Pro-Life

Vanity | Nov 15, 2007 | Semper

[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.

[mockingbyrd]

what the heck is a potential human life? a sperm...an egg?

[RobbyS]

The anti-abortion laws in the United States were enacted soon after physicians became of what Blackmun calls “the facts of reproduction.”, which were not established until the 1840s. Until that time they did not know how babies were conceived. Naively they reacted by persuading legislatures to prohibit abortion, which were basically laws restraining medical practitioners: physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and midwives. They simply recoiled in horror from the knowledge that for many years they had tolerated the destruction of beings that were obviously alive long before the “quickening,”that the process of formation in the womb was highly dynamic from the very meeting of sperm and ovum, that the inevitable product of this process was a human being. In other words, unknown to them, they were killing babies.
Working against this Prohibition even from the beginning was the notion that
consciousness was the essential attribute of a human being. Nothing was human unless it had a mind that functioned as our minds do. Darwinism immediately seized upon the notion that human development was analogous to the process of human evolution; or vice versa. That from the very primitive one gets ever more complicated beings that at some point become human.

Now what point is this? Can science tell us?

[RobbyS]

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?

What about AS important? Our law treats the embryo as a non-being/a being of non consequence.

[darkangel82]

If you have to say “I’m pro-life, but...” then you aren’t.

[The Old Hoosier]

Independent functioning? In that case, no one has any rights until they’re at least 2 years old, maybe 3. And certainly not the old and senile.

It’s a dumb argument. The most vulnerable human beings require the most protection, they can’t just be discarded precisely because they are unable to fend for themselves.

[DouglasKC]

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.

Biblically I would agree with you that potential humans in early development are just as valuable as a person killed in a war.

I believe too that Christians should not participate in combat roles in war because wars among men are a result of sin:

Jas 4:1 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
Jas 4:2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

Now days there is no such thing as a "Godly" war because the kingdoms of this world are not yet the Lord's. They are, by God's authority, today ruled by Satan.

2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Gal 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

Jesus himself said his kingdom is not of this world...yet:

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

But the good news is that Christ will return and physically rule:

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever and ever.

So I think you have a legitimate question if asked from a Christian standpoint. If you're asking from any other standpoint then ultimately the answer is that nobody will recognize that life has value because you've removed God from the equation.

[DouglasKC]

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

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.

You seem to be under the impression that right and wrong are situational. There is a basic right and wrong for human attitude and behavior toward God and toward others. It is embodied in the ten commandments. These are hard and fast rules that if followed lead to peace and contentment even in non-Christian peoples and nations. If nobody stole the world would be a better place. If nobody killed, the world would be a better place. Etc. They are basic laws created and imbued in the fiber of our universe. Violation of them leads to unhappiness, discontent, war and every evil. It's like the law of gravity. Violate it at your own risk.

Nobody can "force" you to abide by these rules. But part of Christianity is showing those who don't know better that there is a better way that leads to life. It should be done from love and understanding, but it needs to be said.

[Semper]

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.

Almost any position can be supported if you use both the old and new Testament. I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. He said in effect that those without sin can cast the first stone. Stoning was a means of capital punishment. While that lesson applied to judging others, it can also be seen as a condemnation of capital punishment. If you can show me where Jesus supported capital punishment I would be interested.

[Running On Empty]

Very good :-)

[Semper]

You seem to be under the impression that right and wrong are situational.

Yes, situational in this human experience. Spiritually there is only absolute right (And God saw everything he had made, and it was good). We are operating in a relative, limited, material, imperfect human environment (made by us, not by a perfect God) and we decide to accept the death of innocent civilians in war rather than completely renounce the use of lethal weapons and trust in God to protect us and keep us free. Or some women decide to end a pregnancy for reasons which may or may not be valid. One important difference between those two decisions is that the woman's decision has way less impact on you and me than does the group decision to wage war.

[DouglasKC]

We are operating in a relative, limited, material, imperfect human environment (made by us, not by a perfect God) and we decide to accept the death of innocent civilians in war rather than completely renounce the use of lethal weapons and trust in God to protect us and keep us free.

Or some women decide to end a pregnancy for reasons which may or may not be valid. One important difference between those two decisions is that the woman's decision has way less impact on you and me than does the group decision to wage war.

In terms of flawed human society the impact is the same. Both devalue and cheapen life. The abortion industry can be thought of as "war". Each aborted child can be thought of as an innocent civilian. You compartmentalize the entire abortion issue down to an individual. If you use that same compartmentalization in a fighting war, you would say that we can't condemn war because we can't judge the actions of each individual soldier. After all, we can't judge what that solider is thinking or doing, his situation, or his reasons for shooting at that time. Sometimes it may be valid, sometimes not. Therefore we shouldn't condemn war.

[Semper]

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.

Invading Iraq, when Iraq did not attack us, would seem to be initiating violence. Does that mean that there are exceptions to your premise? We can initiate violence if it contributes to our security or economic stability or whatever - and that violence is experienced by innocents who are acutely aware of what is happening and must deal with the tragic results. The vast majority of abortion decisions are carried out when the fetus is virtually unaware of this world and will not experience the horror and consequences of a war.

Just to be clear, that does not justify abortion. The invasion of Iraq was not justified either. I wish that religious people obsessed with abortion would have focused at least as much thought and energy on our initiation of violence half way around the world.

[Semper]

It’s a dumb argument. The most vulnerable human beings require the most protection, they can’t just be discarded precisely because they are unable to fend for themselves.

You missed the point. It is not a matter of "being discarded because they are unable to fend for themselves". The innocent civilians killed in war cannot fend for themselves against modern weapons but they are not "discarded". Someone (group or individual) decided that it was in their best interest to allow those casualties as a consequence of their lives being better. My point is why are the so called "pro-life" people so focused upon life not yet manifested in this world and ignoring the innocent lives being disrupted and ended by war.

Abortion and war have similarities. They are both ultimately wrong because innocent life is lost. They both are justified by believing it will make life better for the one initiating them. We do not want someone else making decisions about war for us. Let the United Nations make decisions on war for us? Not likely. But we don't want to allow the same thing for women who have the responsibility of giving birth.

[Semper]

Therefore we shouldn't condemn war.

I have said that if we condemn abortion then we should condemn war - they are both wrong. The entity which decides about war is a country. The entity which decides about abortion is a pregnant woman. Our country does not want to give up its right to choose about war (ie. to the UN). It seems consistent to allow pregnant women the right to choose about abortion. In a perfect world, no one would choose to do either but we are not living there yet.

[DocRock]

"Invading Iraq, when Iraq did not attack us, would seem to be initiating violence."

Then it seems you are mistaken. Saddam initiated the violence in the invasion of Kuwait in the first Gulf War and Saddam and fired numerous times at our planes in the No Fly Zones which violated the terms of the cessation of hostilities and numerous UN resolutions.

Your premise is wrong, therefore the rest of your abstract is also wrong.

" I wish that religious people obsessed with abortion would have focused at least as much thought and energy on our initiation of violence half way around the world."

Just to be clear... I am not obsessed with abortion and will gladly continue try to answer your questions.

[Semper]

“The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.”

The truth is absolute. Moral judgments are made by imperfect human reasoning which tries to apply that absolute truth but often fails. Totally accurate moral judgments require more information than we humans possess, so we have to do the best we can with what we have. One of the best things we have for this endeavor is reason. Even a book of absolute truth (such as the Bible) won't help if reason is not applied to understand it.

[50mm]

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.

I am a consistent pro-life advocate. I am against abortion, against euthanasia, against the death penalty and against war. I was against the Iraq war when it was in the threat stage, not a very popular position on FR.

However, I would argue that pulling out of Iraq would lead to the killing of millions of Iraqis in the ensuing chaos. When we pulled out of Viet Nam due to its declining support in the US, the result was the slaughter of many times more innocents than would have been killed had we stayed. Advocating pulling out of Iraq, regardless of the consequences is a defacto judgement that several thousand American lives are more important than millions of innocent Iraqi lives. I think we should stay in Iraq until the country is stable enough to prevent chaos on our departure.

[Uri’el-2012]

The founders of this great Republic gave us the phrase
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

The sequence implies that "life" is more important than one's liberty
and that life is more important than one's pursuit of happiness.

[Semper]

Then it seems you are mistaken. Saddam initiated the violence in the invasion of Kuwait in the first Gulf War and Saddam and fired numerous times at our planes in the No Fly Zones which violated the terms of the cessation of hostilities and numerous UN resolutions.

Yes, Saddam initiated violence. His reason was that Kuwait was really a province of Iraq. We did not agree and initiated violence in response. When we invaded Iraq, it was against the will of the UN and with almost no support from allies. We can parse details but the fact remains that we invaded Iraq - officially justified because of what Saddam might have done with what he might have had. North Korea shot down one of our civilian airliners with a U.S. Congressman aboard but we did not respond with violence for that. Cuba shot down a U.S. civilian plane doing no harm over the ocean and we did not respond with violence for that. Our justification for the use of violence seems to be quite arbitrary.

Jesus told us to love our enemies and do good to those who would harm us; that sounds like the application of violence under any circumstance is not Christian.