God and the U.S. Political Parties

[micatala]

Those who follow the U.S. politcal scene are certainly more than aware of the role that religion and moral issues have been playing. The 'conventional wisdom' is that the Republicans are perceived as more in line with Christianity, at least according to them. Republicans have certainly played up the so-called moral issues of abortion and gay-marriage, arguably to their benefit.

The Democrats have begun to respond to this perception. In my home town in a very Red state, a billboard recently went up proclaiming something like "Jesus cares for the poor. So do we. Grassroots Democrats."

So, the question is, to put it a little baldly

Which party is really more Godly?

Obviously 'Godly' is a loaded word, and I am not going to help you all much be restricting the definition. In the U.S. context, it would often be interpreted with respect to traditional Christian notions of God, especially conservative notions. However, debaters should feel free to make their own cases for what they consider Godly and why. Evidence from a variety of religious traditions is appropriate.

Now, I certainly have my own opinion, but I will say at the outset that I think there is ample evidence that can be cited for both parties that they support 'Godly' policies, and also that there will be ample evidence that each party supports ungodly policies.

I will note that this thread is arising out of some discussions in the Pat Robertson thread. Here is a relevant portion that can serve as initial examples of how the Republicans (in the sense that the religious right and the Republican party are allies) act in un-Godly ways.

AlAyeti wrote:
Please list the blindness and hypocrisy of the religious Right?

Although this is off-topic (since the topic is Pat Robertson), it is a legitimate question.

Item 1: This is an old one, but is courtesy of Pat himself, as well as Ronald Reagan. Both Pat and Ronald in the 1980's, although claiming to be supporters of democracy, instead supported the Contras in Nicaragua. The Contras were largely run by the CIA and ex-thugs of the former Somosa dictatorship. Somosa and company had ruled Nicaragua with a brutal fist for some 50 years prior to the Sandinista Revolution. Reagan had the audacity to call the Contras "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers." THis has got to be one of the most blatantly hypocritical political statements of all time.

Item 2: Many in the religious right have supported the war in Iraq, and have done so regardless of the rationale that has been offered for it. They have also done so despite the fact that a large number of innocent civilians have been killed. It is arguably hypocritical, given the teachings of Jesus, for a Christian of any stripe to support war.

Item 3: The religious right is all over homosexuals for deigning to suggest they should be allowed to get married. They cite Biblical passages like those in Romans. They conveniently forget that the passages mentioning homosexuality in the New Testament all (check me on this, but I believe it is ALL) mention a multitude of other sins. Most of the other sins are given little if any mention, and no one seems to be pushing for laws to regulate them, except murder. Is it not hypocritical to single out homosexuals for special legal treatment and not the other sins, especially when there is little if any Biblical justification for making religious beliefs have the force of civil law and apply it to believers and unbelievers alike?

Item 4: The religious right has a significant 'prosperity message' that tries to get believers to buy into the idea that 'rich is good'. Sadly lacking is Christ's teachings about the poor and the warnings against being rich. This preaching often amounts to little more than a way to extort money out of gullible believers.

Item 5: The religious right cries foul every time somebody takes issue with a government endorsement of Christian religion, conveniently ignoring that Christianity is the dominant religion in the U.S. and that Christianity deserves no more special legal protection than any other religion.

Item 6: Many in the religious right demonize their fellow believers who do not happen to share their political views. This is contrary to scriptural teaching as presented, for example, in Romans Chapter 14. "Who are you to judge another man's servant, to his own master he stands or falls?" When Christians of whatever stripe try to deny the Christianity of fellow believers simply because they believe evolution is a perfectly reasonable scientific theory, or because they vote democratic, or because they don't believe we are truly in the 'end times', they are taking unto themselves judgments that only God has the purview to make.

Now, obviously there is a lot of potential here for over-generalization, and I have even engaged in some of that in the above comments regarding the 'religious right'. There is certainly great diversity within the political parties and their supporters including groups like the 'religious right.' I would simply ask that we be aware of this as we proceed.

[MagusYanam]

And Europe has used other means of transportation. It will become necessary for America inevitably. The only problem will be the Democrats lying in wait to legislate and tax the living garbage out of the companies wanting to bring in the new technology.

In Europe, public transportation is funded by what? Hmm... let me check... yes, I'm almost perfectly sure it's public money.

And public money is raised through what?

I'm sure you can do the math.

Violence? Racism? Vulgarity? Anti-Intellectualism? Greed?

How many conservatives use the term "Bitches and ho's" to describe women?

At least one, since the only one I've heard here using those terms to belittle women (or at all, for that matter) is you, Al. I applaud your proving my case, in point, about conservatism.

Most liberals I know are also feminists of some degree who would punch me out (or at the very least chew me out) for using such language.

Business runs the economy. An employed citizenry. California is suffering a stream of wage earners leaving that state because high taxation is oppressive.

Good idea. Taxing businesses sounds like a much better way of paying off the national debt, since it was privatisation and business contracts that put us so deep in debt in the first place. Poetic justice for lack of honesty - I like it!

Good people are the best answer.

Good people are created by good example. If the government is any example, it should be paying off its own debts and providing for the moral and material sufficiency of its citizenry. But apparently, the GOP doesn't believe in good examples.

Mmmm, I think that rich Libs dominate the East. I've been to Massachusetts.

Arrogance is not a virtue, AlAyeti, though by statements like these it seems you think otherwise. I live in Rhode Island, which I can tell you first-hand is not dominated by the rich. I could just as well say that the West is dominated by rich cattle barons, because I lived in New Mexico for seven months.

If you go county by county in American politcs, the places you find the vast majority of Violence, Racism, Vulgarity, Anti-Intellectualism, Greed and other perversions, IS IN BLUE CITIES!

Violence on this side? Who advocated the Gulf War and keeps blaming liberalism for trying to cut down on violent crime?

Racism? Who is it that keeps stereotyping black people and identifying them with MTV?

Vulgarity? Who is on probation for their explicitness and insulting debate style?

Anti-Intellectualism? Who blames the top institutions in this country for 'elitism' and considers universities 'anti-Christian'?

Greed? Just who is it that opposes paying off the national debt the only way we can?

Look in the mirror, Al. Get that huge tree trunk out of your eye.

[AlAyeti]

Are you are supporting atheist licentiousness through the Bible? I cannot post what I'd like to because I will get banned.

But suffice it to say your position is odd and just a little bit "out of place."

You realize that getting upset that "God" imposes judgment on peoples that are commiting abominations is out of place for an atheist. Of course Biblical accountabilty means the promiscuios and the debauched suffer as well for the licentiousness. I can see why the "worldly" opposition to that.

Two men fighting each other and hurting a woman with child is a far cry from abortion as birth control to continue an unfettered life of sexual abandon. But I do see why the godless would support that ideology. The pure cause and effect of it is enough to understand the why of abortion.

Quote:
I am not a Republican. I can never be a Democrat.

Why not, their policies are identical? Both parties support the status quo on abortion. The republicans could ban abortion in a flash, but don't. Both parties wish it to remain legal.

BTW, you might not be a republican, but you are certainly acting as their apologist on this web site.

That may be the way some people view my positions. It is just that I stand out from all of the exact same nodding that is done so frquently. I judge actions and not promises and lies are easy to discern from truth. In that respect, I do favor GOP actions over Democrats. Democrats to me look like Molech worshippers of the Old Testament.

Quote:
I'm thinking that you will see the horror of abortion just the same as the way you condemn God's instructions to the Israelites.

Those weren't "instructions". In Hosea it was YHWH himself who performed the abortions. Given that, why would a "bible-believing" christian think that abortion is immoral?

You "believe" that God did something? Wouldn't that be proclaiming there is a God?

Let abortions happen naturally or let a woman petition for a miracle. Somehow I don't see women seeking an abortion running into the sanctuary of God for that. I wonder why? And, why does "Planned Parenthood" counsel women not to have abortions? Any pamphlets out the from them stating that? Any women shown an ultrasound of their child before it is vacuumed out of her? You seem to be into details.

Quote:
Your right again on abortion not existing in the Bible. But as you have clearly pointed out . . . murder does exist.

And abortion is clearly not murder. The penalty was a fine and then only if demanded by the husband. In the KJV, the word used for fetus is "fruit".

If we go with your logic, the woman dies too. And the man that got her pregnant. You up for taking your view of the Bible all the way?

And the bible frequently refers to "the breath of life" and often equates life with breathing. In other words, biblically speaking, life begins at birth.

Eternal life. I know theology. You are no atheist that is for sure.

And the bible sometimes refers to the existance of peope before they are "formed" in the womb. In other words, biblically speaking, the soul is immortal and not harmed by abortion.

OK maybe you don't know the Bible as well as I thought. Prophecy is prophecy and what you describe is Mormonism.

I fail to understand why you think abortion is wrong.

Watch just ONE.

It is kind of wierd that you champion the ?Biblical" Molech worshippers that threw their children into fire pits but you will not find any compassion for children in the modern world that science can show us are just as real.

How can you not have the same compassion for children now? In fact, you do not even believe the Bible as you are an atheist. So, dig deep into your psyche and use science to show you the children being slaughtered for convenience toady, not by God, but by women and abortionists that choose to kill them.

[phoenixfire]

Micatala wrote:

I agree that the prevalence of abortion in the U.S. is not a good thing, and speaks badly of our society. I do see abortion as violence. I don't see it as murder.

If it's not murder, what is it? Do you not think it is human?

As someone who obviously believes that we have souls, when do you think someone receives that soul? Do you think anyone who has a soul is human and therefore worthy of the same respect and value that God gives to that person?

On the other hand, a woman who was in what she believed to be a committed relationship and then finds herself abandoned upon becoming pregnant, and who does not in her judgment have the resources (material, emotional, etc.) to be a single mother has a difficult choice. Is it more Godly to bring the child into the world if it means that child and the mother will have a miserable existence? This is not a clear-cut call in my book. I don't see that it would be a good thing to have government making this call for everybody.

If she doesn't have the resources to be a single mother she can give it up for adoption as there are plenty of infertile couple who would love to take care of it.

And how can the mother or anyone else know they will have a miserable existence? And even if there was a way to know, is that a reason to kill someone? What if I was to say, 'jeez, all those blind people must have miserable lives so let's just kill them'. That would be perfectly ok? Do you think there has never been a person born to a poor single mother who actually had a good life or contributed somethign to society or who God wanted in this world?

And it is never more 'godly' to do a bad thing regardless of the reason. Is God not sovereign? Is he not capable of redeeming any seemingly hopeless situation?

[micatala]

I agree that the prevalence of abortion in the U.S. is not a good thing, and speaks badly of our society. I do see abortion as violence. I don't see it as murder.

If it's not murder, what is it? Do you not think it is human?

I don't know, and I don't know. Is a fertlized egg a human being? Well, not in the usual understanding of the term. One cell, or even a few cells, incapable of surviving outside of a supportive environment is not a fully developed human being. I'm guessing you think 'humanity starts at conception.' I think this is an open question.

As someone who obviously believes that we have souls, when do you think someone receives that soul?

I don't know.

Do you think anyone who has a soul is human and therefore worthy of the same respect and value that God gives to that person?

I think all created things deserve respect, yes humans more so than other parts of creation, but even animals and plants and the earth itself deserve respect and to be treated as having value.

However, this does not in my mind answer the question even of how Christians should deal with abortion. If we are to say that killing any human with a soul is murder, than the death penalty, killing in war, etc., are all also murder. In my view, trying to impose a 'black and white' moral standard on abortion just doesn't work.

It certainly doesn't work if you bring non-Christians into the mix. Yes, I would agree that for a CHristian to have an abortion without a fairly extreme extenuating circumstance is arguably morally wrong. But in this case, if it is God's law as it applies to Christians that is in question, the person is answerable to God and not his or her fellow believers.

Non-CHristians have not accepted God's judgment (at least in the same way a CHristian might) and so they are not subject to Christian law and doctrine. Thus, if we are going to impose a law on society at large, there has to be compelling reasons to do so that would apply and be reasonable with respect to non-CHristians. If someone doesn't even believe they have a soul, why would we subject them to a law whose only rationale is based on the assumption of the soul's existence?

Murder is illegal not just because of the Ten Commandments. It is illegal because it is not conducive to a functioning civil society. It typically effects a person who is entirely conscious, who has relationships with a wide variety of people, who is much more deeply embedded in the society in which he or she lives than a fertilized egg is. If we are going to make abortion illegal for all, then we need some similar reasonably compelling rationale for doing so.

I'm not saying these arguements can't be made, I just do not find the arguements I have heard compelling enough to equate abortion with murder, and insist that we make it illegal for all.

If she doesn't have the resources to be a single mother she can give it up for adoption as there are plenty of infertile couple who would love to take care of it.

If, as a society, we could reach close to a consensus on guaranteeing adoption in all such cases, and establish mechanisms by which this would happen, then I could see supporting at least very severe regulation and restriction of abortion. However, the system would have to be perceived as good and necessary, and a viable option by, by a very substantial proportion of the populace.

I think we need to face the fact that abortion is not going to disappear by a bare political majority who, for religious reasons, imposing a ban. I'm not saying laws are irrelevant, but until those who support a ban can make a case that is found reasonable and convincing to a large majority, it will not change the law or the practice of individuals.

The civil rights struggle, to the extent that it has already been 'won', was won not only through legal means, but more importantly by moral persuasion. This has not happened with respect to the abortion debate, at this point.

[phoenixfire]

I don't know, and I don't know. Is a fertlized egg a human being? Well, not in the usual understanding of the term. One cell, or even a few cells, incapable of surviving outside of a supportive environment is not a fully developed human being. I'm guessing you think 'humanity starts at conception.' I think this is an open question.

Is a 1 year old a fully developed human being? or a 10 year old? Or someone with brain damage? You can't use level of development as a criteria for being human. And being able to survive outside a supportive environment isn't a criteria for being human either. Can a 1 month old survive on their own? Or retarded people?

Non-CHristians have not accepted God's judgment (at least in the same way a CHristian might) and so they are not subject to Christian law and doctrine. Thus, if we are going to impose a law on society at large, there has to be compelling reasons to do so that would apply and be reasonable with respect to non-CHristians. If someone doesn't even believe they have a soul, why would we subject them to a law whose only rationale is based on the assumption of the soul's existence?

Murder is illegal not just because of the Ten Commandments. It is illegal because it is not conducive to a functioning civil society. It typically effects a person who is entirely conscious, who has relationships with a wide variety of people, who is much more deeply embedded in the society in which he or she lives than a fertilized egg is. If we are going to make abortion illegal for all, then we need some similar reasonably compelling rationale for doing so.

I'm not saying these arguements can't be made, I just do not find the arguements I have heard compelling enough to equate abortion with murder, and insist that we make it illegal for all.

See how all these things come back to the basis of law and rights, the role of government, etc?

What's your definition of a functioning civil society? What if I think a functioning civil society is one where my group has all the privilege and all other groups have to serve us? Is that ok? What if I think my group is the only one that is human and has a soul? Can we kill everyone else if we want?

[phoenixfire]

Non-CHristians have not accepted God's judgment (at least in the same way a CHristian might) and so they are not subject to Christian law and doctrine. Thus, if we are going to impose a law on society at large, there has to be compelling reasons to do so that would apply and be reasonable with respect to non-CHristians. If someone doesn't even believe they have a soul, why would we subject them to a law whose only rationale is based on the assumption of the soul's existence?

...If we are going to make abortion illegal for all, then we need some similar reasonably compelling rationale for doing so...

If, as a society, we could reach close to a consensus on guaranteeing adoption in all such cases, and establish mechanisms by which this would happen, then I could see supporting at least very severe regulation and restriction of abortion. However, the system would have to be perceived as good and necessary, and a viable option by, by a very substantial proportion of the populace

...I think we need to face the fact that abortion is not going to disappear by a bare political majority who, for religious reasons, imposing a ban. I'm not saying laws are irrelevant, but until those who support a ban can make a case that is found reasonable and convincing to a large majority, it will not change the law or the practice of individuals.

Are you basically just saying that a law shouldn't be made until X% of the population thinks it is 'good'?

Is the absence of a law against abortion still a reflection of majority values and allows that majority to 'force their values' on a minority who isn't human (or a less valuable version of humans) by some arbitrary definition convenient to the majority? Is that different than what we did to African Americans, or what the Nazis did to the Jews?

[micatala]

Quote micatala:
I don't know, and I don't know. Is a fertlized egg a human being? Well, not in the usual understanding of the term. One cell, or even a few cells, incapable of surviving outside of a supportive environment is not a fully developed human being. I'm guessing you think 'humanity starts at conception.' I think this is an open question.

Is a 1 year old a fully developed human being? or a 10 year old? Or someone with brain damage? You can't use level of development as a criteria for being human. And being able to survive outside a supportive environment isn't a criteria for being human either. Can a 1 month old survive on their own? Or retarded people?

Reasonable point. No, we cannot use development alone to determine humanness.

One difference between a fetus and the examples you cite is that any competent member(s) of the human family could provide care for these people, while this is not possible for a fetus of a few days old. They have become members of society in a way that fetus has not.

Consider, for example, a profoundly retarded person. Typically, the parents will care for this person as best they can, with the help of experts. Under current U.S. law (from my understanding, which may be faulty), the parents are responsible for the childs care, and we allow them to make the decisions on how to do this, as long as it is perceived they are not engaging in abuse or gross neglect. If the parent or parents indicate that they cannot do this, what would typically happen? Would not the state take over? What happens when the child comes of age? Are the parents permanently and irrecovably responsible for the child forever? The society would have to decide if, when, and how to step into a situation like this. The society or state cannot possibly step in to take responsibility for a fetus.

See how all these things come back to the basis of law and rights, the role of government, etc?

No arguement on that point.

What's your definition of a functioning civil society? What if I think a functioning civil society is one where my group has all the privilege and all other groups have to serve us? Is that ok? What if I think my group is the only one that is human and has a soul? Can we kill everyone else if we want?

I don't know that I could give you a succinct definition of civil society on the spot. Like the idea of justice, it is sometimes easier to define by what it is not on a case by case basis.

What if I think a functioning civil society is one where my group has all the privilege and all other groups have to serve us? Is that ok?

In general no, especially if the differences between groups are superficial. Obviously, children have fewer privelages in most any society than adults, and for good reason.

What if I think my group is the only one that is human and has a soul? Can we kill everyone else if we want?

This situation seems to imply that the group making the judgment may be either highly biased, irrational, deluded, or all of the above. Obviously, nearly everyone now accepts that all the 'races' constitute one species, that we call humans. If a KKK member were to say that only white people have souls and we should kill al the black people, this would be ridiculous. By any objective criteria, black people are human. Whether any of us has a soul, on the other hand, is a highly contentious issue, and cannot really be determined in any objective way. If someone is making an assertion that "I have a soul and you do not" then they are making a 'because I said so' sort of assertion that cannot be verified in any way that even approaches being objective.

Are you basically just saying that a law shouldn't be made until X% of the population thinks it is 'good'?

I certainly don't mean to say this. The wishes of the majority are important, but cannot be the only reason for enacting laws, especially with respect to basic rights.

Is the absence of a law against abortion still a reflection of majority values and allows that majority to 'force their values' on a minority who isn't human (or a less valuable version of humans) by some arbitrary definition convenient to the majority? Is that different than what we did to African Americans, or what the Nazis did to the Jews?

If we are comparing fetuses in general to blacks or Jews in general, then I think it is fair to say there is a world of difference. By any reasonable objective criteria, blacks and Jews or any other racial group are fully human. We all, within ranges of variation, have the same capacities, emotions, etc. This is not true of fetuses. I would say the distinctions the Nazis tried to make were truly arbitrary, while the current debate about fetuses is much less so, and I have pointed out a couple of the differences above.

If we are going to make a case for restricting or outlawing abortion, I would suggest we take into take into account existing basic rights that we have already agreed upon as a society. Obviously, in U.S. society, freedom of religion is considered one of our most basic rights. This means, people who choose not to have abortions for religious reasons are certainly free to do so. If religious reasons are perceived as the only reason for not having an abortion, than those who don't subscribe to the religion have a legitimate reason to question why we should enact a law outlawing abortion, as this would (probably rightly) be perceived as establishment of a religion.

I know I have spent a good deal of words seeming to argue for 'abortion as a right.' I honestly have a hard time thinking of it as a 'right' and would not mind at all if we enacted laws that at least restrict abortion. However, I don't think it is good for our society if the debate proceeds along the current lines, which is basically one of 'whoever has the majority at the time, whether it is on the Supreme Court or in legislatures state by state gets to say what goes.' I think, in the long run, we will be better served if we create a law that the largest number of people can agree on. Again, I'm not saying that majority or numbers is the only criteria, but I would suggest that, everything else being equal, the law that the larger proportion of people agree to is the better law.

To continue to make the arguement that 'life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder' is not, in my view, going to convince very many people who are not already convinced. It is even more counterproductive, in my view, to criticize those who do not share the 'life at conception' view as being inherently un-Godly or less Godly. I think it is better to acknowledge up front that this is a difficult question, and people of good conscience, Christian or not, can reasonably disagree.

[phoenixfire]

What if I think my group is the only one that is human and has a soul? Can we kill everyone else if we want?

This situation seems to imply that the group making the judgment may be either highly biased, irrational, deluded, or all of the above. Obviously, nearly everyone now accepts that all the 'races' constitute one species, that we call humans. If a KKK member were to say that only white people have souls and we should kill al the black people, this would be ridiculous. By any objective criteria, black people are human. Whether any of us has a soul, on the other hand, is a highly contentious issue, and cannot really be determined in any objective way. If someone is making an assertion that "I have a soul and you do not" then they are making a 'because I said so' sort of assertion that cannot be verified in any way that even approaches being objective.

Are you basically just saying that a law shouldn't be made until X% of the population thinks it is 'good'?

I certainly don't mean to say this. The wishes of the majority are important, but cannot be the only reason for enacting laws, especially with respect to basic rights.

If we are comparing fetuses in general to blacks or Jews in general, then I think it is fair to say there is a world of difference. By any reasonable objective criteria, blacks and Jews or any other racial group are fully human. We all, within ranges of variation, have the same capacities, emotions, etc. This is not true of fetuses. I would say the distinctions the Nazis tried to make were truly arbitrary, while the current debate about fetuses is much less so, and I have pointed out a couple of the differences above.

If we are going to make a case for restricting or outlawing abortion, I would suggest we take into take into account existing basic rights that we have already agreed upon as a society...criteria, but I would suggest that, everything else being equal, the law that the larger proportion of people agree to is the better law.

You would agree that all our 'rights' apply to humans, yes? Being as specific as possible, please fill in the blank:

A HUMAN IS ______________

[micatala]

You would agree that all our 'rights' apply to humans, yes?

If you are saying that every basic right applies to all humans, than I would say it depends on the right and possibly on the 'nature' of the person, including in some cases their stage of development. As noted above, children have fewer rights than adults. In some sense, profoundly retarded people have fewer rights. We wouldn't let such people drive (I wouldn't think) and I'm not sure what the laws are on voting, serving on juries, right to make certain decisions, etc. The developmental capacities or stages of a human are not the be all and end all of rights, but they are not irrelevant either, and have not been considered so historically.

Most (if not all) societies have made distinctions, based on developmental stage, on how or to whom they grant rights, and I doubt there would be too much disagreement on the appropriateness and reasonableness of this practice.

Being as specific as possible, please fill in the blank:
A HUMAN IS ______________

I think my answer to the first of your questions makes this question somewhat moot. Whatever we agree on as a definition of human, we still have to acknowledge that we never have, and probably cannot in all circumstances, grant exactly the same rights to all humans, even if you make the point of birth as the defining point of 'humanness.'

It seems to me your are trying to paint a stark line on top of a situation that is more of a continuum. We can all agree that somewhere between a fertilized ovum and fully mature adult, we cross the threshold into 'human.' Most everyone would agree this threshold is crossed no later than birth, but prior to birth, the situation is much more ambiguous and there is more disagreement. I don't see that making some arbitrary decision on where we should draw the line has much point, because it is NOT going to settle the question of 'basic rights' anyway.

My own view is that life is precious, and even unborn life has great value and deserves our respect as a society. The fact that we have millions of abortions each year is a sign that we are not providing this respect to the degree we should. Part of this is an inevitable result of society being made up of individuals making millions of individual decisions that are not all based on the same value system or rationale. We are going to have to live with this situation if we are going to remain a free society. We can and should try to influence our fellow citizens through moral and rational persuasion. In my view, this is the only way we are going to get to a 'better place' with regards to abortion.

[phoenixfire]

I moved the part about rights into the other thread about Assumptions underlying political debate as this conversation was kind of going along two parallel but different trains of thought.

Is a 1 year old a fully developed human being? or a 10 year old? Or someone with brain damage? You can't use level of development as a criteria for being human. And being able to survive outside a supportive environment isn't a criteria for being human either. Can a 1 month old survive on their own? Or retarded people?

Reasonable point. No, we cannot use development alone to determine humanness.

One difference between a fetus and the examples you cite is that any competent member(s) of the human family could provide care for these people, while this is not possible for a fetus of a few days old. They have become members of society in a way that fetus has not.

Consider, for example, a profoundly retarded person. Typically, the parents will care for this person as best they can, with the help of experts. Under current U.S. law (from my understanding, which may be faulty), the parents are responsible for the childs care, and we allow them to make the decisions on how to do this, as long as it is perceived they are not engaging in abuse or gross neglect. If the parent or parents indicate that they cannot do this, what would typically happen? Would not the state take over? What happens when the child comes of age? Are the parents permanently and irrecovably responsible for the child forever? The society would have to decide if, when, and how to step into a situation like this. The society or state cannot possibly step in to take responsibility for a fetus.

Ok, so the unborn isn't human because no one but the mother can take care of it? But if it was possible that someone else could care for it (as the state cares for severely retarted people) then it would be human/worthy of life?

If that's the case, then shouldn't abortion be illegal on any babies that could survive outside the womb? Babies as young as 20 weeks old have been able to survive. So maybe 20 weeks should be the cutoff.

But what if advanced medicine makes it so that an entire 'fetus' can grow outside of the mother, without the mother, from conception until birth? Then the state could take care of the child and by your definition it should be protected. Even though the baby never changed it would somehow all of the sudden become human.

I know I have spent a good deal of words seeming to argue for 'abortion as a right.' I honestly have a hard time thinking of it as a 'right' and would not mind at all if we enacted laws that at least restrict abortion. However, I don't think it is good for our society if the debate proceeds along the current lines, which is basically one of 'whoever has the majority at the time, whether it is on the Supreme Court or in legislatures state by state gets to say what goes.' I think, in the long run, we will be better served if we create a law that the largest number of people can agree on. Again, I'm not saying that majority or numbers is the only criteria, but I would suggest that, everything else being equal, the law that the larger proportion of people agree to is the better law.

So is it ever OK for a slim majority to force their values on society? What if it was a commonly accepted practice to take 5 year old girls and trade them around as sex slaves. And it was ok to torture them, cut off their genitals, what have you if that turned you on. And this society doesn't recognize any rights for these children. If a minority was finally able to achieve just enough voting power to prohibit the practice, should they do so? Or would they have to wait until most of the population can agree with them? Or use the example of slavery.

In short, is it ever OK for a slim majority to 'force their values' on society to correct a grievous moral wrong and to protect innocent, helpless people?

And what do you think God would like to see done in that situation? And would he hold someone accountable who was able to stop it and didn't?

To continue to make the arguement that 'life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder' is not, in my view, going to convince very many people who are not already convinced. It is even more counterproductive, in my view, to criticize those who do not share the 'life at conception' view as being inherently un-Godly or less Godly. I think it is better to acknowledge up front that this is a difficult question, and people of good conscience, Christian or not, can reasonably disagree.

I think it is perfecltly understandable for people who have never thought through the issue to believe it should be ok to get abortions up until the point it is somewhat viable. But It is obviously ridiculous to think that a baby can be legally killed if everything but the head is delivered and that all of the sudden the head pops out and it is fully human.

However, for anyone who thinks throught he issue I think it is illogical to believe in abortion as an unborn child is not significantly different in any way from various other types of humans who have legally protected status.

The only way way I can see someone believing in abortion while being logically consistent is if they believe humans have relative value (as we are of course just highly evolved animals). But then they also have to admit that there is really nothing wrong with killing groups of people who are unwanted, ugly, stupid, disabled, etc. as they are just holding back the evolution of our species.