In response to Caroline Arnold's Jan. 12 column: Jesus' purpose was to bring "Peace on Earth" between humankind and God spiritually. Sin made humans enemies of God so Jesus lived a righteous life and voluntarily paid the sacrifice of physical death and separation from God to satisfy God's wrath and bring reconciliation and peace between humankind and God. However, this does not apply to all humankind but only those who through faith and repentance accept the payment of Jesus on their behalf and live eternally.
Ms. Arnold stated, "Human societies can't offer all the privileges of society to…unborn humans." Human societies must, though, offer the right of life to unborn humans. She wrote, "No society can thrive that does not take care of its young, elderly and sick."
I would say that no society can thrive that fails to protect the life of unborn humans. It is their right, not their privilege, to live. Is it good to stop the natural progression of an unborn human towards taking a breath? Should a thriving society only be concerned with those who have life and not with those who have the possibility of life? Would the conclusion then be to determine which seriously infirm individuals would be deemed beyond the possibility for life and left for dead?
Yes, I am willing to impose my view on the mother to remain pregnant for 10 months, a short time compared to the potential years of life of the child, in order to protect the life of the innocent unborn human.
Ms. Arnold is likewise willing to impose her view on the innocent unborn human because he or she lacks a voice. Let us be their voice.
Mike Martin, Mantua