“For You formed my inward parts; You knitted me together in my mother’s womb” Psalm 139:13
One of the means used by Abraham Lincoln in his anti-slavery speeches prior to his presidency and the Civil War was to help the slave-owners examine not only their own hearts, but to know that the very history of the South reflected the fundamental understanding of the humanity of their slaves.
He brought to the minds of the southern slave-owners that they “had joined the north, almost unanimously, in declaring the African slave trade piracy, and in annexing to it the punishment of death.” Lincoln declared that by so doing they had recognized that selling slaves was wrong. He also pointed out that hundreds of thousands of slaves had been freed by white owners thus showing that they fundamentally recognized the injustice of slavery.
It seems that this same sort of moral reasoning might be brought to bear on the present tragedy of abortion. Those who allow for legalized abortion apply to themselves the label of “pro-choice”. But instead of claiming to be pro-choice, why does one not simply say “I’m pro-abortion”? Could it be that they know fundamentally that abortion is morally wrong and unjust, similar to the slave owners who deep down understood the moral injustice of slavery?
Interestingly enough, everyone I have ever talked with who call themselves pro-choice, and there has been a number, also say that they are against abortion. If that’s the case, then come out with it and say “I’m anti-abortion”.
Besides, the idea of being pro-choice has lost its legitimacy. The pro-choice argument is that a woman has the right of choice to determine what happens with her body. But modern medical science has shown that the fetus in her womb is not really part of her body, only connected with an umbilical cord to it. If the fetus were really part of her body like an arm or leg, then it would have the same DNA and blood type. But the fetus has a completely different DNA and very often a different blood type.
Clearly, there is a strategy being employed by those who have no problem with the putting to death of another human being who happens to be in the womb, and at the earliest stages of their development. And that strategy is to attempt to distract from the practice of abortion by focusing on the claim of what is in fact a false right of choice for the woman.
Sometimes we cannot be distracted by this ploy when it is occasionally dramatically and tragically unmasked. In a recent newsletter update, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of the AUL (Americans United for Life) wrote, “Recent statements by Alisa LaPolt Snow, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood affiliates in Florida, illustrate just how fragile even the most humane legal protections for young children really are in America. The Planned Parenthood lobbyist, testifying against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, in essence called for infanticide in the United States, telling lawmakers that should a living baby survive an abortion, the abortionist and mother should be allowed to say whether that baby may continue to live. While Planned Parenthood has since tried to distance itself, on behalf of Planned Parenthood, Ms. Snow said her organization believes the fate of a child surviving a botched abortion could be death.”
Responding to the Newtown, CT tragedy, many politicians are presently falling all over themselves to enact gun legislation to protect our children, even using grieving parents as political props. But what about the other thousands of children who were slaughtered in their mother’s wombs on that same day? Where was the protection for them?
In the Bible we read what King David long ago wrote concerning himself; “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.” (Psalm 139:13-16)
Note that David doesn’t say that God formed and knit together the ‘thing’ that became David, but instead he says “me”.
Life is precious in the eyes of God who is the giver of life, and He takes a special interest in the weak and the helpless. And who is more weak and helpless than a child in the womb. We read, “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’” (Luke 18:15-17)
“You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 18:21)
One of the means used by Abraham Lincoln in his anti-slavery speeches prior to his presidency and the Civil War was to help the slave-owners examine not only their own hearts, but to know that the very history of the South reflected the fundamental understanding of the humanity of their slaves.
He brought to the minds of the southern slave-owners that they “had joined the north, almost unanimously, in declaring the African slave trade piracy, and in annexing to it the punishment of death.” Lincoln declared that by so doing they had recognized that selling slaves was wrong. He also pointed out that hundreds of thousands of slaves had been freed by white owners thus showing that they fundamentally recognized the injustice of slavery.
It seems that this same sort of moral reasoning might be brought to bear on the present tragedy of abortion. Those who allow for legalized abortion apply to themselves the label of “pro-choice”. But instead of claiming to be pro-choice, why does one not simply say “I’m pro-abortion”? Could it be that they know fundamentally that abortion is morally wrong and unjust, similar to the slave owners who deep down understood the moral injustice of slavery?
Interestingly enough, everyone I have ever talked with who call themselves pro-choice, and there has been a number, also say that they are against abortion. If that’s the case, then come out with it and say “I’m anti-abortion”.
Besides, the idea of being pro-choice has lost its legitimacy. The pro-choice argument is that a woman has the right of choice to determine what happens with her body. But modern medical science has shown that the fetus in her womb is not really part of her body, only connected with an umbilical cord to it. If the fetus were really part of her body like an arm or leg, then it would have the same DNA and blood type. But the fetus has a completely different DNA and very often a different blood type.
Clearly, there is a strategy being employed by those who have no problem with the putting to death of another human being who happens to be in the womb, and at the earliest stages of their development. And that strategy is to attempt to distract from the practice of abortion by focusing on the claim of what is in fact a false right of choice for the woman.
Sometimes we cannot be distracted by this ploy when it is occasionally dramatically and tragically unmasked. In a recent newsletter update, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of the AUL (Americans United for Life) wrote, “Recent statements by Alisa LaPolt Snow, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood affiliates in Florida, illustrate just how fragile even the most humane legal protections for young children really are in America. The Planned Parenthood lobbyist, testifying against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, in essence called for infanticide in the United States, telling lawmakers that should a living baby survive an abortion, the abortionist and mother should be allowed to say whether that baby may continue to live. While Planned Parenthood has since tried to distance itself, on behalf of Planned Parenthood, Ms. Snow said her organization believes the fate of a child surviving a botched abortion could be death.”
Responding to the Newtown, CT tragedy, many politicians are presently falling all over themselves to enact gun legislation to protect our children, even using grieving parents as political props. But what about the other thousands of children who were slaughtered in their mother’s wombs on that same day? Where was the protection for them?
In the Bible we read what King David long ago wrote concerning himself; “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.” (Psalm 139:13-16)
Note that David doesn’t say that God formed and knit together the ‘thing’ that became David, but instead he says “me”.
Life is precious in the eyes of God who is the giver of life, and He takes a special interest in the weak and the helpless. And who is more weak and helpless than a child in the womb. We read, “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.’” (Luke 18:15-17)
“You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 18:21)