Letter to the Editor
In the Beginning
Submitted by Kathleen Kjolhaug
Mother of six and grandmother to seventeen.
There are things in this world I do not understand. And for the life of me, I do not understand life issues nor what the issue is. Before the beginning of life, there is no life. We can all agree on that. Life begins at the beginning.
Another way to put it might be to ask, “When were you not alive?” In other words, at which point could you have been taken out of this world, and still enter back in? Once again, my guess is we would all agree that when one is taken out at any stage of development, one cannot move on to the next. I’m no scientist, but I can tell you what happens when my plants dry up and droop to the point of no return. They don’t return. Once they are no longer given the nutrients to sustain, they can’t maintain life. Babies, too, need their source of nutrients to keep developing. Those are facts.
As of late, there is a term that has been bugging me. It’s the word “enshrined” being tossed around within political circles. The definition of the word shrine is, “A sacred place that serves as a focal point for devotion or remembrance, containing relics or images.”
Isn’t it interesting that many states now “enshrine” into their constitution the right to abortion. Definition of enshrine: “To enclose in or as if in a shrine. To preserve or cherish as sacred. Enshrined can protect the right to an abortion, as if placing in a sacred shrine. It often refers to formally incorporating laws or principles into a constitution or official document.” Take note how we, the people, can protect the right to an abortion but we can’t seem to protect the rights of the one being aborted? Anyone else think that’s just a bit odd?
As if taking away life in the beginning of life isn’t enough, now some seek to enshrine the right throughout all stages of development—all. Say it’s not true—say it isn’t so. It is so, and it is true. So, what’s the issue? The issue no longer is whether one can or cannot have an abortion. The laws are clear on that. However, the root of the issue is whether one should or should not give voice to the developing child who has no voice but yours and mine.
Years later, when the lie of betrayal hits the rail and the mother of the unborn child wants to derail, who will pick up the broken hearted? Can they go back to their abortionist to get the help needed for that which was deeded? Evil gives the guise of solution, but in truth it’s merely pollution.
Is this where we are in the stage of development as a nation? We enshrine, as in the worship of lives taken? Have we turned to a new chapter in this Right to Life battle where we know full well what we do but choose to do it anyway? And if the argument is no longer whether it truly is a child or not, because we’ve always known life begins at the beginning—then I suppose we must rethink where we go from here. “Forgive us Father—for we know not what we do.” And when we do know what it is we do and do it anyway—then forgive us for desiring what we want over what You want. Forgive us for putting our own needs over the needs of those who need us. Food for thought.