October 18, 2017

Abuse, Abortion and Bigotry

By Larry Ray Hafley

The number of reported child abuse cases in the USA rose 8% between 1991 and 1992, the National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse reported Tuesday.

An estimated 2.9 million children were reported to child protective service agencies in 1992, says Deborah Daro  about 213,000 more than in 1991. Numbers have been rising for the last two years.

... Increasing abuse statistics don't simply reflect improving reporting methods, Daro says. The country `truly has additional children at risk. The public is reporting things they have not seen before.

... Eighty-four percent of fatalities are among children under 5; 43% under one year (USA Today, April 7, 1993, p. D 1).

Did we get cheated, or what? I thought abortion, nearly a million and a half per year, was supposed to take care of the problem of child abuse. I thought we were told that child abuse occurred because so many unwanted babies were being born. I thought we were told that if we could simply abort the unwanted ones we would lessen the problem of child abuse. That is what we were told. What is the result? According to the liberals, abuse is expanding. It is even worse, according to them, than before. What has happened to the abortionists' argument?

The fact is that when you kill an unborn baby (Excuse me. I just had a momentary lapse in my sensitivity training. I should have said, "When you excise a mass of fetal material." Saying that is less offensive to those who want to kill babies), you lessen respect for life, for babies, for children in general. So, why be surprised when the child abuse statistics sky rocket?

It is the same regarding capital punishment. When you contend against it, you are made to appear as one who is respectful of life. The opposite is true. You cheapen the value of life when you refuse to acknowledge that a murderer, one who has taken a life, has forfeited his right to live (Gen. 9:6). Some women, because of their "animal rights" philosophy, will not wear a fur coat lest a fox or a mink should die. That same woman, however, will go and have her unborn baby's body suctioned or cut out of her body while she lights a candle for a murderer who is to be executed. Hey, lady, what if that murderer wore rabbit fur-lined gloves when he committed his crime? Can we execute him for causing a rabbit to die even if we cannot do so for his killing of a human being? It makes me so upset that I feel like eating a big steak, even though it may cause me to loosen my leather belt another notch to do so, not to mention the fact that I will have to take out my cowhide wallet to pay for it.

I am afraid to ask, but if it is proper to kill a four-month old fetus in order to prevent its abuse, could we kill a four day old baby to prevent it from being abused by unworthy parents?

Bigots Have Gone Too Far

Under the above heading, a letter to the editor appeared in the "Houston Chronicle," April 8, 1993, p. 29A.

Bigots have gone too far. These hate-filled people are obviously unaware of the great level of self-respect gay men and lesbians have, particularly in the face of a society that works so hard to dehumanize them.

It is unfortunate that so many people cannot maintain self-respect through their own merits. Rather, they must maintain a sense of self-worth by arbitrarily defining as inferior those with characteristics different from their own.

Let us transfer the words above to pedophiles (those who crave fornication with children) and to "exhibitionists," or "flashers" (those who achieve pleasure by exposing their bodies to others). If the writer of the letter cited above is opposed to pedophilia, child pornography and to those who expose themselves (I realize that is a big "if"), how would he answer his letter? Suppose we said of him and his opposition to sexual abusers of children:

Bigots have gone too far. These hate-filled people are obviously unaware of the great level of self-respect pedophiles, child-porno addicts and "flashers" have, particularly in the face of a society that works so hard to dehumanize them.

It is unfortunate that so many people cannot maintain self-respect through their own merits. Rather, they must maintain a sense of self-worth by arbitrarily defining as inferior those with characteristics different from their own.

It would be interesting for the letter writer to give an answer to his own words, would it not?

Anyone who disagrees with his judgment is a "bigot." Anyone who does not hold to his views of immorality is "hate-filled." Is the letter writer a "hate-filled" "bigot" who is "unaware of the great level of self-respect godly men and women have, particularly in the face of a society that works so hard to debauch them? It is unfortunate that so many people (like our letter writer) cannot maintain self-respect through their own merits. Rather, they must maintain a sense of self-worth by arbitrarily defining as inferior those with moral standards different from their own.

I am sure that homosexuals have a sense of self-respect and self-worth. I am sure that pedophiles, child pornography publishers and exhibitionist flashers who expose themselves to children on the school yard also have a high degree of self-respect and self-worth. Their "glory is in their shame" (Phil. 3:19). No one defines them as inferior or as sub-human. No one hates them. Their lusts and passions are sins. Their feelings about themselves, i.e., their self-worth or self-respect, are not the issue. One does not hate them because he opposes their immoral deeds. One does not seek to dehumanize a pedophile when he challenges his conduct (Eph. 5:11).

Perhaps our letter writer does. I do not know about him, and I cannot speak for him. I would appreciate it if he would not presume to speak for me. Maybe, though, he cannot help it. Maybe he was born to so judge people. Maybe he did not seek to be a "hate-filled" "bigot" when it comes to those who disagree with his beliefs and opinions; maybe he was just "born that way." (That is the reason homosexuals tell us that they are the way they are. They cannot help it. They were "born that way.") Surely, he has a great level of self-respect and self-worth despite the fact that he must arbitrarily define as inferior those with moral standards different from his own.

What of those of us whom he labels as "hate filled" "bigots"? Did it ever occur to our letter writer that perhaps we, to, are "born" to be "hate filled" "bigots"? What if we seek to excuse our alleged hatred and bigotry with the plea that we cannot help it; we were born this way? Would that be sufficient justification? No, it would not. It is a moral choice. And, so, is morality and homosexuality. They are moral choices. We have made ours. They have made theirs. We will not be silenced into acceptance of their sins. Their attempts to belittle and humiliate us with their disparaging, pseudo-sophisticated terminology will not work. We shall continue to oppose and expose their immorality and to show the absolute foolishness of their lame and vain attempts to justify themselves in their sins.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 14, p. 22-23
July 21, 1994

Share