Donna Schaper is the senior minister at Judson Memorial Church in New York. She wrote an article in Huff Post’s “Religion” section about the so-called moral argument for abortion. I’m sure Margaret Sanger would be in complete agreement with it. Of course, so would Stalin. Murderous tyrants always had their “moral arguments” for what they did to appease their consciences.
Schaper kept referring to abortion as a medical procedure. She stated:
“Medical choices, like terminating a pregnancy, are medically available. Other life sustaining medical procedures are not considered immoral. Why the complaint against abortion?”
Well, because abortion isn’t just some benign “medical procedure.” As the bumper sticker says, “Abortion stops a beating heart.” It’s killing an innocent human life. It’s murder. So, it can hardly be called life-sustaining. It’s life-ending by definition.
Pro-abort people like Schaper attempt to ease their own consciences by telling themselves that the “fetus” is not really a person. It’s just a random mass of tissue; an unwelcome guest; a parasite stealing nutrients from its host mother. And since it’s an actual part of the woman’s body, like an arm or a leg, she has every right to get rid of it.
They can tell themselves that all they want if it makes them feel better, but it won’t change the reality that an unborn child is just as much a person as a born child.
At what point does this fetus become a person with rights to life and liberty? At the point of birth? How about one minute prior to birth? Where would she draw the line, and why? Would Schader be supportive of Gosnell-esque abortions?
Each person and each community of believers has the right to follow the dictates of their conscience, without compulsion from authoritative structures. Therefore, current legislation restricting women’s reproductive choice also restricts moral choice. To restrict a woman’s choice is to refuse her soul freedom.
“Reproductive choice” occurs when a woman and man choose to engage in sexual behavior. At that point, they are setting themselves up for parenting. It’s just biology and the way we were designed. If they’re going to engage in such behavior, they should have to deal with the consequences. If they didn’t want to have to deal with a child, then they shouldn’t have decided to have sex in the first place. Once a baby has been conceived, it’s too late. They’re both on the hook.
Here’s another excerpt:
Sexual relations are holy, spiritual exchanges, and as such, should be entered into with consent, respect, and a joyous heart. Consenting adults are free to decide whether or not to have sex. Consenting adults are free to have sex that is not procreative. The state should not dictate reproductive decisions, either in favor of or in opposition to carrying a child to term.
She’s talking about two different things here. Freedom to choose whether or not to have sex with another person is not the same as deciding whether or not to murder an unborn child. Once a baby has entered the picture, the parents then have a responsibility to take care of that child.
Early in her article, she stated, “We can have morally good abortions because we are human beings, with God-given rights to human agency, just like men.” Just because a murderer has a choice whether or not to murder his victim, doesn’t mean that they’re both equally valid choices. One choice, if acted upon, would be criminal and immoral and deserving of capital punishment.
Doesn’t she see that she’s only trying to make the case for murder? As long as murderer convinces himself that his victim is not really a person; that he’s some mass of tissue, mere molecules in motion or just a bag of meat; then he has rights to end that life if he so chooses. Right? Not allowing him to kill his victim would be forcing him to peacefully coexist with the person instead (think “forced” childbirth), something that he shouldn’t be forced to do against his will.
Schader fails to make any moral argument for abortion, because there is no such thing as a morally good abortion.