(Link) No doubt active
pro-life groups were behind this new law resulting in the protection of many
babies. On the other hand, lives are still being lost because lawmakers have
given in to “pro-choice” advocates by allowing exceptions to the rule. So why
the exceptions?
Logic whispers a question: if these new pre-abortion procedures are so crucial - doctors can be
fined $10,000 and lose their license if they don’t comply - why are they
so readily dismissed under other circumstances as in the case of those women
who “have to travel long distances?” We all know that Dr. Seuss would say: “a person’s a person, no matter how small.”
Perhaps, in this case he would say: “a
person has the right to a fair chance of life no matter how far his mother has
traveled in order to kill him.”
Granted, rape,
incest, and fetal deformity are grave issues and merit special attention. Yet
no matter how serious the case, life continues in each of these circumstances,
while in an abortion, life is terminated forever. Thus, these circumstances still
ought to fall under the protection of ultrasounds and the playing of fetal
heartbeats.
It seems that by
taking a middle ground, the judges are writing laws according to public opinion
while forsaking the anchor of Truth as the foundation of laws. The fear for
what people may think will never bring us the freedom that Christ promises from
living in the Truth. (John 8:32)
So according to the
logic of this “mediocre” law the next time I go to McDonalds I will request the
bag that doesn’t have the warning labels about the greasy fast food nutritional
facts plastered all over it. And if they ask me why, I’ll simply say that I “traveled from a long distance” and so merit
the right to clog my arteries without warning…. God Bless.
By John Yep
By John Yep
No comments:
Post a Comment