Why Liberals will never be pro-life

It’s no surprise to anyone who follows the platforms of American political parties that nearly universally speaking, Liberals and Democrats are pro-choice when it comes to abortion.  But it wasn’t until recently that I think I have stumbled upon why that is.

We all remember — well, those of us who pay attention remember — President Obama describing the children of unintended pregnancies as a ‘punishment‘.  Really?  Babies are a punishment?  With as many as half of all pregnancies in America being mistimed or unplanned, that’s a lot of punishment.

We also have further confirmation of this mindset from activists such as Sandra Fluke who champion taxpayer-funded contraception as a means of eliminating “barriers” (read: babies) to success.

Moreover, those on the left have adopted language suggesting that abortion is a healthcare issue.  They reference pregnancy as though it were some kind of disease, or ailment which requires a cure.  A cure that we should all chip in for: elective abortion.  Making abortion about healthcare, Liberals hope to paint the opposition to abortion on demand as people who don’t want women to be healthy.  I’ve got news for you, the proper healthcare associated with pregnancy is prenatal care, not abortion.

Unplanned children, which are apparently most of us, are considered a burden, a punishment, and a barrier according to Liberals.  It seems the only children of worth are ones conceived after graduation, after a career has been established, and only after the mother and father have made the conscious decision to expand their family.  All others are subject to choice.

It is this mindset which fosters the misunderstanding of comments which might seem abhorrent given your political worldview.  This is why when Republican candidate for US Senate Richard Mourdock recently stated that, “I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God, […] And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” the political left went nuts.

Of course the Left has grabbed their torches and pitchforks calling for Mourdock’s head.  They don’t agree with his overall frame of reference that human life is a gift, and not a punishment.  So when someone says that regardless of whence a life is conceived, it is a blessing, and not a health problem, or barrier, or punishment, they find an attack where there is none.

Until Liberals and Democrats can recognize that children are blessings, and not curses, they will perpetually support a mother’s right to take the life of her child in the womb.

Comments

  1. Liberals are only “pro-life” if they are protecting animals. They don’t see any difference between human life and animal life, and often find animal life to be more important.

  2. Can one be pro-death penalty and still be pro-life?

    My problem with most conservatives is that their position is inconsistent. They are (typically) pro-life only until the baby is born. Then they are against providing any of the essentials that a human needs to survive, like food stamps, government housing, welfare, medicare, etc. Many women make the decision to get an abortion based on the fact that they cannot financially support a child. If that is the case and you are the type of person who says she should have the child anyway, then you damn well better support the programs that will allow that mother to provide for the child–or go a step further and start adopting some children.

    • J. Palmer,

      The terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” have a context in reference to abortion. If you want to play games with the term, then “pro-choice” people are not pro-choice in virtually any other respect. Are they “pro-choice” when it comes to forcing people to accept same-sex fake marriage? Are they “pro-choice” when it comes to using plastic bags for shopping in California, or when it comes to 32 oz sodas in New York? Etc, etc.

      Pro-life is about the child who is an innocent human being. The death penalty was prescribed by God for murder, and I don’t argue with God.

      We are also not against providing for TRULY needy people, but not via the federal government because that violates the Constitution, as well as has been demonstrated to be a huge waste of money, since little of it actually goes where needed.

      If a woman can’t financially support a child, then she should not be having sex. Simple as that.

    • Palmer, that makes sense only on an emotional level. It seems that you are saying that unless I am personally willing to take care of someone else’s child because they are unwilling or unable to, they ought to be permitted to kill their child? Why do you hold society to a higher lever of responsibility than the actual parents of the child?

    • Oh, and statistically speaking, conservativers and christians adopt to greater degrees than other demographics.

  3. Having a child should be a choice. The Lord in His Infinite Wisdom has decided not to afford women an off switch for pregnancy (despite what conservative Akin said) so women are making a choice after the fact.
    Liberals are just your bogey-man so let’s put that aside for a minute.
    Pro-choice advocates, conservative and liberal, happen to respect women, children, and society as a whole. We recognize that forcing women into unwanted parentage hurts the woman and the child and creates a society full of unsupported children who lack nutrition, education, and maybe a loving household.
    You interpret your Bible to prohibit abortion. Other Christians see it differently. But we can also see the damage done when women are disenfranchised and relegated to being baby-makers. What about all the Marie Curies and Susan B Anthonys and others? Maybe the list of women leaders is so short because they’ve only been valued in the past for their ability to get pregnant, have kids, and have some more kids.

    • Jason,
      One would have to completely twist the Scripture to claim it says abortion is okay. The types of “Christians” who do that are usually misguided in the rest of their belief systems.

      No one forces a woman to get pregnant. They know if they have sex they might end up pregnant. If they are irresponsible and get pregnant, they should not kill a child because they were irresponsible. Women do indeed have an “on and off switch for pregnancy” – it’s called keeping their legs closed.

      No one forces a woman into unwanted parentage; she chooses to have sex. If she is pregnant, she is already a parent, and if she kills it, she is a parent of a dead baby.

      Women are NOT “disenfranchised and relegated to being baby makers” just because they are told not to kill their children. That is one really, really stupid statement.

  4. John,

    The answer is far simpler than what you suggest. Pro-aborts do not want to refrain from sexual self-gratification. Considering the possibility of pregnancy cramps their style. This has led to the ridiculous, dishonest and unscientific arguments about the status of the unborn as human beings with an unalienable right to life.

  5. Glenn,
    As a religious institution, no one is “forcing people to accept same-sex fake marriage.” Churches are not being forced to marry gay couples or even recognize their relationships as a covenant with God. Now, as a legal, contractual agreement between two consenting adults, society is being forced to accept homosexuals as having equal rights under the law–and I don’t know why anyone would have a problem with that (outside of judgmental bigotry).

    People can still have 32 ounces of coke, they just need to buy it in two cups now. The government is merely trying to persuade people to make healthier choices, and considering the medical costs related to obesity that get passed on to healthy people who choose not to poison their bodies with buckets of high fructose corn syrup, i think that it is a good idea.

    As far as your support of the death penalty being mandated by God, give me a break. If God wanted murderers to die, I doubt he would need the American justice system to carry out his will. He is an omnipotent God, right? Your interpretation of this subject seems to miss the whole point of Christianity. Murder is a sin, and the punishment for any sin when the sinner does not repent is everlasting death–when God decides it is time for that sinner’s earthly life to expire, not the state of Texas, Georgia, etc. Your support for the death penalty robs a sinner of the opportunity to repent for his/her sin. That is not Christian. Remember that Moses was a murderer, but God let him live so he could eventually fulfill God’s mission that he had for him.

    It baffles me how conservatives who advocate for small government are okay with the same government making the biggest decision of all–a life and death decision. It is sadly ironic and hypocritical.

    Assuming that you are a Christian, your point about the government not providing welfare is weak. If the Christian church did its job in caring for the needy, there wouldn’t be a need for government intervention. According to churches own reporting, less than 10% of Christian church goers tithe, so the whole argument about it being the churches responsibility is bunk.

    Your last point is pie-in-the-sky idealism at its worst. I agree that women who can’t afford kids should not have sex, but lets move into the real world for a minute where 15 year old girls succumb to pressure from their boyfriends and do have sex. A real world where some girls grow up without parental role models and supervision. A real world where young girls make mistakes. Your assertion that girls should not have sex is noble, but unrealistic, and it does nothing to support your pro-life argument whatsoever.

    • J Palmer,
      I suggest you start reading the newspapers because virtually daily someone is being sued and fined lots of money, have lost jobs, lost businesses, etc for not wanting to support same-sex fake marriage, or support homosexual behavior in general. When the government sanctions same-sex fake marriage and same-sex behavior, we are forced to accept it and give it our sanction or else be punished for it. If a Christian doesn’t want to photograph same-sex unions, they are fined thousands of dollars. If a Christian doesn’t want to rent a room at their B&B to anyone not married (and same-sex people cannot be married regardless of what the state says), they get fined thousands of dollars. People have spoken against same-sex fake marriage and have lost jobs. Don’t tell me that lie that no one is forced to accept same-sex fake marriage.

      So you think it is a good idea for the government to force you to buy two 16 oz cups rather than one 32 oz, at the lie of helping to prevent obesity? If the gov’t is so interested in forcing us to make healthy choices, then why aren’t all tobacco products outlawed? Why are people allowed to buy more than one beer? you hypocrite. Should the gov’t come to your house and decide what you should or should not be eating, and clean your cupboard for you?

      You are the one who doesn’t understand Scripture. God gave capital punishment for murder to Noah when he stepped off the ark. In Romans 13 Paul tells us that the gov’t is God’s agent to punish wrong-doers with the sword. God has granted mercy to people in the past, people who He used as prophets and leaders (David and Moses), and we can also therefore exercise mercy. But the person on death row has all the time in the world to seek Christ before his day is up, and many of them have. But they still have to suffer the consequences of their crime. And it certainly IS Christian.

      What we want is a small Federal Government, first and foremost, as the founders of the USA constructed. The individual states can do more than the feds, but it is NOT big government to punish criminals. “When the sentence of a crime is not quickly carried out, the hearts of the people are filled with schemes to do wrong.” Eccl 8:11. Capital punishment is an excellent deterrent against murder.

      My argument about the government not providing welfare TO THOSE WHO DON’T NEED it is certainly not weak. But if we are going to let the FEDERAL gov’t do it, then we need to re-write the Constitution – add an amendment – in order to make it legal. The States should take care of their own problems, especially since most states with the problems have such problems because of their own gov’t policies. And you won’t find me saying it is just the church’s responsibility.

      By the way, Christians shouldn’t be tithing anyway – the tithe (meaning 10%) was for the nation of Israel. Christians have no such limit. And not all Christians give to charitable institutions without being anonymous, so stats such as yours are bogus.

      My real-life statement that girls should not be having pre-marital sex is NOT “pie-in-the-sky.” Until the past few decades when “sex education” and Hollywood promote sexual immorality, it was a very minority of girls who fornicated, and when they did they usually accepted the responsibility and had the child. It is not unrealistic to expect young girls to tell their boyfriends to wait for marriage. Maybe in your world sex is just an amusement, but in the real world there are consequences, and you don’t kill a child because you don’t want to accept personal responsibility.

      My whole “pro-life” argument is that what is in the womb is a separate human being which is living and has the right to continue living rather than being murdered because of someone’s irresponsibility demanding not to be inconvenienced.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: