If one pays with one’s life for a worthy cause (principle, as you put it), it still is necessary to have life in order to forfeit it.
Life is the very essence of being—after that, to be free, to have values and principles, and even to die, in order that those same values and principles may be preserved for others, STILL requires life in order to be exercised.
I am quite sure you can see the logic of that, olde north church.
Life is the very essence of being—after that, to be free, to have values and principles, and even to die, in order that those same values and principles may be preserved for others, STILL requires life in order to be exercised.
I am quite sure you can see the logic of that, olde north church.
I understand the difference between a conscious decision to sacrifice and being a murder victim. There is also the uncomfortable position of innocent bystander.
Was EVERY individual resident of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Dresden a supporter of the government with which we were at war? I would venture a guess the answer would be no. But as far as I'm concerned they could have added 15 or 20 more cities to the list just for good measure and I wouldn't have shifted in my sleep.
That being said, I'm against abortion for the same reason I think we should have invaded China regarding Tianammen Square. You have a policy, you enforce that policy. You stand for liberty and freedom or you don't stand for liberty and freedom.
My point was simply this, there are various circumstances in which life, although desirable, may not always be most important condition.