(Source)
So here we have an advertisement which should get you thinking about abortion. The point it makes is that these are little persons, each slightly bigger than the one next to it, which relates to its age and development. Killing persons is a serious matter, which is why abortion is a serious matter. As one well-known pastor has remarked, "if it's a person, you don't shoot." But, I'm going to go even further, if that's possible. I'm going to suggest that abortion, both in America and elsewhere in the world (in China, there has been six times the number of abortions as in the U.S. in the same time period since RvW, over 330 million - that's another whole U.S.A. +), is something much worse than we have ever seen in history, even those atrocities attributed to ancient, savage peoples.
It all begins with the concept of sacrifice. Thousands of years ago, whether among the Mayans, Incas, Aztecs, or others, there was a common understanding that when bad things happened, it was a consequence for the gods being upset. That might mean the people had done wrong, or it could mean the people had not done right. These peoples (and I speak in generalities because each people was distinct and not the same in every way) figured that they needed to do something to resolve this tension with the gods. They needed to figure out a means of appeasement. Generally, and as is readily accepted within the Judeo-Christian mainstream, they understood that the death of the transgressor, or a sacrifice of someone in place of the transgressor/s would suffice to appease the gods in these matters. They understood that the gods see someone taking responsibility for their (gods) being upset as fair payment for them to be happy again and proceed to shower the people with blessings again (or at least remove the curses and stay out of the picture).
But, there was a specific people in the Mediterranean region that did something unique in this regard. They were renown for it, or rather, notorious. The Ammonites were the people, and they had a god called Molech, and this god was unlike the other gods, because he expected a sacrificial payment that went beyond what the other gods ever seemed to request. This god wanted more than blood. He wanted the blood of infants; he wanted to devour children. If you can imagine a god whose mouth opens wide to razor sharp teeth to feast on the tender flesh of the newborn, then you begin to imagine the demonic presence among this people. The God of Israel was clear in his position against this god, and that anyone who engaged in this practice would not only be cutoff from Israel, but that such a person would also have God set Himself against them, i.e. it's bad enough that you're kicked out of the family, but you forevermore shall be considered our enemy. To side with Molech was a high-treason kind of matter, rebellion of the worst kind, against God and his very nature and his creation. It was an affront to the very concept of creation in its highest form - the image of God - and stewardship in its most precious estate - the family.
Now, I am not equating abortion with Molech worship. I have heard the arguments made. They are convincing but not enough. But, you shouldn't think that means abortion is more palatable to God. The following argument is to show that it's not; abortion actually exceeds Molech worship in horror. Let me tell you why I think this is the case.
Most ancient civilizations were land-based economies, they were technologically deficient compared to the ways we leverage tools for the sake of agrarian and animal care-taking and "production." They didn't use tractors and there were no Lowe's or Home Depots (or whatever they call tool and home supply stores in your country) for buying shovels or drills. Working the land was more difficult, and therefore the land was less productive. The chief means of increasing your production was through increasing the number of laborers working the land itself, and the chief means of doing that profitably was through having children to bear the load of the work alongside you, especially sons. To have children was a recognized blessing, a recognized hopeful future in latent form. Children meant extended family networks, shared resources, increased laborers, etc. More children meant more wealth (excepting the possibility of evil, lazy, and rebellious children). Sons were a sign of blessing.
Thus, when these peoples chose to offer up a child to Molech, that abominable god of the Ammonites, they knew they were making a true sacrifice. They said, this child is my future, but I put my future in the hands of this terrible demon, because if I do, then this present malady will be borne away. Sacrificing their children was a risky venture. It meant potential poverty. It meant real loss. They watched their dreams burn up in that fire, speaking their many words in their vain prayers to that demon in hopes that he would relent on their land or armies, or as a pre-purchased show of sacrifice for victory against their enemies.
Do you see how abortion is considered completely different from child sacrifice to Molech? Molech's followers, if they were anything like the other ancient peoples in this familial/economic perspective, would have desired to have Molech's relenting or "blessing" without having to sacrifice the child. They "sacrificed" one to get the other. They gave up that which they wanted to keep for the sake of ridding themselves of something they could not stand. Abortion, however, is not viewed as a sacrifice. It's generally not perceived as an undesired action by those who get them. Note: the husband in the ancient civilization had utter control over the matter. Thus, what I'm saying is that the men in that culture did not desire to sacrifice their children. That is completely contrary to the picture set before us today. We might argue that many of the women getting abortions are being coerced into having their children executed, but we would probably be in agreement that if a woman is getting an abortion, it is most likely that the father is in favor of it.
At this point, one might say, "but isn't that the same as the ancients' choosing one blessing over the other?" The answer is "no." And, this is where the whole matter turns darker. In the ancient culture, giving up the child to Molech could be likened unto the phrase, a [perceived] necessary evil. Today, however, the difference is that the child is not wanted and the [supposed] benefits that accrue to the mother/father are retained. Essentially, child sacrifice is now viewed as a convenience, a profitable rather than impoverishing act. That we have stations for child-killing is viewed as a great gain for our culture, a blessing for the sake of selfish endeavors, a mitigating force against the burden that are weaker, smaller, less-intelligent, and incapable persons. The ancients, even in their evil ways, saw child sacrifice as the worst sort of inconvenience, a horrible ritual characterizing the ferocity and terribleness of their god. Among us, such is considered medicinal, and even our-life affirming, because in our day, we take Henry's statement literalistically - give me liberty or give me death.
Abortion is vicious and undeniably cruel. It is heinous in the worst way. But, perhaps the worst deception woven into its corrupt fabric is that it enriches rather than impoverishes. We are not only evil, but we are fools too. Have fairy tales of beautiful appearances and seemingly pleasing fruit taught us nothing of the witch's poison? I believe that such is a major reason why this evil has not been broken in our day and among our people. We see no horrible consequence. We do not see our lives poorer and ruined in the act, as the ancients were like to do. The ancients viewed it as an all or nothing, last-ditch effort to remove the curse or get the strength to defend against or conquer foes. We view it as a common way to have more free time, avoid marriage or scandal, and still have a future. Both their sins and ours are evil, but there's a big difference, and our position makes us the heartless heathen in comparison.
