No one is hiding the ball here.
This is the abortion stance of the Secular Progressive Crowdmodern worldview when it comes to abortion.
In this article, the editorial board of the LA Times is making the case that recent laws that have passed in various states are wrong and unconstitutional. Laws that make it illegal “for example, to select the child’s gender or to avoid a genetic anomaly like Down syndrome…”
In other words, this article is making the case that a woman should be able to abort her child for any reason she chooses – if she doesn’t prefer that child’s sex or genetic conditions, for example.
The argument here is that if a mother doesn’t like her child’s sex, race, or any other genetic trait, she should be allowed to abort it in an effort to select for the genetic condition that she prefers.
Keep in mind that this in a day and time when genetics testing is possible in the womb…
So, if there is a marker to indicate homosexuality, skin tone, or of course, the sex of the child, the mother should be allowed to choose to abort the child, according to this article. Of all of the relative reasons that a woman might choose to abort her child, apparently there is no reason that this worldview would consider immoral enough to forbid.
Nothing at all.
The first line of the article makes that clear, as does the last line:
“No matter what lawmakers may think about a woman’s reasons for obtaining an abortion, those reasons don’t matter.”
Here is why I posted this – for Christian brothers and sisters.
Where we stand, what we proclaim and who we vote for speaks as to which side of this issue we are on. Are we helping to put people in positions of power who believe that a human should have the authority to end the life of another human being at any time before birth and for any reason at all? This is arguably the greatest moral evil of our time.
I believe we answer to God for everything we do – and that includes which politicians we support. Are you helping put people in power who are arguing for no restrictions under any conditions and that taxpayers should pay for any of them?
The halfway measures are going away… and may already be actually gone.
The pragmatic arguments are over; only the moral arguments are left. Either abortion-on-demand is such a moral imperative that it must be restricted in no way and under no circumstances, or it is a moral evil that needs to be opposed absolutely.
The stance of Bible believing Christians has been to explicitly stand against abortion since the first generation of Christianity. The Didache, one of the earliest Christian writings after the gospels, says in no uncertain terms, in 2:2, “thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born.” (Lightfoot).
Treating all life as sacred is not some new concept. To take a pro-abortion, pro-choice stance is to stand against the clear (if honest) understanding of the Old and New Testament and the clear interpretation of those writings by the first Christians. If there was a time of compromise politically, morally or socially on this topic, it is over.
Let us oppose abortion morally and love those who had experienced them sincerely and from the heart. Intertwined. Life is sacred and we believe it always has been. No more lying to yourself on what you are supporting and what you are denying.