Posted on 11/13/2007 5:34:21 PM PST by Semper
One of the most dangerous political considerations today is that of abortion; it is a most divisive subject. Many in this arena are motivated by religious beliefs. Just in case anyone has forgotten, we are not a theocracy – our founding fathers wanted religion left to the churches and the government left to the most qualified.
Those who fanatically oppose the medical procedure of abortion refer to themselves as “pro-life”, implying that those who do not agree with them do not value life as much as they do (a most arrogant state of mind) .
To believe so strongly in your understanding of life that you assume the right to take away the freedom of a woman to determine what will define her life is dangerous. You certainly have the right to try to influence that woman to do what you think is best, but it is her right and responsibility to make the final decision.
One of the things that hurts the anti abortion movement is the terms which are coined. A fetus is not a baby (just as a child is not an adult and an adult is not a senior citizen). Human life goes through stages of development. And, until someone is born into this human environment, until they breathe on their own, until they feed on their own, until they exist outside of a woman’s womb, they are not anyone’s responsibility other than the woman who sustains them.
That is unless you want to overrule the intention of our founders and apply your religious understanding of how life should be interpreted and take away the freedom for which countless “already born” have died.
Do you presume to insist that human activity (birth, growth, deterioration, death) is more powerful than God’s creation - which is described as spiritual? Can the human decisions to kill a living person (as in war) or to abort a POTENTIAL, undeveloped person actually overrule God’s creations?
I believe that there is nothing humans can do to overturn God’s laws and his infinite creation of good. What is required is for us to FREELY choose to live in accordance with HIS plan. And politically, we need to support those who realistically have a chance to foster that outcome.
FREEDOM
My description was a factual one. You can’t repudiate the very basis of something and not be an “anti.” You can claim otherwise, but that won’t make it so.
Every member of the military and law enforcement, or any officer of the US and its subsidiary component parts takes an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution. Shoot, even firemen do so.
The very basis of that Constitution, in its Preamble, or pretext, says that its very purpose is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our POSTERITY.”
And so, I contend, with pretty clear justification, that anyone who doesn’t believe in, and fight for, the God-given, unalienable right to life of our posterity, cannot possibly keep that oath in its entirety.
“I believe that our existence is eternal (no beginning and no end)” Care to share what religion it is that teaches you that?
One of the reasons America is in the mess it is in is because folks are so caught up in the kind of meaningless stuff you delineate in that post.
We should be asking ourselves who would be the best President, who knows the realities of the world the most thoroughly, who understands our founding principles the most deeply, who has demonstrated such understanding over the long haul, and who has clearly shown that he has the courage of those convictions.
That’s what I’ve done, and that’s why I support Alan Keyes.
I believe that no one “supports” an unjust war. Nor can you say that anyone on this forum “allows” it (as when you write “you allow these young men...”). Governments, whether free or dictatorial, determine the cause and means of wars.
It’s true that those killed and maimed bring suffering to loved ones. Loved ones are lost not only in war, but in accidents, fatal illness and in criminal activity. There has always been the loss of loved ones in human history.
Those maimed in war still have a destiny—just as assuredly as another who may lose a limb due to cancer or sight due to a disease.
The aborted human person cannot even have a destiny...and its loss is not honored or revered or remembered.
Meanwhile, in regards to the terms of war—abortion is nothing else but war against the unborn. It’s a different kind of war, because there is no chance for one side to defend itself. But it nevertheless war against life. Abortion, by the very nature of its procedural practice is an incursion, an invasion with the intent to kill.
Howdy Semper. If technology existed that allowed a baby to be removed from the womb and survive at any stage, and this procedure was free and painless for the mother, would you still allow the mother to have an abortion if she so chooses?
Freegards
>> Many in this arena are motivated by religious beliefs.
That’s a load of crap and is indicative of the rationale that dismisses pro-life concerns to the uncommon corners of theocratic myopia. Repulsion to the barbaric act of abortion is instinctive and does not require a subscription to your nearby Church.
Either you have not read all of what I have written or you were not able to understand it.
I would not presume to accuse you of being anti-God because we understand our Creator differently. To accuse me of being anti-God implies that you believe your understanding of our Creator is absolutely right and my beliefs completely wrong. That displays impressive arrogance but not a great deal of intelligence. Maybe you can do better so I will offer a little more.
And created every single baby, born and unborn...
First of all, a baby is not that until it is born; before that it is a fetus or zygote or sperm or egg or whatever. If you corrupt the definition of words, it makes correct conclusions difficult or impossible.
Does God create life through human sexual activity. Why was Jesus not conceived by that means? Do we exist before human conception? Do we exist after human death? I believe that we are eternal (as the reflection of our Creator) and therefore have no beginning and no ending. This human experience is just one stage of our progress through infinite life. I may be wrong but how can that be proved in our present circumstances?
What is important in our present circumstances is to learn the lessons of life we need to continue our progress. That requires freedom. Abortion may be totally wrong under all circumstances but unless there is the freedom to decide this individually we will not learn the required lessons.
Of course there are actions which cannot be tolerated because they disrupt the activities of those of us who are already born, but abortion is not one of those. We must ASSUME that every human birth is good for our progress no matter what the circumstances or consequences. That is not an assumption that I wish to make and not a decision that I wish you to make. That is a decision for the woman who must give birth to make. If all men (and women) are created equal, then no one should assume the moral authority to decide for another in a matter such as this.
"Or whatever," huh. Your own words betray your ignorance and presumption.
It's the corruption of the simple meaning of words that has allowed those who think like you do to butcher tens of millions of American babies over the last thirty-five years.
I’ll leave others to deconstruct the multitude of idiocies in that post for awhile.
Click on my profile page for more guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum.
Just in case anyone has forgotten, we are not a theocracy -- our founding fathers wanted religion left to the churches
On the other, you write:
I believe that we are eternal (as the reflection of our Creator) and therefore have no beginning and no ending. This human experience is just one stage of our progress through infinite life.
That's absolutely a religious opinion. A kooky one, to be sure, but a religious opinion.
Okay, which is it? Either religion should be left to the churches, or laws should be made which reflect -- and only make sense within -- your strange and idiosyncratic scheme of religious beliefs. (And absolutely not within mine, or within those of many other people.)
Pick one or the other, because you can't have both.
My understanding of spirituality is that it has no beginning or ending - it is eternal . Human experience is limited and therefore not the reflection of an infinite God. We existed before our human birth and will always exist in Spirit. Our objective is to progress out of this human experience back into our natural spiritual state as we were created by God. God is Spiritual and we are His children, created in His image; therefore we must be spiritual. I get that from the New Testament of the King James Bible.
Circular reasoning. This is what you need to prove; merely asserting it is not an argument.
If all men (and women) are created equal, then no one should assume the moral authority to decide for another in a matter such as this.
If all men and women are created equal, then no one already born should assume the moral authority to decide for someone else not yet born whether they ought to live or die.
I thought you wanted to leave religion in the churches? Is it only my religion that has to stay in the church?
Why is this vanity in the religion forum anyway?
It was posted here - and perhaps appropriately since the poster’s belief is that the person (spirit) is alive without a beginning or end. In that belief, it could be argued that abortion does not kill anyone nor does war or famine or whatever.
>> Okay, which is it? Either religion should be left to the churches, or laws should be made which reflect [your religious beliefs]
>> Pick one or the other, because you can’t have both.
You can have religion and still be governed by a non-theocratic body. Nonetheless, Semper’s remarks on prenatal life are absurd.
With all due respect, that’s ridiculous.
This vanity is a finger in the eye of God, and advocates for the killing of innocents who are made in His Image.
It is anathema to everything our host has always said this site stands for, and could have been written by any heathen Leftist Democrat.
Nat Hentoff is a pro life atheist. I suggest you do a search and read his arguments against abortion. You will see pro life is not just a religious view.
Talk about corruption of words: How have I butchered tens of millions of American babies? I don't support abortion, I think it is wrong in most cases. I just don't think you or I or anyone not potentially giving birth should be making the decision. Those who thought drinking alcohol was abominable tried to take away the decision to do that and it made the situation much worse. It may be that this is the case with abortion.
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.