I listened to a debate recently on this thesis statement: "Is the New Testament Evil?" between Christian apologist and director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Dr. James White, and Vice President and National Communications Director for American Atheists, David Silverman. During this debate, the issue of defining a "family" came up. The cross examination on the question "what is a family?" was thoroughly fascinating. Atheism sees "family" as simply a relativistic concept which we define ourselves. White asked Silverman (both men are married and have children) if his wife would be content if he were to define "family" as: "a man and two wives?" Both laughed out loud and Silverman gave an emphatic "no!" in response... but we were left wondering exactly why this particular atheist feels in any way constrained to practice monogamy. No answer was forthcoming. "Because I think so" was the best he could offer.
Why does David Silverman know he ought to be faithful to his wife and have only one wife? Because he's created in the image of God. Anyone who has ever been "cheated" on knows that there is such a thing as a moral absolute relating to sexual fidelity and faithfulness when it comes to love and marriage. In our hearts we know better than to chalk up such behavior to mere uncontrollable sexual urges that our partner has the right to meet in any way he or she wants to. Because God made us and put His law into our hearts, we know that there are moral obligations and responsibilities that always accompany marriage and sexuality.
What I've noticed missing from so many pro-choice rhetoricians is the concept of sexual ethics. God created humans beings as sexual beings. But He also created us to express our sexuality in one and only one way: a monogamous marriage relationship between one man and one woman for life. Sexuality expressed outside of these parameters is sinful. Why is it sinful? Because God says it is in His Word, the Bible. Exodus 20:14 "You shall not commit adultery." Many scoff and mock at the Bible, and yet without the Bible they cannot even begin to justify the concept of sexual "ethics" let alone even define the word "family." Would a pro-choice woman who is engaging pre-marital sex with her live-in boyfriend have a problem if he decided openly to have a sexual relationship with multiple women? Would she be okay if he came home and turned her down for a date because he has a date with his other girlfriend that night? Would she kiss him goodbye and tell him, "Have a nice date with Sally tonight. Remember to use a condom if you need to. Give me a call so I don't worry."? I somehow doubt it. And yet, why not? On what grounds would she object?
I guess she could say, "sweetheart, the chemical biological response I've evolved with in my brain is generating feelings of inadequacy and jealousy... I'm not comfortable with you doing this with other women." I guess he could then say, "Yes honey, but we know those chemical, biological responses are just that: evolutionary left-overs... they don't actually correspond to any standard that exists outside of us that we are violating. So, just ignore it... it'll go away." And yet, we all know exactly what is wrong with this and why it is wrong, don't we?
Abortion is a problem because people have become sexually immoral and irresponsible. As our culture has turned a deaf ear to God's Law in the Bible, it has grown more and more sexually debauched. People see sex as a right instead of a privilege with accompanying responsibilities and obligations. From a Biblical / ethical standpoint, our stance should be this: If I am going to have sex, I should be willing to accept the moral responsibilities that accompany it: First, I must be married and entirely committed to living my whole life with that individual. Second, if the woman gets pregnant, that is our child and we are both morally obligated to have that child and take care of it to the best of our ability all our lives. Abortion on demand has led people to believe that when their contraceptive devices fail, they can simply get an abortion. Thus, this nation's slide into deeper and deeper levels of sexual debauchery continues.
As I've plowed through more pro-choice blogs, articles, and rhetoric, the tone I'm seeing seems to imply this: People are basically like animals, and thus they cannot possibly be expected to restrain their relentless sexual desires. I've walked away from many articles, comment boxes, and blog entries wondering if some pro-choice people have such a low view of people that they've given up the idea of sex being only in a monogamous marriage relationship where responsibility for child-bearing and raising is embraced. It's almost like: we have to have abortion because we cannot restrain our sexual needs, and when our contraceptive methods let us down, we have to have abortion on demand. As a Presbyterian Calvinist, I have a pretty low view of man in sin, but pro-choice advocates have outdone me in spades. They really seem to look at themselves and others as little better than animals utterly incapable of self-restraint or moral responsibility. "We *must* be able to have sex as much as we want without any strings attached!"
Whatever one's position is on abortion, such a view is utterly degrading to the women I know, love, and respect in my life. They aren't animals. They are women created with dignity in God's image who are fully capable of acting responsibly and saving themselves sexually for marriage where a child-embracing and welcoming mindset will happily and joyfully characterize them and their spouse.
"Trust Women" is a sign pro-choicers like to hold up. Well, I do trust women - to have the self-restraint to act dignified and morally when it comes to their sexuality. I trust women not to be engaged in pre-marital sex, or sex within marriage for that matter that does not accept the responsibilities accompanying the fact that a child may be conceived as a result.
Sex is not a right. Sex is a privilege for married people only. And sex always carries with it moral obligations and responsibilities. If people got this, their self-respect and dignity would be much elevated in our day of sexual degradation. Women are better than pro-choicers allow them to be. Children are a blessing and every conception of one is never accidental from God's perspective. They are a gift knit together and en-souled by His Almighty power. They are not ours to "terminate" if we don't happen to want them. I believe women are intelligent enough, self-controlled enough, and dignified enough to understand and live by these truths. And they would be much happier if they did. |
Older
Top
