If it feels like those who champion abortion rights and unfettered access to ending the lives of innocent children in the womb are growing more extreme, consider as evidence an opinion piece published in last week’s New York Times.
Elizabeth Spiers is a Democrat strategist – and a radical abortion activist. In the article, Ms. Spiers actually suggested that adoption is more “dangerous” than abortion.
Let that sink in.
Killing trumps living.
To bolster her wildly reckless assertion, the writer goes on to explain that she was adopted and that her biological mother “remains heartbroken about the years we missed together.”
In a curious and downright perplexing twist, Ms. Spiers goes on to relay:
“I had a wonderful childhood and I believe she had made the right decision.”
Ms. Spiers acknowledges that both her birthmother and adoptive mother remind her of the obvious – that had her birthmother chosen abortion, she would never have had that childhood or a life at all. Nevertheless, the writer contends and resents that she’s somehow being used as a political football, though it’s not clear how.
It seems Elizabeth Spiers is somehow projecting her own feelings regarding the pain of parental relinquishment onto her birthmother, even though her biological mom seems at peace with her decision, however difficult it was.
It’s true that infant adoption is an emotional and difficult thing. Don’t let Hollywood or fiction writers fool you. Serious pro-lifers aren’t deaf to the reality either. It is painful for birthmothers and birthfathers to entrust their biological child to the care of another person. But that certainly doesn’t mean it would be better to abort.
Life can be messy and uneven. A blessing for one family in the form of an adoption is a loss for the birthmother making the adoption placement.
But it’s somehow less traumatic to abort and kill the child? It’s illogical and evil thinking.
Some time ago, I was a guest at an editorial board meeting for a major metropolitan newspaper. It was clear the editors and writers in attendance were hostile to our beliefs. In the midst of my discussion with them, which included the subject of abortion, I appealed to their humanity and compassion.
I asked if they would be willing to compromise a bit for the sake of the safety and security of children? The editor’s cold and heartless answer fell like a hammer blow.
“I’m sorry,” he said with a straight face. “But there will inevitably be casualties in the culture war.”
The radical left reduces our children to political pawns.
The meeting was off the record, so I’m not at liberty to “name names” – but this individual only confirmed what most of us suspect to be the case:
The radical left wants to decide who lives and who dies.
What arrogance!
To the radical left, innocent pre-born children are nothing more than expendable “casualties” – victims to be cast aside and somehow forgotten.
Preborn children are deserving of protection under law. They’re worthy of our tireless efforts on their behalf. We must speak for those who have no voice. We must stand up for those whose oppressors want to hold down. We must support and empower women by helping them during their pregnancy and beyond.
For women not in a position to parent, the way forward is adoption, not abortion – especially in a post-Roe world.
Please join me in continuing to pray that the Supreme Court will uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and overturn Roe v. Wade.
The post The Radical Left Wants to Decide Who Lives and Who Dies appeared first on Jim Daly.
Elizabeth Spiers is a Democrat strategist – and a radical abortion activist. In the article, Ms. Spiers actually suggested that adoption is more “dangerous” than abortion.
Let that sink in.
Killing trumps living.
To bolster her wildly reckless assertion, the writer goes on to explain that she was adopted and that her biological mother “remains heartbroken about the years we missed together.”
In a curious and downright perplexing twist, Ms. Spiers goes on to relay:
“I had a wonderful childhood and I believe she had made the right decision.”
Ms. Spiers acknowledges that both her birthmother and adoptive mother remind her of the obvious – that had her birthmother chosen abortion, she would never have had that childhood or a life at all. Nevertheless, the writer contends and resents that she’s somehow being used as a political football, though it’s not clear how.
It seems Elizabeth Spiers is somehow projecting her own feelings regarding the pain of parental relinquishment onto her birthmother, even though her biological mom seems at peace with her decision, however difficult it was.
It’s true that infant adoption is an emotional and difficult thing. Don’t let Hollywood or fiction writers fool you. Serious pro-lifers aren’t deaf to the reality either. It is painful for birthmothers and birthfathers to entrust their biological child to the care of another person. But that certainly doesn’t mean it would be better to abort.
Life can be messy and uneven. A blessing for one family in the form of an adoption is a loss for the birthmother making the adoption placement.
But it’s somehow less traumatic to abort and kill the child? It’s illogical and evil thinking.
Some time ago, I was a guest at an editorial board meeting for a major metropolitan newspaper. It was clear the editors and writers in attendance were hostile to our beliefs. In the midst of my discussion with them, which included the subject of abortion, I appealed to their humanity and compassion.
I asked if they would be willing to compromise a bit for the sake of the safety and security of children? The editor’s cold and heartless answer fell like a hammer blow.
“I’m sorry,” he said with a straight face. “But there will inevitably be casualties in the culture war.”
The radical left reduces our children to political pawns.
The meeting was off the record, so I’m not at liberty to “name names” – but this individual only confirmed what most of us suspect to be the case:
The radical left wants to decide who lives and who dies.
What arrogance!
To the radical left, innocent pre-born children are nothing more than expendable “casualties” – victims to be cast aside and somehow forgotten.
Preborn children are deserving of protection under law. They’re worthy of our tireless efforts on their behalf. We must speak for those who have no voice. We must stand up for those whose oppressors want to hold down. We must support and empower women by helping them during their pregnancy and beyond.
For women not in a position to parent, the way forward is adoption, not abortion – especially in a post-Roe world.
Please join me in continuing to pray that the Supreme Court will uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and overturn Roe v. Wade.
The post The Radical Left Wants to Decide Who Lives and Who Dies appeared first on Jim Daly.