Conditional Pro-Life or Conditional Pro-Choice
We’ve got to stop straddling the fence on this issue of abortion if ever we want it to come to rest. The Pro-Lifer has got to decide whether or not they are Pro-Life or Conditional Pro-Life; which, by the way, also makes one Conditional Pro-Choice or more in fact Conditional Pro-Abortion. That may leave a bad taste in some of the mouths out there, but this is exactly what we have here.
Again I have run across another article, posted by Baptist Press News [article here], about South Dakota now trying to pass a Conditional Abortion Ban.
Apparently last year [2006] South Dakota voted to abort a bill that would ban all abortions with “an exception only to save the mother's life”. Coming in 2008, South Dakota will have the chance to decide whether abortion is right in the eyes of God in cases such as “to save the mother's life”, “rape, incest and a ‘serious’ health risk”.
You say, “We’re not deciding on whether it is okay in the eyes of God, but whether legally it is okay”. If you are a Christian and you believe that God and the Bible are against abortion – what exactly then are you saying if you vote YES [I AGREE] for a law that says abortion “to save the mother's life”, “rape, incest and a ‘serious’ health risk” is okay?
We’ve got to stop tap dancing around the issue and take a strict narrow-minded approach to the bottom line. The bottom line is not “When is abortion okay”, but “Is abortion okay”. When we move the line for this and that, we always run into problems.
I realize that the cry from Pro-Lifers might be “At least we can save some babies from being aborted”. I agree, that is important, that saving some would be better if we could not save them all. But could we save them all [legally] if we would contend for the faith in that we do believe every unborn baby at the moment of conception is indeed is a child with DNA?
Not to single out Republican state Rep. Gordon Howie, whom the article quotes saying, "The rights that we’re discussing are not ours to give. They’re given by our Creator. Those rights are ours to defend. We believe in bringing this bill we’re fulfilling a responsibility to defend those rights on behalf of those who are most innocent and the most vulnerable.", but with this bill only some rights are being defended here.
Can one really pride themselves when the rights of the unborn child of situations “to save the mother's life”, “rape, incest and a ‘serious’ health risk” are not being defended, but annulled in the very same bill which is goaled to give rights to some? Judge thyself.
When we try to create exceptions in the issue of abortion, we become hypocritical to ourselves, to those on both sides, and to God. If you believe, as scripture teaches, that human life begins at conception, then regardless of such cases as “to save the mother's life”, “rape, incest and a ‘serious’ health risk” one is still murdering [taking the life of] an innocent human being.
Life begins at conception even in times of “to save the mother's life”, “rape, incest and a ‘serious’ health risk”.
For more reading you can check out my topics: When is Abortion Murder and A Pro-Choice Lawyer Misquoting Scripture.
Again I have run across another article, posted by Baptist Press News [article here], about South Dakota now trying to pass a Conditional Abortion Ban.
Apparently last year [2006] South Dakota voted to abort a bill that would ban all abortions with “an exception only to save the mother's life”. Coming in 2008, South Dakota will have the chance to decide whether abortion is right in the eyes of God in cases such as “to save the mother's life”, “rape, incest and a ‘serious’ health risk”.
You say, “We’re not deciding on whether it is okay in the eyes of God, but whether legally it is okay”. If you are a Christian and you believe that God and the Bible are against abortion – what exactly then are you saying if you vote YES [I AGREE] for a law that says abortion “to save the mother's life”, “rape, incest and a ‘serious’ health risk” is okay?
We’ve got to stop tap dancing around the issue and take a strict narrow-minded approach to the bottom line. The bottom line is not “When is abortion okay”, but “Is abortion okay”. When we move the line for this and that, we always run into problems.
I realize that the cry from Pro-Lifers might be “At least we can save some babies from being aborted”. I agree, that is important, that saving some would be better if we could not save them all. But could we save them all [legally] if we would contend for the faith in that we do believe every unborn baby at the moment of conception is indeed is a child with DNA?
Not to single out Republican state Rep. Gordon Howie, whom the article quotes saying, "The rights that we’re discussing are not ours to give. They’re given by our Creator. Those rights are ours to defend. We believe in bringing this bill we’re fulfilling a responsibility to defend those rights on behalf of those who are most innocent and the most vulnerable.", but with this bill only some rights are being defended here.
Can one really pride themselves when the rights of the unborn child of situations “to save the mother's life”, “rape, incest and a ‘serious’ health risk” are not being defended, but annulled in the very same bill which is goaled to give rights to some? Judge thyself.
When we try to create exceptions in the issue of abortion, we become hypocritical to ourselves, to those on both sides, and to God. If you believe, as scripture teaches, that human life begins at conception, then regardless of such cases as “to save the mother's life”, “rape, incest and a ‘serious’ health risk” one is still murdering [taking the life of] an innocent human being.
Life begins at conception even in times of “to save the mother's life”, “rape, incest and a ‘serious’ health risk”.
For more reading you can check out my topics: When is Abortion Murder and A Pro-Choice Lawyer Misquoting Scripture.
----------
Check out Mike's Ponderings...
No comments:
Post a Comment