"Would you consider abortion in the following four situations.
1. There's
a preacher and wife who are very, very poor. They already had 14 kids. Now she
finds out she's pregnant with 15th. They are living in tremendous poverty.
Considering their poverty, and the excessive world population, would you
consider recommending she get an abortion?
2. The father is sick with
sniffles, the mother has TB. They have 4 children. The first child is blind, the
second child is deaf, the third child is deaf, and the fourth child has TB. The
mother finds out she is pregnant again, given the extreme situation, would you
consider recommending abortion?
3. A white man raped a thirteen year old
black girl and she got pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider
recommending abortion?
4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She's not married.
Her fiance is not the father of the baby, and he's very upset. Would you
consider recommending abortion?
If you answered yes to the first case,
you have just killed John Wesley. One of the great evangelists in the 19th
century.
If you answered yes to the second case, you have killed
Beethoven.
If you answered yes to the third case, you have killed Ethel
Waters, the great black gospel singer.
If you answered yes to the fourth
case, you have just committed the murder of Jesus Christ!!"
www.creativeyouthideas.com/blog/teaching_illustrations/_would_you_consider_abortion.html
I
printed the above off a long time ago and came across it last night and wanted
to share it. I cannot help but wonder how many great leaders have been killed by
abortion. It's saddening to think about. The good news is there is forgiveness
through Christ and regardless of past mistakes, you can choose not to have an
abortion and save the life of a precious child. I am big on pro-life and I think
everyone should be educated about the cruelties of abortion.
www.Abort73.com is a great resource to
educate. Warning: Graphic content might not be suitable for younger
children.
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. ~Philippians 4:13
The second situation described above reminds me also of an argument GKC made over a century ago (back in 1901) against eugenics, and which seems highly applicable to that situation described above as well.
ReplyDeleteIn an article he wrote for "The Speaker" on February 2, 1901, he began:
"Professor Pearson, in his view of national life, is a well-meaning and vigorous upholder of the great principle of the survival of the nastiest. His remarks on the danger of allowing a physically 'bad stock' to multiply, though not very precisely expressed, seem certainly to tend towards the idea of conducting the lives and loves of mankind on strict cattle-breeding principles. To our own simple minds it appears rather to depend on whether we wish to produce the same tone of thought and degree of culture in men and in cattle. The virtues which we demand from cows are at present few and simple, and, therefore, we pursue a certain physical regime: if ever we should particularly wish to see cows writing poetry, cows building hotels, and cows speaking in Parliament, we should probably adopt another regime. A random example of the unsuitability of a biological test of so intellectual a matter as civilization springs at once to the mind. There was born early in this century a man who scarcely had a day's complete health in his life, a perfect example of the 'unfit' creature whom some sages would strangle in pure compassion. That man was Charles Darwin, on whose discovery the sages base their action. Their principle would never have been heard of if it had not been the custom to violate it. If this is not a reductio ad absurdum, we do not know what is."
(In other words, quite apart from the fact that all life is precious and should be protected, having its own intrinsic dignity, the fact is that such an argument would fail on its own principles.)
ReplyDelete