Gosnell Trial- A Rogue Case?

Upon further investigation into this case, which is not only morally disturbing but very emotionally traumatic, I can't help but think: how can this happen?

In my previous blog I mentioned that human life, at any stage of development, is still life. Whether he injected these babies before they were born or whether they were born live and he killed them, it still amounts to the same thing.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge that there are those who are pro-choice who would deem this horrific as well. They would say that this is a rogue case, and that this is not what abortion normally looks like. They would say that making abortion illegal will make this sort of thing more common.

But here's the thing: it's legal right now, which does not exactly discourage persons from making money off this type of business. Not only this, but abortion is being waved about soon after this case as if it is a right (where is that in the constitution?). If it is a human right, as I said before, then there are arguably 2 human parties' rights to consider.

Several states have successfully passed laws against abortion, and are now under fire from the President, who is an advocate of Planned Parenthood. I am not about to demonize either of those parties right now...because that is unhelpful in discussing the matter at hand.

The laws passed, might I add, have to do with banning abortions after 6 weeks, when a heartbeat can be detected. So when Obama is arguing that these laws are outdated and restrictive to women, he is arguing that it should be legal to abort babies after 6 weeks. If we look at this argument, it seems to have less concern for women than for this floating American concept of unbounded freedom.

Freedom, in itself, is not evil, but as I stated on a previous blog, human beings have a sinful nature. We do bad stuff. There need to be laws to protect citizens from one another, eitherwise one person's freedom may infringe on another's. So yes, that means we cannot just do whatever we feel like. The choices of an individual impact others in society. Choosing to have an abortion does not just impact the mother, but all involved, especially the human being that has been growing inside her.

Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

In a recent case, a Doctor Kermit Gosnell has stood trial, and been cleared, for first degree murder of seven patients, 4 of these being infants. My opinion on this case is that he is probably guilty, though certainly that has to be legally proven in court. Most human beings would agree with me, I assume, that killing infants is one of the most hideous evils.

However, when it comes to that, why is it evil to kill an infant? An infant is a helpless human being. Furthermore, it has done nothing to deserve death. It is written in human DNA and in most systems of justice worldwide that there should be dire consequences for intentionally spilling human blood. Murder is wrong.

The age-old pro-choice argument goes something like this: a woman has rights. A woman has a right over her own body. She can choose what she does with it. Therefore an abortion is her business.

The age-old pro-life argument, on the other hand, argues: life is precious and sacred. An abortion destroys life. Abortion is morally wrong, and all persons should be banned from such action by law.

If I stand in the line of reasoning of the pro-choice arguments, I would agree that a woman has a right over her own body. She can pierce it, tattoo it, do drugs, whatever. It is her choice. When it comes to abortion, however, this line of reasoning needs to be replaced because now another human being is involved. Scientifically, once a sperm joins an egg a human being is created. So the question for those who are pro-choice is, does the 2nd human being get any rights?

If I stand in the line of reasoning of the pro-life arguments, I would agree that life is sacred and precious. I believe God created human life, and is the only one who can rightfully take it away (which I cannot deny He has done at times through other human beings). I disagree with the line of reasoning that society needs to work to pass laws which adhere to my own value system. As a Christian, in a country that is increasingly arguably "post-Christianity," I would expect it to further deviate from my own value system.

My stance on abortion, then, must be Pro-Life in a different sense. The infant, no matter what stage of development, is a human being. All human beings were created in God's image and no one has the right, therefore, to destroy them. By our own legal system, there must be consequences for murder. So this leaves me here: abortion should be termed illegal in all states.


Allow me to conclude on a personal note: I know those who have gotten abortions, and I am not condemning those who have made this decision. I understand that women do this for a number of reasons, and it is also not always their choice to do so. I must hold my position, however, because I believe that the lives of human beings are worth fighting for.

Government, Society, and Religion

I have wrestled much with the purpose of this blog. I want to address current issues in the world. I want to speak to what is really on people's hearts and minds (or bring up things which should be!). The way in which I intend to engage with arguments about government, society, and religion are through a Christian lens. It will also be though the lens of an English major, as much of old literature, what C.S. Lewis calls "the good books," has shaped my thinking.

My first point is this: There can be no Utopia. Read Thomas More's Utopia. Read George Orwell's 1984. Read Lois Lowry's The Giver.  These may be fictions, but there is always some truth to every fiction and the truth presented in these is that the more humans try to create a perfect society, the more corrupt they become. Only, they are corrupted, rule-abiding citizens. Even in works such as I, Robot, by Isaac Asimov, laws given to robots on ethics seem to fail.

The point in being so cynical is to suggest that the solutions to issues in government, society, and religion which I will present are not to create a whole new society, but rather to try to change or fix the one we already have. This seems a far more practical application of ideas.

From the ground up, I fundamentally believe that
- humans are sinful in nature, incapable of being redeemed except by the grace of God.
- a society built by such imperfect beings will be imperfect.
-human beings have a God-given responsibility to try to redeem society as they themselves are being redeemed.
- human beings should seek to redeem society through what is both just and merciful in the eyes of God.

**there are many I could add to this list, but these seem particularly relevant at this point.

I might also say that, I believe my own ideas to be imperfect and am therefore open to the ideas/ comments/ critiques of others, so long as it is done so with civility.

Women Under Pressure: Beauty

I probably don't need to tell you this, but I will state the obvious anyways: women often suffer from low self-esteem because of the way they look. Surveys conducted by Dove indicate only 2% of women would consider themselves beautiful. The standards of beauty in society, from billboards to Hollywood films where women are overly made up, have gotten plastic surgery, and are then airbrushed or photo-shopped, one message is forced onto human consciousness: this is what real beauty is. The only problem is, it is not real.

The problem is further exacerbated by those who consume such products: which includes both men and women. Men, because of the visual stimulation, and women, because of their desire to know how to please men. 

I have known women who spend hours trying to make themselves resemble this idealized type of beauty, and at the end of the day they are anxious, insecure, and unfulfilled.So what? Who cares about such vain women as these? you may say. Allow me to suggest that God does.

In Song of Solomon, the Lover describes a certain kind of beauty his Beloved has: including her body, her hair, her eyes, her adornments, and even her skills. But throughout this book, beauty is appreciated in its appropriate context: between a Lover and his Beloved. He has singled her out as, "Like a lily among thorns  is my darling among the young women"(2:2). He is not appreciating the beauty of every woman that he sees and comparing them all, nor is he comparing her to the famous supermodels in his day. His love for her causes him to see the fullness of the beauty God has divinely created in her (as she, too, is made in His image). 

All this to say, an unnatural type of beauty has become a cultural expectation for women, and it needs to end somewhere. I would suggest that men and women alike need to rewire their minds to see others' inner beauty, and remember that each person is made in the image of God. When exposed to such media as above mentioned, remember that what you are looking at is not entirely human. It is somewhat graphically distorted or mutated, and repeated exposure to such material develops an appetite for more of the same. Men, please change the way you think about women. Women, please stop trying to live up to such ridiculous expectations that will not fulfill.

To clarify: I am not advocating that a woman cannot make herself beautiful, but rather that she needs to do so in a healthy way, and in the right context.