Health Trumps Morals

A recent news headline, in regard to the abortion drug RU486, grabbed my attention—and that for all the wrong reasons.

Australia has become such a moral cesspool that we no longer seem to consider moral arguments as in any way relevant to the decisions that we make each and every day. The article mentioned was crying foul that certain women were being forced into home abortions by the, supposed, fact that “they cannot afford a doctor’s prescription or cannot get to a clinic.” This situation then, supposedly, leads to the procurement of RU486 from disreputable sources, which puts these women at further risk because the product can be contaminated.

At these claims, one’s heart is supposed to bleed. Mine does not. In the interest of “full disclosure”, I must state that I am a male and a Christian, which means, of course, that I am insensitive to “women’s needs” and biased. With that out of the way let us break this situation down and expose it for what it really is: Lawlessness dressed as compassion!

If we go back to the beginning of the abortion debate in this country, you will find exactly the same argument – ‘Oh, we must legalise or make abortion-on-demand available so that backyard abortions are stopped and the pain and suffering ended.’ For the most part, for all intents and purposes, abortion is now legal and readily obtainable. So why are women still subjecting themselves to home abortions?

The answer, Biblically, is sin and guilt. The article in question quoted one Professor as saying, “Women who bleed extensively may present at hospital but won’t say (that they took the drug).” Why is this? It is because there is an innate guilt associated with the act of murder. Dress it up. Call it by any other name; Yet the fact remains that women who have abortions end up being plagued by psychological phenomena associated with the guilt. If guilt is not at the heart of the matter, why not carry the child and give it up for adoption? After all, in our shameless society, that is more than possible.

Then we could ask concerning accountability. The problem today is the same as it has always been. To quote one Elder, ‘If women kept their legs together and men kept their pistols in their pockets” we would not have this problem. Amen brother! You see, at the heart of abortion is morality. It begins, for the most part, with illicit sexual relations. It is driven by a desire not to be exposed, and that at the deepest level of human existence. People wish to deceive themselves into thinking that they are pure, good, and decent people. However, it is very hard to convince others, and particularly yourself, that such is true when you willingly tear an innocent life from your womb. After all, good people do not kill the innocent. Pure people make right decisions for all. The decent, being a fellow who would give you the very shirt from his back, should not now demand the shirt back, leaving you to freeze.

Of course, we must ask the economic question, “How much are the good old fashioned contraceptives?” Surely, five bucks on a packet of condoms is better than sourcing abortive drugs illegally from overseas? Surely, a prescription for the pill is easier to acquire than an abortion clinic? Surely a bus ticket is cheaper and far more convenient than a lonely, agonising death on a bathroom floor due to blood loss or other complications?

Here we return to morality. The simple fact is that these women have a number of options before them – starting with no illicit sex and extending to taking responsibility for their actions. However, as with most things today, the wrong choices are highlighted and argued ad nauseam and to the nth degree so as to guilt people into further lawlessness and immorality. Most interestingly, the wrong is even argued as a moral right!

An example of this is found in a related article that illustrates the absolute nonsense on which these people operate. It says: “RU486 struck fear into the heart of the anti-abortionists; a pill was just too easy, they thought. If a woman must have an abortion, make the process difficult. Make her suffer. In 2006 then Health Minister Tony Abbott said RU486 was just too risky; he overrode expert advice to ban the pill, warning of backyard miscarriages and unscrupulous doctors. That effective ban was overturned and the pill is available on Australia. In some places. At some expense. For many – the poor and those living in rural Australia – abortions in general are still hard to get. But women find a way. You can order RU486 online and have yourself a home abortion, unsupervised. Dangerous. There is a lesson in this about pragmatism. You can have all the moral objections in the world to abortion, but if women can’t access them safely, they will find a way to access them unsafely. And you end up with backyard miscarriages and unscrupulous doctors.”

“Okay! Okay! I give up. You have convinced me.” I mean, how can I be a pro-life / anti-abortionist in the face of such overwhelming logic and argument? Easily!

First, note that the fall back position is scorn and ridicule. I do not know of any Christian that opposes abortion on the basis of wanting women “to suffer”. On the contrary, women who have abortions do suffer. I want that suffering, and that of the child, to end. That is the position of the moral absolute found in God. Do not commit the sin and thereby alleviate all the consequences of that sin.

Second, there is the absurdity. We have legalised abortion to stop backyard abortions. However, we have not made it legal enough or available enough, therefore, we will get “backyard miscarriages (note the subtle change in terminology) and unscrupulous doctors.” What I see in this particular mess of pottage is that legalising abortion has not worked. Put differently, legalised abortion has failed to meet the end for which it was given, promoted, and continues to be trumpeted. (Please also note the absolute contradiction. Tony Abbott is condemned for banning the drug amid fears of backyard abortions; now this drug is the source of those backyard abortions. In short, Tony Abbot was right! Where do they send their heartfelt apology?)

This, again, leads back to morals. Legalising the immoral never makes it right or acceptable. It is common in our godless society to hear much about legalising evil so that it will not be driven underground.  The constant mantra is ‘bring it into the light of the day where it can be properly controlled.’ Now, pray tell, where has that got us? Nowhere! When you bring things into the light you give them energy, nutrients, and the ability to spread and corrupt. Rarely, if ever, are they controlled. Equally, legalising the element does not stop the underground trade. Pills are easily and cheaply available from a chemist, yet there is an underground trade. Sex is available at legalised brothels, yet there is an underground trade. Abortions are readily available; yet there is an underground trade. Why is this? Because the heart of this issue, as with the others, is morality.

Third, I cannot let the word “pragmatism” go without taking a stick to it. The pragmatic approach is to do what “works”. However, pragmatism has not proven to be a very good guide. It is currently destroying the Church. We no longer seek God’s blessing through obedience. We just do what works. Until recently, I was a member of a small, elderly congregation. I used to joke with them saying that, “I could fill the place if they would but let me place poker machines in the cry room and employ topless dancers to direct attention to the minister!” I mean, it would work! We would get a completely new demographic involved in our congregation. Yet, we must stop the frivolity and ask, “Is this the purpose of Christ’s bride?” Similarly, Hitler struck upon a wonderfully pragmatic answer to the question of his “Final Solution”. Anyone cheering for that one? Now, it may be that some will tell me to stop making silly arguments. After all, we know Hitler was a bad man. Yet is this not the sting in the tail. Hitler was indeed a bad man, but to say so is a moral judgement! Saying that Hitler was bad is not a statement based in pragmatism. It is a statement that moralism alone can make; more precisely, moralism as based in God’s word.

Therefore, if the author of the above news article wishes to be pragmatic then let us be helpful and suggest a few possibilities:

• Let all women have tailor-made corks fitted; (Cheap. Simple. Readily available.)
• Let all women with unwanted pregnancies be put to death. (Why should the baby alone pay? Also, there are statistics from America that show that recidivism is high. So this action should help drive the numbers down.)
• Let all women, not interested in babies, stop having sex. (I know, it sounds moral, but it is also pragmatic. No sex. No pregnancy. No pregnancy. No need for abortion.)

What, no takers! I thought these to be very pragmatic solutions.

The simple fact is that “Health” is a moral issue. The simple fact is that some conditions can only be solved by morals. The simple fact is that “technology” and “breakthrough” cannot solve all conditions. The simple fact is that a little thing like “No!” can save you from a world of hurt and pain that no earthly physician can cure.

The only Physician that can cure all is Jesus Christ, God’s Son. Jesus cures by giving a new heart. Jesus cures by giving us a moral compass which is attuned to the Word of His Father. That compass directs in the right way and directs us away from backyard abortions and self-induced miscarriages. Such are simply not necessary when the right moral choice is made in the first place.

Proverbs 14:18: “But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, That shines brighter and brighter until the full day.”

Psalm 119:105: “Thy word is a lamp to my feet, And a light to my path.”