Personal v Public

When we think of our two children, my wife and I perceive their lives as having started at the moment of conception. We certainly could not have contemplated terminating a pregnancy nor suggested to anyone else that they do so.

I do not claim that this is an objective or scientific point of view. It is simply our personal perspective. Speaking for myself, it's no doubt rooted in and influenced by a mixture of the religious beliefs I once held, on one hand, and - probably more importantly - the dynamic between me and my wife as parents and life partners, on the other.

I would describe this shared belief as an emotional and spiritual one (but not in the supernatural sense). It is an intensely personal point of view and we don't see it as defining us in the eyes of others.

I wouldn't want to coerce others into sharing or subscribing to our belief nor to criminalize those who did not share it and who might make different decisions than me and my wife on this matter.

That's why I believe a law that allows for the termination of pregnancies up until the time when a fetus is viable outside the womb is an appropriate compromise in a non-theocratic state and that deeming such terminations to be the crime of "murder" perhaps belongs only in a theocratic state.

Personal v Public

I gave the thread this title in the hope that what is discussed might broaden out and touch upon other instances of where we do or don't want to see our personal principles or standards enshrined in laws that force everybody to conform to how we see the world.

Pro-life arguments are not limited to personal inklings that 'life begins at conception.'

I also think this discussion of the public & private could work neatly into a criticism of one of the secular left's favorite topics 'theocracy.'

The fact of the matter is that there is not a qualitative difference between a theocratic state and any secular humanist state that still bases itself off of a series of values that require their own metaphysical leaps of faith to uphold.

@philokalia said
The fact of the matter is that there is not a qualitative difference between a theocratic state and any secular humanist state that still bases itself off of a series of values that require their own metaphysical leaps of faith to uphold.

Could you provide a working example of a “metaphysical leap of faith” upon which a series of values would be based by a secular humanist state ?

@philokalia said
Pro-life arguments are not limited to personal inklings that 'life begins at conception.'

Thanks for this info.

@philokalia said
I also think this discussion of the public & private could work neatly into a criticism of one of the secular left's favorite topics 'theocracy.'

Are there any personal principles or standards that are important to you that you would not want to see enshrined in laws that force everybody to conform to how you see the world.

@philokalia said
The fact of the matter is that there is not a qualitative difference between a theocratic state and any secular humanist state that still bases itself off of a series of values that require their own metaphysical leaps of faith to uphold.

I wouldn't give my consent to a state that executed homosexuals for being homosexuals or for engaging in homosexual sex. I would either oppose it or leave. The only countries that execute homosexuals are theocracies as far as I know. Executing homosexuals [or blasphemers etc.] would be a "qualitative difference" between a secular theocracy and a democracy, wouldn't it?

I give to charity but I don't want to see it mandatory.
I agree with your principles about abortion, btw and also very glad it's not illegal where I live.
I don't agree with eating animals, but I'm glad there's no law that says I can't eat them. It's my choice, it's a health and animal rights choice- but it's my choice.
Any law that takes away a choice makes live in that place a little less enjoyable.

I am pro women’s choice, but not from a political stance, and within certain limits.

@fmf said
I wouldn't want to coerce others into sharing or subscribing to our belief nor to criminalize those who did not share it and who might make different decisions than me and my wife on this matter.

Nor I mine.

So where's the compromise? Obviously we must find a way to share the road. But who owns the road?

I don't believe there's a nation on earth that exists today as a theocratically governed entity. Historically only Israel did once in the distant past. And of course I believe Israel will again be ruled by God, but not till Jesus actually returns in the foreseeable future.

So until then man holds the reigns of power to decide what law governs human conduct and behavior. But never will man have the authority to dictate how we shall decide the outcome of our personal lives, except by coercion.

But there is this thing called the rule of law. So we legislate and litigate and arrive on common ground that is beneficial to the majority and provides peace and security for all.

As a believer in the creator I bend the knee to a higher authority than man's, but I am commanded to be subject to the law of man unless it violates God's law.

So I have a voice, at least so far, to be a part of the process of man's governance of man, therefore I wholly object to abortion under any circumstance whatsoever, except perhaps, given our current level of medicine, there's a choice between saving the life of the mother or the child, and then that choice would be between God and the mother of the child, without interference.

@secondson said
So I have a voice, at least so far, to be a part of the process of man's governance of man, therefore I wholly object to abortion under any circumstance whatsoever, except perhaps, given our current level of medicine, there's a choice between saving the life of the mother or the child, and then that choice would be between God and the mother of the child, without interference.

Understood. So are there any personal principles that you feel very strongly about that you would NOT want to see enshrined in the law of the land?

@fmf said
That's why I believe a law that allows for the termination of pregnancies up until the time when a fetus is viable outside the womb is an appropriate compromise in a non-theocratic state and that deeming such terminations to be the crime of "murder" perhaps belongs only in a theocratic state.

Certainly you can believe what you wish, whether you reside in a theocratic or non-theocratic state.

But to assume the authority to decide what constitutes when and where life is viable is to assume a power man is not imbued with, notwithstanding having the ability to cause the termination of the life of a baby in the womb.

I find unviable the determination of a choice based on the schism of thought produced by ideological differences between a "theocratic" and "non-theocratic" state. Taking a life, except by accident, is "murder" anywhere in the world.

It is skewed to speak of the "termination of pregnancies" by allowing a "law" that is a "compromise". What compromise? A compromise of ones conscience? Facilitated by science?

@secondson said
Certainly you can believe what you wish, whether you reside in a theocratic or non-theocratic state.

But to assume the authority to decide what constitutes when and where life is viable is to assume a power man is not imbued with, notwithstanding having the ability to cause the termination of the life of a baby in the womb.

I find unviable the determination of a choic ...[text shortened]... w" that is a "compromise". What compromise? A compromise of ones conscience? Facilitated by science?

I understand your view on abortion. It's OK. I get it. Do you have any thoughts on the question posed in my second post on this thread?

@fmf said
Understood. So are there any personal principles that you feel very strongly about that you would NOT want to see enshrined in the law of the land?

While it is understood that morality cannot be legislated, laws are enacted to protect human life, and punish those who do harm to others, especially the innocent.

Abortion is legal in America. I believe abortion is immoral, it is murder. But I have no authority to murder abortionists, even if I wanted to. And though abortion is legal, no one can legally force me to participate.

Therefore my hands are clean of innocent blood.

Yes, abortion should criminalized because it is murder. I object to the use of the subjective and religious term "enshrined".

@secondson said
Certainly you can believe what you wish, whether you reside in a theocratic or non-theocratic state.

Feel free to forget my reference to theocracies and non-theocracies. It was a mere nod in the direction of the fact that abortion is illegal in Islamic Republics, for example, where the laws are based explicitly on religious laws and on rulings by clerics.