As a Christian who believes that human life and personhood begins at the moment of conception and lasts until death (which, unfortunately, is also a debatable term), I am immensely disappointed and angry with Scott Roeder (the man who shot Dr. Tiller) and those who approve of his actions. Their logic baffles me: one can be so "pro-life" that they are willing to end a life to prove it? I can understand protesting outside a clinic (peacefully, I might add). I can understand feeling baffled and upset at the thought of a doctor who willingly performs late-term abortions (abortions on unborn babies of 21 weeks and older). But I cannot understand how killing a man helps the pro-life cause.
Apart from the horrific nature of the crime, the irony is profound (killing a man based on your convictions about life, and doing it at a church!), and the PR fallout is certainly not going to help pro-lifers gain a hearing among their pro-choice peers. Of course, it would be unfair to lump all pro-lifers into the same group, as if we all would have done the same thing given the opportunity. This man belongs to a fringe minority segment of the pro-life camp which represents me about as well as Fred Phelps represents all Christians. It might even be safe to call him a terrorist. I don't know if he claimed to be Christian or not, but if so, then I challenge that claim as well. Such actions do not represent the ethics of Jesus, who came to seek and save "the lost" and was a friend of sinners who gave his own life because he values every life and desires to reconcile us all to God.
Killing someone because you don't like what they do (even if you consider what they do as legalized murder) reveals a twisted logic, a moral depravity, and a desire to do God's job of judgment for Him. Dr. Tiller does deserve to stand before God and face his sins, just like all of us do. But it is never the job of another human to arrange that meeting (except for cases of self-defense). I hope that pro-choicers see this for what it really is: a lunatic, fringe extremist whose actions warrant the death penalty (which I believe is consistent with a strong pro-life ethic: I believe that life is so precious that if you intentionally take another life, your life ought to be taken as well).
6 comments:
your comment about the killer of Dr. Tiller deserving to be put to death by the government is a double negative logic. Just as a single person cannot arrange the meeting between a person and God, neither can the voters of a particular state or a government arrange such a meeting. Either you are pro-life across the board or you are pro-life in certain situations. Cant have it both ways
My friend, thank you for your comment. I believe you're accusing me of a contradiction, not a double negative. As one with a high view of Scripture (and I'm not saying you don't have one, I just can't tell from your comment), I feel my view is consistent with Romans 13: 4-5: "For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience." The "he" here is "the one in authority." The state IS authorized to kill murderers, not because of anything inherently great about the people in government, but because their authority is given by God.
The way I understand your view is that it is not ethical to end the life of a yet to be born human, but it is authorized by God to take the life of an adult? contradiction or points of view that cancel each other out. Not really sure.
An eye for an eye makes a society blind. Ghandi
I have a fairly high view of Scripture as Iam working on Master of Theology, but also a high view of the message of the Good News and that is perfect. To pratice compassion one has to experience it first.
Your understanding of my position is, as stated, slightly incorrect. I do not think that the government is authorized to kill just any adult, but only those who are clearly guilty of murder, which puts such people in an entirely different category morally from an unborn person. That's why the "if you do wrong" part of Romans 13:4 is so important.
Out of curiosity, would you kill someone in self-defense? If so, how does that square with your understanding of life? Could it also be that the state, in a way, practices after-the-fact self-defense on behalf of the victim?
And in the gospels, Jesus does not cancel out the command "do not murder" (and its consequences, I assume). He upheld every letter of the Old Testament, which includes the killing of convicted murderers (e.g., Num. 35:25-27).
Of course, I would defend myself. I would not defend myself to trade my life for anothers though. I would not kill somebody to defend myself ever. You are probably to young to learn that dying is not the worst thing that can happen to a person. You will see things different as your loved ones go on to glory. Peace my friend and count it all joy.......
Thank you for your thoughtfulness. If someone breaks into my home and wants to kill me and my wife and my son, there is a thought that is worse than dying: that I did not stop him from killing my wife and son. All theology aside, in that situation, I think I'd try to kill him if there was not another way to get away or talk him out of it. Last resort, yes, but still an option.
Beyond that, and for the sake of the discussion, you didn't really address my other arguments in my previous reply. No problem if this is growing tiresome, though. Grace and peace to you.
Post a Comment