Sunday, May 17, 2009

Thou Shalt Not Kill

Before anyone goes running off, shrieking as they frantically bat at the flames where their hair used to be, this is not an overtly religious post. While I do believe in God and Christ, and while I believe in the intrinsic goodness of the human heart, I fully acknowledge the inherent evil of the human mind. We are all sinners. Most of us, however, strive daily not to be. That's about as religious as I get.

My reason for writing this obviously coincides with the president's appearance at Notre Dame and the hoopla that event is creating. It's not really about Obama, though, as much as it is about the mindsets of the opposing ideologies concerning abortion. To further qualify the intent here, I will address less the definition of when life begins - as that argument has already rendered the lifeless horse bludgeoned beyond recognition - and more about the morality of death at the hands of Man.

Liberals who are nearly unanimously pro-abortion - albeit under the guise of "freedom of choice" - often ridicule Christian conservatives who routinely condemn the wanton murder of the young and innocent. These are key words, since the retort is frequently an accusation of "bad Christianity" of those who are for the death penalty. Liberals are incapable - or simply unwilling - of determining good from bad, innocent from guilty. Therefore, they equate the killing of a baby to that of a depraved criminal.

I heard an interview on the radio the other day in which the liberal questioner asked the Christian guest several times how he could call himself pro-life while supporting the death penalty, actually saying the words, "what is the difference, killing is killing". We'll skip over the fact that by simply asking the question, the interviewer therefore acknowledged that abortion is killing. The strategy was to turn the answer of the asked into a defense rather than an actual answer to the question. Obfuscation has long been the tool of the left.

It is that obfuscating that has caused the left to defend their so-called "pro-choice" stance since Roe v. Wade. (Note: Norma McCorvey, who was the "Roe" in that landmark case, now opposes abortion and was among the protesters at Notre Dame). They claim that killing a baby is a woman's "reproductive prerogative" because a fetus is not a human until it is born. Strange position to take, since it is not possible for the fetus to be anything but human. A pregnant woman's womb certainly isn't incubating a puppy.

On the other hand, the same people who advocate this heinous practice will chain themselves to iron fences and lay in the street to save the life of a convicted criminal, pompously claiming that Man does not have right to take a human life. (Actually, in related irony, many leftists would go to the same lengths to save the life of a whale as soon as they recovered from their abortions).

So here is the main reason why I personally can reconcile my pro-life, pro death-penalty stance with no qualms whatsoever. Any person who could drag a little girl or boy into the woods, rape them, torture them for hours and then stuff leaves down their throats until they suffocate and then bury them in a shallow grave or simply leave them to be plucked at by carnivores is so much less than human and deserves death at the hands of Man much more excruciating than the gentle methods we currently employ.

God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, one of which was Thou Shalt Not Kill. More frequently mentioned in the Scriptures, however, was the notion of an eye for an eye. God is just, and He was never one to allow the guilty to go unpunished. Other than Original Sin, babies are as innocent as one can be. How anyone can advocate their slaughter while protecting the guilty and still sleep at night has always been a confounding notion for me to accept.

Sphere: Related Content

No comments: