Featured Consistently pro-life

The election cycle brought out the consistently clamorous controversy on abortion – as it should – and yet other pro-life positions often go unmentioned. American Christians who oppose abortion are sometimes accused of having a pro-life “credibility gap”. Ronald J. Sider notes, “It is a farce for the church to ask Washington to legislate what Christians refuse to live.” (Completely Pro-Life: Building a Consistent Stance, p. 25). Abortion is a clear moral wrong, one that denies the most basic human right – the very right to life itself. Any opposition to abortion is good and right, regardless of whether the person who opposes abortion has a “credibility gap”. Nevertheless, as Bible-believing Christians we should seek to close the “credibility gap” – but not for “PC” reasons. We ought not be pro-life on only one-issue. We ought to stand in support of life in all biblical aspects.

There are various calls to a consistently pro-life position, but not all mean the same thing when they say that. Some say that you can't be pro-life and support the death penalty – that is an inconsistent position. Others oppose abortion and support the death penalty, seeing no inconsistency. Perhaps part of the problem is that we approach it from the standpoint of logic rather than the Bible itself. What is a consistent pro-life position? Not one that appears logical and internally consistent in every facet (and no one will ever agree to that anyway) – but one that bows to the Bible as to consistent biblical truth and biblical support of life.

A full view of “pro-life” considers many issues beyond what we believe about abortion. It begins with the biblical worldview of life itself – that God created man in his image and according to his purpose. Life comes from him and goes to him. By his own word he has forbid man taking the life of man as murder and contrary to his law and ethics. Taking the life of others exalts man into the place of God and proudly asserts one’s own being above that of others.

Pro-life issues can be roughly divided into two categories – primarily, life and death issues (i.e., immediate threats to life); and secondarily, quality of life issues. What are your thoughts on the topic in general and/or any of the following.

Life and death issues
Abortion/“Choice”
Capital punishment/death penalty
Euthanasia/Assisted suicide
Murder
Suicide

Quality of life issues
Gun rights/Gun control
Health care/Universal health care
Immigration
Poverty (e.g. feeding the poor)
Self defense

Some of the above and a few others seem to kind of split the categories:
Contraception
Genetic engineering
Pacifism/Just war

I have tried to create a poll that might incite some further thoughts on the issue. It fails to cover all issues, plus I ran out of possible response options. But it allows you to mark some with which you agree.

 

"Just war theory" is not terminology I bandy about much. This might be true of you also, so I thought I would add a comment about it.

Commenting on Luke 3:14, Augustine of Hippo said (according to Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica):

In sum, a "just war theory" does not hold war to be a general good, but as sometimes necessary to correct wrong and fight evil. It should be a last resort, conducted by a legitimate authority (i.e. government, king, etc.), have a just cause, and proceed on the right intentions.

 

Thanks for the feedback, perhaps I can change the first statement to cover future votes.

Added: Looks like I can't change it since voting has already taken place. I suppose future voters in the poll might view the first statement as "I believe abortion is always wrong." I believe this would agree with the Official position statement of the Association of Pro-Life Physicians.

"We must respond to all tragic circumstances of pregnancy from the unshakeable foundation of two indisputable premises: human life begins at conception, and it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. The unborn child’s right to life and liberty is given by his or her Creator, not by his or her parents or by the state. The right to life is inalienable: that is, not to be trespassed upon by another."

"When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary."

 

Capital punishment/death penalty [the intentional termination of human life, legally authorized as punishment for a crime] David Gushee writes, “Capital punishment poses a serious test case to the consistent life ethic because when rightly applied it is inflicted on the guilty rather than the innocent. This does make it a different species of issue than most other life issues.” While the greatest of caution should be observed in this area of thought and practice, Genesis 9:9 and the principles of the law of Moses (e.g. Numbers 35:16-17) give government the right and responsibility of “punishing the evildoer” even to the extent of “life for life.” (Exodus 21:23)

Euthanasia/assisted suicide [the intentional termination of life of the infirm or aged by somebody other than the person concerned, and usually by a medical professional (to be distinguished from not using extraordinary means to artificially preserve bodily functions such as heartbeat and breathing)] “Thou shalt not kill” covers one individual taking of the life of another, and does not make an exception for killing the infirm, aged, or otherwise. On the other hand, we are under no biblical instruction to simply prolong as long as medically possible the life of someone who is dying. We can biblically let death take its natural course while making the best effort to comfort those in suffering. “Right to die” and “do not resuscitate” wishes seem to be confused in the minds of many people.

 

I think a lot of patriots (of any country) tend to define the wars they fight in as "just wars" -- whether or not they really are.

While there may be some people who are only concerned about abortion and not the lives after that, I don't think that as a general rule describes most Christians. Most know, believe and practice to one extent or another the general Christian principles for healthcare -- take care of your family, help others (poor, widows, orphans, and folks you find beaten on the side of the road, for example), etc.. But what is not clear, and where we tend to disagree, is the proper application of Christian principles to a secular government's role in healthcare (or if that is part of their biblical role. So while we both should care for others, it is questionable whether I should use your money to do so, or you mine. The Good Samaritan used his own time and dug deep into his own pocket.

I agree with what I think you mean. Sometimes doctors can't save two lives and must make a medical decision to try to save the one they can.

 

I agree with you that Christians need to take moral stances on government actions. But I don't agree with your logic of making government relationship to healthcare the same as its relationship to abortion.

I don't apply the argument equally to each because I do not believe they are equal. Abortion is a life and death issue; a procedure whose purpose is to take the life of a baby. Unless it is botched it will end in death. It has that aim. I believe government is supposed to regulate and punish murder, although we have stood this on its head with regard to abortion.

Healthcare is a quality of life issue. Lack of certain types of health care may eventually end in death, but that is not a deliberate design. I have gone most of my life without any type of health care in the sense of going to the doctor or the hospital, taking prescription medicine and so on. Eventually my life will end in death (unless the Lord returns first), but it will not be the government's fault or your fault because I don't have health insurance. Even those who get the best healthcare available will eventually die, even if they have a better quality of life than I do.

Abortion that is murder and healthcare or the lack thereof are not the same degree of life issues.

 

Follow, I guess I'm not following you on this one. You seem to be saying that your brother had an operation when he did not have health care insurance and the operation was performed by the surgeon for free. So I don't understand how you are saying Obamacare saved him. Nevertheless, I'm glad the operation saved him.

Here it seems to me that you are indicting your family as well as health plan cuts, since you imply that she would have died on the street. My mother turned 102 in April. We (me & siblings) are trying to do our best to help her live out her life in her own home. For the last 10 years we have been able to accomplish that, by God's grace, though within the last year it has come to the need of someone being with her 24 hours a day. She's not in terrible condition, but she cannot function at home alone. And I can tell you none of us are wealthy, but we dig in and do what we have to do.

I can answer this one quite easily! I have been living without healthcare insurance for longer than that.

That's as real as it gets.