The title is a quote from a rather disappointing movie, Lost in Space, but it stuck with me because it seemed humorous. Unfortunately what I'm going to be talking about is memorable but not humorous. Recently Chuck Baldwin published an article called, Dates That Destroyed America which was linked to on one of the forums I frequent. In the article, Mr. Baldwin cites January 22, 1973 as one of these dates that destroyed America. Someone who stands by the decision the judges made in the Roe V. Wade case said this:
"Roe vs. Wade was the correct decision. Christians can't make a coherent case against abortion without resorting to supernatural explanations."
It may be true that for the most part Christians don't have an argument against that decision without referencing their deity or their holy texts (God sent me one last night, it said, "lol" Wurd...) I was a little frustrated when I responded, so excuse me if this comes across as crass, but I had this to say:
"Regardless of whether you['re] pro-choice or pro-life, it was wrong because the judicial branch is not meant to make laws but to determine the legal precedent Roe had to make. Roe should have lost the case and pro-choicers could have used that as a rallying cry for change within our system, but instead the judges overstepped their authority and we bent over and let them give it to us doggy-style.
Roe V. Wade is wrong, wrong, wrong and the only reason I can think of that pro-choicers like it is because it meant that they got what they [want]. I think people on the left side of this social issue are too blinded by that low-blow victory to see what is wrong with that decision."
The fact of the matter is just that. The pro-choice side may be able to make a stronger case against the pro-life position citing their scientific data, but at the same time they completely ignore the gross violation of the fundamental structure of our government. The judicial branch does not make laws, they judge whether an incident happened to be on the right side or the wrong side of the laws already in place.
I once heard a pro-choice advocate describe a fetus as a parasite and that leads me to my next point about the way the pro-choice minimalize the humanity of a fetus in efforts to chalk an unborn baby up to a mass collective of tissue. The problem with trying answer the abortion issue with science is that it is not entirely a scientific question. It's a philosophical question about when life begins. We can try playing pin the tail on the definition of life, but there's even argument whether it's about when life begins if life begins at conception. And in case you're wondering, I'm not going to try and answer those deep questions in this entry. Perhaps some day, when I have gotten myself some more kahnuhawledge and then will hopefully be able to better articulate my thoughts. But for those who were curious as to where I stand, I'm most certainly pro-life and as it was said in Juno, "All babies want to get borned! All babies want to get borned!"
Until next time, unless of course we allow some judges to decide that post-vaginal-exit abortions are legal, in which case I suspect I will not survive to write another entry;
De Facto
P.S. - I added a Link in the Spotlight section to my sidebar which will feature random links to things I think may be of interest. I strongly suggest you check out Dots for Jesus, it's awesome!
No comments:
Post a Comment