Dignity III

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:” -Genesis 1:26

If you wondered if there were any fresh questions regarding the dignity of man out there today, you need look no farther than the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. It is not a journal I subscribe to or keep up with regularly but you need to hear the rich and imaginative language with which two highly educated doctors have come up with in justifying the taking of human life. The article which ran in the December, 2009, journal has a title which says it all: “An ethically justified practical approach to offering, recommending, performing, and referring for induced abortion and feticide.” My guard goes up immediately anytime I read about an ethically justified practical approach to anything. It is almost a sure give-away that someone is going to rationalize something horribly wrong.

Sure enough, the authors, Frank A. Chervenak, M.D., and Laurence B. McCullough, Ph.D., have created a very high sounding argument justifying the practice of abortion by redefining when human life takes on value and meaning. According to them, “the fetus lacks the capacity to generate a perspective on its interests” due to “the immaturity of the fetal central nervous system.” Did you get that? In other words, human life that cannot reflect upon its own self interest has no inherent value or meaning. The authors go on to insist that we have obligations to the fetus only “…when the fetus is reliably expected later to achieve moral status as a child and person” which is “…established only by the pregnant woman's decision to confer the status of being a patient.” They talk about some concern for a fetus who has viability outside the womb but after all this talk of “perspective on its interests” and the conferring of personhood only by the mother, we can envision only a muddled life ethic perched precariously on the most slippery of slopes.

If you were not confused already, catch this surefire guide to directing the limited role for a doctor’s “individual conscience.” One needs to be careful because “…in contrast to professional conscience, individual conscience is variable because of the striking heterogeneity of the sources of morality that form individual conscience.” There you have it. The conscience of the individual is inherently untrustworthy because it is formed by who-knows-what source of inspiration. It might even be contaminated by religious views which we all know are oh-so personal (read “arbitrary” and “capricious”) in nature. We who have amateur consciences are to leave these choices of life and death to those trusted souls who can exercise a more “professional conscience.”

We do not have here some diabolical evil geniuses out of a James Bond movie or some sci-fi tale twisting logic and language to cover their perverse schemes. These are pre-eminent scholars and medical minds of the highest order who are conjuring up this Brave New World now on our doorstep. The dignity of human life is under attack simply because our new leaders have abandoned the ground of being that has for centuries defined western civilization. They search desperately for another rock of understanding but can only come up with “the capacity to generate a perspective on its interests” or simply, the ability to choose. Just how will this kind of thinking hold up in situations of despair when a parent, a spouse, or the state questions the practicality of caring for a life that has become burdensome? I thought so.

You have an opportunity to stand with others this weekend upholding a Biblical standard for the dignity of all human life by attending the Right to Life prayer service at Calvary Baptist Church, 3200 Kingston Pike, at 2:00 PM, Sunday, Jan. 24^th, featuring Mr. Jim Wood of Wears Valley Ranch. What a great field trip for you and your children. They need to know that being little is not necessarily safe anymore.