Seeing Yourself in the Raping Abortionist
For the last month, rape has been at the forefront of the abortion debate, thanks to the ill-conceived remarks of Senator Todd Akin. In truth, abortion advocates are always looking for a reason to introduce rape into the abortion discussion, and they've jumped all over this one. Rape-based abortions account for less than 1% of the U. S. total, but they provide a much more sympathetic framework for anyone wanting to argue the legal "necessity" of abortion. There is, however, one context in which abortion advocates most certainly do not want to talk about rape – and that's when it comes out that an abortionist has been raping his patients. Fifteen years ago, Mark Crutcher published, Lime 5, an extremely disturbing exposé on abortion that highlights, among other things, widespread instances of sexual abuse. Some of the findings from that book are featured on Abort73's "Abortion Clinic Abuse" page.
The abuses documented in Lime 5, however, are dwarfed by a story that came out of Ghana last week after prominent abortionist, Joshua Drah, whose father first introduced abortion to the region, was arrested for raping thousands of women during their abortions. Renowned investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas, placed hidden cameras in Drah's office where he documented the rape of 52 women, always under the guise that sexual intercourse was medically necessary for the successful completion of the abortion. Reading selected transcripts from Anas' recording is beyond disturbing.
The abortion industry, when forced to acknowledge these atrocities at all, would have us believe that such horrific abuse is isolated and random, with no systemic connection to abortion itself. I am not so certain. Philosophically, there are significant similarities between abortion and rape. Both are violent acts. Both target the helpless and vulnerable. And both are predicated on a self-gratification that ignores the rights and well-being of another. The main difference is that one act enjoys a modicum of social acceptability and the other does not.
At this point, it would be relatively easy to demonize Joshua Drah, but as I looked at his picture online, I couldn't escape the conviction that he's a man not much different from me. It's easy to say that I would never rape someone, but what if I'd been raised by an abortionist and trained to inherit the family business? What if I had intimate, private access to vulnerable young women desperate to keep their abortion a secret? What if I had no moral anchor to teach me that some lines are uncrossable? I shudder to think what I'd be capable of.
I recently reread C.S. Lewis' Reflections on the Psalms, a book that has as many profound observations as pages, and one of the countless things to strike me was the contrasting views of God's judgment held by the Psalmists and the New Testament authors. Lewis writes:
The ancient Jews, like ourselves, think of God's judgement in terms of an earthly court of justice. The difference is that the Christian pictures the case to be tried as a criminal case with himself in the dock; the Jew pictures it as a civil case with himself as the plaintiff… Christians cry to God for mercy instead of justice; [ancient Jews] cried to God for justice instead of injustice… [W]hat alarms us in the Christian picture (of God's judgment) is the infinite purity of the standard against which our actions will be judged. But then we know that none of us will ever come up to that standard. We are all in the same boat. We must all pin our hopes on the mercy of God and the work of Christ, not on our own goodness. Now the Jewish picture of a civil action sharply reminds us that perhaps we are faulty not only by the Divine standard (that is a matter of course) but also by a very human standard which all reasonable people admit and which we ourselves usually wish to enforce upon others. Almost certainly there are unsatisfied claims, human claims, against each one of us. For who can really believe that in all his dealings with employers and employees, with husband or wife, with parents and children, in quarrels and in collaborations, he has always attained (let alone charity or generosity) mere honesty and fairness? Of course we forget most of the injuries we have done. But the injured parties do not forget even if they forgive. And God does not forget. And even what we can remember is formidable enough. Few of us have always, in full measure, given our pupils or patients or clients (or whatever our particular "consumers" may be called) what we were being paid for. We have not always done quite our fair share of some tiresome work if we found a colleague or partner who could be beguiled into carrying the heavy end… How we should deal with [this behavior] in others I am not sure; but we should be merciless to its first appearances in ourselves.
Returning to the case of Joshua Drah, how many of us could survive the public scrutiny of having a camera secretly trained on us throughout the day? We might not be guilty of criminal behavior, but would all of our activities be perfectly upright and commendable? And even if our external behavior could pass muster, what about our mind and heart? So even as we condemn the wretched crimes that Joshua Drah visited upon countless women and children, may they give each of us pause to consider the fact that the same sinful desires that led Drah to such horrific ends lurk in our hearts as well.
Michael Spielman is the founder and director of Abort73.com. His book, Love the Least (A Lot), is available as a free download. You can also find him on Facebook and Google+. Abort73 is part of Loxafamosity Ministries, a 501c3, Christian education corporation. If you have been helped by the information available at Abort73.com, please consider making a donation.