The UK Times recently carried an article in which a Pro Choice spokesperson admitted that a 23 week foetus was 'human' but then insisted on the woman's rights. I do an occasional blog called Biblebase Second Thoughts and felt this was an issue where we can make some clear choices.
http://biblebasesecondthoughts.blogspot.com/2010/07/human-but-not-person.html
copy the above URL and paste it into your browser.
I appreciate your lucid words here Ron.
There are many noble souls who have died for the rights of other people but the only sure foundation of a right attitude to others is the truth that human beings are in the image of God. That means old human beings who no longer have an economic function. It means tiny human beings whose lives hangs by a thread. It means tiny human beings whose presence is an inconvenience to other human beings. It means damaged human beings whose bodies or brains do not function 'normally'.
Because abortion has become bitterly politicized, it is tempting to become fashionably silent on this issue. The nouveau-morality movement, "Social Justice' á la mode, mysteriously omits abortion from an otherwise comprehensive catalog of complaints against injustice. And the new generation of evangelicals here in America are so affrighted of being denounced as a 'republican' that the topic is almost never brought up in the pulpit anymore.
Yet the arbitrary inhumanity that allows us to systematically and clinically exterminate one group of people is not somehow hermetically sealed inside the abortion clinics. It seeps out into other areas of our culture and eventually we will be deciding that we cannot afford to sustain other groups of people as well.
MC
Certainly innocent blood cries out to the Father. The cup is just about full and will result in wrath poured out. We as christians better get off the fence and speak out boldly in defence of slaughtered babies.
Brother Ron,
I know this will sound like a needle stuck on a scratched record (let the youngsters try to figure that one out! lol), but the reality is that if people who call themselves Christians would embrace the pro-life philosophy in its entirety there would be little or no need for pro-life ministries. At least it is so here in the south (USA). Most of our clients were professing Christians who knew immorality is sin but there was no motivation to quit sinning. Their churches did not demand holiness from its people. It is a OSAS church where lifestyle matters little after they got 'saved'.
And abortion? Oh well, I will go have one and then ask God to forgive me....so they tell me.
Brother Ron, if my post sounds pessimistic it is because this sense has been taught by my experience of working in a pro-life ministry for many years.
It all begins with knowing God and obeying his Spirit. This is where it begins and ends.
Ok, I am done venting....
ginnyrose
Hi Brother Ron,
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
It is extremely disheartening to see the level of selfishness when it comes to abortion.
For years, supporters of abortion used to argue that an unborn child was not "alive." I remember arguing that NASA was spending billions of dollars to explore planets in our solar system. If a single microscopic bacterium were found underground, scientists would loudly proclaim that "life" exists on a planet other than Earth. Yet many of those same scientists were refusing to acknowledge a living, breathing, developing human being (complete with pain receptors, emotions, fingerprints and brain activity) is actually "alive."
Most abortion-rights defenders have largely abandoned such ridiculous logic (well, the lack of logic). Now, they merely argue that a mother has a "right" to terminate that "life" (although they still prefer to use the word "fetus" in order to separate any guilt for killing). Their excuse? A woman has a "right to privacy." The outcome of Roe v. Wade determined that a woman has a "right of privacy" according to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Plainly put, the Court determined that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body...and any living creature inside of her body...because this was a "privacy" issue. Yet, an American woman cannot kill someone in her home just because she has a "right to privacy" inside the walls of her home. Her only defense in such a case would be if her life (or the lives of her home) would be in danger. If she killed a living human being -- or even an animal -- and claimed that it was "privacy," she would be ridiculed and arrested.
The opinion of those six justices in Roe v. Wade, of course, has nothing to do with morality. It was merely a majority opinion of the Court in 1973 regarding one nation's written law. Ironically, that same 14th Amendment is the most likely basis for overturning Roe v. Wade. In addition to the "right of privacy," the 14th Amendment also provides a guarantee of "due process" and "equal protection under the law" to all Americans. About 36 states have laws to protect "unborn" human beings and to prosecute those who kill an unborn child during an assault (such as Conner's Law in California). If an abortion case regarding whether states can limit abortions were to go before the Court right now, the Court would almost certainly embrace the State's right for such restrictions.
Yet...even if the Court were to put an end to this barbaric practice, it doesn't change the matter of the heart. There are many women (and men) in this nation who are so selfish that they would prefer to kill an unborn child -- and live with the spiritual, moral, psychological and biological consequences -- than to have a child change their "lifestyle."
Recently, my wife and I spoke with a biologist at Stanford University about this issue. The biologist readily admitted that abortion is the destruction of human life. I was surprised, because this person is very active in liberal politics (especially in regard to abortion and homosexual activist issues). Her reason for supporting abortion? She said that it was "good for the environment." She claimed that the Earth is not big enough to "sustain a larger population." In fact, she claims that the world is not able to sustain the population that we have now! She said that, before long, the world will need to make some "tough choices" in regard to reducing the size of the world's population. The environment and governments cannot continue to sustain "growing populations of the poor" who "depend upon governments for their upbringing." She hinted at believing in population control via "one child" and even "no child" policies.
Believe it or not, she stated several times that she is a "Christian." She was polite when I shared my views of morality, the Scriptures and environmental sustainability. She stated that she enjoyed our conversations...and that I had given her a lot to think about. I have long suspected that the argument of humanists would turn to a form of Earth worship or environmental preservation. I explained to this woman that the first command in the Bible is one in which God instructed man to have dominion over this world...and to be "fruitful." Ironically, modern humanism teaches the exact opposite. It teaches that the world is all we have. They oppose any dominion over the environment by mankind. They also support abortion and homosexuality -- which is the antithesis of God's command to "be fruitful and multiply" (because abortion kills a baby and homosexuals cannot multiply on their own).
I suspect that we will see more of these "environmental" arguments in favor of abortion. I do, of course, support a clean environment whenever possible. No one wants to live in a dirty place. Ironically, God will be the ultimate ANTI-environmentalist when he destroys the world following His millennial reign.
By the way, this woman didn't think that it was "selfish" at all for a mother to kill children. While she admitted that there could be a bit of selfishness in a micro-social way, she argued that it was ultimately for "the greater good." It is sad that we live in the day where people call evil, "good," and good, "evil."
:-(
This discussion is locked.
