I was wide awake and feeling well-rested at 7:00 this morning, which is incredibly unusual for someone who struggles to pull herself out of bed at 9 most days. So as I ate breakfast, I perused facebook and found a link to this article. I recommend you read it before you continue. Don’t worry, it’s not too long.

After-Birth Abortion

Are you disgusted? Because I am. Five hours after reading this article, I’m still fuming about it as I go about my housework today. This has really ruffled my feathers and just plain ticked me off.

For those of you who don’t know me, I am a firm believer that life begins at conception. That is, when the sperm breaks through the wall of the egg, the united cell is a legitimate human life. That human life has its own DNA sequence, its own soul, and is separate and distinct in being from the body of its mother. Throughout pregnancy, that child develops its own lungs, its own blood type, its own fingernails and eye color, and even the basic elements of its overall personality that will stay with him for the rest of his life.

You may disagree with me. I understand that. There are many people who advocate that a fetus is just a piece of tissue growing in connection with the mother’s body, and that such a tissue is not recognizably human. I challenge you to look for pictures like this one: a human embryo at just 6 weeks, with eyes, arms, legs, ears, and the beginnings of little fingers.

All of this to say, I am incredibly disgusted by the practice of abortion. To sound extreme and radical, but true: it is the cold-blooded murder of human life. Life created in the image of God. When we kill these children, we spit in his face.

But a friend of mine pointed out how desensitized we are as a culture to this mass infanticide happening in our backyard. It has become a part of “the way things are.” And that, in and of itself, is quite disturbing.

Enter this article. You may or may not have heard of Peter Singer. He is a well-known, and rather infamous, philosophy professor at Princeton who has become known for defending the “abortion” of infants up to 18 weeks after their birth. Yes, you read that right. These are 4 1/2 month old babies we are talking about. (But is this surprising coming from a man who wants to euthanize his own Alzheimer’s suffering mother?) Yet, even Peter Singer has drawn a line. He only advocates this method of abortion when it is in the interest of the quality of life for the child. For example, a child born with Down’s Syndrome that was not diagnosed with a test of the amniotic fluid during pregnancy can be put out of its misery, so to speak. I think this is an evil man clinging to the disgusting, but logical, conclusions of his system of “ethics.” But at least the man has drawn a line.*

But not these two. Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva have erased all lines. All bets are off. Now, following the pro-choice mindset to its logical conclusion, it is perfectly acceptable and to be encouraged to murder a child for really any reason at all. They are not really human, but only “potential humans” (whatever that means… but remember, I think they are fully human at the moment of conception) and as such won’t really care or even experience their own termination. No harm, no foul.

And in their minds, this is just as acceptable in the case of fully healthy human children with no foreseeable quality of life issues! The only necessary reason for this “abortion” to take place? The convenience of the mother or father. They don’t feel like having a child. They can’t afford a child. Let’s kill it. After all, giving a child up for adoption is so emotionally distressing.

Are you kidding me?

This should sicken you. Not only should it sicken you that human life in the womb is being brutally murdered, not only should it sicken you that human life up to 18 weeks is being murdered in cold-blood, but it should sicken you because the more acceptable this becomes, the cheaper all of human life becomes. Next we’ll be euthanizing 10-year-olds who can’t pass fifth grade, athletes with sports injuries, adults who have been fired from their jobs, the poor and old and infirm. After all, aren’t these, too, people who aren’t living up to their “potential” as human beings?

We desperately need to pray for our culture. We need to cry out to God about this injustice. But we certainly cannot just sit by and ignore this while it happens.

Grace and peace,

*Ironically, Peter Singer is a vegan because he thinks “Western-style meat production [is] cruel, unhealthy and damaging to the ecosystem.” (Wikipedia paraphrase, Singer’s original article here.) Whether or not he would say it in so many words, Peter pragmatically views the life of a chicken as more valuable than the life of a human child.


4 thoughts on “Sick

  1. warrenm says:

    Having analyzed this post, I won’t reply to the points you make, because this is a textbook case of differing premises leading inexorably to different conclusions. Because my own premises are almost diametrically opposite your own, we cannot come to a conclusion/compromise which would be satisfactory to both of us (not even “live and let live,” since we have different definitions of life itself, and because some ethical frameworks are only permitted the label of “ethics” in irony quotes in your world-model).

    So I have only one question: According to your own personal preference, what does a world in which people do not “just sit by and ignore this while it happens” look like? In other words, are these people acting in the physical world within (or without) legal means to change the laws in favor of their preferences?

    I ask this because it seems that you contrast inaction with prayer, a curious dichotomy given the historical efficacy of prayer to enact change as compared to actually doing something about things you’d like changed (with prayerful consideration, naturally).

    • meg says:

      Warren, you do always challenge me and I really appreciate that. It’s been years since I’ve interacted with you in person at all, and you seem in so many ways very much the same, yet so incredibly different than the Warren I knew in high school. That doesn’t surprise me; it happens to people over time. I will say that I’m curious about what has happened in your life that has brought you to a point of being “diametrically opposed” in your premises. All of that to say, you do ask good questions, and I find that refreshing and challenging.

      So, now that you ask, I feel that I should have described a world where people do not “just sit by and ignore this while it happens” in the post. I did operate on the, apparently, faulty assumption that most of my readership came from a similar philosophical/theological background to my own. Thanks for bringing a different perspective! I must admit that I was a little amused by your seeming surprise at the “curious dichotomy” in my contrast of inaction with prayer. I definitely understand the doubts surrounding the efficacy of prayer. For people who don’t pray, or who don’t believe in a personal, powerful, good God to pray to, it does seem silly to call it “active.” But for those who do pray to a God they believe in, it is very active and effective. Not only should prayer be part of our “consideration,” but if I really believe prayer works, then it should be the very first thing I do. Again, we may just be diametrically opposed in our assumptions here, so it might be an impasse. However, I will say that in my own experience, which I readily admit is not scientifically measurable or verifiable, prayer works. Not in loud, dramatic bangs of change, but slowly over years and lifetimes and generations.

      It is clear to me that God has an active hand in human history. I understand that other people don’t see it or believe it. Does this mean I’m “special”? Not really. Does it mean that for some reason I don’t understand fully God has shown me something very beautiful about his world? Yes. (Then again, that’s assuming there is a God who can do this, which I do assume.)

      Moreover, I think God is not only good, but also all-powerful. Not to bring up the old ontological arguments again, but those are two truths I hold fast to in belief. Does that mean God decreed a world where these things happen? Yes. Does that bother me? A little. Do I still trust that he is in control and bringing about good? Yes. Not exactly logical syllogisms for you, but again… still operating from different basic assumptions about the world and how it works. I’m trying, in a very stumbling way, to describe why I think prayer is in fact “active” and effective.

      Ok. That’s a lot of words that only kinda-sorta respond to one aspect of your comment. I’m sorry it’s not more concrete and analytical for you.

      As to the question about legal means, my answer in short is “not necessarily.” I don’t care how many people scream it, the U.S. is not a “Christian nation,” so I would not expect the legal system to reflect Christian principles. (However, as a caveat, we do “legislate morality” all the time. Murder is a crime. Grand theft auto is a crime. Some legislator thinks these things are “wrong.” We just don’t call it legislating morality. But that’s beside the point.) I think a more effective way to “be active” about this issue is to engage with people in conversations like this one. To stop and listen to what people from “diametrically opposed” premises have to say about what they think. (Sorry I keep repeating that phrase. I just really liked the way you worded that.) After all, legislation often reflects the ideas and ideals of individuals. I’m not suggesting we picket Planned Parenthood clinics or preach at people who advocate a pro-choice mentality. I am suggesting that I take the time to really get to know some of these people, care about what their lives are like, not condemn them for past choices they have made, offer connections to places where they can heal from bad experiences, pray individually for their own personal struggles, befriend them and really care about who they are.

      I clearly have very strong opinions on this issue. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn’t. But my bottom line is that I strive to care more about the individual people whose lives have been affected by this and less about winning some big theoretical argument. Do I always do this well? Not hardly. As you can probably tell, I can be very direct at times. But I hope, and pray, that I become more loving and patient and understanding so that I can have a positive impact in real people’s lives.

  2. Kara says:

    It reminds me of The Giver we spoke of recently. What was once an unthinkable reality is no longer fiction. It is sickening.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s