O
N
ne
ation
| Under God |
| Reviving the Family |
| Strengthening The Bond Between God and Families |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
To Choose or Not to Choose
by Wayne S. Walker
Women who claim the right over their bodies to choose abortion are violating the rights of another body within their own.
A few weeks ago, we were driving in traffic behind a car with a bumper sticker which said, "Choice. What a Beautiful Right." I assume
that nearly everyone has seen the pro-life (anti-abortion) signs and bumper stickers which say, "Life. What a Beautiful Choice." This
new bumper sticker seems to be a "pro-choice" (pro-abortion) take off on that, since the word "choice" has become a code word
among the more liberal element for abortion rights. Therefore, I would assume that the owner of the car is expressing her belief in a
woman's sovereign right to have an abortion.
Those who truly believe the Bible understand that abortion is wrong. Period. One of the seven things that are an abomination to the
Lord is "hands that shed innocent blood" (Prov. 6:16,17). And what more innocent blood could be shed than that of helpless unborn
babies? However, it is interesting that the pro-abortion crowd wants to frame the argument solely in terms of "choice." We all like
choices, We do not want to have to buy only one kind of car constructed by a state owned monopoly, we want a choice between
Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, and the multitude of foreign models. We do not wish to be limited only to one government approved
television station but wish to choose from ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, WB, and all the cable or satelite stations (even though there is
probably not much on any of them that is worth watching!).
However, there are some choices that are absolutely wrong and, because they are harmful to others, are prohibited by law. The
choice to rape a woman would be an example. What the bumper sticker actually means, but does not say, is, "Choice. What
aBeautiful Right for a woman to be able to kill her unborn baby." That, of course, would frame the subject entirely differently and
make it much less "noble" sounding. Some bad choices, such as drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes, are allowed by law
primarily because they harm only the individual involved. But when they begin to harm others, they are more strictly controlled
(drinking and driving, or smoking in public places, for example).
One of the arguments made for abortion is that a woman has a right to do with her own body what she chooses. However, the
problem is that it is no longer only her own body under consideration, but a new body that is growing within hers. Some claim that the
child is not really a human being until it is born. They say that it is just a mass of tissue in the woman's body, but that is genetically
not true. If it is not a human being, what is it? A rock? An eagle? The law protects the unborn eagles in eagles' eggs because they
are exactly that -- unborn eagles. The law, however, as currently interpreted by the Supreme(icist) Court cannot protect the unborn
human beings in their mothers' wombs.
This argument for abortion, of course, centers on the concept of "rights," as indicated in the bumper sticker mentioned earlier. Yet,
we all recognize that rights are not absolute. A Supreme Court Justice noted that no one has the right to cry "Fire" in a crowded
theater. The right to swing one's fist ends where another's nose begins. Again, the exercise of the "right to free speech" and the right
to freedom of movement is limited when it conflicts with someone else's rights. Since it is now medically clear that at conception the
unborn baby is a distinct and separate human being, and our Constitution guarantees the "right to life," we have to ask why any
woman should have the right to kill another human being, even if it is unborn and inside her body? Of course, the pro-abortionists
continue to deny these facts in the face of all contrary evidence.
One way that some people, especially many politicians, "waffle" on the abortion question is by saying, "Well, I personally oppose
abortion, but I cannot force my opinion or 'values' on others, so we have to keep abortion legal." That is mere sophistry. To these
people, the word "values" simply means personal viewpoints. However, there are some thngs that are absolute truth, and in those
areas a society imposes its values on people. I am waiting for the politician who will boldly say, "Well, I am personally opposed to mob
bosses eliminating their competition by gangland killings, but I cannot force my 'values' on others, so we should make this kind of
assassination legal." I will probably be waiting a long time, but in principle there is no difference.
Another way to "waffle" on abortion is for someone to say, "I am not pro-abortion, only pro-choice." Again, this is just a dodge. The
prefix "pro" means "for." If an individual is "for" a woman's choice to have an abortion, then he or she is "for" the abortion when the
woman chooses to have it, hence "pro-abortion." Those who support abortion rights prefer to be called "pro-choice" rather than
"pro-abortion" because the one sounds better. Those of us who oppose abortion often call ourselves "pro-life" because that is what
we are, but I for one do not mind being identified as "anti-abortion" because that is accurate as far as it goes. I am against abortion.
The pro-abortion group likes to call us "anti-choice." Although that is not an entire picture either. I will agree that in this case I am
against a particular choice in the same way that I am "anti-choice" when it comes to rape, murder, etc.
This whole issue is part of the greater "culture" war that our society is fighting. While one might argue whether our country was ever
really a "Christian nation" or not, there is the doubt that at one time the laws of our country were based on a Biblical worldview drawn
from our Judaeo-Christian heritage. Do not be deceived. While it is true that our nation was founded on the principle of religious
freedom, it was founded by people who identified themselves as Christians with Biblical values. However, once the humanistic
worldview became dominant and a majority of people no longer truly believed that we are "endowed by our Creator with inalienable
rights" but are mere products of evolution for who a subjective "quality of life" is the only standard, it is nothing to accept the deaths
of countless unborn children via abortion. "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Prov. 14:34).
by Wayne S. Walker
Women who claim the right over their bodies to choose abortion are violating the rights of another body within their own.
A few weeks ago, we were driving in traffic behind a car with a bumper sticker which said, "Choice. What a Beautiful Right." I assume
that nearly everyone has seen the pro-life (anti-abortion) signs and bumper stickers which say, "Life. What a Beautiful Choice." This
new bumper sticker seems to be a "pro-choice" (pro-abortion) take off on that, since the word "choice" has become a code word
among the more liberal element for abortion rights. Therefore, I would assume that the owner of the car is expressing her belief in a
woman's sovereign right to have an abortion.
Those who truly believe the Bible understand that abortion is wrong. Period. One of the seven things that are an abomination to the
Lord is "hands that shed innocent blood" (Prov. 6:16,17). And what more innocent blood could be shed than that of helpless unborn
babies? However, it is interesting that the pro-abortion crowd wants to frame the argument solely in terms of "choice." We all like
choices, We do not want to have to buy only one kind of car constructed by a state owned monopoly, we want a choice between
Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, and the multitude of foreign models. We do not wish to be limited only to one government approved
television station but wish to choose from ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, WB, and all the cable or satelite stations (even though there is
probably not much on any of them that is worth watching!).
However, there are some choices that are absolutely wrong and, because they are harmful to others, are prohibited by law. The
choice to rape a woman would be an example. What the bumper sticker actually means, but does not say, is, "Choice. What
aBeautiful Right for a woman to be able to kill her unborn baby." That, of course, would frame the subject entirely differently and
make it much less "noble" sounding. Some bad choices, such as drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes, are allowed by law
primarily because they harm only the individual involved. But when they begin to harm others, they are more strictly controlled
(drinking and driving, or smoking in public places, for example).
One of the arguments made for abortion is that a woman has a right to do with her own body what she chooses. However, the
problem is that it is no longer only her own body under consideration, but a new body that is growing within hers. Some claim that the
child is not really a human being until it is born. They say that it is just a mass of tissue in the woman's body, but that is genetically
not true. If it is not a human being, what is it? A rock? An eagle? The law protects the unborn eagles in eagles' eggs because they
are exactly that -- unborn eagles. The law, however, as currently interpreted by the Supreme(icist) Court cannot protect the unborn
human beings in their mothers' wombs.
This argument for abortion, of course, centers on the concept of "rights," as indicated in the bumper sticker mentioned earlier. Yet,
we all recognize that rights are not absolute. A Supreme Court Justice noted that no one has the right to cry "Fire" in a crowded
theater. The right to swing one's fist ends where another's nose begins. Again, the exercise of the "right to free speech" and the right
to freedom of movement is limited when it conflicts with someone else's rights. Since it is now medically clear that at conception the
unborn baby is a distinct and separate human being, and our Constitution guarantees the "right to life," we have to ask why any
woman should have the right to kill another human being, even if it is unborn and inside her body? Of course, the pro-abortionists
continue to deny these facts in the face of all contrary evidence.
One way that some people, especially many politicians, "waffle" on the abortion question is by saying, "Well, I personally oppose
abortion, but I cannot force my opinion or 'values' on others, so we have to keep abortion legal." That is mere sophistry. To these
people, the word "values" simply means personal viewpoints. However, there are some thngs that are absolute truth, and in those
areas a society imposes its values on people. I am waiting for the politician who will boldly say, "Well, I am personally opposed to mob
bosses eliminating their competition by gangland killings, but I cannot force my 'values' on others, so we should make this kind of
assassination legal." I will probably be waiting a long time, but in principle there is no difference.
Another way to "waffle" on abortion is for someone to say, "I am not pro-abortion, only pro-choice." Again, this is just a dodge. The
prefix "pro" means "for." If an individual is "for" a woman's choice to have an abortion, then he or she is "for" the abortion when the
woman chooses to have it, hence "pro-abortion." Those who support abortion rights prefer to be called "pro-choice" rather than
"pro-abortion" because the one sounds better. Those of us who oppose abortion often call ourselves "pro-life" because that is what
we are, but I for one do not mind being identified as "anti-abortion" because that is accurate as far as it goes. I am against abortion.
The pro-abortion group likes to call us "anti-choice." Although that is not an entire picture either. I will agree that in this case I am
against a particular choice in the same way that I am "anti-choice" when it comes to rape, murder, etc.
This whole issue is part of the greater "culture" war that our society is fighting. While one might argue whether our country was ever
really a "Christian nation" or not, there is the doubt that at one time the laws of our country were based on a Biblical worldview drawn
from our Judaeo-Christian heritage. Do not be deceived. While it is true that our nation was founded on the principle of religious
freedom, it was founded by people who identified themselves as Christians with Biblical values. However, once the humanistic
worldview became dominant and a majority of people no longer truly believed that we are "endowed by our Creator with inalienable
rights" but are mere products of evolution for who a subjective "quality of life" is the only standard, it is nothing to accept the deaths
of countless unborn children via abortion. "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Prov. 14:34).