Articles
Enshrined?
This past week, during a news podcast, one of the hosts was speaking about the upcoming political elections and noted, on the subject of abortion, that several states would be holding elections where individuals were making that issue a focal point of their campaign, how some states were putting forth ballot issues on the subject, and how a few states were putting it to the voters to decide if the “right to abortion” would be contained within the respective states’ constitutions where, as the host stated, it “would be enshrined” as a “right.”
Interesting, and a revealing choice of words.
The word enshrine means “to cherish as sacred”; and, to be clear, something sacred is “secured against violation, infringement, etc.,” but it also means “reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object.” I would guess that the first definition of sacred is the one intended, but I am afraid there is more of the second definition in play than some would want to admit! It should be evident by now to any honest observer that total sexual freedom — the freedom to practice whatever sexual act they desire without shame for their acts, without any unpleasant or unwanted consequences that might follow, without any accountability, and without any responsibility following the act — is what is cherished by many in the world; many, seeking to ensure that freedom, are indeed “reverently dedicated” to making it a reality.
It should be noted that this all is the result of a generation or two or three of some subtle, but effective propaganda and a shift of terms that we now publicly and proudly call for abortion to be a “sacred right” that should never be taken from us. Nowadays, when the issue is mentioned in political circles [and many times outside politics], promoters of abortion want to talk about “women’s health care,” and “individual rights,” rather than use the term abortion. The shift in terminology was purposeful, and it has achieved great acceptance, but it doesn’t change the fact of what it is that is at the heart of this topic: abortion of a human from the uterus of a woman that ends the life of the baby.
These terms and phrases [“women’s healthcare” and “individual rights”] are the preferred terminology because you will never hear a proponent of abortion call for unfettered freedom to “dismember a baby in the womb and dispose of the body or sell it piece by piece to a medical or biological organization for profit.” You will never hear a proponent of abortion speak of how women should be given complete freedom to murder an innocent child if she deems it inconvenient or simply unwanted. What is avoided at all costs is discussion of the scientific, biological, and medical fact that it is a living human fetus that is at the center of the issue. Ironic, coming from those who will, on every other occasion, lecture society to “Trust the science!”
Long ago, God said, when creating man, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (Gen. 1:26), and then we read next, “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:27). So valuable was the life of man [versus the value of animal life] that God would tell us later, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man” (Gen. 9:6). This punishment was codified under the Law of Moses (Exod. 21:12; Lev. 24:17), and even the apostle Paul would not argue against punishment by death if he had committed something to warrant it (Acts 25:11). God values life.
But, I know, some will argue, “The Bible says nothing about abortion,” or, “The Bible doesn’t say anything about a fetus being a living being.” Such arguments are similar to those who say the Bible doesn’t specifically condemn “homosexuality” — a term that did not even exist until the late 1800s [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]. Just because the word ‘abortion’ is not found in the Scriptures does not mean killing an unborn child is not mentioned. It is (Exod. 21:22-24). And before science concluded the human fetus was a living being, our Creator did. For example, David wrote by Divine inspiration, “You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb” (Psa. 139:13); David, the human being, was David while in his mother’s womb — the same David and the same human being he was after birth. David would also write [prophetically, of the Messiah], “You are He who took Me out of the womb” (Psa. 22:9). The One in the womb was the same person, the same human being, when He came out of the womb.
Job would also argue, when speaking about how he treated his male and female servants, “Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One fashion us in the womb?” (Job 31:15). Job was the same human being in the womb as he was outside the womb; his male or female servants were the same human beings after birth as they were before birth. It is blatantly disingenuous to argue that a human being in the womb is any less a living being than one outside the womb. More than that, it is pure nonsense! This country recognizes that an American Bald Eagle is still an American Bald Eagle when its embryo is still inside the egg, for our laws punish one who destroys such an egg; they can be fined $100,000 and imprisoned for doing so. [The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 668-668d]. And yet we have many now wanting to “enshrine” the right to kill unborn baby humans! Is it just me, or is there a clear inconsistency in how we see “life”?
What we should be just as concerned about is this push by society to remove all barriers, limitations, and any stigma about any form of sexual acts, and the normalization of what has long been recognized in the civilized world as perversions of the natural sexual relations amongst mankind.
Our Creator has revealed to us, “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). Any sexual relations outside the marriage relationship [which, by the way, was established by our Creator to be one man and one woman, for life; Gen. 2:24] is called sin by God, and the acceptance and normalization of perversions of that by society matters not to God. Again, “fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that just because society accepts it, God will. That is more and more often not the case, and we must know that it will be God who judges us in the end and decides our eternal destination — not society. We would do well to forget about trying to please society and trying to look “mainstream” or “forward-thinking.” Sin is sin is sin, and God’s word does not change. We are foolish if we think God is going to change His mind just for this generation’s desires.
When Paul described the digression of the Gentiles (Rom. 1:18-32), it doesn’t sound all that much different than our society today! Man rejected the knowledge of God though the evidence was there, declared himself ‘wise’ and began down the path of idolatry and self-pleasing actions, not surprisingly including sexual activities and desires “for what is against nature.” The digression continued until God gave them over to those desires, and they only got deeper into sin.
May we stand with God and His ways, and honor Him over self. — Steven Harper
