I Remember When It Hit Me

All the talk of abortion lately caused me to recall the moment when I first realized the abortion struggle was not in the realm of right-reason.

It happened during the democratic presidential primaries in late 1999 and early 2000, when then candidate Jerry Bradley was debating with Al Gore about who was the better “pro-choice” candidate. At issue was a comment that Al Gore made in the 1980’s that said abortion is “arguably the taking of a human life.” Bradley supporters used the comment to discredit Gore.

When I first heard about it I was taken aback. I thought “of course abortion is arguably the taking of a human life”. How could a simple statement of fact like this be used against anyone for any reason? Who in their right mind would disagree with it? It would be like saying “the sky is arguably blue”, and then having that statement used against you. So, it dawned on me that it’s not about being in your “right mind” at all. Fast forward to 2022 and a comment like “abortion is arguably the taking of a human life” could result in crowd of people on your front lawn with pitchforks and torches.

Consider the struggle as a spiritual battle because when abortion is discussed using only secular logic, one wonders how supposedly rational people can be pro-choice and recognize human rights, science and reason all at the same time; at least one of the three must be “aborted”. In fact, this is such a harsh contradiction, one can see a need for a diabolical force to help the pro-choice movement along.

#1 Human Rights

If you were to ask any future presidential candidate if they acknowledge universal human rights, they will say “yes”. Who would dare say that some humans have fundamental rights, and other humans do not?

#2 Science

Human life begins at conception as an objective and observable scientific fact.  To say the first stage of one’s life begins at some other threshold of consciousness or viability is subjective; a matter of opinion. To declare something as important as this (as acknowledged in #1) on something subjective is quite suspicious when an objective and observable beginning point clearly exists.

Humans live in different stages. Old age, middle age, adolescence, toddler, etc. An unborn human just happens to be a human in the first stage(s). Follow the science…

#3 Reason

If one acknowledges human rights, but says the unborn don’t count, then they must abort science. This is often done by saying it’s not a question for science; it’s a question of philosophy (what is personhood?). Imagine you happened upon a sealed room where something inside was alive and a there was a debate on whether the “something” was a person. One group wishes to use science to determine “identity”. Another group says, it’s not a question for science. If it is not a question for science, how can the second group demonstrate that it is not?

If one acknowledges science but says the unborn don’t count because “my body-my choice”, then they must abort universal human rights. There are two bodies. Pregnancy is a case where two human bodies are physically intertwined. If forced to decide if one should be killed (permanently) vs. another to be pregnant (temporarily), the reasonable course of action is to spare the life, because the right to be alive is the derivation of all other human rights and would naturally have the highest priority.

If one is consistent about science and human rights and is still pro-choice, then they’ve entered the realm where 2+2=5…A realm without reason.

What to do?

In the realm of reason, pro-lifers would do well to continuously beat the drums of human rights, science and the logic therein. But more importantly, the spiritual battle should go on with prayer, fasting and other mortifications… “For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens.” (eph 6:12)