Indeed, I was guilty when I was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me. (Psalms 51:5 HCSB)
“Most people would agree that murder, for example, is inherently wrong. But why? Once the issue is pressed hard enough, the purely secular theorist has very little ground for argumentation. The question “why” eventually presses the secular argument back to its irreducibly and essentially unsecular form. Why is murder wrong? Some might try to fashion an answer to this question on the grounds of pragmatism. Not only William James and John Dewey, but also Stanley Fish, Richard Rorty, and others, have argued that all issues of ultimacy must be adjudicated on pragmatic grounds. However, the problem is that human life, in terms of its inherent dignity, is very difficult to define in purely pragmatic terms.For instance, when does human life begin? As Christians, we have a principled, axiomatic answer to that question. But how does a putatively secular theorist fashion an answer to that question? His first instinct, of course, will be to let science step in and adjudicate the issue. But science cannot answer that question, because in order to say when human life begins, there must be some definition of what human life is, and that definition is precisely what science cannot offer. Because of that, there is no consensus among secularists about the definition of human life. There is an entire spectrum among them about what human life should be, how it should be defined, when it begins, and when it is worthy of protection. There are secularists who hold that life begins at conception, and there are other secularists like Peter Singer who would argue that even infanticide should not be considered immoral. After all, a woman’s right to choose is inviolable, and life, Singer says, is not worthy of protection until the human being has attained the ability to relate and use language.“ – Al Mohler (Emphasis mine)That is a quote from Mohler’s blog today. The bold stuff stuck out to me because it sounds remarkably like the arguments used by people who defend the idea of “age of accountability”. They say, “A person is not condemned until he has attained the ability to relate and use language”. Of course, it’s an opposite end argument, but it’s still the same logic.
If human life doesn’t begin at conception, than age of accountability makes perfect sense. Why? Because it means that the thing growing inside the mother’s womb is not a living being until the age of accountability. The logical conclusion from that thought is that abortion is ok and even the killing of one’s child is ok until a certain age (when “he has attained the ability to relate and use language”). We wouldn’t be committing murder because the being isn’t really alive and we wouldn’t be doing an injustice to the thing because it is not a condemned being until it “has attained the ability to relate and use language”.
So if you believe in the “age of accountability” rather than the Biblical doctrine of original sin, it would be good for you to become pro-abortion so you can send the mess of flesh inside your womb to heaven earlier so that it doesn’t have to become human and damned.