Posted on 09/11/2013 8:00:17 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Would you support a “pro-life” bill that banned the killing of all unborn children except those born to parents who are Hindus? After all, only 0.6% of the U.S. population is Hindu, so we’re talking about saving almost 99% of the babies here. Who wouldn’t sacrifice the 0.6% to save the 99%? Don’t the needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few, or the one? Shouldn’t we save as many as we can?
Or maybe we should put forth “pro-life” legislation that protects all children except those born to Muslims? After all, they’re only 0.9% of the U.S. population, and represent a worldview whose radical elements we’ve been at war with for over a decade. Why not protect the 99% here?
Better yet, if you’re going to leave anyone unprotected to “save as many babies as you can” why not target the Jewish people? No people group has been more targeted for extinction throughout human history than the Jews, so there’s certainly precedent for it. There are whole sectors of the globe that would support us doing so as we speak. And the Jewish people represent less than 2% of the U.S. population, so we could still save 98% of the babies.
This all sounds utterly preposterous, doesn’t it? Nobody in the pro-life movement in their right mind would propose such a thing, would they?
Except many in the pro-life movement already have.
Simply substitute “children conceived via rape and incest” for “Hindu” or “Muslim” or “Jewish” and it’s the exact same exception many in the pro-life movement have put forth time and time again. They use arguments like “why wouldn’t you sacrifice the 1% to save the 99%” to justify it. The question itself admits we’re sacrificing something. So what is it we’re sacrificing? We’re sacrificing innocent human life in the name of political expediency, that’s what we’re sacrificing. I’m no Socrates, but sacrificing the sanctity of life to preserve the sanctity of life sounds to me like an absurdity with no basis in logic.
That all sounds well and good to some when you’re talking about kids conceived in rape and incest. Kids conservative talk radio superstar Sean Hannity refers to as “evil seed.” Kids that Ann Coulter, who wrote a national best-seller called Demonic that chastised the Democrats for promoting a culture of death, doesn’t mind killing.
Obviously nobody would publicly propose not protecting life by law on the basis of someone’s religious belief. Even if they thought such a thing they wouldn’t dare say so publicly because of the obvious and deserved backlash that would ensue. So when the pro-life movement publicly says we’re not going to protect life by law on the basis of the way it was conceived, what we’re really saying is that particular life isn’t sacred.
If you bow to public opinion polls that say children conceived in rape or incest aren’t worthy of being protected, then you are tacitly admitting not all life is sacred yourself. For if the public was in favor of protecting every child other than the one named you, something tells me you’d fight public pressure and not succumb to it if it were your life on the line.
Furthermore, if we agree that not all life is sacred and worthy of protection, then we aren’t really arguing a pro-life position. We’re really arguing the Planned Parenthood position, which is “make every child a wanted child.” Let’s face it, nobody wants a child conceived in rape or incest up front, because that means you had to suffer through something heinous to conceive that child you wouldn’t even wish upon your worst enemy.
But after that child is conceived, why would we execute the child for the crimes of his/her parents? The only justification for doing so is that you really don’t believe all life is sacred, but that life conceived in certain circumstances is unwanted so killing it is an option. Therefore, is it any wonder why after 40 years we have been unable to shut down the child killing industry once and for all when not even those who are “pro-life” are of one mind on whether all life is worthy of protection?
Case in point: if you get elected and try standing for the right to life for all of God’s children, including those conceived in rape or incest, you may get criticized by the pro-life movement itself.
We can certainly agree or disagree with one another tactically about how much incrementalism is practical, and how too much incrementalism at times works against our stated strategy of working to eventually end all child-killing in America. But this is not that debate. This is a debate of principle.
When we say we’re willing not to protect children conceived in rape or incest, we’re agreeing with the child killing industry’s core vision that we mere mortals – not the Creator – determine who’s worthy to live and who’s worthless enough to be targeted for extinction. Make no mistake, when we consent to the execution of certain children because of how they were conceived we are not promoting the imago dei. And the only reason a society would turn away from the horrific selfishness of child sacrifice to the altar of personal convenience is its belief in the imago dei.
Just as a bloodied, bruised, and battered Christ on the Cross testifies to what it takes to bring redemption to a world so fallen it would execute its own Savior, so does the hope of a new life brought forth in the tragedy of rape or incest testify to the potential for meaning and redemption in such unspeakable suffering.
If you really want society to protect all life then start making the case that all life is worthy of protection.
So they never think about the child they had ripped from their bodies?
They will one day.
And the same time, imagine the consequences if somehow all sanctions on murder were lifted.
Can you say sudden blood bath?
Social embarrassment CAN cause people to slow down.
No it is not the ultimate way, not the permanent solution. I believe in aggressive GOSPEL attack on the satanic enemy. I mean if we all knew what the GOSPEL looked like from the viewpoint of hell, we’d be sharing it with everybody we knew!
yup, govern,ent cannot change what is inside the human heart. it can only hinder it, and if that fails, punish it.
the real problem is when govt endorses the evil as good, and those opposing the evil are considered criminals. that’s what we’re facing now thanks to a whole number of reasons.
Our public policies should be just, no matter how far you or anyone else has gone towards accepting the Gospel.
That’s what we’re talking about, our laws and our public policies.
Sounds to me like you’re using the Gospel as a diversionary tactic to avoid advocating just laws. That’s not right.
Yup.
Will you follow in the footsteps of Christ and take up your cross? Or will act like Peter and wait for the rooster to crow...
I guess I miss your point. Are you arguing against laws that are not universally obeyed? Are you arguing that it makes no difference to codify murder?
Today we remember the nearly 2000 who died on 9/11, who will commemorate the 5000 who were killed today in their mother's womb? The Prez has a red line for the murder of children by chemical weapons, yet untold thousands of innocent children were killed in America today by a chemical weapon, RU486. Every one killed is a tragedy and every one saved a victory - so what are you saying; that if one is not saved it is not worth saving the rest?
Well, EV, I would not go as far as your accusation.
I say we need to get practical here in the Lord’s Army, which really is a construction battalion.
Build where it does the most good. What’s the most bang against Satan for the buck right now? I’d put my money in gospel preaching! But it is not going to look a lot like what we call stereotypical gospel preaching. Consider ourselves missionaries. Not church functionaries. Side missions can be various rescue activities around and at abortion facilities. Trying to rein in the beast with law is virtually a lost cause at this moment. Getting believers into the judiciary will be key here and it takes time; Rome was neither built nor burnt in a day.
But couldn’t the woman bear the child and put it up for adoption? There are many childless couples (sacramentally married men and women) who would adopt them.
That is exactly why we got Roe vs. Wade in the first place....’hearts’...in America have grown more than cold toward the things of God...they ‘deny Him’ in droves now....the result of this is a nations fall...ALWAYS...and that not without His many opportunities to turn!
A nation apart from God..as we are...will fall....interesting too is whenever biblical nations turned from God they were invaded....and that does not always mean militarily....we have this today with our government encouraging foreigners here who do not return to their home country, rather they bring their whole families here......further our borders are full of illegals passing thru without any opposition or administering the laws we have in place to prevent it.
We have become a nation of ‘regulations’ preventing freedom...and lawlessness because those regulations are used to oppose those appointed to keep those laws.
We’ve all got to do what we think God has called us to do, where we believe He has sent us to do it.
Chesterton on birth control/population control: In 1925 Chesterton wrote an introduction to Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol in which he said that “The answer to anyone who talks about the surplus population is to ask him, whether he is part of the surplus population; or if not, how he knows he is not.”
good quote!
“What we think” ... or what God actually HAS done?
I say, look for the supernatural effects if you want to validate a ministry. I mean, knock yourself out if the good Lord really does want you legislating your heart out only to get knocked down over and over from a corrupt godless judiciary. But I look for where I can get the fruit going.
Paine doesn’t get the credit he deserves, IMO.
You should, if you really supported the second amendment.
They did, after all, have private battleships operating at that time.
Yes, I debated whether or not to use the argument that ALL life belongs to God, the Creator. I find it staggeringly arrogant that anyone would presume to have authority to take an innocent life.
Although my religious beliefs inform and shape my opinions, I don’t assume others are similarly affected by the same beliefs, so I try to base my approach on an appeal to their moral logic (I know, the concept of morality does not exist outside the existence of God, but that is a different discussion). I will use the authority of God, as i did in my hypothetical talk to my niece, when speaking to a believer. But I find it more difficult to be persuasive of either argument if I combine the two when speaking to a nonbeliever, and I always make the assumption that a person who supports abortion is a nonbeliever.
I appreciate you taking us back to the “I am mine” fallacy and its birth in the Garden.
Outlawing abortion won't stop abortion any more than Prohibition stopped alcohol consumption. Or any more than the laws against other forms of murder or theft stop murders and thefts. Do you really disagree with this?
You want to outlaw abortion? Well, I'm with you on that. **But**, once we've outlawed abortion, what are you going to do about all the abortions that will continue (as they did when abortion used to be outlawed in this country)?
So, do you want to just pass a law, or do you want to save babies? Because my point is, it is ultimately a spiritual decision, and not something you can legislate.
And if you are truly shocked that I have survived on this site for more than a dozen years, you can always report me to the mods....
And incidentally I don’t want to categorically discourage anyone from a ministry in this most difficult area. But don’t do it just for the Memory Of The Former Law Of Jolly Olde America. That’s not for God.
I’d like to share a spiritual hint which has in general carried my own ministries forward quite powerfully, if you are adamant about attacking at this point. EXALTATION OF THE LORD IS KEY TO VICTORY. Use this hint liberally (pun not intended).
If we legalized first degree murder, would their be more, or fewer murders?
The number of abortions has skyrocketed since abortion was legalized.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.