We went to get an ultrasound of our new baby and were pleased to discover that another beautiful baby girl will soon join our ranks. While in the ultrasonographer’s office, I was once again amazed at that little person growing in my wife’s womb. At that instant, I was once again pained by the fact that countless such children are murdered every year.
How can anyone possibly “choose” abortion? How did our society, our culture, come to the conclusion that it is a “right,” an expression of “freedom,” to murder our children in the womb? How can anyone champion, and allege to justify, the murder of the most defenseless among us? When I think that mainstream ideology (some might say religion) contends that abortion somehow benefits women, I am suddenly aware of exactly what my four daughters are going to face. There is a full court press against Godly women.
While my wife and I are trying to raise our daughters up in the fear and admonition of the Lord, the world is trying to convince, entice, seduce, and coerce them and all women to rebel against the Lord. While we try to instill concepts like humility, modesty, purity, and family, the world preaches vanity, impropriety, promiscuity, and self. When I speak out against the worldly values I am branded as a chauvinist, when my wife speaks out she is branded as a fool.
Father forgive us, we know not what we do.
Lord, strengthen us and guide us as we strive each day to see your face and to reveal it to our children. Draw us closer to you, Lord, and make us a light in the darkness, for your glory.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
It’s a girl!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Amen!
right after i read your post, i went and checked out the freakonomic guy's blog and what a coincidence that he posted something on abortion too.
http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/
i personally think people should put more effort into convincing woman/girls to give their babies up for adoption if they don't want them. i think it's selfish for them to assume that just because they don't want the kid no one else will. or maybe they just make that choice cause it's way easier to go to planned parenthood than to figure out what the deal is with putting your kid up for adoption, i mean aren't there like a ton of choices as to how they do the arrangements. why isn't there an alternative to planned parenthood anyway? and if there is, why don't i know about it?
I consider abortion to be an obvious example of our culture's lack of respect and appreciation for womanhood (especially and specifically womanhood as it serves the glory of God). My intention, however, was not to write "about abortion."
The point of the post was to point out that our culture promotes the abandonment of God's plan/promise for women in exchange for trumped up emptiness. Abortion is merely one of the greatest examples.
I took a look at the Freakonomics blog and I don't think his post was about abortion. Had it been about abortion, maybe the life of the child would have been considered. As far as I could tell, the original post as well as every comment attached failed to consider that there is a living human being killed during abortion. That is the center of abortion; if it isn't, you're not talking about abortion.
I have never been impressed with the reasoning used by the Freakonomics author. The abortion blog seemed to betray the same type of logic. I would be very interested to know what you think.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the life of the child wasn't considered. Isn't adoption an option to save the life of a child that would otherwise have been killed? That's what I took the comments to say. Are you thinking they have some other motive in suggesting adoption versus abortion?
I may have read a different blog.
The one I read discussed the $500 payment to women who relent on their decision to abort their child in favor of putting the child up for adoption. The blog immediately took the focus from preventing an abortion and saving the life of a child, and instead centered the facilitation of adoption as the purpose and debate of the law.
It’s the rough equivalent of saying you swerved to avoid an 80 mph head-on collision with a tractor-trailer, thereby saving yourself vehicle repair costs and increased insurance premiums. In the same fashion that people don’t visit you in the hospital to see how the accident will affect your financial situation, I don’t think people object to the choice of abortion rather than adoption on the grounds that an adoption opportunity is lost. They object on the grounds that a child is killed.
The blog post I read, as well as the more than 40 comments, did not seem to address the potential to save a life; only the potential at facilitating an adoption. Hence, the blog was not about abortion; it was about the potential or feasibility of the new law to genuinely facilitate adoption.
It is not an unreasonable debate, because if the law does facilitate adoption, there is a good chance it may save lives. If and when, however, we confuse the debate over the law's ability to facilitate adoption and the laws ability to prevent abortion, we also confuse the debate over why abortion needs to be prevented. Abortion does not need to be prevented because adoption is suffering. Abortion needs to be prevented because children are being killed.
The reason abortion exists is because we have confused the value of life with the quality of life. I had a horrible childhood, but that childhood was an integral part of a wonderful life. To take away my life in order to reduce the horror of my childhood…does that make sense? To definitely take away my life in order to possibly “improve the quality” of my mother’s life…does that make sense?
Like I said, I may have read a different blog.
Post a Comment