You don’t need to make this assumption to understand why abortion in such cases may often be morally permissable. I am guessing (and if I am wrong, correct me) that you probably support the war in Iraq, an action that has killed many children of God (some innocent, others not). My point is that when we think about ending the mortal life of a child of God, the context seems to matter a great deal. The question is not necessarily whether people are children of God, but whether particular contexts justify the action of ending their lives. To me (and, it seems, to the Church) rape is often a contextual condition that allows for ending a human life to be permissable. Requiring a raped woman to experience the extreme trauma of carrying such a baby full term seems extraordinarily cruel.

On a slightly different tack, is there a fundamental qualitative difference between “rape” and “the life of the mother” in terms of a justification for an abortion?

Why am I to assume a child as a result of rape is not a child of God?

My point is that this talk of “abortion on demand” does not seem to fit such cases, which constitute many real cases of abortion. Such language is unhelpful when discussing serious public policy questions. Let’s leave that language to talk radio.

I’ll look forward to your post on education. I agree that people are likely to SAY that they put education spending at the top of their list, but they don’t vote that issue. People vote abortion and gay marriage.

I had to laugh when I read Matthew’s observation (#23) that it’s tough to get constituents up in arms about education funding. Actually, that’s the easiest thing to get them up in arms about. Appreciating that this site has a readership that greatly values education, I’ll do an entry on education funding in the next few days.

As to Shawn’s comments (#25), Utah has modernized its liquor laws over the last 3 years (I was the House sponsor for those 2 rewrites). To me, the laws largely make sense, as they are designed to discourage overconsumption, but then again I grew up in Texas, where liquor laws have quite a few particularities of their own (largely Baptist-influenced, I might add). Liquor laws likely will be further examined in a tourism task force that just was authorized.

Regarding the University of Utah (Shawn #25, again), there will be some tensions between a great public university and a conservative state/legislature, but I don’t think it’s unhealthy or out-of-hand. The exceptions and ugly extremes seem to get headlines, but I think the University and its state/legislature have a comfortable relationship. As to how the U fares at the legislature, it is far and away the favorite child of the 9 higher education institutions in the state. I, too, think it was a stroke of genius to hire President Young — because he is ready and able to do a great job.

Nate’s distinction between the people of Utah and the institutional church is important, but often ignored by those who complain that Utah is a theocracy—one big improper entanglement of church and state. Complaints that rights not subject to the political process have been violated are one thing. I would never suggest that Utah should do anything but give strong protection to religious freedom. But to my knowledge, such complaints about rights violations are not a common problem in Utah. On the contrary, the theocracy complaint at bottom is a complaint that a particular candidate or policy preference did not win. The underlying idea: one only has a political voice if their view prevails.

Anyway, my questions:
(1) While I think complaints that Utah being a theocracy are lame, I am seriously concerned about Utah Mormons being “good neighbors” to people of other faiths and persuasions. Given our history of persecution and strong doctrine of religious freedom, I think Mormons look particularly foolish when they fail to respect others’ beliefs. Can you see the drive to be a good neighbor in this sense motivating any changes in Utah law? Has the Utah legislature done (or considered doing) anything specifically to make people outside the majority in Utah feel welcome? One possible area where this could happen: Utah’s unique alcohol laws.

(2) Do church-state politics figure into higher education funding in Utah? I witnessed some significant hostility to the church (from both faculty and students) during my time at the U. Do state legislators percieve the U as hostile to the church? If so, do you think this affects how the U fares in the legislature? Assuming there is a problem here, I think that hiring Michael Young as the new president was nothing short of genius. As I see it Young demands respect of the faculty (having been a long-time academic and administrator in good east coast schools) while his status as a faithful mormon makes it easier for him to represent the U to the state legislature and community in general. Is there anything to this?