I'm Pro-Life, but I'm not Anti-Killing

[ToBeLoved]

Ah, I haven't heard that. My positions were established a long time ago, and I usually go back and revisit them to see if they need revision. I don't think abortion is ethically sound, but I also don't think it's the worst sort of killing humans do.

What would be the worst sort of killing it then?

 

[jardiniere]

you brought up capital punishment, what I said in reference to that is true. Petty theft is not punished by execution...at least not in the US.

But innocent people are sentenced to death by our justice system. That's . . . not cool.

 

[ToBeLoved]

But not my religion. I'm still an Anglican. "Other religion" is more accurate in the present political climate, where only right-wing Evangelicals are deemed to be real Christians.

Seems like you’ve excluded yourself.

I’m not sure how or why you believe who you are in Christ changes according to politics.

I don’t get it frankly

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But not my religion. I'm still an Anglican. "Other religion" is more accurate in the present political climate, where only right-wing Evangelicals are deemed to be real Christians.

..... Yeah. I can imagine it may 'feel' that way. But, maybe do the rest of us a favor, in a spirit of ecumenical parity, and just put it back to Anglican. If you do, I'll give you a big:

And I just know you wouldn't want to pass that up, now would you?

 

[Speedwell]

Seems like you’ve excluded yourself.

I’m not sure how or why you believe who you are in Christ changes according to politics.

I don’t get it frankly

It doesn't. But I find that in these forums I am subject to less hostility as an "other religion" than as a Christian who does not agree with conservative Evangelicals on many political issues. It's also a form of protest--If you don't think I'm a real Christian, fine. I won't be. Your opinion does not affect my relationship with Christ one bit.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It doesn't. But I find that in these forums I am subject to less hostility as an "other religion" than as a Christian who does not agree with conservative Evangelicals on many political issues. It's also a form of protest--If you don't think I'm a real Christian, fine. I won't be. Your opinion does not affect my relationship with Christ one bit.

So you are protesting against who you are in Christ to make a political statement?

I don’t put politics before God. Think about Jesus words and how He said that loving God is the most important commandment.

Also, I didn’t give any opinion so please do not put words in my mouth as if I did. Thanks.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It doesn't. But I find that in these forums I am subject to less hostility as an "other religion" than as a Christian who does not agree with conservative Evangelicals on many political issues. It's also a form of protest--If you don't think I'm a real Christian, fine. I won't be. Your opinion does not affect my relationship with Christ one bit.

Well then. Remind me not to choose you when we make up teams for softball at the next get-together picnic ... (Think: the "Who's on First" joke)

 

[jardiniere]

• The unborn have not violated the "laws of the land" [see Romans 13] and are not deserving of capital punishment, in that context.
• The unborn are conceived in hereditary guilt just like everybody else. That judgment occurs at the end of one's life, unless they have accepted God's terms of Amnesty.

So, we need to distinguish innocence in laws of the land, since no one is otherwise innocent. OK. Enough people in the US are killed and have not violated the laws of the land, and that needs addressing-because it's not violating the laws of the land to kill the unborn.

How can we ethically address the lawful killing of some, and the unlawful killing of others, when they are as mixed up as they are today? Innocent people are lawfully killed-unborn, child and adult. Surely it's more important to the social well-being of our society to address why we let this happen, than to focus our collective will on addressing just some of the lawful killing that is occurring (abortion)?

I think killing the unborn is a dreadful, ethically bad thing. But I also think that it is the very best time to kill a person, seeing as how they don't have a thinking consciousness at that time of development. But even if that is so, lawfully killing the unborn helps to cheapen the value of human life, which we don't hold very dear to begin with.

 

[jardiniere]

What would be the worst sort of killing it then?

Killing an innocent* person who has full consciousness and has been sentenced under law to death.

* having not committed the crime they were accused of.

eta: spelling

 

[Speedwell]

So you are protesting against who you are in Christ to make a political statement?

No, just against what some people who share your religious persuasion think I am.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Killing an innocent* person who has full consciousness and has been sentenced under law to death.

* having not committed the crime the were accused of.

I’m not sure how one evil condones another evil or vice versa.

 

[ToBeLoved]

No, just against what some people who share your religious persuasion think I am.

Praying for you brother

 

[Speedwell]

Praying for you brother

It would be sufficient if you would just remember always to be civil to other Christians who oppose abortion and think it is a sin but for various reasons do not at the present time want to make it against the laws of a secular state. They are not "abortion supporters."

 

[durangodawood]

But innocent people are sentenced to death by our justice system. That's . . . not cool.

Thats a good reason to abolish the death penalty.

But its a totally different issue than the relative moral positions of the fetus/unborn vs an actual criminal.

 

[Halbhh]

So, is there an ethical mismatch in my stance, or can it be explained by differences in semantics?

(even though many try to reconcile, it's a mismatch in the most key way: )

A 'pro life' view that aligns to the teachings to us from Christ includes:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

43“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..."


As you can see, a nation cannot be a believer in Christ, cannot act as an individual person.

A nation does what is un-Christian, by it's very nature. (much of the time; a nation could only do a Christian action occasionally)

Or all nations will continue to remain unChristian, and kill, until He returns and becomes the King, literally with us in person.

 

[jardiniere]

Thats a good reason to abolish the death penalty.

But its a totally different issue than the relative moral positions of the fetus/unborn vs an actual criminal.

It's a different issue only if one conflates the separate meanings of "innocent".

eta: Fetuses are "guilty" of trespass, that is, using someone else to further their own ends without the explicit consent of that someone. That doesn't mean someone should abort a fetus they don't want using their resources, though. But it is showing that their behavior in a full-rights sense is mostly illegal if the woman doesn't want to carry the embryo.

 

[jardiniere]

(even though many try to reconcile, it's a mismatch in the most key way: )

A 'pro life' view that aligns to the teachings to us from Christ includes:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

43“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..."


As you can see, a nation cannot be a believer in Christ, cannot act as an individual person.

A nation does what is un-Christian, by it's very nature. (much of the time; a nation could only do a Christian action occasionally)

Or all nations will continue to remain unChristian, and kill, until He returns and becomes the King, literally with us in person.

I like this response because it aligns more closely with my understanding of Christianity, which I don't see practiced very often, probably because it's the highest ideals of the religion, and hey, it's tough to even stay on a diet.

 

[Halbhh]

I like this response because it aligns more closely with my understanding of Christianity, which I don't see practiced very often, probably because it's the highest ideals of the religion, and hey, it's tough to even stay on a diet.

Yeah. These ideals are actually impossible to do very long without a profound aid (what a non believer like Joseph Campbell would have called 'invisible means of support').

One profound aid is to look to Christ, remember what he did for us: to go even to death for the sake of "love one another" as the only true ideal. Sort of like Martin Luther King Jr, but on a much more total and full scale and reach.

See, this is part of how you can begin to want to know (or I did) how well these principles like "love your neighbor as yourself" work in real life when you literally and actually do them, with one's actual (random) next door neighbors.

So I did.

And the surprising results are what made me then try out more and more of what He said. It all works, in real life.

 

[Sabertooth]

Enough people in the US are killed and have not violated the laws of the land, and that needs addressing-because it's not violating the laws of the land to kill the unborn.

Currently, it is because fetuses are held to be property, not persons, just like American slaves years ago.

Being a fetus is not violating the laws of the land either, but they are routinely being killed, anyway (and without a trial).

How can we ethically address the lawful killing of some, and the unlawful killing of others, when they are as mixed up as they are today? Innocent people are lawfully killed-unborn, child and adult. Surely it's more important to the social well-being of our society to address why we let this happen, than to focus our collective will on addressing just some of the lawful killing that is occurring (abortion)?

Apart from accidents and honest judicial errors, I don't see the latter two groups getting killed without legal consequence. I think that you are making an extravagant leap to propose that post-born humans are being disposed of as refuse to any extent that the pre-born are.

 

[jardiniere]

Currently, it is because fetuses are held to be property, not persons, just like American slaves years ago.

Being a fetus is not violating the laws of the land either, but they are routinely being killed, anyway (and without a trial).

Apart from accidents and honest judicial errors, I don't see the latter two groups getting killed without legal consequence.

I linked to one in a prior post.

I think that you are making an extravagant leap to propose that post-born humans are being disposed of as refuse to any extent that the pre-born are.

Post-born aren't disposed of as refuse (and I don't think fetuses are either, btw), but they are killed legally. How can the extent be relevant here? Surely it's a serious problem however much it happens. Couldn't we focus the issue on reducing its happening, rather than quibble over more or less?

I don't have an answer, but I try, because I think abortion is a symptom of a sick society I don't like participating in. Maybe fixing the society without resorting to killing people is the answer.

We have the technology today to remove and freeze embryos, eggs and sperm from people. Could this be a step in removing abortions as an option and instead offering to remove the embryo from a woman and giving it a chance later in time?