It is not about judging those who have an abortion
This Act is an extreme measure, allowing for the abortion of unborn life at any stage of pregnancy and for any reason. It sends a message to everyone in our state that life is cheap. This is a truly sad day for Illinois. We will continue to make our case against such callous disregard for human life whenever it appears in society.
Catholic Conference Statement on
House Passage of “Reproductive Health Act”
I talked to a good friend last night, her name is Claire, and a very good Christian woman (Catholic), who lives her faith in a courageous but respectful manner. She is strong in speaking what she feels is ‘truth’, and is involved in politics. I always feel like a first-grader talking to a college graduate when it comes to politics with her. I have never really understood politics, except for the fact that it is a highly emotional topic. I doubt anyone is immune from that. We argue and fight over what is important to us. That goes for religion as well.
I am not a one-issue voter. Or maybe I am, not sure. I do know that the pro-life stance, which is in reality a movement to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, is not just one issue among others. However, it is not about judging those who have an abortion, the blame can be spread thin. The state of the world as always been precarious, and how we deal with problems is often short-sighted and leads only to further problems as the fruit of decisions becomes apparent.
There is no way I can cast a vote for anyone in the Democratic Party because of their policies on abortion. When in 2016 at the Democratic convention women got up and bragged about getting abortions, and how happy they were about it, it was then that I knew that there is no way I could ever vote for a Democratic President.
Liberal changes in the law do not remain in some sort of static state. They evolve, grow until we now have the mind-numbing mantra that “it is a woman’s right”. Peter Singer wants to make it legal for parents to euthanize their children up to the third month. Why? Because it is not until the third month (in his humble opinion) that an infant becomes self-aware.
From "Practical Ethics": "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons." But animals are self-aware, and therefore, "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."
Accordingly, from "Should the Baby Live?": "It does not seem wise to add to the burden on limited resources by increasing the number of severely disabled children." –Peter Singer
Shocking? Well maybe now, but in a few years it will become more evident to many, that yes, why should not parents have the right to make that choice if a one to a three-month-old child is not yet self-aware? If such a law came to pass, it would be a matter of time for it to become even more liberal, allowing parents to decide even if the infant is perfect to be quietly done away with.
Perhaps Christian need to think more deeply about how we present our faith in such a way that people will at least listen to us, and not try to blend in so completely. The fruit of such a strategy, blending in, is being played out before us today.--BrMD