Tackling the issue of choice

I was rescued from an abortion in 1966, so this is a very personal

issue for me. I was rescued because the law did not permit abortions,

and no doctors could be found willing to break the law. I was an

“accident,” so let me be an advocate for the “accidents” of the

future.

I understand and agree with the right of a woman to control her

body, but that control needs to happen before it involves another

life. Claims of abortion’s necessity in cases involving rape or the

medical condition of the mother are over-reported. Even when it is an

actuality, we should be hesitant at making another victim. There are

other options.

We depart from the reactions of the past where an unwed mother was

ostracized, but we encourage other more merciful and loving options

like adoption, counseling and financial help. I have seen these

options work. These options can be painful to be sure, but in the end

they value the dreams and aspirations of a life that cannot defend

its own rights. No one ever guaranteed us a life without pain anyway.

My mother made a valiant effort as a single mother, and there were

lots of painful days for her.

Today, as she holds her grandchildren, she has told me she is glad

abortion was not made available to her. Every Mother’s Day I tell her

thanks for the chance to live. Thanks again, Mom!

ASSOCIATE PASTOR

RIC OLSEN

Harbor Trinity Church

Costa Mesa

Jewish tradition demonstrates a clear bias for life. The very

first Biblical commandment is “Be fruitful and multiply.” This

age-old reverence for the sanctity of life bears upon our national

agony over the issue of abortion.

Is abortion murder? Is it ever justifiable? Is feticide homicide?

Anti-abortionists argue that abortion is murder and, in a sense, it

is. Any taking of life can be considered as murder. But medical

research and the technological miracles of our day are forcing us to

take an increasingly sophisticated look at how we define life. We can

keep the heart and lungs artificially pumping for decades, but is the

patient then alive?

Just as we must make such distinctions between life and death, so

we must make some elegant distinctions in the border areas between

conception and birth. Jewish law is quite clear: while the fetus is

to be protected as a potential human being, it has no personhood.

Thus, it is not accorded any of the rights and privileges of a viable

living human being. There is no absolute right to be born, only a

right to life of persons who already exist.

If the mother’s existence is threatened by the fetus, says Jewish

tradition, her life takes precedence and the fetus is destroyed. This

is my religious conviction. I have, though, no right to foist my

faith understanding upon my fellow citizens. I do not believe that

the state or any external agency should be granted the power to

intervene in the personal, and often religious decision, to maintain

a pregnancy. A woman should have an affirmative right to determine

how to proceed.

I submit that only the most minimal state interference with

individual conscience should be the rule. Judaism, then, sees the

fetus as part of the woman’s body. As a woman is permitted to

sacrifice a portion of her body for her greater good, so, too, may

she choose an abortion to assure her overall well-being. This she

should do freely, unfettered by the legal imposition of moral

standards other than her own.

Judaism is not pro-abortion; it is pro-choice. The final decision

should be left to the woman and her physician, not to the government.

Where there is wide and deep dissension over morals, arising from

incommensurable theologies, it is the heart of the American ideal of

pluralism, tolerance and freedom from religious coercion for such

matters to be deemed essentially private.

RABBI MARK MILLER

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach

Every minute one woman dies in pregnancy or childbirth. According

to the United Methodist Church, 80-million unintended pregnancies

occur worldwide. Nearly one-third of American women report being

physically or sexually abused at some point during their lives. Of

the world’s poor, 70% are women. This was truly a “March for Women’s

Lives.”

I support the right of a woman to have an abortion, but our Zen

Center does not take a position as a group or expect agreement among

Zen practitioners. We embrace the precepts “Do no harm,” “Do good”

and “Do good for others,” but the interpretation and expression

remains the responsibility of each person, who must be guided by his

or her meditation practice and life experience. Though the Buddhist

Peace Fellowship has been a pivotal organization for socially engaged

Buddhists from all denominations, issues related to prison reform,

anti-war activities and other human rights causes have been most

prominent.

The rally demonstrated massive opposition to the Bush

administration’s policies on reproductive health issues. More than

1,000 organizations, such as the League of Women Voters, National

Latina Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union, warned that

reproductive freedoms are being chipped away. The ban on federal

funds for family-planning groups that provide abortions abroad and

the imposition of waiting periods in various states are examples of

impediments placed upon a woman’s right to make her own choices about

her reproductive health. Depending upon whom is nominated to the

Supreme Court, legal abortion could be curtailed or ended.

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice sponsored a

“Faithful Choices” day to help the public and congressional

representatives better understand that there is widespread religious

support for freedom of choice. This is especially important to

counterbalance voices that oppose legal abortion on the basis of

their own particular religious beliefs. An Interfaith Worship Service

provided further spiritual support for the marchers.

In the mid-’80s, I was the coordinator of a national project to

obtain federal funding for abortion for victims of rape and incest. I

have nothing but respect for the coalition of groups I worked with,

especially Catholics for a Free Choice, the Religious Coalition for

Reproductive Choice, Planned Parenthood and the American Civil

Liberties Union. I would never have guessed that 20 years later

reproductive freedom would be so seriously threatened.

THE REV. DEBORAH

BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

Contemporary Christians must have abilities to respect the

diversity of many opinions and perspectives, all held together by our

unifying belief in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Since we all will

never agree about complex issues like abortion, we should get used to

saying “on the one hand ... but then on the other hand”;

Anglicans/Episcopalians are sometimes known as a “both-and” people.

The Episcopal Church has public policy positions opposing any

legislative, executive or judicial action limiting decision-making

on, or access to, abortion. At the same time, we express serious

concern about the use of so-called partial birth abortions except in

extreme situations.

Anglicans consistently oppose abortion as a means of birth control

and strongly advocate that it is a decision never to be taken lightly

or unadvisedly but intentionally and with support of family and

friends. There are organized pro-life and pro-choice groups within

the Episcopal Church; there were surely Anglicans rallying on our

National Mall on April 25 and Anglicans opposing that rally.

So, Episcopalians are both pro-choice and pro-life; very Anglican!

And, in our times, very Christian, I think.

THE VERY REV. CANON

PETER D. HAYNES

St. Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Parish Church

Corona del Mar