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.
It is equally vital to avoid eating root crops lest you ingest an innocent, unsuspecting bug of some kind and eat him.
I don’t quite understand how eating bugs equates to abortion or people dieing in war.
Remember Amalek By M. Gellman
"In Deut. 25:17-19 we read: "Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt; How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God. Therefore it shall be, when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it."
What made Amalek so dastardly was that unlike any other enemy who attacked the Israelites fleeing slavery in Egypt from the front, Amalek attacked the rear. This meant that his soldiers could kill women and children, the elderly and the infirm and in so doing avoid engagement with the soldiers at the front. In this way he could produce maximum carnage and maximum terror. The moral problem the Bible addresses is that this is not warfare, it is the slaughter of innocents--it is terrorism.
Why, I wondered, would God command us to remember the terrorist Amalek? There are other villains in the Bible, but there is no biblical command to remember Pharaoh or Nebuchadnezzar, or Cyrus. We are commanded only to remember Amalek. I believe this is because the planned and plotted slaughter of innocents even during wartime cannot be condoned and must be remembered as a bright moral line which can never be crossed. Indeed our remembrance of Amalek is combined with a chilling pledge from God that is also unique in the Bible: "The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation "(Exod. 17:16).
Our enemies are just our enemies except if our enemy is Amalek. In that case our enemy is also the enemy of God. Amalek thus becomes the symbol of terrorism in every generation. He is the symbol not of evil but of radical evil.
In our generation Amalek is alive and well and killing the weak ones at the rear of the march. Amalek has attacked the rear of our line of march in Madrid and Bombay, in Jakarta and London, in Haifa and Tel Aviv, in New York and Washington, in a quiet field in Pennsylvania and in a hundred other homes and families”leaving them covered with blood and tears." Yes, one can disagree and debate how Amalek must be fought, but not that Amalek must be fought. One must report and mourn the innocents who are inadvertently killed by our soldiers in our battle against Amalek, but that remembrance must always make the spiritual moral and political distinction that our victims were killed by mistake and Amalek's victims were killed by design."
When you read Hebrews 7, you'll find that Melchizedek was the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ. If Abraham had done anything wrong, right then would have been the time for God to correct him and say, "You shouldn't have done that as a Christian. You shouldn't have taken up arms." But notice what Melchizedek did. Verses 19 and 20 say, "And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all." God was not displeased.
You're assuming that families who are killed in wars do have a promising future.
Case in point: Before we invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban, did young girls and women there have as promising a future as they do now? Were they able to go to school just like the boys? Were they able to learn how to read, to write, to show their face in public?
In addition, prior to March 2003, did children in Iraq have as promising a future under Saddam, Uday and Qussay as they do now or will in the not-too-distant future?
This is why you have to pick and choose wars carefully (if you're even granted the privilege of choice).
Sometimes (many times) the grand benefits of going to war don't reveal themselves until years later. That's just the way it is.
If you can’t differentiate between protecting society from a murdering child rapist and taking an innocent life for the sake of convenience, then you should push for disarming the police.
So much for the appeal of "consistency" ~ unless you're a Jain you most likely do not attempt to take a consistent pro-life (per se) position on everything.
I do know people (Jains) who do take a consistent position. On the other hand they don't care for the foxes and raccoons that raid their trash cans at night. I actually like the little critters and consider my position on "liking animals" superior to theirs as a result, although I also like porkchops, steak and fried chicken!
It would be more helpful if you could tell me in your own words what the influence of scripture has led you to conclude regarding the question I posed.
I’m fine with your position on the war (although you should reconsider applying it to ALL wars).
But you’re forgetting the rights of the unborn. Science tells us that abortion takes a human life. And, contrary to what you say, they are already in this world, too.
This perception is based on an utterly false (and most likely intellectually dishonest) notion of what the "pro-life" position entails.
I said above: "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."
And: "I do not support abortion – especially to avoid the consequences of one’s actions."
It might be good to read and understand all of what I wrote before responding.
A similar argument could be made for an abortion decision which resulted in either much good or much bad.
But the extreme "pro-life" position is that the results make no difference. Abortion (and why not war?) is wrong so it should not be allowed no matter what the result.
I read your post, its just that you are so self-conflicted that you need direction.
Don’t kill innocent people by choice. Its just that simple.
In war some innocent people will die as a matter of consequence in order that a greater number of innocent people can be saved. They should not however be targeted.
I understand now. I think most reasonable people would not equate the value of human beings to that of plants or bugs.
I don't agree. They are totally within the world of a woman's body. They do not breath the air we breath; they do not eat food from this environment; they do not function as we do. They do not see what we see. Everything they experience is through the woman that bears them. Existing in this world means independent functioning and some degree of awareness of this world's environment.
A child in it's mother's womb is like a person hiding behind a door. To argue that the child is not in this world is to create a strange, solipsistic world-view.
Interesting reasoning. The Bible is full of perversions. Is God not necessarily against perversions?
The Ten Commandments say that we should not commit murder. Killing the enemy in war is not "murder" and is not proscribed (see #1)
What about the millions of innocent civilians who have been killed (by us) in the fire bombings and nuclear bombings of WWII or the napalm bombs and arch lights of Vietnam or the artillery and tank fire of all recent wars? And now we have Marines being prosecuted for "murdering" innocent civilians in Iraq. However you want to parse it, there is ending of lives - lives of those already living in this world, with awareness and relationships and ongoing activities. How is a potential human, almost completely unaware of its environment or existence, not yet functioning in this world, more important than those? Why not work on eliminating the killing related to war before getting all wound up in the family affairs of people and circumstances we know little or nothing about?
Do you honestly see no difference between a mature mind capable of making rational decisions and one formed only in the womb?
Though maybe I've been naive.
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.