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.

Sex, Relationships, and Value

On a recent blog post, it was revealed that the Anglican Church is struggling with issues of identity. There seems to be a difference of opinion where it concerns certain behaviors in the Church.

One main controversy in the Church is homosexuality. Should the homosexual be allowed to attend and fellowship within the walls of churches. The spectrum of opinion runs from full acceptance within leadership to withdrawing and shunning.

I believe that we must discuss this issue with an open mind, for many social issues have challenged the Church in the past and have brought segments of change. What is the standard for marriage?

Some argue that the Church's authority resides within the covers of the text, the "Bible". These are the fundamentalists, who believe in the infalliability of "God's Word". They interpret the test literally and fear for the sake of society God's judgment, if homosexuality is condoned in any form.

Then, there are those who have "no standards" of judgment. These people believe that homosexuals are just like anyone else in this world, seeking acceptance, love and purpose. What should be the Church's stance?

I don't believe that the Church will ever fully agree on anything in this life, as disagreement has happened over the course of time in every aspect of man's existence. But, the Church is called to view marriage within certain ways. What is marriage about? Is marriage about two people, whose character's illustrate the values ofs commitment, loyalty, and love? Is marriage only about the form and purpose of sex? The Catholic Church has taken a traditional stand against homosexual relationships, because of the traditional understanding of procreation. Is procreation the only reason for sex within a Christian marriage? In fact, the Catholic Church takes a stand against "unnatural forms" of contraception .If procreation is the only reason for sex within marriage, then should sex continue after the years of child-bearing? If marriage is ultimately for child-bearing, then why do traditional marriage vows not include that aspect of marriage?

Marriage is about a relationship between two people and their vow of "forsaking all others". It is represented by identification, as Christ to the Church. Why then, is a monogmous homosexual union "unrighteous"? Is it because of a literal reading of the text of Scripture?

Some argue that homosexuals should abstain from the temptation, even if it becomes proven that homosexuality is "genetically determined". Those who argue this way corrolate homosexuality with alcoholism. The alcoholic is predisposed to the disease of alcoholism and must practice self-control in abstinence. Isn't alcoholism abuse of alcohol? Unless one adheres to alcohol as inherently evil, then it is not the alcohol that is evil but its abuse. The same argument holds for sex. If marriage is not just for child-bearing but also for the expression of sexual love and sex is not inherently evil, then sexual expression is not wrong except outside of rightful place (within marriage). As Paul argues that nothing is unlawful, but some things are unbeneficial.

Perversion can be about anything, even things that are usually blessings. This is why moderation is the character that is virtuous.