But as I heard it and then read it online, the question occurred to me, "Mr. President, Why is this not all also true of the unborn that are killed by the violence of abortion?"
Look at these excellent words from our President - and see how they are also applicable to the 1.3 Million children aborted each year.
"These are our kids... And so what we should be thinking about is our responsibility to care for them, and shield them from harm, and give them the tools they need to grow up and do everything that they’re capable of doing — not just to pursue their own dreams, but to help build this country.
"This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged...If there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there is even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try."
"This will be difficult. There will be pundits and politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical, all-out assault on liberty — not because that’s true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves. And behind the scenes, they’ll do everything they can to block any common-sense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever."
"That most fundamental set of rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness…those rights are at stake."
"… when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable among us, we must act now."
I think it is unwise to try to prove a Christian argument with the same reasoning as atheists use to disprove them, to use the facts we know about this world that we temporarily live in and who’s “facts” have no bearing on ultimate truth. Use earth science.
ReplyDelete“The world is not just ten thousand years old, and bushes don’t burn. or can angels fly according to our science of wing spans etc.” does not disprove the bible..
To say that the forming of DNA is the proof of soul is not only uses a temporal argument to prove a spiritual fact, it makes for a completely unusable and ungovernable and even an untenable position between the two sides to this question. Few women would live with this, and few men if it is taken literally (as some Southern states want to.)
Is the mother guilty of murder if she miscarriages due to drunk driving – or the husband if he was behind the wheel? Or just manslaughter? Is she guilty if she is careless and falls? Is it a criminal offence to drink or smoke and use drugs when pregnant? If the combined egg and sperm is a soul, then why not both halves of the fertilized egg? Should we condemn all teen aged boys to hell for sacrificing the beginning of one of God’s children? And birth control : if we say that the combined sperm and egg is holy this will make some forms of birth control an abortion. Maybe we should call the egg holy. Maybe the rhythm method is a sacrilege and murder.
Or do we not know when God breathes a soul into the infant? Are we able to prove this by DNA testing, or heart beatings?
And if we went completely along with the bishops’ method of birth control how long before our earth would be too crowded for us to survive? And if we followed their example, would all end up grumpy men that also didn’t like liberals?
I think that we need to reach some kind of agreement in America that will limit abortions, make going ahead and having the babies economically feasible for some, and make it only early term. To take the stand that a fertilized egg is a baby leaves absolutely no room for negotiation – which I feel the bishops want.
All living things have DNA. That is no sign that God has given them souls – unless you are Buddhist.
The government must run this temporal world for us. Let’s try and not be at complete loggerheads with it and make it impossible to even come close to doing it as close as we can that Jesus could live by. Sometimes a government must stop evil by using wars and killing, sometimes it murders those who take lives, but we can guide it to help the suffering and to make an ordered peaceful and equitable life for us all. Or we can’t become implacable, which suits the unkind and greedy too well.
The spiritual must give somewhat to Caesar to help have an influence on making the rules sometimes, I believe.
JR-
ReplyDeleteHmmm...
I'm afraid you are guilty of reading a bit too much into my comment. Where did I mention any religious jargon? Where did I make my case based on religious convictions or the Bible?
I am making my point simply on the President's rhetoric and his citing the most basic of human rights.
1. The Presidents rhetoric.
It's fascinating to me that the President's great words -- "This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged...If there is even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try." -- can be used not only for our children in elementary schools but also for our children in mothers' wombs. I believe that if we are a society that is willing to do whatever we can to presumably save young lives from assault guns, then we should also be a society that is willing to do whatever we can to presumably save young lives due to abortion. Even if there is a smidgen of a possibility that banning assault rifles might save children's lives, we should do it. Even if there is a smidgen of a possibility that a pre-born baby is a human being, we should do what we can to save their lives as well.
2. This particular argument is not one of religion. It is an argument from the Declaration of Independence - that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Just because those who are not yet born have no voice does not mean that they do not have those rights. I am for doing whatever we can to reduce abortions for the same exact reason that I am for doing whatever we can to reduce poverty, hunger, and disease. The marginalized do not have a voice unless people are willing to speak up for them. A just society does whatever it can to overturn the oppression of their voiceless and marginalized.
Until there is irrefutable evidence that an embryo is not a living human being, I will remain in this stance. The responsibility of proof to the contrary, I believe, is on those who want to deny the humanity of embryos. Those with black skin were once seen as less than human until people were brave enough to refute that commonly-held belief. It started with people thinking, "Wait a minute... How do we know for sure that these slaves are not real human beings? Maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt." it is time that our society gives the unborn the benefit of the doubt.
You are assuming that an embryo has a soul. A single cell organism, does this also mean any single cell organism has a soul? I don't believe anything has a soul until it is self aware. Without self awareness, there is no awareness of anything else.
ReplyDeleteThank yoou for sharing
ReplyDelete