Pro Life From Birth to Natural Death

If anyone shed the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed;
For in the image of God has man been made.
Genesis 9:6

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gosnell-movie

As Christians we should take our society’s social issues to heart. What kind of people kill its unborn or euthanizes the disabled and elderly? These acts are unthinkable to most. After all, Life comes from God and extends from conception to natural death. We are made in the image of God and as Mother Teresa describes, “Abortion destroys the image of God.”

Dr. Kermit Gosnell gave us a glimpse into the heinous crime of murdering the unborn and the just-born for profit. We cannot turn away from this horrific injustice. The following is an excerpt from the Grand Jury about Dr. Gosnell.

This case is about a doctor who killed babies ... What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors .... Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it. (Report of the Grand Jury)

The Pro Life movement has advanced to a degree that perhaps many understand killing the unborn after 20 weeks is unacceptable. Certainly Christians and those who value life know that the unborn from the time of conception must be defended.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott released this very gratifying press release on House Bill 2 on March 27, 2014:

Fifth Circuit Rules for State, Finds HB 2 Constitutional Unanimous Federal Appeals Court Panel Rejects Challenge to House Bill 2

AUSTIN—The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit today issued a unanimous decision upholding House Bill 2. The decision rejecting the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge to HB 2 was written by Judge Edith Jones and joined by Judge Jennifer Elrod and Judge Catharina Haynes.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued the following statement: “This unanimous decision is a vindication of the careful deliberation by the Texas Legislature to craft a law to protect the health and safety of Texas women.”

Excerpts from the Fifth Circuit’s decision:

“[R]equiring abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges will reduce the delay in treatment and decrease health risk for abortion patients with critical complications.” (p. 11)

“Viewed from the proper perspective, the State’s articulation of rational legislative objectives, which was backed by evidence placed before the state legislature, easily supplied a connection between the admitting–privileges rule and the desirable protection of abortion patients’ health.” (p. 15)

“During [trial] proceedings, Planned Parenthood conceded that at least 210 women in Texas annually must be hospitalized after seeking an abortion. Witnesses on both sides further testified that some of the women who are hospitalized after an abortion have complications that require an Ob/Gyn specialist’s treatment. Against Planned Parenthood’s claims that these women can be adequately treated without the admitting–privileges requirement, the State showed that many hospitals lack an Ob/Gyn on call for emergencies.” (p. 16)

“Requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges would also promote the continuity of care in all cases, reducing the risk of injury caused by miscommunication and misdiagnosis when a patient is transferred from one health care provider to another.” (p. 16) “The specter of Dr. Kermit Gosnell informed the testimony of Dr. Love and Dr. Anderson, both of whom explained that the credentialing process entailed in the regulation reduces the risk that abortion patients will be subjected to woefully inadequate treatment.” (p. 16) “Applying the rational basis test correctly, we have to conclude that the State acted within its prerogative to regulate the medical profession by heeding these patient–centered concerns and requiring abortion practitioners to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.” (pps. 16-17)

This still leaves the question of the end of life. Life is from conception to natural death. How can anyone be Pro Life and defend the unborn but condemn the elderly and disabled to death before their time. Impossible you say, well sorry to burst your balloon, but there are many who believe that the ‘quality’ of life takes precedence and that it is the doctor that should make the call if a patient lives or dies. Allowing doctors to play ‘God’ and to decide the outcome of end of life undermines the dignity of man and leaves the patient and/or family without any recourse.

There are those in the field of bioethics who think that killing the elderly or disabled is not ‘wrong’ according to an article written by Michael Cook, “Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists.”

Rendering someone totally and permanently incapacitated is just as bad as taking a life, or so they contend. Killing totally disabled patients does them no harm.

Don’t be fooled by those that say that it’s the family that ‘makes’ the doctor do things against his will. More often it is the doctor recommending the end of life for a patient. Motivation for end of life may differ in each case, mercy killing, harvesting of organs, costs incurred by patient, room availability, are but a few. The consequences are grave. As a society we can not become insensitive to the fact that using these justifications are only promoting active euthanasia which is self administered drugs by the patient or directed by a doctor.

Already there are four states that have legalized euthanasia in some form, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Montana. We cannot, we must not let the government or doctors make the end of life decisions that are ours to make. Imagine a doctor mandating your end of life by lethal injection without your knowledge.

There is some chatter that our politicians use the ‘social’ issues for their own political agenda. Notice how many of our politicians have become Pro Life and how some politicians are taking sides on the end of life issue. There should be no question on this topic as to which ‘side’ we should be on, as we should all Stand4Life. The Texas Republican platform contains some powerful principles and number 2 states: We believe in the sanctity of human life, created in the image of God, which should be protected from fertilization to natural death.

It clearly states that we should ‘protect’ human life to ‘natural death’. It doesn’t say anything about doctors or government making a decision as to when our lives should end. Keep in mind that one day your loved one or you may be in the same predicament. For those that think that it can’t happen to you or your loved one, let me assure you that ‘situations’ do happen. And for those who say, “I don’t want to live if the ‘quality’ of my life means I will be in a wheelchair or worse.” I have known persons who changed their mind about the ‘quality’ of life when they found themselves in a wheelchair or their loved one became critically ill. The end of life issue is very difficult for those who actually experience it.

We were able to squash Texas SB303 this last 83rd legislative session, but I sincerely doubt it is the end of discussion. Our politicians must be made aware of the dangers of authorizing doctors to take charge of the end of life. Contact your state representative or state senator and tell him/her to Stand4Life, not just for the unborn but for the elderly and the disabled. January 2015 is really just a few months away!

RED SONJA2014©
Pray, Fight, Never Give Up!

 

© 2015 TexasGOPVote  | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy