For the longest time, I have heard opponents of abortion argue that the government should let the states decide whether abortion should be legal or not. This argument is advanced with the hopes that at least some of these states would criminalize abortion. I am an avid pro-lifer, but I must confess there has always been something about that argument that has nagged me, but I had never thought through the issue long enough to put words to my uneasy feelings. A few days ago, in the simplest terms, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, comparing abortion rights to slavery, addressed his particular concerns with this argument:

It's the logic of the Civil War...If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong. For those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can't simply have 50 different versions of what's right

When I heard that, the light bulb went off for me. This was it! This is exactly why I have never been totally gung ho about this argument. Huckabee, in that brief sound bite, put words to my feelings, and he is exactly right.

Abortion is not a mere political issue. It is not on the same level as taxes or social security. It is more on the level of slavery. Abortion, like slavery, denies personhood to an entire class of people. It’s actually worse than slavery because the objective with abortion is the death of the other person, every time. While it is perfectly acceptable for the speed limit to be different from state to state, what kind of message is being given if you have infanticide being forbidden in one part of the country but being just fine in other states? Have we now reduced the issue to a matter of preference of the people from state to state? Have we reduced the issue to the same level as whether or not we should be permitted to drive 55mph or 65mph? Are we simply being pro-choice ourselves by letting the state make the choice?

On the one hand, a move to let the states decide could save more babies. In some states, most likely conservative southern states, abortion might be criminalized. For that I would be profoundly thankful because more lives could be saved. I would not fight such a shift.

On the other hand, I am concerned that a move to let the states decide may send the wrong message to America and reduce the significance of this issue. If abortion is such a deep moral issue, then we must not be satisfied with leaving this question up to the states. We cannot be satisfied with 50 different perspectives on the value of a pre-born baby. If we stop there, the pro-life cause has stopped short of what needs to be its ultimate goal, that every child be welcomed into life.

In the end what is needed is a heart change among the people of America. In the political sphere, the debate about abortion will never end. It will go on and on while more and more babies are executed. While the talking heads in Washington debate, we can make a change by taking our own beliefs and convictions into our own spheres of influence, sharing our hearts with gentleness and respect.

Ultimately, the answer to this issue is the gospel of Jesus Christ, not politics. The gospel is what truly changes hearts of stone into hearts of flesh. It is the power of the gospel that breaks down walls and brings reconciliation not only between God and man, but also between man and other people. We see in the Bible how the gospel breaks down barriers between Jews and Gentiles, and men and women. The abolitionist movement was informed by a Christian worldview, recognizing the value and dignity of all peoples because they are made in the image of God. I believe this same gospel can also break down the barrier between adults and infants. The message and transforming power of the gospel has always been the greatest hope for the oppressed, the disenfranchised, the weak, the underdogs, and the defenseless. Let us pray that more and more people in our nation will bend the knee to the God of Life. He is the answer to the abortion question.

Labels: abortion, culture, Demer Webb, ethics, morals, politics, worldviews

Dr. Albert Mohler has a very poignant post on his blog today about the practice of "selective reduction" within the larger context of the slippery slope of abortion on demand. Here is an excerpt:

[Dan] Neil and his wife aborted two boy fetuses in order to increase the chances for two healthy girls. All of this resulted from an IVF procedure and the option of "selective reduction" that is urged upon parents by many doctors.

As Neil explains, "We don't feel guilty. We don't feel ashamed. We're not even really sad, because terminating these fetuses -- at 15 weeks' gestation -- was a medical imperative."

That is a redefinition of "imperative," and the claim completely side-steps the moral responsibility of using a technology that is almost certain to present this awful choice. Furthermore, Neil and his wife used advanced diagnostic testing to determine which fetuses to abort.

Added to all this, Tom Strode of Baptist Press reports that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in Britain has allowed human embryos to be tested for eye squint. As Strode explains, "The news marked an ominous milestone -– supposedly the first embryo screening for a cosmetic flaw."

God forbid we should have kids with cosmetic flaws. I have said it before, but these practices sound as if they're right out of Hitler's Nazi playbook.

As for selective reduction, I guess I'll never understand the widespread acceptance of so many IVF procedures...regardless of the payoff. The price is just too high.

Read this important Mohler article here.

Note: I have written several opinions on the subject of IVF in past posts (as well as many on the subject of abortion). To read them, type "IVF" in the search engine at the top of this page.

Labels: abortion, David C. Price, ethics, infanticide, IVF, morals, Parenting

To give you another little taste of how twisted and depraved our world is, check out this Boston woman who is suing both Planned Parenthood and her doctors for a bad abortion...one in which she ended up giving birth to her now 2 year-old daughter:

The complaint was filed by Jennifer Raper, 45, last week in Suffolk Superior Court and still must be screened by a special panel before it can proceed to trial.

Raper claimed in the three-page medical malpractice suit that she found out she was pregnant in March 2004 and decided to have an abortion for financial reasons.

Dr. Allison Bryant, a physician working for Planned Parenthood at the time, performed the procedure on April 9, 2004, but it "was not done properly, causing the plaintiff to remain pregnant," according to the complaint.

Rather than giving up the child for adoption (novel approach that would have been!), she keeps the unwanted child and raises what is sure to be a little girl in great need of some serious counseling. So, we have a case where a woman who doesn't want a child, keeps it and then demands someone else pay for her to raise it rather than find a loving home.

Raper alleges in the suit that Planned Parenthood and Bryant were negligent for failing to end her pregnancy and that Eleonu was negligent for failing to see she was still pregnant.

Besides the obvious, this case highlights how absurd our society is in that there are actually laws in Massachusetts (no surprise there) in the books that make allowance for this type of lawsuit:

The state's high court ruled in 1990 that parents can sue physicians for child-rearing expenses, but limited those claims to cases in which children require extraordinary expenses because of medical problems, medical malpractice lawyer Andrew C. Meyer Jr. said.

This simply demonstrates some of the well-known problems with abortion and brings out questions of how unwanted pregnancies are dealt with. Personally, rather than awarding this lady a single penny, I think child-protective services ought to get involved, remove the child from the woman's custody and provide an environment in which it is certain that this child will be loved and properly cared for. After all, she's already tried to kill her once.

In an instance when this woman should be charged with attempted murder (in a sane world), she'll probably end up a very rich woman "caring for" a child she never wanted and probably doesn't still (in the insane world in which we live). Once again I say, God help us.

HT: WorldMagBlog
Full Boston Globe story here.

Labels: abortion, David C. Price, ethics, morals