About a decade ago, I was a Fox News junkie, constantly watching for every news alert and scandal, trying to be a teenager who knew current events and had some relevance in the world. My respect for different personalities came and went: Bill O’Reilly lost me when he skewered a friend of mine without allowing the poor guy to defend his views; Sean Hannity when he, a self-proclaimed faithful Catholic, dared to advise the Church to allow contraception; Shepard Smith when he went off the liberal deep end.
Brit Hume, however, with his well-collected mannerisms and Walter-Cronkite-esque air of professionalism, never bothered me. I knew he was conservative, but so many other conservatives are cowardly when it comes to speaking out on the issue of abortion. Yesterday, Brit Hume had this to say and I have to give the man some serious props.
Awesome. What a strong defense of the dignity of life! What a brilliant refutation of the pro-abortion mindset that permeates his occupation! He even blasts the term “pro-choice” as a laughable inaccuracy. Just awesome.
Nevertheless, his witness misses the mark, even if just slightly. In the video, he says that if fetal pain could be found from the moment of conception, abortion rights would collapse overnight. Unfortunately, that piece of evidence will never materialize. Nerve cells don’t exist at the moment of conception, so there can’t be pain.
All the pro-aborts watching noted this, I’m sure, but that fact still doesn’t make abortion acceptable. Nevertheless, I’m sure they ended the segment with a smug face, fully content with their shallow victory that you can apparently murder a person … as long as he doesn’t feel it.
Look, folks: If we want to win the debate on abortion, we must use an all-of-the-above approach. Yes, inflicting pain is bad and that truth will help us fight abortion to an extend. Yes, brainwaves and heartbeats and fingernails and all that. The goal is to humanize the child (who is, of course, already human). The more society comes to an awareness of the humanity of the child in utero, the more progress the pro-life movement will make. Sadly, though, none of the things can vouch for the humanity of the child at the moment of conception.
What human trait can? The union of body and soul.
The trouble with that argument is that materialism is so widespread today. As long as scientism and empiricism – in which views spiritual things cannot exist – dominate the philosophy of our society, the immaterial reality of the soul will remain a stumbling block for the pro-abortion community.
What is needed here is a renewal of proper philosophy, an intellectually honest admission of the limits of scientific measurement at the threshold of things it was never meant for, and a discovery of the existence of spiritual realities. Once the world believes in the soul again, the world might come to embrace the dignity of life.
Brit, if you want to save babies, save philosophy.
And props on speaking out. Thank you.