.S., Coach Taylor was the best.
I disagree with the characterization of the Roe decision as a religious matter. It may not be in line with the religious beliefs of some people, but that does not mean the decision is a religious matter. It was a constitutional matter and the decision, regardless of whether we like it or not, puts the matter of abortion in the hands of the states, closer to the people, to be decided by their elected representatives rather than by judges. Being unhappy with the ruling does not mean it was a bad ruling. In fact, Roe was a bad ruling resting on some right to privacy not mentioned in the constitution -- and it was bad because it was not decided in a legislature (Congress), where laws should be decided. This is neither a pro nor con argument about abortion, but about the law and the decision. Those who are unhappy with the law as it stands in their state, should work to change it by legislative means. The same should be done on a national level. The discussion of when life begins is a matter of conviction and belief, but that does not necessarily mean religion. Atheists have convictions in this matter, albeit non-religious. I am also Jewish but my convictions do not particularly stem from Judaism, so I find your basic premise incorrect at the same time that I recognize you are certainly free to hold that conviction.
We both know that in a group of 6 or 7 Jews, we are likely to hear 10 opinions on any topic -- including abortion. This, alone, proves that it is not a religious matter. I'm certain that in any religion, we can find adherents with different views on abortion. To try to make this into a religious issue in general (while it can be for some individuals) is not only wrong thinking but possibly terribly divisive even if in unintended ways.
Let us work to find a better solution to abortion. The path to that is not to enflame religious arguments.
I'm going to think about your thoughtful comment a bit and then respond. Thanks,
I just read this line in today's David French column: Our nation will be far, far healthier if we don’t divide on sharp religious lines.
I stopped reading at that point to send this comment and I'll go back to it, but it goes to the heart of my point. If we argue this or that point through religious perspectives, it will go badly for us -- regardless of which side of an argument we're on. Our religion certainly can, should and does inform our opinions but we must be careful not to make religion the point of the argument.
After reading David's whole piece, I wrote this comment and perhaps it is a better expression of my concern.
David, there is an important distinction to be found in what I think you're saying. For each of our own sakes and for the sake of the country, we are all better off when our religious views inform what we say and do but are not the point of it. As an example, though our personal views on abortion may well be informed by our religious beliefs, we should not argue it as a religious issue. It is a legal issue on which it is difficult to find compromise. If we define it as a religious issue, finding compromise may well go from difficult to impossible and the conflict will spread outside the issue of abortion.
I think the distinction is that the hardline pro-life are imposing a religious view on others, while pro-choice advocates do not generally seek to impose anything on anyone.
Abortion as a sin, based on Catholic and later Evangelical teachings, is at the heart of the pro-life movement.
That's why it's hard for me to see this as a legal rather than a religious issue. And if I see it as a religious issue, then I want freedom for people to express their own personal beliefs about what to do with their own bodies.
As we live in a world of practicality, i was fine with the compromise of Roe as I'd be fine with any of the compromises worked out by most of the countries in Europe.
The fact of making the religious argument (sin) causes a reflexive reaction that is also religion-related. Either we don't want someone else to impose their religion on us or we argue against a religious belief. At best, it serves neither side. More likely, it makes things more difficult.
I am the son of a Conservative Rabbi and I grew up in a pretty traditional Jewish home and I'm certain all that informs my thinking. However, I do not argue abortion (just one example) as a religious issue. There is no need to go there and it only makes compromise more difficult.
I agree that religion does mae it a more difficult issue.
But I can't "unsee" the religious basis for those who wish to impose their views.
Again, I was fine with a compromise that applies to the entire country.
I get that. You can't unsee it but you're not letting it get in the way of compromise, though I don't know how far (not asking here) you're willing to go to compromise now that Roe no longer available as that compromise.