Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Giving Thanks for Life

The season has begun. Not the football season or the basketball season, but the “holiday” season. Thanksgiving Day is fast approaching and Christmas will be upon us faster than parents can say …. .Well, you get the idea. And in this time of merriment and madness, between the Christmas wrappings and the school pageants, it is very important that we take a moment and give thanks for life.

You will hear that preached in the pulpits throughout America. Take a moment and give thanks for life. It is not a very original thought. Or perhaps I should say it is the original thought. To say thank you; to express gratitude; to show appreciation, to acknowledge the gift of life, is the first thing we human beings should do upon waking each and every day.

To express appreciation for life helps to set our attitude toward life itself and more importantly toward the people in our lives. These people benefit from a positive attitude toward life and provide each of us with the opportunity to show our true appreciation for the many blessings God has bestowed on us.

Many of the current problems in today’s world stem from a failure to appreciate all that we have and all that we have been given. This negativity then pollutes our being and gives rise to a bad attitude toward aspects of our life that should be embraced.

No clearer does the negativity and bad attitude toward life show itself than in the abortion debate. How chilling it is to think that some people are actually recommending the death and destruction of children in the womb. The most extreme example is that of the politician or judge supporting these barbaric court decisions that permit an industry to profit over the death of human beings.

This negativity toward life is seeping all through the medical profession. Where at one time the practice of medicine was known as the healing arts, where at one time the credo of the physician was to “first do no harm,” where at one time the very oath doctors took proscribed the taking of unborn human life, now there exists a very utilitarian secular philosophy which will debate whether newborns with disabilities should be killed.

So during these very serious times, take a moment to thank our Creator for the gift of life. Thank Him for your family, your friends, and those with whom you deal on a regular basis. Consider it a great privilege to be alive and to share the gift of life and time with those around you.

From all of us at Arizona Right to Life, thank you for your continued support. We pledge to continue our efforts to appreciate life, to protect life, to defend life and ultimately to build a culture of life that will be reflected in law.

Have a wonderful and blessed Thanksgiving weekend.



At 4:54 PM, Anonymous John K. Walker said...

The "utilitarian pholosophy" you mention, which has been at the forefront of the pro-abortion movement since it began (consult Judith Thompson, Ronald Dworkin, Laurence Lader, Dr. Nathanson) is currently epitomized by "Dr." Peter Singer, Philosophy "Ethics" chairman at Princeton, who is actually far more candid than most of his cohorts in admitting that since there is no scientific/biological difference between abortion-on-demand and infanticide, and most of "civilized" society obviously favors permitting the former, it should join him in also supporting legal sanction for the latter. His Himmlerian logic bases individual human worth according its ability to materially contribute to the whole, and "newborns," "babies," and even young "children" truly have no more ability to do this than do "fetuses" or "zygotes" (all of which are, indeed, arbitrarily defined labels, as much as Blackmun's trimester scheme was scientific nonsense, though it still dominates people's abortion poll responses); ditto for the infirm or elderly -- since pre-birth children have no protection from extermination, all of these groups should also be considered "fair game" for the dominant sector of society.

If anyone in the national leadership of the right-to-life movement had enough imagination, they would challenge, and PAY FOR, a series of public events with Singer to force people of conscience (i.e., those relatively few Americans who are not primarily concerned about getting their freebies from the government in the way that members of "the greediest generation" who support Napolitano-types are) to choose which philosophy society will follow, since this meaningless middle ground is logically and morally unsustainable. I truly do have more respect for even Singer's sort of monstrous, but at least not hypocritical, thinking than for the majority's deeply cowardly, simultaneously selfish and self-destructive, neutralism.


Post a Comment

<< Home