One of the questions that is incessantly asked today by the young and old alike is, “Can I afford to be moral?” To Christians the answer should be simple; however, if you used today’s entertainment as your guide, the answer would be “No way!” Just this morning, I read an article on a movie coming out in a next few days. In a 100 minute movie, it offers nearly 30 minutes of explicit sexual content. To make matters worse, the trailer for this film has made its way to the advertisements between your child’s Saturday morning cartoons. The reason you see movies like this and the reason that the cost of morality is too high for many is because they have a warped view of what freedom is. Many feel that freedom means being able to do whatever you want whenever you want however you want to do it. This is wrong.
Do you remember 9/11? I am sure you do. Juxtapose that with the Enron debacle. After the Twin Towers fell, the stock market crashed. It was revived only days later. When the Enron scandal happened, on the other hand, it devastated the world economy for much longer. Apologist Michael Ramsden is correct when he notes that,
“Stock markets fell further and faster after the Enron and WorldCom scandals than they did after the terrorist attacks of September 11, telling us that what the market fears most is not a terrorist attack from without but a moral corruption from within.”
True freedom is a moral concept. When you remove moral standards you have a collapse of virtue. In a immoral society—where people do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want to—you have anarchy. And societies which are ruled by anarchy are marked out by a loss of freedom, not an increase of it. Benjamin Franklin was right when to say,
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
So to the question, “Can I afford to be moral,” I would answer simply that the cost of compliance is high, but the cost of failure is catastrophic.
Speaking of morality…
Here we are 41 years after the egregious Supreme Court case, Roe versus Wade, and the World Health Organization reports that as of this moment for the year 2015, there have been 2,468,131 abortions worldwide. I have written elsewhere about the logic of the pro-life vs the pro-abortion position, and there is no need to rehash that here. What I want to do instead is just offer the sobering numbers. Abortion is the most common medical procedure performed today. It has become, as one journalist referred to it, “As American as apple pie.”
The first thing to ask is, “What counts as an abortion?” An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death. Abortion as a term most commonly used- and in the statistics presented here – refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy, while spontaneous abortions are usually termed miscarriages.
Each year, according to the WHO, there are nearly 40-50 million abortions. This means that each day there are approximately 125,000 abortions each day.
What about the USA? In our country, almost half of the pregnancies that occur are unintended. Of these unintended pregnancies, 40% are terminated by abortion. Each day, there are about 3,000 abortions in our country. Of all pregnancies in the United States (not including miscarriages) 22% end in abortion.
Nancy Pelosi, just the other day, said:
“The fact is what we have said. The life and the health of a mother is what is preeminent when a decision is made about a woman’s reproductive health…It isn’t an ideological fight…It’s a personal health issue. This is up to women — their conscience, their god their doctor, their health, their fate, survival.”
One of the frequent reasons for abortion that is commonly presented is that there are cases where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. The other one typically used is, in the case of rape or incest.
- Everett Coop, the former Surgeon General said this of his experience with protecting the woman’s health: “In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life.” I guess his experience is not worth our taking serious?
Coop went on to say, “When a woman is pregnant, her obstetrician takes on the care of two patients—the mother-to-be and the unborn baby. If, toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, he will take the child by inducing labor or performing a Caesarian section.” In continuation, Coop noted that in this situation the doctor has the intention to, “ Save the life of both the mother and the baby.” Now of course, if this occurs, “The baby will be premature,” but even then, “The baby is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger.”
What is most troubling is when a doctor knows that a child could survive (a natural birth or a botched abortion), and that the mother’s health is in no way threatened; but cowing to societal pressure and the demands of the mother, they admit to performing abortions because it is what the patient wants them to do. Even our current president, Barack Obama, four times before he was elected president, voted not to save a baby that was born in the wake of a botched abortion. Because the mother intended abortion, if the abortion fails and the child survives, the legislation Obama supported makes it legal to kill the baby. How is this not murder? Do the wishes of a mother override the rights of a living, breathing, human being?
When it comes to abortion, there are only a few logical situations possible.
The first is that either the fetus is a person or it isnt a person.
There are two possibilities about whether or not a fetus is a person.
- Maybe you know that it is a person.
- Maybe you don’t that it is.
To this, there are two possibilities—either you are right or you are wrong.
So—from here ,there are four logical outcomes:
- The fetus is a person, and you know it. You’re right.
- The fetus is not a person and you know that. You’re right.
- The fetus is a person and you don’t know that. You think it’s not. You’re wrong.
- The fetus is not a person and you think it is. You don’t know the truth. You’re wrong.
Now these are the only possible scenarios (Like a Pascal’s wager, two chances of being right, two chances of being wrong).
The question is, what would you call abortions in each of these instances? These are the only four possible situations logically. What are they? Murder is case number 1. Manslaughter is case number 2. Criminal Negligence is case number 3.
In reality, only the fourth case justifies abortion.
That is the thing about abortion. If the fetus is a human being, abortion is wrong. If it is not a human being, then it isn’t wrong. When my daughter is behind me and says, “Daddy can I kill this,” my response is dependent on what “this” is. If “this” is her baby brother, the answer is “No!” If “this” is a cockroach, the answer is, “I will do that for you!”
So, when does life begin? We know what progressives tell us (with not a speck of evidence mind you). They say that life begins at birth, or when a child becomes aware of its surroundings, or when it can anticipate pain. Even Peter Singer and Richard Dawkins say that a newborn baby is less viable than a baby pig. Most Zoologists and biologists will say that life is a continuum from fertilization until the organism dies. They apply this to birds, dogs, snakes—every organism. Why should it be different for a human?
I love what Ravi Zacharias says concerning the beginning of life:
“Vice-Presidential candidate Al Gore was debating Vice-President Dan Quail. They were arguing on the abortion issue. Dan Quail, a very committed man, was very devoutly committed to the preservation of the unborn and risked his entire political career on that…At a moment, Gore really pinned him with his back to the wall… And Gore was very sharp, he was brilliant. They teach you in debate ‘if you can’t give your own answers, learn to question the opposition.’ And Gore looked at him, eyeball to eyeball, and says “Sir, Dan, would you repeat after me that ‘a woman has the right to her own body’. Would you repeat that after me, Dan? That ‘a woman has the right to determine the destiny of her own body’.” Three times he slammed him with that comment, “Repeat after me, Dan…”
“And of course poor Mr. Quayle could not really come back at that kind of an approach. He came up with a very meaningful answer but did not satisfy the taunt. He said “Well, every time you abort a baby you stop a beating heart.
What I think would have been an ideal response would have been something like this, I think. Senator Gore had already said he was personally against it but politically he felt it was the right of the person to make the decision. So the response should have gone something like this, I believe:
Senator Gore, would you first repeat after me that ‘the life within that mother’s womb is a human life.’ Would you repeat that after me? Because if the answer to that is yes, what are you doing obliterating life? If the answer to that is no, why are you personally against it? If the answer to that is ‘I don’t know’, how many more decisions are you going to make on an agnostic platform?”
Many on the side of abortion say that they are pro-choice politically, but they are personally opposed to abortion. You might hear it put this way: “I am against abortion. I would never have one. On the other hand, I do not feel like the government should make a woman give birth. For that reason, I am pro-choice.” Such a statement sounds fair enough. The problem is, when you really think about what they have said, you realize just how evil that is.
Here is the question: For what other reason could someone be opposed to abortion besides their compulsory belief that a fetus is more than just a blob of cells—but a life?
How have we gotten a place where the medical community allows itself to be pushed by social planners into being both caregivers and executioners? Mark my words, an abortionist is an executioner. What about infanticide in ICU units? This is murder as well. The slippery slope keeps going too. One day, what prevents societal pressure and political correctness from demanding that the doctor become the executioner of the elderly?
The immediate access to abortion is horrific as well. A husband has nothing to say regarding the matter now. A husband cannot legally stand up for the life of his unborn child. All choice is given to the mother. When it comes to minors who want to have abortions, their parents have no right to say anything. A child can have an abortion without the parent’s approval, but cannot go to the mall and get her ears pierced without parental consent.
Of course, to look at the story of the incarnation of Christ gives us reason to pause. The story of Mary becoming impregnated with the Son of God leaves no room for doubt. The angel told Joseph, “That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” From the moment of conception God had entered human life. The soul that I am has also existed from the moment of conception.
We have to be educated. We have to talk to our friends and family about the origin of life. Even before a woman knows she is pregnant, 21 days into it, the baby demonstrates a heartbeat. By the sixth week the adrenal gland and the thyroid are functioning. A child’s fingerprints are indelibly in place by the twelfth week. Abortion kills a developing human being! No matter how old or how large the organism is when he/she leaves the womb, that emergence—by whatever means—is still a birth.
If the developing fetus isn’t a human being, then what is it? A dog, a pig, or something else?
What is wrong with forcing a woman who seeks an abortion to look at the sonogram of her baby? Why shouldn’t she have to wait a period of 24 or 48 hours after giving consent for the abortion? If it is really about informed choice, why not give her all available information so she can make that choice? Show her the data.
The left doesn’t want her to know the truth. It doesn’t want her to think it over.
What will come next? I think it is arguable that we are horribly close to being in 20th century Germany—here in the United States of America.