Steve at Sibby Online points to the amazing story from Reuters of a baby in Israel who survived an abortion, then five hours in a hospital refrigeration unit as they thought the child was dead, only to begin to move as the parents were taking the child to be buried.
The resilience of some of children, even after attempts to abort them, is remarkable.
Perhaps this incredible will to live should tell us something about abortion. And even if we believe there is no alternative whatsoever to aborting a child to save the mother's life, we should do everything possible to save the child's life.
There is nothing in the universe like a human being, endowed with intelligence and an eternal soul, and created in the image of God. We should approach human life recognizing it as the sacred creation it is.
Featured Article
Monday, August 18, 2008
Baby Survives Abortion in Israel
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Would you have aborted Hitler if you had the chance? How about Stalin? Osama bin Laden? If you could have prevented the murder of millions of people and the atrocities of 9/11 by aborting one fetus, so early in its development that it didn't even know it was alive and couldn't feel any pain, would you have done it?
The question is irrelevant, since we can't go back in time and abort people we know will grow up to be monsters.
In order to accomplish what you seem to want (stop monsters before they become monsters by aborting them), we'd need to abort everyone...which means no human race.
Better to protect human life at all stages of development. And by demonstrating to all people the value of human life, we stand a better chance of avoiding monsters like Hitler, who had no respect for human life.
My question is hypothetical, ie if you COULD, would you? But since you've tactfully avoided it, I guess your answer is no, you would not abort one fetus to save millions of people, even knowing that that one fetus would grow up to become a mass murderer.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but at one point in the Old Testament, didn't God want the Israelites to cut pregnant women open and kill their unborn children, because they would otherwise have perpetuated the sins of their fathers? Obviously God didn't see things the way you do: he didn't tell these Israelites to abort everyone and eradicate the human race -- just the especially bad ones.
God knows past, present and future. Do you?
Until you do, your question is irrelevant and a transparent excuse to try and justify killing innocent human beings.
Yes, God does know the past, present, and future. Did that make it right for him to command the Israelites to slaughter unborn babies? What's more, did that make it right for the Israelites to obey and actually drive their swords into pregnant women and slice out the still-innocent human beings that their Lord himself created? Does the fact that a baby will grow up to commit atrocities in the future justify his death in the present? God obviously thinks so.
Unlike in the days of Hosea, God no longer uses his foreknowledge to tell us which of tomorrow's monsters we should abort today to prevent future suffering and death. Why do you think this is? It might have behooved God to warn us about Hitler, say, in a dream or a booming voice from the sky: "In 1889, I want you to track down Klara Hitler and kill her unborn baby. Take a page from the Old Testament and dash him on the rocks. You'll thank Me later."
Just as some people believe that supporting the state-sanctioned murder of convicted (and, oops, sometimes innocent) criminals -- who are no more sinful than you or I in God's eyes, by the way -- is somehow consistent with being pro-life, one could argue that preemptively killing a mass murderer like Hitler in utero (if we could know such a thing) is also pro-life, as it protects and upholds the sanctity of countless lives that would otherwise be destroyed. Think of it: a world in which six million more Jews are still alive because one baby was aborted. ONE evil psychopath for SIX MILLION of God's chosen people. Perhaps a better, more relevant question than "Would you have aborted Hitler if you had the ability?" is "SHOULD Hitler have been aborted?" So that's my new question to you: should Hitler have been aborted?
Now before you reach for your pitchfork, remember that there's a difference between calling for the wanton murder of babies and challenging a devout pro-lifer like yourself to defend his position. I think I bring up some interesting points, ones that you could engage with intelligent and reasoned responses if you'd only take a few minutes. But you'd rather discard them as the irrelevant rantings of someone who you think just wants to see babies die. Nice. I'm sure if I were pro-life and told you only what you already agree with, you'd welcome the chance to talk. Oh well, so much for a fair conversation.
My response has not changed, cannot change, and will not change.
When you can predict the future, then come back and talk to me about aborting children based on what they may theoretically do as adults.
Until then, you're desperately attempting to justify something you apparently know is wrong.
Ok, since I can't predict the future, then let's just look at the past.
In Hosea, God knew that those babies would grow up to continue the evil deeds of their fathers, so he commanded the Israelites to murder them in the womb -- in other words, God wanted these babies to be aborted because of what he knew about their futures. There was nothing theoretical about this; God knew with absolute certainty. Now, if God can do no wrong, then this example of abortion MUST have been right, since the order came from God himself. But according to you, abortion is wrong, always and forever, regardless of the circumstances, and without exception. How do you rationalize this?
You can treat my question as a legitimate examination of scripture, which it is, or you can keep avoiding it, like a coward. But as I said, if you are as strongly pro-life as you say you are, then you should be able to address this issue easily.
I'll say it one more time. When you can predict the future actions of an unborn child, you might have a leg to stand on to continue this silly line of thought.
Until you do, you're wasting your time and mine in a transparent attempt to justify what you obviously already know is wrong.
When you have access to a flux capacitor or a quantum leap accelerator, come back and let's talk about this. Until then, just try to deal with reality.
Uh, if you would actually read my last post, you'll notice that I completely dropped the "what if" questions concerning foreknowledge and instead addressed the reality of what's clearly written in the Bible -- namely, that God wanted the Israelites to kill unborn babies in the book of Hosea.
How does God's authorization of abortion in that story fit with your belief that abortion is always wrong? (If you don't know, there's no shame in admitting it.)
You're still trying to play the same game, just dropping a condition in the hopes of making your game more palatable to rational people. It's still as transparent as it was before, and the end result is still the same.
Did I say God was wrong? Go back and look; you'll see that I didn't. Answer the question yourself: since God knows past, present and future, was He wrong? Why or why not?
You seem to have trouble when it comes to giving a simple question a direct answer. It must be hard having a pathological need to be right all the time.
I just have a low tolerance for illogic and irrelevance.
Aw, look how hard you're trying to worm your way out of a question that's obviously taking you into uncomfortable theological territory! It would be endearing if it weren't so embarrassing for you.
I'm asking you a simple question, one that surely any thoughtful Christian has faced, and one that any Christian worth his salt should be able to answer: How does God's command to kill babies in the book of Hosea relate to the abortion issue, and how can you say that abortion is always wrong when we have undeniable biblical evidence of God permitting it at one point in history?
Is that you, Alex, and under the "anonymous" banner? This manner of irrelevant mockery of God is certainly reminiscent of Alex's style.
Is that you, Alex? Do I need to turn off "anonymous commenting" again?
Sure, turn it off. Maybe I'll just post under a different name each time. I do love having some power over this sad little blog.
Now, how about that question you keep ignoring?
You are soooooooo predictable, Alex. By the way, I don't know if you've noticed, but this "sad little blog" is the #1 blog in South Dakota. Thanks for being a part of that.
Maybe I'll just ignore you and leave the anonymous commenting on; I like to leave it available for people who haven't set up online IDs but want to leave a quick thought.
I'm predictable? After coming back to your blog from a brief absence, I saw nothing but the same typical Christian wingnut talking points that I could find anywhere else: gays are evil, abortion is evil, gun restriction is evil, Muslims are evil, non-Christians are evil, atheists are evil, public schools are evil, premarital sex is evil, evolution is evil, Democrats are evil, Hollywood is evil, environmentalists are evil, and of course, Jesus is good! How original! Do you have one independent thought in that brainwashed little mind of yours? How does it feel to be a walking stereotype?
And by the way, congratulations!! The #1 blog in South Dakota?! Wow! You're doing such a public service, reaching a broad and relevant demographic of conservative, white, Christian hicks in the fourth least populous state in the country. What diversity! Keep reaching for the stars, man! Maybe next year you'll break the race barrier and gain a black reader!
As long as we're bragging, I too once wrote a top-rated blog. It was for a college assignment in a class of about fifty, and only my like-minded friends read it, but hey, mine got the highest grade, which made it number one!! What a great feeling. Some people laugh when I tell them this and belittle my success, so I've learned to leave out the details and now I just say that my blog was #1.
Thanks for sharing your plans for anonymous posting, by the way; it's cute that you think I care.
Thanks for some fresh laughs, Alex, but I have to try and stay serious. So this is where it ends...again.
So long, pal. :-)
Post a Comment