Subscription Lists
Point of Reference
by Fred Price
(With the recent commemoration of the 31st anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, many find themselves asking this once again)
This question is still frequently asked as incidents occur that shock and confuse us. An epidemic has swept across our land, not of illness or disease but an affliction of the soul; sickening us all the same – manifesting itself in our bodies or inflicted on others.
Two well-educated young people and a dead baby; who did what and why never fully discovered. At the very least, they conspired to deliver an unwanted child secretly and do something with it; appearing dispassionately unconcerned, they disposed of the body in a dumpster and returned to school.
Desperate women, believing they have nowhere to go for help, do irrational things to themselves and their children. One shot her unborn child through her stomach to escape the burden of raising a child she believed beyond her ability; another tied her two-year old up and hung him with an electrical cord. In deranged outbursts, one mother drowned her children in the bathtub while another crushed her kid's heads with stones!
Locally, a baby was delivered, bundled up and thrown into an outside toilet at a park; dumped into human waste. And why not? Many have come to view themselves and others as disposable beings. My first inclination is to grab and shake them, screaming, 'What are you thinking?' In more reflective moments, I feel a need to gather them in an embrace; asking how and why but embracing all the same.
Why would I do that? In realizing the stupefying desperation that triggers such action; the panic of ruined dreams, the gut-wrenching fear of disappointed family, the uncertainty of giving birth alone, the pain of childbirth by a child, the utter lack of hope for the future. (Some of which applies to Columbine and subsequent school shootings and the continuing self-inflicted violence of suicide across our land.) These are desperate acts by desperate people. Excuses? Certainly not. A warning: be careful of the activity you participate in or condone (even passively), the advice you listen to and give. Things casually discussed or practiced in moderation by some are often taken to excess by those desperately seeking relief. An idea, however illogical, may appear as the only available alternative in a thought process skewed by panic, peer pressure, depression or desperation; all action originating as a thought or idea.
This generation of young people may be the best educated this country has seen, being introduced to numerous principles and disciplines at an early age – including human sexuality. The problem being, they aren't taught the responsibilities and consequences of their acts to the same degree they are being provided the tools to act with. Who's responsible for the consequences of disease and pregnancy if not the couple having sex? What do you do with a guilty conscience, a too late wish for respect from that special someone who has gone their own way, or the decisions of life and death concerning a newly created life; which will impact many lives regardless of your choice. Get rid of them! If there are no consequences, there is no fault; if there is not fault, there is no guilt; if there is no guilt – no problem!
The same appears to apply to our sick and elderly. If life is hard, pain intolerable, the benefits of life difficult to ascertain for the individual and their care-givers – why not end it all? Don't be a burden, save money, end the suffering all seem logical. The problem is that as these ideas are discussed and people become comfortable with the right-to-choose issues of abortion and euthanasia, others might begin advocating a duty to die. How far are we from setting standards of positive, productive living from which if one varies appreciably they have not only a right to die but an obligation to do so?
Sound far-fetched? An article by Nat Hentoff, "Assisted Suicide: Just Say No Thanks", highlights the possible progression of ideas into acceptable "fact" which in turn translates into action; finding expression in Dr. Jack Kevorkian's statement before the Michigan Supreme Court that the voluntary self-elimination of individuals mortally diseased or crippled would enhance public health and welfare and the state of Oregon's "assisted suicide" law. This attitude toward "defective" people is alarming and insulting, begging the question – Who defines a quality of life worthy of respect, honor and help?
Some still question the connection between assisted suicide and abortion; it being found in the progression of ideas that start with each individual deciding arbitrarily what life is and when it begins. The result being no guilt or blame for the instigators, the repercussions realized by the consequences; the sick, the injured, the innocent. Mr. Hentoff notes this progression further in comments made by Eileen McDonough, a political science professor from Northeastern University advocating self-defense as a legal principle for abortion and Sylvia Law, a New York University law professor who concurs, stating, "If a woman has a right to defend herself against a rapist, she should be able to use deadly force to expel a fetus…", for violating her privacy and forcing itself on her as it, "massively intrudes on a woman's body, and expropriates her liberty."
Illogically logical?! The use of deadly force to halt a child's imposition of a prospective mother's freedom to do as she pleases, even when there is no intent on the "intruders" part to do harm! Who's actions brought on the problem of a child? (The majority of pregnancies not resulting from forcible violations.) Are we now justified in punishing someone else for a deed we commit? It's amazing that a society so dedicated to tolerance and blamelessness so nonchalantly blames this being so thoroughly and irrevocably as to kill it. (With no opportunity for defense on its part which even rapists and murderers have.)
Syndicated columnist John Leo notes some pro-abortionists now advocate infanticide – killing newly born babies. Steven Pinker, MIT psychology professor wrote, 'Why They Kill Their Newborns', claiming birth to be no more significant an event than others to biologists, it being just one more milestone of biological development. Peter Singer, animal liberationist wrote, "Killing Babies Isn't Always Wrong", citing Down's syndrome children as potential candidates for termination. A number of pro-choice theorists believe newborns aren't fully formed persons, disqualifying them from the rights accorded adult beings. Who decides when that happens? If not at conception, is it during the second or third trimester? If a pre-born child has no right to protection and life, does it acquire such at birth or some time after birth? Michael Tooley, philosophy professor at the University of Colorado espouses the idea that parents should have a period of time after birth in which "aborting" a child is still permissible. Then the debate would turn on how much time is enough to decide if one's offspring is truly acceptable or not; a day, a week, a month, a year?
Notice the gradual cheapening of life. If we can decide whether a pre-born person lives or dies, why not a post-born one? Could there possibly be more to abortion than abortion? At least one man thinks so. Dick Humphry, founder of the Hemlock Society, one of the earliest right-to-die proponents has said, "The doors began to open to me and my ideas when a wonderful thing happened – Roe vs. Wade."
Rate it:
Fred Price - married (50 years), father of two grown children, grandfather of six.
Fred retired earlier this year after 42 years as a factory worker. He has always had a heart for young people and the challenges they face today. Over the years Fred has taught Discipleship Groups for High School and college students.
Receive the newest devotional each week in your inbox by joining the "Point of Reference" subscription list. Enter your email address below, click "Go!" and we will send you a confirmation email. Follow the instructions in the email to confirm your addition to this list.