Living in the World
The god of Choice, Part 1
[This is the first of three parts of an article that first appeared in the SGM Magazine.]


Isn’t life about choices? We choose our President, our deodorant, our spouse, our lifestyle and our values. And this idea of choice in all things includes moral decisions. Choice makes no distinctions and is all about immediacy and pragmatism. Choice is the perfect moniker for the “me generation”.

In his book, When Choice Becomes God, F. LaGard Smith sets forth how personal choice becomes the credo of a valueless society:
Having no grand vision about what life is all about, we are reduced to making ad hoc decisions based on opinion polls, media propaganda or unabashed self interest. Without a given worldview consensus, which he Bible once provided, social dialogue is without anchor. [1]
Choice is about the exercise of the radical individualism that permeates our society today. To be pro-choice is to be pro-me.

Nothing is more representative of personal choice than abortion. In fact abortion proponents have for years adopted the label pro-choice. It certainly sounds better that pro-abortion. But the gist of the position is that it is the mother’s right alone to choose whether to have an abortion. Aided by the United States Supreme Court (USSC) abortion has been the centerpiece of the choice agenda.

In Roe v. Wade, the USSC determined in 1973 that a women’s fundamental right to an abortion is inherent in the constitutional “right to privacy”. As the whole world knows, the word “privacy” is not in the US Constitution. It is a construct of the USSC. In Planned Parenthood v Casey, the court revisited Roe 19 years later. It reaffirmed the “privacy right” to an abortion as a fundamental right, but readjusted how to review abortion cases. Instead of the trimester tests of Roe, the court adopted the “undue burden” test. Government action to restrict abortion is an “undue burden” if it purposes or effectively places a substantial obstacle in the woman’s path to an abortion.

In revisiting abortion, the court also tipped its hand as to what lies behind this right to abortion:
These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life. [Emphasis added.]
For the USSC, ‘privacy’ means that every person is entitled to his or her vision of what is right and proper and may act on such views. For the USSC, choice by an individual is god.

In reality, the pro-choice position buttressed by the right to privacy the court opines we all possess as a constitutional right is the only avenue available to abortion supporters. If a biological standard is used to determine whether abortion is legal, the debate is over. Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Professor of Genetics at Medical College of Paris, France, who discovered Down’s Syndrome, testified in the Judiciary Committee hearings of the US Senate when they were considering The Human Life Bill, S-158, in the 97th Congress of the United States, 1st Session, 1983, Vol. 1, p. 8., as follows:
If a fertilized egg is not by itself a full human being, it can never become man, because something would have to be added to it, and we know that does not happen.

[1] F. LaGard Smith, When Choice Becomes God (Eugene, Or: Harvest House, 1990), p. 35