Abortion's pivotal question
“If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people to not kill each other? Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.” – Mother Teresa
Language is a powerful tool because it moulds our minds and how words are used influences our receptivity to an idea. Some ideas, if communicated in straightforward terms would be offensive, but if we drape them in “politically correct” terms they become more palatable. Pro-choice is perhaps the most wicked example of semantic power. As a result, abortion is one of the chief moral crimes of our time.
The key issue with abortion is not whether abortion is legal. The fact that something is legal does not necessarily mean it is morally right. Slavery was legal, apartheid was legal and so was everything Hitler did in Germany. The key issue is not about a woman’s right to choose either. As former abortion clinic worker, Judith Fetrow said, “There is a great difference between the intellectual support of the woman’s right to choose and the actual participation in the carnage of abortion. Because seeing body parts bothers the workers.” A woman’s “right to choose” is the oft used political justification for abortion. However, this is a shallow misunderstanding and a betrayal of the word “choice”. Choice cannot exist apart from the context to which it is being applied. A choice only means something when we address the issue of what we are choosing. Sharon Osbourne [www.selfevidenttruth.org] now regrets her choice: “I had an abortion at 17 and it was the worst thing I ever did. I would never recommend it to anyone because it comes back to haunt you.” [London Daily Mail, Dec. 18, 2004]
Abortion involves killing and discarding the unborn. When we peel away the high-sounding, empty politically correct buzz-words, the key issue is this: What is the unborn? Gregory Koukl [www.str.org] writes, “If the unborn is not a human being, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human being, no justification for abortion is adequate.”
Language is a powerful tool because it moulds our minds and how words are used influences our receptivity to an idea. Some ideas, if communicated in straightforward terms would be offensive, but if we drape them in “politically correct” terms they become more palatable. Pro-choice is perhaps the most wicked example of semantic power. As a result, abortion is one of the chief moral crimes of our time.
The key issue with abortion is not whether abortion is legal. The fact that something is legal does not necessarily mean it is morally right. Slavery was legal, apartheid was legal and so was everything Hitler did in Germany. The key issue is not about a woman’s right to choose either. As former abortion clinic worker, Judith Fetrow said, “There is a great difference between the intellectual support of the woman’s right to choose and the actual participation in the carnage of abortion. Because seeing body parts bothers the workers.” A woman’s “right to choose” is the oft used political justification for abortion. However, this is a shallow misunderstanding and a betrayal of the word “choice”. Choice cannot exist apart from the context to which it is being applied. A choice only means something when we address the issue of what we are choosing. Sharon Osbourne [www.selfevidenttruth.org] now regrets her choice: “I had an abortion at 17 and it was the worst thing I ever did. I would never recommend it to anyone because it comes back to haunt you.” [London Daily Mail, Dec. 18, 2004]
Abortion involves killing and discarding the unborn. When we peel away the high-sounding, empty politically correct buzz-words, the key issue is this: What is the unborn? Gregory Koukl [www.str.org] writes, “If the unborn is not a human being, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human being, no justification for abortion is adequate.”
