I read an absolutely heart-wrenching article last week. An Indiana mom smothered her two children with her hands. I’m such a visual person and so reading this article was incredibly painful as I pictured these sweet children dying at the hands of their mother. What was even more sickening is that she said she “gave them a choice”. Their choice was to “live traumatized lives with their mother” or “go to heaven now”.
Obviously this woman is not mentally stable. Sin has so corrupted her mind and heart that she put herself into the position of sovereign over the lives of her children. She took a life that she had no right taking. No matter how she spins this she will not get sympathy. You do not kill a child to prevent them from potential future harm.
Or will she get sympathy?
I say that because I have heard very similar logic from those who are not pro-life and want to uphold Roe v. Wade. If a child is going to be born into extreme poverty, or if he/she has severe disabilities that will impact their ability to have a healthy and thriving life, is it not more loving to keep them from such suffering? I cannot see how the “choice” given these children is much different than the non-choice given to children in the womb.
As we are outraged by this mother and saying things like, “Why not just put these kids up for adoption? Why not pursue giving them a better life? Why have such a defeatist mentality?” I cannot help but ask the same thing of those who hold to a pro-choice position.
I know the counter-argument. We are asking these mothers to carry a child for nine months, go through the pain of child-birth, and all of this for a child they do not want. They need to be in control of their bodies. How dare we legislate what a woman can and cannot do to her body? But let’s be honest, are we merely saying what a woman can and cannot do to her body, or are we also legislating what a woman can and cannot do to another human? I would argue that it is the latter—which is why I am saying as repulsed as we are by the story of the mother suffocating her children, is it any more sanitized when a mother chooses to have a doctor do the work for her?
I’m not intending, here, to throw condemnation and shame upon women who have made a similar choice. I’m guessing that if you have a relationship with Jesus you’ve felt more than enough conviction. And I’m also certain that if you have a relationship with Christ you have experienced the balm of his forgiveness, and the work of the Spirit it transforming our minds. I too have things that I’ve done in the past that I am not proud of, which cause great pain, and which I’m deeply grateful are covered by the blood of Christ.
All I’m attempting to do here is to show how pro-abortion logic doesn’t stand up. If it doesn’t work outside the womb then it shouldn’t work in the womb. When we make moral compromises and when we engage in situational ethics we end up losing our voice to stand up against things which are reprehensible. And I would argue that the only one who can rightly condemn the actions of this Indiana mother are those who have a consistently pro-life position.
If you are appalled at Amanda Pasztor’s actions you should be equally appalled at the thought of taking the life of a child inside the womb for similar reasons.
—
Photo source: here
Sadly, it’s not just the pro-death side that uses the “better life” argument.
My aunt, who claims to find abortion evil and is a professing Christian, tries to claim it’s a better way than the poverty and suffering the kids will have in life. She usually continues on with straw man arguments and anecdotal evidence (she worked in the social system for 20 years) to prove her points.
I suppose I could use anecdotal argumentation citing how I work with the kids coming from these horrible, poverty stricken lives and help them find hope and direction, but I doubt that would matter.