On the Issue of Abortion/Pro-Choice Agenda
The United States Constitution states that there are certain rights that are inalienable.... among those the right to life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The founding fathers did not establish these rights, they recognized their existence and with the constitution thereby guaranteed them.
With the Supreme Court case of Roe vs Wade the right to life was overturned to those who are still in the womb. Their right to life was subjugated to others to choose whether the lived or died. No voice is given to the unborn, no representative of their position is present when the decision is made as to whether they will be allowed to live or be wrapped in a biological waste bag.
The defenders of a woman's right to choose say that that which is in the womb is not alive. They will not call it a baby. It is a fetus. A lump of flesh. It is an inconvenience, obstacle to a happy life and some have even called it a punishment. (I don't want to mention Obama's name here tho'.)
We can talk about the ugliness of Abortion, partial birth abortion, non-care to survivors of abortion. but these points fall on deaf ears because those who defend abortion do not believe that the child is a living soul and thus can be dispensed with however the mother (oops.. carrier of the fetus) or the Doctor (oops... care giver) choose to.
So let's talk about two issues. Pro-choice.... I do believe that every woman has a right to choose when and if she will procreate. She has the right to decide if she will allow herself to take part in the act of fertilizing an egg within her body. Her rights end where the babies rights begin. If she doesn't want to be pregnant the morning after, she should have thought of that the night before. Once she made the choice to allow herself the possibility of getting pregnant, she has surrendered her right to an empty womb. The womb then becomes the babies domain and it's rights should reign supreme.
Loudly the defenders shout "What about Rape! Incest! or the Mother's Health!
Rape.... the rapist committed the crime so kill him not the innocent baby.
Incest...... Read instructions concerning rape.
Mother's Health....that is an ambiguous category used to rationalize less than 6% of abortions and it doesn't change the fact that you are still killing a baby.
Now let's just get fair and say that yes I am prejudiced towards the view of Pro-Life... OK
If the Pro Abortion crowd is right I am guilty of helping to see a lot of little bouncing babies be born. If they are unwanted, they can be adopted by the numerous parents who now travel to China and Africa to get babies. So I am guilty of happy babies and happy adoptive parents and some young mothers who don't have to feel guilty for the child that no longer lives.
If I on the Pro Life side is right..... The pro-abortion crowd is guilty of murder, but at least, Glory be to God, all of those souls are in our Heavenly Father's arms.
The Bible says "thou shalt not kill" [murder]
I believe it
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It doesn't get simpler than that.
As for cases of rape and incest though, I still cling to the concept of "conception", which to me implies a willfull volition (to the point of disregard for the likely consequences of the act) on the part of the mother to conceive a child (and not merely that of the male violator). But then, if the church would actually define "conception", it might go a long way towards coordinating the actions of communities of faith against abortion. The last time I checked, it was a term yet undefined in the the Catholic dictionary. Immaculate conception, they define. Conception, they do not.
Post a Comment