Let me first be absolutely clear: the murders of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Connor, are a tragedy. They are also crimes demanding punishiment. Anything else we may say about these horrific crimes is secondary.
But I do want to speak about secondary matters this morning. Specifically, I want to speak about the matter of abortion. Those of you who are for no legal restrictions to abortion and do not wish to consider another view may stop reading now and begin surfing elsewhere.
I find it interesting that pro-abortion groups tend to paint anti-abortion/pro-life groups as dangerious fanatics, who would, if they could, turn back human progress and relegate women to a Neanderthal world of back-alley abortions and public shame. What most people would consider reasonable arguments against abortion are pushed out of the media mainstream for the shocking and outrageous: clinic bombings and abortionist sniper killings. Because, yes, indeed, if anyone would limit or eliminate the legality of women choosing abortion, well, they can only be morally equivalent to bombers and snipers.
So I find it interesting that Marva Stark, president of NOW's Morris County chapter has come out and publicly stated her opposition to charges of double murder being brought against Scott Peterson for the alleged killing of his wife and unborn child. It's even more interesting that NOW has sought to "distance" the organization from Stark's comments, but yet did not outright reject them. In other words: We agree with Stark's comments, but don't want to suffer the political cost of affirming them as official organization policy.
The claim Stark was making is that if the murder charge against Connor, the Petersons' unborn child, is allowed to stand, it will turn back the rights of women seeking legal and safe abortions. The argument seems to go something like: Laci Peterson's killer intended to kill her, and in the act of killing Laci, Connor (I'm sorry, the fetus) also died. Since the fetus is, to abortionists, not a person, then no additional murder charge is feasible. NOW, and those who agree with them on this matter, rightly recognize that if the fetus is allowed legal personhood, then the implications seem to be obvious. Certainly the bringing of double-murder charges is.
But while Stark and NOW are rightly drawing the moral implications from one side of the argument--if a fetus is a legal person the killing of which can bring murder charges, then the step to acknowledging abortion is murder is not very far--perhaps it would be appropriate to draw the reverse implications. Let's assume, then, Connor is just a fetus, no name, no personhood, for all intents and purposes an extra "organ." Let's say that Laci's killer didn't intend to kill her, he only wanted to "remove the organ." Would NOW and their supporters be any happier with the outcome? Surely Scott would face charges of manslaugher, or accidental homicide, or something like that. If convicted, he would go away to jail for awhile, but presumably, could be paroled eventually. (I'm clearly no legal scholar.) I mean, wouldn't that be plausible? Connor would still be a fetus, Scott (or whomever is the killer) would get punished, and women could still have legal and safe abortions.
But what about Laci? Seems to me that NOW, in advocating for the legal right of women to have abortions cares a whole lot more for the legal status of what, to them, is merely non-personal tissue, than they do about the mother, soon to be delivered, who was murdered near one of the holiest of Christian feasts: the Nativity of our Lord. You tell me, who is more extreme?
Here's the great and sad irony. Connor was near-to-term. Day in and day out, babies of his gestational development are delievered, live, and are loved and wanted. I, myself, was one, some thirty-five years ago. And had I been killed at roughly the same number of days from my conception as was Connor, it would have been infanticide, murder. The difference? I had made it outside my mother's womb. Connor didn't.
This is what happens when reason is not tethered to reality. Science cannot tell us when personhood begins. It can only describe the gestational process. Rather, to speak of personhood demands presuppositions. For Christians that supposition has been: an unborn infant is a person, thus abortion is murder. Here's our starting point: When God was incarnated in Mary's womb, when did Christ's "personhood" begin? The only possible answer is obvious. And thus, Christians must oppose abortion. It is the only rational and loving thing to do. To "reason" otherwise is to let go reason's tether to reality. Which leads to extremist, irrational statement's like Ms. Stark's.
Yes, it is not the pro-life groups who are,as their opponents allege, showing their hysteria and extremism. No, in cases like this, the pro-life position shows itself to be eminently clear-headed, rational, loving. Yesterday we got a clear look into the extremism of the pro-abortion argument. It is irrational, and unloving. It would diminish Laci Peterson and the baby she wanted, loved and would have brought to term. It doesn't seem to me that most women would find themselves in sympathy with an organization that would claim Connor was just a fetus, not a person. Laci Peterson, and most mothers-to-be, know better. So does NOW. NOW would have done well to have kept silent. But since they didn't, they should have rejected Stark's statement outright. But then again, the truth will out. So they didn't reject it. They just "spun" it. And thus they lost any claim to rationality. Their "reason" is loose upon the world. Their center cannot hold.
Posted by Clifton at April 22, 2003 09:01 PM | TrackBack