Yesterday I commented on and linked to a ghastly article on salon.com written by Mary Elizabeth Williams. In it she asserts that unborn human beings do not have a right to life as compared to those stronger than them. Her final sentence of the article is the chilling conclusion that an unborn child is “a life worth sacrificing.”
This morning I have been listening to the January 29, 2013 podcast of Issues, Etc. from Lutheran Public Radio.
On this program, Scott Klusendorf shared his insight into Williams’ salon.com article, cutting down her rhetoric to expose the naked, post-modern power-play just beneath the surface.
I recorded some of his comments:
[Williams] is essentially saying there is one class of human beings that you can set aside and kill, and there’s another class you can’t. [We have] a marvelous opportunity to step up and say . . .
Listen, I believe that each and every human being has an equal right to life regardless of that human beings size, gender, race, level of development, or degree of dependency.
I believe that each and every human being has an equal right to life. [Williams] denies that central premise. She believes that only some humans have a right to life based on some accidental and fleeting thing that may come or go in the course of your lifetime, such as your dependency needs.
Which view, the pro-life view or the alleged “pro-choice” view does the better job of explaining human equality?
Lincoln argued that any way you argued for enslaving the black man will work equally well to enslave many whites, and you say man A is white, man B is dark, the white skin having the right to enslave the dark skin man, well take care because by that rule you’re a slave to the first person you meet who has skin fairer than your own.
It comes down to this: [Williams] says a fetus doesn’t have a right to life; therefore a fetus doesn’t have a right to life.
This is power politics; this isn’t any kind of rational argument… if there is indeed a class of human beings that can be set aside to be killed because they don’t meet her standard, you can’t just isolate out one victim class, namely the unborn, and say that doesn’t apply to anybody else.
If living independent is what gives us value, then those that depend on any kind of medical device forfeit their right to life, as do conjoined twins. There is no rational argument for why this applies only to the unborn, and not to anyone else.
We’ve really come this far. Don’t compromise with this type of monstrous worldview, my friends, but pray for our enemies.
Thanks for reading,