The first article was posted yesterday by my friend Denny Burk. In it, Burk cites a recently published study showing that prenatal surgery on unborn children with spina bifida is actually more effective than the same surgery performed after birth. In other words, children with spina bifida have a better chance of walking and avoiding neurological problems if operated on before they are born.
Burk connects this study to the "moral schizophrenia" plaguing America when it comes to abortion. In his conclusion, Burk writes:
How does it make any moral or legal sense, therefore, to take heroic measures to do surgery on a 19 week old fetus while at the same time allowing the abortion of a perfectly normal 19 week old fetus? The only difference between the one and the other is that one has a mother that wants him and the other doesn’t.The second article is one I posted earlier this week about a pregnant Colorado woman who was mistakenly given an abortion pill by an inept pharmacist. She is now waiting to learn the status of her fetus, who will either suffer the deadly effects of the abortion drug, or be born with severe birth defects that will almost certainly claim the baby's life while young.
Just like Burk, I see the glaring inconsistency among many Americans when it comes to abortion and the value of the unborn. In the spina bifida study, unborn children are being treated as full-blown medical patients with surgeons using the best of their knowledge and skill to enhance the lives of babies who haven't even been born yet. But, as Burk notes, society at large has no issue with the abortion of perfectly normal fetuses.
I see the same inconsistency in the case of the abortion pill mistake in Colorado. This story is positioned in the national media as a tragedy, which is exactly what it is. It is tragic that this baby will not experience life and that this mother will not experience the joy of knowing and raising her little one. But this case is tragic in the eyes of most not because the baby will experience unnecessary harm and almost certain death, but because the mother wants the baby.
If the mother wants the baby, an abortion pill is unnecessary, tragic, traumatic. The pharmacist's license will be revoked and he or she will face not only civil suit, but possible legal action. And no reasonable person would claim indifference to the tragedy, nor would they be offended by revocation of the license, a lawsuit, or legal action.
However, if a mother doesn't want the baby, there is no outrage, no moral or emotional assignments made at all. When the mother doesn't want the baby, no one bats an eye at the death of an unborn child. After all, the abortion pill is just performing its mercenary duty.
Lord, help us.
4 comments:
Joel, this is excellent writing. You make such a strong point with these examples. One that I pray when repeated in conversation may actually pierce the hearts of those who are completely mute regarding the sanctity of life that we are throwing away. Lord help our nation, our society. Lord forgive us.
[Can't wait to read more, Jeremy checked you out last week...glad to say we knew you way back. blessings, Mandi]
Along the same lines, There is a recent case from S. Carolina where a man murdered a woman, that when autopsied found she was 14-15 weeks pregnant. He is facing two murder charges, not one.
Thanks, Mandi! So good to hear from you.
Jaime, that is another great example of the moral inconsistency. Thanks for sharing.
Post a Comment