God’s Will And My Body

“You know, this is that issue that every candidate for federal or even state office faces. And I have to certainly stand for life. I know that there are some who disagree, and I respect their point of view. But I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case — of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”Richard Mourdock

I haven’t always been an atheist heathen.  I was raised Catholic, baptized as a baby, received my communion, and was confirmed as a member of the Catholic church as a teenager.  At 16, I would accompany a friend to youth group in the Baptist church he belonged to.  I prayed when things were good and prayed even more when things got rough.  I believed that my past friends and relatives were watching me from heaven and I hoped that I was a good enough person to land there myself.  And then, I went through a string of awful events in my life that no amount of prayer or belief could fix.  I was even shunned by a local Catholic church for having a child out of wedlock.  I lost my belief and I’m okay with it, but I do still understand and respect those who believe in God and would never insult them for it.

I was trying to avoid weighing in on Mourdock’s comment, but it’s been bothering me and I can’t seem to escape it.  It’s a topic that hits close to home in a way for me; I didn’t get pregnant due to a rape or anything of that nature, but I went through some other things on the list of things a woman should never experience.  I also lost 90% of my belongings, including things that are irreplaceable.  The list goes on and is a tad too personal to list here, but the point is that I suffered and was surrounded by people telling me that it was God’s will and that God had a plan for me.  God was pushing me, testing me, and preparing me for something great.  God would never give me more than I could handle, so I shouldn’t worry.  God knows best.  I’m sorry, but I can’t believe that my personal shit storm was part of some greater being’s plan for me.

I understand the belief that life is a gift from God.  The creation of a human life is a special thing regardless of religion and should be respected.  I understand the belief that life begins at conception; I don’t think the fetus can be considered a life until further into the pregnancy, as it is too underdeveloped in those early stages, but I respect those who believe it begins at the moment the sperm and the egg collide.  What I do not and cannot respect is the idea that God has it in His plan for women to be brutally raped and for a pregnancy to result.  I do not believe God would want these women to be mentally scarred and to bear a child that is a constant reminder of this violent and personal attack.  I do not believe that anyone would continue to worship a God that would cause so much pain and suffering, throwing babies into awful situations with abandon.

This is ultimately an issue of whether or not abortion is right and proper.  Is it wrong for a woman to get an abortion regardless of the situation or is it wrong only when abortion is used as a form of birth control due to the irresponsible actions of the man and woman?  Mourdock isn’t the only one who feels abortion is wrong; Republican Todd Akin stated that women cannot get pregnant if they are victims of “legitimate rape” because their bodies will just say no.  It amazes me what people will say when they are pro-life and believe abortion to be a horrible and unthinkable act.  To say that a pregnancy caused by rape is God’s will or to say that a pregnancy is impossible if the rape isn’t legitimate is insulting, incorrect, ignorant, and pretty idiotic.

The National Abortion Federation states that “surgical abortion is one of the safest types of medical procedures. Complications from having a first-trimester aspiration abortion are considerably less frequent and less serious than those associated with giving birth. Early medical abortion (using medications to end a pregnancy) has a similar safety profile.”  Research shows that abortions performed before the 24th week of pregnancy do not cause the fetus any pain since they happen before cells are specialized, so there can be no pain to the fetus because there are no nerve cells formed yet.  In some cases, choosing abortion is a better option than having the baby.  This naturally doesn’t mesh well with everyone’s beliefs, but women should be given the right to choose and to seek out abortions so long as they are done safely in a clinic and done early on in the pregnancy.

Abortion is now and should remain an option for women who are raped and find themselves pregnant while still reeling from their attack.  Women should have the right to rid themselves of every memory of a rape, especially in the case of incest, without being made to feel guilty, to feel like monsters, or to feel like it wasn’t a rape because they secretly wanted it to happen.  I find it wrong when women get 7 or 8 abortions due to their irresponsibility with birth control, but I respect their right to do what they wish with their body and with the fetus prior to it becoming too developed.  In the case of rape, there should be no question of whether a woman has the right to abortion, and especially no nonsense about the father’s rights; once he made the decision to sexually assault a woman, he lost his rights to any child that may have come from that attack.

It frightens me a bit how much and how strongly religion is brought into politics.  There is meant to be a separation between church and government, and we’ve definitely seen evidence of this in our schools, as Christmas celebrations have become treeless holiday parties, prayers are banned, and God must be absent.  We are so extreme about keeping our children in a religion-free learning environment, yet the people who we elect to lead us, both state and countrywide, are allowed and almost expected to make their religion known and to quote their God while proposing policy?

This is not a country where God is an absolute.  Not to be rude, but you can’t prove His existence and you can’t force every person in this nation to accept Him as their one and only God.  As such, this country should not have to hear politicians throw God around while trying to create such serious policies as the legality of abortion and whether or not a fetus is a viable life during the first trimester of pregnancy.  Of course the politician should use their belief system to guide them, but they should not be coming out and stating that X is true because God says so.  That isn’t law.  To a nonbeliever such as myself, that is fiction.  It’s convenient to say God wills it so, and since God cannot be seen, heard, or confirmed, it’s all too easy to say X and Y is His will since it cannot be questioned.

Everyone is free to believe what they will, but when you are a person who has the power to change our nation, you must base your arguments in logic and provide concrete information and solid reasoning.  Had Mourdock simply stated that he has a moral issue with abortions in any case and while he sympathizes with woman in situations of rape and incest, he simply can’t say that he is in full support of abortion, I doubt people would be hitting him as hard as they are right now.  Instead, he chose to throw God into the mix and declare it His will that victims of rape and incest find themselves pregnant.  He made himself look foolish and he reconfirmed my belief that there are too many politicians using God as their scapegoat when they can’t quite find the right argument to use in order to make their point.

I want to conclude with the words of Reverend Susan Russell, Episcopal priest from California:

As a priest and pastor I can’t count the number of times I have met with, talked with, counseled with and engaged with people who struggle to make sense of “the God thing.” Many of those conversations start out with the statement “I don’t believe in God.” But once I get them to tell me about the God they don’t believe in, it turns out I don’t believe in that God either.  Because here’s the deal: If I thought my only choice was between “Richard Mourdock’s God” (who “intends” that a woman bear the child of her rapist) and “No God,” then I would be an atheist faster than Mitt Romney can change positions on a political issue.

But I am not an atheist. The God I know and serve is one of justice, love and compassion — not judgment, exclusion and condemnation. The Jesus I follow is the one who preached peace, challenged poverty and liberated women. And the church I belong to is one that stands proudly in the prophetic tradition — committed to putting our faith into action on the issues of social justice that challenge our generation just as our forbears did in theirs.

As theologically indefensible as I find his position on a woman’s right to choose, the First Amendment protects his right to be whatever kind of Christian or Muslim or Jew or Buddhist or Atheist they choose to be.  What the First Amendment does NOT protect is the right of any of us to write our theology into our Constitution — something Joe Biden got totally right in his vice presidential debate with Paul Ryan“I accept my church’s position that life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and — I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman. I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that women can’t control their body.”

There are many things at stake in this presidential election, but choosing between faith and freedom is not one of them. Protecting the freedom of others to believe what they choose to believe about what “God intends” protects not only our own freedom to believe what “God intends” but defends our democracy from the very real threat of theocracy embodied in the policies of candidates like Richard Mourdock. And that is a battle worth fighting — no matter what you believe or don’t believe about God!


About Jamie C. Baker

“Long time no see. I only pray the caliber of your questions has improved.” - Kevin Smith

Posted on October 26, 2012, in Kids, Life, News and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

  1. This is why Republicans are not a legitimate political party. If Democrats are Pepsi, then Republicans are just Pepsi Lite. Republicans, like Democrats, want to spend money, take on debt, save everyone, expand government…just slightly less. So if you like the taste of Pepsi, why would you ever get Pepsi Lite? Because of this, we only have a one party system, Liberalism vs. Liberalism Lite. The Republican position on abortion is an example of that.

    Nobody can say in one breath that the conception of a child is a gift from god, and then qualify exemptions to that gift based on the manner in which god delivered it. Humans are not to question the will of god, this is written, so if the will of god is to provide his gift through rape or incest, we must accept this as his will. Any religious person who wants to challenge this must admit that god is okay with us playing armchair quarterback by questioning the entire bible, his will, and his master plan. Since the bible is clear on god’s will, and since nobody can talk to god, nobody can admit this, at least not without committing heresy.

    Therefore, if you believe in god, you must unquestionably believe that pregnancy, a gift from god, is a gift regardless of how it was conceived. If you don’t believe that then you are a heretic and have failed in your belief system. The majority of Republicans are heretics.

    Because the Democrats have sewn up the black, illegal immigrant, poor, lazy, stupid, labor union, pro-environment, pro-choice, pro-gay, and government worker voting blocks (items in this list are mutually exclusive), there was not much left for Republicans to suck up to for votes. We all know that the only thing left for the Republicans, besides perhaps the military, was the older, working or retired, marginally self-sufficient, middle class, religious white voter. Also known as the Baby Boomer Generation which, aside from bankrupting the next three generations by voting itself gobs of money, is also one of the largest voting blocks still breathing.

    At that point, the Republicans had to make a choice. They could have embraced Libertarianism and spoke to the people as our saviours of free-market capitalism, of limited government, of States rights and of balanced budgets. But because Republicans are no different than Democrats when it comes to continuing the destruction of capitalism, the expansion of Government, the obliteration of States rights and decades of future deficits and debt, they could not, or would not, support the reversal of the destruction that previous Democrats and Republicans have worked so hard to pour the foundation of.

    That left them with religious piety. Since they could not reach the working man based on his economic and financial concerns because they don’t care about those any more than the Democrats do, and since the Democrats have every other voting block on lock, they decided to use religion and chose the most popular one, of course.

    You mentioned seperation of church & state. The Founders defined that to mean that the Federal Government could not declare a National Religion, much the way the King of England had done which caused the exodus that started this country. Bible verses or creches at City Hall are not what the Founders were concerned about despite the over achievers that get all twisted up about it. The Founders were concerned about religious oppression and intolerance at the Federal level, only. The Republicans, by appealing so energectically and unilaterally to Christians and Catholics is creating a de facto National Religion because it is understood that laws that affect all Americans will be created, or reversed, based on a religious component that not all Americans believe in if Republicans gain control.

    Aside from the problem other religions, and non-religious people will have with this, are the social issue implications of such a position of which there are many, and of which opinions are as varied as grains of sand which is exactly WHY The Founders did not want social issues taken up at the Federal Level as it is very hard to separate social issues from religion in many instances. If we had done what we were told by The Founders, and enforced the Constitution, and left social issues to the States, it would make no difference what Republicans thought or their religion, but since we didn’t, and it isn’t, now it matters, to all of our detriment.

    For Liberalism Lite, this is a real problem.

    As more and more of the population tempers their religious convictions, questionning the church’s position on gay rights, marriage and abortion, more and more people will reject Republicanism condemning it as an extension of closed-minded religious fundamentalism for ancient white people.

    Then what? Liberalism Lite has nothing else to offer. Tax cuts? What for? More guns? More tanks? More wars? That is all Republicans have to offer.

    Libertarians like myself and Thomas Jefferson have been left out in the cold. Neither party will represent us. We believe that the right of the individual is the only right that exists.

    But the (D) Liberals and (R) Liberal Lites believe that some individuals have more rights than others, and from this line of thinking all the evils and twisted political machinations that are enslaving us and destroying this country have been born. Every single one of them.

  2. I should probably add full disclosure to my comment above. I am an Atheist so my personal position, based on of course, Libertarianism, is that the right of the individual is supreme and that States rights trump the Federal Government because the Constitution does not authorize the Federal Government to have an opinion on this matter.

    Therefore, because I am Atheist my position is that a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body. If a religious person was a Libertarian they may believe that the right of the child at conception is the same as the right of the mother and therefore there is a conflict as both individuals have the same right but as a Libertarian they would have to leave that question up to each individual State to decide, not Congress, not the President, not the Supreme Court.

    This is how The Founders, in their brilliance, made sure that the entire population of Americans could not be forced under the boot of Tyranny by any one particular group, religious or otherwise, from imposing their view on everyone, all at the same time. By allowing the States to decide, we could move about the country freely going to the States that represented those things that are most important to us.

    We have, over time, destroyed States rights and now the majority not only votes itself more money from the minority but is free to impose its views unilaterally against all Americans, from which there is no escape.

  3. Hello.This post was really interesting, particularly since I was looking for thoughts on this issue last Tuesday.

  4. Thanks a lot for the blog article.Thanks Again. Cool

Have an opinion or a comment? Weigh in!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: