Pro-Choice and Inconsistent

On Monday morning, twenty-one year old Emile Weaver was sentenced to life in prison for giving birth to her baby at her Delta Gamma sorority house, in Ohio, and then murdering her child by leaving it wrapped in a trash bag and left in a dumpster. The judge rightly convicted and sentenced the woman to life in prison. However, as I consider the implications of that ruling, I am in awe at the lack of coherence in our culture’s ideology. We sentenced a woman to life in prison for murdering her newborn baby by means of suffocation in a garbage bag – and most would wholeheartedly affirm the ruling – but, as a society, we would have affirmed her ‘right to choose’ the same fate for her baby had she only chosen to murder it by allowing a ‘medical professional’ to use a pair of scissors to cut her child’s spine, prior to dismembering its arms, legs, and head, in a partial birth abortion procedure. Not only could she have chosen that option without receiving a life in prison sentence, but the doctor who cut her child’s spine would have received a sizeable payment for murdering her child for her! How does this make sense? It is the epitome of a double standard and it is blind and incoherent reasoning at its finest. After I read about the sentencing of Weaver, I told a pro-choice friend about the case and she was mortified. I feel certain that her reaction would be common among the vast majority of pro-choice supporters, but, why? Given the pro-choice stance, would it not seem natural to affirm Emile Weaver’s choice, instead of gasp at it?

Pro-choice advocates often demand that others refrain from making negative moral judgments concerning abortion because they claim that morals are only relative opinions; however, they make their own negative moral judgments by claiming that those would seek to ban abortions are wrong for doing so. While they claim that legislators have no ‘right’ to tell women what they can, or cannot, do with their own bodies, they overlook the fact that every law that exists either directly or indirectly tells citizens what they can, or cannot, do with their own bodies. That is the expressed intent of every law in existence! Why is this particular scenario different than every other scenario in which the government has the ‘right’ to tell people what they cannot do with their own bodies?

It seems to be a very unstable and inconsistent state of mind that the Western society has adopted. We tout science as king and dispose of any sense of objective morality, until we enter the discussion of abortion and suddenly begin to tout, instead, our chosen “morality” (i.e that it is wrong to tell a woman what she can, or cannot, do with her own body) at the expense of science. The science that we disregard is the scientific fact that demonstrates that it is at the point of conception when babies receive their own unique human DNA and are, therefore, by definition, fully alive human beings. Although many medically murdered babies are less developed human beings than was Emile Weaver’s newborn child, the fact is that they are no less human. Consider the fact that a man born without arms or legs is no less human and valuable as the man born with all of his limbs intact. The level of a man’s development does not dictate the level of his humanity; instead, the presence of life dictates his humanity and worth. Still, there are many partial birth abortions committed against babies who are no less developed than was Weaver’s child, but their parents have simply chosen to murder their child in a manner that our society has deemed as an acceptable method, so society celebrates those mothers’ choices to do as they wish.

The conclusion that follows necessarily is that Emile Weaver’s mistake was not choosing to murder her newborn child. Rather, her mistake was that she chose the wrong method in which she would murder her child. Had she simply paid someone else to murder her baby then there would have been no legal question surrounding her choice and anyone claiming that she was ‘wrong’ to have made her ‘choice’ would have been deemed a bigot. Instead, she unfortunately chose an unfashionable time and method to murder her child, so she was sentenced to life in prison while I am certain that many in the pro-choice community recoiled at her actions. This is the definition of lunacy.

Contrary to what you may think, the primary problem is not that the wholesale murdering of babies has become the norm in our culture. Instead, the primary problem is that our society has chosen not to acknowledge any ultimate authority outside of the individual’s preference. They, in effect, undermine the government’s authority to tell people what they can, or cannot, do with their own bodies in regards to guns and drugs, so that they might lend an even greater authority to the preferences of people who prefer not to be inconvenienced by an unwanted child. I am not arguing that there are not more complicated pregnancy crises that have caused women to opt in favor of abortion, but that the vast majority of abortions performed in the name of convenience overwhelmingly eclipses those cases. Similarly, society affirms the authority of science in relation to its theory concerning the origins of humanity (i.e. Darwinian evolution) and the practice of medicine while it simultaneously undermines science’s authority by claiming that the act of murdering a living unborn human child is not the same as murdering the human being who is standing on a his front porch! It is clear that where there is no ultimate authority, there can be no real consistency.

The good news is that God anticipated this problem – not only in our culture, but in humanity at large. God knew that we would reject him and that he would be forced by his own just character to punish all those who have rejected him and his character, which is reflected in his moral laws. That is why he sent his son in the form of Jesus of Nazareth to live a morally perfect life. Although he deserved no punishment, he paid a debt to God that he did not owe, so that everyone who would believe in him and love him could put their trust in his payment and be free from their debts to God. Our debts have been paid and that is great news! The bad news is that everyone who rejects Jesus’ payment and, instead, trusts in themselves will be forced to pay his or her own insuperable debt to God. That is why I beg you to put your trust and love in Jesus and, thereby, to submit to God as the Ultimate Authority in your life. If you have not done that, please do not procrastinate. There is forgiveness to be found in Jesus, regardless of past failures.


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