Pro-Life Activist Gunned Down in Michigan

[rah]

I take crap for my position.
I am pro-life except for rape and health of the mother.
BUT, I'm not the one that get's pregnant and I don't think it's right for me to tell my wife what to do. We would discuss it, but the final decision would have to be hers because she will have to live with it in a way I never could.

Now don't start with me on does that mean a man can't decide anything when it involves a women since I'm not qualified, because in a way, I don't feel qualified to rule on this one but on other issues I might be qualified.

[Ben Kenobi]

Somehow I think a comparison with a couple of Saints is a bit of a stretch.

And think about all the scrutiny applied in applications for Saint hood. This is far from a done deal.

For the Catholic church, yes there is a long process of canonisation, which is different from martyrdom. I'm not going to speculate on canonisation, as the process has not even begun.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's where I disagree a lot with the Roman Catholic church, which is indeed anti-choice.

Two things going on here.

One, non-barrier contraception can result in early term abortions.

Two, barrier forms of contraception are illicit because they divide the unitive and procreative aspects of intercourse. The church takes the admonition of Christ, that the two will become one flesh, literally, such that they are no longer two but one.

[rah]

And the church wonders why people turn away. *sigh*

[DinoDoc]

I am pro-life except for rape

Does not really compute. If someone claims to be pro-life, I assume it is because they attach somesort of moral value to the life of the child. I can understand and support the moral arguement for a health of the mother exception but what'd the kid do in this case?

Now don't start with me on does that mean a man can't decide anything when it involves a women since I'm not qualified, because in a way, I don't feel qualified to rule on this one but on other issues I might be qualified.

From the POV of someone who claims to be pro-life, when an innocent life is involved don't you kinda have a duty to become involved in the issue?

[Elok]

EDIT: On second thought, let's try a point-by-point. I'm just morbidly curious where you're going to go from here.

So then the only 'intrinsic Christian belief' would be that Christ was Lord, and our God and saviour. This means things like 'love your neighbour' are not intrinsically Christian?

No, "love your neighbor" is not an intrinsically Christian sentiment because YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE CHRISTIAN TO ENDORSE IT. Plenty of people from other religions, or no religion at all, believe in being good to others. What you said is pretty much the only belief which is absolutely intrinsically Christian, yes, because it is the core of the Christian faith. You could theoretically believe that Jesus rose from the dead and not be a Christian (it was voodoo!), though that's a bit of a stretch.

No, I don't think that's the right assessment. I think things can be understood by non-Christians, and even followed by them, even if they are intrinsically Christian beliefs. Romans 3 writes how when those who are without the law follow the law in their hearts, they are considered a law unto themselves. Point being, non-Christians can hold intrinsic Christian beliefs.

If non-Christians hold them, then by definition those beliefs are not intrinsically Christian. Your thinking seems to be backwards.

I was prolife before I was a Christian. I would consider your argument, that Christianity does not have the intrinsic believe that unborn children are persons, and ought to be protected, to be a stumbling block.

Again, your understanding of the word "intrinsic" is nonsensical. Whether you can be a Christian and pro-choice, while interesting enough, is irrelevant to what I am saying.

To me, Christ is very clear on that. He says many will call me 'Lord, Lord", and yet to Christ, he will say, I never knew you. Again, he says, good tree, good fruit, bad tree bad fruit. Judge them by their fruits. Just because some people choose not to follow Christ, doesn't change what he taught.

This is irrelevant to my argument.

CS Lewis' conclusion to this phenomenon was to postulate the existance of what he called the Tao, or a universal moral code. The thing about Christians is not that they are the only ones who possess it, but rather they possess the fullness of the code. This is how people who are not Christians can still exhibit what we would call 'moral behaviour', even though they lack full understanding.

Yes, I've read Mere Christianity. This is also irrelevant to my argument.

I'm seeing the scene of the crime elok, the shots were directly through his sign which is riddled with holes. The killer already admitted that he shot James because of his prolife witness. Had a street preacher been preaching out against theft or muggings, and was executed in a drive-by by the thugs he condemned, he would be a martyr, no less than John the Baptist who was executed for preaching against Herod's adultery.

Perhaps it's different to Catholics, but we Orthodox call St. Stephen "protomartyr," ie first martyr--note that he died well after JtB. A Christian martyr is someone who chooses to die rather than renounce the Christian faith. John the Baptist was never given the choice to renounce it, but was killed just for annoying those in power. Therefore I would call him a victim of severe injustice, but not a martyr.

The killer did not care if this old man believed in Jesus, the Trinity, or anything else. He was just enraged by the man's pro-life activities.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your ability to deliberately misread continues to astound me.

How did I misunderstand you?

It's also possible that you decide on a response without reading the post.

Nope, I read what you said carefully, and thought about how to respond. I'm baffled by your response.

I'm not sure, but I can't even be angry with you. I'm just baffled. Nothing you just said relates in any way to what I was saying, or trying to say.

Well then please try again. What I understood you saying is that prolife is not an intrinsic Christian belief simply because you can be a prolifer and not a Christian.

My response is that you can 'love your neighbour' without being a Christian, does this mean that love your neighbour is not an intrinsic Christian belief?

[Elok]

My response is that you can 'love your neighbour' without being a Christian, does this mean that love your neighbour is not an intrinsic Christian belief?

By definition. It may be intrinsic *to* Christianity, but it is not intrinsically Christian as a belief if non-Christians can claim it without self-contradiction. The man in your avatar was not killed for specifically Christian beliefs; he was killed for his pro-life activities. Therefore, he is not a martyr. It's quite simple.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ahh ok, now I understand you!

You were taking intrinsic to mean "a characteristic which defines Christianity"

I was taking intrinsic to mean, "a characteristic possessed by Christians."

In that case, I completely agree with you being prolife is intrinsic to Christianity, but is not intrinsic of Christianity.

I still disagree with your definition of martyrdom though. John the Baptist was martyred for preaching against adultery, which is something contrary to the moral law, but is not restricted to Christianity only.

[Solomwi]

At worst, he would be charged with manslaughter if your example were true. That's not the case. He was charged with 1st degree murder.

"The Law According to Ben" is fast becoming my favorite comedic serial.

[Dry]

I know things in the USA are different, but having a pro-life opinion is overhere in Holland more or less a position that a lot of people consider to be prehistoric and stupid.

I see it more like a position of moral arrogance.
Pro-lifers, as I understand it, say this:
You, ordinary people, are too ignorant/stupid/immoral to make a decision for yourself or your children. Therefor, some superior entity (God, Government) has to tell you how things should be dealt. Herefore, we forbid you to even decide for yourself, or for your children, what is best or what is the least of two evils.
To deny that people could be reasonable, make decision of their own, with the help of professionals if needed or be educated on the subject, is similar to deny democracy or universal suffrage for the same reasons.
Being pro-life, for me, is more a middle-age position, paternalistic, morally arrogant. It says: people are not capable of taking care of themselves, we have to make the decision for them.

I must agree with Ozzy that the reactions of the pro-choice movement, at least here on Poly, have been at least very minimal.

Strange. I didn't read all the posts, but I saw quite some reaction on the murder of a person.
Like some others, I didn't saw where it was said that this guy was killed because of his position. Even less because of his beliefs. He could as well have been killed because he wore a beard.
If, and only if, he was killed for his position - and that is still not established - he might be a martyr of pro-life position, not of christianity.
If he was not killed for his position, but just because he was there, he is as much a martyr of the christian cause than he is of the bearded men one.

So my question to the pro-choices, do you agree that pro-life is a valid position, based on humanic grounds, especially if there was a chain of choices?

Abortion is to me similar to amputation. On absolute ground I am against. When life is at stake, I am not.
To put in text laws that it is illegal to amputate people is not humanistic. To have as agenda to kill doctors who amputate people is criminal. I would not want anybody to suffer amputation, yet, when it is needed, I prefer it to be done in a hospital, by doctors who won't go to jail afterwards.
The pro-choice position is exactly what it tells: pro choice. Even if you are anti-abortion, in a pro-choice society, it is entirely yours to decide for you and your future child.
In a pro-life society, you have not that choice. You are considered too ignorant/stupid/immoral to make a choice about the future of your child.

The humanist position includes the idea that everyone is entitled to make decisions for himself, even moral decisions; there is no higher power (king, cleric, god) to decide for the individual.
Children are of course a special case, because they do not have all parameters in hand, and therefore, even for the humanists, someone else has the responsability to make decisions for them. Parents are the one who wear that huuuge responsability. Not king, not government, not clerics, not religion.
Pro-choice position puts parents in full front of their responsability to decide for the foetus. Pro-life takes away that responsability. It is not a humanist position.

[Felch]

If your side were as peaceful as you're trying to pretend, there'd be no violence. When pro-choice activists do lash out, it's because they've been hit, pinched, spit on, etc. for years. How many anti-women groups have been bombed? How many of your leaders have been murdered? These extreme incidents are the tip of the iceberg of an extremely violent anti-woman movement.

There may be a few of you who are non-violent, respectful, etc., but you're a decided minority. If you associate with violent thugs, expect to be hit from time to time.

First of all, no, the non-violent are not the minority. There are tens of millions of pro-life Americans (I'm figuring, 20% against all abortion, 30% pro-choice, 50% are in between the extremes) and there are a handful of violent incidents each year. No idea how many people are verbally harassed, but that's irrelevant when we're talking about murder.

Second, characterizing opposition to abortion as "anti-woman" misrepresents what abortion is used for in many places. Sex-selective abortions in the PRC and India have been used to reinforce patriarchy, and have eliminated tens of millions of girls from the population. Even in this country, if a girl is told by her boyfriend that she has to get an abortion, is that still her choice, or is it simply another example of the subjugation of women? Don't pretend like that doesn't happen, I know guys who would think nothing of telling a girl they knocked up to deal with the problem.

[Felch]

I see it more like a position of moral arrogance.
Pro-lifers, as I understand it, say this:
You, ordinary people, are too ignorant/stupid/immoral to make a decision for yourself or your children. Therefor, some superior entity (God, Government) has to tell you how things should be dealt. Herefore, we forbid you to even decide for yourself, or for your children, what is best or what is the least of two evils.

Isn't that the case with just about every law? We make it a crime to rob people, because we assume that thieves are morally bankrupt.

While you view abortion as similar to amputation, I view it as a form of child abuse. The government doesn't stand idly by and allow parents to have unrestricted power over their children. We forbid abuse and neglect because children are not merely a parent's body part, but are separate human beings. It's a matter of perception, but perceiving a fetus as being distinct from the mother is hardly a retrograde notion. Rather, it's an acknowledgement that the fetus is a distinct person, with its own genetic material, and senescence. Considering genetics and organismal senescence, you'd be hard pressed to prove to me that a fetus is just another body part of the mother.

[rah]

Does not really compute. If someone claims to be pro-life, I assume it is because they attach somesort of moral value to the life of the child. I can understand and support the moral arguement for a health of the mother exception but what'd the kid do in this case?

Having to carry a rapist's child to term can impact the mental health of the mother. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

From the POV of someone who claims to be pro-life, when an innocent life is involved don't you kinda have a duty to become involved in the issue?

I said I would be involved in the discussion and express my beliefs, but beyond that I would leave the final decision to my wife. That would satisfy my obligation.

[DaShi]

Having to carry a rapist's child to term can impact the mental health of the mother. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

So you believe that someone's mental health is more important than someone else's life?