Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Not Just The Pretty Babies (The pro-life movement is about sacrifice, not sentimentality)
The Federalist ^ | 9/8/14 | Anna Mussmann

Posted on 09/08/2014 6:30:52 AM PDT by wagglebee

Gentle lighting casts a glow across the perfect, healthy, Caucasian newborn who sleeps in a cocoon of white blanket. The photographer has captured the baby-ethos that tugs on the heartstrings of any member of the human race with half a heart, and it is hard to look at the picture without an inward, “Aww.” The text that is superimposed over the photo says, “Not a mistake. Not a problem. Not a burden. Not an inconvenience. Not a nuisance. Not an accident. Not a punishment.” Then, in larger font, “A miracle.” It is all very lovely. And yet when I see the meme in my facebook feed, it makes me, a pro-life advocate and an ardent fan of babies, a little uncomfortable.

“Baby J” is one of the reasons. His picture has also been posted to my feed. In his photograph, he lays in a hospital bed, his little face partially obscured with tubes and tape. This six-week-old has already undergone heart surgery. He depends on a ventilator to keep his lungs open, is expected to spend life breathing through a tracheotomy tube, and has been rejected by his biological family. He currently has no relatives to visit him in the hospital. The adoption agency that has posted information about “Baby J” states he will do best with a family that can provide one-on-one, lifelong care. Unlike the baby in the pro-life meme, this little guy does not glow beneath the lens of a camera.

babyj

There is a disconnect between the images. The first is meant to convey that babies ought to be loved and cherished. It successfully evokes a feeling of warmth, and prompts an emotional response along the lines of, “How could anyone fail to want a beautiful baby like this?” It even makes me want to revisit my own son’s newborn photos, because babies are breathtaking little creatures. Yet I don’t think most advocates of “choice” believe themselves to be supporting abortion for this kind of obviously-wanted, apparently perfect baby. In their eyes, they are trying to prevent situations in which babies are unwanted, tragically damaged, and set up for a life of limitations and suffering. I fear they may misinterpret “pretty-pretty” Facebook memes as evidence that the pro-life position is divorced from reality.

The Logic of Barbarism

Indeed, if the pro-life movement were so shallow as to feel compassion only for theoretical, abstract, pretty babies, or so sentimental as to think eliminating abortion would provide a fuzzy blanket and a happy ending for every child, it would be of little use to children or society. Being pro-life is about far more than can be captured in a well-lit Facebook image. It is about avoiding the many tempting promises of barbarity. Both sides in the abortion debate are aware the world is full of things that ought not to be. Babies should not be ill, dependent on tubes for survival, exposed to drugs or alcohol in utero, born into poverty in crime-infested neighborhoods, or rejected by their biological families.

Barbarians respond to the world’s brokenness by doing what seems necessary to protect either themselves personally or their group as a whole.

In one sense, we can both agree such children “should not exist.” Yet the solution is not to eliminate (that is, murder) these babies while they are most vulnerable. Doing so is to fall into the understandably human, but absolutely wrong, logic that was used by a group of third-grade boys in my classroom when they asked why, since the Middle East is always fighting and wants to hurt America, we don’t just nuke the whole region to end the problem.

Barbarians respond to the world’s brokenness by doing what seems necessary to protect either themselves personally or their group as a whole. In ancient Carthage, for example, parents sacrificed newborns to the gods. These parents were human beings who surely felt as much of an impulse to protect their children as any other human being does, and presumably would not have given their babies to the gods unless they thought it was a necessary sacrifice, just as today there are loving parents who think they also must sacrifice a baby.

The End of Human Rights

Barbarism is perilously natural. It comes so easily. We look at the world, see a thing that should not be, and attempt to force the world into a better shape. For instance, we see a woman whose life is a tragedy: she is willing to commit a crime for a few dollars, her brain is permanently damaged by drugs, her various boyfriends are physically and emotionally abusive, and any children she bears will probably be sucked into the same vortex of dysfunction. It seems so logical to say that such a woman “should not” have babies, and that society has the right to sterilize her as it sterilized thousands of “feeble-minded” citizens in the heyday of the eugenics movement. It makes so much sense to push her into an abortion through the threat of punishment should she deliver another child into the world. After all, she is hurting not only her children, but the larger society that surrounds them.

When we act as if other people’s fundamental human rights fall on a sliding scale based on their value to the group, no one’s human value is secure.

We gaze through the windows of a nursing home and see rows of old people who shuffle painfully from room to room, avoided by their guilt-ridden relatives, short on hair and cognitive function. We step into a hospital and note a severely depressed, middle-aged bachelor whose life is an endless round of pain and procedures. While he waits for the end, thousands and thousands of dollars are spent on his care. Surely these things also should not be. It is tempting to think that the logical thing to do is to end these people’s suffering in the only way available to mere humans.

Barbarism sounds logical, but it fails to make the world a better place, either in the national sphere or the domestic one. When we act as if other people’s fundamental human rights fall on a sliding scale based on their relationship with or value to the group (or to ourselves), no one’s human value is secure. Such an approach leads to philosophies like that of atheist thinker P. Z. Myers, who declares there is no inherent moral reason to restrict abortion to pre-born babies. He says a society would be morally justified (although brutal) if it also allowed the abortion of young children who cannot yet meaningfully contribute to the group. The thing is, barbaric logic leads to—well, to barbarism, in which each individual lives only for himself. Barbarism is tragic. It is the Steubenville rape case. It is abusers who post child porn on Reddit. It is saying that the solution to children like “Baby J” is to make sure they do not survive gestation.

From Child Sacrifice to Self-Sacrifice

This brings us back to the heart of being pro-life. To reject the sacrifices of barbarism is to accept self-sacrifice. The adoption agency that posted “Baby J’s” picture has reported a flood of applications from people interested in adopting him. The care he will require will not be easy, and his adoptive family will surely need to give up enjoyable aspects of their lifestyle they might otherwise have taken for granted. As a culture, we are sometimes so quick to coo over happy endings that we fail to recognize the real support and hardship involved. Let us be thankful for those among us who not only care for their own, but who take on the sacrificial burden of caring for those whom they make their own.

It is the essence of civilization to say that the weakest, least beautiful among us are precious beings who must be protected, even when this requires sacrifice from the strong.

I know a family whose church bulletin once included a notice about a six-year-old who needed a home. The child will never advance beyond the developmental capability of a toddler, and will always require attentive care. Knowing that such a commitment would probably pass beyond their own lives into that of their children, this family asked each of their kids if they were onboard with this adoption. As a family, they took on that challenge. That is what being pro-life means.

Being pro-life can also lead to unique suffering that is not always remembered in the conversation on adoption. Annery, a blogger who writes about life in her home, has also written about how openness to life led her family to foster a little girl. This child lived with them until the age of two-and-a-half, when the courts discovered a biological parent and returned the girl to that parent’s custody. Annery and her family are now cut off from the child they have raised as their own. Her daughters have lost a sister. It is difficult to imagine their devastation. Yet, incredibly, they have decided yet again to open their home to another child in need. They are willing to sacrifice so that they might love. This, too, is what being pro-life means.

Of course, not everyone who values life is called to the same sacrifice or the same role. In fact, realism about one’s own capabilities is part of what divides sentimentality from useful action. There are many ways of being pro-life. They range from viewing parenthood as a vocation; to teaching young people that human value does not depend on health, beauty, or appearance; to giving up some of our own daily comforts and preferences to help those who are weaker, poorer, sadder, or otherwise in need of help. No pro-life meme can ever be a satisfactory presentation of such a comprehensive approach to life.

Abortion is a terrible thing. Yet as we fight to protect our weakest citizens from death in their mother’s womb, we must remember we cannot guarantee them happy endings. The babies whom we wish to save will not all be happy, healthy children who will be adopted by picture-perfect, loving families. Some of them will grow up in tragic circumstances. Some will suffer tragic illnesses. All of them, one way or another, will face the brokenness of life in this world. Knowing this, all we can do is give. Barbarism takes. Civilization gives. It is the essence of civilization to say that the weakest, least beautiful among us are precious beings who must be protected, even when this requires sacrifice from the strong.

That is what pro-life means.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; moralabsolutes; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
Barbarism takes. Civilization gives. It is the essence of civilization to say that the weakest, least beautiful among us are precious beings who must be protected, even when this requires sacrifice from the strong.

Amen!

1 posted on 09/08/2014 6:30:52 AM PDT by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Coleus; narses; Salvation
Pro-Life Ping
2 posted on 09/08/2014 6:31:49 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 185JHP; 230FMJ; AKA Elena; APatientMan; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


3 posted on 09/08/2014 6:32:11 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

In the NICU, we say a lot of parents with children that were in for a long haul. We had 70 plus days, some of them had years to go.

For some parents, it broke them spiritually. Some trembled and kept on, some viewed it as a gift from God since their child should have died.

The NICU had a sheet called “When your perfect baby is no more” that talked of adoption as an option. We know of a few families who adopt such babies to give them a loving home while they can.


4 posted on 09/08/2014 6:40:00 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Liberals are barbarians. They like barbarians, don’t value lifry.


5 posted on 09/08/2014 6:42:34 AM PDT by ExCTCitizen (I'm ExCTCitizen and I approve this reply. If it does offend Libs, I'm NOT sorry...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
t seems so logical to say that such a woman “should not” have babies, and that society has the right to sterilize her as it sterilized thousands of “feeble-minded” citizens in the heyday of the eugenics movement.

Disagree, partly. I agree such women should not be forcibly sterilized against their will.

However, it is entirely logical and right to encourage and even incentivize them to be voluntarily sterilized.

6 posted on 09/08/2014 6:45:57 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins most of the battles. Reality wins ALL the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I had to deal with the issue of the Baby J when one of my friends had a baby prematurely. My response to it to this day is what it was then and I apply the same moral compass as I do to adults or children in a vegetative state or otherwise on life support:

It is immoral to end the person's life proactive, but it is not immoral to pull the plug and “leave it to God”. And the interesting things is that sometimes the plug is pulled and the person survives and recovers.

In the case of my friend. Their baby needed TWO heart surgeries as well as months of paterning due to severe brain damage. He is now ~30 and will be in his parents care the rest of his life. They have adapted well. He has two adult sisters and the family is intact. They consider him their “special blessing” but don't think it was a walk in the park. It changed all of their lives and not always in a good way.

My take then and now is that there should have been no heart surgery performed. He should have been left in God's hands as any normal baby is. I think what pushed me over the edge was the TWO heart surgeries.

God created the human body to be self sufficient within the atmosphere of the Earth. When special means are necessary to keep someone alive, maybe it's God's way of saying they need to go home. This is especially true of the truly aged being continually repaired to eek out yet another two weeks of life.

It would be immoral to actively kill them, but very moral to reduce their pain and let the Lord take what is His.

I'm sixty. My kids have long established themselves and my wife is set up ok. I'm ready to “go home” and feel no reason to bankrupt my family to hang on another 30, 10 or 1 year. If I get that sick, I will die.

For me, to die is gain. - The Apostle, Paul

7 posted on 09/08/2014 6:49:13 AM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Barbarism takes. Civilization gives. It is the essence of civilization to say that the weakest, least beautiful among us are precious beings who must be protected, even when this requires sacrifice from the strong.

I disagree with this part too. It requires us to claim that only civilizations we think are "nice" are actually civilizations.

In actual fact civilizations have existed and still exist that aren't very nice at all, including major aspects of our own society.

Civilization refers to the degree of complexity of a society, not whether it is good or bad. The Romans were civilized, and look at their taste in entertainment. The Punic Wars weren't war of "civilized" Romans against "barbaric" Carthaginians. Both sides were civilized, with differing good and bad characteristics. The Roman civilization eventually succeeded in murdering the Carthaginian civilization. NYE, the Romans may not have sacrificed their own children to the gods, but they routinely and legally exposed them to die when unwanted.

The "civilized" side in a conflict is not always the side that's in the right. Sometimes "civilized" people attack "barbarians" for no more valid reason than that they want their stuff. Witness slave raids and such.

8 posted on 09/08/2014 6:53:15 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins most of the battles. Reality wins ALL the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf; Responsibility2nd; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; Coleus; narses; TheOldLady; xzins; ...
My take then and now is that there should have been no heart surgery performed. He should have been left in God's hands as any normal baby is. I think what pushed me over the edge was the TWO heart surgeries.

So, am I to take this to believe that any and all surgeries should be avoided? Are you a Christian Scientist?

My appendix ruptured when I was fifteen, without surgery I would have died. Should I have been left in God's hands as any normal teenager is?

God created the human body to be self sufficient within the atmosphere of the Earth. When special means are necessary to keep someone alive, maybe it's God's way of saying they need to go home. This is especially true of the truly aged being continually repaired to eek out yet another two weeks of life.

So, we are self-sufficient and need nothing else?

Do you take vitamins? What about aspirin? Have you ever had a physical? Have you ever been on antibiotics for any reason? If the answer to ANY of these is yes, would you please explain why? Perhaps a person with a respiratory infection is being told by God that it's time to die even if penicillin could clear it up in a few days.

It would be immoral to actively kill them, but very moral to reduce their pain and let the Lord take what is His.

This sounds like it could have come straight from one the Obamacare death panels.

9 posted on 09/08/2014 6:59:48 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

We know of a few families who adopt such babies to give them a loving home while they can.

...such people are to be remembered and blessed each day of their lives...for without them, the distinction between humanity and barbarity blurs that much more...


10 posted on 09/08/2014 7:02:54 AM PDT by IrishBrigade (')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I’ll preface my entire response with this: Two things can appear on the surface to be very similar, but the devil is in the details. Literally. Satan used God’s word to argue with Jesus, but Jesus exposed the true meaning of the word and the lie in Satan’s interpretation.

I say that because there are subtle differeneces in my position and the comparisons you make.

First, you said, “So, am I to take this to believe that any and all surgeries should be avoided? Are you a Christian Scientist?”

I am not a Christian Scientist, but I simpathise with some of their positions on healthcare. Paul simply shook off a poisonous snake, no treatment needed. Meanwhile, there are all sorts of surgeries that can help a person, but the human body is only the temporary “tent” that we all occupy. My comments were not about whether we can help a body survive as long as possible, but if it is immoral if we don’t.

My wife’s first husband died of leukemia in his late 20’s leaving her with three single digit aged kids. If he could have been saved, it would have been imperative that all be done to save him - for the sake of the family depending on his income. But what of the person my age that has leukemia? My wife is set up, my kids are on their own. What is the purpose of keeping my “tent” functioning when those efforts are not “free”. That is, what is being spent in time, money and effort to keep me alive is not being spent elsewhere - somewhere where it may bring more value to more people.

And this brings us to Obama’s death panels. My father in law is in his mid 80’s and more money has been spent to keep him alive these last five years than he earned in his entire lifetime. And for what? It is not free. It has a cost - both to the family and the culture at large.

I’m not saying he should be killed, but where does it end? A society can’t find itself spending more per citizen to keep them alive than all the money they earned in their entire life. It will collapse from fiscal irresponsibility.

People die. It’s always been that way and always will be that way. Sometimes it’s best to let them die - especially when their child rearing years are over (or have not started) and remember that they are with God. Though those that have the PERSONAL means can keep themselves alive as long as medical science can have an impact. But if you don’t, well, “life is a mist”.

I say this as a 60 year old that has no health insurance. If something I can’t afford to get fixed happens, I die.

“For me, to die is gain.” - The Apostle Paul


11 posted on 09/08/2014 7:18:03 AM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

This sounds like it could have come straight from one the Obamacare death panels.


I want to cover one aspect of this separately.

I have no problem with a health INSURANCE system that considers your stage in life before it covers treatment. Imagine how cheap your health care would be if, once all of your children are over a certain age, some life threatening treatments are no longer covered. Or you could get coverage that takes care of ALL of it up to certain ages. With the cost varying accordingly.

The problem with the Obamacare death panels, from what I understand, is that they go beyond mere “insurance”. That is, if I walk off the street, at age 90, with the money in my hand to cover my cancer treatment, it would be illegal for the doctor to treat me. That is immoral and government meddling at its worst. It is not about health care or even survival. It is about fascism, and utterly unconstitutional. The government is LITERALLY preventing me from pursuing life and happiness.


12 posted on 09/08/2014 7:25:21 AM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf; Responsibility2nd; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; Coleus; narses; TheOldLady; xzins; ...
I am not a Christian Scientist, but I simpathise with some of their positions on healthcare.

However, THEY do it for religious reasons, you seem to focus a great deal on the COST.

Paul simply shook off a poisonous snake, no treatment needed.

NO, God performed a MIRACLE, at the time there was no other treatment. However, God has wrought PERMANENT miracles through advancements in medicine.

Meanwhile, there are all sorts of surgeries that can help a person, but the human body is only the temporary “tent” that we all occupy.

Funny, I was always taught that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. To me, that means we should do whatever we can to take care of it.

My comments were not about whether we can help a body survive as long as possible, but if it is immoral if we don’t.

So, where do you draw the line?

My wife’s first husband died of leukemia in his late 20’s leaving her with three single digit aged kids. If he could have been saved, it would have been imperative that all be done to save him - for the sake of the family depending on his income. But what of the person my age that has leukemia? My wife is set up, my kids are on their own. What is the purpose of keeping my “tent” functioning when those efforts are not “free”. That is, what is being spent in time, money and effort to keep me alive is not being spent elsewhere - somewhere where it may bring more value to more people.

So, you believe that members of society should only be kept alive if they are still productive? Everything comes down to cost vs. productivity?

People die. It’s always been that way and always will be that way. Sometimes it’s best to let them die - especially when their child rearing years are over (or have not started) and remember that they are with God.

How very utilitarian.

13 posted on 09/08/2014 7:50:09 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

You: However, THEY do it for religious reasons, you seem to focus a great deal on the COST.

Me: Yep. That is why I don’t see it as a moral issue. If it cost $10,000 to perform heart surgery on your baby and you only have $1,000, it is not a moral decision. It IS a moral decision if you choose to simply kill the baby outright.

You: NO, God performed a MIRACLE, at the time there was no other treatment. However, God has wrought PERMANENT miracles through advancements in medicine.

Me: A miracle is something that happens outside of our laws of physics. Modern medicine is not miraculous. It is high technology and knowledge of how things work within our laws of physics.

You: Funny, I was always taught that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. To me, that means we should do whatever we can to take care of it.

Me: You and I are in agreement. And now that I have no health care insurance, I eat and exercise responsibly. I take full responsibility for my health. And though this is the temple of the holy spirit it is also incredibly short lived - until the Day of the Lord.

You: So, where do you draw the line?

Me: Active vs passive. If you have no means to keep someone alive, it is not immoral to let them die, though it may be immoral to not comfort them. But it is immoral to actively take their life. i.e. it is not immoral to “pull the plug”, but it is immoral to assist them in suicide.

You: How very utilitarian.

Me: That is one way to look at it. Another is to recognise that resources are limited and when you spend them on one thing you hold them back from another. We live in a lost and fallen world. Sadly, it makes a lot of decisions rather difficult, but sometimes you have to put things in God’s hands. And he has very BIG hands.

As a Christian, my goal is never to prolong someone’s earthly life. Rather, it is to see them in eternity. This life is a mist. This body is corrupted. This body will die. Moving heaven and earth to keep it alive is not what I consider an especially noble goal. Interestingly, it is not discussed much in the bible except for miraculous healings.

But that is not the topic at hand.


14 posted on 09/08/2014 8:13:30 AM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf; Responsibility2nd; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; Coleus; narses; TheOldLady; xzins; ...
Me: Yep. That is why I don’t see it as a moral issue. If it cost $10,000 to perform heart surgery on your baby and you only have $1,000, it is not a moral decision. It IS a moral decision if you choose to simply kill the baby outright.

This sounds so very familiar...

This person suffering from hereditary defects
costs the people 60,000 Reichmarks during his lifetime.
People, that is your money. Read ‘New People’.

A miracle is something that happens outside of our laws of physics. Modern medicine is not miraculous. It is high technology and knowledge of how things work within our laws of physics.

Okay, let's use your theory that modern medicine is purely a byproduct of the human mind and God has nothing to do with it. Let's look at the reality of ANY technology and that is that its cost drops exponentially in a relatively short period of time, as long as it's used and perfected. A few decades ago, open-heart surgery was a major undertaking which required a lengthy and expensive hospital stay, now many procedures only require one night in the hospital and some are even outpatient -- NONE of this would be true if your cost/ability-to-pay approach was the determining factor.

Active vs passive. If you have no means to keep someone alive, it is not immoral to let them die, though it may be immoral to not comfort them. But it is immoral to actively take their life. i.e. it is not immoral to “pull the plug”, but it is immoral to assist them in suicide.

When my appendix ruptured in 1982 it was rather costly (more that $20K which was a fairly significant amount 32 years ago); I was insured and insurance paid for it, had insurance not covered it my family easily had the means to pay it. However, let's say I hadn't had insurance and that my family wasn't wealthy, are you saying that it would not have been immoral to let me die?

As a Christian, my goal is never to prolong someone’s earthly life.

What peculiar denomination of Christianity teaches this?

15 posted on 09/08/2014 8:34:33 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
You: This sounds so very familiar...

Me: Yes. And thest look similar, but they are not:

BTW, to the automotive literate, there is nothing similar about those cars except maybe their color.

16 posted on 09/08/2014 8:50:12 AM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
You: This sounds so very familiar...

Me: Yes. And thest look similar, but they are not:

BTW, to the automotive literate, there is nothing similar about those cars except maybe their color.

17 posted on 09/08/2014 8:54:09 AM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
there is nothing similar about those cars except maybe their color.

LOL for sure the one on top will take a king's ransom to keep running.

18 posted on 09/08/2014 8:55:20 AM PDT by nascarnation (Toxic Baraq Syndrome: hopefully infecting a Dem candidate near you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

BTW, I said “As a Christian, my goal is never to prolong someone’s earthly life.”

And you said: What peculiar denomination of Christianity teaches this?

My response: To be fair, I worded it poorly. It is usually a worthy goal. The exception would be on a battlfield or executions.

However, Christianity teaches that the flesh is corrupted and weak. It calls the flesh the “natural man” and it is at constant war with the “spiritual man”. Jesus performed miracles involving healing the flesh and even bringing back the dead (as we both know), but those were only done as signs. His ministry was about salvation as well as teaching us about our Creator and our eternal relationship with Him and our relationship with other believers, which is my focus.

Over and over again the bible points out the ludicrously short span of our life compared to eternity. Prolonging our earthly life, though commendable, is not the higher principle. Christianity is not the least bit about extending this earthly life. It is about accepting eternal life.


19 posted on 09/08/2014 8:56:59 AM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
But what of the person my age that has leukemia? My wife is set up, my kids are on their own. What is the purpose of keeping my “tent” functioning when those efforts are not “free”. That is, what is being spent in time, money and effort to keep me alive is not being spent elsewhere - somewhere where it may bring more value to more people.

The purpose of keeping your "tent" functioning has nothing to do with money. Do you seriously not know this? Really?!!!? !!! ???

20 posted on 09/08/2014 8:57:16 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Gettin' old ain't for sissies. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson