The comparison is, I think, too generous towards the anti-choicers. While both groups are (or at least claim to be, it varies from person to person) operating from a moral stance and trying to effect change based on their moral views, the targets of their morals are very different. If vegans went around calling women who eat burgers evil filthy sluts, then the parallel would be more apt, I think. :p

TO me the difference in those ‘fundamental questions’ is completely immaterial. The only question that needs to be answered is does a person have an individual right to choose what happens with her body? If someone doesn’t want to have an abortion, great more power to them. If someone does, then again it is up to them?

Hindus consider cows sacred and as worthy of protection as humans, how would you feel if they lobbied to outlaw any beef and divert taxes to keeping old cows comfortable?

“I…believe that moral and religious ideologies are not reason enough to make laws.”

“So, while I do get that some people connect their moral idealogies [sic] to political ideologies, I think it is a flawed way of thinking. That is what I am criticizing.”

(Sorry, don’t know how to use the quote function here.)

Just wanted to point out that at its core, the purpose of legislation is to define morals. This is why theft, murder, etc. are illegal. Even if Congress passes a law against drilling in ANWR, they are making a moral judgement stating that it is “better” to not drill there than to do so.

What it comes down to is one’s philosophy. In this case, yours allows you to make a moral judgement that abortion is not murder and should be publicly-funded, and thus you act on this, trying to gain support for this position and supporting legislators (and legislation) who share your moral values.

My apologies in advance for not answering anyone’s responses in these ‘comboxes’.

Perhaps this link will help you better understand the pro-life position on this issue:

http://www.conversiondiary.com/2008/01/how-i-became-pro-life.html

It talks about how she became pro-life (and was part of her religious conversion). The article illustrates the differences I’ll talk about below. As someone who has studied the issue extensively in an academic way, I believe there are a number of fundamental issues, and these are:

1) When does life begin?
2) What value, exactly, does life in certain stages have?
3) Once one establishes their views on 1 and 2, what is the moral weight of the action of abortion?

Not only is there fundamental disagreement on questions 1 and 2… BUT 3 has big disagreements. For example, a pro-choicer looks at my views on questions 1 and 2… understands them… BUT then disagrees about my moral value judgment. The reverse is true, I look at a pro-choicers view on 1 and 2, understand their views, but then disagree about the moral value judgment they are making.

KaeLyn, I hope you (and your readers) find this post helpful. Your lack of understand (and the lack of understanding found on the pro-life side) comes on issue 3. We (usually) understand what others think, but we almost never understand how those views are being applied as moral value judgments.

I appreciate any constructive feedback.

Yours in Christ,
-Luke Bruner