It's really a matter of point of view isn't it?

I mean, I have my personal beliefs on the matter of abortion, and I have my beliefs on the matter of the Government's proper position in the matter. The constitution clearly states that there is to be a separation of church and state - this despite the fact that our curency claims a trust in a particular deity on the part of said Government. Also despite the fact that this part of the constitution and the laws that have been written based on it is/are used with a clear bias as to which churches are more separated from The State than others.

Since you are talking about beliefs and ethics and when they count, I suppose that this is where I need to state my position or just clam up:

My position is that I am against the practice of abortion - with a few radical exceptions, but that is not the discusion here. I say "the practice" because I am not against having the knowledge that allows for an abortion to be acomplished - much good has come from the studies that lead to the acquiring of this knowledge. Knowledge is not wrong, but what you do with it may be.

My position is that MY Representative Government has NO PLACE in deciding whether or not EVERY ONE ELSE has to have MY position in this matter. My position is that My Government has the OBLIGATION to REGULATE the practice of this action in order that no one's life (okay, another can of worms, but we wont go there for the sake of this argument) is put in danger (grater danger perhaps??) by the improper (bad choice of word) execution (even worse choice of words) of this sort of action. An example is the ban on partial birth abortions versus a ban on abortion in general - the argument can, and should, be made that one of these actions is clearly wrong - even in the case of my "radical exceptions" at the point at which the action is taken. My Government is there to protect the general good of the general population in the physical sense. I DO NOT feel that this needs to extend to the protection of my everlasting soul. Keeping my soul from being cast into the fires of Hell for evermore is my personal job, not the job of MY Government. A responsibility that I cannot delegate. If it is, then we are all damned since My God did not say "Thou shalt not kill except under the following situations:..." (another rather large can of worms that we can open if anyone wishes) Thus when MY Government seeks to solve the problems of man by going to war, it has damned us all since we have allowed leaders to get into place that allow this to happen....and perhaps EXPECT these leaders to take such actions when required - despite what My God says. So, is it to be a separation of Church (My Church clearly) and State - but only when convenient?

Abortion is not legal because it is imoral and against the will of God, but what the heck, let's go kill a few million people in order to defend Democracy and the separation of Church and State.

As you can see, this argument is obsurd.

The constitution also states that we have the right to believe what we want to believe - of course right in there with its statements that there be separation of church and state, it also states that God created all men to be equal - this would seem to be a contradiction at its face. I have not read and studied the constitution any where near as much as I should have - being that I live under its protections, enjoy its freedoms, and have pledged aleigence to it etc. No matter, I shall go on blindly convinced that I am right (I believe that I have this right under the first amendmant, and being that I come from the fine state of Rhode Island, can claim a certian pride in those first ten amendments, as they were added, amung other reasons, to get the vote and signature of the fine gents from this "state" at the time - I suppose you'd like to know the name of the gent in question, well, so would I but I've forgotten it just now - he's standing on top of the state house though.....Roger Williams, that's him)

So, the idea that one hides ones religious beliefs when one votes is not entirely wrong. Allow your beliefs, your personal beliefs as protected by the constitution, to color your ethics and use your ethics to guide your choices as to who should guide us in determining the future of our country and leading the defense of our constitution.

Let us maintain at least a modicum of separation between Church and State....if not, then we slip farther down a very slippery slope.

(first off, we would need to decide which Church is the right Church - and that my friends will be a rather ugly process - one that I fear none of us would survive intact - no fight is so brutal as the one in the name of god...)

A very refreshing change I'd like to see in a candidate is one who says:

I think that abortion is wrong, but I will defend your right to make your own choice to my last breath.

That is what this country is supposed to be all about.

Shall we try to discuss "gay mariage" next?

Oh, I agree with you that abortion is murder. But to say that Jesus wouldn't vote for Obama had to be about the dumbest thing Keyes could have said, regardless of whether or not that might be true.

(1) The constitution does not suggest the separation of state and church in that religion should be kept out of government. It guarentees the separation of church FROM state, meaning that state is not allowed to squash any religion.

For example, in a strict reading of the constitution, nativity scenes on small-town courthouse lawns are legal. However, the same small-town may NOT pass a law making Buddhists sing Christmas carols.

(2) The government exists in part to enforce laws, which are based on moral choices (the nuances of which are determined by its culture and citizens). In the case of America, the culture and citizens are overwhelmingly Christian.

Its time to remember that America is run by the democratic majority. The only caveat is that the majority can't destroy the minority. No where does it say or even suggest that the views of the minority must be treasured and coddled. Only tolerated.

(3) Our government doesn't allow murder. Recent technologies have shown that what was previously thought to be a blob of indiscriminate tissue actually has significant humanity (feels pain, responds emotionally appropriately to audible stimuli, etc). It is only a matter of time before the courts acknowledge that the "fetus" is actuallly a "baby". Abortion has nothing to do with womens' rights and EVERYTHING to do with children's rights.

No matter how conveinent it is to murder someone, our government does not allow it. Eventually, it won't allow abortion either. Its not a matter of legislating religious morality, which our government clearly does already. Its a matter of time.

Lucy makes some excellent points "of" and "from" two small words which make a BIG difference - as stated, I have not studied the text, very much my bad (and somewhat embarrassing actually)

Re point 1) By inference, if the government is not "allowed to squash any religion" it is also not allowed to promote any particular religion. It could be easily argued that our current head of state is certainly allowing his religion to bias his decisions - he has as much as said so. I do not find the fact that he has strong beliefs troubling, but that he will openly make statements that indicate that this or that decision is based more on a religious tennant than on world events and conditions I do find troubling.

re point 2)Nicely summed up. To clarify, I was certianly NOT stating that the minority needs to be protected, coddled, or otherwise raised above anyone else - my point was that just because I have a point of view - which in the case of the argument is more or less in tune with one majority - does not mean that I have any right to assumme that the government has a responsibilty to impose, by force of law, that point of view on everyone else.

Re point 3) Now this is a sticky one. No, the government does not allow murder...of "regular" members of society at large - and under the laws, there is no bias given to any ethnic or class based groups (dilligence of procecution of the efforts to find the criminal who might commit such an act can be argued to be biased by these factors - conciously or not, relative worth of one life over another is assigned in such situations)

But our government does not seem to have an issue with both promoting and commiting "murder" of "irregular" members of society. Once a person's status has been changed to something else - say "criminal" - our Governments stipulates a forfiture of rights and freedoms and has no qualms with separating a particular member from his or her living status. Similarly - once determined a "combatant" we have no problems - ethically, legally, or morally - with separating a member from thier living status (funny how we feel differently if the member who is separated from life is wearing one of our uniforms. Honestly, does anyone living under the American flag feel the same when you hear about an American casualty in Iraq versus an Iraqi casualty in Iraq? Conversly, if any of our readers are Iraqi - or at least not American - I wonder how they feel under same situation? NO matter, this is simply a point of observation )

As for the question of when life begins,this begs the question of "what is life" It also entertains the question of "is something alive if it cannot exist on its own?" or "if medical science can provide an artificial environment in which "life" can continue, does that move the point at wich "life" has been attained?"

Also, it shoudl be noted that both plants, "food animals", and a container of yogurt will "feels pain, responds emotionally appropriately to audible stimuli, etc" Where does that put the argument.

I agree that the most obviously effected "individual" in abortion is the child that never is as a result of the action. And clearly some clarification of my "circumstances" is in order. I am catagorically against the employment of abortion in any matter of simple convenience, "you" should have thought about that before you had the convenient fun. Period. There are more than enough ways to avoid this particular consequence of fun - and not all are provided by medical science even. But that is not the point.

A gross example of one of my "circumstances": A "mere child" of say 13 or 14 is the victim of a crime purpetrated by a trusted "adult" and the added complication results.

The following questoins - using your own words actully - result:

Which child's rights are more important?

Which child will suffer more?

Arguably, the "responsible" adult should be required to raise, provide, and care for the "added complication" - but I certainly wouldn't want that particular adult to be allowed to fail in this role again - so, what provision is going to be made?

This leads me to a point that I have often wanted to aire:

Putting aside the issue of right/wrong legal/illegal moral/imoral for a moment, why is it that we never hear about any discusions of providing for either the mother, or the unplanned for child from the side that says that the mother "must have" the child?

I don't want the pro/con argument entered here, what I would like hear about is why there are no discusions beyond the time frame of 0 to 9 months.

People are willing to kill other people over that time frame, but cast everyone out into the sea of society at 9 months plus 1 day.

I'm fairly sure that if there was some sort of a viable and friendly safety net for the time from 9 months + 1 day until say 9 months + 18 years that the instances of actual abortion would drop - have any studies been done to indicate how many women seek the quick solution because they are scared and have no clue how they are going to go on AFTER the birth - let alone getting that far?

I'm a man, so quite frankly, the entire women's side of the argument is alien to me - I've watched the process of pregnancy and birth - it's VERY powerful - and I've watched other go through it too. I more or less take the chicken's way out of the pro/con discussion and say that I am not in a proper position to say one way or another. Certianly as a potential father the act effects me, but not nearly as much as it does the woman, and certianly it does not effect a government, nor really the people who are the government who come from wealth and privilage - it only effects the people who go through it. Those who stand on the side and say "it's right" or "it's wrong" are reacting to something different. As is quoted often, and atributed to the one who may or may not have voted 'let he amung you who is without sin cast the first stone' How many of those activists go home and violate a few children's rights I wonder, or women's rights, or just other's rights in general? It's an interesting question.

So, for a moment, let's say that the government should focus on removing the stimulus to seek this service rather than on determining the constitutional right for it, or the point at which it moves from a medical procedure to "an act of murder" Those are VERY LARGE issues. Directing our society to one where the negative stigma of being an young, or unwed mother is removed, and one where accepting that option does not condem you to a life of suffering and want and an instant dropping of social class etc. And then, after the new numbers are counted the Government can decide if it wants to go back to determining when life begins and when ending something is murder or not.

This is not a call to avoid the problem, but to attack a different side of it in search of a solution - if no one ever sought to have an abortion for reasons other than say the example that I presented, then the entire argument would mostly go away - there would be no free market driver for a clinic that is more or less devoted to turn key performance of this task, there woud simply not be an economic driver for it. Without the wholesale completion of the task, the furor would die down and rational decision could be made (I say could, because I am confident that they never will pro or con)

Comments?

(1) There are some reptuable studies (which I am too lazy to look up right now :) that found in the case of the woman being raped, that carrying a child to term was actually GOOD for the mental well-being of the victim. It seems that being subjected to an abortion adds to the trauma. Carrying the child to term gives the woman a sense of empowerment in that she didn't let the rapist destroy her child, that she isn't a victim totally at his mercy. Having an abortion doesn't make all the messy emotions go away, it only makes the child's life go away.

Talk to several women that have had abortions. There's a lot of trauma afterward, for years in most cases.

(2) Adoption is a great thing. Some people suggest that the woman is victimized by knowing that she has a child in the world who is beyond her control. However, I'm sure that is infinitely preferable to knowing that you killed your own child. I'm sure the child would rather be adopted than killed. I'm sure the adoptive parents would rather have the baby than have the baby killed. Adoption is a win-win-win situation.

Currently, there aren't enough babies for adoption. I know three couples that are adopting. One couple is adopting from Russia, another from Korea, and another is adopting a five-year-old. To get a baby in this country is easily a 2-4 YEAR wait. These are really nice people. There is a HUGE demand for babies in this country.

Adoption is a fantastic 9 months plus 1 day plan! It perserves the mother's sense of self as a "good" person, it saves the child's life, it provides the adoptive parents with experiences and opportunities beyond value.

"But our government does not seem to have an issue with both promoting and commiting 'murder' of 'irregular' members of society."

I think you're confusing "killing" with "murdering". There is a very big difference.

murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another

kill: To put to death; To deprive of life

If you accept than an unborn child is human, then you must accept that abortion is essentially murder. The child has done nothing wrong, so to kill him is unlawful.

Putting criminals to death is another matter entirely. Nowhere in the Scriptures does God ever tell man that he has the right to life. While human life is certainly valuable to God, He has listed several circumstances in which a man's life may be taken from him. Additionally, the Old Testament is full of examples where God has taken thousands of human lives because of their wickedness.

------------------------------

Now, I recognize that the United States is not a Christian nation. As such, we have no business making laws that try to force Christian ideals on the entire population. However, it is still the government's job to protect its citizens. And I do not believe that the definition of a human life is a matter of one's own interpretation or beliefs... thus, unborn children should be equally protected under the law.

All,

Thank you for being civil in all of your comments. This is a very emotional issue and I greatly appreciate the fact that our community at AQR is a very civil one.

I have a half-written response to Adm Tronthor's first post at my office and I had planned on finishing it on Monday. However, Lucy has already discussed some of my points.

I will respond to some of the provoking thoughts all of you raised, but I have a few questions for you first (to make sure I'm talking to you vs. talking at you).

1) Adm Tronthor wrote that the governmentis also not allowed to promote any particular religion. Are you promoting your belief in the way things should be? Or your belief that this is what our founders intended? Or both?

2) Pyro wrote I recognize that the United States is not a Christian nation. Same question, different context. Do you believe that the US is not a Christian nation now? Do you believe that the Founders did not intend to create a Christian nation? Or both?

BTW, I appreciate and agree with Pyro's distinction between murder and killing. In the eyes of Scripture, at least as I understand it, abortion is murder. In the eyes of the US government, abortion is killing, but not murder.

Blog Jones,
Well, that depends upon Keyes' goals, purpose, and situation.

His goals and purpose are his own (I am not sure if he is deliberately trying to draw attention to abortion, trying to win, or just trying to line up a conservative talk show program for after the election. Maybe all three at once - only he knows.).

However, his situation is pretty clear. He has no real budget and a very slight chance of winning against a popular and well-funded opponent. So he has chosen a strategy of deliberately baiting the press in order to get attention. In my opinion, it is probably the best tactic for a cash-poor campaign. Not that I think that it will be successful, but what else can he do?

That's true; I hadn't thought of it from that perspective. I had assumed that he was playing to win the election. If he's not, that'd explain the "I don't care what they say about me so long as they spell my name right" attitude.

A couple of questions and comments about this fascinating discussion.

Lucy -- I would really like if you could provide the sources for those adoption vs. abortion studies of trauma for rape victms? I am rather skeptical, but would like to take a look at those studies.

My understanding is while there is a shortage of white babies for adoption, there are still not enough families for minority babies. Does anyone know more about this or have statistics?

Pyro -- The problem with the OT's standards for Murder and Killing is that many of the justifications for killing are abhorant to our own morals -- i.e. stoning disobedient children. Since a number of justifications for killing in the OT are way off from what we consider acceptible, it becomes shaky to point to the OT to set the standard. Who determines which justification is legal and illegal?

Furthermore, the State is not God and cannot kill the "wicked" with the same impunity as God. I think it is incredibly dangerous to use that as a justification -- who decides what is legal killing and what is illegal killing? Is the indiscriminate killing of non-combatants by high altitude bombing because they live near military targets murder or killing?

"The problem with the OT's standards for Murder and Killing is that many of the justifications for killing are abhorant to our own morals"

Leviticus 10:1-2
God kills two priests because they did not follow His instructions, and presented a sacrifice incorrectly. "So fire went out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them so that they died before the Lord."

2 Samuel 6:6-7
The Ark of the covenent is being transported on a cart. It nearly falls off, and Uzzah steadies it with his hand. God strikes him dead.

And just so you don't think I'm leaving the New Testament out...

Acts 5
Ananias and Sapphira lie about money they received from selling property. God strikes them both dead.

So are God's justifications for these killings absurd by your moral standards? Remember, if there is any such thing as "right" and "wrong", then they are defined by God alone. Man has no more authority to define morality than a US citizen has to declare himself above the law.

Is the law harsh? Yes and no. No, because ultimately the penalty for all sin is death (Romans 6:23), and anything less we receive is just mercy from God. But on the other hand, yes, the law is harsh - because it was meant to point us to Christ (Galations 3:24).

Perhaps this is a topic for another forum (Don?) since I don't want to get too off topic.

Maybe I did not make my point clear, Pyro. Why are those verses you cited more legitimate in our society today than, say, Exodus 22:17--"Whoever curses his father or his mother must be put to death"(New Living Translation)?

Who determines that verse X is no longer applicable, but that other verses are? I realize that theologically, no conservative Christian will believe this, but in practice, certain verses are ignored and others elevated based on the values and morals of our culture.

We do not value all parts of Scripture eqaully. Our culture does play a silent partner in our interpretation of Scripture, influencing what parts of Scripture we emphasise and what parts we ignore. This is a phenomenom refered to as the "Canon within the Canon."

But the big question remains, who determines which part of Scrpture is more valued than the other? Since we all ignore or at least downplay certain parts of God's law, what then makes other parts of God's law legitimate or justified?

If you do not believe in stoning disobedient children or executing women in engaging in premarital sex, are you then violating part of God's law?

And Pyro, what are the practical implications of the verses you cited? Should someone be put to death if they disrespect a ritual or lie about their tithing? I understand that God kills these people for disobedience, but what does that have to do with now? Would you honestly support a legal system that executes these kind of infractions?

I suspect that most Christians argue that the resurrection of Christ and the concept of Grace would replace the OT's legal system and more horrifying examples of biblical "justice." But yet Grace does not seem to extend to issues like abortion and homosexuality and the OT is trotted out again for arguments. This doesn't seem consistent to me and my question is, by what standard do we pick and choose?

Pyro, you also didn't answer my last question. My understanding from your posts is that killing by individuals (and abortion doctors) is illegal and murder, but killing by the State and the military is legal and so is considered just killing. But the State is not God and cannot kill with the same impunity as God. If the State kills innocents (such as in war), are they also not committing murder?

I apologize if any of my post seems disrespectful, I do not mean to be. I also want to be talking to you and not at you.

Szdfan,

Thank you for asking if a comment was appropriate. The answer is yes and you have inspired me to write a new post on my guidelines for comments.

Now I have a response for you. I think you frame one perspective well when you said:

I realize that theologically, no conservative Christian will believe this, but in practice, certain verses are ignored and others elevated based on the values and morals of our culture.

We do not value all parts of Scripture eqaully. Our culture does play a silent partner in our interpretation of Scripture, influencing what parts of Scripture we emphasise and what parts we ignore. This is a phenomenom refered to as the "Canon within the Canon."

I grant that culture has an impact on how Christians behave and it does so in many ways. However, I suspect you mean more than this. Let me address the point I think you are making and you can let me know if I'm missing the boat.

Most Christians do not believe that every verse in the Bible applies to them. To paraphrase an old saw, the entire Bible is for our education, but not all of it directly applies to us. For my part, I find it helpful to think of the Bible in three parts for the purposes of this discussion. Part I – God's plan for all people as laid out in the first part of Genesis. Part II – Jewish law for the Jewish people. Part III – The New Covenant with specific restrictions and freedoms for Christians. In this view, Part I applies to everyone. For example, when asked about divorce, Jesus Himself discussed God's original plan (Matthew 19:4-6) when He discussed the sanctity of marriage. Part II does not apply to Christians. It is fascinating reading and it is very enlightening because it helps us understand a small part of the mind of God, but Christians are under no obligation to follow Jewish law (in fact the Apostle Paul warns Christians against trying to do so). Part III applies to all followers of Christ.

So if you meant that modern Christians do not follow the laws aimed at the Jews of ancient Israel as much as they follow the laws aimed at Christians, then I 100% agree. But I find solid grounds for this practice. However, if you meant something different, then please elaborate.

There seems to be much discussion/disagreement/misinterpretation of the division of church and state in the US. Out of curiousity, I would not mind a little clarification on this point.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

From this I read there are two protections. The second phrase prohibits the government from passing a law making Buddhists sing Christmas carols and other interference. The first phrase, I'm a bit fuzzy on. "Establish" could mean the creation or it could mean stabilization. If the latter, would not nativity scenes on courthouse lawns or prayers in public schools be unconstitutional? Doing so would place a government stamp of approval on the represented religion, advancing it before other religions within the state; a de facto state religion. Is there a legal distinction between the two possible definitions?

The issue of text reading is one of the reasons I am not a Biblical literalist. Even if the Bible is the infalliable word of God, our readings and interpretations are falliable. We filter any text through our own experiences and culture and this can cause radically different understandings of the same text.

I am not saying that Scripture is irrelevant to questions of right and wrong. I however take issue with the practice I witnessed growing up in which some Christians insisted that God commanded us to do X because of verse Y.

My concern is that when we insist that Scripture is infalliable, we really mean that our own interpretation of Scripture is infalliable.

Don, I think you and I are on the same page on some of these issues. I agree the resurrection of Christ replaces the OT covenants and are not applicable to Christians.

However, my question is that if Christians do not need to follow OT law, why then are parts of the OT used to argue "Chrstian positions" (I use the quotes not out of disrespect, but because there is so much diversity among Christian communities, rarely is there a universal position on social issues). For example Don, your white paper on abortion primarily uses OT references and Pyro uses basically an OT definition of murder and killing.

I am not saying that the OT needs to be completely discounted, but what is the guiding principle that establishes verse X to be relevant today and not verse Y? Am I making myself clear?

My questions to Pyro were based on my impression that he did not make a distinction between OT and NT, but that it was all lumped together as "God's Law." Please correct me if I misunderstood you, Pyro.