Skip to main content

"Illegal and morally wrong", or just the logical outcome of "choice"?

The Secretary of State for Health
I thought the UK was shocked and appalled today. You see, I tend to get my news from one of two sources: either the Daily Telegraph (its free app or website - I don't actually buy a newspaper!) or the BBC. And this morning one story was at the top of both. As a result, I assumed it would be the main story of the day everywhere, but I've just had a look and seen that it doesn't even make the front page of the websites of the Guardian or the Independent, and the BBC has demoted it from the main news to the 'Health' section. Perhaps, as it was a Telegraph investigation, the Guardian and Independent will run it tomorrow. (Or perhaps not - the Times has it already.)

So what was this story to shock and appal the kingdom? The discovery that women have been granted abortions by doctors based on the sex of the baby. (You can read about it here in what's currently the main headline of the Telegraph's website.) There have been resignations, the Health Secretary has called in the police, and the Chief Medical Officer is stepping in too. 

Although many commentators have not been so forthright as Mr Lansley in their condemnations, it can't be denied that the Health Secretary was right: that gender based abortion is 'illegal and morally wrong.'
But, what makes gender based abortion morally wrong and lifestyle inconvenience based abortion morally acceptable? How can we possibly say that it's okay to abort a baby because it would interrupt a promising career but not okay because it's a boy/girl?

Now, I do realise that there is a difference. One woman wants a baby - just not that one, and the other doesn't want one at all. Yet, despite the difference in situation, two different ethics must be applied to make one morally acceptable and the other, again in the words of Mr Lansley, 'morally wrong.' You see, if the baby is aborted for economic reasons (which is also technically illegal under the Abortion Act, but people seem to get round that quite easily by using the 'mental health of the woman/existing children' provision) then to justify that ethically, one must argue that there's nothing unethical about aborting a baby. However, if you apply that same ethical reasoning to the gender selection case, how could you find it 'morally wrong'? If one thinks that there's nothing wrong with aborting a child, why would it suddenly become wrong simply because the mother wanted a different child? And why isn't the same reasoning applied in the case of disabled babies? Why do people think it's immoral to abort based on gender, but perfectly fine to abort on the basis of disability? There is a double-standard at play here. There is a clear break-down in logic.

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Lansley when he says that gender based abortion is 'morally wrong', but his statement doesn't go far enough. 

The Telegraph claims to have more revelations for tomorrow. I hope they don't get buried by the rest of the press, but that instead this story does leave the UK shocked and appalled. Yet not just shocked and appalled, but also that it would make people think through the logical implications of 'abortion rights'.

Lord, have mercy.

But I can't just leave this post there, for there's a danger for Christians too. There's a danger that we become the people who heap condemnation on those who have had an abortion. Abortion is wrong and it's right for us to pray, speak to MPs, write to peers and educate people about the truth of the matter. But we should also remember that there's something else we need to do. We need to bring the message of God's forgiveness to those who have aborted children. We need to bring the message of God's hope to those who have fallen into despair after having an abortion. We need to show that the sin of abortion isn't more powerful than the grace of the gospel. 1 in 3 women in the UK have had an abortion, and that third of all women needs to know that Jesus' blood can free them from bloodguiltiness; that Jesus' death can end the cycle of death and bring them a new life; a pure life; a clean life; a life of abundance and joy. 

And this message of  gospel hope isn't just for those women. If 1 in 3 women have had a abortion, that means that a lot of men have either been complicit in it, or forced them into it. Abortion isn't just a women's issue. Men need Jesus to take away their abortion stains too. 

Abortion is an issue that the church needs to face. But the biggest way we need to face it isn't in campaigning and lobbying, but in reaching out to those who have sinned and suffered through abortion with the good news of the gospel. 

Popular posts from this blog

These are the Bones of Elisha (Declaring the Word of the Lord)

One of the most curious events in all of Scripture is found in a single verse in 2 Kings 13. That chapter records the death of the prophet Elisha, and yet, there’s still one more story of Elisha here some time after his death. 2 Kings 13:21 tells us:
So it was, as they were burying a man, that suddenly they spied a band of raiders; and they put the man in the tomb of Elisha; and when the man was let down and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on his feet. Elisha was dead. And yet when a corpse was thrown into his tomb hastily in an attempt to hide from marauding bands of Moabites, the man came back to life simply by his corpse touching Elisha’s bones. Even as miracles go, that one’s quite impressive.

On the Church and On Sin: With a (former) Tory MP and a Catholic Priest

What with the Extraordinary Synod going on in Rome this week, the Roman Catholic Church has been in the news a bit of late. And as a result of all this pre-synod hype in the media, two Roman Catholics wrote two of the best articles I read last week. One was an article in the Catholic Herald by a priest. The other was an article in the Spectator by a former MP. You should read both of them. (But if you're not going to read both, then please at least read the second one!)

Now, maybe that seems a bit odd. I am, after all, both a Pentecostal pastor and an Ulster Protestant. And as such, I'm convinced that very significant aspects of Roman Catholic theology are seriously wrong. I still believe that justification by faith alone is the article on which the church stands or falls. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't read, and even learn from, Roman Catholics. Although we are justified by faith alone, it is by faith in Christ alone, not faith in the right formulation of the doc…

Money, Money, Money (Must Be Funny, in a Rich Man’s World!)

‘Not the Pentecostals! Watch out – they’ll be trying to get all your money.’
     – The reaction when a new Christian told her Muslim uncle that she’d got saved and           started attending a Pentecostal church. ‘Hello, I’m calling from [“Christian” TV channel]. We have some great deals on advertising during our broadcasts and wondered if the church would be interested.’
     – A phone call yesterday. ‘$11,150’
     – the amount one American church is appealing to raise to produce a worship album $750 plus expenses
     – an American amount recommended as a gift for visiting preachers ‘US pastors paid up to $300,000 - are Church of England vicars getting a raw deal?’
     – recent Headline in Christian Today

£5.75 million
     – the amount of money an evangelical church down south is trying to raise for               building improvements.$25,000
     – the amount two American pastors are raising to produce a six minute teaching video Money has been on my mind a bit of late. Not my …