© 2012 Juan José López, Antonio Moya, Santiago Rodríguez, Eduardo Altuzarra, Carmelo Martínez
© 2012 Urantia Association of Spain
| The Urantia Book and reincarnation | Luz y Vida — No. 30 — September 2012 — Index | The day to day after The Urantia Book |
Participants:
Here is another subject that has troubled me for a long time, and on which I am forced to occasionally express my considered opinion. Let’s see if the well-known “cosmic vision” helps us to clarify ideas about the legality of abortion (I mean, of course, the moral legality, not the legal one)
When you opt for a position on this issue, I understand that, tacitly, we already have it adopted, more or less clearly, on two other no less important issues. Namely:
A) Science, which is the one who should answer the question of when the life of a new being begins, does not have an unappealable answer.
B) On the other hand, this modern society accepts the preponderance of the right of the individual to decide on those issues that concern him privately, above other possible rights.
Thus, taking for granted that we are not certain that we are harming a new being, today’s society considers itself free of moral guilt and social responsibility when practicing abortion within the terms that, in a somewhat arbitrary way, have been legally established.
The UB emphasizes, or at least it seems to me, that any life is sacred; and all the more that of man. And although he distinguishes (I don’t remember on which page) between the newly conceived being, the one that has just been born, and, finally, the human person who at certain years deserves the presence of the Adjuster, beginning at this moment the development of the soul, it seems that from the first of those moments that life was sacred, right? For the UB, when did that life originate?
But, what about the spermatozoon destined to unite in the next few moments with an ovum and form a new being (which could be, perhaps, written down in some record of the Universe in which Time does not count)? Is the solution of avoiding this union with the currently used procedures ethical?
I may be giving you the impression that I already have a clear answer to this problem, but I don’t. I suppose that some of your interventions will help me to affirm my position definitively.
The issue is complex, and I do not have enough information, reasons or elements to be in favor of or against abortion. I cannot give my personal opinion because the subject is beyond my knowledge, my analysis and my judgement.
That being said, the only basis that I cling to to have an idea of what to do or think about this matter of abortion, is the attitude of Eve (yes, yes, the one from the Garden of Eden, Adam’s wife). When Eva became pregnant by Cano, with all the fatal consequences that this entailed (expulsion from the Garden, failure of the Adamic mission, she was reduced to a mere human being, etc.), IF I HAD ABORTED, none of these consequences would have taken place. But the pregnancy continued, and Cain was born.
Why didn’t Eva abort (and everything would have stayed in a simple “gustirriní”)?
In my judgment, she acted according to the cosmic vision of the matter, just as the universe considers it should be done.
To reflect, don’t you think?
What a topic!
I believe that science is clear that, before conception, the ovum and the spermatozoon do have life, and after they unite, the zygote also has life. The chain of life has not been broken, what was alive provides life.
But the problem does not lie in whether or not the embryo is alive (which it is), but in the “right” that someone outside has to voluntarily interrupt that life, and then the consequences of this.
I get the impression that it is a subject that is not clearly expressed in the UB because I suspect that it is a moral question that concerns the ethics of the individual and the society in which they live. There are many things that are neither right nor wrong, but rather have to be looked at in the light of the ideas and ideals that surround you in your life.
Once again, I understand that the fact itself has to take into account two people affected. One, the embryo/fetus, and the other, the conscious being that makes the decision.
Problem 1: regarding who makes the decision, once again, the key is what motivates you to do it, the true and deep motives are those that will present the fact as acceptable or not in the eyes of the Father.
Problem 2: Regarding the embryo/child, I refer to UB 49:6.12, at the top of the page in the first paragraph: “Children who die when too young to have Thought Adjusters are repersonalized on the finaliter world of the local systems concomitant with the arrival of either parent on the mansion worlds. A child acquires physical entity at mortal birth, but in the matter of survival all Adjusterless children are reckoned as still attached to their parents.”
Unless the translation is not accurate enough, what I understand from this paragraph is that, only after birth, that being is an individual (acquires physical identity), and as long as it does not have an Adjuster, it will only have survival options, if it survives. at least one of the parents.
My tendency is to think that, before birth, he is a child of God, more potential than before he had Adjuster, and in this case even more than after he had Adjuster.
I understand that the being before birth has no possibility of continuity. Another very different thing, I repeat, is the degree of responsibility that the parents have who decide to interrupt that life that began, obviously at the very moment of conception… but this belongs to Problem 1.
A nuance to reflect on: I do not believe that the UB accepts the death penalty. The UB is not pronounced; informs you that there are places that apply it; it informs you that it is normal for men to have war and death in the early days, but it does not tell you that this is desirable, that it is very different.
I am waiting for other opinions, since it is my current opinion but I do not give it as definitive (I do not feel comfortable with the option of terminating the pregnancy, but I do not know if it is something cultural, or really of greater importance).
This topic has deep issues. The UB is not very explicit on this issue and I don’t know to what point it emphasizes that any life is sacred, but what I do believe or at least have an opinion on this issue is that each human being must be responsible for what they do and the part that touches him assumes it with full commitment and consequence. There will be so many things that will prosecute us, who knows if this has the importance that some humans give it or not. How many innocent humans are dying from wars?
Regarding when this life originated, the UB says:
Religion is functional in the human mind and has been realized in experience prior to its appearance in human consciousness. A child has been in existence about nine months before it experiences birth. (UB 103:2.1)
I believe that it is necessary to distinguish between life, thus in general, and human life; or if you prefer, between human life and non-human life.
But even before, I think it’s good to reflect on what life is. The first answer that I would give as a reader of the UB is that life is bestowal of the Infinite Spirit; not even the Carriers of Life give life, they are mere transmitters of it. And this life is given to the “material systems” in what is called “material life”; but also the beings of morontia have life and of course the spirit beings; in fact, if I remember correctly, life is inherent in the spirit.
Life is therefore sacred in that sense. But that doesn’t mean we can’t “take” it. I think we have some prejudices about it as a result of a certain “Christian upbringing” that we have all received. The UB is not averse to “taking” life, not even human life; remember that the UB accepts the death penalty so that society can defend itself against anti-socials.
We kill animals for food, and it seems “moral” to all of us; however, animals also have “sacred” life in the sense of having received it from the Divine Minister.
I think no one will argue that we can suppress non-human life (animal or plant) for certain purposes such as our food. Even suppressing human life in some circumstances seems morally acceptable to us (for example, in defense of the life of one of our children arbitrarily threatened with death by someone, or also in self-defense). There is a certain scale of values or rights behind these considerations. The right for a human to feed and survive (in the material sense) seems higher than the right of the cow to continue living. The right of our son not to die by the arbitrary desire of a fellow man seems higher to us than the right to live of this very fellow man.
I don’t know then why this mess of modern society with abortion. I believe that those responsible are the churches, particularly the Catholic Church. They insist that there is human life from conception itself (at some times even from before conception: it was believed at that time that the spermatozoon was already the human person; the ovum was a simple receiver and carrier). They insist that there is a soul from conception; and all this is not alien to that certain “phobia” of the sexual act that leads them to defend that it is only legal in marriage (by the Church) and for reproductive purposes (in a certain sense, they accept it as a necessary lesser evil), nor he is oblivious to a certain misogyny that is totally contrary to the teachings of Jesus. And this is for me the basic reason for the position against contraceptives: if you fuck you screw yourself (pun intended) and accept the consequences that God gives you. Absurd. The sexual union of two people has more purposes than merely reproductive; there is pleasure and there is communication between people. Both can be of great benefit to the development of the individual, and isn’t that what it’s about? Besides, isn’t it much better to have the children we want and desire? Will we not educate them better this way?
The fetus is alive, to be sure, but it is not a human being, and it is certainly not an independent being. Not even a child until it receives an adjuster is a human being, since it does not have the capacity to know and adore the Father.
I believe that suppressing life (material) is a matter of scale of values. Who can judge a pregnant woman for deciding to abort? Who knows what his real motives are? With what scale of values will we judge it? The most that a society can do is to regulate this practice from a sanitary point of view, that is, to enact a reasonable law on abortion, and I believe that a law of deadlines is reasonable. And from the moral or religious point of view, what moral or what religion will we apply? The only true one?
The fetus, as I said, is not an independent being and the UB clearly tells us that it is not human. The woman who carries it in her womb is a human being, she has an adjuster and the free will to interpret God’s will. We do not have any right to annul your free will for a supposed right of a supposedly human being defended by a supposed only true religion.
It is true that Eva did not have an abortion, but it is also true that she was a raw vegetarian. I don’t know the “sensitivity to life” of material children, but whatever it is, I believe that Adams and Eves unreservedly assume that humans from evolutionary planets have it differently. By the way, would it have solved something if Eva aborted? Or, since the evil (the wrong interpretation of the Father’s will) had already been done, wasn’t it better that she not abort in order to inject the maximum amount of Adamic blood into the races? of the planet? (By the way, Eva’s evil was not sleeping with Cano, but her impatience). The “thou shalt not kill” is a divine mandate but is subject (because it is of minor importance) to the great and only commandment: “You shall love God above all things and your neighbor as yourself.” Who is capable of saying that a woman who aborts is not fulfilling this mandate? The problem is created by those who defend that there is a law of God, a law promulgated by God for the functioning of societies. I believe that the only law of God is internal and is called adjusting the thought. And of course those same are the ones who set themselves up as interpreters of that law and want us all to submit to THEIR interpretation.
P.S. It is not necessary, but despite everything I am going to do it: that cosmic vision that I sometimes allude to is not (only) the vision of those worlds, those beings and those lives that do not wait in the afterlife; it is (above all) the perception of the will of the Father, the vision of that phenomenal plan that he has for all creation and that he is unfolding “as well in heaven as on Earth”.
Antonio, I found that page a few years ago because someone in another forum commented on the issue of abortion and another replied saying that that section should be read. I found it interesting and I read the document but I took note of that sentence, which is what I have sent you.
Of course, as you express very well, I think this is more about ethics, morals, feelings, points of view, customs of living, etc. If today we are more primitive than evolved because of how we live and behave, the UB says it several times, I think that there must be that type of “controversies” when deciding what to do with life, and we must take into account that a little further down the fragment that I have sent you says:
Nevertheless, sooner or later there is a “birth day.” You do not enter the kingdom of heaven unless you have been “born again”—born of the Spirit. Many spiritual births are accompanied by much anguish of spirit and marked psychological perturbations, as many physical births are characterized by a “stormy labor” and other abnormalities of “delivery.” (UB 103:2.1)
Could enter here, in this last part of the paragraph, the natural or induced premature abortion? I would like you to give your opinion about it, since in my opinion it is because of the only part that (it seems to be) an abortion by own or human decision would be “justified”.
From what I interpret that it is more important, once one has been born, to be “born” of the spirit than to be born into oneself. Although I am still concerned about the fact of “nullifying” the life of an embryo or a fetus, since science has come to tell us that a three-week-old embryo measures one millimeter, and at this stage you can already see discs that They will form the spine. The 5-week embryo measures nine millimeters, the head is already beginning to form and the members appear. A six-week embryo measures thirteen millimeters, the head lengthens further and depressions appear that will later occupy the eyes, the limbs lengthen further and hands and feet appear. The 7-week embryo measures 19 millimeters, its heart begins to beat, its skull and nervous system begin to take shape, the glands and lungs show signs of life. After 8 weeks of gestation, it ceases to be an embryo and becomes a fetus, its appearance is that of a miniature human being, until now it has completed the most difficult stage of its development.
I still think that it is a decision with a lot of responsibility and it has to be very justified. Of course I understand that we humans are the ones who have the ability to choose by our free will, and I am aware that in the “eyes of God” these kinds of things will make us see their fair resolution. But in the meantime we are the ones who face those kinds of decisions and we do it according to our own criteria. Some people will decide to do it for what they have to live and others will decide not to. But I don’t think that, if we have to, we will be “punished” for it in “the trial.” And I still think that the important thing, regardless of having to have an abortion or advising someone to have an abortion, the important thing is that that person is “born” of the spirit. This planet is designed for birth, that is, to be “born.” Some life forms will achieve it and others will not. Carmelo says it very well, life in general and human life to which I would add, spiritual life
I want to present some reflections that are coming to me:
From a social point of view, it may be convenient for the state to legislate something in this regard and allow the person who wishes to abort to do so freely within certain premises. But, and this is very clear, at your expense.
This point of view is what encourages me to assume Santi’s position. It is becoming clear to me that in these matters (and I could generalize that in any other) our conduct must be entirely individual, in accordance with what the apostle said. “love and do what you want”. They can throw us in the face that we intend to make a religion to our measure, and they are right, but we would be acting exactly as Jesus intended it to be done; understand religion as an individual and private relationship with God, inspired by the only commandment that Jesus transmitted to us.
Carmelo dispatches himself at ease against the church; I have also had -and still have- this tendency that is very embedded in my character, but I am coming to the conclusion that it does not lead to anything. Since, some time ago, I freed myself from my condition of “life member”, I think that the best thing is to let it go on its peculiar journey that fits so well with many people; to feel, on the one hand, sorry for those faithful who still need so much crutch to advance on the path of their spirituality; and, on the other, a certain perplexity at the arrogant behavior of its leaders, who have always considered themselves “The Church.” Anyway, there they are: it is a private club that imposes its own rules of conduct on its members; and those who don’t like them, look the other way, leaving them to their own troubles,
I am responding to a question from -Juanjo commented on other issues.
Where does the UB say that a fetus is not a human being? —Juanjo, he does not say it exactly with those words (as far as I remember now), but he does say in UB 49:6.12 that a child acquires “physical identity” with his birth as a mortal and acquires “identity in the eyes of the universe” with the “arrival of an Adjuster.” I think it is easy to deduce that the child is not even a being before birth, and is not a human being before the arrival of the adjuster. It can further be deduced that just as a fetus is attached to its mother, a child without an adjuster is considered attached to its parents. In the first case it is not physically independent; in the second, it is not independent “in the eyes of the universe,” that is, humanly.
Santi is right in that it is not stated in the UB that the death penalty is desirable; the UB does not promote or advocate the death penalty. But surprisingly, to me at least, he does. I copy a quote from something that Jesus said to a man sentenced to death in Corinth (UB 133:4.12): “…But you did do this evil, and your fellows have adjudged you guilty; they have determined that you shall die. You or I may not deny the state this right of self-defense in the manner of its own choosing”.
Eduardo quoted us: “A child has existed for about nine months before experiencing birth”. But this sentence does not affirm anything about the form in which it has existed; it says that it has been a reality, it does not say that it was in fact a child during those nine months. The quote, seen in its context, is a comparison to emphasize that religion is not born suddenly in human consciousness, but previously already had some reality in mind. In other words, before being a child (a religion properly speaking) in human consciousness, religion was already a fetus (something like a pre-religion), a reality of some kind that functioned unconsciously, in the mind.
| The Urantia Book and reincarnation | Luz y Vida — No. 30 — September 2012 — Index | The day to day after The Urantia Book |