Pro-Choice? What are you actually choosing?

If you talk with pro-choicers about killing babies you begin to realize that they toggle between contradictory appeals to “science” to confirm their claims that the baby in the womb is just a “clump of cells” (which is basically what everyone is) and the metaphysical claims that personhood doesn’t apply to the child until some arbitrary point in time which varies depending upon who's making the assertion. They vehemently allege that science is on their side, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. Science can indeed affirm what is, regarding the material world but not what ought to be. This is the traditional “Is–ought problem” in philosophy. Namely that one cannot logically move from what is to a conclusion of what ought to be. This is because there are different types of laws.

The sperm determines the sex of the child (the evil patriarchy back at it again). And the baby’s sex is determined at conception when a full set of chromosomes and DNA are present. Everything to make you you is there at conception. Even though you are in the process of developing- just like you do your entire life. Science tells us this. But it has nothing to say about whether rights ought or ought not to be conferred upon the child. And so, philosophy and religion are called upon at this point to answer when a human is a person fully qualified for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Pro-choice is really about a woman’s right to choose when personhood begins. But what sort of dualistic worldview could this possibly make sense in? Personhood is an immaterial idea that she cannot create by sheer force of will? Perhaps she wanted the baby and it is a child but then she changed her mind and suddenly it’s a clump of cells and not a person. What about her own body (not the baby's body for the moment)? Her body was not her making or design, so what does ‘my body my choice’ mean? This would assert unalienable rights (generally considered endowed by the Creator) from somewhere that she declares she has a right or claim to by virtue of the fact that she owns her body and not other people. Like, if the majority decide personhood is not available to a child in the womb maybe they can decide her body is not her choice as well. Again, the is-ought problem ‘it is my body and ought to be my choice’. Post-modernist Marxism would group us into classes imposing will of force on members of other classes, so my body not my choice. But they don’t believe in logic or science either so... whatever.

This is purely arbitrary thinking, like a child who wants the freedom of adulthood without the responsibility. The childish demand that reality order itself according to my desire. It explains their anger at biology that a woman is ‘forced to carry the pregnancy’ or that their ‘body determines their sex’. How dare reality be thus! I don’t like it so it must not exist! The post-modernist tantrum.

The scriptures however are not at all silent on the question of abortion. For instance, you will see that a woman is “with child” all through the Old and New Testaments when she is pregnant. Regarding the twins Jacob and Esau in Rebecca’s womb it says “the children struggled together within her”. (Gen.25:22) When Mary greeted Elisabeth the latter exclaimed “For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.” (Lk.1:44) As a matter of fact, Bathsheba “conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child”. (2 Sam.11:5) The term “be with child” is synonymous with “conceive”. (Mt.1:23, Isa.7:14) It makes sense then to make statements like “There is a man child conceived” (Job 3:3) “did my mother conceive me” (Ps.51:5) and “her that conceived me” (Song 3:4) because I am me at conception. Who else would I be?

A woman whose child is injured when she is pregnant would require full retribution of law; that “thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot”. (Ex.21:22-4) Regardless of how far along the pregnancy was the scripture shows we are fearfully and wonderfully made as “thou hast covered me in my mother's womb”. (Psa.139:13) “As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.” (Ecc.11:5) “Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.” (Psa.139:16)

Unequivocally the bible teaches a child is a child in the womb and to kill it is murder. But in an age that has walked away from the bible they have embraced childish, arbitrary, irrational demands upon the laws of nature and natures God. 

This however is not such a dualistic world as pro-choicers ignorantly demand. To quote the hymn "This is my Father's world". It is God's body and therefore his choice. The world we experience is the world the Christian religion declares as revealed in the bible.