Skip to main content

Abortion and Moral Creep

The day has arrived.  Liberals are now advocating for the right to post-birth abortion.

Let me translate that for you, in case you didn't catch it.  Liberals think it's okay to kill a baby that has already exited the womb.

This day of infamy, of ignominy, that liberals swore would never come, has come.

We're not talking about political issues or personal preferences here.  We're talking about killing real, live babies that have been born into our world.    We're talking about real children in the real world being slaughtered instead of protected.  We're talking about vibrant heartbeats being ended.  We're talking about vulnerable little bodies being maimed and thrown in the garbage.  We're talking about red blood being spilt.

You can try to hide it under whatever semantic guise you want, but that's not healthcare--that's murder.

Hippocratic oath, anyone?  More like hypocritical.

There is an ineffable darkness in the soul of a medical professional or parent that could participate in such an act, but, really, why are we surprised?  After all, abortion has been legal in the United States, the so-called most advanced nation in the world, for decades now.  Our supposedly-progressive nation, the land of the free and the home of the brave, has long reveled in barbarism as we have inexplicably labeled infanticide as a human right.

Liberal logic is sound, though murderous.  If you can kill the baby shortly before it is born, why can't you kill it shortly after it is born?  If a mother has a right to end the life of her unborn child, why can't she end the life of her newborn child.  Why does the child's exiting the birthing canal make a difference?  If human life is not inherently valuable, why does it matter when you end it?  If a woman's happiness and convenience are paramount, who are you to tell her what to do with the fruit of her womb?

When does it end?

This is dark logic.  It is sound, but it is backwards.  I'll grant you that there is no difference between the child in the womb and the child out of the womb, but that should cause us to protect unborn children more diligently, not kill them more casually.

Science has long proven that children in the womb are living human beings.  This "clump of cells" nonsense is utterly ridiculous.  Anyone who would suggest that thought in 2019 is an ignoramus.  We have long known that we are killing babies, many times viable babies.  We don't care.

Liberals just don't care.

Partial-birth and post-birth abortion are the natural next steps.

Behold the consequences of subjective, humanistic morality!  Personal fulfillment is our idol, and no sacrifice, not even human sacrifice, is too great a price to pay at its altar! 

Meanwhile, standing up for the rights of the unborn is portrayed as intolerant.  It is oppressive to insist that mothers extend the opportunity of being born to the living human beings in their wombs. Pro-murdering-babies is called pro-choice, the loving and modern perspective.  Anti-murdering-babies is portrayed as backwards and intrusive.

Call me whatever you will, but I think murdering babies is wrong.

I certainly hope this endorsement of infanticide is radical and isolated.  I hope these recent events open up the eyes of our nation to see the ruthless, heartless nature of abortion.  I hope the average man and woman on the street sees what abortion really is--ending the life of a human child.

I hope.  I pray.  I doubt.

I have faith in God, but I don't have faith in the American people.  Our morality has become increasingly Godless, which means it is increasingly man-centered.  Our morality is selfish and subjective.  We are hedonists.  In a culture marked by that sort of ethic, the weak and vulnerable are the first to suffer.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...

Anglicanism, Paedocommunion, & Being Reformed

I consider myself Reformed.  I was baptized as a baby in a PCA church.  I grew up in a Reformed microdenomination that allowed its member churches to subscribe to any of the Reformed confessions (we subscribed to the Three Forms of Unity).  In many ways, whether I like it or not, I still think and act like a Reformed Presbyterian.   Some, however, would seek to deny me that label.  I suspect there are many reasons for this, but paramount among them is that I hold to Paedocommunion (hereafter PC), which, for some reason, is absolutely the worst thing ever to these people.  Some would go so far as to say that PC makes me a heretic, but they all agree that I am certainly not Reformed .   My recent engagement with these opponents of PC has caused me to reflect on what it means to be Reformed and what it means to be a Christian.  This online jousting has dovetailed well with some of my recent study, particularly  An Apology of the Church...

Some Thoughts on the 2024 Election

So, we had an election earlier this week.  Perhaps you heard about it. I have done my best to remain mostly silent on political issues this time around because I have found that fixating on such matters does little for my mental or spiritual health.  Also, no one cares what I think.  Nevertheless, here are a few thoughts on our recent election. 1) I didn't vote for Donald Trump, but I'd be lying if I said I'm not glad he won.  To be clear, that says more about Kamala Harris than about Donald Trump. 2) This election seemed much cleaner--much less suspicious--than the sordid affair we had in 2020.  This election didn't feature any poll workers tallying (discovering? conjuring?) votes behind closed doors in the wee hours of the night, messy mail-in voting, or voter turnout beyond plausible expectations.  The 2020 election had me convinced that we would never see another peaceful, uncontested election, but, as contentious as things were this year, it seems like...