The Age of Slaughtering Children: Roe v Wade's Legacy
Murder is wrong. Plain and simple. But, what is murder? Merriam-Webster defines “murder” as “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.” This definition is obviously related to the crime of murder, in respect to the penal code. In this sense, it is “against the law” to murder a person. Yet, the morality of the matter is more important, as it speaks to “why it is against the law.” Understanding the “why” is more important in the grand scheme of discerning good from evil. If we are to simply obey “man’s laws,” then society is ripe for a charismatic challenger to “man’s laws” to come in and undermine them. Therefore, there must be a Higher Guarantor of these laws. This is not to say that every law man decrees is of God, but that those decrees that come directly from God should be understood as such. They should be regarded as that of the utmost importance, always revered, respected, and upheld. On a side note, this does give much credence to the notion that man’s laws should not exceed, fall short of, or pervert God’s laws.
What is crime? Understanding the moral appeal within the offense of murder owes some attention to the subject of crime. Again, Merriam-Webster has an excellent definition of the word “crime,” stating: “an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government.” However, the definition does not stop there: “a grave offense especially against morality.” The second part of the definition is most important, as it goes back to morality. Why must we obey laws? Living morally produces a better existence for all. That is the best answer. For Christians, our answer is much higher, as we are to live by God’s laws to inherit eternal life. Not simply to avoid being imprisoned. What happens if the earthly threat of prison is taken away from the equation? Does morality’s reach simply wither away and die? Absolutely not! Just because a government does not recognize a grave sin against morality, does not then make such acts just and righteous! So, we are to understand that “crime” can be thought of as a stand-in for “acts against morality,” in a general sense.
What constitutes a person? Merriam-Webster: “human, individual.” Okay, so what is a human? M-W: “of, relating to, or characteristic of humans.” Also: “having human form or attributes.” Interesting… Not a word is written within these definitions pertaining to the limiting variable of how human a person must be to qualify as a human. To clarify one aspect of what I am saying, as previously stated, animals are not included in this “human-like conversation.” No “what about chimpanzees and dolphins?” arguments, please. Give me a break. Mankind simply cannot offer up a satisfying answer to the question: “When does life begin?” Science brings its own definition to the table, with its idea of consciousness, capability of feeling pain, viability, and the various multitudes of responses given on the subject. Yet, society continues to answer this question one of two ways: We do not know, therefore we either err on the side of life (pro-life) or on the side of the mother (pro-choice).
Now we have finally arrived at the most controversial point of this discussion, according to society. According to secular society, a woman’s right to decide what to do with her own body takes precedence over all. That is the foundation upon which their entire argument in favor of abortion is built. Without even delving into the idea of total and undeniable dominion over one’s own body, against which are serious objections, we can immediately strike at the core of this argument, setting the stage for the battle between the two schools of thought. There IS, in fact, another person involved in the decision whether to abort or not. There is no consensus about whether the child growing in a mother’s womb is a person, but does that mean the answer should defer to the “no” side? I like the way that Dinesh D’Souza puts it. This is not a direct quote, just my account from my own recollection of his words:
“The idea of erring on the side of murdering a child in the womb is akin to the scenario of hunting in thick woods, with a friend. If there is a rustling in the bushes, and I do not know whether it is my friend or an animal, what is the right deferral to make? Even if I think I see the characteristics of an animal, but I’m not sure, what am I to do? I’m not sure if what I’m looking at is a human. I simply do not have enough information. Who here would err on the side of my opinion? If, in my opinion, I determine it is likely that the form is not human, then shoot away, right? What if I’m wrong? If I’m wrong, I just killed my friend. If I’m wrong, and I err on the side of caution, then I wait until I know objectively, without question, that the form is or isn’t my friend before I make my decision.”
Now, I know that isn’t necessarily an apples to apples comparison, but it demonstrates the same line of reasoning pro-choicers are following. All the while, confronting most people with the truth that they are erring on the side of possible murder. Erring on the side of possible murder, while the alternative is what? Carrying a baby to full term, being financially responsible for them, charged with nourishing them physically, mentally, and spiritually? Sounds like a lot, right? Well, given the choice, I believe most people would hope their parents would choose to give their children (themselves) the opportunity to life, as opposed to making the decision for them. Why not be “pro-choice” for the unborn, but very much alive, child?
Without science’s arrogantly-supposed clarity on the situation, we are left to weigh the circumstantial evidence, if you will. I know most of what I’m about to say is relative, but it isn’t false. When a pregnant woman is murdered, do we not try the offender on the grounds that they have murdered TWO human beings? When parents or a single parent “wants” a child, do they not immediately, upon knowledge of conception, treat the growing child as though they are the most precious of all existence on earth? If it is a matter of opinion, is not human opinion subject to the most wicked of fallacies? Of course, all of this conjecture is why we have an omnipotent, loving, and just God to show us the way:
“For you created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be.” Psalm 139:13-16
Who are we to stand in the way of God’s will? If God is creating a child within the mother, then who are we to believe we have a right to shut that process down? "But James, they are not fully developed!" Who is fully developed? Fellow Christians: Are we not being formed by God throughout our entire lifespan? I don’t claim to know everything, but I defer to God’s word. I defer to life. I “err” on the side of life, because I am an imperfect and sinful human being. My opinion on the matter essentially means nothing, which is why I offer you God’s word on the subject. I only hope this can penetrate the hearts of those who believe, sparking inside them the light that can change the hearts and minds of those with the hardened hearts of this world. And to those with the hard hearts, open yourself to a better way. Start by humbling yourself. Start by choosing life over human opinions. We can end the age of slaughtering children, by confronting man’s wisdom with God’s.