Assertion or Argument?

#1.) The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?

The above is an assertion-- not an argument. If presented with this assertion as a persuasion for the pro-life view, I would simply respond by asking, "Why should I believe that illegalizing abortion provides a woman of a fundamental right, or her reproductive choice? Isn't her natural 'reproductive choice' the decision to have sexual intercourse or not? Isn't her natural 'reproductive choice' the decision to have protected sex if she does not remain abstenant, yet isn't in a place where she can raise a child? Give me some evidence as to why a woman has the right to brutally remove a living human fetus from her body." The assumption made in this "argument" (which is really an assertion) is that every woman has a natural right to an abortion, but it never provides evidence as to why that is true. Here is some evidence, however, as to why that is not true.
Pro-lifers will argue that the reason why abortion is a woman's right to her choose what she does with her own body is because the unborn fetus is not human. First, according to the law of biogenesis, an organism can only reproduce after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, and humans produce humans. Well, there are only four differences between an unborn human and a born human-- size, level of development, environment, and dependency. (We can use the term "human" for both the born and the unborn because of the law of biogenesis. If someone responds, "well, the unborn is not human." We can simply ask, "Well then, what is it?" The law of biogenesis explains that "human" is the only acceptable answer to that question). Anyway, is human, born or unborn, less human because of a smaller size, lesser level of development, different environment, or greater level of dependency? If the answer were yes, that would mean diabetics who are dependent on regulated doses of insulin are less human than non-diabetics, a person in one city is less human than a person in another, a four-year old is less human than a forty-year old because of the adult's more advanced level of cognitive development, or a 5'4" man is less human than a 6'9" man! I would say that most people deny the truth of those four assertions, so why is it that they illogically assume that those four differences make the unborn less human than the born?
The lack of proof for the assertion that the unborn are not human, and that a woman therefore has a fundamental right to an abortion, is what distinguishes the illegalization of abortion, or "the government [forcing] a woman to continue her pregnancy" from "forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization."

Restoring Objectivity to "Justice"

The Biblical view of justice as seen through Deutoronomy 10:12-19, Jeremiah 22:3, Micah 6:8, and James 1:27 is that Christians are morally obligated to defend the poor, oppressed, and suffering. These verses repeatedly discuss the poor and the widowed, and reinforce that justice is an obedience to God which shows love to the suffering. Also, justice is objective to the moral standards and commandments of God. God requires that we establish justice through obedience to this objective standard He has established.
Critical Legal Studies (CLS), on the other hand, not only practices a subjective view of "justice" and "equality," but also flat-out denies the possibility of objectivity in the interpretation of law. It unites the concept of law (which is usually thought objective and factual) and politics (usually thought subjective and opinion-based). Critical Legal Studies is influenced ultimately by the relativism of Postmodernism, from it's deconstructionist view of language, to its relativist views on law. However, CLS also takes much of its concept of justice and equality from mild forms of Marxism, conceptualizing the political realm as a struggle against "dominant political ideology," which is viewed as essentially bad. CLS catagorizes the world in "dualities: subjective-objective, male-female, public-private..." etc. (legal-dictionary 3). By catagorizing the world in opposites, CLS sets itself up for the idea of thesis and antithesis clashing and forming a synthesis-- essentially the Marxist dialectic. Also, "CLS theorists" generally "object to capitalism as an economic system" (3). In conclusion, we see that Critical Legal Studies is influenced largely by the Postmodern and Marxist worldviews.

Shari'a and Christian Law

Christianity and Shari'a law share one similarity-- the philosophy behind each view of law acknowledges the existence of one God, and absolute morality, which stems from His will. However, in Islam, this God, and his absolute morality is ultimately unknowable, which is where the various differences between these two faiths' view of law stem from. Because Christians believe God has revealed Himself to man through merely the existence/nature of the universe and the Bible, God is in fact knowable, and the Christian view of law therefore stems from His knowable nature and moral code.
In Christian law, the absolute morality laid out both in the Bible and within the conscience of every human being provides the foundation for law. In Shari'a law, however, because the nature and morality of Allah are ultimately unknowable, the law (which is viewed as a means for keeping people on track with complete and total submission to Allah) prohibits any kind of indulgent behavior, and also limits what the rest of the world (and the Christian worldview) view as human rights. It is hyper-conservative because it, so to speak, doesn't know what is and isn't allowed-- what Allah does or doesn't want from man.
With the special revelation from God, the Bible, Christianity however has a much more clearly defined law. Christians believe that God's word lays out the principles of morality clearly so that they can be applied to law in consistent ways that don't rely on the interpretation of man, but rather on God's absolute truth.

The Unreliability of Human Interpretation

The harsh truth about humans is, we can't be trusted. Our interpretations and judgment are simply unreliable. Everybody believes something different, so, left to our own biases, we interpret absolute truth in just the right way so that it backs us up in our beliefs.
And that is precisely why individual interpretation of law results in argument and chaotic relativism; and, if law becomes relative, what purpose does it serve? Is not the very nature of law absolute? For all people? If it is relative to the individual, why should it even exist? What purpose does it serve?
If individuals are free to interpret law however they please, how can society be expected to come to a consensus on what a certain law even means? And if we can't come to a consensus on what it means, it becomes relative to the individual's desires, thus cancelling itself out. In other words, it loses its power; its effectiveness, to human interpretation. We cannot be trusted to interpret the law. By its very nature, it is absolute, and our interpretation of it makes in relative to the individual.

Who Creates Laws?

While atheistic worldviews tend to hold the belief that laws have evolved/been created by societies over time, theistic worldviews see most laws as evidence of a universal "moral code" inscribed in every individual by God. For instance, in how many cultures of the world is it legal to steal and murder? These are universally recognized acts of injustice. But, the question I would like to ask people who believe the principle of law is an evolving product of society, is, who defines this idea of "injustice/justice?" If laws are evolving with society, why have these principle laws remained more or less the same throughout human history? If our definition of justice, freedom, and love are products of our society, why has the way in which humanity defines these virtues remained the same throughout all cultures in human history? The only logical conclusion I see is that these laws have been placed within the fiber of man's being by a Creator.
Secondly, if man's character is essentially good, and society is the source of the world's evil, does it not follow that, if we eliminated all social constructs, like, laws, man should then produce only good fruits? If man is good and society is evil, shouldn't a lawless, shapeless society be the best one? Yet history has proven time and time again that both individuals and groups of people without laws resort to some of the most evil behavior humanity has seen! Lawlessness produces chaos, not order. Thus, we must conclude that mankind is fallen (essentially bad without guidance) and needs the order of law, which testifies to the inscription of the tendency toward basic law in man's nature.

What is the Christian View of Femininity?

Amidst a society that puts feminine and masculine traits in clearly defined and separated camps and places unbearable pressure upon girls (and boys) to live up to unachievable standards, it is important to ask-- What does the Bible (and thus the Christian worldview) have to say about femininity? In terms of character/personality, what makes a girl, a girl? In order to answer this question, we must first abandon the preconceived notions we get from the Western social norm, and then look at Genises 2-3. In Genises 2 when Eve is described as Adam's "helper," this word can also be interpreted "completer," "warrior," or "rescuer." We see this role fulfilled in universal femininity (or rather, femininity that is not culture-specific). By generally being more compassionate, emotional, and relational than men, they complete the image of God as displayed in mankind; for men generally embody the justice and strength of God. Also, women are generally "warriors" for their families, especially children. No one would ever dare get between a mother bear and her cub-- similarly, a woman tends to fight for her children.
In Genesis 3, we see the post-fall effects on femininity when, in verse 16, God says, "your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." To this day, we see that, in marriage it is much easier for a wife to love her husband, and treat him with love, because of this curse at the fall of man, which made a woman's "desire for [her] husband." This desire makes women vulnerable to men-- they "rule" over women in the sense that relationships are often the source of both a woman's greatest pleasure and greatest pain, again, because a woman's desire is for her man. :) It is interesting that the curse at the fall of man takes the woman's tendencies toward relationship and channels them toward an undying desire for her husband that makes her vulnerable.
Through Genesis 2-3, we see that femininity has nothing to do with long eyelashes, painted nails, and high-heels. Femininity is a type of character found only in women that completes mankind's representation of God's image through its relational and compassionate tendencies.

Sexist? Homophobic?

The Bible does not teach either homophobia or sexism. Genesis 1-3, essentially the basis of Biblical sociology, defines the specific roles of each gender, while giving them equal favor with God, equal intrinsic importance, and equal amount of responsability in this world. The relationship of Adam and Eve exemplifies how, even though men and women equally represent the image of God, and hold equal importance, they have different roles. While the man takes on a leadership role in the marriage and is held accountable for failures and successes, the woman is the life-giver, relationship preserver, and completer of the family. While society seems to argue that the man's "Sumerian Little King" role places him above women in a hierarchy, the Bible's depiction of the male-female relationship indicates that man and woman complete each other-- thus, they are equals.
Also, in response to allegations that the Bible favors homophobia, it is important to look at the person of Jesus. Jesus ate with and had fellowship with the people that the religiously legalistic shunned. In our society today, homosexuals fit into this category of people whose lifestyles don't coincide with the religiously strict's lifestyle, right? ...so basically, by looking at how Jesus treated those who were outcast from the religious scene, we see that he does not respond with "fear" (the translation of the root "phobia") to these people-- rather he responds with acceptance and love. He accepts and loves the PEOPLE, but never accepts a lifestyle that does not correlate with or parallel the life of God, and God's morals. Through this example, we see that just because Christians think the practice of homosexuality is sexually immoral (just like premarital sex or adultery), does not mean they are afraid of or prejudiced against homosexuals. The Bible, which instead preaches Christ-like, self-sacrificing love for all people, does not provide ANY basis for prejudice of any kind, such as homophobia or sexism.