TODAY! Radio Interview on 'Grace and Assurance: The Message of the Canons of Dordt' with Rev. Martyn McGeown
Posted December 07, 2018
Have you heard about the Doritos advertisement that aired during the National Football League’s Super Bowl? It features the ultrasound image of a baby. The advertisement promotes the idea that the product is so good that the father can’t resist munching on the chips even while his wife is undergoing an ultrasound. They are so good that the baby in the womb starts reaching for them! There is more to the commercial, but the baby’s image and movement is what has at least one pro-abortion group in an uproar.
NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) tweeted a response that criticized the ad for using the “antichoice tactic of humanizing fetuses.” Killing humans, born or unborn, is murder. NARAL does not want to give the impression that it believes the “right to choose” includes the right to murder other humans. To defend its promotion of abortion NARAL argues that unborn babies are mere fetuses, not humans. And how dare Doritos humanize mere fetuses!
Dr. Robert George explains that NARAL’s quarrel really is not with Doritos. He wrote this on his Facebook page after the Super Bowl:
I gather that the really big news, as always, had to do with a commercial advertisement that was broadcast in the course of the game. Evidently, a potato chip manufacturer, or some such profit-driven purveyor of packaged foodstuffs, showed a video image of an unborn baby. This shocked and appalled the folks at NARAL, the big abortion lobby, who promptly accused the company responsible for the ad of "humanizing the fetus." Since, however, the fetus in the video was, by all accounts, a human fetus, the offspring of human parents, and not a bovine, canine, or feline fetus, it's less than clear how it is that the potato chip company (or whatever it was) is to blame for the humanization. Surely NARAL's complaint would be more fairly lodged against God, or nature, or plain old biological reality.
Dr. George should have put a period after God.
According to the Bible children in the womb are the fearful and wonderful creation of God (Psalm 139:13-14). He has chosen some of them unto eternal life already before conception. And after conception, but before birth, these little humans already belong both body and soul to their faithful Savior Jesus Christ who purchased them with his blood. The Holy Spirit even works the life of Christ in some of them while they are yet in the womb.
God humanizes unborn babies, not ultrasounds.
In an editorial in Reformed Perspective Jon Dykstra explains his response to a Canadian Politician’s claim that he is personally pro-life but understands party loyalty to mean that whenever legislation that has to do with abortion is up for consideration he must vote in line with his party which is pro-choice. The politician is Lawrence MacAulay, a member of the Canadian parliament. Dykstra quotes MacAulay as stating, “I accept and understand the party position regarding the woman’s right to choose. Despite my personal beliefs.” MacAulay made another statement that explains what his acceptance and understanding of his party’s “pro-choice position” means. He said, “I understand that I will have to vote the party position should this issue ever come up in the House of Commons.”
Why did MacAulay make these public statements? The leader of MacAulay’s political party, Justin Trudeau, has implemented a pro-abortion requirement for the members of parliament who belong to his party. The party’s leader demands that all members of the party vote pro-choice.
Dykstra explains what the appropriate Christian response to MacAulay’s statements should be. The point he makes is that Christians must not respond in a way that does not sufficiently recognize the evil of abortion. He begins by explaining there are three sides to the abortion debate. He writes,
After rightly pointing out that MacAulay’s position amounts to approving knowingly of murder Dykstra says a calm response is “inappropriate.” And he says, “If our response does not have some heat in it, we’re not doing it right.” The appropriate response is one that recognizes abortion is horrible sin against God’s law which forbids murder.
In Canada and the United States abortion has been legal for decades. Abortion is a common and frequent occurrence in our society. We have been living with abortion for so long that there is a danger that we become “used to” it. Besides that those who are in favor of abortion have successfully downplayed its reality so that their position seems civilized and reasonable—they are not supporting murder but the woman’s right to choose. By successfully downplaying the fact that abortion is murder they have even convinced an influential politician like MacAulay that even though he is personally against abortion it is ok for him to vote for pro-abortion legislation. The difference between the anti and pro-abortion stances has been downplayed so that it is akin to the difference between a plain hamburger or a cheeseburger. Supporting pro-abortion legislation as one who is personally anti-abortion is no more serious than a person who is anti-cheese eating a cheeseburger. MacAulay is probably a sign that this kind of thinking will only increase.
Dykstra’s article shows that the minimization of abortion’s seriousness is not only a danger, it is happening! So it is important for Christians to remind ourselves constantly that abortion is murder that it is and continue to give a bold, sharp, and uncompromising witness against its evil.
 The editorial is in the July/August, 2014 Reformed Perspective, “What Truth sounds like: In the abortion debate, calm just isn’t clear, pp. 4-5.
Posted December 07, 2018
Posted December 05, 2018