Survival vs. savagery

11:56 a.m. Today's project, starting in the wee hours of the morning, was to rid my mind of the picture of an innocent baby zebra being brutally dragged by the neck, bitten, kicked, stomped, jumped on, half-drowned in the water hole and left for dead by an adult male. I must stop watching these violent nature shows...

The narrating researchers trying to figure out the cause of this unbelievable beat-down came to the following explanation: his mother had been pregnant when she joined the herd, the harem of a single dominant male. And that male would not tolerate the existence of this little calf which was not his. "He is not interested in passing down another male's genes," the researcher said. I suppose one whiff of the little one told the male it was not his, so it had to die. Perhaps this male, when grown, would have had no hesitation challenging the older male for the harem as a genetic outsider. Somehow this fit in with survival of the fittest. And since animals know no pity, or justice, or generosity in the wild, what had to be done had to be done. The mother came over, kicking and biting the male, but he easily repulsed her, and the calf lay motionless on the ground. The male then signaled that it was time for the herd to move on. But you could see that the mother was negotiating, making clear she wasn't leaving her baby alone to die. It's a wonder she wasn't killed, too. But the herd left and mother and baby were left alone, very dangerous, because a pack of hyenas was nearby.

When the researchers came back in the morning, they were astounded that the baby was still lying there in one piece--but they didn't have to look far for their answer. The hyenas had killed and devoured the mother, a much bigger feast. That mom had exposed herself to certain death by staying alone with her baby. She made her choice: coming under the protection of the male was not worth abandoning her baby. A fatal error, leaving the safety of the herd, but one most human mothers can relate to!

Did I say "most," not, "all?" Sadly, yes. The human patients of a certain Philadelphia abortion doctor did not put their children first. Now a national scandal, I read an AP story on January 20, 2011, of a doctor who "made millions of dollars over 30 years." He "induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of prenancy and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord," according to D.A. Seth Williams.

The conditions were filthy, the personnel had no medical training and bags and bottles holding aborted fetuses "were scattered throughout the building," Williams said. "There were jars, lining shelves, with severed feet that he kept for no medical purpose." The "doctor" is charged "with eight counts of murder in the death of one patient and seven babies that were born alive and then killed with scissors." A high school student performed intraveneous anesthesia with potentially lethal narcotics, acccording to the D.A.

Question: who is the savage--the vicious male zebra ensuring control, dominance and ultimately, survival of his herd, or the abortionist, acting purely for money?

As we ponder that question, I'll close with I Timothy 6:6-10, a strong admonition to us:

Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain that we can carry nothing out. And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Lord, pierce our hearts today, and give us a protective love for innocent babies!