Continuing Debate on the Beginning of Human Life

The North Dakota House has passed a bill that states: any organism with the genome of homo sapiens should be considered a person deserving of Constitutional protection. That is, a fertilized egg must be considered as much a human being as a one year old or eighty year old person with all of the same rights and privileges and protections.

This is obviously an attempt to provide a legislative definition that would make abortion illegal, and it is not a new idea. "Human Life Amendments" have been proposed periodically in the US Congress since 1973. These HLA's would officially define the beginning of human life as the moment of conception, which has always seemed to me to be a religious definition and not necessarily a scientific one.

While this may seem to be the quick and easy way to negate the Roe v. Wade ruling of the US Supreme Court, this legal definition raises a host of other sticky questions. I would refer you to the website: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/01/03/even-more-questions-for-pro-lifers/ for a discussion of some of them.

In my own speculations, I have always wondered, if such a definition is adopted, what would that mean for a woman who does not follow adequate prenatal care? Could she be charged and jailed if she smokes during pregnancy or has a beer or doesn't eat properly or doesn't get enough rest? What happens if she does some of these non-healthful things before she knows she is pregnant? Could she be charged retroactively? What would be the implications for our health care system if such a law is passed? What happens for women who do not have health insurance? Would the government be required to provide health care for them in order to provide adequate care for the unborn person? Finally, I wonder if any of these legislators who want to provide a legal definition for the beginning of life have supported bills that would provide adequate comprehensive sex education and birth control options for all, especially for our teenagers, so that unwanted pregnancies could be better avoided?

What do you think? Would you vote to support such a bill?

Quote

I regularly go to the site, http://www.islamicate.com. Last week, this quotation was referenced:

What would happen if religious ideas were subjected to such a debate? I want to conclude with some speculations. A robust, critical discussion of religious ideas might encourage popular faiths more consistent with modern standards of plausibility, more conscious of the historicity of all faiths, and more resistant to the manipulation of politicians belonging to any party. The long moratorium on sustained, public scrutiny of religious ideas has created a vacuum in which easy god-talk flourishes. Religion has no monopoly on foolishness and ignorance, but our convention of giving religious ideas a “pass” has made religion a privileged domain for wackiness in the United States.

This quotation was taken from: Hollinger, David A. “Civic Patriotism and the Critical Discussion of Religious Ideas.” In Debating the Divine: Religion in 21st Century American Democracy, edited by Sally Steenland, 9-15. Century for American Progress, 2008, p. 14.

Obviously, the reference to "such a debate" looks at the way every other proposition in our culture is debated.

So, what would happen if our religious ideas were subject to such a debate? First, it would mean that we who hold religious ideas must think about what we believe and why we believe it. Then, we must be willing and able to engage in dialogue with those who disagree with us. Finally, we have to be willing to consider that some of what we espouse may not really be part of the divine revelation we claim.

I wonder whether any of us is willing to look that closely.

Thinking About Lincoln

With the celebration of President's Day and the cheesy ads for Honest Abe's Mattress Sale and with the election of Barack Obama, the nation seemingly is thinking more and more about our 16th president. BeliefNet has run an "inspiring quotations" from Lincoln piece.

Here are a couple:

"When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That’s my religion."

"The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me."

There has been much debate about Lincoln's religious bona fides. I am no Lincoln scholar, but, from what little I have read about Lincoln and religion, I think many of today's evangelicals would consider him among the lost and not the saved. Yet, the first quote listed above would suggest a strong kinship with the practical religion espoused in the Christian Book of James. Having a theoretical grasp of religion is well and good, but James and Lincoln echo the words of the Hebrew prophets that true religion is in doing good, especially for those who are marginalized in society.

I do not know the source or timing of the second quote. Looking at it out of context, though, it could easily refer to the struggles during the Civil War or, more specifically, to the resolve to end slavery. In either case, the commitment to try to do what is right, whether one is certain of success or not, seems to be missing in many.

It is well for us to remember this man, any time of the year.