So-Called Pro-Life Group Attacks Deceased Iraq Marine, His Family & Care-Givers

Why don't those who are "pro-prevention" push abstinence?

It is the only approach that is 100% successful, and also prevents STDs.

What progress we could make combating AIDS and out of wedlock births if people practices abstinence prior to marriage and monogamy after!

Pro-Life Wisconsin's own website says that Sgt. Simon didn't die of his injuries - he died of dehydration. "Sgt. Simon had filled out a “living will” stipulating that he did not wish to receive food and water if he were rendered permanently incapacitated."

While Pro-Life Wisconsin may or may not have made a mistake in this instance (I want to investigate for myself before I decide - sorry I can't take your word for this - your post sounded very one-sided), please don't let that totally overshadow all of the hard work they do supporting and encouraging adoption, helping unwed mothers with housing and health care, educating teenagers about abstinence, etc.

It almost sounds, from the contents of your post and its tone, that they they do nothing of any redeeming value. I doubt that that is the case.

KSM, I agree that all efforts on sexuality should begin with an "abstinence first" approach. I just don't think it should stop there (from your post, I'm guessing you're okay with that, but maybe I'm wrong).

Yeah, I agree, if we were perfect, then we'd all be better off. But we aren't, and I don't think we should hide our heads in the sand about that. I see nothing wrong with stressing morality, but I think it has to be tempered with reality as well.

I've had conversations with others who are against all attempts to discuss condoms (you'd be surprised how many adults don't know they have expiration dates, you can't use an oil based lubricant, and that heat - like keeping them in your back pocket - can cause them to fail). That's just dangerous. I'd also say it's immoral.

The standard line (and I'm not saying this is your position) is that talking about condoms separates actions from moral consequences and thus leads to greater sin.

Okay, there is already the sin of having sex outside of marriage. Why compound it with the sin of abortion (if your view holds it as such)? I'd rather think of my daughter (or son - let's not forget that it takes two) as a fornicator than a murderer. Too many of the fervent anti-abortion/pro-abstinence only crew simply don't, or won't, make that connection.

Unfortunately, some of these people are in a position to decide on curriculuum for schools - so their "morality" gets other people's kids into more trouble than is necessary.

Note: I'm not excusing the behavior of the kids. I'm simply saying that if you have the ability to save a life and don't exercise it, then you must share in the responsibility for the loss.

As far as Pro-Life Wisconsin is concerned, I simply do not know. I do know that in New Jersey, it is mainly the pro-choice groups that are funding actual adoptions (with the very notable exception of Catholic Social Services). The two big pro-life groups, NJ Right to Life and the NJ Republican Pro-Life Coalition, have limited their support of adoption services to a single line in the latter's mission statement (according to my search through their websites and news archives). In reality, they appear to give lip service to adoption but no real action.

It's unfortunate. The children are the ones who pay for that.

As to the actual point of this thread - the other end of life's equation - the RTL crowd in this area is very vocally against anyone deciding that they want to die with dignity instead of lingering for months with heroic efforts to extend their life costing millions (aggregate) being added.

I do not believe we need to have a "culture of life" any more than we need a "culture of death". Death is simply part of life, no more and no less. As Christians, we are taught that death holds no fear for us. There is simply no reason to avoid it at all costs.

I would add, as well, there is no reason to rush into its embrace.

However, I've seen enough people around me die - some slow and some quick - to decide for myself that I don't want to go slowly. I'd like a chance to say good-bye to everyone, but if I'm not allowed that, I'll accept it (like I have a choice, right?). I'd rather miss saying good-bye than to have my family watch my body die piece by piece. It's better to harvest my organs so that someone else might actually know a full life.

That's my point of view.

XT

KSM wrote:

Why don't those who are "pro-prevention" push abstinence? It is the only approach that is 100% successful, and also prevents STDs. What progress we could make combating AIDS and out of wedlock births if people practices abstinence prior to marriage and monogamy after!

But you omit one key word from the approach of the Christian Right--they advocate Abstinence Only
programs...Contrary to your assertion, students subject to these programs tend to have higher rates of BOTH STD'S and AIDS, because they often engage in risky behaviors in a effort to preserve their putative virginity. I agree with FP on this post, and am shocked at the heartlessness of the Pro Life groups in this instance and many others.

Ted

I do concur that this group was out of line with their statements, apparently a will was provided and the decision was made by the young man. However, I do think you thrust a bit of self-righteousness yourself here when you condemn everybody in the same clump.
"Pro-Life Wisconsin self-righteously believes it has all the answers on end-of-life questions, and, as usual, they set no boundaries in their loud shouting about why They Are Right and All Others Are Wrong. We saw the same thing in Florida and in our Congress earlier this year. They tried to demonize those who disagreed with their take on the Terri Schiavo matter, even to the point of trumping up "charges" against her husband. They will stop at nothing in their belief that they are right and have a direct line to God, and that all others must necessarily be wrong. This type of sociopathic psychology often leads to extreme and self-serving behavior, the inability to empathize with others, or to recognize or feel remorse for pain caused to others."

As far as Schiavo goes, I think you have misrepresented the majority of the thoughts in that deal.There was no will in this case. And as more things are discovered and released you may find yourself to be wrong.
This is quite a bit over the top, sociopathic? Because they believe something differently? Those comments do nothing but breed more discontent. Like I said I don't agree with the action of this group, but I don't agree with your the reporting of it either.

Ted and X-PatTex are on the mark, as usual.

MJ:
Yes, I believe the actions of many in the Schiavo matter manifested the same fundamental lack of respect for the facts and for the rights of others that Pro-Life Wisconsin demonstrated. God has given them the freedom and the burden of making their own choices. My own faith tradition of Lutheran ethics values the individual's right to exercise his conscience without hurtful intereference from the un-wanted opinions of others who presume to speak for it. But I'm glad to hear you join us in condemning the cruel self-righteousness of Pro-Life Wisconsin. Please join us in urging them to apologize to all that they have hurt.

FP

FP

I need too ask a question it concerns a day in hevan equals 1000 earth years i have read in some Bible I don't remember what one. Or if it is in all Bibles and i can not find it and i have heard it said many times if some one could give me book, chapter and verse you wold be in my heart and prayers forever

Simple, I wish those who want me to do what they want me to do to stay out of my bedroom, my hospital room, my class room, and my court room.
Faith is an individual matter between me and my maker. No group can speak for me and I speak for no group.
"Judge not..."

Monte:

Psalms 90:4

"For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has gone by, or like a watch in the night."

XT

Thanks XT may God be with you allways monte

FP:"" My own faith tradition of Lutheran ethics values the individual's right to exercise his conscience without hurtful interference from the un-wanted opinions of others who presume to speak for it.""
FP I understand your sentiment here, but perhaps we can look at it a different way. If the gov't or any fringe group is imposing laws on us against our religious beliefs, should we not stand up against them? Should we not have our say as well? There are many things I don't agree with in the liberal agenda, and part of it is not some of the "ideas" per se' but the method in which it is forced or coerced upon me. We have zillion religious beliefs in this country and the laws should not be constructed to go against the practicing of those beliefs, well within the exception of physically harmful, is this agreeable to you. Just because some groups on the forefront of Schiavo case were extreme doesn't mean everybody who thought there were questions were extreme.

mammaj:

If you would be so kind, please read my posting here:

http://xpatriatedtexan.blogspot.com/2005/08/should-wall-have-window.html

Thanks,

XT

It seems to me that this posting site represents just one more front in the war between the numerous us and the sparse them. Does anyone's adult mind ever really fundamentally change? And if so, is that change not more likely to be as a result of a personal trauma or experience rather than from an opposing argument on a blogsite? This is not to say that posting points-of-view here is not of value - I have found them to be highly literate and informative if not downright entertaining. If only we had as a nation been focused on investing our post WWII spoils of wealth and tentative unity on advancing the values of our Constitutional mission (liberty and justice for all) as opposed to returning to the lazier doctrines of greed and re-division. There will always be vast disparites of fortune among neighbors, regardless of the level of aggregate wealth in any society. Covetousness, and therefore blame and spite, will always be as inescapable as original sin itself. It will always be easier to hate "them" than to love "them." God has given Satan permission to do his worst here, and you see the result. While I am comforted by the religious left paraphernalia finally available, the net effect of its public display on my bumper is more likely to start more fights than it will resolve. Truth be told, we are not as quick to reserve judgment of those who hold diametrically opposed opinions as we would like to think we are. Complicating matters further, it is impossible to use empirical facts and data in the statement of your theses when the other side doesn't speak that language. Just ask Galileo. Most solutions require some level of compromise. Before a compromise can be reached, there must be an honest dialogue. An honest dialogue requires listening and a common language, and it would seem that we are far from achieving either. But please don't stop posting. It's nice to know there are optimists among us.

One of the things that strikes me about this whole incident, as well as the Schiavo case (Note: I never once wrote about that case on my blog because I thought it was a private family matter and nobody else's business) and now Extremist Pat Robertson's call to murder the President of Venezuela---what is striking in each case is that those on the right do not set any limits on where they see fit to impose their moral vision on others. No choice made by any other can ever be presumed to be a valid exercise of an individual choice, or even a collective political judgment in the case of President Chavez, they always think they know better, that their understanding of the Bible gives them the absolute right to impose their understanding on others...Even to the point of killing a President, or causing more pain to a family in its most difficult days.

That is where the religious right and left are different. The religious left does not get in people's faces and tell them that their choices are wrong in the same way. Rather, what we seem to be doing almost constantly on this site is: a.) pointing out when the Right goes too far, or claims Wisdom and then causes pain to grieving families, or urges Murder, or attacks longstanding American values like the protection of church and state," etc etc; and b.)simply trying to have our Vision of Gospel Values out there in the marketplace of ideas, so that people will consider it as an option. Not cram it down anyone's throats, but just ask that they respectfully consider it.

Mike: I am an optimist in part because I think that Vision of Gospel Values which we express is a powerful gift given to us by God to enhance our lives together and to help us live faithful and valuable lives that are full of compassion rather than hate. I think if we make that vision available to others, as the Gospels make it available to us, that many people will respond...They have for two thousand years.

Do I expect to convince any of these people who hang around this site just to attack that Vision? Probably not. Others are just here because someone has told them to belittle us and our deepest values--I have even gotten negative comments before I am done tinkering with my post--soemthing that has never happened on my own blog!

But we don't censor out their comments, we try to answer each question as though their hearts might be changed--and one or two of "them" pose questions to "us" in the same spirit and thus close the distance between us and them.

-FP

FP and others,

We first, as Christians, are obligated to focus the lord's message where other Christians are concerned. Paul's mission was clearly to make sure all Christians "got it right" before they spread the Good News. We must first clarify Jesus' doctrine within our own flock. The messages of love and redemption must become synonymous with Christianity in order for it to survive and flourish. Engage the Christian Right directly every chance you get.

Second, we must explain to other Christians as patriotic Americans that although our founding fathers acknowledged the existence of the Creator, they codified our right to choose our own paths in the Constitution. That this and the rights to life and liberty are enumerated in our Constitution is what distinguishes America from all other democracies, no, all other governments - period! THAT is the America worth fighting and dying for.

However the Right might try to make them so, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

We are obligated to serve two masters, in this respect. To the best of my knowledge, God has never made a covenant of salvation with a collective America as a nation, but with each of us as individuals. It is mentioned often in the Bible that we are to respect our governments and obey their laws, as all laws derive their authority ultimately from God. No American, therefore, has the right to impose the choices he would make, however Christian, on other Americans with legislation that is un-Constitutional in either letter or intent. We as Americans must vigorously defend these hallowed principles - principles for which many before us have died.

We therefore need to engage directly with other Christian-Americans on two tracks:

First, on the everlasting life that Jesus made available to all of us through sacrificing His own life,

and

Second, on the many earthly freedoms that we Americans enjoy today because of the sacrifices made by the brave patriots of 230 years ago and of every decade since.

As true Christian American patriots, we must defend our Constitution in letter and intent, and allow others to make bad choices, but by our example lead others to make choices that will bring them closer to God.

I hope a conservative eventually reads this and remarks.