WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Pro-life yams
James Hitchcock and the editors of Touchstone have published this editorial condemning believers who abandoned the abortion issue in the recent presidential election.
If 2008 is remembered as the year of the “bailout,” when the federal government spent billions to rescue the nation’s financial system, it should also be recalled for another kind of bailout—Christians with impeccably pro-life records who suddenly abandoned what they declared to be a sinking ship.
Abortion seemed to be one of the few issues on which Senator Barack Obama had an unambiguous and unchangeable position during the campaign, as he promised that “the first thing I’d do as president is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act,” something that would nullify all existing laws restricting abortion.
Hitchcock goes on to make his case and proffer examples of Christians who’ve essentially forgotten about the unborn. Now, the abortion issue is a big one, possibly the most implicative, historical issue of this and recent generations – although it could be a long, long time before history recognizes that. But at the risk of drawing the ire of a thousand readers here, I might suggest that the issue is not as simple as A) voting for the pro-life candidate or B) voting for the pro-choice candidate. I’m not saying that we ignore a historic, foundational issue like the protection of the unborn – I’m just saying that Christians hurt their own cause by appearing to champion a single issue without consideration for other issues that are important, pressing, momentous, and so on. We have given the impression, at times, that we would support a candidate with the intellect of a yam, as long as he was pro-life. When yams aren’t always what the country needs.
back to top145 Comments to “Pro-life yams”
This article doesn’t make any sense, most voters voted for pro-abortion ‘yams’ in Obama and McCain, and ignored all-round sensible candidates who were also pro-life such as Alan Keyes and Ron Paul.
Report comment as offensive
An insightful set of observations.
Yet if you read some posters in this blog, abortion is the only issue. The economy and national security for example seem to take a rear seat to abortion, even if the anti-abortion candidate is indeed a yam.
Report comment as offensive
CJ - 1
Aren’t you aware that McCain IS pro-life?
Report comment as offensive
Here’s my stand on the issue, which many other Christians have come to as well. I will never vote for someone who is pro-abortion, no matter what. That person is disqualified from my list, morally disqualified. The pro-life candidate will not automatically win my vote, but the pro-abortion won’t earn it no matter what he does–he lost it at the start.
At least two of my siblings voted for Alan Keyes in this election (maybe writing him in, I’m not sure), and I toyed with going third party, and would have if McCain had chosen a weaker running mate.
Report comment as offensive
Harrison
YOU WRITE: “I’m just saying that Christians hurt their own cause by appearing to champion a single issue without consideration for other issues that are important, pressing, momentous, and so on. We have given the impression, at times, that we would support a candidate with the intellect of a yam, as long as he was pro-life. When yams aren’t always what the country needs.”
There is no “yam” to it Harrison - If slaughter of unborn babies is on the list of ANY politican I’m skipping them - What other “consideration” would you give? - OR, what would you tell the LORD someday when searching for an excuse as “consideration” for choosing someone with the morals of a selfish immoral human being?
Who’s the “YAM” Harrison? - are you referring to McCain, is that who you want to zero in on?
Report comment as offensive
The intrinsic value of human life as created in the image of God is NOT a single-issue. It is a FOUNDATIONAL issue. There is a huge difference. If a candidate gets the issue of life wrong, nothing else really matters because his/her foundation is undermined from the start. Maybe that makes me a yam too. If it does, that’s OK–in the immortal words of Popeye, “I yam what I yam and that’s all that I yam.”
Report comment as offensive
Pastor Jim - 6
Can you hear us applauding? I just read your post, and then my husband read it - OUTSTANDING - your words hit the mark Pastor Jim,
Report comment as offensive
Yam VS pro abortion is a false dichotomy from the outset. I reject the premise on its face. It is an imagnined dillema.
If I lived 150 years ago I would be an abolishionist. The Dred Scott decision declared that blacks were less than human so inhuman treatment was permissible by law. Roe V Wade is the Dred Scott decision of this era and as long as it is enshrined in law I will do whatever I can to restore inalianable rights to the unborn. That means that I give money to groups that are working for legislative change, I put a bumper sticker on my car, I protest when the opportunity arises, I volunteer my time at my local Pregnancy Resource Center and I vote for politicians who are working to re-establish the rights of the unborn.
There are other important issues but as long as death to the unborn is enshrined in law there is no other moral issue that surpasses it in urgency. That doesn’t mean nothing else is considered in a candidate, but it surely means that if I have a choice between someone who is working to overturn Roe V Wade and someone who is trying to protect it, the obedient Christian has one choice.
Prov 24:12-13
“Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don’t stand back and let them die.
Don’t try to avoid responsibility by saying you didn’t know about it. For God knows all hearts, and he sees you. He keeps watch over your soul, and he knows you knew! And he will judge all people according to what they have done.”
God spells it out VERY CLEARLY. We will be held accountable for saving life, not for our stand on economic policy, national health care, national security or any of the myriad concerns vying for Christians attention.
Report comment as offensive
Because of all the years I have spent researching this issue and working for pregnancy counseling centers, actually talking with women who choose to abort, I have tried to be rational and sympathetic. But when I got inside the voting booth and actually tried to be a spoiler in the Democratic primary (I’m a registered Independent and in California we can vote in either party’s primary), all I saw were people who supported abortion, supported abortion, supported abortion. Proudly.
My vote was unknown to anyone but God. But God saw how I voted. I couldn’t do it. I left president blank.
I’m sorry, but I can’t turn my back on my convictions nor my life. Let those who chose to put the most pro-abortion candidate ever into the White House deal with their God. I’m just glad it won’t be me.
Report comment as offensive
When you’re standing for what’s right, there is nothing you can do to impress the enemies of life with your erudition, sophistication, nuance, swingin’ cosmopolitanism, whatever. If they see you as a loser, it’s because they want to cast you in that way, the better to dismiss your argument and quiet their doubts. But departing from your conscience now and then is no way to earn their respect.
Do the mockers say it makes us inert, stupid, and subhuman to faithfully uphold first principles year after year on behalf of the weakest and most vulnerable, in witness to the sanctity of life? So be it. Their approval or disapproval is immaterial. The only word that matters is “well done” from the lips of the Master.
We will eventually prevail. Our children’s children will recoil in horror at the slaughter of the innocents and wonder why we didn’t do more to stop it.
Which prolife candidate are we describing as a “yam,” by the way.
Report comment as offensive
I make the following points.
1. James Hitchcock is a Roman Catholic. His views regarding fetal life derive from Roman Catholic theology and not from Scripture. Catholic theology also commands that capital punishment is a sin.
2. Protestants have historically rejected this aspect of Catholic theology because it stands on shaky Biblical footing. Thus, Protestants churches have historically refused to classify abortion as murder.
3. As Protestants, we recognize that the Church’s authority comes from Scripture, and not from popes. Because Scripture provides no sound basis for condemning abortion as murder, faithful Protestants recognize that no church has authority to bind the conscience of those who do not believe that abortion is murder.
4. Caught up in the bloodlust of the “Culture Wars,” many Protestants have sought to bind other Christians’ conscience on the question of whether abortion is murder. In so doing, they have cut themselves off from 450 years of Protestant ethics and ecclesiology, and have abandoned the principle that Scripture alone guides the church in making conscience-binding proclamations.
5. This does not imply that abortion is not a serious social policy issue. Abortion often implicates a host of other conduct which Scripture does clearly condemn.
6. It is always wrong to put Scripture into the service of any social program. It was wrong for the so-called liberals in the 1920s and 1930s to draft Scripture into the service of the Social Gospel. It is wrong today for so-called conservatives to draft Scripture into the service of the Culture War.
7. Culture Warriors have often sought to reshape Scripture and the Gospel to fit their social and political agendas. They have often sought to make their social/political gospel a test of orthodoxy in many Protestant communions. For example, a Southern Baptist minister in North Carolina excommunicated members of his church who voted for John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election.
8. I do not begrudge some fellow Protestants their belief that abortion is murder. Although I believe that this view represents theological error on their part, it is not such a serious error as to warrant excommunication. I ask that they extend the same filial charity to their fellow believers who stand on principle by refusing to condemn as murder that which Scripture refuses to condemn as murder.
9. Hitchcock’s screed makes perfect sense when one considers that he is a Roman Catholic. In fact, if he is genuine in his Catholic beliefs, his conduct is entirely warranted. Of course, Hitchcock’s screed reminds me of why I am happy to be a Presbyterian!
Report comment as offensive
HSK,
it would seem that pretty much all the posts save Evan’s post 11 would seem to prove your apparent point in starting this discussion.
Report comment as offensive
10. Aborted fetuses are not innocent. To the extent that the fetus represents a human life in God’s eyes, the fetus is of the seed of Adam. Accordingly, the fetus would stand under God’s just condemnation, and could be redeemed only by the free grace of Christ. Innocence is not an option (unless you’re a Pelagian).
Report comment as offensive
I think respecting life is a foundational principle–and the starting point for how you respect life in all its different ages from conception. I actually am attracted to the Catholic ideas of a seamless attitude toward life issues–which means we don’t favor the death penalty and we work for social justice.
I don’t like how the pro-life voters have been used by the Republican party for most of my adult life, which is why I am no longer a Republican. I am sympathetic to the argument that politics is a game of small wins and many compromises. I’m not convinced that a Christian would make the best president–I’d just like someone who respected my beliefs as well as he listened to his lobbyists.
What has happened in the US the last couple elections is people of conviction have had to choose between the lesser of two evils. I have voted against candidates the last three elections, not voted for someone whom I wholeheartedly supported. I’m not sure how to change that course of affairs–I’m not a political animal.
But I have read history a long time and know from the book of Isaiah that God uses governments–even secular governments–to accomplish his purposes. My role as a Christian now, is to pray that God will be glorified even if I did not vote for the president-elect.
And the good news is, God will be glorified. It just remains to be seen how.
Report comment as offensive
Evan,
You certainly play with words, but you have made no sense - Did you read the Scripture that P Pat gave in post #8? If not, I will post it for you now.
It would be only appropriate to read Proverbs 6, as you posted:
“10. Aborted fetuses are not innocent.” Obviously the Word of GOD has something to say about “innocent blood” which you have missed, most likely due to lack of Bible study.
Report comment as offensive
victoria post 15,
interesting Bible quotes, but it would seem that you have neither:
1) refuted evan’s original points
2) nor provided evidence that abortion is biblicallyu a sin
I sense that you appear to be missing at least one logical step of which perhaps one is the one evan alluded to: by what argument is the fetus innocent?
And the impact of original sin here?
Report comment as offensive
michelle post 14,
but what makes conception itself significant?
Report comment as offensive
Who are you saying has the intellect of a yam, Harrison? McCain? Bush?
Frankly, I’d rather have the intelligence of a vegetable than the haughtiness and pride of a pseudo-intellectual blogger who looks down on faithful Christians.
Are you guys here on a mission to alienate your readers? Are you on a mission to copy the mainline denominations by watering down historic doctrine because of ephemeral political issues?
Are you seriously saying that appearances are more important than substance? Right, we sure wouldn’t want people to think we actually care about the mechanized killing of unborn people as a fundamental issue. How absolutely gauche that would be. We might lose our dignified reputation as reasonable, sophisticated, scholarly Christians who only believe the Bible in the privacy of our own homes.
Evan, your post is one long spuriously sophistical justification for abortion, and I don’t buy any of your “highly nuanced” points. How, exactly, does Roman Catholic theology determine the pro-life position? What documentation can you supply that proves “Protestant churches have historically refused to classify abortion as murder”? Scripture does indeed say, “Thou shalt not kill.” What exactly is abortion but the killing of a live organism? Your fourth point is a dubious and rests on the false claims of your previous points. With your 5th point (”It is wrong today for so-called conservatives to draft Scripture into the service of the Culture War”), are you saying that our religious beliefs–but not those of liberals (including Obama, I think) who believe homosexual marriage should be allowed based on the Sermon on the Mount–should have no impact on our public speech or action? We should keep our beliefs to ourselves, as if that’s possible? Your point is doubly fallacious–first, because you talk as if life can be split into these completely separate spheres, as we have a social life and a religious life and never the twain shall meet–and second because you assume that abortion is primarily a political rather than a moral issue. As for your 7th point, good for them. Good for those Christians who actually take their beliefs seriously. It seems such are becoming a minority today. Re: #8, God says, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” Abortion was condemned in the Didache (late 1st/early 2nd century). There’s no excuse for a Christian to condone abortion. An individual’s acceptance of abortion indicates that he has some serious spiritual issues that need to be exposed and dealt with. Your 9th point is just opinionated tripe. It’s so-called Protestants like you (and many who write for this blog) who are teaching the rest of us to appreciate more and more the unashamed and uncompromising witness of Roman Catholics to the fundamental sins of our culture of death. They stand firm while evangelicals slip farther and farther into the stupefying ether of the emergent “church” model. As for your 10th point, we understand innocence to mean the kind that would preclude the taking of life. The Bible says, as you seem to be aware of in your 1st point, that capital punishment is appropriate when the object of it has been shown to be guilty of evildoing. Humans are conceived in sin, but we do not kill everyone simply because of that. Unborn babies developing in the safety of their mothers’ wombs have committed no crime worthy of receiving this sentence meted out to them at the rate of 1.3 million per year.
And you know it. I wonder, Evan, if you’ve taken part in abortions in the past? Has your girlfriend or wife ever had an abortion to which you consented?
Report comment as offensive
Sorry, I should have said, “What exactly is abortion but the killing of a live human being?”
Report comment as offensive
Evan,
On what biblical basis is abortion not murder? The burden of proof is actually on you, sir, since clearly God created life in the womb. Must Scripture explicitly say that killing a ten-month-old infant is murder, or can we make exception for infants also? Does Scripture specifically say it’s murder to kill an old person who can no longer work? Does it specifically say that we can’t kill handicapped people? Since we know that the fetus is human, and God says we are not to murder those made in the image of God (and specifically that we do not kill the “innocent,” which means that even God sees relative innocence in some people), the burden of proof is on you to show why this particular killing of innocent human life is not murder.
I wish you had specified which Presbyterian denomination you belong to, because it’s garbage like this that caused the PCA to withdraw from the PC(USA), and which makes people like me specifically tell those who inquire after my denomination, “I’m Presybeterian–PCA, the conservative branch, not the liberal ones that you hear about.”
Report comment as offensive
Good for Touchstone, by the way. If I get the opportunity, I’ll recommend that people subscribe to that rather than any of its competitors.
Report comment as offensive
And Harrison, I heard an excellent rebuttal recently of the argument that “other issues are just as important as abortion.” None of the other issues that people list as “just as important” are included in the Ten Commandments. This one is. This one is basic.
Yes, the poor (for example) are important–but nowhere does God give care of the poor into the hands of the state. He does give the state the right to punish murderers. Thus, a politician who would not only not condemn murderers, but support them, is in the wrong field–he is not morally qualified for the job he is seeking, and even apart from morality, he doesn’t understand the role he is seeking.
Report comment as offensive
Harrison’s post needs some names and more details. As others have asked, who is/are the yam/s? Which solidly pro-life politician is only a pro-life politician and nothing else? Who’s the yam who only campaigns based on his pro-life stance without bothering to articulate anything else?
Pro-lifers are justified in expressing their view that life is the most important socio-political issue (and something has to top the list, doesn’t it?), but they hold and voice opinions about many other issues as well, Musing’s irrelevancies in this thread notwithstanding. This, too, is where Harrison needs to supply some detail. How has he determined that vocal pro-lifers are only pro-lifers who view everything else as irrelevant? I bet a good percentage of them can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Report comment as offensive
David L post 19,
possibly the killing of cells which may possibly be human at a latter time?
What permeates much of the anti-abortion rhetoric is the failure to:
1) clearly define humanness in a form which is truly operational
2) understand that the typpical argument that a fertilized egg is human since it has the potential to become a fully developed human does not in and of itself differentiate a feretilized egg from a skin cell
And this intellecutal incompleteness of the argument means that, as evan notes, traditional religions may not consider abortion as murder AND the argument is failing in the U.S. political market of ideas.
When combined with HSK’s comments about yams, which is observed in the actual discussions and is being reproduced in this discussion as well, it is no wonder that abortion is failing in the political marketplace (c.f failure of a number of anti-aboriton efforts in the 2008 elections).
In short the eclipse of the social conservative candidates in the 2008 election threatens to potentially make social conservatvism and the anti-abortion effort a highly regionalized effort in terms of majority support in this country.
Report comment as offensive
Cheryl D post 22,
but what specfiic Biblical verse explicitly says that abortion is murder?
When asked this question the usual response is a set of Bible verses whcih some interpret as arguing aborttion is murder, but which do not in fact clearly and simply demonstrate this point.
By contrast Exodus 21:22 [NIV}:
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.
where the footnote “Exodus 21:22 Or she has a miscarriage ” clarifies the word as meaning miscarriage, would seem to refute a Biblical model that the fetus is of the same level of humaness as a person who has been born.
In short, I suggest that your apparent argument that Biblically abortion is considered murder is an interpretation and one which is arguably not as well established as your post would seem to imply.
Report comment as offensive
It is an interesting observation that the 2008 election suggests that social conservatvies are modestly successful with an anti-homosexual message but not successful with an anti-abortion message.
Based on many of these comments, it would seem that given the importance of abortion (and the lack of comments on homosexuality) that the social conservative agenda is indeed in a state of severe disarray.
Report comment as offensive
A look at the Strong’s concordance discussion of Exodus 21:22:
Exodus 21:22 concordance
would seem to make it clear here that the issues under discussion by the verse is the loss of the fetus and that such a loss is not considered direct mischief to the woman nor is such a loss considered the same as murder.
Report comment as offensive
From the OP : I might suggest that the issue is not as simple as A) voting for the pro-life candidate or B) voting for the pro-choice candidate.
You’re absolutely right. In the recent election, it was much more complicated, A) Holding your nose and voting for the pro-life candidate or B) Sticking your head up your behind and voting for the pro-choice candidate or C) Rolling your eyes, sighing heavily, and voting some third party.
I’m not saying that we ignore a historic, foundational issue like the protection of the unborn – I’m just saying that Christians hurt their own cause by appearing to champion a single issue without consideration for other issues that are important, pressing, momentous, and so on.
Do pro-aborts worry about “hurting their cause” by their single-mindedness? Are they concerned that their rhetoric might be a little strident when they screech about abortion restrictions killing innocent women?
Abortion and most other issues travel together. I’d be interested to know of a candidate who was “pro-choice” on abortion but agreed with a Biblical position on, oh, property rights, forced redistribution of wealth, marriage, or parental rights. [I'll admit that McCain is weak on some of those, but that's why few Christians voted for him in the primaries.] Sure, there are issues other than abortion. They’re called “secondary issues,” and a candidate’s abortion position is a pretty good predictor of his positions on them.
Now, as to the “pro-life yam,” I’d say Gary Bauer fits the description, but he isn’t getting anywhere.
Report comment as offensive
EVAN (13): 10. Aborted fetuses are not innocent. To the extent that the fetus represents a human life in God’s eyes, the fetus is of the seed of Adam. Accordingly, the fetus would stand under God’s just condemnation …
Frank: You are equivocating on the meaning of the word “innocent.”
There is a vital difference between the unborn not being “innocent” in God’s eyes (because he is a child of Adam) and his not being “innocent” in the eyes of the civil magistrate.
The unborn certainly bears the taint of Original Sin, and thus stands under the judgment of God and the curse of eternal death (apart from a work of saving grace being done in his life).
But the unborn has obviously not committed any crime, let alone one which could be adjudicated by a civil magistrate to be worthy of the death penalty.
No man is “innocent” in God’s eyes. But that is not what is meant when we say abortion results in the “death of the innocent” — and you know it.
Report comment as offensive
Musing:
Re: Exodus 21:22 the Hebrew is “fruit” and is most commonly used to designate baby. Nowhere else to my knowledge is it used to mean fetus, making that meaning unlikely here. It is merely special pleading. The NIV, as is true of most modern translations, is based on more discovered documentation, earlier texts, and supporting extra biblical texts that provide important cultural and linguistic cues. It is the stronger one.
Your misguided and persistent attempt to liken embryos to skin cell clusters is willful biological ignorance. Time to stop musing and start thinking. Fertilization creates a new biological entity that shares and blends the DNA of both parents. Skin cell, while human, contain no outside DNA. It is not genetically distinct from the person. That is why it can be used forensically to determine suspects’ involvement in crimes.
Biology proves that from fertilization on we are dealing with an entity that is living, human, and genetically distinct from the mother. “Person” is a legal definition. Human being is first biological, then moral. From fertilization on we have an individual human. Metaphysical judgments about “consciousness, viability, or “humanness in a form which is truly operational” are the secularist version of “ensoulment” that are too subjective to offer moral clarity.
All humans are guilty before God unless declared righteous by Him through trusting in Christ. Most humans and all unborn ones are innocent before our law. Scripture and ordinary human language often employ the word innocent without consideration of precise theological formulations. It is sophistry to raise the point in this discussion.
The right to life is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, whose broad themes are implemented in the Constitution. It is the Constitution’s political implementation of the Declaration that creates a dependence that Judge Bork argued justified Brown v. The Topeka Board of Education and Lincoln used to justify refusing to accept the Secession of the Confederate States.
As a citizen of this country who appreciates its tradition and ideals, I would find it extremely difficult to support a candidate who was so fundamentally wrong. I’m not sure who these “yams” are that I stand accused of blindly backing. No one candidate in any party perfectly incarnates all I would be looking for, and if one did, I would be very suspicious of him or her and myself.
Report comment as offensive
Michelle (9): I think in California independents can receive primary ballots for parties other than Republican?
After having an open primary system for a while, my memory is that a court challenge resulted in letting the parties decide if their ballots could be ‘open’ to independents; Democrats said yes, Republicans said no — so I believe independents can cast a vote in the Democratic race, but not vote for any of the Republicans.
If independents could vote on any of the primary ballots, I’d be tempted to go back to being an independent. But since I most often vote for the republican candidates, I like being able to have a voice in that party’s primary selections.
Report comment as offensive
#18
Wow! Excellent! Thank you for posting.
Report comment as offensive
Actually, there are some excellent comments on here by a number of pro-life people. Good job and thank you. (I’m simply too tired to make my own arguments right now, and I appreciate that I don’t have to do so, because they’ve been made already and so well.)
Report comment as offensive
I will never vote for someone who is pro-abortion, no matter what.
Doesn’t this depend on what the meaning of “pro-abortion” is? For example, would you vote for a president who refused to invade The Netherlands in order to stop abortion there? Or, a president who refused to send the Union Army into Vermont to stop abortion there?
In law, if not in language and logic, there’s a difference between “pro-” and “not anti-”. The question is, what degree of anti-abortion-icity do you require?
And just exactly what kind of a criminal regime would you enforce?
Report comment as offensive
Touchstone: . . . this “solution” is also based on the assumption that poverty is the motive for abortions, whereas in fact abortion is the sacred cause of the upper middle class.
According to the CDC, “The abortion ratio for black women (472 per 1,000 live births) was 2.9 times the ratio for white women (161 per 1,000) . . .” in 2004. The abortion rate was also about 3 times higher for black women. This CDC report doesn’t provide data correlating abortion with socioeconomic status, but the high incidence of abortion in a lower group, particularly one for whom female employment is sometimes critical, suggests that poverty and the desire to avoid poverty motivate abortion.
In three or four years, we’ll have data about the frequency of abortion in the 2008/9 recession.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm
Report comment as offensive
Touchstone: . . . the long-discredited claim that the Catholic Church has not always condemned abortion . . .
Some of the Church Fathers, for example, Augustine, thought the moral status of the fetus was ambiguous or unknowable.
Report comment as offensive
Musing–
I’m not as clever as you are nor am I a debator, so I can’t speak except out of my own research or experience. It seems to me life has to start somewhere and in the beginning, conception, makes the most sense.
About that blob of tissue–I don’t think I’ve talked with anyone, including teenagers, in probably 15 years who has tried that argument. Most of the unhappily pregnant women I speak with know very well they are terminating a life; many don’t really believe in abortion, but are looking for the loophole for themselves.
One girl actually told me, “I don’t think you should be able to have six or seven abortions. But I think you should be allowed one or two because everyone makes a mistake.”
I was gentle with her because she was young; but her reasoning was selfish–like that of most, but not all, women I speak with.
Ask yourself this question–as my parents did: to which of your relatives do you want to sign over your health care power of attorney? The one who is ardently pro-abortion, or the one who is pro-life?
My parents didn’t think twice–it went to me, “because we know you’ll do the right thing.”
That’s why it’s important politicians at least respect a pro-life position–because that’s who I’m more likely to trust with the bigger issues. Jesus reminded us, “he who is faithful in a little is also faithful in much.” The politicians I’m more likely to trust is the one who isn’t encouraging me to kill myself, or my children.
Report comment as offensive
MUSING (24): … 1) clearly define humanness in a form which is truly operational
FRANK: The Scriptures teach that the unborn is the very handiwork of God Almighty:
Psalm 139:
13 For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.
They also teach that the unborn is a person who is both knowable … and knowing:
Jeremiah 1:
5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
Luke 1:
39 Now Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, to a city of Judah,
40 and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth.
41 And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
42 Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
43 But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44 For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
As a person, the unborn bears the very image of God, and thus is worthy of all the protections against unjust violence that God’s Law accords all persons:
Genesis 9:
6 Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God he made man.
MUSING (24): … 2) understand that the typpical argument that a fertilized egg is human since it has the potential to become a fully developed human does not in and of itself differentiate a feretilized egg from a skin cell
FRANK: Others have already adequately dealt with your false analogy. Suffice to say that a fertilized egg and a skin cell are fundamentally differentiated in tha