In a recent story that appeared in the New York Times titled The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy, Ruth Padawer profiled a 45 year old pregnant woman who had chosen to “reduce” the fetuses in her womb from two to one. Following is a quote from that profile:
She was 45 and pregnant after six years of fertility bills, ovulation injections, donor eggs and disappointment — and yet here she was, 14 weeks into her pregnancy, choosing to extinguish one of two healthy fetuses, almost as if having half an abortion. As the doctor inserted the needle into Jenny’s abdomen, aiming at one of the fetuses, Jenny tried not to flinch, caught between intense relief and intense guilt.
The words are hard to read, and serve as a sharp contrast to the detached, political arguments about rights and privacy that dominate the national discourse on the subject of abortion. It is interesting to note the phrase in the quote: “almost as if having half an abortion.” It is a prime example of rationalization. The common definition of an abortion is “the termination of a pregnancy.” Of course, this definition is rather broad, and scenarios such as the one above are not adequately covered in the definition.
Merriam Webster’s online Medical dictionary defines abortion, (labeled as definition 1b), as the “induced expulsion of a human fetus.” The procedure described is not almost “as if having half an abortion” it is an abortion, and a case of a mother killing her unborn child.
Another compelling quote from the profile is the revelation that Jenny was “caught between intense relief and intense guilt.” The guilt is understandable, as the lady had contracted with the abortionist to kill her child. Why the intense relief? Jenny is quoted as saying, ““This is bad, but it’s not anywhere as bad as neglecting your child or not giving everything you can to the children you have.” In a classic example of situational ethics, Jenny balked at having twins because she already had two older children, and felt she would not be a good enough mother to the child she aborted. When boiled down to its essence, she chose to kill the child because it was too much trouble to raise it.
She rationalized her choice because of the method of fertilization. She stated that if the children had been conceived naturally, she would not have “reduced this pregnancy.” But, since the process of artificial insemination was “all consumerish to begin with,” she said, “this became yet another thing we could control.” The definition of the Greek word astorgos, translated in Paul’s list of sins in Romans 1:31 as unloving, means “hard hearted towards kindred—without natural affection.” This is one of the most offensive examples of such coldness conceivable, and is an obvious indictment of the brazen, secular culture of our day.
Abortion is a medical euphemism for murder. Now, we have the twice removed euphemism, “pregnancy reduction” to further obfuscate what happens in this case. The child within the womb is stabbed with a needle, and injected with poison. That beautiful and innocent baby is, with cold calculation, murdered. No matter the medical terminology, this is an unconscionable sin! As Paul revealed, “those who practice such things are deserving of death” (Romans 1:32), and will certainly stand condemned in the day of judgment.
