Our culture of death strikes once again!

Melbourne doctor, Mark Hobart, has hit the news for refusing to refer a couple to another doctor in order to perform an abortion.[1] Dr Hobart took his stand when he found out that the parents wanted to abort the child because it was the wrong sex. The parents only wanted a boy.

Sadly, this is not the first time the Designer Baby issue has raised its ugly head in this country. We have already witnessed the murder of twin boys for the same reason.[2] As technology advances, we can expect the “Designer Choice” to go beyond sex, to eye colour, hair colour, and any number of things.

This is a sorry state indeed. Yet there are worse things to be noted. Today, I was watching the Nine afternoon news. The story of this doctor came up for discussion. One of the panelists was 2GB’s Ben Fordham. He made comment on the issue. Two things in regard to his comment were noteworthy.

The first was the absence of Free Speech. You could see Mr Fordham struggling to choose words and to avoid saying anything inflammatory. He hedged the issues until he came out with the statement that “a healthy baby had been aborted.”[3]

This led to the second point. Mr Fordham added that “this was the thin edge of the wedge.” Well, I am sorry, Ben, you could not be any more mistaken. The wedge of which you speak came and went a long, long, long time ago!

We are entering a furore because this poor child was aborted as a result of it being the wrong sex. Supposedly, it was wrong to choose one sex over another. Yet here is the fallacy inherent in the stated opinion of Mr Fordham. Every abortion, well, the majority, is a choice. What is the difference in choosing convenience, prosperity, comfort, sleep, etcetera or the sex of the child? Nothing! Absolutely nothing!

This then cuts to the heart of that demon, Feminism. The acceptance of abortion was propagated on the basis that a woman’s body was her own and she had the right to “choose”. This is the demonic beast that gave birth to abortion and it has been the constant mantra of pro-abortionists to this day. I even had the displeasure of reading a statement by Hillary Clinton on Emily’s List. Said she, “I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.”[4]

The nonsense touted can be translated thusly: ‘We do not want to kill babies, but if upholding my right to choice means that babies are killed, then that is the collateral damage we will have to accept in order to uphold my inalienable right to choose!

So, here we are. The conundrum! The basis argued for the legalisation of abortion, is now becoming an unpalatable reality in the form of Designer Babies. Choice has now freely exhibited itself to a greater extent and its wretched consequences are unveiled for all to see. Seemingly, those that witnessed this unveiling have been repulsed.

Here, of necessity, we must make comment and pass judgement upon the futility of individual choice as final arbiter:

1. Choice has once more been exposed as a “nice” Humanistic ideal, but a poor and wretched guide. The ability to choose wisely presupposes that one has the moral ability to make a “right choice”. Such ability only comes through surrender to Jesus Christ and being clothed with the mind of God.

2. As those seeking abortions are rarely clothed with the mind of God, they are partakers of a mind that is hostile toward God. This mindset rejects life and clings to death. It rejects God’s voice and asserts individual right. The glory of God is not considered worthy; only the temporal comfort of the individual matters. Thus, external, moral, absolute revelation is rejected. Decision is made on the basis of internal, immoral, transient values.

3. This in turn leads to the worship of self and to the declaration of autonomy. Man, and man alone, has the right to govern his life, choose his destiny, decide upon values, and to commission any outside help to achieve the goals of his system. This all sounds good, in theory. Yet, in practice, it is the progenitor of diabolical monsters. Currently, Designer Babies. Recently, cannibalism. Do you remember the case in Germany? A man had longed to eat someone. He advertised and someone responded. The victim chose to be eaten![5]

4. This said, let us analyse Hillary’s statement: “Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.”

“To make the right decision”. The presupposition of this statement is that the person in question is moral and has the ability to make a morally correct choice. Given that most abortions are to hide sin, the moral integrity of the one choosing must immediately be questioned. Then, off course, in a Postmodern world, one is rightly entitled to question what right rightly means? Right!

“The individual”. In philosophical terms, we must ask, “What happened to the many?” Here, we clearly see the rank individualism of our day and of the human heart on display. There is no reference to others, particularly to the creator God. We are in a closed system in which the individual rules supreme.

“For herself and her family”. First, let me play the role of the stereotypic misogynist and ask, “What happened to the father?” If there is a family, all homosexual abominations aside, there must be a father. Where is his say in regard to his wife and his family? Second, and as a natural concomitant, we must note that the woman has governance – herself and her family. One seems forced to ask, “What happened to equality?” Why, at the very least, is this not our decision for our family? The answer is that Feminism was never interested in equality, despite the constant use of phrases like “equal rights”. It was interested in usurpation. It was interested in fulfilling the sinful desire within woman to rule.[6]

“For herself and her family.” In considering these words, we must also ask about the needs of a society. What role does the many play in the life of the one and vice versa? Societies must grow in order to thrive. At the very least, there must be the replacement of the existing population or the society withers and dies. The exaltation of individual choice as final arbiter is not only a road to anarchy, but a road to extinction. By allowing the exercise of the individual’s right of choice in regard to the immoral, the society becomes complicit in both the anarchy and the extinction. First, we are our brother’s keeper. That means that society needs to restrain the errant individual who is out to act foolishly. Whether this be procuring an abortion, a prostitute, or an illicit substance, society has an obligation both to restrain and denounce evil. Second, prosperity can never be had by a society when it refuses to restrain the errant individual. God cannot bless unrighteousness. Thus, allowing the errant individual to practice lawlessness will only beget and encourage more lawlessness, which, in turn, constrains God to withhold His blessing farther.[7] Third, the individual’s morality has serious consequences for society. Two moral individuals will form a moral family whose offspring will add to society through integrity and righteousness. The immoral individual will destroy family and beget destruction.[8]

“Not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.” This comment is a follow on to the previous point, but it deserves it own space. Note again, the rank individualism. No one, absolutely no one, has the right to govern this individual. Not a husband, not the Church, not even the State! This being the case, as touched upon in footnote 4, “Who becomes the arbiter or judge?” “On what basis is there a justice system?” Look at the various happenings in America recently. The Boston bombings. The shooting at Sandy Hook. We could even go back to Columbine. All those involved were denounced. Why? Were they not all individuals exercising their incontrovertible right of choice? If this is so, then how can they be condemned? Hillary has spoken – none shall judge the individual’s choice! “Ahh,” you say, “but that does not involve the murder of innocents.” Doesn’t it? Doesn’t it!!! Pray tell, what happens when the choice is to abort a perfectly healthy baby? Is not the child murdered? Does not that choice take life? In the case of the twins aborted, is this not mass murder? How is it different to Columbine or Sandy Hook?

What Hillary Clinton has stated, and what Emily’s List promotes through her quotation, is nothing less than anarchy and extinction.[9] If Hillary Clinton’s thesis holds true, then no individual can ever be held to account for any deed precisely because all deeds are a matter of individual choice and no individual is accountable to anyone for the choice made. In one fell swoop, Hillary has destroyed God, Law, justice, society, Church, State, Family, governance and so on. Poof! Gone!

In their place, the individual has been enthroned to rule eternally and sovereignly. But wait! There is more. The individual will also rule in tyranny, according to the capricious nature of their own laws and desire. Anarchy will be the first condition realised as individuals end up warring with each other as they each exercise their “right” to choice. War, as we know, has casualties. So, we head to extinction. This we do, gleefully; happy in the knowledge that it is our choice. Of course, we may wish for a better outcome. However, as our mantra is “individual choice above all else”, we must be content to simply board the train and allow it to take us to the terminal terminus of our belief.

Brethren, the right of choice is implicitly tied to the choice of right. The choice of right always trumps the right of choice. The right choice enables and permits the right of choice. It is so because the right choice declares the chooser to be a moral man of God and thereby permits him to exercise his right of choice.[10] In contradistinction, the right of choice by no means guarantees a right choice. In fact, demanding the right of choice shows a heart estranged from God and underscores the inability of that person to make a right choice.

Friends, I beseech you by the mercies of God; beware the right of choice demanded by the rank, God-hating individualist. It is a poison and a canker that harks back to the Man’s rebellion in the garden. It is no more than a modern manifestation of that old lie, “Did God really say?” It is Man once more expressing his desire to overturn God and His righteous rule by declaring himself fit and able to rule in God’s place.

Man’s choice may be to serve himself. Man’s obligation is to render total obedience to God through Jesus Christ.