How we think about the world is not just a mental exercise – it also impacts on how we perceive and receive the world.

One of the longest struggles that man has faced is the seeming impermanence of matter. It is something that decomposes, is not long lasting, deserves no respect. It is a hindrance to what is real and important in man and that is the mental, the ‘spiritual’, the non-material. This was a philosophy espoused by what came to be known as the gnostic school.

The teachings of gnosticism were condemned by the Church but they keep coming back and we see the recurrence of this in the latest arguments about what a person is and how this impacts on certain moral questions such as abortion and other areas. In summary, gnosticism tries to reverse and undo the statement of the Gospels – the Word became flesh – by now trying to make the flesh become word.

Interestingly, the gnostics were not persecuted by the Roman Empire. Spirituality in the understanding of the gnostics does not care about this world and hence is not a threat to the powers of this world. The gnostics translated the revolutionary news of the Resurrection into a merely personal view of the importance of the non-physical.

And this interestingly is brought out in the arguments about the morals of today in the area of abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide.

Morality is not just some list of rules, but what it does, is it gives us a road map to the world around us and how we are to behave. In a sense, morality is our guide how to become more fully human.

One of the claims that is made is that morality is flexible and can change with time. Abortion and euthanasia were considered crimes for which Nazis were convicted but now it is coming to the point that if you oppose abortion, for example, you are the one who is inciting society to hatred and this is just a step away from convicting you of a crime. You may think this is exaggeration but reflection on where we are now and where we are heading will show you that we are indeed on a steep and slippery slope to undo the ‘outmoded’ morality and wisdom of the past.

The basis for this about face in our society is the search for dependable knowledge. The world is divided into two major realms – the private and the public as our politicians claim. The private is the area of opinion and this is where morality is pigeon-holed. The public is the area of facts which can be ‘empirically’ ascertained. So, we have values and we have facts.

The arguments that have been offered in defence of abortion are quite revealing. Initially it was claimed that the fetus was simply an aggregation of cells and there was no life present there. When it was shown scientifically that the fetus contained the total potentiality for a human being – a full set of chromosomes and DNA – nothing will be taken out and nothing will be added to the genetic blue print that was already present – a new tactic in defence of abortion, was devised.

Yes, abortion ends a life, but that is not what is important. What is of paramount importance is whether the fetus represents a ‘person’. If a baby is human life from conception (based on science) then this is not important. What society needs to consider is whether there is ‘personhood’ present there in the fetus. In a sense, we have invented a new category of being – a human non-person – the fetus. This is the essence of arguments in support of abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide (yes, you read it right – infanticide, killing children). But there is a huge problem here. We resolved the question of the origin of life at conception – but on what basis can we determine ‘personhood’?

In the early stages of life, it is claimed that the unborn child has so little value that we can kill him/her with impunity. At some time later, the child has achieved enough mental capacity so that now, to kill it, would be a crime. Here is where gnosticism has crept back onto our world view. One sees no value in the human body but places all our worth in the mind or consciousness, or more specifically, the central cortex of the brain. The body and the intellect, which is the non-material component of people, are two separable items where the non-material is of prime importance.

From a Christian position, we are morally obligated to love others and to treat them so that they can grow and develop the full potentiality within them. There is a purpose inherent in that fetus and it is encumbant upon us to allow this being to grow to its full capacity – this is love. In the Christian world view, every human being is a person. The human body was seen by Christians throughout history, as the locus of personhood which was crucial to defining our humanity. The early Christians had to contend with an opposing world view. There was a common pun on the Greek word for body (soma) and the Greek word for tomb (sema). But Christian valuation of the human body is now seen as something outmoded.

We have gotten to the point where simply being a member of the human race does not qualify us for protection and nurturing. Now, some claim, that we can achieve this ‘personhood’ status only through nebulous criteria, centering on the developments within the central cortex of the brain. The world, in which this world view operates, is morally neutral – it cannot guide us as to what is right or what is wrong. These categories do not exist until we confront and oppose those supporting abortion, and here the supporters of abortion are held to be in the absolute right. There are no moral absolutes except for the absolute rightness of abortion.

Now let’s take a closer look at the Pandoras box opened by abortion. Here I will focus on infanticide, but it could also apply to euthanasia, which has been pushed by governments all over the world.

I come back to the questions of ‘personhood’. What criteria do we use? Who determines the criteria?

There are university professors teaching, of all things, ethics, who claim that personhood does not set in until the age of twelve (based on what?). In other words, children are open game for ‘post-natal abortion’ as it is euphemistically called. Infanticide is, after all, an inflammatory label.

The people espousing this are not on the peripheries of society. They are not criticised for their call to kill children. Quite the opposite, they are paid handsome salaries to propagate their views and prepare mankind for the next step in human moral evolution. These are the people who will be determining who is a person – and therefore allowed to live – and who is a non-person and can be exterminated.

Very often, writers are prophetic in their declarations and I would like to end with a quote from a writer who wrote Blade Runner and other stories. This is a story by P. K. Dick called “The Pre-Persons”. Children were seen as merely expelled fetuses who could be hunted down and were open game in a world where the limits for abortion were pushed to include even children up to age twelve.

“Past the groves of cypress trees… Walter saw the white truck, and he knew it for what it was. He thought, That’s the abortion truck. Come to take some kid in for a postpartum down at the abortion place. And he thought, Maybe my folks called it. For me.

He ran and hid among the blackberries, feeling the scratchings of the thorns but thinking, It’s better than having the air sucked out of your lungs. That’s how they do it…. They have a big room for it.

For the kids nobody wants.”

We have considered what awaits those who are early in their lives but a similar fate awaits those who are late in their live’s journeys. In 2015, a British columnist K. Hopkins wrote: We just have far too many old people. Her solution – euthanasia vans – just like ice-cream vans – that would come to your home and solve the ‘perceived problem’ of the aged.

Your reaction to these horrific scenes is that it will never happen. In a nanosecond, you comfort yourself with the girl you read about who was raped in Brazil and is now pregnant. What to do? You have no answer and so, you turn to abortion as the only viable answer, ignoring and totally putting out of your mind where this will inevitably lead – to pre-person status and abortion vans.

You are well aware of the supposed economic burden of ‘non-productive’ elderly people. And Hopkins’ solution makes sense to you, and what is even more frightening, it makes sense to our governments. Governments, in spite of their rhetoric, have become morally ‘neutral’ in questions of saving human lives. In your mind you make ‘sense’ of abortion and you justify it to yourself.

Welcome to the brave new world that is coming at a galloping pace – something to think about and to act.

Sincerely,
Bar-Abbas