Pro-Choice and Pro-Life are probably some of the most confusing names. Neither is actually called by its self-proclaimed name by the other party. Pro-Life advocates call Pro-"choice" people Pro-Abortion, and Pro-Abortion/"choice" people call Pro-Life people Anti-Choice.
This is natural of course, because pro-abortion people would sound horrible ranting about the "evils" and "tyranny" of a group called pro-LIFE. But call them anti-choice and that sounds better and immediately sets a defensive, antagonistic feeling towards them. Who would be for an anti-choice, group? I agree, that is why pro-life people are not anti-choice, but pro-life. But that is not how pro-abortion people see it, so they call them as they think them.
Of course, it wouldn't sound good advocating against pro-choice groups, either. Choice is good. So, pro-life people call them a mild term of what they see them as, pro-abortion. Because, pro-choice is about as truthful of a name as Planned Parenthood. There is no planning or parenthood in there!
But who's to say. Pro-Choice, Pro-Abortion. Pro-Life, Anti-Choice. Who's what, and what's who? It's actually not very difficult, though I mentioned in an earlier post that the topic of abortion is a very delicate and complicated one. It goes down to where the line is drawn. Our founding father's fought so that we would be master of our own fate, not a king or a slave-driver. One of the ideas were that each individual person's value and future wouldn't be determined by another, but that everyone would have the right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and Pursuit of Happiness. In order to Pursue Happiness an individual would need Liberty, in order to have Liberty and individual would need Happiness. Of course, it has taken a very long time to really live that out, and it seems like each time we take a step forward in one place, we take step back in another.
There are many sorts of people in each party, and one are the people who believe that the child in the womb is indeed a human being. They are people who are concerned for both parties as most pro-life people are. But unlike pro-life people who draw the line at the child under the rights of the constitution and the rights given to him/her by God in the ten commandments (thou shalt not murder), the child despite the circumstances under which they were conceived has the right to life, they are still dramatically concerned for the mother and the future welfare of the child.
What if the mother doesn't want them? What if they are drug addicts before they have a chance because their mother took them during her pregnancy? What if we have too many kids and not enough families to care for them? What if the child was conceived under less them legal means? What about the nine-months of pain caused to the mother during that time? What if the mother decides to commit suicide because she is so distraught?
These are such good questions! So relevant and so heart felt. There are many families who want to adopt but there are not enough children to go around. There are many people who do want to help these children who have been hurt at no fault of their own. But these last three are much more difficult and brings us to where we draw the line according to our priorities.
First of all, the offender, if possible, should be brought to justice! But my question is, if there is a poor family, they have many kids, both the father and the mother work, barely bringing in enough to care for the kids, then the husband is brutally murdered, can the wife decide that since this was not her fault and that it was terribly unjust, and now she had to find a way to care for her kids not to mention they reminded her daily of that terrible person who killed her husband, so she would rather just kill them. Is this legal? Of course not, so why is it legal to do so with a child who is younger?
Maybe this sounds heartless... but on who's perspective? There are so many woman who have abortions and afterwards loathe themselves for it! Not to mention abortion increases chances of certain diseases that they can die from! Was saving nine months of pregnancy worth the possible guilt - which is heavier than any sickness - and the possible disease that could kill the woman? It is not as one sided as it may seem.
But, that is not the only problem. What about the future welfare of the child? What are the statistics of these children growing up healthy and successful? But who cares about the statistics? One of the goals of the America was that each individual could choose what to do with his life. Do we have the right to look at statistics and say, "Well, most likely this kid is going to turn out miserable, so we will save them the misery." What about the individuals who chose to climb out of it and make great men and woman of themselves? Do we have a right to snuff them out, to throw them into a box of statistics and throw them out? That is what Hitler did. And under God, I don't believe we ever have the right to take a life in that way. There are so many stories of men and woman who have climbed out of the gutter and these stories have inspired many other men and woman to greatness, without them, what would we do?
With these stories, with these choices, we have people who inspire others to create a better society, to better themselves. There will naturally be some bad repercussions, because sometimes doing the right thing doesn't always lead to immediate well being. When the slaves were free, many slaves didn't know what to do with their lives, and many plantation owners were ruined. Not very great results, but it led to a better society eventually, it led to a better livelihood for the descendants. The right to choose whether they would remain a victim - in effect victimizing themselves - or become an overcomer. God made us to be overcomers. He has given us the strength, He gives us the strength. It is always possible, and part of being an American is having that right to choose to overcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment