Having finished the following post about J.K. Rowling yet again standing up for women and their sex-based rights…
…you go girl!
It’s my turn to “once more” start again by adding another controversial topic to the blog.
I’ve aligned myself with Gender-Critical Feminists like Rowling and many others in the past year by defending sex-based rights. But now I’m sure I will part ways with many of them (although not all of them) because of some of the blogging I expect to do in the next year.
In the last year, I’ve been an advocate for reality. Principally for God’s good creation of real men and women, boys and girls. Those are the only options available to us.
I’ve also advocated that we embrace confused people.
This is a controversial subject for many today (but not as many as the mass media would have you believe). Most people, when made aware of the facts, don’t like the ideology behind Gender Identity and Expression. Especially when it impacts the well-being of their children. And the sanctity of the parent-child relationship.
So why would I consider adding another controversial topic to my plate? Why would I Start Again, Again?
Because of our children. The most vulnerable among us.
The recent Supreme Court decision shifted the debate about abortion back to State Legislators. This requires an informed citizenry. A citizenry which elects representatives to enact laws that represent the will of the people. Hopefully those laws will be just laws.
That decision making process was taken out of the hands of the citizenry by the Supreme Court in the 1973 Roe v Wade case. And in my view a new constitutional right was invented.
After 50 years and 66 million abortions later, it is back in our hands. What will we do?
This issue divides America. It divides the Church. It divides my own church community. But I’m convinced if the facts are known most citizens will be comfortable limiting the Roe regime of abortion on demand.
And that would be a major step forward, given that virtually all abortions in America are elective. Occasionally we might need to deliver a child early or give a chemo treatment to a pregnant mother with cancer that would result in the death of her baby. But intentionally taking the life of the baby is never medically necessary.
I’ve received ”pushback” on the use of the word ‘never’ in the above sentence from one of my readers. First of all, I expect people to disagree with me about such a contentious issue. And I appreciate them telling me why by emailing their disagreement to blog@blueridgemountain.life. This respectful interaction will make for a better blog. As to whether I should change the word from ’never’ to ’rarely’ as was suggested, I tackled that thorny issue in my next Pro-Life post.
Abortion as simply another form of contraception is what many Americans want to change. Now we have that opportunity.
And so it will be my charge to present to my readers the most compelling Pro-Life position that I can muster. It won’t be perfect. But it will inform. I believe I can accomplish that much.
For we have important decisions to make as citizens of this Republic.
There are other things we must be prepared to do to help expectant mothers & their children. Things that are already being done. For every abortion clinic in America there are 3 crisis pregnancy centers offering social services to assist mothers before and after delivery of the baby. Most of these centers are populated by Catholics and Evangelicals. Catholics in particular “put their money where their mouth is” on this issue. This 3 to 1 ratio is good.
Still we must do more.
My blogging in the coming year will attempt to ”keep it real.” It won’t be for the faint of heart or thin skinned. These are hard facts that we citizens must squarely face. Yet no serious reader of this blog can say that I don’t care about the rights of women. I just want to extend those rights to our girls (and boys) in the womb. A Culture of Life is what I hope to cultivate here as I celebrate God’s Good Creation.
I leave you with this startling image.
The recent Supreme Court Dobbs decision was about a Mississippi law that restricted abortion to the first 14 weeks. Here’s an image of a baby in the womb receiving protection and nourishment from his/her mother at 15 weeks of age.
at 15 weeks
Would you be willing to advocate for protecting the most vulnerable among us? I hope so.
Once more into the breach, dear friends, once more.
+++