True spiritual death is never experienced by any living creature, at least that is my belief. Our physical bodies may expire but souls live on for what we choose as our next experience or are karmicly forced into. I believe, at a certain point of fetal development, perhaps at heartbeat a soul enters its body and begins their human experience.
Should the soul vessel be aborted, the soul within will return home to try again with a new experience. Their opportunity for that life taken away but a new opportunity given for another. This belief allows me to not feel quite as strongly about abortion as some but I still don’t think it’s fair to the growing soul bearing life to be intentionally terminated.
I completely understand and support women’s rights for full control of their bodies, reproductive system and all as well as their right to change their mind about carrying through their pregnancy but I think it becomes a moral issue once a soul is inside. Existence of souls is a common belief shared by many people. Even if we didn’t have souls I think it would be a moral issue and perhaps especially so because that would mean that chance at life is the only one in the universe it will ever receive.
Of course I believe there are moral exceptions to that life’s chance at living, foremost jeopardy of the mother’s life which is a no brainer. Arguments can be made for others such as rape but I think perhaps even in this case a mother could be encouraged to carry through with its birth. There are far more parents in waiting unable to conceive or with big hearts wanting to provide love for an unwanted child than available adoptable babies.
Having government sponsored support programs for mothers providing guaranteed no cost housing, financial and other comprehensive bankrolling could give them the means to have and raise their child, with guaranteed access to basic living supplies. I think if these kinds of programs were available perhaps some women may give more consideration to having their baby.
The squeeze is tight on people not rich in monies. From what I’ve read and heard, childcare is the most expensive and worrisome element of raising a child so why can’t we provide no cost quality childcare? This ought to be a no brainer. For struggling families rent takes the lion’s share of income and with what they have left they may have to decide between adequate childcare, quality food and other necessities or reasonably needed items.
People with vast immeasurable wealth I believe are morally obligated to help those of us less fortunate than them. Many have earned their wealth and their right to accumulate their heart’s desires is and should continue to be a right. However the absurdly wealthy I think should contribute to ease our squeeze by being very, very, very heavily taxed. This could likely itself pay for universal healthcare, universal childcare, comprehensive child support programs and innumerable other things badly needed within society.
When any person must work two jobs, never have a day off and still not make ends meet we have failed them as brethren and justice and rightness are nowhere to find.
There is so much wealth in the world. According to Brookings.edu the top 1% of world citizens hold more than the combined bottom 80%. How much wealth does one need to live one’s best life and fulfill their dreams? If one can afford anything and everything in the world why not be willing to assist the rest of us to do the same?