In an attempt to bolster our "global appeal", President Obama has followed former President Clinton's lead and has signed off on the papers that will send OUR money to fund abortions overseas via the UNFPA or The United Nations Population Fund. While this is deplorable on many levels, I want to focus on the abortion aspect.
My first thought is that I remember Obama telling a group of people at the Saddleback Civil Forum that he would be in favor of policies that helped put an end to abortions in the United States. Of course that was then and this is now, after the election. And now he has decided that not only can he help raise the number of abortions nationally, he can now help raise the murder rate of unborn children across the globe.
The UNFPA, also called The Mexico Act, leads to much unscrupulous activity worldwide. The funds we send via the UN now helps fund China's involuntary sterilization programs, and whats worse, coercive abortions; in many countries. And I wonder how this is a policy that reduces the number of abortions.
What I do not wonder about is my view on abortion. It is not above my pay grade to say that life begins at inception. There is no other way to look at it. Regardless of the intellectual view, life must be treated as life at the moment of inception. Otherwise we are trying to walk across a very slippery slope. If we allow the intellectual opinion to be prevalent in the decision of when life begins, there will be no end to who can then be deemed "alive". One of the arguments is that a fetus cannot live outside of it's mother; or it is not life until it can sustain life in itself. That may be one of the most asinine points of the abortion debate. If we measure life by that "intellectual" standard, then my 21 month old little girl would be a candidate for abortion. She cannot sustain life on her own. Neither can many elderly people. People with various handicaps and issues cannot sustain life in their selves. And if we try to listen to the intellectual approach as to when life begins, we ignore all of the intrinsic values of human life. If we continue down this slippery slope, soon "abortion" can be deemed acceptable not only in the third trimester, but outside of the mother's womb. And that is not a thought has occurred to me because I watch too many sci-fi flicks or read too many books about future shock. That is simply following the path of reason that says that life is not life unless it can sustain life in itself. And while many people think that this is just another excited, conservative blogger preaching doomsday, I honestly feel that we should get off of this slippery slope and nip this in the bud; and say that life begins at inception. Case closed.
But the pseudo-intellects and their wannabe proteges will not let this case be closed. I will spare you my opinion on many intellectual programs and their advancement, but read about intellects and their movements in the past. Start with Rousseau. Read about Marx and what was necessary for the advancement of his cause. Look at almost any other "intellectual" since and up to the present time and examine their lives as well as their philosophies. Read how many people and cultures were deemed dispensable for the greater advancement of a cause. Study the exploitation of peoples and the divisions necessary to gain a platform for which to manipulate the masses of ignorant people. Let what you read help you make your decision, not my 2 cent blog.
And I realize that I am taking an unpopular stance and risk sounding like a nut-case. But I view the abortion movement as another intellectual agenda, for lack of a better word, that ignores the intrinsic values of human life but accepts only the realities that considers it's opinion as fact in order to further advance it's own policy, or cause. Regardless of the real harm to any person or people. The view that abortion is not harmful is negligent.
I also think that as long as life is peddled as potentially not existing until a certain stage of development is harmful. That school of thought may ease the guilt of the person who holds that view, but it is not logical, much less ethical. But ethics are a slippery slope in their self. But considering that life only begins at a certain stage is not logical. If life begins only at a certain stage, then what is life doing prior to that stage? And if life is doing nothing prior to that stage, how does life develop? And if we deem that life is doing nothing prior to a stage of sustaining life in itself, don't we ignore the same logical rules by which we present our argument of when life begins? And how does anything develop or adapt if life occurs only at a certain stage and is not life in a prior stage? If that were accurate, wouldn't our growth and development be stagnant?
Life begins at inception. And not because someone in church can quote some random verses from the Bible or because it is a conservative platform that one must follow to be considered to be in the mold of a true conservative. My opinion was not the product of a sermon or a political demographic. So please do not treat it as such.
So I believe that life begins at inception. And I believe that it is wrong, for lack of a better word, to shed Innocent blood. And abortion at any stage is murder. You are taking a life of an innocent person. I also hold the unpopular opinion that when someone says it is a woman's choice to decide what to with their body, in this case, is another illogical fallacy. Who is considering how a woman can treat her body by protecting the life of an innocent child? Eat as much as want and get as many tattoos as you desire. Go to the gym or sit on the couch; do whatever you desire to your own body. But abortion is the ending of a life, not a method of birth control or a dictation of how to treat your body. Birth control by definition prevents eggs and sperm form developing into life; basically a lifeless car wreck inside of a woman's uterus. Life is not terminated by birth control. It is prevented. Abstinence prevents conception. IUDs prevent conception. Pills prevent conception. The rhythm method tries to prevent conception. But an abortion is killing an innocent life that is already alive, not preventing a life from being conceived. So when someone says that it is dictating a woman's right to her choice of birth control, they are using the wrong terminology. The terms must be on the same playing field to be discussed properly, and birth control and abortion are not the same term.
And if someone ignores the logic, and still clings to the idea of birth control being the same terminology as abortion of a life, then what they are actually saying is that only a woman can decide who lives and who dies since women are the the only ones who can give life. Even though they cannot give life without the males sperm. But that opens another can. But the latest argument of my post is that women should be allowed to decide on who lives and dies because they are a woman. And I'm not trying to make this sound preposterous, I am using the logic in which I hear the argument presented. That is what I hear when someone uses that aspect of a woman's right argument.
I want to begin to wrap this up by saying that I am not trying to be judgemental of anyone or determine who is "moral" or "immoral". I am trying to logically present my view on the abortion issue. It is not my place to judge ayone's intention or heart. But I do not find fault with judging actions and words. I do not apologize for my view. I am not ashamed of how I view this issue and I am not ashamed of how I come to my conclusion.
I am also not merely thinking of aspects of this argument logically. The logic is just a method of presenting my argument so those who are following the lead of the intellectual movement can discuss and consider this issue on an even playing field. And while I have tried to leave my emotions out of this today, I cannot ignore them or hide them from my readers either. While my mind's eye has been presented here, my heart's voice has been hushed. I don't intend to go into a personal diatribe about how I feel about abortion. And I do not want to be preachy on the issue either, but I cannot neglect stating my thoughts in this area either. I have no specific Bible verse or anything that supports my view of abortion. And to be honest, I get very frustrated with people who think abortion is wrong because their pastor says so. I hate to hear people quote a verse from the Bible out of context and then hide behind it like they have won a moral victory of some sort. If a person feels God supports a certain position, then they need to have a real-life, personal relationship with Him before they appoint themselves as His bodyguard and spokesperson.
But I do feel that God is against abortion. And while that is enough for me, it may not be enough for you. Look at the logic. Study some of the things that I have mentioned. Draw your own conclusions. Let the truth be the truth. But never forget that God loves all of us and that Jesus died for all of us and that the Holy Spirit will counsel all of us. God loves the "unborn" life just as He loves the born. He does not wait for a certain stage of development to occur before He loves. He doesn't wait until the issue is even to His pay grade to love. He understands the terms and the logic. And He loves the handicapped as much as He loves the physically gifted. He loves the degenerate as much as the intellectual as much as the missionary. God loves the elderly and the criminal and the preacher and the murderer and the blogger all equally. And I have no certain verse of the Bible to support that, but the ENTIRE Bible to support that.
So I encourage all of us to pray about the direction our country needs to go on this abortion issue. And I do not mean to say that I hope everyone comes to my way of thinking. If that is how we pray, we should just save our breath. I will pray for the truth to be the truth and that if I am wrong to please let me see it. I pray this way on all issues in my life. I encourage all of us to see life as God does, not to reduce life to a decision of a logical lesser of evils. I encourage all of us to consider all of the intrinsic values of every individual and not to listen to who is valued by an intellectual code. I hope that we can be respectful of each other as we move forward on this issue.
Morehouse Flood 2011
7 years ago