Associated Baptist Press - Opinion: Being thoroughly -- and really -- pro-life

Opinion: Being thoroughly -- and really -- pro-life

By Miguel De La Torre

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

(ABP) -- Most of those who self-identify as “pro-life” or say they are believers in the “sanctity of life” are, in reality, neither. To truly be pro-life is to believe that all life, created by God, has worth, dignity and purpose; therefore, no human, under any circumstance, has the right to play God and terminate any life.

Because all human life has an opportunity to reconcile with the Creator, all life must be preserved at any cost. For those who believe in Christian dogma, to terminate life early robs the person of the chance to come into a saving knowledge of God and the hope of relying on God’s grace for everlasting life.

As it stands now, most conservatives and liberals are pro-life on certain political issues and not others. Conservatives are usually pro-life when it comes to abortion and euthanasia, while liberals usually advocate a pro-life stance when it comes to war and capital punishment. Conservatives’ pro-life views are trumped by national-security concerns, while the liberals’ pro-life stance is trumped by personal freedoms.

To truly be pro-life -- to truly advocate for the sanctity of all life -- an individual must stand against abortion, euthanasia, war and capital punishment. Hence most conservatives and liberals are not pro-life, regardless of what they profess. Each group allows something other than God -- either the government or personal freedom -- to take precedence over and against the sanctity of life.

For my part, I am trying to be pro-life -- that is, I am trying to stand against abortion, euthanasia, war and capital punishment.

I say that I am simply “trying” because I am relying on God’s strength to stay true to this position, yet recognizing that if I fall short, there is grace. I stopped my prideful boast of truly being pro-life when I was faced with a painful decision and discovered how easy it was for me to fail to live up to my religious ideals.

Four years ago my mother entered her last week of earthly life. I flew to Miami to be by her bedside. She, a non-smoker, was dying of lung cancer. By this time the cancer had spread to other vital organs, and the doctor informed us she would not live for long. While she was still conscious, we had a wonderful opportunity to discuss eternity. She knew she would soon die and made her peace with God.

Soon after, the pain became so intense that she was drugged to make her as comfortable as possible. At this point she lost her dignity and her consciousness. For about a week she lay there in pain. For a week I did not leave her side, waiting for a death that took its sweet time to arrive. The woman I knew and loved left, but machines kept her body alive.

Even though I claim to be pro-life, given the opportunity, I would have pulled the plug myself. My action would have been motivated by my deep love for the woman who gave me life.

The law, of course, prevented me from taking such actions. But if Jesus said that if I think it in my heart, I’ve as good as done it; therefore, I am guilty of euthanasia. I am guilty of not truly being pro-life, regardless of my confession to the contrary.

Since her death, my greatest regret is that I stood by as she suffered that last week of life. The drugs were not enough, as she occasionally emerged from the fog of death. Nothing good came from that last week. I ask myself why she had to suffer. I remain with very conflicted emotions and dogmatic beliefs that, I confess, I have not yet been able to resolve.

If my belief that euthanasia is wrong is true, why then was I willing -- and, if I am honest, am still willing -- to pull the plug when the issue actually became real and personal? Was my love for my mother so strong that I was willing to go against my own pro-life stance and be left with nothing except God’s grace and forgiveness? But how can I be forgiven if I can’t repent from how I felt -- from what I experienced?

Maybe I will not find resolution to my struggle until that final heavenly reunion when I find forgiveness from my mother for not loving enough to act.

Unless you have stood by the deathbed of a loved one passing away in excruciating pain, you really can’t understand this spiritual conflict I’m trying to share. Remaining true to Christian social positions is always easy when never tested with the messiness of life. It’s easy to be in favor of war if you or your kids don’t have to go fight; to be against abortion if you are not carrying an unwanted pregnancy caused by rape or incest; to favor capital punishment if you are a victim; or to be against euthanasia if it’s not your loved one suffering.

For such folks, grace is neither needed nor extended. But for those of us still working out our salvation in fear and trembling, maybe we need to learn how to rely much more on God’s grace to live through the contradictions that mark our existence.

-30-

Miguel De La Torre is associate professor of social ethics at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver.

EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER: As part of our mission to provide credible and compelling information about matters of faith, Associated Baptist Press actively seeks a diversity of viewpoints in its columns, commentaries and other opinion-based content. Opinions expressed in these articles are not intended to represent ABP editorial policy and do not necessarily reflect the views of ABP's staff, board of directors or supporters.

What's this?

Comments (23) Add Comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by ABP Reader, September 15, 2009

Thanks for these heartfelt and challenging words.

...
written by AJC, September 15, 2009

Thank you for sharing this difficult story with us. I, too, try to be wholly pro-life, and it is true that we are not accepted by either side. I guess that's part of what makes us "moderate". I believe that the empathy we have for others -ALL others- is given to us by the Holy Spirit and was modeled for us by Jesus Christ- and that we should let that model guide us in the decisions we make. God bless you and your family.

The Bible does not teach pacifism, part 1
written by Xenophon, September 15, 2009

I am one of those "inconsistent" conservatives who oppose abortion on demand and active euthanasia while supporting capital punishment and war in certain circumstances. The Bible seems to clearly warrant the use of violence under specified conditions but not others. The most notable passage in this regard is Romans 13 where Paul lays out the role of the state as centering on the establishment of justice and order by the threat or use of violence.

"1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
6 For, for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. "

Here humans acting under the authority of the law can use force including the taking of life to protect other humans. The principle is borne out in the philosophy of John Locke writing in his *Second Treatise on Civil Government* in which he offers a philosophical examination of the proper role of government that includes reflections on the justified use of violence. Locke proposes a social contract theory where people are endowed by God with the natural right to property, a private sphere that the individual is solely responsible for. If others knowingly and aggressively transgress the right to property of others, then the person who is victimized has the moral warrant to use proportional violence to defend himself or defend others whose rights are being violated. Locke argued that we as individuals possess the authority to use violence to defend the innocent against the guilty. He went on to argue that humans in a certain territory who choose to band together in collective self-defense create the state to enforce rights as they delegate their individual warrants to the government. War is simply the same principle of self-defense applied to different bands of people attacking others. Later, Immanuel Kant, working from basically the social contractarian framework, argued that not punishing those who freely choose to violate the rights of others is disrespectful not only to the victim but to the transgressor since to do otherwise is to refuse to take his free agency seriously.

The Bible does not teach pacifism, part 2
written by Xenophon, September 15, 2009

So, individual self-defense and defense of others by the use of violence including killing, and I would argue torture, can be morally justified if the recipients of the violence have forfeited their own rights by their free choice and the resulting retaliation is proportionate. In cases of abortion where the mother's life is in danger or she is threatened with serious damage to her health, I would argue that abortion should be allowed as an option for the mother on grounds of self-defense even though the fetus did not willfully consent to pose a threat to the woman. The child in this case is not violating the rights of the woman to control her own body, but the child is nevertheless posing a threat to the woman as if a small child were innocently shooting a gun and ignorantly posing a threat to passersby. Killing a child in the womb who is product of rape follows a similar logic. The mother did not consent to sex and so she did not accept responsiblity to carry the child conceived from rape. She has a right to protect her bodily integrity, which allows for abortion with the current technology. If the technology develops so that an unborn child can be safely removed from a woman's womb, then all abortions would be unjustified.

In regard to euthanasia, killing someone such as Terri Schiavo is not justified since she posed no danger to anyone nor did she consent to refusing food and drink. Killing someone based on hearsay is not good enough reason to kill a non-aggressor. The assumption should always be that a rational person will choose to protect their own life based on the natural instinct. Suicide is irrational in most every case. Passive euthanasia such as refusing treatment when the person is coherent should be allowed. I see an enormous difference between an act of omission and an act of commission.

So, while there are some difficult and close distinctions over which reasonable people can disagree in exceptional cases, all violence is not unjustified from a Christian-influenced moral and legal paradigm. I think that we have to avoid simplistic absolutes while adhering to the demands of objective moral and legal principles available to all rational agents.

Torture and abortion are both immoral
written by Common Loon, September 15, 2009

It's not difficult to find conservative religious organizations lobbying against abortion or liberal groups lobbying for the end of torture on religious grounds, but it's rare to find those who believe BOTH practices are immoral.

Opponents of abortion claim that it harms a sacred life and violates the dignity of another human being, a line of reasoning also used by those who oppose torture.

http://thecommonloon.blogspot.com/2009/09/torture-and-abortion-one-is-evil-but.html

...
written by Drew, September 15, 2009

I feel when one filters scripture through Kant and Locke rather than the unmentioned Christ it's easy to dismiss pacifism. I fear we are quick to defend violence because the peace seeking presence isn't the one before us and is lacking in our tellings of history and in our present witness.

...
written by pjerwin, September 15, 2009

I’d like be sympathetic toward Dr. De La Torre on this one, I really would. Clearly he’s dealing with a good deal of pain. Experiencing the suicide of my best friend, the murder of my sister, the slow descent into death through “natural causes” of many close family members, and ministering to my parishioners through the numerous protracted illnesses and deaths of their family members allows me to empathize with De La Torre’s loss, but this piece is simply embarrassing – or should be. He continues to lack any sense of appropriateness.

And I'm constantly amazed that this fellow is a professor… at a school of theology… and of ethics, no less. The article appears to be little more than attempt to “work through” (read “assuage”) his own feelings of guilt by taking a potshot at conservatives – and that in the guise of being supremely empathetic. It’s a manipulative incoherent argument replete with logical fallacies. His thesis itself is a fallacy of a false dilemma and his conclusion contradicts his thesis. Perhaps it’s a form of what’s called a “nirvana fallacy,” a logical error of comparing real things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives, presuming that there’s a perfect solution. He posits a false dichotomy presenting a completely implausible choice so he can attack any opposing opinion as imperfect. The choice isn’t between an actual choice and the ideal choice, but between one real possibility and another which he believes is better.

The good professor writes:

To truly be pro-life is to believe that all life, created by God, has worth, dignity and purpose; therefore, no human, under any circumstance, has the right to play God and terminate any life.

Were he to follow his own thesis to its truly logical conclusion, he could not immediately change his consideration from “all life, created by God… any life” to “all human life” within the space of a paragraph -- within the space of one sentence! He could not, therefore, limit his thesis as he does in the second part of his thesis:

To truly be pro-life -- to truly advocate for the sanctity of all life -- an individual must stand against abortion, euthanasia, war and capital punishment.

If the first part of his thesis is sound, then being “truly pro-life” and advocating “for the sanctity of all life” necessitates not only standing against abortion, euthanasia, etc., but also against ranches and slaughter houses, farms and harvesting, fishing in all its elements, and anything else that endangers any life at all – including medicine, since often it involves the destruction of microscopic life. De La Torre’s thesis is inane.

And his sense of moral superiority is astounding. It’s as if he believes that “most” pro-lifers, whether conservative or liberal, have never had to deal the kind of pain he’s dealing with, have never had to work through painful moral or spiritual conundrums. (Of course, by referencing “most” he commits yet another logical fallacy since he would have had to poll “most” conservative and liberal pro-lifers in order to know this.)

And what level of anger could lead such a Christian professor of “ethics” to posit that for “folks” who have never experienced his kind of spiritual conflict “grace is neither needed nor extended.” How arrogant and ignorant.

Jesus acknowledged the legitimacy of the state within certain bounds
written by Xenophon, September 15, 2009

Drew, certainly Jesus acknowledged the legitimacy of the powers of the state to enforce the requirements of justice. Consider Matthew 22:21 where Jesus famously taught: "Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Also, in John 19:11, Jesus acknowledged that Pilate had legitimate life and death authority over him as a human. Of course, Pilate misused that authority, but he possessed the authority nevertheless. Finally, since Paul wrote under divine inspiration, the passage I quoted above from Romans 13 is on par with the teachings of Christ. There are also many passages in the Old Testament authorizing the use of violence to protect innocent human life.

Thoughts of "What If ?"
written by mcskinny, September 16, 2009

" To truly be pro-life is to believe that all life, created by God, has worth, dignity and purpose; therefore, no human, under any circumstance, has the right to play God and terminate any life. "

Scenario: Some one is about to do execute a plan (say detonate a bomb) which will kill many people (or even one person). You have the means to stop him, but only by immediately killing him. No one you know is in the crowd. (or maybe you know and love them all). Do you as a "truly" pro-life individual kill one to save others or keep your hands clean of blood and do nothing? No time for discussion you have to act immediately.

Life isn't perfect and men and women who truly love as Christ loved are willing to kill and be killed for the good of others. This is totally divorced from killing for convenience as abortion is as is execution of individuals who have and may again kill for personal gain or just to be mean.
Charlie Mac

He's really outdone himself this time....
written by Ken, September 16, 2009

De La Torre writes: "To truly be pro-life -- to truly advocate for the sanctity of all life -- an individual must stand against abortion, euthanasia, war and capital punishment."

According to his "logic", then, the United States should have stayed out of World War II and allowed Hitler to continue his genocide. Yeah, that's really pro-life, isn't it?

...
written by robber, September 16, 2009

What DLT forgets is that we have read so many of his articles that we know where he is coming from and what his agenda is. He simply has no credibility. I don't have enough time to list the reasons this article is in error; except to say I don't fit into any of his neat little categories, and I wonder how many people really do. It's vintage DLT: Like the daily horoscope, it's value is for entertainment purposes only.

...
written by rdeesjoy, September 16, 2009

Ken -- The US didn't enter WWII because of Hitler's genocidal plans and activities. The truth is that the US, including Southern Baptists, were in complete denial of the reports coming out of Germany and Europe. Part of that was the extreme propaganda of the Allies during WWI where the "Huns" were portrayed as baby-killers -- bayonetting babies. After the war, people learned that that was propaganda. So, same message, different war -- people took it for propaganda -- or an effort at propaganda, since the US didn't formally publish the information. We didn't KNOW about the genocide until our soldiers came upon these camps full of walking skeletons and the dead and dying.

The US entered the war with Germany, because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and because we desired to come to the aid of our allies on all fronts -- and to "stop tyranny."

So -- supporting violence to deal with any sort of injustice because we needed to stop Hitler's genocidal program is a skewed argument. Why haven't we done the same in Darfur? In Rwanda? Why didn't we do it Stalinist Russia? We certainly apply that particular principle incosistently!

...
written by rdeesjoy, September 16, 2009

Is ceasing life-support for someone who is dying the same as euthanasia? Isn't life-support treatments intended to support life to give the body time to heal? If the body is not going to heal, is supporting life a life-giving treatment?

...
written by lovespiral, September 16, 2009

the death penalty killed jesus, oh righteous ones, with full and legitimate power of the state (government). and we would probably crucify jesus again today - figuratively, of course - for loving all people all the time.

response
written by Dr. J, September 16, 2009

I guess this guy would say I am not 'truly' pro-life. I guess you can't please everyone, especially a guy that equates abortion and capital punishment- totally ridiculous.

...
written by sbcer?, September 16, 2009

lovespiral

Have you any inkling of what the sovereignty of God means? Do you truly understand the atonement? Or are you lost in a world of fuzzy wuzzies where God is our heavenly grandfather, omnibenevolent, all forgiving without an ounce of righteousness and justice. I suggest you acquire a better grasp of God's sovereignty, the atonement, etc. and then revisit your comment. Your statement intimates that the means by which God would redeem his elect, the plan God devised before the foundation of the world could/would/should have been altered by any legitimate or illegitimate power of any state. To use a phrase touted by the left, "How Big is Your God?"

...
written by pjerwin, September 17, 2009

When the Lord commands His angels to pour out His wrath on the earth, destroying millions, perhaps billions, of lives, what will be the response of these folks? When Jesus himself fails to show hospitality to the lawless strangers He “never knew,” but who called Him “Lord, Lord” and performed many miracles in His name, and He shuts eternally them out of heaven, I'm sure these folks will want Jesus brought up on charges of some kind. And on the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord, when the resurrected dead, great and small alike, stand before the throne and those whose names are not found written in the Book of Life are thrown into the lake of fire, I'm sure these folks will want to prosecute the Lord for crimes against humanity. But to whom will they appeal? Will they rebel against the Lord? What would be the consequence of that?

Is that really euthanasia?
written by Padre Jud, September 17, 2009

In line with rdeesjoy's question, I'm not sure that what Miguel De La Torre is talking about is euthanasia. The Catholic position, as stated in the Catechism, allows for some room for decisions between extreme options:

2278. Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

The key principle in this statement is that one does not will to cause death. When a person has an underlying terminal disease, or their heart, or some other organ, cannot work without mechanical assistance, or a therapy being proposed is dangerous, or has little chance of success, then not using that machine or that therapy results in the person dying from the disease or organ failure they already have. The omission allows nature to takes its course. It does not directly kill the person, even though it may contribute to the person dying earlier than if aggressive treatment had been done.

Not very nuanced
written by GregF, September 17, 2009

This article tries to do too much. The author's uncritical lumping together of abortion, euthanasia, war, and capital punishment is a mistake. Each of these, although related because they take human life, is a distinct subject unto itself. One could spend more than the alloted space on (1) the difference between taking an innocent life in an abortion and taking a guilty persons life in capital punishment; or (2) is participating in war a legitimate right to self defense.

Perhaps, since his example was that of his dying mother, the author will return and write about what euthanasia is and what it is not.

Greg

rdeesjoy
written by Ken, September 17, 2009

"The US entered the war with Germany, because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and because we desired to come to the aid of our allies on all fronts -- and to 'stop tyranny.'"

You're either missing my point or dodging it. Was the U.S. wrong to get involved in World War II? Yes or no?

it is the same
written by robber, September 21, 2009

Although I will probably agree with Dr. J more times than not, I thought it would be worth the while to give an example to all the DLT fans out there that there is some diversity in the conservative sphere. I happen to believe abortion and the death penalty are the same thing. They are equal to me. I mean: What part of "thou shalt not kill" don't people understand?

robber
written by Ken, September 21, 2009

If "thou shalt not kill" prohibits the death penalty, then why did God allow it - and in some cases even command it?

to Ken
written by robber, September 25, 2009

I don't know exactly what passages you refer to, but I'm not doubting that your statement is accurate. If God allows it, and certainly if He commands it, that is obviously His will, and I am not about to question that. I'm not sure how that changes what I have said. We're talking about society allowing it, and in the case of the death penalty, commanding it. That's a clear difference to me.

The only killing I can get behind morally is in self-defense, and that would include a just war.

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.

Write comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register

< Prev		Next >

Baptists

Nation

World

Opinion