During the annual March for Life in Washington DC, the complexities of abortion always become a subject of discussion. As a man, I will never be able to fully understand all the emotions that go with being pregnant. I cannot even comprehend what it would be like to become a mother. And since I do not understand those things, my rationale is derived from a constitutional and spiritual perspective.
We all arrived into a preexisting ready-made world the same way. The same four-step blueprint ordained by our Creator has been used since time immemorial – God brought the woman to the man, the man saw that the woman was beautiful, the man and woman have sex, and they beget little Johnny. Generation after generation life perpetuates.
One night, or day, our parents felt the uncontrollable urge to have sexual intercourse. It could’ve been a relationship grounded in marital bliss to two teenagers fooling around to a criminal act of rape, incest or war. It may have taken place in the privacy of a home, in a local motel room, or in the back seat of a ’57 Chevy. Two people made a choice to do something that probably never took any time to consider the consequences. The choice to have intercourse probably met with little resistance. As the pair are catching their breath, neither is thinking about what happens next. Life is about to change for two people while a new life is about to begin for another. New life is sexually perpetuated regardless of societal events, race, or culture. New life can happen anytime, anyplace, and under any circumstance to anyone. God is sovereign and can step into anyone’s life and alter it circumstantially anytime He wills.
The properties and mechanics of human sexuality work the same way for all humanity since the program specifications were determined by a Supreme Being of super intelligence from the beginning. A male sperm meets a female egg. That meeting is followed by a spark of life. Neither the sperm nor the egg know what is going on except they were both created to operate according to predetermined specifications. Neither is capable of starting life on their own, but once joined together, a new life begins. Both cells are safe being separated but two people took an action of their free will in which the following reaction allows the two cells to meet. At that instant, at that precise moment, a spark of new life occurs. A future human being is conceived. We could say that the male and female makes the choice to have sexual intercourse, but who is responsible for the spark of life? Do two people making the first choice also have the moral right to make a secondary choice to end what they did of their own free will? What was the motivation to have sex? Helping God perpetuate the species was probably not very high on the list – if at all.
And then there are cases of rape, incest, and war. One makes a choice to commit a crime or atrocity; the other is not so willing. A sperm and egg do not know if the act of physical sex is a crime or not. But the Deity who designed and programmed the sperm and egg, the God of LIFE, does. In all instances where life erupts into existence, there is the Creator of life sparking new life. Who knows the mind of this Deity. Who can understand His reason for creating a new life under less than desirable circumstances? The prophet Jeremiah tells us of himself that before he was formed in the womb, the Creator knew him. Jeremiah’s existence, purpose and calling was preplanned. We could extrapolate from this one point that each human life is predetermined and contemplated by the Supreme Being who has an agenda of His own. And, we can never fully understand with our own limited human reasoning, why. The Creator of LIFE has thoughts above our thoughts. He speaks to that which does not exist and says let there be LIFE, and new life happens using two people who themselves were conceived in the same way becoming living beings.
Does a human have the right to override the decision of the Creator and destroy what He preplanned, what He conceived in His mind and caused it to happen with precise timing? Can a human agency such as Planned Parenthood rightfully unplan what the Supreme Being planned? Are there any consequences for this trespass? That is the moral question Iowa needs to consider. Again, I am a man and do not know what being pregnant would be like. I do, however, have a problem with using public dollars to pay an institution to trespass into the business of life belonging to the Creator. It seems to me that choice may invoke a judgment that I also do not want to be part of. Conception of new life until its natural death has this in common: Our Creator determines both the beginning and the end.
Check out the Constitutions.
Is there any place in those documents that mandate our state to provide for female reproductive choices? Is that a responsibility of the state? It could be argued there is nothing to prohibit abortion, but where is the mandate for the state to fund clinics with public dollars for the purpose of female reproductive choices? Being none, we should at this time cut all unconstitutional funding for female reproductive choices until such a time the Constitution is amended to justify such spending. Since SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade 1973, and the issue of abortion is up to the states to decide, we might as well have the discussion if we even want to fund clinics to provide abortion-by-demand or just allow it to save the life of the mother. In that case it would be an emergency situation in a hospital emergency room covered by insurance. The procedure would no longer be taxpayer funded.
For those that want to continue funding Planned Parenthood abortion-by-demand clinics with public dollars, it might be well to consider the sage advice of Chinese philosopher Confucius – If she spring on your spring this spring you have offspring next spring. Want to tempt fate? Why is that risk a cost that must be passed on to the Iowa taxpayer? It should be more like enter at your own risk. Personal choices should be confined to personal risk and consequences. Private pay for your own mistake if you will. You zigged when you should’ve zagged. If it’s a choice that is between God, a doctor and a woman, what does that choice have to do with me except to share pay? I would like to opt out. Private choices should be funded with private dollars.
The bottom line is 99% of the time, sex is a choice between two people, but 100% of the time new life is a choice of our Creator. For crimes of rape and incest, how about ending the life of the guilty instead of the innocent? Abortion could arguably be unconstitutional but lawful at present, but there is no constitutional provision allowing for the legislature to fund female reproductive clinics with public dollars. If elected and raised our hand to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, then funding should cease immediately for lack of constitutional jurisdiction. Limited government. A start to imposing those limitations is divesting Planned Parenthood of public dollars and scaling back the scope of HHS. Let’s abort public funding of unconstitutional spending! What other reasons do we need except to answer the moral and constitutional question? Infanticide has no place in a government that should be protecting innocent LIFE.
Rick Phillips
Pella
