A Consistent Ethic of Human Life
Posted on September 9, 2006 by Peter Schellhase
Why do Christians who oppose the death penalty generally tend to be pro-abortion? Seems fundamentally inconsistent if they really have a consistent ethic of human life. Unless that ethic is utilitarian. Which doesn’t make sense if they call themselves Christians.
Thoughts?
How can those who have displayed a flagrant disregard for humanity be more worthy of life than those whose only crime is to be alive?
Filed under: Uncategorized
Ha. Yes. Wouldn’t we all love to know the answer to that question? But we do: peoples’ sinful hearts deceive them. It’s the mystery of the deceitful, confused human heart.
My take on this, which is probably completely wrong, or else completely obvious, would say their motives would be something like emotions and mixed up compassion. “Give a man a chance to start life anew. What if God chose to save him? We need to always forgive…” These can be valid reasons. But then you get to abortion, and they think they’re being compassionate again. “A baby’s just a minute speck, the mother is more important, the “fetus’s” (Oh I loathe that word!) life hasn’t even begun…” It basically comes down to “My selfish desires are more important than my baby’s life.” But no one ever puts it that way. Oh, how people disguise it! Sizing down to human proportions, lying to themselves. They do not choose to come to terms with facts. Give the murderer a chance, give the mother a chance. (What about the baby?) I think if someone really studied the matter, they would see that it harms every one, but they go alongside feelings rather than reason and truth.
There is no real reason. It’s unreasonable, or else they wouldn’t disguise it so.