The Age of Accountability 
The “age of accountability” is what I was referring to when I mentioned that many Christians seem to invoke a type of special pleading. There may be something to it, but I’m not sure where they would point to it as a proof text in the Bible. I’ve seen the scriptures and I think it’s ambiguous at best. The main concern with them is the obvious: how would they reconcile a just God with condemning someone who is incapable of moral responsibility. I get that. 

Separation of Church and State 
I’ve tried to think about this separation of church and state a bit, since it used to come up a lot in debates. Of course, I agree that there should be a separation. But that is mainly understood in the sense that there will be no official state religion- one sanctioned above others. I believe that is what the founding fathers meant when they instituted this since they had lived in England where there was one official religion and suppression of others. 

But with regard to framing debates about public policies, religions are a worldview. And whether one considers himself religious or not, he has a worldview. There are religious worldviews as well as secular worldviews. The secular have tried to pull a slight-of-hand in this area. They insist that a religious worldview be excluded from public life, while a secular (their own) worldview is ok. That’s a contrivance to disqualify religious viewpoints from discussion because other people aren’t religious. Well religious people aren’t secular either. So why should their views be off the table, while the secular views are the only permissible views up for discussion? 

Evidence for Souls 
With regard to the reality of the soul, there is a really interesting phenomenon that is well-documented. There have been many instances of people on life support, hooked up to machines that monitor their brain activity and while documented as having zero brain activity, they have had out of body experiences. Some of those include not only seeing and hearing conversations that were happening bedside, but also traveling outside the room and seeing things happening in other areas of the hospital.  

I’m not talking about people saying they went to heaven. We would have no way of confirming that. But in the instances where they claimed to have gone outside the rooms and seen things- those are confirmable and these experiences are confirmably true. That is strong evidence that there is something beyond just our physical bodies that is “us”. Is it the soul? The spirit? I don’t know. But I’m convinced that there is an objective confirmable reality to this part of us that is “us”, but beyond the body. 

When does a person become a person 
If defining when a person becomes a person can’t be scientifically proven, I’m not sure what basis the secular would have for saying a fetus isn’t a person, any more than a religious person would have for saying it is. Both views would be “faith-based” at that point. That of course may be the point, and as a classical liberal, I am sympathetic to the importance of leaving decisions to individuals.  

I will also state that in cases of rape or harm to the mother, I am all for leaving it up to the mother whether she wants to keep the baby. If my wife were in mortal danger because of a pregnancy, I would choose her over the baby every day of the week and twice on Sunday. I would see the second as self-defense. The first is trickier, but I’d give the choice to the mother. Sticking her alone with the long-term responsibility on top of the victimization seems unjust to me. 

Jewish punishments for fornicating 
A situation involving this came up that is really interesting. A woman under the charge of fornication is subject to stoning, which would kill the baby in the process. I’d never thought of that before. 

No government should force religious beliefs on its citizens 
I would note here that all laws are based on some morality- some belief of what is right or wrong in a given situation. If they are not, then such laws are purely power grabs. So given that laws are based on someone’s beliefs of what is moral, why would it be only the secular who get to decide what is moral? That would be an instance of them getting to force their beliefs on everyone.  

I am, as a classical liberal, sympathetic to leaving people alone in their own realm. But the trick in this area is that individuals are allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn’t cross over into harming others. If one considers babies in the womb as human lives, then killing them would be a violation of their individual rights. And we’re right back to square one- when is a human life a human life? No wonder this issue isn’t resolved very easily. 

Science or Politics 
An interesting point in the debate between Knowles and Remsik was Remsik’s admission that in the medical profession, fetuses are referred to as fetuses primarily to avoid making a mother who doesn’t want the baby uncomfortable. Clearly, mom’s feelings about the pregnancy are the driver of what the baby is called, not the science. This is an acknowledgment that even the medical ‘science’ is being changed to accommodate political considerations.