Monday, September 08, 2008

Why Pro-Life?

I am pro-life. I don't think that by my saying that many are surprised. However, I'm not pro life in the "I-will-embarrass-maim-brutalize-kill-anyone-with-a-pro-choice" kind of way that seems to be a popular way of trying to get a message across.

I am pro life basically because I believe that there is a beautiful result and benefit from sex besides pleasure, and that is the power to create a new life. Sometimes that power is not exercised (i.e. contraception). But when a sperm and an egg do join, this power is unleashed and life begins. Once that life does begin, to take it away is murder. And finally I care for life in general, both for the mother and for the child that is forming inside of her.

At its core, this is not a political position I am taking; I do not think that this is essentially a "law" issue because if we are honest with ourselves as human beings we would recognize that abortions have occurred over the decades and centuries whether or not it is allowable by law. An overturn of Roe v. Wade is something I do desire because I do believe it is wrong to have a government that is legally sanctioning murder, but I would be ignorant to believe that this would rid our country of the atrocity of abortion.

So why I am writing about this then? Well I read two interesting pieces today that I wanted to share with the audience who reads this blog. The first was an article in the International Herald Tribune on Joe Biden's stance on when life begins, which he says, "I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception."

Here is the rest article

But the other piece I read today was a little more startling. Again, although this is not just a law thing, Roe v. Wade gets most of the attention, yet other laws we have established on the state and federal level are telling of some major inconsistencies in thought. I am reading a book called Why Pro-Life? Caring for the Unborn and Their Mothers by Randy Alcorn. I suggest this read for anyone interested in the issue, regardless of what end of the spectrum from which you are coming. It's really short and an easy read with some compelling evidence. In one section he provides some of the very inconsistencies in the law, which also reveal inconsistencies on where many of our nations leaders stand with regards to the life of an unborn child. Here is what he writes:
At the Medical University of South Carolina, if a pregnant woman's urine test indicates cocaine use, she can be arrested for distributing drugs to a minor. Similarly, in Illinois a pregnant woman who takes an illegal drug can be prosecuted for "delivering a controlled substance to a minor." This is an explicit recognition that the unborn is a person with rights, deserving protection even from his mother.

However, that same woman who's prosecuted and jailed for endangering her child is free to abort that same child. In America today, it's illegal to harm your preborn child, but it's perfectly legal to kill him.

The U.S. Congress voted unanimously to delay capital punishment of a pregnant woman until after her delivery. Every congressman, even if pro-choice, knew that this unborn baby was a separate person, innocent of his mother's crime...

Many states have passed fetal homicide laws, declaring it murder for anyone but the mother to deliberately take the life of a preborn child. These laws are explicit affirmations that the child is a human being. In 2004 Congress passed the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act," which states that someone who "intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child...be punished...for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."

Consider the bizarre implications of this double standard. If a woman is scheduled to get an abortion, but on her way to the abortion clinic her baby is killed in-utero, the baby's killer will be prosecuted for murder. But if this murder doesn't occur, an hour later the doctor will be paid to perform a legal procedure killing exactly the same child (in a way that is probably more gruesome).

To the child, what's the difference who kills her?

This is just one bit of evidence Alcorn provides and find much of his argument compelling, though I know I already come from his perspective on things. If you'd like to hear the rest, again, I suggest picking up the book.

I know people get really worked up over this issue and I am not seeking to start an enormous fire. I am willing to be conversant and hear where people are coming from, discussing it in a civil manner because we are, after all, human beings.

By His Grace.

2 comments:

  1. AMEN, brother! I appreciate you writing about such an enormously controversial issue. Your statement, "An overturn of Roe v. Wade is something I do desire because I do believe it is wrong to have a government that is legally sanctioning murder, but I would be ignorant to believe that this would rid our country of the atrocity of abortion." pretty much sums it up for me. Praying for you friend. Thanks for posting!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello By His Grace. For His Glory,
    I just read with interest your post on the topic of abortion and thought I would share mine with you.
    http://shadows-onthewall.blogspot.com/2011/03/right-to-defend.html
    Regards,
    Shadows On The Wall

    ReplyDelete