Beauty in Brokenness
6 years ago
From Contention to Contentment: The journey of one bitter young woman toward becoming a gracious and mature woman of God, this side of glory.
Norma McCorvey (the former Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade)used to work at an abortion mill named "A Choice forWomen." She now realizes what a cruel irony thattitle was.She saw first hand, just as pregnancy resource centercounselors see, that women don't get abortionsbecause of freedom of choice, but rather because theyfeel they have no freedom and no choice.They feel trapped, abandoned, desperate and afraid,and have been led to believe that abortion is theironly option.As Frederica Mathewes-Green has written, no womanwants an abortion like she wants a Porsche or an icecream; rather, she wants it like an animal caught ina trap wants to gnaw off its own leg."Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."That doesn't mean that the Spirit allows us to dowhatever we want or to decide for ourselves what'sright and wrong.Rather, it means that the Spirit gives us the freedomto do what is right, the power to choose what isgood, when we see it before us and yet feel pulled inthe opposite direction. Liberty means that we nolonger have to feel doomed to do what we know iswrong.We are the people of the Spirit of the Lord, and whenwe take action on behalf of life, especially by beingpresent at abortion mills, we are acting on behalf oftrue freedom, and imparting to those who are inbondage the power to do what is right.
Matthew 18:21-35
The "Moral Relativism" Fallacy"If you don't like abortion, don't have one."This argument employs the "moral relativism" fallacy, which twists a moral belief into a personal preference. The moral relativist says it is wrong for anyone to "force" their moral absolutes on others. They take our moral statement, "abortion is wrong" and make it into just our personal preference. There are two flaws with this argument. First, the moral relativist is himself trying to impose his views on us; and secondly, civilized society is structured around basic moral beliefs, one of which is that killing innocent human beings is wrong. We are not saying we don't like abortion, we are saying it is wrong."Personally, I'm against abortion, but I don't think I should impose my views on others so I think it should be legal."If you believe this, let me ask you a question. Why do you oppose abortion? If your answer is that you oppose abortion because it kills a human baby, are you really sure that you believe that baby killing should be legal? Do you oppose slavery, kidnapping, and genocide? Would you say that you oppose them, but that they should be legal? We hope not! Abortion is in the same category. Abortion ends the life of an innocent human person, and it should be illegal - not a "choice" to be made at the personal discretion of individuals.The "Ad Hominem" Fallacy"Men should not have anything to say about abortion . . . it's a woman's issue.""You don't care that unwanted children will be abused. We believe every child should be a wanted child.""It is hypocritical for pro-lifers to be against abortion unless they are willing to adopt all the unwanted babies that would be born."These are examples of rhetorical personal attacks against the pro-life advocate designed to sidetrack the discussion from the central question, "Does abortion kill an innocent human person?" The pro-abortion advocate claims they are against child abuse, but since when is it logical to kill a person in order to prevent the possibility that they might someday be abused?The "Begging the Question" Fallacy"Making abortion illegal forces women into dangerous back-alley abortions."This logical fallacy begs the question by pre-supposing that the unborn baby is not a human person. Before a woman goes to a "back-alley" she first needs to determine if she is committing murder by aborting her baby. Their argument also assumes that abortion is the only option for women in a crisis pregnancy. She could choose parenting or adoption for her baby. Contrary to popular belief, it is now well known that the number of deaths due to "back-alley" abortions was greatly exaggerated during the period prior to Roe v. Wade."A woman has the right to choose to do whatever she wants with her own body."This statements begs the question by assuming there is only one body involved in an abortion - the mother's. But what about the baby's body? The unborn baby's body - although connected to and sustained by the mother - is at the same time unique, with its own brain and central nervous system. The baby's gender and blood type may be different than the mother, and he or she has a unique DNA fingerprint. Historically, civilized societies have rejected the idea that men and women can do whatever they want with their own bodies, especially if their actions will harm them or another person."Women shouldn't have to carry a child conceived through rape."Rape is a terrible crime and its victims deserve our deepest sympathy. But, would it be right to abort a child conceived in rape simply because the child may remind the mother of the painful event? Does the mother, as a victim of a violent crime, have the right to victimize an innocent person - the child in her womb? It is wrong to kill a baby based on the circumstances of the baby's conception.
Did you know there's a connection between evolution and abortion? The growing influence of evolutionary ideas and an increasing acceptance of abortion have gone hand in hand. Now, some people have unfortunately misunderstood our beliefs as we link evolution with abortion, suggesting that Answers in Genesis is arguing that evolution is the cause of abortion. Not at all. (In an ultimate sense, sin is the cause.)At the same time, there is a connection between evolution and abortion. If people believe the Bible isn't the absolute authority in all matters--and if they think they're just animals in evolutionary history and are not made in God's image, and are accountable to no one but themselves-- the more they will justify anything they want. That includes killing a baby in its mother's womb.If a person believes he is just an animal in an evolutionary struggle for survival, then in that person's mind a developing baby is also an animal. Just as some people get rid of stray animals by killing them, people might also say: why not also get rid of spare children through abortion?While evolution isn't the cause of abortion, the more we see people reject the teaching of God's Word and accept evolution, the more they can justify abortion.