Powerful Video from Catholic Vote

I’ve had conversations with people who wholeheartedly support a mother’s right to hire a doctor to kill her child, and in these conversations I like to get a feel for the “reasoning” behind such a view.

One of the reasons that keeps popping up is economics. A typical scenario is laid out: Single mother who can’t take care of child, so why burden society? What kind of life will this child have?

So abort it, off with its head! Save us all the trouble of supporting this foolish woman’s “mistake”.  It was even deemed a good deed to do this.

Even when it is pointed out (and agreed upon) that the unborn child is a human being, that is viewed as an irrelevancy.  The woman’s right to choose and our pocketbook are inviolable and sacrosanct.

So with that, the following video asks us to imagine the case of an unborn child who will enter this world into a broken home (father leaves mother and child to fend for themselves), and to realize the possibility of what could be if abortion isn’t viewed as an option.

Also, check out this John Piper article,  Lincoln’s Logic on Slavery Applied to Abortion.

H/t: Justin Taylor

Advertisements

10 Responses to Powerful Video from Catholic Vote

  1. kris says:

    i saw this video a couple of days ago…it speaks volumes. planned parenthood, because of the remarks about the babies future in the video, would have counseled this mother to abort..

    kw

  2. Laz says:

    What if they had known that the baby would grow up to be one of their most ardent supporters?

  3. fourthplace says:

    powerful video.

    hope all is well. sure miss meeting with you man.

  4. korae67 says:

    I can see both sides. Woman’s health is very important and it should be very carefully dealt with because it is about one’s life. At the same time, if you can avoid having abortion, this should be also considered because it is also about a life. Is there any way to accommodate both arguments? I will certainly think about choosing some type of middle ground.

  5. Laz says:

    Korae, thanks for your comment.

    You’ve said it, “It is about one’s life”. The life of the child. Think about it, those of us who have children (if you do you can relate) would not hesitate to lay down our lives to save our kid’s life.

    Abortion, any way you slice it, is literally a woman choosing (there is that word) to hire a doctor to kill her unborn child. In my mind, there is, there cannot be any justification for that. Just as there is no justification for people like Andrea Yates to drown her 5 little ones in a bathtub.

    I know that the rare scenario what if you have to choose between the mother’s life and the child’s life? I can say that if my son were in mortal danger and the only way to spare his life was to lay down my life, I’d do it in a heartbeat.

    As for a real case scenario where a mother’s life was in danger you don’t need to look farther than the case of Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow’s mother, Pam Tebow.

    Here is an excerpt from an article in the Gainesville Sun,

    Just before her pregnancy, Pam fell into a coma after contracting amoebic dysentery, a bacteria transmitted through contaminated drinking water. During her recovery, she received a series of strong medications. And even though she discontinued the regimen when she discovered the pregnancy, doctors told Pam the fetus had been damaged.

    Doctors later told Pam that her placenta had detached from the uterine wall, a condition known as placental abruption, which can deprive the fetus of oxygen and nutrients. Doctors expected a stillbirth, Pam said, and they encouraged her to terminate the pregnancy.

    “They thought I should have an abortion to save my life from the beginning all the way through the seventh month,” she recalled.

    Pam said her decision to sustain the pregnancy was a simple one – because of her faith.

    “We were grieved,” she said. “And so my husband just prayed that if the Lord would give us a son, that he would let us raise him.”

    In her seventh month of pregnancy, Pam traveled to the country’s capital, Manila, where she received around-the-clock care from an American-trained physician.

    For the next two months, Pam – steadfastly praying for a healthy child – remained on bed rest.

    And on her due date – Aug. 14, 1987 – Pam gave birth to Timothy Richard Tebow, who she described as “skinny, but rather long.” “We were concerned at first because he was so malnourished, but he definitely made up for it,” she said, between laughs. Today Tim, now 20, stands at a solid 6’3″ and 235 pounds.

  6. EAMx2 says:

    I am a supporter of Pro-choice and I believe by giving women the right to terminate an unwanted, unplanned, or physically hazardous pregnancy, we allow them the same rights as all other people in all other medical and social conditions. Forcing them to carry to full term jeopardizes their ability to have a healthy and fulfilling life.

  7. Laz says:

    Sure E, except for the fact this choice involves killing another human being.

  8. Job says:

    EAMx2:

    In other words, you support women having rights but not babies, which incidentally include baby girls that will never grow up to be women. And don’t tell me that they are “fetuses” and not babies. Georgia State University is right now undergoing a study of how personalities begin developing while in the womb. (I wonder how they got funding for such a study in this politically correct environment.) Murder is murder. Should we kill a certain percentage of workers so that the rest will have a better chance of finding a job? Or should we kill the poor so that the middle and upper classes won’t have to support them with social programs? Or should we kill the rich and take their land and money?

    • Julian_Huxley says:

      The most sensible action that the poor should undertake would be to “kill the rich and take their land and money”. This would be justifiable as self-defence, as we, “the rich”, have been planning their demise for quite sometime. However, they are, as a constuct of social control, too busy struggling amongst themselves to ever engage in such a pro-active enterprise.

      “We must face the fact that now, in this year of grace, the great majority of human beings are substandard: they are undernourished, or ill, or condemned to a ceaseless struggle for bare existence; they are imprisoned in ignorance or superstition. . . . We must see to it that life is no longer a hell paved with unrealized opportunity. . . . In this light, the highest and most sacred duty of man is seen as the proper utilization of the untapped resources of human beings.

      I find myself inevitably driven to use the language of religion. For the fact is that all this does add up to something in the nature of a religion: perhaps one might call it Evolutionary Humanism. The word ‘religion’ is often used restrictively to mean belief in gods; but I am not using it in this sense . . .

      I am using it in a broader sense, to denote an overall relation between man and his destiny, and one involving his deepest feelings, including his sense of what is sacred. In this broad sense, evolutionary humanism, it seems to me, is capable of becoming the germ of a new religion, not necessarily supplanting existing religions but supplementing them.” – Julian Huxley

  9. Pingback: Regarding Abortion, Jesus Christ, Joseph And Mary: What If Mary Had Chosen Abortion? « Jesus Christology

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: