The opening paragraph of this story says, "Alabama's House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a near-total abortion ban, a piece of legislation that the bill's sponsor called a "direct attack" on Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that protects a woman's right to an abortion. Politicians in the statehouse voted against adding an amendment that would have added an exception for victims of rape and incest." Note the language. "Near-total abortion ban." "'Direct attack' on Roe v. Wade." ""A woman's right to an abortion." And the part where the house voted against the rape and incest exception. There is no doubt what this news outlet thinks. House Bill 314, the "Human Life Protection Act," is an assault on a woman's right to kill. It is a pro-life thrust (especially seen in the remooval of the rape-and-incest provision). Allow me to rewrite that paragraph with the facts rather than the bias.
Alabama's House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a piece of legislation that will save countless children's lives by countering the landmark Supreme Court decision that gave women the right to kill their children. Politicians in the statehouse demonstrated their support of life by voting against adding an amendment that would have added an exception for victims of rape and incest.The media outlets (not just this one -- all of them that I found) tell this story as an affront to the freedom to murder and as the product of "anti-abortion activists." So ensconced is this kind of thinking in our current media and, therefore, public perception that the mere notion of protecting human life is deemed an assault on women's rights. In a press conference designed to express outrage from House Democrats about the rape-and-incest exception being left out, House Minority leader Anthony Daniels said, "What does that say to the women in the state and the mothers in the state and the grandmothers in the state?" I'll tell you, Mr. Daniels. It says that executing the victim of a crime like rape or incest is not justice. It says that all life has value. It says that the unborn are created in the image of the Creator.
Jewish advocates were offended that the bill said that the number of children murdered by abortion exceeded the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust. (That's something like 60 million children vs 6 million Jews.) They found it "outrageously offensive" that a bill would use this kind of comparison to restrict the murder of babies. (That's not what they said; that's the outcome of what they said.) Nice to know that these Jews are only offended by their own losses and not by the losses of 10 times as many babies. "It's not right for people to kill Jews, but if mom's want to murder their babies, we're good with that."
We live in a sin-sick world that suffers from a depraved mind (Rom 1:28), futile thinking (Rom 1:21), deceitful and desperately sick hearts (Jer 17:9), blinded by the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4). It's clear in the media. It's obvious when the courts legalize murder and victims of horrible crimes cheer the perpetration of horrible crimes carried out against babies. I doubt that this Alabama law will survive, given our current condition in this nation. If the rest of the lawmakers in the state, including the governor, don't end this, the courts will. But I hope it is absolutely clear that what is needed is not better laws; it is a new heart. The kind of thing only God can give. The kind of thing we can tell them about ... and must share.
2 comments:
my question goes something like this;
Apart from cases of Rape and medical emergency; when has it ever been a woman's right to abort her baby? if the the child is conceived, then there is a father too. today's view completely dismisses his rights. does he have a say in the matter? what if He does not want to abort the child? does he have any rights?
if conceived in marriage, i believe the father should have some legal recourse.
But the difficulty to this question arises when you discover that most abortions occur as a result of recreational fornication outside the bonds of marriage. so in fact we are not really saving anyone; we are just giving women the right to xxxx without consequences.
When? Since 1973. In fact, the majority of the presidential candidates for the Dems today hold that women should be allowed to execute their babies any time up to birth for any reason at all ("on demand") at the expense of insurance or government (you and me).
I thought it was interesting that this bill was genuinely pro-life -- that rape and incest did not negate the fact that this was a human life. When some argue that abortion should be "safe and rare" and allow it in the case of rape or incest, they are simply mitigating the "life" issue. "Life only matters in some cases."
Post a Comment