Saturday, February 5, 2011
Until sometime last year, I thought that I was “Pro-life.” I thought being pro-life meant that I recognized that a fertilized egg immediately undergoes cellular division, a process which is governed by nothing other than something we call the life-force or “life”. Therefore, being pro-life meant that I recognized that the life-form (human embryo) had a right to proceed with its life. I’ve come to learn that I’m not pro-life unless I also am against the death penalty. Since I’m not against the death penalty, I must be for it. But I’m not for it in the customary way. I’m not for it in the way that screams for revenge or for the “guilty sucker” to burn in hell. I merely think that the Bible gives society’s justice the leeway to adjudicate itself. But let’s take it one step farther. If someone breaks into my house with the intent to rape, harm, or kill one of my family members…do I have to be pro-life then too? It seems to me that if you are against the death penalty after a heinous crime you should be against the death penalty before a heinous crime is committed too. After all, either you are pro-life or you are not. I most assuredly would not be pro-life in that situation, as the perpetrator would quickly find out. Some will say that in cases of self-defense you can kill. Is that being pro-life? So, I can kill before an act is committed and still be pro-life, but if I agree that society can kill after the very same act is actually committed then I'm not pro-life? It seems that the intruder is still innocent until he commits his act against the person. He’s thus far only guilty of illegal entry; we don’t know if he would have actually gone through with the rape and murder until he does it. Yet, it’s still okay to kill the intruder. So, it’s okay to kill an intruder (before the grievous crime is actually committed) but not a rapist-murderer (after the grievous crime has been committed)? Okay, so I'm not pro-life then. No wonder I don’t understand our religions sometimes!!