Subscription Lists

Point of Reference

    by Fred Price

Do Ideas Have Consequences?
Date Posted: November 20, 2020

Did the assertions of last week seem at all far-fetched? An article by constitutional expert and national columnist Nat Hentoff, “Assisted Suicide: Just Say No Thanks”, highlighted the probable progression of ideas into acceptable “fact” which in turn translate into action; finding expression in the late 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, helping inspire the state of Oregon’s “assisted suicide” law. (An idea almost identical to Adolph Hitler’s before and during WWII. Resulting in the death of millions of “foreigner subversives” and German citizens alike.) This attitude toward “defective” people was alarming and insulting to many, 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 inflicted on the “consequences”; the sick, the injured, the innocent unborn. Mr. Hentoff offers proof of this progression 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.”

Remember the idea of the illogical becoming logical mentioned last week? Advocating the use of deadly force to halt a child’s imposition on a prospective mother’s freedom to do as she pleases, even when there is no intent on the “intruders” part to do harm is a classic example. Whose actions brought on the problem of a child? (The majority of these 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 points out that some pro-abortionists now actually advocate infanticide – killing newly born babies. Steven Pinker, MIT psychology professor writing, ‘Why They Kill Their Newborns’, claiming birth to be no more significant an event than other developmental milestones to biologists, it being just one more step of biological progression. Peter Singer, animal liberationist writing, “Killing Babies Isn’t Always Wrong”, citing Down’s syndrome children as potential candidates for termination. (The fact that many radical proponents of animal rights are so quick to support abortion is unfathomable to me – again, illogically logical reasoning taken to an inevitable conclusion. If we are all nothing but animals – everyone becomes a candidate to be “put down” if the need arises. Even as they elevate animal rights to that of humans or – at times – beyond. Paul’s description of such self-deluded sinners still applicable today, “Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.” 1 Timothy 4:2) A number of pro-choice theorists now postulating that newborns aren’t fully formed persons, disqualifying them from the rights accorded adult beings. So 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 immediately at birth or some time later? Michael Tooley, philosophy professor at the University of Colorado espousing 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.”

Was this article helpful?
Rate it:

"'Christ in You...'" from Dale Krebbs

From A Distance

Read Article »
Biography Information:

Fred Price - married (49 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.  

Got Something to Share? is always looking for new writers. Whether it is a daily devotional or a weekly article, if you desire to encourage others to know Him better, then signup to become a contributor.