Christian doctrine says that God gave us free will.
The backers of Amendment 1 would take that away.
They want to take away the options of women in Tennessee to make their own health decisions and they have gone to the extreme of trying to amend the Tennessee Constitution to do it.
There is so much wrong with Amendment 1, from the justifications for its passage by the Legislature to lies about how liberal Tennessee abortion laws are and from the arrogance of legislators who abuse their power by injecting their personal political and religious orthodoxy into state law to the absurdity of extremist legislators getting between a woman, her doctor, and the most personal decisions of her life.
But it’s also stupid governing.
Political Arrogance
Amendments to constitutions, whether state or federal, should be few and far between, but these days, Tea Partiers, who profess fealty to the principles and traditions of this country, are running roughshod over the principles of good governance.
Here’s the thing: there is never any valid reason for the political orthodoxies of the moment to be written into constitutions – regardless of which political party is in the position to do it. And when amendments are passed, they have historically been to expand rights or to align state law with Supreme Court decisions.
Amendment 1 is the antithesis of this. It’s narrow-minded and it is an exercise in political arrogance, but most of all, it is based on a belief that average Tennesseans aren’t entitled to – and don’t deserve to – make their own decisions without interference from politicians.
If the Tennessee Legislature was so confident that Tennesseans support a change to the Constitution, why did it not put the call for a Constitutional Convention on the ballot instead of their own political prejudices? If it had done this, it could have even called for a limited convention that addressed specific topics, but clearly, the legislators’ first priority was to prevent any public input into the process that might contradict their dogma on abortion.
The Worst Legislature Proves It Again
Legislators say that the amendment would make the Tennessee Constitution neutral on abortion but at this point, few surpass their ability for perfidy.
The truth is – and they know it – that Amendment 1 would strip the right to abortion from the constitution, and this would be the first time that any constitution in the U.S. would be amended to remove an established right. It would also be the first time the word abortion is added to any constitution and singled out as the only medical procedure outside the zone of privacy.
It is but the latest misuse of power by the legislature that’s been accurately been called the “worst in the United States.”
It’s the Legislature whose members have proposed laws that encouraged the teaching of unscientific lesson plans, that classified miscarriages as murder, that praised Agenda 21 conspiracy theorists, that cracked down on transgendered Tennesseans for using restrooms that didn’t match the gender on their birth certificates, that confused a custodian’s wash basin as a “Muslim foot bath,” that would make it illegal for Muslims to follow Muslim law, that allowed guns in restaurants, grocery stores and parks, that said the governor should fire any employees who are Muslim or gay, that called the Affordable Care Act like the Holocaust, that called for publishing the names of all doctors performing abortions and demographic information about patients that could be used to identify them, and circulated rumors that President Obama was planning to stage a fake assassination to stop the 2012 election from taking place.
Yep, it’s those same folks.
Getting to the Polls
Even in an era where we have become accustomed to the “Big Lie” as political strategy, Amendment 1 is special. If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, the very last refuge of the scoundrel is patriotism posing as religious dogma. George Orwell foresaw it: “To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it is becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed…”
It’s no wonder that given a choice between discrimination and liberty, the extremists – all while professing an unyielding belief in small government — choose government intervention in personal rights.
Watching the “my way or the highway” political philosophy of the extremists, you’d never think that the majority of Americans do not support political agendas aimed at cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood and the majority of Tennesseans do not support Amendment 1. Of course, the greatest hypocrisy is at the same time they work to limit abortion, they also work to reduce funding for programs that help children.
And yet, polls don’t matter on Election Day, because the only thing that matters, and which will determine the future of this amendment, are the Tennesseans who go to the polls and vote against this amendment. Make sure you are one of them.
I would suggest we drop the charade that this is about women’s health and protecting a “medical procedure.” This is more about the convenient ending of a human life. I’m a physician and will most certainly be voting for this amendment.
I will be voting no on Amendment 1 because your assertion that abortion = murder is merely your own, privately held religious belief rather than an objective fact. I do not share the belief and you have no right to impose it on me or any other woman. Abortion is legal in this country. U.S. women have a right to seek out clinics that provide this legal medical service. Health care providers have a right to provide a medical service that is both safe and legal. I did not consent to give up my rights when I moved to Tennessee, and I will not consent to give them up now.
Anonymous 1:52: Murder is a criminal term, not a medical one, and for that reason alone, we don’t believe you are a doctor. All the doctors we know are against this crass interference in their relationship with their patient.
Anonymous 2:33 p.m. — Amen and amen.
Christian Doctrine says that free will must subject itself to the Word of God as revealed in the Bible. Free will does not mean absolute human freedom.
We beg to differ, but it emphasizes the folly of trying to overlay our individual Christian doctrines and beliefs into public policy. Christianity has hundreds of different approaches to interpreting history and the Bible. My Christian beliefs are totally different than the Tea Partiers in Nashville so why should our laws only reflect their points of view. People should have the free will to enjoy our rights as Americans without the interference of orthodoxies of the moment.
Probably the most common definition of free will is the “ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition” and specifically that these “free will” choices are not ultimately predestined by God.
Bingo. You write as “revealed in the Bible.” Your revelation is my imagination, your doctrine is not my doctrine. So keep government out of the doctrine and interpreting Scripture business. Period.
That would be your first accurate statement thus far, Anonymous…except not a complete statement. Christian Doctrine AS YOU INTERPRET IT…would’ve been the truthful statement, and Amendment 1 is an attempt to impose your personal religious convictions on the citizens of this state. That’s unconstitutional and arrogant. It’s also not very effective at meeting your stated ends of ending abortion. The vast majority of abortions in this country are performed on ..wait for it…Christians. Instead of posing as a doctor (is lying acceptable under Christian Doctrine?) perhaps you should be making more of an effort in your own home.
Nobody is “imposing” anything during the process of voting. The US is a democratic republic. Each responsible voting constituent casts our ONE VOTE at the polls.
Because something is legal does not make it right. Slavery used to be legal. “Every arm of Germany’s bureaucracy was involved in the logistics that led to the genocides, turning the Third Reich into what one Holocaust scholar, Michael Berenbaum, has called “a genocidal state” To many who approved of this ungodly act, this appeared to be legal and right according to man’s law. The relativity of “man’s law” must to subject itself to the righteous, immutable and eternal Word of God.
Voting for Amendment 1 or against it will not in and of itself effect current state laws regarding abortion. If approved, what it will do is empower the legislature to enact, amend or repeal state statutes regarding abortion, including for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to protect the mother’s life.
For that reason alone I am very hesitant to support the Amendment. I simply do not trust the legislature (the whims of which tend to vary more than weather patterns) to be the sole body responsible for creating and enacting laws that are in the best interest of those directly involved on such a critical topic instead of simply scoring political points. Laws and regulations regarding the abortion should be based first and foremost on medical fact and best practices with religious and cultural norms playing a secondary role. If I thought our representatives could be trusted to do what is “right” by weighing all the facts and interests instead of simply doing what is popular at the moment, I might be inclined to support the Amendment.
Anon 5:16,
Which is why the text within the Bible makes it very clear that upon death, we will each be judged by God.
Regarding slavery and other once legal heinous acts- you are right. Simply because it is legal, does not make it “right”, based on religious, moral or by societal standards. Just because an act is legal, the requirement to indulge in such acts is not required. There are plenty of things that are legal that I do not act upon because my religious beliefs and personal code prevents me from taking part.
Anonymous 5:15 – The slavery-abortion canard is a favorite of the anti-choice folks, and it doesn’t hold water. Slavery was an integral part of the economic system and people were forced into it as property. Abortion, on the other hand, should be a private matter. This argument only makes sense if you believe having an abortion is somehow equivalent to owning a human being. It isn’t.
In fact, the argument based on slavery makes more sense as an argument for choice than against it. Slavery was about losing authority and autonomy over your own body and life. Laws like Amendment 1 return women to being treated as property and “subjecting them to the tyranny of the imposed morality.”
People of faith should have the ability and the freedom to follow the dictates of their own consciences, without the interference of people in government offices and legislative politicians. Why should your particular set of faith-based beliefs trump mind?
But back to the topic at hand: People who were slaves had no choice. This debate is all about allowing Americans to make their own choices. There are those who want to turn this country into a theocracy and this is but one of the many ways they are trying to do that. However, in this case, the answer seems common sense: if you are against abortions, don’t have one. But people whose belief system takes them to a different place should not have it ignored and eliminated by the likes of the Tennessee Legislature.
Here’s the thing: if Amendment 1 passes, it only means that poor women can’t have abortions. The rest of us will always be able to have one.
For the blog writer who asserted that I’m not a physician, I do take offense. I studied at Vanderbilt and trained at the University of Chicago. I would be happy to be known as a pro-life physician: Austin Osborn, MD. It is also an objective statement that abortion ends a human life; simply get out an embryology textbook if you will.
Are you a doctor in Memphis? And what if the doctor of my wife and doctor disagree with you? Shouldn’t they make that decision in concert with him/her without governmental interference?
Is he is the psychiatrist by the same name? And also active in “Christian” medical groups, whatever that means?
Neither the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) or the New Testament books of the Christian Bible explicitly prohibited abortion.
The Hebrew terms ruach (literally “wind”), and neshama (literally “breath”) are used to describe the soul or spirit.
Jewish law holds that human life begins at birth, based on Genesis 2:7: “And the Lord God made man from the dust of the earth, breathing into him the breath of life: and man became a living soul.”
The rabbinical interpretation is (most often) that human zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses do not have souls.
God never explicitly prohibited abortion.
Moses was born a Jew.
The six hundred and thirteen laws (commandments) found in the Old Testament that were revealed or attributed to Moses never explicitly prohibited abortion.
Moses never explicitly prohibited abortion.
Jesus (the Physician) was born a Jew.
Jesus (the Physician) never explicitly prohibited abortion.
Mary, mother of Jesus, was born a Jew.
Mary, mother of Jesus, never explicitly prohibited abortion.
The Twelve Disciples were born as Jews.
The Twelve Disciples never explicitly prohibited abortion.
Saul of Tarsus (the Apostle Paul) never explicitly prohibited abortion.
Pope Innocent III (1161-1216) decreed that a monk who had arranged for his lover to have an abortion was not guilty of murder if the fetus was not “animated” at the time and that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of “quickening” – when the woman first feels movement of the fetus.
The image of Pope Innocent III was immortalized during 1950 as a one of 23 marble bas-reliefs of great historical lawmakers installed on the chamber walls of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The explicit prohibition of abortion is not biblical, but rather, papal in origin.
Yes, I’m in Memphis as of several months; I moved from Chicago after completing training. You do bring up an important point about governmental interference, and in most cases I would be for a less intrusive government. However, when we are considering the well-being of a human life, at times the government should make rational restrictions on ending such life. The point of course centers on whether the human life in utero has personhood. In medical school there were well-meaning physicians on both sides of the issue.
Frank, you made somewhat of a sarcastic comment regarding my membership in the Christian Medical and Dental Association. This is a respected group of physicians. If you believe a good physician must embrace non-belief, I leave you to your opinion.
“Austin says:
For the blog writer who asserted that I’m not a physician, I do take offense. I studied at Vanderbilt and trained at the University of Chicago. I would be happy to be known as a pro-life physician: Austin Osborn, MD. It is also an objective statement that abortion ends a human life; simply get out an embryology textbook if you will.”
Yours is a loaded statement, Dr. Osborn — look it up in a critical thinking textbook. Abortion ends a potential human life and often saves the life of the pregnant female (and congratulations in recently finishing your psychiatry residency).
“Anonymous says:
October 8, 2014 at 5:16 pm
Because something is legal does not make it right. Slavery used to be legal. “Every arm of Germany’s bureaucracy was involved in the logistics that led to the genocides, turning the Third Reich into what one Holocaust scholar, Michael Berenbaum, has called “a genocidal state” To many who approved of this ungodly act, this appeared to be legal and right according to man’s law. The relativity of “man’s law” must to subject itself to the righteous, immutable and eternal Word of God.”
Your assertions fail on a couple of points; primarily “the act of abortion is personal and episodic, whereas slavery was systematic and institutionalized”. Balmer went on to point out another difference: the outlawing of slavery eventually ended that practice, while even the leaders of the Religious Right concede that making abortion illegal will not stop abortion itself.
On the second point, your argument constructs inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons of between Nazi Germany and legal abortion within the United States (i.e.: Godwin’s Law), while in actuality, the 1933 German population (of approximately 60 million people) did itself subject the “relativity of “man’s law” to “the righteous, immutable and eternal Word of God” — the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum reports that almost “…all Germans were Christian, belonging either to the Roman Catholic (ca. 20 million members) or the Protestant (ca. 40 million members) churches. The Jewish community in Germany in 1933 was less than 1% of the total population of the country.”
And furthermore, Nazi Germany did not legalize abortion — a Wikipedia article pertaining to the history of abortion in Germany states that the legalization of abortion in Germany “…was first widely discussed in Germany during the early 20th century. During the Weimar Republic, such discussion led to a reduction in the maximum penalty for abortion, and in 1926 — by a court’s decision — to the legalization of abortion in cases of grave danger to the life of the mother,” and that “…In Nazi Germany, the penalties for abortion were increased again. In 1943, providing an abortion to an “Aryan” woman became a capital offense. Abortion was permitted if the foetus was deformed or disabled.
The Nazi German government also issued official state awards to mothers of larger families:
“The Cross of Honour of the German Mother (German: Ehrenkreuz der Deutschen Mutter), referred to colloquially as the Mutterehrenkreuz (Mother’s Cross of Honour) or simply Mutterkreuz (Mother’s Cross), was a state decoration and civil order of merit conferred by the government of the German Reich[1][2] to honour a Reichsdeutsche German mother for exceptional merit to the German nation.[2][3][4] Eligibility later extended to include Volksdeutsche (ethnic German) mothers from, for example, Austria and Sudetenland, that had earlier been incorporated into the German Reich.[4]
The decoration was conferred from 1939 until 1945[5] in three classes of order, bronze, silver, and gold,[2][6] to Reichsdeutsche mothers who exhibited probity, exemplary motherhood, and who conceived and raised at least four or more children in the role of a parent.[7][8]
Cross of Honour of the German Mother
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Honour_of_the_German_Mother
I agree that Amendment 1 is extreme. However, the argument you give here is extreme as well which might help pass it. You imply here that the child developing in his or her Mother’s womb has absolutely no legal right to life at any time until the baby leaves the womb. Is that correct?
Another point for the corwd who love to refer back to the overarching wisdom of the Founding Fathers is that during colonial times, abortion was not only legal but often advertised in colonial broadsheets. Bottom line, if you’re not the one pregnant, it ain’t any of your fucking business. Moreover, next time you go to church, look around. There are dozens of women (lascivious sluts to Rushbo) who have had abortions sitting all around you. When I was in college in the dark ages of the 1980’s, I personally knew of around 10-12 women (sorority girls mostly) who had abortions. They then went on to become wives, mothers, grandmothers, etc. who are now mostly churchgoing Republicans. Those are just the ones I actually know about, there are undoubtedly many others I knew who had abortions as well. And let’s parse this “murder” crap, shall we? If in fact you believe it is “murder,” premeditated at that, then you HAVE to logically take the position that it should be punished as murder, with life in prison as a minimum sentence. So let’s round up all these murdering sluts, all 30 or 40 million of them, and throw them in prison (as soon as we get finished building more) or sentence them to death even. There is no other logical choice here. And as far as this Austin person being a doctor, I don’t give a shit if you are one, that in no way entitles you to any more say over what is a personal moral decision than it does me. Don’t like abortion you twit? Then by God don’t have one.
P.S., I have 2 daughters, if they get pregnant and decide to get an abortion, that’s their decision, and if any of you busybodies try to stop them from entering a legal clinic to get the procedure, I will personally kick your ass. That’s a promise.
cannot wait to vote NO! once again, backwards, meat-headed legislators are trying to punish and impose their beliefs on women and treat them as second class citizens (while ensuring poor women have no options). apparently, we are all virgins and becoming pregnant on our own accord. kilgore trout’s statement is colorful but right on the money.
Every vote and every law passed is an act of a majority imposing its beliefs on a minority. You cannot help but do this when you vote. This is John Stuart Mill.