Women willing to lay down their lives...

I must confess that I am a little confused... For years in the abortion debate we have been told that abortion must be available to protect the life of the pregnant woman. It would seem that staying alive has been very important to our women to the degree that if a baby must lose his life to keep her alive, so be it.

Now we see our women increasingly willing to go into combat. Perhaps this is stating the obvious ladies but going into combat often results in losing ones life. How is it that we are finding women willing to lose their life for country but not for the infants in their wombs? I can at least understand the consistency of "I don't want to die by any means, for any reason". But I am having trouble understanding "I will risk my life to fight in combat but not to give birth to my baby."

In God's economy, men are to be willing to risk their lives for their wives, children and country. This is how a man shows his courage and lives out his created purpose as defender. Ladies, if you want to be courageous and be willing to lay down your lives, also... (for so much of this is Eve's desire to be like Adam) then your field of glory is the life within you, needing you, unable to live without you. If you are going to be brave and lay down your life for the benefit of another, why not the one within you?

I do not mean to be glib, or to make light of the serious health issues that a woman may face in the midst of a pregnancy but I am calling Eve to examine herself. Eve, why are you willing to die to prove you can fight with men but not willing to die to bear the innocent, dependent one within you? Your very flesh? I do not lightly call you to be willing to lose your life but if you are willing, why for one and not the other? What is this about? Will you think about it?

As to the issue of the life of the mother in pregnancy, I have always found these thougths from C. Everett Koop instructive and helpful:

"Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life. When a woman is pregnant, her obstetrician takes on the care of two patients—the mother-to-be and the unborn baby. If, toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, he will take the child by inducing labor or performing a Caesarian section. His intention is still to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby will be premature … The baby is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger. (C. Everett Koop, M. D., as told to Dick Bohrer, in “Moody Monthly,” May, 1980.)

 

Comments

Great post... Wonderful to point out the inconsistency.. Please keep this up.. This is something that even I didnt think about.. Thank you for looping it all together...

The vibe I get here is that it's not about the possibility of dying, but rather about the possibility of making general staff.

Yeah, nothing more humiliating than an officer without combat experience. Love,

The vibe I get here is that it's not about the possibility of dying, but rather about the possibility of making general staff.

Other than the fact that we don't have a general staff per se, that is spot on.  It is all about careerist women officers.  That's why you'll have almost no enlisted women in infantry combat units.  But you'll have units full of men with a woman attempting to command them.  It is a recipe for disaster, even in a strictly utilitarian sense.

I agree with the post and the comments thus far. However, this is all fine and good if you think any of this is not about "a woman's choice" as the pro-abortion movement does. To someone who is pro-abortion it's as simple as; " It's my body. If I don't want to be pregnant, I end it. If I want to risk my life in combat, I risk it. It's my body." The "it's my body" mantra has not changed. It's that (terribly) simple.

Spot on. It's not about life; the abortion camp has already demonstrated that they don't care much about life. The argument about the life of the mother is a definite concern for those of us who value life. But for the pro-choice advocate, that argument is a sham; it's just a way to get at us by phrasing the question in terms of something they know we care about.

The real issue here is choice. One of the gods of the American Pantheon is consent. That's why you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who will oppose abortion in the case of rape. If a woman didn't have any choice whatsoever, only a monster would force her to have the baby, right? Right? And as long as she understands what she's getting into and consents to be on the front line, we have no right to tell her that her consent isn't valid. Right?

Elliot

Add new comment