Many years ago I had a conversation with a prolife/prochoice person. She was literally both if that is possible. I asked her why she took the position she did. She responded by saying that she was personally against abortion but thought Washington should mind their own business.I then asked her why she was personally against abortion. Really! What is wrong with abortion. She didn't want to say what she was thinking because the answer would demand that abortion be illegal. For the same reason she was personally against it should be the same reason it should be illegal. This same person would be for lawmakers to save animals from abuse, yet not babies. The contradiction was glaring.
Rush said what I have been thinking for years on today's program in response to Obama's Notre Dame speech.
Obama has now just said that both sides of the argument feature people who are advocating decency. And then he said we need to work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. This is right out of Bill Clinton's mouth back in the nineties where abortion needs to become safe but rare, or something like that. Now, my question is, if President Obama at Notre Dame yesterday says that everybody on this debate is decent and we gotta work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, is he not admitting there's something wrong about it, then? If there's nothing wrong with an unwanted pregnancy and if there's nothing wrong with abortion, why do we have to limit them?Rush then plays an audio clip of Obama's speech at Notre Dame.
Why do we hope it's rare, if there's nothing wrong, if it's really nothing more than an issue of liberty and freedom for women, then why do we have to make liberty and freedom rare for women? So I think he bastardizes his own argument here, while trying to sound triangulated, above the fray, understanding both sides.
How do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles and fight for what we consider right without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side? And of course nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion. Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision, for any woman, is not made casually. It has both moral and spiritual dimensions. So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions. (applause) Let's reduce unintended pregnancies.To which Rush responds,
You see how that got applause? Why? I ask again, why do we want to reduce the number of women seeking abortions if there's nothing wrong with it? If a position of pro-choice is just as valid as the pro-life position, if we shouldn't demonize, what's wrong with it? Why limit it? Why reduce unintended pregnancies? What's wrong with it? " Even though the decision to have an abortion may be gut-wrenching..."? What's wrong with it? I always thought it was a matter of liberty -- a matter of liberation, a matter of independence. So why in the world go through the farce here of wanting to reduce the number of pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions?If it is merely a matter of liberty, why do we need to reduce the number of Abortions? What a simple and great question. Why is this decision gut wrenching? If it is murder, and it is, then how is it a liberty issue? Gut wrenching...yes. But deciding to consciously murder someone is gut wrenching and ought to be. It is our conscience telling us, "Hey! Stop it!"
Oh how difficult it must be to remain a liberal and a murderer. To claim you love the little guy while defending the rights of women to murder the little guy must make it terribly difficult to look in the mirror.
As creatures made in the image of God, we must stand against this tyrant who seeks to spread the business of murder around the world. We must bring to bear upon this evil man's conscience the coming wrath in the Day of Judgment. Let us all pray for President Barak Obama that God would be merciful to him in this regard.
2 comments:
Because a decision is hard means that there is an obvious correct answer? Doesn't sound very Christian to me. Jesus sweat blood in thinking about whether or not to go through with dying for your sins.
Abortions are unavoidable. Just as there will always be poor, there will always be those who cannot stand up to the judgments and hardships that come along with pregnancy. If abortion was made illegal, we would be jailing women for not wanting to go through an extreme, life-changing health risk. So we should hope for less unwanted pregnancies.
Thanks for the comment.
"Because a decision is hard means that there is an obvious correct answer?"
Well, the statement begs the question of "why?" to be answered. Some feminists recognize the truth of the problem ad answer the question by suggesting women have funerals for their babies.
Is this merely an economic issue? Then why is it gut wrenching? As I stated, murdering our children should be gut wrenching. It is like I never said "murder"? As usual pro abortionists dodge the issue.
"Doesn't sound very Christian to me. Jesus sweat blood in thinking about whether or not to go through with dying for your sins."
I must confess that I have no idea what this has to do with what I wrote. Comparing Jesus' struggle with allowing Himself to be tortured and murdered to the one doing the murdering is odd indeed. Perhaps babies in the womb sweat drops of blood too in their struggle with being ripped limb from limb or burned to death.
"Abortions are unavoidable. Just as there will always be poor, there will always be those who cannot stand up to the judgments and hardships that come along with pregnancy."
There will always be rapists and axe murderers too. To compare murder with the poor is just slightly odd. I realize their are extreme conditions that may require abortion, but that is not the average issue for the average American.
"If abortion was made illegal, we would be jailing women for not wanting to go through an extreme, life-changing health risk. So we should hope for less unwanted pregnancies."
"Extreme, life changing health risk"? This main problem here is the view of the world. There is definitely a lack of a proper view of the Creator/creature relationship and the creature's purpose in this creation.
Therefore, I reject the premise of the question as bogus. Only a mind bent on selfishness and a rejection of God could even make a statement like this. If you are a Christian, then you are more political than Biblical.
Post a Comment