 |
| 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 |
I'm not trying to be dense, but I haven't tracked with this line of thought, so I have one question that might build a bridge of understanding ...
ReplyDeleteWhat governance does any medical professional have over anyone for any reason, whether they are reckoned by a government to be a person or not?
Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness is not a right bestowed upon anyone by anyone else. It has always been an "inalienable right" given by God ... even according to practical legal thought.
Or to make it more personal ... who gave us our rights and when were they given? This is debated, but it is clear in my mind of when and by Whom ... and even if when is debated ... there is nothing I've come across that would muddy the waters about by Whom, except for modern secular folly that wouldn't even be welcome in secular courts of law. The court knows the rights come from the Creator, even if a midwife on TV is confused or misinformed.
We were endowed by our Creator certain inalienable rights, among which is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, no? Does this not imply many other rights not listed ... natural rights also endowed by Him?
What limits does size, ability, location, environment have on such rights?
Clear thinking pro-life people would say that none of those four things limit rights ... and yet the only differences between born and unborn fall within the four categories of size, ability, location and environment.
In short, pro-life is the only correct conclusion to the argument. Pro-choice is nonsense.
Stating facts such as these in unequical lingo is not popular, but somethings can be known ... not all things are subjective or up for opinion. It's not of anyone's benefit to fain ignorance when we know what is real and true.
Let the scoffers get over it ... pro-choice is simply wrong.
Thank you for your comment Trent. Perhaps it wasn't clear enough but my intention here was to demonstrate the fallacy of giving the beast governments (man-made civil systems) JURISDICTION over the woman's womb; and the unintended consequences that come from this deviation. The way of the Creator provides safety for the unborn. The way of Yahuah does not require man-made legislation for the unborn; when man goes his own way and tries to legislate morality with the arm of flesh of the gods many, such a course has unintended consequences including the loss of freedom. Shalom.
DeleteI see better what you are exploring ... I hope you don't mind a little more feedback, sis. I think society has asked for civil government to step in authoritatively to judge, assign guilt, and punish members of society who, by their own fault harm others. For this reason, an axiom exists: "your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose." ... the wisdom is simple, and easy to imagine someone expecting reprisal for slugging someone in the nose, without a way to hide behind the notion they they had "freedom to do what they want with their hand/fist." ... and perhaps this can be taken a step further ... are we legislating morality when we punish murder? Yep ... we are. We have collectively (and wisely) decided that it is abhorrent and wrong and immoral to assault or murder one person with our own hands or devices. Thus, it is illegal to do so under current law.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't think it is clear thinking to decide that we just gave some imbecilic politicians/judges jurisdiction over our hands in doing so. If opposition exists to murder laws, they could attempt to make the same argument ... that we are "legislating morality" , and that now "the government can tell us to do whatever it wants to tell us to do with our hands if we allow them to say combat with our neighbor is wrong." See how slippery the slope is with manslaughter laws? Now the government controls our haaaaaannnnndddsss!!! (hehe)
Well, that seems silly to say that simply because a government steps in to prevent us from harming another with our body, that now the government was given all say-so about that part of our body ....
doesn't it?
So, what about the womb of a woman? Can we not as a society use the same simple logic that we use for our fists ... and say "do not harm another."????
Ripening for the harvest,
Trent