Another Christian comes down with a case of the common sense. Reverend Gregory A. Boyd of the Woodland Hills Church in St Paul, Minnesota caught it a few years back and hasn’t been the same since… luckily.
Rev. Boyd preaches to some 4,000 members of the church every week and spreads a surprising message… well surprising to Christians anyways. Annoyed with church members asking him to promote their anti-gay agenda, endorse ONLY Republican candidates, and hang Americans flags in the church to support the war effort, Rev Boyd sent a clear message.
He wrote up six sermons called, "The Cross and the Sword" to clearly outline the purpose of their faith and their church. Boyd says,
The church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a “Christian nation” and stop glorifying American military campaigns.
Those are powerful words that sit well with me. In this one sentence, Boyd sums up what is ruining Christianity today. Unfortunately, that sermon didn’t sit well with his flock. The church lost 1,000 of its 5,000 members because it didn’t fit their broken concept of Christianity. But is there anything wrong with what Boyd has stated?
I really would like to hear from the Christians on this one. Do you agree with Boyd’s statement and why?
I’d like to thank Michael Lawrence for sending me this story.
Related posts:
- Christian Hypocrites Declare War On Common Sense
- Muslim Cabbies Ditch Common Sense In Favor Of Islam
- Common Sense And Courtesy Absent In Islam
- Dave Represents The Old School Christians
- Katherine Harris, Christian Freak Or MILF?
August 1st, 2006 at 10:03 pm
I’m speechless. Here is a man I probably disagree with on all most any public policy issue and he is willing to leave me alone to make my own choices. Now that is respect that is well worth reciprocating.
August 1st, 2006 at 10:54 pm
It’s gasmonso’s willingness to applaud those in the religious world who deserve praise that makes this my favorite blog.
Well, that and whacking on the crazy ones.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:58 pm
Refreshing. In a word. Well summed up by sidfaiwu, it shows that people of any religion or ideology can get along if they just respect and leave be.
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:05 am
Sounds almost like the Jehovah’s Witnesses. No involvement in politics or military in any country.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:37 am
i wish more christians would read David Lipscomb’s book Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission, and Destiny, and the Christian’s Relation to It.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:02 am
See that’s what I’ve always thought. This Christian says Good Blog!
Christians: Stop concentrating on everything you think is wrong with the world and start concentrating on yourself and your church. Make your community better. Make it so children don’t slip and fall onto crack needles on their way to school.
Do what you believe is right politically and churches should stay out of it. This country was built on the backs of Christians, but they also gave the freedom OF religion to everyone. (notice we don’t have the freedom FROM religion for all of those non-Christian people who want the 10 commandments gone from state buildings and what not). But that’s another debate for another time.
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:55 am
Applause to this man and his ability to keep religion where it belongs, in the church and in the homes of Christians. It makes me sad that people walked out on this man.
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:55 am
if only there were more of him.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:36 am
I’m glad someone out there isn’t making us all look bad.
The only part of that sentence that I’m not so sure about is the part that says, “The church should steer clear of politics…” While that sounds good, and I want to agree with it, I’m not sure how to go about it in practice. It seems that some views a christian might hold might require him not to stand idly by, politically.
Let’s say a certain christian* views abortion as the killing of a person. Now, this christian isn’t some fundamentalist women’s-rights-hating whacko, he just happens to believe, based on his interpretation of what he’s read in the Bible, that a person becomes a person at conception. He doesn’t hate pro-choice** people, or people who’ve had an abortion, he just believes that they are making a tragic mistake. He doesn’t want them put behind bars or harassed, he just wants them not to end what he sees as a life. If this christian finds himself in a position of political power, should he make an effort with that power to affect abortion laws, or should he steer clear of the issue entirely, because christians “should steer clear of politics?”
I’m asking this question honestly; I’m genuinely curious as to what you all think. I promise I’m not just baiting you into saying you’re pro-choice** so I can scream, “BABY KILLER!” :-)
*This christian doesn’t represent me, necessarily. Growing up in a southern baptist environment, I was taught to be pro-life**…I even went to pro-life** rallies. But I know that the situation isn’t as simple as either side wants me to believe, so I currently have mixed thoughts on the issue.
**I really dislike the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” The insinuation that pro-choice people are anti-life and that pro-life people are anti-choice isn’t lost on me, and I don’t like it one whit. Something’s wrong with the debate when both sides’ identifiers are flame-war accelerants.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:56 am
UncleMidriff, I think your Christian politician should be able to push for illegalising abortion. I’m sure it’s possible for non-Christians to have that sort of a viewpoint, and you couldn’t object to that, could you?
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:17 am
UncleMidriff… I suppose, on the individual level, a fine line separates politics and religion. For an individual, religion is just a system of beliefs, so fighting abortion is the same thing as fighting Wal-Mart. I guess the separation is in why you believe what you believe. Would you be fighting abortion to “energize your base†for re-election and dodge questionable/indictable things you have done in the past, or would you be fighting abortion because you believe it is for the greater good?
I really do not think religion is a problem per se. The real problems, to me anyway, are: a) no term limits on the House and Senate, and b) representatives and senators pandering to their “base,†be it religious or non-religious, to stay in office. Since the Republican Party considers its “base†to be the Christian right, an entire political party is pandering to the religious on “values†issues to deflect everything else they have done in the past 6 years. Now THAT is damaging our country.
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:12 am
Hello UncleMidriff,
I always enjoy reading your posts. It seems to come from a rational (thus we are able to discuss things) Christian (different from me, so we have something to discuss) point of view.
Anyway, I am very much in agreement with your point on this one. It is not so easy to separate religion from politics. Christians can and should vote based on their core beliefs and support causes that are important to them. The problem occurs when they try to legislate morality in the restrictive sense. From a freedom point of view, individuals should be free to do as they please as long as they do not violate any other person’s rights. You picked what is probably the stickiest issue as an example (I’m with you in that I don’t buy either sides’ position entirely) so I will counter with a more clear-cut example: gay marriage. Is it moral to forbid someone from doing something that causes no harm to you or anyone else simply because some think it’s wrong? I believe it is immoral at worst and anti-American at best. I also think it’s issues like this one that Reverend Boyd was referring to when he said they should not moralize sexuality.
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:31 am
just a sidenote…if the link to the original NY Times story is bugging you for a username and password to read the original article I highly suggest the use of this website:
http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.nytimes.com
This way you can login to read the original story without having to sign up for spam. :)
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:36 am
Very view religious/political views are clear cut. Politically I am Pro-Choice. Personally Pro-Life. I am not willing to raise anyones unwanted child and I’m also unwilling to subject any child to the nightmares of foster care. Therefore I don’t feel I have the right to tell any woman she has to have a child.
Of course the true issue isn’t about abortion it’s about control. Why can’t people ignore these ‘wedge’ issues and hold our so-called representatives accountable for failing to do their jobs. It seems the populous is always focusing on issues that will touch them peripherally or not at all.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:38 pm
About abortion: Forcing the mother to keep her child leads to having both their lives wasted.
There’s a reason why she doesn’t want to keep it. Maybe she’s too poor, maybe she’s too young, etc. In any case, she will live a crappy life, and give her child a unhappy childhood. Forcing someone to such a big commitment as having kids is not, in my opinion, a good thing..
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Let’s make it a law to outlaw male masturbation as well! What if I happen to believe that a flying spaghetti monster blesses squirts of semen with a soul the moment it leaves the body and masturbation destroys said soul? Should the US let my beliefs force such a ban if I get enough puppets to believe it too?
Cells are cells. Scientifically, that is all until a fetus becomes aware. Animals are aware, but christians don’t give a shit about them, and surely some are smarter than an undeveloped fetus.
The issue is respecting life, and christians have a horribly scewed point of view on the subject.
As far as I’m concerned abortions should be allowed until the fetus developes a conciousness. Until then, don’t let voodoo dictate a woman’s right to abort if they need to, and don’t hold back stem cell research for that matter (let scientists create embryos/fetuses to harvest, as long as they don’t develope awareness).
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Forcing your views on others is the essence of politics. It is human nature. How would you rewire mankind to accommodate all possible philosophies without any one of them taking precedence?
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Aldous Huxley: Brave New World ;)
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Wow. Perfect. Sounds like he got the message I got from the stories - /stories/ - in the Bible.
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:20 pm
haha what tommy (#2) said
good find, he makes me almost want to go back to church.
well, i’m up for a chat anyways
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Hi… I’m a Christian. I read that Boyd article a few days ago, and I’ve been discussing it a bit with another Christian friend of mine.
By way of giving a bit of background, Boyd has been a fairly contraversial theological figure in some circles over recent years, especially given his support for the doctrine of “Open Theism”. In a nutshell, Open Theism states that God wilfully limits his ability to know the future, as opposed to the more orthodox and traditional view that God knows the future in its entirety. You can Google it, of course - there’s reams of discussion about it out there. Anyway, suffice to say he has been making waves in evangelical circles for some time now.
To answer the question - I do agree totally with Boyd’s statement, and also with pretty much all of his sentiments as outlined in the NYT article. I was fairly disturbed to read the account of the church that included fighter jets as part of its multimedia presentation.
I do believe that to truly understand what he’s getting at though, you have to see what he’s saying through a Christian lens. When he says “steer clear of politics”, he’s not meaning “be apathetic and don’t vote”. Similarly, when he says “give up moralizing”, he doesn’t mean “don’t have an opinion on gay marriage, homosexuality, etc. etc.”. The problem here is that the ‘religious right’ (or whatever you want to call it) focusses on these issues to such an extent that that is all Christians are becoming known for. Christians should be known as people who are like Christ (whether or not you like it… that’s up to you, of course). That’s all. If that isn’t the public perception, then Christians are doing something wrong. I think that Boyd has therefore expressed himself this way because in the present day, the most obvious and egregious offences against the name of Christ are being made by those who are falling off the conservative side of the spectrum, and indulging in pharisaical and judgmental lifestyles. Keep in mind that the exact opposite scenario (ie. an overemphasis on liberalism) could occur though.
The best word that describes the current distortion of Christian living is, I think, ‘reductionism’. The ‘conservative’ people want to reduce Christianity to merely a moral crusade for a certain way of living, with token (at best) regard to people in need of material help. The ‘liberal’ folks want to reduce Christianity to an amoral aid agency, with no voice given to the fallen moral state of the world. Either way, you miss the point. True Christianity isn’t left-leaning, neither is it right-leaning: it’s Christward-leaning. There are people who truly get this, and live it - believe me. They don’t make the headlines though. The dearest Christian folk I know aren’t reading this blog right now - they’re the ones you don’t hear about who are investing their lives and resources into rich and poor alike in the hope that people may come to know Christ and learn to live their lives in a way that pleases him.
I haven’t read it yet, but apparently Wallis’ book on Christianity and American politics is a good one to read:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060558288/103-9444953-2242256?v=glance&n=283155
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:38 am
I was brought up Christian (Catholic). I agree 100% with what Reverend Boyd says. I don’t think his views are that much different from many Christians, but the sane ones aren’t usually the ones you hear about; they’re not quite as entertaining.
That said, I think it’s a generation of Americans that have been brought up to be intolerant of people’s sexual and racial differences, regardless of religion… although, unfortunately, many people use religion as a crutch to continue their intolerance. I am lucky that both of my parents were brought up by religious, educated, and open minded people who were able to pass those gifts on to my parents who in turn brought me up not to be a knuckle dragging backward thinking redneck.
August 3rd, 2006 at 9:28 am
Amber{This country was built on the backs of Christians, but they also gave the freedom OF religion to everyone}You still do not get it.What about the Chinese coolies who were not Christians , How about the atheist’s ,the Muslim’s and all the other’s who were here but were silent to keep from being persecuted by whom you said gave us freedom . Just a dumb fuck ATHEIST in Texas trying not to be persecuted by the ones who broke my back building this great nation.
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:10 am
“As far as I’m concerned abortions should be allowed until the fetus developes a conciousness.”
Can we scientifically prove when this happens? I don’t necessarily disagree, btw.
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:57 am
“Open Theism states that God wilfully limits his ability to know the future, as opposed to the more orthodox and traditional view that God knows the future in its entirety.”
—-
I think Boyd is a lot closer to being a Jehovah’s Witness than he realizes, since that view is also in line with the Witnesses.
August 3rd, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Your Father said:
“Let’s make it a law to outlaw male masturbation as well! What if I happen to believe that a flying spaghetti monster blesses squirts of semen with a soul the moment it leaves the body and masturbation destroys said soul? Should the US let my beliefs force such a ban if I get enough puppets to believe it too?”
If you honestly believed that to be the case, then I couldn’t fault you for supporting that view politically. I would disagree with you and vote against your politcal representatives, but I wouldn’t try to act as if you were somehow abusing the system for trying to get representation for your crazy ideas. :-)
August 3rd, 2006 at 1:01 pm
I suppose you’re right, as there really isnt a better way of doing things. I don’t really resent the system as much as I do the stupid people in the system.
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:42 pm
Dear Conerned Christians,
Stop trying to save the world, your community, your friends, neighbors and above all else, yourselves. The world does not need your good intentions and intervention to survive in a morally positive way. At all.
People don’t learn from teaching and constant Micro-Management; they learn from experience. You’ll know this nagging word; because it represents that voice inside you crying out, in that persecuting or changing people, just because they are different, is WRONG.
I don’t even want to hear, but, but “Who will keep the drugs, queers and rapists off our streets, and out of our children”? We will, each and every one of us, all responable for our own lives, learning at our own pace.
Despite what you’re pastor or priests says, it is not everyone’s job to recruit the seemingly morally-inept into beleiving that your solution will work for everybody. Just go pray to whatever invisible deity gives you your self-esteem back, and leave EVERYONE ELSE ALONE.
(Failure to comply with the above will result in passing legislation for my message to become mandatory teaching in classrooms.)
August 9th, 2006 at 10:15 am
I believe in free will. I believe that people have choices. I believe that legislating Christianity is removing the choice, stepping on free will.
For instance, I do not agree with abortion. Not because it “is just wrong”, but because I think it removes responsibility. Now, I am *not* in favor of banning or getting rid of abortion because for me, it is a symtpom, not the disease. Forcing my views would only make things worse.
“Christians” need to learn that how they act makes a bigger impact than what they preach. Until then, they will be met with hard hearts and cold hostility.
“Care not convert.”
August 9th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
““Christians†need to learn that how they act makes a bigger impact than what they preach.”
That’s right. And history appears to tell us that, sadly, there will always be a lot more of us Christians who don’t ever learn that/live it out. Those who do learn it, like I said earlier, usually don’t make the headlines. After all, there’s nothing juicy about helping the disadvantaged on the front-lines, but it does happen. Just not enough.
“I believe in free will. I believe that people have choices. I believe that legislating Christianity is removing the choice, stepping on free will.”
OK…
“I am *not* in favor of banning or getting rid of abortion because for me, it is a symtpom, not the disease.”
So the free will of the strong should override the free will of the defenceless? I really don’t think the human race wants to go there. Don’t get me wrong - I totally agree that “legislating Christianity”, per se, is a bad idea (as a general statement - ignoring the nuances of the current Christianity/Politics situation in the West for now). But it seems clear to me that there are many other reasons why abortion is ethically abhorrent, apart from “Christians don’t like it”, and that a conclusion otherwise requires an arbitrary exception to someone’s right to “free will”.
August 9th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
“But it seems clear to me that there are many other reasons why abortion is ethically abhorrent, apart from “Christians don’t like it—
reasons like what? christians work under the assumption, that life starts at conception. I for one feel that it is when a (pre)person can feel and becomes aware. Working under any other (non-christian) assumption makes abortion a reasonable choice. Therefor it IS an issue of “christians don’t like it”.
If one didn’t believe in god and souls (created at conception) and other crap you can’t prove, then what reason could you possibly have for calling abortion ethically abhorent. If you did believe that a clump of cells that cant feel or think shouldnt be considered a person, then logically, you wouldn’t have a problem with abortion.
August 9th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
“and that a conclusion otherwise requires an arbitrary exception to someone’s right to “free willâ€.”
Once again you’re missing the point. It is not a matter of free will. It is a matter of what you consider a person. If you don’t believe that a lifeless clump of cells is a person, then why you believe it has any more rights then a deskchair?
August 9th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Hi, Your Father.
I realise that the issue of what you “consider” a person is affects the understanding of the debate. I suppose I should have made it clear that I was assuming in my argument that a fetus is still considered to be a human being. There are many who believe that who are still OK with abortion because they assert that the taking of a defenceless person’s life is a lesser evil than violating the all-supreme “woman’s right to choose” - I guess I was addressing those people.
To those who make an abitrary distinction between a “person” and “lifeless clump of cells” - oxymoronic? - I can only protest and plead that they might reconsider the dreadful implications of such a belief, should they be misguided. Especially in the light of there being viable alternatives to “aborting” a child that you truly can not, or will not support, such as adoption.
Having said that, it’s clear to me that in some respects there will always be irreconcilable differences between a Christian perspective and a purely naturalistic outlook on the issue. I don’t really know what the best way around this is. Clearly, the two views can not peacefully co-exist because both ’sides’ view the truth of their case as an absolute.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:03 am
“There are many who believe that who are still OK with abortion because they assert that the taking of a defenceless person’s life is a lesser evil than violating the all-supreme “woman’s right to choose†- I guess I was addressing those people.”
Have you ever had a baby? Do you understand the dangers involved and what it does to a woman’s body? You shouldn’t trivialize pregnancy.
“To those who make an abitrary distinction between a “person†and “lifeless clump of cells—
There’s nothing arbitrary about it. It’s either a mythological viewpoint, or a logical one.
“I can only protest and plead that they might reconsider the dreadful implications of such a belief, should they be misguided.”
This simply goes along with every other christian argument, about doing something someone interprets as a sin. “Because jesus said so” should not dictate law.
What are the implications of aborting a just concieved emryo anyways(lets play on the safe side for the sake of this argument)? Take religion out of the picture, and what do you get… nothing, there is no problem. Put religion in, and you get a large variety of viewpoints, all aiming to keep laws in the dark ages.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:23 am
Ben,
You said:
“There are many who believe that who are still OK with abortion because they assert that the taking of a defenceless person’s life is a lesser evil than violating the all-supreme “woman’s right to choose†- I guess I was addressing those people.”
Yeah, it is called freedom. Maybe you’ve heard of it? In the US we try not to let the government tell us what we can and cannot do with our own bodies (we’ve still got some work to do on that one). Think of a woman’s body as another country or international waters. The government has no right to step in and “defend” a fetus. Yeah, it sucks to think that maybe a human life is ending with abortion. Miscarrages certainly suck. You can make your voice heard that you think abortion is wrong. But what you can’t do is tell someone that they MUST carry a fetus for 9 months and birth it. “You can just give it up for adoption,” is hardly a consolation.
“Especially in the light of there being viable alternatives to “aborting†a child that you truly can not, or will not support, such as adoption.”
You say that like it is trivial to carry a fetus for 9 months, birth it, and give it up for adoption.
You’d probably shit a brick if the government tried to tell you what car you had to drive. And you think it is right for the government to tell a woman that she must birth a child?
August 10th, 2006 at 12:46 am
I personally believe it is the purpose of the strong to protect the weak. If I thought that finding some other reason to get rid of abortion other than Mainstream Christian moral grounds could be done successfully, then I would be all for it. I am at peace with the fact that I am live in a world where things I disagree with are gonna happen.
The problem is this would be legislating responsiblility. Whatever the context behind it may be, it isn’t a choice to be right or wrong, it’s required of you. In which case, there is even less responsibility in that you now have someone else to hold you accountable.
I kinda see that as a dangerous downward spiral, with each consecutive spin resulting in more places where we could legislate right and wrong, less places we actually have to hold ourselves responsible for, and the less intrinsic joy from choosing to do right as opposed to being forced to do right.
I could be totally off base here, let me know. It has been a long time since I have had the privilege of civil discussion and am a little rusty ^_^
——————————————————–
I am actually interested to hear about “many other reasons why abortion is ethically abhorrent”, cuz I am biased and am only intimately firmiliar(sp?) with some of the more extremist views. Harder to find the reaonable middle where people can disagree without getting at each others throats…
August 10th, 2006 at 1:37 am
@Your Father:
“Have you ever had a baby? Do you understand the dangers involved and what it does to a woman’s body? You shouldn’t trivialize pregnancy.”
No, I haven’t ever had a baby (due to biological restrictions on those of us who are male), nor has my wife. By no means do I intend to “trivialize” pregnancy. I’m fairly certain that a fair reading of my last post doesn’t trivialize it anyhow - leave the straw men out of this, if you would. I merely pointed out that there do exist possibilities to abortion, should an unwanted pregnancy arise.
(Of course, it’s hard to preempt every possible interpretation of a comment I’m making on a random blog, so I’m always happy to try and clarify what I’m saying.)
“There’s nothing arbitrary about it. It’s either a mythological viewpoint, or a logical one.”
Since when did your viewpoint have the monopoly on being logical? Despite some “Christians” best efforts to discredit our faith by their tendency to bury their brains in the sand (ie. I can understand why you might want to auto-equate “Christian” ideals with “blind stupidity”), it’s simply a false dichotomy to say that “you can be either non-religious, or an idiot.” If you’re just pointing out in a roundabout way that this is issue is a conflict between naturalism/humanism and a view of the universe that includes the supernatural, then of course I agree. Seeing as you ignored my implied question before, I’ll ask: on what authority/basis do you conclude that a clump of cells is “lifeless”? Is that not a self-contradictory statement; if not, why not?
@Matthew:
re: being trivial, see my comments above. I’m not suggesting that preganancy is ever “trivial”. Especially, say, a pregnancy due to rape, or some other tragic set of circumstances. I guess I am arguing that not aborting is the lesser of two evils, when compared with terminating the life of a fetus.
Again, I’m no advocate for legislating Christianity. I can understand why you might assume that, given the whole right-wing-being-in-bed-with-arrogant-Christians situation in the US. (Things are similar here in Australia, too). I have no desire, as a Christian, for conservative politics to prevail, or whatever. I believe Jesus clearly modelled the “power-under” approach to spreading truth, (something highlighted by Rev. Boyd - slightly on-topic comment!), as opposed to the “power-over” aggression of politics. I don’t actually care that much what the legislature says about abortion being legal or not (although, of course I would prefer that our society chose to reject it). All I desire to do is be an outlet for the message that abortion is a terrible path to take, in as compassionate a way as I can, and try to show why I believe that. For me, the political upshot of it all is not a primary issue.
All these things are, of course, irrefragably tied to my Christian worldview - just as everyone else’s opinion is distilled through their own frameworks for understanding the world. As such, my belief as a Christian is that abortion is just another consequence of man’s turning away from God, and that Christ is the only way that a person can ever find true and absolute peace - whether or not they ever have to deal with the issue of an unwanted pregnancy.
(Apologies for any confusing sentences or mistakes in this post - I don’t have time to read it back and check).
August 10th, 2006 at 6:03 am
Hi Nate,
As far as other not-Christian-specific ethical arguments against abortion go, I wouldn’t really feel adequate going into them in great detail - you’d be much better informed by Googling around or whatever. Some examples would be:
-an argument that the fetus should be afforded the same rights as a human because it is a potential human being,
-an argument that the fetus should be afforded the same rights as a human because it differs only from fully-grown people in areas that we wouldn’t usually discriminate against, such as location (inside the womb vs. outside), dependence (on the mother vs. being independent), size… etc.
-etc.
re: the downward spiral of legislating right and wrong that you talked about, I can see the logic of what you are saying. I also think I understand why so many non-Christians are very edgy when “morals” or “religion” or whatever gets close to goverment and law courts, given the arrogance and hard-hearted hypocrisy and scoffing of so much of the so-called “Christian right”. However, what about considering other moral issues on which I assume we are in agreement … say, stealing, for example (trite example, I know… sorry!) Should the govenment allow people to steal and not stand against it, because otherwise they would be legislating responsibility? While there is a barrier between church and state for a good reason in our democracies (or at least there’s supposed to be one!), I don’t think you can totally divorce ethical judgements (and the enforcing of those judgements) from the context of public law. Rather, I think we have our system set up this way so there will be informed debate in order to seek out what a proper ethical standard should be.
August 10th, 2006 at 8:58 am
Hello All,
I’d like to add some fuel to the fire ;)
Nate, a counter analogy to one of your points:
“-an argument that the fetus should be afforded the same rights as a human because it is a potential human being,”
would be:
-A person should be afforded the same (ethical) rights as a corpse because he/she is a potential corpse.
Certainly this statement is false and relies on the same logic as the one I quoted.
For the second statement:
“-an argument that the fetus should be afforded the same rights as a human because it differs only from fully-grown people in areas that we wouldn’t usually discriminate against, such as location (inside the womb vs. outside), dependence (on the mother vs. being independent), size… etc.
-etc.”
A fetus DOES differ from fully grown people in areas that we DO discriminate against; namely, age. The younger a person is (below a certain, threshold), the fewer rights we afford them. Here in the US, those under 21 can not drink, those under 18 cannot vote, those under 16 cannot drive, those under 10 (I think) cannot fly commercially without an adult, etc. While the actual number may differ from culture to culture, it is the case that we restrict the rights of youth. Why should the extreme young not be subject to extreme restriction of rights?
August 10th, 2006 at 9:56 am
Sid,
I’d argue that none of those things are “rights” per se. A fetus at the beginning of the second trimester is recognizably human and should have some basic human rights. It is no longer a “clump of cells” and afaik it is “aware”. Shouldn’t it have the right to live? What if at the point the mother decides to have an abortion, we could deliver via c-section? Should we do that and let the baby live? The mother wouldn’t have to go through the rest of the pregnancy. The baby could be put up for adoption. Just noodling here really. I know that there would be medical expenses involved and that would certainly have to be addressed.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:12 am
Cap,
The beginning of the second trimester? You mean the 3 month point? I’m not aware of any premature baby ever surviving outside the womb at that point. That would more or less be a miscarrage. If you take a fetus out that early, you’re essentially aborting it.
Are you sure you didn’t mean the beginning of the *third* trimester? Even then, I think the survival of the fetus would be on shaky ground.
I think perhaps you underestimate how much a fetus depends on the mother.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Actually Cap, I think that all living things have some right to live. Unlike many right-to-lifers, though, I don’t see the right to live as an on-off switch. One does not either have an absolute right to live or no right at all. There is a gradient of rights. The question for me is not ‘if’ something has a right to live; it is ‘how much’ of a right to live does it have.
For instance, consider pathogenic bacteria. It has a right to life, but such a small right to life that our right to not suffer trumps that right to life. I would argue that a fetus also has a diminished right to life. Thus the question becomes then, does is fetus’s right to life diminished to the point that a woman’s right to control her own body trumps it?
Both sides of the abortion issue see it as black and white when it should be shades of gray. We, as a society need to decide when and where to draw the line. The moment of conception is not rationally viable since a single cell that forms as a result has no more right to live than any other single cell organism, such as a cell of bacteria. As the fetus develops, its right to life also incrementally increases, but it is never an absolute right to life and must be measured against the pain and suffering its existence is causing.
August 10th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Hi all,
I don’t think I want to try and counter any of the above statements, because it’s all been done to death (and is still being done to death) many times over in the public square, on internet forums etc. etc. from both “sides” of the argument. Furthermore, I’m at work, and discussing all the interesting arguments that have been raised would take me all day. :)
All the differing conclusions that I read here (and elsewhere), including my own, are ultimately grounded on totally irreconcilable belief systems. I can see how one might try to justify abortion, assuming that a purely naturalistic philosphy is guiding your logic. However, if you hold a reasonable belief that a supernatural being created all life, and that in creating human life he enshrined it as unique and more precious than all other forms of life, then there is no way that arguments which rely on a “gradient of rights”, or whatever, are going to hold. For those people, anyway.
I can forsee a jillion tangents coming out of what I’m saying here, but I’m not really looking to start a jillion new discussions (sorry Rev. Boyd!) :) Perhaps you can see, though, given those philosophical differences, why some of us do see it as a black and white issue. If there are any specific things that have been said which you’d still really like a “Christian” response on, let me know and I’m happy to try.
August 10th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
@sidfaiwu:
I know I just posted that I wouldn’t address anything specific, but what the hey… :)
re. your counter-analogy about being a potential corpse, I think that’s just some sneaky misdirection that doesn’t address the core issue. Yes, the “potential human” & “potential corpse” assertions both rely on the same logic, but it’s the semantics of the original argument I posted which is the important thing. No one is asking for equal rights for corpses, because corpses aren’t human life, nor do they have a capacity to become a human life (apologies to Frankenstein).
Maybe this will illustrate:
“I don’t like this process on my computer, so I’m going to kill it.”
“I don’t like this person, so I’m going to kill them.”
Yes, it’s the “same logic”, but it’s just a ridiculous, distracting and meaningless subversion that is no justification for killing people, no? :-)
(IANAPhilosopher, so I may not be using some terms properly here, but hopefully my meaning is clear anyway.)
August 10th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
Whoops, my “another debate for another time” comment didn’t work. Oh well.
My brain hurts from too much studying, so again, we can argue about who came over to the US first. Neglecting of course those who were ALREADY HERE. Poor Native Americans.
August 11th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Hello Ben,
I know many of these discussions are, and have been taken place for a long time now. I do, however, like the fact that this forum provides us with an opportunity to discuss abortion without either of us becoming too emotional. If everyone took an equally sober perspective of this issue it would not be as contentious as it is. I appreciate your perspective and am enjoying the discussion. In that spirit, I would like to continue the debate.
Let’s call your first argument the ‘argument from potential’ which basically follows as thus:
1) A human fetus is a potential human.
2) One has the ethical rights equivalent to that of its potential.
Thus
3) A human fetus has ethical rights equivalent to that of a human.
In my view, #2 is the false part of this deduction. The counter example I gave follows here:
1) A human is a potential corpse.
2) One has the ethical rights equivalent to that of its potential.
Thus
3) A human has ethical rights equivalent to that of a corpse.
This is not a sneaky misdirection. I did not change #2 of the argument, only #1. In both, #1 is an accepted fact. In your refutation, you mistakenly reversed the conclusion. The argument from potential does not say a corpse has the same rights as a human for the very reason you pointed out, a corpse is not a potential (living) human. If you want another, non-corpse example, here is another:
1) A human is a potential murderer.
2) One has the ethical rights equivalent to that of its potential.
Thus
3) A human has ethical rights equivalent to that of a murderer.
Clearly, the conclusion is false. Since this is deductive reasoning, one of the two first statements must be false. #1 is true. All humans have the capacity to take another’s life. Thus #2 must be false.
Another problem for the argument from potential is that a fetus has multiple potentials. A fetus is also a potential miscarriage. In which case:
1) A human fetus is a potential miscarriage.
2) One has the ethical rights equivalent to that of its potential.
Thus
3) A human fetus has ethical rights equivalent to that of a miscarriage.
Because a fetus has multiple potentials, we have multiple conclusions which are contradictory. The argument from potential fails because it does not tell us which potential to use.
I have more thoughts about ‘gradients of (ethical) rights’, but I’m at work, so I’ll save it for later. You and Cap bring up good points about it.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Matt, I didn’t say that the baby was viable at the beginning of the second trimester, just that it was recognizably humn. I should have had a para break in there somewhere.
My question was, what if at the time of abortion the fetus is viable? A baby can be delivered at 28 weeks (six percent are), which is about the beginning of the third if my math is right. Its health prospects would be shaky, but that chance is getting better every day. And if it dies in the process okay, but at least it had a chance.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Sid, I wholeheartedly agree that this is a shade of grey issue for most (myself included). If the mother decides to have an abortion when the baby does not have a chance to live on its own outside the womb then I think the “parasite” analogy that I so often hear might be viable. If otoh the baby had a decent chance of living on its own I’m not saying that the mother should be forced to carry it to full term, but maybe it could be delivered. The mom would be free to leave it, just as she would be if she waited (in the US afaik a mother can leave a newborn at the hospital with no legal repercussions). Of course as I said we as a society would need to decide what to do about medical care, etc.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
I’d say that this argument breaks down at the first statement:
1) A human fetus is a potential human.
2) One has the ethical rights equivalent to that of its potential.
Thus
3) A human fetus has ethical rights equivalent to that of a human.
A human fetus is a human. It’s just a human at an early stage of development. A corpse is no longer human as I’d argue that to be human one must be alive. A blastocyst or an embryo would be in my mind a potential human. And you’re right I htink in saying that at that stage it would not have the basic human right to live. I am pretty sure that the right to life is a human right.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Cap,
“My question was, what if at the time of abortion the fetus is viable? A baby can be delivered at 28 weeks (six percent are), which is about the beginning of the third if my math is right. Its health prospects would be shaky, but that chance is getting better every day. And if it dies in the process okay, but at least it had a chance.”
28 weeks is 7 months. Abortion at that point isn’t very common anyway, so it is kind of moot. But yeah, I guess if the baby is viable, it should be kept. But then I don’t see that as abortion at all. Just a premature birth and adoption (hopefully!). Although who is going to pay to keep the baby on life support until it is ready to go home with someone.
August 11th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Why stop there:
1) Organic matter (I’m no biologist, but think carbon, etc…) is a potential human.
2) One has the ethical rights equivalent to that of its potential.
Thus
3) Organic matter has ethical rights equivalent to that of a human.
Clearly this isnt right.
Science and Christianity accept the first statement (”ashes to ashes, dust to dust” comes to mind, but I wouldn’t know for sure) and I’m sure most christians don’t accept the deduction.
August 18th, 2006 at 10:53 am
I glad some of us moderates are getting some air play for once. There’s more of us than people realise. We don’t yell quite as loud but we are here.
Matt
eclectic itchings
August 19th, 2006 at 8:10 am
@sidfaiwu:
Sorry for the delay in replying…. work, life, etc… ;) I guess I don’t really have anything to add to what I said before, except to try and clarify.
I’m not objecting to the accuracy of how you’ve broken down the “argument from potential” there. (btw, note that I only mentioned it as a passing example and wasn’t trying to rigorously defend it!) What I am saying is that from a Christian perspective, the human is a special case. That is, having the potential to be come a living human being brings a whole new set of ethical standards into play… standards which simply do not apply for any other entity. I can offer theological support for this from a Christian POV, but I don’t think that will really add to this discussion. Do you see what I’m trying to get at though? Yes, your deductive reasoning holds from a purely critical, logical perspective. However, I believe that a discussion of this sort that involves human life necessarily invokes a unique set of ethical rules.
August 19th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Hello Ben,
Alas, I believe here we reach an impasse. My question would be “Why do humans deserve any special ethical consideration?” And I already know the standard Christian answer: “Because humans were made in God’s image.” Unfortunately, that answer is fact-less claim that can only be taken on faith. But please note that this means your defense of treating a fetus as a human relies solely on faith and not on reason. Of course you are free to do so, but this means that outlawing abortion is equivalent to legislating faith. For the protection of all religions, Christianity included, the government is forbidden from legislating faith and should thus make no laws restricting abortion. That is, unless there is a logical reason to restrict it.
August 19th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
Yes, I agree that this is an impasse - that’s what I was trying to say before when I said that the two opposing schools of thought were irreconcilable.
On assessing the issue as fundamentally being reason vs. faith, however, I have to again point out that this is a false dichotomy. There is certainly such a thing as a reasonable faith, and if only more Christians would engage their minds before they open their mouths, we would probably be listened to a lot more.
I’m saying that for the Christian, human rights are a unique case and should be protected at all costs. You say that that belief relies on a theological assumption which can’t be empirically proven, fine. In the absence of that assumption, then on what non-arbitrary basis do we protect human rights at all?
While the Christian idea that we should protect humanity on the basis that they are uniquely greated in the image of God is certainly based on the scriptures, it is at least a reasonable and logical conclusion. I just want to do all I can to dispel the idea that being a Christian necessarily means you have to throw your intellectual integrity out the door, because it simply isn’t the case.
August 19th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Ben,
You said:
“I’m saying that for the Christian, human rights are a unique case and should be protected at all costs.”
Historically this is not the case (think slavery). Unless you want to start splitting hairs over who is a “real” Christian and who is not, it would be wise for you to not attempt to speak for all Christians. Fact is that Christians across the world have a broad range of specific beliefs and values.
And also:
“You say that that belief relies on a theological assumption which can’t be empirically proven, fine. In the absence of that assumption, then on what non-arbitrary basis do we protect human rights at all?”
That one is easy: We all desire to be free and alive. So we seek a system which can accomplish that.
In my opinion, controlling a woman’s reproductive choices is antithetical to the above principal. You can’t force someone to give birth.
August 20th, 2006 at 12:19 am
Hi Matthew,
I’m not saying that Christians are ever (or have ever been) perfect. Nor do I believe that everyone who claims (or has claimed) to be a Christian is speaking the truth. (Again, I can offer substantial theological support from scripture for these beliefs). However, claiming that “some (so-called) Christians have at times supported slavery, and therefore they do not believe in human rights” is a textbook ad hominem attack. I am arguing from the perspective of what I believe is the scriptural Christian ideal (and I’ve tried to make that very clear), not the flawed and pale imitation of it which is practiced by so many and gives us a bad name.
Your stated basis for protecting human rights (”we desire to be free and alive”) rises or falls on the definition of a human; as we’ve stated, we’re at an impasse on that issue. If a fetus is simply an unborn human, which is my view, then the basis that you gave is a sweeping condemnation of abortion.
Either way, as I’ve said, I’m not really as concerned with the political fallout caused by the issue as I am with simply sharing what I believe to be true. I’m pretty sure that abortions are always going to happen, whether they are legal or not.
August 20th, 2006 at 3:17 am
Ben,
“Your stated basis for protecting human rights (â€we desire to be free and aliveâ€) rises or falls on the definition of a human;” as we’ve stated, we’re at an impasse on that issue. If a fetus is simply an unborn human, which is my view, then the basis that you gave is a sweeping condemnation of abortion.”
The issue of whether or not a fetus is human is a red herring. It *is* an unborn human, by definition. There is no question of that. Question is, does an unborn human fall under the protection of society? I say no because it is within the mother’s private care inside her body. It has not been born into society and thus gets none of the protections that society can provide.
Think of a woman’s body (or anyone’s body) as a sort of “international waters,” if you will. For most practical purposes, man’s law stops at your skin. Within your body…your mind, you can do and think whatever you want. Doesn’t matter how libelous or threating your thoughts are. They are your own. There is no thought police. Just as there should be no reproductive police. It is bad enough that was tell people what they can and cannot put into their bodies when it comes to drugs.
Condemn abortion all you want. Just don’t legislate it. You have no right.
August 20th, 2006 at 3:48 am
I was actually trying to be generous (rather than diversionary) in making sure I mentioned that some do not agree that a fetus is an unborn human. If you are happy to concede that, which you seem to be, then I find it much easier to make a compelling case against abortion.
In fact, I am happy to just quote John Piper on this; he has already said what I would say with a lot more lucidity:
—-
We Know What We Are Doing
1. States Treat the Killing of the Unborn as a Homicide
We know what we are doing because 27 States (including Minnesota) treat the killing of an unborn child as a form of homicide (see United for Life). That is, they have what are called “fetal homicide laws.” Other states (besides these 27) have different kinds of penalties for attacks on women that result in harm to the baby she is carrying.
For example, in Minnesota in 1987, a teenage girl 6 ½ months pregnant went with her boyfriend on a suicide pact into the woods. She shot herself in the head, and he changed his mind and covered her over with brush and walked away. He was apprehended and charged with assisting a suicide and “inadvertently murdering the fetus during the commission of a felony.” The fetal homicide law carried a stiffer penalty than assisting in a suicide. The verdict was upheld in 1991.
As I read about this in the newspaper one sentence leaped off the page because of its stunning implications. “The law makes it murder to kill an embryo or fetus intentionally, except in cases of abortion.” Think about that for a moment. We have some laws that condemn the killing of a fetus as murder, and we have some laws that condone the killing of a fetus as abortion.
Why is this? What is the basis for the difference? Usually the proposed basis for the difference is simply this: It is illegal to take the life of the unborn if the mother chooses that it not be taken, but it is legal to take the life of the unborn if the mother chooses that it be taken. In first case the law treats the fetus as a human with rights; in the second case the law treats the fetus as non-human with no rights.
Do you see what this means? It means that according to our laws in Minnesota (as well as other states), the humanness of the unborn is determined from case to case not on the basis of its intrinsic qualities, but on the basis of someone else’s choice. If the one who has the power says it is right for the unborn to be killed, it is right; but if the one with the power says it is wrong for the unborn to be killed, it is wrong. There is a name for this state of affairs. We call it anarchy: Each one who has the power defines what is “right” on the basis of what he or she wants to be right.
Now at this point those of us who care about racial justice should hear some ominous and threatening sounds. And those who care most about justice for the unborn should see the profound implications of this for racial justice – and every other form of justice. And there should be no sense that you can pick one of these issues to care about with no concern about the other. When human justice is disconnected from a person’s intrinsic humanity and made to depend simply on the choice of the strong, no one is safe from being arbitrarily defined out of personhood – whether it is a Jew in Nazi Germany or Black Slave in South Carolina or an unborn infant in the womb. If the right to life and liberty hangs merely on the will of the strong, there is no justice. The issue for racial justice and justice for the unborn is: What constitutes human personhood and the human responsibilities and rights that flow from it.
—-
Taken from http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/02/012702.html
If you have the time, I would encourage you to read the whole article (sermon), as it fleshes out where I am coming from rather well. Obviously, it is from a Christian perspective!
August 20th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
“I was actually trying to be generous (rather than diversionary) in making sure I mentioned that some do not agree that a fetus is an unborn human.”
Straw man… No one is saying that a fetus isnt *potentially* an unborn human, mearly that an unborn fetus isn’t a human.
“Do you see what this means? It means that according to our laws in Minnesota (as well as other states), the humanness of the unborn is determined from case to case not on the basis of its intrinsic qualities, but on the basis of someone else’s choice. If the one who has the power says it is right for the unborn to be killed, it is right; but if the one with the power says it is wrong for the unborn to be killed, it is wrong. There is a name for this state of affairs. We call it anarchy: Each one who has the power defines what is “right†on the basis of what he or she wants to be right.”
A woman allowing someone to have sex with her: legal
Someone having sex with a woman by force: illegal
Is this anarchy too?
What if a woman didn’t want her child to watch pg rated movies. She is defining the rights of the child then too. Is that anarchy as well?
A baby is body/life changing even if the baby is given away. No matter how much precidence you throw at it, it still boils down to the basic viewpoints of a fetus. Religious vs. logical.
August 20th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Ben,
Ah, but you see, that article/sermon delves into exactly the issue that I feel is a red herring. I’m not particularly interested in that argument because, as I am said, I don’t think it is important here. I diagree with laws that make it a homicide to kill and unborn fetus as much as I would disagree with laws against abortion. The current set of laws in some states may be inconsistent, but I am not.
If you want the law to treat a fetus as a member of society, why don’t we fill out a death certificate for every miscarriage (you’d be surprised how many there are)? Why not hold a funeral? Maybe we could charge women who have miscarriages with neglect or even murder. To be truely consistent, you’d almost have to do these things. Do you really want to go down this road? I don’t. I say keep the law out of people’s bodies… even in the case of pregnancy. It is really that simple.
-matthew
August 20th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Ben,
Here is an example of the kind of ridiculous laws (only a bill so far, thankfully) that come when you start treating an unborn fetus as a member of society:
http://democracyforvirginia.typepad.com/democracy_for_virginia/2005/01/legislative_sen.html
August 21st, 2006 at 10:12 am
Hello Ben,
Now it’s my turn to take too long to respond :). First let me start by saying that I didn’t mean to imply that all Christians lack intellectual integrity. This is something I do not believe. You are a clear example of a Christian with such integrity. I’ll pick up the discussion based mostly on your post @55.
There is such thing as reasonable faith. Those that practice reasonable faith do a number of things. The important ones I’d list as follows:
a) They recognize which assumptions of theirs rest entirely on faith.
b) They don’t expect everyone to have faith in all the same assumptions.
c) When pieces of their faith contradict one another, they reject one of the pieces (no double-think, for 1984 fans).
When you wrote, “we should protect humanity on the basis that they are uniquely created in the image of God is certainly based on the scriptures, it is at least a reasonable and logical conclusion” you are relaying of the assumption that the Bible is the word of God. While the conclusion is logical, the underlying assumption is not. The assumption is based on faith. Again, it is dangerous to legislate based on faith because it could unnecessarily restrict freedom.
Also in post #55, you asked if we don’t rely on some assumption taken on faith then “on what non-arbitrary basis do we protect human rights at all?†This is an interesting question often brought up by the religious. It basically asks “Without God’s law, how can we know what is moral and what is immoral?†The answer is so fundamental to secularists that they seldom stop to think about it. As a mater of fact, the religious believe the answer as well, they just believe that it is one of God’s laws. It is the golden rule: do onto others as you would have them do onto you. The source of the tenant need not be divine. It is the logical conclusion one reaches once we realize that people are fundamentally the same. We see evidence for this similarity constantly. When I see someone get stung, they react just as I do. When I see others loose a loved one, they grieve in much the same way I do. They demonstrate similar desires for food, water, shelter, etc. Thus other people are like me and deserve the same ethical treatment that I expect.
Notice that a fetus does not behave like other people. It does not express pain, grief, or similar desires. Therefore, it does not deserve the same ethical treatment as people do. It may deserve some lesser ethical treatment, but such would have to be reasonable demonstrated.
I’m really enjoying the discussion as I hope you are. I hope that we can continue.
August 25th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
**Apologies if this comment appears twice - I posted it once but it didn’t appear on the page**
Hi all,
Sorry for taking so long to respond (again) … I had written a long reply at work the other day, and then I thought “hmmm… maybe I shouldn’t be posting this from here”. I’m still happy to continue the discussion when I have time… perhaps gasmonso will post an abortion-related topic soon and we can shift it to there!
@YF:
“Straw man… No one is saying that a fetus isnt *potentially* an unborn human, mearly that an unborn fetus isn’t a human.”
I was responding to Matthew, who said “The issue of whether or not a fetus is human is a red herring. It *is* an unborn human, by definition.” Perhaps you both hold different view on the matter, or maybe you’re both saying the same thing in different ways. I’m just going on what you’ve both been saying - I don’t want to put words in either of your mouths! Currently, my understanding is that you believe that a fetus != human, whereas Matthew has said that fetus == human, but that it does not deserve the same protection that is commonly afforded to post-birth (!) humans.
I still disagree with your summing up - why is a non-theistic view the only “logical” one? While you may disagree with the basic premises of what I’m saying, our differences are more to do with epistemology and philosophy than anything else. “Religious vs. non-religious/non-theistic” would be a fairer conclusion, I think.
@Matthew:
I don’t really see how conflating abortion and miscarriage gets us anywhere. Obviously, there’s a fundamental difference between the deliberate act of terminating a pregnancy and losing a pregnancy through an unfortunate miscarriage. re: the article you linked, I agree that it is a completely ridiculous law, borne out of “pro-life” idealism/fundamentalism gone mad.
Why do you feel the need to say that I’d be surprised how many miscarriages there are? I am aware that a miscarriage is a relatively common and very sad event - even in my own circle of friends I can think of three or four families who have experienced a miscarriage at some stage in their lives. While Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and their cohorts of rabid, cynical Pharisees may give you the idea that all Christians are a bunch of unfeeling whack-jobs, it simply isn’t the case. ;)
@sidfaiwu: (where does that name come from??)
I have been thinking about the whole “argument from potential” thing. I really just made it up off the top of my head back in post #38, as an example of a possible non-overtly-religious argument against abortion. On further reflection, it’s not really something that I’m interested in defending. I’m not even sure that it’s really something that I believe in (ie. that a fetus is a “potential” human) … I think I might be more honest if I just said that I believed a fetus to be a human, period. I believe that a case for affording the same rights as a human to a fetus is fairly easy to derive from my theology… which, of course, is our irreconcilable difference that I was speaking of earlier: you would discount scriptural theology as a basis for determining values (right?)
I’m glad that you at least have an answer for the basis of non-theistic ethics! Many non-theists that you raise the issue with simply get angry and rant about “how dare you imply that I have no morals, etc. etc.” without really saying anything of substance. In a way I agree with you - the golden rule still holds as a universal truth whether or not you believe in a deity! However, from a Christian perspective (without wanting to pen a sermon), it is sufficient to note that those famous words of Jesus were only a small part of a larger body of teaching (the “sermon on the mount”), in which he was basically describing how people notice a distinction between the behaviour of Christians and others, and how that may in turn lead them to the true source of the benevolence - God himself. I guess I’m just trying to point out that while it is certainly a wonderful rule of thumb by which to live (for Christians and atheists alike), it is by no means a complete summation of the basis of Christian ethics.
I have been reading Jim Wallis’ book “God’s Politics” recently - really identifying with its message! (I’d highly recommend it to anyone, regardless of your religious beliefs (or lack of)). On this issue, and others, I guess my desire is to be what he calls a “wind-changer”. I’m not primarily concerned about the legal status of abortion - I’m much more interested in simply speaking my values in a compassionate way into the public debate, and working on the myriad of other factors which contribute to abortion rates, such as the welfare of poor single-mothers, poverty, etc. It is so vital for people of faith to realise that combatting things such as these has as much to do with their religion and moral constitution as a single issue like abortion. After all, Jesus explicitly told us that the way we treat the poor, needy people will ultimately indicate whether or not we know him at all! It is both stunning and terribly sad that the Religious Right claim to have the monopoly on issues of faith, and yet they are defined as much by warmongering and a disregard for the poor/regard for the rich as much as they are by speaking on personal morality.
August 28th, 2006 at 9:08 am
Hello Ben,
Your post was well worth the wait. I’m glad that you’ve abandoned the ‘argument from potential’ and stuck to your religious reasons. There may be non-religious defenses of the right-to-life side of the argument, but that certainly isn’t one of them.
I’m also thrilled that you accept that the golden rule can be a non-religious basis for ethical behavior. I know the rule is widely considered to have Christian origin and I did not know it was from the Sermon on the Mount. Thanks for pinning that down for me. This rule, however, has roots in just about every major world culture, not just the western, Judea-Christian one. For instance, this rule can be found in the teachings of Confucius, whose life pre-dates Jesus’ by about 500 years.
Finally, your last paragraph is dead-on. It sounds like Jim Wallis’ book encourages Christians to seek out and fix the root causes of behaviors that they find objectionable as opposed to banning the final outcomes. I bet you’d find that such an approach would have broad support from the pro-choice community and other liberals. Such an approach certainly has my support.
PS “Sid Faiwu” is a name that came from my imagination when I was about twelve. Later in life, I adopted it as my online pseudonym.
August 28th, 2006 at 10:04 am
Ben,
I wasn’t conflating abortion and miscarriage.I was merely pointing out that no matter how sad it may be for a mother and family, miscarriage is not considered a death of a member of society. It is a very private matter. Beyond the possible public health rammifications (was the the miscarriage cause by bad water or soemthing?), the government is not involved. Similarly, if a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, the government need not be involved. As with a miscarriage, it is a very private matter.
Government involvement is essentially what we are talking about here. That is, if you want to actually enforce your idea that abortion is wrong. Think about what it means to give government the power to force a woman to give birth. You’d have to investigate every miscarriage to make sure the mother didn’t intentionally induce it. And youd have to require women to report pregancies. Do you charge a woman who has an abortion with murder? This is a very sticky legal issue. Do you really want to go there? Or are you content with simply making it known that you abhor abortion?
August 28th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Ben,
Sorry, I should have read your entire post before replying. It sounds like you don’t want to legislate abortion. That is good to hear. It is certainly a good common ground on which to talk about the moral issues.
By the way, I should let everyone know that I was party to an abortion 10 or so years ago. I got my girlfriend of 2 years pregnant and we both decided that the best thing to do would be to terminate it because she said she would not be able to give it up for adoption if she carried it to term. Also, she didn’t want to have to tell her family that she was pregnant. It really didn’t have to do with poverty or anything like that. It was just a matter of bad timing and family shame.
I think family/social shame is probably one of the biggest reasons for abortion. And ironically enough, I think it is because of religion. A girl from a highly religious family with strict rules about premarital sex and all that is very likely to use abortion as a way out.
I’m not really sure what poverty has to do with it at all. I can’t see why a poor woman would be more likely to have an abortion than an affluent woman. Come to think of it, I would imagine that women with more resources and education would be MORE likely to have an abortion. Think about it. Lets say a college bound senior in high school who gets pregnant. She’s got college to think about. A child at this point would make college very difficult and giving up a baby for adoption is not an easy thing to do. Abortion is the “logical” option. Where someone who doesn’t have college or a career ahead of her might just go through with having the baby. And the way welfare works, she’ll just get more money… so what the heck?
August 28th, 2006 at 11:21 am
While you’re attacking root causes of abortions, why stop at poverty. How about the christian mindset toward sex and sex education? Christians don’t preach safe sex… they preach no sex, but kids are going to have sex no matter what they say. The only problem is, that when they do have sex, despite christian morallity, and a large number do, some don’t practice safe sex because they’ve only been taught not to have it. Not only that, but some girls out their would rather abort than admit they’ve been bad christians.
Abstinence worked before safe sex practices were around, and now it’s outdated, but because it is tied in with christian values, it won’t go away.
August 28th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Hello Matthew,
It seems that income is a factor in abortion rates. Women tend to be poor at the time of their abortions. Note, however, that women tend to be young at the time of their abortions, which is tied to both the likelihood of abortion and income. This will skew the results. A more telling stat would be abortion rates by education level obtained. From the link above I found abortions by education level:
EDUCATION LEVEL
No Answer……………….5%
Under 12 yrs…………….6%
High School (12 yrs)……..39%
Associate or Trade (13-14)..26%
Bachelors (15-16)………..19%
Masters (17-18)………….4%
Ph.D. (>18)……………..1%
I decided to add a little more value to these results by weighting each category by the percentage of women who obtained each of these education levels. I found the stats on the website for the National Center for Education Statistics and pulled them from one of their annual report from 2005. The actual table is linked here. After the weighting I get the following results (rounded to the nearest whole percent):
No Answer……………….5%
Under 12 yrs…………….3%
High School (12 yrs)……..73%
Associate or Trade (13-14)..8%
Bachelors (15-16)………..11%
Masters (17-18)………….0%
Ph.D. (>18)……………..0%
Note that this analysis is in no way scientific (I had to make a lot of assumptions about each survey), it just serves to demonstrate that education level seems to be an important factor.
Another thing to think about is the unwanted pregnancy rates by each income group. Sure, a smaller percentage of poor women may not have the means to get an abortion, but they probably have a very high rate of unwanted pregnancies. The product of the two rates would combine to determine the actual abortion rate. So don’t rule out poverty as a contributing factor.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
the silution is to update the christianity,and for this you can enter this site :-
http://www.update.js/christ
and to download christianity version 9.6 or if there any newer download it.
however for other religions there is no updates yet.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
kidding