*Although I disagree with them, this post is not a condemnation of those who hold a pro-choice viewpoint. Based upon His Word, God has not given us the liberty or authority to do so. He alone reserves the right to judge. However, based upon those same Scriptures and logic, my intention is to show the error, and what I believe to be the logical conclusion, of this philosophy. I pray this is read with that spirit in mind.

“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.  How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!  If I would count them, they are more than the sand. I awake, and I am still with you. Oh that you would slay the wicked, O God! O men of blood, depart from me” (Psalm 139:13-19).

Baptist Press – FIRST-PERSON: What Roe has wrought: ‘after-birth’ abortion – News with a Christian Perspective

After reading this article I wonder, ‘where does this logic end?’ The logic that says one individual (or a powerful group of individuals) can deem another human life as not a person and take on the role of God in determining who lives and who dies? It ends in a holocaust. Not that there isn’t one already – there are millions of innocents selfishly slaughter annually. We find Hitler’s determination that Jews (and others, including the unborn) as disposable to be repugnant and morally reprehensible, but what is the difference here?

Isn’t this where this logic’s natural progression leads us? After the unborn, it is the infant. After the infant, it is the mentally challenged. After the mentally challenged, it is the Alzheimer’s patient. After the Alzheimer’s patient, it will be those who are considered to be non-contributors (that could be the elderly or unemployable) and those who have “no aim,” however that’s defined. In other words, eventually all who don’t line up with the self-enthroned arbiters’ definition of “a value to society” are in danger of extinction.

You make think I’m exaggerating or embellishing but I’m not. Such ideas have previously been suggested by leading “thinkers,” intellectuals, and academics (see AlbertMohler.com – Something Deadly This Way Comes — “After-Birth Abortion”. It seems clear to me that pro-choice reasoning inevitably ends in the “morals” of the intellectual and political elite determining whose life is worth keeping and whose is not – based only on the arbitrary principles of those who claim there is no absolute truth (the presupposition that is the seed for all of this senselessness). I would tend to believe these scientists and philosophers would think much differently if their own fate were in the hands of another so-called expert or religious extremist. For they might have ended on a subjective death row, not due to their own guilt, but due to someone else’s opinion or premise. Ironically, even they claim “truth” is relative, rendering their own opinions, and those of others, incapable of being absolutely true.

Do we see the demagoguery, circular reasoning, rationalization, and outright destruction of this kind of thinking? If such philosophies take hold in our world (and I fear they might) then those who aren’t part of the aristocracy or are unpopular due to their belief system or heritage will not only be disposable but necessary to eliminate. They will be enemies of those who hold to this type of dogma – those who hold that human life is only as valuable as the merciless and elitist rulings of those who feel worthy to pass judgment on it.

We may think it incomprehensible that there would be another Hitler and another Holocaust. But that happened just a few decades ago, and millions went along with the unthinkable. I would suggest we look no further than the enclaves of academia, liberal politics, and secular scientists and we will find, lurking there, many who seem to fit Paul’s description of the godless in Romans 1:

“They are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools…And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them” (Romans 1:20-22, 28-32).

With all that said, there is forgiveness for those who recognize the error of their way, repent, and turn to Jesus – myself included. God created us to live. Jesus died that we might have eternal life. And that includes the unborn, the infant, the elderly, and the outcast. But let me be clear, no one but the Lord of glory, the only righteous judge, has the sovereign right to decide if another lives or dies.