Salvation Army openly supports abortion if child has ‘fetal abnormality’ or whose existence ‘threatens’ the mother
I have a message for the Salvation Army:
This child, with an extra chromosome, is valuable and worthy of life. pic.twitter.com/0cTNnmeR4U
— Anna Lulis (@annamlulis) November 25, 2024
Never give another red cent to SalVal, and this Christmas season, tell its Red Kettle volunteers exactly why—at least, that’s what I plan to do. According to a new exposé by the American Life League and via LifeSiteNews, the charity is not as biblically-minded and conservative as it pretends to be:
The Salvation Army’s positional statement on abortion begins with an overtly pro-life statement. But as one reads the complete message, more and more exceptions surface, raising serious concerns for those donors who do not wish to support abortion in any context.
So how overt is that “overtly pro-life statement” on SalVal’s website? See below:
The Salvation Army believes all people are created in the image of God and therefore have unique and intrinsic value. Human life is sacred and all people should be treated with dignity and respect.
Each and every single person has “intrinsic value,” which was endowed to him or her by a Creator higher than man, and therefore, each and every single life is “sacred,” commanding dignity and respect as members of the human race… except the ones who somehow don’t deserve that treatment—according to SalVal—like babies with a club foot, a cleft lip, an extra toe, or Down syndrome. And that’s just the list at this point in time—without an anchor in objective morality or truth, who knows where this ship will eventually end up.
I mean seriously, how asinine and paradoxical does it get? Do phrases like “all people” or “intrinsic value” have any meaning, or are SalVal’s executives just throwing out words that sound good?
The list of exceptions also includes this doozy: SalVal finds that it’s morally acceptable to murder the innocent child “created in the image of God” if the child’s existence “threatens” the life of the mother. As always, the language is conveniently vague, and with “mental health” now being wrapped into the “threatening the life of the mother” equation, the argument could easily be made to kill each and every child during pregnancy. If a woman claims that she can’t bear the mental toll a pregnancy takes on a mother then boom!—she qualifies. (Reminder, abortion is never medically necessary—if pregnancy complications arise, the answer is early delivery, and a premature baby dying naturally because he or she is too young or small to survive outside the womb is entirely different than shredding that little body to pieces during an abortion.)
SalVal adopts Third Reich eugenics, and I will have no part in it.
If you are not already a subscriber, you may not know that we’ve implemented something new: A weekly newsletter with unique content from our editors for subscribers only. Please consider supporting our work by becoming a member today.
Image: Free image, Pixabay license.