Jenson highlights the astounding theological claim made by pro-choice advocates, and now enshrined in Supreme Court jurisprudence:<\/p>\n
\u201cPro-life attempts to call their opponents pro-abortionists, as if being pro-abortion were worse than being pro-choice, are misguided. The decision whether or not to abort is indeed a choice uniquely important for the pregnant woman; and merely\u00a0therefore\u00a0<\/em>it must, according to the devisers and defenders of present law, be in her individual sole discretion. That is the whole and singular argument and position, and no other considerations are allowed to count against its force. What is in fact at stake for those who demand a right to abort at will is the understanding and practice of individual choice itself as the ultimate value of life, superseding even justice and even justice in a lethal matter, if it comes to that.\u201d<\/p>\nThis reaches almost self-parody in\u00a0Planned Parenhood v. Casey<\/em>, in Kennedy\u2019s famous mystical statement that liberty is \u201cthe right to define one\u2019s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.\u201d<\/p>\nJenson finds the language strangely familiar: Believers will \u201crecognize this supposed liberty to define existence, meaning, the universe, and human life as the freedom these theologies ascribe uniquely to their God. It is in fact a freedom of which no one ever dreamed apart from the influence of these theologies. According to the Abrahamic religions, there is indeed one whose personhood is defined by such liberty \u2014 and only one\u201d (32).<\/p>\n
In short, \u201cJews and Christians and Muslims stipulate the difference be\u00adtween God and what is not God by recognizing a particular mode of freedom in God and denying it to all else; the National Organi\u00adzation for Women and its allies claim explicitly and precisely that freedom for themselves, and the court has now written that claim into our law. What is asserted by \u2018pro-choice\u2019 ideologists and the court is straightforwardly a theology, one of an explicitly anti-bib\u00adlical sort\u201d (32).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
You can see this self-divination in other places as well.\u00a0 For example, postmodernists claim that truth is a human \u201cconstruction,\u201d or, put another way, reality is a human creation<\/em>.\u00a0 They are \u201ccreationists,\u201d except they consider themselves to be the creator, in the place of God.<\/p>\nMorality is also a human \u201cconstruction,\u201d whether of the culture\u2013in which case it is an oppressive imposition of power\u2013or of the self, in which case whatever the individual chooses<\/em> is right for that person.\u00a0 This is where \u201cpro-choicers\u201d get their ethical beliefs.\u00a0 If a woman is not allowed to choose, that is evil, but whether a woman chooses to have the baby or abort him or her, that choice is right for her<\/em>.\u00a0 Put another way, the human will is intrinsically righteous.\u00a0 Which is a characteristic of God\u2019s will.<\/em><\/p>\nCan you think of other examples?<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/305\/2018\/09\/self-confidence-2076793_1920.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n