Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this guest post are solely those of the guest author.
As I watch my first grandchild, born today, my thoughts about life for the most innocent of all people and the very troubling approach that many pro-lifers use to promote that message.
The standard answer for a pro-lifer as to when life begins is at conception. This is a scientific and Biblical truth that makes us wonder why the rest of the world does not see this clear answer to a fundamental question. Another common statement is that abortion kills the child, innocent person or child in the womb. Unfortunately, the words and actions of many who hold these views show great inconsistency.
The world, including clearly pro-lifers, should be outraged when a child is killed outside the womb. They want justice. The media and society at large pay utmost attention to the results of this heinous act and often cover the legal side of it in detail.
In comparison, a large number of pro-life individuals and organizations are perfectly fine with having more limited charges brought against people involved in killing a child in the womb. They rarely call for penalties against the mother who goes to an abortion facility to kill her child. There seems to be no outcry from those who believe in the sanctity of life to have a law that charges an abortionist with murder.
Furthermore, how many in the pro-life field publicly state that killing a person in the womb at any stage should be considered the same as killing a born person? Pro-life bills around the country usually have a specified week limit that any child in the womb can be killed before that specific time. Pro-life organizations promote, write legislation, and applaud when a heartbeat, 12- or 15-week bill passes a legislature. They have a happy celebration when one is passed and signed by a governor. Although the heartbeat bill is the best of those options, abortions still happen before that, and most happen before 12 or 15 weeks. Also, many pro-lifers, especially lawmakers, are willing to add exceptions, such as rape, incest, or the normal life and health of the mother.
The incremental v. abolition debate has been going on for decades, and those on the incremental side will say that’s all they’ll get when there’s a political solution to this most egregious violation of human rights. I think too many well-intentioned pro-lifers get caught up in the inertia of the political process, but they really need to step back and examine their beliefs. In truth, what these pro-lifers are saying is that they have the same view of the child in the womb as those on the pro-abortion side.
The conclusion, by their actions, is that the person in the womb does not deserve the same treatment as the one outside the womb. If they were given exactly equal nature as a born human being, then the only acceptable response would be to have the complete abolition of abortion, without exceptions. Similarly, could slavery be legal for some and prohibited for others, such as allowing those under 25? Does anyone agree that Nazi or communist regimes should kill people who belong to a certain category, such as Jewish, or are of a certain age?
I understand both sides of the debate and have planted myself in both camps for the past 20 years. What this comes back to is that if we are going to be serious and consistent in our beliefs about life, we must, without a shadow of a doubt, treat the person in the womb exactly as we treat those outside the womb. . Because of this, the laws should be equal when killing people, wherever they are located.
How can I look into my grandchild’s eyes and be comfortable or even agree that important people in the womb can be killed if they are of a certain age? I can’t under any circumstances.
