Remnants Of A Past Injustice
Photo: Joshua Abaya/CRIT-LARGE
There was a time in American history when physical boundaries determined who was and was not property. When one’s value could be determined by a “superior” person. When the life and death of an individual could be decided upon, freely, by a separate entity. This time still exists today.
For many, the statements above would seem to come from distant past; an issue we read about only in history books. But if we are to observe one of the biggest issues in our national discourse today and place it under any serious scrutiny, we would realize that the time I am speaking of is today and the issue I am speaking to is abortion.
If we think about the issue of abortion we understand that it follows an eerily familiar logic: “my property, my rules.” Though this argument may not be made verbatim today , it is still made in the form of, “my body, my choice.” The logic goes: whatever falls within the perimeter of my body is my property, and I am free to do with it what I want. If I want to have an appendectomy, I can, “my body, my choice.” If I want to have my wisdom teeth removed, I can, “my body, my choice.” If I want to have an abortion, I can, it’s “my body, my choice.”
And why not? Should any of these instances be any different? Mind you, if it’s just another clump of cells or unwanted tissue, why shouldn’t I be able to decide for myself what I can and can’t do with it? Never mind the fact that the entity within the womb has a separate DNA, heart, brain, etc. “It’s my body, my choice.”
This is the lie our nation bought into during Roe v. Wade because, at some level, we all accepted the euphemism that is “abortion.”
In reality, the word abortion scares no one. It’s aptly named in order to obscure the true reality of the procedure, that is, the dismemberment of children inside the womb. If the procedure were understood in its entirety, there would be no doubt that the only appropriate descriptor would be that of murder. But, because our society has wilfully lobotomized itself into believing abortion to be the mere removal of unwanted tissue, like a tumor or an appendix, we have allowed for the problem to grow and subsequently get worse.
If any evidence is needed, one would just have to look at New York. Just a few weeks back, the state's governor, Andrew Cuomo, signed into law the “Reproductive Health Act,” which allows women the option to have her child murdered after the original 24-week restriction (towards the end of the second trimester), for reasons affecting a woman’s life and health. For a majority of people this would seem reasonable. If a woman’s life is at stake we must move to save the life of the mother. That is until you realize a small caveat. In the bill, the word “health” is not outlined or defined. So, if a woman is experiencing mental distress, i.e. anxiety or depression, they can consult with the doctor to have the maturely formed baby, inside the womb, killed.
For those still not convinced of the growing problem, we can also look to a bill proposed just last week in the state of Virginia which seeks to repeal restrictions for third-trimester “abortions” (once again, in quotes for euphemism). If that needs to be put in perspective, here is an image of a child that can be killed seconds before dilation:
Baby at third trimester.
If there is any point at which humanity is most evident, this should be it. No one can plead ignorance to the fact that that this is a separate human being with their own innate worth. At that moment (third trimester), the child has all the characteristics of a separate being: a heart, brain, arms, legs, developed organs, etc. Knowing this, we are left with only one conclusion. The end goal for both pieces of legislation is infanticide.
There is no other way of putting it, unless one would think there is a true difference between the humanity of a child ten minutes before it’s born and ten minutes after.
Surely, any form of a “safe, legal, and rare” policy is out the window.
Despite all of this there are those who, I think mistakenly, put their hope in science to save those in the womb. They make the claim that because of science, it is clear that life beginning at conception when the chromosomes of a man join that of a woman's. But was seeing, understanding, and believing science ever the problem? Was our problem ever our inability to look down a microscope and see a unique strand of DNA? Has the existence of another, tangible, human being ever stopped us from devaluing them for their immutable characteristics? I don’t think so. Who’s to say science will save us now?
The problem does not so much lie with the lack of evidence, but with the heart. No amount of science can change the mind of a person or nation so set on themselves and their own personal comfort. If our nation wants ease and comfort we will find every way of achieving it, even if it means dehumanizing others.
The path to cherishing life is not found peering through a microscope but in understanding that all people, born and unborn, are image bearers of God. That those in the womb have been individually formed by the hand of God, for His purposes. Science cannot and will not save us. Abortion in our time will surely be looked back upon as equally horrific as slavery was more than 150 years ago. The only way our society will learn to value life is when they understand He who made it.