In a 1865 novel written by Lewis Carroll, called Alice in Wonderland, the character Alice falls down a rabbit hole into a complex world of fantasy and the illogical.
Today, “going down a rabbit hole” has become metaphorical for a path that leads us to the logic or fallacy of an issue or approach to something. Because of its depth and complexity, going too deep into such a hole is not viewed as being a good idea.
Such is the issue of abortion – that white rabbit that lures us down its hole of complexity and opposing thought.
One door says, “Man’s Law” – the other, “Nature’s Law“. Once you get there however, you will find a third door that says, “The Heart“.
To the chagrin of many in this country, it is lawful to end the life of an unborn child with few restrictions. In a 1973 decision, the Supreme Court ruled abortion of the unborn to be a lawful act – premised on a woman’s right to choose what she can do with her own body – her reproductive rights if you will.
I could go further and further into the hole, opening doors that expose the injustice done to millions of unborn babies by the Court’s legal sanction of mass genocide – hoping to find at the bottom a reality that says, “if we just stack the Court with conservative justices, all that will change someday”.
Will it, or is the hole more complex than that?
This “stacking” logic assumes that only conservative justices are capable of recognizing the moral implications of this issue, and that liberal justices are blinded to it.
It may not be that simple though (rabbit holes never are).Man’s law.
Man’s law (the rule we all live under as a society, and are expected to obey) is based on and interpreted according to earthly wisdom, and the prevalent dogma of the time.
Unfortunately, there is no one with the name Solomon presiding on the Supreme Court.
Paradox in a headline.
“Boyfriend charged with killing woman, unborn child“.
A man was charged with not one, but two counts of capital murder for killing his pregnant girlfriend, and by extension – her unborn baby.
The paradox here, lies in the fact that, should she have chosen to end the life of her unborn child through abortion, it wouldn’t have been considered an unlawful act on our temporal scales of justice..
So does that mean an unborn life is only considered a life when it is ended by someone other than the mother?
Man’s law therefore seeks to be moral, but only when convenient to be.
The law of nature on the other hand is immutable – meaning that, unlike man’s law, it doesn’t change over time, and it exists into eternity. We might even call it moral law, because it is based on irrefutable universal truth.
How many times have you heard someone say, “I don’t believe in it (abortion) personally, but I support a woman’s right to choose.” – nature’s law at odds with man’s law.
When these two laws collide, we’re back to giving Caesar that which is his, and God that which is his. The laws of man are Caesar’s, but the laws of nature are God’s – everyone answerable to each, and each one with its own consequences.
You can’t legislate away abortion any more than the murders committed daily in Chicago.
Jeremiah 17:9 answers the “why” by telling us that, “the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.”.
You simply cannot legislate the heart with the imposition of man’s laws. It didn’t work in the Old Testament, and won’t in a culture increasingly devoid of morality.
The real answer may lie in ministering to those faced with the decision.
There are some well-meaning church-goers that will decry the horror of abortion, but in the same breath ask how a woman can give her child up for adoption.
Some churches are casting stones when they should be casting nets.
Worse yet, they’ve become so inflated, that they’re stuck in the hole – unable to move the arms and hands of Christ.
This will always be a personal decision for anyone forced to contemplate it, whether it’s legalized by man’s law or not.
Standing on the street corner, or in front of a microphone, calling a girl or woman a murderer, or holding a sign saying the same thing, is not the way to minister to her.
29 years ago, a young woman in a bad situation, faced the crossroads of man’s law and nature’s law, and contrary to the conventional norms of the day, spared the life of her unborn daughter.
Her daughter became my daughter through adoption.
That personal decision to spare a life, enriched mine immensely. Her decision wasn’t legislated, nor was it coerced by intimidation. It was based on love and the understanding that this wasn’t a matter of her reproductive rights, but the right of that child within her to live and have a good life.
That young woman of 29 years ago is my hope!
And I didn’t have to go too far down the rabbit hole to find it – just as far as the door that said,