5.16.2007
|
"celebrate death"
In last night's GOP "debate," abortion was a large topic. In fact, it was the elephant in the room. OK, no more GOP puns... It is interesting to watch Rudy G. and others squirm, and explain the unexplainable. It was also interesting to hear Mike Huckabee, in referring to jihadis, state thay they, unlike us, "celebrate death."
Well, my quibble with this phrase isn't that jihadis "celebrate death." This they most certainly do, and they will be judged before the Throne. But as for us celebrating life, hmm. Not when it comes to those least-able to protect themselves: the unborn children.
I understand that most people in America don't believe that a newly-formed fetus is a "person." Those of us who do (I do) have a major intellectual and moral problem should we run for public office. The twists and turns of candidates like Rudy and Mitt Romney are illustrative.
On the one hand, if one believes that any abortion ends the life of a human person, then one simply, as a moral matter, can not "go along to get along" with the practice. Stated differently: We're all against murder. God told us, in no uncertain terms in Exodus 20:13, that this is what he expects. And by "murder," we mean the death of an innocent. And, which unborn child is guilty?
So, how many murders are acceptable as a matter of public policy? The only morally acceptable answer is "none." Yes, despite these intentions, murders happen. We, the human race, are a fallen and depraved group, so individual crimes must be expected. But we don't, and should never, go about stating that a certain number of murders is just fine.
Yet this is exactly where the triangulators like Rudy place themselves: they state that they "personally" are against abortion, but as a matter of public policy, "it's a woman's right to choose" to kill her unborn child.
The only answer, so far as who to vote for, is that it will be far better for our nation to have a Rudy Giuliani, who will at least attempt to appoint strict constructionist judges, than a Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat for that matter. Any Democrat who may credibly get the nomination will be enthusiastic in their "abortion on demand" manifesto.
And, as for the kinds of judges that even so-called centrist Dems like Bill Clinton appoint, one need only look at the ultra-liberal decisions of the Ninth Circuit.
Well, my quibble with this phrase isn't that jihadis "celebrate death." This they most certainly do, and they will be judged before the Throne. But as for us celebrating life, hmm. Not when it comes to those least-able to protect themselves: the unborn children.
I understand that most people in America don't believe that a newly-formed fetus is a "person." Those of us who do (I do) have a major intellectual and moral problem should we run for public office. The twists and turns of candidates like Rudy and Mitt Romney are illustrative.
On the one hand, if one believes that any abortion ends the life of a human person, then one simply, as a moral matter, can not "go along to get along" with the practice. Stated differently: We're all against murder. God told us, in no uncertain terms in Exodus 20:13, that this is what he expects. And by "murder," we mean the death of an innocent. And, which unborn child is guilty?
So, how many murders are acceptable as a matter of public policy? The only morally acceptable answer is "none." Yes, despite these intentions, murders happen. We, the human race, are a fallen and depraved group, so individual crimes must be expected. But we don't, and should never, go about stating that a certain number of murders is just fine.
Yet this is exactly where the triangulators like Rudy place themselves: they state that they "personally" are against abortion, but as a matter of public policy, "it's a woman's right to choose" to kill her unborn child.
The only answer, so far as who to vote for, is that it will be far better for our nation to have a Rudy Giuliani, who will at least attempt to appoint strict constructionist judges, than a Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat for that matter. Any Democrat who may credibly get the nomination will be enthusiastic in their "abortion on demand" manifesto.
And, as for the kinds of judges that even so-called centrist Dems like Bill Clinton appoint, one need only look at the ultra-liberal decisions of the Ninth Circuit.
Labels: Abortion
posted by John Luke at 10:03 AM
Welcome. My name is John Luke Rich, (very) struggling Christian. The focus here is Christianity in its many varieties,
its fussing and feuding, how it impacts our lives and our society, with detours to consider it with other faiths (or lack thereof).
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home