With the recent announcement of a Tasmanian proposal to make abortion more readily accessible, I was reading through the (extremely bias) leaflet explaining the changes. One thing that caught my eye was the following statement under the section explaining the reasons why the law needs to be changed:
The law needs to change to recognise unplanned pregnancies will occur
To which I certainly agree. However, turns out there are two ways to recognise this (any there could well be more.) I would argue that we need to make adoption more accessible (however I'm all for vetting all families wishing to adopt to ensure that they can provide a safe and stable home, but currently it's ridiculous.) We should also be funnelling money to pregnancy support services to help women work through their unplanned pregnancy. We should be encouraging abstinence and sexual purity rather than encourage promiscuity (which, let's be honest, our society does.) Pregnancy isn't a disease, and doesn't need to be cured with abortion. This is one path to take to recognise unplanned pregnancies.
This got me thinking of some arguments for gay marriage that I have heard. To be honest, upon inspection, these arguments don't hold up. I want to take a look at two different ones.
Divorce has ruined the meaning of marriage and gay marriage isn't anywhere near as bad.
I wholeheartedly agree that divorce has ruined the meaning of marriage. However, this isn't a reason to allow gay marriage, which will further erode the true meaning of marriage of being between a man and a woman, for life. The ease of divorce has already ruined the latter. So instead of saying "oh well, marriage is already ruined, let's allow gay marriage" we should be saying "both divorce and gay marriage is wrong, we should make divorce harder rather than make gay marriage legal."
As a side, I am mostly referring to no-fault divorce. Divorce is a evil necessity in some cases when one person is at fault (for example, but not limited to, adultery.) It would be good to try and work it out, however in some cases it is simply not possible. I know people who are divorced, and in their circumstances it was justified due to fault on their partners side. The reason it is justified is that humans are sinful, and as a result divorce is in some cases a necessary evil. However, allowing no-fault divorce undermines the meaning of marriage, and the times when it is a necessary evil are certainly not the most cases. If it is the most cases, then it's even further evidence our society is falling into a decline in morality. A high divorce rate as a direct result of adultery is awful!
People can decide to get married overnight and have a Vegas wedding, yet a gay couple can't get married
This is just unfair isn't it! Well, I agree, I don't think people should be able to have Vegas weddings. Instead of saying we should allow gay marriage, we should instead be saying we need to restrict Vegas weddings. Australia actually does have this right (or at least more right than other countries) in that it requires at least 1 month notification of intention to get married (Marriage Act 1961, s42(1)(a).) Rather than using this as an argument for gay marriage, we should instead be working towards fixing this issue.
Ah, Hendo.
ReplyDeleteYou remind me... of me! I was once a callow and opinionated undergraduate. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's unfair to expect anything else, since this is the phase of your life when you're sorting out not just what, but why you believe all sorts of things.
At that time I too was infected with a particularly virulent strain of evangelical Christianity, and I shared pretty well all the views you've espoused in this piece.
This comment is not to reprove you. It's just to lay a small wager; one with precious little chance of being redeemed. Just maybe it might stick in your mind, years from now.
It's just this: Give yourself time to grow. I sincerely hope time hasn't made me cynical. What... I've been through, it doesn't make me rationalise divorce now. It's still and always a tragedy and I wished it didn't happen. But it does. I'll wager as life goes on, I'm sure you'll have friends you'll support solidly through a divorce and you'll never tell them to their face what you might write in a blog.
Then, you'll know a gay couple and appreciate that, for whatever else they are, they're just people (and usually nice ones), and you'll wonder in your secret heart why they are treated as second class citizens.
And then someone you care for will have had an abortion, for whatever reason, and you'll look back a little later, with the benefit of hindsight, and you'll admit (perhaps grudgingly at first) "Yes, if they had had that baby it would have been a disaster".
That's the first step. You'll make a concession for someone you know and care about, and you'll have enough tact not to be an ass about it. Then you'll concede that perhaps your teenage position was inflexible. Then you'll admit in your heart that life is messy and that religiously motivated morality is secretly cruel and simplistic, and that it's perfectly possible to be moral without the carrot of eternal bliss or the threat of hellfire to goad you along.
And then you'll be me.
At no stage would I ever condemn someone personally for having an abortion, or for getting divorced, or for being gay.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the abortion debate, my goal is always to provide loving and caring support to any women, no matter what their decision is. I would do everything I can to convince them that abortion is not the right answer... With the comment of looking back and saying "it would have been better if she didn't have the baby," that's the only part I can't justify in my head. Even if her life would have been better if she didn't have and raise a child, what rational do we have for putting her comfort above the life of another human being? That is also why I want to promote adoption so much; it allows the wellbeing of both the mother and child to be cared for without having to pit mother against child.
For divorces that any of my friends may go through in the future, I really hope that doesn't happen. I won't hate on them, or not be their friend for going through such a difficult time. Divorce is ugly, and as I said it is sometimes a necessary evil. What I don't like is societies lack of commitment to marriage and treating it as though people have the right to get out of it as soon as there is any sign of trouble. This is very generalised, and should any of my friends go through a divorce for whatever reason, I'm not going to judge them for the reason of which they go through it. Rather I'll stick by their side. I would much prefer to not see them go through divorce of course, which is why I would like to see an attitude change of society.
Ditto for any gay person that I may befriend. I'm not going to not be their friend because they're gay. What I can't support is them trying to legalise "marriage" for gay couples, not because I don't care for them, but because I can't affirm their sin as being right. However, I also can't reject them from a church, or not be their friend for the sole reason that they're gay, because they're struggling with sin, just like every other person on this planet, myself included! I can't affirm any sin as being OK (which supporting gay "marriage" would be doing) however it doesn't mean I should reject the sinner, because everyone is a sinner, and to be consistent I'd be required to reject all my friends as well as myself.
What I believe I always will be is against societies general acceptance of what I believe to be wrong in most cases (e.g. divorce can sometimes be justified, abortion to save the mother's life is justifiable morally using the principle of double effect) however in personal cases of friends, they will be in a tough situation; a situation that I would prefer them not to be in; but I won't forget their humanity, and I won't not continue to love them because of sin. Jesus loved the sinner, but certainly didn't endorse the sin. That is my ultimate role model.
Hendo,
ReplyDeleteKudos for conducting this with humility and civility.
Discussions like this have a habit of resulting in two well-meaning people nevertheless talking past one another, since they are approaching it with opposing (and fixed) premises.
We can productively spend a little time unpacking them:
For abortion, your view is that an unborn child is legally a person from its conception, and that the termination of a pregnancy represents murder. Logically, if you take this view, then even the morning-after pill (RU-486) should count as murder.
Legally, in almost every jurisdiction in the world, this is not held to be the case. Abortion is not legally regarded as murder, and even laws that seek to penalise the unlawful death of a foetus (e.g. car crashes that kill the unborn child but not the mother) impose the condition that the foetus be capable of "independent life" (24 weeks is generally regarded as the lower limit). The laws vary around Australia, and interestingly NSW doesn't have this law at all (although it's being considered).
"So," you might say, "this is what secular law says. I am basing my view on my interpretation of God's Law." But the Bible doesn't make any clear statement about abortion at all. Yes, there is Ps139 that makes the poetic statement about God knowing us in our mother's womb, but equally there is Exodus 21 that says if there's a fight and a woman gives birth prematurely (essentially a death sentence in that era), then it's not murder (the penalty is a fine, as opposed to if the mother dies and then it's 'an eye for an eye'). Your view is not based as solidly as you might think it is in the Scriptures. If Christians read "thou shalt not kill" (which is pretty clear) and yet have found a squillion loopholes to righteously kill, then you're on far weaker ground than that on the question of whether abortion is murder.
For me, I agree with the definition regarded as both legal and humane by Western society: An embryo is not a person. Abortion is limited to circumstances where it is a non-conscious, partially differentiated mass of cells, incapable of emotion or pain. Abortion (or for that matter stem-cell research) is not murder, and neither is it sin. You are entitled to feel otherwise, but fortunately religious dogma does not determine the law (wiki "the Enlightenment", and dwell on why it was called that).
Gay marriage? Likewise. Your opposition is based on what I believe is a faulty premise. You can't mount an argument that it's bad for society (Really? Would it really collapse?) And you'd have to be insecure indeed if you felt that two same-gendered people threaten your own marriage (or potential marriage). No, you oppose it because homosexuality itself is "sin". Frankly, this is offensive. Like saying being fat is sin. Saying something is "sin" bypasses our rational faculties. Why is wearing clothing of two different kinds of yarn a sin? Don't argue; don't even think. It's in the Bible. Why is gathering grain on the sabbath sin? Why is eating pork? Why is blasphemy? Arbitrary. Irrational. Wrong. And not even well backed by Christian history (again). What about the whole David-Jonathan thing? Even the early church endorsed same sex unions into the 12th century (wiki "Adelphopoiesis" for more).
(comments go on, but blogspot seems to have a post-size limit. I'll post a second half)
next bit...
ReplyDeleteSince I lost my faith, I necessarily abandoned the embarrassing concept of sin as well. That's not to say there aren't good and bad things! But goodness and badness should be judged using sound reason. A good ethical principle should be "if it harms no one, then it is permissible". I live by this principle. I do many things I previously regarded as sinful. It's worth remembering that we all do things that, to the standards of Christians a few centuries back, are so sinful, we would be condemned to death for them. Hendo, if you like reading the Bible in anything other than Latin, or you believe the Earth goes around the sun, then you are a sinful heretic and deserve to burn on the pyre, by the standards of the mainstream Christianity of another era. Why is your interpretation of what it sinful more valid than theirs? As ye judge...
Hendo, it's like Hobbes said: "A man's conscience and his judgement are the same thing, and as the judgement, so also the conscience may be erroneous". You will live long enough to be embarrassed by some of the things you believe today, and that's no bad thing. I'm in the same boat. If you hold all these views in the same un-nuanced way in, say, 15 years, then I would sadly relegate you to the pile of grey automatons who perpetuate faulty beliefs across the ages. You, however, are much, much smarter than that and I have my suspicions that we will have an interesting conversation in a decade or two about this. I'll still be the only Nathan Zamprogno in any phone book, trust me.
Thanks for taking the time to respond - I do enjoy the ability to actually have a real discussion when someone doesn't start accusing me as a women hater and homophobe (at which point I feel they've run out of rational arguments and just resort to personal attacks instead.)
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to try and address absolutely everything you've mentioned; not because I think there aren't any rational arguments for them, but more a combination of sticking to the original talking points and avoiding going on too many tangents. If I tried, I'd probably end up with 4 or 5 posts given the word limit on BlogSpot.
Firstly, I'd say that if there is a God and if homosexuality is a sin, then the loving thing to do is to not accept the sin. This however doesn't mean reject the person from society or churches for example. If we were to do that, then churches would be very empty. We are all sinners, but we should all be doing everything we can to fight sin in our own lives. Legalising gay "marriage" would to many people be legitimising a sin, saying we'll accept the sin.
The ethical principle of "if it harms no one, then it is permissible" looks good initially for a godless world to accept, but I honestly don't think there is any reason to ever accept this as a principle from a godless world view. Why does it matter if it harms someone else? If we're all just atoms working together admit chaos, then well, then the principle of ethics and morality doesn't have much room to exist. We're just interacting with chaos. That principle makes sense if we accept there is a higher being that holds as accountable, unless that higher being sets a higher moral standard. I'd also say that it's similar (though not identical) to "do unto others what you would have them do to you." Though I'd say that is implying not to do anything that harms anyone (the first half of the principle,) but doesn't then imply that everything that doesn't harm anyone is therefore acceptable. I honestly think the options are: do whatever makes you feel good, who cares if it harms others (a godless world view,) or try and live by the moral code set by a higher being. Of course, I do say try for the latter, no one can actually succeed in doing it perfectly (Romans 3:23.)
For abortion, yes, I do believe RU486 isn't right. You mention the legality of abortion around different countries. Does the legality of something define it's morality? Does morality change with laws? 40 years ago, was abortion immoral in the US until the law changed, making it moral? Morality should guide laws, now the other way around. As such, the argument of using the legality of something to define the morality doesn't work. In fact, using that argument I don't feel there would ever be justification for changing laws that affect morality - by this logic, everything that is legal is moral, and any suggested changes would be immoral until they are accepted, so why suggest them in the first place if they are immoral when suggested?
I'll briefly address the Biblical arguments. Firstly, the terminology in the 10 commandments is "You shall not murder" not "You shall not kill." There is no broad commandment that says "you shall not kill" (those words only appear once together and it's referring to killing of an animal in very specific circumstances.)
(to be continued...)
(and the continuation...)
ReplyDeleteI'll also quickly give a brief rebuttal to the Exodus 21 objection. The view you've stated is basically "women miscarries as a result of a fight but isn't injured herself, and since the punishment isn't death, then the foetus isn't counted as human because of the principle of eye for an eye, life for a life etc." Please correct me if I've misinterpreted your interpretation, I've restated it just to clarify, not to intentionally misrepresent your view (I'm not a big fan of straw man.) This interpretation is generally referred to as the "miscarriage interpretation." If this interpretation is correct, then it doesn't justify abortion because it's speaking of an accidental death rather than intentional. Abortion is very intentional. Secondly, the fact that some form of penalty is issued shows that the foetus has some value - if the baby doesn't matter at all then why require even a fine? Thirdly, it's actually consistent with other laws that exempt the death penalty in cases of accidental death (I have a few examples, but I'll give just Exodus 21:13-14.) However, I want to argue that a better interpretation is the "premature birth interpretation." At no point in Exodus 21:22-25 does it say that the child died. It says "her children come out, but there is no harm" then the man will be fined (as demanded by the husband of the woman and granted by the courts.) However, if harm is done, then he will pay life for life. It only says if harm is done, not if harm is done to the women. I actually think a better interpretation is that if there's a premature birth where the baby lives then a fine is imposed, but if harm is done (to either mother or child) then the principle of "life for a life" is imposed (as mentioned above, this isn't always imposed in some accidental deaths, but those are explicit exceptions in certain circumstances.)
I'm not going to attempt to address the issue of other biblical laws that we may initially appear to be breaking - not because I can't, rather firstly you said don't bother, but also that the tangent is too great. However, if there is a specific example you genuinely want my opinion on, I will give it. I will also listen to genuine objections. I myself have had objections to some things I've read in the Bible initially, and I have doubted my faith at times. I'm just saying that to show that I don't blindly accept everything I read, I do question it. Many Christian's don't, and I honestly don't think that's good for them at all. It means when their faith is challenged, they will be overwhelmed because they haven't challenged it themselves (see 1 Peter 3:15.)
With arguments against abortion, I normally stick with non-biblical based arguments. Why should anyone accept arguments from a text they don't see as authoritative? I would never expect that of them. I would use arguments from the Bible to other Christians, but there are so many more arguments that aren't from the Bible that I believe are legitimate and rational.
(to be continued... again)
(last continuation)
ReplyDeleteThere's so much more I wan to address, but I'm running out of time and space. If there's anything I've failed to address that you feel is important please bring it to my attention and I will address it.
Lastly, I will acknowledge the verse about taking the log out of your own eye before judging people. I do honestly believe most Christians have failed to do this, but I also feel that most non-Christians have also failed to do this. I have passed judgement on a sin, but a sin is not a person. We are not defined by our sin. Of course, there may be a group of people that do define themselves by a particular sin, and thus me passing judgement on that sin inadvertently passes judgement on them - there's not much I can do about that. I am a sinner. I'm also a hypocrite. I am struggling with sin in my own life, but I believe the loving thing to do is not sit back and accept sin in this world, but actively fight against it in a Christ like manner. Those inside the church that imply it's perfect are full of it, and those outside the church who expect it to be perfect probably don't fully understand why people go to church. Churches are full of the forgiven, not the perfect. Churches always want this to expand, not to be an exclusive club. Sinners in churches are no better than sinners outside churches.