# Aren't laws based on Christian faith un-christian? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 19, 2012, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arent-laws-based-on-christian-faith-un-christian/610075 "2012-01-19T22:44:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arent-laws-based-on-christian-faith-un-christian/610075/81 "2012-01-27T16:12:28Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Josephus was just another person with his own ideas. That’s irrelevant. First, he was reporting on what the Jews of his day believed. Second, the claim was made that Josephus’s words proved that the fetus was not a person. One might insist that Josephus was wrong in that regard, but that’s irrelevant to the issue at hand. Speaking of which,… [QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright] Clearly they weren’t, because the penalty for abortion was not the same as the penalty for murder. [/QUOTE] That only make sense if one insists that infants were not persons. As we’ve pointed out, Josephus reports that it was considered to be infanticide. “But it wasn’t treated as murder!” you say. Again, that’s irrelevant. Even in today’s society, not all instances of criminal death are treated as murder. You have [manslaughter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter), for example, which is still regarded as the unlawful taking of a human life. You also have what’s known as “[wrongful death](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_death_claim),” which falls short of full-blown murder. There is also what’s known as “[criminally negligent homicide](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminally_negligent_homicide).” There are even degrees of murder itself – first and second degree – which further emphasizes that not all unlawful taking of a human life is treated equally. So what if it wasn’t treated as murder? That doesn’t mean that the individual being killed was not regarded as either a person or a human being. Not in the least. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arent-laws-based-on-christian-faith-un-christian/610075/82 "2012-01-27T16:18:43Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The fact that the only penalty for causing a woman to miscarry was a fine seems to suggest that it was a far lesser crime. You’re referring to Exodus 21:22-25. The original Hebrew suggests that this refes to the [causation of premature birth](http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700), rather than deliberately inducing a miscarriage. Even if one rejects that interpretation though, the passage clearly refers to a case of _accidental_ trauma to the pregnant woman, rather than the deliberate causation of a miscarriage. This is borne out by verse 21, which starts with “And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury…” Clearly, this is not the same as deliberately causing the death of an innocent. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arent-laws-based-on-christian-faith-un-christian/610075/83 "2012-01-27T16:20:21Z")
None of those distinctions have anything to do with this, because all of those distinctions are based on intent. We’re talking about the intentional, premeditated killing of a foetus. If a foetus is a person, that’s murder. If it’s not murder, that foetus is not a person. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arent-laws-based-on-christian-faith-un-christian/610075/84 "2012-01-27T16:23:42Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The larger point is that the basis of pro-life arguments - that the Bible forbids abortion - are nonsense. It’s nonsense to say that “the Bible forbids abortion” is the basis of pro-life arguments. That is certainly one of the arguments that are put forth, but it’s disingenuous to claim that this is THE foundation for the pro-life view. It’s a convenient bit of fiction though, as this make is easier to marginalize one’s opposition. You might want to have a discussion with the [Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League](http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html), for example. I suspect that they’d take offense at the claim that they are merely thumping their Bibles. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arent-laws-based-on-christian-faith-un-christian/610075/85 "2012-01-27T16:53:54Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > You might want to have a discussion with the [Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League](http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html), for example. I suspect that they’d take offense at the claim that they are merely thumping their Bibles. Ah, yes. A movement so vibrant and strong that their webpage was last updated 5 years ago and their founder says: > [@](#): > > All too often, I fear that I’m the only nonreligious person who opposes the genocide of abortion used as a birth control substitute. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arent-laws-based-on-christian-faith-un-christian/610075/86 "2012-01-27T16:58:51Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > None of those distinctions have anything to do with this, because all of those distinctions are based on intent. > > We’re talking about the intentional, premeditated killing of a foetus. If a foetus is a person, that’s murder. If it’s not murder, that foetus is not a person. You’re laboring mightily to force reality into that viewpoint, just as you fervently want to believe that the entire spectrum of pro-life arguments can be boiled down to “Because the Bible says so!” The passage by Josephus says nothing about cold, premeditated death to the fetus. Quite the contrary, it simply says that any woman who caused an abortion was considered guilty of infanticide. Nothing in his statement precludes women who might cause an abortion in a pique of anger or desperation, for example, just as manslaughter might be committed in a moment of fury. So while one might correctly accept that most abortions are done in a more premeditated fashion, this does not make it an absolute rule. Moreover, you’re insisting that if it’s not regarded as murder, it MUST be because the fetus is not a person – that there cannot possibly be any other mitigating factors. Again, there is no reason to accept that viewpoint. The circumstances of an unlawful death have everything to do with the label that we apply – hence the various degrees of murder and the other examples of unlawful, “non-murdererous” death. Someone who shoots a man from a distance is judged less harshly than someone who hacks at a baby with a meat clever, for example. Both cases involve the grievous taking of a human life, but one is judged to be far more heinous than the other. It would not be unreasonable to imagine that a society might view the killing of small, non-visible someone to be less heinous than most killings – especially if they choose to grant the killers the benefit of the doubt and assume that these are generally acts of desperation. One might argue that it should be called “murder” as well, but that would be imposing 20th and 21st century English legal definitions on ancient Hebrew practices. It’s hardly inconceivable that they might choose to reserve the word “murder” for other instances of killing, whereas still regarding abortion as the heinous taking of an innocent life. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arent-laws-based-on-christian-faith-un-christian/610075/87 "2012-01-27T17:00:46Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Ah, yes. A movement so vibrant and strong that their webpage was last updated 5 years ago and their founder says: Irrelevant. You said that the Bible is the only reason why people might oppose abortion. So what if their website hasn’t been updated in five years? Logicians do not trace the origin of one’s argument to the frequency with which one’s website features new content. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arent-laws-based-on-christian-faith-un-christian/610075/88 "2012-01-27T17:17:39Z")
I didn’t say that. I said “it was the basis of pro-life arguments”, and in terms of the American pro-life movement, I think you’ll agree that’s true. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arent-laws-based-on-christian-faith-un-christian/610075/89 "2012-01-27T17:38:50Z")
No, I don’t. At best, one could say that it is the foundation for one very specific pro-life claim – namely, that abortion is wrong by virtue of Biblical mandate. Obviously, this is quite a bit different from stating that it is “THE basis of pro-life arguments” (emphasis added). ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arent-laws-based-on-christian-faith-un-christian/610075/90 "2012-01-27T20:35:56Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > If a foetus is a person, that’s murder. If it’s not murder, that foetus is not a person. That’s faulty logic. Manslaughter is not murder either, but that doesn’t mean the victim of a manslaughter is not a person. By that logic I could say that abortion was considered infanticide, so therefore a fetus is an infant. It doesn’t work that way. ---
**Author:** ![florez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@florez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/florez)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arent-laws-based-on-christian-faith-un-christian/610075/91 "2012-01-27T22:35:12Z")
OK, I believe in the concept of doing unto others as I would have them do unto me. did jesus say this? So, I would ask myself --would I want to coerce and control someone else’s choice, concerning their own body? Because I know- that I would not want someone to try to coerce and control my own choice- concerning my own body. They could tell me about souls at conception, souls in frozen embryos… Hell, they can even tell me that sperm are innocent beings with honor and dignity. Everyone has the right to their own opinion. What seems to threaten anti-choice individuals, is women coming to the realization they have power to choose. Women with strong enough minds to resist all the guilt tripping, and an awareness that whatever is going on out there in the world of speculation, and B.S. that the woman really does have the final say, THE POWER to control her own reproduction, her own body. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arent-laws-based-on-christian-faith-un-christian/610075/92 "2012-01-28T13:33:40Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > That’s irrelevant. First, he was reporting on what the Jews of his day believed. Second, the claim was made that Josephus’s words proved that the fetus was not a person. One might insist that Josephus was wrong in that regard, but that’s irrelevant to the issue at hand. > > Speaking of which,… > That only make sense if one insists that infants were not persons. As we’ve pointed out, Josephus reports that it was considered to be infanticide. > > “But it wasn’t treated as murder!” you say. Again, that’s irrelevant. Even in today’s society, not all instances of criminal death are treated as murder. You have [manslaughter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter), for example, which is still regarded as the unlawful taking of a human life. You also have what’s known as “[wrongful death](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_death_claim),” which falls short of full-blown murder. There is also what’s known as “[criminally negligent homicide](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminally_negligent_homicide).” There are even degrees of murder itself – first and second degree – which further emphasizes that not all unlawful taking of a human life is treated equally. > > So what if it wasn’t treated as murder? That doesn’t mean that the individual being killed was not regarded as either a person or a human being. Not in the least. I would think there is a big difference between an infant than a few cells or something that still cannot be recognized as a baby(or infant). Once it reaches person hood that would be a different story, unless it meant saving the woman’s life! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2012, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arent-laws-based-on-christian-faith-un-christian/610075/93 "2012-01-28T13:42:47Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > 😕 I’m not claiming any facts here. But everything you’ve asserted about the ability (or inability) of souls to inhabit embryos is your own personal speculation. Even among people who believe souls exist, there is wide differences of belief as to when ensoulments happens. If it happens at conception (which is a common view), then a frozen ebryo would have one. > > Don’t come back at me and say “that’s just a belief.” I know that’s just a belief, that’s the point! You can’t logically determine what souls can or cannot do. Saying they can’t inhabit a frozen embryo is like saying.. I don’t know, identical twins each contain a half-soul because the zygote split after conception. It’s just making up rules. > > How is that relevant? I was asked for a cite that abortion violated Jewish law in Jesus’ time. I provided a quote from Josephus that says “Abortion is considered infanticide and is treated as a crime.” Those aren’t his _ideas_, that’s historical evidence that such a law existed. It doesn’t matter in the slightest what the medical knowledge of the time was. Again you’re refuting some kind of argument that no one is making. I agree with many of your points,but the idea of a soul is just a belief and not a fact, so one can say what they want about a soul and when (and if )it gets into the body. It is a matter of belief and that is why our laws should not be based on a certain religions ideas. If a person is born(or can be seen by anyone that it is indeed recognized as a person then that makes a lot of difference. The woman however should have the right to decide as our law now dictates what can be done up to a certain point and then only if her own life is in jepordy. I know a man who had 9 children, his wife died giving birth to their 10th and both mother and child died, which left 9 children without a mother! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arent-laws-based-on-christian-faith-un-christian/610075.md?page=4)