On the eve of Christmas Eve I wonder....do those who believe in the moral propriety of abortion believe that if Mary had aborted Jesus while He was still in the first trimester it would have been a morally neutral action, like having liposuction? Would the God of the Bible have been pleased by that amoral medical procedure? After all, He was not yet a human being. He was just a zygote, made up of extraneous tissue that can be discarded with ethical ease, right? To be logically consistent, which abortionists certainly do not give a hoot about, they would have to assert that aborting Jesus in the first trimester would not constitute the act of killing the Son of God. How it would then come to pass that as a direct result of that allegedly non-murderous act of abortion, the Son of God would never be born, is something I have never heard any of them explain. How could Jesus, after becoming incarnate in the virgin Mary, then cease to exist if He had not been previously killed? I have never asked an abortionist this question, nor have I heard of anyone else who has done so. If you get the opportunity at some point in the future, give it a go and see what happens. I certainly will.
The Congress of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika just approved the next fiscal year's budget. Included in that budget was ample provision for the abortion advocacy group called Planned Parenthood. Although PP is not legally permitted to spend the over half a billion dollars in taxpayer funds it will receive next year on abortions, it galls me to think that my tax dollars are going to support an institution that primarily exists to murder babies. The accountants at PP can shuffle the numbers around any way they want but it will not change the fact that some, perhaps most, of my money is being used to kill babies.
Even if PP was not in the business of murdering babies, it would still be immoral for the law of the land to extract income from me to support PP even if all it did was dispense advice about how to use birth control devices. The government of the SDA has no business taking money from the politically unprotected top 49% of the income population and giving it to a group that it favors, no matter how noble the cause. Indeed, it would still be immoral (the sin is called "theft") for the government of the SDA to take my money to provide food for people who might otherwise starve to death without that food. Simply put, the government is always behaving immorally when it takes money from the top 49% of the income population to fund programs that are not necessary for national defense and the administration of biblical justice exclusively.
Last week I made a comment in this blog about how Planned Parenthood is a misnomer. Planned Parenthood does not exist to help people plan to be parents. Planned Parenthood exists to keep people from becoming parents, both before and after pregnancy. In that sense the organization should more accurately be called Planning Against Parenthood. After I posted that comment, and totally unrelated to it I am sure, Marcia Wolf of Denver wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post accusing people who oppose the immoral act of abortion of deceptively using terms that are misnomers. I would like to address her letter here today. I quote it here in full:
"Two commonly used terms, in my opinion, are misnomers:
1. 'Pro-life.' Except for people intent on murdering someone, most people are pro-life and value life, even the lives of those with whom they disagree.
2. 'Baby killers.' These are the most inflammatory words commonly used by anti-choice zealots. Aside from the discussion on whether or not life begins at conception, a zygote is not a baby. Yes, it is a potential human life, but to equate it with a 'baby' is a stretch by anyone's imagination.
So let's get our terms right when deciding to support, as I have for years, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and other vital organizations that ensure women's health; or be one of the inhumane individuals who champion defunding those venues that serve not only women, but teens and men as well."
Marcia is a fine example of just how demented and depraved a human being can become when she wants to reorder the world around her to fit her world view. Objective truth goes out the window. Logical thinking and logically necessary deductions are also rejected. All that matters is that she can turn the facts of the world around her into a series of lies that convince her she is not a sinner deserving the wrath of God. Let's look at her comments in detail.
Marcia begins with a huge logical contradiction. She hates the use of the term "pro-life" for those who oppose abortion because she believes she is in favor of all life, unlike the evil anti-abortion activists who go around killing abortionists. In Marcia's mind she is morally superior to all anti-abortionists. I only have three questions for her, which expose the weakness of her entire position. Is a zygote alive? If a zygote is alive, why do you kill it? If you kill zygotes how can you proclaim to be pro-life?
Missing in Marcia's argument is the rather obvious truth that murderous abortionists who call themselves "pro-choice" are the most hypocritical of all parties to the debate. To paraphrase Marcia, "except for people intent on taking away all choice, most people are pro-choice and value choice, even the choices of those with whom they disagree." Hiding advocacy for murder behind the morally neutral term "pro-choice" is one of the most egregious examples of a misnomer I can conceive of, and Marcia is guilty of doing it.
Marcia does not like being called a baby killer. I wonder how many abortions she has had? I bet it is more than one. Moral blindness of the sort she is displaying in her letter does not come about unless one has truly been down the path of great moral depravity. Those who use the technically accurate term "baby killer" are labeled "zealots" while those who kill the babies are moral paragons. What a strange world we live in. Marcia resorts to the tired old refrain that a zygote is not a baby. It is fascinating that she refers to the zygote as "potential human life." The DNA in the zygote is human. It is alive. Why is it merely a "potential" human life? If it is only a "potential" human life is it possible it could grow up to be an earthworm or an elephant? It would seem so if Marcia's flawed genetic analysis is correct.
Marcia proudly proclaims that she has made donations to PP for years. I wonder if that is true? I suspect she is lying. If she is not lying, I wonder how much of her own money she has given to PP? Marcia also believes that I am inhumane (I wonder....does that mean I am only a zygote?) because I believe that it is immoral to have my money stolen from me and given to a doctor and a pregnant woman to pay for the procedure to kill her baby. As Marcia sees it, both murder and theft are humane and moral activities and my belief, which she would not kill me for holding, that babies should not be murdered and money should not be stolen are evidences of my inhumanity, whatever that is.
Marcia concludes by informing me that PP is a vital organization that dispenses health services to women, men and teenagers (gender neutral I suppose). This is the only thing she writes that is true. The men and male teenagers who have impregnated women are quite relieved when they can ship their wives, girl friends and one-night-stands off to a taxpayer financed abortion mill where the by-product of their true love can be brutally killed. They are all on the receiving end of a vital government service, praised be its name.