Posted on 11/15/2007 12:42:48 PM PST by Semper
I am pro-life (contrary to what many might perceive). I believe pro-life also means pro-God. I also think it is very important to be consistent in this position. And there is also the matter of understanding the total nature of Life and God – which is beyond our capacity in this human condition. So, those of you who believe you have the absolute truth regarding this matter, please don’t waste your time responding to this, just continue on healing the masses and ascending to heaven.
I know “pro-life” is mostly associated with anti-abortion or also, restricting the choice of a pregnant woman to continue with that condition or not. Now there is an important distinction here. I do not support abortion – especially to avoid the consequences of one’s actions. But, I do support a woman’s right and responsibility to determine what is best for herself, her family and her potential offspring. That position will be branded as not “pro-life” by some (many of whom are influenced by someone else’s religious interpretation). That is fine. As I have expressed, we do not have sufficient knowledge to know for sure what is “God’s will”. But to use our God-given reasoning powers, how can we initiate and support war, with it attendant death - of those already living in this world and call ourselves “pro-life” unless we understand one of the most important elements of life to be FREEDOM (Give me liberty or give me death). Freedom means the ability to make wrong decisions. It also means that we have the right to try to influence (not require) that correct decisions be made where there is not direct negative impact on others operating in this world.
I wrote an essay for another thread (entitled Abortion) which resulted in several very impressive responses. There is much to be said regarding the elimination of abortion – which will probably happen but not soon. There is also much to be said for the freedom and responsibility of choice. One of the questions I posed to a woman who chose to give birth at the risk of depriving her family of a wife and mother (a most impressive adherence to principle) was: If you would be consistent, how can you not work with all you have to stop war. If there are not exceptions to stopping a life not yet manifested in this world, how can you have an exception for an activity which kills those who are already living in this world?
It seems consistent that all absolute “pro-life” adherents should band together and demand an end to our waging of war – no matter what the consequences. But we seem always to allow almost anything for preservation of our freedom – unless it applies to a pregnant woman. Someone please tell me how a potential human in early development, not yet manifested in this world is more important than a human being, with a history, a family, a promising future who is killed in war.
A child hiding behind a door is aware of what he is doing. If he has the ability to hide he is aware of his existence and is able to function on his own. He may not see what is beyond the door but he knows something is there. A developing human in the womb of a woman has none of that awareness or ability. Of course that potential human being has value and should be honored as an expression of life. But in this human experience we have circumstances which are not ideal. We have to make difficult decisions and sometimes we get it wrong. As long as those decisions do not impact those who are already living and operating in this world (as war does) then it seems better to deal with the problems more immediate. Maybe if we solve those, the others, like abortion, will fall into their proper place.
Of course I see a difference. A mature mind is formed, in part, by experience. A mature adult has infinitely more experience than a fetus in the womb. The human value of each of our lives is based upon many things but the most significant is what we have contributed and based upon that, what more we may potentially contribute. The spiritual value of our lives is equal but we are not yet expressing that very well.
We live in a relative world. In combat sometimes it is necessary to make decisions such as which of two critically wounded men gets the last spot a med-evac helicopter. You have considerations such as who is most valuable to your unit and/or who has the best chance of survival. You have to make those decisions with incomplete information often under severe distress. An important factor here is who makes that decision. It is not a commander somewhere up the chain of command, it is not the helicopter pilot, it is not a group decision by those who are left; it is decided by the one who has responsibility for that unit.
It is that type of experience that leads me to believe that if you do your best to make an honest decision about your family or whatever, it is not my responsibility to force my moral belief upon you and take away your right and responsibility to make that decision. And that goes for everyone else not directly connected with your situation.
Though can you cite any other “rights” which should be practiced rarely?
I don’t understand your question about rights.
...and take away your [presumably costitutional] right and responsibility to make that decision.
Also, #25
I agree with that absolutely!
Relativity belongs to the world and to darkness.
I agree but is that not what we are now experiencing?
Abortion causes a beating heart to stop.
So does a bullet or a bomb or a rocket. The difference is that the heart which stops in those circumstances has beat for some time and experienced life WAY beyond what an unborn, potential human could possible be aware.
If your cause is to keep hearts beating, I suggest you focus on those who have been beating for some time in this human environment and stop being obsessed with those who are not even aware of this human environment.
I am still not sure what you mean. But, are you saying you will give me the right to remove another from this world in combat but you will not give the freedom for a woman to put off a human life experience (God’s creations can not be destroyed by temporary human considerations).
Maybe or maybe not. Maybe a non-murdered, pre-born heart could beat in the chest of a new Hitler. That is not the point. The point is will you let my moral understanding guide your life and your most personal decisions? I hope not. Then don't presume the authority to do that for others.
That doesn't make us wrong and them right, just consistent to different degrees.
That doesn't make us wrong and them right, just consistent to different degrees.
If you want a subtle distinction, there's this problem with a certain type of murderer ~ usually they've killed more than once. If you put them in prison for life they're going to kill someone else ~ a guard, a white collar criminal, a visitor maybe.
If you execute them, that won't happen.
The statistics give the probability of their killing someone else at more than 100% because some of them kill two or three more times while in prison.
The right to life type who thinks not executing such murderers is a wise course simply ends up being instrumental in the murder of one or two otherwise innocent people.
Obviously not everyone who murders is going to be a stone-cold, multiple murderer in prison, but it is wrong to NOT execute such folks early in their career.
That is, the correct right to life position is to execute the worst murderers, and we arrive at that conclusion by discovering the innocent people we would otherwise condemn to death.
I think you can do the same sort of analysis in dealing with abortion and war.
If we were to use some sort of scale of "relative importance" as a way of deciding who it was OK to kill, we could really dig ourselves a deep hole in the cosmos Fur Shur.
An egg that I had fertilized is, for example, infinitely more important to me than you are (for example).
Obviously we need to have some different standard than simple "importance".
Yes, by the Commandment not to murder, and yes, by Deuteronomy 30:19 mentioned in yesterday's thread.
"If I knew God I'd be Him." Yet my Biblical understanding does not allow me to countenance murder.
Oh, and I love you too!
Your question is flawed as you preface the noun "human" differently. You posted this vanity in the religion forum, so if you want to discuss the religious issues involved in being "pro-life" yet supporting the war where innocent people sometimes are killed, then just say so. Don't beat around the bush. You state in your vanity you are "pro-life" and are "pro-God". Do you believe the Scriptures? If so, then my post #4 above answers your question. If you wish to argue that the unborn is a "potential human", then say so. Don't beat around the bush.
"Someone please tell me how a potential human in early development, not yet manifested in this world is more important than a human being, with a history, a family, a promising future who is killed in war."
The simple answer to your question is that neither one is more important than the other. They both have value and should be protected. The difference between the "potential human" and "the human being" is when one initiates violence against another. When you initiate violence, you lose your rights. The unborn cannot initiate violence and therefore cannot lose their rights... including the right to life.
If you wish to discuss "how can you be 'pro-life' and 'pro-capital punishment'... just let me know. I can show you the Scripture that supports that, too.
I hope this helps answer your question,
FRegards,
DocRock
Jesus was pro-gun, too... check my tagline
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.