As a Christian, I count myself a supporter of two moral propositions:
- Abortion, like murder, is a great evil; and
- Sex should be reserved for marriage.
I am not unsympathetic to the burdens that complying with these propositions might pose in extermis; for instance, the burden on a family faced with the prospect of caring for a severely disabled child, or the burden on that child as he grows up faced with the improbability of ever finding someone to marry. But that sympathy does not extend to elevating human frailty above God’s instructions.
That said, I couldn’t help noticing the Oscar buzz generated by the film The Sessions, the apparently true story of a severely disabled man who hires a
prostitute “sexual surrogate” to whom he loses his virginity. Now, it may not necessarily be a contradiction, strictly speaking, for liberals to argue, as they apparently do, that someone with disabilities doesn’t have a right to life but does have a right to fornicate. But it does seem just a little . . . incongruous.
Speaking of abortion, I read, via Ace, another media frenzy over a Republican straying off-script:
Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said Tuesday that pregnancy that results from rape can be “something that God intended to happen.”
“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God,” Mourdock said at a debate. “And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
Now, on the one hand, as a Calvinist who subscribes to the English Reformers’ view of the sovereignty of God, that Mourdock isn’t that far off.
The decrees of God are His eternal purpose, according to the counsel of His will, whereby, for His own glory, He doth foreordain whatsoever comes to pass.
But that said . . . I’m rethinking this whole “gift of life” business. It is true that in the Bible, as throughout history until relatively recently, children were always considered a blessing. But I’m not sure that the phrase “gift of life” appears in the Bible in the context of children, nor am I convinced that there is a moral obligation to procreate irrespective of any other consideration. I haven’t thought this through all the way, but these thoughts did cross my mind as I read Mourdock’s statements above, and I can’t help think that the phrase “gift of life” seems a little jarring in the case of rape-induced pregnancy.