A Short Story With Big Questions…

The Short Story…
 
There is an orphaned 16-year-old girl. She is basically homeless, sometimes uses drugs, and is promiscuous.
 
This same girl now finds herself pregnant by an older, married father of two whose family has tried to help her out from time to time. It was simply a moment of indiscretion on his part after she seduced him. Moreover, 16 is the legal age of consent in NC so he hasn’t broken any law.
 
The girl wants to have an abortion, but the father does not want her to have one.
 
Because, his wife would really like to have another child, but she no longer can.
 
However, at the same time, his wife would leave him and tear his family apart if she ever found out what he had done.
 
So, he has a plan.
 
He tells the 16-year-old that if she will have the baby, he will take care of both of them for life.
 
But in reality, his plan is that after she has had the baby; to kill her, hide her body, and fake a note from her saying that she wants him and his wife to adopt her baby so that it looks like she abandoned the baby and ran away.
 
That way, he never has to worry about his wife finding out and, his wife gets the baby she wants so badly.
 
 
The Big Questions…
 
Why are we so appalled at the thought of this man killing the young mother and disposing of her body so flippantly to solve his problems, but we basically shrug our shoulders about the mother wanting to kill her unborn baby and dispose of her little body in order to solve her problems?
 
If we were to disregard generally accepted morality and the rule of law; which solution benefits the greatest number of people? Which one has a more positive impact on society at large?
 
Because, if the 16-year-old is killed; then the man’s marriage and family is saved, his wife gets her baby, his kids get a beautiful new baby sister that they can spoil rotten; and more importantly, the little girl grows up in a life of middle-class privilege.
 
The only thing that is lost is one drug addicted homewrecker who no one cares about anyway and would probably just end up in jail; or worse, popping out a bunch of welfare dependent kids.
 
If we can rationalize that murdering unborn children is good for our society, why can’t we rationalize the murdering of their mothers who are just as unwanted for the benefit of our society?
 
But, if we say as disciples of Jesus that the 16-year-old deserves to live because she is an image-bearer of God who has the potential for redemption; then isn’t her unborn daughter also an image bearer of God who equally carries the same potential for redemption; and therefore, equally deserves to live?
 
Don’t they both deserve to live?
 
If you were a disciple of Jesus who was alive during the antebellum United States when slavery was still legal, what would you do about it?
 
Would you shrug your shoulders and say that there is nothing you could do about it because it is the law of the land?
 
Or, would you join the Christian abolitionists of the time who argued that black people were also created in the image of God and deserved the same freedom as all other human beings; and that therefore, slavery should be abolished?
 
Why do we hold up Christians who were slavery abolitionist as heroes of the faith, and look at abortion abolitionist as extremists?
 
If you were a believer in Nazi Germany; would you have shrugged your shoulders at them rounding up and killing the handicap, the mentally ill, Jehovah’s Witnesses, communists, and Jews?
 
Or, as a disciple of Jesus, would you have stood against evil and defended the right of all human beings to live as image-bearers of God who hold the potential for redemption; even if it meant being killed or thrown in a concentration camp with them?
 
And if you won’t stand for unborn children now, what makes you think you would have been so bold of a disciple of Jesus then?
 
If you don’t have a backbone now, why do you think you would have had one then?
 
Moreover, if you pick and choose which image-bearers you will stand up and defend, what makes you any different from those on the other side of the argument who you demonize for picking and choosing which image-bearers they will defend?
 
What if defending the right of all human beings to live as image-bearers of God got you rejected by both political parties and both sides of the church?
 
Or, do you so desperately desire the approval of men that you feel the need to choose one side or the other because you have to belong somewhere?
 
Paul wrote:
 
“Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ” (Galatians 1:10).
 
Do we defend who we defend because we want to fit in with a certain group, or do we defend who we defend because we truly believe that all humans are created in the image of God and therefore deserve to be defended?
 
The true test of imitating Jesus as His disciple is if we refuse to sacrifice one group for another.
 
And unfortunately, in our culture, it is most often our unborn children who are the ones most easily sacrificed.