Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Two Very Different Views on Abortion

posted by Jay Sekulow

Barry, to address your critique of a McCain supporter’s prayer: people of all faiths are entitled to pray as they see fit. There is nothing wrong with wanting our government leaders, who make decisions that have a profound impact on our lives, to share our value systems. I agree with you that Americans should vote for candidates based on where they stand on important policy issues, but the values and principles upon which a candidate’s policy positions are based are also important to consider.

 

Barry, I’m also quite surprised that you’re asking the candidates to issue controversial theological statements such as “God does not do elections.” You’re entitled to believe that as a matter of personal theology, but many religious Americans believe that God is involved in all aspects of human affairs.

 

On the issues, the most recent Presidential debate reaffirmed that the candidates have starkly different positions when it comes to abortion. (You can watch the candidates address the issue of abortion during the debate at Hofstra University by clicking here.) When the topic of judicial nominations and overturning Roe v. Wade came up, Sen. Obama stated that judicial nominations are “going to be, I think, one of the most consequential decisions of the next president. It is very likely that one of us will be making at least one and probably more than one appointments and Roe v. Wade probably hangs in the balance. Now I would not provide a litmus test. But I am somebody who believes that Roe v. Wade was rightly decided.”

 

Sen. Obama added that “women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make [the abortion] decision. And I think that the Constitution has a right to privacy in it that shouldn’t be subject to state referendum . . . . With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health and life . . . .”

 

This is in line with Sen. Obama’s earlier comments at the Saddleback forum. When Pastor Rick Warren asked, “at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?,” Sen. Obama said, “answering that question with specificity . . . is above my pay grade.” He added, “I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade . . . . I am in favor . . . of limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother’s health. . . .”

  

By contrast, when Rick Warren asked Sen. McCain “[at] what point is a baby entitled to human rights?” at the Saddleback forum, he responded: “At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president. And this presidency will have pro-life policies. That’s my commitment. That’s my commitment to you.”

 

At this week’s debate, Sen. McCain stated of Roe v. Wade, “I thought it was a bad decision. I think there were a lot of decisions that were bad. I think that decisions should rest in the hands of the states. I’m a federalist. And I believe strongly that we should have nominees to the United States Supreme Court based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test.”

 

“I would consider anyone in their qualifications,” said Sen. McCain, but added, “I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.”

 

When it came to judicial appointments, Sen. Obama said: “I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through.” Sen. McCain’s answer to that question was “I will find the best people . . . in the United States of America who have a history of strict adherence to the Constitution–and not legislating from the bench.”

 

Barry, I’m sure we can agree that it is good that the candidates addressed the issue of abortion. It is also clear that they represent two very different viewpoints.

 

While they touched on the issue of judicial nominees, I would like to hear more about the judicial philosophy of each candidate and hear more about the kind of judges they would appoint. Since the next President will have a major impact on the judiciary for years to come–including most likely the Supreme Court–I would like this issue explored more thoroughly.

 

Barry, what about you?

 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(18)
post a comment
yelladawgNC

posted October 17, 2008 at 6:14 pm


The Democratic Party platform includes a plank about the need to reduce the number of abortions and to support women faced with an unwanted or unexpected pregnancy who wish to have the baby. The Republican Party Platform rejected this plank and calls for NO ABORTIONS, NO EXCEPTIONS. McCain all but sneered at the idea that there should be an exception made for the health of the mother, making clear his contempt for all women faced with heartbreaking circumstances and ethical dilemmas. I for one will never forget the look on his face, and all that it represents of the mean-spirited and rigid approach of so many who share his views and attitudes.
I think it’s clear who is more in line with mainstream America. The very idea of forcing women who have been raped or have been the victims of incest to give birth to the child of the man who attacked them is utterly barbarous, as is the idea that a woman should die in labor or from a dangerous pregnancy if the only means to saving her is to sacrifice the life of the fetus.
I assure you, millions and millions of women will go the barricades before any such law is ever allowed to pass. I suggest that anyone who truly cares about reducing the number of abortions votes for Obama, or at the very least commits to working with Democrats on this common goal. Otherwise, you risk coming off as self-righteous hypocrites who use your anti-abortion position as a means of occupying a phony moral high ground, especially given your stance against all kinds of aid to poor women and children. I have never understood why “pro-life” so often means that once the child is born, he/she is no longer deserving of your attention or compassion.



report abuse
 

Only in America

posted October 17, 2008 at 7:27 pm


Education is the key. America has read too many articles about babies being abused, raped, and killed at the hands of their young parents.
This is McKains View on Abortion–Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
This is Sarah the Christian Racist view on Abortion–Choose life, even if her own daughter were raped. (Nov 2006)
This the Obama’s view on abortion–Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)



report abuse
 

Iris Alantiel

posted October 18, 2008 at 10:06 am


To say definitively when God defines human life as beginning is beyond any human being’s pay grade. That’s why each person has to make up his/her own mind given the specifics of the case – there isn’t a definitive answer in human terms.



report abuse
 

Cara Floyd

posted October 18, 2008 at 1:33 pm


Public,
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that people are in favor of aborting their own children through Roe v. Wade. Now, I am hearing that somebody thinks that their constitutional rights should remain private. Let’s wait to see what the baby has to say on that one when it is given the constitutional right to live in this country. So, you think that the baby doesn’t have a right to protect itself from leadership who is in favor of letting people murder them. Well, let’s put this into perspective shall we. Take an adult human being for example, and tape his or her mouth shut and let’s believe that the mother is feeding the adult through a food tube, through some sort of gastro-intestinal procedure. Now, the adult under normal circumstances has the ability to grow and be nurtured. So what , now we have certain individuals that believe that a person has the right through the Constitution to suck out the brains or chop up the individual through the right of privacy in The Constitution. The baby(on the way to being an adult by choice)is under the care of the mother in utero. What if the mother is completely abusive and completely out of her mind? Does the government have the ability to step in and protect the child from individuals who are murdering a human being? Who was that mass murderer who chopped up people and stored body parts in their refrigerator as trophies? Are we supposed to sit back and watch others say they have a right to choose these procedures with a constitutional privacy? think again.
Thanks,
Cara



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted October 18, 2008 at 6:28 pm


Jay, as an apostate Jew you should know fully well that Jewish law permits abortion.
Jews don’t encourage abortion, especially given the losses of so many of our numbers during the Holocaust. Still, Jewish law instructs that the life of the woman is to take precedence over the life of her fetus.
In fact, during the first few weeks of her pregnancy, Jewish law views the embryo as “like water.” As the pregnancy continues, it tells us that an abortion is like cutting off a finger or an arm… in other words not something that any rational person would do for no good reason, but certainly to be considered if that limb is diseased and/or causing problems for the whole body.
The Hebrew Testament even tells us that if a woman who is pregnant gets killed, her husband can claim for one life, but not for two. He can only claim property damages for the fetus.
Now, given those teachings which practicing Jews are bound to pay attention to, how would forbidding abortion not constrain a Jewish person’s practice of his or her religion, a First Amendment right?



report abuse
 

Jewish Law

posted October 20, 2008 at 10:33 am


Mary-Lee,
You did not cite where Jewish Law makes your claims. Here are some Old Testament sources.
Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God formed Jeremiah in his mother’s belly.
Isaiah 49:1 says, “Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people from far; THE LORD HATH CALLED ME FROM THE WOMB; FROM THE BOWELS OF MY MOTHER HATH HE MADE MENTION OF MY NAME.
Genesis 38:27-29 says “And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins [were] in her womb. And it came to pass, when she travailed, that [the one] put out [his] hand: and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first. And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, How hast thou broken forth? [this] breach [be] upon thee: therefore his name was called Pharez.”
Job 31:15 “Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?”
Isa 44:2 “Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, [which] will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.”
So, according to Jewish Law, God does place a value on life in the mother’s womb. Do you not see how killing a baby whom God has created would constrain a Jew from practicing their religion with a clear conscience?



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted October 20, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Jewish Law

posted October 20, 2008 at 3:10 pm


Mary-Lee,
Kudos for your information. However, after reading the information, most of the scriptures didn’t support your opinion without gross assumations. Also, traditions that are not canonized in Hebrew scripture are not considered as valid. So, when one compares the cannonized evidence supporting the value of an unborn baby with the cannonized evicence against it, the former greatly outweighs the latter.
Jewish traditions may support abortions, but Jewish law does not.



report abuse
 

Debra

posted October 20, 2008 at 4:36 pm


Many people are divided on the issue of abortion because it is such a personal decision. No law will ever stop a determined woman who wants an abortion from getting one. The mother will give an account to God. We do not judge.



report abuse
 

Cara Floyd

posted October 20, 2008 at 7:57 pm


Thou
Shall
not
kill Exodus20:13 Deuteronomy5:17
Psalm 103:1-4
1. Bless the Lord, O my soul:and all that is within me, bless his holy name.2. Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits:3. Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;4. Who redeemeth thy life from destruction;who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies;5. Who satisfieth thy mouth with good things; so that thy youth is renewed like the eagle’s.6. The Lord executeth righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed.7. He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel. ——–
Is it going to be your way or his?
Thanks,
Cara



report abuse
 

bill morinville

posted October 21, 2008 at 3:21 am


I have never understood how we have specific attributes to determine when a person is dead ie. heart beat, sense of touch or feeling etc. and do not use the same rule at the onset of life. these attributes exist in the unborn before the mother knows she is pregnant. why the disconnect except as an expedience. A way to hide our head in the sand because the truth is not what we want to know.
Perhaps we should we should make abortion retactive. like when a teenager takes the car we can tell him “be back by midnight or I will abort you”.



report abuse
 

Cara Floyd

posted October 21, 2008 at 2:35 pm


Thou shalt not kill. Well, that seems to be pretty self-exsplanatory. This whole debate on this seemingly self-exsplanatory subject seems to be giving me a great big headache. Although, despite the headache, I’m writing anyhow. Please forgive the spelling mistakes if there are any. I think it is funny that I had a spelling mistake in my earlier comment entry (Murder),even more funny, was the fact that it was one of The Ten Commandments. Hopefully others will see how desperately we need them back in our public places to meditate on them for public reference so the people won’t become confused at the poles when voting for a candidate. Anybody who does not want a public government official to hold up The Ten Commandments as a national value, I question their value system and where they are getting their policies. Well, what about the new commandment of love in The New Testiment. God knows abortion and the abortion lobbyist are not following it. I do not think it is loving and individual when they chop it up or suck out their brains, do you?
So, I decided that the audacity of a voice saying that it is a chosen right for a person to murder in the state of California or anywhere else for that matter is unconstitutional. Pretty self- exsplanatory don’t you think. So the inside of the womb would be a place where an individual is murdered. Why would I think that place should be protected to murder? I don’t. So when I hear leadership or other voices referencing the subject of the right for another to murder over the right for another to survive, I gasp at the concept of government officials voicing their leadership with such honor when at the same time giving others the right to kill others in our country. Is that not what our country is based on, life and liberty. Is our fundamental rights being destroyed in our nation by government leaders slowly taking away the right of a person to live or should I say defending the right for others to murder others?
Of course there is forgiveness through Jesus christ for this horrid crime. Does an individual who is raped have the right to murder another individual? Is there a sedative which does not harm a baby in the womb to help calm her down from the horrible crime which was committed, so she does not take out her anger and rage toward the rapist on the baby within? I am sure there is crisis intervention for immediate care when dealing with rape victims to help them through this trying time.
God created the baby and under the law a person has the right to be protected by law. Why would I think a peron in a womb should not be protected from murder? Is a backyard somehow more violating to murder than a womb? Why does a person have the right to murder in an environment, while the same act is punishable by law in another environment? think again. Cara



report abuse
 

Cara Floyd

posted October 21, 2008 at 2:50 pm


There will be a law passed to protect the individual or individauls rights to live inside or outside of the womb in The United States of America. So he or she, can have a breath of fresh air if he or she wants it.
Your right, God will judge. Especially, others who are protecting this horrible crime from perpetuating. Why would an individual write a blog entry writing that there will be no law passed to stop abortion? Looks like they want the geneside to continue. I certainly would want to hope that murder would be stopped through law. Why would a person write otherwise?
Thank you very much,
Cara



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 22, 2008 at 3:10 pm


“Jewish Law,” sorry I haven’t replied sooner. Busy, busy!
What you are saying, as I understand you, is that Jewish scripture is the basic guide for Jews. That is true to the extent that Jews cannot change anything or make any law contrary to that which is in scriptures, as you say. But scriptures are vague… and of course abortion is not mentioned as such in any Jewish scriptures.
Let’s take your quotation from Jeremiah, i.e. that Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God formed Jeremiah in his mother’s belly. OK, so what exactly does “form” mean? Or does the quotation mean that Jeremiah had life and personhood in his mother’s belly, or simply that he was “formed” there? For answers to these questions, we need the teachings of the Rabbis.
Or take a related commandment, i.e. “Thou shalt not kill.” Sounds clear enough at first glance, but what exactly does it mean? Our Rabbis came up with different kinds of killing, like manslaughter, accidental killing, and so on. That was important because the penalty for killing was pretty severe!
Trying to keep this short, but essentially Jewish law is indeed based on Jewish scriptures, but also based on human understandings about what the scriptures meant. The understandings can change. With sign language, for example, a deaf person can now be a witness in a court. That was not the case in ancient times. But the understandings and laws cannot replace the scriptures.
Of course you must know that the story of the births of Esau and Jacob has no relevance whatsoever to the question of abortion. That was a slip up, right?



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted October 22, 2008 at 3:24 pm


Cara, there will be no law passed that makes all abortions illegal.
To do this, our nation would need to ignore the First Amendment guaranteeing each citizen the right to freedom of religion and religious expression. As I’ve told “Jewish Law,” abortion is permitted and even required in some cases under Jewish law. Jews have always given a higher priority to the life of the mother than to the life of her fetus.
I don’t know, but I’d guess that there are other religions that hold the same beliefs. There are over 2,000 religions in the U.S., you know, and about all you can say of them is that they disagree on some basic tenet of faith.
You are perfectly free to sincerely believe that abortion is a horrible crime, but realize that other people of faith disagree just as sincerely.



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted November 3, 2008 at 12:53 am


Reflections on Abortion, Christianity and Freedom of Religion
My beliefs about abortions are simple and direct. I think that a conceived child is a 100 percent genetically viable human being and 100 percent spiritually alive. I think God recognizes a child at the very moment of it’s conception and is aware of every single thing that happens to that child from that moment on. I believe every aborted conceived child will appear as a fully grown human in the Afterlife and will testify with 100 percent accuracy and with undeniable eloquence as to what happened to them during the abortion. Everyone who has ever lived on Earth will hear their testimony. Everyone will know the parents of each aborted child who testifies and who the doctor was who performed the abortion. Everyone will also know every legislator, lobbyist, politician and judge who forced abortion legislation into law and who stopped the law from being repealed. What happens to those who forced abortions upon these children is up to God in the Afterlife. But I feel 100 percent confident in stating that every conceived child who has been aborted is still spiritually alive and that they will testify as to what happened to them in the womb. They will not look defenseless or irrelevant at that point. I think they will be strong and vibrant residents in heaven. They are totally pure and innocent victims. In such a spiritual environment, time is clearly on the side of aborted children. Consider God to be the ultimate scientist. He knows every component of every molecule and sub-atomic particle in the universe and every aspect of every use of them. He also has the full capability to manipulate the physical world without limit. He has a level of scientific knowledge that we wouldn’t have a million years from now. He also knows everything about the spiritual world. God will have the only valid argument and proof regarding the viability of conceived children. There is no justice in a situation where a child is victimized in an abortion. Prior to the earliest first trimester abortions, an unborn child already has all the organs he or she will ever have. Every abortion stops a beating heart (Approximately 22 days from conception) and terminates measurable brain waves (Approximately 42 days from conception). Why can’t conceived children be at peace in the womb? We say not to discriminate against people different than ourselves, yet we are perfectly willing to discriminate against the unborn when it’s convenient for us. The unborn are people at their most vulnerable, which is when we should consider them the most precious. You know the general wisdom of the concept that a society’s moral quality is best revealed by the way it treats it’s weakest members.
What does God have to do with anything? The belief in God is relationship based, not physics based. You either believe in Him or you do not. You will either be in Heaven or Hell. You can’t be in both. Some people believe they will be simply dead with no responsibility for what they did during their lives. That seems to be too convenient a belief to be true. The universe seems much more complex a place than that. Just about every modern society in the history of humankind has had a system of justice in place. Do we think somehow that God will not? Nearly every society also has had a belief in a higher power greater than ourselves.
If residence in Heaven or Hell has to do with your relationship with God and your belief Jesus died for your sins so you could reside in Heaven, then your intellect will not help you. If you were someone’s father who’s son died saving someone’s life and a person came to your door who had called you a liar and repeatdly mocked your son, would you let that person live in your house? Not likely. So why would God let someone into Heaven who did not believe that Jesus died for our sins? Jesus physically died to break the power of spiritual death so that our souls could live in Heaven through Him. Because He is the Son of God, He was the only one who could achieve this feat. Humanity could not reconcile with God. Only the Son of God could achieve that. That is why Christians call Him our Savior. He’s not passive or weak. He can also heal parents who have aborted a child who later feel the reality of the life of that child and wish they had never aborted that child.
If you are a parent and you show your son or daughter only the intellectual side of this world and your son or daughter dies and does not reside in Heaven as a result, would you consider yourself a good parent by not at least showing them the spiritual side of life? What happens to the souls of your children in the end has much more importance than any intellectual “conclusions” you draw during your life. In the Bible, Luke 16 verses 19-31 state “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him Father Abraham have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire. But Abraham replied, Son remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us. He answered, then I beg you father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment. Abraham replied, They have Moses and the Prophets, let them listen to them. No father Abraham, he said, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent. He said to him, if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if somone rises from the dead.” This Bible passage shows that wealth, power and intellect are tools during this life but are also distractions that can devestate your spiritual destiny. Children who are truly free would get access to spiritual beliefs taught by people who truly believe in God. Such teachings are part of what a child needs to make a free decision about what the world truly offers spiritually to complement the torrent of non-spiritual teaching our children are exposed to.
That is why an intellectual approach is inadequate in this life, since human existence has multiple dimensions to it (namely physical AND sprirtual). To remove the spiritual dimension of our existence is to allow the concept of victimization to gain traction. This is how aborted children have been dehumanized. Why do you think so many Jewish people died during World War II? People allowed the Nazis to dehumanize the Jewish people. Their spiritual validity had been ignored. I think every Holocaust victim will also testify as to what happened to them. Everyone who ever lived will hear their testimony and know who killed them. Everyone will know all the political figures, legislators and lobbyists who forced them into concentration camps and to their deaths. For human beings to value our own existence, there must be a spiritual consistency of value from conception to death. We need an expanded sense of human life to properly recognize and protect human life. If we cannot do that, we will always find ways to justify finding new victims in the pool of people we dislike or disagree with or who are different from us. Abuses against human life like abortion and the Holocaust prove that arbitrary decisions that change over time are insufficient protections of human life on Earth. Human life has to have absolute value for our human race to have a viable chance to survive. Our dual spiritual and physical viability recognized and protected in writing and protected by law worldwide would show a commitment by the human race to justice and peace for human life at all stages of development. The Axis powers of World War II used the power of government to subdue freedom of religion in favor of the unlimited exercise of government power over their people. In short order, these governments showed their willingness to define whose lives were expendable and went out and destroyed millions of lives around the world. That lack of spiritual recognition of life created the climate that allowed for the Jewish people to be first proclaimed enemies of the state in Germany and then for 6 million Jewish people to be exterminated. Anti-Christian hostility has been expressed in many pagan nations in our world’s history and cost many Christians their lives. There is also the millions of Soviet citizens killed by their government in the 1930′s. The Soviets had removed religion from their schools and from public expression as well. Freedom of Religion through suppression of religious expression is a false argument. Either a country tolerates religious expression or it does not. A religious perspective is a legitimate component of every public argument of issues in a free society available for the consideration of every free citizen. For atheists to claim that they represent a somehow unbiased viewpoint is also false, The very act of seeking to suppress religious expression is proof of bias against religion. Athiests can believe what they want. But to impose their beliefs on the entire public school system and every public place with no spiritual expression allowed is extreme. To seek intellectual interpretation of issues without religious viewpoints being included in the discussion is intellectual tyranny. The opinion of an atheist regarding the place of religion in society is not supposed to superseed the free practice of religion that had a precedent of 180 years in America before the case regarding school prayer was heard. And that free practice of religion had Constitutional protection. And not only was school prayer removed, but all religious expression was removed. Removing freedom of religion from the public classroom is the use of intellectual force day after day to deny access to Christian and other forms of religious beliefs as an option for students and is an atmosphere of forced atheism in the classroom. It is censorship. Abortion does not represent free thinking as it is very closed-minded regarding the spiritual viability of the conceived child. So protection of human life does need to be expanded as human life has been repeatedly violated through the centuries in various countries. We cannot claim progress by creating new victims as in abortion. The practice of abortion represents a serious backwards step in the quality of human life. If we, by concious act of human activity, force any child to endure death in the womb or outside of the womb at any given time, we are radically lowering the quality of human life at that point in time. If we cannot improve the quality of human life around the Earth, we cannot claim progress, regardless of our technological improvements (which only a certain percentage of people have access to anyway). It seems the record of atheism in America includes creating the justifications for the reduction in the value of human life (abortion, euhtanasia). And please don’t insult the intelligence of the American people by citing the Middle East regarding religious practices. Terrorists there use the name of religion to justify killing for political manipulation and power. They do not value the souls of the lives of the people who oppose their views. They do not honor the spiritual value of all life. There is a difference between that and respect for the wishes of God. God’s will regarding our interactions with each other can best be described when Jesus said “Love one another as I have loved you”. I’m advocating the value of every human life in our country and the world regardless of personal beliefs. Consistency in the protection of human life is paramount to our human future. Our technological progress is only useful if it enriches the lives of the people on this planet combined with a spiritual outlook that tolerates human life at all stages of development. The protection of human life gives us the platform for tolerance of human life and the prospect of a hopeful human future. Redefining human life in order to devalue it does not. The cost of not expanding the definition of protected human life and of not recognizing the dual spiritual/physical value of human life in the 20th century alone (the short list) has been the millions killed in the Soviet purge, the millions killed in the Holocaust, the millions killed in two World Wars and the millions of conceived children whose lives have been taken in America and the world. Not an inspiring record at all. And athiests say they fear religious extremism? Look what’s happened when the spiritual value of human life is ignored.
Conceptually speaking concerning personal belief systems, if you have parents whose small child was murdered by someone, do you think that they would want their child’s last minutes to be only the pain of their death? Or is justice better served for that child’s soul to live on and testify as to what happened to them and to be reunited with their parents again? I think God feels the same way about every aborted child. If God is the final authority in the universe (which I believe) and he feels that strong bond to each of those children, He will not let their souls die. And don’t blame God for their physical deaths. We as humans were given abilities by God to preserve life or to take it. If we were more spiritually aware, we might not be so careless with life. Spiritually ignorant societies create the conditions for bad things to happen to good people (As in the Holocaust of World War II and as in abortions). If we believed that no souls died after physical death and every soul who was physically or spiritually violated would testify to God on a higher and more permanent level of accountability, there would be far fewer deaths on this planet. Christianity, therefore, is not an abstraction. It creates a perception of value of human life which would tend to preserve human life on an individual level and to preserve the human race at large. That is why the removal of Christianity from public schools is such a grave injustice. People in power took it upon themselves to force young Americans to ignore the value or even the existence of their spiritual lives. Does that sound like freedom to anyone? Instead, our children have been forced into a climate where we care too much about money, power and pleasure (which are all very temporary) and society is a much lower quality place as a result. People have become stepping stones. I think the number of teen suicides would be much lower if teens recognized the spiritual value of their lives. I think the spiritual world as our destiny is a much more lasting force. Just as we had no control over being born, we will have no control over the Afterlife. We will be judged based on what we did here and then have to ask for mercy from God through Jesus. If you don’t have Jesus on your side, getting to Heaven would be the like being the size of a grain of sand as you take off from Earth and trying to get to an exact point the size of a grain of sand 100 million light years away by taking off in a random direction and staying on a straight course. In other words, it would be impossible. We would have no guidance and no power to influence our spiritual destiny. Anyone who thinks Hell will be desirable for anyone is spiritually naive. Everyone who ends up there will be a victim. One good thing is that aborted children won’t be there. But don’t think by aborting them you’re doing them any favors. No one deserves the kind of dehumanizing and painful death a conceived child endures during an abortion. Do you think being pulled apart or cut to pieces is somehow painless? And if there were no pain, would it be any less abhorrent? The term “Pro Choice” seems so totally deceptive. The child has “No Choice” but to suffer and die in an abortion.
Some argue about somehow avoiding your responsibility of preserving an unborn child due to poverty. There are many millions of families around the world raising children in spite of poverty. Or you can surrender the child for adoption. The Catholic Church has a form of natural contraception for married couples based on a woman’s menstrual cycle. The website http://www.naturalcontraceptions.com also has products that show low fertility cycles through testing of women. (Check with you doctor before using any such products). They claim a 99.3% successful natural contraception rate. The best choice is if you don’t want a child and you’re not married, don’t have sex. People that want you to have sex before marriage want to make money off you with birth control drugs or abortions. Or they just want pleasure from you. They want you to become dependent and addicted to sex. The point is you’re just an object for their desires one way or the other. Contraceptive drug providers and abortion providers don’t want women to have control over their lives without paying them for abortions or birth control first. Whether you pay them or the government pays them makes no difference. Contraceptive drug providers and abortion providers acquire power and money either way. That is why sexual abstinence until marriage is not pushed as hard as birth control is. Abortions used to be paid for by government money. It is totally immoral and unjust to make taxpayers who consider abortions a grave violation of human life and dignity to pay for abortions through their tax dollars. And we wonder why our government is so seriously in debt.
You have control over your life as a couple when you both practice sexual abstinence. And you avoid sexually transmitted diseases. Then when you find the person you want to marry, you’ll allow the personal emotional connection to be established before the sex. That is a real relationship with a real connection. And when you wait until marriage for sex, you get the protection of a blood test which tells you whether your prospective husband or wife to be does have a sexual disease (he or she may have had sex before meeting you) or some other physical condition or genetic combination that makes the union a bad idea. Sex-based relationships create a connection which is artificial, based on a physical addiction. Some sex-based relationships are far worse, based on a physical and psychological control of one participant over the other. Personal dignity has been abandoned for the desire for money or pleasure or power. That’s why our society has become so empty. That’s why there is so little respect from one human being to another and more violence. This is the type of climate that has allowed for conceived children to be dehumanized to the point of losing their lives. Somehow sex has been allowed to become more important than the family and its members (I believe a conceived child is a member of the family of the parents spiritually and physically whether the parents are married or not).
How do we even remotely construe that a country’s founders with a Constitution with high ideals which contains phrases like,”We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, would ever approve of abortion in any form? I would think that if I were a conceived child within the borders of the United States that I would have birth expectations that match that statement of national commitment for all human lives in our country. That I would expect to be born, to be free and to pursue happiness. That my right to life is inalienable. That no one could threaten my life in the womb for any reason (the exception being if a child’s birth would cause the mother’s death, which is very rare. And there should be current or future improvements in medicine to reduce that number to practically zero). It appears that the value of life cannot be maintained without the spiritual independence of each individual human life. To be granted internationally the right to live from conception to death. Not to be invalidated at any step between conception and death. It is necessary for human life to be respected and protected if the human race is to have any chance to survive. The world has to stop using the political or judicial process as a means to threaten and destroy human life at any phase of development. Or to hear cases in a free society that champions the rights of one group over the rights of the other that destroys the freedom of expression of the loser of the case. Such results do not champion freedom or tolerance. Freedom requires goodwill on the part of all citizens, not the setting of goals to deprive other citizens of their freedoms. Hearing cases to deprive Christians of their freedoms is hardly goodwill.
Our intellects were not made to be able to draw accurate conclusions about the multitude of dimensions (which could be hundreds or thousands or millions) that exist in the universe. We guess a lot based on the abysmally small amount of evidence we have access to compared to the vastness of the physical universe and the spiritual universe that we can’t see. God did not want us to find Him physically (except when His Son was here to illustrate God’s love and commitment to us and for the times he appeared to Israel in the Old Testament). He wants souls in Heaven who believe in Him. I believe that the only way we can respect God regarding the issue of abortion is to acknowledge that God shows us that a human child is present at conception. In the Bible, Psalm 139 verses 13-16 state “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” And on a simple gut level we know that once the cells start dividing a new human being with a physical and spiritual destiny separate from his mother and father is developing. And if we can perceive the Commandment “thou shalt not kill”, we know that ending a human being’s life is not what God wants then we know He wants those children to live. I believe abortion is the concious ending of a child’s life. We cannot force people to believe what we believe. If God wanted that, He would forcibly have us under His thumb right now. He has given us free will. But it is also not right to exclude the opinions of people of faith from any public discussions and those rights and freedoms include quoting the Bible and beliefs about God. Especially in a society that claims to be a free society. And I believe God recognizes a child as 100% valid and alive spiritually and physically at conception. Our society only cares about children when it’s convenient to us. I think the idea that a conceived child has no rights and can be physically terminated and not have any identity after being aborted is a very convenient belief. I just don’t think it’s the truth. Do we really think God will be there for our souls and bring us to Heaven but not be there for the souls of aborted children?



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted September 19, 2009 at 3:12 pm


I am in agreement that more should have been said about judicial philosophy and characteristics looked for when choosing Supreme Court Justices by both candidates. Nonetheless, I believe McCain did a nice job expressing his position on issues: that he is pro-life, would adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and choose candidates based on their merits and qualifications. I also praise Obama’s answer, stating: I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through. Nevertheless, I don’t think the response was totally truthful because he looks for judges that legislate from the bench and who do not interpret the Constitution strictly. People need to know the truth so they can make an honest vote based on forthrights responses of candidates.



report abuse
 

buy umbrella

posted July 29, 2010 at 10:49 pm


Good writing, and I very much agree with your thoughts and insights. Hope that more could write such a good word, I said, to continue coming to visit, thank you for sharing.i love buy umbrella very much .



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.