 |
| source |
i was watching a documentary on birth when i heard a British midwife comment on a particular issue she was experiencing with a patient who wanted to have her child at home despite the midwife's opinion that she should go to the hospital. From the midwife's perspective the woman needs medical intervention, but the mother was refusing, or more like delaying that option, preferring to try all the old "tricks" at home to help her labor progress naturally.
The midwife's comment has almost nothing to do with the subject here;
however, it was indirectly revealing the same.
She said the the unborn child didn't have rights until it was born; therefore, she could not force the mother to go to the hospital, even though she thought it was in the best interest of the child, her hands were, in essence, tied.
Hearing her casual banter to the camera, the catch-22 of the popular pro-life argument hit me like a slap in the face.
i have understood for some time that mankind cannot legislate morality, nor are the legal systems of man the answer to sin, but this example made that truth undeniably obvious.
If you see as i, "pro-lifers" mean well in their desire for the unborn to have "legal" rights to live, they, of course, mean to protect life.. but the reality is that man's ways only bring about death (Proverbs 14:12). Because, if the unborn have civil rights in the legal system, then decisions can be made on their behalf under any circumstances by the State regardless of the parents wishes! This has bitter consequences.
If pro-lifers accomplished their goal of getting the government/gods/courts to establish the unborn as legal persons whose circumstances could be "protected" (read: regulated) by the State, THEN it would naturally open the door for the State to regulate any number of decisions regarding these persons.
 |
| source |
It doesn't take a lot of imagination to think about other scenarios where the State, the now legal "father"/god/ruler of the unborn, could technically force mothers to acquiesce to medical demands/prescriptions.
It is a fact already that today when prenatal testing indicates possible issues with the unborn child, like down's syndrome for example, that the mother is even encouraged to abort her baby. It doesn't take any prophetic ability to foresee the State (especially in the socialized-medicine arena) prescribing/demanding abortion for all pregnancies wherein testing has detected a potential problem.
What if mother no longer had the choice to carry the child full-term because the medical-gods deemed her pregnancy unviable (read: undesirable)? It could happen.
Today, once again, it became abundantly clear why i am neither "pro-life" nor "pro-choice" in the controversial modern sense of the labels. In this context i once heard a brother say he was "pro-God", and i have to agree with that stance. i am pro-YAH, which means i am obviously all for life AND all for choice, because both life and the freedom of choice comes from the Creator. i don't take sides on the fight in the "legal" world, that is not my world.
i am pro-Yah, therefore i cannot agree with abortion. i believe abortion is murder. Period. But i also don't think man was designed to create his own legal systems, because there already IS a law against murder, it's Yah's law.
So to all the "pro-lifers" seeking legislation:
man doesn't need man-made laws to "protect" life.
It won't work.
It will backfire horribly.
Man need only return to ways the of Yah, and walk there.
 |
| source |
