Abortion In Iran they judge the truth according to the Koran. In this country they judge the law according to the Constitution. Both countries elect their president and parliament.
There may be only one truth. The problem is we cannot agree on what it is. This caused a migration from Europe to the New World of people seeking freedom from religious persecution. They decided that the government will not decide what is the truth, only what is the law.
Now some Christians are attempting to force their religious views upon our politics. They judge that the fetus is sacred. This politico wants judges appointed that would rule that the fetus is more than sacred. They want judges to rule that the fetus is a living person.
I’m a traditionalist. I celebrate birthdays because I think that is when life begins. I celebrate Christmas because I think that’s when Jesus’ life began. But I’m not a purist.
I recognize there is a large group who wants to give rights to the fetus. I ask that you recognize I do not want to give up the constitutional protection of my civil liberties in favor of biblical protection. In Iran the judges are clerics. I beg of you, not in this country.The need for compromise
Without compromise the issue remains polarized lending justification to any pregnant woman who wants to rationalize “they have no right to make me”. Women determined to have an abortion will have one irrespective of its legality. Concede the right, make it as easy as you can and plead, then more mothers will choose to give birth.
The issue is not principal; it is life or death. Without compromise no matter who wins there is more death. With compromise there is more life.The compromise
I realize that in these times it is popular to take what is offered and not deliver what is promised. Therefore a civil compromise must be first.
The civil part of the compromise would dissolve the politico in favor of a strong lobby. As long as there is choice those people who truly want to discourage abortion will continue to offer the alternative of birth and adoption.
The union of Pro-life and Pro-choice into Choose- life would make abortion much more unpopular than it is. This union, being much bigger than pro-life and without the need for political funding, would draw more money for pre birth care, birthing and adoption. It would be cheap, easy and almost respectable to have a baby. It would be a shameful sin to have an abortion.
We will call a woman reasonably prudent who determines she is pregnant (with a drug store pregnancy test) within three weeks after missing her period and recognize that she is entitled to choose abortion.
We will legislate against the use of abortion as a tool of family planning alleging that although the fetus is not a living human being, it is entitled to humane treatment.
Courts would determine what the reasonably prudent woman does (we hope) without abusing the constitution.Defining the inhumane treatment of a fetus
would be a state’s rightIn law, humane generally refers to the treatment of animals. Though people have the greater right, there are laws to protect animals from people.
What are we talking about when we talk about humane treatment of a fetus? It maintains the ban on late term abortion. The fetus removed from the womb can be sustained until it can sustain itself.
It puts aside abortion of a fetus that has moved independently inside the womb. It would indicate brain activity implying capacity for pain.
Defer to the mother’s decision in the case of extraordinary medical conditions and any arguments dealing with what might disrupt normal decision-making. Concede that the health of the mother is throughout the pregnancy of more concern than the survival of the fetus.
We are considering abortion in the first four weeks for that is enough time for a responsible person to test for pregnancy and decide to have an abortion. There is no brain activity, no capacity for pain, no sustaining life functions and (of great importance) the fetus has not done an independent act. The fetus has gotten larger and gained some functional definition. Out of the womb the fetus would be considered dead.
Let us put aside miscarriage. We are talking about a premeditated preventing of birth.
A woman who elects abortion a number of times can be accused of using abortion as the means of birth control. The crime of which she would be accused is the inhumane treatment of a fetus. A woman who has an abortion outside the limits specified above could be accused of the inhumane treatment of a fetus. In the case of a deformed fetus discovered in the first trimester that would not have a home, a pregnant woman could petition the court that a first trimester abortion is more humane than birth. This would be decided on a case by case basis.There is no consistent world-view of abortion
Having babies is an emotional thing. In a sense, everything is alive.
100 years ago abortion was neither killing nor murder. Presently, under the influence of population explosion most of the poor world considers abortion the moral alternative to unwanted life. Presently, under the influence of affluence most of the rich world considers abortion the immoral alternative to unwanted life.
In China it is a crime to have an extra child. In China’s past babies frequently starved to death because there were too many people. This law has been credited with turning China around. I suspect now that China is economically vibrant this law will change in China.
In the United States the choice is left to the pregnant woman. The United States is part of the rich world.The sanctity of the fetus is a religious judgment
For Buddhists and Easterners who believe in reincarnation, the suffrage of life is birth and death and the aborted fetus has had to go through neither.
For myself, there is only one soul of which we are all part and it is unending. For me society determines when sanctity begins.Some Christians allege that there is a biblical argument establishing that the fetus is a human being. Review their arguments. I find it reasonable that the Bible views the fetus as sacred. I find it an imaginative view of the Bible to project the fetus as a living human being.
The biblical arguments
I use the King James BibleMatthew 1.18
“found to be with child”
A child is certainly a living human being. It’s either literal, or it’s an idiom for “ pregnant “. I have not searched the Bible for “pregnant” but to my recollection it’s not in the Bible. If “pregnant” occurs in the Bible, then this is biblical evidence that the fetus is a child.Exodus 21.22 - 25.
“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine,
And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
To interpret that her fruit is a life you must ignore the punishment the husband might lay upon him or the judges determine. These are the punishments stated for causing her fruit to depart from her.
The punishments of justice including life for life seem to be related to the mischief that follows.I have been told that Psalm 139 establishes the fetus is alive. If you remove Psalm 139.13 from the context of Psalm 139 you get David speaking of himself.
“ for thou hast possessed my reins: Thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb“
Look at the Psalm 139.1-18 in its entirety. It’s all about being known by God. It’s all about being sacred, not a living being. David talks of the future in heaven as being known by God or in hell and being known by God. This seems to imply that whatever is being talked about is known even after death.
It goes on to say “my substance was not hid from thee when I was made in secret and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.” . So this same knowledge that God has extends to the time when my substance was part of the earth. It is about the continuous sanctity of life.
It says “Thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb”. “ covered “ is simply being protected, being sacred.
All in all I find nothing suggesting the beginnings of life. I certainly find inference that God’s knowledge of each of us is ongoing and infinite. I would say this is irrespective of whether we are thought to be living or not. In fact this seems to be the point.The New Testament evidence that life begins with birth.
The glorification of the birth of Jesus.Matthew 1:20; the angel says to Joseph to explain Mary’s pregnancy “... that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. “ . The angel does not say ”that which is in her”.
The Angel goes on to say in Matthew 1:21 “and she shall bring forth the son ...”. The angel does not say “the son in her”.
Luke 1:15; concerning the birth of John, the words of an angel “...he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.” . The angel does not say” even in his mother’s womb “. The Holy Ghost is present beginning at the moment the child is from (leaving the) womb.
Luke 1:35, the angel speaking to Marry concerning the coming of Jesus “... that holy thing which shall be born of thee...”. The angel does not say “ that holy thing in thee”.
These references make it clear that life has not happened yet. But let us go forward to the feeling and intent of the birth of Jesus.
Matthew 2:11, The star appears at his birth, not his conception.
Luke 2:11; “for unto you is born this day... Christ the Lord.”. Finally it speaks of what is rather than what shall be. The Angels come to the shepherds at his birth, not his conception.
There was rejoicing at his birth, not his conception.
John 1:13, John referring to the birth of the flesh from the word “ Which were born... of God. “ It doesn’t say “ which were conceived”. Again the moment of significance is birth.
The New Testament establishes that life begins with birth.Some logic
Consider the four-week fetus. It has not done an independent act so it has not expressed will. Even if it has will it has not had the opportunity to choose. It has not had free will.
Every person has free will. Therefore the contra positive is true; everything without a free will is not a person. The fetus has not had free will. Therefore, the fetus is not a person.The question,
“ Should we impose our will on others? “
is not rhetorical.To what level of influence when you go to instill your morality on another?
Since the sanctity of the fetus is a religious argument we must decide whether we want religious judgment of morality incorporated into our judicial system or whether we want individual judgment of morality as protected by the Bill of rights to remain.
The Europe our forefathers left forced their beliefs on everyone. That was the previous standard in the world . Our forefathers wrote the Bill of rights to outlaw any church from forcing their beliefs on everyone.
The United Nations was formed for peace on earth by specifically protecting the sovereign rights of nations after world history had proven that no nation can successfully impose their will on the world. Rome tried. Gengus Kahn tried. The third Reich tried. When we viewed Bosnia’s civil war as genocide we faced the same question. Should we respect Bosnia’s sovereign rights or use force to prevent genocide? 20,000 American troops could not do the job so we left.
Those Christians who oppose abortion on principle alone keep these two points in mind. First criminalizing abortion will not do the job. Prohibition didn’t work.
Second, with compromise I am your ally. Without compromise I view you as Christian extremists every bit as dangerous as Muslim extremists. You stand one step short of pledged terrorism.A short history of Christian extremists and the Republican Party
or
how the Republican Party became corrupted by Christian extremistsAbraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, placed civil liberties above the state’s right to maintain slaves. After the war those slaves were called free. Though there was much compromise, many Southern White Christian churches clung to their bigotry. The Democratic Party was the party of the South predominately because they were not the party that freed the slaves.
When Wallace’s Dixiecrats formed in opposition to the National Democratic Party and lost, the Republicans deserted their civil liberties position, picked up the support of these Christian bigots giving them the southern vote as a bloc.
What do these Christian extremists stand for? Specifically; no stem cell research, criminalize abortion, teach creationism in school, defeat gay rights and make war.
They whisper talk about the Middle East war as the inevitable missionary mission.
They want to glorify humanity by saying God is merely intelligent. Go right ahead. However, keep it out of our schools.
We’re the same problem with abortions. Personally I find it offensive to select abortion rather than birth and adoption. However, I recognize the importance of the civil liberty of a pregnant woman.
In every case they wish to establish (or maintain) by force of law their interpretation (which they have the outrageous audacity to call Christian) of morality above the citizen’s right to choose their own morality.
I beg of you to stand up to your ministries for each of us are ministers.