Let me see if I understand the more “moderate” view of abortion, setting aside for the time being the extremely rare case where the mother’s life truly hangs in the balance. I would like to consider the shibboleth of abortion should be illegal “except in cases of rape and incest.” I would like to analyze this from both the perspective of the moderate/centrist liberal and from the moderate/centrist leaning conservative and see if it makes sense from either direction.
Let me first see if I understand this from the more liberal position.
1. Liberals tend to want to protect the rights of the living even in cases of murderers (anti-death penalty).
2. Yet, they want to protect the so-called libertarian (pro-choice) right of a woman to choose to have an abortion.
3. So more moderates will give in on elective abortions, but still staunchly defend the woman’s right to choose in cases of rape and incest, believing that it is the “compassionate” way of minimizing those horrendous acts.
4. So the net effect is that the rapist and/or incest perpetrator gets a shortened more lenient sentence, while the innocent product of that rape/incest receives the death penalty.
From the perspective of the left this is absolute nonsense. Do they not want to “care” for the “least of these” in these cases? Yet, ultimately they are causing damage to both the unborn…who receives the ultimate penalty (DEATH), though they are the most innocent, and the mother…who suffers with emotional and physical trauma compounded by the death of her unborn child.
If they refuse to see the unborn child as a human being (which is often the justification from the Left) then there is still the issue that the mother continues to bear the marks of both the violent act of the incest and/or rape and the subsequent act of the abortion.
From the perspective of the Conservative leaning moderate:
1. Conservatives want to protect the life of the unborn child (sometimes without caring about the situation of the mother).
2. The “moderates” view this as a satisfactory compromise, thinking they will reduce the numbers of abortions.
3. Yet they effectively have affirmed the view that the unborn child conceived in a violent and/or immoral act is of “no value” and therefore does not need protecting, by agreeing to such legislation. They are therefore sacrificing and compromising on the truth that all human life is of immeasurable value and allowing this most innocent victim to receive the death penalty.
4. They also view this as “compassionate” to the plight of the woman victim, “easing her pain” in the short-term but causing greater distress in the long-term.
Conclusion: The compromise makes no sense from the more conservative perspective, for to minimize the value of the life of a human being in the case of rape/incest completely undermines the rationale for the pro-life position in the first place and opens wide the door complete unrestricted abortion on demand.
Here is a sobering story that truly addresses where this logic leads:
“She told me that she would have aborted me if it was legal”
No…Lynne and I are not having more children.
Our little Pomeranian girl Itty-bitty has had 4 (3 boys and 1 girl) beautiful little puppies. It looks like two of them will be a rare blue merle color, while the other two are looking to be tri-colored (party colored). They are amazingly entertaining and absolutely precious.
There is something quite satisfying about holding a new life.
The impetus for the American Revolution was George III initiating a tea tax, the stamp act and the Townshend Act. Taxes as an impetus for revolution? This seems almost beyond belief to me as one who lives with modern Western sensibilities. Yet in the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson called George III a tyrant for having “erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” All because of taxes that were erected to pay for the growing costs of British government. Today, those who object to rising taxes are excoriated as bigoted selfish tyrants. Is something wrong with this scenario? Is there something incongruous about the founding principles of this country and the sensibilities of recent decades?
As an almost first generation immigrant (I was 5 years old) and naturalized citizen, I know what it means for my parents to work very hard to provide for the basic needs of their children. I look at my wife’s parents and the amazing sacrifices they made for their family, which included two special needs children. They refused any offer of government assistance, which was often pushed on them. I look at myself and my family, and I see some of that disappearing. I do not want it to. I do not want to sear my conscience and my sensibilities. How about you? Who is your model? I now look to the model of my father-in-law (currently suffering at the end stages of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases). He models true faith in Jesus Christ and his inerrant Word. He modeled true commitment and sacrifice to his family. He even accepted a foolish and often weak son-in-law, marrying his oldest daughter (that would be me). And he modeled a reliance on God’s strength, not government.
Erma Bombeck once said that, “You have to love a nation that celebrates its independence every July 4, not with a parade of guns, tanks, and soldiers who file by the White House in a show of strength and muscle, but with family picnics where kids throw Frisbees, the potato salad gets iffy, and the flies die from happiness. You may think you have overeaten, but it is patriotism.”
This is my “third” son Jacob in his acting debut. He is the tin man.
It would be easy for me to reflect in a metaphorical way about the lack of a true brain, true heart and true courage in the PCUSA, but I won’t. OOOPS! I just did.