Note, by the way, that I have made the title of this post read "his rights" rather than "its rights" (or "it's rights", as in the below sign). Preborn children have definitive gender from very early on in their development and should not be referred to in the neuter, as if they were nothing more than a table, a weed, or a clump of cells.
The short answer to this question is:
Yes, we will still fight for the equal protection of the human rights of a human being at whatever stage of his/her life and development, no matter the opposition to the respecting of those human rights, no matter the behavior and preferences of that person or the behavior and preferences we believe we foresee.Now for the more extended analysis of the question and explanation of our answer.
We have discussed the issue of human rights at length here already, and so I must insist that anyone looking for detailed explanation first read through what has been said before.
With that as a foundation, let us ask: To what rights are these questions referring?
The challenger is trying to impale the abolitionist on the horns of a dilemma, since the abolitionist also has a commitment to the ethics of Jesus Christ. In fact, Jesus' ethics are the very foundation and reason for which we do what we do in standing up for the right of the preborn child not to be murdered in his mother's womb.
Yet those very same ethics clearly mandate the moral reprehensibility of homosexual behavior and the moral uprightness of monogamous, committed heterosexual marriage. So if one is to be consistently Jesus-centric in one's ethics, one has to affirm both the preborn child's right not to be murdered in the womb and Jesus' definition of marriage.
The dilemma comes to light when:
- the interlocutor suggests that the preborn child is born with an innate homosexual orientation, much like one is born with a certain ethnicity, hair color, and gender.
- the interlocutor imports into the conversation the idea that marriage is a right, and as such should be extended to any two persons, regardless of gender.
- There is no scientific consensus over whether a "gay gene" exists that controls one's sexual orientation, despite many homosexual activists' claims that such does exist.
- Even if a "gay gene" does exist, this makes absolutely no difference to the moral justifiability of actually engaging in homosexual behavior. We are all born into sin and some temptations seem more attractive to us than others.
If I have a hot temper and someone makes me really angry, does that justify my violating someone else's rights in murdering them?
If I have a predilection toward alcoholism such that I am much more easily addicted than someone else, am I not guilty if I indeed become an alcoholic?
If I have an innate lust for power and for sex, am I justified in raping a woman?
The answer is, of course, no. The answer is: Let us repent of our sin, all our sin, and ask Jesus to transform us.
Yes, it is unpleasant, especially when the sin is so closely cherished, but we have to realise that sin is an enemy and wants to destroy us, and we are slaves to it unless freed by Jesus.
Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.
In other words, just because you think you were born that way, or even just because you were born that way, has nothing to do with the justifiability of your actions. That is a separate question.
- Consider carefully whether this parallel is a good idea to make. Human history is full of large-scale atrocities and tensions between people based on their ethnic differences. These persecutions were between people groups based on violent intolerance of their ontology, their essence.
Homosexuality is characterised by behavior.
So let's bring this back to the dilemma. One can be "oriented" toward a certain action, but does that automatically give someone the right to carry out that action?
No, it does not.
- About behavior - we believe that since all humans are made in the image of God they have the ability to choose in a given situation whether they will engage in a certain behavior. Thus, a person undergoing a temptation to perform a homosexual act is not an automaton, a robot that is controlled by his desires. Just because one desires to do something, that does not mean s/he has no choice in the matter. To deny this leads to all sorts of absurdities. The entire field of psychology and criminal justice would be completely divested of any meaning, for it would negate all notions of responsibility and ability to change.
Thus we abolitionists hold homosexuals in higher regard than those who would implicitly deny that they have the ability not to robotically do whatever their glands tell them to.