Thursday, August 11, 2016

What Does Obergefell Have to Do With Roe?

As I predicted in my book Logizomai: A Reasonable Faith in an Unreasonable World, America is becoming increasingly liberal on matters of marriage and sexuality and conservative on matters of life - especially on abortion. However, the speed of liberalization is much greater than that of conservation on these social issues. It would have been difficult to predict just two years ago that the President of the United States, even this President, would threaten all public schools that did not surrender to the transgender ideology regarding its bathroom policies.

Nevertheless, one of the weaknesses of the pro-life movement has been in connecting the two issues of life and marriage. For now, most Americans see these as two separate questions, yet that is a mistake. In his well-articulated book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, Ryan T. Anderson makes the connection for us. He writes:
Redefining marriage will also put more unborn children at risk. The best protectors of unborn children are a strong marriage culture and people who take the virtue of chastity seriously. But the new consent-based view of marriage reduces marriage to a mere contract. Redefining marriage will also make a culture of chastity harder to foster. Without a culture of chastity, we will never have a pro-life culture.

Indeed, both the pro-choice movement and the movement to redefine marriage reduce human community to contract and consent and limit our obligations to other human beings to those we have freely chosen. . . . [The common slogans used today] reflect the belief that consenting adults should do whatever they want to do, a belief that puts adult desire before the needs of children. And weakening marriage will lead to a culture with more nonmarital sex, thus more nonmarital pregnancy, and sadly more abortion. (51-52)
He goes on to show how the redefinition of marriage has also led to an increase of reproductive technologies which often rely, or result in, the destruction of human embryos - i.e. human lives.

But being pro-life is about protecting and fighting for all of life not just that of the unborn. It also means fighting for the quality of life for the born, unborn, the sick, the unwanted, and the dying. Sexual anarchy harms children as the divorce culture has demonstrated and promoting homes lacking a gender, in the end, is not pro-life. Anderson writes:
A just society makes sacrifices to ensure that children are known and loved by their own mother and father, while doing what it can to help children denied that blessing by misfortune. But misusing technology turns those priorities upside down, deliberately increasing the number of children who grow up fatherless or motherless and subordinating children's needs to adult desires. (52)
That final sentence is worth emphasizing. The sexual revolution requires abortion and abortifacients because it is centered on the pleasure principles of consenting adults without any concern for the children it may or may produce. Children, therefore, are a disease - a cancer - that must be surgically removed if discovered. Or, as Anderson puts it, "we have decided that adult desires comes first." (53)

We conclude then that promoting a sexually promiscuous society will never be, at the same time, a pro-life one. If we fail hold the marriage bed up to a higher standard, human life will never be given the dignity it deserves. If life is to be preserved, so must marriage and sex.
Post a Comment