P.O. Box 582 u Brentwood, TN 37024  u  (904) 200-1671

Home  |  Gospel  |  Pastor's Pen  |  Doctrinal  |  Calvinism  |  About

Thank You, Michael Vick!

As the media obsession with NFL superstar Michael Vick continues, I’d like to take the opportunity to say “Thanks!” to the Atlanta Falcons (and now Philadelphia Eagles) franchise quarterback for exposing the flagrant hypocrisy of those in our nation who support a woman’s right to an abortion on demand. Vick has been indicted on several counts with regard to illegal dog-fighting activities, including everything from wagering (up to $25,000 on some fights) to the brutal execution (electrocution, drowning, etc.) of those dogs that under-performed in the arena. Yet misguided women and their accomplices who opt to execute their unborn children remain legally protected from indictment due to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision of January 22, 1973.

What is the argument offered by the right-to-choose crowd? In a word, it is privacy. If you have ever observed liberals on the Senate Judiciary Committee grilling Supreme Court nominees, you know that the number one litmus test is whether the nominee believes the Constitution provides for a right to privacy. Liberals and secularists worship at the altar of abortion. To them it is sacrosanct! They argue there is nothing more private than a woman’s body—including a fetus—and what she chooses to do with it.

Now, let’s suppose for a moment that Michael Vick decided to use the right-to-privacy argument in his defense. After all, those dogs were indeed his personal and private property. Why should he not have the ability to do with his private property on his private property what he chooses? Why should not Michael Vick be given a pass for a few pit bulls when, for the last 34 years, the highest court in our land has given women a pass on the destruction of a human life?

The hypocrisy in this issue was perfectly illustrated by Robert Byrd when he stood before the Senate and declared Vick’s alleged acts to be “Barbaric! Barbaric!”, and did so with an animated fervor seldom seen in Spirit-filled preachers! I’m not saying that Byrd is wrong in his assessment. What I am affirming is that failure to apply the same standard to unborn children is moral blindness and hypocrisy of the first order!

The Republican and Democrat presidential debates for the 2008 race are well underway. In conspicuous fashion, moderators of these events typically ask Republican candidates to answer some sort of question about abortion in an effort to portray them as anti-privacy candidates. Democrats are seldom if ever asked an abortion question simply because it is a well-known fact that the sine qua non of Democrat leadership is an unqualified commitment to abortion.

This is one reason why Rudy Giuliani is so frustrating to evangelicals. While we admire him for a strong position on national security, we find it rather disconcerting that he more or less aligns himself with the Democrats on the matter of abortion, citing privacy and legal precedent.

The main problem with the abortion debate in this nation is the lack of an articulate candidate who truly believes that life begins at conception. The conservative man or woman who could make this case in a persuasive and unapologetic manner to a national audience could conceivably change the course of American history. May our gracious Lord bring such a candidate to the forefront of our national affairs!

Now, there is enough libertarian in me to understand and appreciate the privacy argument. But in no way should right-thinking men and women extend the argument for privacy to include the sacred and innocent human life that makes its abode in the womb of its mother by no choice of its own. It is high time—yea, past time—that we grant to precious unborn human life the same legal protections so readily afforded to bulldogs. Our thanks to Michael Vick for unwittingly exposing the hypocrisy that prevents this from happening.

Top