Tag Archives: abortion

It’s about Choice

11 Thursday Aug 2022

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Not long ago, Al Sharpton said regarding abortion:

Going even further to sugarcoat the issue, Sharpton — a Baptist minister — claimed the religious position and the Bible support “choice” on the matter. “The Bible — if you’re using this as a religious argument — the Bible is about choice,” he asserted. “You can go to heaven or hell; there’s nowhere in the Bible that says you have to go to heaven,” he added. “So where do we get this theology of forcing something when the reality is that you can’t even biblically base that?”

Calling the issue of abortion “a question of choice,” Sharpton claimed there was no justification in outlawing feticide. “If you are a minister as I am, you can preach to people to convert them,” he said. “You do not make laws to compel them.”

Al Sharpton is a religious charlatan. Would he say the same thing about adultery, the killing of those who have already been born? I am beginning to think he might. He is not a credit to those of the Baptist faith. This is his effort to minimize the stinging message of abortion as murder and make it more palatable to people to vote in a certain direction (his denials of this notwithstanding!). His effort at substance is like the Titanic.

Is the teaching of the Bible about choice? It is. The choice is between life and death. The Lord said to the Israelites (through Moses), See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil (Deut. 30:15, ASV). In this exhortation, it’s about choice, but if one wants to be pleasing to the Lord, then the choice is obvious. Is that a compelling matter? It is not a compelling matter. Yet, at a certain level of application, it would be if a person of Israel wanted to please the Lord. The Lord sets forth the principle of Deuteronomy 30 in a New Testament context also. It was Paul, in Acts 26, who said the Rome’s local governmental authority, Wherefore, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision (26:19).

So, yes, it can be framed the way Sharpton said, but the repercussions of the choice Sharpton said nothing about. Are laws of the land compelling? Each of us has a choice to obey or disobey. If we choose one, the consequences are such and such; if we choose the opposite, then the same. Thus, we have a choice. Yet the consequences of the choices made have a compelling quality to them. If a person takes an innocent life, is that murder? To ask is to answer! Is there freedom of choice in this? There is.

In the context of baptism and salvation, the Lord’s apostle said,

Know ye not, that to whom ye present yourselves as servants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered; and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness (Rom. 6:16-18).

So, it does come down to a choice that each of us make. Some make laws to benefit to community, making it a civilized community of right and wrong. Outlawing the killing of the innocent (including abortion) is one such law. People, such as Sharpton, would take some of those laws and make that which is evil and turn it to a good (cf. Isa 5:20).

When the Lord is removed from the community, there is no chance people can know what is right and what is wrong; all they can do is make an educated guess and hope the majority agree with them. Yet, just a Scripture declares, In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes (17:6). George Soros, the AOC types and people of similar thinking would love to turn civilization upside down and begin a new world order that seeks to elevate self and help people not prepare for eternity. Paul, in writing about Satan said, that no advantage may be gained over us by Satan: for we are not ignorant of his devices (2 Cor. 2:11).

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, and this is exactly what Sharpton is soon to do. Is Sharpton right? Yes, the Bible is a matter of choice, but to frame the killing of the innocent as a matter of choice makes Sharpton a charlatan.

Atheism is Alive and Well in Congress

04 Wednesday Oct 2017

Posted by in Atheism, evil, God, Morality

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Some atheistic remarks in relation to an abortion law proposed by the House GOP in Congress: “Women across the country deserve better. This law is a continuation of the Republican Party’s assault on women’s reproductive health” (Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Niles). “This bill is a cruel and ruthless attempt to undermine women and attack our rights to govern our bodies” (Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wisconsin).

The Dispatch (A-15, 10.4.2017) speaks of the law having no chance to pass in the Senate, and this may well be the case. If so, then why try? Because the life of children is on the line! “It’s not that bad!” someone might say. The Dispatch cites a 2013 Center for Disease Control stat: “…of the more than 664,000 reported abortions in 2013, 1.3 percent occurred at least 21 weeks into development.” Is there some sort of virtue in this low percentage? That is still over 6,000 murders!

Part of the justification to oppose the legislative effort is in relation to pain suffered. Evidently, according to some, pain in the womb by a child is not felt until “at least 24 weeks of development” occurred.

Thus, the moral standard is “suffering” and “pain,” not the nature of life as given by God. Atheism is strong in the Democrat Party!

 

Sanctioned Immorality

12 Wednesday Sep 2012

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

Letter to Editor

It is now official. What so many have noticed long before this the Democrat Party now officially stands for that which is immoral. I am not speaking about taxes, immigration, Medicare, support for Israel, gun control, or things of this sort; I am speaking about two things in particular that are in direct opposition to God: same-sex marriage and abortion. Of course, abortion has been a hallmark for the democrats for a good while (page 52 on 2012 Democrat National Platform), but same-sex marriage is now a plank in the platform (page 53).

The other day I heard a political analyst dismiss the platform plank as insignificant. It is not insignificant when it becomes a plank in the party indicating that which will be promoted and defended. It is not insignificant when the Lord stands in direct opposition to these two platform planks and man, in all his wisdom, thumbs his nose up at His creator. It is not insignificant when people, who call themselves Christians, show more loyalty to a political party that spits in God’s face than they do His standard for decency.

There are a lot of conscientious democrats who call themselves Christian who won’t consider this insignificant at all and, thus, won’t be voting for a political party to whom they otherwise might be loyal.

Printed in the Herald and Review (Decatur, Illinois)

Abortion, Morality, and Civilization

09 Tuesday Nov 2010

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Recently, I wrote a letter to a local editor on the topic of abortion and law. One lady in the expanded area took strong exception to my letter and addressed my sentiments in the newspaper (Mattoon Journal-Gazette, November 8, 2010, p. A-5). I was glad to see this; in my view, there needs to be a public debate about such issues (as there has been) for in this public discussion, persuasion can materialize.

Women have the right to make medical decision, we are told. This is true enough, but what is in view with this remark is that women have the right to kill innocent children. More than that, however, women should be given the right to make life and death choices. Note the following, “As long as a fetus is not viable outside the womb the woman’s rights comes first.” From the “moral” perspective of this one woman, life within the womb is not worth preserving if the woman carrying a child determines it not to be viable. From her letter, we learn that the standard of morality that supports this is called “autonomy.” The word means, self-governing or self-ruling. If each person is autonomous, does the child in the womb have the right to self-government? Not according to those who believe in killing innocent children!

Morality is either subjective (originates with man) or objective (originates in a source outside man). These are the only two possibilities. The former is associated with atheism and agnosticism, the latter with theism. Subjective morality is a standard that changes with time and people and, generally, liberals and progressives will align themselves here. It is this kind of morality that seeks to destroy innocent children, but this is under the guise of “reproductive choices” or “medical decisions.”

What is the difference between a child two months in the womb and a child two months outside the womb? Clearly, both are living – so, what is the difference between the two? If a child is killed outside the womb it is murder, if inside the womb it is choice. That’s a moral standard worth discarding! Some people identify this with a civilized society when, in fact, it is more aligned with barbarity.

Expanded remarks on a letter to the editor I submitted 11/9/2010

Abortion, Murder, and Law

22 Friday Oct 2010

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

The lack consistency of liberal policy is manifested in a man guilty of attempted murder. The leading line (paragraph) of the story reads this way: “A father of six pleaded not guilty Wednesday to an attempted murder charge that accuses him of trying to force his girlfriend at gunpoint to have an abortion” (Journal-Gazette, D-1, October 21, 2010). If liberal, progressive ideology holds sway, there is no reason to charge this man with attempted murder. It surely must be the case that, according to liberals and progressives, the child in the womb is not a child (person) at all. The way they dispose of children with their support of a public policy such as abortion testifies to this. If they concede the child in the womb is a child, then perhaps it might be asked how they are any different than men like Adolf Hitler?!

This harsh analysis is the outcome of a disgraceful and even harsher public policy; in fact, let us call it evil. Decent, rational, people with a moral code higher than themselves have come to see the egregious lack of consistency in administering justice, but more than that, they have come to see abortion as a moral problem. Why make laws against that which is not immoral? The last paragraph (sentence) of the story reads, “At least 38 states including Ohio have so-called fetus homicide laws increasing penalties for crimes against pregnant women, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.”

Story prompting letter to editor is titled, “Ohioan pleads not guilty in gunpoint abortion case” (Mattoon Journal-Gazette, D-1, October 21, 2010)