whaleI’ve been pondering during my free time for the past weeks, ever since Justice Kennedy’s announcement of retirement from the supreme court. The clamor from the left has hit max, and it is largely focused on women’s reproductive rights. I’ve been listening and observing from those concerned about Trump’s pick to replace Kennedy. I paid attention before, and after, Trump announced whom he would like to fill the vacancy.
While listening, I never thought my stance on abortion would change, but it has. This change has been percolating for years, but I didn’t realize it until the day after Brett Kavanaugh was nominated by President Trump and the left went into overdrive, concerned about Roe v. Wade. My philosophy has changed, and it will never revert. I thank the left and the often-called “militant” feminists. However, and ultimately, it was two individuals who gave me the fortitude to change, a man long dead, and someone who will always have a permanent focal point in my life: John Quincy Adams, and God.
So, what personal philosophy has changed within me? I am still what most would call pro-life. I’ve been that way ever since I became aware of abortion. I’m still that way. Then why did I say my stance on abortion has changed? Because it has. I took the stance of being silent on the issue, keeping my personal philosophy to myself. No longer. Silence in the face of evil is evil. As a Christian, I am Biblically mandated to not be silent in the face of evil.
I want to be clear about something before I explain my thoughts. I will not become militant about my philosophy, I will not become violent towards those that are pro-abortion, and I condemn those that do become violent towards those whom are pro-abortion. I will never support an organization that condones or participates in violent acts towards those that are pro-abortion. I will not vilify, hate, or speak ill of most women who seek abortions. Most of them, I do not and will not fully understand their situations. I will likely always disagree with their decision to abort, but I will not, in my mind or writing, condemn them to hell. One thing I will do is address those who are militantly pro-abortion. For example: Planned Parenthood is evil. These militants are not pro-choice. They don’t want women to choose. They want them to abort.
In this writing, when I refer to “militant” pro-abortion people, I refer to those that always rally for abortion, those that wear abortion t-shirts, those that wear hats that represent vaginas, those that get pregnant just so they can abort, those that call me and other pro-life citizens hateful, ignorant, and fascistic, those who vote solely on their holy sacrament of abortion.
To The Pro-choice (Non-Militant) Ladies
I have talked and listened to some of you. I understand that you feel that limiting your ability to abort infringes on your liberty. No one likes liberty being taken away. It’s an awful feeling. Having a baby is life changing, whether you raise the baby or give the child to adoptive parents. I know it can be scary and it can shake you to your core. I can understand. I do not agree with the conclusion that abortion is the answer, but I can still empathize.
Please offer me the same understanding by listening to my belief and perspective. Science is changing all the time. We do not know when consciousness or self-awareness occurs absolutely. Some scientists think they know, and abortion militants cite them, but they ignore the fact that science is always changing. At the turn of the 19th into the 20th century, scientist claimed that all scientific discoveries had been made. Einstein and Oppenheimer proved those scientists wrong. My point, consciousness may occur even earlier than what we now believe. I whole-heartedly plead that if we error, we should error on the side of life beginning at conception, or at a maximum, very shortly after.
It is my perspective that the joining of sperm and egg is the creation of life, not a creation of globulous cells. This power to create is god-like and god-given. We therefore have a responsibility to use this power wisely, and to honor and protect the life we create.
Before I write more about abortion, I need to explain some points about the judiciary and the supreme court. I strongly suggest you read the next few sections, since it will explain why abortion is not a constitutional right. I hope it will open your eyes concerning the out-of-control judiciary and the uselessness of laws if our judiciary continues on the path it is legislating. If you don’t want to read this, click here to jump down to read more about my stance on abortion.
The Judiciary Has become An Arm of Tyranny
On this point, I want to start off with mentioning my disgust towards the supreme court, and other judicial courts, for hijacking legislative powers from congress. Yep, we, as citizens, allowed the hijacking to take place, but the supremes, and lower courts, willingly took the power. The supreme court and the rest of the judiciary are nothing like what the framers intended.
“Separate but equal” is not a constitutional phrase or a philosophy derived from The Constitution or its framers. The three branches of government are separate and distinct. Constitutionally, the supreme court is not the ultimate authority in this country. The ultimate authority is congress, and the people. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #78:
…the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.
In regards to appellate cases, if we don’t like the opinion of the nine unelected, and sometimes dictatorial, individuals of the supreme court, we can constitutionally ignore their opinion. Yes, it is their opinion. Read the statements from the court. They don’t say “We rule” or “The ruling of the court is…” the statements begin, “It is the opinion…” This isn’t merely tradition. It is because the supreme court, and the rest of the federal judiciary branch, has no power of enforcement. Power of enforcement comes from the executive, and in some ways, from the legislative. It is up to these two branches, and ultimately the people, to give each supreme court opinion validity (more on the lack of enforcement power a bit later). Furthermore, congress can pass a statute forbidding the supreme court from hearing an appellate case, limiting their jurisdiction.
…the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. (Article III, Section II).
Constitutionally, the only original jurisdictions the supreme court has are issues between states, treaties, and issues regarding ambassadors, consuls, etc. Law students, law professors, and lovers of the power of the judiciary will quote case law, or common law, to counter this point. Case law is not based on The Constitution, or the original intent of the founders. Case law and precedent are incestuous and not founded on the principles of liberty. I have little respect for case law. Case laws feed themselves, run out of control, regardless of the will of the people or their representatives. Case law leads to judicial activism. Judicial activism is tyranny. Laws need to come from the legislative branches, not from the judicial branches.
RELATED POST: Judicial Myth: The Judiciary is Equal To The Other Two Branches
Progressives, and other dark influences, have come to rely on the tyranny of the judicial branch because it is the easiest way to promote the progressive agenda. This agenda has a much more difficult path through the constitutional legislative process, which is what the framers intended. These progressives in the 20th century helped the whole federal judicial system gain more power. Much of this occurred under the watch and influence of FDR and his progressive ilk.
During FDR’s 12 years as president and dictator, he appointed eight supreme court justices, 51 appellate justices, and 133 district judges, knowing most would side with him and his progressive agenda, and ignore The Constitution and its purpose, and ignore the original intent of our founders. Furthermore, he wanted to pack the supreme court with even more seats. This was because he knew congress at the time would not allow him to be a full-blown dictator, so he relied on the tyranny of his justices. He did not respect The Constitution, its principles, or its legislative process.
A lie has been perpetuated about the supreme court: only those on the supreme court seats can understand The Constitution and the original intent of our founders. It is an absolute lie. This lie began to spread in the first half of the 20th century, and became true in the eyes of progressives by the mid 20th century. Up until then, the supreme court did not have the influence and attention it does now. Supreme court vacancies did not stir fear and controversy until the second half of the 20th century, when the supreme court, through imperceptible stages, became the unconstitutional ultimate authority in the land.
The Constitution is not a hard document to read or to understand. There may be a few words that need a definition lookup, and some time may be needed to read The Federalists Papers and other original sources, but the truth is in plain sight, as long as one does his/her best to steer clear of writings that do not depend on original sources or those that depend solely on case law. A warning: there are many history books that source other books which source scholarly journals, which source other books which do not source any original documents. This is why I strive to find original sources, or bibliographies that have paths to original sources. This indeed can be time consuming and tedious, but if truth is the ultimate goal, you need to take the time. The reward is worth it.
Shortly after the country was founded and The Constitution became the law, the city of Washington was meticulously planned. The White House, The Capitol building, other government buildings, the streets, yep, even masonic symbols, were all planned out in detail. But there was no building for the supreme court. This was not an oversight. The supreme court used The Capitol Building when congressional chambers were not being used. This was because the supreme court was intentionally and constitutionally small and limited. They didn’t need their own building.
In Federalist #78, Hamilton stated:
Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
The judiciary has no enforcement power. None. It has no legislative power. None. It is constitutionally small and limited.
Thanks to the progressive uprising of the early 20th century, headed by Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and later FDR, the supreme court gained more influence and stole legislative power, and eventually the supreme court gained its own building under FDR in 1935. Once the supreme court had its own building, it had more relevance, and the great lying phrase “separate but equal” spread, eventually and dubiously making the supreme court the ultimate authority. The understanding by many that only the judiciary can understand The Constitution began to spread.
RELATED POST: Judicial Myth: The Supreme Court Is The Final Arbiter, They can Create Law, And Only They Can Determine Constitutionality
A quick side note about the supreme court building, when the supreme court opines that religious expression and religious symbols in the public square and in government buildings are unconstitutional, they make that opinion surrounded by The Ten Commandments. Moses is carved on top of the supreme court building, carrying The Ten Commandments. The doors that are used to enter the main chamber in the building have The Ten Commandments etched on them. The Ten Commandments are also carved onto other wood fixtures in the main chamber of the court.
A side note to this side note: The National Archives Building has The Ten Commandments embossed on the floor all through the display floors, there is a prayer room in The Capitol Building, and on December 4, 1800 (approved by Thomas Jefferson), congress approved the use of The Capitol Building as a church on Sundays. In the gallery in the chamber of the House of Representatives, watching over the members of the House, in clear view of the Speaker of the House, is a relief of Moses. There are other important figures in the gallery, but only Moses is a full headshot and not a profile, watching over congress and directly at the Speaker of the House. Oh, and on the opposite side of the chamber are the words, “In God We Trust.”
Yet, according to the supreme court and other anti-religion progressives of today, we can’t have religious symbols in public buildings or on public lands. The supremes of 1935 had no problem with religious expression or religious symbols in the public square or in public buildings, but their common law (or case law), and “living constitution” philosophy eventually allowed future courts to adopt a hostile stance towards religion.
RELATED POST: Separation of Church And State: Not What You Think It Is
Judicial Activism and The Living Constitution
Many federal judges, not just those seated on the supreme court, commit judicial activism, otherwise known as creating law from the bench, on a regular basis. This is because of their education from progressive law professors who subscribe to the “living constitution” philosophy of interpreting The Constitution. With this philosophy, judges ignore The Constitution as it is written and ignore the original intent of the framers because The Constitution is a living document. Because it is a living document, it can be re-interpreted to accommodate the social needs of modern-day America, otherwise known as progressivism. They argue that the founders never intended The Constitution to be a rigid inflexible document and that the same founders knew that they could not foresee needs of future generations. Therefore, we can and should adapt The Constitution by re-interpreting its words and intent, and by filling in the gaps.
This transformation of the judiciary and the way they interpret and judge began in the late 1800’s with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Evolution became a cultural philosophy for many in politics and in some schools of higher education. Not just evolution of species, but evolution of thought, religion, politics, society, and law. In the minds of these progressives, there were no longer any eternal principles or eternal absolutes. So long to eternal truths. We started to become a nation of men, not of laws. Well, not of laws as they were written.
This is evident in the opinions and writings of Oliver Wendell Holmes, who published The Common Law in 1881 and later became a supreme court justice in 1902. The most famous phrase from The Common Law, which summarizes its theme is, “The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience.” In other words, judges can’t use reason, history, or even facts when dealing with the law, they must interpret the law based on their own philosophies, and on the philosophies of other judges, in other words, case law. What is the point of having law then? Let’s just be ruled by unelected judges who may change their opinion at any given time.
Holmes states in his opinion of State of Missouri v. Holand (1920):
The case before us must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago.
The eternal principles found in The Constitution were no longer eternal, but evolutionary.
Holmes believed that the common law allowed him and other judges to legislate from the bench. Why? Because there were interstices, or gaps, in the law. In Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, Holmes wrote:
I recognize without hesitation that judges do and must legislate, but they can do it only interstitially.
Because The Constitution doesn’t specifically forbid the federal government on every possible issue it can, and because The Constitution isn’t specific enough (in the eyes of the judges) on how the federal government is to execute laws and regulations, there is therefore a gap that judges are allowed to fill in, rather than the constitutional legislative branch. So-called “constitutional rights” have been created this way. The right to abortion, the right to marriage, the right to sodomy, the right to smoke pot, the right to not have hurt feelings, all have come from the bench rather than the legislative branches. If judges truly respect and honor our constitution, and if they see gaps in the law, they should show that respect and honor by letting the constitutional legislative branch fill in the gaps.
This “living constitution,” or evolutionary, philosophy ignores the two main purposes of The Constitution and its first ten amendments: to establish the government and the keystone law of the land, and to protect individual liberty. I ask again: if we can and should re-interpret and modify the meaning of The Constitution at will, what is the point of having a constitution? Why not just throw out the whole thing and let judges rule us?
The “living constitution” philosophy, which believes the framers knew they could not foresee future needs, ignores two solutions for this problem, solutions that are in The Constitution itself: the Tenth Amendment, and the amendment process. True, ratifying an amendment is difficult, but this is to ensure that the will of the people is fulfilled, and not the will of tyrants. Judicial activists and progressives know this is the real legal way to adapt The Constitution, but they know the people as a whole will not approve the anti-religious and progressive agendas of the same activist judges. So these judges cite the “living constitution” or “common law” model of interpreting the law, creating new rights from the bench, and bypassing the legislative and amendment process, tyrannically changing the law, rights, and liberties.
Another path to address needs not foreseen by the founders is the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
In other words, if a need arises, and a solution isn’t already presented in The Constitution or forbidden by The Constitution, each state can figure out how they are to address the need in their own state. Rather simple. But progressives don’t like this. This is why they always run to the judiciary, so they can bully states that don’t adopt their progressive philosophy.
If we are talking pure politics, marriage is not mentioned in The Constitution, therefore, decisions regarding marriage fall to the states. Some states legalized homosexual marriage, other states like mine, passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between a man and woman. Rather than being content with some wins, and letting the states legally decide themselves, homosexual militants ran to the judiciary. Now, several citizens think that homosexual marriage is now law, although no law from the U.S. congress or constitutional amendment has been passed regarding marriage. My state, Idaho, and its people were bullied into complying to the will of the homosexual militants and the supreme court tyrants. Comply, or else. In reality, government has no business getting involved with marriage, since it is not government’s jurisdiction, but God’s.
Even more disgusting is that the judiciary is now using foreign law to legislate from the bench, because our own laws do not support their progressive philosophies. In 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, the supreme court expressed the opinion that sodomy was a constitutional right. In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy cited the European Court of Human Rights. Additionally, Justice Ginsberg stated in 2012:
I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa.
Her reasoning? The U.S. Constitution is too rigid in order to prevent government overreach, it is too old and, it creates too weak of a judiciary. It’s not progressive enough. Her statement shows nothing but disdain and irreverence for our constitution, for our laws. This, and many others of her statements, absolutely qualify her to be unseated. The Constitution does not guarantee a lifetime appointment for federal judges, it only promises that judges may serve under a time of “good behavior”. She is not qualified to make fair judgments with our constitution as the keystone law.
The judiciary department has morphed far beyond what the framers envisioned. The judiciary has become the equivalent of King George of 1776. They legislate and create new rights from the bench, citing The Constitution, all the while ignoring the same constitution, original intent, and the will of the states, the people, and their laws.
Abortion Is Not A Constitutional Right
One of these rights these activist judges have created from the judicial ether is the “right” to abortion.
Despite what the supreme court tyrants have said, and despite what pro-abortion militants cite, no one has a super right to abort human life. From what words in The Constitution do they think they get this “right?” They get this “right” from two words in the Fourteenth Amendment: “due process.”
Yep, out of those two words comes the super right of abortion. Oh, and the super right for homosexuals to get married. Oh, and lots of other rights that aren’t really rights. The supremes use the “due process” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to unconstitutionally legislate from the bench, and create “rights” that go beyond the founders’ vision of our republic and the will of the people.
The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified to help aid reconstruction after The Civil War, and to extend clearly written constitutional rights to former slaves, and to ensure these former slaves would not be denied life, liberty, or property, based on their race, by any state in the country. Nothing to do with abortion.
However, with those two words, so many people think that women have the constitutional right to abort. A super majority of citizens have no idea that Roe v Wade shakily and dubiously rests on just two words that have nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.
According to our founding documents, one of government’s jobs is to secure life. Therefore, the federal government should stop abortion. But let’s just pretend that isn’t a job of government and explore the “right” of abortion another way., The Constitution mentions nothing about abortion, therefore, the issue falls to each state to regulate abortion in their own borders. But thanks to citizens being uneducated and absorbed in the culture of death and selfishness, and thanks to Roe v Wade and other supreme court opinions, states have been bullied into complying despite the will of their people. Abortion has yet to be officially legalized at the federal level by the legislative branch, yet, every state complies with the tyrannical judicial branch. Why is the judicial branch so feared? They have no power of enforcement. None. I can understand the desire and need to respect our system, but the system is out of control and is no longer following constitutional law. We may as well throw out The Constitution and be subjects to judges and other tyrants. I would prefer that congress use its constitutional power and shackle the tyrannical judiciary.
Abortion Is Not A Reproductive Right
If there is a baby growing in the womb of a woman, she has already reproduced. If she cannot handle the natural biological consequences of sex, then she should not engage in sexual activity.
But what if spending time raising the baby will negatively affect her career and dreams? Shouldn’t she have the right to choose? Absolutely she has the right to choose. She can choose whether or not to engage in sexual activity.
What about if a woman doesn’t consent to sex, but still gets pregnant? Obviously, that is a different situation. I’m not referring to those few, but horrific, instances. Rape, incest, the mother’s immediate physical health, and a lack of viability of the life growing within the woman, may all be worthy of consideration of very early termination of the pregnancy. However, this decision should be taken very seriously and under the council of clergy and qualified medical professionals. NOTE: I no longer consider abortion an option in the case of rape or incest. See the end of this post for more.
“My body, my choice!” is a frequent wail from militant pro-abortion people. Again, it is absolutely their choice. It is their choice whether or not to engage in sex. Once they have participated in sexual activity and created life, it is a different body growing inside. It’s not their body. It’s not a reproductive choice to abort. They’ve already reproduced. They may feel that carrying the baby to term infringes on their liberty, but what about the liberty of the baby growing inside?
Decisions have consequences. They chose to have sex, a consequence of creation occurred. Terminating this consequence out of convenience is selfish.
What Can Be Done?
As mentioned, one of my inspirations regarding my new stance on not being silent is John Quincy Adams. Once he made up his mind to be anti-slavery, he never backed down. There were times that he had no apparent friends in his professional circles. He often felt like a lone voice in a vast wilderness. He did not let this deter him from what he knew to be right. This anti-slavery philosophy was not of men, it was a biblical philosophy. John Quincy Adams, the only person in US history to serve in congress after being president, was a devoted student of The Bible. He knew biblical principles. He new that liberty, as it is classically defined, was based on eternal principles found in The Bible. Liberty was for all, and slavery was evil.
Adams so wearied others in congress with his anti-slavery agenda, they issued a gag rule, forbidding the introduction of any talk concerning anti-slavery, but Adams cleverly used parliamentary tactics to bypass these anti-democratic rules. His anti slavery stance made some representatives of the south refer to him as “the acutest, the astutest, the archest enemy of southern slavery that ever existed.” Some members of congress called for Adams to be officially censured.
It seemed as if Adams efforts were completely futile. A reporter asked him about his continual, yet seemingly worthless, efforts to emancipate slaves when no one else appeared to be standing with him. Adams responded, “Duty is ours, results are God’s.”
I don’t know exactly how to go about doing it, but I will no longer be silent on the issue of rampant abortion. I think that the actress Patricia Heaton, who is pro-life, has the right philosophy: to be pro-life, and also be compassionate.
I don’t think the militant culture of abortion will ever go away. I find it highly unlikely, but even if the supreme court “struck down” Roe v. Wade, the regulation of abortion will fall, as it should, to the states. Several states will legalize abortions. For those militants whose holy sacrament is abortion, they will always have an abortion church to attend so they can abort out of convenience. Forcing militant abortion supporters to never abort again will not change the abortion culture, therefore, nationwide legislative action, or amendments to The U.S. Constitution will net no lasting affect because the abortion zealots will likely always have the tyrannical judiciary to run, whaling about “rights” infringement.
I would love the judiciary to revert to the traditional and logical model of interpreting the law. I encourage us all to take action to make this occur. This will take several generations, and a change of education of lawyers, far beyond my capabilities. One thing I can do, however, is helping educate those around me and those who read this blog.
We can also elect wise men and women who may appoint justices in national, state, and local courts. We can also choose men and women into the legislature who will stand up for The Constitution and exercise constitutional authority and shackle the tyrannical judiciary.
All those efforts are worthy, and I think we should work towards them, letting God manage the results. However, as I have pondered on the culture of abortion and other evil influences on society, I have concluded that our focus should be on cultural influences. We need to change the culture. And we must do it now. Hollywood is beginning to produce pro-abortion dramas and comedies. The progressives have learned that entertainment can influence and change society. Modern Family helped normalize homosexual relationships, and it helped normalize pornography. Premarital and pervasive sex, affairs, instant gratification, selfishness, drinking, drug use, vigilantism, goals of being a single mom, the worthlessness of men, have all been normalized by much of Hollywood. We cannot let them normalize abortion and the culture of death.
How can we change or influence the culture? I know that one way is to be wise with the entertainment we consume. The more we watch a show with a progressive agenda, the more influence it has over us. The people making the shows will see the large audience numbers, and know that their agenda is supported, or tolerated, giving them more ability to produce more shows that normalize other variant philosophies.
On what kind of entertainment do you spend your money and your time? If you complain about the filth and deviance on TV and in movies, and you watch the same filth and deviance, studios have no incentive to change. Do you watch and tell others about family-friendly shows with depictions of traditional values? There are many Christian-based studios that are struggling to find ways to appeal and market to a wider audience. Let’s help them by spreading the word about their content. On a more personal note, if any Christian-based, or traditional-values studio heads or entertainment executives are reading this and need stories, writers, or ideas, please contact me. I love creating wholesome entertainment.
As cheesy as it sounds, we need to offer encouragement to pro-life people in Hollywood. Send them a tweet or a Facebook post, stating that you appreciate their positive influence in the entertainment industry. This will encourage them, and others, to produce family-friendly, pro-life, content.
Our own behavior towards the non-militant pro-choice people will also make a difference. Know that engaging with militants who celebrate each abortion, those that get pregnant just so they can abort, etc., will only add noise to the havoc. We should instead focus on being loving, understanding, kind, and empathetic to the non-militants. I think it is important to realize that many of the non-militant pro-choice girls and women don’t all have a religious upbringing. They may not have a spiritual foundation to help support them during deep emotional struggles and very real fears that come after an unplanned pregnancy. Just because they did something that you would never have done (engage in sexual activity when they weren’t ready to handle its consequences) doesn’t mean they do not need or do not deserve our empathy and help. We can have a positive influence in their lives and help them cope with the challenges that pregnancy brings.
I believe positively influencing those girls and women in need will help change the culture, and will hopefully trickle-up to legislative action. I also think those of us that are pro-life, and compassionate, should seek out charities that actually help women and girls. In talking with non-militant pro-choice women, I have learned that one of their criticisms of many pro-life citizens is that the pro-life movement claims to support life, the unborn child, but they do nothing to help a single mother in need to support her child. Put yourself in the shoes of a single pregnant woman in her early twenties with no education and no substantial career prospects. How is she going to raise her baby. Will her baby starve to death at age two because mom is suffocating in debt with no adequate housing? That would be a crippling fear. If we truly care about that child before she is born, we need to care for her equally after she is born, regardless of the mother’s political or religious philosophies. For her to have some reassurance that there are others in her community that will be willing to help her get an education, training, a better career opportunity, financial and medical assistance, etc. may help encourage her to not abort, but to go forward with faith and hope that she and her baby can survive.
As Christians, we are biblically mandated to help the poor and needy. I have yet to find any qualifier to that godly mandate. I think we have to put our money where our mouths are. The fact that we pay taxes that may go to helping with such needs is not sufficient. We have to change, and that change can only come if we give specifically to a specific need. If we are pro-life, we must be charitable to help support the life when the support is needed. If anyone reading this knows of an honest charity that helps mothers in need, please post the information in the comments.
I really feel that our individual influences on those in our community will have the deepest and longest lasting effect on lessening the abortion culture.
One Final Thought
If you have ever read history and thought, “I would have been an abolitionist and stood up, demanding the freeing of slaves!” please consider the following.
Pro-abortion folk use the same arguments that pro-slavery folk did prior to, during, and after the civil war. Modern-day pro-lifers are equal to the abolitionists of the 19th century. If you would have stood up against slavery then, you must stand up to promote the protection, and support, of life now.
Slave Owner: “I can’t afford to free my slaves, my business will suffer.
Pro-abortion: “I can’t afford it, it will impact my career and lifestyle.”
Owner: “I’m not forcing you to own slaves, leave me alone.”
Pro-abortion: “I’m not forcing you to abort, leave me alone.”
Owner: “Slaves are my property, I can choose what to do with them.”
Pro-abortion: “It’s my body, I can choose what to do with it.”
Owner: “My rights come before the rights of slaves.”
Pro-abortion: “My rights come before the rights of the fetus.”
Owner: “If my slaves are freed, they will suffer, living on the streets without a job and starve.”
Pro-abortion: “If all these unwanted babies are born, they will end up on the streets and suffer.”
Owner: “There’s no point in arguing about it, slavery has been upheld by the supreme court.” (Side note: Lincoln legally ignored the supreme court on this matter)
Pro-abortion: “There’s no point in debating it , the supreme court says I have the constitutional right to abortion.”
Owner: “Slaves aren’t really people. They have no rights”
Pro-abortion: “Fetuses are not babies. They have no rights”
Owner: Slavery has been practiced for eons. It is our heritage!”
Pro-abortion: “Abortion has been legal for decades, it is our right!”
History is going to judge us, just like we do towards the slave culture of the early part of our country’s history. Let’s be on the right side. Let’s unapologetically and proactively stand for life.
I no longer consider abortion an option in the case of rape or incest. If life is sacred, which I whole heartily believe, then why have an exception for rape or incest?
Well, rape is such an evil act, it is an abhorrent violation in every aspect, how on earth could I justify further pain for the woman by forcing her to cary the baby to term and to delivery? Having the constant reminder of violation and the result of the heinous act? I understand this point. But this argument only considers the mother and not the life of the baby.
A life has been created. Why execute this life, why snuff it out, why punish this innocent life because of the crime of his father? I cannot justify any reason to extinguish this innocent life.
But what about the mother? Are we to just ignore her plight, her anguish, her mental health, her future? Nope. She is just as innocent as the baby. She deserves aid and protection, just as the baby does. She should receive any health, social, and financial aid, preferably from private sources, but from the public if necessary, for as long as she needs.
Similar arguments and points apply to the case of no exemptions for incest. But what about possible birth defects as a reason for abortion? Well, that is a legit concern, but any argument you make on that logic path will also have to be made to abort babies with down syndrome. Furthermore, this same quality-of-life argument could be made for eugenics and undesirables, the same thought process that aided the holocaust.
Furthermore, rapists and child molesters depend on abortion to get away with their crime. Abortion is the elimination of DNA evidence of their heinous act.
Life is sacred. Period. The cause of how life is created should not determine its value.