Tomorrow will again mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 court decision that invented and legalized a woman's "right to privacy", including the decision to abort her unborn child. Thirty-five years and untold thousands of aborted babies later, the battle of "choice" or "life" has taken a new turn.
Today's news includes a story from the Washington Post, with the following statement: "The French abortion pill RU-486, on the market since 2000, has become an increasingly common alternative, making abortion less clinical and more private." Now, for about the same expense of an average clinical abortion, a woman can commit infanticide in the privacy of her home. One woman interviewed for the story said, "I chose it because it seemed like a more natural way."
Is there a "natural way" to murder a human being? Apparently so, in the thinking of many who have come to view the unborn child as mere "tissue" in a woman's body. Her body, her choice. So goes the mantra of those who believe this decision to terminate a pregnancy is a "private" choice of the pregnant person. The unborn person, the one that makes the difference between pregnant and not-pregnant, is not part of the decision for the pro-choice position.
And this is so even for many who would not personally want an abortion for themselves or for a loved one. Senator John Kerry, recent presidential contender, expresses this dichotomy of the pro-choice position, saying, "I believe that choice is a woman's choice. It's between a woman, God and her doctor."
I doubt Kerry would leave the choice of a burglar, standing outside the senator's house, to whatever goes on between the thief and God. I think I know how the senator would interpret the law on that point; and, for His part, God has spoken pretty clearly on the subject of theft, and as well for the personhood of the unborn.
Speaking of Samson, God said, "For behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and no razor shall come upon his head, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb" (Judges 13:5) Of the prophet Jeremiah, God said, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5) No legal wrangling or judicial decision can negate the clear authority of God's Word on the subject of who is a person and who is not.
And that's just where the question must hang - on the "personhood", or not, of the unborn child. Justice Harry Blackmun, writing for the majority in Roe v. Wade, comments on the question of the humanity of the fetus as it relates to the 14th Amendment's right to due process. He states well, "If this suggestion of personhood [of the fetus] is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." But then Justice Blackmun goes on to state the majority opinion, based partly on their reading of the U.S. Constitution and partly on the legal precedents concerning abortion, that "...the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." The justices preferred to interpret meanings of human law rather than attempt to unravel controversies of religion and culture.
But even with this legal decision, binding as it has been on all subsequent law, the ambiguity of fetal identity remains unresolved in the courts and halls of government. A law passed in 2004 states the legal personhood of the fetus in unmistakeable language. "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence." (Wikipedia.com) Yet, despite the obvious identification of humanity, necessary to be called a "legal victim," the law then goes on to speak of the fetus from the other side of its legal mouth, saying, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution...of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman...has been obtained."
What??? So, it's O.K. for a woman to deliberately terminate her "child in utero", maybe for as little reason as because she simply doesn't want to have a baby, but it's a crime for someone to accidentally take the fetus' life if it's during the act of a "crime of violence." (Like abortion is not an "act of violence", huh?) Even the pro-choice Senator Kerry smelled something rotten in this ruling, saying, "I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and [at the same time] protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy."
Our government cannot seem to resist putting human authority, however arrived at in the verbose rulings of judges (and Roe v. Wade is nothing if not verbose!), ahead of the concise and clearly worded statements of God Almighty. The only consolation in this is that all those little persons who were never permitted to exercise their own choice will, I believe, be waiting for us in heaven, already enjoying the presence of a loving God who knew them in the womb.
Today's news includes a story from the Washington Post, with the following statement: "The French abortion pill RU-486, on the market since 2000, has become an increasingly common alternative, making abortion less clinical and more private." Now, for about the same expense of an average clinical abortion, a woman can commit infanticide in the privacy of her home. One woman interviewed for the story said, "I chose it because it seemed like a more natural way."
Is there a "natural way" to murder a human being? Apparently so, in the thinking of many who have come to view the unborn child as mere "tissue" in a woman's body. Her body, her choice. So goes the mantra of those who believe this decision to terminate a pregnancy is a "private" choice of the pregnant person. The unborn person, the one that makes the difference between pregnant and not-pregnant, is not part of the decision for the pro-choice position.
And this is so even for many who would not personally want an abortion for themselves or for a loved one. Senator John Kerry, recent presidential contender, expresses this dichotomy of the pro-choice position, saying, "I believe that choice is a woman's choice. It's between a woman, God and her doctor."
I doubt Kerry would leave the choice of a burglar, standing outside the senator's house, to whatever goes on between the thief and God. I think I know how the senator would interpret the law on that point; and, for His part, God has spoken pretty clearly on the subject of theft, and as well for the personhood of the unborn.
Speaking of Samson, God said, "For behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and no razor shall come upon his head, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb" (Judges 13:5) Of the prophet Jeremiah, God said, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5) No legal wrangling or judicial decision can negate the clear authority of God's Word on the subject of who is a person and who is not.
And that's just where the question must hang - on the "personhood", or not, of the unborn child. Justice Harry Blackmun, writing for the majority in Roe v. Wade, comments on the question of the humanity of the fetus as it relates to the 14th Amendment's right to due process. He states well, "If this suggestion of personhood [of the fetus] is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." But then Justice Blackmun goes on to state the majority opinion, based partly on their reading of the U.S. Constitution and partly on the legal precedents concerning abortion, that "...the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." The justices preferred to interpret meanings of human law rather than attempt to unravel controversies of religion and culture.
But even with this legal decision, binding as it has been on all subsequent law, the ambiguity of fetal identity remains unresolved in the courts and halls of government. A law passed in 2004 states the legal personhood of the fetus in unmistakeable language. "The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence." (Wikipedia.com) Yet, despite the obvious identification of humanity, necessary to be called a "legal victim," the law then goes on to speak of the fetus from the other side of its legal mouth, saying, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution...of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman...has been obtained."
What??? So, it's O.K. for a woman to deliberately terminate her "child in utero", maybe for as little reason as because she simply doesn't want to have a baby, but it's a crime for someone to accidentally take the fetus' life if it's during the act of a "crime of violence." (Like abortion is not an "act of violence", huh?) Even the pro-choice Senator Kerry smelled something rotten in this ruling, saying, "I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and [at the same time] protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy."
Our government cannot seem to resist putting human authority, however arrived at in the verbose rulings of judges (and Roe v. Wade is nothing if not verbose!), ahead of the concise and clearly worded statements of God Almighty. The only consolation in this is that all those little persons who were never permitted to exercise their own choice will, I believe, be waiting for us in heaven, already enjoying the presence of a loving God who knew them in the womb.
That raises a lot of questions, I know, such as the age-old conundrums about heaven and about God's sovereign permission of heinous acts of evil in this present world. But we should perhaps first try to solve the question of human legal permission for those who would rob an unborn person of that most human of qualities - making an individual and personal choice to live.
No comments:
Post a Comment