Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Position on Abortion
I believe that human life is precious and should be protected. And if there is a conflict between two lives, the best should be done for both lives, not just one.
The question in abortion is is the fetus truly a human life? This question is not specifically answered by the Bible. Thus people must make a philosophic and idealist choice as to whether to treat the fetus as equal or less than her mother.
I have made the philosophic decision that the fetus is an individual human at conception and thus must be protected from that point. That fetus is a human life and to kill it is murder. I will not harm others for the sake of this human, nor should anyone else. However, the fetus is precious, as is the mother.
It has been discovered that most abortions do not occur if the mother is not in poverty. Thus, whether abortion is legal or not, if we reduce poverty and support mothers in their time of need, then there will not be as many abortions. If everyone on all sides would agree to work on reducing poverty and to support pregnant women, then the abortion rate would go down on its own.
Friday, March 04, 2011
Culture of Murder
A report from Consistent Life:
An Unusual Connection between Abortion and the Death Penalty
The case of the 70-year-old abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell (covered last week) has a new twist: prosecutors are consideringthe death penalty because charges involve multiple murders – and because seven of the eight murders are for children under age 12 (that is, he induced birth first and killed the born baby). Concerning the two decades when repeated reports of shocking clinic conditions went ignored, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett said, "This doesn't even rise to the level of government run amok. It was government not running at all.” The death penalty is a very poor substitute for government having done its job, even what was allowed after Roe v. Wade, by intervening much earlier. Many women could have been spared an excruciating fate. Gosnell himself may have avoided the spiral down that violence normally entails, had there not been social approval and apathy.
[Thanks to Edward Chow and Rob Arner for sending in information on this case.]
So we give someone permission to murder, find out he was doing it wrong, and to punish him, we answer it with murder? Is there something wrong with this?
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Abortion and Mediation
I have two comments on the abortion discussion in general:
I am often disturbed by the lack of understanding between the two main viewpoints. They are each based on a philsophical (NOT religious, unless you are Catholic) answer to the question: When does human life begin? One viewpoint says that human life begins at conception, and that such a human being deserves all the rights and privleges of humans. The other point of view realistically says that human life– as far as rights and privliges go– begins at birth. In the ancient pagan world, human rights didn’t exist until much later in the human development. So, philosophically, there are different points of view. For the first point of view, it makes sense that the fetus has equal rights– not more than– to the mother, and so both should be treated with respect. The second point of view, while honoring all life, gives preference to the mother, and all points follow from that.
The main issue is to understand that the point of view opposed to the one we hold is not evil incarnate, but simply a different point of view. If we react harshly to those who disagree with us, then we will never come to agreement, or even compromise.
And this leads me to my second point. The responses in the abortion debate in society in large has been so dramatic and extreme, that it makes discussion about the subject almost impossible.
Could it not be that Anabaptists, with concern for mediation and peacemaking, could open up this discussion to all, trying to understand the other point of view, even while disagreeing with it, setting aside the propoganda and seeing the true human feeling and compassion on both sides?
I have hope in some of the present discussions about public policy, seeing possibilites that both sides might agree to having abortions reduced by reducing poverty, and increasing opportunities for well rounded education about sex and contraception.
I am often disturbed by the lack of understanding between the two main viewpoints. They are each based on a philsophical (NOT religious, unless you are Catholic) answer to the question: When does human life begin? One viewpoint says that human life begins at conception, and that such a human being deserves all the rights and privleges of humans. The other point of view realistically says that human life– as far as rights and privliges go– begins at birth. In the ancient pagan world, human rights didn’t exist until much later in the human development. So, philosophically, there are different points of view. For the first point of view, it makes sense that the fetus has equal rights– not more than– to the mother, and so both should be treated with respect. The second point of view, while honoring all life, gives preference to the mother, and all points follow from that.
The main issue is to understand that the point of view opposed to the one we hold is not evil incarnate, but simply a different point of view. If we react harshly to those who disagree with us, then we will never come to agreement, or even compromise.
And this leads me to my second point. The responses in the abortion debate in society in large has been so dramatic and extreme, that it makes discussion about the subject almost impossible.
Could it not be that Anabaptists, with concern for mediation and peacemaking, could open up this discussion to all, trying to understand the other point of view, even while disagreeing with it, setting aside the propoganda and seeing the true human feeling and compassion on both sides?
I have hope in some of the present discussions about public policy, seeing possibilites that both sides might agree to having abortions reduced by reducing poverty, and increasing opportunities for well rounded education about sex and contraception.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
