If we’re not careful, it’s easy to look back and look down upon the Israelites, who repeatedly rebelled against God, despite His clear presence and their clear dependence upon Him. We cast a critical glance towards our own country’s ancestors, for such things as allowing slavery, yet not (initially) allowing women to vote. We may scoff at the Salem Witch Trials or at the sometimes inhumane and unfair treatment of Native Americans. We may look with pitying condescension at how political disagreements escalated into the War Between the States.
Looking beyond our country’s history, we may quiver at the “darkness” of the Dark Ages, or mock the primitivism of those who lived long before us.
Yet, all is not negative. Within each period of history, we remember and recollect great men, powerful leaders, expansive civilizations, interesting cultures, spectacular literature, breathtaking art, achievements rivaling believability, and astounding advancements in technology and industry. Both the positive and the negative elements define epochs of time, with one usually overriding and smothering the other—to one extent or the other.
Whence comes the poem I am to unveil today. Written during the Sanctity of Life Week 2007, the poem is titled “What Will They Think?” In it, the “they” I refer to are the eyes and minds of the future, reading the history chapters of the present. The idea behind it is that, while there are many positive things that have happened in my lifetime which will be remembered, there are also many evil and despicable things, which will stain the memory of my small piece of time in His Story, if drastic changes do not occur. (Though, if the world does not slow in its spiritual and social execution of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the world of the future may not consider “bad” what I do). Particularly, in this poem, I am referring to abortion, and I hope this poem motivates you to continue to battle for what’s right.
What will they think when they think of when I lived?
An age of technology like there’s never been?
An age of prosperity and communication?
An age of world travel and worldwide friends?
But when I think of this time I live in,
My thoughts often travel in the direction
Of that terrible thing I wish nothing in common,
That terrible thing which is known as abortion.
I wish my time had no relation,
With this time when abortions are freely given,
And in any convenient situation,
One can kill her own baby if she gets the notion.
Oh! This shame of America, if there’s ever been!
This national dishonor, this national sin!
This self-curse upon us, which one day must end,
If God is just, in great punishment.
That is, unless a big change does commence,
Bringing with it an act of true repentance,
A cry out to God for less consequence,
Than we rightly deserve as our just sentence.
For God is love, and He’s full of mercy.
He offers His grace, and He offers His peace.
But if we will not show mercy to our own babies,
What should we expect from the Righteous One judging?
So what will I do, and, so what will you?
We had better do something, and you can bet that that’s true.
Looking beyond our country’s history, we may quiver at the “darkness” of the Dark Ages, or mock the primitivism of those who lived long before us.
Yet, all is not negative. Within each period of history, we remember and recollect great men, powerful leaders, expansive civilizations, interesting cultures, spectacular literature, breathtaking art, achievements rivaling believability, and astounding advancements in technology and industry. Both the positive and the negative elements define epochs of time, with one usually overriding and smothering the other—to one extent or the other.
Whence comes the poem I am to unveil today. Written during the Sanctity of Life Week 2007, the poem is titled “What Will They Think?” In it, the “they” I refer to are the eyes and minds of the future, reading the history chapters of the present. The idea behind it is that, while there are many positive things that have happened in my lifetime which will be remembered, there are also many evil and despicable things, which will stain the memory of my small piece of time in His Story, if drastic changes do not occur. (Though, if the world does not slow in its spiritual and social execution of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the world of the future may not consider “bad” what I do). Particularly, in this poem, I am referring to abortion, and I hope this poem motivates you to continue to battle for what’s right.
What will they think when they think of when I lived?
An age of technology like there’s never been?
An age of prosperity and communication?
An age of world travel and worldwide friends?
But when I think of this time I live in,
My thoughts often travel in the direction
Of that terrible thing I wish nothing in common,
That terrible thing which is known as abortion.
I wish my time had no relation,
With this time when abortions are freely given,
And in any convenient situation,
One can kill her own baby if she gets the notion.
Oh! This shame of America, if there’s ever been!
This national dishonor, this national sin!
This self-curse upon us, which one day must end,
If God is just, in great punishment.
That is, unless a big change does commence,
Bringing with it an act of true repentance,
A cry out to God for less consequence,
Than we rightly deserve as our just sentence.
For God is love, and He’s full of mercy.
He offers His grace, and He offers His peace.
But if we will not show mercy to our own babies,
What should we expect from the Righteous One judging?
So what will I do, and, so what will you?
We had better do something, and you can bet that that’s true.
I also have a portion of a song I wrote that is relevant to this post. I normally do not post my songs on the Internet, but this song is incomplete, and I don’t see it being finished any time soon. However, the chorus is still very poignant. Titled “What I’d Love to See in My Lifetime,” it’s a play on a very common question asked in interviews: “What would you love to see in your lifetime?” The question infers both where you’d like to go, and what you’d like to happen in the world around you.
Using this pretext, I make brief mention of abortion, along with the sanctity of marriage, and the continuing need for evangelistic efforts to change people’s hearts for Christ.
What I’d love to see in my life, would be that babies get the right to choose.
What I’d love to see in my lifetime, is marriage treated special too.
What I’d love to see in my lifetime, is more and more finding out the Bible is true.
That’s what I’d love to see in my lifetime.
As I type out this poem and chorus of a song, I’m reminded of one of the best movies—okay, I’ll go all out—probably that I’ve EVER seen. At least, it’s the best movie I’ve seen in the recent past. It is powerful, inspirational, emotional, enamoring, and educational, and fully worthy of our support. The title is Amazing Grace, and it’s the true story of English abolitionist William Wilberforce, perhaps the foremost contributor to ending the slave trade. A devout Christian supported by devout Christians in his efforts, the politician Wilberforce battled against slavery on moral grounds for years…and years…and years…when “only Christians were 'crazy enough' to think slavery was wrong.” (Quote: Author of the book Amazing Grace on Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes) Finally, as citizens’ minds were changed one-by-one and the political system was creatively and astutely manipulated, Wilberforce had the sweet satisfaction of godly success. He is a role-model for Christian activists today, an example of politics in the name of God, and a trailblazer for transforming society.
~Kingdom Advancer
6 comments:
KA, That brought tears to my eyes this morning as I read. That was a touching song! I love America with all my heart, and it saddens me to think that we have this national disgrace. I hope and pray that I will see an end to abortion in my lifetine. Thanks for joining what I believe is the majority of Americans who believe abortion is unjust! God bless!
I would love to think that we will see an end to abortion, but sadly and realistically, while sin abounds, abortions will flourish. In Australia, as in USA and UK and Europe, abortions are easily obtained and even subsidised by the government. My heart aches for the innocents sucked vicariously from the warmth of their mother's womb.
Blessings,
Glenys
It's amazing to compare (and contrast!) the way England ended their slave trade with the way the US did it. In one battle of our civil war, more Americans died than in most other whole American wars (excluding the World Wars) put together! England did it purely by legislation and without a bloody war. Simply amazing. Yeah, props to William Wilberforce.
And I hope Abortion ends soon too. To tell you the truth, I can't believe so many Dems support it. I mean, I know most of them don't like Christianity, but I would have expected more from them on moral grounds. I guess morals and Christianity really can't be separated.
Yeah, that's the thing. Although there were other elements contributing to the Civil War besides slavery, the Christians in this country--true or nominal--did not do a great job of reconciling differences non-violently. (Maybe they didn't really have a choice.) Of course, many Christians in the South surely thought slavery--even in its present form (as opposed to its probable form in New Testament days, for instance) was okey-dokey.
As for abortion:
Hopefully, I'll be able to post a debate I had with some pro-choice people. That will show you where they are coming from (I don't know if they all are mainstream pro-choice arguments or not), and how I replied.
They use red herrings, like (these are not exact quotes):
"Shouldn't you be concerned about all the starving children?"
They get ahead of themselves, like:
"Before we ban abortion, we need to give these kids-to-be healthcare, housing, food, and families."
They use strawmen, like:
"If you really want to protect life, you should try to protect the lives we're blowing up overseas with bombs and missiles."
They try to justify with "what ifs," like:
"You don't know what kind of mother I'd make anyway."
They try to keep the subject off the babies, by making it all about women, while generally ignoring the consequences (including, of course, eternal ones, perhaps) many women experience after having abortions. As well, at some point along the line, the world accepted the pathetic "right to choose" line. They even are still making the claim that an unborn baby does not hold the same moral weight as an infant, child, or adult.
Speaking of morals, it's funny, I and the others in the debate used the word "moral" quite a bit. But, I have no idea what moral foundation the others were coming from--except that they all seem pretty straightforwardly liberal.
"They even are still making the claim that an unborn baby does not hold the same moral weight as an infant, child, or adult."
I recently finished reading a book where the main character, a Christian, had to debate about abortion in her Harvard philosophy class (this wasn't the plot of the book, just a tiny piece). I bring this up because you mention that pro-choicers don't give the unborn equal moral significance with infants. I want to point out an argument that the professor mentioned (she was neutral for the purpose of the discussion, kind of like a moderator for the discussion). She talked about a guy who also believed that infanticide was morally acceptable in certain circumstances. This is because he argued for abortion by appealing to his belief that a baby didn't really become a person until he or she developed socially. Thus, a born baby is no more a person than an unborn baby in his mind. So he also argued for infanticide on the same grounds. My point is, since abortions can be performed on babies that could have already been born as premies anyway and survived, how are they really different than infanticide? They aren't! It's the same thing! Even the age of the child can be the same with both abortion and infanticide. Let me quote some of the book (it's called The Veritas Conflict):
Claire raised her hand. "So this professor argues that killing a living, breathing infant is okay?"
"That's correct, depending on the circumstances. He candidly says that a fetus is a living human being just like an infant, but argues that the termination of both is morally negligible if it would make the parents happier - such as if the infant was disabled in some way - since both the fetus and the infant are incapable of regarding themselves as distinct people with lives of their own to live."
The class had gotten very quiet. After a moment, Brad slowly raised his hand. "That position makes me want to vomit, but it is more intellectually consistent. It's much more honest to argue that if you can terminate a fetus before it's born, you can terminate a baby after it's born. What difference does a few days or weeks make, after all?"
Keesha jabbed her hand into the air. "This whole discussion is ludicrous. It's still my body. How dare you - a man, no less - say that I should not have the choice of what to do with my body. Whether the fetus is alive or not is irrelevant. It's still my body."
Sorry this comment is so long, but I thought that this excerpt could shed light on the base issues maybe.
Oops, I didn't give proper credit. That excerpt was from The Veritas Conflict, pg. 313, published by Multnomah Publishers, Inc.
Now, I forgot to mention a helpful tip for arguing any issue - every argument is built on underlying assumptions. If people agree on their foundational assumptions, then they can logically argue their positions. But if they disagree on their foundational assumptions, then they will never convince each other, but they are trying to build the same building on different foundations.
If you want to win an argument (assuming you are right and deserve to win it, heh) - just consider what assumptions are involved. When you find your opponent's assumptions, you can question them. For example, the abortion debate usually hangs on the following false assumptions:
1)An unborn child is not a person/moral agent.
2)A fetus is part of the woman's own body, not a separate entity.
3)The rights of others can be violated if it is convenient for you and they cannnot speak for themselves.
Many pro-choicers may not even be aware that they have these assumptions.
Post a Comment