Michael Bresciani
Fetus: I hope he changes his mind
By Michael Bresciani
On the internet, that last bastion of free speech, a cartoon is going around of a frightened unborn child cocooned in a uterus. The caption says "I hope he changes his mind." The "he" is an obvious inference to Barack Obama and his first act as president. Is it fair?
The question is rhetorical. Obviously liberally minded Americans think Obama's policies are all just peachy keen and conservative Americans are trying to hold back the urge to regurgitate. Pragmatically speaking, if we could suspend the question of right and wrong, is the unborn child any safer? Liberal or conservative, there is no choice here; the answer is an unequivocal no.
Redundancies are safe in journalism if an author is found to quote say Lincoln or Albert Schweitzer a lot but I am willing to risk criticism for quoting my brother a bit too much.
In what I thought was a trick question my brother asked me "What do you think is the most dangerous place in the world for a child right now?" Perhaps it was a trick question but the answer is anything but funny. I answered Iraq, Afghanistan and a few other hot spots around the world. "No" he said "the most dangerous place in America or the entire world for a child to be right now is in a mother's womb!"
A mother's womb just got even more dangerous. The Associated Press reported on Jan 23, 2009 "President Barack Obama on Friday struck down the Bush administration's ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information..."
With great disgust I read an article recently that said Roe v. Wade had assured us that there would not be another 10,000 women who would die or be crippled by illegal botched or unprofessional abortions. I knew the futility of entering my comments to the article because only the most liberally minded had responded with accolades, assent and praise for the writer's position.
Rather than throwing a big dog into a room full of house cats I decided to save my answer for my own readers. My answer is a question. Prior to Roe v. Wade was it a question only about proper medical services or was it a moral question as so many assert?
If the answer is about medical services then why hasn't the number of abortions following Roe v. been at or around ten thousand per year? Now that it is has reached the fifty million mark doesn't it look like it is and always was a moral problem?
The "me" generation doesn't need an unwanted interference to the swing and swagger of the freedom now enjoyed as a result of America's welcoming in the "new morality." In this new society we can actually play without having to pay and now its part of the all new presidentially sponsored "change" that promises to give Roe v. Wade both security and longevity.
I will not dignify the latest American penchant for selfishness or lessen the dignity of the scriptures or cast my pearls before the many Sus scrofa domestica by quoting from them. (Mt 7:6) Of course as a minister you would expect me to do that. Instead I will do what other ministers have been doing of late even during the inauguration ceremonies; I will use a rhyme. "There is no price to pay — Now that you can throw em away."
Should I mention that in the Bible God told David he knew him when he was in his mother's womb or that the prophet Isaiah called King Cyrus by name 150 years before he was born?
Everyone who loves to read the Christmas story each year from the Bible also knows that both John the Baptist and Christ were named while still in the womb and some of their mission and history was also described before they ever saw the full light of day. These unborn were assigned not only a life but a destiny even before they were born, has that changed or does it only apply to famous people? Nothing has changed with God; except now we are playing God and we think it is entirely up to us whether a life or a destiny should be allowed.
Before you Google Sus scrofa domestica to see what it means it is the scientific name for swine. No one needs to Google the word "fetus" because we all know it is the scientific name for an un-born human being. Americans who are not yet bereft of conscience disdain this word because they see it as an attempt to veil a crime under a scientifically generated semantic used to sterilize not a womb but a conscience. For those among us who choose not to separate the brain from the heart it is and always will be a "baby." It follows that to some aborting it will always be a crime.
The world has learned a lot from studying the ancient Egyptians. It is now well known that their advances in science, math, astronomy and culture were far more advanced than anyone could have ever imagined. It may have been a lesson our Supreme Court overlooked at the time of Roe v. Wade and it may be one that slipped past the cognizance of the average American at the time but there is a great moral lesson we can learn from the ancient Egyptians as well.
When one of Egypt's first kings demanded that the Hebrew midwives kill the male children born to the Hebrew women they refused. But why, let's see. "... the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive." (Ex 1:17) It would be an insult to the spirituality and the wisdom of these ancients to say they were afraid that God would strike them with a lightning bolt the minute they obeyed the king.
Their "fear of God" was in the knowledge that after death they would have to account for choices. Unlike today's version of "freedom of choice" theirs was a choice only of right or wrong they left the choice of life or death in God's hands where it rightfully belongs.
It was an act of conscience and it produced life. That is more than we can say for modern science. Today science and liberal cultural icons are the new priests or kings for the morally challenged. Who would have ever thought we with the help of science would find a way to produce categories of socially acceptable death. Genocide by soldiers with weapons is out but doctors with sterilized knives are in. Ah, the genius of secular progressivism.
Yes, there are yet many people left with a morality akin to the midwives who will never accept the taking of a life whether it is under protection of the ancient pharaohs, the Supreme Court of the United States or the liberal policies of Barack Obama.
Political correctness levels the fields of religion, law, morality and even conscience but the great equalizer of death still shrinks every attempt of man to take God's place. We will all die, we will all answer and someone will answer for the fifty million abortions; perhaps even while standing before the fifty million aborted children that we have cast out of our brave new world.
If these words and this assessment seem harsh I would remind you that they are not nearly as harsh as the salt solutions, surgical knives and suction devices used on the unborn babies in thousands of abortion clinics. It is harsh because their death is harsh. Their death is as harsh as our death and for those with a conscience not yet singed by modernity's affinity for all that is hot, pop and liberal, their death is our death.
Yes, little fetus we hope he changes his mind also but sadly the change he now offers is not one you can live with.
© Michael Bresciani
January 27, 2009
On the internet, that last bastion of free speech, a cartoon is going around of a frightened unborn child cocooned in a uterus. The caption says "I hope he changes his mind." The "he" is an obvious inference to Barack Obama and his first act as president. Is it fair?
The question is rhetorical. Obviously liberally minded Americans think Obama's policies are all just peachy keen and conservative Americans are trying to hold back the urge to regurgitate. Pragmatically speaking, if we could suspend the question of right and wrong, is the unborn child any safer? Liberal or conservative, there is no choice here; the answer is an unequivocal no.
Redundancies are safe in journalism if an author is found to quote say Lincoln or Albert Schweitzer a lot but I am willing to risk criticism for quoting my brother a bit too much.
In what I thought was a trick question my brother asked me "What do you think is the most dangerous place in the world for a child right now?" Perhaps it was a trick question but the answer is anything but funny. I answered Iraq, Afghanistan and a few other hot spots around the world. "No" he said "the most dangerous place in America or the entire world for a child to be right now is in a mother's womb!"
A mother's womb just got even more dangerous. The Associated Press reported on Jan 23, 2009 "President Barack Obama on Friday struck down the Bush administration's ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information..."
With great disgust I read an article recently that said Roe v. Wade had assured us that there would not be another 10,000 women who would die or be crippled by illegal botched or unprofessional abortions. I knew the futility of entering my comments to the article because only the most liberally minded had responded with accolades, assent and praise for the writer's position.
Rather than throwing a big dog into a room full of house cats I decided to save my answer for my own readers. My answer is a question. Prior to Roe v. Wade was it a question only about proper medical services or was it a moral question as so many assert?
If the answer is about medical services then why hasn't the number of abortions following Roe v. been at or around ten thousand per year? Now that it is has reached the fifty million mark doesn't it look like it is and always was a moral problem?
The "me" generation doesn't need an unwanted interference to the swing and swagger of the freedom now enjoyed as a result of America's welcoming in the "new morality." In this new society we can actually play without having to pay and now its part of the all new presidentially sponsored "change" that promises to give Roe v. Wade both security and longevity.
I will not dignify the latest American penchant for selfishness or lessen the dignity of the scriptures or cast my pearls before the many Sus scrofa domestica by quoting from them. (Mt 7:6) Of course as a minister you would expect me to do that. Instead I will do what other ministers have been doing of late even during the inauguration ceremonies; I will use a rhyme. "There is no price to pay — Now that you can throw em away."
Should I mention that in the Bible God told David he knew him when he was in his mother's womb or that the prophet Isaiah called King Cyrus by name 150 years before he was born?
Everyone who loves to read the Christmas story each year from the Bible also knows that both John the Baptist and Christ were named while still in the womb and some of their mission and history was also described before they ever saw the full light of day. These unborn were assigned not only a life but a destiny even before they were born, has that changed or does it only apply to famous people? Nothing has changed with God; except now we are playing God and we think it is entirely up to us whether a life or a destiny should be allowed.
Before you Google Sus scrofa domestica to see what it means it is the scientific name for swine. No one needs to Google the word "fetus" because we all know it is the scientific name for an un-born human being. Americans who are not yet bereft of conscience disdain this word because they see it as an attempt to veil a crime under a scientifically generated semantic used to sterilize not a womb but a conscience. For those among us who choose not to separate the brain from the heart it is and always will be a "baby." It follows that to some aborting it will always be a crime.
The world has learned a lot from studying the ancient Egyptians. It is now well known that their advances in science, math, astronomy and culture were far more advanced than anyone could have ever imagined. It may have been a lesson our Supreme Court overlooked at the time of Roe v. Wade and it may be one that slipped past the cognizance of the average American at the time but there is a great moral lesson we can learn from the ancient Egyptians as well.
When one of Egypt's first kings demanded that the Hebrew midwives kill the male children born to the Hebrew women they refused. But why, let's see. "... the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive." (Ex 1:17) It would be an insult to the spirituality and the wisdom of these ancients to say they were afraid that God would strike them with a lightning bolt the minute they obeyed the king.
Their "fear of God" was in the knowledge that after death they would have to account for choices. Unlike today's version of "freedom of choice" theirs was a choice only of right or wrong they left the choice of life or death in God's hands where it rightfully belongs.
It was an act of conscience and it produced life. That is more than we can say for modern science. Today science and liberal cultural icons are the new priests or kings for the morally challenged. Who would have ever thought we with the help of science would find a way to produce categories of socially acceptable death. Genocide by soldiers with weapons is out but doctors with sterilized knives are in. Ah, the genius of secular progressivism.
Yes, there are yet many people left with a morality akin to the midwives who will never accept the taking of a life whether it is under protection of the ancient pharaohs, the Supreme Court of the United States or the liberal policies of Barack Obama.
Political correctness levels the fields of religion, law, morality and even conscience but the great equalizer of death still shrinks every attempt of man to take God's place. We will all die, we will all answer and someone will answer for the fifty million abortions; perhaps even while standing before the fifty million aborted children that we have cast out of our brave new world.
If these words and this assessment seem harsh I would remind you that they are not nearly as harsh as the salt solutions, surgical knives and suction devices used on the unborn babies in thousands of abortion clinics. It is harsh because their death is harsh. Their death is as harsh as our death and for those with a conscience not yet singed by modernity's affinity for all that is hot, pop and liberal, their death is our death.
Yes, little fetus we hope he changes his mind also but sadly the change he now offers is not one you can live with.
© Michael Bresciani
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
