Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 15:20:08 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:

>From article by adams@spss.com (Steve Adams):
>> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>Can you honestly picture Jesus Christ helping some woman abort a child
>>>that His beloved Father is in the active process of knitting together?
>>>It would be completely absurd.
>> Suzanne...that's not the point.  
>Ah but it is.  See below.
I disagree....

>>Yes.  I oppose abortion.  I *personally* believe abortion to be wrong, and
>>to be killing unborn children.  That view is based PURELY on religious
>>belief, and my understanding of the process and meaning of conception in
>>light of my Christian  belief.  What I *REFUSE* to do is impose that view
>>on any other person.  Our system of government is NOT meant to be
>
>[deleted, rest of longish article I do not wish to address point by point,
>on how you divorce your religious beliefs from your civic action]
Fair enough...I'll address your points here...

>Well, first let my point out that lots of folks who are pro-life,
>are pro-life for purely NON-religious reasons.   There are plenty of
>non-religious reasons available for being pro-life, so that no one need
>lean on any mystic, unseen, unexplainable, religious idea to be so.
>I'd say most prominent would be all the photographic, videographic, and
>sonographic images now available to anyone brave enough to look.  What
>they all show us is a child of great beauty and grace, the future of
>the human race, something of of great value.
No problem.  Now, look at the liberty interest of the woman.  There *is* a
conflict here.  Between the liberty interest of both the unborn child and
the woman.  Before the fetus is viable, the liberty interest *must* remain
with the woman.  Why?  Because it is her body, mind, etc, that are involved,
just as much as the unborn.  When the decision has to be made, it is not
for the government to decide who can and cannot exert bodily autonomy, and
for what reasons.  The governemt should not be able to force carrying to
term any more than force organ donation.

>And second of all, since some folks were claiming that accepting abortion
>was a perfectly legitimate "Christian" position, my point at the top here
>was that either Christianity is about emulating Christ or it isn't.  I
>demonstrated that it is absurd to think that Christ himself would assist
>in any abortion.  Instead He would provide for the needs of both the mother
>and the child.  Which btw is just what a great many pro-lifers are doing.
>(And many of them are Christian too.)
What Christians are doing is immaterial to the argument at hand.  And as
for 'accepting' abortion, I 'accept' it as a reality in our system, and one
that seems to me to be protected by rights, individual liberty and personal
bodily autonomy.  Christ would say that the proper position is to TEACH
them the error of their ways, not impose God's laws by an iron fist.
Submission to God must be by choice, not by force.  Anything else gains
nothing.

>Of COURSE Christianity is about emulating what Christ Himself would do.
Of course it is.  And Christ had absolutely NO intention of setting up an
earthly kingdom, or forcing his views by law.  Christ taught that we
should follow the spirit of God's law, and leave secular ruling to our
leaders.  Paul said we should bow to secular authority.  In Acts, we see
the exception : when we are personally commanded to violate God's law.

Go read your Bible...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion