There is no question that the safest place for any baby in this world is in the womb of a beautiful British princess. I have never seen such hype, hoopla, or hullabaloo surround the birth of child, as I have seen with Prince Whats-his-name. Even from the point of conception, I might add, that darling little Windsor baby was a recognized human being.
How sad that the North American baby-butchering industry (aka abortion) doesn't see it that way. How tragic that thousands of human beings conceived nine months ago will never see the light of day. Why the double standard, I cannot tell.
I suppose the millions upon millions of innocent humans (read that line again, if you will—let it sink in) that have lost their lives over these past few decades would have been saved had they too been conceived within the safe confines of a royal womb.
It seems there is far more outrage when surplus sled dogs are killed in Whistler, or when a dog is dragged behind a car in Innisfail. It strikes me as very sad that it may be safer to be a pet these days, than it is to be a human baby.
Safe sex—a misnomer if there ever was one—has been one of the lies the left and the media (or are they one and the same?) have foisted upon gullible North Americans for decades. We need to define “safe”: Safe for whom? Safe from what?
If there ever was a bellwether mark of a society going to you-know-where in a handbasket, one condition would be its view of children: Unwanted and unnecessary; “things” we get rid of in the most barbaric manner; “things” we throw away at the earliest whim; “things” we forget about and leave buckled up in the heat of blistering summer's day.
The irony is not lost here: The desperate plight of babies being killed—let's call it what it is, friends—is something most citizens and lawmakers seem to turn a blind eye to. I would dare any one of the major networks to do a segment on the gory details of the inner workings of a Planned [non-] Parenthood clinic--another misnomer, if there ever was one.
Yet when a wanted baby is in distress at the same stage of gestation, any given medical team will perform super-human heroics trying to save its life. Go figure.
The irony, in case you missed it, is that two babies at the same stage of life are treated differently (Maurice, that would be life or death), owing to the capriciousness of the powers-that-be. You would think that a civilized society, with even a token Christian influence, would know better.
I am firmly entrenched in the “pro-life” side of things (in case you hadn't connected the dots), a term that is, in my opinion, limited in its scope. I like the term “whole life,” because it speaks for the, well, whole of life. Whole life is broader and bigger, speaking to the quality of life from conception to natural cessation. It deals with the physical, moral, spiritual, mental, nutritional, educational side of life—and even more, covering everything.
I don't know if it's me, but I seem to be hearing more accounts of a mother throwing her baby into a dumpster here, or of a father getting back at a girlfriend by killing her child there. That makes news, and so it should. But is killing a child before it's born any different? Is murder more acceptable when done by “professionals”?
The big picture here contributes to this sickness. Easy access to pornography, thus creating a constant state of sexual arousal, is obviously one factor. Racy ads and commercials is another. The loss of the meaning of true manhood is one more. A complete absence of the reinforcement of moral teaching of the value of life also contributes to this. The two sources that could stem the tide would be schools and media; unfortunately, the very opposite is happening through those avenues.
Miscues, mistakes, and miscalculations happen. No problem with that. But the adults here (that would be the girl and the guy) should own up to their irresponsibility, and do the right thing, namely, carry the child full term and put it up for adoption. Responsible parents choose life for their child—something I call true pro-choice.
I can't tell you how many couples who are unable to conceive would do anything to adopt a child. So there would be no problem finding a loving home for these children. Foreign adoptions are noble and necessary, but very expensive and complicated. Russia is the latest country to throw up even greater restrictions.
Adoption, then, not abortion, is the viable option. Moot point, of course, if the child is a prince.
No comments:
Post a Comment