Some of you may have heard of "Baby Grace," the two year-old named Riley Anne Sawyers who was brutally killed by her own mother, not long ago. Even before that, I learned that the girl had before been ordered by her father to call him "sir" and use other sorts of deferential expression that no two year-old could ever be expected to understand. Her murder and maltreatment were an appalling example of human depravity, and something that nearly every person, barring the mentally ill, would decry as a travesty and a horror. Most would consider the mother worthy of death or at least, for those who do not support the death penalty, long imprisonment.
In fact, although nobody likes to hear about a murder, we are especially horrified and angry when a small child is intentionally and cruelly killed by an adult. The helplessness and vulnerability of young children aggravates the heinousness of the act. Even a hunter lawfully hunting game, something which I believe is quite morally acceptable, will, if he is a sporting man, not shoot a very young animal. We feel an innate responsibility, a protectiveness, for the young. I believe, as likely most of my readers do, that this is a God-given impulse. Men and women alike, unless they bury or deny their natural feelings, want to nurture and protect young children. They are small, physically weak, untutored, and (bless their hearts) blissfully naive.
That I am even writing a post such as this, though, proves that there are those who deny or ignore these impulses and maltreat or even kill young children. There are parents who truly abuse their children, sometimes in terrible ways. Such is the condition of our fallen race.
This opposite and destructive impulse has extended for many thousands of years to life in the womb. If we have traced the beginning of abortion practices, I do not know it, but the ancient Greeks certainly practiced it, and it would be excessively trusting to assume that prior cultures did not do similar things. Like homosexuality, rape, and the like, abortion has been with us since Adam and Eve fell.
But many people, of course, tell us that abortion is very different from something like rape. They say, in fact, that it is quite the opposite. Rape is the violation of a woman's right to her body, whereas the act of abortion asserts that right. Abortion is absolutely not murder, but rather the extinction of tissue that would turn into a baby if allowed to develop. It is a perfectly acceptable choice to make, and cannot be compared with something like the murder of Riley Sawyers.
People say that they have debated and discussed abortion so often as to be tired of it, but Americans will continue to lock horns over this issue until it has been decided one way or another. The stakes are high, after all. If the pro-abortion camp is right, then we who are pro-life have tried to deny a basic right to suffering women, forcing a lot of hardship on them by burdening them with responsibilities for which they are not ready or which they do not want. We have also done no less than accuse them, the participating doctors, and the politicians and Supreme Court justices who support the practice, of murder--mass murder, in fact. No one, obviously, likes to hear such a charge, and most anyone is going to defend himself against it.
But if the anti-abortion camp is right, then the pro-abortionists have, I believe, a much heavier reckoning to make. Rather than making some women miserable, they have destroyed millions of little babies who would have grown to be both men and women. They have ruthlessly campaigned against life itself. Some of them have confused or indoctrinated women into ignorantly murdering their children, and many of them have done it blithely and of their own free will.
What have I to add to the debate? Besides another simple vote on the pro-life side, I have this. It has to do with Riley Sawyers and others like her. Why is that we execrate even desperate prostitutes who leave their children in garbage cans or strangle them, hours after their birth, while many of us vociferously campaign for the right to kill a child (just as brutally and painfully) mere hours earlier? The prostitute even has desperation and the pressures of her job on her side, but any sensible person, as far as I know, would advocate adoption over murder. Most mothers who abort their children do not have a similar kind of desperation on their side. Some of them choose to abort because their lives are directly threatened, or the baby is likely to grow up severely impaired or deformed, or on account of an abusive boyfriend, but I'm not talking about that here. I'm talking about the sort of women who simply don't want a child, not on account of desperation or mortal peril, but on account of convenience.
Isn't there a double standard here? Honestly, even other prisoners are a terror to the man who is in prison for murdering and abusing a child. Naturally, reflexively, and powerfully, we move to the defense of the young. In films (or in real life, though it likely happens less often), if a madman enters a house, brandishes a gun, and gives a terrified mother the option between dying herself or watching her daughter die, for what do we consider the mother more noble? Of course, for selflessly putting her life on the line. And we're not even talking about the mother's life in this case.
The truth is, most people on the pro-abortion side, if many of them have thought things through this far (and I honestly haven't talked to many supporters of abortion, or known them personally), seem to have convinced themselves that this very helpless life we are so zealous to protect becomes fair game when ensconced in a woman's womb. Instead of viewing it as more helpless, they actually view it rather like a tumor. Certainly it is considered part of the mother's body, and not a separate life form. (One is tempted to inject here that, although the woman bears the burden and pain of pregnancy, it does require a man to make it happen.)
The tumor argument breaks down rather quickly, as one might expect. If we compare an infant in utero to your typical tumor, the differences are numerous. We'll even posit that this everyday tumor resides in the mother's womb. One will find that this tumor does not move, kick, breath, or depend on a supply of placental material to survive. Even if the tumor could be induced to exit the birth canal after nine months--I'm sure many people afflicted with tumors would like that--we would find it to be what anyone expects a tumor to be: a blob of tissue. It does not emerge into the light of this world screaming and bawling, or kicking its feet into the air and waving its fists. It is inert matter. It never has been or can be made into something remotely alive.
A proponent of abortion will likely admit that there is indeed a difference between a tumor and a baby after birth, but before, she might argue, the differences are not so readily apparent. I roundly deny this for two reasons: one, there is absolutely no foundation to the argument that a tumor and a human infant act or even look the same way in the womb, as any ultrasound will make apparent; two, the extrapolated argument is logically weak and ought to be labeled absurd by any sensible person. Usually the argument by extrapolation works the other way. The baby is very much alive when born, so by rights it should still be alive in the womb. I could not go out into the Mt. Hood National Forest and smash up some eagle's eggs because eagles are endangered, and the embryos in their eggs are little eagles. Are we, simply because humans are not endangered, to skim off forty million of our progeny because we don't want them around?
Proponents of abortion have, whether they are willing to admit it or not, aggressively penetrated and casually besmirched with blood the awful and noble mystery of life. It is either unparalleled arrogance or unparalleled folly (and those may easily go together) that could induce anyone to violate such an unknown and sacred territory and pass it off as a brave thing to do. Perhaps they have, like devious pagans at the threshold of a temple, forgotten that the womb protects the embryo much as temple guards, rites, religious authority and a due sense of awe preserve the sanctity of temples. The Supreme Court justices who agreed on Roe v. Wade themselves admitted that it was unclear to them where life began. If you don't know, then never, like an impious coward, assume that you have carte blanche to carve up fetuses for your own convenience. We speak of the rape of the environment, but should we not rather be rethinking the rape of the womb? Far worse, I think, will be the retribution on their heads for the death of tens of millions of children than the felling of however many acres of rainforest.
People will try to tell us to shut up about abortion, whether because they are adamantly for it (and afraid of opposition) or simply tired of talking about it. But we cannot be silent. Anyone searching for some crisis in America, some blatant iniquity that must be redressed, can start right at the beginning--where life ends before it has a chance to even see the light of the sun. Not every Christian will feel a particular burden to fight actively against abortion, and I would never expect that. If you wish to further arm yourself to speak about it, however, even in day-to-day conversation, I have so far found abort73.com to be a valuable resource, although much of it is designed to inform the skeptic (but some of the information, and particularly the images, which I warn you are gruesome, may be new to you as they were to me).
We would fight to protect Riley Sawyers. Let us fight, whether in involved campaigning or simply wearing a T-shirt and being willing to argue, for those even younger and more vulnerable than she.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment