Really Being Pro-Life

B

BedellBrave

It's OVER 5,000!
Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 134. Which is the sixth commandment?

A. The sixth commandment is, Thou shalt not kill.

WLC Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?

A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.

WLC Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.
 
First, this is convicting.

Second, I wish pro-lifers were more pro-life.

Third, some "Pro-lifers" most certainly aren't.
 
Despite being Libertarian I am pro-life. In my view if it has a heart beat it's alive. It doesn't have to be about religion. If it's women's body their choice then it should also be their body their problem. If women have the right to.cjoose after conception then men should to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
cajunrevenge said:
Despite being Libertarian I am pro-life. In my view if it has a heart beat it's alive. It doesn't have to be about religion. If it's women's body their choice then it should also be their body their problem. If women have the right to.cjoose after conception then men should to.
Click to expand...

I'm also in the libertarian non-religious pro-life camp. I acknowledge there is a conflict between the rights of the fetus and the rights of a woman to control her body. But I favor resolving that conflict in favor of the fetus fairly early after conception. And I don't speak up much about this debate because I do realize that a man cannot fully look at this issue from a woman's perspective. I do think that as a moral proposition the fetus has compelling rights fairly early on.
 
Jaw said:
Can you elaborate on that?
Click to expand...

Jaw, I'd just refer back to all the ways the Westminster Larger Catechism explicates the 6th Commandment. What does it really mean to be obey the commandment in our thoughts, words, and actions? What are sins of commission and omission that violate it? When we commit them we aren't being Pro-life.

Being pro-life isn't less than opposing abortion, but it should certainly be more than that.

The sort of promotion of "Pro-life" issues while hating one's political enemies and provoking unnecessary quarrels that POTUS is given to seems sadly too prevalent to me now within my circles and imho, it helps little to persuade the hearts of others to the cause...
 
nsacpi said:
I'm also in the libertarian non-religious pro-life camp. I acknowledge there is a conflict between the rights of the fetus and the rights of a woman to control her body. But I favor resolving that conflict in favor of the fetus fairly early after conception. And I don't speak up much about this debate because I do realize that a man cannot fully look at this issue from a woman's perspective. I do think that as a moral proposition the fetus has compelling rights fairly early on.
Click to expand...

I just kind of accepted that I won't win the fight on abortion so whatever, people can murder babies all day long. As long as it's not mine I guess it's not my problem. I don't associate with women who have had abortions which really pissed some people off but I also don't associate with men who dont support their kids. Not that I ask this info but if they tell me.
 
BedellBrave said:
Jaw, I'd just refer back to all the ways the Westminster Larger Catechism explicates the 6th Commandment. What does it really mean to be obey the commandment in our thoughts, words, and actions? What are sins of commission and omission that violate it? When we commit them we aren't being Pro-life.

Being pro-life isn't less than opposing abortion, but it should certainly be more than that.

The sort of promotion of "Pro-life" issues while hating one's political enemies and provoking unnecessary quarrels that POTUS is given to seems sadly too prevalent to me now within my circles and imho, it helps little to persuade the hearts of others to the cause...
Click to expand...

I guess I was hoping for more in the way of specific issues and how you would apply the Catechism to them, but I didn't say that and I recognize how tedious it can be to try form a representative list. As an unsubtle example, I oppose both abortion and the death penalty. While I consider my stance on both issues to be "Pro Life," I vote for candidates who support the death penalty on a regular basis. I will never cast another vote for a person who I consider to be "Pro Choice." That just comes from an internal sense of which issue is most unjust.

I know other people of faith that routinely vote for Pro Choice candidates while using the excuse that the same candidate will do more to provide for those in need. That is a belief that has some basis in the Catechism on the 6th, but it's not one I would care to explain to my maker one fine day. The problem isn't really with the issues, I think anyone looking at them with clear eyes and good faith can see the appropriate stance on almost every issue. My frustration comes from the gray area of having to prioritize which of the correct stances is most important to each of us, and how each of us can all too easily use that gray area to justify the unjust.
 
Jaw said:
I guess I was hoping for more in the way of specific issues and how you would apply the Catechism to them, but I didn't say that and I recognize how tedious it can be to try form a representative list. As an unsubtle example, I oppose both abortion and the death penalty. While I consider my stance on both issues to be "Pro Life," I vote for candidates who support the death penalty on a regular basis. I will never cast another vote for a person who I consider to be "Pro Choice." That just comes from an internal sense of which issue is most unjust.

I know other people of faith that routinely vote for Pro Choice candidates while using the excuse that the same candidate will do more to provide for those in need. That is a belief that has some basis in the Catechism on the 6th, but it's not one I would care to explain to my maker one fine day. The problem isn't really with the issues, I think anyone looking at them with clear eyes and good faith can see the appropriate stance on almost every issue. My frustration comes from the gray area of having to prioritize which of the correct stances is most important to each of us, and how each of us can all too easily use that gray area to justify the unjust.
Click to expand...

For instance, POTUS' recent exchange with Sen. Gillibrand, where his words (as usual) were "provoking words, ...., quarreling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any."
 
BedellBrave said:
For instance, POTUS' recent exchange with Sen. Gillibrand, where his words (as usual) were "provoking words, ...., quarreling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any."
Click to expand...

he is a lost soul
 
nsacpi said:
I'm also in the libertarian non-religious pro-life camp. I acknowledge there is a conflict between the rights of the fetus and the rights of a woman to control her body. But I favor resolving that conflict in favor of the fetus fairly early after conception. And I don't speak up much about this debate because I do realize that a man cannot fully look at this issue from a woman's perspective. I do think that as a moral proposition the fetus has compelling rights fairly early on.
Click to expand...

I favor resolving the conflict in favor of the rights and safety of adult women, but—as I've mentioned to Bedell before—I don't think preserving the legal status of abortion precludes us from attempting to reduce the number of abortions to as close to zero as possible. There are a number of methods that have been established as promoting reduced numbers of abortions in populations even when there is still both legal and effective access to abortion. That, I think, is a better starting point than electing congresspeople whose other positions are suspect simply because they promise to "repeal" Roe v Wade (or w/e).
 
jpx7 said:
I favor resolving the conflict in favor of the rights and safety of adult women, but—as I've mentioned to Bedell before—I don't think preserving the legal status of abortion precludes us from attempting to reduce the number of abortions to as close to zero as possible. There are a number of methods that have been established as promoting reduced numbers of abortions in populations even when there is still both legal and effective access to abortion. That, I think, is a better starting point than electing congresspeople whose other positions are suspect simply because they promise to "repeal" Roe v Wade (or w/e).
Click to expand...

this
 
BedellBrave said:
A step in the right direction!
Click to expand...

Is it really though? Aren't they just repeating the same line that we literally hear from every Democrat, ever, "Oh, I'm pro-life, I just think everyone should get to choose. And we should pay for it. With tax dollars. While thumbing our nose at the Hyde Amendment while we find ways to fund everything else abortion clinics do so they can stay open, claim to have some other raison d'etre, and focus on abortion." Isn't it the same line that our last president pulled on us, even though he opposed the Gonalez v Carhart ruling that stopped partial birth abortions, as well as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (which even NARAL supported!!)?

Sorry. Call me fringe or whatever else, but there are really only two sides here. You are either okay with it, or you aren't. I am certainly not.
 
Jaw said:
Is it really though? Aren't they just repeating the same line that we literally hear from every Democrat, ever, "Oh, I'm pro-life, I just think everyone should get to choose. And we should pay for it. With tax dollars. While thumbing our nose at the Hyde Amendment while we find ways to fund everything else abortion clinics do so they can stay open, claim to have some other raison d'etre, and focus on abortion." Isn't it the same line that our last president pulled on us, even though he opposed the Gonalez v Carhart ruling that stopped partial birth abortions, as well as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (which even NARAL supported!!)?

Sorry. Call me fringe or whatever else, but there are really only two sides here. You are either okay with it, or you aren't. I am certainly not.
Click to expand...

It would be for 57. He has approved infanticide here before.
 
Not trying to start any trouble but remember that story a few days ago about the companies in CA that got caught buying/selling fetal tissue? I asked the question who owned those companies? I know there's a lot more to this topic than just the identity of those individuals but you guys have way more resources and apparently way more time to do research on this sort of thing than I do, so has anybody found the answer to that question yet?
 
Jaw said:
Is it really though? Aren't they just repeating the same line that we literally hear from every Democrat, ever, "Oh, I'm pro-life, I just think everyone should get to choose. And we should pay for it. With tax dollars. While thumbing our nose at the Hyde Amendment while we find ways to fund everything else abortion clinics do so they can stay open, claim to have some other raison d'etre, and focus on abortion." Isn't it the same line that our last president pulled on us, even though he opposed the Gonalez v Carhart ruling that stopped partial birth abortions, as well as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (which even NARAL supported!!)?

Sorry. Call me fringe or whatever else, but there are really only two sides here. You are either okay with it, or you aren't. I am certainly not.
Click to expand...

That binary is not helpful. I say that as someone who formerly cleaved to said binary, espousing the other side. That binary is simply not helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top