Friend: So if you aren't sure if life begins at conception, what is your position on abortion?
Me: My position on abortion is what I refer to as the ultimate common sense position. If it looks like a baby it's a baby and it has the same human rights as any other human being.
There was this pro-choice minister who used to work in an abortion clinic, offering counseling support to mothers seeking to terminate their pregnancies. One day one of the technicians asked him for some help. He was trying to make sure they had all the body parts out of the mother, and he couldn't find one tiny little arm. So he asked the minister to look through the parts and make sure he hadn't missed an arm. And as he went through that process the minister was converted to a pro-life position. This was a tiny baby. It had tiny baby parts.
I think we are a little too conditioned to waiting for some expert with a degree to tell us what to think these days. I think a man with a little common sense is smarted that a man with a PHD and no common sense. Common sense tells me that if it looks like a baby it's a baby. We shouldn't let anyone do anything to a baby in the womb (where we can't see it) that we wouldn't be willing to let them do to a baby in the stroller (where we can see it).
Friend: But what about a morning after pill? The fertilized egg does not look like a baby.
Me: To answer that question I have to talk about shooting refrigerators.
Friend: Shooting refrigerators, like with a gun?
Me: Exactly.
Friend: Has anyone ever told you that you have a weird mind?
Me: Every single human being that I have ever hand a in depth discussion with me has mentioned that.
Friend: Why am I not surprised?
Me: See, there are people out there who really like to shoot appliances; TV's, stoves, and refrigerators mostly. What they do is take the appliance out into the country and shoot it to pieces.
Friend: Why?
Me: I have no idea. I think it has something to do with the urge to blow things up. Maybe you shoot at the fridge with a deer slug and pretend your boss is in there?
Friend: And all this has exactly what to do with morning after pills?
Me: Imagine yourself at the shooting range. You've got your shotgun and you are really looking forward to blasting the fridge. But the shooting range guy says, "There is just this one little problem. One out of every 100 fridges that people drop off have a live baby in them. So you can shoot if you want. It's up to you." Are you still going to take the shot?
Friend: No way.
Me: Exactly. I don't know if a fertilized egg comes complete with a soul and a spirit, but not being sure doesn't mean that I would be willing to flush one down the drain. I think a fertilized egg is a complete human being, and if I'm right, and I encouraged someone to take a morning after pill, I would be encouraging them to commit murder. But just because I'm not sure, that wouldn't make it right. You don't take chances when it comes to human life. There could be a baby in that fridge? Then I'm not going to shoot at it. And I'm not sure that the 30%-50% of fertilized eggs that never get implanted are immortal beings who find themselves in heaven when the their little 8 or 16 or 32 cell body is expelled from their mother's body, but I think they probably do.
Friend: So if it looks like a human it’s a human, and no shooting at appliances until you make sure there is no baby inside?
Me: Exactly.
5 comments:
A reader responded to me by e-mail. His comments and my responses follow in the following comments.
Reader: The ability of a woman, or a married couple, to
determine how many children they can afford, either financially or
psychologically, ends up compromised.
Mark: Let's go back to my strange analogy. You are at the shooting range. Your shotgun is loaded. You are aiming the gun at the refrigerator. And the owner of the range says, "By the way, sometimes people leave live babies in those refrigerators. Are you sure you want to go ahead and shoot?"
"Absolutely not," you respond. "No way am I going to shoot if there might be a baby in there."
"But what about this," the owner replies. "What if shooting the refrigerator would provide you financial or psychological benefits even if there is a real baby in there?"
"Oh," you respond. "That's an entirely different situation." Bang! Bang! Bang!
The comparison between a baby in the womb and one in the refrigerator is very odd, but it was very carefully chosen. While I do not know what the future will bring I don’t believe we have any serious effort being made at this time to allow parents to kill a baby that is out of the womb (even if the killing of the child would provide financial or psychological relief).
The whole debate is over when a fetus can be declared fully human with the same rights that you and I have. Pro-choice people tend to insist that this begins at birth; pro-lifers tend to insist that this begins at conception.
My argument and my analogy are intended to make people face up to one simple question: what if we really don’t know when life begins? Is it morally acceptable to terminate a pregnancy if you don’t know the answer to that question? I think it’s a question worth asking.
Reader: "The obvious end-game is limiting sex *only* to attempts to reproduce,
and I really don't think you're ready to go there. But look around.
That, in fact, is where you are, or where your argument is headed."
Mark: No, I am not ready to go there. Nancy is too cute. But I don’t think that this is where my argument inevitably leads. Let me tell you a little story.
Once upon a time there was a man with two children in high school. One night, after enjoying a foretaste of heaven with his beloved wife, he noticed he had a "wardrobe malfunction." There was a tear in his condom. This didn't make the man panic, because he used a spermicidal condom and his wife used a spermicidal lotion. (I believe these chemicals are provided by a company called Orkin, but I digress.) Nevertheless, this was a sobering wake up call for the man.
What if we started a new baby? With two kids in high school? Putting the fetus in a refrigerator and shooting it would not have been viable options for us. What to do? Bravely, the man headed off to his urologist and had a little operation.
But what if, in spite of the little operation, one of the heroic, wily, determined sammy sperms guys somehow escaped? After all, they do have my DNA. It would be best not to underestimate them! Had that happened, we would have gone ahead and had the baby.
There was an attempt made in the 1960’s to relegate sex to other simple biological functions like blowing your nose or eating. This was and is totally ridiculous. The psychological implications of sexual intimacy make it so as do the reproductive implications. Because no form of birth control is 100% effective, every person contemplating having sex has to contemplate what they will do if the birth control doesn’t work. As a pro-life type that doesn’t mean limiting sex to times when we are actually trying to reproduce; it means accepting that fact that we might be creating an unplanned baby that we will receive as a gift from God and cherish. Of course, this isn’t much of a possibility for us right now. Nancy has had her own little operation and any further pregnancies would truly require a miracle.
By the way, this is not intended as political commentary; it's a blog that deals with the issues of life from a Christian standpoint.
Reader: But let's see if we have at least this much right. Fertilized and
implanted eggs are fully realized human souls, and there is also a
likelihood that fertilized but non-implanted eggs share the same
status, but you are not sure about the latter.
Mark: No, that's not quite right. My point is that I don't know when anyone becomes a "fully realized human soul." Does this happen at conception? When the egg is implanted? At six weeks? I really don’t know. It sort of came as a shock to mean to realize that I really didn’t know. I had assumed that it happened at conception, but that was and is an assumption. That's why I used the target practice with the refrigerator analogy. I don't know. This will probably make some of the pro-life folks angry at me, but I can't pretend to know what I don't really know.
Reader: And the sinning couple who aborts can later accept Jesus and get the
same free pass, despite the "crime" of "murder.
Mark: Yes, the blood of Jesus will was the sinner clean from all sins, including murder. Hitler could have repented and gone to heaven. If I might be forgiven for trying to reduce the mystery of the atonement to a mathematical formula, "And infinite being (God the Son) suffered for a finite period of time (on the cross) so that finite beings might not have to suffer for an infinite amount of time (in hell)."
That being said, let’s not use the word “murder.” I believe that murder technically means that you meant to kill a person. I don’t think that the vast majority of people who have abortions think that they are terminating a human life. I don’t want to quibble, but we’d be talking about manslaughter or some lesser crime.
Reader: Why then, should anyone care? In fact, why then, should we not
*celebrate* the abortion of an implanted egg, since that soul is
automatically going to join the faithful in heaven? Sorry, but a
saved soul is a saved soul, yes?
And to extend your logic even further, let's go into grade schools and slaughter all the first graders and kindergartners as well! They probably haven’t reached the age of accountability yet! Or not. While your suggestion has a certain logic to it I would not recommend that you base your thesis on this if you ever go for your doctorate in theology.
Jesus was God in human flesh. If you want to know how God would act in a given situation, look at what Jesus did. There is no mention of Him taking out a preschool. For a Christian that is pretty much the end of the argument. For more on the truly difficult question you are raising, see below.
Reader: In fact, the irony, the truly bitter and almost sick irony of this,
is that the fertilized egg (at least, you would admit, the one that
is ultimately implanted and subsequently aborted) is going to heaven,
whereas if it were actually to be born as a live baby, its salvation
would *IN NO WAY* be guaranteed according to your ecclesiastical
view. It would, if born, have free will, a freedom that would
include the freedom to reject a belief that, you think, is the only
way to heaven. It could, thereby, end up in hell, in your scheme of
things. That is really twisted. Think about it
Mark: A full response would require a small book. You have asked one of the hardest questions that can be questioned. And yes, I have thought about it.
God knew in advance what would happen when He created creatures with free will. He understood all of the suffering that would take place. He knew about Hell before He ever created it. He knew that some humans would be joining the rebellious angels there.
And He went ahead and created the universe anyway.
Way back in the day, when I was a student back at the Prairie Bible Institute, it occurred to me that we are probably living in the best possible universe that could exist. And the reason this is the best possible universe that could exist is that God made it. God does all things perfectly well. He can’t do anything poorly. It’s impossible. God is perfect. God made the universe. The universe is not perfect yet. Therefore this must be the best possible universe that God could make. God wanted to make free will beings. Some of the free will beings rebelled and all of the pain and grief has flowed from that rebellion.
About ten minutes ago I got an e-mail prayer request. Some poor woman just ran over her 18 month old child. The child is not expected to make it. The world is filled with such stories on a daily basis. The cumulative grief and pain experienced in a single day by the human race is unimaginable. So how is it possible for this to be the best possible universe?
In 1 Corinthians 13 Paul says that when we get to heaven we will look back at the way we used to think and realize that we were still children with a childish view of the universe. Real maturity with a truly adult understanding of the great questions of life lies in our future.
I’ve got a lot of partial answers that I could bounce off of you right now. As I said, as complete an answer as I could give you would literally require a book. But my most complete answer wouldn’t answer all the questions. As a guy who likes to think of himself as being a thoughtful person, I really don’t like to accept an answer that includes, “Someday, when you are a real grown-up, you’ll be able to understand better.” But if that’s the way it is (and that is the way it is) then I will accept that.
In the meantime I will try and wipe the snot from my intellectual nose, pull up my intellectual diaper a little higher, and try not to throw any temper tantrums.
God is perfect. God is wise. God is love. God got down in the dirt with us and suffered beside us. God the Son personally experienced all of the pain and grief of the entire human race all at once. He didn’t just bear our sin, He bore our pain and grief (Isaiah 53). I won’t be able to look God in the face when I get to heaven and say, “But You were up here on the throne! You just don’t understand what You put us through down there.” At the end of the day God didn’t just suffer as much as the most unfortunate human being has had to suffer, He bore all human grief and pain and sorrow.
And at the end of all the things that now exist will be the new beginning. It will be something so wonderful it is beyond our ability to understand right now. We will have a new heaven and a new earth; eternal ecstasy in the presence of God; and end for grief and pain for all of God’s people.
I would simply add this: Reader, you seem to want a world of individual free will but also a world devoid of suffering. I would suggest that combination is a logical impossibility. If a person does not have sufficient free will to cause suffering to others, then it isn't really free will, is it? Hence all suffering is the direct effect of free will.
So if one is to fault God for allowing suffering in the world, one must logically fault him for allowing free will. Likewise, but much less intuitively, if one is to endorse the existence of free will, one must also endorse the existence of suffering.
N'est ce pa?
Post a Comment