I have not written about abortion, until now. I will admit I am a bit bothered. I have had a rough week–one of my Seminary professors (Carl Stam) has had a recurrence of lymphoma; I just found out one of my favorite teachers of all time–from High School–Dr. Buck Offutt has had a stroke; and a gifted young musician, Coleman Mellett–we played in the same groups in High School–was killed in the Buffalo, NY plane crash. So, why does that prompt me to write on abortion?
Abortion is murder. Pure and simple. The end of a life without due process of law and without extraordinary, accidental circumstances is nothing more than murder.
Many have sought to quote scripture, which is extremely relevant, when writing on this topic. Admittedly, there are some who will dismiss the Bible out-of-hand. Therefore, I will make logical arguments.
If an embryo is not a life, why then are the embryos of endangered species protected by law?
The proponents of Abortion run into an impossible conundrum here: Why are animal embryos considered different and treated different from a human embryo? The Bald Eagle is a magnificent creature. According to the Endangered Species Act, to take a Bald Eagle egg from a nest will get you a fine of not more than $1,000 and not more than one year in jail. (source) Yet, you can walk into an abortion clinic and pay someone to end a life (or what will become a life–in keeping with the egg of a Bald Eagle) and you and the person doing the abortion get off scott-free. In fact, both parties will probably be congratulated on their progressiveness and how they exercise their rights.
This is especially damning to the pro-abortion position when you consider that many people will believe in the evolutionary process (which I whole-heartedly reject) and, therefore, have every reason to believe that humans and animals are, in fact, different versions of the same stuff–just differences in evolution.
So…the conundrum: How are potential Bald Eagles different from potential Humans? According to the animal rights and pro-abortion philosophies, they are not. The pro-abortion proponents hold to a logically indefensible position.
How can an anti-death penalty person also be a pro-abortion person?
Many of the anti-death penalty people I’ve heard stick to the party-line and they tend to be pro-abortion too. They claim life is too valuable to be ended, even for some of the most heinous crimes. All too often, the pro-death penalty, anti-abortion people (like me) are accused of a hypocritical position. Here’s the pro-abortion, anti-death penalty problem:
If you believe that life is too precious to be taken, even in the face of a heinous crime, how can you believe it is OK to snuff out what will become a life (assuming for argument sake that an embryo is not a life)?
Let’s examine a progression. If someone is sentenced to death, it means they have been tried by a jury of their peers and have been duly convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition to this burden of proof, there has been a long and thorough appeal process.
To abort an embryo, you are denying a person of this right to due process. The embryo is being aborted when the person has done neither good nor bad (in the eyes of the law).
So, the pro-abortion, anti-death penalty people fail this test. It is a position which cannot be logically argued.
Now, to answer the undoubted rebuttal:
How can someone who values the life of an embryo not value the life of someone sentenced to die for a crime?
Simple. If you value life, it is impossible to require anything less than death for the most heinous crimes. Why? Your life is the most valuable thing you have; it is the one thing that, if you lose it, you have lost everything. If life is not that valuable, why do the families of victims of plane crashes file lawsuits against the carrier for wrongful death?
Of course many families do file and win lawful death suits–showing that life is indeed valuable, far beyond anything else.
So how do you exact payment for a heinous crime of pre-meditated, first-degree (to be redundant) murder? You require the life of the perpetrator. To require less is to de-value the person who was killed and that de-values all life.
How is the pro-abortion position not linked to the billion dollar abortion industry?
Planned Parenthood says that it prefers to distribute contraception and to engage in sexual education. Their records (available here) show that 38% of their activities are related to contraception while 3% of activities are related to abortion. However, when you look at the financial activities, there is a gross disparity. According to teenwire.com, the average cost of a Planned Parenthood abortion is between $275 and $700. (source) Of course, condoms don’t cost much. So, when Planned Parenthood reported their “Health Center Income” to be 356.9 million dollars, I began to wonder if they were being honest.
According to their own records, Planned Parenthood performed 289,750 abortions in 2006. If we assume the average cost of a Planned Parenthood abortion to be $487.50, they would have made $141,253,125.
The numbers simply do not add up.
What is more, and perhaps more insidious, the pro-abortion lobby seeks to eliminate any “choice” from the abortion decision making process. The so-called “pro-choice” proponents always scream the loudest when the hint of requiring that a person contemplating abortion be given the other alternatives like adoption.
Why would the pro-choice crowd not want choice?
Because abortion has never been about “choice” it has been about money. Abortion is an industry and the pro-abortion lobbyists have done everything in their power to give themselves a monopoly in their business.
So, how can a pro-choice person be against giving all the options? Again, this is a logically indefensible position.
Surely there could be more examples. Sadly, the pro-choice, pro-abortion (they are synonyms) crowd will undoubtedly reap the whirlwind which they have sown. May God change their hearts and save their souls.