Tonight was another good CES fireside in which Elder Holland urged the young singles of the church to plant their feet boldly where they stood and dare to keep their standards high. It was an uplifting, entertaining, emotional fireside and he had some amazing stories and lessons to share. I really admire Elder Holland's emphatic, almost frightening conviction with which he invites and encourages listeners to live on a higher plain.
However, I have just one or two little issues I took with aspects of his message. These may or may not be motivated by the fact that I've had a really bad attitude and some really caustic feelings towards the Church and that my pride has been puffed up recently by who-knows-what, but here they are.
First, he encouraged us to be more loving. There's nothing I hate more than being loving.
Just kidding.
No, he encouraged us to be loving and free of judgment towards those who live different lifestyles, have different standards, dress differently, etc. He illustrated his point by sharing a story of love shared towards a spiky-haired, pierced and tattooed woman who attended a stake fireside he gave a number of years ago. Awesome. I am pro-love, so no qualms yet.
However, in the next sentence, he encouraged us to remember to continue to judge righteously. He likened our righteous judgments to those of parents who prevent their children from eating too much junk or running into a busy street, where no level-headed person would ever censure a parent for "taking away their children's agency" in this way.
He encouraged us to do the same, to prevent harm or accident from befalling us by keeping good company, taking care of our bodies and avoiding sin and temptation. So far so good, on paper at least.
However, in practice, I've noticed that Mormons as a culture are mostly incapable of giving righteous judgment without, in his words, "checking their religion at the door." We tend to censure, scorn and ostracize those with whom we disagree and our actions cross from "righteous indignation" into hate. Elder Holland himself said these words with what I felt was a hint of venom, the slightest tinge of sardonic scoffing towards those to whom he was referring, those outside our church and its standards.
He continued by encouraging us to be active in political discourse and stand up for our rights. Again, I totally agreed, until he said that we were justified in taking away others' agency if it was a matter of celestial, eternal importance. Again, he used a metaphor involving running red lights. Paraphrasing, "I as a good driver know that running red lights is wrong, but why should we penalize those who choose to run red lights? Isn't that taking away their agency?"
His point was that it is necessary to take away agency in matters like these, but the fundamental difference between his metaphor and the issues to which we all know he was referring (gay rights, abortion, etc.) is that running a red light can cause irreparable harm to someone who had no control over your actions. In exercising your agency to run a red light, you can take away another person's agency to live without their permission.
However, with gay marriage, one man is not taking away another man's agency to marry; rather, two people are willingly entering into that contract with one another. No one's agency is being taken away. You might disagree with their choice, but it has no affect on anyone but themselves. This argument breaks down somewhat in the argument about abortion, as it could be argued that you are removing a fetus' right to live, but still, there is palpable difference between reality and metaphor.
Other than that, I really enjoyed his fireside. I don't know what I'm going to do about it because I'm still so miserable at church that it takes all of my energy to attend, but here's hoping that I'll have some urge to be a better disciple due to Elder Holland's convicting words.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Abortion
This is probably an unconventional topic for a gay Mormon blog, but I recently read an article in the news today that makes me feel like I should stand up more for the things I believe in. But, since I'm at my core a searcher, I'm also going to look at the other side as well.
Ariel and Deborah Levy have three children: two boys and a girl. Four years ago, shortly after her birth, their youngest was diagnosed with Down syndrome. Deborah was not expecting to get pregnant with Kalanit at age 34, so the parents had several tests done to ensure that Deborah and Kalanit would be healthy through the entire pregnancy; all tests came back normal. However, shortly after her birth, Kalanit was diagnosed with DS. Now, four years later, the Levys have sued the hospital where Deborah and Kalanit received prenatal care for "wrongful birth," under the assumption that staff botched the tests and that had the family known that their daughter would have DS, they would have terminated the pregnancy. The Levys were awarded $2.9 million in the lawsuit, which is the estimated cost of care over Kalanit's expected lifetime. (Source 1, Source 2)
After reading about these events, I was initially horrified. The Levys' attorneys attested that they love their daughter very much, something that seems at odds with the sentiment that, given a second chance, they would have aborted their daughter. And, knowing that children with DS are often given less credit than they deserve regarding how much they actually understand about their world, my heart broke for little Kalanit, knowing that she probably had some knowledge of her parents' lawsuit. What an awful thing to hear from your parents: "We would have aborted you if we'd known."
The backlash against the couple has been predictably fierce. They've received death threats and the comments on the news articles are generally derisive and critical of the Court's decision and the Levys' actions. At first, I admittedly fell into that camp (and to be honest, I'm still mostly in that camp). But after pondering it, I understand how they could say that they love their daughter and still would have chosen to abort her. But I think their reasoning is misguided. (Additionally, I feel like if they should be paid for the hardships their daughter will face, then fairness would dictate that they owe the hospital money for all of the love and positive aspects of her existence.)
From my viewpoint, the argument for abortion of a child with DS is that it will spare the child from a shortened lifetime of feeling different and excluded, especially if the child has a significant level of handicap from the syndrome, like Kalanit. However, my argument against this point is that quality of life isn't determined by how many trophies you can win, by the job you have, or by the car you [may or may not be able to] drive. It's determined by the people that love you and the love you are able to give. And, as the old stereotype goes, people with DS are capable of a lot of love if they have a family who loves them back. Therefore, a parent who doesn't want a child with DS has a pretty compelling option in front of them: adoption.
In fact, I think that option is open for 95% of the reasons arguing for abortion. Unwed women, teenage mothers, and rape victims can turn their mistakes or the terrible decisions of others into great blessings for childless couples everywhere. I admit that this is a slight oversimplification, because I'm not sure of the ratio between childless couples and abortions (perhaps those children would remain unwanted), but according to my anecdotal evidence based on every accidental pregnancy I've ever witnessed, each child ended up with a wonderful adoptive family.
As an additional caveat to my previous statement, I think that in a case of rape, a decision to abort the child is completely justified. Asking a woman to take potential health risks to deliver a child in whose creation she had no say is unfair to her, but I still think that victims can do a lot of good and give an amazing gift if they feel so inclined. A friend of mine is adopting a rape baby and the mother, in my eyes, is one of the most selfless women I have ever heard of.
I'm still refining my opinions on whether or not serious degenerative conditions like spina bifida detected in utero justify an abortion. Those incredibly painful diseases aren't readily remedied with love like DS is and often, the child doesn't live past toddlerhood anyway. That one I'll have to think on more.
Alright, now that I've said my piece using logical ideas, I'm going to back it up with my testimony. I think it's the height of hubris to decide whose life is worth living and whose isn't. There's value in all life, even the most painful. There are justifications behind abortion, but by and large, the Lord has sent these children to the earth and has given them the chance to grow and become, regardless of the circumstances under which they are born. By and large, abortion is wrong. It's a willful, petulant display that we know better than the Lord and that this child is incapable of being happy or of bringing happiness to others. It's the acme of pride, the pinnacle of irresponsibility. Without vilifying the individuals who have participated in it, I wholly and completely disagree with its use as birth control and strongly contend with it when it's used to "spare" a child or a family from hardship. Sparing people from hardship is God's job and if you take it into your hands, what you might actually be sparing someone from is a life that is full of spiritual growth and fortitude.
Those who irresponsibly use abortion may not be bad people; in fact, they may genuinely and selflessly be concerned with what is best for the child. But, in my opinion, those decisions are based on misinformation.
As always, I invite contending opinions and personal stories. Share here or at gay mormon pioneer at gmail dot com.
Ariel and Deborah Levy have three children: two boys and a girl. Four years ago, shortly after her birth, their youngest was diagnosed with Down syndrome. Deborah was not expecting to get pregnant with Kalanit at age 34, so the parents had several tests done to ensure that Deborah and Kalanit would be healthy through the entire pregnancy; all tests came back normal. However, shortly after her birth, Kalanit was diagnosed with DS. Now, four years later, the Levys have sued the hospital where Deborah and Kalanit received prenatal care for "wrongful birth," under the assumption that staff botched the tests and that had the family known that their daughter would have DS, they would have terminated the pregnancy. The Levys were awarded $2.9 million in the lawsuit, which is the estimated cost of care over Kalanit's expected lifetime. (Source 1, Source 2)
After reading about these events, I was initially horrified. The Levys' attorneys attested that they love their daughter very much, something that seems at odds with the sentiment that, given a second chance, they would have aborted their daughter. And, knowing that children with DS are often given less credit than they deserve regarding how much they actually understand about their world, my heart broke for little Kalanit, knowing that she probably had some knowledge of her parents' lawsuit. What an awful thing to hear from your parents: "We would have aborted you if we'd known."
The backlash against the couple has been predictably fierce. They've received death threats and the comments on the news articles are generally derisive and critical of the Court's decision and the Levys' actions. At first, I admittedly fell into that camp (and to be honest, I'm still mostly in that camp). But after pondering it, I understand how they could say that they love their daughter and still would have chosen to abort her. But I think their reasoning is misguided. (Additionally, I feel like if they should be paid for the hardships their daughter will face, then fairness would dictate that they owe the hospital money for all of the love and positive aspects of her existence.)
From my viewpoint, the argument for abortion of a child with DS is that it will spare the child from a shortened lifetime of feeling different and excluded, especially if the child has a significant level of handicap from the syndrome, like Kalanit. However, my argument against this point is that quality of life isn't determined by how many trophies you can win, by the job you have, or by the car you [may or may not be able to] drive. It's determined by the people that love you and the love you are able to give. And, as the old stereotype goes, people with DS are capable of a lot of love if they have a family who loves them back. Therefore, a parent who doesn't want a child with DS has a pretty compelling option in front of them: adoption.
In fact, I think that option is open for 95% of the reasons arguing for abortion. Unwed women, teenage mothers, and rape victims can turn their mistakes or the terrible decisions of others into great blessings for childless couples everywhere. I admit that this is a slight oversimplification, because I'm not sure of the ratio between childless couples and abortions (perhaps those children would remain unwanted), but according to my anecdotal evidence based on every accidental pregnancy I've ever witnessed, each child ended up with a wonderful adoptive family.
As an additional caveat to my previous statement, I think that in a case of rape, a decision to abort the child is completely justified. Asking a woman to take potential health risks to deliver a child in whose creation she had no say is unfair to her, but I still think that victims can do a lot of good and give an amazing gift if they feel so inclined. A friend of mine is adopting a rape baby and the mother, in my eyes, is one of the most selfless women I have ever heard of.
I'm still refining my opinions on whether or not serious degenerative conditions like spina bifida detected in utero justify an abortion. Those incredibly painful diseases aren't readily remedied with love like DS is and often, the child doesn't live past toddlerhood anyway. That one I'll have to think on more.
Alright, now that I've said my piece using logical ideas, I'm going to back it up with my testimony. I think it's the height of hubris to decide whose life is worth living and whose isn't. There's value in all life, even the most painful. There are justifications behind abortion, but by and large, the Lord has sent these children to the earth and has given them the chance to grow and become, regardless of the circumstances under which they are born. By and large, abortion is wrong. It's a willful, petulant display that we know better than the Lord and that this child is incapable of being happy or of bringing happiness to others. It's the acme of pride, the pinnacle of irresponsibility. Without vilifying the individuals who have participated in it, I wholly and completely disagree with its use as birth control and strongly contend with it when it's used to "spare" a child or a family from hardship. Sparing people from hardship is God's job and if you take it into your hands, what you might actually be sparing someone from is a life that is full of spiritual growth and fortitude.
Those who irresponsibly use abortion may not be bad people; in fact, they may genuinely and selflessly be concerned with what is best for the child. But, in my opinion, those decisions are based on misinformation.
As always, I invite contending opinions and personal stories. Share here or at gay mormon pioneer at gmail dot com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Related Posts
