I saw a sign from the recent Pro-life march in Washington, D.C. The sign said something to the effect that the bearer of it was “pro-choice,” “pro-child,” “pro-pigs,” and “pro-bacon.” Now, that sounds like an odd combination of “pros.”
It isn’t. I am not sure how the fellow intended his message to be taken, but I understand the connection between these 4 ideas. Choices are fine, but they ought to be made before we make children. Once egg and sperm meet, an inexorable process is underway. The only way to stop the development of full humanity is abortion. Make choices before you make children. Once there is a conceptus implanted in the womb, a human being is underway.
Abortion subverts all of that. Humanity is not defined from its conception. Rather, it is defined by its productivity, its usefulness, its abilities and potentialities. The move is simple. Abort the fetus before it becomes useful (before it becomes human). Later, the easy argument at the other end is euthanasia: kill (or let die) the elderly after they have become useful (human).
If usefulness defines humanity, then baby humans aren’t very useful. Peter Singer (an Ivy League professor) argues that baby pigs are more human than baby humans because they are more useful. Pigs are better able to take care of themselves.
I protest. Human beings alone are created in the image of God. Human beings are superior to pigs by nature. We eat sausage. Indeed, even little kids eat sausage. So, I believe in choices, children, pigs, and sausage.
For more, click here.
What do you think?