The Culture of Death Admits Child in Womb A Life

Yeah, it is undeniable for anyone with a bit of intellectual honesty. Today’s technology removed all questions. That is why the “Pro-Choice” movement hates the offer of seeing an ultrasound be part of informed consent. Now they are shifting arguments, So what if Abortion ends a life asks Salon’s Mary Elizabeth Williams? She chillingly says it is a life worth sacrificing. It is the cry of every tyrant (tyranny is the exploitation or domination of weak for the benefit of the powerful). It is now owned by so called Pro-choice America. Since we are finally having an honest discussion, call it Pro-Abortion Choice America.

13 thoughts on “The Culture of Death Admits Child in Womb A Life”

  1. It actually takes two sides to have an honest discussion. Abortion will always be abortion regardless of the name that anyone gives it. But pro-life could also be honest and call it anti-abortion. Why you don’t you jump on in David, the water is warm. I am happy to see that you have come on board the train that decries labels as being dishonest.

  2. No, the real issue is what does God want done? And who is the best to decide? The owners of this blog, or the woman carrying the fetus?

    Bottom line, is none of us can even propose what God wants done. That is just so big, so universal, we can’t even get our head around it. So who would He want to talk to in order to make His will known. The woman herself, or someone writing on a blog?

  3. Kavips on February 24, 2013 at 13:23 said: “No, the real issue is what does God want done? And who is the best to decide? The owners of this blog, or the woman carrying the fetus?”

    You are overlooking a third choice: The fetus. The child has a right to decide whether or not to live.

    And when a child is too young to decide, we routinely recognize that the choice cannot be made. So a contract entered into by a child under 18 years old is not valid. If parents move to another country, the child’s citizenship remains unchanged until the child is 18 years old, old enough to decide.

    So if the child is too young to choose wehther ot live or die, you have to let the child live.

    Abortion is fundamentally different because it involves preserving the life of a third party. Calling it the choice of the woman underscores the fundamental error of the entire discussion.

    You are asking the wrong person.

    If you want to end the life of human being, you have to ask THAT human being, not someone else.

  4. If you choose to put any fetus before God, then you will have to deal with God. Essentially you are putting the rights for something that is one or two cells thick, over God Himself. You are in violation of the first Commandment.

  5. The remarkable thing about the abortion policy discussion is that neither side seems to understand the relevant legal framework in the first place. Roe v. Wade assumes that an abortion involves the taking of a life. Hence, neither sides claims about whether “life begins at conception” are relevant to what the decision was about in the first place. That “life beings at conception” is not in dispute, and never was.

    There’s no generally applicable Biblical rule against killing your children. It was the first thing that Abraham was asked to do, and his willingness to kill his child is supposed to be an indication of how great his faith was – God said, “Kill your kid” and he headed out with a knife to do just that.

    Deuteronomy 21:18-21 says that we are SUPPOSED to have disobedient children put to death. I mean, my goodness, if we ran a “Bible-based” government, then part of David Anderson’s job on the town council would be stoning to death kids who “which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them”. Okay! Let’s get to it, because the Bible requires that as much as it requires anything else.

    It’s okay to kill your children as a sacrifice to the LORD, as described in Judges 11:

    29Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. 30And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”

    32Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands. 33He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.

    34When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.”

    36“My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.”

    38“You may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.

    And if there is any doubt about it, Jephthah is mentioned among the heroes of the faith by Paul in Hebrews.

    So – two things are to be noted here. First, the discussion was never about whether abortion involves taking a life, and Second, the Bible doesn’t have some kind of blanket ban on killing your own kids.

  6. Kavips
    “If you choose to put any fetus before God, then you will have to deal with God. Essentially you are putting the rights for something that is one or two cells thick, over God Himself. You are in violation of the first Commandment.”

    The people who are pro-life that I know always put God first in their life. They are pro-life and proud of it. People agree there are circumstances that may cause grays areas in the need for abortion but in my opinion,unless the mothers life is in imminent danger by bringing the baby to term, there is NO reason for an abortion to be considered.
    I believe that each life has value and the person has a right to be born. A baby that is killed by an abortionist without having the right to draw its first breath is unconscionable, and abortion parlors practice serial infanticide.
    Sooner or later people will come to realize just exactly what abortion really is. I have ye to meet a woman that has had an abortion that doesn’t regret it. Some women have told me, they wonder what the baby would have contributed to mankind if they had been allowed to live.

  7. Don, exactly my point. No one is arguing whether abortion is good or bad. I believe all are in consensus. The question is this; on one hand is the mother who pays taxes, is a voting citizen who subscribes to all the laws of the land. On the other is two cells joined by randomly touching each other. The mother’s rights triumph over those rights of two or three cells. Period.

    Otherwise, based on your silly logic and misinterpreted version of the Bible, dogs should have more rights than their masters. Cats should have more rights than the men and women who manufacture cat food…. Cows should have more rights than farmers. All of which are preposterous and yet, you go even two steps further. You say two cells have more rights than any man or woman in the universe…You say two cell have more of a right to exist, than God himself?

    There is something seriously wrong with your argument.

  8. Kavips
    “Otherwise, based on your silly logic and misinterpreted version of the Bible, dogs should have more rights than their masters.”

    I can’t believe your argument is that shallow, were not talking about humans vs. dogs here. Both the mother and the fetus are human and are living entities and this is in no way analogous with your argument.

  9. kavips on February 24, 2013 at 14:48 said: “Essentially you are putting the rights for something that is one or two cells thick, over God Himself. ”

    HOW?

  10. Nitpicker on February 24, 2013 at 21:35 said: “The remarkable thing about the abortion policy discussion is that neither side seems to understand the relevant legal framework in the first place. Roe v. Wade assumes that an abortion involves the taking of a life.”

    First, Roe v. Wade makes no sense whatsoever and is considered the worst-reasoned decision since the Dredd Scott decision, even by those who support abortion.

    So attempting to make any sense of Roe v. Wade is a wild goose chase.

    Second, the US Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade is spectacular in its REFUSAL to come to any decision about whether the fetus is a human life or not. The US Supreme Court builds its entire argument on the astonishing “WE DON’T KNOW” if the fetus is a human being or not.

    The US Supreme Court at that point should have dismissed the appeal (writ of certiorari) as improvidently granted and refused to issue any opinion. Normally even under the most technical amoral grounds, if the record does not contain sufficient details for a meaningful decision, the appeal should be — well — aborted.

    As soon as the US Supreme Court admitted “WE DON’T KNOW” they should have dismissed the appeal and closed the file without making a decision. The record did not contain sufficient evidence and argumentation for a prudent appeal to be decided.

    Third, this astonishing lack of any foundation for Roe v. Wade actually provides the achilles heel for overturning Roe v. Wade. That’s because today, medically, we DO know.

  11. In the spirit of David’s suggestion, you should start calling yourself the Death for Abortion movement.

Comments are closed.