Jump to content

A Christian Nation?

Recommended Posts



You realize that both of the Lovings would've spent a year in jail for violating this law if it hadn't been overturned. Plus, even if the supreme court hadn't declared marriage to be a civil right, one justice pointed out that it couldn't possibly be constitutional for an act to be a crime solely due to the races of the actors. That's what the Virginia law did.


Okay greatIm glad there was a good Constitutional argument to denounce and overturn the ban. But I stand by my point, there will always be good and bad laws. I prefer those laws good, bad, or indifferent to be created by legislative representatives. And I never denied the fact that the Constitution provides for individual protections. Where I disagree with some on this board - is the extent of those protections.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Rooster7, if we are so confident that those images will compel anyone's decision, then there is no further need of legislation is there? We are agreed. Provide our images and let individuals make their own private decisions. No problem.

However, for those who might consider the single cell or another early stage , we may want to think about where to draw the line...or find additional compelling evidence. But we don't have to as long as we remain confident in the individual private decisions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...if we are so confident that those images will compel anyone's decision, then there is no further need of legislation is there? We are agreed. Provide our images and let individuals make their own private decisions.


We do not agree. Using that logic...we should show videos and pictures of abused children to parents so they can decide whether or not its appropriate to beat their kids with a bat? It's insane. Just as it's proper for the government to prohibit child abuse, it is also proper for the government to ban abortions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good example! Government promises to punish child abusers when they are caught. And even with such 'prohibition' in place, the decision to abuse is left to the judgment of individuals. And then, lacking our compelling personal persuasion, they decide to abuse. Not exactly my concept of success, I hope it isn't yours either.

Criminalization of birth control and abortion will still leave the decision to the individual. All government can do is punish those who make the choices for whatever reason. I always think it is better for individuals to make the best choices for the best reasons. Not to have their choices limited thoughtlessly by an intrusive government.

Rooster7, You were the one who wrote of those compelling images. You must have been confident that they would be persuasive to others or you wouldn't have told us about them. So why not confidently use them in exactly that manner to provide that broad persuasive power? Convince individuals BEFORE they decide. You have the opportunity to do this without further legislation, why not do it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You must have been confident that they would be persuasive to others or you wouldn't have told us about them. So why not confidently use them in exactly that manner to provide that broad persuasive power? Convince individuals BEFORE they decide. You have the opportunity to do this without further legislation, why not do it?


Because the world is filled with people who would rather serve themselves unashamedly and without regard to others, than do the right thing. This is why we have laws. If I could show a bunch of rapists, pictures of folks whose lives theyve destroyed, I doubt seriously if they would stop raping. And even if some stopped, Id still want laws in place to deter and punish those who selfishly pursued their own interests at the expense of others. In short, my concern is for the victim not the perpetrator.


Have you seen a video of an abortion? If not, how can you defend its practice? Look at the evidence and then you will know of what you speak.


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm promoting the idea that the person who bears the personal reproductive responsibility, whether it is birth control or abortion, ought to be able to make that personal decision. The government should not make it for them. That doesn't necessarily mean an abortion, either, especially if the images to which you keep referring (yes, I've seen them) are that compelling.


Your comparison to the rapist is not valid. Show me the person who enjoys an abortion. Show me the person who has some psychological compulsion to have abortions. You can't. Whether or not anyone wants to be able to choose, no one LIKES abortion.

It is a pragmatic matter. The choice is there and will always be there. As a matter of fact, the technology will make it even easier in the future. The question is whether or not the choice, whether for birth control or abortion, will be accompanied by punishment...after the choice is made.

So what punishment do you propose for a woman who has an abortion in a state where it is illegal? Eight weeks pregnant, she gets the RU486 through the internet and does it at home. How do you propose to punish her?

What about the woman using an IUD? Birth control pills? Your punishment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The choice was made when the legs were spread.


Explain this. A pregnant woman is shot & killed & her unborn child also dies. The shooter is charged with two murders. A doctor performs an abortion and the unborn child dies. The doctor is paid for his/her services. What's the difference? Why isn't the doctor charged with murder?


Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed, I'll try to explain. I'm a law and order kinda guy.

Its maddening inconsistency.

The first instance (shooting), the second charge for murder is wrong because the state does not recognize prenatals as humans. From the standpoint of the state, it is no more murder than killing an animal or a tree. Until the state recognizes and grants the prenatal with rights, then this must be the answer. If a state does go for murder charges, I can't imagine the charge not being overturned if challenged on that basis. The Peterson case just makes me furious that the same state that allows abortions can arbitrarily assign human rights to the prenatal when it sees fit. I know the second charge was more for public appeasement than practical criminal justice, but it still is wrong. You can't have it both ways.


On your second instance, the abortionist cannot be charged with murder because the state doesn't recognize the prenatal as human. Murder is defined as a killing a human with malice. Therefore, by legal definition, he is not a murderer. Nor is the mother who paid for it.


Your values may vary but when applying criminal charges, you must apply legal definitions too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed, The victim of Rooster7's rapist probably didn't make a choice. And as a matter of fact, for her to be criminalized because of her choice to terminate the resultant pregnancy is repugnant to me. I object to the equation of the perpetrator of a rape to his rape victim who chose to terminate. In Ed/Rooster world, she would be guilty of murder and the rapist to a lesser felony. Not exactly a monument to justice in my mind.


Gern, however, is correct in my mind. The problem with this is where to draw the line. At one end of the spectrum is Rooster7's late-term scenario, at the other end is the woman who uses an IUD. A simple black-and-white analysis is that either all of them amount to murder if abortion eventually becomes so defined by law, or else someone must draw a line. At this time viability is the only 'line' that is drawn as far as I know and that line changes with technology.

If the line is left up to the conscience of every individual then the consequences and the responsibility are born by the person making the decision. That's justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that you want to attribute everything that is ethical and caring as being Christian based.


That wasnt quite my intent. I was pointing out that modern Wicca, and the UUA for that matter, both grew up in an environment where Christian ethics were pervasive, and incorporated most of the Christian ethical framework into their own structure (albeit detached from its underlying principles). There are certainly non-Christian ethical frameworks. And there is always natural law for all humans, like caring for family and tribe.


Going beyond care for family and tribe is more uniquely Christian, and you answered how that did (and did not) fit within your ethical framework.


You also seem to think that Wicca means that I must have an absolute sanctity for all living things.


Uh, no. Just an assumption that youd recognize life in a seed, whether human or apple. And if human, that you wouldnt want to see it killed brutally or wastefully.


So, by analogy then, I would be justified in bringing up the hate spewed by Reverend Fred Phelps anytime someone stated a Christian position?


Fair enough. But most of us oppose Fred, eh? Hes even picketed outside my (Christian) church. I think yah cant claim not to support late term abortions unless you are willing to oppose (through persuasion or legislation) late term abortions, which you do not seem willing to do.


Packsaddle does make a worthy point, in that there is a difference between moral persuasion and using the coercive power of governance, eh? There are some things which we might believe to be immoral (greed), and teach against (an obligation to tithe or help the poor). But at some level greed becomes theft or antitrust, and society chooses to intervene/correct it/punish it.


So there are really two choices. When is something wrong so that we should teach against it? When is something so wrong that we should also act as a community to physically prevent it? One can be morally opposed to birth control (as in the pre-Reformation Christian churches) without finding it necessary to use governance to prevent it. So sure, it is theoretically possible to be morally opposed to abortion without viewing it as reaching the level where it should be stopped by an act of governance.


Thats just a hard position to hold because we are talking about human life, and because of the many other lesser things we choose to use governance to prevent. It's hard to see abortion being a less important thing than, say, parking in the wrong space.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Why must my code of ethics, my moral standards, my sense of right and wrong be equated with which religion or an absence of religion my parents chose to follow while I was being raised? Dont I get to have a say here at all? If who I am and how I feel about certain issues is the result of the fact that my parents chose to raise me in the Roman Catholic faith and only that then I ask all of you WHY are we spending so much time as Scouters? Why spend so much time in these forums discussing this stuff? I feel the way I do because I was raised Christian, not because of anything Ive gotten out of Scouting, years of education, social interaction, 30 years of marriage, raising two sons, burying far to many loved ones. It all comes back to which religion, or lack there of, my parents chose?



Link to post
Share on other sites

Longhaul, I think our religious upbringing plays a big part in our current values, but I'm sure many of us know people who have switched to a religion very different from their parents'. I know of Christians who have converted to Judaism and Buddhism. I also know of Jews who have converted to Christianity.


As far as the abortion issue goes, I'd like to throw in the perspective of a female. Although I now am a conservative Christian, my views were more moderate in my younger days. I have always been opposed to abortion, but before I had kids of my own, I was actually pro-choice. I didn't want to see anyone choosing abortion simply for birth control means, but I reasoned that a woman who was raped shouldn't be forced to carry an unwanted child. Now, however, I see things differently. When I became pregnant with our first child, I had the opportunity to view the ultrasound of our son. It was amazing to see a CHILD inside me, not just a lump of tissue. That's all it took for me to understand how terribly wrong any abortion is. And then, later, when I first felt my child move inside me, I was ashamed at myself for ever thinking that abortion could be rationalized in some situations.


I never want to view a video of an abortion, but I would hope that all people who approve of abortions would get the opportunity to see an ultrasound of a real live baby in utero. It truly is a miracle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ms funscout,


Thank you for your input on abortion. As a Dad, one of the greatest days I ever had was seeing my son the first time (by way of a high-res ultrasound) when he was about 5 months in the womb.


When I think of the pro-life movement, I look not only at the beginning, but also at the entire life cycle. We lost a lot of ground in the last 30 years as a society. The safety nets once provided by churches, synagogues, and the community in general are long gone. We've replaced them for the most part with layers and layers of governmental employees who don't add a whole lot of value, imo.


To your specific comments on abortion, we lack, as a society:

- Homes where young women in trouble can bear their child in peace.

- Medical care, education, and support while a young woman in trouble is bearing her child.

- Adoption laws that allow the passage of parental right, and it doesn't come back down the road (I've changed my mind syndrome).


I'm also, probably because I'm a man and not a woman, not as flat-out "no abortion, no way, no how" as you write. Following are my opionions:

- A woman should not have to mother a child of rape.

- A woman should not have to mother a child of incest.

- A woman should not have to choose between her life and her baby's, and indeed, if unconcious, a doctor should have the latitude if needed to take the child if it's life and death.


The "health of the mother", though, sounds lots fuzzier to me, and I don't have the wisdom of Solomon (let alone our Lord) to sort that one out.


Our culture, though, needs to improve throughout the life cycle. Christian people in particular and people of faith in general need to work harder to help those who are homeless, hungry, and need jobs. We need to do a far better job with the elderly. The warehousing of folks in nursing homes is a travesty of our society.


My thoughts. Go in God's peace, and thank you for having given us all something to think on.

Link to post
Share on other sites


My irritation is with the "Christian Ethics" lable. I ask you and John in KC if you each felt your feelings at the time you "saw" your unborn child were determined by your religion? I think not. I know many Christians and their ethics differ considerably. To say "X" is a Christian ethic or "Y" is a Christian ethic is to say you know the mind of all Christians. "X" may be a Christian belief, "Y" may be a Christian teaching. If we just look at what has been done in the name of Christ since his assention we can see that attitudes and actions have spanned the spectrum from love to the Inquisition. Just what is "Christian Ethic"? I guess that one would be for Dan Kroh. I guess I'm getting just a bit over annoyed about this and just need to go back to ingnoring the religious threads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Longhaul, You are right that it isn't just a Christian value that determined my view on abortion. As a Christian, I should have been anti-abortion all along, yet I chose to go against my religion when I was younger. After viewing my unborn child on ultrasound, it was a human choice, not a sudden, "that's right, I'm a Christian, so I have to believe this way" kind of choice. When you see Christians with different values it is because some of us have gone against the values. That doesn't make them right for Christians, it just means that we have "strayed" from our beliefs. The bottom line is that a Christian is a person who has accepted Jesus Christ as his/her personal saviour. We are supposed to follow the Ten Commandments, but we are human, and so, not all of us follow them like we should.


John in KC: I am not quite as black and white as my previous post appeared. If the life of the mother was in jeopardy due to her pregnancy, then I do believe she (or if unconscious, then, her family) should have the right to choose whether or not she dies in order to save the baby. This goes against my Christian values to take the life of an innocent baby, but I don't feel it's my right to sentence an innocent woman to death, either. I remember a case in the news several years ago, where a woman refused to have an abortion even though her pregnancy was killing her. She had other children at home, so I felt she was wrong to not sacrifice the baby in order that she would be around for her other kids. She did die, and if I remember correctly, I think the baby died, too. I could be wrong about that, but either way, her already born children were then forced to grow up without their mother. This was a no-win situation. If I had been her place, I would have hated to have to make that decision. How awful to have to live with the knowledge that you allowed your own baby to be killed. But, then, how awful for all of your children to grow up mother-less.


I, too, agree that more needs to be done to help women who choose to bear an unwanted child.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...