Save The Babies discussion

Pro-life or Pro-choice > Beyond Being Born

Comments Showing 1-5 of 5 (5 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Rhonda (new)

Rhonda (rhondak) These topics of pro-choice and pro-life are not contrary to one another: The Deity has given us the right to choose and, while it is true that legalities may make an option easier or harder, we each have a choice in the matter of our bodies and our children. As Thomas Aquinas worked hard on the issue of sex and life, I doubt we will create any new arguments here: every opinion I have read comes down to a preconceived (no pun intended) idea of whom has the greater right in a given case. One should, however, understand the number of civilizations which have justified the killing of children for practical reasons for there have been many. One should also understand that it is with the foundation of civilization based upon the Judeo-Christian God that we first acknowledged the inalienable right life to all individuals. This, of course, does not maintain that such a right cannot be revoked (a subject which would cover a myriad of political writers of the last 500 years or more) but that one has merely a right to existence on the basis of life having been created.
However, there is a greater issue involved beyond even being born and this is one which is unfortunately forgotten in our modern society. The inalienable right of life seems to me to include a modicum of nurture and care after one is born.
I would therefore argue that it is at least as heinous a crime for us as a society, to neglect the rearing and training of children as it is to simply murder them. As has been published by a political pundit recently, the growth in single parent homes has skyrocketed in the last thirty years and with this statistic, we discover that the associated crime concerning children of single parent homes has mushroomed as a result. To counter this unfortunate issue, I cannot pretend to have a solution.
However, what is overwhelmingly clear is that our embrace of the individual's freedom as opposed to guidance and adherence to a moral code has led us down this path: our schools no longer teach the difference between right and wrong, but are more concerned with being politically correct. We are told that in order to prosper, each of us must embrace a new kind of acceptance of world-issues, including such tomes as 'Heather has Two Mommies.' I believe that this is patently false.
It is our failure to accept a single moral code and wrestle with the implementation of such which has caused such a nuclear meltdown of the entire Western Civilization over the last half century. Our quest for absolute certainty has resulted in the conclusion that certainty and morality are not absolute but relative. It is a sad but overwhelming fact that it is pointless to argue with anyone who believes in such a normalistic universe.
Nevertheless, beyond the mere creation and birth of a child, there is an even greater issue which we are neglecting in this discussion and this is what happens to that child after he has been born. Even after the convoluted process for adoption procedures has been met, sometimes the damage has already been done. Sometimes care and love is enough to counter that damage, but oftentimes it is not. How is the birth of a child who is damaged irretrievably through malnutrition, a parent's itinerant drug use, simple neglect or physical and mental abuse different than consigning a child to the refuse bin? Why is our refusal to engrain the principles of right and wrong along with a concern for all children's education different from leaving them in the wilderness for predators? I maintain that there is no difference.
Recently we have begun experimenting with the other end of life, with a kindly termination which is politely called euthanasia. In several states this heinous process is gaining political power, most recently in Oregon, I believe. These choices are all a part of a group of people who have been deceived that the value of life can be determined on an individual basis, without regard to morality. It is unfortunate that we cannot see that our social demise has been orchestrated by our demand that each of us be able to make choices for which there are no repercussions. The most difficult part of this is that even when realization comes to our lives, it comes too late for us to save what we have already destroyed. However, establishing the moral code for oneself is the beginning step not in the erasure of guilt, but in the establishment of choice which is not whimsical but truly free. No one can ever object to a decision which is the result of one consciously consulting the Lord. In truth, only such a result can ever be considered an act of freedom.

message 2: by [deleted user] (new)

Random fact: The word "euthanasia" came from the German word coined by Hitler to justify the killing of Jews. Then he didn't use it as "putting them out of their misery" but as removing the surplus, unnecessary population. As euthanasia is pushed mainly in cases of old people and those in comas, has our view of euthanasia really changed from that of the greatest mass murder's?

I have more, but I'm going to save it for later.

message 3: by Etshadow (new)

Etshadow | 59 comments I have had 2 major discussions with men who have children about abortion. One refered to pregnacy as a cancer. The other thought of it as a good way to allow someone to correct a mistake or remove a problem. This last one was the day after I read about one woman protesting outside an abortion clinic to a woman going in "The baby is not the problem."
Some people want abortion in cases of rape and incest. So the sins of the father come down on the child. Another would be that if my 15 year old daughter came home pregnent would I want to help her get a clean slate by removing the child. And another mentioned that he did not believe in abortion for the purpose of birth control. (????) Then there is the single parent issues or the child in the foster system.
I have to say that the problem is with the law allowing it to be so easy and acceptable to get an abortion. This goes along the lines of single parenthood as well. With the acceptance of abortion young people think it would be ok to have sex and then abort. However, more girls change their minds once that are pregnant and they keep the child while a lot of the men leave.
This also distroys families because affairs occur more with the option of abortion so an obsticle appears to be removed.
I seem to be rambling again and not sure all I have said comes to a point but my thought are in here somewhere. I hope more comments come about this so I can make them clearer.

message 4: by [deleted user] (new)

Sociological and anthropological studies (as well as theological reasonings) show that family, as the basic unit of society, is the most influential unit to the whole. With poor families eventually comes a poor society.

So, a very, very long explaination short the culture of death is a self-destroying culture not only because it reduces procreation rates (at any rate, in America the birth rates are still higher than the death rates, if you do not included abortions as deaths) but also because it destablizes psychological supports systems, which increases violence and political wars that hurt the country overall.

So abortion isn't just about the baby - it is about the family and a culture's ability to take responsibility.

message 5: by Anna (new)

Anna (SylviaGrant) Oh my goodness!!!!! That's a lot of words for prolife.

back to top