14
2009
Life and Death Issues
An article by 
Sometimes when I squash a bug I think about the tiny, mysterious, irreplaceable spark of life I’ve snuffed out. Even if I could perfectly rebuild the body of the bug I couldn’t put the life back into it. But I still kill mosquitoes and wasps with extreme prejudice.
A girl I knew was so pro life she disliked walking on grass for fear of squashing insects. She disarmed all the rat traps in her college where they were suffering an infestation. Maybe she didn’t wash to avoid killing off colonies of micro-organisms on her body.
While I don’t take my reverence for life to that level I wouldn’t willingly kill a bird, a sheep or a cow – though I still eat chicken, beef and lamb. I wouldn’t personally kill a baby, a prisoner or an enemy soldier but I recognize that these life and death issues – abortion, execution and war – are not morally straight forward.
The fact that a quarter of all pregnancies in New Zealand end in abortion is truly appalling – over 17,000 abortions a year – one every 30 minutes. On the other hand there are occasions when abortion seems the lesser of two evils. Women forced to take this drastic step through circumstances beyond their control should be supported not condemned. But what about people using murder as retroactive birth control?
I believe that abortion, war, execution and suicide are all forms of murder. If you’re going to be consistently pro-life you have to be anti murder in all its forms.
How about a serial murderer, an incurable killer who has robbed others of life, destroying families, causing untold grief – surely someone like this should be put down like a rabid dog rather than jailed for life at our expense? But what about the executioners? What about the state that sanctions execution? Are they not committing the same crime as the condemned?
Soldiers are trained and paid to kill, promoted and decorated if they kill effectively but if they’re caught killing the wrong person or kill in the wrong place they’re tried for murder. All too often soldiers are court-martialed for killing civilians but if they were in a jet or a battleship firing missiles into a city, missiles which kill hundreds of civilians, their actions would go unquestioned and unpunished. They are only following orders of officers who are following the orders of commanders who are following the orders of politicians. And how often are politicians held accountable for starting a conflict?
Of course the politicians always have a plausible reason for war – protecting our democratic way of life, supporting our allies, taking down an enemy which may have weapons of mass destruction – weapons that we can have but they certainly can’t.
General Omar Bradley, who once controlled the whole US army, observed that “We have grasped the mystery of the atom, and rejected the Sermon on the Mount. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living.”
Benjamin Franklin had this to say “I hope…that mankind will at length, as they call themselves reasonable creatures, have reason and sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats; for in my opinion there never was a good war, or a bad peace.”
Sting in his song about the Russians has a great line…”There’s no such thing as a winnable war, it’s a lie we don’t believe any more.”
War is an abomination which causes ordinary men and women to turn on each other in hatred and murder. I work with a lovely German woman who is a dear friend but our fathers and grandfathers could have been forced to kill each other. War is evil but if an aggressor attacked Aotearoa/NZ would I have the courage to resist peacefully or would I pick up a gun?
Gandhi claimed that while there were causes for which he would die, there were no causes for which he would kill. While I admire his stance I know that if someone was trying to kill my family I would do anything, including murder, to stop him.
For a Christian organization like TEAR Fund being pro life isn’t an option it’s a command. We believe that God, like any loving parent, wants all his children, regardless or race or religion, to enjoy a reasonable level of life, health and peace. We would applaud the words of Dwight Eisenhower when he said that “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”
I am aware this article asks more questions than it supplies answers. Like Helen Keller “I do not want the peace which passeth understanding, I want the understanding which bringeth peace.” I would welcome intelligent responses to the questions raised by these life and death issues of abortion, capital punishment and war. Suicide and euthanasia are also important aspects of this debate – whether it is ever morally acceptable to violate the very clear commandment “You shall not kill”.
Related Posts
24 Comments + Add Comment
Leave a comment
TEAR Fund New Zealand
Get Blog Updates Via Email
Recent Comments
- BuffCrIsoff on World’s Poorest Prove to be a Good Credit Risk
- hébergement de site internet on NZ Prostitution Law Review Committee: Report
- hoagsardell on Cyclone Aila in Bangladesh – Diary of a Humanitarian
- Twin Bed Frame on The Controversy of Easter. The Crucifixion & Freedom.
- Kelvin on Rebellious Media Conference
Blogroll
- Aid Watch
- Change.org
- Empire Remixed
- From Poverty to Power
- God's Politics
- Good Intentions are not Enough
- Just Comment
- Just.
- New Internationalist
- Restorative Justice
- Tax Justice Network
- The Distributist Review
- The Green New Deal Group
- The Thoughtful Campaigner
- Truth Dealer
- Wronging Rights
- ZNet – the spirit of resistance lives
Great blog Drew.
On the issue of abortion, it’s closer to 20% of pregnancies in NZ that end in abortion. But when you consider that somewhere between 25-50% of pregnancies spontaneously abort (often before a woman is even aware she is pregnant) this further reduces the figure.
Oh, and my wife had to have an abortion today. Blighted ovum. Not a person, just an empty egg sac. But then, what *is* a ‘person’?
Issues are never as simplistic as we like them to be. Biology is messy. Idealism can hurt more than the ideals they seek to uphold.
The commandment is, “Do not murder”. It is not “Do not kill”.
Blighted Ovum
Unfortunately after women suffer through a blighted ovum, they often hear comments about there never having been a baby. This is just not true. An egg has been fertilized just as in every pregnancy. The baby just does not develop beyond implantation. If you’ve had a blighted ovum, you were no less pregnant than any other pregnant woman at that same stage and you have every right to mourn the baby that only shared your body for a couple weeks.”
Grant, just a word of caution, not in relation to what you just said, but where this could go – tread very carefully here as the issue raised by Anon is probably a sensitive matter.
Do I really have to bow to Anon’s misrepresentations of the truth?
I have not asked you to do any such thing. How did you get that out of what I said?
Reread it:
Surely even you are capable of a bit of sensitivity in a conversation when talking about a matter that is quite obviously very close to home for someone.
That’s all I’m asking for.
“Close to home”?
“Sensitivity”?
He brought up the topic like it was a trip to the dentist to get a tooth pulled! And you’re directing a pre-emptive strike upon me?
Anon is promoting a lie. His wife’s child died. A person just like every one of us were at that age. This is the truth. If the truth is “insensitive” then I will stick with the truth.
Grant, talking to you is like pulling teeth. I’m sick of having these conversations with you.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that when reading text, we often read into it the emotion that we choose to perceive… thus when we read Anon’s comment, neither of us is qualified to determine how sensitive the issue is or is not.
All I am asking is that you treat the matter with a certain amount of sensitivity… whether it is required or not.
You don’t need to see every conversation as some sort of crusade.
Stop having the conversations then.
If I say something insensitive then feel free to chime in.
In the meantime it looks like Anon’s only reason for posting was to mock a pro-life stand.
I’ll have to start a crusade against Drew, instead. He seems to have no moral foundation for how to respond to specific situations even though the bible clearly states that foundation.
I’d like to say three things to Anon.
First – brother I’m so sorry your wife had to have this operation. I grieve for the deep disappointment and pain this must have caused both of you.
Second – Thank you for having the courage to write what you did. I agree with you 100% especially when you said “Issues are never as simplistic as we like them to be. Biology is messy. Idealism can hurt more than the ideals they seek to uphold.”
Third – If my article added to your hurt in any way I sincerely apologize. I was trying to explore issues not make judgemental pronouncements. I believe with all my heart that Jesus would have nothing but compassion for you in this situation and that should be true for any of his followers who are trying to reflect his love.
I wish you all the courage and comfort that God can give you now and in the future.
He’s not grieving. Did you READ his post?
Your ideas are offensive in the extreme to parents who recognise the product of conception as a human being.
Grant, allow me to repeat myself again.
There is every possibility, no matter how you might read Anon’s comment, that it is a sensitive matter. Chances are Anon and his wife went through all the emotions associated with pregnancy and then having to deal with that pregnancy ending.
There’s truth in Anon’s last line and it offers a hint at some emotion:
Neither Drew or I have offered comment on the issue of the blighted ovum, therefore making a note that Drew’s views are offensive in the extreme is wildly off base – all he did in his last comment was offer some compassion; something I would hope everyone here would be able to engage in even if it means putting aside one’s crusades for a moment. Of course, if you find compassion offensive then your comment makes perfect sense.
There’s a time to debate issues and there’s a time to simply offer compassion – may I suggest that this could be a time to engage the latter.
Well then, you’d be wrong.
Any man who says a person is not a person deserves no sympathy. Any man who offers sympathy in such a situation deserves no respect.
To show sympathy toward an anonymous poster who has shown no indication of posting anything but that which might mock the truth is to directly offend someone who would uphold the sanctity of life.
Until “Anon” shows up and removes all doubt you’re going to have to choose between offending him, the guy who thinks an abortion is not the end of a person, and and offending me, the guy who is right.
Hmmm… tough choice
Really?
Since you ask…
If you choose to be offended because we choose to express some compassion then the issue is not ours. The choice for me is actually easy… there isn’t a choice to be made on my part. You choose to be offended, I do not choose to offend you.
I have not chosen either Anon (where I do not read mockery) or you. I have offered no comment on what a blighted ovum is or is not. I have chosen to extend sympathy and compassion for what could very well be a tough situation for Anon and his wife and I have made a simple request for you to do the same. I see no reason for you to be offended by that but you choose to be. The choice is not mine, it is yours.
Beware becoming a pharisee! The pharisees were experts on the letter of the law. They were forever arguing and hair splitting. They cared more about their rules and regulations than they did about people. They were arrogantly certain that they were right.
When Jesus healed a man born blind – an amazing miracle – the Pharisees were only concerned that he had violated the sabbath. Jesus, who showed such compassion to sinners, absolutely slammed the Pharisees. Take your pick – Pharisee or Christian – you can’t be both.
Let me again share with you the facts then, Frank.
A ‘blighted ovum’ represents the death of a human being at a very early stage of his life.
‘Anon’ was tragically wrong to say his child was not a person. Perhaps he did need some sympathy or compassion and if he were to return perhaps he might receive it.
You, however, are cursed with knowledge. Yet you refuse to take a stand.
And what is Jon talking about?
Grant, I believe Jon was talking about you.
Thanks for clearing that up, Jon Sha… uh .. I mean, Anonymouse.
This is just a gentle reminder that our comment policy states that anonymous comments are not allowed – mostly to stop confusion around identities when a number of people start commenting anonymously.
The current anonymous comments will be left.
Grant, the sarcasm and name calling (“Anonymouse” in this case) is not appreciated and has been warned against in the past. In accordance with those warnings I have followed through on the action I said would be taken.
Anyone who wishes to comment here, please read the comment policy. A certain amount of respect in how we comment towards other people is required here even where we disagree.
Grant, with all respect, i would like to respond to your words
“He seems to have no moral foundation for how to respond to specific situations even though ‘the bible clearly’ states that”
I wonder which Bible you are reading, King James, NIV, NRSV, The Message, Roman Catholic, Good News, Original Greek+Hebrew, and from which Bible you derive your moral and ethical values?
Using Scripture as a foundation to derive all sort of Knowledge about doctrine and ethics, by simply hearing its message is “textual foundationalism”.