Rush Limbaugh: Rush Answers Abortion Question

RushLimbaugh.com ^ | 7/8/05 | Rush Limbaugh

[wagglebee]

I've saved this and the response to it for today, Open Line Friday, to share with you. This woman is a subscriber at RushLimbaugh.com. She said, "Rush..." Her name is Anita. "Rush, I'm a die-hard fan. Though I was raised to support a woman's right to choose, since becoming a mother and listening to you over these many years, I've come to strongly believe that abortion is wrong. But because I'm conservative and believe in property rights, I can't reconcile the government's involvement in the ultimate property right to your own body. Can you help me?"

So I thought about this, and I wrote her back. I said: Dear Anita, perhaps I can. Our Declaration of Independence states that as free human beings, we are entitled to LIFE," and I put that in all caps, "liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration also says that these rights are "inalienable" and "granted by our Creator," God. If our government does not stand for and protect these basic rights, which are the essence of our creation and humanity, then it will not protect any others. In our history, we've had human beings, members of the Supreme Court, give us the disastrous Dred Scott decision, which established that we as human beings could consider certain of our fellow human beings as our property.

Dred Scott permitted whites in this country to own black slaves and eventually this decision was struck down. So, Anita, your child is not your personal property. Your body may be, but your child isn't. Your child is a distinct and individual human being that you helped to create and produce -- and no one owns that child's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So she wrote back and she thanked me, said she "hadn't looked at it that way;" she "appreciated that perspective." So I wanted to share that with you. One of the reasons why is because here we've had these Supreme Court decisions on property rights, private property rights, and you can see how some people interpret all of these, and extrapolate them to other issues in what may be the beginning of their education process. So I thought it was a great question that she asked and I was happy to be able to answer it for her.

[Lexinom]

I'd not considered that point about incest before. Thanks.

[Lexinom]

eem that there are more a-moral Libertarians than Bible-respecting Conservatives that comment on Free Republic

Through common grace Christians and non-Christians can work together for a common cause. Common grace does not save, but does preserve man from full expression of his own depravity (Jer. 17:9).

For example, I've known liberals who oppose abortion, and there's a gay/lesbian group called PLAGAL: Pro-Life Alliance of Gay and Lesbians. Even though I would take issue with their personal lives I would be loathe to reject their work for the protection of the unborn regardless of motives. The pro-life movement is not a monolithic, well-funded bloc but a rather rag-tag melange united by a common sense of justice.

Remember the prostitute Rahab and her works.

[Delphinium]

Anyway you explain it, killing babies is WRONG.

Some won't hear no matter how good you explain it.

[Lexinom]

The tacit assumption is that the embryo just popped in there ex nihilo. All of the arguments on the other side seem to assume this, never questioning whether maybe, just maybe, the woman might, just might bear some of the responsibility for becoming pregnant in the first place. The arguments on both sides seem to overlook the father's responsibility in the matter.

[Delphinium]

Getting an abortion would be the equivalent of inviting a child onto your property-- in fact, bringing him onto your property (since he does not even have the power of independent locomotion) --- and then saying he was a trespasser and shooting him.

I have actually heard this ridicules argument.

[Lexinom]

Another way of expressing it is thus: the right to life of another human being ABROGATES, EVACUATES, TRUMPS all other premises. Likewise, for many of us the present situation - 4,000 innocent human beings executed each day in the most brutal manner imagineable - pre-empts all other contemporary issues. NPR is living in a fantasy world when they say "We at National Public Radio just do not cover this issue because we think it has been decided."

As an aside, check out what NARAL is doing in my state.

BTW how is the weather out your way (Orofino?)

[Free Baptist]

Sounds like the Hegelian Dialectic to me. (Simply compromise on the slip...downward...downward..downward.) Consider me a speed bump on this road.

[Delphinium]

I cannot find the number but I think it's <= 3%)

I think that 3% includes all of the hard cases, rape, incest, life of mother, 13 year olds etc..

97% of abortions are for convenience sake only, and 50% of that 97% of convenience only have had multiple abortions.

Of all,(many) the women I have known who have had an abortions, have had 2, 3, and even more abortions.

Of these many women I have known, most have had atleast one abortions after the 6th month.

And most of them proudly tell you, with no shame.

[Lexinom]

Any similarity to Hegel's thesis-antithesis dialectic is incidental. All people live in the same world. Christians must live in the world yet not be of it. The Holy Spirit has the power to protect the Christian believer - sin comes from the inside, from the heart (cf Ps. 51), not from the outside.

The Anabaptist tendancy to try to construct a completely separate Christian culture finds no support in Scripture. Transformation of the existing culture, through lives, however is the duty of every believer within his sphere of influence.

As applied to abortion, if it pleases the Lord to remove this scourge from the land who are we to question His means?

[Free Baptist]

We are not Anabaptists, just Baptists. We don't isolate ourselves (as might Amish, some Mennonites, or others who claim the Anabaptist handle). Our children, fully clothed, have played stick ball with naked Filipino children. But we don't preach with any pleasant tones toward those who just WANT to be naked. Some Filipino children don't really want to be naked out of vile desire, they just don't have any clothes, and would love to wear some if they were given any. Some Filipino young people, on the other hand (like American young people), after watching American Hollywood productions and pornography on the Internet at the local Internet cafe, desire a VILE and LICENTIOUS and VULGAR course of life. Sodomy is so flaunted on Filipino streets and in the markets that Sodom and Gomorrah residents would blush. We don't use such tones of voice that make us seem to others as though we can just tolerate sodomy or other reprobation. We firmly preach against what God says is sin and debauchery. We would not be interested in appearing to legitimize what God says is reprobate by buddying with them just because they happen to be able to articulate a position that might be reasonable in one or two issues. "Transformation of existing culture" in a Godward direction would only happen if sufficient numbers of people see themselves offensive to God's holiness, condemned by sin, on their way to judgment before a Holy God, on their way to Hell, and if they see the Cross of Christ as the only remedy for their sin nature and sinful acts, if they repent toward God and place their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; if they experience the New Birth, Regeneration by the Holy Spirit. The world is a ship that is SUNK. Judgment is on the way, and the Christian's duty is to preach the gospel of the Grace of God that He may rescue the perishing that are on the open sea watching the the bow slip underneath the surface. There will be NO restoration, the ship is sunk, this dispensation will end in apostasy and under judgment.

[Delphinium]

Its rainy, and overcast in Orofino. What about Seattle?

The only way I can explain people who not only believe it is okay to kill babies, but fervently fight for the right to kill babies, is they are driven by a demonic force.

[Lexinom]

Same here. A great to stay indoors and practice a new Poulenc piece I'm learning.

[Delphinium]

Poulenc

What is that?

I am trying to get motivated to pack stuff for moving into the new log home we are building.

I have 4 grandkids here to help, course the 2 year old isn't much help.

[Babu]

Pingable?

[Lexinom]

I do share your pessimism for this world long-term. Living as we do in this culture it is necessary to return to the Word which reminds us all how bad it really is. It also reminds each child of God of his own sin, and drives him to the cross.

No question about it, this world is dying and the Christian is a pilgrim and wanderer. However, Proverbs 24:11 is very clear about speaking for those with no voice. I cannot, in good conscience, withdraw from the battle. If we can save one baby from the knife, offer food, clothes, and Christian love to the mother, that is a little contribution to cultural transformation - not trumpeted, just obedient.

I fully concur with your comments on transformation requiring a mssive Spirit-wrought revival beginning with true sorrow and repentence, and almost certainly beginning with reformation in the popular evangelical church and doing away with man-centeredness.

[Lexinom]

Music.

Moving is a great way to get the blood flowing. Congrats on the new home!

[topher]

Seems like Rush should invite Hillary Clinton on his show to debate this issue. This would shoot down in flames any chances for her in 2008. On the other hand, if she denies the request to be on the show, then it should be stated that she is a "coward to explain her position on abortion and the EXTREMELY STRONG SUPPORT SHE ENJOYS FROM NARAL and Planned Parenthood."

Maybe the next US Supreme Court Nominee should be all about abortion and the right of a Human Being to exist -- the most fundamental right in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

My opinion only.

[photodawg]

Individualism isn't the problem here, its the denial of individualism that's at issue. The child in the womb is a separate distinct individual living inside the body of another individual. The child is jointly conceived. The child has its own body and soul from conception. It is a complete individual from that point on. No one, especially the mother has a right to control that individual living within her. If a woman wants choice and the control of her own body, she should start by controlling her sexual appetites and/or practices to ensure she doesn't accidentally conspire to create a new individual!

[Cicero]

I was thinking of the particular kind of individualism promoted by Locke, which tends to lead to viewing persons as property. What you say is correct. There are two separate individuals, or persons, mother and child. A child is not the mother's property, and for that matter her body is not her property either.

Private property is an important property, but unless you believe in slavery property cannot be extended to persons. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence speaks of an inalienable right to life and liberty, which means we cannot sell ourselves even if we choose to.

[Born Conservative]