The link to the Portable Document Format (PDF) sermon by Reverend Turner is the following:

http://www.morcrc.org/Sexual_Ethics_in_an_Oversexed.pdf

You may need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader, or something similar, to see the document (sermon).

You have a little flawed assumption in your post. “while pregnancies are not clearly people (witness all the arguments and differences of opinion on when human life begins)” That statement is contradictory. You make a definitive statement about the viability of human life on one end, and suppport that idea with the fact that there are numerous arguments about the subject on the other end. It can be clearly deined as “not people” if the arguments aren’t settled.

Now, I do understand the argument that since its such a conflicted issue that it should be up to the individual to make the choice. While understanding that argument, I disagree.

I think life is incredibly important and matters of life and death should be treated as such. Groups of people decide a man guilt or innocence and punishment in a court of law. Congress and the President decide the use of lethal force against an opponent. These choices are big. Abortion should be no different. We have our faithful belefs of when life begins, and we have scientific evidence of when a child is viable and how it develops. The right to allow the termination of a pregnancy should be in the hands of the individual states, since ethically it may involve the killing of an innocent life. Voters should take their accrued knowledge about when life begins and make the moral judgement of what procedures are reproductive deicisions and what procedures infringe on the right of an individual.

We make these choices about maturity and development in each state all the time. Despite the physcial and mental development of each individual, we’ve limited the ages for driving/voting/drinking. We’ve come collectively together to decide when these things are allowable, we don’t leave it up to the individual parent to say their child is ready to vote or drive.

Why should the moral situation of a possible life be any different? I really want an answer.

I’ve said it a thousand times, but the choice argument is the biggest smokescreen, secondary argument ever.

Either what you are aborting is a human or it is not. Answer that question before you talk about violating a woman’s worth and dignity. If the fetus being aborted is a human then you have a huge ethical dilemna.

Ethics surrounding life must have a root in science.

Scientifically, you have a problem, so ethially you have a problem.

Let’s be a little more careful with our terms. “Pregnancies” are not people. Whether a fetus is one is a subject of debate. Should we not err on the side of caution and give the child the benefit of the doubt?

So, Christians, what are you giving God for Father’s Day? Is it going to be a law to outlaw abortion? Probably not, at least not so soon. When God says “These people honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men” - Matthew 15:8 - it does not seem like God wants a law. God is asking for love. He is asking for the fulfillment of our personal relationship with Him. Saint Paul says each relationship is comprised of “love, hope and faith” - 1 Corinthians 13:13. Note that every one of those three words is a dynamic endeavor.

Organized religion can effect law in a democracy by being a majority religion or a well focused minority but no organized religion can love God except through the universality of the personal relationships with God that God himself allows. Faith is not a list of static rules and regulations.

In Matthew 15, Jesus indicates, at least to me, the limits of speech. There is no perfect communication with words. Why do we call talking “Shooting the bull (B.S.)?”, if we, ourselves, do not recognize the imperfection of words that are also used to make law? We cannot see what is under our nose but we all know where our mouth is. Do we know where our heart is also?

Happy Father’s Day

Hello all,

First, thanks for not flaming me. How nice to have a civil discussion about this topic.

RCJ, if I read your comment right, my grammar was meant to indicate that it is not clear that pregnancies are people, not that pregnancies clearly are not people. (I’m not sure that helped.)

In general, I used the term “pregnancy” because it’s the broadest term I could think of–for instance, there is a stage (or more than one) before fetus, when there is only a fertilized egg or a few cells. The majority of these fertilized eggs naturally don’t make it to the fetus stage.

I do think that there is a point at which a fetus develops into something that the majority of people can agree on can be protected in its own right without endangering the physical or mental health of the woman. In the olden days there was “quickening”; these days most societies that allow abortion have increasingly stringent rules as the pregnancy enters the second and especially third trimesters.

My concern with making this a state issue is that it is amazingly complicated, and state legislatures are more likely to make decisions based on emotion and pressure than science and ethics–state laws are also more likely to be challenged and changed more often, which is chaotic, particularly for doctors, clinics, and hospitals, let alone citizens.

However, our intellectual discussion forgets something very important, which is that women have and will get abortions whether or not they are legal. Catholic women get abortions in the same percentages as non-Catholic women, even though it’s against their religion. Women will always act as if our bodies belong to us, even if the State, or states, say that they don’t. Illegal abortions used to be a significant cause of infertility and death for women, and they would be again.

Now, people break laws all the time, and we don’t throw out the laws because of that. But abortion is a different issue–there’s too much scientific, ethical, and religious diversity for us to allow some states to pass laws that will result in the deaths of many many women.

Thanks, Kate. That is exactly the sentiment I wanted to express. Regardless of the ethical implications of when life begins, there is an extremely serious ethical problem in the sphere of public health, the lives of living, breathing, “clearly people” women, which the “pro-life” movement does not address. For me, the alternative of back alley, coat hanger abortions is enough to secure my full support of legal abortions. I think this is the issue that needs to be looked at first, then we can discuss the others which often come down to personal beliefs. However, we have to legislate on the basis of the overall effects on society.

EZG:
Sorry, but that’s backwards logic. The ethical implications of abortion is murder or not murder. This trumps any intentional harm a woman subjects herself to.

We can’t legisate on the “overall effect on society.” That’s the kind of thinking that allows for ethnic cleansing, ignoring poverty etc. Those without a voice don’t get heard, and they get no part in the overall effect on society.

We have to legislate base on a set of values - one of which is “don’t murder.” Then the only question of abortion becomes “who is human?”

If you’re really willing to chance killing babies to keep women from dangerous and illegal abortions procedures because “they’re gonna do it anyway” then I have no way of rationalizing with you. I guess we’ll just give safe guns to gang members so they don’t backfire and blow off the shooter’s hand.

I do understand yur meaning now and thanks for the clarity.

Kate - The reason I want state control of the issue is because it is so complicated. As it stands it’s virtually impossible to impose restrictions due to scientific advancement because it has become such an emotional issue on the national level. Our Federal government is unlike most others because of the size and make up of this country. While it may be relatively simple for a smaller nation like France to control issues on a Federal level, it simply doesn’t work well here. It’s on of the reasons we set the nation up the way we did, so individual states could handle 99% of issues (those not clearly expressed by the Federal Constitution). Considering the vast difference of opinion on when life begins, I don’t think the Constitution is in play.

This is one of the archaic arguements on the abortion issue. The Pro-Choice side paints Pro-Lifers as being nothing be relgious centric mysogenistic men trying to control women. Pro-Lifers try to paint the other side as Godless baby-killers. In the beginning this may have been relatively true, but I think as time has progressed this isn’t the case (much in the sense that medical knowledge has changed regarding development as well). I think that absolutely a woman needs to be in control and responsible for her body. At the same time I think regulations need to be fluid regarding public opinion and medical knowledge of when “life” can begin.

It’s no secret that on the Federal level, now, emotion drives the issue. Any challenge or regulation is met with harsh rhetoric and criticism just for the idea of reducing availability. So I disagree that making the topic privy to state legislators will bring emotion in. It’s already there. Instead I think it will allow a more comprehensive discussion on the topic. Some states will place heavy restrictions and others won’t. The scientific and moral discussions will have to take place every 10 years or so when new moral and scientific arguments are in place. As it is, the civil discussion isn’t taking place. For all intents and purposes one side has “won” and to a degree considers the topic closed which it should never be.

You bring up a good argument about medical facilities in need of consistency. I completely agree. But I think the ability to place the moral choice in the hands of the voter trumps that topic. Besides, if Roe were overturned and states had the power back in their hands turmoil would only take place for a brief period of time as each state reasserts its guidlines. After that change further legislation would come only on demand and I don’t see that happening on a yearly basis. So basically my argument is the medical facilities would only be upset for a brief time, which is worth adding more democratic power.

Finally, yes before Roe the illegal abortion rate was high because it was banned basically across the nation. In todays climate, voter control would not create the same climate. As I pointed out, some states would heavily regulate it. A few may ban it outright. But a high percentage would also allow it with modest restriction or no restrictions at all. Most of this boils down to 2nd and 3rd term pregancies which I doubt would be the focus of illegal abortions. That category would probably be early 1st termers which could still travel to other states. The availability would still be there.

To really sum it up, I disagree with the federal ruling and federal control because the topic is complicated and fluid and that allows for neither. Emotion is already invested and the situation as it is does not allow for a civil ongoing discussion to take place. Its the same way I feel about Gay marriage, let each state decide since there is not guarantee for any version of marriage in the constitution. I’m fierce on states rights issues.

For my own personal stance, by the way, I’d allow gay marriage and early 1st term abortion but with a load of restrictions, yes considering the mothers safety, on later terms. Knowing this will hopefully let people understand where I’m coming from.

RCJ,

I’m with you on states rights, but much like slavery, we need a unified national policy on this. This is an issue of life. It does not even require a law prohibiting abortion, if you define a fetus as a human, then we have plenty of murder laws.

The main issue is deciding when a human is human. I don’t think we could ever agree on a development state that gives a line of demarcation. The only point I see is when a new human organism is formed.