dear prometheus,
i think it is you that have the antiquated outlook. but i am not saying this to irritate you. the reason i say this is up until the early 20th century - very little was done to save babies who were compromised at birth. it wasn't the 'sacredness' of life over death -but the fact that the child was born, named, and possibly buried under the age of 2 or 3 when times were bad. food shortages, disease, whatever.
now, we have much more medical care. the options are open to us as to whether to seek life support systems, or do some large or small medical operation (such as close a hole in the heart), to save the life of the baby or unborn child.
so, now we have the dillema on the opposite side. rather than accepting death sometimes - we choose to take care of the child to the best of our ability and maintain life. most MOST parents choose this if their baby is born alive. even with several developmental, known emotional side-effects, and also physical defects. so - with the advent of medicine - we have - in effect prolonged life.
for people of faith - they took your position. that God allowed the child to die or if looked like the child was going to die they accepted it. the death of children was a cruel thing to endure - but not as much as today. people had way more children. they could always have another one. one out of thirteen might be not so terrible? although i tend to think parents always mourn the one they lost. my husband's father was one of thirteen. a very tight family. one was lost in WWI i believe. at a very young age.
saying that war claims the religious right and that their feelings about death nullify giving birth - i think - are quite biased. of course, you probably think that i am biased. the reason i say this is because we don't know when we give birth that there will be a war. it isn't the first thing that enters a woman's mind (whether liberal or conservative) whether she will allow him to join the army. on both sides, there are sons that leave home and join the army without even asking their family. so how is this even a related subject to war and choosing life?
now, i do understand an analogy being drawn in terms of governments. some governments do not see life as truly equal for all people. they (especially during times of war) treat certain people with suspect, ridicule, and neglect). imo, this is not an expression of a Christian government. when the world is ruled by Christ - there will neither be male/female, slave/nor free - (he won't see the biases that people see today). some might say - well, why then did he cause the woman to be a help-mate to the man. he was making her less in worth than the man. that is a misnomer, imo. i think the word 'less' has nothing to do with the idea of authority. back in the old days - if a person was a shepherd, they were leading a flock of sheep. they didn't beat them all to follow. they led gently. so, imo, a man leads gently when he allows a woman her right to be a woman and not complain about her qualities and visa-versa. i think we were created differently and for different purposes.
where morals enter nowdays, as far as i can see, is that they are non-existant. relativity is the word. do you ever even hear the word 'morals' anywhere? it implys 'rules.' do you hear the word 'rules' anywhere? that implies 'authority.' do you hear the word 'authority' anywhere? that implies God. because God is the final authority. unless we are talking dictatorships. but, from teh beginning God make the strong to serve the weak. i'm not saying women are weak - but that they need protection from men. if men are moral - women will be moral. a woman can try to seduce a man - but if he is a moral man - he will respect her anyways and allow her to see a worth in herself far beyond her sexual capacities. or, he will marry her. that's what i think.
Topic: morals