The Bible is the Only Real Answer to Abortion

Read the following article here:

http://www.personhoodusa.com/blog/no-pro-life-fanatic-could-ever-possibly-dispute

Here is my take on this work.

Number 1 presupposes that person being argued with believes in parental responsibility.  But it is obvious that she does not.

I disagree with numbers 2 and 3 because these are based on arguments which presuppose that the baby was conceived through consensual means (i.e. not by rape).  But it is just as wrong to intentionally kill an unborn baby conceived by rape as it is to intentionally kill any other innocent human being.  These arguments only have the ability to convince a murderer to murder fewer people.

I disagree with number 4 because, what if a baby were implanted in the mother's uterus by artificial means (in vitro fertilization, cloning, etc.)?  It would be just as wrong to kill that baby as it would be to kill a baby conceived by natural means.

Number 5 is a good point, but again, suppose that a baby could be removed from the mother's uterus and left to die without "actively" killing the baby?  Again, it would be just as wrong.

Number 6 makes the assumption that other person doesn't actually believe in absolute bodily autonomy and that it has found a counterexample.  But some extreme libertarians actually would go that far--to the point that parents can simply abandon their children knowing that that would result in their deaths.  The author offers no reason why this is immoral as an argument against such extreme libertarians.  And the argument that he does use might even drive a reprobate like the one he is arguing with to conclude that such an extreme position is reasonable. 

Number 7 has the same flaw as number 6.  It presupposes that the person that he arguing with would find late term abortions unacceptable.  This is even more unlikely to work than the abandonment argument.

Number 8 is basically the same as number 6.

Number 9 is an example of what an extreme libertarian would permit as long as the man was not trespassing on private property.  Furthermore, this is not an example of someone being forced to do something (which was the crux of Rachel's argument), but rather a prohibition.

Number 10 is a simply a generalization of all the previous arguments.

You can find similar (moderately) libertarian pro-life arguments here:

http://www.l4l.org/library/index.html

But none of these arguments would work on someone like Murray Rothbard and some might even be persuaded by these to become more like him.

When it comes right down to it, the Biblical command to put people to death for murder (Genesis 9:6) is the only sure fire argument.  If someone does not accept the Bible as God's Word, then they most likely will not accept any other argument no matter how clever or well thought out, and even if they do, they will still be unbelievers who we should "come out from them and be separate" and with whom we should not be "unequally yoked".  A bad tree cannot bear good fruit.  There are places in the Bible where God gave commandments to kill infants.  God can make any exception to any rule He wants and therefore any set of arguments would necessarily have to take God's Sovereignty into account, but Matt Walsh's arguments do not.   

I sincerely hope that Matt Walsh's arguments will convince some of their hypocrisy and inconsistency so that they will come to the knowledge of Yahshua Messiah (Jesus Christ).  But spiritual things cannot be discerned by the natural mind until the person is regenerated. 

Chuck Colson, 1937-2012

I would like to pay tribute with this blog post to Chuck Colson.  Chuck was best known for his role in the Watergate scandal and his subsequent conversion to Christianity after being arrested for crimes in connection with the scandal.  He admitted that what he did was wrong and spoke out against corruption in government from then on until the day he died.  He said that he deserved to go to jail for what he did and was thankful to God that he was caught because he might never have come to know Jesus otherwise.

Most of the rest of what I know about Chuck comes from a book called God and Government which he authored.  The book has a little of what you might expect from a social conservative, but a lot that you might not.  He did a good job a relating how easy it is to become corrupted by power.  Besides giving his own personal testimony, he reminds us about various freedom movements around the world like the Solidarity movement in Poland, the overthrow of the Marcos government in the Philippines, and the toppling of the Soviet Union.  He talked about Dietrich Bonheoffer, a Christian who refused to give in to the government takeover of the Christian church in Nazi Germany.  He also recounted some great stories about events which lead to an easing of tensions between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland.

Like a typical socially conservative writing, he speaks out against some of the violations of the rights Christians and the erosion of morality and integrity in the government.  One example he gave was a case where a church decided to expel one of its members because of an admitted case of adultery.  The government got involved and a judge decided to force the church to take the unfaithful church member back, despite the lack of repentance.  He also opposed same-sex marriage and abortion.

Of course, I don’t agree with everything he said in the book.  For example he uses the word “Democracy” incorrectly and his interpretation of First Amendment is quite flawed.  I also strongly disagree with his embrace of preemptive war (and particularly in the case of the Iraq War).

However he didn’t completely fit the mold of a typical social conservative. 

He expressed some libertarian-leaning views in the book.  For example, he opposed three strikes laws and supported reducing or eliminating sentences for non-violent offenses (e.g. drug offenses).  He talked about how he traveled all around the world making speeches and talking to prison officials to persuade them to improve living conditions for prisoners.  He opposes the torture of prisoners of war.  This issue is not exactly first and foremost on the minds of most Christians today, but nonetheless it is an important issue and it was a great work for the Lord he did.  His efforts in this regard went hand-in-hand with his rehabilitation based prison ministry.

Another way in which he was a little different is that he believed that just because a candidate is a Christian that does not necessarily mean that that candidate is the best choice.   

And although he opposed Darwinism, he believed in the Big Bang Theory, touting it as proof of the existence of God.  This is because the Big Bang Theory includes a beginning of the universe.  The Steady State Theory was an earlier theory which had been embraced by the scientific community and did not include a beginning.

There was one quote from the book that I particularly liked.  I can’t remember it word for word but it went something like this:

There is no such thing as a government which doesn’t legislate morality.  All laws legislate someone’s idea of morality.

Rest in Peace, Chuck.

Palin, Paul, and Paul on Freedom Watch

If you listen closely, you can hear Sarah say "lame stream media". This is really weird hearing them talk about unity among libertarians and conservatives. Its like as if the wars are something that we can just agree to disagree on. But interesting that Dana Rohrbacher says that most Republican congressmen believe that the war in Iraq was a mistake, but yet they aren't doing anything to bring the troops home. Still trying to "save face", I guess. And they didn't say anything about Ron's recent vote to repeal don't ask, don't tell. If they asked Rand that question, he would probably say, "Well, that's an issue that I disagree with my dad...", but what does he really believe? How will he vote if it comes up? And they didn't say anything about gambling, prostitution, porn, or needle exchange programs either. Bet Rand would really squirm on those things, but if he was smart he would just say that these things should be left up to the states.

God and Government, part 1

There are two schools of thought which have influenced my political views and I have gone back and forth in my mind about whether one is the correct view or if some middle ground position is best.

It is obvious that not all forms of evil are to be judged by civil authorities. They are not in the proper position to judge merely sinful attitudes (the heart, 1 Samuel 16:7, Proverbs 25:2-3). (This is why I am against hate crimes legislation.) In the end God will punish all sins (Psalm 5:6, Proverbs 17:15, 18:5, 24:12, Ecclesiastes 12:14), but common sense says that government cannot punish someone every time they get “angry without cause” (Matthew 5:21-26).

When Romans 13:1-6 and 1 Peter 2:14 speak of governing authorities as being “agents of God’s wrath” who are “ordained of God” to “punish evildoers”, it is in our interest as Christian statesmen to study the Scriptures revealing which forms of evil the governing authorities are charged with the authority to judge.

The Libertarian View

The libertarian philosophy is that government should simply protect our rights and not interfere with anything “between consenting adults”. Under this philosophy, the government should enforce the terms of any contract between two parties as long as it doesn’t violate the rights of a third party. The rights we have are the right to life (to be protected against physical violence) and the right to property. Therefore, the only acts of evil which the civil authorities are charged with judging are acts of violence and theft (which would include violations of the terms of a contract between agreeing parties).

The biblical basis for such a philosophy is that the Old Testament laws have passed away (e.g. Colossians 2:14) and all authority now comes from Christ (Matthew 28:18). The conclusion drawn in this school of thought is that civil government does not have the authority to regulate other things since the New Testament does not specifically give it this authority.

The problem with strict libertarianism (from a biblical point of view) is that you can’t point to a place in Scripture where is specifically says that all but the authority to punish violence and theft has passed away. There could be other things like prostitution, illicit drugs, and pornography that should be prosecuted. The Christian libertarian does not advocate doing these things, but says government should not get involved. There is no regard (with respect to government) for the principle that one should go to extreme lengths to keep oneself from temptations (especially sexual, read Matthew 5:27-30). This is a view that is embraced by both Christians and secularists as well because it doesn’t advocate prohibition of various forms of immorality, but at the same time it advocates the protections and freedoms that most everyone agrees is necessary.

The Theonomist View

When many people say that they believe that the laws of our land should be based on the Law of Moses, they aren’t really thinking through what they are saying. But a theonomist really does believe it (or at least they try harder). According to the theonomistic view, the laws of the Old Testament can be classified as ceremonial, moral, and civil. The ceremonial laws have passed away, and the moral laws do not necessarily concern government, but civil laws should be enforced by government today the same way they were under the Old Covenant (see Matthew 5:18). Unlike the libertarian view, theonomism advocates stoning people to death for adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), witchcraft (Leviticus 20:27), and other sins which are “between consenting adults”.

The problem with strict theonomism is that even theonomists make exceptions to the rule. The Law says that death is a punishment even for doing work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14) which even includes picking up sticks (Numbers 15:32). Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt and say that this was abolished in the New Testament (Colossians 2:16, which would seem to contract their interpretation of Matthew 5:18), there are other things they take out that are not explicitly rescinded in the NT such as the commandment to marry the widow of one’s brother (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

Conclusion

So which, if either of these views is correct? As Christian statesmen, we need to develop a coherent apologetic so that we can uphold biblical principles of righteousness and justice as God would have us do, but in a way that no one can accuse us of picking and choosing what parts of the Bible we want to obey. This apologetic does not have to answer every question that one might pose. We need to start with an open-minded humbleness that allows us to be guided by God through both the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. We need to not allow one principle to guide all of our thinking if this principle isn’t contained in Scripture.

Both Christian libertarianism and theonomism assume that all of our laws should come from the Bible. The Bible does say that God establishes the rulers of the nations (Romans 13:1) and that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Christ (Matthew 28:18), but it doesn’t necessarily mean that this authority always comes through the Bible—and it certainly doesn’t mean that all civil authorities always make the decisions that God would have them make. I have come to the conclusion that there is no exact blueprint for government contained in the Scriptures, but that God rules, at least to some extent, through authorities extra-biblically. The author of Proverbs 21:1 said that God directs the rulers of the nations at a time when most rulers had never heard of the Bible.

I believe that our Constitution was given to us by God (even though I don’t agree with everything in it—we have corrupted it with the 16th and 17th amendments, for example), but yet the Bible says nothing about most of what is contained in either the Articles of Confederation or the misnamed Bill of Rights. For example, there is no place in the Bible where it says that nations should have a President, a House of Representatives, and a Senate, but yet I am strongly inclined believe that God had a hand in establishing these institutions for our benefit.

To illustrate this point further, I have used Matthew 28:18 to say that there shouldn’t be laws restricting the so-called “payday lenders”. Even though I think I would still vote no on Ohio issue 5, I realize now that this Scripture does not really prohibit such a law. I now think those who commented on my post gave more relevant points than the actual content of that article. Maybe God really did allow us to have this law (it did pass) so that poor people would be protected from unscrupulous lenders who would take advantage of them.

We need to be humble, know that we don’t always have all the answers, realize that God is wiser than we are, and that, while the Bible contains instructions that guide us in our choices concerning legislation, it doesn’t always tell us why God does the things that He does in realm of politics. Some laws will certainly have some good effects and some bad effects. We should thank God for the good effects.

In my next post, I will critique modern conservatism.

David Macko for Congress

No, this is not a picture of Ben Stein. This is David Macko, candidate for Congress in Ohio’s 14th district. Macko is a Russian Orthodox Christian, and is (or was, personal communication) the chairman of the Ohio chapter of Libertarians for Life. I don’t know why he is not listed among the candidates on either the national LP site or the Ohio LP site. But here he is listed as Libertarian. I wonder why.

He supports the Sanctity of Life Act . “Abortion is against Christian principles and L/libertarian principles properly understood…I believe that abortion is murder but punishment for that crime should be administered by the states,” he says. “Use of embryonic stem cells is the moral equivalent of cannibalism,” he says.

Macko believes that 14th amendment was improperly ratified because southern states were not included in the voting even though they had been readmitted to union, their votes for 13th amendment were counted, and Abraham Lincoln maintained that their secession was not legitimate in the first place. Although this amendment grants the right to “life, liberty, and property” and “equal protection under the law”, Macko believes that this amendment is heavy-handed and points out that this is the very amendment which the Supreme Court used to justify their authority to impose Roe v Wade. He argues that repealing it would be an admission that it is legitimate and passing a law through Congress to invalidate the 14th (and all ruling based on it) would set a bad precedent that would open the door for legitimate amendments to be repealed without the necessary approval of 2/3 of the state legislatures. The solution is to resubmit legislation to ratify the 14th. Quite interesting, wouldn’t you say?

http://www.mackoforcongress.com/webpage/7

He believes that real marriage is between a man and a woman, but would “vote to repeal all federal laws which discriminate against homosexuals, except where it would compromise our national defense,” and would not deny homosexuals the right to ordinary, voluntary contracts. He would not include sexual orientation or gender identity in federal anti-discrimination laws.

He supports the Liberty Amendment which would sell all unconstitutionally held federal businesses and lands and end the personal income, gift and death taxes. He would also get rid of the Federal Reserve and replace it with a sound, commodity-based monetary system. He also supports the RTBA (Read the Bills Act) as well as an amendment to the Constitution which would state: “Neither Congress nor the states shall hinder, impede or otherwise limit commerce among the states.”

“I support … a two to three percent tariff as the only tax which is necessary for the legitimate functions of the federal government, to protect the lives, liberty and property of citizens from foreigners, operate federal courts and make sure that federal elections are honest,” he says. He opposes the U.S. involvement in WTO, the FTAA, NAFTA, the North American Union and “other underhanded deals”. He supports the Bricker Amendment to end anti-sovereignty trade deals and other ill-advised treaties. He supports ending all foreign aid as it is both costly and unconstitutional.

Macko supports the limited, sound use of our military. “We should bring all of our troops home safely now from Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, South Korea and everywhere else in the world and put them on the southern border where they are needed,” he says. He goes on to say, “We invaded Iraq in less than 90 days. We can safely get out likewise…Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gates and the rest of them should be tried as war criminals for lying us into the Iraq war, murdering hundreds of thousands, bankrupting this country and making us hated.”

“I oppose the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, the John Warner ‘Defense’ Act, the Real ID Act and all of the police state measures which the Bush and also the Clinton administrations scared the Congress into supporting,” he says.

Macko opposes the draft, the Selective Service System, and any other forms of compulsive "national service" by reason of the Thirteenth Amendment.

He believes that all federal campaign laws are a violation of the Constitution and supports instant run off voting.

On crime, he says, “Drug laws, prostitution laws, gun laws and all other victimless ‘crime’ laws should be repealed and prisons should be used for criminals.” He would abolish the ATF and FDA. He opposes the National Minimum Age Drinking Act.

He favors the elimination of the Department of Education and supports vouchers, but says they should be phased out with the income tax. Tax credits are better than vouchers.

He opposes the funding of Child Services. (He calls them kidnappers.) He opposes the Violence Against Women Acts of 1994 and 2005.

On energy, he says that global warming is a “nonmanmade natural cycle” and that we have a 200 year supply of oil reserves on Gull Island, Alaska.

He believes that the right to bear arms is a God-given right and is “the last barrier preventing the establishment of a police state”.

Macko believes that healthcare should not be tied to either employment or government and that this is the real cause of rising healthcare costs. He would eliminate both Medicare and Medicaid. “If the American people allow the government to take over health care completely, you will be regulated from morning until night in your eating habits and other behavior, just like livestock.” He believes that Social Security should be phased out gradually.

He believes in the principle of jury nullification. This concept, while almost entirely unheard of in modern America, is an essential feature of the Republic and has made us what we are today. "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." - John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court 1789.

A vote for Macko is a vote for sound libertarian principles. Click here to contribute.