I was recently enjoying that most cherished of modern-male traditions – channel surfing – when I stumbled across some obscure late-night talk show. The subject was medical research using fetal tissue and embryonic stem cells, and it wasn't long before the host and her guest began ragging on the pro-life community for its opposition to these things. Both were practically foaming at the mouth as they accused us of being hypocritical for calling ourselves "pro-life" while opposing technology that could save so many lives.
It was soon obvious that the goal of this show was to use fetal-tissue research and embryonic stem-cell research to create the illusion that something noble comes from abortion. In a transparent attempt to neutralize the biological reality that abortion intentionally takes the life of a living human being, the guest went so far as to propose that, even if life does begin at conception, we should all be willing to accept that the unborn are sacrificing their lives for the benefit of all mankind. Then, right on cue, the host nodded pensively, switched on her most fawn-like demeanor, looked into the camera and reminded the audience of the biblical reference about no man having greater love than the one who will lay down his life for others.
Now, I have been in this battle far too long to be shocked by anything that might be said by these kinds of people. Besides, I had already heard this particular drivel from another member of the pro-choice mob a few years earlier. This guy had spewed forth many of the same laughable positions taken by these two women, even going so far as to question why the pro-life movement was opposed to allowing babies to "assist" in making life better for people with serious health conditions. You heard right. In abortions, the babies are not victims, they are "assistants."
This idiotic statement, along with those made on this talk show, were further evidence that, if the ability to pervert rhetoric is art, the abortion lobby makes Rembrandt, da Vinci and Michelangelo look like a bunch of paint-by-number amateurs.
Let's set the record straight. Children who are being killed by abortion are not "laying down" their lives. Their lives are being taken from them through the application of lethal force. Using the corpses of aborted babies for medical research has nothing to do with allowing the unborn to sacrifice their lives to save others. It is about the born hoping that they can improve their own lives by butchering and then mining the unborn.
To fully appreciate the moral bankruptcy of this, imagine that a team of researchers has developed a drug that will cure cancer, heart disease and diabetes. This miracle drug is produced from a chemical found in the human body and can only be taken from living people under 55 years old. Additionally, clinical trials have proven that the drug is 100-percent effective and perfectly safe. It has also been determined that the amount needed to treat the entire country would require only about 500 donations per year. The only downside is that harvesting this chemical always kills the donor.
This broaches the question, given that millions of people could be saved, should we create a national lottery to randomly select 500 people a year who would be forcibly killed to make the drug?
Comments