Why I Am Pro-Life

I first ran this post very early in blogging, and got quite a response from people who I’ve never met.  Make sure to check out the comments below.  Very interesting stuff.  I’m re-running this post because I think it’s important and informative.

An 8 week old “fetus” has a beating heart, an EKG, brain waves, thumb-sucking, pain sensitivity, finger grasping and genetic humanity, but under our present laws in the United States is not a human person with rights under the 14th Amendment.  This is not right.  That’s why I am “Pro-Life.”  Watch this video and tell me what you think.  Are there arguments for abortion or the right to choose that you don’t know how to respond to or that you find compelling?  :

Advertisements

You Are Not An Accident

Albert Einstein said,

God doesn’t play dice.

Long before you were conceived by your parents you were conceived in the mind of God.

You are not an accident.

Isaiah 44:2,

I am your Creator.  You were in my care even before you were born.

Knowing that God uniquely created me (you), what areas of my (your) personality, background and physical appearance am I struggling to accept?

The Greatest Challenge for Christian Parents Raising Children

OK, these aren’t my ideas. I’m not that sharp. But my wife sent me a link to a blog post that is brilliant. The whole interview is a little long for our sound bite culture but you can read it HERE.

This is the excerpt I’d like to highlight from a question by Sheb Varghese from his Faith Colloquium blog.

Here’s the question addressed to Holly Hamilton-Bleakley: What do you think are some of the greatest challenges/obstacles for parents raising children today, particularly for parents coming from faith traditions? How might we overcome these challenges?

Here is her answer:

First, I think as a society we are developing a rather distorted view of freedom, which is impacting parents significantly, most especially parents from faith traditions. This is a radical concept of freedom where the most important value seems to be ‘choice’, and it is choice itself that makes an action right. The problem is that this radical concept of choice does not sit well with other philosophies which do not exalt choice as the highest value. Take abortion as an example. The pro-abortion argument is a pro-choice argument – a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body. But for someone who is pro-life, the question of when it is morally right to take a human life is a more important consideration than the concept of ‘choice’. Euthanasia is another example – should someone be able to ‘choose’ when they die, or is it morally wrong to take one’s life? The proponents of choice say that one should be able to do with one’s body as one sees fit; but there are others that think the sanctity of life is more important than individual choice. Transgender issues are another example – should you be able to choose whether you are a man or a woman?

In all these cases, when choice is the highest value, it becomes the cuckoo in the nest that drives out all other values, all other considerations. And often, the person who suggests that there are other values besides choice is seen as a hateful, backward person who wants to implement some kind of tyranny. Thus, you declare a ‘war on women’ if you are pro-life; you are heartless and cruel if you do not think people should be able to choose when to end their own lives, or choose their own gender.

The problem is that there are other values in that nest with the cuckoo of choice – indeed, those values are what should inform choice. As the British philosopher Roger Scruton puts it: ‘Freedom is of no use to a being who lacks the concepts with which to value things, who lives in a solipsistic vacuum, idly willing now this and now that, but with no conception of an objective order that would be affected by his choice. We cannot derive the ends of conduct from the idea of choice alone.

Because politically we want to protect choice, we often do not speak publicly of good choices and bad choices. But as parents, we are the ones who teach our children what kinds of reasons and values need to guide their choices. We are the ones who teach the difference between a good choice and a bad choice.

This is our right, and our duty, as parents, but there are times when I feel this right is slipping away. Just recently there was a story in the news about a teenage boy who wanted to become a transgendered girl, but his parents were Christians and tried to dissuade him. He committed suicide, which caused an outcry in the transgender community against his parents’ efforts to help him accept himself as a boy. Yet, the parents had a right to teach him Christian values, which assert the sanctity of the body, and the importance of the body for one’s identity.

Coming from a faith tradition myself, I am particularly concerned with the increasing hostility toward religion in western society. This hostility seems to be linked to the idea that religions do indeed have a concept of the human good which therefore constrains individual choice. Sadly, it is this hostility which is leading to an increasing suspicion of parents who want to raise their children in a religious way.

Another challenge, of course, is social media. Social media can be wonderful and indeed it has revolutionized the way we do things. I do think it presents a challenge, however, in that our children can spend much, much more time with their peers ‘virtually’ than we ever did in the flesh. It is true that you become like the people you spend time with, so the problem with social media is that if your child is on it all the time – and I do mean all the time – then you really have no idea who they are socializing with, what they are saying, or what is being said to them.

It comes down to a question of influence, I think. As parents we have less of an opportunity to influence our children if we let our families get sucked into the never-ending world of social media. Thankfully I think it is a challenge that can be successfully met if you set limits on when and where your child can have access to the internet, etc., but prepare yourself for an on-going battle, particularly through the teenage years.

Another challenge I must mention is the rise of pornography. I see this as another area in which parents are not only losing influence, but also are being shouted down by those who see no problem with pornography. Ten years ago we were all up in arms about how to protect our kids from internet porn; now, we have government ministers suggesting that kids can turn to porn to learn about sex.

I’ve written about porn in the past; my wholehearted disapproval of it is no secret. I think it gives all the wrong messages and teaches all the wrong lessons about sexual behavior. It trains our passions to desire a certain kind of sexual experience which is selfish, violent, and ultimately lonely; it teaches us to treat the ‘other’ as an object, not a person. It is incredibly addictive and trains us to need new images in order to get aroused, thus making it much harder to sustain fidelity in a committed relationship like marriage. It completely desecrates the sacred union between a man and a woman, and is thus of special concern to parents from faith traditions. Exposure to porn at a young age literally hijacks a child’s sexuality and passions. Yet, the ‘freedom culture’ tells parents they are controlling and backward if they try to protect their children from encountering these monstrous images.

Guest Post (Reagan Lynn): #ShoutYourBirth

I wake up every morning grateful for the life I have. I am especially grateful to have been born into such a time when I, as a woman, have the ability to do anything a man can do. But on that note, I find it despicable that the feminist movement has become what it is. I have never felt inferior to men in my life. I was raised with a strong mind and have never felt threatened. I go home and am treated equally to my brothers. I go to school and am treated equally to my male peers. Never once have I considered that perhaps I’m not treated equally until…

…”modern feminism” was introduced to me. Reading into feminism, I began to feel that I wasn’t treated right. “We are not paid the same!” “Men are more respected!” Yada yada. Looking back I realize that I only felt weaker when I was told I was weaker. I felt inferior only when I was told I was inferior.That’s the result of the modern feminist movement’s victimization mentality. I felt this way until I saw Carly Fiorina articulate that women are the majority, that we are important, that we aren’t victims; which is what the liberal feminist movement led me to believe.

I am grateful to have the parents I have. Parents who valued my life, despite whether or not the timing was right, or whether or not they could afford to have me. I am speaking up because #shoutyourabortion doesn’t tell the whole story. Those telling their stories have a voice, they have a life. And while they can speak for themselves, the fetus or unborn baby cannot. They can’t celebrate their birth, while others celebrate their death. As a woman I understand why people are pro-choice, but to me, the “my body” argument does not justify killing a life. Why is it that society shutters when we hear of a puppy being killed, yet do not respond to the genocide occurring in our own country, our own states, our own cities. I will not stand by while “welcomed births” are celebrated and “unplanned births” are not. I will #shoutmybirth because #shoutyourabortion is only one side of the equation, the side that silenced the other. Please, shout with me for the sake of the unborn. Join me in thanking our parents for valuing us.

T or F: Abortion is just terminating a pregnancy, not killing a child

Here’s another common “mantra” of the pro-choice movement, and what better timing then as we approach the celebration of the birth of the Christ child:

The unborn is an embryo or a fetus–just a simple blob of tissue, a product of conception–not a baby.  Abortion is just terminating a pregnancy, not killing a child.

1. Like toddler and adolescent, the terms embro and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development.  The word embryo is used of any living creature at an early stage of development.  Fetus is a Latin word meaning “young one” or “little child.”

2. Semantics affect perceptions, but they do not change realities; a baby is a baby no matter what we call her.  Though fetus was once a good word that spoke of a young human being, it is now used with a subhuman connotation.  It allows the user of the word to avoid the humanizing word “baby.”  My favorite (not!) that the pro-choice crowd uses to refer to a baby is “Product of conception.”  It’s a baby.  Just look at it!

3. Prior to the earliest first-trimester abortions, the unborn already has every body part she will ever have.  At 18 days after conception the heart is forming and the eyes start to develop.  By 21 days the heart is not only beating but pumping blood throughout the body.  By 28 days the unborn has budding arms and legs.  By 30 days she has multiplied in size times 10,000.  She has a brain and blood flows through her veins.  This development continues quickly.

4. Every abortion stops a beating heart and terminates measurable brain waves. 

5. Even in the earliest abortions, the unborn child is clearly human in appearance.  If there was a window to the womb that everyone could see, no one would doubt the “humanity” of each unborn child.

T or F?: The Fetus is just a part of a pregnant woman’s body, like an appendix

Here’s another common argument I hear from pro-choice folks:

The fetus is just a part of the pregnant woman’s body, like her tonsils or appendix.

Uhhh…no it’s not.  Look at an ultrasound and you’ll see the difference.  If my appendix has a beating heart, arms, legs, etc….it ceases to be an appendix.  A body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of its body; the unborn’s genetic code differs from her mother’s.

Furthermore, The child may die and the mother live, or the mother may die and the child live, proving they are two separate individuals. Human beings should not be discriminated against because of their place of residence.

True or false? It is uncertain when human life begins

An article printed and distributed by the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) describes as “anti-choice” the position that “human life begins at conception.”  It says that the prochoice position is, “Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact.”

It is uncertain when human life begins; that’s a religious question that cannot be answered by science.

If there is uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life.  Suppose there is uncertainty about when human life begins.  If a hunter is uncertain whether a movement in the brush is caused by a person, does his uncertainty lead him to fire or not to fire?  If you’re driving at night and you think the dark figure ahead on the road may be a child, but it may just be a shadow of a tree, do you drive into it or do you put on the brakes?  Shouldn’t we give the benefit of the doubt to life?

Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception.  There are simply too many sources to cite!  I have dozens that cite life begins at conception.  They state not a theory or hypothesis can certainly not a religious belief–every one is a secular source.