Children are the least among us, and unborn children the least of those.
To continue abortion in America, liberals must be willing to deny or forget that abortion ends a life — a tiny life of one of the least among us.
Making these least among us "disposable" is necessary for one of the last entrenched liberal battlegrounds, and it comes down to this. What we allow liberals to do to the least among us reflects our valuation of good and evil in America.
Liberal "justification" of abortion is becoming increasingly ludicrous. Here are some of the intensely sad arguments I have encountered recently.
Because humans are subject to primal urges, they are unable to resist sex. Unwanted pregnancy is a result of design limitations, which must be correctable by the availability of abortion.
Primal urges entered the world when man did, and are nothing new. Each generation struggles to balance primal urges with what is good for society. The liberal conveniently forgets that a generation ago sexual abstinence until marriage was the norm in America, with shame attached to breaching that standard.
The abortion industry is a vital part of the nation's economy. In these uncertain economic times, we cannot put people out of jobs.
Mega dollars certainly flow in the abortion industry, and abortionists are loath to relinquish the cash cow. But those degraded dollars are countered by the loss of wages over millions of lifetimes. We lose also untold societal contributions, across all spectrums of human endeavor. And we know that the actual state of the economy is completely misreported in the mainstream media.
The fetus is actually a parasite. As you rid a dog of fleas, you can rid a woman of a blob of tissue.
That blob is a human being, unique in the world. Just as we do not eliminate two-year-olds for not having grown to their adult height, we cannot eliminate the unborn for not having grown enough to exit the womb. Advancing technology reveals the incredible humanity present from conception in the human baby.
You cannot condemn abortion if you eat meat. If you protect unborn humans, you must protect live animals, who also are unable to care for themselves.
Babies are human beings in the womb. Attempting to subordinate them to animals doesn't change that. It shows that the speaker was not taught to value his own humanity or that of others. Each of us was a "parasite" in the womb at one point, and a look at our teeth and digestive systems shows that we are genetically constructed to be omnivores.
There is no proof of a God or afterlife, so people must be allowed to maximize every moment here. Unwanted pregnancy interferes with that enjoyment.
As a just-released book ("I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" — Geisler and Turek) contends, this atheistic or agnostic statement may actually require more faith than a traditional Christian statement of faith. This speaker, after all, has no backing for his pronouncements. Christianity has been challenged for two thousand years, and still stands.
The Supreme Court has said a woman has a right to choose.
Indeed it has. But has anyone extended that choice to the female babies they plan to abort? I daresay each would decline, as would the males.
A return to Christian morality in America would be a death knell to liberalism. The more we protect the least among us, the sooner that will be.
