The fax began, "I usually enjoy your editorials." Uh, oh.
That word "usually" is a tip-off theres something
bad coming. And so there was. The sentence continued, "but this
one was nauseating
." For some masochistic reason I kept
reading. "You started off with an interesting story and then
spoiled it with half-wit, prolier rhetoric."
The writers word "prolier" is a play on the word
"pro-lifer," meaning a person holding to the pro-life position
on abortion. His fax was a criticism of the Sanctity of Human Life
Sunday issue of the Pentecostal Evangel
(January 21). My column took the brunt of the writers attack,
though four of our other authors in the issue were tarred with the
After four years at the Evangel, I have learned you have to
laugh through some of the criticism (though constructive criticism
is appreciated), but this one was too tragic to laugh at.
"Hopefully, you are aware there is no such thing as tiny
unborn children, " the fax continued. "Babies are
not aborted," he says. His description of a 7-week-old fetus:
"you could not tell at this stage if it was a chicken or a pig
Id like to approach this issue by asking both sides to consider
this question: What if were wrong?
What if pro-life, anti-abortion people are wrong? What would the
consequences be if abortion were "wrongfully" outlawed?
Inconvenience. Women would have to go through the physical discomfort
of carrying a child till birth; men would "suffer" from
the necessity to take some responsibility for that life. For couples
who choose not to keep the child, there are people all over the nation
waiting to adopt babies. Another by-product would be that individuals,
knowing they could not easily end a pregnancy, would think twice about
promiscuity. It would cut down on sexual license and, thus, decrease
sexually transmitted diseases.
What if the so-called pro-choice people are wrong? Then 1.3 million
human beings will die needlessly again this year.
Whether youre pro-life or pro-choice, what is the real choice?
What are the consequences if youre wrong?
Pro-choice: mass human destruction.
And what does each position offer if right?
Pro-choice: freedom to pursue a selfish lifestyle that cares little
for how it adversely affects others.
Pro-life: a heightened awareness of the value of life, a more moral
society, fewer personal tragedies, and future Beethovens, Einsteins
or Billy Grahams given a chance to live.
The choice is obvious, so why is it such a problem? Why do so many
intelligent people fight for such a transparent, destructive philosophy?
Its because the real issue is spiritual blindness. What reasonable
civilized human being, unless spiritually blind, would even remotely
risk taking a human life
for the sake of convenience?