Assemblies of God SearchSite GuideStoreContact Us
Current_issue
Subscribe
Spanish
Daily_Boost
Previous_issues
Key_Bearers
Weekly_drawing
Conversations
Guard_your_heart
Bible_reading_guide
ABCs_of_salvation
Questions_Answers
Who_we_are
Staff
speakers
PE_Books
Contact_us
Links
Home
Vantage point

What if we’re wrong?

The fax began, "I usually enjoy your editorials." Uh, oh. That word "usually" is a tip-off there’s 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 writer’s 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 writer’s attack, though four of our other authors in the issue were tarred with the same brush.

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 embryo."

I’d like to approach this issue by asking both sides to consider this question: What if we’re 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 you’re pro-life or pro-choice, what is the real choice? What are the consequences if you’re wrong?

Pro-life: inconvenience.

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? It’s 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?

— Ken Horn

E-mail this page to a friend.
©1999-2009 General Council of the Assemblies of God