Monday, July 21, 2008

Sign of the Times

From the daily-must-read blog Creative Minority Report comes this post on a hideous act of vandalism directed at a pro-life poster. Click the link to read the post and to go to the original blog where it was first reported, SoCon or Bust:

When I saw the vandalism on the second sign below, it reminded me of my own experiences with the pro-abort thugs during my election campaign last September.

While elections signs are usually the target of vandals, the vandalism is directed at ideologies and not actual persons. In the case of my signs, it was not merely a matter of simply trashing them. On the contrary, in addition to spray painting and defacing the baby, one particular sign was subject to knifing. They knifed a picture of an innocent human baby.

As I stood there inspecting the sign, I just started to weep. What future, I wondered does this society have when it not only refuses to care for children but openly advocates for their destruction? We cannot be that far off from open infanticide. That kind of gives you an idea of where we are going.

Note the last two lines, in particular. Who could possibly disagree? After all, one of our two major presidential candidates in this election is on record supporting infanticide for babies who survive being aborted; the other is considered "pro-life" because he only supports embryonic stem cell research.

We will get to the point where it will be all but mandatory to abort babies known or suspected to have certain physical and/or mental disabilities. Once that happens, what are the odds that pressure will mount to allow some kind of "post-term abortion" for those babies whose illnesses are undiagnosed in utero, or who are more ill than was suspected, or who were "damaged" by some aspect of the birth process? Why, the argument will probably go, should some parents be "punished" with a less than perfect child just because their child's imperfections weren't caught early enough for "termination" to be offered as the most acceptable choice?

When a poster featuring an elderly man holding a precious baby and containing a quite gentle, non-confrontational message about the value of human life can be the target of such a vile and vicious attack, can anyone argue with the notion that real human babies will be the future targets of similar acts of violent hatred?

No comments: