An Abortionist as the Good Samaritan? Ironically, Esquire magazine says yes.

           Irony is the juxtaposition of opposed concepts in order to make a point.  It’s often funny (Woody Allen was good at it, once) and certainly a useful device in speaking and writing.  Irony is one of the many things in this world that drives me to believe in a creator-God and confirms my Christian worldview because it doesn’t follow as meaningful from an evolutionary perspective.  Jesus used irony regularly (sometimes to the point of sarcasm) as a means of communicating the gospel message that the very God of the universe had come into his creation to set things straight.

          Enter Willie Parker, abortion doctor, who claims he is acting based on Christian belief.   Esquire magazine portrays him as a hero in its recent write up about him.  He cites, of all things, the parable of the Good Samaritan as the basis for his “ministry.”  Apparently, Dr. Parker doesn’t understand irony.  In the parable, Jesus explains that a priest and a Levite, both of whom were considered Judaism’s “finest,” walked around a nearly dead man lying on the side of the road, presumably to avoid becoming ritually unclean (Jesus doesn’t say explicitly – maybe they were just jerks).  A Samaritan, a mixed-breed of supposedly lesser quality, both spiritually and racially, comes along and helps the man, who, although Jesus never tells us for sure, is almost certainly Jewish.  Irony, anyone?

            Dr. Parker claims that a fetus is totally dependent on its mother, making the mother the arbiter of all choices for that fetus, including whether it gets to live or not.  Interesting.  The nearly dead man on the side of the road was clearly helpless.  In fact, one might note he was totally dependent on the good will of a fellow human being to remain among the living.  The Samaritan takes this totally dependent person and sees to it he gets all the help he needs to, whoops, stay alive.  Yet, ironically, Dr. Parker claims he IS the Samaritan.   “I do have belief in God,” he says.  “That's why I do this work. My belief in God tells me that the most important thing you can do for another human being is help them in their time of need.”

            Now, I understand that women considering an abortion are clearly in need.  In fact, frankly, I’m much more sympathetic to the women than I am to Dr. Parker.  The Esquire article describes Dr. Parker as taking a rather clinical view of the babies – at six weeks noting the baby is just “lumps of red tissue” or pointing out that until 9 weeks, a “fetal pole” may have developed, it (the baby) is “undifferentiated.”  While he is clearly correct in his physical description, he simply ignores the more important feature: this is a human life in development.  It’s not going to be an ant, mouse, dog, cat, horse, or anything other than a human being.  Human beings have souls – ironically, Dr. Parker never seems to think about the lives he is stamping out.

            He complains about the protesters outside the clinic, claiming all they care about is the fetus.  However, he makes no bones that he cares more about the women than the children they are carrying.  How does it work that caring for either the woman or the unborn baby is more important, more valuable, more necessary, more good Samaritan, more Christ-like?  Abortion protesters often go overboard and don’t always represent Christianity well, of that there is no question.  That doesn’t abrogate the rightful concern they have for the child whose life is being ignominiously stamped out by Dr. Parker’s “compassion.” 

           The women who seek abortions have reasons for doing so and many find making the choice extremely difficult.  While I doubt there are any statistics for such things, my suspicion is almost all women struggle mightily with the decision to have an abortion and feel exceptionally guilty.  Few do this kind of thing on a whim and shouldn’t be portrayed cavalierly as if they’re just using abortion as post-pregnancy birth control.  That’s not my sense at all.  But just because someone is called upon to make difficult moral choices doesn’t mean whatever choice they make is acceptable, or right. 

            This is where the irony of Dr. Parker’s view becomes most clear.  He serves as a conscience cleanser, making sure that women don’t feel any guilt at all about what they’re doing.  Where, oh where, does Dr. Parker finding Jesus ever, ever, ever assuaging anyone’s guilt?  If anything, Jesus was tough on those who acted wrongly – he never accepted sinful conduct as anything other than that – sinful conduct.  For instance, he met a woman at a well and made utterly clear to her he knew everything about her very sinful past and her current sinful living arrangements.  He didn’t spend time telling her that it was her life and her decision and her body and her sexuality  so that any choice she made was okay.  Rather, he confronted her with her sin.

            I don’t expect a writer at Esquire to have sufficient sensitivity to Christian doctrine to recognize the utter profanity of Dr. Parker’s so-called ministry.  I can’t blame the writer for making it sound so wonderful.  I understand when women feel cornered to the point where abortion seems like their only way out.  That doesn’t make the decision right, but it does make it understandable.  The woman at the well lived in a time where she needed a man in order to survive – her choice to accept living with a man who wasn’t her husband (and, by implication, engaging in a sexual relationship) is understandable, even though wrong.  What leaps out from this article is the utterly un-Jesus like manner with which Dr. Parker treats the living souls he kills off – they live at his suffrage, not at the suffrage of the living God of the universe Dr. Parker claims he serves.

          Finally, ironically, Dr. Parker doesn’t seem to have any understanding of the grander implications of his blasé attitude towards those undifferentiated lumps of red tissue he unceremoniously dispatches.  According to Dr. Parker, it is the child’s utter dependence on its mother that makes the mother the absolute authority whether the child lives or dies.  Really, though, Dr. Parker is the one who exercises the authority – he kills the baby, not the mom.  More importantly, what does this say about an Alzheimer’s patient who is totally dependent on others to make it through every day?  And how, oh how, Dr. Parker do we meaningfully define just exactly and precisely when someone is or is not dependent?  Is a three year old dependent?  What about a quadriplegic?

         I understand Esquire magazine’s take – it’s a decidedly non-Christian magazine.  I get that women who feel they have no alternative make a decidedly difficult and guilt wracked decision – how many of us sin for the same reasons?  What I don’t get, though, is a guy who thinks he’s the Good Samaritan stomping out a defenseless life in the name of Jesus.  Dr. Parker is worse than the priest and the Levite – at least they just walked by when they saw the helpless man on the side of the road – they didn’t go over and finish him off.

        What Dr. Parker clearly doesn’t understand is Jesus was the ultimate Good Samaritan – he didn’t just spend some time, effort, and money saving us when we were helpless, he gave us his life in exchange for ours.  If Dr. Parker really wants to be a good Samaritan, the next time a young woman comes in seeking an abortion, he’ll agree to trade places with her unborn child.