For most, biblical arguments are ineffective because even Christians diminish God's authority. They rationalize how tolerant God will be, and do their own will. The Deceiver clouds their thought processes with all types of delusions. There is a particular one which I find abhorrent: Some believe that ending life in the early stages is alright. For instance, the star of the movie Gosnell, who professes Christianity, admits to being pro-choice before viability.
I had respect for Dean Cain before I learned that from his own words. He has appeared in several Christian movies. What I did not know was that his version of the doctrine of Christ is compromise. The Sixth Commandment is simply, "Thou shalt not kill." There are no exceptions nor stipulations beyond that. In the original Hebrew, it meant "dash into pieces" specifically (Strong's Dictionary). That is even more strongly against abortion than mere killing since most abortions are cutting and crushing into pieces.
There are two lies within Cain's choice of words: pro-choice and viability. Let's address pro-choice first. A gestating woman is not one person. There are two human beings when a woman is pregnant. The woman is obvious. Within the woman is another human being. It is demonic to believe that an unborn baby is anything less than a human being with personality and life-blood. Of all the creatures who are innocent, unborn babies are foremost. Humans are shapened in iniquity (Psalm 51:5). Since the person in the womb is not born, there is no iniquity in the early stages especially.
The unborn child has personality. That is the "state of being a person" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). That personality is a system which develops congruently with the other systems in the body. The personality is just as real and developed as the circulatory system. Babies have heartbeats in the womb; they also have personalities within the womb. They are persons!
To deny that personhood is the ultimate deception. Unborn human beings think! Psychologists suggest talking and even reading to unborn children. That would mean that cognition is another system as developed as all the others. Unborn babies can think. They fear for their lives. Videos have been made of the unborn shirking from invasive procedures. A video called Silent Scream was made showing a terrified unborn baby when instruments of destruction attacked it.
When the unborn shirk out of fear, that is more than instinct. They actually compare threat to safety. Unborn babies think! Out of fear, they choose safety. Their choice is life! It is now established that an unborn baby is a separate life. The Revolutionary War was fought for one reason:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence).Thus, the right to life is not only fundamental but self-evident. It needs no proof for sane people. To believe otherwise is spiritual insanity which is either totally deceived or totally depraved! People died that others may have the right to life! In fact, Jesus died that all should live. God's will is that all of his creation have a right to life whether it is a right to be born or a right to live. That right is not only declared in the Declaration but also in the Sixth Commandment and the following passage:
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exod 21:22-25)There are two cases here: (1) accidental causing a miscarriage and (2) miscarriage by mischief (abortion). Both have a penalty. The woman's husband defends and punishes the aggressor. He decides if it was accidental or mischief. In case two, if there is mischief, then the murderer is to be punished with his or her own life. I submit that according to the Sixth Commandment that taking the life of an unborn child is the ultimate mischief! Thus, punishment for those who take the life of an unborn child is death because the crime is against humanity.
What if the woman causes the death of her own child? That too is mischief, and the murderous mother deserves death. However, God is graceful. He can forgive mothers because they may be deceived, but to be forgiven, the mother must have contrition. I believe most mothers who abort their children do have remorse and even depression. Confession and repentance will heal the mother if done sincerely to God.
Returning now to "pro-choice". There are two persons, truly five, involved in the decision to murder or not to murder: (1) the mother, (2) the husband, (3) the child, (4) God, and (5) Satan. If the husband or male gets the blame (credit) for impregnating, he should be involved in the decision process. In unity, man and woman procreate. Drastic decisions should be made in unity. Satan is against unity and even marriage. Thus, the woman making such a decision without input from her mate is in itself wrong! Feminists who insist on the so-called "right to abortion" are not noted for religiosity as they propagate the notion that it is only the woman's decision. (Note: God has already decided who should live when he endows the soul with flesh.)
Not only should the male have a choice but the unborn baby as well. It is evident (shown by their fear of destruction) that the unborn babies' choices are life. Therefore, "pro-choice" does not include the one in the most danger! That is in itself is wrong.
The very word "pro-choice" is deception. That "choice" concludes that it is not wrong to murder. A more descriptive word is "pro-death: for that is what it really is. It's not pro-choice because choice is not the outcome. It is the cause. The focus should really be on the outcome of choice; those who decide favor death. If they even consider abortion as a legitimate choice, they have already murdered in their hearts. I am guilty of that with the unexpected conception of my first child.
Some threw out the word "abortion" and it sounded innocent enough to me because I did not understand the importance of life at eighteen years old. I thought on that, and considered it a reprehensible choice. Because God influenced me by diminishing deception, my choice was that my son should live. My little "abortion" is now a six-feet two-inch robust man! God convinced me that murder for any reason is wrong, even for my inconvenience because that's what abortion is.
You might think that I made a choice. We both listened to God. Like the Declaration says, it was self-evident that the unborn baby is human life. There was only one choice for two people who cherished life; that was to allow the unborn baby to live. My son's mother should be commended for obedience to the most obvious value in the world!
Now for Cain's excuse of viability: That is the ability to love without assistance or with independence from his or her host - the mother. Man's job is to provide. The mother's job is to nourish. That has historically been the case until feminism created chaos with their redefinitions of the gender roles. (See several of my commentaries on feminism,) Feminism is not God's will. Of course fairness is, but women have taken feminism so far as to be unfeminine in their thinking. Psychologists would at one time suggested penis-envy in that they want to be like men. Of course, that doesn't mean that women should not be treated as equals, but that men should not be emasculated. The sole decision on childbirth is emasculating to the mate. Rabid feminism is destructive to the manhood of the man.
The unborn baby is indeed dependent on the mother for nourishment. They are not viable on their own. The woman's foremost responsibility is to nourish her young. Not to do so makes her like the beasts. I remember as a child a mother cat eating her living young kittens. I was appalled, not at her appetite, but for the lack of respect and love of her offspring. When I learned that "human" females do the same thing, I again was appalled, but even more so! It is so inhumane that it seems beastly.
Beasts are without souls. That's the difference between mankind and animals. It is heartless to take a life! Think on the profundity of life: it is physical existence. Abortion ends another's existence. That is fatalistic and inhumane. That is why the right to life is so important and supersedes any other right!
Not being viable does not make an unborn baby less human. Millions of people died under the Third Reich because the personhood of the Jewish people was considered parasitical. Society now considers babies without viability somehow parasitical as well. That type of thinking is Nazism revisited which many said, "Must not happen again!" Anyone who has seen the piles of Jewish "parasites" piled high should know of the same thing with unborn babies. Gosnell is about those piles of "sub-human parasites: which those who claim to be humans pile high. It indeed is happening again!
Spiritual viability is when men are endowed with a soul. Birth is when the soul puts on flesh to interact with the world. I now repeat yesterday's verses:
Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them. (Psalm 139:16)
Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love. (Ephes 1:4)Humans are viable from before they are born! People were made "people" at the foundation of the world. They were spiritual persons before their parents conceived them for God already had. Bodies can be killed but the human soul cannot be. Created in the image of life, we too are spiritual existence.
Souls have a right to a body. God commanded that Adam and Eve multiple: Their jobs were to provide flesh to pre-existing souls. Nowhere did God command or even suggest that they take the life of anyone especially unborn babies! Those who do are like Herod's; whose greatest sin was the slaughter of the innocents.
Human souls are always viable and live on even when their flesh dies. However, denying people's souls their flesh is denying them the experience of life - the same experience which you enjoy. What if you had never been born? Many scream that, but no one really means it! Non-viability is rationalization for murder. Dean Cain has been deceived! He is more like Eve than Adam and should be ashamed and repent.
People cannot be half-Christians. They either are, or are not! They either believe the whole truth or reject it. Rejection of truth was Adam's sin. Being so easily deceived was Eve's. Adam's sin was worse than Eve's but both suffered the same penalty. In other words, deception is not a viable excuse.
I would assume that Dean Cain is intelligent enough to know the difference between a person and a mere parasite. I suggest that he knows that a human being is destroyed even with early abortion. A human soul is being denied its right to exist in bodily form. That is a travesty! What would he say if we decided to deprive him of his own right to exist? It would be another story.
I wonder why the producers of Gosnell would select an actor who did not believe in the right to live. I believe that is tacit approval of first and even second trimester abortion. Babies do not become more human with growth; they only become more loved. I suggest that we should love the little humans from the time of deception because they are already endowed with souls. Souls don't develop, they exist. Every soul has a right to a body. That is God's will.
Unborn babies are not parasites, sub-humans, nor fetal tissue. They are unborn people who existed in spiritual form long before they were ever planted in the womb. To usurp that at any stage is sinful. God cries and Satan smiles.
It seems to me that selecting pro-abortion Dean Cain to star in a pro-life movie is in itself destructive to the message the writers are trying to purvey. Will it cause others to rationalize early term abortions as acceptable? It could. That's surely not what the writers intended.
No comments:
Post a Comment