A Christian Nation?

[OldGreyEagle]

the killing of an innocent life is murder. Laws against Abortion are not based in faith, but in respect for human life

 

[evmori]

Excellent point OGE! The only reason abortion was ever legal is because it's a medical procedure! A murderous medical procedure but still a medical procedure!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[GernBlansten]

Instead of trying to overturn a decision on the medical procedure, conservatives should push for a decision/ammendment on when the US government recognizes a human life. Currently, it is after birth, when the child is independant of the mother. Move that to a point somewhere between conception and birth, and the rest falls in place. Doctors are held to their oath to do no harm. Someone who murders or otherwise harms a pregnant woman will now face two charges. Women who neglect the fetus through drug or alcohol abuse will face child abuse charges.

Roe V. Wade was decided on privacy rights. I'm all for privacy rights, especially between me and my doctor. I say let that decision stand and address the real problem. When do we as Americans define the start of human life? When does that mass of cells become a US citizen?

[scoutldr]

OGE said, "the killing of an innocent life is murder."

 

That apparently depends on which state you're in. Scott Peterson was charged with two counts of murder. WHere I am, a young mother shot herself in the stomach killing her full term baby. Her excuse..."I started having contractions and didn't know what else to do." She was charged with "illegally inducing an abortion", and will probably get off with probation or a temporary insanity plea. The firearms charge was dropped, because "using a gun for an abortion" is not specifically listed in the law.

 

My own views on abortion are confused. I am against abortion. I am also against 13 year olds having babies they can't support. If all those who are against abortion were lining up to adopt these poor children, I would feel better. If everyone who chose to act in ways which produce pregnancies were held accountable, I would feel better. IMHO, no one has a "right" to produce a child. And no one has a "right" to destroy one. What a dilemma.

[acco40]

Ah abortion, let's gravitate to something less inflammatory than talking about religion!

 

OGE, one thing abortion is definitely not (in most cases) is murder. Murder is a legal term. To commit murder is a crime. Obtaining or providing an abortion is legal in many states so by definition it is not murder. Is it killing a human? Is it immoral? Is it wrong? All good questions. But is it murder - no (Black Hills area excluded).

[OldGreyEagle]

Ok, I may have mis spoke, the taking of a human life is wrong and abortion isnt a Christian or any faith thing, its a respect for life thing

 

The point about Scott Peterson is dead on, in a state that allows partial birth abortions the following can happen.

 

lets say I am driving a car DUI and hit a pregnant woman and she loses the child, I can be held liable for manslaughter or some other crime. And I accept that. But, if that woman was on her way to have the baby aborted, the physician would face no charges. So the baby had civil rights when I hit the woman but none once the woman got to the clinic. The lawyers in the group will have to explain that to me.

 

The baby of a 13 year old girl derserves to live, maybe not always with the mother, but still life deserves a chance. The exploits of suicide doctor Jack Kevorkian still linger in my mind. We protect life at the far end of the sprectrum, why not at the very beginning?

[GernBlansten]

The inconstancy of the application of these laws is maddening. Why was Peterson charged with murder of the unborn child when abortion is legal in that state? You can't have it both ways. Thats why I think we need a legal definition, not a medical one on the begining of life. At the Federal level too. It would eliminate all these problems.

[DanKroh]

OK, the posts have gotten all out of order because of the timestamp glitch, so forgive me if it seems I am addressing things out of order.

 

Ed-once it is born, a baby is independent of it's mother. It's not independent of *people*, but someone else can take care of it besides it's mother. Before birth, no one else can carry the child but the mother.

 

I think abortion is, if not entirely, strongly a religious issue because religion is one of the benchmarks that people use to recognize when "life begins". It is certainly a religious issue for Catholics, and many other Christians, whose churches have dictated to them what their stance on abortion must be if they wish to remain members of that church.

 

However, I would also like to address Rooster's idea about the "rule of the majority".

 

Rooster, I have a hypothetical for you. Let's say tomorrow, the majority of Americans decide that they want to define marriage as "between a man and a woman, sanctified by God, and capable of producing issue", and they get their representatives to pass that into law. In other words, only heterosexual marriages, only ones performed by a religious figure (no civil marriages) and only between people who are not infertile. The popular rational used to support this position is Biblical.

 

So, when the government starts dissolving marriages between people who were married by a JP, or who are proven to be infertile, that would be ok, because it is the will of the majority? There is very little chance that the people affected by this new law would have a chance of electing new representation to overturn it because they are in such a minority. So are they just supposed to suck it up?

[Kahuna]

John-in-KC: You completely missed the point of my post. The question is, what values that we have in the U.S. set us apart as a Christian nation. My response was that the only way I could see to do that is by comparison to nations that aren't Christian. Japan thru WWII is very clear example. I'm not saying they valued human life, I'm saying they didn't.

 

Before you refer to viewpoints as stinking crocks of excrement, you might want to be sure you understand what the viewpoint is.(This message has been edited by Kahuna)

[Rooster7]

DanKroh,

 

I dont believe that your example is valid. Our Constitution provides for some individual protections, most notably for this example - the establishment clause. While I doubt that you and I interpret this clause in the same way - I think we can agree the federal government cannot force individuals to join a religion. Your hypothetical would force non-religious individuals to join a faith so to be married.

 

So what about abortion? You might ask. I presupposed you would because Ive seen this logic applied elsewhere. In the case of anti-abortion laws, there is no leverage or impetus for anyone to be religious or to join a particular faith. The thrust of the law would be to recognize the unborn baby as a protected life. It does not mandate one to be religious in order to do so. So if the will of the majority believes such a life ought to be protected then it should be, and no individual right is violated. Even if one buys the womans privacy argument (which I think is a huge crock of something that I cant mention here), then the right to life argument for the unborn baby should take precedent.

 

In some cases we the majority may be telling the minority to get in line or to suck it up as you said. Going back to your example I dont believe it is unconstitutional to define marriage between a man and a woman. This is not a new definition. It has been defined as such for many, many generations and universally recognized to be so. Your example crosses the line when it forces couples to be married by a minister or some other religious leader. At that point, the establishment clause becomes relevant.

 

However, without laws, there is anarchy. And in a democracy or a representative republic, the will of the majority should determine those laws hopefully based on a common code of ethics. This common code of ethics takes shape and becomes a reality through the laws which we create and enforce. For many, that code may well have a religious orientation. Regardless, the majority should rein supreme so long as the minority is not forced to join or practice a particular faith. Here again, detractors will argue that the principles themselves (i.e. homosexuality is wrong, abortion is wrong, prostitution is wrong, etc.) is a form of forced religion. This notion is hogwash. If principles (no matter how one comes to embrace them) are determined to be fundamental to faith only, and therefore laws endorsing a principle must be interpreted as forced religion, then all laws should be abolished. Every law has an underlying principle. And nearly every principle (perhaps all) can be traced back to a religious faith. In short, if we dismiss abortion laws as being religiously rooted, then no law passes the litmus test and all should be overturned.

 

[packsaddle]

The topic of abortion has been exhaustively discussed in other threads. Any chance of getting back on topic for this one?

[DanKroh]

Rooster says: "I dont believe that your example is valid.... Your hypothetical would force non-religious individuals to join a faith so to be married."

 

Actually, I knew my hypothetical was unconsitutional when I proposed it, but I was hoping you would answer the question instead of arguing its validity.

 

But ok, then lets leave off the part about "sanctified by God". If the majority decided that infertile people shouldn't be married because of the biblical command to "be fruitful and multiply", would that be ok?

[Rooster7]

But ok, then lets leave off the part about "sanctified by God". If the majority decided that infertile people shouldn't be married because of the biblical command to "be fruitful and multiply", would that be ok?

 

I will answer that revised question, but Id like to point out that I already gave you several paragraphs in response to your first question which pretty much answers this revision. Regardless, I will try again.

 

First, I have enough confidence in the majority of American voters that such a law would never come to pass.

 

Second, when we vote for our representatives or even for specific laws by referendum, the government cannot demand to know why certain persons voted the way they did. What Im trying to say is - theres no way to determine if voters voted because of a biblical command or because they simply flipped a coin. Its presumptuous to say a certain law passed because the majority was motivated for religious reasons.

 

Third, if the majority of Americans were crazy enough to seek a law that says everyone must wear yellow on Mondays and blue on Fridays, then I believe it should be passed. Why? Not because I believe its a good law, but because that is the way our form of government is supposed to work. The will of the majority should rule. It shouldnt be the will of the majority should rule so long as Rooster7 or DanKroh agrees or worse, some judge with a political axe to grind.

 

Fourth, just to be clear and I hope/assume you know better - the Bible does not say, Dont marry unless youre fertile. I will give you credit and reason that this interpretation was purely for illustration purposes.

 

I hope I answered your question.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

But ok, then lets leave off the part about "sanctified by God". If the majority decided that infertile people shouldn't be married because of the biblical command to "be fruitful and multiply", would that be ok?

...

First, I have enough confidence in the majority of American voters that such a law would never come to pass.

 

These very laws had existed not long ago in the US; Hawaii's law that said the potential for procreation was a marriage requirement wasn't struck down until 1984.

[packsaddle]

Wow, I have to tell you Merlyn, that is mind-boggling. So if one member of a married couple had, say, a vasectomy, the marriage would no longer be valid?

I'm wondering about a situation where a man has a sex change operation so he can have a heterosexual relationship with another man. And yes, this does happen...call it 'recreation' as opposed to procreation. Technically I think BSA would have no problem with that, or am I wrong? Does BSA reject transsexuals? "...it's just a jump to the left, and a step to the riiight" Assuming, of course, that they believe in God.

 

And as for those amazing laws, was there anything that would have blocked such a union...other than the procreation wording? The possibilities are just delicious.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)