Friday, September 12, 2008

A Spark in the Dark, or A Case for Life

            One of the most serious moral and ethical crises facing our nation right now is the debate over abortion rights.  For many, abortion enables a practice of unrestricted sexual indulgence without consequence. The basis for many of the pro-abortionists’ arguments is, “The fetus is part of the woman’s body, right? So doesn’t that mean that she should have the right to choose what she does with her own body?”

            The fault with this line of reasoning lies in the reasoning itself; the fetus is a complete human being, although it is unable to support itself or make its own decisions. If you listen to a pro-abortionist long enough, you will notice a continual reference to the baby as “the fetus”. This is an attempt to clear his own conscience, as well as an attempt to justify the selfish slaughter of a defenseless human being. Conversely, if we were to say that elderly people are getting in the way of the “more useful people”, would this justify the deaths of countless senior citizens who were done away with simply because they were no longer wanted? The answer is no. Even from a logical standpoint, no one would consider this an option for “population control”.

Why then would anyone be able to rationalize the murder of an unborn child? Notice that I say “child” rather than “fetus” or “embryo”. This is because the unborn child is still, very simply, a child. The only difference is viability. The psalmist says in Psalm 139:13 and 16, “For you formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb…Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.”

            If we are to begin saying that the child’s parents have the right to dispose of him because a baby would be an inconvenience, what is to stop us from applying that line of reasoning to any other age or genre of people? This exemplifies a patent lack of willingness to take responsibility for actions. One of the best summaries this argument can be given is this quote from Rev. Jesse Jackson:

“What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person and what kind of a society will we have 20 years hence if life can be taken so casually? It is that question, the question of our attitude, our value system, and our mind-set with regard to the nature and worth of life itself that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth."

 

Given eternal consequences, perhaps Reverend Jackson’s “hell on earth” is a comfort zone in which pro-abortionists prefer to operate.

3 comments:

Longocongo_Bizkit said...

I don't agree with this. It isn't actually ALIVE till there is a heart beat. Which only takes place during the beginning of the seccod term. I am pro-choise, not pro-abortion. i think abortion when the heart starts beating is wrong because then it is defined as "alive" but it IS a woman's right to choose. If a woman is raped and there is a pregnacy resulting from that rape i think that she has the right to take care of herself b4 the "baby" is alive.

Bekah said...

FYI.....the heart starts beating at day 21 after conception....before you even miss a cycle.....not during the second term....a baby's heart will have beat roughly 54 million times before the baby is even born. Know your facts.

Anonymous said...

I think this is great. Thank you for speaking the truth plainly.
~Elizabeth