Let’s revisit Roe V Wade, shall we? As you know by now, I am the shy retiring sort who is loathe to invigorate any sort of controversy, which is why I stay away from subjects bound to foment passion or animosity. Over the years this particular topic has remained at number one with a bullet for a very long time—sort of the Dark Side of the Moon of touchy subjects. Rather than increase the bad feelings and polarize sides to even more outrageous extremes, I have decided to set the record straight, put the heart of the debate where it belongs, and thereby remove the animus from this long-standing question. Cool, huh?
First I suppose I’d better see if I have the argument straight. If at any time you think I have erred, veered from the salient points or made a mistake, feel free to stop me and correct whatever faux paux I may have made.
So, in a test case of epic proportions, a woman (Jane Roe) challenged the laws of
Tough call. The constitution doesn’t specifically mention abortion—or a lot of other things. We always hope the answer is in there somewhere, but it is usually best to err on the side of caution when it isn’t. But I’m in favor of letting a woman make that choice when a rape or incest is involved. Not that it’s any of my business, other than a vested interest in civilization.
The simple answer is as follows: Of course a woman has the right to choose. How could it be any other way? And of course choosing an abortion is the wrong choice 99% of the time. How could it not be? I’m not going to go into all of that “viability” stuff, or “it’s a human life” or “it’s my body and I can do what I want.” Well, maybe that last one. But those aren’t where the real answer lies.
The real answer lies in the nature of the choice, and under what principle the question of abortion is rightly embedded.
Is the right to an abortion vs. the right to life a political question or a moral question? If it is a political question then we stop the debate right here. The state has the right to rule. If it a moral question, the debate becomes a little more complicated. Now we have to decide what morality is, how it is created, and whose morality will hold sway. Dicey, at best. And we have to decide if moral precepts are immutable or changeable. Personally, I’m in the immutable camp. I accept the idea that morality is one of God’s creations, given to us as one of the tools to perfect our lives. Unfortunately, I can’t prove it, which puts a damper on my credibility. But let’s assume I’m right for a moment. What did God have to say about abortion? Nothing that we know of, at least not directly. It does say “Thou Shalt Not Kill” or “Thou Shalt Not Shed Innocent Blood,” depending on which version you look at. This commandment is used as the case against abortion, and it is a good one, if we accept the idea that abortion is killing a viable human being. Many of us don’t. But abortion isn’t the causal sin. It is a smoke screen, used to distract us from the real issue, which is, and always has been, personal chastity. And that the Bible does say something about. Oh, sure, I think abortion is a sin, but nobody cares. It just isn’t the big sin. The Pro Choice camp—if you haven’t noticed by now—is adamant, shrill to the point of frenzy, in their crusade to defend choice. How could anyone object to that, right? I mean, free will, the ability to choose, is the foundation of Christian theology. Unless you’re a Calvinist. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. This is universally interpreted as a commandment against sexual impropriety of any kind—pre and extra-marital sex, in other words. Fornication and Adultery. Once upon a time people paid attention to that idea. A lot of us may have fallen short of the ideal, but we were serious about trying, and remain so after the fact.
So, God told us—commanded us—to only have sexual relations with our spouse and within the covenant of marriage. The sin, the one no one wants to talk about because it would be too restricting to their lifestyle, is unauthorized sex. God told us to keep sex within the bounds He set, in order to insure the health of the family and the purity of the human body—a
But here’s the thing. The choice everyone is arguing over is the choice to have sex—not an abortion. The desire for an abortion stems directly from the first, causal choice, not the other way around. We demand our freedom to choose sexual promiscuity, then balk at the consequences. One of which is pregnancy—a baby. Once a woman is pregnant—except in the very rare cases of rape or immediate danger to her life—she has used up her freedom to choose. Sure, she can pretend otherwise, but the dilemma remains. She has “sinned” (and so has he) and now faces the consequence, demanding to exacerbate the situation by sinning again. The abortion is anti-climactic. It’s easy to hide the sexual impropriety, but not the pregnancy, which is why all the effort was focused on the latter; freedom to choose the abortion. Hide the evidence. It reminds me of Adam and Eve putting on aprons of fig leaves to hide their nakedness. Duh . . .
But what does any of this matter to all the secularists out there? The atheists, agnostics, the don’t-give-a-damn hedonists? Not much, I’m sure. Many people now believe that humans are just another animal, an organism and nothing more, making procreation nothing more or less than what any other living thing goes through as a matter course. Welcome to the Monkey House. (If you are one of those, why are you reading this at all?) If that’s the case, language is nothing more than evolutionary adaptation, a matter of survival, signifying nothing beyond marks on a page.
“It’s my body and I am the only one able to make decisions concerning it.” That’s how I feel too. Except it’s not true. It’s God’s body. The life force, the spirit, the physical ingredients—all belong to Him, were organized by Him, for the express purpose of allowing us to have bodies. Thus, any woman who professes the acceptance of Christian beliefs, really doesn’t have that total ownership she things she does. The same goes for men of course. And I would argue (along with thousands of others) that it’s our body until another body starts to grow inside it. A unique ability only women have and for which I am eternally grateful. Does the fact that a fetus cannot, as yet, make choices for itself negate the sure knowledge that it will be able to eventually? We have no problem with the idea of “eating for two” or filing two homicide charges against Lacey’s husband for killing his wife and unborn child . . . so why do we have such a problem with the idea of “existing for two?”
Now all we have left is the idea that abortion is murder, killing a baby. Once again, the whole thing is misdirection, sleight of hand. It’s not the abortion, it’s the misuse of the procreative powers. Look at it this way. Say life is a coin, minted by God, with death on one side and life on the other. He owns the coin. We all understand the death side of the coin. It is wrong to kill, to murder. Under special circumstances, the State has the authority to take a life, but even there many of us disagree with the process of capital punishment. But killing is wrong—this is a universal standard. Yes there are exceptions, like criminals, psychotics and the like, and war, which is another topic altogether. By and large however, we agree that killing is wrong, even if we don’t believe in God. I’m not sure why—no God no rules, right? Those of us who do believe in a Supreme Being understand that death belongs to God. He takes whom he takes. Accidents happen, people break and do something rash . . . whatever. No one has a problem with the concept.
The other side of the coin is life, which also belongs to God. He made the coin. This one we don’t understand as well. I believe (and this is a personal belief, not necessarily a Christian tenant, as far as I know) that God views life and death as the same thing. He made us. Life belongs to Him in exactly the same sense that death does. We know it’s wrong to kill in an unauthorized manner. But we are having a great deal of trouble with the idea that the creation of unauthorized life is the same sin as killing—just the other side of the coin. In other words, we don’t have permission to create life outside of marriage. The fact that we ignore that doesn’t change the reality of it. And the reality that we often choose to abort the life we create, only makes the whole thing worse—but the damage is already done. I don’t believe any life is born into sin—that’s not what I’m suggesting. The concept is just wrong. Pernicious. God is sending us here for a reason. That reason must be compelling because He lets us make kids under just about any circumstances at all. Freedom of choice again. But we are not cooperating. We keep killing the new people He sends. I wonder how that makes Him feel? I know how it makes me feel.
For the record, I am not condemning anyone. My heart goes out to all those who are faced with decisions like these. I understand the fear and guilt; I certainly understand the overwhelming urge that starts the whole thing. I’m no judge of the human heart. I love humanity, the very idea of it. I love infants, regardless of their origins. I love my daughters, all of whom could have had to face this situation but didn’t. And I would have loved them right through it all, stood with them, and honored whatever decision they made. After all, sin is a useful and necessary tool on the way to perfection. It teaches us what perfection might be like, it gives us experience, wisdom (if we’re lucky) and resolve.
Now, aren’t you glad you stuck it out to the end?
No comments:
Post a Comment