- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Last week, I had the pleasure of viewing a large pro-life rally in Sacramento.
Similar rallies took place Jan. 22 all over this country, as those who detest abortion marked the 31st anniversary of the hideous Roe v. Wade ruling. My wife and children attended the one in Washington.
What caught my eye at the California rally was this: Thousands of teenagers.
According to polls, an overwhelming number of teens find abortion abhorrent.
It’s surprising, isn’t it? After all the cultural decay, after all the condom education, after all the “if-it-feels-good-do-it” sex education, kids still hate abortion.
Maybe it’s because they are closer than adults to that decision. Millions of other teens who would have been their friends and peers never made it out of the womb.
A United Kingdom government adviser on genetics says he doesn’t see any distinction between aborting a fully grown unborn baby and killing a child after it is born.
And that’s precisely why it is wrong to abort babies.
Of course, this government adviser, John Harris, a member of the Human Genetics Commission, came to a slightly different conclusion. He believes it might be acceptable to destroy children with “defects” soon after they are born because we do it now before they are born.
You tell me you don’t believe in slippery slopes?
The entire Western world is now embracing ideas that sickened them when practiced by Adolf Hitler.
The reasons for this advice from Harris are the most interesting part of the story.
He said he did not believe there was any “moral change” that occurred between when the baby was in the womb and when it had been brought into the world.
This is precisely what anti-abortion people have been saying for more than 30 years.
If you can kill a child in the womb, why can’t you kill a child outside the womb?
For that matter, why wouldn’t you be able to kill an adult?
Harris was roundly condemned by anti-abortion activists. He ought to be commended for his consistency, at least.
It is his colleagues who try to draw distinctions between a pre-born child and one who has been delivered that are not thinking clearly.
Take, for example, Michael Wilkes, the chairman of the British Medical Association’s ethics committee. He said: “There are many who might concur that there is no difference between a full-term fetus and a new-born baby, although the majority would see there is a substantial difference. Abortion is legal, but termination after birth is killing.”
The question remains: Why is abortion legal? And why is termination after birth illegal?
Harris is indeed a utilitarian when it comes to matters of life and death. Previously, he has seen the need to allow people to buy and sell human organs as a means of increasing supplies for transplant operations. He also expressed support for the sex selection of babies for social reasons.
“If it isn’t wrong to wish for a bonny bouncing baby girl, why would it be wrong to make use of technology to play fairy godmother?” he asked.
The answer is because it means killing those not chosen. It’s quite simple.
The reason killing children is illegal is because it is immoral. It is sin. It is against God’s law. Once we no longer respect such principles in our increasingly materialistic Western culture, we will go the way of Rome, Egypt and Babylon.
Maybe we wouldn’t need so many illegal foreign workers in this country if we didn’t legalize the murder of our own children.