consistency

There was a recent video blog about abortions and the penalty for them if they are illegal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

It pointed out the inconsistency of the thought patterns of people "on the right."

The question asker is asking the right question pair. Should abortion be illegal? and If so, what punishment should be appropriate for the crime of abortion?

There are a pair of meta-questions that should also be asked. Who should determine whether abortion should be legal? and Who should determine what punishment is suitable for the crime?

There are three possible answers, which are really two.

First, we can say, I should determine it. Then we can say, WE (society) should determine it. Finally, we can say, GOD should determine it.

The first two are equivalent to saying a person or group of persons should determine laws. Having a person or people make the determination is simply Humanism. The alternative is Theism.

Unfortunately, right-wing conservatives are largely humanists. At least, those who were interviewed in the blog, above are humanists. They are probably not self-conscious humanists, and they would probably be offended if you called them humanists, but they are not consistent Christians.

A consistent, Christian, theistic point of view is that only God can determine what should be legal, and only God can determine what punishment is suitable for which crimes.

In this case, the crime is murder. The punishment is life given for life taken. It fits the crime.

Fortunately for us, God allows mitigating circumstances to mitigate the punishment. Those who unintentionally take a life have an opportunity for mercy.

But how many right-wing conservatives know their Biblical Law?