Abortion in a Democracy If we lived under a monarchy, the
Aug 13, 2020 12:42:05 GMT -6
Post by Todd on Aug 13, 2020 12:42:05 GMT -6
If we lived under a monarchy, the blame and praise for policy and action would belong to one person; in an oligarchy, to a few. But in a democracy the majority must bear the blame for moral outrage as well as the praise for outstanding positive achievements.
But even those who are on the losing side in an election are responsible for the potential, or intended outcomes they wanted. Those who vote for abortion on demand are guilty, in principle, of the corporate murder of millions of unborn children. Even if their pro-abortion candidate loses, they have sided in principle with enforced death in utero (and now, one must suppose, postnatally as well!).
Those whose strident voices chant “pro-choice, pro-choice,” would have shouted “crucify him, crucify him,” at the trial of Jesus. For innocence and utter vulnerability mean nothing to them. They have but one concern and that is themselves. And just as those who yelled in defiance “his blood be upon us and upon our children” (Matthew 27:25), so it is with killing the unborn.
And these concerns are maintained by deliberate ignorance, or self-justification and lack of repentance for sins committed. The man who impregnates a woman and lets her get an abortion, may find it impossible to assign guilt to himself, and therefore to anyone else. He cannot repent, so he must justify his sin.
Repentance involves more than just saying “sorry.” Sorry for what? Precisely what sort of behavior is one sorry for? If he is sorry for his own behavior, now seen as wrong, how can he still be an advocate for such behavior?
The bottom line is that in a democracy we are morally responsible for our votes, and the practices they promote or allow. Voting for a pro-abortion candidate because of his economic policy, does not clear one of justly deserved blood guilt.
- Todd
But even those who are on the losing side in an election are responsible for the potential, or intended outcomes they wanted. Those who vote for abortion on demand are guilty, in principle, of the corporate murder of millions of unborn children. Even if their pro-abortion candidate loses, they have sided in principle with enforced death in utero (and now, one must suppose, postnatally as well!).
Those whose strident voices chant “pro-choice, pro-choice,” would have shouted “crucify him, crucify him,” at the trial of Jesus. For innocence and utter vulnerability mean nothing to them. They have but one concern and that is themselves. And just as those who yelled in defiance “his blood be upon us and upon our children” (Matthew 27:25), so it is with killing the unborn.
And these concerns are maintained by deliberate ignorance, or self-justification and lack of repentance for sins committed. The man who impregnates a woman and lets her get an abortion, may find it impossible to assign guilt to himself, and therefore to anyone else. He cannot repent, so he must justify his sin.
Repentance involves more than just saying “sorry.” Sorry for what? Precisely what sort of behavior is one sorry for? If he is sorry for his own behavior, now seen as wrong, how can he still be an advocate for such behavior?
The bottom line is that in a democracy we are morally responsible for our votes, and the practices they promote or allow. Voting for a pro-abortion candidate because of his economic policy, does not clear one of justly deserved blood guilt.
- Todd