Murder should never be a choice.

I don’t usually like to write about touchy subjects.  I suppose they beg for debate and contention.  But I can’t stand idly by and let evil stare me in the face and not do anything about it.

I have been thinking about how to live with a legal regime that fails to protect innocent life.

My heart breaks for the recent shootings in the media. I pray for the families of those who were killed by people who never should have access to a gun.  Life is sacred.  Life is a gift.  Innocent people shouldn’t die because someone doesn’t understand what they are doing.  It is wrong.  It hurts me.  It hurts all of us because when we put ourselves in their shoes, we are afraid.  It hurts us because good people with such life, light, and love shouldn’t have had to die that way.

And this brings about the first politically touchy subject – gun control.  While there are many complicated aspects of this debate – the biggest two stand out to me.

We hear this: Guns don’t kill, people do.

Yet, why do mentally unstable people like the Charleston and Lafayette shooters have a gun? There must be some regulation.

Whenever these shootings are discussed in the media, everyone is in an uproar: “We must do something about this.  The law can fix it!  If we create a law and create or take away constitutional rights, then all will be right in the world! No one should have the right to choose to murder!  We must take that choice away from the people!”

When I think about gun control, the driving consideration for me is: what kind of set of laws would give rise to the greatest protection of innocent life while simultaneously giving innocent life the right to fight against tyranny?

I’m not sure where I stand on the gun control issue.  I believe in choice.  I believe that choice is a fundamental part of who we are and our purpose on the earth.  We choose different paths, and we meet the consequences, good or bad. Someone can choose to have a gun and they can choose what they do with that gun.  Does that mean we should take away the gun because they could kill with it?  I don’t know.

Technically that’s “pro-choice” and to me, this slogan is very deceptive.  I am pro-choice.  I believe that happiness is a choice.  I believe that making choices and suffering the consequences of those choices shape us into better people.  I believe that choice is one of the greatest gifts that God has given us.  So the slogan – “pro-choice”…. it infuriates me because its narrow use leads to hypocritical thinking.

Why is it that both sides of the political spectrum are in an uproar about the Charleston and Lafayette shootings (as we rightfully should be) but apparently there is nothing to see HERE:

“It makes a huge difference [to know what tissue the buyer needs]. I’d say a lot of people want liver.  And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.  The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium.  Calvarium — the head — is basically the biggest part.”

“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

Yes, perhaps Planned Parenthood can apologize for the “tone” of its employee.  Perhaps the video was largely edited (though the three hour version was released the same day).

I will admit that when I first read the article I thought it was another right extremist trying to get some attention and bring Planned Parenthood down. But when I actually did some research from both sides of it, I realized that was indeed not the case. Planned Parenthood did not deny anything. This is actually happening.  And while donating tissue for scientific research is not illegal, selling tissue for profit is. And while abortion is not illegal, the abortionist may not alter the way the abortion is performed in order to salvage “tissue.”   It literally says on the consent form:

“I understand there will be no changes to how or when my abortion is done in order to get my blood or the tissue.”

The law clearly states:

“In research [on the transplantation of human fetal tissue for therapeutic purposes], human fetal tissue may be used only if the attending physician with respect to obtaining the tissue from the woman involved makes a statement, made in writing and signed by the physician, declaring that … no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue.” 42 U.S.C. § 289g-1(b)(2)(A)(ii).

“[T]he individual with the principal responsibility for conducting the research [must] declar[e] that the individual … has had no part in any decisions as to the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy ….” 42 U.S.C. § 289g-1(c)(4).

This is what confounds me.

How can using the words “crush the head” even be acceptable to utter and NOT bring the thoughts of murder to your head?  I know that some justify abortion with the argument that “life has not begun” yet.  But if you are talking crushing a head, and keeping the heart, and the liver…. then that sounds like life to me.

I am all about empowering women to make their own health and birth control choices, but I do not see abortion as “pro-choice.” Thinking of the people who were killed in that church or in that movie theater, we wonder what those people’s lives could have been like.  I wonder what it would be like to be going to church, and all of a sudden, without a second’s notice, I am on the floor bleeding and dying from a bullet wound.  What kind of life could I have lived? I cringe and I cry at the thought.

I wonder what it would be like, if my mom had decided to make the choice to let me die.  I wonder what it would be like for my head to be crushed with forceps while in my mothers womb.

How can we allow thousands of innocent babies filled with potential life, love, and happiness be murdered legally without even a second thought?

As my husband says… “The law does not protect us.  We protect the law.” I believe what he means is that no amount of law can make up for a lack of morality. The name of “progression” is changing. Because what the world sees as a “progression of society” I see as the destruction of morality.


0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *