Now, from the perspective of the journalists defending a consistent use of the term “fetus,” even when the term is inaccurate (see Gosnell coverage), here is the hard-news question of the moment. If the prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty for [Ariel] Castro in this case, who did he kill? What human persons with full dignity and legal rights, under this nation’s current legal regime, died during these alleged crimes?— Terry Mattingly
The church cannot expect governments or legal systems to get this right. From Dred Scott v. Sanford to Buck v. Bell to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has egregiously erred, asserting that the powerful have legal rights that cause permanent harm to the weak. God will hold those justices to account for this evil they affirmed.
The church cannot expect the educational systems to get this right. Eugenics was born in American and British universities long before it was expressed in the killing camps of Nazi Germany. Equally vile is the assertion being discussed in academic and medical journals that unborn children are not actually persons — an argument that is now being extended even to children already born.
The church cannot expect the medical establishment to get this right. Too often parents feel the pressure from doctors and nurses to end a pregnancy when a disability is discovered. Pray that God would raise up hundreds of medical professionals who default to caring for the mother and child, rather than pretending to care for the mother by destroying the child.
The church, those of us trusting in Jesus, we must get it right:
Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! (Psalm 127:3–5)
Church, please, do not let the language of law or property guide how we think of the children God gives us. Children — all children in every circumstance from every part of the world of every color and ethnicity and physical or cognitive ability — are not chattel. Children are not chattel. They are rewards and blessings from our gracious heavenly Father, for his glory and for our eternal good.
There is a wonderful irony here. It is this: The onset of individual life is not a dogma of the church but a fact of science. How much more convenient if we lived in the 13th century, when no one knew anything about microbiology and arguments about the onset of life were legitimate. Compared to a modern textbook of embryology, Thomas Aquinas sounds like an American Civil Liberties Union member. Nowadays it is not some misguided ecclesiastics who are trying to suppress an embarrassing scientific fact. It is the secular juridical-journalistic establishment.—
Please indulge the novelist if he thinks in novelistic terms. Picture the scene. A Galileo trial in reverse. The Supreme Court is cross-examining a high school biology teacher and admonishing him that of course it is only his personal opinion that the fertilized human ovum is an individual human life. He is enjoined not to teach his private beliefs at a public school. Like Galileo he caves in, submits, but in turning away is heard to murmur, “But it’s still alive!”
To pro-abortionists: According to the opinion polls, it looks as if you may get your way. But you’re not going to have it both ways. You’re going to be told what you’re doing.
Novelist Walker Percy in a 1981 New York Times op-ed.
Those who deny the scientific fact of when human life begins do so to avoid having to engage the troubling moral and ethical considerations of abortion. This can be a genuine cognitive dissonance or straightforward, cowardly dishonesty.
-“A lot of people like to sweep it under the carpet,” Jenni told me Wednesday. But, if commonly cited statistics are correct, hundreds of thousands of Americans walking around today were conceived in an act of rape. Jenni, and legions like her, raise a tough question for pro-lifers who don’t want to talk about rape cases. Her smiling face and growing family — she has three kids of her own — is also damning to pro-choice people who argue that abortion is a necessity for a woman impregnated by rape…— When A Horrific Rape Leads to an Innocent Life
“When someone like me … says, ‘I actually love this child. I actually see her as an extension of me,’ people view me suspiciously. They don’t see me as a legitimate rape victim…”
Prewitt quotes another congresswoman describing the child merely as the “product of such violent, vicious and terrible act.”
But those “products” have names and faces. And lives.
Mandating sonograms creates for “pro-choicers” an impossible intellectual, not to mention moral, dilemma. If they oppose women receiving information, they are censors. Pro-lifers are aligning themselves with truth in labeling and truth in lending laws requiring that information be provided to women (and men) in order to help make decisions presumed to be in their best interests.— To live or die ‘on the floor’ | WORLD Magazine
When abortion proponents stand in the way of women receiving information about such a critical decision, they place themselves where they say conservatives reside, in the land of intolerance and ignorance.
The response to this proposed legislation goes something like this: “You are insulting the intelligence of women who are smart enough to figure out these things on their own.”
“Fine,” I say, “then let’s remove labels from cans, bottles, and packages and do away with paperwork at the bank when a woman applies for a loan. Let’s also rip Monroney stickers off vehicles at car dealerships because women should be smart enough to figure out the price, options, and miles per gallon on their own.”
The reason abortion proponents don’t want women to see what their babies look like in the womb is because, for too many of them, abortion has become a sacrament. They embrace a right to kill while simultaneously denying the right to life. Showing a pregnant woman a picture of her baby in the womb, heart beating, can only enhance the possibility that the child will be given the opportunity to live.
She objected arguing that the unborn babies are not persons (are not “ensouled”) until they take their first breath and are no longer connected to their mother. This caught my attention. She argued that as long as a baby is physically connected and thus dependent upon his mother for life, the baby can be aborted. So I asked her to play that principle out in some hypothetical scenarios.
I asked, “What if the entire baby has been delivered except for its head? Should a woman have a right to kill the baby then?”
She replied, “Yes” (indicating her support for partial birth abortion).
I pressed further, “What if the baby has been delivered completely but is stillconnected to the mother by the umbilical cord. Should a woman have a right to kill the baby then?”
She replied, “Yes.”
I pressed still further, “What if the baby has been delivered completely, is stillconnected to the mother by the umbilical cord, and remains outside the womb for an hour while still connected? Should a woman have a right to kill the baby then?”
She replied, “Yes. If it’s still connected to the mother, it’s still a part of her body, and she has a right to abort it.”
I was astonished and informed her, “That’s infanticide, and that’s illegal.”
It was at that point that I realized that this conversation wasn’t about logic. It wasn’t about what was reasonable or right. This was just blind passion, and this woman had no ears to hear the cold inhumanity of her own position.
The encounter brought home again how indefensible the pro-choice position is. There is no morally significant difference between a person inside the birth canal and one outside. One is here, and one is there. But there’s no basis for arguing that one is human outside but not human while only inches away inside the birth canal (or for that matter in the womb). The pro-choice position is indeed ethically bankrupt.