Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Mississippi : SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hearby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION TO READ : Section 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.” This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation.
I treasure Psalm 139. I also treasure Galatians 5. While our nation lives under the Rule of Law, we often disagree within the Church of Jesus Christ about the rules. Do men who follow Jesus have to be circumcised? Some say yes and others say no. But Paul reminds us that the Rule of Love trumps all others. This is why I oppose Initiative 26 in Mississippi. Choices about life and death should be based on love, and sometimes the most loving thing to do is allow a girl who has been raped to have an abortion should she become pregnant from that violence. Sometimes the most loving thing for a couple to do is to plan their family using birth control that Initiative 26 would render illegal. Sometimes the most loving thing for a pregnant teenager to do is to arrange for her child to be adopted by a longing couple. By grace, God have given us choices. Sometimes we make the wrong choices, but the One who made us created free will.
So, there you have it, in my humble and imperfect opinion.
A Church for Starving Artists 
Unfortunately, I could say that the most loving thing I could do for a homosexual person is kill them to spare them a life of temptation of committing the sin of sodomy. Once you make morality all about “loving” in the way you define it, you can justify anything. Either persons have inherent dignity and the right to live or they do not. If they have inherent dignity and the right to live, do they have it before they are born or not? No amount of loving an underage rape victim will change the answer to those questions.
LikeLike
I think Jan’s defining a definition of love with deep biblical and theological support. In other words, I don’t think she’s making morality all about loving in the way she defines it, but rather in the way that Paul defines it.
LikeLike
I read Jan’s original post this morning as I do most mornings. This blog has a way of starting my day by either challenging or comforting me. Most importantly it inspires me to live the day trying to show others the abundant, overwhelming love of God.
Scott, if you seek a conversation about the fine lines of morality, I would ask that you also do some work on the meaning of sodomy. Allow me if I may to help you with this: Ezekiel 16:49-50 “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” I’m pretty sure you aren’t worried about homosexuals committing sodomy in this sense. It seems to me that we all have the potential to be sodomites by this definition.
The personhood debate may lead us to deep conversations about the moment life begins. Maybe it was meant for us to all consider our own personhood. Call me cynical but I suspect it was a backdoor way around the laws regarding abortion. Let’s be honest–most likely this will disproportionately affect the poor and disenfranchised. All others will have the means to cross the state line to get the services they desire.
And we are back to sodomy. I think we can legally define a lot of things. And I suspect we can use scriptures to justify it. But, if at the end of the day, we are not showing people the love of Jesus, well then I think we are crossing the line into being haughty, arrogant and unconcerned. I don’t want to be on that side of sodomy.
LikeLike
Andrea, thank you for your loving and educated comment.
LikeLike
@Andrea — it probably wasn’t a backdoor way around laws regarding abortion, but rather it was setting up a direct conflict with Roe v. Wade which might have led to the high court reconsidering that ruling. Also, what a venial thing to worry about — “disproportionately affecting the poor.” If abortion is taking a life, and it is, the fact that people who can afford to travel might be able to get an abortion elsewhere matters not a whit. Just like the fact that rich people can travel to Amsterdam and experience legal prostitution is no reason to allow legal prostitution in MIssissippi. Second, my comments about sodomy were not intended to open a debate about what constitutes sodomy or whether it is wrong, only to show that if you reduce morality to “loving” someone like the author speaks of, you can justify all manner of immoral conduct — it is the classic case of the ends overtaking the means.
LikeLike