dedicated to Aristotle & science/faith blogging:
There is a division between the thing itself and the laws which govern it. Unless, of course, one holds that it is self-governed or autonomous (Gk: auto, self; Gk: nomos, law), which seems just as assumptive as claiming it is ruled by an ‘other’.
If nature is governed by laws, then those laws themselves are not themselves the thing they are governing, and are therefore not ‘within’ (Lat: intra) nature. This could only mean that they are other than, outside of or ‘above’ (Lat: supra) nature.
Here (I don’t know if you have to have a Facebook account or not).
On emotion. This morning an abortion-activist (pro) was on TV – then this evening I get forwarded this. My wife’s comment about the activist this morning was that she seemed far too ‘clinical’ about a very sensitive issue.
On free speech. Both sides (and various positions in between) have reasons to say that emotive statements from the other side are offensive, and hurtful. Whilst I strive for an approach that tries to respect emotions and protect life, when push comes to shove, life is more worth protecting than emotions.
On reality. The reality is a rainbow of varied circumstances. In the mix of those considering abortion will be a tiny percentage of women who’ve tragically suffered rape, incest, or a combination of the two. Also in the mix will be a less-than-tiny percentage of women (and their absentee male partners and absentee community/family/friend support) who just don’t want to be bothered with the responsibility of parenthood (not to mention a sexual relationship). It is naive to say that selfishness is not part of the picture, and non-PC to say that it is.
On relationships. Abortion is one part of a problem with sexual ethics, which is one part of a problem with human relationships in general. Sadly, modern/western (read: over-convenienced, over-entertained, over-bandwidth-ed, over-socialised, etc.) people have few friends/family that they have a deep/trusting enough of a relationship to be able to a) get the support they need (before and after the unplanned/unwanted/inconvenient pregnancy), and b) have loving truth spoken to them when needed.
On urgency. Whilst screaming ‘murder’, ‘genocide’ or using phrases like ‘silent holocaust’ are maybe not advisable, this is still a freaking life & death issue.
On law. If you know me at all, I’m not for Christians trying to enforce our beliefs through law. But if the role of government is not to protect life (survival first, quality of life and personal ‘rights’ second), then I don’t know what government is for. This is one hairy beast of a problem, and I don’t claim easy fixes. In isolated and short-term cases, an abortion of a 3-day old foetus may look ‘better’ than a drugged-addicted teenage couple being non-parents. Though there has to be some form of legislation to protect life and people from their own selfishness and indifference, merely making abortion illegal wouldn’t solve the problem. Whatever one thinks about free abortions or free contraception, etc., hopefully we can agree that families, communities, and yes, even nations need to stop band-aid-ing the problem and address the sexuality and relational confusion that underlies all of this. “To each their own” (or “live and let live”) is so indifferent and uncaring a philosophy it might as well be hatred.
On increasingly moralistic society. Has anyone else noticed how moralistic society is? Ads telling people to confront each other about their drinking, and warning people about speeding, and a host of other examples. This is surface stuff that belies a deep uncertainty about just what to do about some issues. Tolerance, like ‘rights’, only goes so far. Convictions, values, responsibilities and real community will go further toward societal change than more laws and more guilt.
On long blog posts. Sorry y’all.