California is known to be one of the most liberal states in the nation. This last November, in the wake of the Supreme Court nullification of the Roe v Wade ruling, 66% of the state voted to make abortion law in their state. Other states may not be so sure, but California is actually trying to be the "go-to" state for killing babies.
"That's just your take, Stan," some of you might be saying. "They don't believe they're killing babies. A fetus is not a human being." And you'd like to think that's true. It's not. Oh, don't take my word for it. Take California's. According to California law, homicide is defined as "the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." Notice the explicit inclusion of "fetus" there. The state law includes the killing of a fetus in their definition of murder. Of course, given the other inconsistencies in their thinking, they have a work-around for their pro-abortion law. Down there in subsection (b)(3) they say it is not murder if it "was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus." Imagine that. "As long as the mother is aiding and abetting killing that baby, we think it's fine."
Don't worry. This isn't an attack on Californians. Turns out the same law is a federal law. Current federal law specifically includes "unborn children" in their definition of murder, and that same law includes the exception of abortion. State and federal law both classify a fetus as a human being -- a baby -- and many are fine with killing that baby if mom wants to. (Not dad, by the way. Just mom.) Because Americans are crazy. No, that's not accurate. People are crazy. Wait, let's try this a better way. This is just proof that "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9). Proof that when we refuse to recognize God, we become fools, futile in our thinking and darkened in our foolish hearts (Rom 1:21-23). And it does beg the question. If it's okay for mom to have her baby executed prior to birth, why not after? Is "I brought you into this world; I'll take you out" a bad thing given this position?
4 comments:
It's emblematic of the left to promote such contradiction and ambiguity into law in order to provide for themselves the ability to do anything at any time for any reason and still regard themselves as "grace-embracing" good people.
Or to defend intentionally terminating the life of a baby (which ALL OF THEM CALL IT in the womb ... EXCEPT when they plan to kill it) with "Oh, there's no 'malice aforethought,' so it's not murder." There is as real question as to whether the intentional killing of a baby can be accomplished without malice aforethought, but the legal term for killing a human being without malice aforethought is still "voluntary manslaughter." "So," they tell us, "that makes it okay." As I said, futile and darkened. Whatever it takes to gain approval for their sin.
I've often mentally posited the situation of a woman that gets mugged and loses the child. The mugger is then accused of murdering the child. But what if that mother was on her way to get an abortion? Would they not commend the mugger for providing a service she was wanting, or would they still condemn him? It amazes me how people don't seem to see the correlation of diminishing human value to allow for all sorts of atrocities. Slavery was said to be okay because the black man wasn't fully human. The Holocaust was okay because Jews were less than human. Abortion is okay because the unborn aren't human. Any time we allow ourselves to name someone to not be human, that allows us to do with that person what we want.
Futile and darkened. They just don't get it.
Post a Comment