Three day old baby
A brother forwarded a guy’s post trying to make the case that abortions are bad because children bring joy. He titled his post, “The Tragic Hysteria of Abortion,” adding as his subtitle, “I actually have something original to say about the morality of abortion.”
No, he’s got nothing original. He simply plays both sides of what he terms “the hysteria of abortion.” It’s his conceit that he’s the only one who sees both sides of the issue.
For some time now, I’ve been lying in bed mornings meditating on the blessing of that fruitfulness God placed at the heart of all His creation; and specifically, marital love’s fruitfulness that fills our homes and hearts with children. Curious whether he was going to defend the little ones against their state-sanctioned slaughter, I started reading:
The radical pro-life position — “Abortion is as immoral as murdering a baby” — is easily refuted with a simple thought experiment. Namely: If you could either save one human baby from a fire, or a dozen human embryos, what are you morally obliged to do? Almost no one even claims they should choose the embryos over the baby — and virtually no one would in fact do so.
Why not? Because almost everyone recognizes that an embryo has far less moral worth than an actually-existing baby.
Yet on reflection, the radical pro-choice position — “Abortion is morally neutral” — is also easily refuted with a parallel thought experiment. Namely: If you could either save one human embryo from a fire, or just let it burn, what are you morally obliged to do? Again, only a small minority even claims they would shrug and walk away. Why not? Because a large majority recognizes that a fertilized egg has intermediate moral value. Abortion is not murder, but neither is it the same as removing a wart.
If some man demanded I choose between preventing the deaths of ten babies who are one day old and ten babies who are one year old, I’d do everything I could to prevent the deaths of all twenty of the little ones. But apparently that’s not an option. The author calls his readers to make a choice between preventing the deaths of ten babies who are one day old or one baby who is one year old. So what would you choose?
The wise man would decline to participate in the author’s sophistry. No man has ever been presented such a choice. Engaging with the author’s fake quandary is a fool’s errand.
Beyond his false dilemma, though, his sophistry continues. As he presents his hypothetical, the man who chooses to save ten very young and small babies rather than saving one baby who is a little bit older and bigger by his choice becomes responsible for the death of the older and larger baby. This is the pressure he places his readers in, although he doesn’t state that pressure directly.
He simply assumes readers feel that, either way they choose, they become responsible for the deaths on the other side of their choice. He sneaks into the discussion what ethicists refer to as “negative responsibility.”
What is negative responsibility? It is the claim that, in any choice, the man making the choice is not simply responsible for the consequencews of what he does, but also the consequences of what he doesn’t do.
But again, he misleads his readers.
Take for instance a case where the governor of a state has the keys to a local prison containing terrorists serving life sentences. There comes a day when a plane flying into an airport close to the prison has been hijacked by fellow terrorists who demand the mayor release the terrorists in his prison, then allow them and the hijackers to fly off to freedom.
The hijackers promise that, until the mayor releases the imprisoned, each day he delays they will kill three passengers. They warn the mayor that he will be responsible for the death of each off these hostages. Had he released the imprisoned terrorists, none of these deaths would have been necessary.
Now then, if the mayor has wise counselors, they will remind him it is the terrorists themselves who will be responsible for any deaths of their hostages. The counselors will explain to the mayor that not releasing the imprisoned terrorists does not make him responsible for the deaths of anyone. He has other duties that take precedence over preventing the deaths of any of the terrorists’ hostages. The mayor’s counselors will impress upon him that he has a duty not to negotiate with terrorists; but also a duty not to release terrorists, freeing them to continue their murder and mayhem.
Negative responsibility is sneaky. The man who makes a just and moral choice is not responsible for evil men responding by doing evil.
Moving beyond his hypothetical, things get worse.
This author claiming he has “something original” to say about abortion states that “embryos” or “fertilized eggs” are only in possession of “intermediate moral value” (his emphasis). The reader who allows himself to be drawn into the author’s sophistry, choosing to save the older and larger baby instead of the younger and smaller babies, by his choice proves “embryos” or “fertilized eggs” are only in possession of “intermediate moral value.” His choice legitimates what is the author’s own judgment that very young and tiny babies are worth less than older and larger babies.
The author is not original at all. Most everyone today has come to believe that a man’s life only has the value and dignity ascribed to him by other men and women. If ten very young and small babies aren’t yet able to smile and nurse and coo, their lives are not worth as much as one baby who is able to smile and nurse and coo. Anyone can see how much easier it is for a mother to love a baby at her breast playing with her hair than a baby swimming up the fallopian tube hoping to attach himself to his mother’s womb.
Some things are obvious. Undeniable. Everyone sees it, don’t they. Such young and tiny babies don’t seem to have nearly as much value as the nursing baby, do they.
But here’s the thing, and it is eternally important. Scripture reveals that murderers will not enter heaven, and the judgment of who is and who isn’t a murderer is not made by man, but God.
So how does God decide who is a murderer?
When God weights acts of murder, He doesn’t go easy on those who kill very young and very little babies. He doesn’t decree an intermediate condemnation for those who murder these very little ones not yet attached to their mother’s womb because they only have “intermediate moral value.”
The murder of the very young or very old is not more or less evil based upon the pain others do or do not suffer at his loss. Man is not the measure of all things.
God is. And what has God decreed concerning murder?
Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God
He made man. (Genesis 9:6)
The murderer is not to be executed because he has robbed others of their loved one who has gotten old enough to be seen and known, to love and be loved. The murderer is not to be killed for his crime because, in the judgment of other men, the one he kills had attained full moral value.
The crime of murder is condemned by God Who decrees the murderer be executed because the man, child, or infant he killed bore “the image of God.”
To kill a child conceived yesterday is no less wicked than to kill a newborn infant or a hundred year old great great grandmother. God’s sentence is the same no matter the age of the victim. The value God places on that life has no reference to the value other men may or may not ascribe to him. The only reference point is the image of God that life bears. God hates murder because He has created each man, each child, each infant, each embryo in His Own image and likeness.
God’s image and likeness He places in man never has any intermediate moral value. The reference point concerning the value of the life of any man is not the hearts and minds and relationships he has or lacks with other men.
Every last man and woman, young or old, big or little, dim-witted or bright, rich or poor, homely or pretty, thin or fat, blind or seeing, perfect pitch or tone deaf, Hindu or Christian, tall or short, good or evil, has been created by God bearing His Own image and likeness, and that’s the end of any discussion of the moral value of every last man and woman, boy and girl, newborn and embryo who has ever lived.
From the moment of conception, the moment of fertilization, it is murder to kill the life God has created in His Own image and likeness, and the woman who kills the day-old embryo by taking a morning after pill is no less a murderess than the woman who pays a doctor to cut her baby apart in her womb and vacuum out his body parts.
God creates us in His Own image and likeness, and for that reason He decrees that anyone who takes the life of a man shall himself have his life be taken. God decrees the destroyer of His image and likeness is to be executed. He has issued no repeal of this His law for cases where the man murdered is judged by us to have only intermediate or limited or negligible moral value.
Those who kill a one-day old baby some refer to as an “embryo” bear no less guilt of murder than those who kill their mother, grandfather, or next-door neighbor. The day-old baby conceived yesterday bears no less of the image and likeness of our Heavenly Father who just created him than the hundred-year-old grandmother God created a hundred years and nine months ago.
Satan hates the life of every man because he can’t separate the life of every man from the image and likeness of God. The Christian loves every man and protects and nurtures his life because she recognizes the image and likeness of God in him—the God she loves who gave Himself up for her and the little ones He places in her womb.
For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
I will give thanks to You,
for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well. (Psalm 139:13-14)
