by John Ellis
Abortion is either the murder of babies or it’s not; it can’t be a little bit of both. I do realize that our justice system has varying levels for categorizing the intentional killing of a person. Yes, the courts view first degree murder differently than third degree murder (voluntary man slaughter, which is generally crimes of passion). But, I’ve never heard anyone say, and I would bet lots of money that you haven’t either, “Look, if you must kill that person, don’t first degree murder them, third degree murder them.”
Intentionally killing someone is murder. Period. And it’s wrong. Period.
According to many, however, abortion is an act that exists in the moral equivalent of a no-man’s land and is merely, at best, some sort of nuisance, or, at worst, a necessary evil that society would do well to phase out, but only, and I do mean only, after a litany of social ills are cured first. For those people, if you’re not willing to adopt an unwanted child or personally feed a village of single mothers, you better darn-well make sure that you don’t say boo about abortion. (Can I get an “amen” from Rachel Held Evans?) Well, if abortion isn’t the murder of babies, then I fail to see why it should be phased out or even discouraged in most cases. If it is the murder of babies, then it’s a moral evil of such magnitude that society’s collective sins in other areas have no immediate bearing on its abolition.