Can someone be pro life and not be a person of faith?
I keep hearing how religious types are the pro life group in this election.......why? Surely there are those who are pro life and who aren't religious. Think so?
z
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
z, I'm sure there are some amongst us who are not religious and yet, are pro-life. But they're the product of a Judeo-Christianized society. I firmly believe that the further a society travels down the secular, humans-are-animals track, the less value they place on human life and the less they see wrong with the utilitarian and pragmatic ending of an 'unwanted' human life. Sad but true.
The Book Aborting America was written by Bernard Nathanson, whom rumors in the 80s claimed was an Atheist. Those rumors could have been wrong though, but I know, at least at that point in time, he was non-religious. He saw cultural and psychological problems caused by abortion as well as a moral issue of where to draw the line on killing other humans.
The lazy-man's unreliable source of information (aka Wikipedia) says that he (Bernard Nathanson) considered himself a "Jewish Atheist" but became a Roman Catholic in 1996.
I'm not anyone's idea of a religious person and I don't approve of abortion.
When you put aside religion, abortion just isn't needed from a logical standpoint.
Birth control is widely and cheaply available. With Planned Parenthoods in poor neighborhoods and distributed on a sliding scale, everyone has access to it.
Therefore, if you choose to not avail yourself of the birth control and get pregnant, deal with the consequences... A baby. If you don't want the baby, there are plenty of parents waiting to adopt that would give their left arms for a child.
In the grand scheme of the universe, humanity is either its' most precious and invaluable inhabitant... its' raison d'etre (the religious view) or mankind is just an insignificant insect on one of trillions of inhabitable planets with no purpose for existence nor containing any intrinsic value whatsoever (the scientific view) OTHER than to live as LONG as possible (the humanistic view). The only problem for the humanist would seem to lie in making a determination as to when a "new" life begins... (a mistake carried over from the scientific method which requires placing artificial starts and stops to demark an "artificial" observation period).
I, for one, don't believe life ever really ends and begins entirely "anew". I see it more and more as a "continuum" being passed from "generation to generation". A humanist who could be convinced to see it in this manner, instead of as a "finite" process with "beginnings" and "endings", could never become an 'honest' advocate for abortion, or the termination of ANY life, IMO.
these are exactly the comments I'd hoped for; a mix. I really look forward to hearing more. It's a curiosity and I think aurora's point that even those who are not religious are pro life because we've been a Judeo-Christian society is right, personally. Somehow, it's rubbed off? Maybe that's patronizing, I hope not...looking for more discussion on that.
We may not be religious types but we were raised in upstanding, decent times when there was a respect for God by most people and you didn't insult believers and vice versa.
of course, our schools are teaching kids not to be "silly" and believe in anything other than ourselves. And, I don't even think they believe in themselves much anymore. I saw an Olympics segment on a runner last week and he said he didn't care if he won, but he looked forward to accomplishing more and more each time he ran.
I thought "THAT is what most kids don't have..ACCOMPLISHMENT" We've denegrated doing well in school (i'm generalizing, but..), we've run down our heroes, presidents are referred to as 'losers' by senators to high school students...we've taken away our kids' respect for others and their ambitions and price, yes, we've diminished accomplishment and pride in self for tolerance and celebrating the minority.
We've even put aside our own culture for that of others...in the name of 'kindness' and 'unity'...What pride COULD they have?
boy, did I get Off topic and digress..sorry!
I think that, in a way, it all sort of DOES tie into our subject though? How could teen aged girls kill newborns and stuff them in garbage cans if they have self respect and hope?
Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo
Be prepared.
BZ
Never heard of atheists and agnostics for life?
I am pro-life. Though I will not say that abortion is murder. I do think there are circumstances in which a woman should have the option like rape and incest and it should done within the 1st trimester. Late term abortions are ridiculous. I think personal responsibility and adoption should be advocated more rather than women advocating choice. To me it is anti-feminist to push such a derogatory measure as though women have no control of their bodies before a pregnancy happens, unless they were raped etc. that's my pennies...
PLAGAL
Of course there is. I'm not much of a churchgoer, but I believe in the sanctity of life and how crucially important it is for us not to interfere with it.
Steve.."sanctity"...exactly. Exactly my point!
I'm sure there are many people who aren't religious but who believe in the sanctity of life, even for the unborn, Z. In fact, I know some of them personally. To them it's common sense. It's a tragedy that the left doesn't know what common sense is.
but 'sanctity' means sacred, holy.
They can believe it's important, crucial, fantastic.......but if they use SANCTITY???.....
hey Z!..I agree with Aurora on this one girl...dramatic topic indeed.
As usual, commenters here provide excellent insight into a diverse range of personal beliefs. Normally, I try to avoid such questions in public discourse … simply because the topic is one guaranteed to generate emotional responses. But I agree with Aurora, and with Nikki who reminds us that there is an exception for every rule. No one will confuse me with a religious zealot, but I am pro-life. Those who argue about a woman’s right to choose cause me to ask, “Don’t all women have that right, even if they make poor choices?” A woman can choose not to engage in activity that will result in an unwanted pregnancy. She can also choose from dozens of birth control products. Thus, in the absence of making logical and responsible choices, abortion has become a social accommodation for those who make poor decisions. After all, do we really think that an individual will care about the right to life of an unborn child when she doesn’t even care about her own physical and mental health?
Interesting comments all around. As a Christian, I oppose the killing of any innocent life, even if that life was brought about via violence, such as rape. What would give me the right to impose the same violence upon another innocent life? The baby did not do anything to deserve death!
When we start placing limitations and guidelines based on our emotions and understandings, each one will choose a different place to draw the line. It would be anarchy!
In other words, I believe in moral absolutes.
Being pro-life is not about being religious at all in my opinion. It is about human decency. As humans are we to advocate killing innocent people or is there something in us that says that is inherently wrong? Abortion kills the most innocent and most defenseless of all of us. Who would not want to stop that? Do we have belief that life is worth something only because a deity said so or because it is something built into our most basic composition?
Pops...what IS the "something in us" which makes it wrong?
I am LOVING this discussion...every one of you has such great points.
FJ...re: that 'continuum', that fascinated me because, sometimes, I wonder about TALENT. Does that just dissolve into ether when someone days or does it somehow enter into someone else? WEIRD, I know.....but sometimes (not often enough), I've played a particularly good Chopin and thought "Man,THAT was better than you usually play!!"
Silly to conjecture, I suppose..I've never mentioned it 'out loud', but does talent, creativity, in our society, through the ages, BUILD on itself through generations?
I will stop now. It's OT and makes me sound even MORE NUTS!! xx
MUSTANG! You try to avoid this kind of topic? I LIVE for this kind of topic....Politics and Religion, dinner at the Z's! It doesn't make us real popular (except with our Right friends because SO MANY need to hide their beliefs from their work, etc.), but it makes it stimulating, especially when those Righties who are hiding can get together around OUR table and let it all hang out!
HOW I wish you all could come for dinner and great conversation!
yes, sometimes we don't talk politics and/or religion......and that's fine, but, really.........
dull!
ELBRO....FANTASTIC site..talk about right up my post's alley .... I urge you all to check it out. I can't right now, but I'll find a religious 'background' in there somewhere, as Aurora so wisely suggested.....watch me!!
We all have different talents, Z. And one man's talent may be anothers inspiration. There is a generation from opposites.
Welcome to crazytown, Z. ;-)
Z,
I've always been pro-life. After losing Angel (she had spina bifida, but we didn't know before her birth) I was even more passionate about the issue. I spoke to many women who found out early in their pregnancies that their babies had genetic diseases that were not compatible with life. They were all given the option of abortion. They declined and carried their babies to term (or as long as they could), knowing the pain this decision would bring with it. That is, to me, the essence of the sanctity of life. Allowing God's creation the dignity he or she deserves.
I'm sure that some of these women weren't Christians. They were simply....mothers.
FJ...excellent...yup, the talent or creativity might not 'glom on' to the living from the dead, but the inspiration SURE does. It builds that way, doesn't it.
Your description/explanation isn't as 'romantic' as mine, but it works better; makes more rational sense.
"Crazytown"..you bet!
Pinky...beautiful. Yes, "mothers"
..beautiful.
one CANNOT be a person of faith and be pro-choice. a person of faith would never play God in that arena.
life, liberty and the persuit of happiness, are they not "characteristics" of God?
What was the state of California reasoning for the prosecution of Scott Peterson on TWO murder charges instead of one?
Certainly it wasn't religious?
Was it simply because the baby was wanted?
Right, Elbro...apparently, THAT baby was a viable human being enough to have a murder charge brought but OTHER babies aren't...wanted? Or just such suffocating hypocrisy you almost can't wrap your brain around it?
Cool to abort babies BUT when the mother dies with that baby inside...MURDERERS! go figure.
A baby's fine to kill INSIDE the womb, but let it be born ill, 2" outside the womb, and they're screaming LIFE SUPPORT!? WHAT?
Unfortunately, there are lots of "people of faith" who would cut the heart and liver out of two-year-old if they thought it would further their interests.
Not everyone who calls himself a Christian is a sincere practitioner of the Christ ideal.
This in no way condemns Christ, Himself, or His Church, but truly good and truly bad people can be found in any identifiable group.
"By their fruits ye shall know them."
Yes. I am one of those annoying people who honestly believe that deeds matter far more than words, and that deeds define who we are more than anything else.
~ FreeThinke
FT...I'm sorry Jesus never said that, but I admire your feelings of doing good. Though he loved the idea and promoted it, belief in Him is Christianity/salvation...that is in no uncertain terms, isn't it. Unitarians are big on deeds, as are other denominations, Catholicism, too, and that's a thing to admire, no doubt about it. But it's not Biblical, not in so many words.
No, I don't think any real Christians would cut anybody's heart out.....!! So why label them Christians? You're not born a Christian, as you know....there are no granchildren in heaven.
Who could ever argue good deeds aren't good to do, though!!
Post a Comment