crispfinagin wrote: Some would also say that it is hypocritical to want to ensure a child is born yet not lift a finger in any way to ensure the child, who let's say is born to a poor single mother (since those that choose abortion are usually poor--yeah, it might not be supposed demons leading to that decision), who is then not helped out in any way to ensure her or the child can have a better life and not be involved in a continuing destructive cycle that kills children and their parents.
Some would, and I do, too. I simply think government is not the entity to do it, and should stay out of it.
Sorry, but if we are to be pro-life, we must, as my good Catholic brothers would say, have a consistent ethic of life. That means being pro-life in the womb, as an infant, ensuring a good education in school, ensuring access to health care, giving them the ability to enjoy the benefits of higher education, supporting marriage and strong families, to offer any needed help with their children, to be humane and let them have dignity when they are old by fighting euthenasia and even covers opposing the death penalty. We must be pro-life in all situations, not just select the ones we like.
The issue is "ensuring". Who bears the risk of not doing it? Well, that risk is forced on all of us through taxation and regulation, unfairly, roughly and with more concern for feeding the bureaucracies created to 'address' these issues than concern for those on the worse end of them. That is the only means that any government, good or otherwise, can do it. It simply cannot be done right, good or well by government. The job, as I understand it, and as Jesus commanded, is ours to do, but we have defaulted and we're content to let the government do it. Fine, but let's not complain when we are all shoved down the proverbial chute as the government puts a bootheel on our foreheads and shoves us with its regulations and taxes. And, most importantly, let us be content to live with God's judgment of ourselves as those who failed to obey His commands.
Well then why do churches often do so little? And by the way, have you read the government God set up for Israel in the law? Seems to me that if those under the law had a responsibility to the poor then how much more do we?
Churches don't live up to their obligations, but I wouldn't call what they do "so little." Again, there's competition in the welfare market, and the government really wants to be the only player. That is real power, a dependent class and a bureaucratic wet nurse. And, yet I see the government God set up for Israel, but God has not arranged His kingdom on such civic platforms. He expects us to arrange our own societies around those principles, however. But, it is, within that very context, foolish to yoke together with the unbelievers for just such high, holy kingdom purposes, and even more foolish to surrender to their leadership as they mix corruption and self-interest in with their 'progressive' or 'hopeful' agendas.
As for Israel, they failed miserably at it, precisely because of that very corruption, and judgment was pronounced and carried out. We're not better suited, and a more effective regime of administering these benefits is not a cure, but a more visible example of the problems. I am more than a little afraid for my own self and for all of us who name Him as our God because of this. You are spot on that we bear the greater burden, have received the greater gifts, and stand in danger of the greater judgment.
Human government bears the same relation to hell as the church bears to heaven. (David Lipscomb, On Civil Government, 72).
Watch out, he's got that big staff.
![[amer-ribbon90.gif]](/images/amer-ribbon90.gif "Remember our veterans and troops currently serving today.")