The next video is up. No graphic images this time — just more chilling testimony.
I have been saying that one of our central tasks in the unfolding Planned Parenthood mess is to make defenders of the indefensible try to defend it. This can go one of two ways — either they back away from the position (or start to back away), or they double down.
An example of the former can be found here. This is something we welcome because it presents an opportunity to show that blood guilt cannot be removed with a long shower and lots of soap. It can be removed, but not that way.
But an example of the latter can be found here. What I would like to do is just take a moment to break out what this woman is actually saying, and take it apart. Hidden cameras are not necessary.
“Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”
Automatically. Always. The takeaway is that you can be human without having to be respected as a human.
First, if it is such a “complicated reality,” why does Mary Elizabeth Williams show such contempt for those who differ with her? Why are they “diabolically clever”? Why are their tactics “sneaky, dirty tricks”? Why does she dismiss them as “wingnuts” and “archconservatives,” and say that they urge “indefensible violations” of women with their mandatory ultrasounds? Is that indefensible in the same way that using ultrasound to make the process a little less crunchy is?
And these questions are even more pressing when you consider that she acknowledges that the pro-lifers are the ones being consistent — human life should be treated as human life — and she admits that the pro-choicers are being arbitrary and inconsistent.
She says this is “a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about.” I dare say. This is because this whole subject reveals her liberalism to be a sham — a high-flying name that sounds much better on the lips than raw selfishness does. Her liberalism is just another word for her selfishness. She is willing to surrender the facade of liberalism, but will not give up the right to have things just the way she wants — even if others must die.
God created the world, and He configured it in such a way that there are only two possible ways for persons to interact. They may follow the example of the Lord Jesus, and say “my life for yours,” or they may walk in the way of Cain, who slew his brother, saying “your life for mine.” Those are the only possible options, and for sinners the former way is closed to us and impossible unless the free grace of God intervenes. But when it intervenes, we are then able honestly (albeit imperfectly) to say “my life for yours.”
But which way does “the liberal” choose? Your life for mine.
Some human lives don’t have the same rights as other human lives. So this is liberalism? All creatures are equal, but some are more equal than others. Yes, this actually is liberalism — liberalism seen by hidden cameras. Some human rights are “automatically” trumped by the selfish person’s “circumstances.” The mother is “the boss.”
What circumstances might these be? Williams doesn’t say, but since human selfishness can trumps human life “automatically,” the circumstances would appear to be pretty broad. Might lose a season of wind-surfing. Might want to stay cute in a bikini. Might hate the father now.
In this set up, the reason the human life inside the woman in question has zero rights is that this life is “non-autonomous.” Note that she thinks she is giving us straight talk, but she still veers off at the last minute — she calls it a non-autonomous entity. The boss is always in charge of entities. They may be human entities, and I am very bold and courageous for saying so.
But this takes us right back to the videos. Entities apparently have livers, and legs. Entities have useful eyeballs that somebody at Berkeley might want.
Everyone in authority — like kings, or parents — has been placed in a position where they will use their authority in line with their fundamental creed. And remember, that creed is either grounded in the gospel, and is “my life for yours,” or it is grounded in self, and must therefore necessarily be “your life for mine.” Call it liberalism if it makes you feel better.
Herod ordered the head of John the Baptist to be chopped off. They brought it out to him in the midst of a banquet, and presented it to him on a serving dish (Mark 6:27-28). There is one kind of authority who devours (Ps. 14:4). But after Mark tells us about the episode where Herod received the Baptist’s head on a platter, immediately after that, a completely different kind of king gathered the people in the wilderness and He fed them (Mark 6:41).
That is how all authority works in this world. You must either feed those who are dependent upon you or you must devour them. We can now see what liberalism does, and we can see it without the hidden cameras.