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.
One last thing:
There is a book called “Lime 5” written by Mark Crutcher. It is fully documented
No one can read that book and feel the same about “choice” anymore. And that applies not only to the scheduled execution of an unborn child, but the book also takes a close and documented look at the situation for the mother of that child and the whole milieu of the abortion “clinic” and abortionists.
If one is seeking reason and truth, “Lime 5” is a good start when it comes to understanding the full nature of abortion. That book is hard to read—hard on the psyche and on the heart. But it offers a message of truth that is backed by facts, not anecdotes. Those facts are a truth that will set us free.
What damage inflicted by Iraq on this nation was lasting, grave, and certain?
Were all other means of "putting an end to it" (?) impractical or ineffective?
Considering the totality of what was involved and the political divisions here and in Iraq, how could there have been "a serious prospect for success"? It was a coin toss.
... situation certainly does not justify the 96% of abortions that are performed for reasons of convenience, birth control, etc.
I would not try to justify the 96% (or whatever) of abortions that are not absolutely necessary. I do believe that the decision as to what is absolutely necessary ultimately belongs to the woman who is pregnant.
Post 66 In Luke 22:35 Jesus tell us that our weapon is more important than the shirt on our backs. Post 71 I asked you if you believed if Jesus was God and if you didn't, then we should agree to disagree.
Post 73 You answered "Yes and No", therefore, see post 71 above. We should agree to disagree.
Now you seem to have veered from asking how pro-lifers can support war towards spouting anti-war lies and propaganda regarding the war in Iraq. Saddam initiated the violence, and I point out the fallacy of your argument in Post 56. Then in post 60 you agree and state, "Yes, Saddam initiated violence. His reason was that Kuwait was really a province of Iraq. We did not agree and initiated violence in response." The fallacy in this argument is that both Saddam and the U.S. initiated violence. Any reasoning mind can clearly see the contradiction in this logic. Only one can initiate and then others respond.
FACTS about Iraq: Saddam used gas on the Kurds. Saddam used gas on the Iranians numerous times during the decade of war with them. Saddam gave secret nuclear technology to Libya and Qaddafi gave them to us after we caught Saddam. Now here is a big fact that many don't know when discussing possible WMDs in Iraq and the threat to our very existence.
Saddam had 500 Tons of Uranium in Iraq! 1.8 tons is classified as low-enriched uranium.
Again, I'm not trying to persuade you, however, I will point out the errors in your logic and errors in your facts. "Errors in facts" I like to call "lies and propaganda" when stated repeatedly after being pointed out and supported with evidence.
The Vatican has condemned the war.
Whether or not the war in Iraq meets the standard of being a just war is something that can be debated. I’m not convinced that it is an unjust war.
“I do believe that the decision as to what is absolutely necessary ultimately belongs to the woman who is pregnant.” Your criterion of what is “absolutely necessary” is really subjective. A woman could easily decide that it is “absolutely necessary” for her to have an abortion for almost any reason.
What violence did Saddam initiate directly against us? Please don't make the incorrect claim that he initiated 9/11. We invaded Iraq. We were opposed in this by several of our allies as well as many religious people including the Catholic Church. The fact is that we initiated violence against Iraq - some in this country think it was justified and just as many or more do not. If having nuclear capability is sufficient reason to invade, then our country is the most justified target - we have more than anyone and we are the only country to have used nuclear weapons on other human beings. (I know there is a very good case for that use - especially from our perspective.) However, how does any one country get the right to decide what other countries can have or not have?
This current war is not supported by the United Nations - the first Gulf war was. Our actions, in defiance of the majority of world opinion, are being undertaken because we believe that it is in our best interest - the innocent life lost in this endeavor is justified because it promotes our well being. Because we are powerful, we can insist on the choice to do this. In this case, we as a nation, are pro-choice (at least for us) and the innocent life lost in war is an unfortunate but necessary consequence. But you are supporting the opposite of this situation for our women.
I know there are significant differences in this. Countries exist on their own, with the ability to contribute something to the quality and circumstances of their existence.
An unborn baby is completely dependent upon and attached to the woman within whom it exists. Nothing happens to that developing human before it happens to the woman. That developing human is part of the physical structure of the woman and alters her physiology significantly. To take away her right and responsibility to determine what is best for her and her family is almost like an external power determining what will happen in our physical environment - as in completely giving up our national freedom to the United Nations. We are not likely to let that happen but there is outrage when we can not take freedom of choice away from our pregnant women.
It is clear that no human being comes into this world except through the environment of a woman's body. That may change - with the development of an artificial womb - but it is now the case. I do not believe that our spiritual life, created by a spiritual God is dependent upon a material, human sex act and a woman's choice to deliver a baby. Human will is not more powerful than God. To realize our true spiritual existence, in the image of our perfect Source, we need the freedom to make our own way towards that true and wonderful existence. Life is eternal and spiritually indestructible. Human consciousness is limited and flawed - it must be overcome. No one can force this on another, we must have the freedom to make that progress on our own - even if it appears that innocent human life is interrupted at whatever stage. If it is "God's will" that a person should be here in this human environment, then nothing can prevent that from ultimately happening in one way or another. What is more powerful than God?
This may be beyond what you are ready to contemplate, but I offer it anyway - just in case.
Yes, that is very true. However, we have the freedom to try to help her realize the value of NOT choosing abortion. Freedom means the possibility of choosing incorrectly but with that incorrect choice will come the consequences that direct us to the correct choice, sooner or later. Our progress depends upon each of us freely learning the lessons of life and then correctly applying them.
An important consideration here is whether or not there has been sufficient progress in this human experience to have the privilege of freedom of choice - we restrict that privilege from children until they display the maturity to exercise reasonable choices. It may be that our pregnant women do not have the maturity or moral development to rate the freedom to decide this question. Then those who think they do have that development can force their will on them. Not me, thanks.
Abortion is a form of homicide, it is not a lifestyle choice, such as deciding whether or not to smoke or drink. The state has a duty to protect innocent human life. This is not a question of whether pregnant women are mature enough or not to understand the consequences of abortion although some clearly are not. It is question of whether or not we as a nation will continue to allow an entire class of human beings to be classified as unworthy of the protection of the law.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that and I will not tolerate any implication that I did. Hitler didn't bomb us on Dec 7, 1941 and we sure went to Berlin. As a matter of fact, we still have bases in Germany, over sixty years later. Please don't post any more pro-Saddam garbage to me anymore. Please don't post any anti-war propaganda to me either. I don't care how you feel about the war or about abortion. As a matter of fact, just don't post to me anymore.
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.