Prolife & pacifism

[Anglian]

Dear Brothers and Sister in Christ,

On the OBOB Forum I inadvertently upset some of the posters by saying that since the basis for Christian opposition to abortion was the sacredness of human life, it seemed inconsistent that some of those who opposed the killing of babies in the womb seemed to think it OK to kill them once they were born if a military operation (such as the recent one in Syria) ended up needing it. Consistency seems to demand that if, as Christians, we accept 'thou shalt not kill' as the basis for opposing abortion, then by the same token, we accept it as opposing all killing.

For Coptic Christians, of whom I am one, this is so accepted that the vehemence of the opposition on OBOB rather took me aback.

I guess pacifism is not a very popular option for most, but how is killing people, born or unborn, compatible with following the word of God. Christ told us to love those who hate us and to turn the other cheek.

I'd be interested in hearing the views of those who are Christians and yet find it perfectly compatible with their Faith that it should be necessary to kill people in the name of 'freedom' or 'democracy'.

As I say, I'm really just trying to understand this point of view. Any thoughts?

peace,

Anglian

 

[Chesterton]

I guess pacifism is not a very popular option for most, but how is killing people, born or unborn, compatible with following the word of God. Christ told us to love those who hate us and to turn the other cheek.

I don't know if it's popular, but it's not un-Christian. Can we love those we kill? I believe we can. If humanity followed your idea, no society would have a criminal justice system. That is, we'd make no attempt at justice. If a person stole or killed, there'd be no consequence. Just as Christ recognized (and therefore allowed) the necessity of civil authority and taxation in a fallen world, Christ recognized the necessity of human law in a fallen world. War is an extension of human law; it's an attempt at justice, and preventing injustice.

 

[truthshift]

Dear Brothers and Sister in Christ,

On the OBOB Forum I inadvertently upset some of the posters by saying that since the basis for Christian opposition to abortion was the sacredness of human life, it seemed inconsistent that some of those who opposed the killing of babies in the womb seemed to think it OK to kill them once they were born if a military operation (such as the recent one in Syria) ended up needing it. Consistency seems to demand that if, as Christians, we accept 'thou shalt not kill' as the basis for opposing abortion, then by the same token, we accept it as opposing all killing.

For Coptic Christians, of whom I am one, this is so accepted that the vehemence of the opposition on OBOB rather took me aback.

I guess pacifism is not a very popular option for most, but how is killing people, born or unborn, compatible with following the word of God. Christ told us to love those who hate us and to turn the other cheek.

I'd be interested in hearing the views of those who are Christians and yet find it perfectly compatible with their Faith that it should be necessary to kill people in the name of 'freedom' or 'democracy'.

As I say, I'm really just trying to understand this point of view. Any thoughts?

peace,

Anglian

I understand that you are looking for an answer from a Christian perspective but look at it this way.

1. From an anti-theological standpoint you can answer the question almost immediately because the choice is clear(although it variates for each individual). For me, personally, I think it is wrong to end life, particularly human life so, abortion is a bad thing. Though, I understand the need to defend ones self from attack and if that involves taking the life of another person to save your own and that of the ones you love then it is something that must be done. Many believe differently, but they too, can make that choice for themselves without much mental conflict.

but

2. To answer the question on the debate from the christian theological standpoint you'll need to rationalize your answer to fit your beliefs or you'll find yourself at an impasse. The bible clearly states 'thou shalt not kill'
and that, as a christian, you must turn the other cheek and love your enemies. It does not specify which or what kind of enemies so you must assume that it includes _all_ enemies.

Now you have your dilemma. To stay true to the word of God you must never retaliate to any enemy attack, let alone, end their life. You must maintain a policy of complete pacifism to title yourself as a follower.

Any deviation from that means that you are in 1 of 3 situations:

You-
a. have not read the bible and do not know its not ok to attack or kill.
b. have rationalized a reasoning for killing and defending yourself
c. are not a true christian and do not follow the word of God

Chances are, it is 'b'. You have found some round-about reasoning within the word of God that justifies defense, retaliation, and the murder of your enemies. If this is the case then 1 of 2 things are true:

a. The word of God is imperfect and has contradicted itself to your understanding
b. You have misinterpreted the bible and it is still not ok for you to kill because the word of God is perfect.

--------------------

So, I hope that helps explain their point of view. By all standards a true christian must be a complete pacifist and anything else is probably an example of the situations I mentioned above.

- Eric -

 

[wanderingone]

I don't know if it's popular, but it's not un-Christian. Can we love those we kill? I believe we can. If humanity followed your idea, no society would have a criminal justice system. That is, we'd make no attempt at justice. If a person stole or killed, there'd be no consequence. Just as Christ recognized (and therefore allowed) the necessity of civil authority and taxation in a fallen world, Christ recognized the necessity of human law in a fallen world. War is an extension of human law; it's an attempt at justice, and preventing injustice.

Why can there be no justice if we don't kill people?

 

[wanderingone]

I understand that you are looking for an answer from a Christian perspective but look at it this way.

1. From an anti-theological standpoint you can answer the question almost immediately because the choice is clear(although it variates for each individual). For me, personally, I think it is wrong to end life, particularly human life so, abortion is a bad thing. Though, I understand the need to defend ones self from attack and if that involves taking the life of another person to save your own and that of the ones you love then it is something that must be done. Many believe differently, but they too, can make that choice for themselves without much mental conflict.

but

2. To answer the question on the debate from the christian theological standpoint you'll need to rationalize your answer to fit your beliefs or you'll find yourself at an impasse. The bible clearly states 'thou shalt not kill'
and that, as a christian, you must turn the other cheek and love your enemies. It does not specify which or what kind of enemies so you must assume that it includes _all_ enemies.

Now you have your dilemma. To stay true to the word of God you must never retaliate to any enemy attack, let alone, end their life. You must maintain a policy of complete pacifism to title yourself as a follower.

Any deviation from that means that you are in 1 of 3 situations:

You-
a. have not read the bible and do not know its not ok to attack or kill.
b. have rationalized a reasoning for killing and defending yourself
c. are not a true christian and do not follow the word of God

Chances are, it is 'b'. You have found some round-about reasoning within the word of God that justifies defense, retaliation, and the murder of your enemies. If this is the case then 1 of 2 things are true:

a. The word of God is imperfect and has contradicted itself to your understanding
b. You have misinterpreted the bible and it is still not ok for you to kill because the word of God is perfect.

--------------------

So, I hope that helps explain their point of view. By all standards a true christian must be a complete pacifist and anything else is probably an example of the situations I mentioned above.

- Eric -

While I don't entirely agree with your view of either the word is imperfect or one misinterprets the word I do believe that to aspire to be followers of Christ one has to give up violence. I think it is excruciatingly difficult to live without violence completely for much (if not most) of the world.

 

[Chesterton]

Why can there be no justice if we don't kill people?

Because unjust people would rule the world if we didn't.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Dear Brothers and Sister in Christ,

On the OBOB Forum I inadvertently upset some of the posters by saying that since the basis for Christian opposition to abortion was the sacredness of human life, it seemed inconsistent that some of those who opposed the killing of babies in the womb seemed to think it OK to kill them once they were born if a military operation (such as the recent one in Syria) ended up needing it. Consistency seems to demand that if, as Christians, we accept 'thou shalt not kill' as the basis for opposing abortion, then by the same token, we accept it as opposing all killing.

For Coptic Christians, of whom I am one, this is so accepted that the vehemence of the opposition on OBOB rather took me aback.

I guess pacifism is not a very popular option for most, but how is killing people, born or unborn, compatible with following the word of God. Christ told us to love those who hate us and to turn the other cheek.

I'd be interested in hearing the views of those who are Christians and yet find it perfectly compatible with their Faith that it should be necessary to kill people in the name of 'freedom' or 'democracy'.

As I say, I'm really just trying to understand this point of view. Any thoughts?

peace,

Anglian

What do you mean by "Thou shall not kill", are we allowed to kill animals for food? Is it wrong to kill a bug? Are we allowed to kill to defend ourselves our are country?

I believe it is "Thou shall not murder" (some bibles have this or 'Though shall not kill") And yes it is different then "Thou shall not kill". Murder is a crime in this country but there is nothing wrong with killing in Self Defense.

I believe that it is not Murder when you kill in self defense or kill an armed enemey in a war. Capital Punishment is not murder either. However the babies that are killed in Abortion is murder because those babies were innocent and had not done wrong. It is unnecessary killing.

This is what i go off the wiki.

"Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries. Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification. All jurisdictions, ancient and modern, consider it a most serious crime and therefore impose severe penalty on its commission."


Here is some info on the controversy whether it is kill or murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill#Killing_or_murder

I believe all Murder is killing but not all killing is murder.

 

[Verv]

No, consistency does not demand that.

In order to maintain peace and to fulfill utilitarianism, that is to say to make sure that we have the greatest good for the greatest number, sometimes we must partake in warfare.

Though we must do it begrudgingly it is the way of the world.

Abortion is out and out murder.

 

[truthshift]

What do you mean by "Thou shall not kill", are we allowed to kill animals for food? Is it wrong to kill a bug? Are we allowed to kill to defend ourselves our are country?

I believe it is "Thou shall not murder" (some bibles have this or 'Though shall not kill") And yes it is different then "Thou shall not kill". Murder is a crime in this country but there is nothing wrong with killing in Self Defense.

I believe that it is not Murder when you kill in self defense or kill an armed enemey in a war. Capital Punishment is not murder either. However the babies that are killed in Abortion is murder because those babies were innocent and had not done wrong. It is unnecessary killing.

This is what i go off the wiki.

"Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries. Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification. All jurisdictions, ancient and modern, consider it a most serious crime and therefore impose severe penalty on its commission."


Here is some info on the controversy whether it is kill or murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill#Killing_or_murder

I believe all Murder is killing but not all killing is murder.

Regardless of whether it is "murder" or "kill" (Differences in bible printing doesn't do much to lend to its legitimacy in itself) The bible still says that you must turn the other cheek to your enemies. Killing something out of a need to survive is still killing it.

If the bible says "thou shalt not-

Kill", then all christians must be vegan and pacifistic

Murder", then all christians must still be entirely pacifistic and take whatever attacks come at them without retaliating because they must turn the other cheek.

Yet, the debate remains easily concluded for a non-theistic approach.

---

Of course murder is killing and not all killing is murder. That's a matter of fact, not belief.

 

[AdrocK48]

Can we love those we kill? I believe we can.

yes this is a very appropriate and logical conclusion we can make. We can love those that we kill. though this is not entirely true in all cases it is true in a significant portion.
we can love those enough who are on life support and have a significantly low quality/possability of life, to 'pull the plug' and let them go. we would also be loving them if we kept the plug in and cared for them for the rest of their life.
I would also argue that some who kill family members will and do love them, but are soo blinded by rage, substances or other emotions to kill, and subsequently regret what they have done afterwards.

Anglican I must ask you a question.
what are your views on this following situation.
A woman becomes pregnant (doesnt matter about how, what her beliefs are or anything like that, all that we need to know is that she is pregnant). things are fine and at 7 months into the pregnancy something is wrong with the baby that is seriously affecting both mother and child, to the point where one must die so that the other can live. (this does happen) the decision must be made as to who will die. which means someone is going to kill one of the two patients.

As christians, how do we reconcile that with the command of not to kill? if we do something we kill one of the two. if we do nothing we in essence, we kill both.

 

[stan1980]

People who would like to see abortion banned, especially in first trimester cases, are doing nothing more than posturing if you ask me, when you consider they can't feel pain or will suffer. It reads to me as "oooh, look how good a person I am, I think abortions are baaaaad!". Yet no one has ever come up with a logical reason why abortion is bad for a first trimester foetus. No one is bothered when a sperm dies, no one is bother when an egg dies, yet suddenly we're supposed to be bothered at that precise moment when a sperm fertilises the egg. Ridiculous.

As far as war goes, yes I can agree with defending yourself, it's when you invade nations that haven't yet attacked either you or anyone else when people start to question it. Yes, it's great and all for their people to be liberated from these regimes or dictatorships or whatever, but surely when there are people literally starving to death in other countries, you have to question if the priorities are in the right place, and if the motives are what your leaders are telling you they are.

 

[MoonlessNight]

The argument would usually go that abortion is something which always kills an innocent and defenseless human life. Of course innocent and defenseless people will die in a war, though we justify it as collateral damage, that is to say, that the intent was for some other goal and if we could do it without the loss of innocent bystanders we would do it. Contrast this with abortion, which if it is to fulfill the intent behind it, has to kill the baby.

That being said (and on the principle of the thing I agree with everything I have written), I do think that the pro-life movement often becomes callous in regards to capital punishment and war. I believe that these things have their place, but it is a place that we should not be eager to visit. For capital punishment, the justification I can see is when it is necessary for the good of the community. For instance if a murderer cannot be imprisoned, then to protect the community, they may have to be killed. So I do not see it as inconsistent to be pro-life and yet not want to get rid of the death penalty. But to be pro-life and to be eager for a criminal to die, or to suggest that they should die because they deserve it for what they have done is disheartening.

Likewise, war can have its purpose, but it is a very restricted purpose. There are some matters grave enough that they may justify violence, the most obvious case being defending against an attack. But it is important to fight a war as justly as possible, to never desire that an enemy dies but rather that the war can end and the cause achieved (forgive me for being overly general here). And we definitely shouldn't get into the mindset of "the important thing about wars is that we win and they lose" or "in war there are no rules, so you should do anything possible to insure victory."

The main disappointment I have had with the pro-life movement is the number of people within it who will fight against abortion and wonder how anyone could support it, but then play semantics games to justify torture, or will deny any possibility that the current wars are being fought in a less than just way, or had less than perfect justification.

 

[truthshift]

yes this is a very appropriate and logical conclusion we can make. We can love those that we kill. though this is not entirely true in all cases it is true in a significant portion.
we can love those enough who are on life support and have a significantly low quality/possability of life, to 'pull the plug' and let them go. we would also be loving them if we kept the plug in and cared for them for the rest of their life.
I would also argue that some who kill family members will and do love them, but are soo blinded by rage, substances or other emotions to kill, and subsequently regret what they have done afterwards.

Anglican I must ask you a question.
what are your views on this following situation.
A woman becomes pregnant (doesnt matter about how, what her beliefs are or anything like that, all that we need to know is that she is pregnant). things are fine and at 7 months into the pregnancy something is wrong with the baby that is seriously affecting both mother and child, to the point where one must die so that the other can live. (this does happen) the decision must be made as to who will die. which means someone is going to kill one of the two patients.

As christians, how do we reconcile that with the command of not to kill? if we do something we kill one of the two. if we do nothing we in essence, we kill both.

I hope that this is not the justification for killing people as a Christian.

Ok,

1. Perhaps it is true that you do love someone enough that you would be willing to end their misery. However, unless they consciously and willingly determine that that they want their life to be ended, you must assume it's not their will to die yet. Killing the baby in the situation above is out of the question for obvious reasons. Should the mother opt to die instead of the baby then she must still be "killed" and that is also out of the question. The only way to really do it, is to have her kill herself, but even then, not doing anything to stop her death is just as bad. So, in reality, it is impossible to follow the word of God in that situation. Does God set impossible goals for humanity or did the primitive purveyors of christianity lack the foresight to encompass this question?

2. Just in case this might be used as justification for waging war on people, I am going to make this point. Loving people always involves doing what is best for them. Loving them is what it is. It is loving them. If you should kill a non-believer, at any point in time, whether they be in a vegetable state or trying to shoot you- you have damned them to hell for all eternity. Not only have you killed but, essentially you have killed their soul too. If you love them, you would do what is best for them and that would be witnessing to them and trying to save them, not damning them forever.

Nowhere in the bible does it give you license to do that, in fact, I maintain my point on my initial response that you MUST turn the other cheek and never kill under any circumstance. You must remain entirely pacifistic and do what is best for others, which is saving their souls.

---------------------

So, under no circumstances is killing (or aggression of any kind) ok as a Christian. If it really is illogical to not be able to kill at all in a situation where someone must die then it is time to consider that the word of god is indeed fallable because it has unreasonable and impossible expectations.

 

[Anglian]

I'm most grateful to everyone who has responded. Truthshift has made some very interesting points which others have taken up. I wonder if I might respond to some of these points and those others have made.

My understanding is that the Greek words used, like the Hebrew originals can mean both murder and killing, so I don't think that gets Christians out of the rough here; as Truthshift reminds us, Christ tells us to love our enemies and to turn the other cheek.

It surprises me that Christians who have no trouble citing Biblical reasons why homosexuality is sinful, seem to have trouble understanding Christ is telling us to love our enemies and to turn the other cheek; that those who have no trouble applying Leviticus to sexual behaviour seem to need to equivocate over the simple 'thous shalt not kill'. Is this an example of choosing those Biblical injunctions which happen to suit us and rejecting those which challenge us, I wonder? I don't know, and if I have done an injustice here, I will be happy to have it pointed out.

My own Church understands the injunction not to kill as applying to humans because we are made in God's image; but it also recognises that we are stewards of God's earth and, on the 249 days a year we have some kind of fast, we eat only a vegan diet.

Clearly my own position is that I agree with the ending of Truthshift's most interesting first response. Like much of Christ's teaching, this one challenges us; but live without violence is what we are being called to do; He never said His cross would be light.

The ground on which the Church (and when I say this I mean my own Coptic Church) opposes abortion is that we are forbidden to kill; this prohibition is not lifted when the baby comes from the womb, or when it grows into a child or adult.

I am puzzled that so many respondents equate self-defence with killing? Is it not possible to defend oneself without killing? Is self-defence compatible with turning the other cheek. I don't understand how Christians who can quote words of St. Paul to, for example, homosexuals and expect them to desist from sinful behaviour, can, themselves, just deny Christ's own teaching on violence. This seems very inconsistent, but no doubt isn't to those who take that view.

In terms of Adrok's hard situation, if we are not to kill, we are not to kill. We are told not to be attached to the things of this world because they are passing away. Are we so doubtful of our Faith that we think that when God calls us to Him we can decide otherwise?

We are told not to kill; to turn the other cheek and to love our enemies. I can assure you that being a Coptic Christian does not make this an academic option, since we are subject to daily persecution; I myself bear the marks of abiding by the Lord's teaching; but that day He did not call me to Him.

Are we called to decide which parts of Christ's teaching we will obey, deciding that it will be those which suit what we already think? Or are we called to walk in His way and to be strangers in this world?

peace,

Anglian

 

[gwenmead]

On a more secular note, it's often seemed to me that the phrase "pro-life" is something of a misnomer, particularly when it's used by people who are "pro-life" when it comes to fetuses, but not when it comes to criminals on death row, or enemy soldiers, or civilian victims of civil strife, or even endangered non-human species.

I understand that a common position is to value life of any kind based on a sense of moral guilt vs. innocence, with the "innocent" being deserving of preservation and the "guilty" not so. It just seems inconsistent to me, for such people to claim that they are pro-life when their pro-life stance is actually very limited. I find the incorporation of pacifism and an anti-abortion stance into an overall pro-life attitude to be much more consistent, and much more honest.

Incidentally, I don't have any objection to the descriptor "anti-abortion". It's an accurate descriptor for many folks on both sides of the abortion issue, and I find myself wishing more people would use it, openly, clearly, and without shame.

Standard disclaimer, though: what do I know?

 

[WatersMoon110]

On a more secular note, it's often seemed to me that the phrase "pro-life" is something of a misnomer, particularly when it's used by people who are "pro-life" when it comes to fetuses, but not when it comes to criminals on death row, or enemy soldiers, or civilian victims of civil strife, or even endangered non-human species.

I understand that a common position is to value life of any kind based on a sense of moral guilt vs. innocence, with the "innocent" being deserving of preservation and the "guilty" not so. It just seems inconsistent to me, for such people to claim that they are pro-life when their pro-life stance is actually very limited. I find the incorporation of pacifism and an anti-abortion stance into an overall pro-life attitude to be much more consistent, and much more honest.

Incidentally, I don't have any objection to the descriptor "anti-abortion". It's an accurate descriptor for many folks on both sides of the abortion issue, and I find myself wishing more people would use it, openly, clearly, and without shame.

Standard disclaimer, though: what do I know?

I know many Pro-Lifers who would be "consistent" with your opinion of what it should mean (nonviolent, anti-war, anti-death penalty, and even a few who are vegetarian or vegans).

However, I don't think that "anti-abortion" is an unfair term. I strongly disagree with the (much deplored by myself) term "anti-choice" simply because it seems to be intended not to describe those on the Pro-Life side but rather to insult them. I know that many Pro-Lifers are strongly offended by the term, and try to challenge its use whenever I see it.

Personally, I use the two terms that each (political) side has chosen "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life". But I don't think I know any Pro-Lifers that would mind being described as "anti-abortion" since they all are, in fact, against abortion.

 

[cantata]

Being described as "anti-life" is pretty offensive, though, and WatersMoon110, I think the fact that gwenmead indicated that she was talking "particularly" about people who use the handle "pro-life" hypocritically tends to indicate that she knows there are people who do not use it hypocritically.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Dear Brothers and Sister in Christ,

On the OBOB Forum I inadvertently upset some of the posters by saying that since the basis for Christian opposition to abortion was the sacredness of human life, it seemed inconsistent that some of those who opposed the killing of babies in the womb seemed to think it OK to kill them once they were born if a military operation (such as the recent one in Syria) ended up needing it. Consistency seems to demand that if, as Christians, we accept 'thou shalt not kill' as the basis for opposing abortion, then by the same token, we accept it as opposing all killing.

For Coptic Christians, of whom I am one, this is so accepted that the vehemence of the opposition on OBOB rather took me aback.

I guess pacifism is not a very popular option for most, but how is killing people, born or unborn, compatible with following the word of God. Christ told us to love those who hate us and to turn the other cheek.

I'd be interested in hearing the views of those who are Christians and yet find it perfectly compatible with their Faith that it should be necessary to kill people in the name of 'freedom' or 'democracy'.

As I say, I'm really just trying to understand this point of view. Any thoughts?

peace,

Anglian

Pacifisim can and indeed get others killed. If death, murder and suicide are OK with any individual, they can choose to be a victim and get to the afterlife quicker than by a naturla life lived until natural death.

One must decide if saving the life or lives of others, by killing an aggressor, and an already shown to be murderer, or perpetrator, will be approved of by the Judge of all creation.

"If you can live with it," to a true pacificist, means dying for it. And it means "dying for it," for those that may want to live and not be killed BY a murderer or by a person that will not stop the murderer from killing innocent people.

 

[Fin12]

Prolife: Is Not Just anti abortion, pro life is anti abortion AND forcing your beliefs on others, it's the destruction of democracy and freedom of religion, and the building of a theocracy.

Pro choice: It is saying a may OR MAY NOT agree wtih abortion, but I support fredom of religion and free will, so I will let others decide what they wish to do as long as it does not harm me.

It's perfectly acceptable to be against abortion but "Pro choice". People often jump the gun and think the argument is either kill the baby or don't kill the baby.

Whether the abortion goes through in a pro choice government, depends entirely on the morality and ethics of the people.

Anyone catching onto what I am saying?

 

[Anglian]

Again, my thanks to those contributing to this.

I wonder if this way of putting things will help focus a few things?

Those Christians who tell homosexuals their behaviour is sinful, cite Biblical verses which they expect homosexuals to take seriously; yet when Christ's own words about turning the other cheek and loving your enemies are cited, those same Christians do not seem to take His words seriously: if they are going to pick and choose which of Christ's teachings they take seriously, would they consider extending that same liberty of choice to those who are homosexual? If not, why the double standard?

The basis of the Christian opposition to abortion is that all human life is sacred and we should cherish it all. So how can that teaching allow Christians to sanction war?

When Polycarp fan writes:

Pacifisim can and indeed get others killed. If death, murder and suicide are OK with any individual, they can choose to be a victim and get to the afterlife quicker than by a naturla life lived until natural death.

why does he reject the teaching of Christ? Where, in Christ's teaching does he find sanction for war?

peace,

Anglian