Monday, September 16, 2013

Genocide vs. Infanticide: An Inconvenient "Truth"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Last week Pastor Robert Jeffress of the 11,000-member Dallas First Baptist Church wrote a column for the Dallas Morning News in which he asks, "Why is Syrian genocide intolerable while US infanticide is protected?"

He wrote, "Why is genocide in Syria intolerable while infanticide in our country is not only permissible but considered a constitutional right?"

He asks by what moral authority do we deny the leader of another nation his "freedom of choice" to exterminate his own people, yet empower our own citizenry to kill their children and even provide hundreds of millions of tax dollars to Planned Parenthood to carry out the executions?

Dr. Jeffres says, "I can hear the liberal howl across North Texas as I type these words. 'There is no moral equivalency between Assad’s heinous acts against his own people and the personal, painful choice of a mother to terminate a pregnancy.' But, alas, there is."

The following is from his column

Nancy Pelosi recently related to journalists a conversation she had with her 5-year-old grandson about the reason for going to war against Assad. “They have killed hundreds of children,” the former speaker of the House told her grandson. “Were these children in America?” the little boy inquired. “No, but they’re children wherever they are,” Pelosi responded. Exactly.

Both the Assad atrocities and abortion represent attacks against the most vulnerable members of society: children. We are understandably horrified by the pictures of endless rows of Syrian children’s corpses. But if we laid side by side the remains of the millions of children who have been aborted in the last 40 years — many during the second and third trimesters with discernible features — I imagine there would be an even greater outcry from the American people.

Yet, the president is unapologetically the staunchest defender of abortion of any American president in history, priding himself during his first run for the Oval Office on his 100 percent pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood. While an Illinois senator, Obama voted against restricting partial birth abortions — a particularly barbaric act that involves the crushing of a partially born infant’s head and removal of its brain matter through a suction device. Pelosi claimed to reporters that Assad’s actions were “outside of the circle of civilized behavior.” How could anyone believe that the murder of a child inside his mother’s womb would not also fall outside that circle?

Many secular progressives say they are not pro-abortion, however they see "choice" as a fundamental human right.

No one suggests Assad’s actions are not reprehensible. But how do we make a moral argument against genocide while supporting and affirming infanticide?

This is the place to which the progressive philosophy and relativism leads.

Contradiction and Moral Conflict.

Yale law professor Arthur Leff has said, "Who among us ought to be able to declare 'law' that ought to be obeyed? Either God exists or He does not, but if He does not, nothing or no one can take His place."

While Dr. Jeffress encourages Americans to pray for the President regarding our involvement in the Syrian matter, he asks if this is the time when we seriously and honestly consider abandoning the moral relativism that has infected our culture and reclaiming God's absolute and unchanging moral law that includes the the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

It has been said, "Without God everything is permitted."

It is common place today for moral relativists to declare law. Additional human rights are continually bestowed, including infanticide (abortion) on the basis of choice.

Our culture is infected by moral relativism. Moral relativism rejects notions of an absolute right or wrong in a given situation. Everything is left for the individual to judge. Whatever an individual decides is deemed "acceptable." Those who object are told they are judging--or worse, they are bigoted.

The irony is that moral relativism is selective. If it was followed in all situations the result would be anarchy and complete chaos.

I'll be talking more about this on the radio today. Please join me live from anywhere in the world at 9 AM PDT. The program is rebroadcast at 7:30 PM PDT. Here's how to listen in.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Strong. Be Encouraged. Be Certain. God has a plan.