Romney and Abortion

Those who trust Mitt Romney's current statements on his abortion position would do well to read Warner Todd Huston's article, Mitt Romney's Abortion Flip-Flop Not Like Ronald Reagan's.

Even if he is telling the truth that he was "personally pro-life" while going along with the pro-abortion agenda, he seems to lack the strength of conviction on this issue. I don't see how pro-life people can support Romney in the primary when candidates with clear pro-life records such as Mike Huckabee are strong contenders in this race.

Disclaimer: Let Her Live does not endorse or oppose any political candidates, and political views expressed on this blog represent only the personal views of their authors.

Wesley Wilson

Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live targeted pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

A New Member of the Family

Congratulations to board member Daniel Wilson and his wife Jennifer on the birth of their third child, Susannah Hope, yesterday. Susannah weighed in at 8 pounds, 2 ounces.

We rejoice with them in their new blessing from the Lord.

Wesley Wilson

Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live targeted pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

Pro-life Billboard Targets Atlanta Abortion Center Again

This week the pro-life billboard you see at left goes back up outside an Atlanta abortion center, giving a vibrant voice to babies in the womb.

For eight weeks in May and June of this year, the billboard stood directly across the street from the entrance to the Piedmont Pointe shopping center, which contains Summit Medical Associates, Abortion Advice Services, and one office of Atlanta SurgiCenter, among other businesses.

The billboard is paid for by Let Her Live, a non-profit group in South Carolina that aims to post these billboards in the immediate vicinity of abortion centers across the country as silent witnesses against the killing of the unborn. In addition to advertising the Let Her Live website, the billboard lists a pro-life hotline run by the Pregnancy Resource Center of Gwinnett.

While the impact of this billboard is impossible to measure, we know it is seen by thousands of people who drive Atlanta's busy Piedmont Avenue every day. It is also seen daily by the abortion clinic employees and by anyone who visits the clinic. Additionally, we know of two phone calls to the hotline during the billboard's last showing, and of a complaint from a media executive.

We ask all pro-life people to join us in praying that God will use this billboard to save lives, to bring women into counseling centers where they can hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ and be saved from sin, and to turn the tide of public opinion against the wickedness of child-killing.

If you want to help with this effort please make a tax-deductible contribution today. We welcome checks or online contributions with your credit card or PayPal account.

Wesley Wilson

Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live targeted pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

Freedom of Conscience vs. the Right to Contraception

A liberal friend of mine recently asked me what I thought about doctors refusing to prescribe "emergency contraception" such as Plan B to rape victims. He referred to an MSNBC article on the subject.

In summary, a woman who had been raped went to an emergency room where she talked to a rape counselor and was examined by an ER doctor. The rape victim asked for the morning-after pill, and the doctor refused to prescribe it, allegedly because it was against his religion. She went back to the rape counselor who referred her to another doctor who wrote the prescription.

This happened a few years ago. Plan B is now available over the counter to people 18 and older.

The issue, however, remains. Should a person's desire for some form of medical care force the doctor to act against his or her conscience?

I believe the answer is a clear and resounding "No."

First, the doctor's objection to "emergency contraception" for moral, ethical, and medical reasons is reasonable. He has an obligation to "first, do no harm." We require new drugs to be approved by the FDA for this reason. We expect doctors to follow this principle in prescribing treatment to be sure the cure is not worse than the disease. Based on this principle, American Medical Association policy prohibits doctors from being involved in executions.

Plan B, the best known "morning-after" pill, works by preventing ovulation, preventing fertilization, and preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. A doctor treating a rape victim should be aware that he may, in fact, have two patients, as fertilization can occur in less than one hour. In that case Plan B would prevent the newly-formed human from attaching to the uterine wall, causing the death of the embryo.

Second, medical care, as nearly every other industry in the United States, is an open market. If you don't like your doctor, go to another one. My doctor might not be willing to try a treatment that works for some people but injures others. He is fulfilling his ethical obligation to do no harm with a treatment he believes is harmful. My doctor's knowledge of the treatment's risks may be my greatest protection. I can always go to another doctor who believes the treatment has a chance of success.

Third, freedom of conscience is one of the most basic human freedoms. It led to the settlement of many of the early American colonies. It is still sought by millions of legal immigrants. Freedom of conscience was recognized in the First Amendment right to freedom of worship; in the long-standing exemption from combat for conscientious objectors to all killing; in the patient's right to refuse medical care; and in the AMA's policies.

The MSNBC article alleges: "Catholic and conservative Christian health care providers are denying women a range of standard, legal medical care." Really? What standard, legal medical care? The article lists birth control prescriptions, abortion referrals, infertility clinic services for lesbians and unmarried women, and sterilizations. None of these are medically necessary, life-saving procedures.

What solution would the article's author propose? Perhaps a government mandate that physicians must do certain procedures on request, regardless of their best judgment? I certainly wouldn't want the government telling me how to do my work, and in my line of work, not one life depends on my judgment.

The article acknowledges: "In the end, the women in all of the incidents above were able to get the treatment they wanted, even if they had to go elsewhere." So the free market and respect for a doctor's freedom of conscience is denying needed medical care to no one.

Let's continue to let doctors be doctors, not victims of an ideology that would deny one of the most basic human rights—freedom of conscience—to them.

Wesley Wilson

Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live targeted pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

Saving Babies One by One

"Will I go to hell if I have an abortion?" the young woman sitting across from my wife asked. This was the woman's first question, and it was obvious she was leaning toward abortion. But she had some doubts, and she knew it wasn't right.

My wife shared the facts of fetal development with her and explained the abortion procedures along with their risks using the crisis pregnancy center's medically-accurate literature. At the end of the discussion, the young woman decided to make an appointment later in the week for an ultrasound. By the time she returned for the ultrasound, she had decided to keep the baby.

My wife and I are thrilled that she had a part in saving this precious child's life and guiding the mother away from the devastating decision to kill her child. But these life-giving decisions happen every day at crisis pregnancy centers across the country.

Legislative changes are crucial, but as we work for those changes, remember that minds are changed, hearts are won, and lives are saved one by one.

Wesley Wilson

Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a tax exempt 501(c)(3) SC nonprofit corporation dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live targeted pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

The Value of Human Life Comes from Its Source

My wife and I recently had the privilege of attending the National Right to Life Convention in Kansas City. Wesley J. Smith explained some of the common lies and deceptions used to support embryonic experimentation, including embryonic stem cell research. (Read his blog to stay informed on these issues.)

Smith said that whenever pro-life people debate life issues, we always reach an irreconcilable difference with our opponents over the core question of what makes a human life valuable.

Does a human life have the same worth while a blastocyst (young embryo) as it does during later stages of development or in childhood? Does that human life deserve the same protection in a test tube or incubator as in its mother's womb. Is human life as precious when an injury prevents swallowing, requiring the person to be fed through a feeding tube?

In short, what is valuable about human life?

Although there may be pro-life atheists, the pro-life movement bases its view of human worth and dignity on the Bible's account of creation. God made humans as a unique creation, distinct from animals. He later gave commandments concerning the importance of human life--anyone who takes another's life forfeits his own. From the biblical perspective, all human life is sacred and worthy of protection from the moment of fertilization until natural death. This foundation unites Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims on the issue of life.

The anti-life crowd has no such standard. Life is worth protecting if it meets a certain level of "quality." The minimal quality of life is, of course, never defined, which suits moral relativists fine. To some, human worth depends on physical ability. A person who is substantially disabled consumes more than he produces, so he is expendable.

To others the quality of a person's life depends on his reasoning ability. Smart people are more valuable than dumb ones, and those below a certain IQ should be discarded.

To those who deny God, there is nothing better about human life than animal life. In a written debate on this subject, the person I debated wrote:

It is perfectly fine to terminate the life of a being without self-awareness. If the being had self-awareness beforehand, and is likely to attain it again then it is most ethical to keep the body alive until the self-awareness is reattained.

After further questioning he wrote:

I'm not versed enough in cognitive science or developmental science to determine at what point a human's mind is turned on.

So the value of a life depends on its mental abilities, whether human or animal. We've seen where this arbitrary valuation of life leads in the state-sponsored eugenic horrors of the twentieth century. But for centuries disabled and retarded people faced neglect and cruel abuse until Christians took them in and cared for them. Not surprisingly, the same people often took in abandoned infants.

We will never agree with our opponents on what makes life valuable. We have a consistent unwavering position. Theirs is subjective.

In the debate on the value of life, let's not get pulled into debating quality of life. If we abandon the sanctity of life and fight on their terms, we lose, because our arguments are not based on absolute truth.

Let's never be ashamed to declare that the value of human life comes from its Creator.

Wesley Wilson

Planned Parenthood Protects Abusers from Women

Planned Parenthood, the great champion of women's rights, was caught harming women for profit again. LifeNews.com reported two separate incidents--one in Ohio, the other in California--on May 10th.

A teenage victim of incest is suing a Cincinatti Planned Parenthood for failing to report her father's sexual abuse to authorities, as required by Ohio law. LifeNews reports that the suit alleges she told the clinic staff about the crime, and "Planned Parenthood's failure to report the incest to police resulted in another 18 months of sexual abuse at the hands of her father."

In another report, workers at a Santa Monica, California, Planned Parenthood, told a girl posing as a 15-year-old who had been impregnated by a 23-year-old that if she were 16 they wouldn't need to report the statutory rape. She claims they told her to "figure out a birth-date that works" so they could perform an abortion without getting her boyfriend in trouble.

I'm just glad Planned Parenthood stands ready to protect women from exploitation. Aren't you? Maybe their protection of women is the reason our government gives them $272.7 million of our tax money per year.

Update on SC Ultrasound Bill

After the passage in the SC House of H3355, the bill requiring abortionists to review the ultrasound of the baby with the mother before an abortion, the state Senate amended it to make it almost meaningless.

Holly Gatling from SC Citizens for Life reports that State Senator David Thomas, R-Greenville, has proposed a compromise amendment to make the bill meaningful once again. According to Gatling, the amendment "would require abortionists to review and explain the ultrasound image to women before an abortion, but it would not require her to look at it."

1. The Thomas Amendment drops the House mandate on abortionists to perform ultrasound examinations before 14 weeks of pregnancy. (State regulations already require ultrasound at 14 weeks and recommend it at 12 weeks). The three licensed abortion facilities in South Carolina already do ultrasound as part of the abortion procedure so there is no need to require it by law.

2. If the abortionist performs an ultrasound, the Thomas Amendment keeps the duty on the abortionist to review the ultrasound information with the woman one hour before the abortion. Full disclosure by the abortion doctor is an essential element of informed consent if the pregnant woman is to make this decision intelligently.

3. The Thomas Amendment explicitly clarifies that the woman does not have to look at the ultrasound against her will. Neither the abortionist nor the woman can be penalized if the pregnant woman declines to look at the ultrasound. Although this is implied in both the House and Senate bills, it is not stated explicitly in either.

Please pray for the passage of the Thomas Amendment today. If you live in South Carolina, please contact your state senator today also.

To contact your State Senator go to http://www.scstatehouse.net/html-pages/senatemembers.html. To find out who your legislators are, visit http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/zipcodesearch.exe.

Many thanks to Holly Gatling for her tireless work in Columbia.

Pro-Life Billboard Targets Atlanta Abortion Center

As you can read in our press release, the first Let Her Live billboard is going up today directly across from the Atlanta shopping center containing Summit Medical Associates, Abortion Advice Services, and one office of Atlanta SurgiCenter. We pray that God will use this to bring women considering abortion into contact with good biblical, pro-life counseling.

According to state statistics, Summit Medical Associates alone performed 3545 abortions in 2004. That's over 59 school buses full of children who would be entering preschool in another year.

Please join us in praying that this sign will help turn the hearts of mothers toward their children, resulting in a few less women with hearts broken and scarred by a decision that many will regret for the rest of their lives. And if you feel led to stand with us financially, our budget could use your donation.

We are grateful to the Pregnancy Resource Center of Gwinnett for allowing us to display their state-wide hotline on the billboard. They do great work linking women in crisis pregnancies with compassionate pro-life counseling and other free services.

The Work of His Hands

The secularists love to lower human life to the level of animal life. Their unshakable faith in evolutionary theories and their love affair with abortion accompany the debasement of human life. To them, humans are the most advanced animal, but still just an animal.

The Bible records, however, that after God had created everything else by speaking, He "formed man of the dust of the ground." We picture Him carefully shaping the clay with His hands, and then leaning close over the lifeless sculpture. Then God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Later God removed one of that man's ribs and formed it into the first woman. More than any other of God's creatures, we humans are the work of His hands.

When Jesus was on earth He spoke about the worth of that living soul. He said, "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"

Those were no idle words, for Jesus had come to give His life to pay the sin-debt for every human.

The psalmist wondered at God's interest in mankind: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?"

The author of Hebrews quoted from this Psalm when he wrote about the incarnation, explaining that humans are unique in that God, literally, "does not take hold of angels." "For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham." (NASB) That is, Jesus did not suffer and die for angels, but for us.

So Jesus spread His arms on the cross, allowing Roman soldiers to pound spikes through His hands. The nail-pierced hands of Jesus remind us of the great finished work of redemption. He gave His life as a perfect sacrifice once for all of us--for me and for you.

Those who have accepted Christ's pardon for sins by turning from sin to God are doubly the work of His hands. The apostle Paul wrote: "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

Human life is sacred. It will continue forever after death in either the bliss of heaven or the pain of hell.

Let's give God thanks this Good Friday that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

All or Nothing Gets You Nothing

Many pro-life South Carolinians are aware of a group called Columbia Christians for Life (CCL) which spends the majority of its email messages attacking state and national pro-life organizations. Their email update on March 21 opposing the ultrasound legislation that passed the SC House 91-23 demands a response.

It [the ultrasound bill] may reduce abortions, but it will also prolong the practice of "legalized" ABORTION. In the 34-year battle to end abortion, it is yet another strategic and moral error, adopting the incrementalist approach to reducing the number of abortions, while distracting the pro-life community efforts and resources from the proper focus on ending abortion.

As even the well-meaning people of CCL acknowledge, this law will most likely reduce abortions, perhaps saving as many as 1000 or more lives per year. But they would rather build their campaign to completely end abortion on the bodies of those babies than save the ones they can while continuing to fight for a total ban.

CCL argues that Roe vs. Wade allows a total ban on abortions if the state recognizes babies as persons under the law. Obviously, the Supreme Court stands as the decider of all laws, as it has long ago usurped that role from the legislature. So the decision on that law, as the outcome of any challenge to Roe, will depend on the composition of the Court--at least until a state is willing to defy its unconstitutional authority--but that's another issue.

Some of the CCL literature indicates that the total abortion ban they desire would have no exception to save the life of the mother. While we may soon be able to surgically move ectopic fetuses to the uterus and save their lives, right now an ectopic baby will die. Condemning the mother to death as well is immoral and anti-life. Even if, in some rare instance, a choice must be made between the life of the mother and the life of the baby, the baby's life has no greater moral value than the mother's.

In the nine years that a total ban has been pushed in SC, pro-life organizations and citizens have lobbied the legislature to pass laws that restrict abortion, cutting in approximately half the number of babies murdered annually.

Meanwhile the all-or-nothing crowd has achieved nothing. That's the problem with demanding all or nothing. You usually get nothing. As CCL recognizes, the danger of the incremental approach is that you forget your destination.

So let's stick with an all-or-something approach instead. We can continue winning incremental victories and saving babies every day, and one day we will win the full victory.

Nothing is Too Hard for God

Our assistant pastor preached an encouraging message entitled "God Can" last Sunday night from the question of the Israelites in Psalm 78:19: "Can God furnish a table in the wilderness?" The theme of the sermon was that nothing is too hard for God.

That's an important truth to remember as we fight against abortion. Sometimes we despair of ever seeing abortion on demand become illegal in the majority of our states. But nothing is too hard for God, and He is a God who hates child-killing.

Could it be that we have not because we ask not? How much do we labor in prayer against abortion? Sometimes we neglect prayer because it seems so simple. "Anyone can pray, but I want to do something greater for God." But no one who has practiced the discipline of prayer would say that it is easy. Dedicated, fervent prayer his hard work--perhaps the greatest work we can do. Prayer should not be our only work, but little work for God can be accomplished without it.

The battle is the Lord's, and He gives the victory, but it is not without human participation. People spiritualize the account of David and Goliath and talk about how God can kill the giant in your life. God gave David the victory, but David had to face the giant and put all his strength into throwing that fatal stone. God let the giant blaspheme until a man of courage put his life on the line to stand up for righteousness.

My wife and I talked with a friend recently who observed that man's free will must be very important to God. As much as God hates sin, He allows people to practice it while He draws them to the point of repentance. Rather than forcing His will in our lives, He leads us to voluntarily give our wills to Him.

We have an all-powerful, just, holy God who hates sin and injustice. But instead of eradicating it Himself, He usually waits for men and women to yield themselves and perform the actions that He would have them do. He allows us to do His work. What a privilege!

Instead of placing the truth of His Gospel in every heart and mind, God uses human preachers, missionaries, friends and neighbors. Rather than stopping the slave trade or ending abortion by Divine intervention, he leads His people to work against it for decades and stop it that way. The Church is God's tool of choice. Truly, the gates of hell cannot prevail against it.

The movie Amazing Grace has focused attention on the life of the great man of God and British abolitionist William Wilberforce. I'm a little dismayed when I hear people ask, "Where is our Wilberforce?" Don't look for him. Be the Wilberforce! You may not have his position, but you have influence somewhere. Use it.

Wesley Wilson

Taxed for Death

I filed my income tax return last week. Of course I'm looking forward to getting a small portion of the taxes I paid back, but that doesn't make me like them. While I dislike paying taxes as much as the next guy, I do recognize the need for taxation and the benefits received. We must fund our courts, prisons, and military if we want freedom and security.

It's the funding for various social programs that upsets most people. Emily Bazelon wrote a bias-filled pro-abortion article in the New York Times Magazine lately, questioning the existence of Post-Abortion Syndrome. She wrote: "[T]he Bush administration, in its first four years, spent more than $30 million on the 50-some crisis pregnancy centers [that receive federal funds], according to a report by Representative Henry A. Waxman, a Democrat from California."

That sounds like a lot of money, even if it was spread over four years ($7.5 million per year on average)--at least until you find out that Planned Parenthood received $265.2 million in taxpayer funds in 2004 alone. (Bazelon's article didn't mention that detail.) Planned Parenthood is, of course, Big Abortion, reportedly killing 244,628 babies by surgical abortion in 2003. That number does not include other forms of abortion or referrals to non-affiliated clinics.

While federal funding for neither the social programs of crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) nor Planned Parenthood is strictly constitutional, I would much rather fund CPCs that provide vital services to their communities than Planned Parenthood.

Of course the current debate on embryonic stem cell research is also about taxpayer funding, not over its legality.

The pro-life side wants to defund Planned Parenthood, and the pro-abortion side wants to defund CPCs. Fine. Let's defund all the social programs funded by the government and allow individuals to keep and give more of their income. The people of God have taken care of the needy long before the government starting helping (and mismanaging). And if liberals want to fund Planned Parenthood, pornography masquerading as art, and needle exchange programs, let them do it with their money, not yours and mine.

I don't hear politicians talking this way. They win points by promising to give more money to the programs voters like. Whichever political party returns to the conservative principles of limiting the role of government will at least gain support from the libertarian middle.

Instead of splitting our tax dollars 97-3 between support of death and support of life lets stop playing tug of war over the checkbook and empower the American people to support the causes of their consciences. But don't expect this Congress to do it.

Wesley Wilson

McCain, Giuliani Run, Can't Hide from Abortion Record

Senator John McCain recently made headlines by announcing that he believes Roe vs. Wade should be overturned. That's only a story because we didn't know which side of his mouth the Republican presidential candidate was going to speak from. But he was speaking in South Carolina, and he is on the campaign trail, so we can expect him to sound conservative.

McCain's voting record has been mixed on the abortion issue. He usually votes against abortion, but last year he voted to require taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. And of course he led the "gang of 14" (including Republican Senators DeWine, Snow, Collins, Chafee, Warner, and South Carolina's own "Flimsy" Lindsey Graham) in a compromise with the Democrats to throw a few conservative judicial nominees under the bus in exchange for a chance to vote on other nominees.

Then there was the blatantly unconstitutional McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill that curtailed some forms of political speech close to an election.

The anti-Roe statement contradicted a statement to the San Francisco Chronicle in 1999. "I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."

Meanwhile, Rudolph Giuliani equivocates about his long-standing support for abortion.

Both of these men hope we pay more attention to their rhetoric than their records.

Mitt Romney has at least been open about his past support of abortion and his recent conversion to a pro-life viewpoint. He currently takes a very clear position on abortion. But some pro-life people wonder if we can trust him.

Daniel mentioned pro-life candidates Brownback, Tancredo, and Cox in his presidential musings last week. Representative Duncan Hunter and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee are also solid pro-life candidates.

I think we have some good choices. Let's try to unite around the best and never let the rhetoric of McCain and Giuliani obscure their inexcusable records.

Wesley Wilson

Ethical Extremes for the Anti-Life Crowd

Life News reports that the Virginia Senate Education and Health Committee voted against a bill that would make it a crime to for a woman to purposely kill her unborn child by a means other than legal abortion. The bill had passed overwhelmingly in the Virginia House.

The bill was a response to a case in Suffolk, where 23-year-old Tammy Skinner shot herself in the stomach to kill her own baby. Prosecutors twice tried to hold Skinner accountable for the death of the baby and twice judges prohibited them from sentencing her. "If the lady had delivered and left the baby in a dumpster, she would have been charged," said Delegate Chris Jones, R-Suffolk, who sponsored the bill.

Separately, the Swiss Supreme Court ruled that people with mental illnesses can receive assistance in committing suicide. This includes people who are bipolar or suffering depression.

The enemies of life are taking some extreme positions. Care for people with mental illnesses has always included protecting them from destructive behavior. Now Switzerland not only removes that protection--it offers to help people destroy themselves.

I will run the risk of being labeled paranoid, but, as they say, it isn't paranoia if they really are out to get you. With so many easy ways for a person to kill himself, what is the point of making it legal in the first place? Do we really want to encourage suicide? Or could it be that we are devaluing the lives of the handicapped in preparation to forcing some to "commit suicide"? Will we start assuming that people should die because we wouldn't want to live that way or a relative wants them dead? Does the name Terry Schiavo sound familiar? I'm glad I don't live in Switzerland, and doubly glad that my grandparents don't.

In many states a murderer can be prosecuted for two murders when he kills a mother and her unborn child. But in Virginia it is practically legal to shoot yourself in the stomach to kill your baby. And this is the logical culmination of Roe vs. Wade which would supposedly end "dangerous, back-alley" abortions.

In both cases we have a radical recognition of an absolute right to kill either yourself or the child in your womb. It all comes back to the question: Are there any limits to what I can do to myself (and the child in my womb)? Which brings us to the great moral divide: Can God tell me what to do? Now is the time to make sure our friends, neighbors, and communities answer "Yes."

Celebrate real love--not Hollywood's lust

Happy Valentine's Day! Today we celebrate human love, but how many people know what love is? As my wife and I were shopping at Wal-mart last night, it looked like a giant celebration of pink teddy bears and chocolate hearts. When I was getting our local paper a couple of years ago, the ads made you think Valentine's Day was a lingerie celebration.

But what would average Americans say they celebrate? I think most would define love as the feeling they have toward their spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend. That is what Hollywood teaches. Love is a feeling of affection or romantic desire.

That's why we have so many abortions and so much unmarried cohabitation. People think lust is love. If you are "in love," nothing should stand in the way of your desires. And when the feeling of desire is gone, the "love" is gone, so you might as well move on to someone who you desire ("love") more.

I wish I had a dollar for every person I have heard say they are going to "try out" a relationship by living together before they get married. Our divorce rates indicate many people are just "trying out" marriage, too.

Whatever happened to commitment? It got left behind with real love. I Corinthians 13 says love, as the King James puts it, "seeketh not her own." Love is not self-centered. It is a commitment to doing what is best for the other person. Before marriage, that means practicing abstinence and guarding both your heart and the heart of the one you love from sexual temptation.

The Bible doesn't say to feel affection or desire for your spouse. Those feelings come naturally and fluctuate over time. It says, "Husbands, love your wives." You can't force feelings, but you can do loving actions, and the feelings will usually follow. The Bible also tells wives to "reverence," or respect their husbands. Many women would be surprised how much more loving their husbands would be if they praised and encouraged their husbands, instead of criticizing them.

My wife and I celebrate our mid-year anniversary today, and I can say we are as deeply "in love" as we ever have been. Our feelings for each other are at their strongest, and that makes marriage a lot of fun. But that feeling comes from the fact that two-and-a-half years ago we committed to doing what is best for each other, and we try to fulfill that commitment each day.

So enjoy the pink teddy bears and chocolate hearts with the one you love, but let's be sure we love "in deed and in truth," not just "in word and in tongue."

Wesley Wilson

Why the Left would rather kill babies than find cures

I've read a few good articles recently on stem cell research. The liberals portray pro-life people as heartless monsters who want to keep scientists from finding cures for diseases. But the liberals insist on funding embryonic stem cell research, which requires killing a human life, rather than research with stem cells from other sources.

Dr. Mark A. O'Rourke answers common questions on the embryonic stem cell debate in a guest column in The State (Columbia, SC).

Writing in the Weekly Standard, Michael Fumento points out that the track record and potential of non-embryonic stem cells from many sources including amniotic fluid is much better than the cells taken from murdered embryos. He documents the cover-up of the facts by the New York Times and other liberal media outlets. He closes with this rhetorical question: "Is it truly moral to take away funds from a technology that's been saving lives for half a century [non-embryonic stem cells] in favor of another technology that promises nothing but 'promise'?"

Good question. Why can't the Left be happy about the progress being made and give up their fetish with killing human lives? Finding cures and saving lives must not be their goal.

Robert P. George has an answer: "I fear that the long-term goal is indeed to create an industry in harvesting late embryonic and fetal body parts for use in regenerative medicine and organ transplantation." This is not mere speculation. He tells about people in the field who are talking about exactly that. More alarming, he writes: "New Jersey has passed a bill that specifically authorizes and encourages human cloning for, among other purposes, the harvesting of 'cadaveric fetal tissue.'"

While embryonic stem cell research is doubtless part of an attempt to condition Americans to accept growing babies for spare parts, I think most its support is much simpler. Embryonic stem cell research finally gives the Left a justification for abortion. It is their desperate attempt to seize a fistful of sod on the moral high ground.

The Left is losing the battle for public opinion on abortion, so they now hide behind disabled people. Abortion must continue or there is no hope of a cure. Now we can kill babies and feel good about ourselves. We are helping someone. It sounds better than the truth: Without abortion they couldn't afford the child support payments to continue sleeping around.

Wesley Wilson

Welcome to the Let Her Live Blog

Welcome to our blog! Various Let Her Live board members and special guests will be posting here from time to time. We get to share our views with you, and you can respond with comments at any time.

If you haven't done so, please check out the rest of our website. We are passionate about serving God by saving babies and ministering to the needs of those considering abortion or who have been victimized by abortion.

The opinions we express on this blog do not necessarily represent the official position of Let Her Live on any issue. As a tax exempt nonprofit corporation, Let Her Live does not endorse political candidates, and any positive or negative views toward any candidates reflect the personal opinions of the author.

With that disclaimer, we will share our personal views freely, and I hope you enjoy reading timely news and opinions.

Thanks for reading.

Wesley Wilson,
President, Let Her Live