by Harry Osborne
Several years ago, I came across an extremely disturbing article while reading from the "Chronicles" section of the Canadian edition of Time magazine (May 1, 1995, p. 12). That entry entitled "Uncouth Cuisine" is quoted in its entirety without editing as follows:
Residents of the British colony are agog about a new dietary additive cooked up by doctors across the border in southern China: human fetus soup. Talk began circulating in Hong Kong last year that people in Shenzhen were eating aborted fetuses to improve their skin tone and health. After posing as patients, Hong Kong journalists recently reported that several doctors at a Shenzhen government hospital and a private clinic admitted selling the fetuses for $3 each and claimed to be eating the preparation themselves. "Making soup is best," a physician was quoted as saying, adding that meat, ginger and chives helped hide the dish's bad odor. "It is so crude, I don't know why anyone would do it," said Hong Kong legislator and physician Tang Siutong. "Most people wouldn't even want to think about it."
Is this story as disgusting and abhorrent to you as it was to me when I first read it? I totally concur with the article's writer that "most people wouldn't even want to think about it." However, I would like to examine that automatic reaction shared by the vast majority. Why do we not want to think about it? What makes this story so revolting that we do not want to consider it?
Do we react with the same disgust at the thought of chicken soup? What about a soup with chicken in fetal form, like egg drop soup, would it be as repulsive as human fetus soup? People have long eaten fish for supposed health benefits. Would the thought of eating caviar be morally offensive to us? Why, then, do we react with disgust at the very thought of human fetus soup?
The only possible explanation is that we identify the unborn ingredient of such a soup with humanity. At least when it comes to eating the fetus, we identify that fetus not as an "it" equal to a chicken or fish, but as possessing the nature of humanity. Opponents of abortion are just consistent in admitting identification of an unborn child with the nature of humanity, not only in refusing to eat the unborn, but also in refusing to sanction their slaughter in abortion!
Supporters of abortion, however, must ask why they react with such revulsion to this soup. After all, they claim to believe that it is not a child in the womb, but merely a "mass of tissue" they prefer to dehumanize by the term "fetus." So why the revulsion at this use of "fetal tissue" if there is no connection with humanity? Why not make soup out of it if that is all it is? Why is the very thought of such revolting and disgusting to the pro-abortion crowd? They need to honestly face their "gut reaction."
Several years ago, I took part in a lecture program at the University of Texas Medical School in Galveston, Texas. After showing the film "Silent Scream" and presenting a short lecture, we had a question and answer session. One young man objected to the film's ultra-sound imaging of the child seeking to escape the suction instrument which dismembers and kills the child during the abortion. He said, "A cow fetus would do the same!"
I asked, "Are you equating the fetus in the film with a cow fetus."
He and numerous others in the crowd responded, "No, and don't put words in my mouth."
My response was simply, "Upon what basis do you make the distinction?" He was silent.
After the forum, a female resident training in Obstetrics and Gynecology came and admitted that she had been among the crowd with the upset reaction. However, being faced with justifying her reaction caused her to rethink her view. She let me know that she had participated in abortions before that night, but she would not do so in the future. There are honest people who will do the right thing if we will only help them face the truth, regardless of how uncomfortable it might be.
Those knowledgeable in the medical fields of fetology and perinatology (specialties dealing with the development of the unborn child) have clearly shown that the unborn child is a separate life from the mother. Those favoring "abortion rights" conveniently ignore this fact. If they admit that two distinct lives are present, the need to protect human life must also be admitted. I say "human life" because genetically the child could only be human.
The Bible confirms the fact that God views the unborn child as a distinct, human life while within the mother's womb. For the sake of time, we will note only a few examples:
Thus, a distinct life exists with the child in the mother's womb. God views the killing of that child by abortion as the killing of another human being. Though the human fetus soup served in China may be disgusting to think about, it is the logical end to the pro-abortion plea to dehumanize the child in the womb. It would be good to remember that same China that features fetus soup, is the China which demands that all pregnancies after the first, which are not approved by the government, must be ended by abortion. The leaven of a casual attitude towards abortion has merely reached its logical end in China. Such a view tends towards barbarism and stands in stark contrast to God's view of the child.