Abortion: The Change must be now.
54Today is a day of great sadness for myself and the country.
Though I did not vote for him I have been surprisingly pleased by the first few things Barack Obama has done for the country. For instance, the closing of Guantanamo Bay Prison, officially outlawing torture, the steps to pull back from Iraq. These have all been good things. However, he has performed a greater disservice for this country than I could have thought him capable in just a week. President Obama lifted the ban on overseas funding for the murder of unborn children. There was hardly more than a squeak heard from the Christian community.
Yes there was a pro-life march on the Supreme Court, as there has been for many years before, but with the lifting of the ban the group seems to have dissipated. These Christians took this act in virtual silence. Oh I'm sure words were thrown around and anger was shared. All useless. The people, the CHRISTIAN people, have reduced this issue to one of debate and civil discourse. Forgive me if I do not share those niceties. In my opinion the murders who make this choice for an unwilling other and the doctors who perform this heinous act of death are not deserving of life. We punish grown adults who murder others with death. In their case at least there might have been some slight offence to "warrant" that action, but there are unwilling innocents!
I make this next statement with full understanding of my position in the government's payroll: The government that authorizes the murder of innocents is deserving neither in God's eyes or my eyes of continued existence. Where is the outrage from Christians? Where is there anything other than vain, useless, POWERLESS words? People say dialogue takes time. After 30 YEARS what more can be said!? At some point words become useless! USELESS! Over fifty million babies have died. How many more must die before we relent and forcefully give future children their lives.
I asked a professor at Liberty the question one: At what point is it necessary for a Christian to part ways with their government? He responded that it was necessary when the government had clearly, blatantly, and outrageously violated God's principles. I reminded him, a rabid anti-abortion supporter, of the issue of Roe v. Wade.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
I too believe in the right to choose... but I think adoption is the way to go.
There are many people out there who can't have children of their own and who would be very happy to lovingly raise someone else's.
In response to your question, I'm stationed in Grand Prairie on the Reserve post. Nice place. How's Ft. Hood?
If your sense of morality is in oppositin to a law, then you have a moral obligation to disobey and/or oppose that law.
So then... someone who believes in abortion should kidnap pregnant women and perform the procedure against their will? :D
What is the opinion on oops babies versus medical problems of the baby or the mother?
I'm not sure if you're asking everyone or the author, but this topic interests me, so I'll pitch in:
... I think medical problems with the mother are complicated. The decision should always be left to the mother, but say she's unconscious -- ask dad. In absence of dad, it depends on the baby's situation. If the baby is at risk because of mom's health issues, I hate to say it, but I think they should look at who has a higher chance of survival.
Same with medical issues with baby. Mom's choice, but honestly, I say God put that kiddo there for a reason, and that kiddo should have a chance to live. Miracles happen.
Oops babies are best adopted or raised by other family.
If you were morally opposed to anyone having a child, then I suppose you could bake that pretzel. :D
I suppose you could... it'd be the first time I know of anyone got the death penalty for baking.
I just had to say it. That statement is just so vague... unfortunately, not everybody has a good sense of morals, so... but then again, I look at your username and I realize you've already considered the point I was about to make and dismissed it. Oh well. :\
Do you think abortion is ever justified? In cases of rape, incest, non-viability, etc?
Ed Gein got the death penalty for making sausages.
I don't quite understand how you can equate kidnapping someone and forcing them to have an abortion (apparently) because you are in favor of allowing people to legally decide if they want an abortion to opposing a law that contradicts your moral beliefs. It's quite a stretch to make that leap in logic.
Nor do I know what point I clairvoyantly dismissed. Unless it's that morality can't exist unless the government is there to dictate it. I very much dismiss that notion as both false and extremely dangerous.
Philosophy Dictionary: "A central concept both in ethics and epistemology. An action or a belief is justified if it stands up to some kind of critical reflection or scrutiny; a person is then exempt from criticism on account of it."
I can't really speak for justification. It's not for us to say what's justified -- that's God's job.
And I don't claim to know the mind of God, either; maybe He's up there shaking his head and wondering what's wrong with me, but here's an example of why I feel the way I feel:
Well... actually he got the death penalty for killing and skinning people, but that's an interesting point.
But let me attempt to clarify:
"If your sense of morality is in oppositin to a law, then you have a moral obligation to disobey and/or oppose that law."
Maybe I'm confused about where you're coming from, but what I meant was not everyone has the same values. Some people have "morals" that aren't particularly moral. The sentence you wrote seems to me to say that if you disagree with a law, no matter the law, then you can and should break that law just because you think you're entitled (or obligated).
As far as clairvoyant dismissal, I wasn't implying we should get our morality from governmental influence (HELL NO).
I'm just saying that some laws actually make sense, and that people picking and choosing which ones to obey is pretty much what killers and other criminals do.
However... if morality were a constant, there would likely be no need for government... but that's the problem with anarchy, huh.
I'm not picking on you, just thought those words were kinda funny.
Actually, there's nothing about Anarchism that precludes a society from having laws. In fact, the lack of a universal morality is all the more reason not to set up a structure that allows certain people to gain power over others against their will.
Every last person in the world picks and chooses which laws they will or won't follow many, many time every single day. The next time you head up a freeway offramp explain to all the people in the cas wizzing by tha they are a bunch of murderous criminals.
Beyond that, inflicting a violent crime upon someone else still doesn't even begin to equate to someone taking a moral stand against an unjust law in spite of the fact that they may suffer the consequences of that law. There's quite a difference between saying everyone should run around doing whatever they want without any regard for other people's rights and saying people should uphold their morals. It takes a bit of work to create that intentional misinterpretation.
Okay, okay. I realize what you were implying in your first few comments. I was just joking around because it was left open to a little interpretation, and I admit it was intentionally misinterpreted (actually, I'm a little afraid that some of our less cerebral neighbors might run across that and take it seriously... maybe that's what prompted the joke).
You're right about the drawbacks of "a structure that allows certain people to gain power over others against their will."
I think our minor personality clash is due to a shared anti-authoritative viewpoint. :P
"There's quite a difference between saying everyone should run around doing whatever they want without any regard for other people's rights and saying people should uphold their morals."
That was exactly my point.
Also:
"Every last person in the world picks and chooses which laws they will or won't follow many, many time every single day. The next time you head up a freeway offramp explain to all the people in the cas wizzing by tha they are a bunch of murderous criminals."
That's why I said "killers and other criminals." Had a feeling it might be taken for a comment about those danged MP3 pirates and people who think ten mph is the unwritten rule of the road.
If I offended you, I apologize. :)
Wow guys. I don't know where all this viewer traffic came from. ;) The thoughts going back and forth between Eldritch Elegy and EYEAM4ANARCHY requires a bit more in depth level of thought than the time (11pm with a 5am wakeup) allows. I'll save that for tomorow when rest and time allow for a better response. As to London girl's question I would say no. While I understand the trauma a pregnancy can cause to a rape victim (My ex was date-raped at 14) she chose to bear it and give it up for adoption. Hard choices are involved, obviousely, and it takes a strong person to go through with it. She was strong realizing that the trauma from the rape was enough, she did not need a murder in her life as well. A brave and noble choice that perhaps other rape victims, wishing the whole incident and memory gone, would rather not go through with.
I choose to take a moral stand against 5am wake-up calls.
just as a point of fact, I dont think 50 mILLION babaies have been killed.
A bunch of embryos and fetuses that would have developed into babies have been aborted.
Is a next day abortion of a fertizilized egg.. murder?
I asked because I have written a hub from a different angle, on abortion, referring to ectopic pregnancies and similar.
sunforged that is the fundamental difference between the pro/anti- abortion groups. I believe it is a baby. You don't. That is what it essentially boils down to.
Why is abortion necessary when there is contraception?!
I believe in medical emergency that it is justified in terms of ectopic pregnancies etc, however being a mother and having suffered a stillbirth in my late teens and more recently a missed miscarriage I am totally against aborting a (foetus) that is really a baby in the making.
@sunforged: Being human is not a frozen state, it is a process. The process begins at conception and continues after birth and until death. Humans do not gain the right to life because they are sentient, but rather they become aware of their right to life because of their sentience. Being alive is the only condition neccessary to give a human the right to life.
@writer 83: Defective contraception is undoubtedly the main cause of many abortions. Abstinence is the only way to successfully prevent pregnancy. I understand it is hard, but it is by no means impossible.
bgpappa says:
11 months ago
I respect your position, although I do not agree with it. I hope education is included plus alternative to abortion. But I believe in the right to choose.
Thoughtful Hub.