Abortion – This generation’s ‘slavery’

Christian Today ^ | 11/2/07 | Mal Fletcher

[wagglebee]

Having recently celebrated the life and work of William Wilberforce, some religious leaders have called abortion-on-demand the 'new slavery'; the human rights issue that will define our generation's place in history.

It is forty years since abortion became legal in Britain.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has warned that abortion is increasingly being seen as the easy option for women, perhaps just another form of contraception. In the process, he says, British people risk losing sight of the sanctity of life.

This last statement is supported by the fact that some notable supporters of a lower legal age limit for abortion are also vocal campaigners for voluntary euthanasia.

In 1967, when the act legalising abortion was passed, says Dr. Williams, 'what people might now call their "default position" was still that abortion was a profoundly undesirable thing and that a universal presumption of care for the foetus from the moment of conception was the norm.'

'There has been an obvious weakening of the feeling that abortion is a last resort in cases of extreme danger or distress. Nearly 200,000 abortions a year in England and Wales tell their own story. We are not now dealing with a relatively small number of extreme cases.'

Recently, several British newspapers carried stories of babies who were aborted for nothing more than having club feet or cleft lips or palates - minor disabilities which can be corrected with surgery after birth.

In an age where people love to jump on the high horse of this human rights issue or that, surely we should defend the rights of the most fragile among us, the truly voiceless in our midst.

We talk about human rights, but where is the right in this: we kill unborn babies while we fight to save forest trees?

Western societies are, for the most part, more violent than they were four decades ago. In the end, abortion as we now know it is about violence; it may be the ultimate form of bullying.

The pro-abortion-on-demand stance is an important one to several groups of people. First of all, to those women who might not want a baby or who feel emotionally or financially ill-equipped for motherhood.

I seriously doubt that any caring person would want to see a return to the days when single mothers were ostracised and condemned by society at large. People of faith will certainly agree, as it was Christ who taught us to love the marginalised and the hurting.

This love must be more than an intellectual assent to the idea of caring - it must involve practical assistance. But showing compassion does not mean staying silent when speaking up might save someone from wrongdoing and pain. There is such a thing as 'speaking the truth in love'.

The pro-abortion-on-demand position is also important to radical women's rights movements, who argue that abortion is purely an issue of women's rights.

As is often the case, liberal radicals are quick to demonize those who don't completely agree with their agenda, saying that those who would reappraise abortion-on-demand are 'anti-women'.

In actual fact, there is good evidence to show that being anti-abortion may in many cases be the more pro-woman stance.

Pro-abortionists like to talk about freedom of choice, but they rarely tell the truth about the after-affects of abortion: either the physical complications that can arise, or the mother's sense of emotional loss and grief which can take many years to come to terms with.

Thank God, the message of Christianity is that through Christ even that pain can be healed over time - though the memory doubtless remains, with support and love people can be given closure.

A final group for whom a pro-abortion position is important are certain medical researchers.

We should be thankful for the wonderful work done by scientists in many fields. But some bio-researchers are hopeful that they will be able to harvest aborted foetal cells in all kinds of studies and operations.

Of course, not everyone in the scientific community is in favour. Some scientists openly question where this might take us next - perhaps experimentation on the comatose, or the dying.

One point cries out to be made here: even if research were a good reason for abortion, there are far more abortions carried out right now than could ever be justified on that basis.

The big question for us is this: is an embryo or foetus a human being? There are basically five views on this -- and each of us must make our choice from these options.

You may choose to believe that the embryo or foetus is nothing more than a growth inside the mother's womb, a collection of cells. Alternatively, you may believe that the embryo or foetus becomes human somewhere between conception and birth. This one is tricky: where do we draw the line, and for what reasons?

A third option is the idea that the embryo becomes a person only after it reaches viability, the time when the foetus can survive on its own.

A number of studies have shown, however, that unborn children exhibit many truly human traits long before they're ready to live unaided.

Some people choose to believe that birth itself is the crucial moment when personhood begins. But how can we justify giving a baby a completely different right-to-life status five minutes before it is born, or even one minute before?

Our final option is that the embryo has been human all along, right from the time it was first conceived. If that's the case, the embryo has had inviolable rights from conception.

This latter option is the one supported by most conservative scholars in the reading of the Bible and other major religious texts.

In biblical terms, the embryo is like the seed of a tree -- it isn't yet all that it will become, but it contains everything needed to get there. It is not just a 'potential' human being -- it is human.

But there's more to it even than that. The scriptures teach that we should treat the embryo as a person because it is known and loved by God -- it is a human being for which he has very special plans. There are several examples in the Bible narrative of people whose future was announced before they were even conceived - Samson, John the Baptist and Jesus Christ among them.

If a baby is valuable to God before it is even conceived -- because he knows what it will grow to become -- how can it be of lesser value afterwards?

When is an embryo human? The Bible's answer is: right from the start!

Is it possible that one day, a few hundred years hence, people will look back and thank God that humanity gave up on abortion, just as it did on slavery? And that Christians were at the forefront of that change? We should all hope so.

[wagglebee]

Recently, several British newspapers carried stories of babies who were aborted for nothing more than having club feet or cleft lips or palates - minor disabilities which can be corrected with surgery after birth.

In an age where people love to jump on the high horse of this human rights issue or that, surely we should defend the rights of the most fragile among us, the truly voiceless in our midst.

We talk about human rights, but where is the right in this: we kill unborn babies while we fight to save forest trees?

This is just more proof that the left doesn't care about humanity.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[narby]

When are pro-lifers actually going to start trying to change minds on this issue? If abortion is such a horrible wrong, then why aren't pro-lifers donating as much as they can to campaigns to convince the "other side" that abortion is murder. With the number of so-called pro-lifers that are out there, the fact that there aren't organizations spending billions of dollars per year attempting to change minds about abortion is a travesty.

The left, specifically Stalin, knew that to win the long term political battles they would need to take over the media, entertainment, and the academy. Where are the efforts of anti-abortionists to encourage their children to stay in college and teach their message? Where are efforts to persuade true believers in life to go to work at their local newspaper? Where are the money people willing to bankroll movies that portray abortion as death?

The only effort that anti-abortion people seem to be interested in is partisan politics, which today seems to be non-stop Rudy bashing. Hey! What has Bush done for the anti-abortion cause? Nothing much. And no president can do much until the general population has become overwhelmingly pro-life. That's the job of the anti-abortion movement, and they're not doing it, as far as I can see from the outside looking in.

The saying goes about the Global Warming argument that whenever Al Gore and company start acting like it's a real emergency, then the rest of us might believe it's an emergency. The same goes for the abortion argument. When the anti-abortion people really start acting like it's the moral disagreement of the age, then the rest of the people might take notice. But not until.

[CatQuilt]

What has Bush done for the anti-abortion cause? Nothing much. And no president can do much until the general population has become overwhelmingly pro-life.

What are you talking about?!

Check out President Bush's "nothing much".....

Dennis Prager said the same thing but he was wrong too.

Also, there are several active pro-life educational organizations which combat the disinformation that Planned Parenthood and their ilk put out, for instance, www.all.org.

[karnage]

Bush has worked tirelessly for the pro-life cause. Try doing your homework before spouting off.

[WashingtonSource]

Great piece!

[Future Snake Eater]

Abortion – This generation’s ‘slavery'

Slavery was known to be wrong when it was allowed. This issue is no different, though far more monstrous.

[L98Fiero]

“Bush has worked tirelessly for the pro-life cause. Try doing your homework before spouting off.”

Some will not be happy until we are ruled by an iron-fisted dictator who just happens to oppose abortion.

[Puddleglum]

One of the things Bush has done right is make sound Supreme Court appointments that might lead to Roe v Wade being officially recognized as the spurious ruling it was.

[wagglebee]

The only effort that anti-abortion people seem to be interested in is partisan politics, which today seems to be non-stop Rudy bashing. Hey! What has Bush done for the anti-abortion cause? Nothing much. And no president can do much until the general population has become overwhelmingly pro-life. That's the job of the anti-abortion movement, and they're not doing it, as far as I can see from the outside looking in.

I had to read a while to get to your point. Obviously you are a Rooty Rooter who suffers from the delusion that Rooty could be president if the "intolerant" pro-lifers would just disregard the murder of over 3500 babies per day.

I have news for you, a president CAN do something. We are one Supreme Court vote away from overturning Roe v. Wade, it is the president who will appoint this justice and neither Hitlery NOR Rooty will appoint a pro-life conservative who will vote this way.

At the Supreme Court level, public opinion DOES NOT MATTER, the country WAS NOT pro-abortion in 1973 and as it stands the majority of the country IS pro-life.

CBS News Poll: 54 Percent of Americans Take Pro-Life Position on Abortion

[CatQuilt]

He’s done many things right (not everything but many things) regarding pro-life issues.

[CatQuilt]

neither Hitlery NOR Rooty will appoint a pro-life conservative who will vote this way

Nor will Romney

[Liz]

EVEN THOUGH HE HAD NO LEGISLATIVE OR ELECTED MANDATE TO DO SO Giuliani's worship of abortion was all-encompassing. Giuliani used his Mayoral office to advance the abortion agenda----Giuliani walked hand-in-hand with abortion savages PPhood and NARAL.

He was not elected on a "legislative" platform to support or promote abortion, or to advance pro-abortion policies. Mayors don't make laws. They make policy. The Mayor's job is to run bureacracies that deal with keeping the city clean, safe and operational.

Everything Rudy did to promote abortion, he did as an individual who had high visibility as Mayor, and b/c he worshipped all manner of abortion, and willingly assisted abortion providers.

He provided massive abortion PR via the Mayoral office's bully pulpit. We can only guess at the scope of his misuse of tax dollars to promote the abortion agenda.....probably misappropriating tax funds povided to the Mayor's office for other uses that were misused to launch pro-abortion initiatives.

Rooty was on the front lines----scheming and plotting to embed abortion in our culture, including:

(1) abortion on demand with the govt picking up the tab,
(2) abortion as birth control,
(3) multiple abortions for convenience,
(4) abortion when sex of the child is unwanted,
(5) abortion for every conceivable birth defect.....and last but certainly not least,
(6) late term partial birth abortions (read infanticide).

Giuliani contributed to PPhood and NARAL rewarded Giuliani with campaign contributions.

NEW YORK STATE NARAL INC WOMEN'S HEALTH PAC DONATIONS (FEC database: 04/24/1999)

NARAL gave Mayor Giuliani $1,000----4 times as much as the $250 NARAL gave Hillary Rodham Clinton.

NARAL trusted Rudy's pro-abortion credentials, and Rudy's willingness to advance NARAL's radical abortion-on-demand agenda, even more than NARAL trusted Hillary.

[wagglebee]

Rooty was on the front lines----scheming and plotting to embed abortion in our culture,

And anyone who doesn't believe he would do the same thing as president is either a fool or someone who also wants to advance abortion.

[Reagan Man]

Cliche time:

Once an abortionist, always an abortionist.

[browniexyz]

The link with slavery is palpable, especially where there are those who think embryonic stem cell research is a real option. It is a scary world where the helpless and defenseless are manipulated by the rest of us and made to “work” for us, i.e., “cure” Parkinson’s etc (there is no proof that embryonic stem cell research is anything special — adult stem cells and baby teeth stem cells have been the subject of effective research, though.)

[TigersEye]

No doubt about it education is a good thing.

Abortion is not about saving women’s lives!

Studies Find Abortions Have Long-Term Effects

Study: Previous Abortions Linked With Pre-Term Birth and Cerebral Palsy

45,951,133

Total Abortions since 1973

------------------------------------------------------------

Why the drop after 1960? (in deaths of women from illegal abortions)

The reasons were new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population. Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicap (life of mother was legal in all states). There were two big exceptions — California in 1967, and New York in 1970 allowed abortion on demand. Now look at the chart carefully.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing

· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby

· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child

· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)

· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career

· 7.9% of women want no (more) children

· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health

2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So how many women’s lives have been saved by abortion?

Only about 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be “due to a risk to maternal health.” A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But let’s say they did. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.

Abortion was legal in all 50 states prior to Roe v. Wade in cases of danger to the life of the woman.

Roe v Wade: FULL Text (The Decision that wiped out an entire Generation 33 years ago today)

[karnage]

Rudy will not promote abortion as president the way he may have done as mayor of NYC. He won’t. America is not New York City. And the politics of abortion in 2007 are much different (and more favorable to us pro-lifers) than it was even ten years ago - due in some part, arguably, to President Bush’s use of the bully pulpit.

[narses]

Ping.