As we go round and round about Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice, it occurs to me that the key question is fundamentally about whether or not America (and the world) trusts in God’s Divine Providence enough to enact moral laws that go against rational thought. It occurs to me that all Pro-Life arguments are illogical and irresponsible if the fundamental premise of the Pro-Choice ideology which denies God’s Divine Providence is accepted as Truth.
The fact is that most arguments that the Pro-Choice camp asserts are very logical and generally responsible. The arguments of the Pro-Life camp can be demonstrated illogical and irresponsible given the fundamental premise of the Pro-Choice camp. That premise is that if there is a God, we the people are to plan our world without any expectation that Divine Providence will intervene on our behalf. God has set the world in motion, and it is up to us to make it work for us the best we can.
It is like the old lifeboat question. Will we be saved? Must we ration our resources? Will there come a point that we must ask volunteers to jump overboard? Will we have to vote to see who we will forcibly throw overboard? Should we hang tight and wait for a saviour?
The Pro-Choice ideology seems closely coupled with poverty and environmental concerns. For practical reasons, it has defined the pre-born human being as not a citizen with the fundamental human right to life. Given concerns about population control, quality of life over quantity of life, and children born to poor families, it seems practical to allow a mother to make the tough decision to abort the unwanted child rather than neglect the child. A neglected child will ultimately be a burden to our social system as a child and as an adult.
The Pro-Life ideology has this to say about the over-population concern: “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.” It says that the pre-born child is a sacred responsibility, not a choice. It says man must overcome completely his natural animalistic, biological imperative to reproduce freely and without undue concern to consequences.
The fact is that the Bible says: “Be fruitful and multiply”. No messenger from God or Marian apparition (that I know of) has ever countermanded that directive. The idea of limiting family size is man’s idea only, near as I can tell.
Go back to the lifeboat analogy. Let’s say that those in the lifeboat despair of being saved and start to make some of those tough decisions. A few sacrificed themselves and jumped overboard. Later, some hard choices were made by the many against a few who were denied their right to life. Then a saviour came and became very angry because his own sons and daughters had been among those forcibly thrown overboard. No survivor in the lifeboat could deny the fact that they had committed murder against the saviour’s sons and daughters. Their only defense is that they did not trust that their saviour would come.
The question always comes up as to whether Christians should vote to thwart others who are weak in faith or do not share our faith in Our Saviour. Go back to the lifeboat again. If among the many who murdered the few, there were those among the many who voted against forcibly denying the few their right to life, then how do you think Our Saviour would handle them?