Saturday, January 15, 2005

SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE (Abortion, etc) - How Precious It Is!


The death toll of the South Asian earthquake this past Christmas has focused out attention on life and death like nothing else can or will.

If, for the sake of discussion, we set the death toll in South Asia is about 250,000, would you be surprised to hear it will take the United States less than two months to kill that many unborn children? Now that's not including deaths from euthanasia or abuses such as drugs and pornography.

This issue is not just a Christian issue, though it is primarily Christians who are leading the way. The fact is this issue has ramifications which will affect civilization as we know it.


John Piper writes in the Kairos Journal (Member login required) ...
We were buying a dog a few years ago. At the humane society I picked up a brochure on the laws of Minnesota concerning animals. Statute 343.2, subdivision 1 says, “No person . . . shall unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or kill any animal.” Subdivision 7 says, “No person shall willfully instigate or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal.” The penalty: “A person who fails to comply with any portion of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
This set me to pondering the rights of the unborn. An eight-week-old human fetus has a beating heart, an EKG, brain waves, thumb sucking, pain sensitivity, finger grasping, and genetic humanity, but under our present laws is not a human person with rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that “no state shall deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law.”
I wondered, if the unborn do not qualify as persons, it seems that they could at least qualify as animals, say a dog, or at least a cat. Could we not at least charge abortion clinics with cruelty to animals under Statute 343.2, subdivision 7? Why is it legal to “maim, mutilate and kill” a pain-sensitive unborn human being but not an animal?
These reflections have confirmed my conviction never to vote for a person who endorses such an evil–even if he could balance the budget tomorrow and end all taxation.


I was listening to the Laura Ingraham talk show this morning (10 January 2006) and picked-up the following.

The pro-choice folks constantly remind us a fetus is not a viable human being; meaning - if you remove a fetus from its mother's womb and lay it on a table and it dies, it's not viable; if, on the other hand, it survives, it is viable.

A caller made the following point (my paraphrase): "A baby is viable in its environment. In the womb it is cared for and nourished. Let's strip the mother naked and chase her out onto polar ice cap and see if she's viable outside her environment!"

I love it! I absolutely love it!

TAGS: ; ; ; ; ; ;

No comments:

, , ,