If you are a member of the National Rifle Association you can further support the Second Amendment by purchasing your Christmas gifts (or anything else) through the NRA’s SavingUSA portal.

Join The NRA

Continuing on the theme of the importance of life, and some of the comments from Anthony Martin, I have come up with the following discussion about the idea of somehow “choosing” war casualties over abortion casualties. The idea being purported by Anthony Martin seems to be that more deaths occur via abortion than war, and because of this it is a greater evil. However:

In order for the argument of numbers to be valid syllogistically one must agree to the following arguments:

Syllogism A:
Premise #1: Murder is always morally wrong
Premise #2: Abortion is always murder
Conclusion: Abortion is always morally wrong

Syllogism B:
Premise #1: Murder is always morally wrong
Premise #2: Casualties of war are always caused by murder
Conclusion: Casualties of war are always morally wrong

Syllogism C:
Premise #1: Murder is always morally wrong
Premise #2: Less murder is less morally wrong than more murder
Conclusion: Casualties of war are less morally wrong than abortion

Of course Premise #2 of Syllogism C is false because it assumes that Premise #2 of Syllogism B is true (among other things), which it is not. Therefore, if we redefine Syllogism B as follows:

Syllogism B1
Premise #1: Murder is always morally wrong
Premise #2: Casualties of war are sometimes caused by murder
Conclusion: Some casualties of war are morally wrong

We will eventually come to the conclusion that murder committed in the name of war is morally wrong, while murder committed in the name of abortion is also morally wrong. However we will not discover that killing in the name of war is always morally wrong, or that killing in the name of abortion is ever morally right. Because of this inequality they cannot be used for strict numerical comparisons. One action is always wrong, and one action is not always wrong.

The question should not be if we would choose abortion over war or vise-versa, but rather “Is abortion equal to casualties of war from a moral perspective?” If the answer is no, then we are free to object to abortion on all fronts and to accept casualties of war in certain cases. Obviously I believe this to be the case.

I submit that the problem that the liberals are facing when they try to understand how Christians can be pro-life and pro-war at the same time is in a misunderstanding of the theology that is driving those decisions. In effect, Psalms 139, and the sixth commandment (in many cases) cannot be applied equally to a baby in the womb and a soldier in the trenches.

Anthony Martin’s comments on Choosing The Fittest, prompted me to write this post. It felt it was too interesting to leave it hidden in the comments, away from the many eyes of my faithful readers.

Although it certainly speaks to our humanity, I’m not sure the disparity in numbers can be used as a valid argument for or against any type of killing. Still, there certainly is a difference between abortion, euthanasia, and other nefarious harvesters of life, and the death that comes as a consequence of war, specifically, a just war.

It is interesting to note that many theologians (liberal and conservative alike) fall into the “Thou shalt not kill” trap, believing that anyone that participates in a war is automatically breaking this commandment. The original language suggests that a better reading would be “You shall not murder”. There is a definite distinction between killing in war and murder.

Lest we use only one argument to dismiss the arguments of the ill informed, it is also important to look at the context in which the commandment was given. It would make very little sense for God to command his people not to participate in war, and then send them to war with thousands of people in the area.

One final thought, it is also quite unintelligible to claim that as Christians we must refrain from eating animals because we are prohibited from killing! The context of, hmm, the entire Bible forbids this interpretation by any but the most liberal or self-convinced of theologians.

Another article from the Telegraph about killing. It seems that the human race just can’t find enough reasons to end life.

Psalms 139