12 September 2008

O Canada — is that where we're headed? (Abortion)

by Dan Phillips

Jeremiah pointedly asks:
8 “How can you say, ‘We are wise,
and the law of the LORD is with us’?
But behold, the lying pen of the scribes
has made it into a lie.
9 The wise men shall be put to shame;
they shall be dismayed and taken;
behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD,
so what wisdom is in them?
(Jeremiah 8:8-9)
The Bible both makes clear and illustrates the point: when the truth of God is not our starting-point, assuredly folly, epistemological and moral insanity, and disaster will be our ending-point (Psalm 55:19; Proverbs 1:7, 29-33; 9:10; Romans 1:18-32).

And so, what that in mind, consider this headline:


Nope, before you ask: no, this is not Scrappleface, not The Onion, not Tom in the Box, not Sacred Sandwich.

This is straight news. Twisted doctors, and twisted reasoning. But straight news.

The backdrop is Alaska's governor Sarah Palin, who found herself bearing a child with Down syndrome, knowing gave birth to him, and celebrates him as "absolutely perfect" in the family's eyes.

The original story was in The Globe and Mail. What passes for moral reasoning in the article itself is pretty chilling. Those opposed to aborting babies with Down syndrome babies are said to "fear it could result in dwindling numbers of people living with Down syndrome, which could diminish funding for research or resource programs." The only concern the reporter can understand is a concern about funding.

Further, André Lalonde, who is executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, is reported as being concerned that "Ms. Palin's widely discussed decision to keep her baby, knowing he would be born with the condition, may inadvertently influence other women who may lack the necessary emotional and financial support to do the same."

Now, parse that out. They lack the "emotional and financial support" to support the baby. So they "decide" not to "keep" the baby. In other words, they decide to have the baby killed.

Now, that's okay — if it's a few inches to one side of the birth canal. For some reason. We're never told why. But ___ inches this way = murder, ___ inches that way = celebrated and sacred "right" of "choice." In fact, not just choice but (we're being told) the only loving and responsible choice.

Now, try to reason this out. If the difficulty of the situation before the child's birth warrants a just death-sentence on the child... why not equally on the other side of the birth canal?

Consider this situation. Perhaps things are okay when the special-needs child is born... but then afterwards, the marriage breaks up, jobs are hard to find, and there are medical bills.

Death warrant?

If not, why not?

Human life is a continuum of development that begins with conception and ends with death. There are many milestones, none of which marks off humanness from non-humanness. There is no bar Mitzvah in the womb.

And so, any rationale for killing a child before birth is only as compelling as a rationale for killing him after birth. That is, if you can kill him for being imperfect or inconvenient before birth, it must be legitimate to do so afterwards (as Princeton's Peter Singer has in fact argued). If it is legitimate to kill him for some parent's crimes before birth, it must be legitimate to do so afterwards.

This contrasts starkly with the Biblical perspective on human life and its implications for abortion.

But abortion has become a sacrament to a certain Molochian worldview. In spite of my title, I have no illusions that America is fundamentally any better than Canada. Our national stance on this topic is indefensible and shameful.

In both nations, we see a living answer to Jeremiah's question: "they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?"

What wisdom?

The "wisdom" of might makes right. The "wisdom" of me-first.

The "wisdom" of buying the foundational lie — "You shall be as God."


Notes about the meta:

On-topic/permissible comments include: Biblical worldview, epistemology, apologetics, abortion, ethical decision-making.

Off-topic/impermissible comments include: this American presidential election and the candidates per se. Issues related to that are being discussed here and there — but not here. I'll be fairly merciless, so tread lightly.

Dan Phillips's signature


60 comments:

Dan said...

Palin is definitely showing the heart of what people are and what they believe. This is evident in this article. The "industry" is afraid to lose money. The feminists are showing they aren't about a woman getting a high position as they badger her. The anti-war critics have been shown that they are anti-anything Bush as Palin sends her son to war. She is a polarizing figure...and she's hot :) Trig is a polarizing person in himself and honestly its made me think about how the church doesn't seem to be effectively reaching those with special needs children.

NoLongerBlind said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

Thanks for continuing to bring this issue back to the light of God’s Word. Any and all discussion of abortion must begin and end there.

VcdeChagn said...

Have you read Paglia's article on Palin and abortion?

I know the political stuff is off limits, but what she writes about abortion is compelling and thoroughly chilling.

Here's the quote that spells it all out.

But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, "Sexual Personae,") has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature's fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.

Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman's body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman's entrance into society and citizenship.


She knows it's murder and she DOES NOT CARE. Of course the root issue is her worldview. "Nature" rather than God.

I don't know the tag for embedding links but the article is by Camille Paglia and it's on Salon.com

DJP said...

Gah! D'oh! Thanks, Nolongerblind.

Stupid cut-n-paste!

(Stupid cut-n-paster.)

VcdeChagn said...

Umm...compelling probably wasn't the word I was looking for...

What I meant was her argument is perfectly logical without God in the picture.

DJP said...

Yes, VcdeChagn. We pro-lifers used to press the humanity of the baby, confident that, if pro-deathers were to confront that, they'd back off their support for abortion like scalded cats.

Instead, brutal facts have bludgeoned them unwillingly to that long-obvious conclusion... but have not changed their fundamental position.

Nothing other than a robust grasp of the Bible's teaching concerning the noetic effects of sin can explain it.

NoLongerBlind said...

Dan,

Not to be a "noodge", but:

Off topic/"permissible" ???

DJP said...

NoLongerBlind

Sigh. At this point, I'm envisioning a 100+ comment meta devoted solely to catching and correcting my mistakes, and my admissions thereof.

donsands said...

Partial birth killing is the one that gets me.

"Now, that's okay — if it's a few inches to one side of the birth canal. For some reason. We're never told why. But ___ inches this way = murder, ___ inches that way = celebrated and sacred "right" of "choice."

The baby is turned around in the womb, and the feet are brought out kicking, and then the little arms, and body, but not the head. Now we can suck the brains out. But what if the head comes out half way? Can the mother scoot down, or perhaps the rule could be to push the head back, but if the head comes completely out, then you can no longer kill the baby.

The writing is on the wall, and they are not only ignoring it, but blantly justifying it.
Unbelieveable!

Thanks for a good post. Well done Dan.

Stan McCullars said...

I have been of the opinion that people (except possibly for the serisously mental retarded) have always known abortion is murder. They kill not because they don't know what's going on. They kill in spite of it.

Jesse P. said...

Dan,

Thanks for taking a strong stand against this (not that I doubted you would). I read that very same article and almost threw up.

We've disagreed on stuff before (like the gifts a while back), but it's good to know there are still some reasonable people in the world who are so old-fashioned, legalistic and downright hateful that they don't actually support murder.

DJP said...

Don — point well-made. I didn't even go there, but you of course are absolutely right. Grisly beyond the possibility of the soul even to envision, yet done and defended.

The estimable Senatrix Barbara Boxer registered horror when a colleague described the procedure in the Senate. Horror at the description — but she adamantly defends the actual practice.

Solameanie said...

Dan,

Senatrix?

ROFL times 45. Why am I suddenly getting images of Barbarella in my mind?

Of course, you could have meant it in the Roman Catholic way i.e. mediatrix and co-redemptrix. Or you could have been thinking of Trix the cereal or an old pet named Trixie.

Nevertheless, hysterical.

Janet MacDougall said...

There is at present no law in Canada regulating abortion which is perfectly legal right up to the day of delivery.

A recent private members bill which would permit charges for the killing of an unborn child during a crime, has died as all.

Quebec, which was until the 1970's a predominantly Catholic provice, has the highest rate of abortion in Canada.

The rest of the country is rapidly catching up.

Dr. Lalonde's sadly do not surprise me at all.

Pray for us

Janet MacDougall

NoLongerBlind said...

Unless I'm mistaken, that same Senatress from the far left was once quoted as believing that it should be a woman's right to terminate the life of her child up until the time she takes "it" home from the hospital.
A sad commentary on the potential depravity of fallen men and women.

stratagem said...

It is not so very long ago that another group of people concluded that if someone were born into a Jewish home, they would eventually become a burden on (non-Jewish) society, and should be eliminated.

I fail to see how the present-day abortion "debate" is any different, whether the baby is a burden because they are Down's, or because their parents are poor, or because they are getting in the way of life plans, or whatever the reason.

It's common sense that no babies deserve to be proactively killed, but as a society we have talked ourselves stupid on this subject.

Rick Frueh said...

Listening to a depraved conversation always provides ample revelations of that same depravity. Like listening as four year olds discuss the topography of the dark side of the moon. It is where logic and morality get sucked into the black hole of human "reasoning".

Should Jesus tarry having a baby will be like cheap computer printers. If it doesn't work right, discard it and get another one.

DJP said...

Stratagem, you're absolutely right of course.

To be brutally blunt, it's always boggled me that so many blacks and Jews are pro-aborts. If anyone should know the formula (dehumanize, then you can do whatever you want), it should be they.

eastendjim said...

In a recent sermon about idol worship our pastor was comparing the child sacrifices made to Molech to abortion today.

He made the statement, "We like to think of ourselves as more civilized than those people who sacrificed their children to an idol. We are more sophisticated, but we are definitely NOT more civilized."

The Globe & Mail article confirms that statement.

"In spite of my title, I have no illusions that America is fundamentally any better than Canada."

Unfortunately there are lots of Canadians up here who have the illusion that the stance of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada makes us fundamentally better than Americans.

Trinian said...

To be brutally blunt, it's always boggled me that so many blacks and Jews are pro-aborts. If anyone should know the formula (dehumanize, then you can do whatever you want), it should be they.

I hadn't even considered that aspect. This is very practical in my discussions with certain friends - thank you.

Daniel said...

In Canada, we have an endangered species act that criminalizes the killing of any member of an endangered species.

In fact, it is considered criminal in Canada, not only to kill, but likewise to "injure, possess, disturb, take or interfere with or attempt to kill, injure, possess, disturb, take or interfere with an endangered or threatened species or any part or product thereof;

Where "species" is defined by the act as:

"species" means a plant, animal or other organism, and includes one or more populations of a species, and the eggs, larvae or other forms of developmental life of a species and any part of an individual of a species, but does not include a domesticated species;

I don't want you to miss the implication, so I will spell it out.

In Canada to harm or kill the eggs of endangered species, is equivalent to harming or killing a mature specimen.

That is, in Canada our law makes no distinction between the embryonic state of endangered species and their mature state, life (for an endangered species in Canada) legally begins at conception, and not at some formative benchmark.

It amazes me that in Canada that I can be charged for murdering a whooping crane, if I smash an egg, but I can mutilate a fully formed fetus, and end its life thus - as long as I do it in utero.

Do not think that the nations who sacrificed their little ones to Molech were less sophisticated than we are in Canada - but regard us as morally on par with such nations, as I am sure God reckons us - we sacrifice our little ones, not to win battles or even to have better crops for those who remain - but because we view their lives as inconvenient to our own, and we do this in the full knowledge that they are just as much a person as we are.

As a Canadian, I am hoping that God grants our nation conviction of sin, and repentance.

Strong Tower said...

"The only concern the reporter can understand is a concern about funding."

The wonders of pragmatics. The utilitarian end trumps all.

As all other leaders of the movement agree, it is murder and if you read what they have said, what they all want is the right to murder one of their own. The claim that no one knows when life begins is a propaganda appeal to the ignorant masses. No one all the way back to Sanger and beyond believed anything less than the baby was human from conception forward. The the ontology recapitulates ontogeny argument was adopted as a scientific proof that was spoon fed to the ignorant until and believed is was shown to be bad science. It still shows up in text books and is a common claim of abortion supporters.

As you point out, if Down's is reason for termination before, then it stands as the reason at any point in the human life cycle. Peter Singer's suggestion only moves the socially acceptable point further along the timeline, utility being his bottom line. That then translates to society in determining the utility of life for any given reason. Down's is the sufficient cost to pull the handle, but it is in reality utility itself that is the deciding factor.

Often we hear education and life style as sufficent costs to legitimate the utility of abortion. So we have gone far beyond Down's or disability. It really comes down to self-determinism. Libertarian freewill choice. Evolution though is not contingent upon the creatures will. The National Academy of Sciences has gone so far as to say that all thinking is a product of environmental factors. There is obviously a contradiction. If it is evolution that is pushing the extermination or the preservation, then Choice is excluded and the Pro-Choice movement has subjectected itself to the very thing, governing agencies interference with the womb, that they claim to oppose.

None of their arguments work. We submit ourselves to the will of God because we know that there is no other. They deny that there is any form of determinism from a transcendent source and claim self-determinism in a deterministic system known as naturalism, i.e. evolutionsim.

Of the scary things that evolves from their irrationalism is the fact that they have declared the conceptus a thing. Unlike a person who in our concept of government has a right to life, to be secure in their person and property, a thing can be regulated, forbidden or otherwise taxed by the state. By declaring the 'contents' of the womb not human they have actually granted government the right to mandate abortion. So, many in the NOW, NARAL, PP have advocated a Chinese system here, in full recognition that that is exactly the case.

The jello-like definition life becomes so fluid that in one conversation I had with an evolutionist, life is a continuum with no beginning and no end. To terminate life then is a non sequitur. Life is nature, it has no beginning, no end, so to speak of terminating that which never comes to be, according to him, was irrational.

donsands said...

"..whether the baby is a burden because they are Down's, or because their parents are poor, or because they are getting in the way of life plans, or whatever the reason."

My daughter was discussing with some other girls (believers & unbelievers) on line about how one of the girls was pregnant, and found out it was a boy, but she wanted a girl, so she had decided to abort the baby.
My daughter felt dirty just talking about such a thing.

It's "for conveince-sake" for millions of woman when they abort the baby, and rare for the incest and rape victums, which is where the pro-choicers will try to argue for killing the unborn.

Pitbull78 said...

It amazes me at times, yet at other times I realize that we are once again living in a time like the Judges, where 'everyone does what is right in their own eyes', and for the most part, the church does not endure sound doctrine...back to my point...sometimes I am amazed that professing Christian don't blink an eye as they proclaim they are "pro-choice", I put those little quotes around it because its not really about any sort of choice, but it is pro-abortion, it's about having abortion on demand.

I have heard professing Christians try their hardest to justify their murderous beliefs and ideaologies, but the 1st Century Church realized the truth of the matter, that abortion was murder, plain and simple, and recorded this in the Didache, I realize its not divinely inspired, but I think a lot can be gleaned from it.

Robert said...

Great article, and very well worked out. One warning, though that we all need to consider. One preacher I know, Ph.D. philosophy, speaks at settings from camp meetings to university forums. Was approached after a university debate by several young women, thanking him for clarifying the ethical link between abortion and infanticide. Being deliberately secular in their thinking they took his articulate, passionately Christian, presentation as clear grounds that infanticide was really a good idea after all!

Matt Gumm said...

One of the reasons I thought Rick Warren's question was absolutely brilliant was that it attempted to reframe the debate in terms of rights. It wasn't "when does life begin?" but rather,"when does a baby get human rights?"

It can be (and has been) argued that the first is a moral or philosophical question; the second is practical, and every politician should be made to answer it, if only to expose the double standards of life and death.

Rick Frueh said...

I believe the most reasoned approach to abortion sans any Biblical or religious measuring stick came from Ronald Reagan's book "Abortion: The Conscience of a Nation". In it he acknowledges differences in the scientific community and therefore he suggest we should always "err on the side of life".

ReformedMommy said...

That article and the discussion around it moves me to tears every time I read it. The recent spotlight that She-Who-Shall-Not-Presently-Be-Named has brought to this has been tremendously convicting. The wickedness of the world is there for all to see, but has the response of God's people been there to match it?

If my limited remembrance of early church history is correct, the Romans would abandon babies, particularly girls, in the street after birth because they KNEW Christians would pick them up and love them. What would it take for us to get to that point today?

One major challenge - there is more perceived societal shame in "abandoning" a baby at a church or hospital than there is in killing it.

But what if we, what if I, went to every hospital in America, every doctors office, and said "please take my name and number and when you have a patient with a DS pregnancy, give it to the mother and let her know I will love your baby for you, and I will pay for his/her care...."

What would the church have to do to get to that point? What would I have to do? A lot more than we're doing right now, I'm thinking...

Rita Martinez said...

"Now, parse that out. They lack the "emotional and financial support" to support the baby. So they "decide" not to "keep" the baby. In other words, they decide to have the baby killed."
This is hysterical so the best option is death? Funny how there are so many grants funding the silliest of "researches" with monkeys and who knows what other animals, and yet there is no money to offer these women and their children a better option for quality of life, no instead the easier excuse is death. A human is a human is human, whether in the womb or out of it, whether with down syndrome or no syndrome, and every human being has a right to life.
Thanks for this post Dan!

Dorian said...

John Piper tells a story about a conversation he had with an abortion doctor. He thought that if he could just convince him that he was killing children, that the doctor would see the evil of abortion. To Piper's shock, when Piper said this, the doctor's first response was, "I know that better than you do."

God have mercy on us! God come quickly and bring your justice!

DJP said...

Rita Martinez, that's the line of argument that is always the most amazing and chilling to me — particular since people say it with such conviction, and such a sense of morality.

For instance, they'll express concern about how awful it would be for a child to be born to poverty, to an abusive situation, to any and every kind of difficulty.

So the compassionate solution is... to poison or dismember the living child.

But, you see, we're doing it for his own good.

The answer to Jeremiah 8:8-9, right there, in living color.

Solameanie said...

I've said for a long time now that abortion is a sacrament to the left. They will protest strongly at such a statement, but stories such as these rather prove my point. I think Dan's reference to Moloch is spot on.

In terms of the Camille Paglia quote, yes, it is amazing. What's even more amazing is that conservatives will often quote Paglia approvingly because she breaks liberal orthodoxy from time to time. She is no conservative.

Solameanie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
charlieontheT said...

Excellent and helpful post; thanks.

Jim Kirby said...

Dan,

With respect to Canada, I could help but think of Forrest Gump's aphorism: "Stupid is as stupid does."

JOYce@pfg said...

Dan, what boggles me is professing Christians being anti-war(via government involvement with evil Romans 13) yet pro-abortion declaring a woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her own body with government approval and assistance. Her body? Same DNA? No blood type and/or RH factor variables? Simply a clone of mother? Impossible ~ clones are priceless.

Bear with my thinking on the following illustration. My dad was a wildlife conservation officer. In his office was a teaching aid of preborn and multiple birth fawns: death at the hand of humans. I helped him examine illegally-killed or accidental road-killed females for the state's record keeping and as daniel said...there are laws concerning animal species perservation. Yet many in society disregard God keeps record when pre-born humans with souls of eternal value aren't priced above early-gestation and very recognizable fawn in a jar of formaldehyde. Yea...hath God really said?

I'm grateful to be better informed though the reality of it all makes me cry and be humbled as a woman and mom. There but for the grace of God...

DJP said...

Right, Joyce. I've often said, "So, for nine months 'part of my mother's body' was male and had a different blood-type? Weird.'"

JOYce@pfg said...

There has to be a way around that argument...the pH of something she ate? :-)

JOYce@pfg said...

Should have completed the thought. That pH aspect is only a "selecting the sex of the baby" theory to some opting planned parenthood consider.

Can't say I ever had a doctor want to listen to my heartbeats in a place other than my upper torso. So thinking such as ours surely must be dismissed?

DJP said...

Oh, I remember vividly seeing my little Josiah when he was EIGHT WEEKS old, in a sonogram. Just a little white blob, and with littler, whiter blob going thump-thump-thump-thump-thump, so fast.

I was so amazed, and it was so marvelous.

But I immediately thought — doctors and nurses can know all this, and still kill the child?

De prav i ty.

Andrew said...

Speaking from a Canuck's point of view, I think abortion in Canada (and I'd guess the US as well) is indeed too widely accepted.... Nice to see not everybody in this crazy world supports it. Even Canadian schools (at least the one's I've been to) are endorsing the act of baby-killing. They're encouraging students to get abortions with any unwanted pregnancies... Any OTHER Canadian students out there angred by that?

eastendjim said...

I think every child should see this video before they reach their teens.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/fearfully/fearfully-wonderfully-made

My wife and I borrowed this dvd from our church's library. We found ourselves going wow, wow, wow, through the whole thing as Dr. Menton took us through the process of being knit together in our mother's womb. Our God is an awesome God!

eastendjim said...

Oops! The link from my last post appears to be broken.

Go to www.answersingenesis.org
Click on Media and Video on Demand.

"Fearfully & Wonderfully Made" is listed down the left hand side.

Bryant King said...

Reformed Mommy:

One way to accomplish that goal is to become a foster parent. We have had about 15 kids through our home for various lengths of time. We have adopted 3 of those children. We regularly have to say "no" to calls for help. Just this week I said "no" to taking in two boys age 12 and 9. They will likely go to a group home where they will be exposed to sex and drugs, but probably not the gospel.

It is my adopted children that the world says should have been aborted.

I have mixed feelings about the state sending me a check every month for caring for these children, but, so far, I have always cashed the checks.

Just a thought, perhaps misguided,

Bryant King

JOYce@pfg said...

Dan ~ my husband and I years ago went to a specialist at a university hospital. I asked the physician's assistant if the department doctors having couples jump through so many procedural hoops desiring a child were also killing babies. Didn't get a verbal answer...the look was telling.

Ultrasounds are amazingly revealing, aren't they? With all the technology available these days, doesn't common sense need disengaged by those on both sides of an abortion? A conscience seared? Or professing to be wise one becomes a fool? Isn't it all about being irresponsible with what doesn't belong to us while claiming it ours and having a will free to choose? And then there is guilt. What to do with the guilt?

A recent conversation with a professing believer over this topic eventually swung the pendulum toward the crux of dealing with that guilt...the Bible is tainted because of man being involved with all the translations therefore some verses don't apply or become matters of personal interpretation. The Bible can be ignored or at least be a la carte. Hope can then be in man or things.

People believe they create life with their own bodies by their own will so it is becomes reasonable they may take that life(and maybe years later). Some folks believe they can extend their own days through human effort. Take these thoughts further and quickening of the spiritual life is a decision and that life kept by human effort. It all relates because God is so gracious to reflect His glory through His creation.

The Bible both makes clear and illustrates the point: when the truth of God is not our starting-point, assuredly folly, epistemological and moral insanity, and disaster will be our ending-point.

stratagem said...

Why is it that it is always (and I do mean, always) the same people who are against killing animals, who are ok with killing baby humans?

Rick Frueh said...

"So, for nine months 'part of my mother's body' was male and had a different blood-type?"

That is a poignant expression I have not heard until now.

Joe said...

Sarah Palin is a heroic figure, willing to endure merciless questioning designed to make her say what she does not believe.

Yet she stands firm.

She is to be commended for having the strength and courage to raise a Downs syndrome child and to eloquently defend his right to life.

I visit a McDonald's that has a Downs syndrome employee who is the friendliest, most encouraging person I know.

Those Canadian doctors are just wrong...dead wrong.

John said...

The Bible makes it clear that life is sacred. The Bible also makes it clear that life begins in the womb: Jeremiah was called before birth, and John 'leaped'at the sound of the Lord's voice. So those 'Christians' that are pro-abortion reject the Word of God. That makes them unbelieving, which leads me to believe that they are still in an un-converted state of depravity.

Is not love the greatest evidence of change? Where is the love of Christ in those who sacrifice their children to idols?

Rita Martinez said...

Dan,

I'm currently in my last year of med school, I'm rotating through an ob-gyn hospital. I have the privilege of watching little human beings being born and through ultrasounds observe how human beings develop in time inside the mother's womb.
This little human being: this picture here and this one here that you are seeing in the picture with her little face and tiny arms and legs and little body, this human being is 24 weeks old, and weights 500 grams. Now this little girl will probably not make it because she was born in this country, in that hospital which is not fully equipped to handle babies at such a young age. And they're going to tell me that her best option is death? The worst part is there are charlatans bold enough to approve the murder of children at her age and older outside the womb(not in my country though abortion is illegal thank the Lord).
Honestly now how distorted and misplaced are people's line of thinking, although we shouldn't be surprised because their thoughts are under the slavery of sin.
It truly is the answer to Jeremiah, an if this(and more):
"Why do we sit still? Gather together; let us go into the fortified cities and perish there, for the LORD our God has doomed us to perish and has given us poisoned water to drink, because we have sinned against the LORD.
We looked for peace, but no good came; for a time of healing, but behold, terror."

is what befell the people of Israel whom Jeremiah was warning, God's wrath, we can only expect God's wrath to befall those who approve of such a heinous act, my hope is they (especially the Christians who support abortion) will see their sin in time and repent and put their faith in Christ.

DJP said...

Thank you, Rita.

Worse (and inexcusably) many people who support abortion here in America imagine that it is limited to certain circumstances, or the third trimester. There are no limitations.

In fact, you can flip open a yellow pages book and find abortuaries who advertise that they'll abort up to 24 weeks - the age of the baby in your pictures.

God grant us repentance; we've no excuse.

Strong Tower said...

Just thought how the interplay of natural and special figures in here. The world would like to deny humaness (the soul) in the conceptus. They say that is a spiritual matter and religion should play no part in policy. Well, that is fine. Our interpretation of the special does not need to be imposed. The natural suffices. It is up to them to determine where babies come from then. If not conception, then what? What decisive moment does science make it human? If they want to define it scientifically to determine humaness, I am all for that, because science will find it at conception.

Rita Martinez said...

"In fact, you can flip open a yellow pages book and find abortuaries who advertise that they'll abort up to 24 weeks - the age of the baby in your pictures."
wow that is just horrible...talk about the innate goodness of man.

Paul Wilkinson said...

Sadly, as a Canadian, I have to tell you that what you're reporting on the blog is only a small portion of what's happening up here.

Some Canadian doctors may be forced to perform abortions against their wills or risk losing their license to practice medicine, according to a report released in early August, linked at:
http://paulwilkinson.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/doctors-told-science-comes-before-religious-convictions/

(August 20 post)

Rita Martinez said...

"Some Canadian doctors may be forced to perform abortions against their wills or risk losing their license to practice medicine, according to a report released in early August,"
This is what I've been fearing the most, to think that my cousin who lives in Canada wants me to finish my studies there...not a chance in the world...

alberto said...

You should know that in British Columbia at least, doctors are not allowed to tell parents what the sex of their unborn child is (determined by ultrasound exam), before 20 weeks gestation. This is to prevent the rather culture specific practice of aborting male fetuses.

The practical work-around is to skip over the border into Washington State, where there are ultrasound clinics that cater to this very need.

alberto said...

Sorry, I meant female fetuses.

Polycarp said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Polycarp said...
This comment has been removed by the author.