Recently, I was directed to an article entitled, “So What if Abortion Ends Life?” by Mary Elizabeth Williams. Williams is a writer for Salon.com, and her words are utterly disgusting. In her article this is what she has to say:
Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers.
The true reality of Liberalism and post-modernism is this: “All life is not equal”. Not only is there irony in the fact that we just celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. Day, but Liberals are always saying something like, “We fight for every person.” The truth is this, Liberals lie when they say all people are equal. If you thought that quote was disturbing, just wait. The next sentences say this:
Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.
Here, we see the natural progression of the Humanist/Liberal mindset. Since the baby is dependent on the mother to survive, that unborn child’s rights are not equal to the mother’s. This raises a plethora of questions that the pro-choice advocate must answer. Here they are:
#1 Since the mother is autonomous and the baby isn’t, what about the newborn? The newborn is dependent on the mother for years before he/she could ever be autonomous. Does that mean the newborn doesn’t have equal rights with the mother? Is the newborn’s right to life non-existent, because the baby would die if left alone?
#2 What about the developmentally disabled man who could not live without a person to help him? Does he not have the right to life, because he is not autonomous?
#3 What about the elderly woman who cannot live without an oxygen tank? Does she not have the right to life because she can’t breathe without that tank?
Most pro-choice advocates would answer those questions with a resounding NO, but the problem is that they have absolutely no grounds for their answer. If you truly believe that autonomy is the threshold for equal rights, you must be willing to kill millions of other people living outside of the womb. If not, your arguments are emotional and illogical. Now, you might be thinking, “This article couldn’t get any more nutty,” but you would be wrong. Later, Williams says:
My belief that life begins at conception is mine to cling to.
And in the same paragraph Williams ends her article with this:
In an Op-Ed on “Why I’m Pro-Choice” in the Michigan Daily this week, Emma Maniere stated, quite perfectly, that “Some argue that abortion takes lives, but I know that abortion saves lives, too.” She understands that it saves lives not just in the most medically literal way, but in the roads that women who have choice then get to go down, in the possibilities for them and for their families. And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.
This last paragraph is the culmination of the Liberal mindset. In Williams mind the life of the mother is more important than the life of the unborn, at all times, and it doesn’t matter if human life starts at conception. Human life can exist without the right to that life. According to Williams, if the mother doesn’t want the child, she can have an abortion because her rights trump the unborn’s.
Many may say, “Well, maybe she was talking about a life threatening situation.” The problem is that Williams never brings this point up. Even if this is the case, abortions are hardly ever needed to save a mother’s life. I see Williams saying that the woman’s choice trumps the babies rights to life, because she is autonomous. Then Williams ends with these words, “A life worth sacrificing”.
Apparently, these little lives are worth sacrificing, because the pregnancy is unwanted. I guess the baby is worth sacrificing because carrying him/her to term would cause too much trouble. If this is true, then I suppose it’s alright for a person to sacrifice their parents when they need to have 24/7 care. If you hold the pro-choice view, you have no choice but to advocate for the sacrificing of the developmentally disabled person. The Liberal argument for abortion depends on the lack of autonomy. If this is true then the Liberal must deal with other people who are not autonomous. If they are consistent then they are utterly disgusting. If they are not consistent then their argument can be thrown out.
Allow me to end with this.
I know a God that came in flesh. His name was Jesus of Nazareth, and he gave himself as a sacrifice for sins. It doesn’t matter if you have only lied once or have aborted your unborn baby, Christ can cover all sin. Christ’s self-sacrifice is sufficient to forgive you. I pray that God opens your heart to understand the greatest sacrifice humanity has ever seen.
Thanks for reading.
I came across an article from USA Today that suggested that abortion rates are higher in countries where abortion is outlawed. Now, I question whether that connection is true or not, but I do know that there is a common mantra that runs throughout all pro-abortion materials…”Abortions are safe”.
This is what the USA Today article had to say:
‘An abortion is actually a very simple and safe procedure,’ said Gilda Sedgh, a senior researcher at the U.S.-based Guttmacher Institute, designated by theWorld Health Organization as an official Collaborating Center for Reproductive Health.
Sedgh claims that abortions are simple and safe. However, is that really the case? I would suggest that it is not. I want to show you a lengthy clip from the documentary “Blood Money”. I want you to listen to the words of Carol Everett who is a former abortion clinic provider. This clip is scary because it highlights how abortions are not “simple or safe”. It is utterly destructive to all involved. Here is the clip:
Don’t believe in the myth of safe abortions.
Thanks for reading/watching.
The title sounds like I am going to endorse Romney and shoot down President Obama however, that is not my intention at all. What this post is about is President Obama’s disgusting stance on abortion. Planned Parenthood (PP), a group that your tax dollars go to, is a pro-abortion group and, they have recently endorsed President Obama in the upcoming election. Why would they do this? It is probably a mixture of a couple of things. #1 Romney has vowed to stop PP from getting your tax dollars. #2 President Obama has not voted against anti-abortion bills during his time in the Illinois State Legislature.
Here is a list of 7 different abortion laws that Obama voted on. His vote in all of the following was “present” according to a WashingtonPost.com article:
- SB 230 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Senate approved bill 44-7, with five senators voting present, including Obama.
- HB 382 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. House version, passed Illinois State Senate, adopted as law. Under the bill, doctors who perform partial-birth abortions could be sent to prison for one to three years. The woman would not be held liable.
- HB 1900 Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Bill passed 38-10, with nine present votes, including Obama.
- SB 562 Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Bill passed Senate 39-7, with 11 present votes, including Obama.
- SB 1094 Bill to protect children born as result of induced labor abortion. Bill passed 33-6, with 13 present, including Obama.
What strikes me is that a couple of these bills involved partial birth abortions and, President Obama voted “present”. Not only that, Obama also voted “present” when it comes to protecting “Liveborn children”. Liveborn children are babies that survived the initial attempt of abortion. This means that the baby is actually alive outside of the womb and Obama voted “present” in preserving the life of these newborns.
You may be thinking, “So what? Obama didn’t vote against the partial birth abortion ban?” Well, in a way he did. In the same article quoted above, author Michael Dobbs notes this:
Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, a present vote effectively functions as a no vote because only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Legislators vote “present” rather than “no” for a variety of tactical reasons, including making it more difficult for their political opponents to use their votes against them in campaign advertisements.
Since only “yes” votes count as to whether a bill passes or falls in Illinois, President Obama’s “present” votes were essentially “no” votes. If that isn’t enough evidence check this out:
‘We worked on the ‘present’ vote strategy with Obama,’ said Pam Sutherland, chief lobbyist for the Illinois branch of Planned Parenthood, an abortion rights group. ‘He was willing to vote “no”, and was always going to be a “no” vote for us.’
There you go. President Obama is in the back pockets of Planned Parenthood. They worked out a strategy where he could for their pro-abortion agenda while saving face. This is contradicted by the Bible and cannot be supported by any Christian that truly follows Christ. Here are the words of Job in Job 31: 14-15:
What then shall I do when God rises up?
When he makes inquiry, what shall I answer him?
Did not he who made me in the womb make him?
And did not one fashion us in the womb?
Job’s rhetorical questions highlights that God is the creator of everyone. God has made every human being no matter what stage of development they are in. Every person has God’s image stamped on them and, that gives every person value. We, as humans, have worth because we have been created by God but, the moment we embrace abortion is the moment that we deny the value of every human being. The moment we adopt abortion as a woman’s right is the moment we deny human rights to the most vulnerable human beings. So, when you go to the polls in November, remember to stand for human rights by not voting for President Obama.
Thanks for reading.