Woman Seeks Leniency for Man Who Laced Her Tea With Abortion Pills

Brooke Fiske was seventeen weeks pregnant. Her then-boyfriend and the father of their child, Dr. Sikander Imran, was pressuring her to get an abortion, but she refused.

She told reporters what happened next: "When I was drinking my tea in the evening, I got to the bottom of the cup. There was a gritty substance in there, and when I looked at it, I could tell that it was a pill that had been ground up."

Imran had placed the abortion-inducing drug in her tea. She began having contractions and was taken to the hospital, where she went into labor and aborted their child.

Imran was arrested and pled guilty to fetal homicide. He was sentenced to prison last Friday and has lost his medical license. He could also be deported to his native Pakistan.

The illogic of abortion

Their story is making headlines because Fiske asked the judge to give Imran a lighter sentence during his trial. "When something tragic happens, it's really important to try to find a way to move forward and to use it for good," she explained.

I believe their story should make news for a different reason as well.

The fact that Dr. Imran gave Brooke Fiske the drug without her consent made his action illegal. However, if she had chosen to ingest the drug her boyfriend gave her, the resulting abortion would have been legal.

But the outcome for the baby would have been the same.

If we applaud Fiske's compassion for the man who killed their baby, our response is applauded by our culture. If we note the illogic of abortion–a baby's death is fetal homicide or a legal act, depending only on the wishes of the mother–our countercultural response is condemned as intolerant and bigoted.

Ted Cruz and Robert Jeffress

After last week's tragic shooting in Santa Fe, Texas, Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted, "Heidi and I are keeping all the students and faculty at Santa Fe High School in our prayers this morning, along with all first responders on the scene. Please be safe and heed warnings from local officials."

The Bible clearly calls us to intercede for those in need (cf. Acts 12:5; 1 Timothy 2:1). Nevertheless, the reaction on Twitter was vicious.

One person replied, "You're not even giving them your thoughts anymore? They've been downgraded to just prayers now?" Another tweeted, "If you're not going to work to improve this country, Ted, retire. We're tired of paying you in exchange for your useless prayers." Another tweeted a picture of two cats laying on a chair with the caption, "I NAMED MY CATS THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS BECAUSE THEY ARE USELESS."

In a similar vein, Yahoo News columnist Jerry Adler wrote an article yesterday titled, "Evangelical Robert Jeffress thinks Jews are going to hell. Israelis are OK with that." Even though Jeffress explained to Adler in a phone call that the necessity of faith in Christ "has been the historic teaching of Christianity for 2,000 years," he responded, "I don't care what Jeffress thinks will happen to me after I die."

The Bible clearly calls us to share Christ with the Jewish people (cf. Acts 4:12; Romans 10:1). Nevertheless, Adler employed a classic ad hominem argument, rejecting the messenger to avoid the message.

I would suggest that he should care what God thinks will happen to him after he dies. Of course, he'd probably belittle me as well.

"All intelligent ideas are narrow"

In The Story of Reality, a brilliant exposition of the Christian worldview, apologist Gregory Koukl notes:

"Since everybody–religious person, atheist, scientist, skeptic–believes his beliefs are true, it has always struck me as odd when some have been faulted simply for thinking their views correct. They've even been labeled intolerant or bigoted for doing so. But what is the alternative? The person objecting thinks his own views correct as well, which is why he's objecting. Both parties in the conversation think they're right and the other wrong. Why, then, is only the religious person (usually) branded a bigot for doing so?"

Koukl cites G. K. Chesterton's astute observation in his classic work, Orthodoxy: "In one sense, of course, all intelligent ideas are narrow. . . . A Christian is only restricted in the same sense that an atheist is restricted. He cannot think Christianity false and continue to be a Christian; and the atheist cannot think atheism false and continue to be an atheist."

As a striking example of "narrow" thinking, consider Jesus' statement to his disciples on the night he was betrayed.

On their way from the Upper Room to the Garden of Gethsemane, they likely passed by the temple adorned with images of a vine, the national symbol of Israel. Jesus then made this startling announcement: "I am the true vine" (John 15:1).

In contrast to the Jewish nation, whose spiritual vine had become "degenerate" and "wild" (Jeremiah 2:21), Jesus claimed to be the "true" (alethinos, meaning "genuine" or "authentic") vine. Note the definite article–he is the only true vine. Not their temple, or their religion, or their culture. The only true source of life is Jesus Christ.

There is no third option

Now you and I face a choice.

We can decide that there are many sources of life, that defending the uniqueness of Jesus and the necessity of salvation in him is bigoted and intolerant. In other words, Jesus was wrong, and our culture is right.

Or we can decide that there is only one true source of life, that defending the uniqueness of Jesus and the necessity of salvation in him is our gracious gift to a dying world. In other words, Jesus was right, and our culture is wrong.

There is no third option.

Originally posted at Denison Forum.