Abortion – Choice vs. Death

President Ronald Reagan said in 1982:

     “Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is. And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

It is my true and firm belief that abortion is the killing of an unborn child; the taking of a human life.  Whether or not life starts at conception I cannot say: God alone knows when He places the soul into the body.  But as the brain and spinal cord are the essence of life itself, it’s reasonable to assume at the very least that life has officially begun once they start to develop — which happens around 18 days after conception.  And certainly, once there’s a heartbeat, it would take a fool to argue that it’s not alive.  (In fact, I’ll assert that anyone arguing against this train of logic is someone who simply wants abortion at all cost, regardless of fact or morality; most likely for personal, financial or political reasons.)

Some, however, do believe the train of logic I espouse, yet argue (thanks to an errant Supreme Court) that the right to an abortion is found in the “emanations of the penumbra” of the alleged right to privacy inherent in the spirit of the Constitution.  But such an argument is akin to saying that my right to own a car gives me the right to buy ice cream in a drive-thru: it an apples-to-oranges argument.

Because if you believe that there are two lives involved, then as a matter of logic it becomes a debate of the right and responsibly over a life, not to privacy.  By the Supreme Court’s logic and predication upon “privacy rights”, then if one has a “right” to end a life in a womb based on a right of privacy, then one also has a “right” to end a life in their bedroom, since it’s within the privacy of the home. For once you’ve agreed that the child is a life, you can no longer argue against it being an innocent life; as it is guilty of nothing.  And if you can end that innocent life in privacy without consent, then you can likewise end an innocent spouse’s life in privacy without consent — if you want to be intellectually and logically consistent and honest.

But another pressing issue at this point is government funding of abortion — whether federal or State.  When you have an issue that strikes at the heart of morality and one’s conscience, as this one does, then it seems unarguably improper to me that one side should have money taken from them to fund that which they abhor.  Why aren’t “Focus On The Family” and “Tennessee Right To Life” foundation governmentally funded if the moral cause they’re opposed to is?  Why is it that one side of this argument is forced to fund that which it morally and ethically opposes?

Answer: an over-powerful, unjust, overbearing, and dysfunctional government — which is acting outside the scope of that for which it was created.

It is a sad state of our nation’s moral compass that abortion is not opposed by the vast majority of our populace.  We need to educate the masses as to what an abortion actually is.  We need to stick to the hard fight that abortion is a moral and judicial crime.  We MUST stop eliminating our posterity, and we absolutely must stop the collective funding thereof.  We must honor God, not anger God.  We must realign our moral compass as a nation and as individuals, or we’re all headed straight for hell.

 

“Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you….” (Jeremiah 1:5).

 

order antabuse online