Royal Babies, Abortion, and Birth Defects: Why Are We So Confused?

Royal Wedding of William and Catherine Duke & ...

Royal Wedding of William and Catherine Duke & Duchess of Cambridge (Photo credit: Defence Images)


My friend Denny Burk asked an incredibly insightful question: Why don’t we call it the royal fetus?  The remark, of course, was in reference to Prince William and his lovely bride Kate Middleton, who are—as we used to say—“with child.”  They are expecting. But what are they expecting?


Well, they are not expecting a fetus. They are not expecting a pony, a kitten, an alligator, or a gorilla.  They aren’t expecting a collective mass of biological matter.  They are expecting a baby, and everyone knows it. No one wonders about their fetus.  Folks wonder about the child. They wonder about a prince or a princess, but not a fetus.  Denny supposes the only difference between the baby developing in the womb of the Duchess of Cambridge and a baby abiding in the womb of a mother seeking an abortion is that one baby is wanted, and the other is not:


What is the difference between this “royal baby” and the unborn child in the womb of a mother in the waiting room of an abortion clinic? There’s no intrinsic difference in terms of their humanity. The only difference is that one is wanted and the other is not. Thus, the one gets the status of “baby” and the other is euphemized as a fetus, blastocyst, or blob of cells.


Denny is so helpful in this observation. He helps us to see again that there is an impalpable hypocrisy in our social psyche when it comes to abortion.  We all know it’s a baby, but we allow euphemisms like “fetus” to persist so we don’t have to admit the obvious (to ourselves).  By and large, Americans still are not at ease with abortions. Thus, we live in a contradictory world of human hypocrisy.


We say that women should have access to a “full range of reproductive services,” but we also say abortions should be “safe, legal, and rare.”  Just to be clear, abortions are never safe for the baby. But still we say things like this to mask the “yuck” factor of facing what abortion really is.


Alcohol abortion hypocrisy pregnancyIf you were to imbibe tonight in your favorite bottle of Belgian ale, you would be subjected to the government’s warning label, cautioning pregnant women to think twice before partaking of a potentially toxic cocktail. Alcohol may cause birth defects—meaning, alcohol affects your baby. It’s probably best not to drink this product while your baby is developing in your womb.  The glaring hypocrisy of such a warning is this: The same women who are warned not to drink this beer because it could damage their developing child are also told by the same laws that it is fine to dismember the child and remove it altogether through abortion. Why care about a baby’s defect if we’re not supposed to worry about its death by abortion?


O, that God would finally rid us of this demonic curse we are under that diminishes the value of human beings created in His image!  We are hypocrites. We protect the eaglet so it develops in its nest, and we protect babies from mothers who drink beer, but we will not protect babies from abortions. How twisted and confused we have become!



Does the Bible Condemn Abortion?

I hear a common refrain from those who favor abortion. It usually goes something like, “The Bible is silent on abortion,” or “the Bible never condemns abortion.” Is this true? Is it true that the Bible does not speak to abortion?

On the surface it appears true that the bible does not condemn abortion. There is no text which says, “Thou shalt not commit

Moses with the tablets of the Ten Commandments...

Moses with the tablets of the Ten Commandments, painting by Rembrandt (1659) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

abortion.” However, on those literal terms, there is no text which says, “Thou shalt not initiate a nuclear holocaust.” Yet, we somehow think that would be a bad thing and probably not something God wants us to do. Must we have a verse which explicitly says, “Do not put Jewish people in a gas chamber” in order to know that it’s wrong to do it?  It’s a bit simplistic to say the Bible does not condemn abortion. It certainly does.

In the 10 Commandments, we read, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13).  The word murder (in the original Hebrew) refers not to killing in general, but to the specific, determined effort to end a human life.  Often, it is translated “manslayer.”  This command does not forbid all human killing. It does not forbid killing in war or conducting executions for the sake of justice.  But the question is whether or not it forbids killing a life in the womb. I think it does, and I will share with you the two reasons why.

First, Moses (who wrote Exodus) does speak to the issue of abortion in the very next chapter after writing the “You shall not murder” commandment. In Exodus 21:22-25, Moses writes the famous “eye for an eye” passage (called the Lex Talionis, or the law of retaliation). The point of that passage is not to encourage blood-thirsty people to seek vengeance. Rather, the point is to keep the punishment in proper relation to the crime. If a foot is injured, you cannot gouge out a person’s eyeballs in return.

What is almost always missed when this passage is read or quoted is the fact that it is spoken in the context of a pregnant woman being accidentally struck by men who are in a fight. “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth… yet there is no further injury… “(Exodus 21:22)–then the result is to pay a  fine in accordance with the demands of the woman’s husband. But if there is further injury (to the woman or the child?) then the law of retaliation holds: life for life.

While it is not certain what further injury is in view in this passage, the principle holds either way: Do not fight near a woman who is pregnant because you may do harm, and, if you do, you will bear the full weight of guilt in accordance with the injury you cause. In modern legal jargon, the fitting term here is negligent homicide–a form of murder which took place because you acted recklessly and caused another person to die.

The Exodus 21 passage stringently forbids reckless behavior when men are around an expectant mother in order to prevent injury. This principle is something we still recognize with animals, but we exempt ourselves from its reasonableness when it comes to human life.  According to Title 16, Chapter 5A, Subchapter II, Paragraph 668 (a), of the United States Code, if one disturbs an eagle’s nest and, thus, causes an eagle’s egg to crack, then he can be fined $5,000 and sentenced to prison. The reason is clear. An eagle’s nest incubates an eagle’s egg which is the home of an eaglet struggling to be born alive. Along the same reasonable lines of thought, the Bible protects the nest of babies struggling to be born alive.  The hypocrisy of our laws is inexcusable.

On the second reason I think the Bible does condemn abortion: God is pro-life in the most exceptional sense of that term. Jesus on two occasions in John’s gospel called himself “Life” (see John 11:25 and John 14:6).  Practically every verse in the Bible after Genesis 1:26-27 affirms the value of every human life and, thus, negates abortion–which inherently devalues human life.  Genesis 9:6–the passage of Scripture which demands execution for murderers–does so on the premise that human life images forth God and, thus, is the property of God. No person has the right to determine in accordance with his whims or desires that one of God’s image-bearers should be killed.

We must not destroy the image of God. Indeed, Genesis 9:7–the very next verse–reaffirms the God-given command to be fruitful and multiply human beings upon the earth–that is the opposite of the spirit of abortion. So, it appears to me that the Bible is not silent after all on the issue of abortion.

Saying there is no commandment in the Bible against abortion is almost like saying there’s nothing in a grocery store that says you have to eat.  While it may be technically true, it is ridiculously off the mark.  Everything about a grocery store says, “Food, Eat.”  And everything in the Bible says, “Life.”

Related Articles:

Islam and Abortion: Are Muslims Pro-life?

Although in Islam there are debates about the nature of Jihad and legitimacy of carrying out attacks in the name of Allah, there is not that much of a debate about whether Muslims ought to practice abortion.  The general consensus is that abortion is haram, forbidden.

The reason offered for the prohibition against abortions is that the child is already “ensouled” in the womb and has not yet done wrong.  There is disagreement about when “ensoulment” happens in the womb.  Some schoolsof Islamic thought place the date at 7 weeks into the pregnancy, while others would say that ensoulment occurs at the moment the child begins to move inside the womb (around 12 weeks or so).  Probably the majority of Muslims accept the 120-day mark because it is established in the Hadith literature (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 549).

In that Hadith, there is a revelation concerning what we might call predestination.  According to this Hadith, an angel of Allah will enter the womb and write down up

English: A map showing laws about abortion arr...

Abortion Laws Around the World (Wikipedia)

on the child all of his destiny—including how long he will live and whether he will end up in Paradise or in Hell.  Thus, Muslims conclude that after this point, the life is fixed and must not be ended.

Prior to the 120 day mark, Muslims argue that there are a couple of extreme cases which may require an abortion.  On the one hand, if the mother’s life is in serious danger, then the child must be aborted because the mother is already functioning and fulfilling duties for the family.  Thus, if one or the other must die, then the child must die, not the mother.  Note that this provision is not the same as that which has prevailed in the U.S. since Doe v. Bolton enshrined a very broad definition of abortion with regard to the health of the mother.  Under Doe, a mother can procure an abortion based on the stress that pregnancy causes.  This is not the case with the Islamic exception for the safety of the mother.

The other extreme case in which abortion may be allowed is the case of severe fetal deformity.  Muslims are not unanimous in considering fetal deformity a justifiable cause of abortion.  However, many Muslim scholars argue for the legitimacy of abortion if the child in the womb is severely deformed.  In this case, again, the 120 day rule remains in effect.  And, the fetal defect must be diagnosed by two Muslim doctors before proceeding with the abortion.

Again, few will quote the Quran in favor of abortion because abortion deals with human beings who have not yet committed any injustice against Allah.  Surah 5:32—though it does not directly speak to abortion—does guide Muslim thinking in the matter.  In that Surah of the Quran, Muslims are taught “that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people.”  In other words, killing an innocent in the womb would be to the Muslim mind the equivalent of killing off a part of humankind.

Though Surah 5:25-35 is about justifiable killing for those guilty of murder or “horrendous crimes,” it speaks to the nature of the entity in the womb—namely, that it is human.  Indeed, it is considered a form of innocent human life and, thus, deserves to be protected.  Some Muslims will quote Surah 17:31 as a further—and stronger—argument against abortion:

Kill not your children for fear of want: We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin.

Granted, this verse appears to speak of children already born, but it is often recited in defense of forbidding abortions. Clearly, the text is teaching the mother (or parents) not to be anxious about providing for their children. Whatever temptation they might feel toward getting rid of their children as a result of poverty, they must put that temptation out of mind.  Killing children is a great sin because children have not yet resisted Allah or committed murder or any other horrendous crime.

This verse, then, along with the Hadith quoted above and Surah 5:25-35, make it plain that the general disposition of Islam is to oppose abortion.  As Muslim scholar Abul Fadl Mohsin Ebrahim concludes regarding Surah 5:32,[1]

“From this verse it is evident that every human being has the right to be born, the right to be, and the right to live as long as Allah… permits. No one may be deprived of life except for a legitimate crime…. The fetus is regarded by all schools of Islamic law has having the right to life, as indicated by the fact that the death sentence on a pregnant woman can be carried out only after she has given birth.”

[1] Abul Fadl Mohsin Ebrahim. Abortion, Birth Control and Surrogate Parenting: An Islamic Perspective. n.p.: American Trust Publications, 1989.

What Are Savior Siblings? 3 Concerns We Must Address

(The following blog first appeared under the title Savior Siblings and Septic Sons.) 

“Unto Us, a Savior Is Born in France,” such is the triumphant tone of the science headlinesfrom across the pond in Savior Siblings WrongFrance, where the latest “savior sibling” has arrived.  He is a healthy baby boy, weighing in at just over 8 lbs.

The first “savior sibling” was born in the U.S. back in 2000.  His name is Adam Nash.  Blood from his umbilical cord was used to save his sister’s life and caused no physical harm to him. Success!

Nevertheless, the concept of a “savior sibling” should trouble us in at least 3 significant ways:

(1) It devalues all human life by making one human being the instrument by which another human being prospers. Just as slavery devalued all human life by acting as though some people were not “really persons,” so, too, savior siblings have the same effect of saying that one person’s life is valued only insofar as it serves someone else, someone prior, someone superior.

(2) It leads to a kind of enslavement.  Consider, for example, the movie My Sister’s Keeper.  In that film, the savior sibling was expected to donate a kidney for her dying sister because this is what a savior sibling does.  Such scenarios are not potentialities; they are necessities of this way of thinking about human beings. The concept of kidney donation is lost to the concept of coercion.  Coercion is not donation.

(3) It makes gods out of scientists—and that is never a good thing.  Through IVF, scientists screen and discard many embryos, getting down to the genetically perfect match for the ailing sibling.  Already, human entities have been discarded, and this new savior child has been designed for the purpose of serving as a farm-like feeding trough of anatomical parts for parents to use in saving their favored child.


Anytime any form of human life becomes “less than human” or “not worthy of life” (as the Nazis would say), then door is opened to killing for a “higher” cause, thus fulfilling Romans 3: “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery.”  The concept of savior siblings is built upon the notion that someone has a right to design and utilize the birth of a human being for the purpose of enhancing the life of another human being.  This is wrong because it devalues one human being in the face of another, defying the reality that each one of us (male and female) is created in the image of God.

We have become a people who are comfortable with such concepts as savior siblings because we, already, believe that mothers (even teen mothers) have the right to decide whether their children should live or die.  If a mother has the right to determine whether her baby lives or dies, then why would she not have the right to determine whether the baby donates cord blood or even a kidney?  The logic is inescapable.

Savior Siblings Related to AbortionBecause of abortion, we have become quite dull in discerning the value of a human life.  Consequently, we find that some women are comfortable with having abortions, while others are ok with flushing their babies down the toilet (or at least trying to).  How do we get to a place in which a woman thinks it is all right to flush her son into a cesspool to die?  By devaluing human life in the womb.  If she could have killed the baby while it was in the womb, then why should she not be able to kill the baby once it comes out?  Again, the logic is sadly unavoidable.

I don’t think we should be bit surprised that parents with the help of doctors and scientists are designing babies to serve the needs of their unhealthy offspring. Parents want healthy children.  And science wants something new–anything new.  Upholding the value of human life has actually never been the strength of a godless science.

The 19th Century seeded the scientific psyche with the eugenics that was quickly employed in Nazi Germany (more slowly in the U.S. through Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood).  The 20th Century saw the Tuskegee

Kevorkian Dr. Death Savior Siblings

Dr. Death

experiments, the perverted Kinsey “science” of sexuality, and the celebration of “Dr. Death.” These examples make clear that Science alone cannot uphold the value of human life because science is, primarily, nothing more than a method of inquiry designed to increase knowledge.

Science is a quest for knowledge; it needs to have philosophy to determine the boundaries of where its inquiries might take place.  With a Judeo-Christian philosophy as its guide, science is able to progress in a positive direction which heals.  Without such a philosophy, science doesn’t care if it kills.

We cannot trust science alone to advance humanity.  The task is too great.  Humanity is a subject to be defined by philosophy and theology.  We must be awakened from our darkened stupor concerning science and its limits or we will see further horrors in the days to come.  It really is bad enough that we have savior siblings and cesspool sons. These are not oddities. These are explainable phenomenon based on our devaluing of human life in the womb.  As long as we are comfortable embracing abortion, we will see more sickening displays of our disregard for humanity.

That, at least, is my opinion. You are free to share yours. What are your thoughts on Savior Siblings? Were you aware of them? Do you agree that they represent a further devaluing of human life?

Simple Concepts Concerning Life

In memory of the 50 million Americans lost since the dreadful Roe v. Wade decision, I wrote a poem for a competition hosted by the Manhattan Declaration (you can read it here).  The point of the poem is simply this: A little girl in the womb has no guarantee of liberty or the pursuit of happiness in America because she has no guarantee of life.

Two contrary points are typically made by those who favor abortion.  First, it is said that the baby in the womb is something less than human, not quite considered a person.  Maybe it is a fetus or embryo, but not a person.  And because it is philosophically impossible to determine at what point the embryo becomes a baby, we are not at liberty to impose a definition upon the mother. She is free to choose for herself.  Second, the argument is made that because the mother will have the primary burden of caring for the child, then she must decide whether to allow her birth.  Each of these arguments is fundamentally unsound.

On the first point, the question must be answered concerning the child in the womb. If it is not human, then what is it?  If it is human, then it must be protected.  Terms such as fetus and embryo only obscure what ought to be obvious to all.  What kind of embryo is it?  What kind of fetus is it?  Obviously, they are human embryos.  As such, they should be protected under the law.  According to our Declaration of Independence, “They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Still, the argument persists because pro-abortion advocates claim that humanity is not so easily defined.  When do the cells and DNA actually become a full human being?  Our simple response to this inquiry is, “When is it ever not human?”  From the moment of conception, a human being is in process—a process of growth which continues throughout the time in the womb and even for most of the next two decades after the child is born.  There is growth and development (in the strictly physical sense) from conception to the age of 18 or so.  This is undeniable.

In fact, this line of reasoning is so filled with common sense that it permeates our legal code.  Take, for instance, Title 16, Chapter 5A, Subchapter II, Paragraph 668 (a), of the United States Code:

 “Whoever, within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof… shall knowingly…take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or in any manner any bald eagle commonly known as the American eagle or any golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof of the foregoing eagles, or whoever violates any permit or regulation issued pursuant to this subchapter, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year or both…”

What is particularly illuminating in the U. S. legal code is the threat of criminal sanction for taking not just the egg of the eagle but also the nest.  It is clear enough that the egg of the eagle is protected (for the sake of protecting all eagles); what is even more astounding is that the eagle’s nest is also protected.  Why?  Because the nest is also a necessary part of the life-development of a bald eagle.  In the case of the bald eagle, the law protects a collection of non-living sticks and limbs because those sticks and limbs provide a nesting area for an egg which—if all goes well—will eventually develop into an eaglet, which–if all goes well–will one day fly as an eagle.  The nest of the egg of the eagle is protected in America because Americans value eagles and want to protect them.  The womb of a mother is not protected in America because Americans…

Now, on the second point of debate, again, the law is clear.  Those who advocate for abortion will say that they may be personally opposed to it, but they cannot feel compelled to burden the mother when child-rearing is her responsibility.  (There are many false assumptions built into this argument—child-rearing is a mother and father responsibility; children are not burdens but blessings; and one cannot be opposed to something and advocate for it in the same breath).  On the basic point of whether the child is the mother’s responsibility solely because it is part of her body, I would appeal to common sense and the law.

Common sense makes plain that the child in the womb is not simply a subsidiary part of the mother’s body.  When a couple goes for an ultrasound, they don’t go there to find out what kind of tumor is growing on the mother’s body.  They go there to find out the ___________ of the ___________.  (Could you fill in the blanks? They go to find out the sex of the baby).  It is simply ludicrous to assert that the baby is like a hemorrhoid, and abortion is good in the same sense as Preparation H.  This is not a part of the mother’s body; it is a separate human body.  The ultrasound is able to determine its sex. If it is a little boy, it will have a little boy organ which belongs to him—not to his mother.

In the law, the same common sense provisions can be found.  Even if we were to say that the baby were merely a growth on the mother’s body, and, because it is her body and her burden, it is also her free choice, we still would not think that the mother is free to do whatever she wants with her body.  Women are not free to do anything they want with their bodies; neither are men.  One cannot expose his body to others without facing charges of indecent exposure.  One cannot prostitute his or her body without facing criminal charges.  One cannot fill his or her body with illegal drugs without violating the law.  There are a great many things one cannot do with his or her body.  There simply is no absolute right to your own body when you live in community with others.

So, we conclude with two simple and undeniable truths.  At conception, human life begins.  And, no one should have the right to rob another human of her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  With these simple facts recognized, we will see the value of human life soaring in America again like the eagle’s.

Golden Gateway to Freedom?

I just read this remarkably encouraging pro-life article from where? San Francisco!  A great crowd rallied against abortion in San Francisco of all places.  According to this article, more than 40,000 marchers gathered together for the pro-life parade.   Walk for Life co-chair Dolores Meehan said, “We are here to break the bondage of the culture of death.”

If the movement is thriving in San Francisco, then it can thrive anywhere.  How encouraging to see.  And notice in the pics how young the women are who are holding the signs.  Encouraging indeed.


Principles and Power

I am an optimist.  I know the outcome–that all things will work together for good for those who love the Lord.  So, I am an optimist.  Yet, I am not optimistic about Obamacare ever being overturned.  I hope it is.  I will support the repeal of this terribly invasive healthcare reform.  I don’t think it will be overturned.  Here is why.

Entitlements are never overturned.  Once people begin getting something for “free,” they don’t want to give it up, even if it restricts their freedom and burdens their neighbors.  Everybody likes a free lunch.  Don’t get me wrong.  I believe there is a huge backlash coming for Democrats in November, and I know people are angry right now.  But that will change.  Public opinion always does.  The Democrats know this, too.  Once things calm down, the Democrats will simply bring up all that will be lost by overturning this bill.  We will begin hearing stories of all the terrible suffering which will result from “taking away” these “free” benefits for needy people.  When that happens, public opinion will swing back to the middle.

When public opinion swings back to the middle, then the true mettle of conservatives will be tested, and it will be found lacking, in my opinion.  Why do I say this?  Not simply because I have seen conservatives cower in conversations concerning life, though that is reason enough for saying conservatives often lack mettle, but, rather, because I have been listening to the majority of conservatives express their outrage at the notion of a congress and a president going against the will of the people.  Granted, I am outraged, too, that this congress and this president have ignored the voices of millions–and they really have completely ignored large swaths of the American landscape in this.

However, I find a glimmer of principled conviction in the actions of the Democrats.  Their leadership has accomplished something that conservative leaders have not accomplished much.  They have led on principle–even if it costs at the polls.  Sadly, we once thought it was virtuous to stick to your guns and stick to your principles.  I remember President Bush (I think it was in his debate with Gore?) stating that he would not lead by opinion polls, but by principles.  I thought that was admirable then.  I don’t like it much now because it involves principles against which my mind and body viscerally revolt.  Yet, one cannot claim that the Democrats did what they did by merely sticking their fingers in the wind to see which way it was blowing.

The Democrats acted out of their belief that women should have access to abortions everywhere, and we all ought to pay for it.  They did it out of their firm conviction that the federal government should decide how to pay doctors and nurses.  They did it from their soft, socialistic outlook on life.  Oh, I know they violated protocols in the House and in the Senate, and I know right now people are outraged about that, but they acted out of principled convictions–even if the principles were horrendously wrong-headed.

Outside of Congressman Ryan and a few others, the Republicans responded that the Democrats should have listened to the will of the people.  So, in the course of repealing this repugnant set of rules governing my private colonoscopy, the Republicans must hope that public opinion remains strongly opposed to Obamacare.  Even though I hope it does, I doubt that it will.  I doubt that public opinion will remain strongly opposed because the radical new policies don’t take place until 2014, conveniently after the next presidential election.  In fact, around the time of this election in November, there will be $250 checks going out.  If public opinion were the reason for opposing Obamacare, then public opinion may in the future become the reason for keeping it.

What I wish would happen is that Republicans would become steeled in their resolve repeal Obmacare on principled grounds.  Let conservatives learn to be passionate and unapologetic about ending abortion on demand, taking a principled stand for babies even if public opinion swings against them.  What I wish would happen is that an unwavering regard for liberty would gain a foothold in the minds of conservative leaders.  Real leaders don’t lead by looking at polls.  They are fixed on eternal principles such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  I fear that–even though for today we are outraged–in the future we will accommodate (as Europe has) to suckling our existence from the breast of a federal nanny who increasingly kills her unwanted children.

The Little Ones

A song by Phil Keaggy asks, “Who will speak up for the little ones, helpless and half-abandoned?”  It seems that no Democrat in America will any longer.  When Bart Stupak caved in to pressure from the national Democratic Party earlier today, he sent the message loudly and clearly that abortion is at the heart of what it means to be a Democrat.  Apparently, there is no place at the national level for pro-life Democrats.

I understand that I am not an expert on matters of legislation and executive orders, but I think I am alert enough to read such things.  The executive order from President Obama is made to sound nice and pro-life, but it cannot–in my opinion–be taken seriously.  If the healthcare bill does not fund abortion, then why is the executive order needed?  If it does, then the executive order will do no good because an executive order cannot overturn legislation.  Either way, the executive order is a meaningless show, which explains why the pro-abortion Obama could write it and why pro-abortion groups won’t raise even a whisper about it.  If the bill passes, it will ensure that we all pay for abortions through our tax dollars, even though the practice violates our consciences before God.

In addition, this healthcare bill will fundamentally change the way we think of ourselves and our government.  I am no longer free to determine whether I will receive a colonoscopy.  Someone in some bureau somewhere will decide if I really need one and whether I will ever get one.  We one time were accustomed to hearing folks say, “Keep the government out of our bedrooms.”  Well, we shall now have them in places heretofore considered more private than our bedrooms.

Pro Choice Advocate Agrees with Tebow

This article highlights the commentary from Sally Jenkins, a pro-choice sportswriter from the Washington Post.  Her comments are certainly fair and demonstrate that there can still be civil disagreement in America.  Though she does not agree completely with Tebow’s pro-life advocacy (she is pro-choice), she does understand how critical it is for him to have a voice.  Even more, she seems to get the point that feminists miss:  Tim Tebow has a very high regard for women and is not serially abusing them like many athletes tend to do.  The outrage from groups such as NOW only betrays the lack of concern these groups actually have for women.  Their goal is not to support women but to encourage abortion.  Hats off to Sally Jenkins for her insight and courage in pointing out their duplicity.

Pro Choice (just not that kind)

If you read this article, you hear the complaints from so-called “Women’s” Groups decrying the Super Bowl ad from Tim Tebow and Focus on the Family.  These abortion advocates are lobbying CBS to get the ad pulled.  Ironically, they are upset with CBS because Focus on the Family is supposed to be “anti-choice” and homophobic and all the rest.  But the tables are turned on these women’s groups.  Does CBS not have the right to choose who gives them 2.5 million for an ad?  Does Focus on the Family not have the right to choose to buy an ad for its organization?  Does Tim Tebow not have the right to choose to speak up for what he believes?  And, does Pam Tebow not have the right to choose to give birth to a little boy who would later become the best college football player ever?  Pro-choice, it seems, only applies to abortion.

Eye Opening

This article from Heartbeat International is eye opening.  Crisis pregnancy centers are located in areas where the least abortions are occurring.  In the areas where the most abortions are occurring, there are few (if any) pregnancy centers.  Read the article

Pro-life Murder

James Pouillon was murdered, and no one knows why (though many are speculating).  Mr. Pouillon was protesting abortion when he was murdered.  He was well-known for his protests against abortion.  We shall wait to learn more concerning the motive.  Here is the statement from the National Right to Life concerning the murder.

I Could

According to this story, Jim Wallis, president of Sojourners, in conjunction with a few Democrat lawmakers, is proposing Christian support for a new bill ostensibly designed to reduce the number of abortions. 

“Helping young people to delay sexual activity, preventing the pregnancies that people don’t want, economically supporting low-income women to give them real choice about having a child, and encouraging adoption all will reduce abortion in America; and who could be against any of that?” the progressive Christian leader [Wallis] added.

The answer is, “I could.”  I could very easily see opposing such a piece of legislation and being against some of the provisions in this proposal.  First, I would most likely be in favor of the first provision–delaying sexual activity–if that means delaying until monogamous, heterosexual marriage.  If that is not what the provision intends, then I might could say I am against it.

Second, I could definitely be against “preventing unwanted pregnancies” if that means, as it did under the last democrat President, passing out condoms in schools.  That will not prevent unwanted pregnancies; it will rather encourage more of them.  Indeed, the category of “unwanted pregnancy” is pernicious at best.  I suspect this provision is actually a full-scale “birth control” program which might include RU 486 but probably does not emphasize abstinence.

Third, I could easily oppose some plans of economically supporting low-income women to give them the choice of having a child.  I certainly could not oppose helping needy women or men.  However, welfare programs that do not encourage work or responsibility tend only to hurt women and destroy families.  So, on this provision, I could oppose such legislation if it encourages and rewards promiscuity while dimishing responsibility.  I’m not sure what a “real choice” about having a child means.

Finally, when it comes to adoption, I am completely on board.  I do think adoption is a much better choice than abortion.  I agree that adoption should not be opposed.  Though I could possibly oppose three out of these four provisions, I would support fully the last one.  So, the bill is clearly only one-fourth of a pro-life bill.

Globs of Tissue Remember

You may click here to read a fascinating story concerning research which shows that fetuses have memories.  The researchers were able to test at 30 weeks gestation and demonstrate that the child in the womb was able to recall and respond and even learn to respond more quickly over the course of the experiment.  The article points out that the pro-abortion group NARAL has not responded to the news.  You know, when Roe v. Wade was decided, we were still ignorant of so much of the development of a child.  At the time it seemed reasonable to think of the child in the womb as a glob of tissue.  But there is no excuse.  Even without this memory study, evidence abounds which tells us that the fetus in the womb is actually a child.  If it is a human life form (which it is) we must not kill.

Pro Choice?

One of the unintended consequences of the pro-choice movement may turn out to be the oppression of women.  Ironic, isn’t it?  The liberation movement championed free choice for all women.  The right to abortion became the right for the women to choose whether or not they would have the child.  Now, however, a trend appears to be developing from this mindset.  According to this article from Richard Stith (subscription required), the pro-choice movement has left men empowered to use women for sex without assuming responsibility for pregnancy.  After all, it’s the woman’s place to choose.  The man gets to decide whether to have sex; she gets to decide whether to keep the baby.  Who’s free to choose here? The child loses because of abortion (either his life or his father’s influence).  The woman loses (either her baby or her lover or both).  The man loses (his child, his lover, or both).  And society loses a family.  The price we pay for the illusion of “free choice.”