Let me share with you some of my thoughts on the issue of abortion.

Isn't it interesting
that the political left typically discusses abortion "rights" all the time, yet the term
abortion is scarcely found in their lexicon? This is typical these days of the far left
behavior. They prefer terms like pregnancy termination, choice, and even reproductive
health care. Why is it so hard to say "abortion of a fetus"? We all know why.
Why did Bill Clinton refer to abortion in his 1992 campaign as something that should be
"safe, legal and rare"? Why "rare"? If it is this all important constitutional right, which
the far left would have us believe is right up there in importance with freedom of speech
and religion, why does it have to be "rare"? The answer is obvious. Even Hillary, during
Bill's tenure as president referred to abortion as "wrong" but added that it shouldn't be
criminalized.
Abortion rights activists dance around the terms they choose because the nature of
abortion is like the proverbial elephant in the room--it's on everyone's mind and
impossible to ignore--that abortion is a killing process. The primary purpose of an
abortion is to kill a human fetus.
And what about the perpetual relative truth aspect of the left's view of the unborn fetus?
I've never heard one of them go ballistic when a newscaster reports the murder of a
pregnant "woman and her unborn baby," of course implying that more than a single
homicide has taken place. In fact they typically respond in ways that let you know they
consider the crime more egregious. We are left to conclude that the abortion rights
position must be that the intent of the mother to carry the baby to term in some way
determines whether or not the fetus is actually a human life or not. What an intellectually
flawed way of thinking! This is postmodern moral relativism at its finest. I believe this
type of thinking to be representative of the futility of the postmodern outlook on life and
truth, and find it a depressing and a hopeless world view. Yet, our country seems overrun
with it these days. The so-called freedom of choice that abortion rights activists would
have us believe is founded in constitutional freedoms, in fact violates and undermines the
most basic right recognized by the U.S. Constitution--the right to life. Again, I suppose
to the relativist the right to life is only protected as long as it doesn't infringe on (or
inconvenience?) your chosen pursuit of happiness right.
Truth is not something that means one thing to one person, but is not true for another.
Truth is not something that changes with the wind, not something you manipulate to
serve your purposes, not something determined by public sentiment. Nor is it a private
matter, or a personal creation to be hid in your closet where it cannot be challenged.
Truth is absolute, and it comes from the Word of God. And God says, "Before I formed
you in the womb, I knew you." (Jer. 1:4) "You knit me together in my mother's
womb...your eyes saw my unformed body." (Ps. 139:13-16) And let's not forget, "You
shall not murder." (Exod. 20:13)
In God's eyes an unborn baby is a life from the moment of conception, period. That is
true no matter the circumstances surrounding how the baby got there. The only instance I

can envision in which aborting a fetus might not violate God's law is where it would save
the life of the mother. On that one decision alone, you can label me pro-choice.
FYIIn the 1970s and 80s Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson and even Ted Kennedy
all used to be pro-choice before it became politically unpopular for them.
As far as the broader political picture goes in the aftermath of the party conventions, I
have some observations there as well. If anyone has the wisdom to remove their ideology
blinders long enough to size up the candidates in reality, there was much to learn from the
convention, the speeches, and most importantly a fresh reminder about the past
accomplishments and personal record of each candidate. After the democratic
convention, probably like many Americans I had a powerful image of Obama as a
persuasive, charismatic speaker. The republican convention reminded me that McCain is
not a flashy personality, not a great speaker, but sure seemed to make up for it with a
recounting of his history of service to our country, which reveals that he has a great deal
of substance as a leader. Then, I caught myselfdid I just say, makes up for it? Makes
up for what? I almost got sucked in by the mainstream media! He didnt need to make
up for anything!
Substance is something developed and earned over many years by demonstrative action.
Image is entirely different. It is something carefully crafted in as little time as a few
months. It seems to take less time the more money and more powerful your propaganda
machine behind the image. The most recent gallup polls show that the american people
as a whole are not all that stupid. In post-convention polls about being a strong and
decisive leader, Obama gained a brief edge on McCain after the dems convention, 46-44.
After the repub convention, this shifted back in McCains favor to a larger advantage than
before either convention, 52-41. McCain also leads in being honest and trustworthy, 4639, and in putting the countrys interests ahead of his own, 49-42. The American voter is
beginning to get it. I think that to spot moral relativism or to have the ability to discern
image from substance takes wisdom. There is One who can provide wisdomall we
need do is ask.