I'm currently watching the entirety of the Democrat debate from Las Vegas on CNN's website. The abortion question came up and the candidates were asked if they would support a litmus test for pro-abortion Supreme Court justices. One-by-one, the candidates waffled and stated that they would put forward Supreme Court nominees that "protected a right to privacy." They all assiduously avoided stating that they would make abortion (not privacy) their litmus test. Do words mean anything?
I am continually stunned that the ability to take a human life is shrouded in a right to privacy by politicians. The general abortion debate has long gone beyond whether or not abortion is the taking of a human life. Liberal ethicist are now coming out and supporting infanticide. Do you want to try out a child? Peter Singer of Princeton says he'd kill disabled babies if it were in the "best interests" of the family.
Several area pastors have decided that being a "single issue voter" is too divisive. They are beginning to embrace liberal politicians and unwittingly they are also beginning to embrace liberal theology. These pastors believe that world hunger, ecological issues and poverty should be the highest agenda items for the Church (Jim Wallis and his local friends).
I, for one, believe that abortion is an immense evil that will speed God's judgment. Is it a sin for the Church to ignore the hungry, imprisoned and hurting? Absolutely. But the mere existence of these injustices should not make us think that we must choose between the poor and the abortion issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment