The most startling section of Neil's column is the third paragraph, which begins, "We don't feel guilty. We don't feel ashamed. We're not even really sad, because terminating these fetuses--at 15 weeks' gestation--was a medical imperative." To really understand the moral gravity of this situation, imagine if the fetuses had been allowed to stay for just fifteen more weeks. By then, it being a multi-child pregnancy, the babies would be born. If Neil and his wife killed the boys then, we would label them murderers. A public confession similar to the one he writes in column would inspire visceral hatred from nearly everyone. To kill an infant with pre-meditation and no remorse would perhaps bring capital punishment upon the Neils' heads. Yet a difference of fifteen weeks in this case makes all the difference. Our generation faces a choice: we may continue the shockingly evil customs of our parents' generation, or we may fight for truth and justice in an unjust, unmoral world.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
I linked from Al Mohler's very excellent blog (here) to an op-ed by Dan Neil, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist who writes for the Los Angeles Times. In this op-ed, Neil writes on a topic very personal to him: abortion. Specifically, his wife's abortion. While all abortions are horrible, Neil's case highlights a shocking, gruesome development in the bloody story of abortion. You see, Neil and his wife didn't accidentally get pregnant; nay, they went to great lengths to have children. When in vitro implantation of five embryos into his wife's womb resulted in four fetuses, they should have seen it as a gift from God. But rather than keep all four, they decided to "selectively reduce," or kill two of their children. They had two boys and two girls on the way; they chose to keep the girls.