Given the following scenario, what would you do? You are at a fertility clinic when a fire breaks out. You can either save a petri disk with 100 fertilized eggs or a single infant child. Which do you save?

This is a scenario given by those who call themselves pro-choice and who consider fertilized eggs only potential humans. Their choice is an easy one. They would save the infant child. This is consistent with their world view that a fertilized egg is only a potential human and therefore an infant is more valuable. This scenario places the pro-life individual in a dilemma. If they say they will save the fertilized eggs in the petri dish, they appear cold and cruel in the eyes of the world. If they say they will save the infant child, they can be accused of valuing a single life over 100 others and therefore being inconsistent; in essence, hypocrites.

It is like the question posed by Groucho Marx; “Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes or no.” There is no way to answer this in the context given without looking bad. It is a clever question, but it tells us nothing about either person’s view of domestic abuse.

This type of approach is commonly used by both sides of the issue, whether pro-life or pro-choice. The emphasis is placed on emotions and each side attempts to make the other look bad. Very little effort is actually spent discussing the actual issue. In these cases, nothing is accomplished but a lot of loud noise and hurt feelings.

So, how should we answer this question? I would say that we are not under any obligation to provide an answer.

(2 Timothy 2:23) Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.

Paul’s advice is as good today as it was when he wrote Timothy. We should continue to engage others on issues that they wish to discuss, but we must be aware that the way we do it should bring glory to God.

Steve J.