The Abortion Debate
Anti-life crowd vs Pro-life community
In 2004, when the Federal Minister for Health, Mr Tony Abbott, led the charge and raised the alarm on late term abortion, I congratulated him for the courage of his conviction to stand up for life issues and to speak out on behalf of the unborn. I was also pleased that a number of newspapers including the Sun Herald (Nov 7th) picked up my letter to the editor and printed the following:
"I congratulate the growing number of politicians incl. the Federal Minister for Health, Mr Tony Abbott and his parliamentary secretary, Mr Christopher Pyne in calling for a review to the whole abortion issue. I applaud the vision and values to preserve life and protect the unborn. WELL DONE!”
I wrote to both the minister and the media because I believe its high time that, as a society, we buried the self serving argument of whether abortion is to be legal and raised the strong case against the Medicare funding of 100,000 abortions per year. The taxpayer should not be responsible for or required to cover the cost of a procedure, which has no medical justification.
It makes better economical and ethical sense, for our government to remove the Commonwealth funding for abortions of nearly 11 million dollars per year and redirect this much needed financial assistance to churches, charities and community based organisations who have consistently demonstrated a solid commitment to save lives and support the living. Their services are invaluable as they provide independent counselling for women who are seeking an abortion in regards to the development of the unborn child, point out risks such as breast cancer and promote adoption as a viable alternative whilst understanding that it too has its limitations.
The abortionist propaganda machine works overtime in pushing the false notion that abortion is simply a matter of "choice". In life when one makes a choice, there are usually a number of options to choose from. The only option the so-called pro-choice offer is to terminate the life of the unborn. That's not pro- choice, that's anti- life!
As one woman who has suffered the horror of abortion puts it “Please understand that by aborting your unborn child, that does not make the baby go away. Your baby will be in your heart until you die. After abortion – the guilt, shame and loneliness is horrible. Once you abort, you cannot go back and change it.”
The pro- life community, on the other hand, would encourage every woman seeking abortion to read the fine print before she signs her baby’s life away. They strongly insist that terminating an unborn child is more than a simple decision; it is a “wrong choice”. They warn of the dangers and damages associated with this “wrong choice” which the anti-life crowd
conveniently "choose" to leave ou
Take the personal testimony of Lori Nerad for example .She is the former national president of Women Exploited by Abortion. Here is her painful experience: “Two weeks after the abortion, I went into labour. I staggered into the bathroom. And there, with my husband beside me, I delivered a part of my baby the doctor had missed. It was the head of my baby . . .” “I’ll wake up in the middle of the night, thinking I hear a baby crying. And I still have nightmares in which I am forced to watch my baby being ripped apart in front of me. I simply miss my baby. I constantly wake up wanting to nurse my child, wanting to hold my child. And that’s something the doctor never told me I would experience.”
For years now, the anti - life crowd took advantage of the indifferent attitude on the political scene and got away with murder. They succeeded in persuading nearly every politician (except for the courageous few) that abortion is a politically hot potato and a morally divisive issue; therefore it’s best to leave it alone. They stripped it of its real meaning and made it just a mere word. They gave it a makeover and even turned it into an attractive solution.
Their satanic deception aimed to trick the general public into believing that taking a life is better than giving one and loosing a child is better than gaining one. Their devious strategy went something like this:
Ř Dress abortion up with pro-choice terminology,
Ř Deny the biological and foetal facts,
Ř Describe it as a simple procedure of removing a tiny mass of tissue, then,
Ř Demand it’s every woman’s right.
With the influential support of the politically correct in both the film industry and the TV fantasyland, they managed to present abortion in such a positive light that it has become a standard approach to an unplanned pregnancy especially for the young and the hormonally driven with a devil may care irresponsible attitude.
In fact, if sitcom writers (and social workers) corrected their philosophical attitude and changed their practical advise from Safe sex before marriage to Save sex for marriage, then we’ll see more teens and young adolescents pushing pens in schools than prams in shopping malls.
In Closing -
there is no doubt whatsoever that our society, from the unborn to the elderly, will be in a much better state and in far healthier shape, when the positive dialogue of the pro-life community supersedes the negative monologue of the anti-life crowd.
This is possible since the pro-life community, because of its Judeo-Christian values and Biblical worldview, is committed to and compassionate in protecting the unborn and providing for the elderly. The anti-life crowd, on the other hand, are confused and confusing. Whilst they appear as apostles of life by pushing for embryonic stem cell research, they act as angels of death by promoting abortion and euthanasia.
With the love of Christ
. Rev. Peter Rahme
Light & Salt