I have had more discussions with Facebook (and real) friends over the past few days. In one, I asked my liberal friends to please explain how they can justify (and celebrate) the new New York abortion law.
I had only two people to attempt to answer the question, but they actually dodged it. After several back-and-forths on the issue of adoption and the need for more pro-life supporters to step up and walk their talk by supporting women who were choosing life for their baby, I tried to reign things back in for my original question. Here’s how I finally wrapped it up.
My original point was to ask the most basic of questions. If we can’t agree on the answer to the most basic of questions, we’ll never be able to agree on the follow-up answers. Too often, instead of answering the question, people ask more questions.
Unfortunately, it appears that “we” can’t agree on the answer to the most basic of questions. Even those who call themselves “Christians” (which we don’t always agree on that definition either!) can’t agree on the answer to the most basic of questions.
Take away all the arguments of “reproductive rights”. Take away even the arguments for/against abortion. Take away the arguments of what a woman chooses to do with her body. Take away all of these things that distract from THE most basic of questions.
“What is life?”
Can we not all agree that a baby that has entered the birth canal is in fact a baby whose life should be protected by law? Evidently not.
That was the question answered by delegates in Virginia on Tuesday when the committee voted to table the bill proposed by Kathy Tran. The vote to table the bill came down to 5-3 decision along party lines. Ms Tran acknowledged that her bill would not prevent an abortion on a fully-developed fetus when the mother was dilating.
And in his attempted explanation, the Virginia Governor Ralph Northam explained what would happen to a baby that survived such an abortion. “If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother.” (Note that Northam used the term “infant” three times. He acknowledged that this was a human baby and then said that discussions would determine its fate.
When party lines are more important to us than protecting a baby in the birth canal, something is seriously wrong with us as a nation.