brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (11/04/84)
No doubt this will be a hot topic. I'm not a Christian, but I do know many of the variants of Christian doctrine, and most of them say that God is pro-choice. Not pro-abortion, mind you, but pro-choice, which is to say that God would not advocate a human law banning abortion. One fundamental doctrine is that God gave Man "free-will", which is to say that the decision about whether to follow God's law rests with every individual man or woman. God does not require that the law be followed on Earth, but God clearly wants every human to be left to make a PERSONAL decision on whether to follow God's law. This includes everything from "Thou shalt honour the lord thy God" to "Thou shalt not do murder" Jesus never advocated that humans should enforce God's law, in fact he expressly forbid it, suggesting that only those without sin might be able to enforce God's law. (And he further said that nobody, but nobody except for him and his mother was without sin) "Vengeance is mine!" said the God of the Old T. and "Judge not, lest ye be judged" said the God of the New. While you may prove as you like that God isn't keen on abortion, you may only prove so for God's law. God has told you it is NOT your duty to enforce these principles in HUMAN law, so even from a religious viewpoint, no religious reason should be accepted in defence of anti-abortion laws, or any human laws for that matter. And since non-religious people also maintain that no religious reason should be given to defend laws, it's fairly clear what the conclusion is. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
spear@ihopb.UUCP (Steven Spearman) (11/05/84)
Arguing that God did not mean mankind to enforce his laws is totally incorrect. There are numerous examples thoughout the old and new testaments where laws and even specific punishments are given, sometimes directly by God. In many cases, the punishments appear to be an attempt to reduce the severity of punishments common at the time. But there is no evidence that God or Jesus did not respect the right of a society to impose rules and sanctions. The example given of Jesus and the prostitute who was to be stoned is an example of mercy and perhaps even a moderation of the punishment specified by the law, but it in now way implied that there was to be no law. This followup is not to support abortion or choice arguments, but merely to refute a ludicrous argument.
cdshaw@watmath.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (11/06/84)
(Steven Spearman said) > Arguing that God did not mean mankind to enforce his laws is > totally incorrect. There are numerous examples thoughout the > old and new testaments where laws and even specific punishments > are given, sometimes directly by God. Please give specific references. > In many cases, the punishments appear to be an attempt to reduce > the severity of punishments common at the time. But there is no > evidence that God or Jesus did not respect the right of a society > to impose rules and sanctions. The example given of Jesus and > the prostitute who was to be stoned is an example of mercy and > perhaps even a moderation of the punishment specified by the law, > but it in now way implied that there was to be no law. I think you made the mistake of taking a straw man to task here. The basic thrust of Brad T's argument was that making law on God's authority is terrifically bad news. Nowhere in Templeton's article was it implied that God & company thought that laws are a bad idea in general. Otherwise, it makes the Ten Commandment look pretty foolish, doesn't it? Looked at from a modern perspective, the "don't throw stones" directive is really a statement about making laws which concern moral issues. "Don't be too quick to punish transgressions, for you may be the next on the list" is the basic point, I think. Abortion is no different is this respect. The argument to legalize abortion (totally free of stupid hassles) is, at bottom, the argument that since no one can make the perfect moral decision that can be imposed on everyone, INDIVIDUAL moral decisions must be made. This is especially true here, since we live in a pluralistic and democratic society. Laws against things like murder, however, are **NOT LAWS ABOUT MORAL ISSUES**. To get Hobbesian for a moment, the state exists to keep people off each others' throats, for without a law against murder, "life would be nasty, brutish, and short". It is perfectly obvious, in this light, why murder is illegal. After all, every sane person would agree that murder should be illegal. Equating abortion to murder is a totally different matter, however. The reason is fairly obvious... no ten people gathered randomly can agree on the issue. Net.abortion wouldn't exist if you *could* find agreement. Given a paucity of perfect moral decision-makers, and no universal feeling on the abortion issue, it is clear that any law banning abortion is a form of moral fascism, pure and simple. Eagerly awaiting your thoughtful (not spiteful) response, I remain, CD Shaw
spear@ihopb.UUCP (Steven Spearman) (11/09/84)
>Looked at from a modern perspective, the "don't throw stones" directive is >really a statement about making laws which concern moral issues. "Don't >be too quick to punish transgressions, for you may be the next on the list" >is the basic point, I think. Abortion is no different is this respect. The >argument to legalize abortion (totally free of stupid hassles) is, at bottom, >the argument that since no one can make the perfect moral decision that >can be imposed on everyone, INDIVIDUAL moral decisions must be made. This >is especially true here, since we live in a pluralistic and democratic society. > >Laws against things like murder, however, are **NOT LAWS ABOUT MORAL ISSUES**. >To get Hobbesian for a moment, the state exists to keep people off each >others' throats, for without a law against murder, "life would be nasty, >brutish, and short". It is perfectly obvious, in this light, why murder is >illegal. After all, every sane person would agree that murder should be >illegal. Equating abortion to murder is a totally different matter, however. >The reason is fairly obvious... no ten people gathered randomly can agree >on the issue. Net.abortion wouldn't exist if you *could* find agreement. The argument then being, that laws are simply morals (or perhaps ethics) held by all or most all? Seems to me we have a lot of laws that don't follow from that argument (prostitution, speed limits, dry (alchohol) laws, etc.) However, I do agree. As a society we, IN GENERAL, seek to enforce a minimum standard of conduct. Unfortunately, if our belief is strongly held we are satisfied with simple majority opinion. So clearly if you think abortion is the same as murder, you would support a ban on it. In fact, you would be under a moral obligation to do so. The bottom line, as the President said (first time I have ever quoted him!), 'the question is: does human life begin at conception?' You can either: 1. take the most conservative view (like the President): we don't know and we won't take a chance. Perhaps it is murder. 2. take the most loose view: we don't know so we have no laws restricting abortion until birth. 3. tread the fine line and try to come up with a reasonable time. Like the supreme court did. I prefer 3 myself. Steve Spearman ihnp4!ihopb!spear