Jeremiah pointedly asks:
8 “How can you say, ‘We are wise,The Bible both makes clear and illustrates the point: when the truth of God is not our starting-point, assuredly folly, epistemological and moral insanity, and disaster will be our ending-point (Psalm 55:19; Proverbs 1:7, 29-33; 9:10; Romans 1:18-32).
and the law of the LORD is with us’?
But behold, the lying pen of the scribes
has made it into a lie.
9 The wise men shall be put to shame;
they shall be dismayed and taken;
behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD,
so what wisdom is in them?
And so, what that in mind, consider this headline:
Nope, before you ask: no, this is not Scrappleface, not The Onion, not Tom in the Box, not Sacred Sandwich.
This is straight news. Twisted doctors, and twisted reasoning. But straight news.
The backdrop is Alaska's governor Sarah Palin, who found herself bearing a child with Down syndrome, knowing gave birth to him, and celebrates him as "absolutely perfect" in the family's eyes.
The original story was in The Globe and Mail. What passes for moral reasoning in the article itself is pretty chilling. Those opposed to aborting babies with Down syndrome babies are said to "fear it could result in dwindling numbers of people living with Down syndrome, which could diminish funding for research or resource programs." The only concern the reporter can understand is a concern about funding.
Further, André Lalonde, who is executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, is reported as being concerned that "Ms. Palin's widely discussed decision to keep her baby, knowing he would be born with the condition, may inadvertently influence other women who may lack the necessary emotional and financial support to do the same."
Now, parse that out. They lack the "emotional and financial support" to support the baby. So they "decide" not to "keep" the baby. In other words, they decide to have the baby killed.
Now, that's okay — if it's a few inches to one side of the birth canal. For some reason. We're never told why. But ___ inches this way = murder, ___ inches that way = celebrated and sacred "right" of "choice." In fact, not just choice but (we're being told) the only loving and responsible choice.
Now, try to reason this out. If the difficulty of the situation before the child's birth warrants a just death-sentence on the child... why not equally on the other side of the birth canal?
Consider this situation. Perhaps things are okay when the special-needs child is born... but then afterwards, the marriage breaks up, jobs are hard to find, and there are medical bills.
If not, why not?
Human life is a continuum of development that begins with conception and ends with death. There are many milestones, none of which marks off humanness from non-humanness. There is no bar Mitzvah in the womb.
And so, any rationale for killing a child before birth is only as compelling as a rationale for killing him after birth. That is, if you can kill him for being imperfect or inconvenient before birth, it must be legitimate to do so afterwards (as Princeton's Peter Singer has in fact argued). If it is legitimate to kill him for some parent's crimes before birth, it must be legitimate to do so afterwards.
This contrasts starkly with the Biblical perspective on human life and its implications for abortion.
But abortion has become a sacrament to a certain Molochian worldview. In spite of my title, I have no illusions that America is fundamentally any better than Canada. Our national stance on this topic is indefensible and shameful.
In both nations, we see a living answer to Jeremiah's question: "they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?"
The "wisdom" of might makes right. The "wisdom" of me-first.
The "wisdom" of buying the foundational lie — "You shall be as God."
On-topic/permissible comments include: Biblical worldview, epistemology, apologetics, abortion, ethical decision-making.
Off-topic/impermissible comments include: this American presidential election and the candidates per se. Issues related to that are being discussed here and there — but not here. I'll be fairly merciless, so tread lightly.