A Mere Inconvenience Free Reprint Article

NotifySnack

Christian Articles for All of your Publishing Needs!

LIKE US

Translate this Page Here

Word Count: 1552

Send Article To Friend

Print/Use Article

Contact Donna Wasson

A Mere Inconvenience

by Donna Wasson
3/03/2012 / Family

The Old Testament tells us when the children of Israel were beginning to enter the land of Canaan, God sternly commanded them not to intermarry with the natives because it would lead to them adopt the worship practices of their new spouses and thus contaminate their relationship with God.

Of course, they disobeyed. The native pagans did detestable things in God's sight as a part of their worship practices; they sacrificed to non-existent gods, engaged in ritual sex that included orgies with temple prostitutes, both straight and homosexual, and they even became depraved enough to sacrifice their own newborn babies to these so called gods!

One of the main gods they worshipped was named Moloch. These heathens would fashion a hollow metal likeness of what they thought he might look like, with outstretched arms and built a raging fire in it. After they had cut themselves, jumped around like fools and babbled nonsense, they would place their very own newborns in the red hot, glowing arms of Moloch and dance around some more while they listened to the child's pitiful screams. Just the thought of that is utterly incomprehensible to me.

The Israelites had the audacity to turn their backs on the living God who had rescued them from slavery in Egypt and parted a dad-gum sea so they could escape Pharaoh. He then provided food and water for them while they were wandering around the desert wasting time. It took them for 40 years to make an 11 day journey!

This is because, even after all the incredible miracles of preservation and protection God had performed on their behalf, they kept trying to decide if they could really trust God; if He would really keep His word and bring them into the land of milk and honey as He had promised Abraham.

When they finally made it, what did they do? You guessed it. Betrayed God by intermarrying and adopting pagan gods. How could anyone in their right mind willingly slaughter their own son or daughter? That thought is so repulsive and alien to us...or is it?

Yeah, yeah, you know where I'm going with this. Well, you only think you do. OK, we'll start with the monumental decision in 1973 when the Supreme Court of the land ruled in favor of allowing women in this country to abort their babies. The number of abortions performed since that year, give or take a small percentage of error, was calculated by the Alan Guttmacher Institute which surveys abortion doctors directly.

They have estimated the number of babies, a/k/a human beings killed since 1973 by being suctioned, ripped apart limb by limb, chemically burned or partially delivered and having their brains sucked out and skull crushed, to be 39,290,477 million. America is far worse than the nation of Israel was!

We sacrifice our children to the gods of convenience and selfishness. Oh, don't give me the 'mother's life or health' blather. We all know those circumstances are so incredibly rare as to hardly be measureable, so just save it!

Big deal! So what, you ask? So what if we Americans slaughter our unborn; after all, it's just a blob of tissue. It's not even a real person yet. Why should we be forced to have babies we don't want?? Guess what? I agree with you. You shouldn't. So, in order to prevent that from happening, stop having sex outside of marriage!! What an alien, fuddy-duddy idea! I won't carry this thought further because I can see it's causing your mind to melt down.

Abortion is just one more brick in the wall that will bring the wrath of God to America. You see, He considers children to be a treasure and blessing to the parents. He forms that child during pregnancy.

King David, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote in Psalms 139: 14-16, "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members (days) were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."

But are 40 million abortions enough for us? Are we still inconvenienced by these fetuses that are not even human beings? Apparently we are. Hold on to your hats people and let me tell you of a new low in the modern day depravity of the human soul.

In February of this year, the Journal of Medical Ethics (*snicker*) published an article by Alberto Guibilni, Department of Philosophy in Monash University in Melbourne Australia and Dr. Francesca Minerva, Center for Applied Philosophy, Politics and Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

These two bastions of intelligent, compassionate humanity postulate that since society accepts abortion as a woman's right, we should also be able to kill newborn babies even if they are viable and healthy, because they may be a burden or inconvenience to the mother or family. Yes, you did indeed read that correctly! Their reasoning is as follows:

1. "The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a 'person' in a morally relevant sense."

2."It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing it from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense. "

"Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a 'person' in the sense of having a moral right to life. We take 'person' to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to his/her own existence some basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to him/her."

"We claim killing a newborn should be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. "

If a potential person does not become an actual person then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. (huh?) A consequence of this position is that the interests of actual people to pursue their own well-being, mental health and self interests over-ride the interest of merely potential people to become actual ones. Since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning infanticide.

These two fools also believe that a baby born to a mother who doesn't want it, should be able to put that baby to death, even if an adoptive couple is ready, willing and able to care for that child, because, (get this..) the mother might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption!!

Awww, poor birth mommy might feel sad she gave her healthy, unwanted kid to a couple who have been praying and hoping for a baby. Oh no, mommy shouldn't go through any emotional pain, just because she became pregnant as a result of her own actions and carried that baby to term! Mommy would be free from all guilt and longing if the baby just went away. Yay! But how do we make the inconvenient baby go away? We kill it.

We don't want to call it murder or infanticide, because those words carry guilt inducing, negative connotations. No, we want to call this practice something everyone is already familiar with so it won't seem so unusual; 'after-birth abortion.' Now then, doesn't that sound better? Abortions are done all the time. What's the difference?

At what age should we stop the "after birth abortions?" One week old? Three weeks old? How about 6 months? Heck, why can't we have an after birth abortion when the kid hits 13 and they're a pain in the butt?! Who gets to decide?

What a spectacular oxymoronic joke that these two reprobate minds refer to themselves as ethical philosophers! By what standard are they measuring their definition of 'morality?' Oh silly me, of course! Since they are in the liberal public university domain, they spew relativism which means, what is wrong for you or society in general is not necessarily wrong for me. After all, who are you to tell me what is good or evil?

Well hot dang, I can have me some fun with that criteria! WhooHoo! Where to start...well, there's several people I know that need killing. And the waitress at the IHOP was a snot, so I should go and slap her upside the head to get her back. Hey, don't judge me! I get to decide what is good or bad in this system, right?

Oh yeah, my cousin Melanie got herself knocked up again and she don't want another rug rat, but now it ain't gonna be a problem! We'll just use the little squirt for target practice when it's born. With that 'psychological distress' gone, Mel will be up and partyin' in no time! I like this relativism stuff!

God Almighty in heaven, please hurry and rescue me from this filthy, immoral sewer we call Earth!

Donna Wasson is all of the following: Married. Mom. Hospice RN. Avid reader. Animal lover. Needing to spread the Gospel while there is still time.

Article Source: http://www.faithwriters.com-CHRISTIAN WRITERS

If you died today, are you absolutely certain that you would go to heaven? You can be! Click here and TRUST JESUS NOW