As the comments continue to accumulate in the debate over God's existence, another common thread has emerged. Should our system of government be influenced by Biblical principles? This argument can range from the idea that Christianity has too much influence and needs balance from those who don't believe, to some who think that using the Bible or Christian thought as one argument at the table is inappropriate, or at least not worthy of consideration.
So the vast majority of Bible-believing Christians today would argue that the Bible clearly calls homosexual practices sin. Most would go so far as to say that such practices are specially called out as a major concern for God.
Likewise, those in this group would say that killing unborn humans is still killing. And while many will make exceptions for rape, incest, and threat to the mother's life, it is very hard to see any distinction in the arguments for killing kids inside or outside the womb.
So, the challenge is for folks who feel this way to make substantive arguments against the practices that can be argued by all sides without reference to Divine thinking. For the purposes of this post and to engage the debate, I will just give a shorthand list of such:
Abortion:
1. There is every reason to believe that the child experiences pain when it is destroyed.
2. Any operation has risks, both at the time of the operation and later.
3. There is clearly established psychological trauma associated with abortion for the mother.
4. The grandparents, biological father, and others may not like being deprived of the potential benefits that the child may have given them.
5. Many, if not most, women who have an abortion have eventual regrets, depression, anger, and other psychological results that negatively impact their lives.
6. Women who never have a child, but who aborted one, are faced with particular sets of issues that impact their lives.
7. Many of the individuals who are making this decision are very young and not at a point of their lives where they can easily weigh the consequences of this decision.
8. The taking of any life creates a diminution in the sanctity of life for the individual taking the life.
9. Society as a whole experiences a diminution in the sanctity of life when the wholesale slaughter of millions of unborn children takes place with little thought.
10. The community as a whole is deprived of the potential of that human.
11. Many communities choose to select out certain attributes (sex, race, social standing, disease, abnormalities), in the birth/abortion decision. These selection processes have many known and undoubtedly far more unknown consequences. For instance, if Darwin's theory is correct, we may select out abnormalities that are actual potential benefits.
12. Slippery slope. Once we agree that partial birth abortion is OK, do we now OK abortions for one hour after birth, or at least until the cord is cut? If we agree that killing unborns is justified because of sex, race, social standing, disease, or abnormality, then WHO is going to say that it isn't justifiable to exterminate such undesirables at age one hour or 86?
13. Easy abortion is clearly used as a birth control method. To this extent it is a great boon to men. They can be totally cavalier when it comes to the use of condoms or worrying about having sex outside of marriage. They just have to insist on abortion when a mistake occurs.
14. To the extent that people see abortion as an easy out when mistakes are "created," it further diminishes the idea that life is to be preserved except in very special cases.
Homosexual Practices:
Introduction. I have gone to great lengths elsewhere in this blog to fully explain my understanding of the origin of homosexual inclination. In short, I believe for some there is genetic confusion, for some there is biological predisposition, for some there is early childhood environmental influences, and for the vast majority a seduction by an older individual resulting in unwanted or at least unexpected homosexual experiences. However, it is my further contention that homosexual desires, like other similar desires, are only acted upon by choice. No matter how one feels about the question of whether a gay individual can choose to have homosexual feelings, it should be obvious that they can choose not to act on them. Now on to the reasons why society should discourage homosexual acts.
1. Society has a large stake in the procreative process. If we don't make babies - even if we don't make enough babies - our village, city, or nation will decline or die out. Many behaviors have tipping points, and it is likely that homosexual activity is one of these. If it becomes a "fad," it may have a very substantial detrimental effect on population.
2. Male homosexual practices are by their nature prone to disease transfer. Aids is only one of many diseases that flourish in the homosexual community.
3. Males are by their nature promiscuous. Females tend to have a domesticating influence on males, and the addition of children into a family increases the likelihood that the male will be less promiscuous. Promiscuity is something I have never heard anyone promote as beneficial, so I will not list the dozens of issues here.
4. Predatory heterosexual behavior, while to be abhorred, does not generally lead to the victim's turning from heterosexual behavior in the future. Predatory homosexual behavior dramatically increases the likelihood of the victim becoming a homosexual, and repeating predatory behavior.
5. No matter what the PC press tells you, homosexuals are very inclined toward young partners, and greatly prefer virgins. Thus it is not surprising that adult homosexuals are more inclined to act out these desires with underaged kids than heterosexuals are.
I have no doubt that smart readers can poke holes in my arguments, and I encourage the debate. The point, however, is not whether each of these ideas is debatable, but rather that one can have clear reasons for desiring that these practices be discouraged, regulated, or even criminalized without turning to the Bible.
