Where Hollywood Celebs and popular opinion decry the loss of life in the War in Iraq
calling it a senseless war,
yet say nothing when each day
thousands of innocent lives are cut short prematurely by Abortion
on the streets of Los Angeles, Chicago, New York and every where in-between.
In one of Obama's first Presidential moves this week
he continued with this perplexing line of popular thinking
by revoking our nation's ban on providing governmental aid
to overseas organizations (N.G.O's) who provide information, education
and carry out abortions.
Why are so many in our nation,
so against war
but so eager to support/protect abortion?
I would guess that those who oppose such things as war, the mistreatment of animals,
human trafficking, capital punishment, racism, unequal rights, oppression,
and genocide would also be at the forefront of protecting babies in the womb.
Yet we live in strange times where the proponents and leaders who oppose
the above issues are in fact some of the biggest and most vocal supporters
of abortion.
Does this make sense to you?
Click here to read Obama's comments about rescinding the ban.
The Vatican stepped up and publicly criticized Obama for his eager move this week.
Read their statement here.
Finally, Check Out This Video...
Yes, it is contradictory that Obama would reverse that ban. However, what's even more contradictory is that Republicans, and therefore a majority of Christians, are anti-abortion yet pro death penalty and pro war...
ReplyDeleteI think people are against the war because it affects all of us in our daily life. However, an abortion is individual persons choice and it doesn't affect the whole of society.
Yes, I do see the contradiction in being Pro-life and pro death penalty.
ReplyDeleteI believe those who take this stand justify their position by saying the baby is innocent where the person receiving the death penalty had been convicted of taking a life or lives and deserves justice.
I would argue that an abortion affects our daily lives far more than the war does. Unless you have a family member or friend fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, I hardly see the impact the war is having on our trips to coffee, the store and work.
I don't believe a woman should be given theindividual right to detemine if a baby in womb lives or dies.
Thougts??
the war affects you more than you know... it is bankrupting our country. the government will print the money to pay for it resulting in a devalued money and more expensive coffee...
ReplyDeleteI have always heard that wars stimulate our economy,
ReplyDeletenot bankrupt them.
Although I guess it depends on how long and what type of war it is.
You are probably right in saying the current war affects me more than I realize.
Here is another morality issue I so grapple with...how do we as believers define the world for non-believers.
ReplyDeleteThere is no contradiction if a person does not see a pregnancy as a viable life. That said, the argument is mute. One cannot argue that those walking the earth who are killed in war have already lived. Those in prison, though found guilty of crimes punishible by death are without a doubt, alive. But one can argue the viability of a life in a womb.
I think the discussion, to have any weight, must continue to attempt to show the life of a child in the womb being viable, and worthy of any inconvenience on the mother's part. Until that is agreed upon, the argument is not on level ground.
For those who firmly believe the baby is a life, I see the contradiction, and so, I think it must be prefaced as such, and not assumed a given in any discussion.
Does that make any sense?
C
wars don't stimulate the economy, where did you hear that? the government/media... oh... btw, they also told us the housing crash was contained...
ReplyDelete-different anonymous
I don't mean to hide behind someone else's words,
ReplyDeletebut I feel John Piper's list here is something I agree with as we talk about when life begins.
Check this out
(this comes from Pipet's Blog);
"You will know the truth and the truth will set you free." - Jesus Christ
1. Existing fetal homicide laws make a man guilty of manslaughter if he kills the baby in a mother's womb (except in the case of abortion).
2. Fetal surgery is performed on babies in the womb to save them while another child the same age is being legally destroyed.
3. Babies can sometimes survive on their own at 23 or 24 weeks, but abortion is legal beyond this limit.
4. Living on its own is not the criterion of human personhood, as we know from the use of respirators and dialysis.
5. Size is irrelevant to human personhood, as we know from the difference between a one-week-old and a six-year-old.
6. Developed reasoning powers are not the criterion of personhood, as we know from the capacities of three-month-old babies.
7. Infants in the womb are human beings scientifically by virtue of their genetic make up.
8. Ultrasound has given a stunning window on the womb that shows the unborn at eight weeks sucking his thumb, recoiling from pricking, responding to sound. All the organs are present, the brain is functioning, the heart is pumping, the liver is making blood cells, the kidneys are cleaning fluids, and there is a fingerprint. Virtually all abortions happen later than this date.
9. Justice dictates that when two legitimate rights conflict, the limitation of rights that does the least harm is the most just. Bearing a child for adoption does less harm than killing him.
10. Justice dictates that when either of two people must be inconvenienced or hurt to alleviate their united predicament, the one who bore the greater responsibility for the predicament should bear more of the inconvenience or hurt to alleviate it.
11. Justice dictates that a person may not coerce harm on another person by threatening voluntary harm on themselves.
12. The outcast and the disadvantaged and exploited are to be cared for in a special way, especially those with no voice of their own.
13. What is happening in the womb is the unique person-nurturing work of God, who alone has the right to give and take life.
14. There are countless clinics that offer life and hope to both mother and child (and father and parents), with care of every kind lovingly provided by people who will meet every need they can.
15.Jesus Christ can forgive all sins, and will give all who trusts him the help they need to do everything that life requires.
No worries about "hiding behind someone else's words," you're not hiding. That's a very comprehensive and compelling list. I think it makes a great preface to your blog post. Thank you for posting the list here. I'm printing it out.
ReplyDeleteAlso, for further study, and I don't send this with any sarcasm, only because the dialoge stimulated me, check out:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.answers.com/topic/war-effects-of-war-on-the-economy
Sorry for the cut and past bit....
it's an interesting little read. I'm not saying it's gospel, just a little something I searched up based on the dialogue.
Our culture wants to present abortion as "an individual's choice" but it is not the woman alone who is affected. A woman may say "Get your beliefs off my body," but the father of an unborn child says "Get your forceps off my baby."
ReplyDeleteInteresting....
ReplyDeleteI am most intrigued by the comment/question of defining the world for others. As I reflect on it, I think it may be something that transcends whether one is a "believer" or a "non-believer". If you really live out what you believe -whatever that may be- that would come through on how you live, speak, act,and then in turn vote for example. (Is that what is meant by defining it for others?)I do not see the point in believing in something yet voting or "defining" it differently based on what others believe or are convicted by.
Anonymous, that is an interesting response in regard to defining beliefs etc...but I believe you came at it backwards. I'm not advocating anyone vote or think based on someone else's belief system, I was encouraging a broader perspective; which is exactly what Matt gave. In order to truly have dialogue, it must be compelling. You will never get anywhere in a discussion if you don't agree what you are actually debating about. Matt produced a list that goes outside of Christian doctrine; so whether or not one subsribes to Christian doctrine, one would most likely agree with at least one of those points. I'm not sure if I'm treading in murky water here, in encouraging this broader perspective, but that is more what I meant by defining the world for non-believers: bringing a subject outside of Christian theology, and seeing it still has legs to stand on.
ReplyDelete