I was talking to a friend recently about abortion and she said that she would never have an abortion herself, but she doesn't believe in imposing that belief on others. Not having a good answer at the ready and not wanting to appear instantly judgmental, I rambled on about other issues of imposing on others such as seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws.
But I do have an answer for the not-legislating-morality crowd. Government legislates all sorts of morality for the common good. Such morality is found in the Bible, which many reject, but more universally than that everybody has a born understanding of right and wrong through our consciences. Of course government should legislate against moral issues such as murder and abuse. Nobody questions that!
So, for those who wouldn't abort their own unborn baby but also wouldn't force others to save their unborn "fetal tissue," that unwanted baby has the potential of contributing to society, even if severely handicapped or unwanted, and needs to be protected at all stages of life. We humans do not get to choose who lives and who doesn't; we must do our best to save life when it is within our ability. Abortion is murder, and exceedingly violent, and government should impose legislation to protect all human life.
Ian
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I struggle constantly with the issue of legislating morality in the area of abortion, and admire your firm stance. No decent citizen out there would argue legislating against murder. Because pro-choice people lack the fundamental understanding of scriptural principles relating to the unborn, they do not define the fertilized egg as human; thus not viewing abortion as murder. From their fallen views, in the climate of Roe v Wade, and with the help of science, abortion is a convenient, viable option; whereas other options such as raising the baby or adoption are not as viable in certain socio-economic groups. (i.e., how likely are babies from certain segments of society adopted?) Bringing it to a personal level: how likely are you or I willing to adopt these babies? It’s sobering to face our hidden prejudices. There is also the argument of quality of life. Yes, there will be quality of life if this baby (deformed or otherwise) is raised in a loving family. But what is society doing to help those who are not as fortunate? Seems the current policy is that since we don’t know what to do with these unwanted babies, we’ll just give women the choice to abort them. I don’t see the average person rallying around the joy of abortion, but there is definitely a force out there promoting a woman’s freedom to choose. By taking that choice away, we who know scripture and believe firmly that abortion is murder of an innocent life, are in essence imposing our beliefs on society. Evangelicals are seen as pro-life, pro-NRA, anti-gay, and nothing else. If Jesus were physically here today, would he not be preaching the kingdom of God and transforming lives from the inside, while declaring the mandate to seek first His kingdom, and all these things would be added unto us? I can’t shake the sense that we are fighting the wrong enemy, and neglecting the primary task of the church to preach the gospel. Having said that, we could still do all that we can to tangibly help women make the choice that we believe in, though there are no easy solutions.
Post a Comment