Politician believes abortion is killing children, supports it anyway

[Person Man]

I've decided that I think it's murder to kill mosquitos.

Therefore there is no choice but to force that view on our society and ban the use of insecticides. If a mosquito starts biting you, you have no right to squash it and instead must let it finish. Otherwise you must face criminal charges.

That is what is passing for logic among some people in this thread.

Every single law in existence is ultimately an example of a certain belief being forced on the whole of society. Trying to force your beliefs on others is literally the entire point of politics. You are automatically doing that by advocating any political position.

If you consistently applied the argument you're making here, it would mean that we should have complete anarchy and nothing should be illegal.

But don't you think for something serious like this we shouldn't be forcing the views of 46% of the population on the other 54%? By this reason something should just be illegal because enough people want to be illegal without regards to whether or not its right or wrong and that something is wrong just because some people want it to be wrong.

[136or142]

I've decided that I think it's murder to kill mosquitos.

Therefore there is no choice but to force that view on our society and ban the use of insecticides. If a mosquito starts biting you, you have no right to squash it and instead must let it finish. Otherwise you must face criminal charges.

That is what is passing for logic among some people in this thread.

Every single law in existence is ultimately an example of a certain belief being forced on the whole of society. Trying to force your beliefs on others is literally the entire point of politics. You are automatically doing that by advocating any political position.

If you consistently applied the argument you're making here, it would mean that we should have complete anarchy and nothing should be illegal.

This gets at the notion of Judicial Review.  Different grounds for Judicial Review exist in different countries but you didn't mention any specific country or Union of nations.  In some nations and in the European Union Judicial Review can allow for Judges to strike down a law based on lacking evidence.  So evidence, in the cases being discussed here, the evidence of whether a law prevents a harm, is what determines whether a person can force their beliefs on others.



European Union:
"when the legislature tried to introduce a ban of Muslim women wearing burqas or niqabs, the AD concluded that a complete ban would not be necessary in a democratic society to protect the public. The AD saw no evidence that wearing such clothing resulted in a threat to public safety, while a ban could not prevent dangerous criminal activities."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20508840.2016.1259899

In the United States, the majority of Justices judged abortion was a right subject to increasing restrictions over the course of the pregnancy on the basis of privacy, and in Canada the decision was made on procedural grounds.  However, if a lawyer went to a court and argued

"Jeremiah 1:4-5 (allegedly) argues life begins at conception" that is not accepted as factual evidence,

if a lawyer argues: 'the best that can be determined is that life is tied in with viability' that is accepted as evidence.

I recognize the United States has waxed and waned on Judicial Review but if conservatives now want Sharia Law to be the law of the land...

[Associate Justice PiT]

1.I do not ridicule the concept of taking the Bible seriously.  I am an academic and I recognize the Bible as a source for moral teachings and for history.  Therefore, I am willing and somewhat able to discuss and debate theology from a Biblical perspective.  Where we part is that I do not recognize the Bible as the only source or even the best source of moral teachings.  And, part of the reason I do not regard it as necessarily the best source is that it is open to interpretation which has allowed people to use the Bible to justify slavery, war, polygamy, the treatment of women as being inferior to men....

     Every ethical and religious system has been misused to advance evils; the observation that the same thing can happen with the Bible is quite unremarkable. This is why having good leaders who will exposit faithfully is so important to preserving the faith from corruption.
 

2.Having no self doubt in terms of the existence of God is one thing.  Not having doubt about your faith's interpretation of Biblical scripture is quite another.  Of course this is a cliche: your church is led by fallible humans and not by Jesus, but it does raise the valid question: where does your own mind come in to this? Since you seem to be reporting that you turn your own thinking over to your church then obviously 'self doubt' can not apply, but 'doubt' can.  Do you just, based on having no doubt, accept everything your church tells you?  

A.If you do
Do you not believe that God wants you to use the mind that He gave you?

B.If you do:
Then you are expressing doubt in your church.  

C.If you have no specific church whose teachings you follow, then what is your interpretation of the Bible based on and how do you know:
A. that your interpretation of the Bible is correct?  After all, there are a lot of other Christians, all with their own certainty that they are also correct who disagree with you.

B.that you aren't merely using the Bible to reach the conclusions that you already favor on a non Biblical basis?  This is the idea of using the Bible as a weapon or as a shield.  Though obviously the worst cases of using the Bible to justify war or slavery are not something I would accuse you of.

     I reflected upon what factors I considered important in a church before I selected one. One of those factors that appealed to me was a claim to Apostolic succession and a focus on teachings of the early Church fathers, so it would be more than just my opinions or someone else's opinions, but an actual outside standard that may change in application, but not in fundamental content. Recognizing that my church does teach from Apostolic authority, for me to count myself in affiliation with it (and thereby uphold it as a valid teacher) while also rejecting certain claims would be to place myself alongside the apostles in discernment, which would be an extraordinary act of pride. If I ever encountered a theological claim that I was taught that I was simply unable to accept as valid in good conscience, I would most likely choose to leave this church.

3.I'm not a Bible scholar per se, just an academic with an awareness of Biblical scripture in areas of my study, however you seem to be dodging that what Jesus said and what Paul said are in clear conflict.  Again, I'm not an expert on the Bible enough to judge Apostolic infallibility but Jesus certainly recognized that the Apostles were fallible humans:

 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

     I already tried to make the point that Matthew 23:8-10 should not be interpreted in that fashion, but if you want a cite from Jesus personally then John 16:12-13 is quite relevant. Jesus recognized that the apostles were not yet ready for everything He had to reveal, so His Father would send the Holy Spirit to accomplish that end. John 14:25-26 makes the point as well that there would be teachings after Christ was Crucified and Resurrected. The Holy Spirit does not Incarnate as the Son did, but rather acts through the hearts of chosen faithful (Jesus describes this happening with the apostles in Matthew 10:19-20). That is why even though Peter and Paul are mere men, they are recognized as teaching figures by the consensus of Christian churches.

4.So, it's wrong for me to judge the contents of a person's heart, but it's perfectly fine for you to tell other people what they can and can't do on the basis of a book that you choose to accept?  

I could bring up the point that when it comes to judging the contents of a person's heart I must apparently have self doubt because I (and presumably you) can't know for certain, which strikes me as an interesting and rather self serving time to raise the issue of doubt (or self doubt.) However, without wanting to put words into your mouth, I'm sure you'd tell me that this is all based on my lack of understanding of Scripture.  There is no doubt regarding religious morals, but there is doubt regarding the contents of a human's heart I presume would be your point.  However, at the end, we both end up in the same place: judging people based on their actions.

On that, I am allowed, capable of, and pretty much required in living day to day to judge people based on their actions.  You obviously have a problem with me using the term 'pseudo Christian' as you say only God can judge who is and who isn't a Christian.  Well, I think I have every right to decide for myself who is a pseudo Christian and who isn't based on their actions.  It's not really your place to tell me that I can't do that, just as I can't force you to not vote for anti abortion politicians.

     The key difference is that religious morals have been revealed while nobody but God truly knows the state of a person's relationship with Him. You can certainly "judge" someone as good or bad, but that is distinct from Godly Judgment, which forms the true basis for inclusion in His Church.

     We are told that salvation in Christ is based in faith in Romans 10:9. Actions are not irrelevant; I can look at Donald Trump and say that he sets a bad example by his immoral lifestyle and his casual disregard for the truth. He is not one of the saints, or otherwise someone I would recommend you model your life after. Yet, the Bible guarantees that if he truly accepts Jesus Christ in his heart, that even he will be saved. And if that happens, who of us can doubt that he is a real Christian?

However, to go back to where I started here there is a long history of U.S Evangelical Protestants having supported slavery.  

https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-33/why-christians-supported-slavery.html

Of course I won't ask you if you think these people are pseudo-Christians, but I certainly think it's fair to ask you if you think that it's fair to judge these people harshly.

Also, as an academic, I understand the context of the Biblical position on slavery.  This clearly shows to me both that interpretation of the Bible requires an understanding of the historical context, and that then leads to the notion of accepting the reality of situational ethics.  Again, not to put words in your mouth, but I'm sure you'd say this provides more evidence that I'm a utilitarian.  However, if that is the case, then, it is actually is a valid question to ask you: do you support slavery, because the Apostle Paul, as I'm sure you already know, certainly did:

Titus 2:9-10
"Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior."

Contrary to what you say, I'm not trying to play games, I take your beliefs seriously in that I know you are serious in believing them.  If you believe that the Apostle Paul's teaching's are divinely inspired, then how can you not support slavery?

     DC al Fine covered this, but I do want to add one thing on to that. You described his historical context argument as a utilitarian one, and it is so in relation to the true deontology of salvation. Paul clearly identifies slavery as evil in 1 Timothy 1:10. If he does not choose to condemn it in this passage, it is because he is preaching the greater good of meekness. You can find this same concept from Christ in Matthew 5:39. When He tells us to turn the other cheek, He certainly is not supporting evil people slapping others. Rather He is teaching us to show mercy, even to those who have wronged us.

[136or142]

    DC al Fine covered this, but I do want to add one thing on to that. You described his historical context argument as a utilitarian one, and it is so in relation to the true deontology of salvation. Paul clearly identifies slavery as evil in 1 Timothy 1:10. If he does not choose to condemn it in this passage, it is because he is preaching the greater good of meekness. You can find this same concept from Christ in Matthew 5:39. When He tells us to turn the other cheek, He certainly is not supporting evil people slapping others. Rather He is teaching us to show mercy, even to those who have wronged us.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'historical context argument' here.  I was the one who argued on the basis of the historical context.  I had to delete every time I made a reply to DC al Fine on the basis of historical context.  I would think had he done so that he would have turned the Biblical morality into moral relativism: 'slavery is evil but it had to be accepted given the situation of Rome at the time.'

For what it's worth, I was impressed that he argued on the basis of a moral absolute.

As I've shown in my reply, I don't agree with the argument, but he did show principle.

[Associate Justice PiT]

    DC al Fine covered this, but I do want to add one thing on to that. You described his historical context argument as a utilitarian one, and it is so in relation to the true deontology of salvation. Paul clearly identifies slavery as evil in 1 Timothy 1:10. If he does not choose to condemn it in this passage, it is because he is preaching the greater good of meekness. You can find this same concept from Christ in Matthew 5:39. When He tells us to turn the other cheek, He certainly is not supporting evil people slapping others. Rather He is teaching us to show mercy, even to those who have wronged us.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'historical context argument' here.  I was the one who argued on the basis of the historical context.  I had to delete every time I made a reply to DC al Fine on the basis of historical context.  I would think had he done so that he would have turned the Biblical morality into moral relativism: 'slavery is evil but it had to be accepted given the situation of Rome at the time.'

For what it's worth, I was impressed that he argued on the basis of a moral absolute.

As I've shown in my reply, I don't agree with the argument, but he did show principle.

     I was referring to where you said this:

[...]
2.This context is a Utilitarian argument: slavery is better than death.  If Paul or any of the other Apostles or even Jesus had wanted to end slavery, go back a step further, why didn't they say "No more wars.  No more slaves."  ?
[...]

     I see I somewhat misinterpreted your point actually, though it is still relevant that the morality of slavery is not the central thrust of that passage.

There are people who think it's morally wrong to kill animals for food, so they don't eat animal products. But they don't demand other people hold to that standard.

     I missed this post the first time and just saw it while reviewing the thread. Anyway, the comparison between pro-lifers and vegans is a bizarre one. The pro-life position is that fetuses merit protection under the law due to human life. Some animal rights activists want to extend that protection to other great apes, but vegans don't generally argue that a squirrel should be protected as a person under the law.

You are perfectly within your right to disagree with abortion. You don't have to have one. Your wife doesn't have to have one. You can do all you want to convince other people to choose not to have one.

But you have no right to force your views on other people. Morality is not universal. You don't get to tell other people what is moral and what is not.

     Suppose someone is a social darwinist and thinks that the poor can go shove it. Would you be willing to not force your morality and endorse exempting that person from paying taxes that would go to support welfare and food stamps? I would guess the answer is no. Everyone who is not an anarcho-capitalist accepts morality forcing. Invoking it as an argument against the pro-life position smacks of special pleading and isn't convincing.

Whether abortion is moral or not, it is legal. And whether you think a fetus is a person or not, it has no legal personhood. There is a reason we say we are "X years old" and start counting from the day we were born, not from the day we were born + 9 months or from the day we were conceived. There is a reason a pregnant woman does not get to claim her unborn fetus as a dependent on her taxes. There is a reason a fetus cannot be a party in a lawsuit.

     Yeah, abortion is legal. So what? Slavery was legal too.

Maybe I would take people like you more seriously if you cared as much about children after they were born as you do before they were born. I don't see you very concerned about the millions of children who do without health insurance or live in apartments where lead paint crumbles around them.

     One is a negative protection and the other is a positive program. To draw a moral equivalence between the two is strange because they are manifestly not the same thing in nature. If one follows that logic then they might also expect a right to public health insurance to be found in the Constitution among the many negative rights it safeguards from government abuse. I agree the GOP should really be more concerned about safe living conditions than it is, but to compare the two comes across as whataboutism.

And maybe I would take people like you more seriously if your entire theological basis for opposing abortion hadn't been invented whole-cloth in the 1970s, conveniently around the time woman were finally able to make their own decisions about pregnancy. Protestant Christians had no problem with abortion before then.

You're demanding a view of personhood that has basically never existed in modern human history. People in Biblical Judea did not consider their fetuses to be people. People in 18th century America did not consider their fetuses to be people.

     What Protestants believe is not really relevant to me. The Eastern Orthodox Church traces its opposition to abortion back to the 4th century, following the writings of the early Church fathers. If the Christian pro-life stance only found its origins in the 1970s you would not find Orthodoxy firmly ensconced in that camp.