for the love of life, stop

the battle for human life is waging.  a humanitarian crisis of the greatest proportions and significance is upon us.  and, the way i see it, it basically it comes down to this:  you either value human life (all human life), or you dont.  either you have a problem with innocent life being taken, or you dont.  you cannot have it both ways people.  you cannot be outraged at crimes against humanity but then take the life of an unborn child and be so proud that you make a live video about it or rave about the new abortion-themed rom com.  you cannot be a women's rights activist and live like the rights of females are vital when you advocate for cutting off the life of hundreds of thousands of baby women every year. you cannot say that you are fighting for equal rights for minorities and then applaud a system that kills a dis-proportionally high amount of minorities.  you cannot be disgusted at a murderer, who would take human life for his own personal reasons, and then champion a woman killing human life for her own personal reasons.  you cannot want to empower women by arguing that they are empowered to END life.  (please read this exceptional post by Matt Walsh). you maintain (and rightly so) that rape is wrong because a woman has a right to her body.  when did she get that right?  when she turned 5? when she turned 4? when she was born?  


she had a right to her body since it was formed in her own mothers womb!

and who gave her that right? was it you?  did you come up with the idea? 


she has that right because her creator gave it to her when he made her with his very hands.

stop it.  stop being so inconsistent.  stop contradicting yourself.  stop saying one thing but doing another.  stop.  for the love of life, stop.  

what i cannot wrap my mind around is that the decision about whether or not an unborn child is a baby comes down to how the mother feels?  FEELS? what?  no where else in life would we use this sorry excuse for logic.  we would never decide about whether or not humans are humans based on how other humans feel about those humans. and when we have seen examples of that happening in history, we have a special word for it...genocide.   

feelings?  really?  so if my friend gets pregnant and is excited from day one, i rejoice with her because she feels like her fetus is a baby.  and if she were to lose that baby, i would mourn with her because she felt like it was a baby...but if my friend gets pregnant and does not feel like its a baby, i champion her for deciding to abort it and deem it a sack of cells? 

and if i feel today like that fetus is a baby but tomorrow decide it was just indigestion and that it really is not a baby at all, does the actual truth about the value of that life change because of how i feel about it?

of course not.  how absurd.

we would be revolted (and rightly so) by a mother who killed her five year old because she felt like 'it was not convenient anymore and i did not feel like being a mother'.  how is it any different justifying the killing of an unborn child because of not feeling like being a mother?  what happens when you don't feel like your disabled spouse is really valuable anymore...kill them? what about your mother when she is no longer able to take care of her physical faculties...end her life because you are not ready to take care of an elderly parent at this point in your life?

of course not.  how absurd.

either we value life, all life, from its conception, or we dont.  because attempting to draw a line between where life starts and ends, other than conception and death, is muddy and dangerous. i have heard many, MANY pro-choice defendants admit that the unborn baby is probably a baby. and it seems so logical to me that we would err on the side of caution.  if you saw a dog (A DOG) on the side of the road and it looked like it was dead but there were some signs, no matter how subtle, that it were alive, wouldn't you do everything you could for it?  you would err on the side of caution rather than assuming that life was absent.  why would we assume a less careful position with potential human life.  even if you only see it as a potential. you would do what you could for potential life in a dog, but not in a human?  really? 

how absurd.

it is time to decide people. either human life is valuable, all human life...the starving children in developing countries...the kidnapped girls in nigeria...those caught in war zones around the world...those caught in the war zone of being in utero...or life is not valuable.   who do you think you are that you have, in your person, all the wisdom, discernment and knowledge necessary to make the cosmic decision that a baby is not a baby because that baby is inconvenient or unplanned (by you) or unwanted?  

(disclaimer:  i believe that God can and does forgive us our blindness and foolishness and that there is forgiveness for women who have had abortions and are repentant and saddened by their actions.  but the thrust of this post is about the value of life, so i will stay on the vein).  

and what does convenience have to do with it anyway?  doing the right thing is rarely convenient.  that has nothing to do with anything.  what parent would teach their children to do the right thing when its easy and then do whatever suits themselves best if not.  what society would prosper if it applied these principles to social laws...

imagine that declaration of independence 

you have the right to life, so long as the majority in the community think your life is valuable

you have the right to liberty, unless its inconvenient or unplanned for

you have the right pursue happiness, unless it infringes on someone else's happiness.  then we can kill you

stop being absurd.  stop being inconsistent.  stop killing unborn children.  stop.  

for the love of life, stop.


Post a Comment