"Meanwhile, the state of California spends millions on television ads warning pregnant women not to harm their unborn offspring with cigarette smoke--an admirable goal indeed--but then turns right around and spends even more money paying for poor women to destroy the very unborn humans the ads were designed to save. " Scott Klusendorf
This is a quote from Klusendorf's debate with a lady from Planned Parenthood. I think this point is crucial in understanding the real issue behind any discussion on the abortion issue. The question is What is the unborn?
If the unborn is not a precious unborn, innocent human being then, why protect it from cigarettes and alcohol (c&a). If it is simply a "choice", why not give mothers the choice to damage it with c&a?
Greg koukl has often made this statement and I completely agree: "If the unborn is not an innocent human being, no justification is necessary, and if the unborn is an innocent human being, no justification is adequate."
If a child comes up behind us and asks, "can I kill this?", the question that needs to be asked is What is it?"
The same goes for what is inside the womb. What is it? How that question gets answered determines whether or not a mother may kill it with the doctor's help.
Derrick
1 comment:
Derrick said," How that question gets answered determines whether or not a mother may kill it with the doctor's help."
If all of the pro-choice people would just REALLY read and think about that thought for one moment.
Derrick is correct. Abortion is nothing short of a mother killing her child with a doctor's help.
Post a Comment