"Abortion Is Self-Care"
Many motorists in Dallas, Texas, probably had to look twice to make sure their eyes had not deceived them. But, no, one billboard in the area actually says:
Black women take care of their families
By taking care of themselves.
ABORTION IS SELF-CARE.
Isn't this billboard, sponsored by the Afiya Center in Dallas, one of the most topsy-turvy statements ever concocted? One group responded by putting up an alternative to it, which is immensely closer to the truth.
ABORTION IS FAKE FEMINISM.
Feminists have historically not supported the practice of abortion (until the 1970s). Many still do not. They promoted equal rights and equal opportunities for women, but they were not interested in terminating pregnancies. Perhaps the best response to the claim of self-care is to counter with:
ABORTION IS SELF-ISH.
In what sense is abortion self-care? The chance that a woman's life is threatened by having a child in these times is minuscule, but 100% of the babies they carry do die. In fact, it was reported that abortion was the leading cause of death last year in America, which is the reason that abortion is self-ish. Consider the argument that is used by the founder, Marsha Jones:
The billboard is to support women in a loving way, in a non-judgy way, and to give them language to help them to understand why they had to make the decision they had to make so that they could fair [sic] better and be better for the children they still have and they may have one day.
So, why is this advertisement necessary? Why does a woman need to be able to express why she had an abortion? Why does she need support? What is not addressed in this explanation is the elephant in the billboard. The only reason these efforts are necessary is that people know that the person who gets an abortion has terminated a human life. And they did it for purely selfish reasons.
Maybe the woman thought she could not afford another child—to feed or take care of him. So, the obvious solution is to kill him. One can only imagine the relief, "There, now I don't have all those financial responsibilities. I'm free to work, go to school, and party some more." How about another suggestion?
ABORTION IS LIBERATING.
Those who have abortions for such selfish reasons will never get away from "judgy" thinking. While nearly half of our culture may feel that abortion is a legitimate form of birth control, the other half knows that the woman who chooses abortion has murdered her child. For most people, meeting a woman who boasts of having one or more abortions is awkward. What does a person say to a murderer: "How are you? Think it will rain today?" How does one get past thinking, "How could you kill your infant?"
Who Is Right?
The two positions on abortion are polar opposites. They cannot be harmonized. No "give and take" can occur in this instance. No middle ground of compromise can be found. What exists in the womb is either a human being, or it is not. With all the data that now exists, one can not easily deny the humanity of the "fetus." Within three weeks, the miniature person already has a heartbeat separate from the mother. By the time a woman knows she is carrying a child, the little one is already developing and maturing fast.
In fact, does anyone seriously argue any more that what exists in the womb is not a child? Those who read and follow the Bible know the answer to that question. The unborn twins of Isaac and Rebekah were never called dueling protoplasms. Jacob and Esau were fighting for supremacy even in the womb (Gen. 25:21-26), which was undoubtedly painful to their mother. Their struggle proves they were alive!
In the New Testament God made no distinction between the baby in or out of the womb. Luke, who happened to be a physician, records that John the Baptizer leaped in the womb of his mother, Elizabeth, when he heard the greeting of Mary (Luke 1:41, 44). The same Greek word, brephos, is used of Jesus after He departed from the womb of His mother Mary (Luke 2:12, 16). Everyone should notice that the child is alive in either case.
Which is the reason that abortion is murder! When a living human being is killed, murder is the word we use to describe it. And especially is that the case when the murdered individual was innocent and unworthy of having his life taken from him. Now who has an argument that the child is not alive? Please state it for all of us who lack such a keen insight.
Will someone argue that the baby in the womb cannot live on its own without nurturing from his mother or else an intricate life-support system? What a bogus argument! Those undergoing life-threatening surgeries need life-support systems. Those injured in automobile accidents do, also. Men and women injured in combat will die if they do not receive critical medical treatment. This argument has no merit whatsoever.
"It's Good For All Concerned."
So, the focal point of the controversy has shifted away from the allegation that what is in the womb is not necessarily human life, since that fact is all too demonstrable. Therefore, along comes a billboard shouting that abortion is self-care. The mother who gets an abortion is merely trying to do what is best for herself and her family. Hogwash! The child she kills would have been part of her family. How did she help him?!
People invent all manner of ways to justify their ungodly actions, but who would have ever thought that such illegal defenses would include this heinous act. Marsha Jones of Dallas, along with her like-minded cohorts, tries to convince women who have had abortions that they did it for the welfare of their families.
What this amounts to is saying to children who have been born, "I'm killing this one so we can all have a better quality of life." And this is supposed to make the kids feel better? What if one of them thinks, "Will Mommy kill one of us so that those she doesn't kill will have things better?" Why shouldn't she? If the mother had two children instead of three or one instead of two, wouldn't the economic burden be less?
"But that's illegal," a chorus of high-pitched voices screams. Yeah? Well, so was abortion until 1973. People realized that it was murder—until then. But that year seven men decided they were no longer sure; so without any legal precedent, they legislated from the bench that abortion was okay. Does anyone try even now to find abortion in the constitution?
Terminating the life of an innocent unborn child, Marsha Jones says, may be in the best interest of a future family if a woman has no children at the present time. Really? Some women who have abortions find that they cannot conceive later on. So, no future family is forthcoming. Also, many women who were persuaded by relatives or Planned Parenthood to get an abortion find themselves dealing with guilt feelings afterward, which may cause problems in relationships and in conceiving.
Furthermore, a woman with an abortion in her past cannot become a Christian unless she repents of her part in killing a fellow human being—one which she helped to create. Many women have, in fact, felt great sorrow and realize they were pressured into having an abortion. Any woman who has so yielded should be assured that forgiveness is available—just as for any other sin. In this case, repentance would include never submitting to the "procedure" again, and probably it would be a good idea to try to persuade any other woman against having one. Who is in a better position to know about it and how it can affect a woman?
The previous information in this article came from a Townhall article by Leah Barkoukis dated September 2, 2018. What follows comes from LifeNews.com, posted Sept. 14, 2018.
"Un-Christian" to Stop Abortion
Micaiah Bilger reports on an interview with Chelsea Clinton granted in connection with the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. Like many others, she thinks that having Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court would automatically terminate Roe v. Wade. How does she or anyone else know that would happen? Is there some sort of guarantee we don't know about? What if another conservative is put on the Court, say, this year? How do we know that would change anything, either? The fact is that we don't.
We have been disappointed before with appointees we thought were conservative. Undoubtedly, we shall be again. Reportedly, Eisenhower admitted that making Earl Warren Chief Justice was the worst mistake he made as president. George H. W. Bush appointed David Souter, who was thought to be conservative (hah!). Who knows where John Roberts, the Chief Justice, or Bret Kavanaugh will end up? Nobody. And nothing indicates Roe v. Wade will be overturned, although, as a matter of law, it should be. Even "Roe" is now pro-life.
Clinton lamented all the women who either died or were maimed "because of unsafe abortion practices" prior to the 1973 decision. She asserted that we "just can't go back to that," and then she added that "as a deeply religious person, it's also un-Christian to me."
Whoa!! Whatever she is religiously, she is not a Christian. She shows no indication of being familiar with what the Bible teaches on the subject, as delineated already in this article. And she certainly did not set forth a rationale for her beliefs being based on the Scriptures. The only way that something can be un-Christian is if it contradicts what the New Testament teaches. It is certainly not un-Christian to go back to the days before Roe v. Wade. Would not that imply that America was un-Christian before 1973?
No one forced women in those days to get illegal abortions. Many chose to go somewhere else, have the child, give it up for adoption, and then return home. Some undoubtedly thought that they had no other choice, but that did not sanctify their decision.
Probably a little-known fact is that the CDC reported only 39 illegal abortion deaths in 1972, the year prior to Roe v. Wade. From 1973 to 2008, more than 400 women have died from legal abortions—more than ten per year. Listening to the pro-abortion crowd, one would have thought there were thousands and thousands of women dying prior to 1973. So the figure has been lowered from 39 to 10.
But in the process 60,000,000 infants have been killed! And it's "unconscionable," according to Chelsea, to go back to those days? It seems like 39 women and their children dying (fewer than 100) doesn't stack up to 1,500,000 deaths a year. In what way was this a good trade? This nation needs to return to God and rational thinking.
Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn't be: