Aborted fetuses, if they actually have spirits, will be exalted. That, to me, is not tragic at all.

So will all children that die under the age of eight. Think of the implications.

Obviously everyone has the right to think what he wishes and to based his political decisions upon whatever he choses, but that does not make it logical.

Logic does not exist in a vacuum. The evaluations necessary have to come from some unprovable belief structure (i.e. religion). How can you decide what would lead you to a good result if you cannot conclude what a good result is?

Homosexuality is quite visible in North American society and is not going anywhere. Whether they’re married or not will not change this, seeing as it has gained a considerable amount of visibility over the past 10 years without gay marriage being legalized. And while it may be too soon to tell, I’m fairly certain that you will find that the legalization of gay marriage has not really affected countries that have implemented it.

The problem with your argument for religion in political thinking is the underlying assumption that certain characteristics such as compassion and love come from religion. Obviously everyone has the right to think what he wishes and to based his political decisions upon whatever he choses, but that does not make it logical.

What you’re not understanding here (and perhaps I’m not making myself sufficiently clear) is that abortion is a symptom of a social sickness.

The same could be said of thievery, spousal-abuse, murder, etc. Should we decriminalize those as well? Let’s go back to the example of slavery that was mentioned before. There are some undercurrents behind why slavery existed that could include the economic structure of the South, the general viewpoint of whites towards blacks, etc. Perhaps rather than forcibly freeing the slaves we could have spent years altering the economy, changing the white perception of blacks etc. But how many black men, women, and children would have been forced to live in slavery while we worried about treating the “social-sickness” that was underneath slavery instead of just cutting off the practice itself through the force of law? Do their rights matter? The same can be said of abortion, how many millions of children will never be born because we are unwilling to say that we will not allow it?

And it will not stop abortion. Abortion will continue whether it’s legal or not, in the same way that it happened before it was legal.

Laws never completely stop crimes from occurring, otherwise we wouldn’t need the justice system. But it does decrease how often they happen. If abortions of convenience were outlawed we would see a sharp decline.

The problem with your statement is that you are making the assumption that people who struggle with same-sex attraction are capable of developing into heterosexuals. I’m not convinced that they are.

Not exactly, I don’t doubt that there are some individuals that will develop same-sex attraction in pretty much any environment. The presence of gays in Iran, where the consequence could be death, emphasizes that point.

What I’m saying is that we will have individuals that could have developed into heterosexuals instead developing same-sex attraction due to our cultures attitude about sexuality. Consider the difference in the rate of male bi-sexuality between our present society and that of some ancient cultures. (e.g. Greece). Sorry guys but if you had been born into that society then it’s very likely you would have learned to enjoy the intimate company of both genders. Whereas because you were born here in our society you end up developing a heterosexual attraction (in most cases).

My concern is that our changing attitude toward sexuality will have the effect of increasing the number of people that will have to make the choice between their default sexual attractions and their religious morality. It seems to me that we are doing our youth a huge disservice.

For that reason, we cannot allow any place for religion in politics.

Nice attempt to stack the deck in your favor. Look, I believe in God, I believe that the LDS church does in fact contain the correct teachings that reflect his will for us here on earth. That makes it very logical for me to base my morality on my religion, because who could be the better source of what is right or wrong then God?

When you start talking about not allowing religion into politics I think you are forgetting that alot of the moral qualities that you are counting on are also based, for me, on my religion. For example, compassion, justice, love and concern for others, etc. So, when you say that we should take religion out of politics I don’t think you really mean it. I think what you’re really saying is that anytime my, or your neighbors, religiously influenced morals cause us to hold political stances that are against your own we should put our religious feelings on the backburner. Sorry but I don’t play that game. Our country should have no official church, but I have the right to allow my religion to color my politics just like you have the right to do the same, or not if you prefer.

Probably not, but that isn’t the goal behind outlawing abortions. The goal is to let the developing child be born. Outlawing abortion will have an impact on that.

What you’re not understanding here (and perhaps I’m not making myself sufficiently clear) is that abortion is a symptom of a social sickness. It is not the cause. Treating the symptoms of a disease will not cure the illness. In my opinion, abortion is the result of careless attitudes towards sex and ignorance of the intrinsic value of life. People say that abortion devalues life, but I think that abortion happens because people haven’t been taught to value life in the first place. And is it really so surprising, when we live in an age where the president of the most powerful country in the world will send the young people of his country into war, sacrificing not only their lives but also the lives of many, many civilians, all with the goal of making money?

Maybe if young pregnant women, or young women with babies were not harassed in public by total strangers there would be less abortions. Maybe if society did not look upon unwed mothers with such scorn there would be less abortions. Maybe if parents loved their daughters more unconditionally there would be less abortions. Maybe if society valued mothers in general more and didn’t portray motherhood as 20 years of guaranteed slavery. Maybe if more men were willing to take responsibility for their part in the whole process there would be less abortions.

Ultimately everyone is responsible for his/her own actions, but other things factor in and only God can judge us.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe that abortion is wrong, and completely tragic. But I do not think that out-lawing it will make your country a better place. And it will not stop abortion. Abortion will continue whether it’s legal or not, in the same way that it happened before it was legal.

but I have no doubt that the increased rate of acceptance of homosexuality in a culture results in a higher number of individuals with same-sex attraction that would have instead developed into heterosexuals in a culture that taught that homosexuality was wrong.

The problem with your statement is that you are making the assumption that people who struggle with same-sex attraction are capable of developing into heterosexuals. I’m not convinced that they are.

Listening to an acquaintance describe his struggle with sex-sex attraction as a teenager was heart-breaking. He said he prayed and cried to not feel the way he did. You may say he did not have enough faith or he didn’t try long enough, but it is not for you to judge. I’m aware that anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all, but I’m sure that many people have shared this man’s experiences.

Again, I understand that the Lord has forbidden us to act upon feelings of same-sex attraction, and abide by this principle in my personal life. I kind of think that if same-sex couples wish to be legally joined together, then they should be afforded that privilege. I am unconvinced that it will make a difference, because same-sex couples will exist, whether they’re married or not.

Freedom to believe (or not believe) what we want is a very important part of democracy. For that reason, we cannot allow any place for religion in politics. Furthermore, politics will not change the moral direction of a nation. The only thing that will really make a difference is the gospel of Jesus Christ, the testimony of which comes to us through the gentle promptings and whisperings of the Holy Spirit, not through legislation. Attempting to force others to adhere to your moral standards through laws will only make them bitter against religion.

One of my favorite quotes of all time: “An extreme liberal is just an extreme conservative with more friends.” The conservative says, “I’m right; everyone else is wrong.” The liberal says, “Everyone is right, except for those who don’t agree with that.” It’s the same narrow-minded position, just with different conclusions.

I find myself often on this blog agreeing on one thread with people with whom I disagree on other threads – and sometimes that happens in the same thread. I really like that, frankly, since it tends to mean that real thinking is going on with both sides.

My point is that it’s a copout to just assume that people disagree with your politics because they are “stupid”, “misguided”, or “naive.” Having said that I must confess that I feel the same way about many liberals, namely that they are misguided and/or naive. So, in addition to my warmonger status we can add hypocrite. I’m guessing this is a common trait, because the only thing that keeps others from agreeing with me is just their low intelligence, right? That sure is a lot easier to say then to realize that different people parse situations differently and they are just as informed and intelligent as you are.

Also let me point out that many pro-lifers consider themselves akin to the abolitionists so you using the example of slavery is appropriate. Except we’re on the wrong end of the time-line. Perhaps in fifty years abortion will be included with slavery as one of the gross misdeeds that our descendents won’t believe we actually allowed.

MCQ,

Hopefully we’ll get another Conservative Justice on the Supreme Court and then after a few years we’ll have plenty of jurisprudence to return the matter to the states to decide via their own legislatures. I’m sure you’ll be just as eager to shut the book on the discussion then as you are now.

Stephanie,

Is whether or not gay marriage is legal going to affect the number of people who live that lifestyle?

Yes. We are social creatures and follow each others examples. This is true in particular for youth who are looking at adults around them and modeling their lives after them. I don’t believe legalizing same-sex marriage will have an impact on the rate of homosexuality in our current generation but I have no doubt that the increased rate of acceptance of homosexuality in a culture results in a higher number of individuals with same-sex attraction that would have instead developed into heterosexuals in a culture that taught that homosexuality was wrong.

Does it affect the sanctity of my temple marriage?

No, but it does have an impact on how society views marriage, how it views homosexuality, etc. Perhaps these factors don’t matter to you but apparently they do matter to a lot of your neighbors.

Is out-lawing abortion going to decrease teen pregnancy rates?

Probably not, but that isn’t the goal behind outlawing abortions. The goal is to let the developing child be born. Outlawing abortion will have an impact on that. Again, perhaps this doesn’t matter to you. But it matters to many others. So don’t call them stupid, they just value things differently, or view things differently, then you do.

I suspect what Stephanie meant is that she feels her conservative-voting neighbors are being a bit naive and manipulated by whichever Conservative Party she is referring to. I don’t think she is doubting the sincerity of their moral values, which I suspect she shares herself. We’re assuming she’s writing from the U.S., but perhaps not. She may well be in the U.K., where debating the legality of abortion in 2007 would indeed be as ludicrous as debating women’s suffrage or slave holding.

…everyone votes for the Conservative Party based on the very mistaken idea that the political right is automatically morally right.

Or you could be more charitable in your perception of their motivations and intelligence and state that most vote for the “conservative party” because it represents their top issues better. It doesn’t hurt to give your neighbors the benefit of the doubt.

And in my opinion, that is socially irresponsible and just plain stupid when you consider the tiny fraction of current campaign issues that actually fall into that category.

Or it reflects the fact that those voters feel that the moral issues trump the issues that apparently are more important to you.

Debating the legality of abortion in the year 2007 is ludicrous.

I completely agree, the government should just change all abortion laws to match *my* point of view and then everyone should just stop wasting time talking about it

Aluwid – “Mormon Warmonger”