It is astonishing in these days of 4-D ultrasound that these views continue to be proliferated. Everyone can see-- and has seen-- the vitality and the humanity of unborn babies. They can see this even at early levels of development. And yet, some continue to argue that abortion is a good thing.
The Blaze had a story yesterday about an Elon University religion professor-- Rebecca Todd Peters-- who argues that abortion is a moral choice when it is undertaken for "prenatal health" or the "health of the mother". She also cites the typically paroted progressive/socialist issues of rape and incest and "the life of the mother", all of which constitute a tiny percentage of legal abortions on demand.
The "health" justification she advocates literally opens the floodgates for rationalizing abortion because the slightest situational anxiety held by the mother, or the tiniest chance of an imperfect baby, is said to justify taking a human life. Peters states that abortion is necessary in order to "recognize and support the development of healthy and robust families". She states the following:
"Creating healthy families requires more than ensuring that babies are born. It recognizes that creating healthy families and raising children is a deeply spiritual and moral task requiring commitment, desire, and love on the part of the parent(s)."
It is quite interesting that she does not attempt to explicate the circumstances under which abortion is not justified. Presumably, according to this worldview, such circumstances simply do not exist.
After all, taking a human life is justifiable, according to this worldview, if it serves the convenience of the mother. It is felt to be acceptable to kill the unborn baby to avoid hardship or humiliation; or to avoid having to make sacrifices or difficult decisions. It is justifiable, according to this mindset, to take a human life in order to relieve financial pressure. Taking human life is regarded as acceptable to get the mother and the father out of a jam they created.
That appears to be the sum total of Professor Peters' "moral" position on abortion.
Readers must recall, once again, that the young woman choosing abortion is often doing so because she is being pressured to abort by the father or by her parents.
I do not know whether this particular professor comes from the tradition of liberal mainline Protestantism or from contemporary Judaism-- or, for that matter, if she is from neither.
But it is plainly evident that the position she is taking is outright evil. It advocates taking human life for reasons that are not ethically justifiable.