Today & Tomorrow
separator line


Philip Wik




 

      Beware when anyone has more answers than questions or answers hard questions with easy answers.   For example, let’s consider two issues: the death penalty and abortion.  I’m generally opposed to the death penalty, as it appears to me to be a perverse lottery that favors the execution of blacks, males, ugly and unpleasant people, the poor, and folks who live in Texas.  On the other hand, I’ve never been a victim of a capital crime, and perhaps my feelings would go in another direction if I were.  And I think it is true that the execution of the architect of genocide Adolph Eichmann in Israel and mass-murderer Timothy McVeigh was in some sense a moral victory.

     Abortion is far more complex than merely making a simplistic dichotomy between pro-life and pro-choice positions.  Few doctors endorse abortion as a means of birth control and such a grave step should never be taken lightly.  Doctors, perhaps for insurance reasons, sometimes scare the daylights out of mother-to-be about the health of their child.  But doctors are sometimes wrong, and it’s important to trust ourselves in such matters.

     I’ve also met few absolutists on abortion, especially when they have to deal with the issue personally, as in a hypothetical in which a baby is an encephalic-- without a brain--  and the mother’s life in danger.  Someone wrote to me saying that this  “did happen to my closest friends a couple of years ago, and even more ironically, at the time, I was teaching an eight week course on Biblical ethics when the severity of her condition came to light.  In a nutshell, she had four small kids at home, pregnant with her fifth, when she started having problems.  Doctors said that: a)  The baby essentially had no brain, his limbs were severely deformed, and other internal organs where malformed beyond hope. b)  Because of some uterine problems, there was a very high chance that sometime in the ninth month she would suffer some major hemorrhage that could prove fatal to her.  They of course, wanted to abort right away.  She refused, and moreover, wanted to carry the baby full term and have a natural childbirth.  (Initially, she actually wanted to give birth at home).   For me, I saw the ethical question in a whole new light, now that it had a face on it.  The baby had a zero percentage chance of surviving.  For a staunch pro-lifer, it was a dilemma acknowledging that the right-to-life can't always be seen as an absolute.  It didn't seem right that the mother should possibly lose her life, and four small children lose their mother, when the baby wasn't going to live no matter what. Fortunately, the mother decided to have a C-section at the earliest possible time.  (32 weeks or something like that...don't exactly remember) She got through it okay.  The baby lived for three days or so.”

        God gives us minds and God gives doctors their skill.  The point is not to look for rationalizations to support our actions but rather be prepared to acknowledge the complexity of life and that we must adapt moral principles to achieve the most ethical ends A one-size-fit-all principle that all life from conception on must be preserved at all costs can be immoral and even deadly, a principle, by the way, that anti-abortionists rarely extend to embracing military pacifism and mercy to criminals on death row.  Especially immoral—and I use that word with precision—is the view that we should simply put our faith in God’s perfect will on all matters of health.  Taken to its logical extreme, this claim should cause us to ignore car seatbelts and antibiotics for babies.  Some sects have taken this position, bringing misery and death to those they claim they love.

 



separator line

Copyright © 2006 My Mall & News
About | Site Map | Archives | Home