Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 13 results found
Once I participated in a debate on California’s Initiative 161 concerning physician-assisted suicide. My opponents charged that I was forcing my religious views on others. They didn’t realize they were making some religious assumptions of their own.
Is life a gift with a transcendent purpose to be fulfilled, or do we own ourselves and have the right to do with our bodies whatever we please? This question can be answered in part with a little reflection. Why do we feel compelled to talk someone out of suicide? Why try to dissuade them? The reason is that we have an intuitive sense that life has transcendent purpose. We're so sure of this that we try to stop people from killing themselves and "wasting" their lives.
Two thoughts here: Why it's not necessary to have a "passion for the unborn" in order to do something meaningful to save them, and why "life chains" may do more harm than good. Our last caller raised an issue I actually intended on talking about today. His question was about pro-life "life chains."The last two nights I was at different crisis pregnancy events-- a maternity home on Friday night and a crisis pregnancy center on Saturday night-- working really hard to raise funds for them. I'll be speaking at another fund-raising banquet later this week.
“Life a ‘beautiful choice?’ It’s not so beautiful for an unwanted child.” Believe it or not, a pastor made this comment. I had to ask myself, “Why isn’t an unwanted child’s life beautiful?” The answer is, because he’s unwanted. But this alone doesn’t make anyone’s life miserable. There’s more to it than this. What makes an unwanted child’s life miserable? Other people do. Unwanted children are unhappy because of the way they’re treated.
If a woman even a teenager, even a minor, even without her parents' consent has an inalienable right to have an abortion, then how does one argue she can't do something less violent to her body than such a medical procedure, and less violent to the body of another human being--the unborn child--than smoking? How does one argue this is no longer an acceptable choice?
The last few years have witnessed a stunning development in the pro-life movement, one worth considering. The problem: More and more pro-lifers refuse to discuss abortion. A new wave of pro-life leaders insist that victory will not be gained if the debate centers principally on the morality of killing the unborn.
A new challenge to the pro-life view is the claim that restrictions on abortion actually force women to become parents against their will. This, of course, sounds like an unconscionable intrusion of government into our private lives.
Disqualifying the unborn’s claim to life because of some physical characteristic—such as the fetus’s primitive level of development or a congenital defect—is precisely what ethnic cleansing is about. Ethnic cleansing is appalling for one simple reason: Valuable human beings are eradicated merely because of some physical difference or “inadequacy.” The person is condemned for his ethnicity. His features--skin, hair or eye color, shape of face, blood ancestry--are different from the accepted norm.
Whenever you hear someone say, “I am personally against abortion, but I don’t think you should pass any laws against it,” one question should immediately be on your lips: “Tell me, why are you personally against abortion?” What you’ll almost always hear is, “I’m personally against abortion because I think it kills an innocent human being, but that’s my personal belief. I don’t think I should force this belief on others.”
Many Jews recoil at the use of the word “holocaust” to describe legalized abortion. To them it’s an offense to the memory of six million Jews who perished under the Third Reich. The Jewish Holocaust was obviously more heinous than the same amount of abortions would be. Let’s think about that for a minute.