Encourage one another and build one another up. Pray without ceasing. Test everything. Keep what is good. Avoid all evil. -1 Thess 5:11,17,21,22
Where the stories start...
▼
Thursday, July 3, 2025
An uncomfortable question
If he is not a "baby" while he is in your womb, then why do you paste ultrasound images into his baby-book? Why are "your circumstances" the condition that determines whether he is a baby or just a "lump of tissue"?
Some years ago I got into a conversation with a local professor's wife regarding abortion. She announced, with pride, that she had three abortions before being ready to start a family and it was the right thing to do. I agreed and said "you're probably right because now those children are in heaven whereas if you had raised them they would have ended up in Hell. With you". After a bit of profanity she stomped away. ---ken
Why is killing a pregnant woman a double murder but abortion is ok? Even the law has a double standard. Why has that never been to any court that I know of let alone the supreme court?
From what I'm seeing, abortion is seen as an exception - so the mother determines to terminate the life, but others cannot make that decision for her (by murdering her).
There are courts that have heard these types of arguments and upheld the distinction. But you're correct, it hasn't gone to the supreme court.
Colloquially, the word "baby" has many uses, and isn't solely used to identify an infant. Your adult child can be your 'baby'. So it's possible that it can be a "lump of tissue" and a "baby" at the same time.
There are those that are pro-abortion that attempt to correct those that refer to their unborn child as a 'baby'. It's weird. We should definitely push back against that.
The UK government has just recently passed legislation that permits a mother to abort up to full term. I think that a lot of us find that a frightening development.
I don't have any details or attributions for the following, but it seems entirely plausible.
A pollster went to several college campuses and prefaced his questions with the following information: "Leading researchers in Developmental Psychology believe that young humans don't have any sense of self or sentience before the age of four. Given that, do you think it is immoral to terminate the life of a terminally-ill, young-human if they are younger than four years of age?"
The majority of the students who were asked this question, as posed, thought it was morally neutral to euthanize children up to the age of four.
To try to reason with the unreasonable is itself unreasonable. Emotion is at the heart of their depravity. It is extremely difficult to supplant your emotions in place of theirs. The biblical answer is to leave them and shake the dust from your shoes.
Some years ago I got into a conversation with a local professor's wife regarding abortion. She announced, with pride, that she had three abortions before being ready to start a family and it was the right thing to do. I agreed and said "you're probably right because now those children are in heaven whereas if you had raised them they would have ended up in Hell. With you". After a bit of profanity she stomped away. ---ken
ReplyDeleteIf not a person, then it is property. Bought, sold or disposed of at will.
ReplyDeleteHmmm.
Kinda sounds like chattel slavery?
Does to me,
A little East of Paris
Why is killing a pregnant woman a double murder but abortion is ok? Even the law has a double standard. Why has that never been to any court that I know of let alone the supreme court?
ReplyDeleteFrom what I'm seeing, abortion is seen as an exception - so the mother determines to terminate the life, but others cannot make that decision for her (by murdering her).
DeleteThere are courts that have heard these types of arguments and upheld the distinction. But you're correct, it hasn't gone to the supreme court.
The Supreme Court would duck the question by saying, 'Only the aborted baby has standing so......'
DeleteI agree with your sentiment.
ReplyDeleteColloquially, the word "baby" has many uses, and isn't solely used to identify an infant. Your adult child can be your 'baby'. So it's possible that it can be a "lump of tissue" and a "baby" at the same time.
There are those that are pro-abortion that attempt to correct those that refer to their unborn child as a 'baby'. It's weird. We should definitely push back against that.
Pretty simple to Marxist eyes.
ReplyDeleteWho- Whom.
The UK government has just recently passed legislation that permits a mother to abort up to full term. I think that a lot of us find that a frightening development.
ReplyDeleteI don't have any details or attributions for the following, but it seems entirely plausible.
DeleteA pollster went to several college campuses and prefaced his questions with the following information: "Leading researchers in Developmental Psychology believe that young humans don't have any sense of self or sentience before the age of four. Given that, do you think it is immoral to terminate the life of a terminally-ill, young-human if they are younger than four years of age?"
The majority of the students who were asked this question, as posed, thought it was morally neutral to euthanize children up to the age of four.
This is all pointed at 'assisted suicide' and MAID... Grrrr...
ReplyDeleteIt is all population control. Pure and simple.
ReplyDeleteTo try to reason with the unreasonable is itself unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteEmotion is at the heart of their depravity. It is extremely difficult to supplant your emotions in place of theirs. The biblical answer is to leave them and shake the dust from your shoes.
And pray for them. And to love your enemies.
DeleteAbortion from the perspective of a demon......
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-UHgW87RqQ
As a Father, this scene made me sick to contemplate.