Tainted View

More and more these days I find myself in the disadvantaged position of loving my wife so much that I endure the suffering of awful television programming. Today's torture came by way of the ever popular daytime television show "The View". For those who might not have had the pleasure of watching this program, I'll summarize the setup. Four or five women sit around a table and discuss what they call "Hot Topics" prior to interviewing celebrities and politicians. On the surface, this doesn't seem terribly harmful. That is, until you actually watch it.

Though I try to focus on other things while my wife is viewing this program, I often find myself sucked in by the nonsensical rhetoric espoused by the panel. Such was the case with today's episode. While discussing the recent law passed in Oklahoma which requires patients requesting an abortion to view an ultrasound of their fetus prior to the procedure, panelist Sherri Shepherd made the statement, "I am not for abortion, but I do believe women should have a choice about what they do with their bodies."

This is a sentiment repeated often within our culture. On the surface it might seem like a completely fair thing to say. In fact, it may be praised as civilized in as much as one can hold an opposing view while respecting another's right to make decisions for themselves. Yet, is that the end of the story? Is it merely a case of "live and let live"? Far from it. Allow me to explain.

First, a little background about Ms. Shepherd. In 2008 Sherri was interviewed by a magazine in which she admitted "[I] had more abortions than I would like to count." As a point of clarification on this story, she later stated on "The View" that she gained much comfort when a Christian told her "when you get to heaven all your babies are gonna be there saying, 'Hi, mama.'"

What does this statement inform us regarding Sherri's view of the unborn? If she believes her unborn babies are awaiting her in heaven, then she must believe they are and were persons. This likely provides a great deal of insight as to why she makes the claim, "I am not for abortion." You'll probably find that many who claim to be personally against abortion do so because they believe the unborn are persons. While I could go into detail as to why the unborn are, in fact, persons, that isn't the point of this blog entry.

Instead, the focus of this entry is to show the absurdity of a statement like, "I am not for abortion, but I believe women should have the right to choose..." If we take the information we've established so far and insert it into this statement, we see a very scary picture develop. Since, in Ms. Shepherd's case, we can be relatively certain of her views regarding the personhood of the unborn, let's use her statement as our model. By replacing the word "abortion" with "killing people", we're left with the following statement:

"I am not for killing people, but I do believe women should have a choice..."

Is this really the message people who make this statement are trying to send? "I personally don't agree with murder, but people should have the choice to do so"? Yet, that's exactly what is being stated. It's shocking how many people make this statement and don't seem to realize its implications. By the way, I didn't bother finishing the sentence because the rest, while cleverly articulated, serves only to excuse the actions under the guise of "rights". I highly doubt that anyone who makes this statement believes there's some inherent or legal "right" entitling a person to murder someone else.

Of course, the people making these statements aren't consistent with them. They're quick to condemn murderers. They often publicly denounce war because it results in the death of innocent people. Yet, when faced with the murder of the unborn at an unprecedented rate, they easily dismiss the matter by trying to make it a subjective issue.

What's more, if we take this concept a step further, it becomes even more evident. Suppose someone were to say, "I am not for slavery, but I do believe people should have a choice about whether or not to own slaves." Or maybe, "I am not for genocide, but I do believe people should have the choice to eradicate an entire race." Would any reasonable person agree with either of these statements? Of course not.

Folks, we live in an age where more and more people abandon reason for the sake of "tolerance". We sacrifice what is right to accommodate what "feels" right. Far too often, it comes at the expense of the most innocent among us.