Controversial
Was at a teaching today and the topic of abortion was brought up.. The question goes: maid came for routine work permit renewal and was noted to be urine pregnancy test positive. Will you refer her for abortion if she request for it?
Well, most of us agree that she has the right to be referred.
However, 1 colleague said "For me, I'll definitely not refer.. Because of my religion.."
So it sparked a refute:"The maid is a human and should have the freedom to choose, so i feel the decision shouldn't be affected by the doctor's religion." I always thought conscious objectors to abortion will just not perform it, they could refer to somebody else if patient requests..
But anyway, my focus was his answer.. He said he didn't want it because his religion doesn't support/allow it. I guess if his answer was:"I don't support abortion because it's killing a life to me", I might see him in another light.
Religions are a good guide for the way we live, it makes us better persons, it gives us support whenever we need it as we'll always believe there's someone up there looking out for us when we're down. Most religions offer a desired end point when we follow the teachings: Nirvana in Buddhism, being a sage in Taoism etc. We however haven't seen someone reach the endpoint in recent years...
I wonder if it could be that we're now working backwards instead of understanding the essence in the religions/teachings We'll follow rules/commandments like not killing, not eating a particular food, not doing certain acts.. Most of the time, we do it because 'the religion says so'. Even if we manage to understand the rationale, are we able to internalise it?
That's why when he said:"My religion doesn't allow it" It seems he's following the teaching, probably not understanding it and more likely not internalising it. But who am i to judge?
I feel that the founder of the particular religion/teaching worked it out the reverse direction. i.e. there's a principle he has already understood in the beginning and has internalised it (The Tao/The way to enlightenment) and henceforth, he acts in ways in accordance to the basic principle. Over years, in a bid to get people to understand (Lao Zi said so: he can't describe this thing called Tao), these ways become like rules/methods that may lead to the ultimate destination. Maybe that's why so little people are successful in attaining the target? Cos now everyone will be working backwards
Well, i'm not a religious person, somehow just interested in them.. Will most probably be someone who can't see the light :)
Well, most of us agree that she has the right to be referred.
However, 1 colleague said "For me, I'll definitely not refer.. Because of my religion.."
So it sparked a refute:"The maid is a human and should have the freedom to choose, so i feel the decision shouldn't be affected by the doctor's religion." I always thought conscious objectors to abortion will just not perform it, they could refer to somebody else if patient requests..
But anyway, my focus was his answer.. He said he didn't want it because his religion doesn't support/allow it. I guess if his answer was:"I don't support abortion because it's killing a life to me", I might see him in another light.
Religions are a good guide for the way we live, it makes us better persons, it gives us support whenever we need it as we'll always believe there's someone up there looking out for us when we're down. Most religions offer a desired end point when we follow the teachings: Nirvana in Buddhism, being a sage in Taoism etc. We however haven't seen someone reach the endpoint in recent years...
I wonder if it could be that we're now working backwards instead of understanding the essence in the religions/teachings We'll follow rules/commandments like not killing, not eating a particular food, not doing certain acts.. Most of the time, we do it because 'the religion says so'. Even if we manage to understand the rationale, are we able to internalise it?
That's why when he said:"My religion doesn't allow it" It seems he's following the teaching, probably not understanding it and more likely not internalising it. But who am i to judge?
I feel that the founder of the particular religion/teaching worked it out the reverse direction. i.e. there's a principle he has already understood in the beginning and has internalised it (The Tao/The way to enlightenment) and henceforth, he acts in ways in accordance to the basic principle. Over years, in a bid to get people to understand (Lao Zi said so: he can't describe this thing called Tao), these ways become like rules/methods that may lead to the ultimate destination. Maybe that's why so little people are successful in attaining the target? Cos now everyone will be working backwards
Well, i'm not a religious person, somehow just interested in them.. Will most probably be someone who can't see the light :)
Seeing the light?
posted by KwangHow at
9:23 PM
1 Comments:
religion is a personal belief.
people should not exert their personal beliefs on others. yes they can proselytise but ultimately the choice to accept a religion, and act according to the teachings, is an individual choice.
if he plans to deny the referral, how is he going to answer the patient should she ask for it? will he say "i cannot because it is against my religion?"
or will he LIE and tell her that it is not possible?
sometimes, there is a fine line between being religious, and being over-righteous, and we all should tread carefully.
By
Anonymous, at 6:20 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home