Friday, July 16, 2004

Shack's Views On Abortion

This past weekend (April 24th and 25th), an abortion-rights rally was held in Washington, D.C. Where do these people get the idea that they have the "right" to take innocent, unborn lives. That is, after all, what abortion is, the murder of an innocent human being who has done nothing to harm anyone...who hasn't even had a chance to be born. Abortion is murder, as is the death penalty (yes, I am against that also) and the taking of lives in war, except perhaps in our own defense or in self-defense and even then as the very last resort. Abortion is usually referred to by the feel-good sounding term "a women's right to choose". OK, I'm not a woman so maybe I just don't get it. We all make choices...every day... most of them mundane, but a few very important. The concept of a "right to choose" seems very appealing. Yet all of the choices we make have consequences. If we choose to eat too much, we may end up overweight. If we choose to break the law, we may get caught and have to go to jail or pay a penalty. Yet, if a woman chooses to have sex, she does not have to worry about the possible consequences of, she can get an abortion!! This, in my opinion, is just another example of people not willing to take responsibility for their own actions. Plus, while it called a woman's right to choose, the pregnancy was the result of the actions of not only the woman but also the man. What about a man's rights in the matter? The life in question is just as much his offspring as hers; yet, in most instances, he has no say in the matter whatsoever. The only "right to choose" that I see going on here is the woman's right to wipe out an innocent life. And while it is currently perfectly legal for her to do that, if she were to wait until after birth and then take that very same life, she would be guilty of a hideous murder. Why the distinction? So what this all boils down to is that Shack feels that abortion is wrong although possibly in the cases of rape or other sexual assualt or incest, it might be allowable because of the trauma, both emotional and physical, being faced by the woman. Also in the case where the woman'sike is in danger. I wonder, what would have happened if "Eve", or "Mary", the mother of Jesus, had exercised their "right to choose"?

No comments: