When I was in my undergraduate years, some preacher boys and I viewed a VHS Tape of a sonogram of an abortion. It was the stuff of nightmares as the child struggled in the womb against the doctor’s instruments (abortionists have stated this is a mere reflex, as if pain is not, itself a reflex to possible harm). The doctor who killed the child repented of the murders he had committed, when he saw the child’s response. I have also comforted my wife during the loss of our own to children, Avery and Taylor in the womb. Similarly, my own mother was counseled by an Obstetrician to abort me. There are those who deceive themselves into saying these are not babies, and not entitled to be treated as human beings. Often in apologetics, I seek to maintain my objectivity – I am passionate about what I do, but my passions follow my thinking; logic is not limited to the cold dispassion of the study, truly understanding the logic of a matter creates an impulse to act. Yet, when it comes to the cavalier description of butchering babies for research material, it is difficult if not impossible to be detached. Man cannot make a dichotomy of himself. There is a time to answer counter arguments with counter arguments, but now I can only shake my head at how man can strain so reluctantly against the obvious.

In the past two weeks we have seen videos of Planned Parenthood officials discussing in no uncertain terms the sale of human body parts from children murdered in their clinics, we have also seen the death of an animal, Cecil the lion. The murder of human beings seems in many circles to be the less pressing matter. Many people will object, they will claim my language is over the top, that I haven’t proven that this is murder. But what other word applies to the deliberate killing a person who has not been convicted of any crimes, when it is not a matter of self defense, and it is not involved in the prosecution of a war? Many will argue that these children are not actually human, but they have not been able to present a viable alternative definition of humanity, a valid, sound cogent argument why passage through the birth canal somehow conveys a right to live. The only definition of human life they have given (that of the child’s developed capabilities) leaves no logical difference between the murder of a human ‘fetus’ (to be clinical) and the murder of a six month old infant or someone with severe mental handicaps. Indeed, some bio-ethicists are raising the same arguments the Nazi’s did for infanticide; using terms like “potential human” in ways similar to the Nazi term subhuman. In many cases they directly relate this view to abortion.

The way our society uses language also belies the hypocrisy in the “its not really a baby” defense. If it’s not really a baby, why do we tell woman how to take care of their babies in neonatal care? No one says to an expectant mother, “when is your fetus due?” In fact, we regularly refer to human fetus’s as babies unless the mother wants to kill the child, then to assuage the shame brought on by guilt we change our language.

Some democrats will argue that this is a woman’s right (as if another human is somehow unaffected); and if abortion is legal why not let science benefit? Dr. Mengela, the infamous Nazi doctor who performed inhuman experiments on Jews in the death camps, said much the same thing. If they were going to die anyway, why not benefit society?

The scandal, though is about more than Planned Parenthood, it’s about our society itself. There is something wrong with America today. We speak of abortion in Euphemisms, to assuage the consciences that modern psychologists insist do not exist. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda minister would be proud. The American left is already making accusations that these videos have been edited and taken out of context (as if there is a context in which negotiations over the price of human organs is acceptable). The discussions in the news media is about whether or not congress should defund planned parenthood, not the prosecutions of Planned Parenthood officials. The problem is, even if America has not accepted atheism at a theoretical level, it has sadly assumed that humans are little more than animals on a practical one. Tragically, our society has responded far more harshly to Cecil’s death than to the murderess talking about killing children in a more advantageous way, while sipping wine with the smile belying the monster she really is. The true shame is that a monster like this can walk free in America today, with her held high. And the reason why this is the case is because we ultimately don’t care on the societal level about the blood on her hands. The irony is, in the name of social progress and tolerance, we no longer care about human life. This illustrates how the Bible is right about us.

I would love to make some positive point, to answer an objection, or to raise an argument. I’ve struggled with what to say or how to address this. In the end, all I can do is shake my head, admit we owe Dr. Mengela an apology for seeking to put him on trial when we do not extend the same standard to our own citizens and cry that I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips.