A line must be drawn

November 13, 2006 20 Comments »
A line must be drawn

Our Sunday School class is watching a video series filmed in Israel related to the Old Testament. This past week’s lesson was on Baal worship and the sacrifice of children. The speaker said that the reason that the ancient civilizations (including, eventually, the Israelites) sacrificed their children was because they believed it would bring them material gain. They sacrificed their infants for Baal & Ashtoreth’s blessing on their crops. They gave them up for their own convenience.

29 million abortions have been performed since it was legalized in the US. 29,000,000. That’s almost the entire population of Canada gone in the last 30 years. Which of those deaths were for convenience? Which were for material gain? Which ones are acceptable?

The speaker closed with the fact that the Lord became so angry with the practice of child sacrifice that He sent the Assyrian army, one of history’s most brutal armies, to wipe clean the areas where it was occurring. It wasn’t only the people who were actually involved in the practice that raised God’s anger, but also those who stood by and allowed it to happen.

Related Posts

20 Comments

  1. Saskboy November 14, 2006 at 8:30 am -

    I’m not sure if you’re advocating that society force women to carry all pregnancies to term or what?

    Despite the abortions, the American population continues to grow, and consume a larger piece of the world’s resources than other nations with a comparable population total.

  2. Chris November 14, 2006 at 9:13 am -

    No, what Ian is advocating is that society forces women to not murder their babies. And yes I do support a society like that.

    Chris

  3. Ian H. November 14, 2006 at 2:13 pm -

    I’m not sure if you’re advocating that society force women to carry all pregnancies to term or what?

    Yes, actually I am, and I refuse to be shy about it anymore. A great evil has been perpetrated on a generation of children. If couples engaged in sex for recreation took appropriate precautions, how many of those abortions would never have been at issue? And what about the ones who would have been? What possible action on their part made them of so little value as to be discarded with the refuse? This cannot stand any longer.

  4. Julie November 16, 2006 at 8:53 am -

    Good for you for saying what many are thinking. I agree, by the way. There’s birth control for a reason. Not to mention society seems to think that abortion doesn’t affect anyone. Most of the women who have an abortion think about it every day for the rest of their lives.
    The part that makes me the most angry is the doctors who recommend abortions to women who already have several children, or to women who are not so well off financially.
    Who is speaking for these babies?

  5. Jeremy November 17, 2006 at 10:26 am -

    The major challenge we have, those of us who believe that abortion is the taking of a child’s life, is how to make a change.

    There is no point in advocating what Ian is advocating because it does more harm then good.
    Unfortuinately any discussion that starts with an absolute position is going to end badly. I don’t disagree with his position and I admire his passion.

    But what pro life people have to agree on is an interm position that a majority of Canadians can support. For example, making abortion illegal after 6 months except in the case where the mother’s health is in danger.

    Then we have to advocate with our friends, family and co-workers as to why this would be a good law, and then most importantly, elect people who will pass such a law. Some people want to see something done on this issue, and then end up voting for someone who thinks abortion is about women being free to do whatever they want.

    If and when we can pass such a law, we can begin discussions and persuade our fellow Canadians that perhaps outlawing after 3 months is a moral and correct position. And so on.

    Don’t get me wrong – I think abortion is a terrible evil, and ideally it should be illegal. But we have to live in this world, and do what is possible now: build a consensus and compromise in order to get the ball rolling.

    As far as the US, the way forward is much the same. Consusus building, rational laws that compromise and can stand up to a court challenge, and electing Presidents who will nominate SC justices so that eventually having the supreme court overturn Roe v. Wade.

  6. Julie November 17, 2006 at 11:02 am -

    You’re right, of course. These arguments are always one extreme vs. the other, and finding middle ground is next to impossible.
    The thing with Canadians is that generally we’re always willing to cater to the minority, on so many different issues. I wonder what the vote would be if every Canadian had their say on this issue? It might not be what we expect.

  7. Ian H. November 17, 2006 at 12:48 pm -

    Jeremy is right – the present state of abortion laws in Canada (of which there are none) is disgraceful. I think a majority of Canadians would be in favour of banning partial-birth abortions, and possibly also late term abortions. This is the way to start, an@logous to the US’s slow adoption of anti-slavery laws, where new States joining the Union had to be non-slaves states, and then they worked on the States already part of the union. Hopefully, it won’t take a civil war to enshrine the rights of the unborn in our country’s laws.
    In the meantime, every time someone asks me if I’m in favour of abortion, I will state emphatically no, with no exceptions, save the endangerment of the mother’s life (not health).

  8. steven November 18, 2006 at 7:15 pm -

    Ian,

    You and I may disagree regarding education (Dennis Fermoyle’s site), but we agree 100% about abortion (emphatically no, with no exceptions, save the endangerment of the mother’s life (not health)).

    Have you ever looked at the libertarians for life site? Just google “libertarians for life” and it will probably be the first entry. They have some good ideas, from a non-religious and scientific perspective.

    Its terrible frustrating to me that millions of Americans view the destruction of innocent human life as a valid choice, but, as Jeremy stated above, what do we do to change people’s minds? Not being a religious person myself, I believe that we should leave religion out of the issue. I believe that focusing on science and philosophy is our best chance to change minds.

  9. Saskboy November 18, 2006 at 8:45 pm -

    Ideally of course there would be no abortions. There would also be no miscarriages, rape, in utero defects, etc. Since it’s not a perfect world, we need laws that don’t punish mistakes in an inappropriate way. What for instance would be the punishment for a future mother who seeks an abortion? Would we stone her, or put her in jail, so someone else like the state will raise her child since she’s an attempted “child murder” as one commenter here said. Obviously we can’t have attempted murderers walking the streets, or raising children.

  10. Ian H. November 21, 2006 at 9:52 am -

    See, those causes you listed that people generally give for easy access to abortion (rape, defects, etc.) account for somewhere less than 3% of abortions performed. And I’m against those as well.

    My aunt-in-law lives with my wife and I. She has Down’s syndrome. Had abortions been available when she was conceived, it’s likely that the doctor would have recommended killing her. Are we at the point of saying that her life is not as valid as the lives we lead? Because if we are (and that’s the argument I heard for leniency for Latimer), we need to take a look at where that path will lead our society. Not to invoke Godwin’s law or anything, but the how is “purification of the master race” any different than not letting the “undesirables” be born in the first place?

    So, yes, I’m in favour of mothers who kill their children getting some kind of penalty. What happens to mothers who commit infanticide? Are you okay justifying those deaths? What a difference a day could make… Once they’ve served their sentence, or paid their fine, or whatever the penalty is, they can go back to walking the streets and raising kids. We let other murderers out eventually. I don’t see why we’d make an exception on either end of the penalty…

  11. saskboy November 21, 2006 at 1:00 pm -

    Why not penalize the father though? Or do you favour that, since they are as responsible for the life of a fetus?

  12. steven November 21, 2006 at 3:08 pm -

    In the United States, at least, obtaining an abortion is entirely up to the mother. The father cannot force the mother to get an abortion, nor can he prevent her from getting an abortion if she so chooses. Given these facts, how can you advocate penalizing the father for something he has no control over?

  13. Saskboy November 21, 2006 at 5:14 pm -

    “Given these facts, how can you advocate penalizing the father for something he has no control over?”
    I can by playing the devil’s advocate. I no more believe the father should be legally punished for a pre-birth abortion, than a mother should. Yet a father is biologically and morally AS responsible for the creation of the fetus as the mother is, and so should accept whatever happens in the woman’s body after fertilization as his own 50% responsibility. Since I’m certain that most male pro-birth advocates are unwilling to accept their full half of the consequences of an unwanted/unplanned/unhealthy/motherless/etc baby, I thought I’d highlight their hypocrisy to them when they realize they’d not want to be in a woman’s shoes if she had to choose.

  14. steven November 21, 2006 at 7:08 pm -

    Wait a minute, Saskboy, I don’t think we are on the same page here. Yes, the father is biologically and morally as responsible for the CREATION of the child as the mother, but not for the ABORTION of the child. The abortion of the child is entirely the mother’s decision. The father cannot control the mother’s decision to abort or not abort the child. If you are married and your wife becomes pregnant with your child, as the law stands now, you can do nothing to stop her if she wants to get an abortion (at least that’s how I understand the law).

  15. Ian H. November 22, 2006 at 6:43 am -

    Again, I don’t know why we’d make an exception for a particular kind of murder. There are already laws on the books for accomplices and accessories after-the-fact to crimes. If the father knew, before or after the mother sought an abortion, and did not say anything, it would be no different than a gang member who knew their buddy was going to kill a rival.

  16. Saskboy November 23, 2006 at 5:16 pm -

    It’s a very extreme view that all abortion is murder though. A born child can not even survive on its own for years after its birth, and while it’s pitiable that we let so many children die in the world too, it happens every day. Is the developed world committing murder though? Through you eyes we’d have to be, because we’re denying food and resources to those who need it, when we have the means to give it to them.

    The view that 29M people were murdered in recent history isn’t dealing with the realities of the world. Who would have raised those children? By your own words, people who readily murder would have had to, otherwise orphanages would be overrun more than they are today.

    Humans have to top reproducing like bunnies, and it’s unfortunate that people people don’t clue in that sex = babies, but if they aren’t smart enough to figure that out, I’m concerned about what kind of offspring they’d be raising to compete with my offspring. Unless you’ve adopted children, you’re preaching to make a big problem even worse, without putting your money where your mouth is.

  17. Ian H. November 23, 2006 at 8:47 pm -

    I’m not sure that comparing kids dying in Africa is an applicable analogy, unless you’re going over there personally to hack them to bits, or paying someone to do that for you. It’s the same distinction we make with active and passive euthanasia.

    As to orphanages being overrun, I doubt it. I am good friends with a couple who had to wait two years to adopt a child because the demand is so high among childless couples.

    “Every child a wanted child” was supposed to be one of the revolutions brought about by the legalisation of abortion. It hasn’t happened. Even with abortion readily available, the rates and instances of child abuse have increased since Roe v. Wade in the US. It’s obvious that the social engineering sought by pro-abortionists has failed miserably, and it’s time to point that out, and to point out that a consequence of that failed social policy is ten thousand cemeteries full of dead children, killed by the wishes of their own parents.

  18. Jeremy November 26, 2006 at 4:00 pm -

    I think anyone who thinks that humans are having too many babies should take a look at the numbers. The average birth rate on the globe is just above replacement (2.5) and falling. I believe the UN is forecasting that world population will begin to decline by the mid point of this century.

    Now look at the western world and ask yourself, what are we going to run out of first: room and resources or people? As it is, our social programs are built on the idea that the current generation can pay for the aging. But after the baby boom, every successive generation has been smaller.

    An interesting book on demographics (if you are interested) is America Alone, which argues that Europe is going to soon be Islamified purely on immigration and birth rates.

    All this is to say that the “abortion is necessary” argument doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. In fact it’s downright foolish.

    We need more people, not less.

  19. saskboy December 1, 2006 at 2:53 pm -

    “unless you’re going over there personally to hack them to bits, or paying someone to do that for you.

    As to orphanages being overrun, I doubt it.”

    Aren’t we ALL God’s people though? Ignoring billions of humans for the sake of tweaking the perception that everything is hunkydory “over here” isn’t being honest with human reality.


    “argues that Europe is going to soon be Islamified purely on immigration and birth rates”

    Jeremy, what’s the problem with that, from a human standpoint? It’s not like they are Vorlon aliens, or terminator robots; they are people too and have just as much right to inhabit Europe as present day Europeans do.

    Your assumption that more is better, is faulty. If human birth rates are falling, it’s because we’re intelligent creatures, and even our global society senses that we’re running out of energy/resources to grow at the pace we did in the last century. We need sustainable growth, not rampant growth.

  20. Jeremy December 5, 2006 at 1:46 pm -

    Saskboy,

    1) Sustainable growth implies…growth. And my point is that birthrates are falling, so that soon the earth’s population will begin to decline.

    2) I suppose that if the problem Islamification presents isn’t obvious it might be difficult to explain it to you. Perhaps you could consider the Islamic view of women’s rights, sexual freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. For your consideration I offer Saudi Arabia and Iran. Or any other Islamic nation.

    3) Of course we are all God’s creatures and no one is arguing against abortion without consideration for the plight of people around the world. But surely we can do both – end abortion on demand and work to alleviate poverty and expand human rights.

    4) As to more is better, I ask only that you consider the structure of modern society. When it comes to healthcare and pension systems, who pays the bills? What is the impact of the baby boom generation aging? What happens where there are more retirees than working taxpayers?

Leave A Response

Click to Insert Smiley