Legal but not moral

The liberal media will be unceasing in its attempts to paint abortion, the killing of a human being, as something that should be an unfettered right under U.S. law. The sense one gets from reading much of the mainstream media is that women have an absolute right to “privacy”, hence, to abortion. And that anything that even remotely hinders the ability of a woman to kill her fetus, on demand, on the spot, is met with shrieks from the anti-life crowd, who treat unborn human beings on the same moral level as unwanted facial hair.

Today’s front page story in the Washington Post is a case in point. Its headline: “Access to Abortion Pared at State Level.” In plain English, what appears to be happening is that the people in many states are waking up to realize that unborn humans are not the same as unwanted facial hair. The process is slow, halting, and is being fought, tooth and nail, by the life-haters. Even such an obvious measure as parental notification should a minor child wish to get an abortion is fought as being, somehow, a violation of that child’s privacy. What about the right of the child’s child to be born?

Some of the measures that the life-haters fight give away the moral vacuity of their position. One example is the fight against parental notification. There’s a list of scary state laws (to the life-haters, at least) that have been passed recently in the various states. Included among them is a law passed in Indiana that would give women an opportunity to view an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion. This seems like something that the life-haters would really fight against — an ultrasound appears to show just how “baby-like” unborn babies actually are. See, for example, this article from Focus on the Family on the subject, complete with a telling picture. Who would’ve suspected? Well, God did, since that’s how He made us.

The life-haters who write for the Washington Post are clearly perturbed by this spreading contagion of restrictions on the killing of the unborn. From the story, this extract summarizes the über-fear, that their false idol of Roe v. Wade may not stand:

In most cases, the antiabortion forces have prevailed, adding restrictions on when and where women can get contraceptive services and abortions, and how physicians provide them.

Antiabortion activists say they have pursued a two-pronged approach that aimed to reduce the number of abortions immediately through new restrictions and build a foundation of lower court cases designed to get the high court to eventually reverse the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision making the procedure legal.

Well, “antiabortion activists” certainly would like to overturn the fatally flawed Roe v. Wade; certainly fatal to millions of unborn humans. Which highlights the essential difference between them and us. “Them” being those to whom some conjured “right to privacy” trumps our right to life. Roe v. Wade may be “the law of the land”, as the saying goes. Law it may be; moral it is not.

| technorati tag | |


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: