Skip to main content

Choice?

I work for a water treatment company, and one of the most common questions we receive is, "Do you perform free testing?" to which I invariably reply, "What kind of testing?"  We perform multiple kinds of testing, some of which are free and some of which are not.  The term testing is itself too ambiguous to be helpful. 

So it is with the term choice.

Liberals love to identify themselves as champions of choice, but they don't really believe in unfettered choice for individuals.  Nobody does, really.  In fact, Liberals, advocates as they normally are for big government, generally believe in limiting the choices of individual citizens far more often than Conservatives do.  

Undefined choice is a meaningless concept.  One is always choosing between one or more options, and some choices are immoral and/or illegal.  We all, even the most Libertarian amongst us, accept this fact.  If my choice impinges on the rights of my neighbor, then I am not free to make that choice.

We as a society do not believe in the inherent right to choose for the thief or the rapist, do we?  You don't see rioting or picketing on behalf of the arsonist or the murderer, do you?  Have you ever heard an advocacy group or celebrity demanding that we protect the choice of the child molester or the domestic abuser? 

So it is not choice that is being debated, but the morality and legality of a specific choice.  Is it morally acceptable to choose to end a human life in the womb?  Should it be legal to dismember a developing child in utero?  Should a woman, along with her romantic and medical accomplices, be allowed to commit homicide, literally speaking, against the unborn?

Is a woman free to make that choice?  

So the next time you hear someone say something like, "I just don't think old, white men should be allowed to take away a woman's right to choose," don't let them get away with it.  Falling back on the right to choose is not a valid argument, legally, morally, or logically speaking.  We are debating the morality of a specific choice, a specific act, and that act, unspeakably heinous, is not protected by some ambiguous concept of choice.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...
Post a Comment
Read more

Anglicanism, Paedocommunion, & Being Reformed

I consider myself Reformed.  I was baptized as a baby in a PCA church.  I grew up in a Reformed microdenomination that allowed its member churches to subscribe to any of the Reformed confessions (we subscribed to the Three Forms of Unity).  In many ways, whether I like it or not, I still think and act like a Reformed Presbyterian.   Some, however, would seek to deny me that label.  I suspect there are many reasons for this, but paramount among them is that I hold to Paedocommunion (hereafter PC), which, for some reason, is absolutely the worst thing ever to these people.  Some would go so far as to say that PC makes me a heretic, but they all agree that I am certainly not Reformed .   My recent engagement with these opponents of PC has caused me to reflect on what it means to be Reformed and what it means to be a Christian.  This online jousting has dovetailed well with some of my recent study, particularly  An Apology of the Church...
Post a Comment
Read more