Thirty-five years ago the Supreme Court of the United States rendered its decision in the case, Roe vs. Wade. This Supreme Court Decision made abortion equally legal in all 50 states. The decision by the Court was a supreme travesty.
From 1973 through 2002, more than 42 million legal abortions have occurred in the U.S. according to this website. The Supreme Court effectively legalized the murder of between 25% and 33% of an entire generation.
This morning on the way back from my bus driving responsibilities I was listening to the news station broadcasting from Houston and the morning crew had a brief interview with a woman by the name of Goria Geldt author of the book, The War On Choice.
As would be expected I was outraged by the time I arrived home. Over and over again she spoke of the necessity of maintaining liberty concerning reproductive rights. Our society is morally and intellectually bankrupt if they cannot see right through this kind of rhetoric.
Reproductive rights vs. the right to kill the fruit of exercising that right.
Gloria was not arguing for the right to reproduce or not reproduce. She was arguing for the right to engage in behaviour that is likely to cause reproduction and then kill the fruit of that behaviour. These are two totally unrelated issues and each should be argued on it own merits. By confusing the two issues the abortionist seek to gain an advantage in the debate. I, for one, refuse to let them confuse the issue.
She has the right to reproduce or not reproduce. When she chooses to lay with a man she is exercising her right to engage in behaviour that could result in a baby. She does not have to engage in that behaviour and she can take steps to prevent a pregnancy. She has all the liberty she could possible hope to have in this area.
But now she wants to move beyond reproductive rights and having engaged in behaviour that is likely to produce a baby she also wants the liberty to end the new life that has been created by the behaviour. Why should she be granted this liberty?? Because the victim has no voice of its own? Because the victim is small and defenseless? Because the victim is not wanted? Because the victim is seen as a burden? Why should anyone be granted this liberty? If this liberty is granted then none of us really have liberty given by God but only that that is given by government! Horrors of horrors. What government bestows government can take!
If any of the aforementioned reasons are adequate for extending the liberty to one person to take the life of another person then none of us are safe. Why? Because we may find ourselves without a voice. We may find ourselves small and defenseless. We may find ourselves not being wanted by those with power. We may at some time be seen as a burden. Even if all of this is true or becomes true of me no one should have the liberty of depriving me of life. This principle is not negated simply because the person is in the womb. And if it is then why not out of the womb?
People want to exercise their reproductive rights and then be irresponsible in relation to consequences. They want to engage in the cause and kill the effect.
Oh, God have mercy on us for our hands are stained with blood.
The blood of innocent victims who have been slaughtered on the altar of convenience.
We are worthy of judgment for their blood cries out from the ground.
If we will not repent as a nation help us as your people to bear patiently the rod of they wrath!