I read this article a month or so ago and kept meaning to add it here to share. I was reminded again about it today as I’m struggling to clear off the desk with all these receipts, stacks of cards to finish and send (I always have such high hopes of sending out bday and other cards on time…alas, I usually fail), and things I want to post. Oh yeah, and this pile of jewelry I need to price and bag. That reminds me, I am soooo behind in updating my jewelry blog and my jewelry albums on facebook. Maybe one of these days…but to reassure everyone, because I’m so sure you’re just stuck wondering (lol, yeah right, I know), I am still making jewelry, but I just haven’t had time to update it all.
Ok, back to the subject. I found this article again under the pile of stuff on my desk and I figured that it kinda went with my rank from last night. So, here it is…
This is from my monthly newsletter from Samaritan Ministries (see Christian Alternative to Insurance for more info).
Moral Schizophrenia Confuses Rights
by Chuck Colson
When Janet Sheikhan first discovered she was pregnant, she and her husband were thrilled. But then Janet received terrible news: A test showed the baby was severely deformed. On the advice of her doctor, Janet regretfully decided to have an abortion.
But when she asked to see her tiny aborted child, Janet was shocked to discover it was a perfectly formed baby boy. Later she read the autopsy report, which confirmed the baby had not been deformed but was perfectly healthy.
Janet was devastated to realize that because of a faulty medical test, she had aborted a perfectly normal baby. And when her story was told on 60 Minutes, host Leslie Stahl shared her outrage. The program focused on the mistaken test results, asking “Who is responsible for this tragedy?” Stahl treated the mother–who is, after all, the one who made the abortion decision–as an innocent victim.
Of course, the bitter irony is that every day thousands of healthy babies are aborted–not by mistake, but deliberately and intentionally. But programs like 60 Minutes do not treat their deaths as a tragedy. How is it that even thoughtful, well-educated Americans today exhibit such an astonishing moral schizophrenia?
The answer is that a baby’s entire value is now defined by whether or not the parents want it. The role of technology is merely to support whatever they choose. This radical moral relativism reveals how much Americans have become children of the Enlightenment. In the absence of a moral framework, all desires are considered equally valid, all equally legitimate. Without any overarching moral order, technology is merely an instrument to satisfy our impulses, whatever they may be.
That’s why “60 Minutes” could not bring itself to address the real moral conundrum–which is why the death of Janet’s baby was tragic while the deaths of thousands of healthy babies just like hers are a sign of liberation. No, the only socially acceptable scapegoat was the failure of technology to fulfill someone’s deeply felt desire.
Of course, it all begins with the assumption that a deformed child ought to be aborted in the first place–an assumption Christians everywhere ought to challenge. One of my own colleagues was told that his unborn son might have the same genetic defect that Janet’s baby was diagnosed with. But, as Christians, he and his wife did not seek a technological escape. Instead, they turned in trust to the One Who is the Resurrection and the Life.
Just as in Janet’s story, the diagnosis turned out to be mistaken. But, unlike Janet, my colleague now has a healthy baby boy and does not face the wrenching responsibility of having aborted his child in search of the perfect baby.
Would that the Janets of this world understood that the real tragedy is not a malfunction of technology, it’s a malfunction of our moral senses. We have made machines of death–and unfortunately, they work all too well.