There is an article up on BBC. Essentially, the US is being blamed for not supporting abortion. "Women's lives are saved when abortion is legal," Ms Coen said. "And saving women's lives strengthens the family, makes societies healthier, economies grow faster and countries stronger. It's a win-win story."
Food for thought: does sacrificing one life save others? Better yet, why would God hate abortion? Is it true that abortion is the solution in saving a nation's mothers? I want to dig into this one because it's so easy to settle for the murder arguement. In the minds of so many people, though, it is better to let the child die instead of letting the mother die. And it's as simple as that.
I would really love your input...so let me know your thoughts. Find me some scriptures, too. I am apparently biblically illiterate today - can't find a few of scriptures that are coming to mind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I like how people approach aid from the U.S. as a right which they demand, rather than a gift they are privileged to receive.
Howdy, Mrs. Sandor! I wish I had time to say more, but I thought I would mention this one thing, as I find it an interesting observation.
Abortifacients (medicines, herbs & techniques that can be used to induce abortions) have been known for millennia. The ancients had their ways, just as our society has its ways.
Yet in the case of David's sin with Bathsheba, the possibility of aborting the child growing within Bathsheba never seems a possibility with David as a "solution" to their problem. Even though the stakes were as high as they can get for them, even to the point that David thought murdering Uriah was an acceptable "solution," murdering the innocent within Bathsheba's womb was apparently never even a consideration.
It would seem that even for a king who could order the death of a man simply because he wished it to happen, some prices were just too high to pay.
The "slight of hand" that the individual you quote performs is a powerful trick. I mean, who could be against saving women's lives? It's a common ploy: transmogrify a debated practice into one that no one debates as if they were one and the same.
Yet, what if the price to be paid to "save women's lives" were different -- say, euthanizing the elderly, the bedridden, or the comatose -- would such a "slight of hand" switch be so easy to achieve? Would the moral questions be so easily ignored?
Yes, saving women's lives is good for numerous reasons. That doesn't mean that killing pre-born children is. Ms. Coen is not interested in abortion as a means to saving lives if her PAI organization is any indication, since its stated goal is to "slow population growth." Rather, she is employing a tired and worn (but, sadly, still effective) bait-and-switch.
OK, I've said more than I planned! Let me wrap up --
Embracing a culture that is so casually willing to destroy the life in the womb, as Ms. Coen apparently does, does NOT "strengthen the family, make society healthier, economies grow faster and countries stronger." Rather, it creates a society in which the value of every life is determined in the market place and against the standard of personal convenience.
Ms. Coen is free to live in her world, but I would rather not.
Thanks for pointing this article out!
Post a Comment