Friday, September 23, 2011

Census Data on Minorities and Marriage

A recent Associated Press story talks about the census data showing that white babies are no longer a majority of American births. The racial component dominates the headline, and is interesting in itself. I suppose Planned Parenthood can start panicking that their schemes to keep blacks in a permanent minority status through birth control and abortion are failing.

The troubling part of the report is not the racial aspect, but the marital statistics.
Among African-Americans, U.S. households headed by women - mostly single mothers but also adult women living with siblings or elderly parents - represented roughly 30 percent of all African-American households, compared with the 28 percent share of married-couple African-American households. It was the first time the number of female-headed households surpassed those of married couples among any race group, according to census records reviewed by Frey dating back to 1950.
More single-parent homes of any racial group means more social problems, crime, poverty, addiction, and abortion. Our culture must learn to value marriage again. Ultimately, that comes as a result of spiritual awakening, but we can also promote the value of marriage by modeling good marriages in our own homes and teaching abstinence and proper values.

#

Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Me 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 Me Live pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

A Question of Morality

We live in strange times.

This past week Coach Tony Dungy of the 2007 Superbowl Champion Indianapolis Colts spoke to a family group promoting marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Also last week former Vice-president Al Gore testified before the Senate on global warming. He refused to take a pledge to curtail some of his private jet use or to lower the use of energy to what the average American uses. One of his four homes uses several thousand dollars worth of energy per month. However, in his book and Oscar-winning documentary, he urges average Americans to cut back on their energy use.

One of these men was praised as a great moral leader. The other was attacked. Which was praised?

Vice-president Al Gore.

In spite of Gore's using twenty times the energy of the average American, Gore's praisers in the Senate could not gush enough about his moral leadership.

When Tony Dungy gently and kindly advocated "families the Lord's way," some homosexual groups lied about what he said. They claimed he attacked them, though he made very clear that he was demeaning no one.

"Morality" used to mean living a good life. It meant hard work, sincerity, honesty, kindness, using decent language, caring for one's family, compassion on the poor and weak, revering God, and not having sex outside of marriage.

Now many in the media and politics would change the meaning of morality. They want you to believe that it's moral to recycle, but it's not moral to say sex should be reserved for marriage. It's moral to take the bus, but it's not moral to show an ultrasound of her baby to a woman considering abortion. It's moral to protest against war with tyrants like Saddam or Al-Qaeda, but it's not moral to protest the war on the unborn.

Why is this?

Morality makes claims on us. It requires us to do what's right rather than what's easy. It requires character of us and sometimes self-denial.

The elites, those with power, celebrity or money, have never been good at self-denial. Whether you go back to the pharaohs, the kings of the Old Testament, the empires of Europe or today's Hollywood and governmental elite, self-denial has never been their strong suit. What applies to others should not apply to them. They are better and deserve better than the rest of us lowly peons.

You see morality in the western world has been based on the Ten Commandments. Elitists tend to think of them as restricting their liberties, as those "Thou shalt nots." But not too many years ago most people recognized them as the bulwarks of our law and society.

Each of God's laws protects the weak and innocent. Let's look at two. "Thou shalt not kill" helps people respect the right to life of the elderly man living alone, of the teenage girl out on the street, of the unborn child. The strong who can protect themselves and the wealthy who can pay for protection don't need the sixth commandment the way the poor, the weak, or the innocent do. The strong and wealthy are in a position to provide for themselves better than the rest of us. Most of us depend on society to uphold this standard, God's standard, for our safety. When people ignore God's law, society becomes dangerous. Life becomes negotiable if you have the money or power. The strong and powerful no longer look out for the safety of others unless it's convenient to them. The weak and insignificant suffer most.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" channels our powerful sexual passions to marriage and keeps them there. How does it benefit us? It bonds a man and a woman together for life, giving each security, intimacy, and love. This provides a father in the home committed to his wife and to his children. Children who have the discipline, guidance, and protection of both parents are less likely to become violent, to engage in drugs or promiscuity. They have a better chance of establishing themselves for a good life.

Some claim that not everyone keeps these laws so they aren't good. Yet don't we know from the evidence of molested children, abandoned lovers, and abused elderly that the more people who follow God's laws the better?

Rather than undermining freedom, morality—God's law God's way—undergirds freedom for the ordinary, the innocent, the poor, and the weak.

Debbie W. Wilson

Debbie W. Wilson is a human rights advocate, speaker, and author of Christy Award-winning thriller Tiger in the Shadows. Her weekly prayer list for the persecuted church can be found on the home page of Bound Together Ministries.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

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.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, February 19, 2007

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."

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

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

Labels: , ,