TA, I understand how you’re FEELING. I realize that some of the posters on these boards both past and present have pretty-liberal-views on abortion. Though they don’t want to call it that. I realize that they are striving to be like Jesus. They honest to goodness and sincerely ask, “WWJD?” To them, Jesus was about life and concerned about the “weightier” issues of the law. If it meant the choice between life and principle, well, screw the principle. This is not only the position that Greg has espoused (and I still believe he does espouse) but it is right up John Caputo’s alley which Jamie Smith calls into question. Essentially, I questioning this baseline assumption guys. And before you go off and start to be sooo defensive about it, you might want to relax, take a deep breath and question it.

Please understand. I’m ALL about human flourishing. I would think one would know that via my issues with Greg’s views on government and my own particular views of government. For our own good, we NEED government. It has proper roles and proper limits for human flourishing.

However, I find that what you are proposing here not only does not take into consideration what I think is a proper view of suffering, but once you justify, based on your interpretation of scripture, (Jesus setting aside principle for life), it REALLY DOES open a Pandora’s Box of which your analogy showed. I don’t think this is the way to go. Think about it.

1.2 MILLION ABORTIONS A YEAR. Let’s go with the exception of rape and disabilities found within a prenatal screening (which by the way is not without it’s problems). Let’s just agree with this for the sake of argument. Of all the abortions accounting for these, it would be very, very few. Let’s say they account for 100 000 abortions. That’s still, 1.1 million abortions that don’t fit into this category. What accounts for these? What justification is there for these? OK. Let’s say we go with a 200 000 figure. That’s still 1 million abortions you have to account for. But now, let’s add in some of the other criteria you used in your argument. Now, those cases would probably be accounted for in the rape and disabilities cases. But let’s say that accounts for those and beyond, say another 20 000 cases. What would that come out to? 980 000 abortions? So how do you account for those?

It seems that when you start down the road of justifying outside of very strict and set limits, then there can be no end to the rationalization of justifying an abortion. At what point do you determine someone’s quality of life? That question is not in reference to the unborn (though I will apply it there down below), but in terms of someone with an “at risk” pregnancy. There is no measurement for this. And you are working with the same degree of uncertainty that you or others might (and have) claimed that I would be working with. I’ve heard Dwayne and Greg talk like this. And for a while I bought into it. I can’t say I do now.

Here’s what I mean.

There is a new argument in favour of abortion that is called the “wrongful life”. Basically, it goes like this. To NOT have a child is neither right or wrong. However, to have a unhappy child is morally objectionable because it results in the frustrations of the interests of an actual person in the future. Thus, bringing any child with serious diseases and disabilities into the world is morally wrong based on the notion that existence itself can be an injury. Now, if there was ever a lawsuit, the physician would be held responsible not for causing impairment, but for allowing the birth of a defective child who would otherwise not be born. THE BASE LINE presupposition here is that such a child would be BETTER OFF HAVING NEVER BEEN BORN. And I must say that such an argument would go so far as to say that such a child HAS AN INTEREST or RIGHT to not be born. Right? That’s the implication. Any child born under such conditions has unjustly been harmed. So, then, what we have is that the “right to not be born” is a way of saying, no child should be brought into the world unless certain VERY MINIMAL CONDITIONS of well-being are assured. If such a child is brought into existence among in which those conditions are so dismal, so terrible that all of the child’s most basic of interests, those essential to existence are completely doomed, it can be said that the child has been wronged.

But do you find ANYTHING problematic about this? How does one decide on someone else’s behalf that non-existence is preferable? Do you claim to have experienced non-existence such that you can claim that it is preferable to impaired or defective existence? Is not someone who “steps in” to make the choice taking on a difficult and morally AMBIGUOUS task? How does one have such CONFIDENCE and CERTAINTY that bringing such a child into existence is wrong or if you don’t like that term, “unpreferable?” How do you have THAT kind of certainty? You don’t know this! You claim that pro-lifers are making this claim, but it is rather you who is making it. Handicaps, degradation of life, etc, do not necessarily make a child better off dead.

OK.  I understand Christianly speaking that we should beseech the Lord in every situation. When someone was beat up and left for dead on the side of the road, we should pray for the person AND help them, not kill them. If someone is travelling down a dirt road and they make it to their destination with no problems, well, we should pray “for travelling mercies” as well as be thankful that we’ve made it to our destination all in one peace. As a matter of fact D, we should pray without ceasing. Right?

My question though isn’t with “the lesser of two evils” really. My question has to do with the fact that there IS NO lesser of two evils here. A woman wants an abortion because it would stand in the way of her job promotion. That’s the question. I know, you’ll probably say something like, “Well, we don’t know her situation. Maybe she can’t afford the child right now, etc.” OK. Given she is someone like Paris Hilton with millions. Well, not that much but she has CAN sustain the life within her. It’s just that this stands in the way of her promotion. You know, it’s not “the right time in her life right now.” Do you think it is morally justifiable for her to have an abortion? Why? Why not? Given that we want Jesus in this, do you think Jesus would approve of such abortions? What if what we think Jesus would say is the opposite of what he does say or what we think he says? What if Jesus says, “Yes, get an abortion.” What if Jesus is saying to the 23 old woman in TA's analogy to NOT get an abortion? And how come MOST of the responses on these look VERY LIBERAL? In other words, given the 23 year old’s situation, we speak good about prayer and all but in reality, we think we KNOW what Jesus would do! I can almost guarantee you that in the case of the 23 old woman we would probably advise her to abort because this was TA’s AUTOMATIC response. Jesus would screw “principle for life.” Well, we think that’s the case. However, you know my second last response to that. We don't know.  So, again, why not presume life?

Because we can never say that non-existence is better than defective existence then we are not in the position to say to this 23 year old woman that it is more preferable for her to abort, which is basically the automatic response because the “wrongful life” argument is what’s at play as the most basic presupposition that is read on to “the lesser of two evils” argument. Again, you know my response to that.

Now, D, there are some abortions that are not instances of direct killing (that is the intention is to kill the fetus), but the majority of them are. Abortions are usually motivated by the need to avoid the condition of pregnancy or to avoid the responsibility of having a child. However, it is only the first motive that provides the condition for no intentional killing. On the second motive? The death of the future child is the only way (except in the case of adoption) to remove responsibility. But seeing as most abortions are motivated by this second reason, then they would be acts of intentional killing.  Now, if we were to look at an analogy such as that of the 23 year old women, some pro-abortion arguments might work (theoretically at least). But in real life, these factors are rarely ALL present in one case. They may appear in different degrees and in various combinations. But if a woman at some point in her pregnancy has a job promotion, is that grounds enough for an abortion?

It’s not that I don’t think there are not some problems with the conservative position (fetal right to life overrides any and all maternal interest), but I also don’t find an extreme liberal position, concerning not only the moral status of the fetus, but say the “actuality prinicple,” or Judith Thomson’s “plugged-in-violinist” analogy to be without it’s problems either. In other words, MOST abortions are unjustifiable which is to say that some acts of evil are simply unjustifiable and morally objectionable and I think they should NEVER be committed i.e. intentional killing of a surrendering solider.

As for the zygote, my belief is that I basically take a speciest position in which it is not any characteristics or traits that one possesses or will possess in time, but rather because of their membership in that species (which is extended to the zygote obviously). My problem with the speciest position is that personhood is also very much accounted for by relationality. That is, the relationality aspect of human personhood has an ontological status equal to that of the human substance in the constitution of the person, thus, I think we should honor the fetal right to life on the basis that the early conceptus has the physical substance that enables the eventual emergence of a full person. This is not to play up embodiment and downplay relationality, but neither is it to play up relationality and downplay embodiment.

TA:  Brandon & Jeff,

Please answer the following:

· Putting aside systemic evil and any generational sin cycle, do you believe in collective guilt, communal sin, or corporate sin?

Brandon:  Yep. Systemic evil is communal sin, though communal sin is not necessarily systemic.

TA:  · Should you repent for the sins of others?

Brandon:  As I participate in it, yes.

TA:  · Do you believe an individual vote for Obama is a moral sin, guilty by association , by attaching all the legal abortions performed in the U.S. to a single vote?

Brandon:  Don’t quite understand the question. Are you saying that Obama would be responsible for all legal abortions and then voting for him means one would be complicit and guilty in ALL those abortions? The issue is not so black and white. McCain affirms protection of the unborn while Obama doesn’t? That much is clear. But Obama has said more (see video that Dwayne put up) about family staying together, jobs, healthcare, etc. McCain, on the other hand has not said anything about what would happen if Roe v Wade was returned to the states. Such a ruling would allow some states to outright prohibit abortion while allowing others to continue having them.

Thus, even though abortion would still remain legal under Obama, some of what he is saying may help in stemming the tide against abortion. However, if McCain were in office, he doesn’t seem interested/doesn’t see those other areas as important FOR THAT MATTER. In other words, you just can’t overturn Roe v Wade and not be concerned about other areas of importance such as healthy families, healthcare, etc.

TA:  · Does voting for Obama mean that you condone abortion?

Brandon:  Nope. If you hold to certain policy positions and political philosophies then you have to evaluate how close each politician comes closest to each of them and all of them together and prayerfully decide on who you think will be the better candidate for the job. Check this out:  Guidelines for Voting

TA:  · Am I complicit in evil if my personal moral values from God are not reflective in a secular court of law, the highest level in the land, the Supreme Court?

Brandon:  Not every sin should become a matter of law. But this is not to say that NO values should not be legal, obviously. The age old question is not WHETHER values are reflected in law but WHOSE values? This is something of a Church/State question. For example, say I believe for religious reasons as well as pragmatic reasons that it is wrong to combine animal and human DNA to produce a mutant creature such as something out of H. G. Well’s, “The Island of Dr. Moreau.” Should I or politicians ignore my religious reasons and focus only on the pragmatic? Bringing it closer to reality, let’s say a restaurant owner doesn’t like to serve black people. Should I simply be “personally opposed” and not impose my morality on restaurant owners via law?

Taken into consideration within the abortion context, I certainly don’t think one should (or can) set aside religiously grounded moral positions when he or she engages in political advocacy. However, as pertaining the your question, the question fundamentally is this, “Is there a real difference between private morality and public law?” Like yourself, some don’t think there has to be or is a perfect congruence between the two. After all, you obviously don’t think every sin or vice should or can be legally outlawed (and neither do I). Yet it is hard to imagine that someone who generally opposes abortion on moral grounds and who believes that the rhetoric of individual autonomy commonly used to justify unbridled access to abortion as profoundly unchristian would object to the outlawing of adultery. That kinda rings hollow at that point--unless of course you don’t believe that individual autonomy is all that bad. Do you see the point? I’m not saying that the objection to outlawing adultery is not legit. I’m simply pointing out the profundity of one over against the other. I realize this doesn’t respond to your question, however, I will below.

TA:  · Should the onus be placed on Christians for the civil laws and acts of heathens?

If you answered yes to any of the questions above, then answer the following. Studies show that thirty to forty percent of Americans have committed the act of adultery, if you do not vote to criminalize this immoral act would you be complicit in evil?

Thanks,

Mark

Brandon:  OK. These two last points are obviously in step with your last question just above them. As I said, the most important question, is whether the laws that government passes and enforces do justice to the political community and to all the other organizations and individual citizens of society. Not every sin or vice should be the responsibility of government but should be left within the non-governmental spheres. A little history here might help.

Basically, what has happened is that Christians of ALL political stripes, ie. Wallis, Dobson, etc, argue from a general moralism and then seek government to overcome this or that particular evil without first developing what I think is a biblically grounded argument that clarifies the responsibilities of a just government. Skillen says this,

“a group will become galvanized in which said group will desire to see some set of behavioural results or social conditions established in the country at large. The group rarely if ever articulates what the particular, differentiated responsibilities it believes government or other institutions ought to fulfill. Most often their first reaction expresses dissatisfaction with immoral behavior or undesirable social conditions of which they disapprove. They then call for action, for reform. But their criticisms and call to action do not necessarily go hand in hand with the clarification of who is responsible to do what to change behaviors or outcomes.”

Basically, Skillen is saying that Christians go on their popular political crusades trying to get government to change this or that evil without developing whether this or that crusade against this or that evil is really the responsibility of government! You see this with the Religious Right mostly, but it is also to be found among the Religious Left as well. For example, Jerry Falwell said that he opposed not civil rights but SPECIAL rights for homosexuals. But what precisely are the legitimate civil rights that should belong to homosexual people in contrast to “special rights” that should not? In what sense should the public law of government oppose homosexual relationships? First, not only do Christians target particular sins over against others, (why this homosexual sin and not children cheating in school or gluttony?) but there is just the bottom line business that some sins and vices are not to be found within the domain of government's responsibility ie. there should not be a law punishing a family’s t.v. viewing habits or church attendance or lack thereof. Do you see the point? What homosexual behaviors, what heterosexual misbehaviors, should be inhibited or prohibited via law? ANY answer you give must come down to clearly distinguishing between proper responsibility of government? And proper responsibility belonging other institutions. Now, this doesn’t respond DIRECTLY to the issue of adultery? But it does respond to why something should or should not be outlawed.

That’s it for now.