Rea­son, abor­tion and Michael Vick

The Covington News - - RELIGION -

A few weeks ago I wrote an ar­ti­cle in which I con­tended that we are a gen­er­a­tion of peo­ple who have lost our rea­son­ing power.

Logic and sound judg­ment seems to have gone out the prover­bial win­dow. I heard to­day a gen­tle­man telling of a friend whose car was stolen.

The thieves ( four of them) wrecked the ve­hi­cle while at­tempt­ing to elude the po­lice. Sadly, th­ese four in­jured thieves are su­ing the owner of the stolen ve­hi­cle and it looks like the in­sur­ance com­pany is go­ing to settle. Lu­di­crous. Where has com­mon sense gone?

As I write this ar­ti­cle the head­line news for a few weeks has been the Michael Vick saga. Cer­tainly it is too soon to tell what the out­come of this in­ves­ti­ga­tion might be, but if we are to be­lieve the news, the fu­ture does not seem to be very promis­ing for Mr. Vick.

The out­cry over the al­leged cru­elty to an­i­mals that took place on that Vir­ginia prop­erty is amaz­ing. I, my­self, am a dog per­son, so I un­der­stand the ex­pressed con­cern of so many.

What I find amaz­ing is that we can get so worked up about the cruel and in­hu­mane treat­ment of ca­nines but refuse to face the cruel and in­hu­mane treat­ment of chil­dren at the hands of abor­tion­ists.

We weep over the pic­tures of beaten and abused dogs but de­mand the right to tor­ture un­born chil­dren through ac­cepted abor­tion pro­ce­dures. If Mr. Vick is smart, he will find a le­gal team to ar­gue his case from a right to choose per­spec­tive. It’s his dogs; his rights.

Lest the reader be tempted to ar­gue that there is a fun­da­men­tal dif­fer­ence be­tween an in­di­vid­ual’s right to treat an in­no­cent an­i­mal in a cruel and in­hu­mane way and a wo­man’s right to choose what hap­pens in her own body, think again. This is the stuff that be­trays our in­abil­ity to prop­erly rea­son and be­lies our skewed pri­or­i­ties.

While one might try to ar­gue that those who pro­mote dog fights are crim­i­nally re­spon­si­ble be­cause they are mak­ing the choices and forc­ing those choices upon mere an­i­mals that do not have the abil­ity to de­cide their fate for them­selves, one has to re­al­ize that those who de­cide to mur­der un­born chil­dren are mak­ing de­ci­sions for in­no­cent ba­bies who can­not de­cide their fate for them­selves.

One may ar­gue that the sce­nario pre­sented above is dif­fer­ent. That those who de­stroy an­i­mals in so called sports are­nas are guilty be­cause the an­i­mal be­ing led to the slaugh­ter is a sep­a­rate en­tity while the un­born child is a part of the wo­man and the wo­man who de­cides to end her preg­nancy is sim­ply ex­er­cis­ing her right over her own body.

But it is not her body that suf­fers the ul­ti­mate con­se­quence.

At best an un­wanted preg­nancy is 9 months of in­con­ve­nience; an aborted baby is for­ever. The wo­man can re­cover. The aborted child is dead. How in the world did we ever get to the place where ca­nines or baby seals are treated with more value than baby hu­mans?

We like think of our­selves as wise and en­light­ened. We de­plore the al­leged cru­elty of those who use an­i­mals for their own en­ter­tain­ment, but we also de­plore peo­ple who de­cry the cru­elty of those who slaugh­ter ba­bies for their own con­ve­nience.

Our logic is flawed, our rea­son­ing abil­ity non- ex­is­tent.

The Bi­ble speaks of the fact that be­cause of our in­sis­tence in hav­ing things our own way “ the wis­dom of the wise will per­ish, and the intelligence of the in­tel­li­gent will van­ish” ( Isa­iah 29: 14 NIV).

I think the ev­i­dence of that truth is all around us.

John Pear­rell

Colum­nist

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.