Can a Christian make the following statement in good faith?

[Xeno.of.athens]

Why would you want to decriminalize that which you know to be the taking of innocent life?

The OP isn't advocating decriminalisation. It is opposing criminalisation - it is part of a discussion that arose elsewhere on the recent supreme court ruling on the Roe V Wade ruling. But - Who do you say is the murderer and who are his co-conspirators in the crime of abortion and do you want them tried for murder, all of them?

 

[Skye1300]

Slavery is opposed by almost everyone on Earth nowadays. Child molestation is opposed by almost everyone on Earth nowadays. But Abortion is opposed by many, accepted by many.

Abortion is an issue that the community has not yet reached a consensus upon. Ask yourself if it is right to impose your view of the matter upon the 60% or so of people (in the USA) who accept abortion? Impose your view (and perhaps God's view too) by the law and with criminal penalties?

Can a Christian, in good faith, refrain from imposing what he/she believes on a moral issue (and perhaps God also views it the same way) upon others who do not share that view?

But should a Christian be basing what he believes is right or wrong on what the rest of the world thinks? Or should we base it on what God's Word says? Should we let the world's beliefs dictate what we also accept and believe? We are supposed to be the ones showing the world what's right, good and true. Not letting the world tell US what's right, good and true.

Plus, every law is imposing some people's view on others. Murder is against the law, isn't that imposing the view of those who view murder as wrong on those who think murder is okay? No matter what law you make, someone will be imposing their view on others who think the thing is perfectly okay.

 

[Skye1300]

This is an interesting response. I wasn't thinking of a theocracy when I wrote my reply, but now that I've read yours, I'm curious if you would say the same about secular authorities -- are they also a disaster, given the errors in conduct and thinking that government officials make?

Exactly! Secular authorities are no better at it than a theocracy. They are worse at it!

 

[Skye1300]

Yes, many are disasters. Russia has an elected president, some say he is a dictator yet he was elected, and he has led his nation into a disaster and hurt another nation to the point of terrible grief and death with destruction on a people who did not attack him or his nation. So yes, secular as well as religiously inclined governments make messes at times. But a Theocracy has an added dimension; such governments believe that God is telling them what to do and they cannot brook any dissent from their God directed path.

And secular leaders are doing what they think is right and think they have some kind of obligation to crush religious thinking. That doesn't make secular leaders choices any better or any more right.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And secular leaders are doing what they think is right and think they have some kind of obligation to crush religious thinking. That doesn't make secular leaders choices any better or any more right.

Secular leaders in western nations rarely seek to crush religious thinking. In the USA religion is freely practised by any person who wants to practise a religion.

 

[trophy33]

Can a Christian make the following statement in good faith?

I will never have an abortion nor would I advise another person to have one nor would I go out of my way to assist a person to have one. Yet I do not support the state making laws to criminalise the act of abortion for those who participate in an abortion in any capacity that I can think of.​

Please, when replying, do not make this into a pro-abortion vs anti-abortion debate. The intention is to ask if a faithful Christian can hold both that abortion is morally unacceptable and also that the state ought not to legislate to make a pregnant woman, her doctor, the nurses and other support persons into criminals because they participated in an abortion.

The life of Christians is difficult enough and I would not add any other "creeds" to for example join a church (depends on what the context of your statement is).
We make mistakes and also various individual life situations can be more than black and white. Some abortions are necessary, for example when its threatening the life of mother.

I would go with the principle:
"Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?"
Acts 15:10

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Will you give some examples of such disputed moral issues which nevertheless have laws enforcing one side against all others?

There are plenty of moral issues where people dispute a law in question. Not all laws are universally accepted for one reason or another. You as a Catholic for instance are faithful to your Church's teaching on Homosexuality. Homosexuality, is per Catechism of the Catholic a disordered condition. Current law justifies and ratifies it. It makes denying the legitimacy of homosexuality illegal. Christians are not free, if they own a business to not recognize the legal marriage your Church and my Church rejects.

I am curious, do you think Christian standards are in the final estimation of things, subordinate to secular standards and that the latter are inherently superior to the former? That they might inform how people live and be used a measure for potential punishment in a state?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Homosexuality, is per Catechism of the Catholic a disordered condition. Current law justifies and ratifies it. It makes denying the legitimacy of homosexuality illegal.

There is no law enforcing homosexual behaviour. No law mandating such behaviour as a requirement for continued life in freedom in the USA. But a law criminalising abortion as murder would make criminals of anyone who procured an abortion, had an abortion, performed an abortion and so forth.

 

[dzheremi]

There is no law enforcing homosexual behaviour. No law manding such behaviour as a requirement for continued freedom in the USA.

That wasn't the claim. Ignatius wrote about current laws that make "denying the legitimacy of homosexuality" illegal. And there are such laws, at least at the state level. In California, for instance, state laws concerning education in public schools mandate that LGBT and gender-based material be included in such a way that affirms the contributions of LGBT and gender-unusual people to the country's history, effectively making it illegal to present this material in any way that does not approve of LGBT and gender stuff. In practice, that can look like showing gay pride videos to third graders (8-9 years old) with no repercussions for the instructors involved, as that is in conformity with the law.

 

[The Liturgist]

I think a theocracy of men running the church (or the world) as they think fit may be a disaster given the many errors in conduct and thinking that church officials of every kind have made their regular habit.

That might be a valid concern with many Western churches, but when it comes to the Eastern churches, consider this:

Orthodox Churches like the Coptic Church operate on the principle of not permitting change but rather preserving Holy Tradition, the liturgy and kerygma handed down from antiquity, and as such Orthodox bishops have a remarkably good track record compared to their Western counterparts. The fact that Orthodox bishops aren’t allowed to change things and can be deposed for doing so, and also are selected only from monastics who endure years of privation with no guarantee of being ordained even as subdeacons, let alone bishops, and that in the Coptic Orthodox Church the Pope is selected by lot, where three candidates selected by the Holy Synod have identically sized slips of paper with their names on them placed in a glass bowl and then a young boy with a blindfold draws one of the slips out, discourages the power hungry types.

And also the Coptic Pope is strictly primus inter pares; once, centuries ago, the Pope was to concelebrate a liturgy with the diocesan bishop, who was unavoidably detained, so the Pope, who is the Bishop of Alexandria, started the liturgy without him, in violation of the Apostolic Canons, this constituting an uncanonical instrusion into the diocese of the local bishop, so when His Grace arrived, he stomped on the mitre of His Holiness, and His Holiness the Pope accepted the rebuke as he recognized he had seriously impinged upon the rights, dignity, office and responsibility of the local diocesan bishop, and had uncanonically invaded the diocese of the bishop while also uncanonically abandoning his own diocese, all because he was too impatient to wait for the diocesan bishop to arrive. A crushed mitre was a small price to pay given that the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church could have deposed him for that, and indeed the primates of autocephalous Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Church of the East have on occasion been deposed, in some cases for intruding in the canonical territory of another bishop.

 

[The Liturgist]

There is no law enforcing homosexual behaviour. No law mandating such behaviour as a requirement for continued life in freedom in the USA. But a law criminalising abortion as murder would make criminals of anyone who procured an abortion, had an abortion, performed an abortion and so forth.

In New Zealand, recent legislation makes it potentially criminal for a priest to criticize homosexual behavior, whereas in the US the First Amendment precludes such legislation.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Ignatius wrote about current laws that make "denying the legitimacy of homosexuality" illegal.

Yet here you are denying it and no one has arrested you.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

There seems to be a dichotomy in that statement that would make it impossible for any rational person to make, Christian or not.

I'm not sure if you are responding to my comment "The lack of a law then becomes the conscience.".
If you are, our conscience helps us with determining right and wrong. The Holy Spirit works through our conscience as Christians. Living a righteous life and conforming to Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Those who lack a conscience are more than likely lawless and unrighteous.
Blessings.

 

[dzheremi]

Yet here you are denying it and no one has arrested you.

What? That was never the claim. And I already replied with one such example of a state law that requires explicit affirmation of LGBT and gender-based anthropologies, hence making non-affirmation illegal.

 

[fhansen]

The OP isn't advocating decriminalisation. It is opposing criminalisation - it is part of a discussion that arose elsewhere on the recent supreme court ruling on the Roe V Wade ruling. But - Who do you say is the murderer and who are his co-conspirators in the crime of abortion and do you want them tried for murder, all of them?

Murder can be unintended and culpability reduced by ignorance. But it’s still murder. So if we truly value human life there must be consequences to wiping it out.

 

[hedrick]

The statement in the OP would most likely be from an older Catholic. They might reasonably see the prohibition of abortion as part of a specifically Catholic view of sex, rather than it is undoubtedly murder.

 

[Fervent]

It could be said, though the sincerity of the person seems questionable. After all
I will never murder the innocent nor would I advise another person to murder the innocent nor would I go out of my way to assist a person to murder the innocent. Yet I do not support the state making laws to criminalise the act of murdering the innocent for those who participate in murdering the innocent in any capacity that I can think of.

Does that sound reasonable?

 

[fhansen]

The statement in the OP would most likely be from an older Catholic. They might reasonably see the prohibition of abortion as part of a specifically Catholic view of sex, rather than it is undoubtedly murder.

Hmm, not sure about the point here but the view of the CC is that abortion is the taking of innocent life while sex is simply the means to the procreation of that life. The life, itself, is sacred whether inside or outside the womb.

 

[bling]

How so? The statement rejects abortion and any assistance in procuring an abortion.

If you see abortion as the taking of an innocent child's life would that not mean it is a crime?

 

[BravoM]

Mistakes are made, they are very common, what is one to do in such a case?

Having sex is not a "mistake". Poor sense of self worth, bad morals and ethics, are some of the factors that lead to high rates of unplanned pregnancy.
Abstinence can be done. If someone keeps making mistakes then they have made poor life choices.
Killing an unborn child b/c of that is unacceptable.