In a recent movie titled, "Come What May" there is a debate whether or not overturning Roe vs. Wade is even plausible. Students from Patrick Henry College set out to construct a viable defense not only to win the Moot Court Championship, but returning for another semester is contingent on winning since the mother of one of the students (herself a lawyer) is requiring that her son win the competition; otherwise she's not paying next semesters tuition. The young man initially opts to take the easy road and wants to fight for parental notification as a means of slowing down abortions within the United States; however, he eventually decides to offer an argument to overthrow Roe vs. Wade.
The argument he offers is within the ruling itself. Abortion kills what is alive within the woman, otherwise it wouldn't be killing. Of course the issue of viability comes into question and the original court ruling allowed this argument to determine the final outcome. If viability determines whether or not killing is justified, one only has to place themselves in a different environment (let's say Antarctica) without any protection from the elements and according to Roe vs. Wade, killing any human being because of the absence of viability is justified. Location is never a precursor in determining whether or not killing is justifiable against any who are unable to consistently and effectively demonstrate viability and neither does it define what is and is not human.
I think, like many other issues, we humans complicate matters more than what is ever warranted because we search so hard to provide a defense for what are selfishness desires. Roe vs. Wade is no exception. Could we just look at our cultural norms for an answer? Besides, our cultural norms were created by us who live within the culture. If we created these norms then there must be some logic in continuing to uphold them and pass them on to the generations to come. Right?
I only offer one cultural norm as a guide to directing our thinking regarding Roe vs. Wade when answering the question of whether or not the act of abortion is actually killing a living thing, specifically an unborn human child.
Have you ever had a friend, coworker, or family member tell you that they had just discovered they were pregnant? They decided to share this news with someone special. Not just any bystander, but you, a person they admire, appreciate, love, and or they trust. And sometimes, well let's just say the majority of the time, after the news is shared, someone suggests having a party, or going out to celebrate the good news. Everyone is excited and the news begins to travel fast and the next thing you know, friends are texting or calling each other, blogs are being written all for the purpose of sharing the news.
But wait a minute. Why would we as a civilized society create such a cultural norm to celebrate the news of hearing that something that was not alive at all has just been discovered in the uterus of a female friend, colleague, or coworker? Much less something that was alive and growing that wasn't human at all. How preposterous and insane!
You see we humans, by nature have been doing what's natural all along without realizing it. We've been celebrating the news of pregnancy because its news of a new life coming into existence. News of a new human life. Our desire to communicate expresses life itself. Even pregnant teens who never planned for pregnancy want to shout the news from the mountain top. The desire to share the news, communicate the news, and celebrate the news validates the existence of life. We as humans don't do those kinds of things that have become the norm in our culture because someone has discovered they have a dead non human "thing" growing inside of them.
Celebrate Life!
2 comments:
Okay Bobby I will respond. (You know that apologetics is not my part.)
To understand the the abortion issue one must understand the root of the issue. The root is the science that states that human population will grow exponentially until the earth can no longer sustain human life. One can do a simple search on the internet using "exponential population" as keywords and find the formula for projected growth. The same search will yield broad conversation on human species management.
Roe vs Wade was about a womans right to privacy and her protection under the constitution with respect to her privacy. The whole case is a red hering. The issue for the intellectual or politician who supports abortion is not the life of the child but the life of the species. Thus, it is impossible to move them from their opinions on abortion.
The intellectual who supports human species management however must field the issue in such a way that the multitudes will grasp it. The issue is reduced to a personal level. The population is told that the law of the land restricts a woman's right to privacy and constitutes a violation under the constitution. In that way even those who would not abort children may simpithize with the group whose rights are being abused by others.
While we Christians swat at the red hering attempting to kill it, the human species management group moves to other issues. Global warming's use as a political issue is from the same root. The issue is that we are killing ourselves through over population. We are using up the earth's resources. That is why Obama in his first hundred days sent abortion money oversees to third world countries. Human species managers must reduce the world population to approximately 4 billion and maintian at that level.We are experiencing this human species management in a big way since the election. For further reading on the science a perusal of the works of James Lovelock would be helpful. An article on the internet titled "One Last Chance to Save Mankind" will get you started.
I have a question. What would cause mankind to destroy 25% of the population as the fourth seal of Revelation predicts. I also have the answer in a story about three scuba divers.
Many years ago I attended a class on scuba diving. My wife and I were living on Okinawa at the time. When the night came for us to learn about cave diving, the instructor told us of three divers who went diving in a cave and got themselves lost. The rescue team found the three dead. However,one of the divers was found with all three scuba tanks. Further, the two without tanks died of knife wounds. It appears that the one with the tanks sacrificed his friends in order that he may live a while longer.
I have another question. If some one has to die in order to save the species, who should die? I must point out at this point that Christians no longer control any major legislature in the world. Western governmental control has been overtaken by those that believe in man's ability to save himself rather than the Savior Jesus Christ saving him.
The afore mentioned question may be answer by answering this question: What group or groups of people in the world oppose human species management as a means of salvation? The answer is not difficult, it is religious groups. In 2 Thess 2:4 Paul predicts that a man of lawlessness would "exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship."
Okay, so I did not stay on Roe vs Wade. I did not because I am convinced it is a component of a larger movement.
Bill,
Global population control? If this is true, are the antagonists naive or intentionally trying to accommodate the Earth to people ratio? Or could there be principalities involved who are gradually enticing mankind (money, position, power, sex) in order to achieve the goal? Or is Christianity bankrupt and the only alternative is to create a red herring?
Is man inherently good or evil? That question will determine where man begins to address your argument. A positive conclusion will require both imminence and transcendence.
Post a Comment