How to be CONSISTENTLY pro-life or pro-death

Something has obviously to be changed. Any clue about that?

 

 

Advertisements

26 thoughts on “How to be CONSISTENTLY pro-life or pro-death

  1. Forced birth advocates definitely made a smart marketing decision in adopting the term “pro-life”. I think it’s a term that we need to work on no longer accepting, as it is used in such a narrow scope.

  2. I’d agree – its’ not moral serious and it’s politically manipulative. Do these people really want to lower the rate and of abortion and the number of abortions in the third trimester (for example) and educate people on abortion as a moral decision and not merely a consumer choice (all of which are achievable give the will and the ability to respect difference)- or do they just want to rail against an evil world like angry utopians – who cold also choose absolute pacifism as their slogan? Or are they simply following a theocratic prospectus? I say this as someone who finds abortion on demand to be a terrible thing and verging on eugenics in its libertarian manifestations.

  3. I don’t want to give offence or lose new friends here on this contentious issues – but I have thought a lot about this in the past couple of years when debating with both conservative Christians with and hard line liberals.

    The moral theology of the Catholic Church these days aims to give a consistent pro life ethic – its is against abortion and contraception and euthanasia, against militarism and the death penalty, critical of libertarian capitalism and for the social market and justice towards the poor. Under the new Pope Frances it’s stance on homosexuality has softened and he also wants to discourage a focus on abortion as the only moral issue. Regarding homosexuality – and he has taken the radical step of admitting that gay people, actually exist and should be fully integrated into society – he seems to have been guided by the shocking fact that many corrupt and abuser priests and Bishops railed against homosexuality in the past as a crowd pleasing fig leaf for their corruption,. Likewise his view on not roaring up against abortion all the time seems to be based on the same wise assessment of the excesses of ascetical Right Wing Catholicism in the past. Obviously most if not all of these elements of Catholic moral teaching have shifted from the past – but that is true of all Churches. At least it is consistent and the Catholic Church actually does teach the forgiveness of sins and doesn’t expect absolute perfection of its adherents.

    With the Christian Right in America (and perhaps Australia) the matter is different. They do not have a consistent pro life ethic at all – they simply focus on abortion as an emotive subject bound to stir up feelings of revulsion and resentment (at least their leaders do this – but i don’t doubt the sincerity of the people who are being lead by them). As I have said in another post on this site IMHO if the Christian Right were serious about limiting abortion they would put all of their energy behind introducing a private members conscience provision (as we have in the UK where our abortion laws are far less liberal) for a free vote on the subject tin senate and House of Representative. America is a deeply conservative country – and many Democrats would vote for change along with most (but no all Republicans. Any other tactic is not morally serious. But they are keen to conflate concern about abortion wit supporting backwoodsmen politicians who talk about ‘legitimate rape’, complementarian ideas about the family which would force an abused wife back into the hands of her abusive husband, stigmatising gay people throughout the world as part and parcel of the culture of anti family abortion so they are attacked, raped and lynched etc…. Some Christian fundamentalists would even like to make common cause with very conservative Muslims on grounds that they both share family values (but this can mean honour killing in conservative Muslim families) and are anti abortion (but abortion in the first trimester is not forbidden in Sharia) and are anti gay (enough said).

    Abortion is not mentioned as such in the Bible – there is controversy over the Mosaic law concerning any woman who if found to be pregnant but her husband who is unsure whether or not he is the father and should be forced to drink ‘cursing waters’ so that her womb swells up; is this talking about administering an aborteficant –the philological arguments are not clear either way, There is the overarching ethic to chose life – yes this so. There are also the celebrated passages in Jeremiah about him having been known and formed by God in the womb- but this is poetic language for God’s providence and not the status of the foetus as fully human. Later Jeremiah says in lamentation that the wish he’d died in the womb – abut by the same token this cannot be used to legitimated abortion. I would be a misuse of scripture. In the New Testament of course Jesus blesses the children. This is very important and it’s meaning is still unfolding. For example in some godly states of America in the nineteenth century a man was allowed to marry and have sex with a girl child of a very young age. But today we recognise the rights of children – and this has to be progress towards blessing the children. The conservative vision of everything declining from past perfection is very one sided. Likewise it is simply wrong to say that more children are needlessly killed/die at birth or before birth today than in past eras. The improvement in natal and post natal care across the world – the result of secular medicine although often dispensed by dedicated religious medial missionaries – has lead to a huge increase in life chances for children.
    In Christian tradition abortion is mentioned in a very early text – The Didache; here it is viewed as a sin against neighbour love rather than as murder. Early Christian penitential show us that certain penances were imposed on a woman who had an abortion – well short of excommunication. AS in Judaism and Islam there was a debate among the Early Fathers about at point when a foetus becomes ensouled and therefore should be accorded rights of full human status. Jerome argued that this was at the beginning of the second trimester. And later Aquinas argues something similar. The blanket ban on abortion in Catholicism developed from Augustinian in eschatology in which it was seen as double murder. First it was murder of the child and second it was murder inasmuch as it condemned the child’s soul to eternal hell by depriving it of baptism. This view prevailed in Catholic teaching from the fifteenth century – it is not the underpinning for Catholic opposition to abortion today –at least it is only; a minority view. It is not morally serious as an agenda for change.

    Current Christian Right opposition to abortion stems from Frances Schaeffer and Kroop – and that it is used to bolster a whole raft of other anti life policies was unintended by Schaffer I think. Whatever the nuances of Schaffer’s moral theology – he thought Calvin was to harsh with the double predestination stuff but did not offer a real critique- we can say that Reformed opposition to abortion is based in the idea that it interferes with God’s sovereignty (and this is the tradition he worked within). Quick excursus -back to improvements in life chances through medicine. There was an epidemic of cholera that killed many children in England, especially London, in the mid- nineteenth century. The Calvinists in Parliament who saw it as God ‘a sovereign punishment, proposed as a remedy a national day of public fasting and humiliation. The ‘progressive’ Christians of the time busied themselves with reforming the sewage system in the Capital to prevent further outbreaks of cholera seeing themselves as God’s compassionate co-workers. So sovereignty thinking on medical and health care matters has its drawbacks. Suffice to say that IMHO the entire moral position descends into farce over violent eschatology. According to Westminster Confession if a child dies in the Womb or before baptism of elect parents it will be saved. If the child was from un-elect parents it will be damned eternally. Now even John Pieper does not believe this today. The consensus today amongst TULIP Calvinists is that if a child is aborted or dies in the mob or dies before the age of responsibility (which Schaeffer set arbitrarily at nine years of age) it goes to heaven. Now given Calvinist teaching on election in the long run it would be safer to be aborted. So again the teaching is not morally serious IMHO.

    I find the Jewish position instructive here – and more in accord with earlier Christian teaching. This is based on an exegesis of the Torah law that states that if man hits a woman who is pregnant and she miscarries he is to pay her a fine, but if both mother and child ode he is to pay with his life for a life. Whatever this means in its original context it was the spur for sophisticated discourse about abortion among the Rabbis. In this the foetus is not seen as of equal status with a person alive outside the womb – killing a child is only murder when it emerges from the mother at birth. However the foetus does have respected status as potential life and as it develops further in the pregnancy its rights increase. Therefore abortion in the first trimester is less serious than abortion in the third trimester. Therefore a mother should not have to dies with an ectopic pregnancy for example. Therefore there will be ground for abortion – for example if the foetus has some terrible disease which mean it will only; live for a few hours in agony if it is born, and there are many others too.

    However, other grounds for abortion frequently used today – abortion on cosmetic grounds, on sex selection grounds, on grounds of not wanting to have an imperfect baby that would actually have real quality of life and could actually be loved and give love, on career grounds etc become morally very problematic. I think such an ethic accords with ‘natural law’ – our moral intuitions. And it is adequate grounds for discussing abortion in a serious moral way outside of a Right Wing agenda. It would also actually be gourds to provide women and their partners who grieve for an boarded foetus – something often hushed up by doctrinaire liberals – pastille care and support and comfort so that they do not grieve forever. IT also provides go urns for campaigning to tighten up existing laws through appeal to conscience and also to educate people in making moral choices rather than consumer choices. I hope I have not offended anyone.

    • Not offended. I think you outlined your position quite well. I am in favor of the so-called “abortion pill”. A fertilized egg is prevented from implanting in teh womb. Implantation is the actual start of a pregnancy, and many fertilized eggs do not implant naturally, anyway. The process would be private, we would not need so many abortion mills, etc.. I think killing a developing human in the womb for convenience is problematic, especially after the first trimester. I recognize that my beliefs on all of this are subjective. The Bible, aside from the passage you cited regarding the induced miscarriage of a fetus, is silent on abortion. Life is always from God, I believe, which is why this is such a difficult issue. Anti-abortionists say that they are erring on the side of caution, that a first trimester fetus may already have a soul. But a fertilized egg? Can we know? I got quite a bit of heat on this when I commented publicly on this issue prior to now. I expect heat again. You are courageous to state all of this, and so I will join you with my own two cents. (I’m American)

    • “As I have said in another post on this site IMHO if the Christian Right were serious about limiting abortion they would put all of their energy behind introducing a private members conscience provision (as we have in the UK where our abortion laws are far less liberal) for a free vote on the subject tin senate and House of Representative. America is a deeply conservative country – and many Democrats would vote for change along with most (but no all Republicans.”

      And if they did, the Supreme Court would just declare it unconstitutional, as they did in Roe v. Wade.

  4. Hi Sheila: I’m not a biologist but I think it’s a case that many fertilised eggs die anyway (in fact a very large number). So nature is profligate as ever. Again I guess an abortion pill is interfering with the course of nature too –as is natal and post natal care. So there is a sense in which we humans make decisions and aren’t; dictated to by nature as such. I think this is one of the quandaries in the current Catholic life ethic – which I don’t want to be unkind ad have no reason to be unkind because i have many Catholic friends and they all take different stances on grounds of conscience here – as the Catholic Church now sort of allows). The rhythm method – allowed in current Catholicism – is also interfering with nature. In a sense a choice of celibacy is also interfering with nature – but it is a celibate priesthood out of touch with laity that have proscribed contraception to Catholics – although most Catholics in the West use it. It’s hardly surprising that Catholics in Africa say are more likely to comply with Church teaching- infant mortality is very different there – and those countries that become industrialised because of how this effects communities and division of labour will see a rise in contraceptive use. I dunno – I think with more lay participation in Catholic hierarchy decision thinking we will see a shifts in the Church’s stance on contraception. All Churches and all bodies shift their moral teachings while trying to hold to universal principles .

    I find it ironic that Frances Schaffer – him once again – had a slightly different take – or at least his passionate wife did according to his son )and i have no reason to doubt his sons on essentials for a number of reasons to do with internal coherence in his accounts) Edith Schaeffer – who was very anti-Catholic – saws it as a hallmark of protestant liberty that she and Francis could use contraception Again ironically today in the extremes of the Christian Right, with complementarianism and quiverful and so called Christian polygamy we see a new emphasis on women as mere breeders – and I think this actually goes against the spirit of Christ’s teaching on the dignity of women. OF and the theonomists want the biblical death penalty for abortion – but on what biblical grounds? There aren’t any, as we know.

    Can we tell if a fertilised egg or a foetus in its first trimester has a soul. The arguments are purely academic. There is no clear guidance in scripture, tradition, moral intuitions or from science here. All life is from God yes, terminating a pregnancy after the first trimester is morally problematic so an abortion pill would be preferable, yes. But I still think it is more coherent to think of a foetus is potential life and not actual life – to think of it otherwise gets us into the offensive comparison of liberal democracies of today with Nazi Germany during the Holocaust – something that all Jews find distressing – and does nothing to bring about change in attitudes to abortion. And on this subject the Nazis were pretty hot on Aryan women being breeders for the Reich. True in the Brown Shirts there were a number of gay men schooled in warrior homoeroticism by being brothers in arms during the terrible Great War. But Hitler had them killed so that he could appeal to family values among upright Germans and be elected Chancellor. And one of the young and fearless members of the only early opposition to Nazims – the White Rose movement – was gay. His name was Hans Scholl, HE was a Catholic Christina humanist and he died crying ‘long live freedom’ before they cut his head off.

    If a fertilised egg or an early foetus is ensouled the soul it is returned to God anyway and without the need for purgatory or eternal torment…But surely the soul and the body are one – but they both develop into full personhood in stages (this is how the Jews make a valid moral distinction). Also we need to consider at what point a foetus actually can feel pain – that appears to be connected with the development of the central nervous system with the spinal cord. It’s after this that abortion become even more problematic because it causes suffering IMHO. And speculation about souls will do nothing to create a new consensus about abortion. And people talk a lot of hot air on the internet anyway.

    Christian Right extremism prevents proper discussion of abortion here in theUK where our abortion laws are relatively tight. There was a Church of England priest named Joan Jepson who spoke out and said that she was born with a hair lip and she was so grateful to be alive and therefore thought that cosmetic abortions were immoral. People were listening. Then the right wing pres in the UK – that at its most extreme is in cahoots with the Christian Right tired to make her into a cover girl. She had to shut up because she had been completely misrepresented through false association. And that’s not good.
    So bless you. If my tone has gotten a but polemical it here it was not directed at you. We must all decide according to conscience on the issue.

    And in defence of the Christian Right I do think the murder of abortionists and the bombing of abortions clinic sin America has been over egged by the liberals to stiffle debate too. These have happened but not on a dramatic scale – and it is wrong to try and equate these rare incidences with the September 11th bombers etc.

    All good wishes

    Dick

    • Just for the record I am a convert to Catholicism, 10 years on, now. I was absolutely walking around with spiritual blinders on. But I have innate curiosity, and I wanted to know about what the Bible says on issues, as well as discovering the lack of agreement among the early church fathers. I don’t know where my journey will take me. I don’t know about souls, either, but as a nurse, I know that a fetus is a developing–not developed–human, with human DNA. In the very early weeks of pregnancy, however, I am comfortable allowing abortion under certain circumstances, with fully informed consent obtained. I am with you on this–once the fetus can feel pain, I am against abortion. There seems to be a lack of agreement on when that happens, at least here in the USA. Making the cutoff period for abortion at 10-12 weeks seems reasonable to me. But that makes me a heretic within the Catholic faith, so I keep my mouth firmly closed. Except here. I may well be outed one day around here! Greetings back to you, Sheila

      • But that makes me a heretic within the Catholic faith, so I keep my mouth firmly closed. Except here. I may well be outed one day around here!

        You realize that just because other people don’t know about it you’re still a heretic, right?

  5. Oh Sheila I’ve never met a Catholic who is not a heretic – and that includes the priests. There is a rich pastoral theology in Catholicism that admits exceptions to all sorts of things that are officially proscribed including divorce (you can get an annulment and people lie to get one with the connivance of priests). Catholicism has such a grand history but also such a gut wrenchingly terrible one that any tore Catholic has to use their conscience to sift any number of issues – and there is much disagreement among Catholics – and this is true of all other denominations too. I find Catholics are generally more literate in the crimes of their traditions than say TULIP Calvinists are (how may TUPLP Calvinists fess up to the role of John Calvin’s commentary on Joshua in making genocide respectable again fro instance?), Unquestioning Catholics also tend to be apologists for antisemitism – lie Mel Gibson and his Dad Hutton. And their authoritarian romanticism actually makes them heretics today – thank goodness.

    And it comes as no surprise to me that you are against the death penalty and militarism 🙂

    Marc – thanks for providing the space to make this discussion between Sheila and I possible. I would not have felt comfortable writing this at another more conservative address where I post. You are a good egg 🙂

  6. Something has obviously to be changed. Any clue about that?

    Let’s see, going down the list…

    Pro-guns: You’re pro-guns too, and so is every progressive who speaks about this subject. You simply believe that the only people who should own guns are your chosen elite: the state, and all too often, even yourselves. See the progressives who oppose gun ownership for we, the unwashed masses, but who justify their armed bodyguards or even personal gun ownership because they live in a dangerous neighborhood or the like.

    Pro-war: Since when? And what does it mean to be “pro-war”? Plenty of conservatives opposed the Iraq war – hence the launching of The American Conservative magazine, which had a lot to do with that specifically. Hence men like Ron Paul.

    Also? Plenty of progressives supported those recent wars. One shall be running for election soon. And I’m sure every progressive shall vote for her and will excuse her forays into the War Party.

    Pro-death-penalty: Situationally, and personally I’ve come to oppose it, largely because I consider the state largely incompetent when it comes to meting it out.

    Anti-health-care: Yes, of course, that sums up the situation. Conservatives oppose people having health care! They think it should be illegal for anyone to purchase health care, or health insurance, or *gasp* perform acts of charity.

    No, wait: that’s insane.

    What conservatives typically oppose is health care orchestrated by the state. For some reason, they fear it will may lead to unintended consequences.

    But surely your support for women slaughtering their unborn children is justified. Why, look at your opponents! Did you know some of them own guns? Mercy me. Etc, etc.

    Lothar, I have a suggestion: how about you do a fundraising on your site for abortion? It’s pretty simple. Start up a paypal fund, ask your regular commenters to donate. I’m sure you’d raise a good amount! You can even stipulate that it’s exclusively for a third trimester abortion of a healthy woman with a healthy fetus.

    Think about it. You’d be trailblazing as a progressive Christian, showing the world that you can be a Christian AND support a Woman’s Right to Choose(tm). The Christ you know would do it, so why not?

    http://memegenerator.net/instance/51494567

    • Dear Crude, I’m sorry if you felt offended by the picture.

      I’d have preferred, however, the use of a friendlier tone in your answer, for I’ve always been respectful towards you.

      I don’t take the image as a criticism of CONSERVATISM in general , but of those particular conservatives who hold these inconsistent beliefs.

      As you well know, there are many things in the liberal lobby I’m also critical of.

      As for abortion, I gave my view here:
      https://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/abortion-and-the-pride-of-the-western-world/

      I think that a baby in her mother’s womb is truly wonderful, and I really hated seeing pictures of a woman (ready to abort) stroking her womb (in an information sheet from the state of Luxemburg in central Europe).

      I think that abortion is ONLY (morally) permissible if the health of the woman is endangered, and this also includes psychological health after a nightmarish rape.

      However, I consider abortions for avoiding financial problems, for pursuing one’s career or because the child will be mentally handicapped as ABOMINABLE.

      Nevertheless I don’t think that using the law to forbid this is the solution at all. It is like a physician putting plasters on wounds without combating the underlying causes of the sickness.

      We must strive for a society where sex, love and commitment become an unbreakable trinity .

      Lovely greetings in Christ.

      • Not Crude, but:

        I’m sorry if you felt offended by the picture.

        He never said he was offended.

        Nevertheless I don’t think that using the law to forbid this is the solution at all. It is like a physician putting plasters on wounds without combating the underlying causes of the sickness.

        So you support Roe v. Wade? And why are the two mutually exclusive? Putting plaster on the wounds is a Hell of a lot better than doing nothing while we address the real problem.

  7. Hi Marc and Crude –

    The loyal opposition here – not specifically on universalist grounds but on moral compassionate grounds. Whatever Crude says about gun control comes from a purely Right Wing American perspective with a dose of Calvinist resistance theory via Beze (Calvin’s hard line successor) – which has lead to great slaughter in the past. OK the second Amendment was originally about having armed militias to keep the British out – and I don’t blame them. It is presented by Tea part Evangelicals – or Teavangelicals – as a myth about America as a victim of the British – see Mel Gibson’s Patriot where he even imports an episode form Nazi Germany where the population of a village was burnt alive in a Church in the War of Independence – it just didn’t happen; its; pure crowd pleasing myth from an anti Semite and misogynist who cloaks himself in reeking purity. IN reality many black slaves and native Americans fought with the British because they knew what was good for then – the British were comparatively enlightened compared to the American Calvinists of the day. And indeed the British Parliament was split evenly as were the British people about the war of independence. The Whigs and the radicals supported the Americans and when the war was lost they came to instantly power in Britain having ousted the Tories. C.S. Lewis who has become St Lewis in America was – a couple of generations later – a High Tory in his politics – whatever the sweetness and kindness of the private man – who would certainly have supported the Crown against the American Revolutionaries if born in a different century- history is messy.

    America has it’s own traditions – it’s not my job to criticise these. I know that the homicide rate in America is twenty time higher in proportion to that in the UK and if you are a policeman the chance of being killed by a criminal is forty times higher in the USA. I know the NRA quote statistics about violent crime in the UK – but the homicide rate has fallen by half in the past twenty years and we record an aggressive shove as a violent crime whereas in America actual bodily harm has to be involved (I don’t know about statistics in France).
    Gun ownership and violent crime has risen in the USA dramatically since Ronald Regna endorsed the NRA. As I say this is an American problem and for Americans of different perspectives to sort out. But I think it odd that the Christian Right should promote guns as Christian – this is an innovation. OF course it has it’s roots in Calvinist resistance theory – the godly need to be armed to resist an ungodly state. That’s up to them. But when I see an NRA fanatics deigning a gun that can be downloaded by a 3D computer so that sectarian part of American Tea Party liberty can be imported to the rest for the world – then I take exception at Theocratic Imperialism and Tyranny. The UK is a small country – we don’t have the space to be armed. We’d skill each other in target practice! They can keep their slogans of ‘It’s not guns that kill people it’s people that kill people’, and not infringe my Christian liberty.

    None of this has anything to do with abortion. Revulsion at abortion is not morally seniors as a step to changing moral attitudes, And it is daft it stipulate absolutes when abortion is necessary from limited knowledge *which is true of all of us here expect Sheila). There are lots of exceptions – for example the clear compassionate thinking of the Rabbis about it had much to do with the genetic frequency of Tay Sachs disease amongst European Jews. With this terrible mutation a baby can be born alive, grotesquely deformed, but will live in a state of complete and terrible agony for between two hours and two days. The Rabbis decreed that on compassionate grounds a baby with Tay sachs should not be allowed to come to terms –for the sake of the baby and for the Mother’s mental health. Regarding rape – well i think the woman needs to decide and not be pressurized; counselled and advised but not dictated to. There may well be instances where a woman who has been raped would prefer to have the baby and would be capable of affective bonding with the baby. Bu that’s up to the individual – and men should not be controlling women’s reproductive rights here.

    Yours in Christ

    Dick

    • I thought about another genetic anomaly today–anencepalopathy. A fetus with no brain, or only a rudimentary brain stem. Abortion in that instance would be acceptable to me. Tay Sachs is a scourge, as mentioned.

      • Yeah, if a baby is doomed to live only 2 months in atrocious suffering, an abortion would be acceptable for me too.

        I meant people who are mentally handicapped but could live 60 or 70 years and who get aborted because they don’t match the desires of the parents or the expectancies of our capitalist society.

  8. I stand corrected by an American friend – the serous crime rate has actually been dropping in America for decades now – as in England. I know that in England one of the factors cited is the elimination of lead in the petrol. Lead fumes and lead dust drives people violent. IT’s one of the reason the Roman aristocracy was so violent according to some historians – they put lead in their wine.

  9. Just a final one here – because I’ve dug myself into a hole. I really do think guns and gun control is for Americans to discuss and not for the likes of self publicist Piers Morgan who craves the publicity of a negative fan club to stir the pot about.

    I do understand there are huge cultural differences between the UK and USA on this issue –and other countries in the world like Switzerland where guns are widely owned have a completely different attitude to guns than those that obtain in America. My Statistics of comparative homicide rates are accurate but they are not the last word. Certainly in rural areas of America far more cut off than rural areas in the UK people need to own guns for protection and for dangerous pest control –and I’m sure there are others variables I do not understand. I only get angry when a libertarian view of gun laws is universalised as an absolute Christian value. Or when American friends who want to debate modest proposals on gun control are stigmatised as Nazis.
    Good night

    Dick

    • Dear Michael East

      You said:

      The anti-abortionists who support the killing of abortionists can hardly be called pro-life!

      Actually, the issue is not nearly as cut-and-dry as you try to make it out to be. If an individual truly believes that an unborn child is a human being, then if that individual takes action, up to and potentially including the use of deadly force in order to protect the life of the unborn child, and in so doing, the individual uses deadly force to stop the abortionist in question, then there is nothing inconsistent with maintaining such a position and with being pro-life. In fact, it is no different, in principle, from a pro-life person who has to use deadly force to stop someone from killing a newborn or from a pro-life person who uses deadly force to stop a serial killer from murdering a family. In all these cases, the pro-life person—as a last resort—must use deadly force in order to protect human life. And so that person would be entirely consistent in claiming to be pro-life while at the same time having had to use deadly force to protect a third-party from serious bodily harm or death. Now, of course, the person would also be under the obligation to use only as much force as is necessary to stop the threat, and thus lethal force would rarely be justified, but that does not mean that the use of lethal force would be illegitimate in such a case. It just means that its use would be rare. And while this latter fact makes the use of the third-party protection principle difficult to practically justify in the case of abortionists—both due to the fact that the State already knows about abortionists and does nothing, and due to the fact that using less than lethal force is difficult in such cases—the practical reality does nothing to negate that this idea is completely sound in principle.

      In addition, note that given that my reasoning concerning the legitimacy of using lethal force in protecting a third-party is obviously sound in principle, and thus it would apply to unborn children if they were considered human beings under the law, then this means that if unborn children were considered human beings under the law, then you, I, and everyone else would literally be under a legal obligation to do our utmost, up to and including the use of lethal force, to stop any abortionist from plying his “trade” if unborn children were legally considered human beings. So far from there being an inconsistency in the pro-life position and a position which endorses the stopping of abortionists, if unborn children were considered human beings, then that sort of position would actually be required by law.

      Finally, let me just note that when you really think about this issue the real inconsistency and incoherence is on the side of the pro-abortionists. After all, the pro-abortionist is someone who must support the following absurd position: if, one minute before birth, someone stops an abortionist from killing the nearly born child, then pro-abortionists consider that person to be a monster and a pro-life “terrorist”; but if that same person stopped some random murderer from killing that child one minute after it was born, then that person would be hailed as a hero and a “child-savior.” In my view, the patent absurdity of holding such a view is evident to anyone with eyes to see it. And yet, for the pro-abortionist, this is, necessarily, the view that he must, in principle, hold.

      Take care,

      RD Miksa

  10. This would make more sense if I ever met anybody who was pro-all wars, or anti-healthcare, or pro-death penalty of the innocent. But I never have, and I doubt you have either.

    I have no idea what supporting the right to own and use guns in certain circumstances has to do with this at all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s