We speak of three positions in the God arena: theist, agnostic, and atheist. We have considered these three rather distinct positions. The theist says that he can prove there is a God, the evidence of which supports his faith in that God. The agnostic (against knowledge) says he cannot determine whether God exists. For the agnostic, the jury is out. For some agnostics, that jury has been out for a long time. I guess he will find out the truth when he dies. The atheist says he knows there is no God, and he can prove it, relieving him of any obligation to believe in anything supernatural. Back to the agnostic, I distinguish between a "searching" agnostic and a "lazy" agnostic. The one who searches for truth will eventually come to a conclusion. The one who is merely lazy will merely take comfort in being neutral. For the lazy one, it is a safe position. It appears to be open-minded. It may be worse than lazy; it may be cowardly. The agnostic often does not want to take a stand or offend either the theist or the atheist. He wavers between two opinions. At some point, it is "fish or cut bait" time, as we say in the South.
In comparison, there are three positions on abortion or whether the "thing" being aborted is valuable human life or merely some cells of no consequence. The pro-life person is comparable to the theist in that they say they know the occupant of the mother's womb is a child, a valuable human being from the moment of conception, who should be protected, and that they can prove it. The pro-abortionist is comparable to the atheist who says that what occupies the womb is not a valuable human being worthy of allowance to develop naturally and be given a chance to live, and they can prove it. For the person in the middle, the one comparable to the agnostic, who cannot tell what or who is in the womb, and what value to place on it, they are in the most uncomfortable place. If they genuinely cannot know, and there is a possibility that abortion is the murder of an innocent child, and if they are going to err, which error seems to be the most acceptable? If they sanction abortion, even by their silence, and it truly is a precious child in there, then they sanction murder. But, if they sanction the abolition of abortion, they may risk denying a woman's right to do what they will with their "cells." Which is the more significant risk? Pascal wagered that it would be far better to live as if there is a God and have a wonderful life because of it and, in the end, to be proven mistaken than to live as if there is no God, miss the superior life, and find out in the end that the God you said did not exist, is now looking you in the face. While America straddles fences on this question of LIFE, whatever or whoever is in that mother's womb is paying the ultimate price for our indecision. That death-row child cannot wait for us to make up our minds. I believe that if all the abortion/life agnostics would simply make a decision, most would see the wisdom in opting for life because to opt for death would be too horrible to contemplate. We don't get a pass on this one. You are the jury. Make a decision. The choice could not be more urgent.
Opmerkingen