Monday, January 25, 2010

Too small...to Love?



Would You Love Me?
(by R.P.Edwards)

Would you love me
Without my name?
Would your caring
Be the same?
Would you love me
Without my face?
Would your heart
Still have a place?
Would you love me
Though I’m new?
No memories stored
No…me…and you?
Would you love me
Without my touch?
Would my dying
Mean as much?
Would you love me
Just ’cause I am?
No link to you
Just in His plan?
Would you love me?
Oh, please, please do
For, with the chance
I’ll love you…too.

Picture your son, your daughter, your niece, nephew, cousins by the dozen.  Picture all those you care about, know about. Love.  Now, think about life without them.  Think about the cord…cut.  Think about the unthinkable…their sudden death.  Of course there would be sadness, grief, mourning, despair, depression.  Why? Because you know them; love them; cherish them; and they are…gone.

Now, a question:  Is their worth as a person dependant on your “love” and association?  Or, is there an intrinsic “value” in their personhood, their humanity?  The answer has to be, must be, the latter.   Indeed, we as a society have deemed it so.  A person is a person, regardless of age or association or…attachments.

Now, picture those you love the most as a newborn, just moments from the womb.  Are they not just as much a person then…as now?  Of course.  Now, picture this “loved one” one minute “before” birth; one hour “before” birth; one week “before” birth.  Are they any less human?  Are they any less the person that will, if given the chance, become your hearts desire?  Of course not.

Do you see the problem we have with abortion?  Do you see the dreadful dilemma thrust upon us by seven black-robed jurists who, in their omnipotence, declared that “personhood” is defined by ones position in relation to the birth canal?

And so we have the trial of Scott Roeder, a middle-aged Midwestern fellow who, on a Sunday morn, walked into a church and shot a man…dead.  This was no ordinary victim, however (if there is such a thing).  No, he was Dr. George Tiller; to many, the infamous late-term abortionist known as “Tiller the baby killer.”  However, to others he was a champion of “choice.”  Since there is no question associated with the deed, or doer, it now comes down to the sentencing.  There’s “First Degree Murder” (seems obvious); or “Voluntary Manslaughter” which is defined as, “an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force.”  Mr. Roeder’s stated reasoning is that killing Dr. Tiller…saved lives; the lives of children not yet born.  So, the rendering of a verdict of  Voluntary Manslaughter also seems--at least to this observer-- plausible.  Indeed, I will be interested to see just how the defense and prosecution approach the motivation factor of the accused.  Whether the jury will be granted full discloser as to Dr. Tiller’s grizzly vocation.  Information the accused apparently obsessed over.

As an aside: the presiding judge has stated clearly that this trial will not be allowed to be a battle over abortion.  But that, sir, is exactly what it will become.

That's what I think.  How about you?  Click comments below...and say.

2 comments:

justaddmidget said...

How does the Tiller case make you feel? If you think about it long enough, someone could use this excuse for murdering the person who developes guns, ammo, knives, or vehicles for that matter. Come on, right, if there is a salary involved someone will fill the postion. Right or wrong. Drug dealers wouldn't push if there wasn't money in it.

R.P. Edwards said...

The slippery slope. Sure, the "definition" can be expanded to include everything. I'd be interested to read exactly what the legislators had in mind. However, it's on the books...and I expect the defense to run with it. As for Mr. Tiller, he killed babies..."viable babies"...for a living. Using the most ghastly means (check out "partial birth abortion.") I do "not" approve, however, of vigilante justice.