My Friend's Post on Abortion

I am certainly thinking through the implications of one's political commitments. These are important because they reveal one's values and are important in determining and making decisions about one's life, and the life of the society one wants for oneself and one's family.

On "Using My Liberty", my friend, Mary Diane Goin, challenges those that would lightly abort an "inconvenience". Her argument has been supported by philosophical and biological information that would be applauded by anyone with any sense. She argues that she is a libertarian Christian, meaning that she keeps poitical views about liberty separate from her religious views, when they would impinge upon another human's choice of value concerning their life.

I used to be "Pro-Life", but just recently I am seeking to understand on what basis are rights based, if there is only "nature without God"? Of course, Diane's argument is based on Catholic natural rights/natural law theory. But, if there is no God, how does one argue the right of the unborn? or of anyone? Diane points this out, in her distinction between natural and legal rights. Practically speaking, if there are no legal rights, then there is no real political liberty. And without political liberty, then life isn't really "life", is it, for the born or the unborn!

First, there is the question of how the "Pro Life" movement as a whole has treated those that have had abortions or those going to get abortions at the abortion clinic. It is as if, these girls/women are disregarded and disrespected because in the eyes of the 'Pro Life" movement they don't deserve to exist, because they have broken God's Law against murder. And to top that off, they are murdering an innocent child, a gift of Gd. Some have gone so far to murder the woman or the doctor who was responsible. Others think that "shunning" or shaming will bring about repentance! It reminds me of Jesus' admonition that "he that is without sin, cast the first stone" (altho that story was not in the original sources). People judge others based on what they have been taught is right, and then, like herd animals throw stones at those that "for the grace of God" they'd be"....they do not love mercy, exept for the unborn. .

But, let's back up. First one has to believe that God exists, that he grants natural rights, and that sexual intercourse that results in conception is his Divine intervention, or at least, his means of reproducing the human race. Humans are viewed by such as these as more than animals. Humans are a unique creations of God. He Directly or indirectly CAUSES the conception. This view believes that God intervenes in the affairs of men. One believes that God interevene directly, while the other believes that he intervenes indirectly. So, abortion is first and foremost a "sin" against God and His interevening Providence!

Such believers believe they have a justified right to impose their view on others because they think that God has commanded that "Thou Shalt Not Kill", the abortionists are in danger of God's judgment, either supernaturally or naturally. The Supernaturalist would believe that one will be judged at the "end of time", while the naturalist would believe that God's judgment is in self-condemnation. (There could be a mixture of each as the naturalist could also believe that one would also have to give an account "at the day of reckoning").There is an urgency about getting these women to repent, so they won't face judgment. They see their "moral concern" as "God's concern". They are "God" ambassador's or representatives for the unborn and their rights".

Besides the belief that natural causes are the direct or indirect intervention of God, there is the belief that all natural results of intercourse should be accepted. This is  taking responsibility for one's choice and action. Some of these believe that all contraception is inhibiting the natural course of God's causal intervention,....that is, using the means of sexual intercourse as an end to produce a child. Sexual interourse is viewed first and foremost as precreation, because of the Genesis mandate to "be fruitful and multiply"

Since these are adamantly opposed to contraception because it interferes with nature, and nature is viewed as God's footstool, these believe that chasity is to be promoted for teens. This is the only option, because God doesn't sanction sex outside of marriage. While I agree, I wonder what to do about those teens that aren't going to have the opportunity for a "nice Christian upbringing, or Church influence, or even consider the option of chasity, as this has not been their example or reality. Or possibly there are some that seek so much to be accepted that the compromise their principles to "fit in" or to "be loved". Teenagers are known to be impulsive and idealistic (I won't get pregnant!)

What about those that spread sexually transmitted diseases, or AIDS because condoms are not advised? Is responsibility about society's overall health and how is that gauged? Because divorce rates are impacting society at such great levels, should we legislate against divorce? (Christians are divorced just as often as non-Christians). Christians are still having abortions in great numbers ( my friend had the stats on one of her posts) I think the greatest inhibitor against pre-marital sex is self-respect, not "God's prohibition" and teaching teens about their dignity as persons.

If taking responsibility for one's choices is of value to the "Pro Life" movement, what if one has more children than one can provide for, then what? One believes that "God will provide"! Shouldn't there be a rational budget consideration when planning for children, or is planning children not allowed because that would be usurping "God's place"?  Certainly, most Christians believe that contraception is not forbidden within the marital relationship. But, there might be disagreement about what kind of contraception would be warranted. Doesn't it become a matter of conscience (even before God)?

The arguments from biology are strong, but one only argues from biology if one believe that the universe and all that is is "under God" and is 'his design" and the place where he manifest "his will".

Sex is a natural human desire. I think that there are worse and better ways for humans to view sex within society and to benefit the whole of society. Marriage is to be the norm for relational safety and sexual expression for the sake of society's physical health and the sake of society's children. But, these values have nothing to do with "God, neccsarily. Most people would have these values, for it is a matter of maintaining stability for society. And stability is what makes for a healthy environment.

In conclusion, if one is a Christian, and believes in the orthodox view of God, as interventional  then of course, there would be an affirmation of the "Pro Life" Movement.

Self, as Conscious Manager

Our Founders "founded" a government based on "self-governance". Self-governance was one's ability to be one's "own manager". And this is what has made for the greatness of the American experiment/experience!

The individual is allowed the liberty to pursue his own goals and opportunities to enlarge himself with education, freedom of information, free access to worship, as one chooses, or does not choose. This is a form or governing that is limited, because it does not intrude or interfere with the human right to liberty of conscience. Laws were to protect the individual which formed society, as well as society being protected by the laws that framed its realities.

Today, both liberals and conservatives like to use the law to demand obedience to their "form of understanding" society. The conservative likes to frame society based on thier understanding of "Creation", "God" and Scripture, while the liberal also wants to frame society on that basis, but has a different way of understanding those terms. What both seem to not balance is the individual's right in the midst of society. The majority (society) does not have a right against the minority (the individual) otherwise, there would be not "protections under law". This is where the libertarian view affirms individuality, as it concerns liberty.

The libertarian would affirm the right of the individual in regards to religion, their life, and the market. Social interests, "the common good", society's protections, etc. do not limit government or the majority in its demands upon the individual and conscience. Liberty is an important value for America in this regard. Otherwise, we do use the 'force of the law" to impose our understanding of "what is best" without understanding that our fellow citizen also has a right to his understanding. We do not want coercion, either in the name of the "God of our understanding" or the "god of the nature". Both are hard task-masters.

Intellectual Equality or the Political Gap?

Today, on Facebook, a very good and old friend had a test on "what kind of libertarian are you"...I took the test and had a few questions after taking it, mainly due to two answers to one of the questions that baffled me on which was of more importance.

The two categories that I find important are intellectual equality and fixing the political gap. Why are these two important? My innate desire to relate to people on an intellectual plane, which is "who I am", and yet, my experience has taught me that "political gaps" where people treat another as an unequal is also damaging. One errs on the side of snobbery and the other errs on the side of snubbery.

Leaders do make determinations about where others will fit into their plan for their own personal and larger political goals. And this is the political gap, where a determination is made about another that is prejuidiced and deterministic. I am revulsed over any type of pre-determination.

The point where my innate desire is to be treated as an equal intellectually is important. I resent people patronizing me, in whatever realm. I have a mind of my own and though you may disagree with me, I must be respected enough to be "engaged" and considered, without others determining my "outcome" or purpose. I also want to engage others on the same basis, in respecting their ability to reason and live their life rationally.

This is the main reason for my commitment to the libertarian party. Each person must determine their own destiny. That does not mean that an individual needs no one as far as guidance, or education, or suggestion, or encouragement. But, I will die for the right to be treated with respect and dignity in living my life on my own terms and for others to also have the right to live their life on their own terms. We will disagree and this is to be considered a healthy sign of difference where we can learn about another that thinks, believes and sees things differently.

This is where our freedoms become realities in our lives, as we live out the commitment to our diversity, but also our commitment to the unity of our freedoms. God Bless America.