I don’t stand outside Planned Parenthood and yell at people. The very idea of doing so sickens me. I am not against the use of contraceptives. I think that the adoption process in the United States needs some serious overhaul. (It should be harder to adopt in terms of background checks and whatnot, but it should be easier to adopt in terms of expense). I am not against sex education, provided that it is actual education, not “don’t do it because I said so” or “here’s how to use a condom.”
So, while much of what passes as “pro-life” baffles me, I am with those who are horrified at the actions of Kermit Gosnell.
And yet, though disgusted by his actions, I am confused as to why Gosnell is going to trial.
In this country, we (in the general sense of the term) have decided that it is all right to “terminate a pregnancy.” A woman who chooses to have an abortion may do so. It is her “right.”
So, answer me this: Why was it wrong for Gosnell to ensure that the “fetus” the women had chosen to “terminate” was, in fact, “terminated?”
Cry infanticide if you will. I’ll cry it with you. But let’s really look at this. We (again in the general sense) have decided that a “fetus” is not a person. We have decided that “it” is a “blob” of sorts, a lump of genetic material. Nothing more than an extension of the mother. (Never mind that this lump of genetic material contains a chromosomal makeup that is entirely different from the mother. We ignore that fact). I wonder, then, when this “blob” suddenly morphs into a life worth saving?
There are those who argue that live babies that result from botched abortions should not be cared for. (Looking at you, Planned Parenthood). They should be left to die. As appalling as that is, the logic is sound. The “blob” is still a “blob.”
Because the blob isn’t wanted.
Ladies and gentlemen, our schizophrenic attitude toward babies.
They are human, precious and worth fighting for if they are wanted.
They are blobs, distractions, inconveniences when they are not.
So, what’s to stop a parent from, say, “terminating” the life of their 5-year-old if he or she has become inconvenient? Why is that wrong? Since we (in the general sense) have rejected the notion of a soul, of anything beyond the material, then that distracting 5-year-old is still just that “blob” of genetic material. Further still, he or she is still dependent on the parent. Isn’t he or she still then just an extension of the mother?
Oh, and kids who turn out to be autistic? Or those who have Down’s Syndrome? Or those who get hurt in accidents?
Let’s “terminate” them, too.
I hope you’re outraged at that thought. I hope that you want to throw the computer across the room. But let’s get real. Either a person is a person throughout all stages of development or she is not. We can’t have it both ways.
Don’t blame the abortionists, though. They are simply carrying out what we ask them to do.
The problem is us. You and me. We want to do what we want to do, when we want to do it and we don’t want to take responsibility for the consequences. It’s always someone else’s fault. It’s always about our personal happiness. Our goals. Never mind who step on along the way. Never mind who we hurt, including ourselves.
Never mind who we “terminate.”
Think about it.
P.S. – Lest you think that I cast a judgmental eye toward women who have had abortions, I do not think that this is an issue bigger than my own issues. I also don’t think it’s too big for God to forgive. I know that we Christians have done a poor job of communicating grace in this area, and I’m truly, deeply sorry for that.