Pro-abortionists often say they aren’t pro-abortion, they are pro-choice. That nobody is really for abortion.
Well, maybe I have a solution to all this. Those who want to protect the children from conception to adulthood shall hence-forth be called anti-babykilling. Those who are against the protection of children from conception to adulthood shall hence-forth be called pro-babykilling. They say we pro-lifers aren’t really pro-life because we’re not pro-life in every case. Some of us may support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, some don’t have a problem with the death penalty, etc. etc. Because, of course, just as they say that no one is really pro-abortion, we can say that we who support the war effort are not pro-war, and those who support the right of the state to sentence a man to death for cause, in principal never want to see someone die needlessly. So let’s get down to the nitty gritty:
The abortion debate is about killing or not killing innocent babies in the womb where they have no voice. So let’s call a spade a spade. Pro-babykilling/Anti-babykilling it is. But…
Some will say it’s about reproductive freedom and the woman’s health, not killing babies. Well, but what is the end result? A dead baby. We can see by statistical evidence that the vast majority of abortions are done for women who are inconvenienced by the appearance of another life in their lives.
So pro-babykilling/anti-babykilling is not the right dichotomy. How shall we present this dichotomy???
Let’s call it pro-God/anti-God. Why? Why not? By deciding to have an abortion, we are taking an act of God, the creation of a new human being, and deciding we know better than God. In effect, we are turning away from Him. That’s why the Catholic Church is so against abortion. It is one heinous crime to God. Abortion is also one of the few mortal sins that cannot be absolved at the parish priest level. That’s pretty serious. Even a serial killer can be absolved by a parish priest.
Part of being a Christian is knowing when and how to act. Just like that man in a previous blog who passed the starving child on the street, we need to be in touch with God to know our place. But it is never our perrogative to take an innocent life. That is always intrinsically evil.
Anti-God people often say that we pro-God folks shouldn’t be imposing our beliefs on someone else. Separation of church and state, and all that. They fail to recognize the fact that law is fundamentally about imposing somebody’s views on somebody else. Imposition is the name of the game. It is the very nature of law to impose particular views on people who don’t want to have those views imposed on them. Car thieves don’t want laws imposed on them which prohibit stealing. Drug dealers don’t want laws imposed on them which make it illegal to sell drugs. Yet our lawmakers are elected precisely to craft and impose such laws all the time. So the question is not whether we will impose something on somebody. The question is, instead, whether whatever is going to be imposed by the force of law is reasonable, just, and good for society and its members.
The second logical mistake these folks make is to suppose that because religion happens to hold a particular viewpoint, that implies that such a viewpoint should never be considered by lawmakers or enacted into law. Religion teaches very clearly that stealing is immoral. Would it follow that if I support laws against stealing, I am imposing my narrow religious viewpoint on society? Clearly not. Rather, the subject of stealing is so important to the order of society that religion also feels compelled to speak about it. Religion teaches many things that can be understood as true by people who aren’t religious at all. Atheists can understand just as well as Catholics how stealing is wrong, and most atheists are just as angry as their Catholic neighbors when their house is broken into and robbed. What is important is not whether a proposed law happens to be taught by religion, but whether that proposal is just, right, and good for society and its members.
In the United States we have stringent federal laws that protect not only the national bird, the bald eagle, but also that eagle’s eggs. If you were to chance upon some of them in a nest out in the wilderness, it would be illegal for you to destroy those eggs. By the force of law, we recognize how the egg of the bald eagle, that is to say, the embryonic eagle inside that egg, is the same creature as the glorious bird that we witness flying high overhead. Therefore we pass laws to safeguard not only the adult but also the very youngest member of that species. Even atheists can see how a bald eagle’s eggs should be protected; it’s really not a religious question at all. What’s so troublesome is how we are able to understand the importance of protecting the earliest stages of animal life but when it comes to our own human life, a kind of mental disconnect takes place. Our moral judgement quickly becomes murky and obtuse when we desire to do certain things that are not good, like having abortions, or destroying embryonic humans for their stem cells.