有关abortion religion and morality的文章
The controversyThe morality and legality of abortion is an important topic in applied ethics and is also discussed by legal scholars and theologians. Important facts about abortion are also researched by sociologists and historians.
Abortion has existed in most societies, although it has often been opposed by institutionalized governments and religions. In the 20th century abortion became legally accepted in most of Europe and in the United States (In some European countries, such as Germany and Spain, abortion is technically illegal even in the first trimester, although prosecution typically does not occur.) Additionally, abortion is legal and accepted in China, India and other populous countries.
The Catholic Church remains opposed to the procedure, however, and in certain countries, notably the United States and the (predominantly Catholic) Republic of Ireland, the controversy is still extremely active, to the extent that even the names of the respective positions are subject to heated debate. While those on both sides of the argument are generally peaceful, if heated, in their advocacy of their positions, the debate is sometimes characterized by violence.
The central dilemma
The central dilemma in the abortion debate is the clash of presumed or perceived rights. On one hand is the right to life, and on the other is a woman's right to control her own body. One part of the issue involves defining when a fetus becomes a person, and thus gains the inherent right to life. Even if that could be agreed upon, that right must be weighed against the rights of the mother.
How can these respective rights be balanced?
The extreme "pro-life" argument is that an embryo (and later, a fetus) is a human life—innocent and worthy of protection—from the moment of conception and, possessing a right to life that must be respected. Therefore, abortion under any circumstance is the killing of an innocent person—murder—and thus wrong.
The extreme "pro-choice" argument is that a woman's right to control her body always outweighs any right claimed for the fetus, and that abortion is acceptable under any circumstance.
Outside of the extremes, balance can sometimes be reached on certain issues. For instance, some "pro-life" advocates do not consider contraceptive drugs (such as the morning-after pill) to be abortion (although it is true that contraceptive drugs do not prevent conception). Also, some "pro-life" advocates tolerate abortion in cases where the mother's life or health are at stake. "Pro-choice" advocates sometimes accept a ban on abortions of "viable" fetuses, which are those that are old enough to survive outside of the mother's womb (although debate ensues as to when a fetus is viable and what constitutes viability).
Underlying this debate is another debate, over the role of the state: to what extent should the state interfere with a woman's pregnancy to protect the public interest, or to what extent should the state protect the general interest, even if it means controlling a woman's pregnancy? This is a major issue in a number of countries, such as India and China, which have tried to enforce forms of birth control (including forced sterilization), and the United States, which historically has limited access to birth control.
The many and varied positions about abortion
The competing labels for positions tends to blur over important differences in what can be advocated about abortion. In discussions of abortion it is of paramount importance to distinguish the variety of conclusions that can be advocated on the subject. First, consider the unequivocal positions:
Abortion is always morally permissible.
Abortion is always immoral (morally impermissible).
Abortion ought to be legal in every instance.
Abortion ought to be illegal in every instance.
There is clearly a difference, for example, between the views that abortion is immoral and that it should be illegal. It is possible to hold the views both that every instance of abortion is immoral and also that it should never be illegal.
There are, in fact, several other positions that represent even greater extremes than these, though they are not, strictly speaking, positions about abortion per se. On the one hand, there are some persons who believe that birth control is morally impermissible; they argue that the choice of whether a child should be created should always be left to God. On the other hand, there are persons such as professor Peter Singer, who thinks that life of an infant is less important than that of an older child or an adult, and that infanticide is, in some cases, morally permissible and should, in those cases, be legally permissible. And some take the position that abortion ought to be compulsory, either in certain situations — the Twelve Tables of Roman law required that deformed children be put to death — or as a population control measure, as in the People's Republic of China.
There are also several more qualified positions about abortion, which represent mid-ground between the relatively extreme positions that abortion is always moral, or never, and that it should always be legal, or never. That is, the qualified positions are that abortion is sometimes moral and at other times not, and in some cases it should be legal and in other cases not. Examples of these positions are:
Abortion in the first trimester (or before the embryo or fetus is viable outside the womb) is morally permissible; abortion after that time is immoral.
Abortion in the first trimester (or before the embryo or fetus is viable outside the womb) ought to be legal; abortion after that time ought to be illegal.
Abortion up to the third trimester (so-called late-term abortion) is morally permissible; in the third trimester, it is immoral.
Abortion up to the third trimester ought to be legal; in the third trimester, it ought to be illegal.
Abortion should always be illegal, except in some special circumstances—for example, when the mother's long-term health or life is at stake, when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or when the infant is deformed or likely to be born disabled.
The latter position represents a point of serious controversy among abortion foes, who feel that, in those cases where the completion of a pregnancy would likely result in severe permanent physical injury or death for the mother, abortion is morally permissible and/or should (continue to) be legally permitted. Some oppose even this exception, however. Similarly, when pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, the situation created—where the mother is bearing a rapist's child, or her close relative's—is regarded as so morally repugnant that there is no moral obligation, and should be no legal obligation, to continue the pregnancy. Again, some people will not make an exception even in such cases. Some justify this with the severe depression, anxiety, and regret women may experience post-abortion, or by saying that the child has the right to be born regardless of the circumstances of conception.
The Situation in the United States of America
In many countries, but most strikingly in the United States, the scientific, religious, and philosophical communities have remained polarized on most of these issues.
The political debate tends to center on questions of legality, though such debates are often based on moral questions. In the United States, the political debate centers on two questions:
Should "partial-birth abortions" (or "Intact dilation and extraction") for medical reasons related to the mother's health continue to be legal?
Should first-trimester abortions on demand continue to be legal? In the United States on a federal level, this is tantamount to asking, "Should Roe v. Wade continue to be supported?"
As of November 5, 2003, United States President George W. Bush signed into law the "Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act" which makes it illegal for anyone to perform the procedure. However, some abortion practitioners represented by the ACLU have already filed a lawsuit protesting the law. So, at present, the question still has a viable political life in the United States.
The second question is a matter of deep concern for many, but the chances of Roe v. Wade being overturned are low at present. Related issues such as requiring parental consent for minors, waiting periods, and education, are also in contention in some states. Other questions, such as federal funding of abortions, and acts such as the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" also are in contention in the United States.
The controversy over abortion remains a very emotionally charged issue, and difficult to resolve.
The issue is actually more complicated than this, as opponents to a "health of the mother" exception contend that legally this would create a loophole legalizing any abortion. These opponents also claim that the procedure which is being banned is never necessary to preserve a woman's health.
Modern arguments about the legality and morality of abortion
Briefly, the basis of the view that all, or almost all, abortion should be illegal is the belief that the life of a person—and all political rights attending it—begins at conception. Given that, one is invited to consider the common assumption that each innocent person is entitled to the protection of society against the deliberate destruction of its life by another person. The latter is a rough statement of the right to life, which is guaranteed in many basic legal and political documents such as the United States Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is the basis of laws against murder. Thus, the pro-life view is that elective abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent person and therefore not morally justifiable, regardless of the law. But since the law should be consistent with morality, elective abortion ought to be regarded legally as murder. Again, this is the basic argument against the legality of abortion. There exist people who morally disapprove of abortion but who, for other reasons, deny that abortion should be legally proscribed. This will be explained below.
One could also oppose the legality of abortion on nonreligious grounds, which is a strategy employed by those who believe that their personal religious considerations have no proper place in public policy debate. One could say, for example, that the proposition that all humans are persons and that because a human life begins at conception so too does personhood--and the moral rights that entails. This is a genetic view of "human life" which begins with the union of parental gametes that creates a new individual with a distinct genetic identity, initiating the process that ends with death. Proponents of this view recognize that there is a period of several months during which the child is biologically dependent upon the mother to sustain its life, but they regard the obligation of a parent to protect the life of its child as one which ought to be an uncontroversial societal norm. Opponents argue that biologists are by no means unanimous in their agreement about when a human life begins. Other views of the human identity place the beginning of human life at later time. For example, the embryological view holds that individual human life begins when an embryo no longer is capable of forming twins, approximately 12 days after conception.
Those who believe that abortion is morally permissible, and should remain legally permissible, typically have a different view of the issue as to when a human becomes a person that deserves a right to life. Many hold that an embryo or fetus which is incapable of surviving outside the mother's womb (a status generally reached no sooner than 17 weeks into gestation) is not recognizable as a human life separate from the mother's body, while others hold that human life starts with the development of a nervous system. Those opposed to abortion at any stage counter by saying that it is arbitrary when an embryo or fetus is to be considered a separate human life, and that future technology may make it possible for a human life to develop entirely outside of a mother's body. Others argue that a fetus does not have the capacity for thought, self awareness, etc. required for personhood and thus does not have a strong right to life, in line with common treatment of animals and severely brain damaged (vegetative) humans.
For those who believe that abortion should be legally permissible (regardless of its morality), one of the most common arguments is based on privacy rights. Abortion rights advocates hold that a woman's right to determine what happens with her body (including whether to carry a pregnancy to term) is private, is not to be interfered with by outside influences, and negates all rights of her offspring. This point was given an interesting formulation by the philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson: if one were to find oneself suddenly attached to another, adult human being, and in such a position such that, if one were to remove oneself, that other person would die, it is by no means clear that one would be obligated, morally or legally, to continue to be attached to that person. Abortion opponents find this argument unconvincing since the mother would only be "temporarily" attached to another human being- it is not as if the woman would be forced to be attached to the other indefinitely. Moreover, even if the attachment was permanent, from a legal and moral standpoint the argument given by Thompson is fallacious; using siamese twins as an example, for one twin to remove him or herself from the other when the known consequence would be death for the other it is indeed considered murder legally and morally. (See Himma 1999 for discussion of this point). Also, given the logic used, the adult human being the woman suddenly finds herself attached to would possess as much right as the woman to detach him or herself from the woman even if the woman dies as a result. Also against this argument the objection is frequently made that in about 99 percent of all cases (rape and incest account for about 1 percent) it was, after all, the mother who made a choice which caused an embryo to become attached to her, and therefore the analogy is imperfect. Others respond by modifying the analogy, arguing that women who become pregnant unintentionally were certainly not choosing to become attached to a fetus, and thus have a right to abortion.
Another common argument is political pragmatism. Where abortion is illegal, some women nonetheless seek to end their pregnancies and will resort to unsafe methods that endanger their own lives—so-called "back-alley" abortions. Since modern medical testing makes it possible to estimate early in pregnancy whether a child might be born with severe defects, some abortion rights advocates also argue that requiring such children to be born would be an unnecessary burden on society as well as the parents--and might even be an immoral offense to the childen themselves. This, however, raises another contentious moral issue of "selective" abortion, where parents might choose to terminate a pregnancy based on desired traits of the child (such as sex) that can be determined before birth.
Some abortion rights advocates point to global population pressures which many hold responsible for endemic hunger, overcrowding, and environmental impacts; they believe that making abortion illegal would result in further such pressures and would exacerbate these problems. They also sometimes refer to the difficulties and often miseries experienced by the children and their mothers, when the mothers are often single and impoverished. An increase of children born to such situations could result in an increase in social ills, including increases in crime, broadening of the population base of those living below the poverty line, and ballooning of the state welfare rolls. A related argument holds that the lower birth rates brought about by legal abortion result in fewer people competing for the jobs that are available, thus reducing the unemployment rate and creating labor shortages that drive up wages, particularly for the lowest-paid workers. Abortion opponents observe that a related rationale led China to adopt its "one child" policy, which has led not only to increased abortions and sterilizations, but also to live baby daughters being secretly abandoned in hopes that the next child will be a son. When the answer to social ills is to reduce the number of people, the argument goes, other even less palatable ways of reducing existing populations may begin to look attractive as well. Abortion opponents also point out the abortion proponents rarely suggest killing infants and todders as a solution to hunger, overcrowding, and environmental impacts. In response those that favor legalization of abortion point out that sex selection is possible in the United States but no preference for either sex is seen, rather families generally choose balanced sex ratios—sometimes using abortion to achieve this result. Moreover, many proponents of abortion believe that babies are persons and thus infanticide would be immoral.
Judaism
Judaism holds that the fetus is not yet a full human being, and thus killing a fetus is not murder. Abortion, when necessary, take place before the first 40 days, when the fetus is referred to "mere water". (Christians who agree with these Jewish views may refer to this idea as abortion before the "quickening" of the soul by God in the fetus.)
Jewish tradition is sensitive to the sanctity of life, and does not permit abortion on demand. However, it sanctions abortion under some circumstances because it does not regard the fetus as an autonomous person. This is based partly on the Bible (Exodus 21:22-23), which prescribes monetary damages when a person injures a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage. The Mishna (Ohalot 7:6) explicitly indicates that one is to abort a fetus if the continuation of pregnancy might imperil the life of the mother. Later authorities have differed as to how far we might go in defining the peril to the mother in order to justify abortion, and at what stage of gestation a fetus is considered having a soul.
Orthodox Judaism
Orthodox Judaism disapproves of abortion in any other circumstance than to save the mother's life, although a recent rabbinical authority holds the minority view that a child with known Tay-Sachs disease may be aborted due to its dismal prognosis. This view has not been accepted by most of the present authorities. Psychiatric disease in the mother and rape as the cause of pregnancy are debated by the Acharonim (post-1550 authorities), but generally abortion is only performed if there is actual danger to the life of the mother.
Conservative Judaism
Conservative Judaism: the Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards takes the view that an abortion is justifiable if a continuation of pregnancy might cause the mother severe physical or psychological harm, or when the fetus is judged by competent medical opinion as severely defective. The fetus is a life in the process of development, and the decision to abort should never be taken lightly.
Before reaching her final decision, the mother should consult with the father, other members of her family, her physician, her spiritual leader and any other person who can help her in assessing the many grave legal and moral issues involved.
Christianity
Early Christians lived under Roman law which permitted both abortion and infanticide. Given the generally ineffective or dangerous methods of abortion available at the time, unwanted children were sometimes carried to term by Roman women, and abandoned to die of exposure. Unlike infanticide, to which the early Christians reacted with intervention and strongly opposed teaching, it is less certain how the earliest Christians regarded abortion. Some argue that writings against infanticide are sometimes mistaken for anti-abortion teaching. Others believe that these works provide evidence that early Christians saw no difference in principle, between abortion and infanticide. The four gospels offer no statements about abortion as such, and offer no new prohibitions. Many early Christian writers condemned abortion more explicitly. The Didache, which some scholars date between 70 and 170, comments on the commandment, "you shall do nothing to any man that you would not wish to be done to yourself", by saying,
... Commit no murder, adultery, sodomy, fornication, or theft. Practise no magic, sorcery, abortion, or infanticide. ...
In the second century, Tertullian defended Christianity from accusations of practicing human sacrifice by writing,
"How can we kill a man when we are those who say that all who use abortifacients are homicides, and will account to God for their abortions as for the killing of men? For the fetus in the womb is not an animal."
By the third century, abortion is commonly listed among the crimes of men, but some wonder whether Christians may have allowed exceptions to their teachings against it. In the fourth century, Gregory of Nyssa wrote that Christians believe that there is one principle of life from embryo to adulthood (as opposed to two, as assumed in Roman law). In the same century, John Chrysostom denounced married men who encouraged their prostitutes to get abortions, saying,
"You do not let a harlot remain only a harlot, but make her a murderess as well."
The view that life begins at conception is often, but not necessarily, based on religious belief. For example, the Roman Catholic Church—one of the most vocal opponents of abortion—holds that the soul enters the zygote at conception (or a soul is then created). A naïve interpretation of this view has led some opponents of it to ask what happens in borderline cases, such as when a zygote splits into two or more cells (as when identical twins are formed). According to Catholic belief, in such cases each zygote has already had a soul made for them. Catholics believe that God knows every person that will be created, so the problem of souls entering zygotes is moot.
Roman Catholicism
The official Catholic view (articulated in Humanae Vitae), shared by some other Christians, is that interference with the human reproductive process is sinful and therefore forbidden—when souls are to enter and exit the world is a matter for God to determine, not man. Abortion should never be used as a method of birth control, they say. In the more traditional religious view, an acceptable limited means of practicing birth control would be to abstain from intercourse outside of marriage; commonly, "natural family planning" and sterilization are advocated for those for whom other forms of birth control are forbidden by religion, although the Catholic Church also frowns on sterilization if its purpose is solely as contraception and not for other health reasons.
Eastern Orthodox
While the Orthodox do not share Catholicism's objections to all contraception, they agree that life begins at conception, and that abortion is the taking of a human life. This view is reflected in their observance of the Feast of the Annunciation, when Jesus was conceived, and also of the feast of the conception of the Virgin Mary and the feast of the conception of John the Forerunner. Today, many Orthodox leaders have also spoken out against euthanasia and human cloning as related practices that reflect a devaluation of human life.
Protestant
Protestant views on abortion vary considerably. In Evangelical churches, especially in the United States, the view is widely held that abortion is infanticide and therefore always wrong. However this is not a universal view, and few Evangelical churches hold it as a doctrine. The Bible contains no specific prohibition on abortion, although several passages are widely held to indicate that life begins at conception, in which case a ban on abortion follows logically. There is considerable disagreement on this point as well, however.
Few Protestant churches agree with the principle of 'abortion on demand'. More liberal protestants usually agree that there should be restrictions on abortion, and disagree over exactly what those restrictions should be. Anglican churches usually fall into this category.
Islam
Islam discourages abortion, but allows it as permissible under certain circumstances.
Hinduism
Hinduism teaches that abortion thwarts a soul in its progress towards God, like any other act of violence. It teaches that a fetus is a living, conscious person deserving of protection. Hinduism has traditionally taught that a soul is reincarnated and enters the embryo at the time the embryo is conceived.
Buddhism
Buddha advised against the taking of conscious life, as he identified such activity as a cause of suffering. Buddhism generally asserts that conscious life begins before birth. Therefore, many buddhists consider abortion to be equivalent to infanticide. 谢谢了，很有用的资料！ 多谢夸奖，集体的智慧一定能把美国佬摆平！
大家共同努力！！
我也来一个吧！！
Bill Clinton's Moralityby Bob Wilson
Morality is a human concept that doubtlessly evolves in some ways over time, and yet many would say that the basic precepts remain constant. What is a moral act to some, might seem amoral or immoral to others. Examples: Dr. Kavorkian. Abortion. Homosexuality. Politicians are not a class of people that come to mind when high precepts of morality are mentioned. By their very nature, politicians seem to have become the antithesis of moral people. They seem to pander for votes, and waffle on tough issues. A politician who dares to assert strong beliefs is more often than not, considered "extreme." Politicians tend to become weather vanes. Bill Clinton is a master politician.
To me, a moral person is someone who is honest and consistent. A moral person is one whose viewpoints track with some kind of basic philosophical creed. Having core beliefs which are based in a fundamental assumption that your beliefs are worthwhile and result in the advancement of the human condition is part of what I call "morality." It is perfectly reasonable to be liberal, or conservative, and still lay proper claim to some degree of morality. Morality does not require a belief in God. Religion, indeed, when viewed in a historical perspective, seems to have no corner on the term morality. Religions may tend to give structure and substance for those who search for a "moral anchor" but for too many, religion becomes a control mechanism and ultimately, a perversion. Morality does require that whatever underlying principles and philosophy one has, is displayed in every day action. Mother Teresa seems to be a "moral" person. Many other religious figures are somewhat dubious, by virtue of their lifestyle. Acting in harmony with basic principles over time, whether it brings favor or not with other people, commands respect. Being able to accept the attacks of others while maintaining one's belief system, and being capable of resisting the tendency to compromise one's core beliefs to effect gain in status, favor, or money is a primary tenant to "morality" in my opinion. Accepting others in their sincere beliefs, and the ability to change when change is indicated through the reasoning process or the attainment of knowledge is not contradictory to morality. Not intentionally inflicting harm on other people who are not threatening you, is consistent with morality. Being consistently honest and truthful is certainly moral.
Morality is defined differently by many people. I believe that the majority of American people would have a difficult time defining morality. Most would get hung up with religion and God. In so doing, all objectivity is lost. Jewish-Christian concepts tend to equate God with morality. It involves the concept that humans, being imperfect, have a lot of excuses to not be moral--at times, and when it becomes convenient, a request of forgiveness and heartfelt request for salvation will make everything better, and "morality" is reinstated. What a great system. It really favors despots though.
To comment on the morality of another individual, you must equivocate. Certainly, no one could be accused of total immorality (much less total morality.) A sliding scale, or judgmental "graph" of relative morality could be assigned to most any person. Is Bill Clinton a "moral" person? Relative to what? By what measure? According to whose values?
If you measure him against his predecessors in the office of the presidency, you might easily build a case that he is the least moral in post World War 2 history. If you judge a person by his close associates, a rather easy conclusion is that he is without morals. You could compare indictments, improper appropriation of files, special prosecutors, bimbo eruptions, real estate/bank fraud, deaths under suspicious circumstances, scandals involving close associates, his wife, drug tests of staff members, prostitutes and top aids, and so on. All these things should be taken in the context with the fact that he has the entire mainstream press in his camp. What events would be on the nightly news if he were a "contract Republican?" Remember the entire Watergate "scandal" was over speculation that Nixon became aware that there had occurred a break in at a Democrat headquarters office by some low level political operatives intent on getting files, and dirt on the Dems. Nixon's crime was that he allegedly "covered up" the fact that he became aware. The news media went on a total feeding frenzy. Every day there were "interruptions to regularly scheduled broadcasts" and special news bulletins with grim faced talking heads speculating on the president, and whether he was "lying." For weeks on end, the entire scheduled nightly news, other than the stock quotes, were devoted to Watergate. Print media was similarly inclined. Now, we see the media minimizing, and apologizing for the president. (What files? Why, he says no one even looked at them. We don't know how Hillary's fingerprints got there.) By contrast with the past four years, Nixon was Mother Teresa.
In view of the acceptance of Mr. Clinton, as indicated by his popularity polls, one wonders if morality is a concept many Americans understand or care about. If the polls prove accurate, and we will find out in November, then the term has a totally new meaning. We will also know that there are more fleas than there are dogs. Thanks, leemh. 回去研究一下。:)
页:
[1]