Americans may support abortion rights, but even 40 years after Roe, we don't talk about it like other medical procedures.I'd like to take a moment and explain why Sarah had a reaction she could not understand. Before I do, I must confess that quite often, people have false guilt due to cultural factors or perhaps other sources that oppress the conscience in a way that is more manipulative than reality. We see this especially in children, who are abused and do not wish to upset their parents.
And maybe that's appropriate. Abortion may be a simple procedure medically, but it is not cancer surgery. It's an elective procedure that no one—neither its defenders nor its detractors—expects to elect for themselves. I had (and still have) difficulty understanding my own reaction, both relieved to have watched a minimally invasive surgery and distressed by the emotionality of the process. Abortion involves weighty choices that, depending on how you view it, involve a life, or the potential for life. And my reaction, complicated and conflicted as it was, may have been a reflection of our national ambivalence about a private medical procedure at the center of a very public debate.
However, I am not speaking of that here. As her last sentence admits, our nation seems to be ambivalent about such procedures, and she defends that statement by arguing that statistically, most Americans support Roe v. Wade.
Sarah felt discomfort because she is made in the image of God. As Romans chapter 2 from the Bible tells us, we intuitively know God exists, and we intuitively know His moral law. We also know we have broken His law, and our consciences make us very aware of this fact.
Mankind does not like to "feel" guilty so we must do what the Apostle describes in the previous chapter. We must hold down the truth so that our consciences may be free from guilt. In doing so we fulfill what Paul describes. We become fools while proclaiming to be wise. We fall into deeper sin and our true character becomes exposed over time.
Albert Mohler's comments that, "Her report is both chilling and honest."
I agree in some sense this was quite brave of her to write such a story. It is honest in some sense. But I would disagree that she follows through. As her last paragraph says, "Abortion involves weighty choices that, depending on how you view it, involve a life, or the potential for life." Although this appears honest, it is self-deceiving. She makes the statement in a world where the question of the meaning of life becomes meaningless. Why make the statement in the first place? Who gives life value? What makes life so dang important?
As long as Sarah Kilff suppresses the truth of God and twists the created order, she will always be dishonest in her conclusions. This is not honesty. This is an excuse to witness a murder and attempt to deal with our seared consciences while pretending to acknowledge our humanity.