Just three days before the anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, news comes from Philadelphia that an abortion doctor in that city has been arrested and charged with eight counts of murder in the death of one female patient and of seven newborn babies that prosecutors say were killed with scissors.
But I must play devil's advocate and ask a question that seems to me to be both obvious and central to the "pro-choice" position. If, as a vehemently pro-choice person might be apt to argue, the laws of our country should not have protected the lives of those seven babies just before they were born, why should it protect them just after they were born? What is the difference? Functioning lungs? Detachment from an umbilical chord? And if, as it seems to me, these are indeed the only difference other than location, does this then mean that our society and its laws should only protect the lives of those who can breathe and eat on their own?
What a terrifyingly slippery slope.
When it comes to the issue of abortion in the public square, college students, my best advice is this: pray fervently in faith but argue mercilessly using reason.