Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘pro-choice’

It is distressing to be led by ungodly leaders, especially when they consistently pronounce as good that which is evil. President Obama continues to do so, as illustrated in his recent affirmation of a woman’s right to choose to end the life of her unborn baby:

As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.

While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue—no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

Notice the President’s argument. The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision affirmed “that government should not intrude on private family matters.” The ending of an unborn child’s life is a “private family matter.” What if the baby were brought home and the mother decided that there was more involved in caring for this child than she had anticipated? She had thought she could continue her college education without too much of a problem, but now she realizes she had miscalculated. This is “a private family matter,” right? Why is it now suddenly government’s matter to say that taking the life of a two-week old baby is murder, but the government blesses the taking of a two-month old unborn baby’s life?

The President calls this “a woman’s right to choose.” To choose what, Mr. President? Please complete that infinitive phrase? To choose what? To choose to end the life of her unborn child. Then again, putting it that way sounds much less innocuous than simply saying “a woman’s right to choose.”

The President informs us that a woman’s having an abortion is a “fundamental constitutional right.” A fundamental constitutional right? Something fundamental would be spelled out, right? Not only does the Constitution not explicitly affirm a woman’s right to end the life of her unborn child, it does not even imply it. There was never, to my knowledge, a document written in the latter 1700’s concerning the Constitution which even discussed the idea that having an abortion is a legitimate right. Put quite simply, such a notion was unthinkable.

The final sentence in the President’s quote almost defies description: “And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.” Again the President makes an illogical statement based on unmitigated emotion. The lives of our sons are not detoured by bearing a child, so evidently neither should the lives of our daughters. If we want equality, why don’t we make the biological father really accountable for his actions? Why must the unborn child pay the price for selfish pleasure of others.

The taking of the life of an unborn baby, unless the physical life of the mother is unquestionably jeopardized, is murder. Those who seek it and those who agree to it, as well as doctors and abortion clinic owners who profit by it, have blood on their hands. Do not legislators who approve and defend abortion on demand have blood on their hands? Does not a president who defends abortion have blood on his hands? Does not an America which refuses to raise its voice about the barbarism of a “woman’s right to choose” have blood on its hands?

Read Full Post »

According to the Associate Press, “South Carolina legislators Wednesday [3-17-10] rejected plans to ban abortions in the state’s health insurance plan in cases of rape or incest or when they’re needed to protect a mother’s health.” The debate was heated and the vote was close: 57-54. My understanding is that the provisions of rape and incest were later included in the ban, while the mother’s life was the only exception allowing abortion in the state’s health insurance plan. What struck me, though, was this quote attributed to Representative Bakari Sellers as he railed against the proposed ban:

When you are that person that is pinned down in the back alley and raped; when you are that person that is actually assaulted sexually by your father–this is not a time for us to play political games. This is not the time for me to say my God is better than yours. This is a time to do what is right.

The self-righteousness of Mr. Sellers’ comment is palpable. “This is not a time for us to play political games” charges his pro-life opponents with unconcern for women while he and his pro-“choice” comrades alone really care about women who have been victimized. I cannot help but wonder how many tears Mr. Sellers sheds for the baby who had no part in the crime but who is condemned to death because of the sin of his biological father. Incredibly, the heinous crime of rape is compounded by the legal murder of the innocent child.

Mr. Sellers, the politician, turned theologian: “This is not the time for me to say my God is better than yours. This is a time to do what is right.” Unfortunately, pro-choice politicians and theologians ceased caring about God and what is right when they decided that women could women usurp the role of God in deciding which child should live and which child should die.

My question for Mr. Sellers is simply this, “How do you determine what is right?” Putting it another way: “By what standard do you choose what is right?” Never mind. We know the standard. Political correctness. The spirit of this age.

My unsought advice to Mr. Sellers and his fellow legislators is this: Stop playing politics with the lives of the unborn. Stop ingratiating yourselves to radical feminists who see children as an impediment to a woman’s self-seeking pleasure and personal advancement. If you really care about women who have been raped, make sure their attacker never is allowed back into society. And I suggest that we all be careful about cavalierly invoking the name of God.

Read Full Post »

The murder of abortionist George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas, on May 31 comprises some of the hottest debate taking place the day after. Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, many in the pro-abortion crowd are using it to make Tiller a martyr and the pro-life position sinister.

George Tiller may have served as an usher in his Lutheran church, but he was no saint. Thousands of unborn children never saw the light of day because of Tiller’s abortion business. The doctor was a murderer, a wicked man who met a wicked end.

Still, the man who murdered Tiller is no saint. What he did was a cowardly, despicable act. There is no place for vigilante acts in the pro-life movement. It is not “pro-life” to murder abortionists.

Pro-choice activists reveal their lack of shame by portraying Tiller as a hero, a martyr, and a protector of the rights of women. A sympathetic national media will give them plenty of broadcast time and print space. Their spin, however, will fail to see the obvious: a murderer was gunned down by another murderer. There is no saint, no martyr, and no winner in this.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: