We are bombarded with news every day. The result is that we can become numb, immune to much thought other than a quick "too bad" and then on to the sports scores.Today I would like you to stop for a few minutes, think about one particular story (summarized below), and then answer a simple question: Is what happened in this recent news story a tragedy? Here is a summary of the story:
A woman was prescribed an antibiotic by her doctor. She filled the prescription at a local pharmacy, and took the first dose. She then noticed that the pill she took was not an antibiotic, but was instead a different medication. The medication she took is part of a chemotherapy regimen. This same medication is also used to terminate pregnancies. The woman who mistakenly took the pill was six weeks pregnant. Her infant may die as a result of this mistake.
Now back to our question: Is this a tragedy?
If you answered "no", then you would probably also describe yourself as "open-minded". So, as an open-minded person, I hope you will read the remainder of this article.
If you answered "yes", then I would ask a follow-up question: Why?
Based on arguments I hear and read from a number of people, this is a tragedy because the woman did not choose to terminate her pregnancy. It is seen as the unexpected loss of an innocent life that could emotionally scar the mother for the rest of her life. I would agree.
However, if she had gone to a local medical facility and signed a release form, many would argue that the end of the pregnancy would not be a tragedy, it would be a perfectly legal and acceptable abortion.
If this line of reasoning makes sense, then it should apply to other situations as well. So, bear with me as I consider one such example.
I can go to a local medical facility and sign a release form to have a skin-tag removed from my arm. This is perfectly legal. Had I gone to a pharmacy and taken the wrong prescription that resulted in the skin-tag on my arm falling off, would this be a tragedy or a harmless side-effect? I think nearly everyone would agree that this would be a harmless, even a beneficial, side-effect.
Why is one scenario viewed as a harmless side-effect and the other a tragedy?
Because in the first scenario, a baby is killed and all life is precious. Internally you know this, and the Bible affirms it.
Upon You I was cast from birth; You have been my God from my mother’s womb. - Psalm 22:10
For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. - Psalm 139:13
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; - Jeremiah 1:5a
Verses such as these and others make it clear that God is the giver of life, that life begins in the womb, and that all life is sacred from the very moment of conception.
The Bible also tells us that everyone understands the moral standard of God (see Romans 2:14-15). People describe this understanding of the law of God as our conscience. This is why people see one of these situations as tragic and the other as a harmless side-effect.
Then what of abortion?
Other than the legality (and liability) as defined by the court system, is there any difference between the story that started this article and a decision to have an abortion?
I would argue: absolutely not. In both cases a baby dies. Just because one was willful and the other a side-effect does not change the fact that a baby died.
Even more importantly, the Bible clearly states that the womb contains a child, not non de-script tissue (see above). The Bible also clearly states that life is sacred. You need look no further than the Ten Commandments to find "Thou shalt not kill."
Some argue that the key to abortion is that the child (or the mother) will have a horrible life if the child is allowed to come into the world. The woman, the argument goes, has a right to choose to spare the child (or themselves) this predicted pain.
Really? Which of us can predict the way a child will grow, mature, and contribute? Which of us has not been surprised by how some simple event turned out, much less the contributions of a dedicated person over a lifetime? How many men and women in our history with humble roots, who achieved great success, would you rather have been killed in the womb? Which life-saving doctor, or local fireman, or cherished grand-mother should have been killed because their parents were poor, or they were likely to suffer some illness?
We cannot predict what will happen tomorrow. We cannot predict how well any particular child will either use or waste his or her life. We cannot predict the medical advances that await an ill person, nor can we predict who God will heal and whom He will not.
The potential for future success or failure is not a valid reason for ending the life of a child. Neither is the oft-cited perception that they will suffer an illness or have some physical restriction. Clearly, however, there is absolutely no chance for success and no chance for recovery from illness if the person is dead.
Even if we could clearly look into the future and see horrific consequences of the birth, any argument falls short when measured against God's Word.
I pray that the child in the opening story is protected by God, and grows to be a born-again Christian. As for the rest of us, I pray that we take the time to consider the real tragedy of this story: that some see no cause for alarm when a child is willingly put to death.
