Discussion Topic: The Many Shades of Pro-Life
am pro-life. Big surprise there, right? But there is something that has been bothering me about the whole topic of pro-life as it pertains to politics. And I would like to open up the comment thread here for discussion/input without much of a post here. Since we just had our primary election here in North Carolina yesterday, this is much more front-and-center on my mind.
Perhaps I’ll post more thoughts on the topic in a fuller treatment later on, but for now I’m just curious and need to ask the burning questions. So here goes:
Is there anyone who is willing to say that they are pro-life in every situation, without exception? I have heard many references to the following exceptions to what I would consider to be a truly pro-life position:
- An exception in the discussion about abortion is almost always stated (very matter-of-factly, I might add) for “rape, incest, and the life of the mother”. Are there people who are anti-abortion who do not hold to these exceptions? And my question for those of you who do hold to those exceptions: Why?
- The idea of “pro-life” to me goes beyond the abortion debate, although it is often seemingly limited to that. In light of that, I would say that many people who call themselves “pro-life” are pro-death penalty. So this seems to be another exception. Pro-life except the lives of certain criminals.
- Yet another area that seems to be a large exception is in the area of military action. From a political standpoint, it seems that the ones most opposed to abortion because they are “pro-life” are also “pro-war” in many cases. So an exception seems to be made for killing one’s enemies.
I’m not trying to start a huge debate, but I am very curious. If you hold to any/all of the exceptions I’ve noted, how do you reconcile that with a pro-life position?
Sorry for the heavy topic, but this has been on my mind for several years and I’ve never had the courage to really ask the question of anyone. Now that it’s fresh on my mind again, I thought I’d take the chance here.
Just to let you know, I was brought up believing every one of those exceptions. It’s been a way of life for me for my whole life. But I’m questioning now.
May 7th, 2008 21:19
Steve,
I am also pro-life and I was also taught all of the exceptions as well. I’m also questioning. I don’t know what I think about the exceptions now. If I were pressed for an answer, I would say that I’m slowly becoming convinced that taking life for any reason is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
-Alan
May 7th, 2008 21:55
I would concur with the difficulty in understanding how one can be pro-life while also advocating war, the death penalty, and other policies that don’t promote life.
I have really found the idea of a consistent right to life ethic that Jim Wallis and other “left-wingers” talk about.
I think the exceptions are a cop out to gain broader acceptance of the idea but personally I’m not an advocate for outlawing abortions but more of trying to find solutions to prevent abortions – reducing poverty, increasing education, promoting adoptions etc.
I don’t have the time to find the specific articles but I know Sojourner’s and Evangelicals for Social Action have written a lot about the topic.
I’ve also written about it before (1 2 3) but most recently here.
May 7th, 2008 22:31
Good questions!
I, too, was raised with most of the typical exceptions, but now am part of a faith tradition that is (IMHO) more consistent.
The exceptions to abortion for rape and incest are tantamount to making exceptions to infanticide for rape and incest. To say that somebody doesn’t deserve to live because of the circumstances of their conception is wrong. No child is responsible for the actions of their parents and two wrongs don’t make a right.
The exception for the life of the mother is more complicated. There are scenarios in which one can justify what is effectively an abortion in trying to save the mothers life, when there is no hope for saving the baby’s life. An ectopic pregnancy with implantation in the fallopian tube is an example of this. Sometimes these situations will resolve themselves with careful monitoring, but sometimes the tube must be removed to save the mother’s life. The primary objective of the doctor should be to save both lives. However, sometimes this cannot be done. To do nothing sometimes results in the death of both mother and fetus, and that is not pro-life.
I’m personally against the death penalty, because I don’t see a reason to take a prisoner’s life when we can effectively isolate a murderer or rapist from society in prisons. However, I read about a study that looked at states with the death penalty and those without and found a very statistically significant decline in murders in states with the death penalty when controlling for other variables like average resident income, etc. Since Scripture allows the death penalty for murderers, I don’t think one can make the claim that God is always against it, just that it is inappropriate for our society. There are two factors at play here. 1) Is the death penalty the only way to prevent the murderer from killing more people? and 2) Is the death penalty the most effective way to prevent murder in society at large? The answer to 1) is clearly no. The answer to 2)is more complicated. I would argue that no, the death penalty is not the most effective means of reducing murder rates, but recognize that there are *some* people arguing yes who have decent evidence on a question that is extremely difficult to answer objectively.
Violence in self defense, whether as a nation or an individual can sometimes be justified to protect the individual or society. However, the individual or society must be very careful to determine that the violence is truly initiated for reasons of *self-defense* and is then carried out in a just manner. It is not necessarily pro-life to submit one’s family or country to the wanton violence and killing of an aggressor. Being pro-life is not the same as being a pacifist.
You’ve left out the big elephant in the room when you left out IVF. IVF involves the creation of multiple human lives, only a small fraction of which are ever implanted. The rest are discarded. To say that one’s right to have a child involves the right to bring many numerous human lives into the world, only to throw most of them away is not pro-life, but most people don’t bat an eye at it.
Of the topics you listed (ignoring IVF), abortion is unique both because of its scale (40-50 million/year worldwide and over 1 million/year in the US) and because it involves the taking of *innocent* human life (people who have never even had chance to harm others).
MB
May 7th, 2008 22:57
Saying one is opposed to abortion, but that one doesn’t want to outlaw it and would rather look for ways to reduce poverty, etc. is akin to saying one is opposed to the torture of terror suspects, but doesn’t want to outlaw it and would rather look for ways to address the underlying causes of terrorism After all, until the root causes of terrorism are addressed, we need to keep open the options of pulling out fingernails with pliers, cutting off limbs, waterboarding and electrocution of people’s genitals to help us crack those ticking bomb cases. Left-wing liberal softies should not be imposing their morality on right-wing hard-a$$ torturers! After all, if the US outlaws torture for our own interrogators, they are only going to find ways to have back-alley interrogations conducted in countries like Egypt. At least if the torture is done in the US, there are some safety standards that are followed and fewer people will die due to back-alley/third world interrogations. We all know that those right-wing loonies in the CIA would find a way to get the terror suspects to Egyptian authorities (for example), if we didn’t let them torture people for themselves. Until worldwide poverty and religious misunderstanding are addressed, it is imperative that we leave the option of torture open to those who feel they have no other options.
MB
Steve,
I hope I didn’t just hijack your post. This is really how the “personally opposed, but don’t want to outlaw abortion” ideas come across to me. Feel free folks to tell me who this analogy sucks. Feel free, too, Steve to delete this if you think I’ve gone too far afield.
May 8th, 2008 01:16
I too come from a similar background regarding the pro-life issue and I too have re-thought the contradictions inherent. I still consider myself very much pro-life. I appreciate what MB said about a child paying for the circumstances in which it was conceived. I don’t think that is fair, and I don’t think it leaves room for God’s redemption and healing. (However, I do not say that lightly, as I have never been faced with such a horrific set of circumstances.)
I’m conflicted on the issue of legislating morality. I believe in concepts like Human Rights (and would include the right to life therein). And I see the good in having laws that uphold these values. But if the values of people in a society do not reflect respect for life, their hearts will not be changed even if the law is changed.
In terms of killing our enemies – no. Although MB makes a good self-defense argument. Don’t know how he feels about it, but I definitely don’t believe the Iraq war comes anywhere near self-defense. Nor did the Vietnam war, nor did the multiple invasions of Latin America. We could be here a while talking about this, but if we truly are a Christian nation, then we have a lot of repenting to do before God (IMHO). We have a history of aggression, but like to think of ourselves as the heroes of WWII (of course, we played a positive role there, so that’s how we like to see ourselves). Sorry if I don’t sound appropriately patriotic. The thing is, my citizenship is in heaven first, and I have to view everything else through that grid, since that’s where my ultimate loyalty lies.
Off topic (sorry Steve), but I don’t buy the “if we don’t torture, we’re soft” argument. I think that intelligence received through means of torture is questionable. I find McCain’s personal experience and standpoint on the matter very compelling.
May 8th, 2008 10:02
Wow, you’ve really opened a Pandora’s box here haven’t you, Steve?
I’ve believed in a consistent ethic of life for a long time … long before there was a Jim Wallis touting it around the country side.
I find it very difficult to reconcile giving a death penalty to a prisoner but not a baby. To me handing out a death sentence is playing God in both cases. God gives life and God decides the end. We must deal with what comes in between. That can be difficult and inefficient, but it’s what we’re given. We’re not called to be efficient, we’re called to love.
Love is never neat and tidy. It’s never loud and brash. It’s not harmful. It looks to the good and the best of each individual. Love calls out the best in each of us.
It’s interesting to me how quickly many people who are conservative slip to name-calling and derision in their arguments. If your argument cannot stand on it’s own … just be quiet.
May 8th, 2008 10:47
Great topic. It’s one that I’m sure all Christians agree upon. LOL
I’ve also questioned a lot of things, and I have more questions than answers. On the issue of politics, like most people have said here I once followed the conservative Christian “party line” without really giving too much thought to it, and I no longer intentionally stick to anything like that.
Some of my questions have to do with how much Christians are to be involved in politics in the first place. Here in the U.S. it’s a government that’s supposedly ‘of the people, by the people, for the people.’ But is that the way of Christ… or is it the way of a secular government? Are they compatible? Is it not God who sets up rulers and those in authority? What does Romans 13 mean to us today? Is Pontius Pilate the man Christ-followers would have wanted to be in power back in the day? But yet Jesus told him that God had put him where he was. Have modern-western-democratic/representative-republic Christians been duped into believing that we actually have a choice when it comes to the selection of leaders in the world?
Questions… not so many answers.
I say all that because I wonder (again, still in questioning mode) if Christians (both “left” and “right”) are caught up in a futile pro-life debate. That is, when it comes to politics. Did not God also set up Herod to be in power? – The same Herod who had all male children in Bethlehem under two years old killed? Wasn’t it, and the events that followed it (such as the move of Joseph and Mary to Nazareth), a fulfillment of a prophecy?
When it comes to my own life in Christ, and to the life of the body as a whole, are we to turn our own personal beliefs and ways of doing things over into the political arena? Is it our business to try to affect the world’s political process? Is it our job as a body of spiritual beings whose citizenship is in heaven to try to keep Herods and Pilates and other political figures in check or out of the scene altogether?
Anyway… so when it does come to our own personal beliefs and choices, I’m a little more settled in my thoughts, but not completely solidified. My personal thought is that all of these things that you mentioned are not black and white, and perhaps are handled in such as way as for us to individually and corporately seek the Father in each unique situation.
One example I thought of: There is a Christian family here in Iowa who made national and international news a few years back. The wife was pregnant with septuplets (seven babies). (The McCaughey septuplets). I can’t remember all the details, but I seem to remember that they were advised to abort one or more of the babies (“selective reduction”), for the health of the mother and the rest of the babies. They made the choice to keep all of them, and all the babies survived and are still alive today. Is this the choice every Christian should make if they were in that situation? As I think about it, my personal thought would be categorized in the “pro-choice” category, but yet I don’t generally follow that line altogether because I do think that aborting a baby just for convenience sake is murder.
However… just as the commandment said “You shall not murder” (incorrectly translated as “You shall not kill” in some translations), I do think there is a difference between murdering for convenience and killing to save others. Am I settled in this? No way!
I’ve got more thoughts (about war, about the death penalty, etc) but as usual I’ve gone long so perhaps I’ll come back later. I think this is good stuff to think about and pray about, and I’m enjoying what others have to say.
May 8th, 2008 12:15
Thanks for bringing up this topic Steve. It is heavy, and at least for me, not as easily answered as I once thought.
For many years I was part of the Pro-Life sect found in most traditional conservative evangelical churches. I believed in protecting the life of the unborn, even in the instances of rape, incest, and life of the mother issues. (BTW, the actual incidences of these cases are extremely low but often cited as significant issues.)
Yet I did accept that taking a life was justified in death penalty cases and war. (As long as you are talking about our nation naturally)
I could quote all the Old Testament verses and present the usual arguments I was taught from the pulpit to use. Such as abortion is taking the life of an innocent, yet the death penalty is for the guilty and of course the great “eye for an eye†argument.
The war issue I find is much more complicated but generally it is always wrapped around the premise that the U.S. is somehow a chosen nation representing God in this world and therefore just in saving the world from communism, paganism and radical Muslim extremists. Also, by somehow preserving the sovereignty of this “Judeo Christian†nation and American way of life, we are protecting God and His Word itself.
In recent years I have been asking the same questions that you have asked in this post. I now value all life as God’s precious creation that is made for His purpose. As for those on death row, who among us are truly innocent? And by what degree do we judge others to the point of taking their life? I am now anti-death penalty.
I no longer recognize our nation, as great as it is, as somehow representative of God and His kingdom, that is what the ecclesia is for, not a man made form of government or nation. I think we have put way too much value in our country and not enough value and purpose in what the church is supposed to be and do. I can no longer justify wars of aggression and having an interventionist attitude in other countries.
My thought process is now being driven, not by what I am told to believe from another imperfect biased person placed on a pedestal (or pulpit), but by what Jesus demonstrated and said. If we are to take Him seriously, we must turn the other cheek, love unconditionally, be willing to suffer for the sake of others, and walk humbly in this world.
Again, tough questions, but I strive to find the answers in following and imitating the life of Jesus, as imperfectly as I do.
May 8th, 2008 19:28
I think that the answer to some of your points is self-defense.. a woman whose life is in danger, is raped or the victim of incest may have (in my opinion) a right to defend herself via abortion.. of course this is a very small percentage of abortions and not worth arguing over.
Self defense also works for capital punishment.. I think that, in rare cases, the state has the responsibility to defend it’s citizens in this way.. admittedly this is a weak argument.
This self defense argument is why I am against the Iraqi war but for the war in Afghanistan.. okay to defend ourselves from terrorists but I’m not in favor of invading nations like Iraq unless there is a preponderance of evidence against them.
May 9th, 2008 06:15
Hey Steve,
I was not raised to be pro-life… but I am. That said, I am not pro-death-sentence (I’m not anti-death-sentence either). I feel that the government has the God given right to make abortion illegal or legal. I would encourage anyone thinking about aborting to not do so (including incest/rape, etc.). Basically my opinion is that the child has a chance regardless of the mothers circumstance. But Jesus still loves the mother, even if she chooses to abort.
Oh, and I do think there is a difference between being pro-life for the innocent and pro-death for the guilty, but not necessarily something I am going to support.
Those are my thoughts in a nut shell.
God’s Glory,
Lew
The Pursuit Online Store
May 10th, 2008 06:17
Steve,
Good to see you writing again!
Some various thoughts on this, not in any particularly logical order:
It is a sign of the moral confusion of our society that it is so squeamish about taking criminal life and so callous about unborn life.
Much of the argument against capital punishment that I have seen confuses the personal responsibility of the individual (as laid out in the Sermon on the Mount and other passages) with the responsibility of the state. The individual has a responsibility to “live in peace with all men.” The state has a duty to protect its people from threats, both external and internal. And in an imperfect world made up of fallen people, neither individual nor state is going to carry out its duties flawlessly 100% of the time.
As early as Genesis, the Bible states “who sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” I think this is not so much a prescriptive law as a statement of how life in this world effectively works. The OT law was actually much more merciful than contemporary law codes such as Hammurabi’s, or even later ones like Tudor England’s. (There were a lot of minor crimes you could be hung for in the 1500s.) The “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” principle actually sets limits on retribution. And there were elaborate arrangements for “cities of refuge” for those who caused accidental death (what we now call “manslaughter” rather than “murder.” Incidentally, there was no provision in the OT Law for imprisonment: if you murdered, you died; if you stole, you paid restitution. No jail time.
I,m working today, so I have to get going. I may try to address some other things later.
Phil
May 10th, 2008 16:15
Thanks, Steve, for asking the very questions I often ask myself. It frustrates me, too, that what is called pro-life is only one aspect of life, that of the unborn child. If we say the baby must be born even at the risk of the mother’s life, we are saying that the mother’s life is dispensible, and we’re saying the father —if one is around— is responsible for the total care of the child(ren) if the mother dies. While this is a painfully divisive issue for us as a nation and even as Christians, the issue should never stop at the question of whether or not a woman–let’s say a 16-year-old— should give birth to a child. The issue goes on: Do we in our church believe in supporting this unwed mother once she has decided to keep the baby? If so, in what specific ways, and for how long? Do we believe in baptizing that child in the church if the family wishes, and will we work to find housing, food, baby clothes, employment and other assistance for that family? Or if we believe that a mother should stay home with her newborn, will we support her financially? (The movie “Juno” raised some great questions about all of this in a balanced way.) Here’s how much energy and love goes into being truly pro-life: When I lived in Alaska, our pastor and his wife and 3 kids took in an at-risk pregnant teen who was trying to decide whether to have her baby. She decided yes, and she lived with them before, during and after her pregnancy for about a year until she found work that could mesh with a newborn’s schedule. Even after the new mom left their house, the pastor’s wife babysat the baby daily, for free. I will never forget their putting into practice God’s call to be pro-life in every aspect.
May 10th, 2008 20:39
More assorted thoughts:
There is an apparent disconnect between being anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment. But my personal belief is this happens because we are looking at it from man’s perspective. So what does it look like from God’s perspective? He created man in His own image, and He has set a value on human life–and He values it enough that when someone willfully and deliberately takes a human life, the only commensurate consequence is for the taker to surrender his own life. But when the state exacts that penalty, it must not be done carelessly or lightly. While the endless appeals and stays in our modern courts seem to stem more from the “squeamishness” I mentioned in this morning’s comment, the OT Law required the testimony of two or more witnesses to condemn a suspect–no “circumstantial evidence” or conjecture–from what I understand of the US and European legal systems, the Hebrew Law actually set a higher standard of proof.
What about war? The early Christians tended to be pacifists (service in the Roman army required participation in pagan ceremonies). But when soldiers came to John the Baptist, he didn’t tell them to get out of the army; Jesus healed the centurion’s servant and even commended his faith, without criticizing his occupation; and Cornelius got no rebuke either from Peter. The sad truth is, in a fallen world there may be times when a nation has to fight a war to protect its people. Again, it must not be taken lightly or carelessly (the Confederate States were MUCH too eager for the Civil War, and they paid dearly for it before the war ended). This does not mean all wars are justified, nor is war a glorious thing in itself. But it is sometimes necessary.
But why does the OT Law prescribe death for adultery and rape? I think the answer lies in God’s use of the concept of marriage to illustrate His relationship with His people. The OT prophets spoke of Israel and Judah as an unfaithful wife; the NT calls the Church the Bride of Christ. I even think that God instituted marriage in the first place with this in mind (I also believe that the act of sexual intercourse is just as binding in God’s eyes as any marriage ceremony). And because of this when anyone ignores the importance He puts on this relationship, whether by means of divorce, sexual promiscuity outside of marriage, adultery, male or female homosexuality; he/she is taking lightly something that God takes very seriously indeed. I know this would not be a popular view in today’s society, but it is at the root of the tension between Christians and and secular society.
May 12th, 2008 14:54
One more thought that has come to me:
The issues of pro-life/death penalty/war are linked to the tension between Justice and Mercy. Justice without Mercy ends up harsh and legalistic, often seems like tyranny. But Mercy can be extended so far that it leads to injustice (news archives are full of stories of criminals released or paroled who commit similar or worse crimes–we had a case here in Indianapolis a few months ago where the captured suspect had been out on bail awaiting trial). God is probably the only One in the Universe who can balance Justice and Mercy perfectly; humans don’t seem to do “balance” very well in any area for long. Even in non-criminal matters, Mercy can go too far: twenty-odd years ago I knew an older pastor who loved to help people, and had been given his own benevolence fund so he could do it without going through committees and such. He told me he had had to learn to be careful in helping people, because too many times he found out over time that he was getting in the way of what God was trying to do in an individual’s life–his “helping” actually enabled them to avoid facing things in their lives that they really needed to face up to.
May 12th, 2008 20:27
Thank you all for your great input on this topic. It’s very refreshing to know that I am not alone in asking these questions.
Some mentioned Jim Wallis — even though I am familiar with Jim Wallis, I have never read his stuff or examined what he is saying. I didn’t realize he had already brought up some of these issues.
Mama’s Boy, I thought your torture analogy was excellent and very thought-provoking. Thanks for sharing that. Did you develop that on your own, or did you hear it somewhere?
For the record, I’m pro-life in every way that I can imagine right now. I am anti-death penalty (even though some have given some great food for thought here as to why the death penalty can be defended with a certain amount of reasonability), anti-abortion, and anti-war.
As I mentioned in the post, I wasn’t always this way. But I have become that way in recent years.
Kansas Bob, I would be interested in further thoughts from you about how you feel aborting the product of a rape is “self-defense”. I didn’t follow that line of thinking. Either I completely misunderstood you, or — if I did understand correctly — I am adamantly not in agreement with what you said!
Anyway, thanks for the input, everyone. It was interesting to see the various views presented. Kind of made my title of this post (“various shades of pro-life”) even more appropriate!
May 13th, 2008 09:12
This isn’t original Steve but it reflects my thinking:
The reason I would tolerate the abortion of healthy babies conceived through rape or incest is that unlike in the vast majority of pregnancies, in such cases the mother bears no responsibility for the conception. Whenever sex is voluntary there is a chance of pregnancy, no matter how remote, and by making the decision to have sex a woman is implicitly accepting the responsibility of handling whatever consequences may result; it isn’t morally acceptable to kill another human being to spare yourself inconvenience brought about by your own actions. However, in cases of rape or incest where the woman does not consent, she does not bear any responsibility for the pregnancy and should not be legally required to carry the baby to term.
I think abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest, but I don’t necessarily think such abortions are desirable or morally acceptable. That’s a more difficult question, and in general I think it would be best to tolerate the unasked-for inconvenience (and risk) of pregnancy in order to protect the life of the baby. However, I wouldn’t force a woman to make that decision.
What do you think Steve? Is it okay for a 10 year old victim of sexual abuse and incest to protect/defend herself? Should such an innocent victim have no rights to defend herself after criminal action?
May 13th, 2008 13:17
Kansasbob,
Abortion requires taking the life of an innocent human being who bears no responsibility for the situation.
Suppose you are in an auto accident where a drunk driver hits you, causing major internal injuries and putting you in traction. Because of the damage to your kidneys, you go on dialysis, but it isn’t enough and you have a 20% chance of dying if a donor isn’t found within a couple months. A person with a matching kidney is found, but they only have one already due to a genetic abnormality. If the law allowed it, would you kill that person to harvest their kidney and increase your own survival chances?
To do so would be cowardice and tremendously unjust. Sometimes people are faced with difficulties in life that nobody should be faced with. Taking the lives of other innocent human beings to better our own situation is not the right way to address injustice.
MB
Steve,
I made up the torture analogy based on reading interviews of people on the new religious left. People who are personally opposed to abortion, but believe in the government’s right to sanction what they ostensibly believe to be murder. It seems incongruous for people to be so laissez-faire about murdering millions and yet think torturing and wiretapping a small fraction of that number spells the end of civil liberties in this country.
MB
May 14th, 2008 10:51
KB, I appreciate you fleshing out your comment there.
I see a little better what you were trying to say, but I have to say I’m not sure I agree with the idea of allowing abortion in those cases.
Having said that, I’m honestly not sure what the role of the government should be in all of this. The government is supposed to protect the right to life, so I guess I would have to go with a position that says the government does not allow abortions under any circumstances.
I just can’t see how terminating a pregnancy resulting from forced sex makes anything better.
May 16th, 2008 14:31
I haven’t had time to read everyone’s comments, but here’s my basic premise…
I oppose abortion on the premise that decent society has a moral mandate to protect the helpless. This also affects my position against euthanasia, and is rooted in the belief that God gives and takes life as he chooses. No man should make a decision as to when another man dies, in a peaceful society. I would even “vote” to protect the life of the child created by incest or rape. The child has no defense. The child is not at fault. I would vote for the “state” to underwrite ALL costs for adoption should be born by the state were this to be forced upon an unwilling mother – who SHOULD have been protected by the law to start with – but the rights of the innocent, unborn, and helpless child should not be compromised.
I am moderately opposed to the death penalty in principle, somewhat for the same reasons. However, I do not OBJECT and would not actively FIGHT the death penalty, due to the fact that the law is only allowed to administer it to violent criminals who pass a “high” mark for the type of crime committed. I believe that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to help prevent violence against the helpless. See the above paragraph for society’s duty to protect the helpless. If the existence of the death penalty serves to protect the helpless, I believe that society is within its moral duty to exercise that penalty.
War falls within a similar bound. I feel that no country has the right to send men to kill other men in a spirit of conquest or dominance. In the event that a nation is attacked, or if there are circumstances where a larger country is acting to protect the interests of a smaller, more helpless nation, I fully support the right of that nation to send soldiers to terminate the lives of the opposing forces with extreme prejudice.
I attach more importance to the protection of the helpless than I do to the arbitrary standard of “life”, even though I attach MUCH significance to life and respect for it.
In short, I will willingly kill any man who threatens my wife or children. I will respect his right to life only until he passes the boundary of my protective moral standard.
Is this a “Biblical” standard? I admit I cannot quote chapter and verse, but I also maintain that I have come to these opinions and conclusions based on many years of being surrounded by Biblical teaching and thought. As well, I “feel” that this train of thought has much more chance of standing in a “school” of thought where God is not recongnized or accepted.
May 17th, 2008 18:01
“I guess I would have to go with a position that says the government does not allow abortions under any circumstances.”
What about allowing that 10 year old victim of abuse/incest/rape take a morning after pill as she is being treated in an ER because of wounds from the abuse?
What about when the actual physical life of a mother is in danger?
What should the consequence be if an abortion is performed in these above cases and the government deems it illegal?
May 30th, 2008 15:27
We live in a culture where many parents don’t want their children. Sometimes that results in abortion, sometimes in neglect or abuse. We need to value children again as a society. They get stepped on and are seen as financial burdens, and are generally unwanted by many.
As for abortion itself, it is as great or greater an injustice than slavery. Who are we to take a life? The child did not do anything wrong in a rape or incest situation. We can’t choice to end that life, no matter what. God has taken many a child that many would have justified aborting and brought them into a place of prominent and fruitful service for the Kingdom.
I think politics is one avenue to end abortion legally but the root problem of unwanted children will remain until hearts are changed.