The Slippery Slope of the Abortion Argument and Other Thoughts

  • Written 11/1/2020

    In 1973 Roe v. Wade opened the United States up to the biggest genocide in world history.  The basic argument was that a woman should have the right and agency to make decisions over her own reproductive outcomes.  The biggest reason this decision is constitutionally dubious in the first place is the Judicial Branch does not have the power to create law.  Roe v. Wade is one example of many of an activist judiciary legislating from the bench. 

    The idea of abortion on demand was repugnant to a majority of Americans at that time because in 1973 a majority of people believed that life began at conception.  The premise was that the child’s right to life was being infringed upon, which then of course deprived the child’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  In most Americans minds at that time, this was murder, plain and simple.  Because the United States of America is a Constitutional Republic with a democratic election process, the only way at that time that abortion would be able to become the law of the land was by high jacking the judiciary to accomplish that.  There was not enough support in the country to pass this through a legislative process at State or Federal levels. 

    In order to come to the conclusion that the mother’s God given rights superseded the Childs God given rights required some intellectual acrobatics and the manipulation of reason to justify the decision.  The settled science of what constituted that something was alive had to somehow be redefined or they needed to present a different yard stick by which to measure to society.  There are seven things that define something as alive.  They are: cellular organization, reproduction, metabolism, homeostasis, heredity, responds to stimuli and growth and development.  So, instead of using biological science, a philosophical question was used to replace hard science.  When does something that meets the criteria as living have sentience and personal agency?  Is it murder if it isn’t aware it is alive?  Much like the question, if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound?  First of all, who cares?  As with most philosophical questions, it is irrelevant.

    Back in 1973 the resistance to the idea of killing our own off-spring was strong.  So, it had to be presented like this; abortion should be safe and rare, abortion should be available to save the mother’s life in case of medical necessity, abortion should be available in cases of rape or incest, abortion should be available to end the pregnancy if the fetus has some horrible disfiguring disease, after all, isn’t it more merciful to end the life in the womb than to make the child live a physical life of hardship?  Abortion was hoisted onto America a little at a time.  Becoming acclimated to the idea of abortion was like boiling the proverbial frog.  Then came the slippery slope; abortion should be available in cases where a woman cannot afford to care for the child, after all, isn’t it more merciful to end the life in the womb than to make a child grow up in poverty and misery?  The argument for adoption was rejected with the argument that it wasn’t fair that a woman should have to carry a child full term and go through the strain and discomfort of pregnancy and the pain of child birth for a child she didn’t want.  Besides, it has already been decreed by Roe v. Wade that it is a woman’s constitutional right to choose! 

    Then, the heat on the boiling frog was turned up a little more over the decades; abortions for minors without parental consent , later and later term abortions, partial birth abortions, abortions on demand, abortions paid for with tax payer dollars.  Then, things leveled off.  Late term and partial birth abortions were banned for a while.

    The frog sat in the pot, while the water temperature stayed just below a simmer…

    Then the ultimate plan was revealed and all at once the heat was turned up and the frog was sitting in that pot turned up to a full rolling, boil; full term and after birth abortions.  New York presented the repulsive idea that a child could be aborted all the way up until birth, and on a radio program the Virginia Governor explained a scenario where a full term baby would be born and made comfortable while the mother decided if she wanted to keep the baby or “terminate” the baby’s life!  A full term infant on a medical table, alive, breathing, healthy and craving the affection and care of its mother while a decision is being made if that child will live or die.

    Here we are in 2020 with people celebrating this as a win for women’s reproductive rights.  So, I have to ask you, the reader, this question.  Are you okay with this?  Are you okay with the idea of euthanizing a perfectly healthy baby because the mother decided after 40 weeks of gestation that she changed her mind?  I have seen outrage and public outcry on social media of the mistreatment of animals, but killing a baby because of a woman’s “reproductive rights” doesn’t move your needle?  The current ideas of reproductive rights are a myth.  You have the right to use birth control, but you don’t have the right to make everyone else pay for them.  You have the right to abstain from sexual activity.  You have the right to carry a fire arm to protect yourself from being sexually assaulted, even though the same States that would like to allow a mother to kill a full term infant are the same States that want to keep their citizens from exercising that God given Right to self-defense and the 2nd Amendment.  

    You have to ask yourself these questions; why was this the goal?  What was the real end game?  Why isn’t this so outrageous to voters on the left that they would refuse to ever vote for another Democrat politician until abortion was erased from the Party Platform completely?  After seeing where the slippery slope leads, you would think a moderately moral person would be appalled by this.  But no, the conditioning has been complete.  The left has become so desensitized and assured of their entitlement to kill their own off-spring that there is no compromise.  It is all or nothing.  Kind of sounds like the argument by those on the right who insist that if you infringe on our right to bear arms and protect ourselves, it will lead to a disarmed society with no hope of defending against a tyrannical government.  WHY ARE YOU OKAY WITH KILLING YOUR CHILDREN? WHY!?  Are you devoid of all human empathy?  Have you on the left become sociopaths?

    There are so many avenues I could have taken this issue.  I could have quoted scripture, but that would have been a waste of key strokes.  The group I am talking to is largely atheists and humanist.  This fact I suspect has much to do with the reason why there seems to be a black hole of basic morality where it comes to protecting the innocent.  I don’t envy the unrepentant soul who must stand before God and give an account why they voted for leaders who destroyed His creations with complete disregard for the plans that the Judge and Creator of the Universe had for those souls whose lives were snuffed out and whose potential was destroyed.

    If you are a Christian refusing to vote for Trump, the most openly pro-life and pro-religious freedom President in recent history, because you have swallowed the media narrative that he is racist, sexist, misogynist, depraved, and my favorite, you don’t like his Tweets, you need to ask yourself the same questions that the Atheist Humanist needs to ask themselves, but with more Biblical and Spiritual insights.  Why are you okay with a political party platform that is pushing the killing of human life?  What is their agenda?  What Spiritual force is behind that agenda?  What does the blood crying out from the ground say about you?  Does it accuse you?

    Donald J. Trump is not a perfect person, but he doesn’t require anymore apology for his imperfections than other men who God used greatly throughout history.  Whether you go to the Old and New Testaments, or pick out someone from the 20th Century.

    Let’s throw a few out there, shall we?  Abraham, at the insistence of his wife tried to do Gods job for him and fathered Ismael, what a mess.  David, the man God chose to be the King of Israel was an adulterer, murderer and a bad father.  Jonah didn’t want Nineveh to repent, because he figured they had it coming.  Peter was vulgar and had a bad temper.  Matthew was a corrupt tax collector.  Saul who later became Paul the Apostle was a religious bigot who held the coats of the men who stoned Stephen to death.  General Patton was a rude hot head.  Churchill was rude and vulgar.  Kennedy was a womanizer.  Reagan was divorced and remarried.  With all of the faults of all of these men, God used them.  We don’t look back at them and think about their failures, not prominently at least.  We look back and see the Father of Faith, the Giant Killer and the man after Gods own heart, the Prophet that saved a nation, the Apostle whose revelation of the Christ laid the foundation for the Church that the gates of Hell could not prevail against, writer of one of the four Gospels, the Apostle who wrote two-thirds of the New Testament, a brilliant military strategist that helped win WWII for the Allied Forces, a sure and steady leader who would not acquiesce to Hitler and saved the world from the Third Reich, the man who held Communism at bay, the man who challenged Gorbachev to tear down that wall!  That is how history remembers them.  The problem is, in the present, we do not have the benefit of looking through the lens of history or at the outcomes of how history will judge a person.  We do not know what truths will come out after the political expediency is no longer a factor from political adversaries.  We live in the now and only have the patterns of history as a guide.  For if we do not learn from our history, we are doomed to repeat it.

    Abortion is the sin of our generation, like slavery was the sin of the generations before us.  Why aren’t you grieved by this sin enough to see passed a man’s faults and vote for him based on what he is getting right?  President Trump is getting the big things right.  He protects the Constitution (I know CNN would have you believe otherwise, but he does).  He protects the unborn.  He stands with Israel in word and deed.  He supports our military.  He protects our religious liberties.  He protects our borders.  He has done more to improve the present and future of black Americans than any other recent President by attacking the vehicles of systemic racism through prison reform and opportunity zones.  He has protected our economy by leveling the playing field with better trade agreements.  He has stood up to big pharma to lower drug costs, without Congress help.  He lowered taxes and the regulatory burden on business owners across the board.  This President has done so many things right without picking winners and losers.  And you would sit with a straight face and tell me that you won’t vote for him because you don’t like his personality? 

    Why would you vote for a party that has fought so hard for decades to kill our off-spring?  It is their Seminole issue.  Their Prime Directive!  Ask yourself why?

    Why?

Comments

2 comments
  • Crystal Roeden likes this
  • Crystal Roeden
    Crystal Roeden Awesome post. I read it though, from bottom to top. I ask you though, I mean, I agree with you, but I ask you: What kind of life does a child have when born to parents that didn't want them? How would they treat that child? What say you?
    Feb 26 - Report
  • Melissa Fink
    Melissa Fink Well, first of all, as a woman who wasn't able to have children, married to the same wonderful man for over 22 years, I would say it should be easier to adopt a child than it is. But really, when we ask questions like that, aren't we really questioning...  more
    Feb 27 - Report