I thought I had said enough about the horrors of abortion in yesterday’s post, but then I found this on Facebook (thanks to Joel Garner).
The attached video is not graphic, but should be terribly disturbing. It is not gross and disgusting, only sobering.
Please listen to the sound of BB’s in a tin can.
I agree with the author of this video – God help us!
Here is another video you should watch. It is of an abortion survivor. Very powerful.
But you know what, I would be remiss if I didn’t tell you that there is hope for those who have had abortions. Watch and listen to my friends (who I used to play bass guitar with), Adam and Kathy Glover. This was from a few years ago. We were at their home when this aired, and you should have seen the emails that flooded Kathy’s computer.
Kathy had abortions, but God has brought healing. Now they devote most of their time reaching out to those who struggle with the guilt of past and hidden sin.
The Recovering Legalist 
Should all life be afforded the same level of protection as all other forms of life?
Why? Should it be murder to go fishing, or to mow the lawn? Or is there a difference between human life and all else? Is human life inherently unique, or no different than any other in the plant and animal kingdoms? Is murder on relevant to the feelings of the one being killed against his will? Or is murder just wrong?
I have a feeling where you want to take this, Andrew, but I believe there is a difference between human life and all others, because I believe God made man different. Of course, you don’t believe that (I assume). You believe life is life, and everything else is relative. But even though I believe human life is unique in God’s creation, I don’t believe in the wanton, disrespectful, unnecessary destruction of other forms of life.
Yet, I’m sure you and Dawkins have an enlightened opinion which differs from mine on some more evolved level.
“…on some more evolved level.”
I see what you did there… 😉
I am not going to try to dissuade you from your own basic premises. Obviously that is an exercise in futility, for both of us.
However, I think both sides of the abortion issue need to be very real about what it is we’re discussing. The pro-choice crowd has a bad habit of marginalizing anyone who suggests even basic limitations on abortion practices. Likewise, the pro-life group rejects any consideration of science within the debate. So, in order to make progress and actually have a meaningful policy / system in place, both sides need to be willing to hear the other out. In short, the “no abortions ever” vs. “abortions for everyone always” camps are both fighting an idiotic and losing battle.
There’s no dispute that life begins at conception. I assume (and correct me if I’m wrong) that you hold the position that a “soul” is assigned to this zygote immediately. The mechanism of this assignment is irrelevant except that we agree (for the sake of the argument) that God is chiefly responsible.
This presents a very complicated problem with it comes to public policy and legislation…which is to say, secular law. A “soul” is not demonstrable, and therefore cannot be used as a basis for public rule-making.
We can find evidence of this in other areas of law that already exist. Take forgiveness, for example. God may, indeed, grant forgiveness…and as chief authority of the universe this blessing ought to carry some weight for us. However, there is no way to demonstrate (in any practical manner) that God has indeed issued forgiveness to an individual. This is why we don’t set murderers free when they claim to have found Jesus and received forgiveness for their crimes.
So back to the zygote issue. What *can* we demonstrate…or at least hope to? For starters: the concepts of personhood and consciousness. Now, let me be clear, there is no scientific consensus in these areas. Though, I expect we’ll have one before we’ll have a consensus on souls.
So the question is not about “life.” The question is personhood. We’re making strides in the field and I expect it will come to govern most of the policy shaping, should that occur (and it should).
Ironically, I just read this article and said to myself, “Why, that sounds just like Andrew!”
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/23/shock-salon-article-says-baby-is-a-life-worth-sacrificing/
But, the personhood question is a good one, so, when I am not rushed for time trying to get on the school bus, I will get back to you.
BTW, thanks for picking up on the subtle humor of my last comment.
That woman sounds unapologetic and brash. She fits the bill of what I am talking about when I say the two sides need to be willing to participate. In fact she doesn’t even try to argue her position…she just rambles on about how she like abortion and doesn’t care what you think about it. That isn’t helpful…
Now, to be fair, I have never represented an opinion that supports abortion at will or on demand. I hope you don’t consider my opinion to be synonymous with Ms. Williams’!
I oppose a total ban on abortion and I simultaneously oppose zero restrictions on the practice. I think the sensible answer is somewhere in the middle.
Fair enough.
Anthony Psalm 57:2
Sent from iPhone.
Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you
relied on the video to make your point. You clearly know what youre talking about, why waste your
intelligence on just posting videos to your blog when you could be giving us
something enlightening to read?
Zulma, I appreciate your desire to read, but seriously? There is a time and a place to argue one’s convictions with the written word, but how could have my words adequately described the found of those BB’s in the can? Was that not chilling? Did it not bring a tear to your eyes? And what is wrong with sharing the words of others from time to time?
Honestly, I don’t know what more you could have wanted me to say? Do I not write enough the rest of the time? I’m afraid to hear what your thoughts are about my “Monday Monkey” episodes.
But again, thanks for leaving a comment.