Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 143 results found
The bumper sticker says, "If You Can't Trust Me With A Choice, How Can You Trust Me with a Child?" There are some choices no one should be "trusted" with in the sense that the decision is up to them. One of them is the choice to kill innocent human beings. Further, no one is "trusting" the mother with a child. She doesn't need permission to get pregnant. Because of the nature of motherhood, this is properly out of the state's control. If it were in the control of the state, many would be denied that trust.
It doesn’t seem to make sense to say you once were a sperm or an egg. Does it make sense, though, to talk about yourself before you were born? Did you turn in your mother’s womb or kick when you were startled by a loud noise? Did you suck your thumb? Were those your experiences or someone else’s? If you were once the unborn child your mother carried, then you have to accept an undeniable truth: killing that child through abortion would have killed you. Not a potential you. Not a possible you. Not a future you. Abortion would have killed you.
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.
Some say that calling abortion a holocaust is an offense to the memory of six million Jews that perished at the hands of the Third Reich. It's simply not the same. That depends. There does seem to be a sense in which one could decry the tragedy of the abortion holocaust, yet say that the Nazi Holocaust was a greater evil. Both are unspeakably evil, purely on the merit of the number of human lives sacrificed. However, in the case of the Jewish Holocaust, the evil is compounded by the circumstances under which it was done.
Abortion involves killing and discarding something that's alive. Whether it's right or not to take the life of any living being depends entirely upon the answer to one question: What kind of being is it? The answer one gives is pivotal, the deciding element that trumps all other considerations. Let me put the issue plainly. If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate.
If we allowed an abortion under those circumstances it would send a terrible message, that when someone reminds you of something extremely painful you can eliminate them. But you can't kill another human being just because their existence makes your life physically or emotionally burdensome. If I had a law on my desk that restricted abortion except in the cases of rape or incest I would sign it, even though I don't think rape and incest ought to be exceptions. I'd just rather save 98% of the children whose lives are taken through abortion rather than none.
Some observers denounce the use of the word "murder" to describe the destruction of a fetus. Yet this "rhetoric" is completely consistent with California law.
Yes and no. No, because they'd answer for different crimes and, as such, their judgment would be different. Just as there are degrees of sin (see John 19:11), there are degrees of punishment. Jesus said Sodom would fare better than Capernaum in the day of judgment (Matthew 11:24), though each would be condemned. Yes, because each person must ultimately answer for his own sins--Hitler for his, Mother Teresa for hers, you and I for ours. Unless, of course, Jesus is allowed to answer for them.
Second, the notion that God doesn't tamper with our free will presents problems in the area of prayer. For example, what exactly are we asking for when we pray for someone's salvation? Aren't our very words, "God, change this person"? Aren't we asking God to intervene by influencing a person's will in order to elicit a response of faith? It seems difficult to argue that God doesn't tamper with free will and then pray this prayer. The problem doesn't just present itself when praying for someone's salvation, though. It includes prayer for anything involving human agency.