Such thinking, I believe, is ultimately demonic. Like all demonic thinking, it deceives people into believing that which is false and calling evil good and good evil. I was reminded of her comment this morning when I read the following post by Pastor John Piper:
163,000,000 unborn baby girls have been killed in Asia over the last three decades. That’s more than the entire female population of the United States.
Aside from the mounting up of blood-guilt, and the treasonous shredding of God’s image, the result is a dangerously imbalanced population. “Normally, about 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. The ratio in India is 112 to 100, in China 121 to 100, with some Chinese cities reaching 150 to 100” (First Things, Aug/Sept, 2011, 69).
This is dangerous for women not only because females are the ones being killed, but also because of what men will do when there are not enough women to marry—prostitution, rape, polygamy, and who knows how many other destructive forces unleashed in such societies. Such efforts to predict the poisonous fruit of girl-killing are unnecessary for those who simply say: It’s wrong. Don’t do it.
But where the goddess 'choice' is still enthroned, we may pray that the people will see the painful price of her deceitful rule before long.
For if ‘choice’ is the moral imperative guiding abortion, then there is no way to take a stand against ‘gendercide.’ Aborting a baby because she is a girl is no different from aborting a baby because she has Down syndrome or because the mother’s ‘mental health’ requires it. Choice is choice (First Things, Aug/Sept, 2011, 69).
And of course, killing any baby because of any disability, is monstrous. Perhaps killing her because she is a girl will help us see this.
6 comments:
Pastor Daniel,
Thank you for your thoughts. It was interesting. I was reading a post by a girl who is a professed atheist. She said that she happened to come across Christian radio and listened to a program about abortion (I'm assuming it was Focus on the Family). She said the program focused so much on babies, that they completely overlooked the role of the mother. To me, it seems like Christians view themselves as sticking up for the children whereas others view themselves as sticking up for the woman who is judged by the Christians as a result of the decision. I had never really thought about it from the other viewpoint.
By the related comments left, it appears as though other like-minded individuals believe the Christians neglect the woman who is in that position. Although I disagree wholeheartedly with abortion, it got me thinking about discussions about abortions within the Church. It would be great if the Church not only challenged those within a congregation to stand up for the unborn, but also embrace and love the woman who may be in that position.
Andrew
Andrew, you bring up a good point about the Church needing to be concerned about mothers who are in need. The good news is that I think the Church is concerned about this need. I think the abortion issue gets more press, and it is perhaps a more emotional issue, but true followers of Christ are concerned for all people.
I know, for example, that healthy, Christ-honoring churches in the Peoria area are involved in a number of ministries that seek to help young mothers in need. Local churches are involved heavily in adoption and foster care (which helps mothers who feel they cannot care for their babies). Churches and church members are also very involved in the Esther House and Women's Pregnancy Center, both of which seek to meet the needs of both pregnant women and women with young children.
I think you are correct that there is a perception that Christians care about unborn Americans, but not about other groups of people. But, I think this is a misperception. May we as servants of Christ seek to change this perception by being true servants of those around us.
You stated,
"For if ‘choice’ is the moral imperative guiding abortion, then there is no way to take a stand against ‘gendercide.’ Aborting a baby because she is a girl is no different from aborting a baby because she has Down syndrome or because the mother’s ‘mental health’ requires it. Choice is choice"
If we take that thought to its logical conclusion of 'choice' being the moral imperative (and not that it is a human life), then who is to say we can't/shouldn't kill a 2month old (or 2 year old) if they have Down syndrome or say a product of a rape or incest, etc...?
@Paul, you're right. Just to be clear, that was me quoting Piper and not my statement. I think he would agree with you.
Amen.
Post a Comment