Quote:
Originally Posted by DonnaKay
GS, if you want to fight government funded abortions, fine! As you stated, it is your right as a taxpayer and citizen to support how and when your dollars should be spent. However, that is not the limit of what pro-life movement is doing - you are trying to make it illegal for a woman to obtain an abortion under any circumstances. That is, indeed, inflicting your religious beliefs on another.
I'm interested that you didn't address the other "life" issues I brought up. What about killing in war or by legal execution? Is that okay? Do you believe in abortion to save the life of the mother? Isn't that making a choice that should be left to God, as the Catholic church used to say? What about those birth control pills that prevent the egg from developing after fertilization?
GS, just in case I haven't said this recently, I am personally opposed to abortion when it's used as a method of birth control. However, it is my opinion that the entire issue is too complicated and nuanced (see paragraph 2) for the government to outlaw it entirely.
|
I'm sorry, in reading atm_73's post earlier I thought he offered the explanation that covered the death penalty and war issues. In case you missed it (emphasis added):
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by atm_73
Since God has given life, humans have no right to take life (unless that right is given by God - ex: death for crimes [Rom 13:1-ff]).
|
Though war is not specifically mentioned above, The Bible does say in Ecclesiastes 3:3 and 3:8 that "There is a time to kill and a time to heal" and "There is a time for war and a time for peace." In Matthew 10:34, Jesus said,“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword”. Please understand I do not intend to try to convince you or convict you, I'm simply stating why I believe there is a difference between the taking the lives of innocent babies and givng a criminal a trial and sentencing him to death. At least the criminal gets a trial and a chance to tell why he deserves to live, and is being punished for his own actions. What have the babies done to deserve a death sentence?
As for "life of the mother" is a case of trying to save one life instead of losing two. This is a much different scenario than an elective abortion. I found the following explanation to be the best I'd ever seen or heard:
Quote:
|
Morals are not relative to the individual (subjective morality), but they are relative to the situation. In other words, the situation will determine which objective moral rule we apply (this is not relativism because the same moral rule applies to every person in the same situation). For example, there are some situations in which cutting someone with a knife is morally wrong and others in which it is not. It is morally wrong to cut someone with a knife if you are doing so to harm their life. It is morally good, however, if the cutting is at the hands of a doctor performing a life-saving surgery. It's the same knife and the same flesh in both instances, but the circumstances determine whether or not the action is morally wrong or morally right. The difference between the two acts is that one cuts to take life unnecessarily, whereas the other cuts to necessarily preserve life. That makes the moral difference.
|
That is from
Abortion: The One Exception which I suggest you read if you want to further understand how I can be pro-life and still support abortion to save the life of the mother.
As for the "morning after pills", yes, I am against those just as I am any method of killing an unborn child. By believing life begins at conception, how could I support their use? The life in that fertilized egg is no less precious to God than you or I.