Pagans and abortion (Pagans only please)

[Cu Mhorrigan]

On a more civil note, I kind of noticed that My position on the abortion issue is a bit skewed (more accurately I kind of differ with the few pagans I have spoken about this issue). I kind of take abortion this way, thaty it is a medical procedure and really needs to be treated with that fact. Yes it is safer that it once was, but It seems that People are a little too quick to use it for any and every reason. That it really should be used only if the life of the mother is in jeapordy and MAYBE in the cases of rape or incest depending on what the victim wishes.
Am I kind of wierd in thinking this way? also if any female pagans are on the board I would like their input if possible. I am not really looking to debate but more like trying to understand My position a little more.

[djdavo]

i don't think it's weird. you can look at medical science only and come to that conclusion.

i'm not a pagan,but science is what changed my mind to being pro-life :)

[Cu Mhorrigan]

i don't think it's weird. you can look at medical science only and come to that conclusion.

i'm not a pagan,but science is what changed my mind to being pro-life :)
(Mods Keep this poster in this convo...)
It's not so Much I am pro life, but rather I am anti-abuse of abortion. I am against abusing the procedure in a way that is harmful to yourself and to your body.

[CelticRaven7]

Hi

My personal thoughts on abortion is that it is acceptable before about 8 weeks (which is when the fetus can feel pain). After eight weeks I feel it should only be used when it's a choice of the mother's life or the baby's. I might feel differently if the methods used were at least mostly painless to the baby, but at this time they aren't.

Just my 2 cents.

CelticRaven7

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Hi

My personal thoughts on abortion is that it is acceptable before about 8 weeks (which is when the fetus can feel pain). After eight weeks I feel it should only be used when it's a choice of the mother's life or the baby's. I might feel differently if the methods used were at least mostly painless to the baby, but at this time they aren't.

Just my 2 cents.

CelticRaven7
I was unaware of that...Might I ask how you came to that conclusion? Not doubting you Im just being nosy.

[CelticRaven7]

Not sure of the title, but I read it in a book about the pros and cons of abortion. I get intermittent Internet use - might not be on for a week or two - but I'll try to get the title and page number to post.

CelticRaven7

[mossrose]

Please keep in mind that the thread starter has requested that only pagans post in this thread.....with the exception of those whom the thread starter says can post......:smile:........so please ask Cu for permission if you are not a pagan and wish to post!

[Durthorin]

If it harm none, do as you will. Abortion tends in my mind to run straight into the Rede. As such abortion should be avoided. Killing may some times serve a greater good, but I wish this were not so and that such occasions be rare ... extremly rare. For the life of the mother for example. I think that abortion should be a legal medical procedure done for valid medical reasons. But even on those occasions one should not sugar coat that what is being done is the stopping of a human life.

[CelticRaven7]

Hi again

I, personally, think that the fetus is human at conception, and honestly if I were in a position to consider abortion I probably wouldn't do it at any time. But as far as the law goes, I'd probably vote for 'only before eight weeks' because it's hard to draw the line before that. I.E., is a morning after pill acceptable?

I did find the eight weeks is pain response here: http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_14.asp
It's a book online. Also, it says there that the reference came from a study done in a British Medical Journal.

CelticRaven7

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Wow I am Suprised as to How many of us actually agree on this topic...And How much the agreement almost falls completely within one anothers reasonings.

[technomage]

I wrote an article a couple of years ago on this point.

The Accusation

"There are a small segment of Wiccans who practice abortion as a form of child sacrifice to their false gods." Jay Rogers. [http://www.forerunner.com/champion/X0038.html] (http://www.forerunner.com/champion/X0038.html%5D)

This is one of the most pernicious accusations against Wiccans--doubly so, in that there is a core of truth to it.

Roots of the accusations.

In 1991, Ginette Paris published L'Enfent, L'Amour, La Mort, a slim book that promoted abortion as a Pagan sacrament. The work has since been translated into English as The Sacrament of Abortion, and has gained a measure of popularity with some Wiccans and Neo-Pagans. The gist of Paris' argument is thus: as Artemis "may kill a wounded animal rather than allow it to limp along miserably, so [may] a mother who wishes to spare the child a painful destiny. There is nothing more cruel than the suffering of children...it is not immoral to choose abortion." Paris selected Artemis because of the Goddess's role in childbirth: Artemis--herself a virgin goddess--watched over Juno when Juno gave birth to one of her children.

This attitude of abortion as a "sacred rite" may not be isolated to Paris. Tess Kolney, a member of the Church of All Worlds, defended pro-choice Paganism with a challenge for women to exercise choice, thus exercising their own Divinity:

"The issues that control freaks bring up -- is the fetus alive? -- is it morally right to kill? etc. -- are non-issues. I don't think there's even a question for most of us that life is life, fully divine. The issue is: our religious creed is 'Thou art Goddess." Do we mean it or not? Is it true or not? ... Are we willing to allow anyone else the right to interfere in our choices as Mother/Goddess about how we handle our sexuality and our fertility and our motherhood because we assume 100% responsibility for all of our actions and the consequences? Are we Goddess, or do we try in vain to abdicate the responsibility?" [Tess Kolney, Green Egg Magazine, Vol. XXIV, No. 94, Mabon, 1991, p 24.]

Some flaws must immediately be pointed out in Roger's assertions:



I do not know if Ginette Paris or Tess Kolney proclaim themselves as Wiccans, or as "Pagans." This may seem like a minor issue, but it becomes vitally important in the logic of Roger's claims. If these two people do not self-identify as Wiccan, then Roger's arguments start out on very shaky ground: on the other hand, if they are Wiccan, then Roger's claims must be viewed with all seriousness.
Rogers gives the above citations, but does not provide any feedback from the Wiccan or Pagan communities. Taking the claims at his web-site at face value, the reader is provided with no clues on whether or not Paris's book, or Kolney's article, received a favorable or unfavorable responses from the Wiccan and Pagan communities.
Despite these flaws, I will, for the purpose of this apologia, assume worst case. I will presume that both Paris and Kolney are Wiccan, and that both received a favorable response from their audiences.

Defense against the accusations:

That such an act as "abortion as a form of child sacrifice" would be levied as an accusation would be terrible, if it were not for the fact of that grain of truth. What Rogers fails to consider is the reaction of the majority of the Wiccan community to these statements. Rogers will be the first to admit that those Wiccans who promote abortion as a form of child sacrifice are a "small segment of Wiccans," yet he condemns all of Wicca for the actions of a few.

That Rogers disagrees with Wicca on theological grounds is one issue: he is following the dictates of his understanding of his religion, and of his conscience. There are Christians who say that "Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison." The fallacy of this accusation is the "pint of poison" in Roger's article: both Paris and Kolney have made arguments in favor of abortion, but their arguments suffer from a variety of flaws.

Paris's Factual Errors

Paris's understanding of Classical mythology, Wiccan theology, and Wiccan ethics is lacking. Artemis was, indeed, invoked during childbirth, but her role was as an attendant and protector of the mother.


Additionally, Paris' contentions on the "sacredness" of abortion is against Wiccan theology. One of the core myths of Wicca states "Nor do I demand aught in sacrifice." There is no religious need for any kind of sacrifice in Wicca. It should be noted that there are those who make "voluntary sacrifices"--in my opinion, the Gods would only be offended at any such "voluntary sacrifice" of a child, because it constitutes an act that is so totally against Wiccan ethics.

We must, therefore, look to those Ethics to finish our analysis.

Kolney's Logical Fallacies

Kolney argues from a similar logical position: "Are we willing to allow anyone else the right to interfere in our choices as Mother/Goddess about how we handle our sexuality and our fertility and our motherhood because we assume 100% responsibility for all of our actions and the consequences?" Kolney's argument is that, as Pagans, we have the choice of allowing another life to continue or of terminating that life, depending solely upon our willingness to accept the consequences of our decision. Kolney argues that, if we accept our own status as Deity, we have the responsibility to make these decisions.

The logical fallacy comes from the recognition that "life is life, fully divine." Arguments about the "viability" of the fetus entirely to the side, any recognition of the life of the conceived fetus necessitates recognition of that life as Divine, and therefore capable of its own choices. Was that life conceived in a loving, supportive family? That was the choice of the Divine. Was that Life conceived into a physical relationship that does not plan for children? That, too, is the choice of the divine.

This puts the argument back one more step: "If part of the Divine chooses to be incarnated into a body that is destined to be aborted, then this is acceptable." I posit that this is after the point of incarnation, and therefore after the point in time when one person can inflict "power-over" another. Choosing to abort an incarnated, living person--even if that "person" is a fetus--is an illegitimate manifestation of "power-over," and therefore is incompatible with Wiccan ethics.

It must be recognized that this analysis puts the entire argument of abortion back into the ethical quagmire that it started in: is the fetus alive, and does the fetus have the status of "person-hood." For that question, I have no easy answers beyond my own beliefs. It is my opinion that both of these things are true: an unborn infant is alive, and is a person.

Kolney's statements are only fallacious if she is Wiccan: if she practices some form of non-Wiccan Paganism, then the above analysis may not applicable to her statements. Nonetheless, whatever Kolney's beliefs, right and wrong are absolute--not relative. It is therefore incumbent upon us not to discover what the majority wish, but what is the right thing to do.

Reasons for the accusations:

The accusation of child sacrifice is a horrible one that has been thrown at Wicca almost since its inception in the 1950s. Yet as the accusation has been--repeatedly--proved to be untrue, those who declare themselves to be the enemies of Wicca have used this tactic to continue the debate. Rogers may be honestly concerned that, because some Wiccans promote abortion, all of Wicca has an ethical blind-spot: while I question his tactics, I cannot condemn his concern. But others have used his argument to accuse all Wiccans of malicious intent. Examples include Tammy Richie's "The Perilous Times," and Steve Van Patten's "Ballam's Ass" websites, both of whom used Roger's website to buttress arguments of wholesale child sacrifice. As of December 2002, both websites are off the internet: Van Patten's site is available only to subscribers on a CD-ROM, and Richie's site seems to have disappeared completely.

The reasons for this particular accusation are particularly pernicious. The only possible result of such a series of statements is to present Wiccans as completely "evil," by Christian standards. As I said before, the fact that Rogers disagrees with us on theological grounds is one issue: if he continues his disagreement strictly on Biblical arguments, he already has a sufficient basis to condemn Wicca, according to his lights. His use of this particular argument is, to say the least, suspicious. It may be that Rogers honestly feels that this is a problem that needs to be addressed in these terms. If so, there is a kernel of accuracy in his concerns: if we, as Wiccans, are not willing to confront this issue because it is the right thing to do, then perhaps it is not a bad thing that Rogers, and others like him, bring the matter to the attention of the Wiccan community.

However, it may be that Rogers is making these accusations because the spectacular and graphic nature of the claims add impact to his journal. I would like to believe that this is not the case, but this is not the first time that false, misleading, or spectacular claims have been made to denigrate a religion, merely for the purpose of self-aggrandizement on the part of those who are doing the denigrating.

Refutation of the Accusations:

This accusation can only be countered proactively, so I am about to go out on a limb. It is my opinion that abortion is ethically wrong, morally indefensible, and against Wiccan "Craft Law." It does cause harm, and--if it is used as a "sacrifice," as Paris states--it violates the Charge of the Goddess, and therefore should be repugnant to Wiccans. I do not know if Ginette Paris or Tess Kolney call themselves Wiccan or not, but I do know that if they do, then they--by my understanding--have stepped outside of the bounds of the Wiccan Path.

It must be admitted that the situation is not that simple. Reasonable, honorable Wiccans will come forward and say "Which is the greater harm: to abort a child, or to have that child grow up in a family where the parents know they are unsuitable?" This is where the Ethic of Self-Responsibility comes in: if two people choose to have sex, and the woman becomes pregnant, both parties are responsible. They are responsible for the life that they have brought into the world: even if that life is not yet born, it is still here. Whether or not the parties used protection is not an issue: if you chose to have sex--male or female--you are responsible for the consequences, good or bad.

That does not cover all possible situations, and some of those situations not yet discussed are even more difficult. It is easy to say that the product of a rape should be aborted, yet the child that may result from rape did not ask for the situation of its conception. Yet sometimes it will cause more harm to force a woman who has been raped to carry the child conceived of such an act. In such times, the male who committed rape loses all rights: it should be the choice of the woman, (if she is a minor, it is her choice, with the help of her parents), and her decision, based on what she can bear.

I will admit that I have faced similar ethical quandaries. They are not easy. And I will further admit that, as a man, some people will see me as one of the "oppressors," rather than as an honest person who is looking for an ethical way to act. My wife feels that, as men do not get pregnant, men should have no say in whether or not a woman chooses to accept the risks of pregnancy.

I fear that the above paragraphs will no more answer the dilemma of abortion than they will answer the accusations of Rogers. Yet if we are to be a mature, growing religion, and if we are to be responsible for our own actions, then we must take that responsibility. This decision to take responsibility for our actions is not something that Jay Rogers can force on the Wiccan community--indeed, nor can I force Wiccans to own up to their actions. We must each evaluate what is the responsible course of action, and we must each choose to take it; we must do so because it is the right thing to do, not because someone chivies us into it.

Justin

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Uhm...So Justin What do you really think Please dont hold back, I dont think you gave enough Information.

[djdavo]

(Mods Keep this poster in this convo...)


appreciate it. didn't meant to break the rules. i haven't been on Tweb in a long time...it's gotten HUGE!

Hi

My personal thoughts on abortion is that it is acceptable before about 8 weeks (which is when the fetus can feel pain). After eight weeks I feel it should only be used when it's a choice of the mother's life or the baby's. I might feel differently if the methods used were at least mostly painless to the baby, but at this time they aren't.

Just my 2 cents.

CelticRaven7

....this is something i think i decided on logically and i think the dividing line has got to be at the moment of conception. i honestly don't know about the research into when pain begins, it's too hard to use things like viability,because as medical knowledge increases the weeks at which a foetus is viable decreases.

my $.02

[Malista_Dove]

On a more civil note, I kind of noticed that My position on the abortion issue is a bit skewed (more accurately I kind of differ with the few pagans I have spoken about this issue). I kind of take abortion this way, thaty it is a medical procedure and really needs to be treated with that fact. Yes it is safer that it once was, but It seems that People are a little too quick to use it for any and every reason. That it really should be used only if the life of the mother is in jeapordy and MAYBE in the cases of rape or incest depending on what the victim wishes.
Am I kind of wierd in thinking this way? also if any female pagans are on the board I would like their input if possible. I am not really looking to debate but more like trying to understand My position a little more.


I used to think that it should be a persons choice of which to have an abortion or not, but now I am not so sure. I feel torn between the two issues of abortion and anti-abortion.


If it harm none, do as you will. Abortion tends in my mind to run straight into the Rede. As such abortion should be avoided. Killing may some times serve a greater good, but I wish this were not so and that such occasions be rare ... extremly rare. For the life of the mother for example. I think that abortion should be a legal medical procedure done for valid medical reasons. But even on those occasions one should not sugar coat that what is being done is the stopping of a human life.

Dur seems to have said it for me. I do believe that it should be legal. I don't believe that mothers should get an abortion because they feel they can't take care of it or that they are not ready for a child. If this is the case, they should consider another option such as adoption or even giving the child to a foster mother until they believe they can take care of their child better than they can at that time.

If a person is raped, I know that can be an extremely hard choice for the mother to make. (not from experience but because I can imagine the pain). I think that if they have thought this out thoroughly and believe abortion will cause them less emotional trama...then it can possibly be a choice. Although, in this case, I still wish they would consider adoption.

To me adoption is the best choice over abortion unless the abortion is for the health of the mother.

[Lepidopteryx]

Speaking as a Pagan woman who has had an abortion, I can say that it was the hardest decision I ever made, but it was also the best decision that I could have made at the time.
I was on bcp's but my doctor neglected to inform me that the antibiotics he presecribed for a sinus infection could reduce the effectiveness of other oral meds, including bcp's. Had I known, I would have used backup.
I had been with my partner at the time for several years. He was unemployed at the time after having been severely injured by an uninsured drunk driver. He had applied for disability, but as yet had no income, and had been told that the wait could be as long as two years. He and I and my toddler from a previous relationship were all living on the income from my minimum wage job at Wal-Mart while I finished my degree.
I was also on several meds at the time to control a neurological condition that included frequent (several times a week) blinding headaches. One of those meds was a known teratogen (causes birth defects). At the time, I could not fnction without those meds.
I felt that it would not be fair to myself, my partner, or my daughter to bring another person into a situation where we were already barely getting by. As it was, I often skipped meals to make sure my daughter had enough to eat. I had no health insurance, and neither my partner nor I had the financial or physical resources to care for a child with severe birth defects. I didn't think it would be fair to such a child to bring it into the world, then hand it over to a state agency in the hopes that they could find a home for it. Quite frankly, I considered that abortion an act of mercy.

[IanCorrigan]

On a more civil note, I kind of noticed that My position on the abortion issue is a bit skewed (more accurately I kind of differ with the few pagans I have spoken about this issue). I kind of take abortion this way, thaty it is a medical procedure and really needs to be treated with that fact. Yes it is safer that it once was, but It seems that People are a little too quick to use it for any and every reason. That it really should be used only if the life of the mother is in jeapordy and MAYBE in the cases of rape or incest depending on what the victim wishes.
Am I kind of wierd in thinking this way? also if any female pagans are on the board I would like their input if possible. I am not really looking to debate but more like trying to understand My position a little more.

I'm not a woman, but I am a Pagan. In general I don't think it's society's business to tell individual women how to manage their reproductive matters. I have reached a religious and spiritual position that satisfies me about the issue.

In my opinion, the womb of a woman is the manifest presence of the divine creative power in the world. Since I believe that every human will is a manifestation of divine will, I also think that the pregnant woman stands in the place of the Goddess to the potential life that she may choose to bear. Thus I am theologically happy to say that it is the individual pregnant woman who has the authority to say whether what she bears in her womb is a 'baby' or a 'product of conception'. Thus, if the woman chooses to be a mother, the content of her womb is a person. If she chooses not to regard it as a person, it is not.

This covers many contingencies. Some law wishes to protect unborn children from violent crime, etc. If the pregnant woman has decided to be a mother, then it makes sense for the law to treat the fetus as a person. In abortion it is entirely the mother's choice as to what category she chooses for the fetus.

To me, arguing that heroic medical measures could allow a fetus to become a living person despite the mother's wishes doesn't cut much ice. I'd start by asking by what ethical standard we would judge the value of a fetus to be greater than the value of the freedom of choice of the living woman who bears it. Fetuses have no freedom of choice. Period. We cannot give it to them, either by law or by deed. We can only choose whether to apply some abstract ethical standard in potential opposition to the expressed will of a living woman, or simply accept that only the woman whose womb is at issue has an ethical right to make the judgement.

I suppose the ethical basis for restricting a woman's choice in favor of the potential value of a fetus would be to grant an absolute ethical superiority to the preservation of life. One can certainly argue that a fetus is, in a biological sense, human life - however a fetus does not 'have a life' (unless others give it to it) while the living woman has. As Pagans I can't see how we can judge preservin g biological life to be the right course in every case. We honor death as well as birth, we do not call death an enemy as some faiths do. Every child born will die, later or, often enough, sooner. So I can see no reason to value fetal life above the social reality of the living woman who might choose to make the fetus into a child - or not.

In the myths I know, the Goddesses give life and take it - they are nurturers or devourers. It is as holy for a living woman to be the Red Goddess of starting over to a fetus as it is for her to be the White Goddess of the welcoming hearth.

Ian

[Seri]

I tend to take a far more philosophical point of view on the issue than religious/moral. That position is roughly the following:

-Only a person can be harmed. Anything that would be considered harm that occurs to a non-person is harm to the person associated with it.

-A person is defined by self-awareness, consciousness, and reasoning.

-Potential for personhood is only important to consider insofar as the person associated with the entity is willing to allow them to develop into a person.

-A fetus is not a person. It has the potential for personhood. A fetus cannot display self-awareness, reasoning, or consciousness. All evidence proves, however, that given a few years, they can and will demonstrate all three of these things, assuming proper development.

Therefore, an abortion is harm only to the woman who is having it. At that point, you have to ask what causes greater harm to the individual: the abortion or the raising of the child?

I say all of this as someone who was nearly aborted. I don't fault my mother for considering it. It was her choice to make and she decided that it was less harm to keep me than abort me.