Get a red envelope. You can buy them at Kinkos, or at party supply stores. On the front, address it to:
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C.
On the back, write the following message.
"This envelope represents one child who died in abortion.
It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world. Responsibility begins with conception."
Put it in the mail, and send it. I wish we could send 50 million red envelopes, one for every child who died before having a chance to live. Maybe it will change the heart of the president.
"Pray, Hope, and Don't Worry" - St. Padre Pio
3 comments:
Is there really moral equivalency between terminating a pregnancy (which often results in the destruction of a cluster of simple cells) and murdering a living, breathing, human being?
I'm really surprised by the assertion that using Plan B to prevent a fertilized egg from embedding in the uterus is morally the same as shooting another human being.
If you truly believe 50 million individuals (babies nonetheless) have been categorically murdered in cold blood by our black-hearted, sinful society (practically in your own backyard!), I find it strange that you are not motivated to stronger action than inviting anonymous blog readers to send a blood red envelope to White House staffers that will simply read them, check a box that says "Abortion" on an issue sheet and toss your 15 minutes and 37 cents right into the incinerator.
I really don't think the issue is so simple as 50 million have been horrifically murdered (and I have the sneaking suspicion based on your actions that you don't believe this simplification either).
On a related note, I find it weird when conservatives are against both abortion rights and smart family planning programs that advocate both abstinence AND safe sexual habits (such as condom use). To be against both seems to be more a part of the problem of teen or unwanted pregnancy rather than the solution, based on our knowledge that abstinence only programs have failed half of our high school-aged students since the 1950s.
It seems if you're really against abortion (and let's face it, many pro-choicers are) there are many intelligent ways to decrease the occurrence of this, least of all by outright banning. Education is our best method of lowering the need for abortions. We have to stop this facade that abstinence only programs are a form of family planning. They are an abdication of our responsibility to properly educate our children on sexual health.
Josh,
I'm going to try to be as civil as I can with my response to your comment.
First, how can someone, like yourself, forge a fight for (as an example) Palestinian freedom, equality, human rights, and other issues of social injustice and then, willingly, support the biggest infringement of human rights that has ever been seen? Your rational and moral philosophies of life are extremely contradictory.
Second, in regards to the reason behind the envelope campaign, do I need to validate something that supports a cause greater than either of us? Why do you join facebook groups that support the Palestinian cause? Isn't it a statement of belief? To spread support? If I have to spend 15 minutes of my time and 42 cents (I see you haven't sent mail in quite awhile) to spread the word on the value of life...I'll do it a hundred times over. Your simplistic view on this issue is now very apparent.
Third, you toss around 50 million as if it were this weekends lottery winnings. Josh, 50 million abortions. 1.4 million abortions each year. 92% of those abortions are done because of convenience factors. Less than 2% because of rape or incest. Less than 6% because of the mother's health. Many of them occurring all the way up to the third trimester (Kayley was able to yawn, digest food, think, sleep, etc. at this stage) Our society, and yourself, have concluded that convenience trumps the value of human life.
Fourth, you, at one time (and actually right now if you want to get scientific), were just "simple" cells. Every human life has stages. How can you, or anyone for that matter, decide which stage is "more important" than the other. If any stage of human development is terminated, life ends. Potential ends.
Fifth, a response to your simplistic, irrational murder comment. If I shot a woman in the stomach who was 7 months pregnant, I would be charged with double murder. I ended the LIFE of two human beings. Can a baby outside of the womb survive without any care? It is totally dependent of the mother for many of his or her first years. How is this different than living inside the womb, dependent on the mother? Where a life is lived is a moot point. In both cases, the extermination of life ends potential.
Sixth, I'm not sure where your ideas of sex education have evolved from, but this isn't the 1980's and 1990's anymore. Sex education has evolved to include programs of abstinence and safe sex. Many rural and urban areas have been doing this for years. Obviously, the education (and the money being poured into it...400 million plus on STD prevention you and I will be paying for) hasn't decreased the number of abortions. It gradually rises year after year after year. 92% haven't gotten the message. But, what they have learned is that convenience is the best sex ed. available. Morality has eroded because of public policy that has devalued the right to life and the potential of human life.
Seventh, the conception vs birth debate is rather disgusting and, frankly, contrived because of a scientific movement that set an agenda for women's rights. Social policy and judicial erosion is what you argue for. You have chosen a faulty system over the human life system. You have proven that you hold the courts higher than the sanctity of life. You have proven that you hold science higher than the right to life and potential. Just think about your priorities and rationale for a moment.
Eighth, I'm not going to sit here and debate the issue of life begins at conception. Because you see, I've already won. For if it wasn't for conception. We wouldn't be able to debate.
Also, the argument, often advanced by abortion rights activists (people who willingly support the destruction of life), was that the unborn child was merely an extension of the biological mother, and therefore in her resided the absolute right to determine the outcome of the child's very existence. Amazingly, while those on the left generally seek to use science as their argument (really the only one), on this issue they had to completely sacrifice science for their own selfish stand. They claim that the unborn child was not human at all and was best a blob of protoplasm. The idea that " a woman has a right to determine what to do with her own body" also completely ignored the genetic fact that the child growing inside of her was not a mere extension in the same manner as a kidney; that it was different, a unique living being, which had a completely different DNA schedule than the mother or the biological father. The child had 23 chromosomes from the father and 23 from the mother, giving it a uniquem one of a kind biological imprint. Also, in regards to the viability issue, that has even become a moving target because it is a very unreliable standard ("science" keeps proving viability earlier and earlier).
A question: Did President Lincoln make it his priority to seek "common ground" with opponents of abolition in order that slavery might become rare?
Or did he simply oppose slavery for what it was -- injustice and oppression of the powerful against the powerless -- even to the point of tolerating a bloody civil war?
That is where we are at. A civil war against morality. A civil war against the determination of the most sacred thing this world has to offer...life.
Post a Comment