I am writing this post on the cusp of a Supreme Court decision that is poised to overturn the controversial ROE V. WADE ruling made by the Supreme Court in 1973 which legalized the right of women to obtain an abortion in the United States. That ruling created a moral firestorm in the United which became politicized as a rights issue in which two camps emerged; those identified as being in the Pro-choice camp which supports the right of a woman to choose an abortion and the Pro-Life camp which promotes the idea that an embryo or a fetus is an individual entitled to protections under the law. What ROE V. WADE and the impending Supreme Court decision in DOBBS V. JACKSON WOMEN'S HEALTH delve into are fundamental issues regarding life, choice, and privacy.
The 1973 Court specifically took issue with a Texas law that prohibited abortion; the only exception being, when it was medically determined by two doctors that a pregnancy threatened the life of the mother. The Court concluded that the Texas Law was too vague; in that, it failed to protect a woman's right to privacy under the 14th Amendment. In a 7-2 decision, the justices declared the Texas law unconstitutional, thus making most state laws prohibiting a woman from obtaining an abortion unconstitutional. The Court's decision resulted in giving the right of a woman to make decision regarding her body. In legalizing abortion, the court made it possible for women to seek safe medical procedures.
* * *
ROE V. WADE serves as a backdrop to engage a deeper discussion on the connection between life and choice. The debate over a woman's right to seek an abortion revolves around a single word; not abortion, not life, but choice.
There is no doubt that life begins with a single fertilized egg. When the ruling in ROE V. WADE was made, it was not blind to when life began. Justice Blackmun's majority opinion clearly states the understanding that life begins at conception. The ruling never questioned that fact. The question is when does that life become capable of independent life outside of a woman's womb. In other words, from a Constitutional point of view, the question became at what point is a fetus capable of being born as separate individual?
Premature births occur rather regularly.. A premature infant born in the United States that has the capacity of living independent (breathing and surviving on its own outside of a woman's womb) has, under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, the rights given to all citizens born the United States. So when life begins was not the issue when ROE V. WADE was decided in 1973.
Abortions happen. They happen naturally as miscarriages or as a result of the fetus dying in the womb that has to be aborted to preserve the life of the mother. Intentional abortions have happened ever since women were faced with an unwanted pregnancy. This post is too short to delve into that history, but it is safe to say that abortions is not a modern phenomenon and abortions have been medically performed prior to ROE V. WADE in order to save the life of mother as was clearly stated in the Texas law that was overturned. Abortion, as such, is not the issue because it has been around since the beginning of human history.
The issue ultimately being debated involves a woman's legal right to choose what happens to her body as a result of becoming pregnant. Should the current Supreme Court overthrow ROE V. WADE, women will continue to seek abortions. Much is at stake if ROE V. WADE is overruled.
If overturned, the decision to do so will ultimately become a ruling on the right of people to make choices regarding their bodies and their personal lives. It will set a legal precedent that is likely to have an impact on other issues involving the right of people to make personal choices about their lives. For example, although gender identity is not a matter of choice, choosing to live openly as LGBTQ+ and to openly love and marry the person one loves regardless of their biological sex is likely to find its way back into the Court like ROE V. WADE
CHOICE
What is it about choice that makes it both appealing and appalling? What exactly is choice and why do we feel both liberated and frightened by it?
To answer such questions, one has to look at the history of one's culture and specifically at the religious cultures that throughout history have dictated what being considered moral or righteous involves and the role such cultures have played in deciding who is entitled to make legitimate choices. The Right to Life camp is largely composed of Christians who don't see abortion as a choice women should have and there are a number of mostly Christian women who agree with that position; who would deprive themselves and other women of that choice on the premise of saving the life of the unborn.
While life begins at conception, being an individual begins at birth. There is no denying that there are serious ethical considerations regarding abortions or any other medical procedure. Our choices have always led to ethical discussion, but where there is no choice there is no discussion and such considerations grow dark.
Euthanasia is another issue of choice. As with abortion, there is great opposition to people making an informed rational choice to end their suffering and the burden their suffering is causing the people they love by ending their lives medically. If someone decides to end life peacefully because they wish to end their suffering which will culminate in one's painful death and one has made an informed well-reasoned choice to do so, who am I or any one of us to judge a person making an ethical decision that has the merit of being hopeful in ending one's suffering and the suffering it causes the people one loves.
I would contrast that with someone who is not rational and is suffering from severe depression, and is incapable of making a rational and well-reasoned decision when there are psychiatric means to end their depression and the suffering it causes. The ethical responsibility in such a case is to help that person medically and psychologically.
Since I was raised a Christian and am a follower of Jesus' teachings, I find the mythical origins of choice in the Holy Bible revealing. Such stories are our stories. They frequently reveal how something we take for granted, like choice, actually has a mythical explanation regarding its existence. In Genesis, the concept of choice is present from the beginning of creation and is present in the words, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," which represents God's desire (God's choice) to become manifest through the creation of the universe.
Since I have talked about the role of myths in the Holy Bible at length in other posts, I'm not going to repeat myself here. Where choice enters the domain of human experience is talked about at length in the story of Adam and Eve, our mythical first parents. Myths, in general, are stories that are not prescriptive but rather descriptive about things we experience in life. Myths often deal with abstract concepts that impact our lives but are hard to trace their origins, thus, the creation of our myths. We take such concepts for granted without ever questioning their origins simply because they are so applicable in our daily lives. Choice is one such abstract notion. What follows is closer look at the role choice plays in the mythic story of Adam and Eve and their encounter with the mythical Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
THE MYTHIC ORIGIN OF CHOICE IN THE HOLY BIBLE
In the creation myth of Genesis 2, the first thing God does after forming Adam in God's image, is to warn Adam not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil which God places in the middle of the Garden of Eden. The location of this Tree in the middle of the Garden has metaphorical significance. Consider the implications God planting the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil at the center of paradise. Was it God's intent to make finding the Tree difficult or was it to ensure that it would be found?
After warning Adam about the Tree, God tasks Adam with naming the animals God brings before him. According to this story, God did so because God saw that Adam was lonely and needed a helpmate to keep him company and tend the Garden of Eden with him. In being tasked with naming the animals God wanted to see if Adam would chose a helpmate from among them, but Adam didn't chose a helpmate from what God already created.
What is interesting in this brief scenario are two things. The first is that we can assume Adam didn't know he was lonely. God did because while Adam could tend the garden and name animals, he didn't seem to get excited about what he was doing or exhibit a volitional desire to do what God asked him. He simply did what he was told to do.
Adam acted more like an automaton than an independent human who reflected God's image. In other words, he needed help to become volitionally energized. Since animals didn't provide a helpmate, God created something better. God created from a rib taken from Adam's side Eve, Adam's literal soulmate.
Adam and Eve were in full conjunction with each other. Proceeding from Adam, Eve knew all that Adam knew at that point, including God's warning not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but Eve brings out a different side to Adam, one that perhaps demonstrates better than Adam did by himself; a being made in the image of God. Eve has a willful, curious aspect that demonstrated an ability to desire.
As a complimentary soul to Adam's, Eve reflected the desire of God and thus was capable of making choices. If there was nothing for either of them to choose from, however, there was no friction to spark desire and ignite the fire of love that God created them for. In fact, Adam and Eve didn't really love each other because they really didn't know each other as an" other" simply because there wasn't anything that differentiated them. They were, in essence, one person in two bodies. They were in every sense the same being.
God introduced the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil precisely to instill in Adam the ability to choose. God didn't hide the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil from him. Instead, God warned Adam not to eat of its fruit because they would die.
But what did that warning mean to someone who didn't know what good or evil was or never experienced something dying?
When the wise and equally curious Serpent approached Eve about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, the Serpent piqued her curiosity by saying that if she ate the fruit of it she would become like God, knowing what is good and what is evil. Eve told the Serpent about God's warning, but the Serpent dismissed it because Eve, at that point, had no concept of what was good or evil. Disobedience wasn't on her radar at that point. In other words, she was innocent of knowing what her choice meant one way or the other.
Christians have been taught to think that Eve was engaging in sin by being disobedient to God's command, but as stated earlier disobedience wasn't on her radar because she had no way of knowing whether it was good or evil or indeed what good and evil even meant. The truth is she didn't want to be God, she wanted to know things like God. Is that bad or evil? We have been told it was, but the story doesn't make a strong case for that conclusion.
The fact is, according to the story, when she ate the fruit she experienced feeling good. This first sensation of feeling good that led her to share it with her soulmate Adam because she wanted Adam to feel good also, but good and bad resided within the fruit of knowledge. When Adam ate the fruit, the two sides of the fruit became manifested and they experienced a sense of separation from each other. They became separate individuals.
Upon until that moment, all Eve and Adam ever knew was what we call peace, the absence of that which disturbs or disrupts. Their newfound ability to choose disturbed them and disrupted that peace because when Adam ate their eyes were open to a feeling of difference and disobedience. They saw that they were not alike they and had to hide their small physical differences that suddenly overwhelmed them. They felt not only separated from each other but they felt compelled to hide from God. Until their peace was disrupted and disturbed, they didn't know they had it. In the emotional friction caused by losing their sense of peace, the fire of desire was kindled to regain what was lost as was the nascent ability to overcome the differences between themselves and God and to love that which was different.
Was this God's plan all along? Was God giving our mythical first parents a test to see if they possessed the divine spark of desire, the creative force that brought everything into being, an ability to return the desire and love that brought them into being?
The Serpent was right, God didn't kill them on the spot for the choices they made. Instead, God allowed Adam and Eve and (by extension) all of us to know good and evil in our lives and to experience death and all that would disturb and disrupt us throughout life. In this mythic story God, banishes Adam and Eve from the paradise that God created to a world that they would have to create. Knowing good and evil would require them to use the ability to constantly choose in creating it.
* * *
The point of retelling this story in the light of both Eve and Adam having no knowledge of what was good or evil, no sense of their choices having an impact on their lives for good or evil is to differentiate it from an interpretation in which Eve is blamed and Adam is portrayed as an ignorant side-kick who didn't have the sense to refuse. Paradoxically, neither of them had a choice but to make a choice. It was only a matter of time before they would have done so. Regardless of what they would have chosen in that moment, it is clear that it was God's intent for them to choose.
In western culture women, like Eve to Pandora, have been blamed for the troubles we humans have encountered, but if our myths are read correctly, we find that is not the truth. Mythologically, wisdom is defined in feminine terms. To be wise is to understand good and evil and experience despair and hope. The Holy Spirit, conveyor of God's wisdom is in Hebrew and Greek a feminine construct. Yes, women bring human life into the world, but according to our mythic stories they also exercised choice in doing so. Choice and life are inseparable. Choice begets choice, just as life begets life.
The scriptures of the Holy Bible talk about the choices confronting us. In Deuteronomy, Moses tells the Children of Israel to choose life as they are about to enter into the Promise Land, to embrace all of its moments of hope and despair. Joshua does the same once they enter the Promise Land. He asks them to choose who they would worship, the God who brought them out of Egypt or the gods and goddesses of the indigenous Canaanites who lived there. When Jesus asked people to follow him, they were given a choice and some did and others choose not to. Jesus never held those choosing not to follow him to be unworthy of his love.
As the truth of our mythic stories continue to unfold in the world of our creating, the choices we make continue to proceed from the moments of our despair and our hope. Our creativity, for good or for bad, is a matter of choice. For good or for bad, the world we make and live in is built upon the conglomeration of choices we humans have made since we came to dominate the planet we live on.
CHOICE IN THE WORLD OF OUR MAKING
There are good choices and bad choices, moral choices and immoral choices; personal choices made from hope and choices made out of despair. What is clearer perhaps in today's world than at any other time throughout human history is a simple truth:
Deprivation of personal choice regarding one's life leads to the imprisonment of the human soul (the mind, the body, and the human spirit).
There is no small amount of irony and hypocrisy in the United States when it comes what is becoming acceptable to choose. To deny women making a personal choice to have a safe medical abortion as a means to end an unwanted or unsafe pregnancy is set along side the right of anyone in most states to choose to buy a military grade weapons capable of killing hundreds of living individuals in a matter of second should they choose to do so. What is particularly disheartening are the politicians and those who claim to be "Pro-life" who would deprive women the right to make choices regarding their own lives are the same politicians and likely the same group of people would protect the rights of owners and manufactures of to sell AR-15s to kids under 18; the weapon of choice in almost every mass killing in this country which, along with other firearms, is tragically leading cause of children death in the United States.
* *
When abortion was made legal, it led to ethical and legal discussions regarding at what point in a pregnancy an abortion could be performed, the need for counseling in obtaining an abortion, etc. Once abortion is made illegal in most states, any ethical considerations will end and women and any doctor trying to provide an abortion in a state prohibiting it will be faced with criminal charges that are punishable. Some state politicians are already promoting the idea of putting an abortion on par with the capital crime of murder in their state.
Who does that really serve other than the politicians who want to maintain their position of power and the those who want to ensure their ticket to heaven?
The reality is that if made illegal, abortions will continue to be performed. Legislating personal morality never works. It creates illegal market places for people who feel they have no legal choice; those who feel publicly damned if they do and personally damned if they don't. It will criminalize women for being women who exercise choice regarding their personal lives.
We in the United States should know better. We should understand this, but many act as if they don't. Many choose to be willfully ignorant of the misguided steps made throughout our history; that in judging the personal choices of others without regard or understanding the reasons for the choices others make open themselves to being judged for their choices they will make at some point. In our country people still have a right to privacy, but that right, along with other right, is slowly being eroded by the religious and political right.
There are other options to abortion, like birth control, but most in the religious right are alright with companies that refuse to pay for insurance that word allow their female employees access to birth control and women's health. Deprivation of such options through monetary means unduly burdens the women who can least afford health care and protective measures.
Too many moral issues have become politicized and and are increasingly being policed rather than understood. The question is whether reversing ROE V. WADE will lead to a total war on women's rights and by extension gender identity rights and everyone's right to privacy regarding their personal choices.
We don't need morally based wars. All such wars have resulted in a giant step backwards into a dead past that is lifeless and for all practical purposes never existed. The war on drugs, the war on crime, and the "Just say no" initiative to prevent premarital sex were proven to be self-defeating as they were are all based on moral fallacies.
Abortion, birth control, and euthanasia, are and should be deeply personal and private issues. They involve choices that do not come lightly. They exist because of the choices others have made throughout history. The choices we make today are built upon a mountain of choices people have made since the dawn of human history and the choices we and others make that affect our lives will impact the choices made by future generations. It is only to be hoped that future generations will be wiser than the generation that is willing to deprive individuals of personal choice.
Until next time, stay faithful.
Norm
