I have written much on the issue of abortion, and do not plan to stop. It is hard to say that I am writing about “Abortion” though, because that word is an unhelpful euphemism.
Abortion is a euphemism for murder, for the murder of a specific kind of person. It is the violent murder of a baby.
Abortion is not only a wicked end itself, it also serves as a slippery slope to other wicked ends. The ideology and justifications for torturing and killing these babies can soon be applied to the other victims that the shoe also fits on.
For example, when we look at abortion, very rarely are people attempting to justify it on the basis of denying the personhood. The science has been a bit too overwhelming. But as any good presuppositonalist knows, evidence is hardly ever the thing that changes a person’s mind. So after succumbing to the evidence, the arguments have now evolved.
Most pro-abortionists now admit the babies experiencing the abortion are human babies with rights, but simply believe mom has better and more extensive rights. Eboni Williams admitted gleefully on live television that babies and mother’s are both humans that both have rights, but that she believes “the mother’s rights deem to usurp those rights [of the child].” Probably the most prolific public representation of this new mindset was written by a woman named Mary Elizabeth Williams. Writing for Salon Magazine, she published an article titled So What if Abortion Ends Life? In it, she argues,
“Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always. When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it makes us illogically contradictory. I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of ‘scraping out a bunch of cells’ and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of ‘the baby’ and ‘this kid.’ I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can’t we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it’s pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn’t the same? Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born” (emphasis mine).
Although what is said here is uncontrollably wicked, vile, and disgusting, I think most of us Christians applaud the honesty and consistency. This is the face of the new “pro-choice” movement.
The consistency is on full display now. No longer are the true motives for abortion and the understandings of the nature of the babies in abortions being hidden under the table. They are now polished and placed in display cases for passing by window-shoppers. The abortion movement beginning to be honest with the science, the logic, and the true justifications for why they murder these children.
Here is the slippery slope, now that the honesty is being set on the table, and the reasons for killing these babies are being aired out, the logic applied by the women above can be applied to others as well.
The reasons most people kill their children vary. They will defend their right to do so because the child is not independent. The child is completely dependent on mom, therefore it’s rights are not as important. As the Salon writer above states, they are not “autonomous.”
Some folks will be honest enough to call the child simply an inconvenience. They do not have the time or the money to take care of this child. So it must be in the child’s best interest to murder it.
Some may be behind the times and try to slightly reject the personhood of the baby. Unborn children look very different than us. They are in a totally different stage of development than we are. At certain stages of development, they have many organs and other bodily members that do not yet even work.
Here is the problem, many honest people in America could say the same thing about their grandmas…..
Jeff Foxworthy once told a funny joke commenting on the nature of life. The punchline was a bit too crude for my purposes, but the structure of the joke went something like this paraphrase:
When we are babies, we have no teeth and eat apple sauce. Eventually, we get old enough that we loose our teeth and have to eat apple sauce.
From apple sauce to apple sauce, the progression of a sin-corrupted life is an ironic and humbling cycle. We begin in a place of utter dependency, and end up in that same position. The scary thing is, we kill people who occupy that position in this country, against their will, every day.
What arguments for the fetus cannot be made for many people in their 80’s? Obviously this does not characterize every single grandparent. Certainly there are plenty of people older than 70 who act and behave like they are 40. But if you think it’s in inappropriate generalization then you explain to me why serving the elderly is such a difficult ministry to start and recruit for, or why it is even needed. You explain to me what the purpose of all of these nursing homes around us are. You explain to me why so many nurses and CNAs find working that job to be, while very rewarding, very difficult.
While many elderly people are very self-sufficient and mentally stable, many are not. Why can we not we kill those people? We are already killing the babies that burden us, why not kill all dependent people that burden us?
Why not murder all the apple sauce connoisseurs?
From a worldly perspective, the one which must be adopted to be pro-choice and simultaneously sleep at night, which principle of dependency and burdening above can I not apply to many grandparents?
I know many people who are burdened by trying to take care of their parents in their elderly years. It takes time away from work to be with them helping them do everything. It really is ruining their career opportunities and vacation plans after all. Some try nursing homes, but not all moms are financially ready to pay for something like that.
After all, what do many of these people contribute to society? They are completely dependent on others first of all. Many cannot eat, use the restroom, shower, or even get dressed without assistance from another. Some are so mentally handicapped that they can not even remember their grandchildren’s names.
It costs money and time to take care of them, all the while they are putting no money or work back into society. Would moms and dads not be better off if they had the freedom to just abort their parents?
On top of all this, their stage of development can be bizarre. They certainly do not look like me, and many of them have organs and other bodily functions that do not even work.
Hopefully you see the absurdity of the hypothetical sentiments above. Well, they are hypothetical to me that is. Those thoughts are already in the minds of most, they just aren’t, like the infant, fully developed yet.
But make no mistake about it: the mindset of abortion-rights-activists which allow the killing of someone they admit to be a person, someone they admit to have rights, someone they admit is innocent, can and will, apart from repentance, be applied to other innocent, image-bearers too.
Do not for a moment think sin wants to stop with the babies. Sin never wants to stop anywhere. Sin has no destination. Sin continues on a trajectory away from God until Jesus puts an end to it one way or another.
Sin has no interest in settling down and making home somewhere. There is no such thing as “enough is enough” when it comes to human sin.
This is why we must pray, preach, and fight until the Lord takes us home. For the sake of our nation, our children, our grandparents, and above all, for the Law of the Lord, we must fight.