Murder for the Sake of Convenience?

When Hedonism meets Humanity
By: Daniel Detulio

When it comes to abortion, you can probably guess my viewpoint, but I would like to address a little debated aspect of the argument concerning this issue. It is in regards to attitudes present in this culture- the justifications and outright apathy (it terrifies me). Given enough time, just what are we as humans capable of? Allow me to explain.

Not so long ago in an undergraduate medical ethics class at Marist College (which is supposedly Catholic by the way) we addressed the issue of abortion. Basically, the majority of the students came to the conclusion that prior to 8 weeks it is difficult to determine whether the embryo was truly a “living” human being. Logic would have then dictated, it would seem, that one should err on the side of human life and due to the uncertainty, treat the embryo as a growing person.

Apparently this mattered not to 90% of my classmates. Incredulously, I began to further inquire and push the envelope, systematically adding weeks to the embryo's (and eventually fetus's) life and becoming more shocked by the results. Despite knowing full well the fetus was just as alive and living as you or I, almost the whole class was still willing to do away with the child. Thankfully they all agreed that just prior to birth it was wrong to abort.

I was stunned. It was at that point in my academic career that I lost all faith in human logic and humanity itself. Here were fellow biology students, immersed every day in the wonderful complexities of the world, the human body, and life itself, and yet so blind? We were no longer at the point of debating whether a fetus was a human being, we were all in agreement that it was; We were merely thinking up reasons for snuffing out that life for our convenience.


Why do we compromise truth and morality for the sake of convenience? Is it out of selfishness or does it stem from apathy?

Given enough time it would seem any heart can be hardened, any mind calloused; all it takes is just tiny changes as we little by little become acclimated to immorality. It would seem that so long as the benefits outweigh what is right, then it is perfectly acceptable to do wrong. This growing trend appears to be true of just about every aspect of our lives, and most unfortunately, now including the abortion issue.

Some of the “conveniences” of allowing abortions seem to fall into two main categories (granted there are more, but most of them are completely ridiculous).

1. Ability to care for the fetus, post birth
2. Usage of the embryo/fetus in Scientific Research

Concerning the ability to care “excuse” (yes, I am calling it an excuse), it boils down to justification for killing based on the fact an unexpected new life will make things “difficult” and “get in the way” of one's lifestyle. Quickly kill it before it gains humanity-or even after! What does it matter so long as I am not inconvenienced! Ridiculous.

Concerning the usage in scientific research, the argument boils down to potential lives saved through medical research using aborted embryos and fetal tissue. Yet, might I remind the reader these are potential lives saved at the cost of actual lives. Furthermore, these actual lives are never given the chance to decide for themselves whether this sacrifice is merited.

Again, is it apathy or selfishness that leads humankind to make justifications for what is wrong? I think I'll just chalk it up as sin nature, so really it shouldn't come as much of a shock.

Ephesians 4:18-19

They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.


  1. Hmm... Is Biology a big major at Marist?

    This has always sounded really bad to me. Shouldn't "murder" (that is not abortion) be justified under convenience? If I had a family member that I did not like being around but always seems to be there shouldn't I have the right to end their life if murder (of any sort) becomes a convenience factor?

  2. Thus euthanasia is now legal in a couple states.

  3. I guess euthanasia is still one of those "taboo" subjects in our society, while abortion seems to be becoming more widely accepted.

  4. But really what's the difference? Why is it so easy for us to accept abortion, but not euthanasia? Atleast the person being euthanized gets to choose whether or not to end their own life. Left wingers are all about choice...where is the child's choice? A baby's heart starts beating at 28 days gestation. Most of the times unplanned pregnancies aren't discovered until after that time. How is stopping a beating heart not justified as murder!?

  5. I have found this same phenom before. Frustrating is not a strong enough word and it pains me, but if our early fathers had to face brutal persecution...well it puts things into perspective.

    IMO, I think we need to meet these students where they are. Charity is called for in the face of such poverty. I try to think of the cultural cess pool they have been raised in. They get daily doses of moral relativism, false sexual ethics and they get praises that appeal to their vanity for adopting tolerance in the face of evil. This is what they know- even the catholics at Marist. As a catholic, I can tell you that many catholics are seriously deficient in their catechism. Their grandparents may know God's revelation but their baby boomer parents have unknowingly done them a great diservice. And so they are where they are and we walk out to meet them but never compromise the truth.

    "But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him. "

    So what do we do? Condemnation isn't our way. So we just embrace them, dust them off and give them a better way to think and tell them that respect for human life this is about the dignity of each and every one of them in that classroom. This is the truth. The truth has a nice way of slowly killing off cultural liberalism.

  6. If what you are saying Tonio is what I think you are saying, I have to respectfully disagree. We cannot and should not meet them where they are. That quote you used reminds me of something.

    What happened before the Son came back? The Son left and the father did not follow him... He did not follow him "where he was" going. We are not supposed to go to them. We are supposed to tell them the truth, in love and rely on the Lord to bring them to us then embrace them when they do. The Father ran and embraced His son when He saw him COMING BACK.

    If we go and meet them "where they are" we are compromising the truth. What does Romans 1 tell us? All know there is a God. All know morals. You hear about saved tribes in Papa New Guinea and their cannibalism... They knew these things were wrong, but they did them anyways.

    Maybe you do not know how going to "where they are" is a compromise of the truth. Lets see: First, they are standing on a branch of Christianity (they would not always say this but they are). When you hear them talking about any moral issue they still will view other things from our moral view point (or at least a view point we should have). They think that abortion is alright but murder is wrong. They think torture is bad yet they think Homosexual marriage is good. Why do we need to go to where they are. We need to help them recognize that they are inconsistent. If we are trying to show them that they are inconsistent how beneficial is it to try and move to their view point (aren't we being inconsistent).

    Can we truly stand in their position? I believe not. We are all biased and we have to recognize this. We will never be able to stand there truthfully.

    We declare the Bible as the truth yet we are willing to go into their "truth." We cannot trick them into being Christians by telling them to "try it out for a week" (example of it working the other way). That does not seem consistent with any other view points that are declared as truth. Do doctors ever leave their field to prove what they believe is the problem? Do they just tell you what the problem is and you accept it? We do not need to make this relative to where they are. We need to help them understand the faulty logic of abortion.

    If an unborn person can be killed because they do not think that they are truly human, then why can't a dog be tortured because it is not human? If something is reliant on another being to live means it is not alive, when is a leech alive? When is a tape worm alive?

    This is referred to as the "Don't Answer, Answer" method. Proverbs 26:4-5 says
    "Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
    lest you also be like him.
    "Answer a fool according to his folly,
    lest he be wise in his own eyes."

    This is parallelism at its finest. The second line helps define the first. We see that we are not supposed to answer them according to his folly because we do not want to be like him (meet him where he is = being like him). We are trying to keep ourselves from being associated with their logic. We also see that we are supposed to answer a fool according to his folly. The second verse would not make any sense without the clarifying second line. As a matter of a fact it would seem that the Bible disagrees with itself without the second line. What we are supposed to do when we DO answer is let them know how unwise what they are saying is.

    So in the case of Abortion, we would hear something a long the lines of "The pregnancy is my decision to terminate since it is my life that is going to be ruined." The "Don't answer, Answer" method sounds like this. "I disagree with you that you have the choice to terminate but lets carry your logic through. If your child hates you as a mother because he thinks his life is ruined, what is keeping him legally from killing you?" There are many directions you can go with the abortion issue because it is wrong on a number of levels. Logic, morality, and an evolution system would tell us that this is unwise. There is basically no wise choice of how to justify abortion. You need to carry their logic through to see how boxed in their statements are.

    People place morality into different boxes depending on what situation they are dealing with.

    Example: Why don't we kill off all the mentally unstable? They are using all of our resources. They are a drain on the society. They are nothing other than animals. They are slowing down the evolutionary cycle since we are trying to help them. They are weak genetically. They cannot contribute to anything. Why don't we kill off all the other animals? We would be the superior. Crops would grow better. Evolution would take its logical direction. The strong would be the only ones that survive.

    What we look for as Christians is consistency. We can get their by making their logic as obviously illogical as it truly is.

  7. Moose, I can't type a lot tonight to give you a long answer. I think however we have a misunderstanding. I will not compromise words with these people. I will simply in my heart meet them where they are. I will not morally go to them or something like that. I just am moved by how in error many of my fellow catholics are and I try to understand them better and reach out so that I have a chance to do God's will.

    Speaking of compromise, I have been in agony watching Notre Dame compromise itself for Obama. To see 2900 moral relativists cheering as Obama blurred the lines between good and evil was rough.

    I admire your regard for logic and use it often, but I have seen some pretty hardened hearts on abortion that are unresponsive to logic. To me only an example of God's love can move them.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...