Questions for Our Pro-Abortion Friends, Church Leaders, and Politicians

From a brilliant article by Kevin Young

"What shall we call the unborn in the womb?

"If the entity is a living thing, is it not a life? If your person began as a single cell, how can that fertilized egg be something other than a human being? Isn't it more accurate to say you were an embryo than that you simply came from one?

"So when does a human being have a right to life?

"Shall we say size matters? Is the unborn child too small to deserve our protection? Are big people more valuable than little people? Are men more human than woman? Do offensive linemen have more rights than jockeys? Is the life in the womb of no account because you can't hold him in our arms, or put him in your hands, or only see her on a screen?

"Shall we make intellectual development and mental capacity the measure of our worth? Are three year-old children less valuable than thirteen year-olds? Is the unborn child less than fully human because he cannot speak or count or be self-aware? Does the cooing infant in the crib have to smile or shake your hand or recite the alphabet before she deserves another day? If an expression of basic mental acuity is necessary to be a full-fledged member of the human community, what shall do with the comatose, the very old, or the fifty year-old mom with Alzheimer's? And what about all of us who sleep?

"Shall we deny the unborn child's right to life because of where he lives? Can environment give us value or take it away? Are we worth less inside than outside? Can we be justly killed when we swim under water? Does where we are determine who we are? Does the eight inch journey down the birth canal make us human? Does this change of scenery turn "its" into persons? Is love a condition of location? 

"Shall we reserve human dignity only for those humans who are not dependent on others? Do we deserve to live only when we can live on our own? Is the four-month old fetus less than human because she needs her mom for life? Is the four-month old infant less than human when she still needs her mom for life? What if you depend on dialysis or insulin or a breathing apparatus? Is value a product of fully-functioning vitality? Is independence a prerequisite for human identity? Are we worth only what we can think, accomplish, and do on our own?

"If the unborn life is human life, what can justify snuffing it out? Would it be right to take the life of your child on his first birthday because he came to you through sad and tragic circumstances? Would you push an 18 month old into traffic because she makes our life difficult? Does a three year-old deserve to die because we think we deserve a choice?

"What do you deserve now? What are your rights as a human person? Did you have those same rights five years ago? What about before you could drive? Or when you used training wheels? Were you less than fully human when you played in the sandbox? When you wore a bib? When you nursed at your mother's breast? When your dad cut your cord? When you tumbled in that watery mess and kicked against that funny wall? When your heart pounded on the monitor for the first time? When you grew your first fingernails? When you grew your first cells?

"What shall we call the child in the womb? A fetus? A mystery? A mistake? A wedge issue? What if science and Scripture and commonsense would have us call it a person? What if the unborn child, the messy infant, the wobbly toddler, the rambunctious teenager, the college freshman, the blushing bride, the first-time mother, the working woman, the proud grammy, and the demented old friend differ not in kind but only in degree? Where in the progression does our humanity begin and end? Where does life become valuable? When are we worth something? When do human rights become our rights? What if Dr. Seuss was right and a person's a person no matter how small?

"Why celebrate the right to kill what you once were? Why deny the rights of the little one who is what you are?"

Fishing bird-style

This smart bird uses a piece of bread to trap a fish.

I'm sure there is a potential sermon illustration in this!

Is Genetic Selection our 'Moral Obligation'?

Do read this article at the Telegraph, where an article by Professor Julian Savulescu, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, is reviewed.

It seems he has suggested that it is a 'moral obligation' to move forward in designing babies and choosing the type we want rather than rely on 'the natural lottery'.

By screening in and screening out certain genes in the embryos, it should be possible to influence how a child turns out. In the end, he said that "rational design" would help lead to a better, more intelligent and less violent society in the future. 

"Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting?" wrote Prof Savulescu, the Uehiro Professor in practical ethics. 

"So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents the choice. 

"To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our squeamishness and irrationality. 

"Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children. 

"They are, after all, less likely to harm themselves and others." "If we have the power to intervene in the nature of our offspring — rather than consigning them to the natural lottery — then we should."

What he has forgotten to mention (as this article points out) is what this 'Genetic Selection' actually means.

It means testing each pregnant woman to see if the child she is bearing is 'defective' in any way......then killing the ones we feel are less than perfect. Just continue killing all the 'defective' ones until a perfect one comes along.

Are you reminded, as I am, of Hitler's quest for the perfect Aryan race, and his systematic killing of all the 'less-than-perfect' ones?

Does that sound 'Moral'?

Don't we have a 'Moral Obligation' to speak up for those who do not have a voice?



Related posts:

Image bearers

Open Letter to M: Why abortion cannot be a matter of personal choice

Only 0.006 percent of abortions are done to save the mother's life

Only 0.006 percent of abortions are done to save the mother's life

The feet of an aborted fetus (via)

Any discussion on abortion usually leads to a discussion on this hypothetical question, "What if the mother's life is in danger because of the continuing pregnancy, and the doctor must make a choice between saving the mother or saving the child? Wouldn't an abortion in such a case be justified?"

As a doctor, I can tell you there are really very few situations in the first and second trimesters, where an ongoing pregnancy could endanger the health of the mother. For example, a patient with a very severe heart disease may not be able to carry a pregnancy into the third trimester.

I usually address this ethical dilemma by talking about the fact that it is sometimes necessary to do something that is essentially wrong, and violate a moral law, in order to really obey a higher moral law. For example, if we know a terrorist is planning to blow up a building, and there is no other option, we may need to kill the terrorist in order to save the lives of the others in the building. We would do this even though we know it is wrong to kill.

Very rarely, therefore, it may be necessary (and right) to abort a human fetus in order to save the life of the mother.

More often, this situation arises in the third trimester, especially in a mother with eclampsia (caused by very high blood pressures). In such cases, the baby must be quickly delivered, even if the chance of the pre-term baby surviving are lower because that is the only way the mother can get better. This is technically not an abortion, but, rather, an early delivery. The aim is always to deliver the baby in a facility which has a good neonatal unit, so that even such a preterm baby can have a chance to survive.

Which is why I am not surprised by the results of an audit of 6.4 million abortions in England and Wales between 1968 and 2011, which found that only 0.006 percent of procedures were performed to save the life of the mother.

I quote,
"A report to Parliament has revealed abortions performed in the United Kingdom to save the life of the mother are a stunningly low 0.006 percent of procedures.

David Alton, who for 18 years was a member of the House of Commons, wrote, “When the case for allowing legal abortion was first placed before Parliament it was argued that the law needed to be changed to deal with extremely serious situations.

“More than six million abortions later the figures reveal that in 99.5 percent of the cases where an unborn child’s life is ended there is no risk to the health of the mother,” he said.

The details came in a response from Earl Howe, the parliamentary undersecretary of state in the nation’s Department of Health, to Parliament. He confirmed from 1968 through 2011, the last year for which details were available, there were 6.4 million abortions for women in England and Wales.

“Of these, 143 (0.006 percent) were performed under Section 1(4), i.e. where the termination is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman,” he wrote.

He noted another 24,778 were done on the grounds that a continued pregnancy would involve more risk to the mother than if the unborn child were destroyed."
(HT: Veith)

Clearly, this rare indication for performing an abortion has been over-used and misused to justify framing very liberal abortion laws.

Proverbs 24:11,12
11.Deliver those who are being taken away to death, And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back.
12.If you say, "See, we did not know this," Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts? And does He not know it who keeps your soul? And will He not render to man according to his work?




Related posts:

Open Letter to M: Why abortion cannot be a matter of personal choice

Image bearers

Is Genetic Selection our Moral Obligation

Homemakers likely to get monthly salary from husbands soon

"Housewives may soon start getting monthly salaries from their husbands with the government mulling a proposal which would make it mandatory for men to share a certain percentage of their income with their wives who stay back and do household chores."


http://ibnlive.in.com/news/homemakers-likely-to-get-salary-from-husbands-soon/289922-3.html