An oft-debated decision

At what point does life begin? When does “ensoulment” take place?

When does the embryo become a distinct living thing? Can a fetus be

terminated at any stage of its development? Is such an act “murder?”

Judaism’s answer is that life begins at birth. There is no right

to be born in the Jewish perspective. There is only a right to life

of persons who already exist as independent beings. The fetus is

considered part of the mother, less than human and only potential

life.

Feticide is not homicide. The physical and mental health of the

mother are paramount and Judaism is unequivocally on the side of the

pregnant woman’s privilege to decide for herself. There is a

continental divide between this position and the views of some other

faiths.

The issue of when life begins is a theological consideration.

Different religions have offered a variety of responses within their

own history. The matter of abortion, then, should be upheld as an

aspect of religious teaching, personal morality and individual

conscience. Legislation cannot legislate theology.

The abortion battle is one in which people of moral sensitivity

are found on both sides of the barricades. Since there is a diversity

of opinion on the question of when life begins, it is wrong for the

state to embrace any one viewpoint. Where there is no unanimity as to

the existence of the crime, democracy must not compel. The state has

no right to arbitrate and foist a religious conviction of any one

group upon all citizens. The coercive powers of government should not

be employed in the service of sectarian moral views.

The platforms of national political parties, drives for a

constitutional amendment, and litmus tests for judges are all

features of an effort to make government the handmaiden of sectarian

religious views. In Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court recognized the

diversity of religious and ethical traditions regarding abortion and

wisely held that the government should not be in the position of

choosing any one tradition over another.

No secular body can deal effectively with the range of

metaphysical definitions of what constitutes human life before birth.

RABBI MARK MILLER

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach

I think there is a misconception that “religious people” do not

support abortion rights. In fact, at least 35 denominations and faith

groups have pro-choice positions.

The majority of Catholics do not agree with the official teaching

of the Catholic hierarchy on abortion, and most of the traditions

that officially oppose abortion find similar dissent within their

ranks. I believe the debate has gone on long enough that people are

fairly clear about their beliefs about abortion.

I think there is a consensus that the choice to have an abortion

should be legal. At the same time, there is widespread concern that

more be done to reduce the need for abortion and to provide good

options for women who might want to have a child -- to create the

best possible situations for genuine choice.

Like many other faith traditions, the Buddhist perspective varies

among branches. The Zen tradition encourages each person to make his

or her decisions based on meditative awareness in interpreting

precepts. Each person must make the choice and bear the consequences

for every action.

On the other hand, the Dalai Lama, the leader of one branch of

Tibetan Buddhism, has taken the position that abortion is killing and

is not a moral choice. Where there is such disagreement among people

of good will, I think a pluralistic society must respect the right of

individuals to make their own choices based on their own spiritual

tradition.

THE REV. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

“Choose life” counsels Deuteronomy 30:19. In January 1973, our

Supreme Court said that “choice” is essential in “life.” It ruled on

abortion cases after nationwide advocacy movements cared enough about

the issue to press it to the top of our judicial system. Those

proponents were much more broadly based and highly visible than the

anti-abortion movement was then.

The court’s decision standardized what states could legalize at

that time, when more than a dozen states already had reformed

abortion laws with different and often conflicting provisions; for

example, what was legal in Colorado and New York was illegal in

California.

The 1973 decision mobilized new and much stronger opinions about

abortion reform. The Supreme Court, asked to adjudicate between two

views of the embryo, could not. After Roe vs. Wade, citizens realized

that abortion in the United States was no longer a question of

boundaries -- when may an embryo’s rights be compromised? It was now

a question of principle -- is an embryo a person (and, therefore, a

soul) or something not yet a person? (as the Supreme Court

specifically said in ‘73).

Once this question of personhood was squarely addressed, new

groups of people mobilized into movements on “pro-life” and

“pro-choice” sides of this issue because they saw this concern as one

that would have important and far-reaching consequences (examples

include governmental determination of women’s control of their own

bodies, “active” / “passive” euthanasia and viability of souls).

By 2004, these new issue-oriented groups and technological changes

have once again made abortion a battleground for competing social,

ethical and symbolic values as we Americans do our best to follow

Biblical counsel to “Choose life.”

THE VERY REV.

PETER D. HAYNES

St. Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar