;)
Abortion: A Religious Issue?
Posted by Tony Sisk in Uncategorized
Yesterday a general election was held in Southside Virginia and I say without reservation that I cast my vote for incumbent Senator Frank Ruff. The primary reason he received my vote was because Ruff has a consistent record in striving for the rights of the unborn. Abortion is for the vast majority of evangelicals a wedge issue—non-negotiable. For a candidate to as much as waver on this particular issue is to commit political suicide among evangelicals.
Abortion is an issue that is at the heart of who we are not just as evangelicals, but as Christians. Every person is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26, 5:1, 9:6). As such, we have a distinctive capacity to be involved in relationships with one another and uniquely involved in a relationship with God. God confers special status on people as the crown of His creation (Psalm 8:5) and life is considered life whether it is considered potential life (a fetus) or a person.
This then makes abortion a very theological issue; a very religious issue. This past Sunday, however, an opinion piece was published in the LA Times that asserted the exact opposite. The piece, written cogently by Garry Wills, makes a bold claim: abortion isn’t a religious issue. Its central thesis is thus:
Much of the debate over abortion is based on a misconception — that it is a religious issue, that the pro-life advocates are acting out of religious conviction. It is not a theological matter at all. There is no theological basis for defending or condemning abortion.
This claim is patently false. To the contrary, abortion is an intensely theological matter. It is an issue that arises out of the heart and soul of who we are; out of who God is. The article boils down essentially to the promotion of a pro-choice position, spiraling through several irrational proofs of when life actually begins; a debate over personhood. If one can prove that the tiny child that grows inside the mother’s womb is not a “person” then it is perfectly acceptable to then remove that life from the mother’s belly; it is simply an intrusion, a glob of tissue with no sentient qualities.
This however is where the personhood argument loses any explanatory power it might have had because it is not true to its own scientific foundation. I was a biology major through college and one of the first sets of information I learned was the characteristics of life. Though science texts differ on what exactly all those characteristics are, they can be lumped into four general categories. They are organization, that all living things are composed of cells, and these cells are then organized into complex systems; metabolism, or use of energy to live; irritability, or response to stimuli, whether internal or external; and growth, that the organism uses energy to change, adapt, and develop (reproduction is included here).
A tiny baby growing inside of its mother’s womb does all of these things; it fits even the scientific community’s definition for it to be called a life. Yet the primary argument is that the fetus should not be considered life and since it isn’t life the fetus is not a person. The fetus cannot think, reason, speak, or recognize itself as a person. The absurdity of this argument should be evident. Pushed then to its logical conclusion, a severely mentally retarded person, an elderly person with degenerative Alzheimer’s, the comatose, or even the sleeping, should not be considered “persons.”
Personhood is something that is wonderfully bestowed upon people by God. He is what makes us who we are. God knew the prophet Jeremiah (1:5) and the Apostle Paul (Galatians 1:15) before they were born. Each man had a wonderful plan already laid out for Him by his Creator. The uniqueness of this event can also be marked significantly by our Lord in the Incarnation, where He Himself humbled Himself to become a baby, conceived and to grow inside a human mother’s womb. A plan had been laid out for Him from before the foundation of the world. Personhood, like life, was established even before conception.
I once heard the fertilization process called a “divine-human” cooperative. It is when the divine hand of God moves between that which is the apex of His creation—human beings—and they together then come together and in an instant form a new life. Reproduction by its very nature is theological. Therefore, abortion, since it would be the interruption of a theological process would therefore be theological as well.
The point at which personhood begins is of crucial importance. If indeed, personhood begins only when an individual can think rationally, articulate a sentence, or recognize one’s own personhood is an ethic grounded in survival of the fittest and based on functionality. An ethic sensitive to a deeper and richer vision of who we are as created by God and bearers of His image makes abortion a very religious issue.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;){kind=logo}
;)
I agree. It’s a VERY religious issue, and that’s why it’s such a big deal to the non-religious.
This guy definitely has an agenda… and knows just enough to lead people away from the truth. But I think we can learn something from him… what the world thinks about our position(s) on Abortion. He is definitely right in pointing out our contradictions. Unfortunately he paints with too broad a stroke.
Although he kind of contradicts himself, talking about how we abortion isn’t a religious issue, and then discussing what people 2000+ years ago thought about abortion (as if they have any authority on humanness or personhood in the womb).
God’s Glory,
Lew
The Pursuit Online Store
“For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb…Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them.” (Psalm 39:3,16)
To the true follower of Jesus Christ, every issue is a religious issue. To say there is no evidence of personhood prior to birth is not irreligious. To advocate abortion is not irreligious. It is a violation of the sanctity of the Creator, not just the creation. Abortion is the marring and destruction of God’s highest, most intricate creation.
Has anyone else seen the Washington Post story indicating that Pat Robertson is to announce his endorsement of Rudy Giuliani this morning?
Talk about a blow to the pro-life stand …
Is he still “Religious Right” or just “Religious Wrong?”
Bernard,
Thanks for chiming in.
Lew,
Agreed–he contradicts himself.
Cyle,
I sense your passion coming through in your comment. I thought this post might resonate with you. Thanks for the encouragement.
Geoff,
I have argued at my faith and culture blog, The RP2, that the RR (Dobson, Bauer, Robertson, Weyrich, Perkins, et.al.) is not nearly as interested in someone who is competent and capable nor who share our values but someone who can win the election. Falwell was pandering after Rudy a month before he died. Their desire to be kingmakers trumps the common good.
tony,
and yet, we have some southern baptist out there who are trying to say that we have no idea when life begins…that it’s a mystery. that it could be anythime that god chooses to give the child life. and, one of those who supports this warped view is big in the blogging world.
it’s amazing to me that anyone could read the scriptures that you and others have quoted, and there are many more scriptures, that teach that human life begins at conception. that that baby in the womb is a person…not a simple mass of tissue.
it’s sad to see so many christians buy into the worlds views just so they can fit in.
david
David,
That is news to me. I had no idea there were some SB’s who held that amorphous position. Let’s keep that piece of information to ourselves, though, OK?
It is amazing that anyone can read the Scriptures and come away with less respect for human life or that life doesn’t begin upon conception. I’m grateful for your comment.
Geoff,
Pat did it. He endorse Rudy. This is insane. We’re playing politics, not living by principle.
Tony, good morning. This is a subject near and dear to my heart. Had my mother’s actions succeeded in 1948, I wouldn’t be here to type AMEN to your post. It was indeed a revealing thing for me when my father told me of her actions when I was in my thirties.
All the new positioning of pro-choice advocates is setting up the permanency of legalized abortion and legitimizing euthanasia of all valueless human beings. I truly believe that is the thrust behind removing all things “God” in American society. From the flag, the pledge, the buildings, the money. Without “God”, there is no argument for life other than what secular science with atheistic theology deems real.
Thanks for your post, Tony. selahV
Selah,
Oh my. I never knew. Thank you for sharing that as painful as I know it is.
Valueless is the correct word to use. Every individual whether potential or actual is valuable in God’s eyes and one whom He desires come to know Him. I think this is how the Incarnation is connected to the abortion debate. God intimately knew His Son Jesus before He was born, while He was living on earth, and now that He sits at His right hand.
When I look at my baby boy, who was four months this past Sunday, I cannot imagine how anyone can look at that and say, “I don’t believe you have any value.” It makes me weep only thinking it.
This is one issue where we as Christians – who have been regenerated and “all things made new” – should really take stock of how the unregenerated heart of a non-believer CAN look at a human being and say “You have no value.” We can’t imagine not loving a baby. We’re handicapped. We have been changed. Someone who does not know the love of God, on the other hand, can do a lot of really wrong things and think they are perfectly okay.
I’ve said this many times, and I stand by it firmly – “Virtually EVERY issue in the world today, if pursued relentlessly to the real core, boils down to someone’s perspective of Jesus Christ.”
Bernard,
Amen!
Everyone,
for a MUCH different perspective, I just discovered that one of National Public Radio’s blogs, Blog of the Nation, has been hosting a discussion on Wills’ op-ed also. It is a much different conversation than what is going on here. Check it out if you have time.
If as Cyle said, all issues are religious issues.
And if personhood is a religious issue.
And if not all religions arrive at the same understanding of personhood or when life begins…
Should the federal government through Congress seek to impose one religious view of personhood on our very pluralistic American society through say, a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion?
Further, if personhood is a religious issue then doesn’t that mean the right to have an abortion has a religious liberty component to it? No woman is to be coerced to act contrary to her religious scruples and moral values? For those who share your sincerely held, religious belief that life begins at conception, there is no coercion to terminate a pregnancy under any circumstance. Currently, however, those whose moral and religious beliefs permit abortion under adverse or tragic circumstances are also respected and protected.
I’m not one of those antagonistic pro-choicers. I would like to hear a Southern Baptist response to folks who see Roe as an exercise in protecting religious liberty. I share your desire for a day when abortions are no more. I just don’t agree with your means to that end.
BDW,
I hope I can answer to your satisfaction, but I am not as politically savvy as you are, and please understand I do not mean that condescendingly.
I know that Roe will not be overturned. I do not anticipate that it will. But I will vote my convictions in regards to right to life issues, and that includes abortion. Abortions are something that will never be eliminated but significant steps can be taken to reduce their numbers.
I can honestly say I do not know exactly how that should work out. A Constitutional amendment? I don’t know. Perhaps you could share with us your view of how this issue should be addressed so as abortions can be reduced.
But I will say that I think your presumption is that all religions are equal and I do not think you believe that they are. For purposes of legislation they must be viewed that way.
I no more want another religion’s beliefs pressed upon me than they want my beliefs pressed upon them.
The Bible is very clear that we should protect the weak and oppressed and I think the unborn would fall into this category. And just so you know, I also believe that right to life does not end once the child is outside the womb.
I would be very interested in hearing a moderate stance on this issue, if you would be so inclined.
Tony, as we await BDW’s response, and I am interested in what he has to say, let me tell you something I heard just yesterday.
Someone I’m close to, and related to was pressing me for a name of a person I would vote for in the presidential primaries. Knowing good and well that it would only start an argument, I said, “well it will not be for anyone who supports abortion.” Then they proceeded to tell me why abortion should be legal. “because those coat-hangers can kill those women trying to abort their babies.” I almost fell out of my chair. The premise for legalized abortion is to protect the life of the person seeking to destroy the life within her. can anyone help me wrap my mind around that rationale? selahV
Well, I think steps should be taken legislatively to reduce the abortion rate. We do this not through amendments to the Constitution but through various incentive programs and by generally creating an economic environment where women are less likely to consider an abortion. For instance, Harry Reid and the Democrats pushed through a measure back in January called the Prevention First Act, which seeks to reduce the number of abortions by expanding access to birth control, family planning, and sex education. I have blogged about that here
This is only a first step. Instead of focusing on replacing Supreme Court Justices, I believe we should be aggressive legislatively with more similar measures.
I obviously don’t see all religions as equal. But under the Constitution, all religions must be equal as the government must remain neutral on the subject.
I too believe that Christians should vote their values. But I agree with Carl F. Henry who once noted that “equally devout individuals may disagree over the best program for achieving common goals.” Thus, we share a common goal but disagree sincerely over the means to reach that end.
BDW,
A couple of years ago I was in Uganda (home of the LRA and Idi Amin Dada). We were purchasing some artwork from a man in his 60′s. He was a Batik artist, and his work was really beautiful. He bent over some pieces he had laid out to point something out and I saw that his entire chest was horribly scarred. I asked our hosts what happened to the man. They said he was in a rival tribe when Idi Amin was in power. Amin killed all the tribe, but this man was lucky. They had simply ripped the skin from his chest. Amin not only killed the tribe that inhabited that section of Uganda, but he killed all the animals that the tribe might eat. Then he threw the bodies of the people and animals into the Nile. There were so many dead that it clogged up the hydropower generators. Amin’s attitude was that these people were just like the animals. They were not people.
I am probably a bit more antognistically pro-life than you are pro-choice. Every person everwhere makes a decision about the personhood of another, and it always relates to their religion (or lack of it). My religion says that government should not interfere with religion; that it should not make the choice that the child in the woman’s fetus is any different than the child she nurses on her breast; that the safety of innocent children is more important than a woman’s comfort; and that government is given the power by God to protect the unborn.
My religion also says that the woman who aborts, the nurse who assists, and the doctor who cuts up the infant in the womb are still loved by God. And so I do not hate them nor would I ever act in violence toward them as some have, but I am vehemently opposed to government allowing this to happen. I will weep for joy on the day Roe v. Wade is overturned. Nearly 44,000,000 Americans have died since its passage, and none of them could say a thing about it.
No person’s heart is changed by the administration of law. Law does not exist to change a man’s heart. Law exists to regulate man’s behavior since man is inherently selfish and sinful. Before Roe v. Wade, abortions were still performed. Women’s lives were still saved when they would have been lost if the baby had been born. But, the total number of abortions were miniscule.
BDW – I’m a little curious as to why “we” (humanity as a collective) think it’s okay to base most of our laws on the Ten Commandments and claim “that’s just a moral understanding”, but then we want to leave it up to individual religions to define who those laws apply to.
Is the question of when life begins religious? I think so, even though I see your point. It’s also scientific, but the question becomes “how is life defined?” Are brain waves a requirement for life? If so, then poor old Grandpa is dead even BEFORE we pull the plug.
My issue is this – if we have legislation in place which promotes abortion or even makes it appear that we regard abortion as simply a method of birth control which is available for any woman who would so choose at any time and for any reason, we strongly err – as a society – on the side of denying the right to life to something that is alive and capable of living on it’s own. I refuse to believe that a “fetus” is not alive. I refuse. Premature birth consistently illustrates that there is life – and viability – well before 9 months.
My point is that we can only JUSTIFY abortion by ignoring the fact that the fetus is alive. What makes this a religious issue is that we are willing to LIE and say that the baby is NOT alive in order to justify destroying the fetus. I have never seen proof that the fetus is dead. Quite the contrary. Motions in the womb are not reflexes. If they ARE reflexes, however, that is, to me, further proof of life, because there are no nerve connections between the mother and the fetus.
The position you propose is that whether or not the mother believes the baby is alive is the determining factor as to whether society should allow her to terminate her pregnancy. This is, however, contrary to all other laws. Muslim terrorists believe, based on their religion, that they are to kill all who do not follow the way of Islam. To follow the logic you propose, we must allow them to do that. However, we all know that to be morally wrong in today’s society. We cannot allow these people to kill all Christians.
Thus, I maintain that it is our DUTY – as a society – to protect the right of the fetus to life. We waste millions of dollars protecting animals. Michael Vick has largely destroyed his own life because of his attitude toward dogs. To say that we don’t have the right to protect the unborn is absolutely contrary to everything I personally believe about “right and wrong”. Allowing religious freedom of expression has limits, as I hope I’ve illustrated clearly. Just because someone has a religious belief that allows them to terminate someone’s life does not mean that our law should allow them to do so.
In order to allow someone to take an innocent life based on the Constitutional right to worship freely, we have to devalue the fetus to a blob so that it does not have the inalienable rights that the Declaration of Independence acknowledges is given to ALL men. ONLY if we declare that baby to have never been alive can we allow that pregnancy to be terminated without moral implications. If those moral implications are allowed, we violated our Constitution, our law, and our moral foundation.
It’s not so simple as saying “Well, she believes it’s okay, so we have to allow it.”
I personally believe, for instance, that it’s okay – even commanded of God – to kill and eat animals. However, there are laws in place which control – or in some places forbid – my exercise of that belief. Does that mean my religious freedom is denied? No, and far from it. It means that there are greater implications at stake and that the governing bodies of society are recognizing those implications.
Likewise here. I don’t know of a situation – although it may exist – where a mother believes that she MUST have an abortion in order to fulfill her religion. Thus, by denying her the privilege of legally terminating her pregnancy, we would be denying her exercise of religion. That’s not the question here. The question is whether her religion ALLOWS her to terminate her pregnancy without religious penalty or guilt. Even if it DOES, society is under no obligation to promote or even allow that termination.
Selah,
That is truly horrifying. Do you think she said that maybe because of the shock value? I might be inclined to think that.
BDW,
I find myself tottering between yours and Cyle’s responses. I am with Cyle here; I am vehemently opposed to government allowing this to happen. I will weep for joy on the day Roe v. Wade is overturned. And I am with you here; by generally creating an economic environment where women are less likely to consider an abortion.
Somehow the twain need to meet and my prayer is that those with civic duties address this issue cogently and reasonably.
I will concede to your wisdom in regards to legislation and Supreme Court justices for I am much less informed how that process works, though I am taking significant steps to educate myself so that I can better discuss these issues (blogging is a start, and I appreciate your interaction).
Cyle,
Thank you for jumping in and offering your perspective in this conversation. I am sincerely grateful. The linchpin in this debate is personhood and if we consider the fetus just a glob of tissue then logic accepts that abortion is permissible. But if it is a person, with the right to live, then we have a Christian responsibility to preserve that life, just like any other life.
BDW,
Welcome back to Impact!
I know this is not the main subject of this post, but I wanted to respectfully disagree with this statement:
“I obviously don’t see all religions as equal. But under the Constitution, all religions must be equal as the government must remain neutral on the subject. ”
I don’t think this is true. First, the government has laws, so any religion that goes against those laws cannot be equally acceptable to others that obey those laws. This would raise some issues with Islam, which teaches good Muslims to practice jihad; fighting and killing those who do not follow Allah, which is murder, which is against U.S. law.
Second, being “one nation under God” implies a bias toward monotheism, rather than pantheism. This raises issues with Hinduism, which is pantheistic. Also, as we are recognized as being “under God” this raises issues with atheism or secularism, which do not acknowledge the presence of God.
Third, our Judeo-Christian morality is evident in our founding documents and hopefully will always influence our justice system. It would be a scary thing for us to have a justice system based on Buddhist teachings, which would give the same rights to a flea as it does to a human.
Fourth, as our founding documents indicate that all men are created equal, then we should have a national vigilence against any religion that does not hold this belief or practice.
In the U.S., all people are recognized as equal, but based on our founding documents all religions should not be acknowledged as equal and as equally preferred. This does not imply that those of other religions should be persecuted but that we are, in fact, a nation founded largely by Christians, and largely on Christianity, and that must be accepted. To fight against that is to fight against the very foundation, fabric and meaning of America.
Surprisingly, it was John F. Kennedy who said, “Let us therefore proclaim our gratitude to Providence for manifold blessings–let us be humbly thankful for inherited ideals–and let us resolve to share those blessings and those ideals with our fellow human beings throughout the world.”
Those blessings and those ideals are from God, the god of the bible, and none other.
Just wanted to share my heart on that!
Tissue vs. Personhood
I just spent an hour with an oilman. He’s helping a landowner sell an oil and gas lease to a large company. There’s some glitch in the title and so the company is stalling. It’s really interesting that they won’t buy it without clear title, but there is currently no oil and gas production on the property. Their just buying the rights becuase they think there is oil and gas. They’re spending good money on the potential of the property, not on the property itself. They may or may not hit oil or gas when they drill.
I’d say the potential for a zygote to become a human being is pretty good. Once we are talking about abortion, the zygote is at least six weeks old. There is certainly no possibility that it will become a monkey, a dog, or a fish. It’s potential is fully human. It may not thrive, but the potential is there.
Regardless of your definition of personhood, it is a person. It is simply a person that has not yet breathed air. Even when a person is medically dead and has been declared legally dead, their rights are still respected. They have a will and that will is protected by the laws of our land. We do that because their will has been expressed. We cannot know the will of the zygote, embryo or fetus. If that person were already born, and that person was two years old without parents or guardians, our legal system would appoint legal representation to preserve the well-being of that person (child). When it comes to the pre-born person, we have decided that a mother has the right to rob the pre-born of all legal rights and even to the right to life.
Cyle,
If your religion says that government should not interfere with religion. Does that mean its appropriate for government to enact into law a policy that adopts one sect’s definition of personhood?
You just can’t argue that “regardless of your definition of personhood…it is a person.” Obviously, using your definition, an embryo is a person. But, that’s using only your definition.
I don’t necessarily support Roe as it is. I regard abortion as only possibly permissible in very limited circumstances. And I’m not sure that I buy the religious liberty argument found in Roe – I just wanted to hear a response. But even if Roe was overturned tomorrow, abortion would still be legal in a majority of the states. That’s another reason why I propose reducing the number of abortions through the legislative branch.
Bernard,
I don’t agree with your premise. Obviously, Judeo-Christian thought has influenced American society since our founding. But only three of the Commandments (killing, stealing, false witness – 3 out of 10 is most?) correspond to elements of American law. And the substance of those Commandments were already enacted into English common law many many years before England was Christianized. As a Christian, I recognize the religious significance of the Decalogue. But I do not recognize their legal or secular significance.
I don’t quite get your Muslim analogy. Muslim terrorists do indeed desire to kill infidels. But those same terrorists recognize the personhood of the infidels. They just don’t respect non-Muslims as fellow human beings also made in the image of God.
Your acknowledgment that there are governmental limits on the free exercise of religion definitely makes for a strong argument. We could cite the outlawing of polygamy in Reynolds to bolster that argument against Roe.
This feeds into Roger’s argument. Based on current church-state jurisprudence, the Constitution must remain neutral on the subject of religion. Government can not prefer one religion or over another. If a compelling state interest does exist, government can limit the free exercise rights of individuals. We don’t allow folks to smoke pot as a religious ceremony due to drug laws, etc. “One nation under God” is merely a motto. The Court has ruled that the Free Exercise Clause means both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. In cases such as Welsh and Seeger, SCOTUS has recognized that an irreligious person holds the same rights under the First Amendment as one who is religious. While we may be a nation of monotheistic people, our government has and must remain neutral on religion in general. We have a Buddhist in Congress currently. I voted for him in his victory over Cynthia McKinney. He retains the same rights under the Constitution as I do.
I hear your preferentialist position. But, even with a few more strict constructionist judges, the Court is not going to roll back 50 years of precedent and adopt what you say the founders advocated (which I believe is revisionist history at its finest). Even if you are correct concerning original intent, do you honestly believe that the founders could have foreseen the explosive pluralism that America is experiencing? I don’t.
BDW,
I think if you view our Founders’ Christian views and values as revisionist history, we may not come to a point of agreement on any of this. And that’s okay! But I still disagree and would argue that despite the apparent neutrality of some of our documents, our practice shows our government’s inclination toward certain religions, namely Christianity.
One Nation Under God is a motto, but hardly “merely” a motto. It is on all of our currency and even atheists have it in their wallets! The fact is that the Declaration of Independence recognized the existence of a Creator and so have many, many documents and actions of our government since. In fact, the first act of Congress was to purchase bibles for schools! An irreligious person still has the same rights as a religious person, but in my opinion, does not have the right to commandeer the process and remove religious books from prisons, prayers from football games, or chaplains from the military. We are pluralistic, but we are religious, and the great majority of those who are religious are Christian. Of course this affects our thinking, our legislation and our governance.
In answer to your question, “do you honestly believe that the founders could have foreseen the explosive pluralism that America is experiencing?”, no, I don’t. But so what? I don’t think they would have written up the Constitution any differently if they had.
But the real question for me is “will our current leaders foresee where that explosive pluralism will take us?” It won’t be a pretty picture. A house divided against itself cannot stand, and a pluralistic nation with no clear set of values nor underlying moral code is a nation at war with itself.
Roger…sometimes, in fact, a lot of times I absolutely love your reasoning in issues of this sort.
Cyle…you are always my hero in topics of this nature.
Tony…thanks so much for opening this vein of discussion. Your post and your responses are worth reading to me.
BDW…you are such a tiger.
But I kinda like the great white hunters in our safari on this one. selahV
BERNARD: You write: “My point is that we can only JUSTIFY abortion by ignoring the fact that the fetus is alive. What makes this a religious issue is that we are willing to LIE and say that the baby is NOT alive in order to justify destroying the fetus. I have never seen proof that the fetus is dead. Quite the contrary. Motions in the womb are not reflexes. If they ARE reflexes, however, that is, to me, further proof of life, because there are no nerve connections between the mother and the fetus.”
Oh that all babies within the supposed shelter of a mother’s womb could shout these words in the halls of Congress. selahV
BDW,
If abortion becomes illegal throughout this country, and those laws are based upon my definition of personhood, that will not make those laws religious laws.
Law determines personhood and rights. Law is influenced by the convictions of those who make it. Currently, our courts have determined that the rights of the mother exceed the rights of the pre-born child. That is no different than the belief of Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. Hutus believed they were superior to the Tutsis. As a result of their tribal religious beliefs, they slaughtered tens of thousands of Tutsis. Sounds like a woman’s right to choose.
If our courts determine that a pre-born child is a person, and that abortion robs the pre-born of rights guaranteed by our constitution, that may be from a religious or non-religious viewpoint. However, making abortion illegal by defining the pre-born as individuals is not the establishment of religion. The current law making abortion legal is supported by religious belief, but that does not make it a religious law.
Much of what is taught in public primary, secondary, and higher education is against my religious belief system. The curriculum used discourages the discussion of intelligent design, and bans the dicussion of the validity of creationism. It is a direct affront to my religious freedom, and if children from our church disagree with evolution they suffer reduced grades in school. No provision is made for their religious beliefs whent it comes to their public education. So, even though I am taxed, my children are homeschooled.
If abortion become illegal, those seeking abortion will, as they have in the past, seek abortions in different countries. That is their choice, but it does nothing to dictate their religious beliefs. It will simply be the law of the land, regardless of its possible support in various theological systems.
BDW – Is this section directed to me???
“I hear your preferentialist position. But, even with a few more strict constructionist judges, the Court is not going to roll back 50 years of precedent and adopt what you say the founders advocated (which I believe is revisionist history at its finest). Even if you are correct concerning original intent, do you honestly believe that the founders could have foreseen the explosive pluralism that America is experiencing? I don’t.”
If so, please re-read my post. I did not mention “intent of the founders”, but if this is revisionist history, you and I have very little in common.
You’re also dodging the point on my Muslim analogy. I’m not referring to the personhood question – I’m talking about the taking of life. My position is that a fetus is a living human being, and this is based on science, not on emotion. It is clarified by my understanding of the Bible. As a result of believing the fetus is a living human being, I believe that it is clearly the job of the government – regardless of the religious belief of the mother – to protect that fetus. The mother’s freedom of religion, as guaranteed by the constitution, does not extend to the right to terminate the life of another living human being. The comparison, to be very clear is this – the Muslim extremist, regardless of his religious beliefs, does not have the right to terminate the life of another living human being. Whether or not the Muslim believes that person is a person or not is similarly irrelevant.
Whether or not the mother BELIEVES the fetus is alive is not the question. If the fetus is alive, it doesn’t matter what the mother believes or what her religious preferences are. Since no one has convinced me that the fetus is not alive, I maintain that no mother has the right to take her child’s life.
I am in no way revisionist in my history. Please don’t accuse me of that. That’s a straw man argument at its best.
Brother BDW,
To invoke Christian revisionist history in this thread is a stretch. What has been suggested is nothing akin to David Barton or Doug Phillips and is in my opinion a boogeyman. No one here is suggesting that God is seen in every jot and tittle of the founding documents.
We do recognize God was certainly involved in the founding of our country, as so many of the Fathers were believers in God (deists) but not necessarily Christians. That will and indeed should influence legislation and I think that is no more than what Bernard and others are suggesting.
Bernard,
Trying to respond to all three of you in one post caused some confusion on my part.
The portion following {This feeds into Roger’s argument} was meant as a response to Roger alone.
You’ll notice that I suggested that the “preferentialist position” (supposedly held by the founders) is “revisionism at its finest.”
Doug Phillips doesn’t have a place in this conversation. Based on what I’ve read, I wouldn’t dare make such a comparison. And again from what I’ve read, clearly Roger’s views fall somewhere between those of Richard John Neuhaus and David Barton – and both reader from a “new revised standard version of the Constitution” to quote my favorite Baptist separationist. Barton’s arguments are far less convincing than Neuhaus since he’s been caught playing loose with the facts on many occasions.
“It won’t be a pretty picture. A house divided against itself cannot stand, and a pluralistic nation with no clear set of values nor underlying moral code is a nation at war with itself.”
With that statement Roger sounds more like Neuhaus who proposes that government and those in the public must be guided by a “transcendent point of reference.” As someone who along with SCOTUS endorses “strict neutrality,” I disagree with Neuhaus and Roger. I’m not an originalist either. It is often impossible to determine the original intent of the Founders on many issues.
I think Roger’s question concerning explosive pluralism and the future of our country is very important. My solution is that Christians need to become more committed to evangelism and social justice (both since they are but different sides of the same missional coin). Keep government out of religion but elect men and women to serve who will enact compassionate policies. I’d like to see some real compassionate conservatism for once….
BDW,
I agree with your last paragraph completely. I am reminded of Cal Thomas’ comment several years ago that America would not become Christlike through legislation but could through evangelism. I would add the social justice component, the real compassionate conservativism (liberal in our love for people) to the truth in Cal’s comment.