Opinion Talk

By From VA

March 20, 2006 08:25 AM | Link to this

What’s the deal with the article entitled “Lacking basis, Christians fight abortion”? The “pastor” who wrote it kept saying stuff like, “as a Christian pastor”… Who is he trying to fool? Everyone knows that the United Church of Christ is not really a Christian church. He also says stuff about what the Bible says, but everyone knows that the United Church of Christ not only doesn’t care about what the Bible says, but they don’t know what is says.

What a misleading and dishonest article.

By E. Lewis

March 20, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this

Perhaps the question should be worded this way:

Should Christians favor abortion rights only for the wealthy?

By E. Lewis

March 20, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this

and VA

I’ve known people of many Christian denominations and whether it’s divorce and remarriage, birth control, greed, lust, the death penalty, women’s or children’s rights, the rights of the poor, etc., etc., most of them cherry pick what they support out of the Bible.

Of course, it might also depend on which version of the bible you read.

By Brian Curtis

March 20, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this

Ahh yes, the old “They’re not REAL Christians like ME” argument. So handy, so versatile; it lets you declare that any denomination, any church, and any pastor or minister who doesn’t agree with you “must not be following the Word of God.”

What a convenient excuse for not examining your beliefs more closely.

The truth is, there’s no reason that Christians of goodwill can’t differ on the subject of abortion, and many do. Despite the hysterical protests of the right-wing “Conservative Christian” crowd, it’s quite possible to be a pro-choice Christian with no moral or religious conflict whatsoever. And many Christians do exactly that.

They also pay closer attention to the “judge not” admonishment than many fundamentalists are prepared to.

By Van

March 20, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

How many times must we revisit this subject.

To some, it is abortion on demand, anytime, free, any age.

To some, it should be more limited.

To some, it is a medical procedure and should be treated as such.

To others it should not be, with a few exceptions.

Personally, I am pro adoption.

We all have our opinions.

By charles mack

March 20, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this

you can call yourself a Christian, but you are not. You are NOT a Christian if you promote violence against the unborn. you are a disgrace to the collar you wear.

By Thomas

March 20, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

These Christians are so anti-abortion, yet so unwilling to pay for these children once they are born.

By qwerty3020

March 20, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

Did anyone notice Villines’ straw-man argument here? “Some Christians oppose war and Christians don’t do enough to help the poor. Therefore it is ok to have an abortion.” He vast majority of his column is not even about abortion. Cute.

So there is no 11th commandment outlawing abortion. Perhaps so many Christians have a moral opposition (lets avoid the question of whether or not it should be legal) to abortion because it seems to violate the spirit of so many of God’s laws. Shedding of innocent blood, choosing self-interest over the well-being of others, etc.

Villines insists that the ” ‘most vulnerable and helpless’ … are the women and couples who are faced with the agonizingly difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy.” How many people considering abortion are doing so because they aren’t ready for a baby financially or they want to focus on their careers? How many are afraid of how their parents will react to their pregnancy? How many are aborting because the child will have a birth defect? These are good reasons to be afraid of having children. But God wants us to purge the worldly desires and fears of our heart and lean on him.

As Christians, we should promote abstinence. Let’s promote birth control. Let’s promote the idea that when a woman has a child it is a beautiful thing, not a mark of shame for sexual sin. Let’s promote better child care for working women. There are lots of things we can do to prevent unwanted pregnancies and turn unwanted pregnancies into blessing for their mothers. But let’s NOT promote abortion.

-24 year old female graduate student

By d2dutton

March 20, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

I have watched the patterns of beliefs among Christians for many years. While there are those who say they do not fit a stereotypical pattern of beliefs and behaviors, the vast majority do, and I believe that those patterns are integral to understanding why people choose to be pro-life only or pro-life/choice.

People who are adamantly against abortion are usually also against other forms of birth control. They believe in a legalistic society and religion, believe strongly in heaven and hell images and that the devil is real and worshiped. Leaders in the movement have expressed in my presence that violence is always an option if it prevents abortion. They are also against homosexuality, for capital punishment, and are highly judgmental of those who don’t agree with them. The idolize the Ten Commandments but don’t mind breaking them to attain their goals, which they view as “helping God.” However, these same people feel it is their duty to work hard in a job to be able to support their church and favorite causes financially and take great joy in service work, especially if they see results with which they can identify.

People who are pro-life/choice tend to take Jesus’ “love commandment,” Matthew 22:36-40, as their Christian belief basis. While they work hard, they are not as interested in money for causes or charity, preferring to offer their labor and personal gifts. They focus on education as a means of eradicating a welfare state, crime, and abortion. They consider possibilities and are not interested in “black and white” legalism. They believe in rehabilitation since all people make both good and bad choices in their lives, and that contemplation of those choices and their consequences will result in either wisdom (heaven) or misery (hell) for that person. They believe that people should be given many chances to redeem themselves and do not feel threatened by homosexuality. They do not like violence or war, believing them to be detrimental to an emotionally healthy society, and avoid confrontation, preferring to resolve differences through discussion. Religion, for these people, as well as patriotism, is tied up in spirituality. They do not believe in an ostentatious show of those beliefs through flags, yard placards, and enforced public prayer.

Probably the Bible itself provides the best study of both types of people. The early Old Testament, which lists the rules of society, is a wonderful sociological and anthropological study of how to contain and prolong the life of a particular tribe of people. Pro-lifers tend to key on passages like those in Leviticus (and the later rules of Paul) to support their belief-system. Pro-lifers focus on the pre-born and no birth control because they believe this is the way to help society, as they know it, survive. Homosexuality is seen as a threat to the survival of the species and criminals are to be eradicated so as not to taint the “tribe.” This is also why many of the people who fall in this belief system are believe in racial purity as well.

Pro-life/choice believers focus on the teachings of Jesus in the Bible as examples of forgiveness and understanding, believing the way to for us to survive is to provide loving support to those currently alive in an effort to make a better world for those to come.

We have both types of people in our world because without the rules of one and the imagination of the other, neither will survive. This applies to every facet of our society.

But the question is, is one belief more “Christian” than another? That depends. Pro-lifers say they are following the Bible “in its whole context.” Pro-life/choicers believe they are following the words of Jesus.

There is a distinction. That is why there is a “new” testament and an “old.” If Jesus came only to confirm the old, we wouldn’t need a new. But the revolution within the new is not understandable without the old.

Luckily, Christians get to choose whether they are pro-life or pro-life/choice in our society. That choice will depend upon many factors——their personality, their upbringing, and their life experiences. It is when the choice of how to be Christian is taken away that any semblance to a free society will be lost.

By d2dutton

March 20, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

Of course all this means is that Christians trying to “out-Christian” one another becomes more important than the issue at hand—-very real women needing support in making very real important decisions.

By qwerty3020

March 20, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

Hi d2dutton. Do you have any reason to believe that discussion about abortion in religious circles is more about “out-Christianing” one another than about helping women make the best moral choices?

By Susie

March 20, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

As a Protestant Christian, abortion is wrong for ME. As a Catholic, birth control is wrong for my friend. Do I think abortion is sinful? Yes. Do I want the law to be changed to suit what is moral for me? NO.

If we changed the laws on the basis of what was right and wrong for every religion, none of us would be able to have pork or shellfish, we couldn’t get birth control, we could only have fish on Fridays, we couldn’t sing songs or play games, or celebrate holidays or birthdays…Abortion is something that is between me and my own God or my own concience…it’s between me and my doctor. It’s not between me and a bunch of men in Washington.

If abortion is made illegal based on someone’s religious beliefs, what’s next? Birth control? There are all kinds of things that are “wrong” for certain religions, but I don’t want a law to force ME to have to adhere to someone else’s beliefs.

By Robert Sieling

March 20, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

Yes, let’s always choose life. But I think the writer and artilcle challenge us to expand our understanding of what life really is.

With respect to the science of life, life have been shown to be a continous, a blending of one generation into another. If life is defined to begin exactly at conception, and knowing that fully 40% of all conceptions spontaneously abort or fail to thrive means that you accept the fact that God is the worlds most productive abortionist.

And of course the United Church of Christ is a legitimate Christian denomination. You’re just trying to exclude any legitimate challenge to your narrow minded opinion.

By qwerty3020

March 20, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

Well I believe that child pornography is ok for me. So don’t force me to adhere to your beliefs by making it illegal to have sex with a minor.

For the record, I don’t believe in child pornography or having sex with minors. I’m just following Susie’s argument to its inevitable conclusion. Please don’t arrest me.

By Curious George

March 20, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

Rev. Villines and his supporters use a familiar trick in this argument: Your stance against abortion is wrong because you don’t do enough to help the poor or oppose war. Way back in college, I learned in logic class (I guess nobody takes this course anymore) that one of the most common logical fallacies is to claim that the person you’re arguing against is a hypocrite. But being a hypocrite doesn’t make your point of view wrong. If I as a Christian oppose abortion but don’t do enough to help the poor (I plead guilty on this count), then I agree that is a flaw in my character. But it doesn’t make me wrong about abortion. My stance on abortion is exactly the same as Mother Teresa, who did more than anyone on this earth to help the poor (and oppose war). She was a far better person than I am, but she can’t be right about abortion and me be wrong because our views are the same. And BTW, if you’re looking for more moral authority on the issue, know that the great peace advocate Gandhi also viewed abortion as a crime. What would you say to these two, Reverend?

By Syed

March 20, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

qwerty3020

Child pornography has nothing to do with religion, it’s just flat llegal. Your argument makes no sense to me. I can’t say, “Hey I don’t believe in speed limit, so don’t make it a law”.Because these are some basic Laws that we established as a civilized society, these laws have nothing to do with Religion.These laws were created with the agreement of all the people in the society. On the contrary, abortion is an issue were we all are divided into many opinion because it involves doing something on a woman’s body against her will.Yes, to me, the South Dakota law is totaly Taliban and uncivilized. But since all the people are divided into different opinion, we can’t just make it a law or ban this law, it will run it’s processes.For eaxmple, Even a murderer will agree murder is wrong.The point Susie is making is keep the religion out of the govt or law making. If you let religion influence the law making, soon this will be Taliban country.

By d2dutton

March 20, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

qwerty—-You’re a perfect example of trying to “out-do” somebody with your child-pornography spin.

Laws about abortion need to be based upon what is best for individuals and our society, not whether we agree with it. However, what’s best is also bound up in our beliefs, morally, religiously, spiritually, and ethically, as well as sociologically. Making decisions based only upon rightist religious values devalues the human ability to think critically and come to a solution best for all. It devalues the gifts God has given us, including the gift of the unborn child and the woman who carries it.

By Van

March 20, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Do you think abortion is at odds with the tenets of Christianity?

It all depends on which denomination of Christianity you belong, and which sub-group.

Some are more liberal than others, some are more conservative.

The article writer belongs to obviously a very, very liberal one.

In this country we allow many forms of worship. It is you and your faith that must decide this question. Those without a faith or creed have the God given free will to engage in any activity they choose. Those that follow a faith or creed, have the same free will. It is personal responsibility that will make the final decision.

You can take control of your life or not, it is up to you.

By Brian Curtis

March 20, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this

It’s always scary when I agree with Van.

By Susie

March 20, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

Exploiting children is not exactly the same as having a medical procedure, qwerty. Whether we like it or not, children who are already born are going to be more highly protected by laws than those who are unborn. Is that right? No. It’s just the way it has to be. You can’t take this ONE moral issue and make laws based on it, unless you are willing to allow EVERYONE’s moral issues to become legislated. You don’t get to pick and choose. We can’t base laws ONLY on what the Southern Baptists find wrong, because the laws apply to everyone. So, if we are going to start down the slippery slope of legislating beliefs, then we’ve got to allow all religions to have laws based on their beliefs.

By Susie

March 20, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

Thank you, Syed, you said it much better than me.

By Danny

March 20, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

I’m Catholic, and vehemently against abortion. I deeply respect my Church’s official position on the issue. The fact is, however, that abortion need not be a religious issue at all, simply an ethical and moral one. Common sense, scientific fact, decency and honesty with oneself should be more than enough to propel a thinking individual to oppose abortion. Why do you think the term “pro-choice” was coined? Simply to ease the consciences of those who know in their heart of hearts that abortion is wrong, but for whatever reason, be it politics or convenience, don’t want it outlawed. Every argument for abortion is by its nature faulty, but Rev. Villines’ is downright miserable. He argues, why fight abortion when there’s so much poverty in the world? What a tired position, not to mention groundless. Many, probably a majority of those who oppose abortion are the same ones who give regularly to the comfort of the poor, either through their churches or other means. And when he says the bottom line is “which carries more weight: the life that may be in the embryo, or the life and needs of the woman in whose body that embryo was conceived”, you know he’s lost. He may as well ask which way he should turn his car to avoid a pothole: to the left and kill a 40-year-old architect, or the right and kill a 20 year old college student, all the while dismissing the option of hitting the pothole. Human life cannot be prioritized by stages; that is equivalent to genocide. And of all the terrible “reasons” for abortion, quality of life, i.e. “the needs of the woman” in his argument, is the most abhorrent.

By qwerty3020

March 20, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

Syed- Laws are not established when everyone in our country agrees. Laws are established when the majority of elected officials vote to accept some proposition. And laws are changed all the time. P.S. Ted Kaczynski is a murderer who believed he was right.

d2dutton- “Laws about abortion need to be based on what is best for individuals and our society.” I agree. But how do you ( and how do lawmakers) decide what is “best” for individuals and society? Is it what brings the most number of people happiness? Is it what makes our economy most prosperous? Or is best just what the majority of people want (irregardless of why they want it)? How do you measure “best” for a group of people?

Every person has their own idea about what is best for this country. For religious people, these views are undoubtedly related to their religious beliefs. Political beliefs are obviously also influenced by gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, region, life experiences, etc. Just because my political beliefs are influenced by these things does not mean that they are not valid. Of course, religion should not be a consideration when laws are being passed and repealed. But laws are established because of beliefs- beliefs about what is best for our society. But again, how do we decide what is “best”? Pro-lifers want to make abortion illegal because they think it is “best” (for whatever reason).

I’m not really interested in whether abortion is illegal or not. I just don’t think people should have abortions. I only brought up the child pornography argument because Susie mentioned the legality of abortion. I just think her argument is a bit immature. She seems to think that somehow right and wrong shouldn’t come into play in our laws. But that is exactly what laws are- a decistion about what is right = legal = “best” in this country.

Anyway, I would love it if this thread would focus more on the editorial at hand.

By Jess

March 20, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

Does Pro-Life End at Birth? Are the children of poverty, the most vulnerable and helpless, offered decent housing, food, access to education, medical care, etc.? Adoption instead of abortion. The infants waiting for adoption at DFCS, what are their stories? Tax cuts for social programs like Medicaid are popular and the budget cuts are now law. Does Pro-Life End at Birth? Should it?

By Syed

March 20, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

qwerty3020

Your first 2 statements look contradictory me. First you said how majority vote to make a law, then you questioned how they would know what’s best for us. I think whether woman is going to keep a baby or not, it’s nobody’s business. If don’t wanna abort, wanna have a kid in every year, guess what, you have the right to do that. It’s not approprirate to “invade” a woman’s body and force her to keep a baby just because some other people don’t think it’s right.

By Laf

March 20, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

Do you think abortion is at odds with the tenents of Christianity? Do you think killing children in Iraq is at odds with the tenents of Christianity? Do you think the killing of criminals on death row is at odds with the tenents of Christianity? What would Jesus do? What would the President of the United States do? Was Jesus a Christian? Is our President a Christian? Its life!! Don’t abort!!!!! Its a terrorist!!!! ABORT!!!!! Go get the Bible? Whose Bible? Which translation? Geez——A Confused Christian

By E. Lewis

March 20, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

Is abortion morally wrong, but executing a minor or the retarded is not?

By E. Lewis

March 20, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

Don’t confuse anti-abortion/pro-birth with being pro-life.

If you believe as a Christian that all life is sacred and call yourself pro-ilfe, then you must also be against the death penalty.

Pro-life Christians also have an obligation to help the poor especially the children and disabled.

By Danny

March 20, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

to E. Lewis: I’m conservative, against abortion, against the death penalty and do believe that not only pro-life Christians, but everyone, has an obligation to help the poor, children and the disabled. And I’m not bragging, but I think people like me who share all these beliefs are the ones who scare liberals the most, because so many of the latter are not ready to give up their perceived “monopoly on philanthropy”, and they’re not ready to allow those who are against abortion to share their opposition to the death penalty. I guess they think it may give us pro-lifers too much credibility.

By john gillis

March 20, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

I think Christians should do what they believe is right in these matters for themselves. They should also express their opinions. That said, Christians should allow others to do what they believe. It’s called freedom of religion, guaranteed in our Constitution. What a wonderful world it would be if there weren’t so many control freaks on any side of any issue.

By john gillis

March 20, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

I think that Christians should follow their beliefs in these matters. I think that Christians should feel free to express their views in these matters. I also believe that Christians should not impose their beliefs on others. I thought that our Constitution guaranteed us these rights. I didn’t know that some control freak on either side of an issue such as this trumped our Constitution.

By Van

March 20, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

E. Lewis, once again I will try to explain it to you.

Abortion, the termination of a pregnancy, death of a human fetus, a personal choice.

Death Penaly, Punishment handed down by the court system for certain criminal acts.

Where is the comparison?

By Laf

March 20, 2006 05:15 PM | Link to this

about the Constitution of the United States and freedom of religion. There are too many religious groups who wants to ignore the law of the land. What they really would like to do is incorporate their theology into the Constitution of the United States.

By Andy

March 20, 2006 09:35 PM | Link to this

To Danny: Pro-lifers who oppose the death penalty and believe in helping the poor do not scare us liberals. In fact, I personally applaud your moral consistency on these issues. What scares us are people who believe that we should respect all human life, help the poor, turn the other cheek, avoid the sin of pride (AKA arrogance), eschew worldly treasures and otherwise follow the example set by Jesus Christ, but still vote Republican! This party has pursued a murderous pre-emptive war, justified it through lies and (misplaced) vengeance, created a tax code that favors wealth individuals and corporations over the poor, and pridefully refused to acknowledge any mote that might be in our American eyes, yet Christian people still support them. That kind of moral and logical inconsistency is what really scares us.

By Melissa Jurgens

March 20, 2006 10:14 PM | Link to this

The pro-abortion faction has done a good job of framing the abortion debate in terms of personal morality and religious freedom, and I must say that the “religious right” has played into their hands. In actuality abortion is a violation of our most basic human right—the right to be born. One does not need to be a Christian or even a person of faith to recognize this. I had my own epiphany on this issue 11 years ago, when I was on bedrest, pregnant with twins. I began to research premature birth (since I was potentially facing one), and I was astonished at the progress medical science has made. Babies of less than a pound, at 21-22 weeks gestation, are surviving and thriving. Yet these babies are not considered human lives.

Abortion categorizes some human life as less worthy of protection than other life, a view which is responsible for some of the greatest evils in history. Mankind has evolved to the point that we can recognize that slavery is not part of the natural order of things, that it is not the white man’s burden to colonize the heathen lands, and national security interests do not justify the internment of those of Japanese ancestry. Why can we not see how barbaric it is to commit genocide against our own children?

Rev. Villines acknowledges that a God of love would want us to protect life, but he seems to throw up his hands at even making the attempt. It is true that we are inconsistent. Our lawmakers pass abortion restrictions in the morning and immigration restrictions in the afternoon. But the answer is not more permissive abortion, but redoubled efforts to help those in need, both here and abroad.

He also argues that there is no clear biblical argument against abortion. Setting aside for the moment “thou shalt not kill” as too simplistic, I would refer him to Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you….” He might also check out Deut.12:31: “You shall not thus worship the Lord, your God, because they offered to their gods every abomination that the Lord detests, even burning their sons and daughters to their gods.” And Lev. 18:21, 25: “You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech….Because their land has become defiled, I am punishing it for its wickedness, by making it vomit out its inhabitants.”

I don’t think you have to believe the Bible, or be a Christian, to agree that child sacrifice is a bad thing, regardless of the age of the child, or what you’re sacrificing her for. Regardless of faith or lack of it, we need to recognize this practice for the abomination it is.

By E. Lewis

March 21, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this

Van the comparison is that many Christian faiths teach that all life is a gift from God and that the government doesn’t have the right to take that away.

Besides, do you honestly believe that every person who has been executed in this country was factually guilty of the crime for which they were executed? Look at all the death row and long-term incarcerated men who have been exonerated by DNA testing.

It’s the hypocrisy of many who call them selves pro-life when they are merely anti-abortion and not much else.

By chidog

March 21, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

Well said Andy. My favorite bumper sticker says “The Christian Right is Neither”. I am a liberal who happens to believe in God and trust me, we applaud Christians who help the poor, but how do you justify the unwavering support of a political party that continually cuts programs for the poor (many of whom are those children they didn’t want aborted), supports corporations and the bottom line above any human and who labels anyone that offers a differing opinion from their own as a traitor or weak. The Republican party who always said they stand for individual freedom and rights wants to tell women what to do with their own bodies. Whether or not they choose to have an abortion is between them and their God. Why is it your right to carry guns and do what you want on your own property, but not with your body.

By Brian Curtis

March 21, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

“Conservative Christian” is a contradiction in terms, and more real Christians need to speak up on these issues instead of letting the Falwells and Robertsons give them a bad name.

If you oppose helping the poor, you’re not a Christian. If you’re pro-war, you’re not a Christian.

And if you hate gays, obsess about abortion, and want to pass laws that make YOUR faith into public policy, rather than worrying about helping the needy first and foremost… you’re not even a worthwhile human being, let alone a Christian.

By Van

March 21, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

Glad you are speaking for me Brian. I guess I am not much of a christian then. I am pro-adoption and pro death penalty, The poor have themselves to blame, those that want to get out of poverty can get help from the Salvation Army or others.

I see nothing wrong with war, I just don’t like war in general. But I believe in the cause of this war on terror. Many of the people I served with have the same opinion, no one likes war, but you don’t avoid or run from it either.

The denomination I belong to is conservative. The televangelist do not speak for me or to me.

I just think it is rather presumptuous of you to speak for all christians.

By Van

March 21, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

Glad you are speaking for me Brian. I guess I am not much of a christian then. I am pro-adoption and pro death penalty, The poor have themselves to blame, those that want to get out of poverty can get help from the Salvation Army or others.

I see nothing wrong with war, I just don’t like war in general. But I believe in the cause of this war on terror. Many of the people I served with have the same opinion, no one likes war, but you don’t avoid or run from it either.

The denomination I belong to is conservative. The televangelist do not speak for me or to me.

I just think it is rather presumptuous of you to speak for all christians.

By Van

March 21, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

it must be catching, the double posts - Sorry.

By Jess

March 21, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

I agree that the Bible is not clear on abortion. You can find passages to support both positions. If the Bible was clear, there would be no debate.

To balance the Pro-Life Commandments Melissa quoted, consider this. In the Old Testament, does the Pro-Life commandments apply to all humanity or only to the Israelites who obeyed the Lord? Joshua 6 20-21 describes the destruction of Jericho. Verse 21 says that upon entering the city, the Israelites “devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys.” That probably included pregnant women, newborns, toddlers, etc. So, the unborn were put to death and even the livestock.

By Susie

March 21, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Qwerty, I never said that right and wrong in general shouldn’t have anything to do with our laws…most laws are based on right and wrong. There are “rights and wrongs” that really have nothing to do with religion…murder is wrong. Stealing is wrong. There aren’t any religions (other than the extremist offshoots) that condone killing or stealing. Arson is wrong, but there’s nothing in my Bible about it.

The “right and wrong” that I meant are ones that only apply to one religion. Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t celebrate holidays, birthdays, and they don’t play games. I learned this from a JW boy in my classes in high school. He couldn’t play “Spanish Bingo” that our teacher was using to help us learn the numbers in Spanish. Do you think that because it’s wrong for HIM to celebrate a holiday, a birthday or play a game, that he should be able to lobby to have all holidays, birthday celebrations and GAMES outlawed?? Those things aren’t “wrong” for anyone but him. That is what I meant by having someone’s own personal beliefs made into laws.

I agree with you that no one should have an abortion. I just don’t want the option removed for those who feel they have to go through with it. I can’t imagine that even someone who thinks there’s nothing wrong with it would do it without thinking long and hard about it.

I agree with the other person who said that although he’s Catholic and he’s very against abortion, he doesn’t see the need for it to be a religious issue, it’s one where each person should know whether it’s right or wrong and should deal with their own conscience.

By Susie

March 21, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this

Qwerty, I never said that right and wrong in general shouldn’t have anything to do with our laws…most laws are based on right and wrong. There are “rights and wrongs” that really have nothing to do with religion…murder is wrong. Stealing is wrong. There aren’t any religions (other than the extremist offshoots) that condone killing or stealing. Arson is wrong, but there’s nothing in my Bible about it.

The “right and wrong” that I meant are ones that only apply to one religion. Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t celebrate holidays, birthdays, and they don’t play games. I learned this from a JW boy in my classes in high school. He couldn’t play “Spanish Bingo” that our teacher was using to help us learn the numbers in Spanish. Do you think that because it’s wrong for HIM to celebrate a holiday, a birthday or play a game, that he should be able to lobby to have all holidays, birthday celebrations and GAMES outlawed?? Those things aren’t “wrong” for anyone but him. That is what I meant by having someone’s own personal beliefs made into laws.

I agree with you that no one should have an abortion. I just don’t want the option removed for those who feel they have to go through with it. I can’t imagine that even someone who thinks there’s nothing wrong with it would do it without thinking long and hard about it.

I agree with the other person who said that although he’s Catholic and he’s very against abortion, he doesn’t see the need for it to be a religious issue, it’s one where each person should know whether it’s right or wrong and should deal with their own conscience.

By Melissa

March 21, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

Susie, the difference between your example and legalized abortion is that no one is going to be killed by playing Spanish bingo. What everyone is overlooking is that there are two individuals involved here. It is the purpose of government to protect the lives of its citizens, and that is why abortion is an appropriate subject for regulation. What no one wants to talk about is the fact that someone is killed in every successful abortion procedure. In testimony given by doctors against the Partial Birth Abortion Act, doctors stated the procedure was necessary in any second trimester abortion, because there was a danger the baby would be born alive. A danger! We certainly can’t have that, now can we.

By Brian Curtis

March 21, 2006 05:30 PM | Link to this

Van: Yes, it is presumptuous of me. Just as it’s presumptuous of whackos like Robertson to declare that “Jesus is on America’s side in this war” and Falwell to pray for gays and abortion doctors to die.

What’s really presumptuous is both of those clowns pretending to be Christian when they clearly have no regard for anything Jesus taught or stood for.

And I didn’t say anything about adoption or the death penalty; Christians can disagree about those issues. But I honestly believe there can be no such thing as a “pro-war Christian,” period.

Jesus said to love our enemies, not shoot them; not a whole lot of room for argument there.

By Van

March 22, 2006 08:42 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

I see, then you also believe that Je$$e Jack$on speaks for all blacks also, using the same logic.

Sorry, your logic is very off, faulty or just plain bad.

By Brian Curtis

March 22, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

So instead of just declaring ‘You’re wrong,’ would you like to provide some reasoning or evidence?

If you can point to a justification for the notion of a “pro-war Christian,” I’d love to see it. Because I can’t remember Jesus killing anybody in my copy of the Bible.

By Van

March 22, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis -

Luke 22:36 36He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

The flaw in your logic is the thinking that pro-war(poor choice of phrasing) is pro killing and fighting. This is not correct.

Being prepared or on guard against conflict calls for a strong military and is consistant with Christian principles, some might consider this as pro-war.

By J&J Ranch

March 22, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

Do you think abortion is at odds with the tenets of Christianity?

The very first comment goes on about a certain denomination not being Christian.
I have a problem when one goes against another. Maybe this is the main reason I, and I am a Christian, quit going to church many years ago.

It is appalling that the Baptists will tell their congregation “We are the ones that are right, those Methodists are wrong!” And so on. Is this Christian behavior?

The Bible several hundreds of years ago was made to read the way the Christian leaders decided they wanted it to read. Things were taken out, things added in. The Bible is a book written by man and manipulated by man.

That being said…

There is not an answer to the question that all people will agree on.

Is it a sin to bring unwanted, to be unloved and abused children into this world? Yes. Is it wrong to tell women what they can do with their own bodies? Yes.

Mother Earth is overpopulated to the point where she can barely sustain the lives on Earth now.
There are starving people all over the world. Will having more unwanted children help? NO.

When these holier-than-though people holler about pro-life… Perhaps there should be a list of people who are dead-set against abortion. When an unwanted, should’ve been aborted baby is born, the persons on the list should be given the baby. They should then raise this baby until the age of 18 years. During which time, they have to make sure this child is not abused, has all of the medical attention it needs, never going hungry, and shown all of the love that a child born of loving parents would have. If for any reason, at any time, the requirements that guarantee the love, education, etc are not met, you will be charged for child abuse and jailed.

Ever time an unwanted baby is born, the next person on the list gets the baby.

If all of you anti-abortionists are truly anti, then you should have no problem accepting the unwanted babies.

Would you be willing to do that?

If your daughter becomes pregnant…Are you going to raise the child as your own?

I cannot make this world a perfect place. God gave me eyes to observe what is around me, the sense to make educated decisions.

One does not have to attend church with the hypocrites that go every Sunday. Not all church-goers are hypocrites, but there are some in every church.

The “I am right, you are wrong”, “My church is better than your church”, “The Bible says this!” The Bible, it has been shown is a conglomeration of stories that have happened in the past. Let us learn from it. Goodness is in your heart, not in what you read.

My ex-husband (I guess divorce is a sin, huh?), would lie in bed and smoke pot before he got up every morning. He had no goodness in his heart. When we were going through the divorce, he walked around with a Bible. He would tell people “Jesus loves you”. Does this make him a good, God-fearing Christian?

By J&J Ranch

March 22, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

Do you think abortion is at odds with the tenets of Christianity?

The very first comment goes on about a certain denomination not being Christian.
I have a problem when one goes against another. Maybe this is the main reason I, and I am a Christian, quit going to church many years ago.

It is appalling that the Baptists will tell their congregation “We are the ones that are right, those Methodists are wrong!” And so on. Is this Christian behavior?

The Bible several hundreds of years ago was made to read the way the Christian leaders decided they wanted it to read. Things were taken out, things added in. The Bible is a book written by man and manipulated by man.

That being said…

There is not an answer to the question that all people will agree on.

Is it a sin to bring unwanted, to be unloved and abused children into this world? Yes. Is it wrong to tell women what they can do with their own bodies? Yes.

Mother Earth is overpopulated to the point where she can barely sustain the lives on Earth now.
There are starving people all over the world. Will having more unwanted children help? NO.

When these holier-than-though people holler about pro-life… Perhaps there should be a list of people who are dead-set against abortion. When an unwanted, should’ve been aborted baby is born, the persons on the list should be given the baby. They should then raise this baby until the age of 18 years. During which time, they have to make sure this child is not abused, has all of the medical attention it needs, never going hungry, and shown all of the love that a child born of loving parents would have. If for any reason, at any time, the requirements that guarantee the love, education, etc are not met, you will be charged for child abuse and jailed.

Ever time an unwanted baby is born, the next person on the list gets the baby.

If all of you anti-abortionists are truly anti, then you should have no problem accepting the unwanted babies.

Would you be willing to do that?

If your daughter becomes pregnant…Are you going to raise the child as your own?

I cannot make this world a perfect place. God gave me eyes to observe what is around me, the sense to make educated decisions.

One does not have to attend church with the hypocrites that go every Sunday. Not all church-goers are hypocrites, but there are some in every church.

The “I am right, you are wrong”, “My church is better than your church”, “The Bible says this!” The Bible, it has been shown is a conglomeration of stories that have happened in the past. Let us learn from it. Goodness is in your heart, not in what you read.

My ex-husband (I guess divorce is a sin, huh?), would lie in bed and smoke pot before he got up every morning. He had no goodness in his heart. When we were going through the divorce, he walked around with a Bible. He would tell people “Jesus loves you”. Does this make him a good, God-fearing Christian?

By Eric

March 27, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

J&J, by your overpopulation logic I guess Hitler and Stalin shouldn’t have been stopped, they were just looking out for Mother Earth. Coincidentally, Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood was buddies with Hitler and supported using abortion to weed out “undesirables” like minorities, the physically handicapped, etc. Perhaps your logic is just a little too consistent? Also, any comparison of the death penalty against someone who has done nothing wrong and abortion against an obviously guiltless human being is ridiculous, although I do oppose both. The sheer numbers make the argument even more ridiculous, 45 million over 30 years, vs maybe several thousand(and 99.9% guilty) through the death penalty.

By Eric

March 27, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

J&J, by your overpopulation logic I guess Hitler and Stalin shouldn’t have been stopped, they were just looking out for Mother Earth. Coincidentally, Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood was buddies with Hitler and supported using abortion to weed out “undesirables” like minorities, the physically handicapped, etc. Perhaps your logic is just a little too consistent? Also, any comparison of the death penalty against someone who has done nothing wrong and abortion against an obviously guiltless human being is ridiculous, although I do oppose both. The sheer numbers make the argument even more ridiculous, 45 million over 30 years, vs maybe several thousand(and 99.9% guilty) through the death penalty.

By Eric

March 27, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

Sorry for the double post, but obviously I meant something wrong not nothing wrong in the death penalty example. The innocent executions are tragic and are one reason I oppose the death penalty, no matter how rarely the government is wrong.

By Brian Curtis

March 28, 2006 08:20 AM | Link to this

Eric: Quite right; the execution of innocent people is always appalling and wrong.

Do you have any reason to link that with abortion, since abortion involves fetuses (not people)?

By Eric

March 29, 2006 06:34 PM | Link to this

When does the fetus become a person? At the moment of birth? How about 5 minutes earlier, is he/she any different? How about 5 days? 5 weeks? Is this creature any different just before birth as just after? Conception is the only logical answer. How do you feel about a baby just born? Should there still be a “choice” on whether to kill him/her? If you want to talk viablity, then I guess you feel we should start euthanizing everyone as well if they’re not “viable,” I’m sure that would be great for health insurance rates. Also, if a fetus isn’t a person, what is it, and how does it magically change exactly at the moment of birth? Maybe if it was an endangered species you’d treat it with more respect.

By Brian Curtis

March 29, 2006 08:43 PM | Link to this

Yes, because there’s no shortage of fetuses. And “what is it?” I already answered that; it’s a fetus. Just like a blueprint isn’t a house, and an acorn isn’t a tree.

How tough is this concept, really? Viability is a good line to draw when a fetus becomes a person; originally, it was birth. Both of these are just as “logical” as your conception standard—moreso, since they don’t rely on a particular religious view.

Tell me: Is an 18 year old any different from the person he was the day before his birthday? Then why should his legal status suddenly change? Because a line was drawn to separate stages of life, that’s why.

If you have some support for your claim that a zygote should be considered human at the point of conception, other than “It’s obvious”, by all means let’s hear it.

By Eric

March 30, 2006 02:40 AM | Link to this

There is a clear difference between entering different stages of life and existing at all. The 18 year was no less human at 17, and I think even you realize that is a ridiculous comparison. A murderer wouldn’t be charged with a lesser crime because the victim was under age. You’re referring to additional rights/priveleges granted as someone matures. Why conception? That is objectively the point at which the life exists. The DNA is all there. It can’t survive on its own, but neither can someone on life support at a hospital. It is not necessarily a religious viewpoint at all.

By Brian Curtis

March 30, 2006 07:52 AM | Link to this

Life, yes…. but what sort of life? Is it a person in the social and legal sense?

So far, the answer is “no.”

By Eric

March 30, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

Sounds a lot like slavery arguments in the 1700s. Your argument indicates some sort of subjective moving target for something that is objective. A slave in the 1700s did not magically turn from 3/5s of a person to a full person in the 1800s because a law was passed, the law was wrong to begin with. That is an extremely weak and dangerous argument. Based on that kind of subjectivism, arguments could also be made for Hitler’s actions in Germany because in Germany that was the legal status there. I know that’s not where you wanted to go, but sadly that is the exact same logic.

By Brian Curtis

March 30, 2006 08:08 PM | Link to this

Not really. (You could make the same argument for treating chickens as human “because up until slavery was outlawed, blacks were treated as property too.”)

But analogies aside, what’s your reason for arguing that a fetus should be considered (and treated) the same as a full-fledged individual person? You say it’s objective—how so?

By Eric

March 31, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

I was responding to your comments about social and legal status and that “so far, the answer is no.” My objective comment was that there is a reality and changing opinions don’t change the facts. Someone is right, someone is wrong. I guess you’d feel pretty lousy if that answer changed to yes in the future. Your chicken analogy doesn’t hold water because I’m not defending that position, that was your position, although I agree it sounds equally ridiculous.

There is a living creature created at conception with all of the DNA intact. How can it be anything but human? If you don’t think so, you have birth or viability as your answer. With birth, we all know that baby has basically not changed at all between the previous day and the day of birth, so the opinion at that time would be you can kill it as long as it’s not 100% out. Get it on the way out and you’re fine. Even most abortion supporters find that repulsive. Viability has a similar problem when you realize that on borderline cases there is no real way to know if the baby is viable. There is also the problem that there isn’t some overnight change, the baby is gradually developing, so even if not viable why is it different? It’s not a bird that transforms into a human at birth or viability. Over time limbs develop, the heart beats, etc, but the only true transformation is at conception.