“I’m pro-life, but I don’t want to impose my views on
others.” Have you heard this argument
before? I bet you’d have never heard
this one, though: “I’m an abolitionist,
but I don’t want to impose my views on slaveholders.” Or this: “I oppose torture and terror, but I
don’t want to impose my views on Hitler’s Nazis.”
The truth is that if you are truly pro-life, this means you
believe that human life begins at conception, and that each of us got our start
as unique human beings at the moment of conception. If you are truly pro-life, that means that
you understand that purposefully stopping a human being from continuing to live
is killing.
I hope it goes without saying that killing an innocent
person is wrong, and this is not a matter of opinion that is open to political
correctness. If we believe that there
should be laws in place to prevent and/or punish murder, then this should not change
based on the age of the victim.
Now, if you believe that every woman should have a legal
right to terminate the life of her unborn baby if she so chooses, then you are
“pro-choice”.
But please don’t patronize real pro-lifers, people who stand up
for the dignity of human life, by associating with them only when they stand
unopposed. If you are willing to look
the other way as innocent babies are killed in the womb, then you are not “pro-life”;
you are “pro-choice”. There is no such
thing as “pro-life, but…”
I’ve also heard of pro-lifers being accused of being
“one-issue” voters. Actually, I’ve
fallen into this trap myself. My
political interests include immigration reform, affordable healthcare,
renewable energy, peace. But what am I
really saying when I choose a candidate who seems to want to do so much good …
for those of us who survived our mothers’ pregnancies? That I only care about those issues that have
a direct effect on me personally?
If a candidate were running for president, and his proposed
policies on the economy, healthcare, foreign policy, taxes, education, social
security, energy, immigration, etc. all aligned with your views, and you
believed he could deliver on all of these, BUT one of his domestic policies
involved Jewish concentration camps or the enslavement of African-Americans,
would you still vote for him?
No? You wouldn’t be willing to sacrifice a segment of the
population for the sake of improvement in quality of life for the rest of us?
So how is the killing of babies before they are born any different?
And in reality, let’s not kid ourselves that abortion
doesn’t affect those of us who do not face unplanned pregnancies. A nation that allows the slaughter of the
innocents will not stand up for any segment of society when it is difficult or
unpopular. A nation that looks the other
way when abortions kill so many of our next generation is a nation that is not
connecting the dots between abortion and other societal evils.
Allowing a woman to abort her child instead of providing
affordable child-care for her so she can continue her education or keep her job
is not “pro-woman”. Allowing women to
abort their unborn children instead of opposing the portrayal of
women as sex-objects throughout the mainstream media is not “pro-woman”. Allowing exceptions for abortion in the case
of rape without increasing the penalty for the rapists is also not “pro-woman.”
Speaking of exceptions for abortion, let’s be real. If we believe that abortion kills, then how
is the baby conceived in rape any different from a baby conceived within a loving marriage? If we allow one woman to have an abortion but not the other,
then what we are saying is that if the woman chose to have sex, she deserves
the consequences of her actions. With
this mentality, criminalizing abortion is a punishment for the woman who chose
to have sex. This is in no way
“pro-woman”. (And by the way, pro-choicers are no more fond of this "exception" than I am. See here.)
Pregnancy is not a “punishment”. It is
the natural result of sexual relations.
Obviously, it’s not fair for a woman who did nothing to put herself into
this situation to continue to suffer the consequences of the violence done
against her. But is more violence really
the answer?
Maybe you have heard this observation before: The problem
with an eye for an eye is that everyone ends up blind. What’s more, why is the innocent child being
punished for the violence brought against his mother? Why are we not focusing on the criminal, the
rapist, the hater of women?
Deuteronomy 24:16 states: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers."
It’s so sad
that innocent children must pay as a sort of reparation for the sin of their
biological fathers. It means that our
nation participates in a form of human sacrifice, the appeasement of feminists
who desperately grasp at straws to find restitution for the evil of rape. (I don’t mean any disrespect to feminists by this. I used to identify myself as a feminist, but
that’s for another post.)
What I think a “pro-choice” candidate is doing is trying to
get the feminist vote by pretending to be “pro-woman” while not bothering to
make hard decisions that would actually improve women’s lives, prevent the
sexualization of young girls, encourage women to value themselves by means
other than their physique. Not doing all
these things but being “pro-choice” is nothing more than a cop-out.
And so this is how I came to realize that if I call myself
pro-life, then I must vote pro-life.
Liberty and the pursuit of happiness have meaning only if life is
respected first. Therefore, I vote
pro-life.
Psalms 139:13-14
For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb.
I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.
I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.
No comments:
Post a Comment