The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest

Vol: 36 Issue: 5 - Sunday, September 05, 2004

Some "Choice"
by Jack Kinsella

Many Americans defend "choice" by denying that they are "pro-abortion."
They claim that they are actually "personally opposed" to abortion but
don't believe they have the right to take that "choice" away from others.

This, for example is John Kerry's position on abortion.  Kerry said that
he personally believes 'life begins at conception' but supports 'a woman's
right to choose.'

Like all abortion supporters, he never finishes the sentence . . . 'a
woman's right to choose -- to KILL HER BABY!'

That abortion is an American holocaust of mind-bending proportions is no
secret. Since 1973, at least fifty million Americans were destroyed in the
womb by legalized abortions.  Last year, the numbers reached 4,400
abortions per day -- that's 1.6 million per year.

Although the pro-abortion lobby claims abortions must be legal to protect
the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, statistics show
that 99% of all American abortions were performed as a matter of the
mother's convenience.

Of the women having abortions, 79.4% are unmarried, 26.6% are teenagers,
and 20% are "repeat customers".

In a nutshell, abortion is the 'choice' to brutally, painfully, murder and
dismember a human being in the womb. THAT is the 'choice' that
well-meaning, but brainwashed Americans (even some American Christians)
are reluctant to take away from others.

But frame the argument differently, and abortion would be outlawed by
popular demand within hours.

Abortion 'rights' arise from the concepts of 'states rights' and
'government neutrality' -- concepts that, under any other circumstances,
are anathema to the liberal left.

'States' Rights' advocates in fact once embraced the classic 'pro-choice'
position: In the period leading up to the Civil War, 'States Rights'
advocates argued that if abolitionists didn't like slavery, their remedy
was to not buy blacks.

They were infuriated at the idea that "n------ lovers" might be permitted
to shove their racial morality down the throats of property owners who
were only trying to defend their constitutional rights.

Whether the "choice" to victimize others is defined in terms of race, age,
gender, or any other specious criterion, the concept of governmental
"neutrality" on genocide is an intellectually dishonest myth.

Those who reject the applicability of this argument with regard to
abortion generally do so because they don't believe unborn babies are
"persons." But that is just what racists said about blacks.

Those who defend 'choice' by advocating government 'neutrality' on
abortion should consider whether government 'neutrality' on race would
really be 'neutral.'

Consider: if the government suddenly withdrew legal protections for
African Americans, would the government be 'staying out of race' or would
it be taking the side of those who think the personhood of African
Americans should be a matter of 'personal choice?'

(Blacks were chosen for this example because of the historical application
that is unique to the US.  It applies equally to any other minority. Ask
the Jews)

Try and picture the liberal lobbyists advocating the removal of
'personhood' status from, say, a convicted pedophile who preys on little
kids. If killing a pedophile on the street were a matter of personal
'choice' -- there wouldn't BE any repeat offenders.  He wouldn't make it
past the prison's main gate.

Which is EXACTLY why the ACLU would be all over such an effort in a
heartbeat -- to protect the pedophile's Constitutional right to life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Assessment:

Why would anyone take so heartless and intellectually dishonest a position
as to accept the murder an unborn human being as a matter of 'choice'?

In any other application imaginable, the very same lobbyists would be
screaming 'abolition!' as loudly today as they did in 1860.

Those who promote abortion frame it in terms of 'right-wing Christians'
vs. everybody else.  The first association that comes to mind when one
hears the phrase 'pro-life movement' are images of abortion protesters
marching carrying signs saying "John 3:16".

Prior to the advent of the modern use of double-speak, the phrase
'pro-life movement' would immediately be associated with the question;
"There's an ANTI-life movement?"

In point of fact, there are few 'religions' more ACCEPTING of abortion
double-speak than mainstream Christianity.  John Kerry is a Roman Catholic
who supports abortion and enjoys wide-spread Catholic support.  Judging
from my emails,  many other Christians also support John Kerry, despite
his pro-abortion platform.

One lady emailed me and tore a strip off me for not being 'Christian'
about John Kerry, etc., etc. before telling me that she was a Christian
who supported his candidacy.  I emailed her back and asked her what her
position was on abortion?

She replied that I was asking her a trick question and not to email her
further.

But this isn't about John Kerry -- he is merely a relevant example.  It's
about how our advanced society can support killing our own kind, knowing
all that we know, medically speaking.

The Bible forbids abortion.  It identifies the child in the womb as being
a person.  John the Baptist recognized Jesus while both were still in the
womb.

In Job 3:3, Job curses the day of his birth. "Let the day perish wherein I
was born, and the night which said, 'A man-child is conceived'."

The Bible teaches coherency between the individual born and the individual
conceived. Job traced his personal history back beyond his birth to the
very night of his conception.

Furthermore, Job described his conception in personal terms. Apparently,
Job felt that the unborn child was just that -- an unborn child. There is
no abstract language for the "products of conception." Instead, we uncover
concrete language of humanity.  We are ALL the products of conception.

Passages in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Luke record "a special event -- the
birth of a prophet."  While God had ordained these men, but this does not
mean that their lives were more important than others.

God has a divine plan for everyone, and prophets are no more valued than
judges, kings, or tax-collectors: "God shows personal favoritism to no
man" (Galatians 2:6).

The stories recorded in the Bible are recorded for a reason. They are
written so that we can apply them to our own circumstances. If God was
involved in David's life in the womb, He was involved in mine. If God
protected Isaiah, He will protect me.

In all these verses we see that God places equal value on human life (by
His involvement) at all stages, including prenatal life. As His creatures,
we are defined by God. If this is true, then our personhood depends on
Him, and we can see that in His opinion it begins at conception.

On the other hand, there is no biblical evidence of any kind that God
places a lesser value on the life of the unborn child.  We were ALL unborn
children when Jesus went to the Cross for us.

Yet abortion is framed in terms of religion, not humanity, by the very
humanists who eschew God in favor of the supremacy of man. To prove it,
they are willing to conduct human sacrifices, while shaking their fists at
God in defiance.

Tertullian wrote in the 3rd century (190-220 AD); "It does not matter
whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming
to the birth. In both instances, destruction is murder" (Apology, 9.4)

Hence, 'pro-life' is framed as the exclusive domain of right wing
Christians.  But remove God from the equation, and abortion becomes a
simple, biological equation that any idiot can figure out without a slide
rule.

"If I was born, I was born alive from a womb where I must have already
been alive in order to be born in the first place."  How hard is that to
grasp?

Virtually every religion -- and not just Judeo-Christianity -- prohibits
abortion, from the Buddhists to the Muslims.  And there are many atheists
and agnostics who are smart enough to figure out that they were once a
fetus as well.

But those blinded by the pro-abortion lobby are generally those already at
odds with God, the Bible and Christianity, including some mainstream
religions.  (The PCUSA comes to mind)

Supporting abortion is an act of mindless rebellion that is only palatable
when framed in terms of religion vs. antireligion -- few ever discuss it
in terms of what it really is.  They can't.

There is nothing more natural than the affection between mother and child.
Even in nature, most mammals will defend their young to their own deaths
from predators.

In this generation, we know almost everything there is to know about the
miracle of birth. We can even replicate it by cloning.  We know more than
ever about the unborn baby.  We can take pictures of it in the womb.  We
can tell when it first responds to outside stimuli.

Tests have been conducted that show that the baby can recognize its
mother's voice while still in the womb, and in some cases, even the
father's. Babies in the womb jump when startled, react to changes in heat
and cold and even exhibit emotional responses.

We KNOW all that. For certain.  The very fact abortion is the subject of
debate in this generation is concrete evidence of what Paul described as
the perilous times of the last days.

Paul described a society 'without natural affection'. (1st Timothy 3:23)

And, knowing ALL that we know in this modern era, whether or not killing
our unborn is right or wrong is STILL a subject of a political debate
wherein 'natural affection'  is the exclusive domain of the 'right wing
Christian'.

Questions?