THE ECLIPSE OF MORALITY - Vital Christianity

1THE ECLIPSE OF MORALITYLars Wilhelmsson

2CONTENTSPREFACE 8-9INTRODUCTION 10-151. SEMANTIC GYMNASTICS 18-25Why the Semantic Gymnastics?The Power of Words2. THE WAR ON THE UNBORN 26-28Comparison between War Casualties and Abortion Casualties3. THE MORAL DECLENSION 29-38An Historical PerspectiveSemantic GymnasticsVacuous ArgumentsChilling StatisticsAttitudes toward AbortionRighteousness More Important Than FreedomToo Hard to Believe?4. WHAT IS ABORTION 39-46DefinitionCan a Fetus Feel Pain?A Violent Act5. THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS 47-55Unique Genetic MakeupEmbryonic DevelopmentWhen Life BeginsExpert TestimonyWhat is a Person?The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court DecisionPurely a Process?If not a Person, What?Fallacious Arguments

36. THE WINDOW ON THE WOMB 56-60Seeing is Believing and A Picture is Worth a Thousand WordsDrama of Life before birthThree and one half week-old embryoEleven week-old fetusTwenty-eight week-old fetusPro-Choice=A Dead Victim7. PERSONHOOD 61-92Who is a Person?The Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court DecisionCriterias for PersonhoodThe Physical CriteriaThe Social CriteriaThe Mental CriteriaA Combination of CriteriasStages of DevelopmentPresumption of HumanityPurely a ProcessCONCEPTUAL QUESTIONS: THE ISSUE OF LOGICTwins or TripletsCommon Practice and Common SenseDeath, Death Certificates and FuneralsAgePopulationFrozen Human EmbryosLegal QuestionsContraceptionsIs Similarity the Best Criterion for Personhood?Biology and PersonhoodGreek DualismBiologically DeterminedIf not a Person, What?8. FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS 93-111THE BURDEN OF PROOFBIOLOGICAL ARGUMENTETHICAL ARGUMENTSPotentiality vs. ActualitySelf-ConsciousnessVisibility

4PRACTICAL ARGUMENTSThe Mental Health of the MotherRape & IncestEconomic & Social Well-BeingThe Right to Choose: The God of United StatesTherapeutic AbortionUnjust AggressorConflict of RightsThe Evangelical Dilemma: Forked Tongue9. NATURAL LAW, ETHICS & THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 112-126WHY IS GOD’S EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCESO IMPORTANT?IdentityEschatologically and thanatologicallyMoralityIS THERE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?Fact or fantasyThe Definition of the QuestionExistenceKnowledgeProofMethodMoral Law & ConscienceFaith and ReasonArguments for the Existence of GodClassical Arguments for God’s ExistenceThe Anthropological ArgumentThe Moral/Aesthetic Argument10. THE SILENT, HIDDEN (MEDICAL) HOLOCAUST 127-137Abortion & EuthanasiaWas It an Aberration?Small Beginnings: The Subtle ShiftA PrecursorFirst Victims: The Infirm, the Handicapped,the Retarded Compulsory SterilizationA Utilitarian Medical EthicNational and Racial PurityMercy-KillingThe Central Role of the Medical ProfessionOther Victims: ChildrenThe Hegelian Principle

5Modern CounterpartPrecursors of the Philosophy and Practices of the Third ReichWhen No One Was There11. THE SLIPPERY SLOPE 138-142The “Useless and Unfit”The PoorThe HandicappedThe Elderly12. SLAVERY, ABORTION & RACISM 143- 154Are there parallels between slavery and abortionSemantic CamouflageMoral CowardsAn Issue of RightsModern CounterpartLincoln/Douglas Debates as a ParadigmThe Humanity of the SlavesMoral IntuitionLincoln as Moral CompromiserA Modern Version of Lincolnian Abortion ProposalThe Difficulty of the Proposal: Always an Issue of Life and DeathThe Possible Inevitability of the Proposal13. PLANNED PARENTHOOD & THE BUSINESS OF ABORTION 155-166AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVETHE BIG DECEPTIONBIG BUSINESSINTERVIEW WITH A FORMER CLINIC DIRECTORTHE ABORTION INDUSTRY14. A FOREBODING FUTURE 167-171DETESTABLE PRACTICES15. CAN MORALITY BE LEGISLATED? 172-184COMMON NATURAL OR MORAL LAWThe Inner and Other Nature of Natural LawThe Golden RuleEthics and ReligionThe Right to Live: Is it God-Given?The Constitution and the Fourteenth AmendmentThe Legal Definition of Personhood

6Life and LibertyJustice and LoveLaw and MoralityLiberty and Life16. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE 185-193ExamplesPurposesCommanded to rescue helpless innocentsTestimonialThe Conscience of SocietyCounter-Culture Revolution17. ALTERNATIVES 195-197INVOLVEMENTPrograms and Services18. THE CHALLENGE 198-2002A TestimonialMother Teresa’s LogicBoth/AndAPPENDIX 203-223NOTES 224-256BIBLIOGRAPHY 257-264

7DEDICATED TO MY MOTHERASTRID WILHELMSSONWHO,AGAINST THE ADVICE OFTHE MEDICAL PROFESSION,RISKED HER LIFETO GIVE LIFETO MY BROTHER PETER

8PREFACEWe are at war!Anyone who does not realize that abortion is one of the main battles raging at thebeginning of the twenty-first century has, like the ostrich, his head buried in the sand. Yeta preponderance of people who claim to be humanitarian and/or who claim to believe theBible, have for all practical purposes been deaf to the cries of the unborn and mute inopposing that senseless legalized murder.Our twentieth century clearly became the bloodiest century of human history!What kind of legacy will this last generation of the twentieth century leavebehind? For one thing: 56,000,000 dead fetuses.With the approval of “the abortion pill” (RU486) in our country (September,1996), abortion has become an even more enticing option as it protects a woman fromany fear of medical procedure and from any stigma since it is done in the privacy of herown bedroom. Only a few visits to her doctor are involved to make sure there are no sideeffects. This is the drug many had been waiting for!It seems our society is in a moral free fall.This book is written from a moral and scientific standpoint rather than a religiousone (although the religious or theological question is dealt with in the APPENDIX). Thereason for this is that pro-choice advocates typically dismiss any religious people as thosewho object on purely religious grounds—because of their narrow interpretation of theBible. They will often say either, “I do not believe the Bible and therefore I see nothingor little wrong with abortion” or “I believe the Bible, but not so literally.” Such remarksmiss the point.This book is primarily written to those who have not been adequately exposed tothe arguments for or against abortion. It is my hope that the forthcoming evidence—thethrust of my arguments—will be so compelling that many minds and hearts will bechanged and thus many future lives saved from our twentieth century killing centerscalled “clinics,” “doctor’s offices,” “hospitals,” and recently “bedrooms.”It is also my hope that people not only will be convinced of the barbaric practicesof abortion, but also that they will be so convicted that they feel compelled to getinvolved in loving service by relieving suffering as they seek to provide positive, realisticoptions to those considering abortion.

9PURPOSEThus it is the purpose of this book to be a wake up call, to raise a red flag to thehorrors of abortion.This means it is targeted to various mindsets:The Uninformed and Unreflective—I believe ignorance is the main reasonwhy people believe abortion should be a woman’s choice. Many times I have heardpeople confess, “I have always been against abortion, but now I know why.” Or “I thinkabortion is all right” with no logical explanations of why. Countless individuals havenever carefully thought through—examined—this subject. Hopefully a thoughtful,reflective examination of the subject will hopefully provide the information needed towake up to the reality of what is happening all around them as a third of the futurepopulation is disappearing.The Numb—People whose sensitivities have become numb. The facts of whatis happening should serve as a bucket of ice cold water to the sleepy.The Intimidated—People who have simply become intimidated by therelentless barrage, the inundation, of distorted information and callous mindset of themedia.The Lethargic—People who have become indifferent as they have becomeprisoners of their own comfort and convenience.The Arrogant—Some people have become so convinced that "pro-choice" isthe only intelligent position that they find it difficult to even imagine that a pro-life stanceis not only good, but also intelligent.The Church—The facts and logic of this book will hopefully raise the level ofknowledge and stir up fervor so that the church is catapulted to be involved beyond theall-too-often comfortable walls of the church building.It is my hope that this book will so inspire and stir people that they becomeinvolved. Therefore the last section of this book provides ideas which can be most helpfulto any individual or body of people to get involved in truly promoting LIFE.It is with deep appreciation that I express thanks to Guido Pasquarelli for hisencouragement and support in addressing this most important moral issue of our times. Ialso want to thank Warner and Joanna Strube for their helpful suggestions andpainstaking proofreading.

10INTRODUCTION

12“Abortion is the killing of an unborn child.”1--Planned Parenthood, 1981There has been a seismic shift in philosophy in our civilization: the unborn is now referredto as a “fetus,” “a developing human being,” “a potential person”—But not as a “fully humanbeing” or “person,” as the Supreme Court ruled in their Roe vs. Wade landmark decision. In onesingle sweep the legal classification of “person” is no longer synonymous with “human being.”Overnight abortion-on-demand became the right of every woman in the United States, since underthe Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, only “persons” have value and thus deserveprotection.We have seen the moral and religious landscape change drastically during the past forty yearsand abortion has become as American as apple pie, free speech, freedom of religion, or any otherpractice protected by our courts.Laurence H. Tribe in his book, Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes, describes the impassionedtug-of-war between pro-choice and pro-life advocates:“Many who can readily envision the concrete humanity of a fetus, who hold its picturehigh and weep, barely see the woman who carries it and her human plight. . . . Manyothers, who can readily envision the woman and her body, who cry out for her rightto control her destiny, barely envision the fetus within that woman and do notimagine as real the life it might have been allowed to lead.”2And so the battle rages!Pro-choice groups brandish coat hangers to dramatize the deaths of oppressed women whoundergo unsafe illegal abortions. Pro-life advocates wield jars of aborted fetuses as a grim reminderof millions of unborn babies.While the moral war rages on, about 1.2 million unborn casualties every year will fall onthe abortion-rights battlefield in our country!That is more than 4,000 per day or almost 3 per minute (about a quarter of all Americanpregnancies).One way of scorning abortion opponents is to deride abortion as “a single issue,” pursued byfanatics to the detriment of the common good. Those who take such a stand do not realize that theinalienable right to life is not a single issue, but a first amendment (“principle”), a self-evidenttruth established by our Founding Fathers.Are anti-abortion, pro-life people “bozos” and “idiots” as Ted Turner has claimed? Or is theirfervor based on legitimate, logical reasons for believing that a “fetus” is a human being?

13Is the pro-life viewpoint dinosauric, or does it square with the latest discoveries of science,specifically microbiology? The evidence shows that there is a moral incompatibility between somefacts of modern science and some practices of modern society, such as abortion.Why does the pro-”choice” movement claim that resistance to abortion is based solely onreligion, when, in fact, it is also based upon biology, nature, and common sense?Is there such a thing as a “potentially living organism”? Is not every living thing actual, withmore or less potentiality? Are the sperm the ovum potential life or the actual components ofindividual human life? Did we come from a single cell, or were we once a single cell that developedand grew? Is a fetus a potential person or an actual person with potential?Why does the most humane of sciences—medicine—now treat as patients those who the lawsays lack an essential human attribute: rights?Why do pro-”choice” advocates claim that abortion is just an issue of faith when a fetus, ifgranted his own fundamental rights, will live, grow, and be born—not by faith but nature itself?Do people cry “religion” to those who oppose abortion because they are unwilling to face thenaked truth of nature which is that in order to abort a baby, you have to still a heartbeat, switch offa developing brain, break some bones and rupture some organs?Since the fetus is the result of the fertilization of the egg (from the woman) by the sperm(from the man), should the matter not be a couple’s choice? What choice or right does the biologicalfather have? What right does a mother have to leave the biological father out of the equation—thedecision-making power—since he is as much the biological parent as she is? Fathers take on theresponsibility of child support, even to the point of having their wages garnished after a divorce.The old argument that since it is the woman’s body in which the fetus lives, that fetusbelongs to her is outdated since increasingly fetuses are able to live and develop outside the body.Why do pro-abortionists immediately bring up rape, incest and the health of the mother asreasons for abortion when such reasons are extremely rare in actual abortions? At least 94% ofchildren are killed by abortion for reasons of convenience.Is it logical for the Supreme Court to argue that the same Fourteenth Amendment that madethe black slave a person can be used to deny the personhood of the child about to be born?Why do many argue that abortions should be “as rare as possible” if there is nothing wrongwith abortion? Why limit it as much as possible? If there is something wrong with it, why should wedo it at all?Isn’t it troubling that Planned Parenthood, which referred to abortion as “the killing of anunborn child”3 in 1981 has been the loudest voice in promoting such killing?

14An officer of Planned Parenthood stated in 1947 that “the being produced at this exactmoment.”4 One of the pamphlets in 1964 stated, “Abortion kills the life of a baby, once it hasbegun.”5 In light of such past statements, is it not inconsistent on the part of Planned Parenthood tohave become the most militant pro-abortion lobby in the nation? What has changed? Is it biology orPlanned Parenthood’s agenda? What scientific, medical information has Planned Parenthooddiscovered since 1981 to make it change its mind so thoroughly?Why do even those who defend and promote abortions find something abhorrent about it?Dr. Henry Foster, President Clinton’s unconfirmed nominee for Surgeon General, reluctantlyconfessed having performed at least 39 abortions and confessed, “I abhor abortions.”If abortion is a constitutional right on the order of freedom of speech and religion, whyshould abortions be limited?Why are the news media so quick to scream “murder” when an abortionist is killed (asreprehensible as that is), yet be deafly silent about the 56 million babies slaughtered since Roe vs.Wade in 1973?Is it ludicrous to see a direct parallel between abortion and slavery or does it requireintellectual dishonesty or moral blindness not to admit the ominous parallels?It is ironic that the political left has embraced the “possessive individualism” of the “MeDecade.” Is individual choice, and not the corporate good, now embraced as the highest valueamong liberals?Isn’t it curious that an action that is claimed to be “morally neutral” sends so many women(not just religious women, but also women who “have no use for religion”) reeling with guilt andregret?Can abortion advocates not understand that the anguish that fuels the abortion controversykeeps regenerating as heartbeats and brains of 1.2 million human fetuses are stilled each year inour nation?Is it not strange that pro-”choice” people who claim to find abortion abhorrent, but necessary,are so timid in advocating ways that it can become rare, or at least, more rare?What an irony that in the name humanitarianism we get rid of the “worthless.”Is it not tragic that just as prenatal medicine began to produce marvelous life-saving and lifeenhancingachievements, Supreme Court Justices made it the law of the land that the patients forsuch medicine have no right to life?Is it farfetched to see a parallel between abortion and the mindset of the Third Reich orare there prejudicial ideas which forbid us to see the similarities (there are obvious dissimilarities aswell)?

15The media has painted the pro-life movement as “the radical right” or the “fanatical fringe”of society. But what is so radical and fanatical about rigorously seeking to protect the helpless,vulnerable unborn? Which is more radical: to destroy what on one has been able to show to be lessthan a person or to protect such a life?This has become all too common in life today as the criminal is allowed to question thevictim (e.g. Colin Ferguson). What has happened to a society where the perpetrators of a killingmachine (abortion clinics) are on the offensive? What is morally left of a society that refuses to lookat clear evidence that the unborn are persons as we are, though not as fully developed?Every time an abortion is performed, brain waves and a heart beat are snuffed out. If they arenot the brain waves and heart beat of a person, what are they?The issue at stake is the value of human life. As a nation we have embraced a social ethic inwhich some human lives are valued and others are not. We have chosen the “quality of life” ethicover the sanctity of life ethic.At the height of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln said that a nation could not continue toexist half slave and half free. Are we a free land if some people are allowed to decide who is aperson and who is not, who is fit to live and who is not?How long can we survive as a “free” nation when an elite minority of adults has claimed thefreedom to legally view others as not quite “worthy,” thus abandoning them to abortion when theyare an inconvenience?What kind of society have we become when a husband and wife need to get a dozen permitsand provide an environmental impact statement before they can fill in a backyard puddle, but areallowed neither notice nor a voice in whether their 14 year-old daughter has an abortion?To think that an issue of life-and-death will simply go away if we don’t address it is eitherdue to arrogance, ignorance, insensitivity, foolishness, or a combination of these. Only when anation loses all semblance of decency will her inhabitants acquiesce to such slaughter. In themeantime, there will be those who will refuse to let abortion simmer and die on the backburner.As long as 3 unborn children are snuffed out each minute, 4,000 killed each and every day,1,200,000 slaughtered per year in our nation, people of conscience will not rest. Hopefullyothers will wake up to the horrendous slaughter of the most helpless, vulnerable members ofsociety—the unborn. These unborn are confined to the most dangerous place in America—the wombof mothers who may or may not snuff out their life any minute. Thanks to the breathtaking,landmark decision of our Supreme Court that decision is purely up to a mother’s sovereignCHOICE!Thomas Sowell has summed up our predicament well:

16“The inability to make moral distinctions is the AIDS of the intellectuals: anacquired immune deficiency syndrome . . . moral blindness of this caliberrequires practice. It has to be learned.”6Through the relentless turning of our eyes, our minds, and our hearts away from the cries ofthe unborn, we have dulled our moral sensibilities and lost our capacity to discern good fromevil.Television and political rhetoric have flooded our living rooms with a constant bombardmentof inanities which has led many of us to disengage our minds in self-defense. Is it possible that wehave become so accustomed to absurdity that we accept it as the norm? Can this be one reason oursociety finds itself paralyzed by a moral stupor?Abortion must not be swept under the rug by clever terminology. It is too serious an issue tobe passed over lightly. It weighs too heavily upon the conscience of America to go away. Thus it isvital that dialogue occurs so that the issue can be dealt with—honestly, openly, reasonably, toughmindedly,passionately, and yet with civility.Abortion is the greatest moral issue of our times! Is it any wonder that Swiss theologianKarl Barth has called abortion"The greatest modern sin."in?When the most dangerous place in America is the womb, what kind of nation do we liveWe are at war! The sad thing is that just as Gypsies, Armenians, Christians, and especiallythe Jews, were brutally murdered during Hitler's Third Reich fifty years ago, the most defenseless—the unborn—today are similarly being "removed" from wombs, and thus eventually society, as "thefinal solution" to the possible inconvenience of our lives.The defenselessness of the unborn should be obvious to everyone. In fact, the unborn areeven more defenseless than any group in human history since they are consigned to the walls of awomb where there is no possible escape.Have things really changed much since the SS troops carried out their "assignments"? Couldit be that the categorical numbness of our society at large to the horrors of torture and murder that istaking place in our world is somehow related to the dyke of violence that was opened when ourSupreme Court legalized the slaughter of innocent, totally helpless babies?When we give in to one evil, is it reasonable to think that we can selectively control otherevils? Or is it more logical to see the interrelatedness of evil? Does evil have a rippling effect?Just as "no man is an island," neither does one manifestation of evil remain alone. The scariest thingof all is that there is no hope if people will not, and eventually cannot, see evil for what it is. This iswhat society has come to.

17This book is written with a heavy heart. Although the partial-birth abortion bill that wasoverridden in our senate shows that people who are very well-informed still insist on killing theunborn, it is my belief that most people are “pro-choice” primarily because they have nevercarefully thought through the issues involved. Unfortunately, those who consider themselvesinformed and who are still bent on the destruction of the most innocent and vulnerable of society—the unborn—may never change their minds as they are committed to the sacred doctrine ofCHOICE, which is a doctrine of DEATH.The issue of life and death is a moral and scientific question, not merely a religiousquestion. Adhering to the pro-choice position by merely jettisoning religion is disingenuous. Moraland scientific evidence must be faced squarely. Fact is fact. Either a fetus is a human being or it isnot. Either a developing fetus is a person or it is not. Our individual or collective perception isirrelevant to factuality.What we think has no bearing on whether it is a human being or not. Either it (he/she) is or it(he/she) isn’t.Is it too late? Probably. Too late for society as a whole, but not too late for individuals towake up.

181. SEMANTIC GYMNASTICS

19“The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact which everyone reallyknows that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extrauterineuntil death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required torationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if theywere not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices.”1--Journal of California Medicine (1970)Why is abortion such an incendiary issue? What are the arguments so fierce? Why is thisissue becoming this century’s Civil War? Because, as Shakespeare put it:“TO BE OR NOT TO BE THAT IS THE QUESTION.”2Abortion or feticide is a matter of life and death: to pro-life people, it is legalized murder.Jean Garton Staker put it well:“Abortion is not the solution to a problem; It is the elimination of a human being.”3The abortion war is whether a fetus, from the moment of conception, is already a person—already a human being whose interests other people must respect and whose rights government mustprotect. To expect pro-life people who believe that the fetus is such a person to compromise makesas much sense as to expect decent people to compromise over genocide.If you are an average reader you should be warned that while you are reading this book (ca.16 hours) about 2,400 babies will have been killed and by the end of this day over 4,200 babies willhave been killed in our country alone. This adds up to a killing epidemic that has resulted in 56million unborn babies slaughtered since the legalization of abortion in 1973.The greatest killing fields of our country and the world are mothers’ wombs!Is it any wonder that Mother Teresa has called abortion “the greatest misery of our time”4and Swiss theologian Karl Barth has called it “the greatest modern sin.”5 Abortion is withoutdoubt the greatest moral issue of our times.WHY THE SEMANTIC GYMNASTICS?“Men no longer are bound together by ideas, but by interests; and it would seem as ifhuman opinions were reduced to a sort of intellectual dust, scattered on every side,unable to collect, unable to cohere.”6--Alexis de TocquevilleDuring pregnancy, what is the most appropriate language to use in referring to the “thing” or“being” which is developing in the mother’s womb? Human blob? Human tissue? Fetus?Developing life? Unborn child? Human being? Potential person? Person? How that thing or being isreferred to is a matter of life and death!

20Why do pro-choice people find it so extremely difficult to talk honestly about abortion—thekilling of the unborn? Even though abortion has become one of the most cultivated publicinstitutions of our land, people don’t even like to refer to the killing of “fetuses” as “abortion.” Whynot? Why are the most adamant promoters of abortion not willing to speak in plain, clear, straightforwardterms? Why the linguistic gymnastics?Why is an institution (abortion) that is protected by our courts, subsidized by our legislatures,performed in government sponsored hospitals and clinics, and promoted as “a fundamental right” byour State Department referred to by pro-choice” people with hesitation?Why is it that an institution that civic groups, such as the League of Women Voters and theAmerican Civil Liberties Union, who are committed to protect and subsidize persons they protectnevertheless quickly skate verbally around the very practice of abortion?Why did last year’s United Nations International Conference on Population and Developmentsimilarly call the “A” word “pregnancy termination” and subsume it under the general categoryof “reproductive health care”?In our day and age of ruthless honesty, why do we find it so hard to say the “A” word? Whydo pro-choice people call aborting a fetus “terminating a pregnancy” and why do they call abortionclinics “reproductive health clinics” when everyone knows that their purpose is to end reproduction?Why the double talk?I find it oxymoronic that while the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Educationnow requires that abortion techniques be taught in all obstetrics and gynecology residency trainingprograms they find it difficult to honestly refer to it as “the dismembering of the unborn.”Is abortion wrong, abhorrent because it is a killing process? Are abortion clinics places of“healing and care” or are they “killing machines” since their primary purpose is to kill humanfetuses? If this is not their primary purpose, how and where do most of the 1.2 million fetuses getkilled each year in the United States.It is not irrefutable, therefore, to see abortion as a symptom of a diseased medical culture?Has not medicine become a troubled profession torn between its ancient moral calling and atechnical reduction of “skills for hire.”7Isn’t it oxymoronic of the Supreme Court, which denied a fetus life in order that a womanmay lead the life she prefers, then to refer to that woman carrying the fetus as a “mother”?Isn’t it hypocritical of an institution if its influential voices in politics and the media havedemanded the assignment of U.S. Marshalls to protect (specifically abortion clinics) againstviolence, commits violence against the unborn?

21Isn’t it absurd that while a federal law passed last year prescribing harsh criminal penaltiesfor even nonviolent acts of civil disobedience if they are committed by demonstrators at abortionclinics, yet these same people promote these clinics which are nothing less than “killing machines”?How can we account for the fact that recently abortion had been almost universally seen asan act that killed a “child” and was thus criminal, yet now the law views that same child as merely a“tissue,” “potential life,” or “developing life” at best. How is it that that same child is no longerconsidered by the law of the land as “a person in the full sense”? How is it that the law that used toprohibit abortion has come to be perceived as an injustice that denied help to desperate women?The pro-death . . . pro-abortion movement has done an excellent job in telling their storiestheir way as the media as a whole has bought their cause hook, line, and sinker. Pro-abortionistshave taken advantage of the moral and spiritual vacuum in our country and surreptitiously shapedthe language, and therefore have shaped the beliefs, policies, and behavior of Americans.THE POWER OF WORDSPeople have historically understood the power of words. The pen has always been mightierthan the sword. In the fifth century B.C., the Greek philosopher Democritus taught that “word is ashadow of deed.”8 Plato said the same thing negatively, “False words are not only evil inthemselves, but they infect the soul with evil.”9 Solomon put it, “The tongue has the power of lifeand death . . .” (Proverbs 18:21).Whether we look back at the Third Reich or slavery in our own country or abortion today wesee that “Words Kill!”In the midst of the struggle over slavery, Abraham Lincoln said something that applies to theuse of language in the abortion debate:“The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty. And the Americanpeople just now are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty, but in suingthe same words we do not mean the same thing . . . . Each of the things is by therespective parties called by two different and incompatible means, liberty andtyranny.”10Advocates for slavery and Nazi leaders understood the power of words. It was no accidentthat the Nazis called their facility for carrying victims to the killing centers “The CharitableTransport Company for the Sick” or why they defined the genocide of Jews as “the final solution.”Language then is not a morally neutral vehicle but is a significant factor in shaping ourperceptions of other people and our behavior towards them.For a woman considering the possibility of abortion, her perception of the unborn as a “fetus”on the one hand, or, on the other hand, a “human being” or “person” can be morally decisive.

22We often use linguistic deception in order to call something that which it is not. Aeuphemism is a pleasant or innocent sounding phrase used as a substitute for harsh reality.Euphemistic words or phrases, while they are less expressive or direct, are also less distasteful andthus less offensive.The use of euphemisms proliferated during the Vietnam War. In fact, the war itself wasreferred to as “a police action.” To avoid the reality of the killing, phrases such as “accidentaldelivery of ordinance equipment” was used instead of the actuality of shelling our own troops.“Protective reaction” was used for initiating a killing encounter with an enemy; “body count” meantthe number of troops which the enemy had killed; while “attrition of unfriendly forces” meant howmany of the enemy we had killed.When a delegation called on President Lincoln to demand that he issue an immediateproclamation of emancipation, he attempted to convince the group that such a declaration could notbe enforced. The delegation continued in its demand until Lincoln asked them,“How many legs would a sheep have if you called a tail a leg?”“Five,” they answered. “You are mistaken,” said the President,“The sheep would still have but four legs, for calling something aleg doesn’t make it so.”11In George Orwell’s visionary book of the future—1984—the manipulation of language wascalled “newspeak” which was used to obtain from society the acceptance of ideas and conformity topolicies which would be found completely intolerable and immoral if presented in a clearlyunderstood form.The Orwellian use of verbal communication has become prevalent in government, themilitary, advertising, politics and the debate surrounding the issue of abortion. Nineteen hundredeighty four is here now. How else would we be able to tolerate and even justify the destruction ofone and half million unborn human beings each year?George Orwell claimed that insincerity is the enemy of sensible language. If he is right, thenthe pro-death movement is the most insincere movement that has come down the pike for a longtime; it continuously, relentlessly uses Orwellian euphemisms to hide the horror of what is beingdone. As George Will put it:“It is an old story: language must be mutilated when a perfumed rationalizationof an act is incompatible with a straightforward description of the act.”12(Emphasis added)Why the euphemisms? If abortion is legitimate and right, why not use straight-forwardlanguage? People who believe in capital punishment do not try to hide that fact with double-talk.People who believe in gun control and those who do not, do not try to hide their opinion throughconfusing language. People’s convictions and opinions are typically held honestly and openly. Then

23why is this not so in the case of pro-abortionists. Could it be because even those who are advocatingand performing abortion know in their inner being that it is wrong? Witness the comments by thefollowing pro-abortionists.Mary Calderdone, M.D., former Medical Director of Planned Parenthood has stated:“Fertilization, then, has taken place; a baby has been conceived.”13Neville Sender, M.D., who runs an abortion clinic at the Metropolitan Medical Services inMilwaukee, Wisconsin has similarly stated:“We know it is killing, but the states permit killing under certain circumstances.”14Warren Hern, M.D., an abortionist at the Boulder Abortion clinic in Boulder, Colorado hasalso admitted:“There is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator. It isbefore one’s eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forcepslike an electric current.”15Psychologist Magda Denes in her book, In Necessity and Sorrow, quotes abortionists at aNew York City hospital as saying:“Even now I occasionally feel a little peculiar about it, because as a physician I’mtrained to conserve life and here I am destroying life.”16“I dare say any thinking, sensitive individual can’t not realize that he is ending lifeor potential life.”17“You know that there is something alive in there that you’re killing.”18Why do advocates of abortion avoid correct words or terminology? They call themselves“pro-choice” when that choice means a dead victim. If this were not so, there would be no reason tohave that choice. The honest term is “pro-death.”Everyone knows that the fetus is not just a blob of protoplasm! This is why abortionadvocates have to disguise to themselves and to the public that what they are really doing is killinganother human being. The easiest way for them to disguise such a horrible deed is by changingterms which lessens the emotional, and eventually the intellectual, impact.“Vice is a monster of such frightful mienAs to be hated needs but to be seen.But seen too oft, familiar with her face,We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”--Alexander Pope

24The pro-abortion or pro-death people have been extremely successful in ingeniously usingterminology that have taken the edge off the horrific nature of what they propose.●●●●●●●●Instead of "pro-death" it is "pro-choice."Instead of "baby" it is "fetus," "product of conception," "gametic material,""birth matter,” “uterine contents,” “glob of protoplasm,” tissue" or“fetoplacental unit.”Instead of "being with child" it is "pregnant."Instead of the refusal to use potentially lifesaving treatment or starvation it is“treatment to do nothing.”Instead of an unwanted pregnancy it is "violence against a woman's body" or"invasion of a woman's bodily space."Instead of opposing abortion it is to be guilty of "coercion in childbearing" aseach woman must have "optimal procreation choice."Instead of speaking of "death to a baby" it is "relieving suffering" for the"tormented" mother, that is.Instead of "death" it is "terminating pregnancy." By what kind of logic canwe speak of "the termination of pregnancy" when what is terminated is notjust the mother's pregnancy but the child's life?The most recent change is "elective miscarriage"; instead of "abortion." This last one isprobably the most preposterous of all. It is Nazi Germany all over again when the "final solution"sounded so harmless compared to "murder." What arrogance and deception!Such nice-sounding phrases as “Every-child-a-wanted-child,” “right of privacy,” etc. meansone and only one thing: death to the unborn.Mary Ann Glendon, professor of law at Harvard, put it:“. . . how can the pro-choice movement’s rhetoric fail to promote a coarsening ofspirit, a deadening of conscience and a disregard for the humanity of one’sopponents—as well as for those who seem to us to be less than full-fledged‘persons’?”19The answer is not murder of the innocent; it is building and nurturing a culture that isrespectful of women, supportive of child-rearing families, and protective of the weak and vulnerable.

25Their identifying themselves as "pro-choice" is a hoax. They are pro-death. It is death tounborn babies they are truly advocating. Yet they call themselves "pro-choice," hypocriticallyclaiming that it is choice, not death, is their concern. After having carefully watched theingenuous arguments of the pro-death movement for the last 38 years, it has become crystal clearthat their argumentation is merely linguistic acrobatics. Yet as a society we have been numbed bythis antiseptic language.The vocabulary of the pro-death movement is a vocabulary of convenience. The trouble is,softening the terminology doesn’t change the hard facts. We can call a sheep’s tail a leg—but callingit something else doesn’t make it so.When the most dangerous place in America is the warmth of a mother’s womb, what kind ofnation do we live in?Words kill by creating a climate where life is cheap. Words can stifle the inner voice thatreminds us that evil can never be overcome by evil. There is no doubt that soothing words have beenused to harmonize conscience with convenience.Abortion is not the solution to a problem; it is the elimination of a human being perceived tobe the problem.We are at war! The sad thing is that just as Gypsies, Armenians, Christians, and especiallythe Jews, were brutally murdered during Hitler’s Third Reich fifty years ago, the most defenseless—the unborn—today are similarly being “removed” from wombs, and thus eventually from society, as“the final solution” to the possible inconvenience of our lives.The defenselessness of the unborn should be obvious to everyone. In fact, the unborn areeven more defenseless than any group in human history since they are consigned to the walls of awomb where there is no possible escape.Have things really changed so much since the SS troops carried out their “assignments”?Could it be that the categorical numbness of our society at large to the horrors of torture and themurder that is taking place in our world today (i.e. Bosnia, etc.) is somehow related to the dyke ofviolence that was opened when abortion became legalized? Could it be that such numbness usheredin the slaughter of the innocent, the totally helpless babies?When we give into one evil, is it reasonable to think that we can selectively control otherevils? Or is it more logical to see the interrelatedness of evil? Does evil have a rippling effect? Justas “no man is an island,” neither does one manifestation of evil remain alone.The scariest thing of all is that there is no hope if people will not, and eventually cannot, seeevil for what it is.This is what society has come to. Is it too late? Probably. Too late for society as a whole, butnot too late for individuals to wake up.

262. THE WAR ON THE UNBORN

28With about 56 million abortions performed since 1973, the investment in the denial of theevil of abortion has become stupendous. Could it be that the changing attitudes toward abortion canbe traced to the growing number of people, including fathers, doctors, and nurses, with the need tojustify it?7Habitual moral failure (what used to be called “vice” and even “sin”) can be tolerated only byobliterating conscience through rationalization. Since failed rationalization means self-recrimination,it must be avoided at all cost.8 As Robert Reilly incisively put it:“Persons protecting themselves by rationalizing are interested not in finding the truth,but in maintaining the illusion that allows them to continue their behavior. For themto succeed in this, everyone must accede to their rationalization. This is whyrevolutionary change is required. The necessity for self-justification requiresthe complicity of the whole culture. Holdouts cannot be tolerated because theyare potential rebukes. The self-hatred, anger, and guilt that a person possessedof a functioning conscience would normally feel from doing wrong are redirectedby the rationalization and projected upon society as a whole (if the society ishealthy), or upon those in society who do not accept the rationalizatio.”9The stories of Pharaoh’s extermination of first-born Hebrew boys and the slaughter of Herodof the babies of Bethlehem, pale into significance as we awaken to today’s executions by abortion.Is it any wonder that Karl Barth has called abortion“the greatest modern sin”?10Abortion is by far the most important moral and ethical issue now facing what we continue tocall Western “Civilization.”_________________________________________________________________________________Once the principle of the sanctity of life is abandoned, there can be no criterionof the right life, except that of personal taste!_________________________________________________________________________________

293. THE MORAL DECLENSION

30“It is really remarkable how uniform and how pronounced was the early Christianopposition to abortion.”1--Bruce MetzgerEmeritus Professor of New Testament Princeton UniversityAN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVEThe golden age of Greece (beginning ca. 4 B. C.) took pride in mankind which had “come ofage.” Religion was at a low ebb and the superstitions of mythology gave way to the moreenlightened ideas of philosophy. Man took center stage and freedom was cultivated. It was at thistime that the great philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle reigned supreme. They believed that bothabortion and infanticide should be practiced “when necessary.” In fact, abortions should bedemanded said Plato, when a woman is over forty years of age.2Here we see the seeds of the argument for “the quality of life” that is later developed byJustice Harry Blackmun in the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision of the Supreme Court in 1973. Inthis battle Blackmun introduced the concept of “meaningful” or “useful life.” To end a life that isnot useful may not only be person to ensure that “society” (“the state” in Platonic and Aristotelianlanguage) progresses.Aristotle supported a law for his “ideal state” which effectively forbade the rearing of any“defective being.” Since ethical tradition forbade the abandonment of new-born children, Aristotlemaintained that abortion is the best way to restrict the number of children, that is, the number ofcitizens of the ideal state.3 Aristotle also proposed that families should limit the number of theirchildren in order to alleviate overpopulation and stamp out poverty. He taught that deformed infantsshould be left to die of exposure. After all, like Plato, the interests of the state took precedence overthe rights of individuals, especially the unborn and the deformed.In the Greek state, husbands had absolute power over the family as they could sell, mutilateand even kill family members without redress. Newborn females or any handicapped infants ofeither sex were readily abandoned. Slavery was commonplace and torture, mutilation andgladiatorial combat were acceptable practices.4Opposition to abortion was mentioned as early as the second century B. C. as Assyrian lawpenalized self-induced abortion by prescribing death by torture:“If a woman by her own deed has cast that which is within her womb, and a chargehas been brought and proved against her, they shall impale her and not bury her.If she dies from casting that which is in her womb, they shall impale her and notbury her.”5The sanctity of life certainly has a Christian foundation, but it goes back beyond theChristian era to earlier civilizations. Rejection of abortion seems to result from the nature of manhimself. The Hippocratic Oath, which dates back to the fifth century B.C., contains an explicitrepudiation of abortion. This is the very oath that our Western medical practices are supposedly

31based upon. Hippocrates, a physician in Greece, parted company with his contemporary Plato as hetried to reform the medical practices of his day. He made an oath which reads: "I will give no deadlymedicine to anyone if asked . . . and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to producean abortion."6 Roman law punished abortionists by sending them to the mines or into exile. If deathresulted from an abortion, the death penalty was enforced.7With the coming of Christianity, condemnation of abortion was reinforced and becamecomplete. The earliest articulation of Christian morality besides the Scriptures is contained inThe Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) which was written in Syria before the yearA.D. 100 and states: "Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion, or kill them when born."8 Thisfirst century catechism placed those who are "killers of the child, who abort the mold of God"between murderers and adulterers as those who live according to "the Way of Darkness."9 Caesariusof Arles stated, "No woman should take any drug to procure an abortion, because she will be placedbefore the judgment seat of Christ, whether she has killed an already born child or a conceivedone."10`Tertullian, the first theologian to speak on the subject, says that for Christians“murder is forbidden once and for all, and therefore it is not lawful for us to destroythe child in the womb, which is still drawing on its mother’s blood to form a humanbeing. Whether one takes away the life once it is born or destroys it as it comes tobirth makes no difference.”11Tertullian argues that Christians abominate as murder both infanticide and abortion, the latterbeing a kind of murder in advance. For the embryonic man is as the blossom to the fruit, he says,destined in a little while to become a perfect man, if nature meets with no disturbance.Tertullian’s statement, “He is a man, who is to be a man; the fruit is always present in theseed”12 has become a principal argument in the history of the problem.In the second century, philosopher and apologist Athenagoras of Athens defended Christiansto the Emperor Marcus Aurelius against charges of homocids: “How can we kill a man when we arethose who say that all who use abortifacients are homicides and will account to God for theirabortions as for the killing of men?”13 Clement of Alexandria in the second century taught: “Forthose women who conceal sexual wantonness by taking stimulating drugs to bring on an abortionwholly lose their humanity along with the fetus.”14In the beginning of the third century Minucius Felix, one of the ante-Nicene fathers, writingin his work Octavius which was directed against the pagans (called “gentiles”), pointed out that thepagan charge against Christians of murdering infants is not only untrue, but that gentles “bothcruelly expose their children newly born, and before they are born destroy them by a cruelabortion.”15 “There are some women,” he says, “who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguishthe source of the future man in their very bowels, and thus commit a parricide before they bringforth.”16

32In 306 B.C. the Council of Elvira adopted its Canon XLI, condemning abortion. Eight yearslater, the Council of Ancyra adopted Canon XXI, which condemned both those who have abortionsand those who perform them. 17 Basil of Cappodocia in the fourth century wrote,“Whoever deliberately commits abortion are subject to the penalty for homicide.With us there is no nice enquiry as to its being formed or unformed . . . . . TheDestructions of the embryo is . . . . a murder, at all events if we regard it is donewith intent . . . . [Those] who administer drugs to cause abortion, as well as thosewho take poisons to destroy unborn children, are murderesses.”18In the early fifth century, Augustine wrote: “A fetus is conceived and is born by a divinework, not a human one.”19 Thus he argued that a child is born in the uterus before being bornoutside of the mother and argued that the fetus is not part of the mother. In A. D. 692, at theQuinisext (Trullan) Synod, the church re-affirmed in Canon XCI the condemnation of abortion madeat the Council of Ancyra as they stated:“ . . . [people] who furnish drugs for the purpose of procuring abortion, and thosewho take fetus-killing poisons, they are made subject to the penalty prescribedfor murderers.”20The same canonical position along with the opinions of individual Church Fathers, werecompiled in the Photiana Collection, which was adopted as the official ecclesiastical law book of theOrthodox Church in A. D. 883.21The medieval scholastics, employing Aristotelian distinctions, commonly spoke of “avegetative soul” at the moment of conception, “an ominal soul” at a late stage of embryonicdevelopment, and “a rational soul” imparted as the moment of birth drew near. Although Augustineand Aquinas condemned deliberate interference with the life of the fetus, they considered ithomicide only when the fetus was possessed of a human soul. But they did not venture an opinionas to exactly when this moment was reached.The Roman Catholic Church and the Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvincontinued the Church's opposition to abortion. Since then the major continental theologians such asKarl Barth, Emil Brunner, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Helmut Thielicke have all spoken out against theevil of abortion. Barth put it:"The unborn child is from the very first a child. It is still developing and has noindependent life. But it is a man and not a thing, nor a mere part of the mother'sbody . . . . He who destroys germinating life kills a man. Those who live by mercywill always be disposed to practice mercy, especially to a human being which isso dependent on the mercy of others as the unborn child is."22 (Emphasis added)

33Similarly Dietrich Bonhoeffer said of abortion:"The simple fact is that God intended to create a human being and that this humanbeing has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder."23It was Joseph Stalin who said,CHILLING STATISTICS"One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."24Stalin should know since he was responsible for at least 40 million deaths!The very prevalence of the killing of the unborn has made us numb to its horror.Abortions have become mere statistics!Everyday in the U.S. 4,250 babies are killed by abortion. Until the last couple of years itwas 4,400 babies killed. This means 177 babies are aborted hourly, or three every minute.killed.1,200,000 babies are killed every year. Until the last couple of years it was 1,600,00056,000,000 have been slaughtered since abortion-on-demand was legalized by the SupremeCourt in 1973. If permitted to live, these babies slaughtered since 1973 would comprisefully 13% of our entire population.About thirty percent of all babies conceived in this country are killed before they ever see thelight of dayThe total number of legal and illegal abortions throughout the world was estimated in 1968 to be30 to 35 million.25 Today it is estimated that as many as 55 million abortions are performed eachyear.26This means an abortion is occurring every second!Why?Why do people have their unborn aborted? According to Alan Guttmacher Institute (the researcharm of Planned Parenthood) these are the reasons:1% were victims of incest or rape.1% had fetal abnormalities.4% had a doctor who said their health would worsen if theycontinued the pregnancy.

346% other.7% had parents who wanted her to have the abortion.7% had health problems.13% fetus had possible health problem.50% said they didn't want to be a single parent or they had problems in currentrelationships.66% stated they could not afford a child.75% said the child would interfere with their lives.27Notice that over 94% of children are killed by abortion for reasons of convenience. Thehealth problems listed concerning the fetus and the mother were not considered life-threatening. Infact, only 8% said that a doctor had told them that the fetus had a defect or was abnormal. The restwere worried because they had taken medication, drugs, or alcohol before realizing they werepregnant, but did not obtain a medical confirmation of any problem.Notice that 95% of children are killed for reasons of convenience!When?When are the unborn aborted?50% at 8 weeks.25% at 9-10 weeks.14% at 11-12 weeks.5% at 13-15 weeks.4% at 16-20 weeks.2% after 20 weeks.28WHO’S HAVING ABORTIONS?Abortions by Age Group33% 20-24 years.25% under 20 years.22% 25-29 years.12% 30-34 years.6% 35-39 years.2% 40+ years.29Abortions by Marital Status63% Never Married.19% Married.11% Divorced.6% Separated.1% Widowed.30

35In the United States there are about 730 abortions for every 1,000 live births amongteenagers.Annual Family Income12% $25,000-34,99911% $50,000+10% $35,000-49,99931Where Abortions were Performed86% at Clinics10% at Hospital4% at Doctor’s Office32Attitudes toward AbortionAccording to an A. U. L. (Americans United For Life) Survey which commissioned Gallupand N. C. C. B. (National Churches of Catholic Bishops) to take polls in July, 1990 to find theattitudes of Americans toward abortion.80% are in favor of abortion if the life of the mother is endangered.70% are in favor of abortion if there is incest or rape.59% are in favor of abortion if there is serious deformity in the unborn.55% are in favor of abortion if there is damage to the emotional and mental health of themother.33Roman Catholics and Protestants have basically the same attitudes toward abortion.According to a survey of 10,000 women taken by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, one out of every sixwomen having abortions in 1987, or approximately 17%, identified themselves as "born again" or"evangelical" Christians.34The percentage of people who consider abortion "murder" is41% Women32% Men20% Jews and nonreligious people who consider abortion a "surgical procedure."35Ironic, isn't it, that of all people, the Jews, who have been the victims of such horrible evils inthe history of the world—are the very people who are least concerned about the genocide ofinnocent, helpless unborn babies?Those who are most "pro-choice" are professional men and women under 45 years of age.

36Eleven percent of people are personally opposed to abortion but they are still "pro-choice."They are usually religious, poor, with little education, tend to be older, and are mostly black.Seven percent are personally opposed to abortion but they oppose governmental restrictions.They see abortion as being something still needed because of difficult circumstances. They aremade up of mostly nonreligious, poor, blue-collar and part-time working young women.The statistics among pediatricians in our country is chilling! These doctors who are, bydefinition, to care for our children see no contradiction in performing abortion. Marilyn Elias pointsout in USA TODAY that U. S. pediatricians oppose forcing teens to get parental consent for abortionsaccording to The American Academy of Pediatric Survey of 785 of its members taken in 1992.62% oppose laws requiring parental consent before abortion; 30% favor them. Onlaws to notify parents, 49% favor, 51% oppose.49% says adolescents should have access to abortion "under all circumstances"; 44%favor it under some conditions; only 7% oppose all access.74% believe preserving a teen's mental health is reason enough to allow an abortion.36This poll proves unequivocally that pediatricians respect the sanctity of human life and valuefamily even less than the vast majority of Americans.Righteousness More Important than Freedom“. . . they made idols for their own destruction.”If Americans are forced to choose between compassion for the woman and the respect for thenewly developing human life, they will end up in the "personally opposed but pro-choice"37category, says sociologist James R. Kelly of Fordham University.The main reason for this is that they do not believe it is right to impose their religious viewsupon society. Abortion, however, is not just a religious point of view, it is also a moral point of view.And most laws reflect morality which obviously does not invalidate them under the FirstAmendment. If they did, there could be no laws against child and spouse abuse, infanticide, rape,murder, etc. since the belief that these are wrong are based on religious convictions as well as moralconvictions. Since the Constitution does not forbid the establishment of morality (it only forbids theestablishment of religion), it is not unconstitutional to enforce moral behavior. This bifurcation ofprivate and public ethic then is morally absurd and constitutionally mistaken.Mark Twain, who did not claim to be a Christian, points out the absurdity of thispublic/private ethic:“This is an honest nation in private life. The American Christian is a straight andclean and honest man, and in his private commerce with his fellows can betrusted to stand faithfully by the principles of honor and honesty imposed on him

37by his religion. But the moment he comes forward to exercise a public trust hecan be confidently counted upon to betray that trust in nine cases out of ten, if‘party loyalty’ shall require it. . . . His Christianity is of no use to him and hasno influence upon him when he is acting in a public capacity. He has soundand sturdy private morals, but Private Morals, but there are no Christian PublicMorals, at the polls, or in Congress or anywhere else—except here and thereand scattered around like lost comets in the solar system.”38Why have former pro-lifers who consider themselves “Christians” such as Al Gore,Edward Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Richard Gephart and Bill Clinton changed their position onabortion? Could it possibly be that the honest answer to the revolutionary change of mindset is theblind party loyalty and political expediency that Mark Twain is talking about?Why is it that politicians such as Mario Cuomo and Teddy Kennedy claim to be personallyopposed but argue that others should have the right to have an abortion, while on any other moralissue they are adamant advocates of their personal views? Why is abortion the only moral issuethey leave open for people to choose?Isn’t it ironic that the people who yell the loudest for the cause of liberty are the very peoplewho are quickest to take away the liberty of those they deem “not worthy”? Dr. Samuel Johnson putit, “Why is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of slaves?”The attitude, "I am personally oppose, but people still should have the choice!" is themajority view of our country. Is it any wonder that one author (F. LaGard Smith) entitled his bookon abortion, When Choice Becomes God!39When choice is more important than morality, freedom has run amok and turned into license.Morality—doing what is right, obedience to God's laws and principles—is far more important thanindividual freedom!Freedom can lead to destruction as easily, in fact, more easily, than it can lead to blessing.What America needs most is not freedom but righteousness! Freedom without righteousness ishollow. In fact, it is moral and spiritual enslavement to "the god of this world who is now at work inthose who are disobedient" (Ephesians 2:2) enticing them to "gratify the cravings of their sinfulnature and following its desires and thoughts" (v. 3). Such so-called "freedom" eventually leads topolitical enslavement as witnessed by others nations who forgot God.Liberal politicians and other pro-abortionists speak glibly of "a woman's right to choose," butdo they realize that the "choice" which they defend involves violent death on a scale unknownhuman history?Some claim that the law does not permit abortion beyond the 24th week. This is not so sinceabortion is permitted throughout United States until the moment of delivery.

38On February 8, 1995, the Colorado State Senate issued a tribute to Dr. Warren Hern of theBoulder Abortion Clinic, commending his willingness to kill babies in the eighth and ninth monthsof pregnancy. Seven Democrats and two Republicans senators (The signatories to the commendationof Dr. Hern were: Dorothy Rupert, Paul Weissman, Linda Powers, Lloyd Casey, Michael Feeley,Bill Thiebaut, Don Mares, Sally Hopper, and Dottie Wham), led by Sen. Dorothy Rupert, wrote thecitation which read,"One of only three physicians to perform late-term abortions, Dr. Hern has been atarget of adversity for more than two decades. We applaud him for his years ofpersonal sacrifice and courage in upholding his beliefs."40Is killing near full-term babies noble? Is destroying unnumbered defenseless, voiceless,unanesthetized babies, for which he was paid generously, "personal sacrifice"? Is he to becommended for "upholding his beliefs"?It is difficult to think of any development recently which so reveals the rapid descent intomoral depravity than this commendation by the Colorado State Senate!Too Hard to Believe?Some would argue that if abortion is clearly the killing of human life that intelligent people(e.g. justices on the Supreme Court, etc.) would not argue for its permission. When, however, haveintelligent people not done stupid things? When have intelligent people not used rationalization toaccomplish their agenda?We need to go back only a few years to Hitler's era to be reminded of such practice. Whathappened in Germany was certainly not due to the intellectual inferiority of the people. In fact,Germany, of all nations, was the most advanced in the Western world. The horrendous deeds wereaccomplished because those in position of power rationalized and justified their actions toaccomplish their end while the people at large simply allowed them. The reports of what washappening were so stupefying that most people were either not willing or not able to believe them.Thus genocide was accomplished.Again today we have a similar specter. When politicians willingly switch their positions onabortion based on the latest poll, we have sunk deeply in the West. When the womb has become themost dangerous place to be—a grave to multiplied millions—moral declension has reachedunprecedented proportions. As Mother Teresa put it:"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left of the West to be destroyed?"41When the moral fiber of a people is gone, any argument will do!

394. WHAT IS ABORTION?

40“I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections,passions? . . . If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we notlaugh? If you poison us, do we not die?”--Shylock in The Merchant of Venice(William Shakespeare)DEFINITIONIn medical terms, abortion (feticide) is the termination of a pregnancy at any time before thefetus has attained the age of viability (20-28 weeks). Since the potential for future development is asgreat in the fertilized egg as in the newborn child, why should we permit intervention at one stage oflife (before 20-28 weeks) and not another?When the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, he is called “viable.” If he shouldenter the world before nine months’ gestation, this entry would be called “a premature birth,” Six orseven months is usually considered the earliest stage of viability, but babies have been known tosurvive when aborted as early as five months. The survival rate for five and six month old prematurebabies is estimated at ten percent. One in ten of such premature babies survives. The longer the fetuscan remain in the womb up to the normal nine months’ gestation, the greater his chances of survival.Abortion is usually distinguished into two main types: spontaneous and induced.Spontaneous abortion happens naturally, usually within three months after conception. It occursbecause of defective ovum or sperm or because of faulty implantation in the wall of the womb. Therate of conceptions ending in spontaneous abortion is estimated as ranging from ten to as much asfifty percent.Induced abortion is the deliberate expulsion from the womb of a living fetus which isnormally incapable of surviving outside the womb. When abortion is induced by competent medicalpractitioners acting within the scope of the law, it is usually termed “therapeutic”; otherwise it iscalled “criminal.” In either case, abortion for the fetus always means the termination of his life.Various terms are used to describe the developing child. Although there is some flexibility ofterminology, the following distractions are typically accepted: zygote refers to the time fromconception through implantation to the 14 th day, embryo refers to the 14 th day to the eight week, andfetus refers to the ninth week until the time of birth. These terms then describe stages ofdevelopment of an independent and living being whose expulsion from the womb at about ninemonths begins his legal existence as a human being.Since the potential for future development is as great in the fertilized egg as in the newbornchild, why should we permit intervention at one stage of life (before 20-28 weeks) and not another?

41CAN A FETUS FEEL PAIN?“For the unborn to experience pain there must be sense receptors capable ofreceiving information about pressure, temperature, and cutaneous chemicalchange; the sense receptors must also be capable of transmitting thatinformation to cells able to apprehend it and respond to it.2At what point do such receptors exist? To answer this question, the observation ofphysical development must be combined with the observation of physical behavior. Asearly as the 56 th day of gestation the child has been observed to move in the womb.3 InLiley’s hypothesis’ the development of structure and the development of function gohand in hand. Fetal comfort determines fetal position, and fetal movement is necessaryfor a proper development of fetal bones and joints.’4 If fetal bones and joints arebeginning to develop this early, movement is necessary for the structural growth; and ifLiley is correct, the occasion of movement is discomfort or pain. Hence, there would besome pain receptors present before the end of the second month. A physiologist placesabout the same point—day 59 or 60—the observation of ‘spinal reflexes’ in the child.Tactile stimulation of the mouth produces a reflex action, and sensory receptors arepresent in the simple nerve endings of the mouth.5Somewhere between day 60 and day 77 sensitivity to touch develops in the genitaland anal areas. In the same period, the child begins to swallow. The rate ofswallowing will vary with the sweetness of injection.6 By day 77 both the palms ofthe hands and soles of the feet will also respond to touch; by the same day, eyelidshave been observed to squint to close out light. . . .”7The cerebral cortex is not developed at this early stage; even at twelve to sixteenweek it is only 30 percent to 40 percent developed.8 It is consequently a fairconclusion that the cognitive input into any pain reaction will be low in these earlymonths. Neither memory nor anticipation of results can be expected to affect what isexperienced. The unborn at this stage will be like certain Scottish terriers, raised inisolation for experimental purposes, who had no motivational pain responses whentheir noses encountered lighted matches; they were unaware of noxious signals intheir environment.9 But if both sensory receptors and spinal column are involved,may one say with assurance that the reception of strong sense impressions causes nopain? It would seem clear that the reactions of the unborn to stimuli like light andpressure are the motivational responses we associate with pain. We say that a sensereceptor is there because there is a response to touch and a taste receptor is therebecause there is a response to taste. By the same token we are able to say that painreceptors are present when evasive action follows the intrusion of pressure or light, orwhen injection of a disagreeable fluid lowers the rate of swallowing. Liley iscategorical in affirming that the unborn feel pain.10 His conclusion has recently beenconfirmed by an American researcher, Mortimer Rosen, who believes the unbornrespond to touch, taste, and pain.11

42While the likelihood of weak participation by the cerebral cortex will work againstthe magnification of the pain, there will also be an absence of the inhibitory inputfrom the brain which modulates and balances the sensory input in more developedbeings. Consequently, the possibility exists of smaller and weaker sensory inputshaving the same effect which later is achieved only by larger and strongersensations.12As the sensory apparatus continues to grow, so does the cerebral cortex: light stimulican evoke electrical response in the cerebral cortex between the sixth and seventhmonths.13 By this time there will be a substantial cerebral participation in painperception together with the likelihood of greater brain control of the sensory input.If a child is delivered from the womb at this date, he or she may shed tears. He or shewill cry.14 As we do with other newborns, we interpret these signs in terms of theircontext and may find them to be signs of pain. What we conclude about the deliveredchild can with equal force by concluded about the child still in the womb in monthssix through nine: that unborn child has developed capacity for pain.15In summary, beginning with the presence of sense receptors and spinal responses,there is as much reason to believe that the unborn are capable of pain as that they arecapable of sensation. The ability to feel pain grows together with the development ofinhibitors capable of modulating the pain. By the sixth month, the child in the wombhas a capacity for feeling and expressing pain comparable to the capacity of the samechild delivered from the womb. The observation sometimes made that we don’tremember prenatal pains applies with equal force to the pains of being born or thepain of early infancy. Memory, it must be supposed, suppresses much more than itrecalls. If we remember nothing about life before birth or life before there or four, itmay even be that some recollections are painful enough to invoke the suppressivefunction of our memory; life in the womb is not entirely comfortable.”16We can observe a baby in utero recoiling from the prick of a pin when experiments in thewomb are monitored. To argue that the baby does not feel the cutting edge of a knife or the tearingapart of the suction device is nonsense.About ten years ago there was a new ultrasound film (technology which has been availablesince 1976) taken by an abortionist (Dr. Bernard Nathanson) which showed an actual abortion inwhich the victim was an eleven-week-old fetus. This was a little girl who was fully formed down toher fingerprints. But she was sucked out of her mother’s womb.At the beginning of the film, the child can be seen playing, turning around, sucking herthumb; her heart was beating at the normal rate of 120. As the instrument touched the uterine wall,the baby immediately recoiled, and the heart rate rose considerably. The fetus had not yet beentouched, but she knew something was happening.

43When the suction began the child was literally drawn apart piece by piece. While this wastaking place, the child was thrashing around, trying to escape the inevitable. Her head was thrownback and her mouth was open wide in what one doctor called her “silent scream.” Her heart rate wasover 200 as her tiny heart was clearly seen to be beating rapidly. Finally, the forceps came in andcrushed her head in order to remove it. The killing took twelve to fifteen minutes.When the abortionist saw the ultrasound, he left the clinic never to return! Yet todayabortionists use ultrasound as a guide for locating the unborn child to dismember him.It is interesting how those who defend abortion, who are in league with those who practice itand profit from it, have maintained such a visual blackout to keep American women ignorant of thehorrific cruelty of the abortion process.How many women would decide against abortion if they viewed such a film?About 16,500 fetal corpses were discovered in a large storage container outside a nowdefunct medical laboratory. Although many of the fetuses were quite small, some weighed as muchas four pounds and were estimated to be at least in the sixth month of development, if not older. Thebodies were preserved in formaldehyde-filled jars which were stacked in cardboard containers.News photographers who appeared on the scene were not permitted to take pictures.Photographs, however, were later obtained from a Los Angeles pathologist who had been asked toexamine the babies’ bodies for possible legal action. Forty-tow vivid slides of mangled, abortedfetuses—some torn apart by D & E abortions, some with crushed skulls, some burned and poisonedby the salt procedure—were shown. Washington Post columnist George Will aptly commented:“Most pro-abortion persons have a deeply felt understandable need to keep the discussionof abortion as abstract as possible. They become bitter when opponents use photographsto document early fetal development. The sight of ‘potential’ life. And if fetal painis acknowledged, America has a problem. Its easy conscience of about 1.6 millionabortions a year depends on the supposition that such pain is impossible.”17It is further alarming that all saline abortions take place during the second trimester of pregnancy(months four through six) when the baby is fully formed. With the salt abortion, the burned skin ofthe child, when delivered, resembles skin soaked in acid. And this violent procedure may take aslong as two to three hours while the child struggles in pain.A VIOLENT ACT“People do not understand that there are thousands of serious physical complicationsfrom abortion every year in this country.”18--Dr. Bernard Nathanson, OB GynecologistOnly ignorance and denial can shield us from the violent nature of the procedure ofabortion.

44This is true whether it is a sharp, double-edged curette (or knife) by which the child isdissected, or the suction of the inserted tube which tears apart the tiny child, or the burning effect ofthe injected saline solution on the tender skin of the child while simultaneously poisoning the babyinternally.The oldest method is "D and C" dilation and curettage where the cervix is dilated to facilitatethe insertion of an implement, either a "curette" with which the wall of the womb is scraped until thefetus is cut into pieces, or a suction tube by which it is torn into pieces. In either case a brutal andbloody dismemberment takes place.The second method used between 12 and 16 weeks after conception is to inject a toxic(usually saline) solution by a long needle inserted through the mother's abdomen into the amnioticsac enveloping the fetus, which is thereby poisoned, burned and killed and then "spontaneously"ejected. At a later stage of the pregnancy surgery is used, either a hysterectomy which resembles aCaesarean section (except that in this case the baby is taken from the womb to be killed, not saved)or a complete hysterectomy by which womb and fetus are removed together and discarded at thesame time.19The oldest method of abortion is a “D and C” (dilation and curettage) where the cervix isdilated to facilitate the insertion of an implement, either a “curette” with which the wall of the wombis scraped until the fetus is cut into pieces, or a suction tube by which it is torn into pieces. In eithercase a brutal and bloody dismemberment takes place.The second method used between 12 and 16 weeks after conception is to inject a toxic(usually saline) solution by a long needle inserted through the mother’s abdomen into the amnioticsac enveloping the fetus, which is thereby poisoned, burned and killed and then “spontaneously”ejected. At a later stage of the pregnancy surgery is used, either a hysterectomy which resembles aCaesarean section (except that in this case the baby is taken from the womb to be killed, not saved)or a complete hysterectomy by which womb and fetus are removed together and discarded at thesame time.With the approval of “partial-birth abortion” (“dilation and extraction” technique also called“D&X”) on September 26, 1996 another abortion method is now available. This procedure is usedafter 20 weeks (4 ½ months) of pregnancy—often to six months and later. As you will see, thedifference between partial-birth abortion and homicide is a mere three inches.In September, 1993, Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse with thirteen years experience,was assigned by her nursing agency to an abortion clinic. Since she considered herself “very prochoice,”she didn’t think this assignment would be a problem. She was wrong. This is what she saw:“I stood at the doctor’s side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on awoman who was six months pregnant. The baby’s heartbeat was clearly visible onthe ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby’s body and arms, everythingbut his little head. The baby’s body was moving. His little fingers were clasping

45together. He was kicking his feet. The doctor took a pair of scissors and insertedthem into the back of the baby’s head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch,a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks he might fall. Then the doctoropened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into thehole and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. Inever went back to the clinic. But I am still haunted by the face of that littleboy. It was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen.”20Defending the right to partial-birth abortions during a recent Senate debate (fall of 1996),Senator Barbara Boxer assured her colleagues that mothers who have aborted their babies by hismeans “buried those babies with love.”21 Calling such a grisly killing “love” is tantamount to sayingblack is white, evil is good, death is life.Another method is an alternative to surgery in that it uses prostaglandin, a hormone whichinduces immediate premature delivery, often a live baby.22In 1988 the abortion pill known as RU 486 was marketed in France. It has a chemicalaction which leads to the rejection of the fertilized egg. This method is effective only 80% of thetime because of the heavy bleeding that is caused by the pill. Since this is self-administered, it is aprivate act that by nature cannot be regulated and thus penalized by law.23With the approval of this “the abortion pill” (RU 486) in September, 1996 yet anotherabortion method is available. This French drug has been widely used in Europe and as Gloria Feldt,Planned Parenthood president pointed out it “will pave the way for medical abortions in general.”24It is recommended that a woman see a doctor about four times to make sure there are nocomplications with the drug.In explaining the social significance of the abortion pill, RU 486, which now has beenapproved by the American Medical Association and available in countless other countries in theworld, Dr. Etienne-Emile Baulieu, the developer of RU 486, stated “In practical terms, choice issynonymous with freedom . . . Science cannot dictate how we believe, but it can increase people’schoices and improve their quality of life.”25The August 31st issue of USA TODAY (1995) has a headline which reads: "Combination ofcancer and ulcer drugs induces abortion." This article points to this discovery as a breakthrough forabortion advocates. According to the New England Journal of Medicine the combination ofmethotrexate, a cancer drug, and misoprostol, an ulcer drug, triggered abortions in 171 out of 178women, reported Dr. Richard Hausknecht of Mount Sinai School of Medicine.These two drugs have already been approved and thus doctors can legally prescribe the drugswith no limitation. These drugs are promoted as an alternate to surgical abortion, or RU 486, thedrug not cleared for sale in our country.

46Some point out that there is nothing really new about this so-called discovery as thiscombination has been used in the past. Some point out that this method is not very promising sincethere are many side effects from it such as the uncertainty of when a woman will abort. There areaccounts where women have embarrassingly aborted at the most public places.What is so deadly about this discovery is that if it delivers what is expected, abortion will beeasy, effective, and a private matter between the patient and the doctor. This takes away some of thefear and certainly inconvenience that keeps some women from getting abortions. Such easy accesswill invite more women to kill their unborn children. Even at the early date that these drugs wouldtypically be administered (the first tri-semester) the fetus they destroy has a heart that has alreadybegun to beat (second month).A factual knowledge of these procedures should waken anyone up to the brutal violence ofabortion. Such knowledge will help us not to become numb to the horrors of abortion by the populareuphemisms that are intended to make it easier for us to conceal the truth from ourselves.In reality, the issue of whether fetuses feel pain is irrelevant to whether abortion is right orwrong. If this were not true, why not put people to sleep permanently with a painless injection?John T. Noonan understandably laments the lack of protection for fetuses which are thusconsidered less worthy than animals:“There are no laws which regulate the suffering of the aborted like those sparing painto dying animals:There are no laws which regulate the suffering of the aborted like those sparingpain to dying animals. There is nothing like the requirement that consciousnessmust be destroyed by ‘rapid and effective’ methods as it is for cattle; nothingregulating the misuse of the vacuum pump the way the decompression chamberfor dogs is regulated; nothing like the safeguard extended even to newbornkittens that only a humane mode of death may be employed. So absolute hasbeen the liberty given the gravida by the Supreme Court that even the prohibitionof the saline method by a state has been held to violate the Constitution. TheSupreme Court has acted as though it believed that its own fiat could alter realityand as if the human fetus is not alive.”27Abortion is the logical practice of a culture that is divorced from moral order and thusconsiders sex as a form of amusement and/or self-realization. After all, why should a mere childstand in the way of self-fulfillment? As Robert Reilly puts it:“The life of the child is a physical and moral rebuke to this proposition. But thechild is too weak to overcome the power of the rationalization. The virtual realityof the rationalization is stronger than the actual reality of the child. The childsuccumbs to the rationalization and is killed in a new ‘sacrament’.”28

475. THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS

48Isn’t it either ignorant or disingenuous of pro-abortionists to argue that the government hasno business telling a woman what she can or can’t do with her own body since an elementary fact ofbiology is that the fetus is a completely separate individual from the mother with his own geneticcode, own blood type, fingerprints, brain, nervous system and internal organs?The fetus feels his own pain, can be healthy while the mother is ill, be ill when the mother ishealthy and can have diseases which are not present in the mother and vice versa. The fetus can beawake while his mother is asleep and asleep while she’s awake. Furthermore, about half the time thebaby is of a different sex than the mother. Since it is impossible for a normal human body to be bothmale and female at the same time, how else can you explain such a fact other than that there are twobodies, tow human beings?Why are pro-abortion forces increasingly anti-scientific as they “humbly” say that we allshould be properly humble and admit that the matter of when human life begins is a mystery beyondour poor power of comprehension, yet at the same time pontificate that “birth” is the indicator that afetus is a person?I find it curious that in 1973 the Supreme Court appealed to “humility” as it arrogantlylegislated and argued that it could not “resolve the difficult question of when life begins,” when, infact, the Court knew what every high-school biology student knows. So it quickly inserted theadjectives “meaningful” and “useful” and defined viability as the point at which the baby can have“meaningful” and “useful” life. Such pragmatic criteria are very dangerous. After all, who decideswhat are useful and meaningful?A Unique GenotypeThe human fetus is a living tissue with a unique genetic makeup, destined to become a fullydeveloped human organism. The embryo contains all the essential biological material and geneticinformation required for complete cellular maturation, human tissue and organ development. Of allthe tissues of the body, it alone has a fixed genetic makeup different from that of the body in whichit is lodged.A woman cannot say of fetal tissue, "This is mine," in the sense that she can say of kidneytissue, "This is mine." She cannot keep it any more than she can give it someone else; she mustsurrender it in birth—or die.The fetus has its own autonomous life, which, despite its entire reciprocal relationship to thematerial organism, is more than a mere part of this organism and possesses a certain independence.The embryo can die while the mother continues to live, and for a limited period of time in which thechild can be kept alive, the opposite is also possible. Just as both organisms have their ownpossibilities of living or dying so each of them also can have their own illnesses in which the otherdoes not participate. Furthermore, the fetus has its own circulatory system and its own brain.

49In the 1960's the genetic code was unraveled. We now know that from the moment the ovumis fertilized by the penetration of the sperm, the zygote has a unique genotype distinct from bothparents. The 23 pairs of chromosomes are complete. The sex, size, and shape, the color of skin, hair,and eyes, the intelligence and temperament of the child already are determined.Each human being begins as a single fertilized cell while an adult has about thirty millioncells. Between these periods (from fusion to maturity) 45 generations of cell division are necessary.Of the 45 generations of cell division, however, 41 occur before birth.Prenatal medical photography has disclosed the wonders of fetal development even further inrecent years. The strikingly beautiful pictures by Swedish photographer Lennart Nilsson in his bookA Child is Born dispels visually the arguments that a fetus is something other or less than a humanbeing.Embryonic DevelopmentModern fetology has brought amazing light on the growth of the fetus in his mother's wombwhich fetologists call their second "patient."The following summaries vividly portray the full humanness of the prenatal child:First Month—ActualizationAll her human characteristics are present at conception.She still implants or "nests" in her mother's uterus (1 week).Her heart muscle pulsates (3 to 3 1/2 weeks).Her head, arms, and legs begin to appear. Rudimentary eyes, ears and mouth.She has grown 10,000 times to 6-7 mm. (1/4 in.) long.Blood flows in her veins (but stays separate from the mother’s blood. The blood of the mothercirculates to the fetus from which she gets nutrition, etc. as well as various diseases).1Second Month—DevelopmentHer brain wave can be detected (40-42 days).Her eyes, nose, ears, and toes formed more fully.Her heart beats and blood flows (her own type).Her skeleton develops. Every limb begun to appear.She has her own unique fingerprints.She is sensitive to touch on her lips and has reflexes.All her bodily systems are present and functioning.She is a will-proportioned, small scale baby (3 cm.=1 1/8 in.) sitting up and a gram (1/30 oz.)in weight.2

50Third Month—MovementShe swallows, squints, and swims.She grasps with her hands, moves her tongue.She can even suck her thumb.She can feel organic pain (13-18 weeks).She can alter her position, respond to pain, noise, and light.The embryo is completely organized.Her fingerprint is already unique.3Fourth Month—GrowthHer weight increases six times (to 1/2 birth weight).She grows 8-10 inches long.She can hear her mother's voice.Her mother senses movements.4Fifth Month—ViabilityHer skin, hair, and nails develop.She dreams (e. g. has rapid eye movement, REM).She can cry (if air is present).She responds to sounds in frequencies too high or too low for adults to hear.She can live outside the womb.She is only half way to her scheduled birth date.5Sixth MonthFine hair grows on her eyebrows and head. Eyelash fringe appears. Weight is about 640 g.(1lb. 6 oz.) and height 23 cm. (9 in.).6Seventh MonthHer eye teeth are present.Her eyelids open and close, and eyes look around.Her hands grip strongly.Her mother’s voice is recognized.7Eighth MonthHer weight increases by 1 kg. (over 2lb.) and her quarters get cramped.8Ninth MonthShe triggers labor and birth occurs, usually 255-275 days after conception.9

51When Life BeginsThe argument that life is present in the embryo, not when it was conceived but at the time ofquickening is weak. Today, and for a considerable period of time, this distinction has been shown tobe a totally false one since it has been accepted by biologists that there is no qualitative differencebetween the embryo at the moment of conception and at the moment of quickening. Life isfully present from the time of conception. It seems to follow that if there is a soul, it too, must bepresent from the time of conception.Expert TestimonyOn April 23 and 24, 1981, U. S. Congress held hearings on "the question of when human lifebegins." In its historic decision to legalize abortion-on-demand, the Supreme Court stated that itcould not resolve "the difficult question of when human life begins," and so the Court decided tolegalize abortion throughout the full nine months of pregnancy. Dr. Eugene Diamond, a medicalschool professor, said of these statements and thus the decision to legalize abortion-on-demand:"either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about ascientific certainty."10 It is difficult to believe that the justices did not know the scientific facts. Ifthey did not, they should have, especially when one considers the horrendous ramifications of theirdecision.At this Congress scientific experts from around the world testified as to the beginning of anindividual life. Senator Max Baucus (D. Montana), a pro-death member of the separation of powerssubcommittee, had been invited by the staff to submit a list of pro-death witnesses who would testifythat life begins at some time other than fertilization. In the first round of hearings Senator Baucusfailed to produce a single witness. However, he finally produced Professor Leon Rosenberg as thelone pro-death witness at the hearings who dismissed the question as a religious and metaphysicalissue.According to Professor Rosenberg’s logic, if the question of when life begins is not ascientific question, but a religious one which must be answered by theologian, not by scientists, thenhow come legal experts (Supreme Court justices) opened up carte blanche killing of the unborn?Furthermore, if this is so, why have scientists as a whole have been some of the greatest proponentsof the pro-death movement if they are not even qualified to make such a decision according toRosenberg?Although the issue of when life begins is a religious question, it is also a scientific question.In the Christian religion faith is not believing that which is contrary to factual evidence. While faithmay transcend reason, it does not contradict it. Although Christian faith is supra-rational, it is notirrational.The following are excerpts from the testimony of leading geneticists before the Senatesubcommittee on separation of powers.

52Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of fundamental genetics at the University of Descarte, Paris,France:"When does a person begin? I will try to give the most precise answer to that questionactually available to sciences. Modern biology teaches us that ancestors are unitedto their progeny by a continuous material link, for it is from the fertilization of thefemale cell (the ovum) by the male cell (the spermatozoa) that a new member of thespecies will emerge. Life has a very, very long history but each individual has avery neat beginning the moment of its conception . . . To accept that fact that afterfertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being, is no longer a matterof taste or of opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to oldage is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.11[italics added] (Emphasis added)Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, principal research associate of the Harvard UniversityMedical School:"In biology and in medicine, it is an accepted fact that the life of any individualorganism reproducing by sexual reproduction begins at conception (fertilization),the time when the egg cell from the female and the sperm cell from the male join toform a single new cell, the zygote; this zygote is the starting cell of the new organism . . .[Dr. Matthews-Roth proceeded to quote from eight biology textbooks which statedthat life begins at conception.] You will notice that I have been using the wordsfertilization and conception interchangeably. It is very important that in drafting thestatute the word ‘conception’ be specifically defined as meaning the time of the fusionof the egg cell and the sperm cell. This is important because there seems to be atendency in some medical circles to define conception as being the time of theimplantation of the developing embryo in the wall of the uterus rather than thetime of fertilization of the egg by the sperm. It is crucial to remember, since implantationoccurs about 6 to 10 days after fertilization, that the zygote is already well on itsway in the process of development by the time implantation occurs . . . In summary,then, it is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive . . . so, therefore, itis scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception,when the egg and sperm join to form the zygote, and that this developing humanalways is a member of our species in all stages of its life. Our laws, one functionof which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accuratescientific data."12 [italics added]Professor Hymie Gordon, chairman of the Department of Medical Genetics at the MayoClinic:"Thus from the moment of conception the organism contains many complexmolecules; it synthesizes new intricate structures from simple raw materials; andreplicates itself. By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is presentfrom the moment of conception."13 [italics added]

53Dr. McCarthy DeMere, lawyer and practicing physician, and law professor at the Universityof Tennessee:"From the medical standpoint there are mountains of documents to show that thehuman embryo is a separate person, biologically distinct from the mother. . . .From both the legal and medical standpoint, there is absolutely no question in mymind and I feel in the minds of most individuals who have given serious thoughtto this question, the exact moment of the beginning [of] personhood and of thehuman body is at the moment of conception."14 [italics added]Dr. Alfred Bogiovanni, formerly chairman of pediatrics at the University of Ife in Nigeriaand currently a member of the University of Pennsylvania Medical School faculty:"I have learned since my earliest medical education that human life begins at thetime of conception. The standard textbooks which were used in the courses I took,many of them in continuous use until today, so state it . . . I am no more preparedto say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being that I would beto say that the child prior to the dramatic events of puberty which I have outlinedis not a human being. This is human life at every stage albeit incomplete until lateadolescence."15Dr. Jasper Williams, of the Williams Clinic in Chicago, and past president of the NationalMedical Association:"Human life's singular characteristic is mental behavior associated with developmentof genetically influenced bodily characteristics . . . This process begins whenthe sperm fertilizes the ovum . . . The work of Edwards and his associates inEngland with test tube babies has repeatedly proved that human life begins whenafter the ovum is fertilized the new cell mass begins to divide."16 [italics added]Dr. Watson A. Bowes, Jr., of the University of Colorado Medical School:"But one thing is clear. Following fertilization there is and inexorable series ofevents that unfolds with cells dividing, moving, pausing, differentiating, andaggregating with a baffling precision and purpose. In the early hours, days, andweeks of this development a hypothetical observer, if able to witness this microscopicdrama, would find it impossible to identify precisely when major qualitativechanges have occurred just as parents observing daily their child's growth anddevelopment cannot say precisely when he or she stopped being a child andbecame an adult . . . Thus the beginning of a single human life is from a biologicalpoint of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception . . .in conclusion, the beginning of a human life from a biological point of view is atthe time of conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distortedto serve sociological, political, or economic goals."17 [italics added]

54These are the testimonies of some of the world's leading geneticists. Their testimony beforeCongress was unanimous. In biology and in medicine, it is an accepted fact that the life of anyindividual organism resulting from sexual reproduction begins at conception or fertilization. UntilRoe v. Wade this was taught in all science textbooks. Thus the question of when life begins is nolonger a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Whiletheologians and philosophers may debate the meaning or purpose of life, it is an established factthat all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.Dr. Harold W. Manner, Chairman of the Department of Biology at Loyola University ofChicago, summarized it:"When a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, the result is a human being—fromthe moment of conception. The killing of this living human being must beconsidered homicide."18Dr. Walker Percy, who is a famous novelist as well as doctor, noted that it is common-placeof modern biology that the life of an organism begins “when the chromosomes of the sperm fusewith the chromosomes of the ovum to form a new DNA complex that thenceforth directs theontogenesis of the organism,” producing the undeniable “continuum that exists in the life of everyindividual from the moment of fertilization of a single cell.”19He then adds:“The onset of individual life is not a dogma of the church but a fact of science.How much more convenient if we lived in the thirteenth century, when no oneknew anything about microbiology and arguments about the onset of life werelegitimate. . . . Nowadays it is not some misguided ecclesiastical who aretrying to suppress an embarrassing scientific fact. It is the secular-journalisticestablishment.”20In the Journal of California Medicine in 1970 the issue was clearly laid out as pointed out inthe Introduction:“The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact which everyone reallyknows that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- orextra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which arerequired to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would beludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices.”21The tragic truth of medicine in America today is that the majority of the medical statementswhich are pro-abortion come from academically impeccable sources.

55Quality of life outside the womb cannot be divorced from quality of life inside the wombwhere there are fetuses who possess the same human “qualities” as do we on the outside. It is as truein the first trimester as in the third, or else third trimester fetuses would never have developed fromthe first trimester embryos. Eight-month-old babies in the womb do not suddenly appear fromnonhuman embryos. Only our inability to appreciate the uniqueness of human life itself permits usthe foolishness of asking when life begins.

566. A WINDOW ON THE WOMB

57WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN“Tiny Wonder, little Human,Lying stilled, your hands outstretched.I wonder what you might have been.I wonder what you might have done.Sixteen weeks—that’s all you livedUntil they wrenched you out of wombTo lie untended, gasping, stunned,A plastic bag to be your tomb.They weigh your form, record its length;Perfect tissue, soulless, mute.Your life, so small, was still too much.You died without one loving touch.Spark of existence, now no more,Snuffed out by those who came before.I wonder what you might have been.I wonder what you might have done.”1--David C. Thompson, M.D.Seeing Is Believing: A Picture Is Worth a Thousand WordsWhy do pro-“choice” people become so indignant when opponents display photographs ofthe well-formed feet and hands of a nine-week-old fetus? Why do they avoid accurate photographsof aborted fetuses?How can anyone look with his eyes upon what is being aborted and not recognize it as beingmore than a “mass of cells,” but a living organism, with every appearance of a child who strugglesand resists his own death?Most of us have found it to be true: “Seeing is Believing.”We know also that a picture is worth a thousand words!Although graphic illustrations, photographs, and other visual evidence can be misleading, westill tend to rely on what we can see with our own two eyes. In contrast, it is much easier to ignorewhat we can’t see. The expression, “Out of sight, out of mind” is true for most us.Dr. Paul Rockwell, a physician in New York, shares his observation for consideration:

58“Eleven years ago while giving a anesthetic for a ruptured ectopic pregnancy (at twomonths gestation) I was handed what I believe was the smallest living human everseen. The embryo sac was intact and transparent. Within the sac was a tiny humanmale swimming extremely vigorously in the amniotic fluid, while attached to the wallby the umbilical cord. This tiny human was perfectly developed, with long, taperingfingers, feet and toes. It was almost transparent, as regards the skin and the delicatearteries and veins were prominent to the ends of the fingers.The baby was extremely alive and swam about the sac approximately one time persecond, with a natural swimmer’s stroke. This tiny human did not look at all likethe photos and drawings and models of ‘embryos’ I have been able to observesince then, obviously because this one was alive!When the sac was opened, the tiny human immediately lost its life and took on theappearance of what is accepted as the appearance of an embryo at this stage (bluntextremities, etc.)It is my opinion that if the lawmakers, and people realized that very vigorous lifeis present, it is possible that abortion would be found more objectionable thaneuthanasia.”2When it comes to deciding the point at which human life begins we tend to rely on what wecan physically see for ourselves. That is one reason why, in the Western world, a person’s life iscounted from the day he comes out of the womb. Not every society is limited to visual confirmation,however. Paradoxical as it is in light of their widespread practice of abortion, even the Chinese(overestimating by three months) have traditionally counted a child one year old at birth inrecognition of the continual active life that has already taken place in the womb.3F. LaGard Smith is convinced that “if wombs had windows, the abortion debate would beover, once and for all.”4 He continues:“For years, like millions of other Americans I had only the vague notion of whatactually took place in an abortion. I assumed that the procedure to “terminateA pregnancy” was simply the removal of a glob of cells having to similaritywhatever to a human being. But most of us would be shocked to see how highlydeveloped the typical aborted fetus really is, even at very early stages.”5“Drama of Life Before Birth”Swedish photographer, Lennart Nilsson in his photo essay, “Drama of Life Before Birth,” inthe April 30, 1965 edition of Life magazine has captured the amazing development of fetuses. Longbefore the abortion controversy became common, Nilsson wrote dispassionately: “The birth of ahuman life really occurs at the moment the mother’s egg cell is fertilized by one of the father’ssperm cells.”6

59Nilsson’s photo of a 3 ½ week-old embryo is accompanied by this surprising caption:“This embryo is so tiny—about a tenth of an inch long—that the mother may noteven know she is pregnant. Yet there is already impressive internal development,not visible here. This embryo has the beginnings of eyes, spinal cord, nervoussystem thyroid gland, lungs, stomach, kidney and intestines. Its primitive heart,which began beating haltingly on the 18 th day, is now pumping more confidently.On the bulge of the chest, the tiny buds of arms—not yet visible—are forming.7At 6 ½ weeks, shortly before the embryo (meaning “to swell”) is called a fetus (meaning“young one”), Nilsson shows us a “baby in miniature” though at this point it is lacking the sharpfeatures of what we would recognize as a new born infant.Nilsson comments:“Though the embryo now weights only 1/30 of an ounce, it has all the internalorgans of the adult in various stages of development. It already has a littlemouth with lips, and early tongue and buds for 20 milk teeth. Its sex andreproductive organs have begun to sprout.”8The 11 week-old fetus is nothing less than a “tiny teenager” exercising newfoundindependence and letting his presence be known:“Bones, including the ribs, are now rapidly forming. The body wall has grownfrom the spine forward and is joined at the front—like a coat being buttoned.All the body systems are now working. Nerves and muscles are synchronizingwith the young bones so that the arms and legs can make their first movements.Soon the fetus’ get more cramped, and as it gains steadily in strength, the motherwill begin to feel the sharp kick and thrust of foot, knee, and elbow.”9By this point in time, the largest number of abortions will already have taken place. Theawesome developing life described by Nilsson—far from being the “glob of cells” that many of usonce thought—has been killed either by menstrual extraction (up to five or six weeks) or by vacuumaspiration (between six and twelve weeks).If the fetus is allowed to live to the sixteenth week (fourth month), “the body has filled outfantastically, quite recognizable now as a baby. The eyes are still closed, but the nose, lips, and earsfinally look like nose, eyes and ears.”10 At 18 weeks, “the fetus is clearly sucking its thumb. Thispre-natal practice prepares the baby to feed spontaneously as soon as it is born. It can go through themotions of crying, too.”11Many fetuses are aborted each year even at this advanced stage. Although relatively few(when compare with the vast majority of typically six-to-ten-week abortions) are aborted at thisstage, the overall numbers still reach into many hundreds of the more advanced fetuses. In light of

60such information, is picturing a thumb-sucking, crying fetus just a phony phenotype argumentor soppy sentimentalism? Or is it a reminder that “what we naturally associate with the newbornbabies outside the womb—whom we regard as a person—is already associated with unborn babiesinside the womb.”12Finally, Nilsson brings us to the 28 th week:“Here the development of the fetus is virtually completed, and some prematurebabies are born no older than this one. [Twenty years on from this assessment,some premature babies are now surviving from 21-22 weeks.] The extra timein the womb gives it added strength and health and time to acquire from itsmother precious, though short-term, immunity to a number of diseases.”13Nilsson’s words not only describe the biological development of the fetus, but his picturestell the real story of what it means to “terminate a pregnancy.” It is no more possible for a fetus to bejust a little bit human than it is for a woman to be just a little bit pregnant. It seems that our “oldfashioned”parents and grandparents knew what they were talking about when they referred to awoman as being not just “pregnant,” but as being “with child.”In addition to Nilsson’s Life article and his book, there is “The Making of Me” film shown inthe Wonders of Life Pavilion at Disney’s Epcot Center which is written and directed by GlennCaron, creator of the “Moonlighting” television series. It includes many of these and other startlingphotographs of fetal development by Lennart Nilsson.In order to appreciate more graphically what is involved in a typical abortion, the drawingson the next page depict a life sized eight week old fetus (in darker gray) and an enlarged close up. Ateight weeks the fetus is making the transition from an embryo to a fetus. The key distinction lies inthe formation of the first real bone cells that begin to replace the cartilage. At this point, too, all itsmajor organs are in place.If wombs had windows it would be more difficult to refuse to acknowledge the existence ofthis unborn person and to continue to rationalize the right to kill such a person. If wombs hadwindows the charade of whether there is “personhood” would more quickly cease. AsF. La Gard Smith put it, “Pro-choice is nothing less than blind choice that slams the windowsshut.”14Pro-Choice = A Dead VictimThe reprehensible truth is: “Pro-choice” on the issue of abortion means a dead victim. If thiswere not so, there would be no reason to have that choice. Then what are people really saying whenthey say they are anti-abortion but pro-choice? They are in essence saying that they wouldn’tpersonally kill the baby, but that it is legitimate for others to do so. Not much comfort for theunborn baby who nevertheless ends up dead.

617. PERSONHOOD

62HOW WE VIEW OURSELVES“I see no reason for attributing to man a significance in kind different from thatwhich belongs to a baboon or a grain of sand.”1--Oliver Wendell Holmes“We have paid some high prices for the technological conquest of nature, butnone perhaps so high as the intellectual and spiritual costs of seeing nature asmere material for our manipulation, exploitation and transformation. Withthe powers for biological [genetic] engineering now gathering, there will besplendid new opportunities for a similar degradation in our view of man.Indeed, we are already witnessing the erosion of our idea of man as somethingsplendid or divine, as a creature with freedom and dignity. And clearly, if wecome to see ourselves as meat, then meat we shall become.”2 (Emphasis Added)--Dr. Leon R. Kass, Professor of the Liberal Arts of Human Biology, University of ChicagoHUMAN BEING VS. PERSONSome have argued that since the Bible does not deal specifically with abortion that we cannotbe dogmatic about the issue. To use the same line of argumentation I would point out that the Bibledoes not deal with infanticide (the killing of babies), uxoricide (the killing of one’s wife), genocide(the killing of a whole race), nor even suicide (the killing of oneself). Does that mean that suchhideous acts are biblically sanctioned?There are specific provisions against homicide--the deliberate taking of human life. The TenCommandments are clear: “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). This fifth commandment formsthe basis for all other commands against the killing of innocent human life. And Scripture is repletewith prohibitions against the taking of innocent human life.If the developing fetus is shown to be a human being there is no need for a specific commandagainst feticide (abortion) any more than we need something specific against infanticide, uxoricide,genocide or suicide. The general commandment against killing covers all other forms of takinginnocent human life.Thus the humanity of the unborn is crucial to the ultimate determination of feticide. In Roevs. Wade the Supreme Court started that the humanity of the unborn child need not be resolved inorder to determine the legality of abortion. Appalling! This is what the Supreme Court had to do.For if the unborn child is a human being, then the issue is resolved since a civilized society cannottolerate the intentional killing of helpless innocent human beings. By shifting to personhood, theCourt argued that the only relevant issue to the Court was whether such a child, irrespective of itshumanity, is a “person” and thus has value under the Constitution.

63What is a “Person”?To get away from the focus on the biological certainty that a fetus is “a human life,” manyhave shifted the argument to “personhood.” Since arguing against “humanity” is increasinglydifficult when it comes to the fetus, they now resort to making a differentiation between “person”and “human being.” According to the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures (Old and New Testaments ofthe Bible), this is purely an arbitrary, artificial distinction.The word “person” is not used in the Bible. Latin versions have used the Latin term personato translate Hebrew and Greek words for man, soul, and face. But this is not equivalent as personareferred originally to the mask through which an actor spoke his part (persona; literally, throughmask).This word changed from being applied merely to the mask to being applied to the actor, thento the character acted to an assumed character, and eventually to anyone having character or status.3The word “person” describes the individual in functional terms. It describes his expressionsand actions, his roles and functions in all these uses. Person came to refer to an individual as heperforms in society. Since this sees the individual in terms of his thinking, feeling, and acting, whenany such characteristics are absent, that individual’s personhood is questioned.Such technical distinctions open up “Pandora’s Box” of indiscriminate judgment. Once theunborn is labeled less than a person by such a standard, then the deformed, the handicapped, the ill,the elderly have reason to fear for their lives. Life becomes expendable! And this is exactly what hashappened to our society.The Bible does not have the equivalent term for “person” as used in the abortion controversy.Instead the Bible uses deeper and broader terms such as “man” and “woman, “life” and “soul” inreferring to individuals made in the image and likeness of God. To make such a distinction,therefore, is artificial and devilish in that it gives an intellectual excuse to set ourselves up as tingods with the authority and right to get rid of what we deem “unworthy,” “less than useful,” “lessthan a fully developed person.” This is nothing more than the all-to-common method of setting up astraw man and knocking him over.The Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court DecisionThe perception of “personhood” became the litmus test in the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Courtdecision since they stated that the law did not need to protect those who are not “persons in thewhole sense.” This distinction is key since in constitutional law, a person is an entity entitled torights and equal protection under the law.This false dichotomy between human life and personhood, between sanctity of life andquality of life formed the basis of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Archibald Cox, formerlaw professor and Watergate prosecutor, justly criticized the Supreme Court following its decision in1973:

64"The [Court's] opinion fails even to consider what I would suppose to be the mostcompelling interest of the state in prohibiting abortion: the interest in maintainingthat respect for the paramount sanctity of human life which has always been at thecenter of western civilization."4The Court attempted to redefine man by a quality of life ethic. In so doing she removed thatwhich has always been characteristic of civility: the sanctity of human life. The Court argued thatlegal personhood and value belong only to those capable of "meaningful life outside the womb."5This utilitarian concept—the quality of life ethic—is very dangerous as it was used by the Nazis aswell.Pro-abortion author Beverly Harrison puts it:“The question ‘When does human life begin? Or . . . the more precise moral question‘When shall we predicate full human value to developing fetal life?’ has becomepivotal to the debate about the morality of abortion for reasons having to do withmoral consensus. The moral status of fetal life simply is not the obvious fact thatmany ‘pro-life’ proponents contend . . . . To conclude that fetal life, admittedly aform of human life, is already full human life does not follow . . . Becausepredicating the intrinsic value of human life and opposing killing are the leastcontroversial aspects of the moral debate, the question of the value of fetal life hasbecome the core issue on which everything else appears to hing.”6It is “the value of fetal life” rather than “the intrinsic value” of the fetus which has becomethe core issue of pro-abortion advocates. This has shifted the whole debate.Thus Harrison ends with the statement:“Reproductive choice for women is requisite to any adequate notion of whatconstitutes a good society. Transformed social conditions of reproduction areabsolutely critical to all women’s well-being. No society that coerces womenat the level of reproduction may lay claim to moral adequacy.”7A woman’s freedom to kill her unborn baby is a sign of “moral adequacy”!Criterias for PersonhoodIf everything that is genetically homo sapien is not really a person, who or what is? To saythat a fetus is living (man), but not a person is unrealistic since if it is not a person, it must be a plantor an animal or a nonbeing. If so, what qualifier do we use to determine whether a human being is aperson in the full sense of the word? What is the criteria?As can be expected, there are numerous opinions among pro-death people as to what thesecriteria are and how much development is necessary for personhood to be considered as such. Whatis the sine qua non, the essential element, without which there is no legitimate person?

65Such criteria usually fall into three groups: the physical, the mental and the social.The Physical CrieriaTime is the key element in ascertaining this criteria. Actual personhood—a fully humanbeing—does not come about until a certain stage of physical development is reached.Historically viability has been the crucial criteria based on the assumption that this is the timethat an unborn can survive outside the womb. Since this was the criteria used by the Court in its Roevs. Wade decision, it therefore outlined a three-stage approach: some regulation of abortion isallowed after the first trisemester, and more after the second trimester—at which point, the Courtsaid, the fetus is viable and the state’s interest in protecting it becomes compelling.But there have been babies born prematurely as early as the fourth month who have survivedand grown into normal, healthy children. On the other hand, abortions are being performed onperfectly healthy babies much older than that—and they are usually left unattended to suffer and die.Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has argued that because of medical advances,the trimester approach is “on a collision course with itself.” She raised the problem of viability whenin the Roe vs. Wade decision, it appears that the Court considered the unborn as having only“potential” life until the point of viability:“The difficulty with this analysis is clear: Potential life is no less potential in thefirst weeks of pregnancy than it is at viability or afterwards . . . . The choice ofviability as the point at which the state interest in potential life becomescompelling is no less arbitrary than choosing any point before viability or anypoint afterward. Accordingly, I believe that the States’ interest in protectingpotential human life exists throughout the pregnancy.”8Dr. Magda Denes has concluded:“Abortion based on viability is as logical as maintaining that drowning a nonswimmerin a bathtub is permitted because he would have drowned anyway ifhe would have fallen into the sea.”9Others have argued that personhood begins when all the organs are present in rudimentaryform, some time between the sixth an eighth weeks of development. Some point to the beginning ofblood circulation and movement of brain waves (5-6 weeks). Others such as Peter Wenz (author of arecent book, Abortion Rights As Religious Freedom, 1992) view personhood as the eighth monthbecause it is at this time that the unborn is most like the newborn. Still others, increasingly themajority of pro-death advocates, see full personhood only occurring at birth when the unborn isborn, when he takes his first breath. This is why abortions are routinely performed up to the verypoint of birth.

66The health of the person is another physical criteria used. This means 46 chromosomes mustbe present in each cell and they must develop normally to be acknowledged as fully person. EthicistJames Gustafson of the University of Chicago put it:“Respect for life does not necessarily indicate the preservation of human physicallife at the cost of unbearable pain to individuals, and even to families aroundthem.”10Thus birth defects may very well make it virtually impossible for an organism to live “ameaningful life.”In fact, the most outlandish repercussion of such a theory of criteria for personhood isillustrated by none other than Francis Crick, the Nobel Prize winning biologist who discoveredDNA. He daringly argues that children need to be at least two days old before we should legallydeclare them as persons. Only by such time will we be able to determine medically whether they arehealthy.11Eugenics—the belief that true humanity and good health are identical—seems to be theunderlying principle at work in such suggestions. This smacks of Aryanism and its “Super Race” asit expresses a yearning for a perfect world in which only perfect people (usually Anglo-Saxons) whoare free from any physical deformities and genetic diseases are allowed to live.The Social CriteriaSocial criteria is also used in judging personhood. Interaction with other people on a nonbiologicallevel is necessary for a human life to be a person. Therefore, capacities such as love, selfconsciousness,and the ability to communicate and relate with others are crucial.This opens up the way to all kinds of exceptions to personhood. Certainly newborn childrenas well as severely ill and handicapped people cannot relate in a meaningful way.Ashley Montague, a British anthropologist, argues that a baby does not become fully humanuntil he is “molded by social and cultural influences.”12 This means that college graduates are morehuman than kindergartners. He sees man’s cultural accomplishments as that which sets him apartfrom the animal world.A leading geneticist, Joshua Lederberg, believes that an infant’s intellectual development isthe most important criteria. Thus the acquisition of language and the ability to participate in “ameaningful, cognitive interaction with his mother and with the rest of society” is what sets him apartfrom the rest of creation.13Michael Tooley, a philosopher, argues that personhood is legitimatized only when a humanbeing is consciously aware of his “continuing existence” and is free to “desire its continuance.”Therefore, as he puts it, “a newborn baby does not possess the concept of a continuing self, any morethan a newborn kitten possesses such a concept.”14 Thus infanticide is morally permissible.

67Tooley holds that some animals qualify for personhood whereas infants do not. He arguesthat animals such as cats, dogs, and polar bears may possess properties that endow them with theconsciousness of a continuing self and to dispose of them may be equivalent to “murdering innocentpersons.”15 Therefore, to kill certain animals is “morally indefensible” while killing infants ismorally defensible.The Mental CriteriaOf the three criteria of physical, social and mental ability, mental ability is the most popularcriteria by which personhood is judged. Scholars commonly hold that it is the intellectual prowess ofhuman beings that make them superior to the rest of the animal kingdom. Therefore, the individualwho fails to demonstrate some degree of reason, self-awareness, and violation is not really a person.Rudolp Ehrensing sees the commencement of brain activity to be the first sign of personhoodsince death is now defined as the cessation of brain acitivity.16 Roy Schenk, another scholar, reasonsthat the fetus becomes an actual person when the cerebral cortex is developed to a level of selfawareness(about the sixth month).17Joseph Fletcher takes the biggest jump in that he requires a person to have an I.Q. of at least40 on the Stanford-Binet intelligence test to be considered fully human.18This rules out the unborn, the newborn, the very young, and severely handicapped and senilepeople since they cannot even take the test. Such a theory leads to the most radical notionsexpressed by Peter Singer of the Centre for Human Bioethics:“If we compare a severely defective human infant with a nonhuman animal,a dog or a pig, for example, we will often find the non-human to have superiorcapacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness,communication, and anything else that can plausibly be considered morallysignificant.”19Thus Winston Duke, a nuclear physicist, reasons that “it should be recognized that not allmen are human . . . It would seem to be more inhumane to kill an adult chimpanzee than a newbornbaby, since the chimpanzee has greater mental awareness.”20Such incredible statements makes a person wonder who is really human; if the world still hasany semblance of “humaneness” as it did originally.A Combination of CriteriaProbably the most popular view is that personhood is made up of human beings who possessa combination of characteristics. Mary Anne Warren, professor at Sonoma State College inCalifornia, gives five criteria:

681. Consciousness—of objects and events external and/or internal to the being, andspecifically the capacity to feel pain.2. Reasoning—the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems.3. Self-motivation—activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or directexternal control.4. Communication—the capacity to communicate by whatever means, messages of anindefinite number possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics.5. Self-Concepts and Self-Awareness—the presence of self-concepts and selfawarenesseither individually or racially, or both.21Warren backpedals as she calls her list “very rough” and admits the difficulty of construingsuch a list: “there are apt to be a great many problems involved in formulating precise definitions ofthese criteria.” Then she adds three more qualifications:1. Not all five criteria are needed. Perhaps one or two alone may be sufficient.2. We should not insist that any one of these criteria are “necessary” for personhood,although the first three are the most important.Then she strangely adds the third criteria which contradicts her previous criteria (no. 2):1. Any individual who does not satisfy any of the five criteria is certainly not a person.22What gall! While admitting the difficulty of “formulating precise definitions of these criteria”she still has the audacity to decide who lives and who dies by her faulty understanding of what itmeans to be a person.23stated:Arbitrariness marks all such arguments. Is it any wonder that pro-abortionist Garrett Hardin“People who worry about the moral danger of abortion do so because they think ofthe fetus as a human being and hence equate feticide with murder. Whether thefetus is or is not a human being is a matter of definition, not fact, and we can defineany way we wish.”24 (Emphasis added)According to Hardin any definition of what a fetus is will do!

69Stages of DevelopmentTo see “personhood” beginning at conception is to erect a psychological ladder whichsupports such a view. At conception a human being is called a zygote; at implantation, an embryo; attwo months’ gestation, a fetus; at birth, a baby; at fifteen years, a teenager or juvenile; and attwenty-one years, an adult. Zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, juvenile, adult are mere descriptions of ahuman being at different stages of his development.Presumption of HumanityMorally, it is essential that we presume the humanity of the unborn since any otherassumption requires that we define human life in terms that would logically exclude from the humancommunity other “minority” elements in society as well. Norman Geisler logically reasons:“If we define the humanity of the unborn in terms of its age (so many months in the womb),then why not exclude others from human society, such as the elderly, because of their age?If humanness is defined in terms of abnormal size, then why not exclude midgets, basketballcenters, or the obese from the human community? Each of us began as a tiny one-cell organism.If humanness is defined in terms of location (life outside the womb), then why can’t wediscriminate against sections of society by their location (on the wrong side of the tracks)?Geography does not determine humanity; passing through a birth canal does not change one’s humanstatus.If we define humanness in terms of genetic purity (for example, excluding those withDown’s syndrome), then other minorities with genetic deformities (like sickle-cell anemia) can bedeclared non-human.If humanness is defined in terms of viability, then we must consider severely injured persons,the infirm, and any who can’t defend themselves not to be human.If humanness is defined in terms of consciousness, then drunks, sleepers, drug uses, and evensome transcendental mediators are non-human.If humanness is defined in terms of the function of self-consciousness, then any child up to18 months old is a candidate for infanticide.If personhood is defined in terms of the ability to think rationally, then we will have excludedall young children, those under great emotional distress, and even some in mystical states ofconsciousness.If humanness includes only those who can make moral choices, then young children, theinsane, and moral reprobates are not human either.

70If we exclude all human beings who are unwanted, then any undesired segment of society,such as AIDS victims, child abusers, or derelicts, can be disposed of as non-human.”25Purely a ProcessSome argue that we are always in a process of development. The problem with thisargument is that if there is never a point in time when the process is complete, then no one is everreally a person. Yet it seems that pro-abortion advocates view themselves as persons. In fact, theybelieve they became persons through a process. Therefore, there had to be a point at which time theybecame a person, or they have always been a person. Or they are not yet persons.Glanville Williams argues that the ovum and the sperm were alive in the bodies of theparents before fertilization took place and since fertilization is a process that may take from twentyminutes to over two hours to complete, what we call the “moment of conception” is a myth since it isnot a significant point in a person’s life. “The argument that is not a significant point in a person’slife. The argument that life begins with conception is just as un-biological as the old notion that lifebegins sometime after conception.”26The problem with this argument is that if there is never a point in time when the process iscomplete, then no one is ever really a person. Yet it seems that pro-abortion advocates viewthemselves as persons. In fact, they believe they became persons through a process. Therefore, therehad to be a point in time at which they became a person, or they have always been a person. Or theyare not yet persons.Although it is true that growth is a process, a continuum, there comes a certain time in theprocess when what existed formerly, literally ceases to exist and a new conceptus comes into being.This means that there is both a process of fertilization as well as the point at which that process iscompleted and a new and unique being begins to exist.27To argue that there is no difference between an egg before and after fertilization files in theface of scientific inquiry.Could it be that this process theory of conception, rather than being a theory based onscientific data, is merely an evolutionary presupposition that assumes life itself to be only a process?CONCEPTUAL QUESTIONSThe Question of LogicNo one can deny that human life begins at conception since the heart begins beating at fourweeks and brain waves are detected at about six weeks. Therefore, pro-death proponents haveingeniously set up as being something different from human life. And so they argue that biology hasnothing to do with the definition of “actual” human life or “personhood.”

71Is biology irrelevant to personhood? In psychology and medicine personality has beenaccepted as an organic unit. It is elementary to even talk about how mental states can producekidney troubles and other diseases just as the body can affect the mind. All anyone who questionsthis has to do is go without food or sleep for a few days and see how he is affected. Doctors know alltoo well that the functioning of glands has a profound effect on emotions and behavior. To deny suchinterrelatedness between the mind and body is foolhardy.Twins or TripletsPeter Wenz in his book Abortion Rights as Religious Freedom argues with the position that abeing is a person from the moment it has a human genetic code “entail radical departures from ourlegal traditions and yield what can only be called absurdities. These absurdities are conceptual,practical, and legal.”28He goes on to ask the following conceptual questions:“First, there is the puzzle about whose human life is deemed to exist from themoment of fertilization, when a zygote comes into existence with its own, humangenetic code. The zygote may split within several days to become two (or more)identical zygotes, thus creating monozygotic twins or triplets. Which of these isthe ‘person’ who came into existence at fertilization? Who are the others? Do they,too, have full human rights? If so, does their personhood come into existence not atfertilization (when there was only one). But at some time (possibly days) later whenthe zyzote splits? How do we know which one became a person at fertilizationand which one(s) attained personhood later? These are all ridiculous questions.They cannot be answered because they cannot be understood. They make no sensewithin the conceptual scheme available to us. Our normal assumption that fullpersonhood does not begin at fertilization protects us from such absurdities. Reversethis assumption and we are led to absurd questions. It is a postulate of logic that oneshould avoid commitments to views that lead to absurdities.”29Wenz is correct that his questions are “all ridiculous.” Are they ridiculous because “they arebased on an illogical presumption? The assumption is the either/or dilemma. Wenz automaticallypresumes that only one of these zygotes is a person. Such an assumption leads him to all these other“ridiculous, absurd questions.”Wenz correctly points out that it is a postulate of logic that one should avoid commitments toviews that lead to absurdities. It was his own assumption, however, that led him to absurd questions.The answer is simple: every one of these zygotes that split creating monozygotic twins ortriplets are persons at the point of having their own genotype. How that comes to be is irrelevant.Such knowledge simply is not available to us at this time and has no practical consequences.

72Common Practice and Common SenseWenz continues his debate by appealing to the absurdities that “relate to conflicts withcommon practice and common sense” as he quotes Joel Feinberg:“Embryologists have estimated that only 58 percent of fertilized ova survive untilimplantation (seven days after conception) and that the spontaneous abortion rateafter that stage is from 10 to 15 percent.’”30Wenz argues from this claim:“Combined with these facts, the belief that personhood begins at fertilizationsyields the conclusion that more than half of all human deaths occur before birth.If these prenatal human lives are to be respected equally with all others, the greatestexpenditure of resources in medicine and in medical research should be devoted tosaving these lives ‘without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition ofdependency.’ After all, for every child that suffers from spina bifida, cerebral palsy,or muscular dystrophy, there are thousands who die from a failure to implant on theuterine wall, so medical efforts should be geared primarily to address this problem.If we are successful, we could move from a population where about 2 percent sufferfrom relatively minor congenital defects to one where as many as 10 to 20 percentsuffer from major defect. When this implication is recognized, how many peoplereally want to attribute personhood from the moment of fertilization regardless ofhealth or defect.”31The last sentence is telling. The so-called “conceptual” concern is disguised under the thinveil of utilitarian concern. This is due to either ignorance or deception. Since when do we have theright to decide philosophical, moral, and biological (medical) questions based on expediency—“. . .how many people really want to . . .”? What has having resources or the lack of having resources todo with whether a human life with a genetic code is a person or not? What has the percentage ofpeople who suffer from congenital defects have to do with whether that fetus is a human being withrights or not? Absolutely nothing! It is logically absurd to tie either of these issues to the question ofpersonhood.The climate that has been created so that human life has become increasingly cheap iscosting us far more than the medical procedures which Wenz is suggesting.A being is a person the moment he has a genetic code. As authority in general came intoquestion carte blanche, and precursors of abortion became increasingly evident in the 1960's withthe legalization of abortion-on-demand in 1973, we have seen the rapid rise of crime.To say there is no connection between a disregard for the unborn and the born is illogical.Morality, or more correctly, immorality, is not that easily confined. How we treat some, affects howwe treat others. As Mother Teresa said at the National Prayer Breakfast this last year (1994):

73“If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other peoplenot to kill each other?. . . Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its peopleto love, but to use any violence to get what they want.”32Death, Death Certificates & FuneralsWenz also reason that if abortion is really killing another person that there should be deathcertificates and funerals for these little ones:“Another implication at odds with common practice and common sense is that weshould mourn the death of all these ‘people,’ and have death certificates and burialrequirements. Never mind that in most cases the only clue that such a death hasoccurred is a late or particularly heavy menstrual flow. A person is a person. Allshould be treated with respect. Surely non should be flushed down the toilet orthrown into the garbage.”33Wenz has a point! He has pointed out the inconsistency of a lot of pro-life people. In somecases it is physically impossible to do what Wenz suggests (e.g. in case of heavy menstrual flow).However, there is an increase in the practice among pro-lifers of burying fetuses.Wenz is right on when he states, “A person is a person. All should be treated with respect.”Part of the problem is that when fetuses die they are often in the hands of the medical profession(many of which belong to the pro-death camp) which has not always been the most sensitive andhelpful in showing due respect for that baby that once existed.Theologian R. C. Sproul acknowledges that one of the problems with our definitions of lifeand death is seen in the case of stillborn babies. He asks the question, “Are stillborn babies ‘deadbabies,’ or are they ‘never-have-been-alive babies’”? Then he points out that “it is commonplace forphysicians to speak of stillborn babies as babies who have died.”34He then goes on and shares his experience when his daughter delivered a stillborn baby, anexperience of death.“My daughter delivered a stillborn baby. I will relate her experience to show how anonreligious community dealt with the event. In the ninth month of her pregnancy,my daughter noticed that an entire day had passed with no feeling of fetal movement.She called her doctor, and he examined her immediately. His response was grim. ‘Iam sorry, but your baby has died,’ he told my daughter. The physicians used thelanguage of death to describe the event.The next day my daughter was admitted to the hospital and labor was induced. Sheendured the labor experience knowing in advance that she would give birth to astillborn baby. After the baby—a girl—was delivered, the nurses cleansed the bodyand took photographs. The baby was given a name, and measurements were recordedin the hospital records. The nurses then brought the dead child into my daughter’s

74room—giving her, her husband, my wife, and me the opportunity to hold the baby.This was not an extraordinary or macabre experience, but the customary practice.The nurses explained that by giving the parents an opportunity to hold the stillbornbaby and to say ‘goodbye,’ the grief process for the lost child would be less severe.Holding my daughter’s stillborn baby was a profound experience for me. ThoughI had already been convinced that unborn babies are living human persons, anyshadow of doubt I might have had was instantly removed. As I held the child, Iwondered how it was possible that anyone could think that the baby was not ahuman being then or two days earlier.”35Sproul then reasons:“We use the expression: ‘If it looks like a duck it walks like a duck, it probablyis a duck.’”36In case of human fetuses, it is obvious that they look like human persons, they act likehuman beings, they have the genetic human person, and they have sexuality and movement.Therefore, with such an accumulation of evidence from natural science “it would seemingly requirepowerful evidence to the contrary to conclude that a prenatal baby is not a living human person.”37As Sproul points out, the only logical conclusion for such a conclusion is prejudice. Byconvincing ourselves that a fetus is not a human person until birth, we relieve ourselves of the moralimplications of destroying that person prior to birth.PopulationWenz also argues from the vantage point of population:“Population statistics would have to be revised to reflect the (often brief) existence ofthese people. A state may gain additional members in the House of Representativesif it has more pregnant women than do other states. Actuarial tables would have tobe revised as well. Since more than half of the human population dies before birththrough failure of implantation or spontaneous abortion, a country where the lifeexpectancy is currently thought to be about seventy years would actually be one witha life expectancy under thirty-five.”38At this point Wenz sounds like he’s being cute (superficial). None of the proposals Wenz isarguing about are necessary. It is as though he is grasping for straws to try to make the pro-lifeposition as ridiculous as possible.Since when does a society have to go to such extreme measures just to show its respect forhuman life?

75As a society we already make distinctions between people based on their age. The samewould be true in this case. Since these fetuses have not been born yet, they will not be counted aspart of the population since they do not take up additional space in society. But such distinctions inno way bring into question their personhood. Rights and distinctions do not necessarily implyqualitative differences.AgeWenz continues his argument by pointing out that“Of course, individuals who survive to childhood would be older than is currentlythought, about nine months older in most cases, because we currently date thebeginning of life at birth, which is nine months after the person has actually comeinto existence. Appropriate adjustments would have to be made in the ages atwhich a person is permitted to drive, vote, drink, and so forth.”39Wenz doesn’t seem to be aware of the fact that this is how much of civilization alreadycounts age. Counting the age from birth is mostly a Western tradition, whereas much of the Orientand Middle East does what Wenz is suggesting. Such a suggestion is hardly new, radical, or absurd.Frozen Human EmbryosThe argument is also from the perspective of frozen embryos:“Many thousands of frozen human embryos exist at present. If personhood begins atconception, then these are all (chilly) people. When decisions are made about theirfuture, they would all need guardians ad litem (legal counsel) to protect their rights.If their parents are getting divorced, any dispute over them would be a matter ofchild custody. If their parents, whether divorcing or not, do not want them todevelop further, the court would have to protect their rights by removing themfrom their parents’ custody. As soon as immunosuppressive drugs are available thatenable a genetically unrelated woman to carry an embryo to term, these ‘children’should be put up for adoption just as other children are.”40It is obvious that Wenz is being cute again as he sarcastically refers to frozen embryos as“chilly” people. His argument on the whole is a dilemma which an immoral society has produced foritself. This practice of freezing embryos is not supported by pro-lifers. This is another manifestationof the Brave New World’s technology which is going beserk and thus creating dilemmas that werenever meant to be. The sarcastic answer would be: since you made your bed, you will have to lie init.Wenz ends this section on the conceptual problems by pointing out that the implications ofwhat he has argued at times may be merely odd, funny, or ridiculous, yet others are truly disturbing:

76“Especially disturbing are the implications concerning the allocation of medicalresources. It would be tragic to diminish efforts in areas of postnatal people beingsubject to lives afflicted with debilitating genetic defects. It is also absurd at apractical level. When health care already consumes nearly 11 percent of the grossnational product, and millions of (postnatal) people are nevertheless poorly served,it is absurd to add a burden that is incalculable and incomparable.”41As noted earlier, such concerns have nothing to do with whether a being is a person from themoment it has a human genetic code! Civility requires that society does its very best in looking outfor all its people—whether born or unborn. Money should not be the arbitrator in such instances.Legal QuestionsWenz moves on to legal questions regarding abortion and points out:“By contrast, the legal implications of this view are less absurd than frightening.Abortion would, of course, be illegal. That is the main reason for maintaining, inthe first place, that beings become persons on receipt of a human genetic code. Butit is one thing to maintain that abortion is illegal, and quite another to treat it seriouslyas murder. Murder is among the most serious crimes, and carries some of the heaviestpenalties. Life in prison and even the death penalty are considered by the SupremeCourt to be permissible penalties for murder. If fetuses are considered persons underThe Fourteenth Amendment, then performing an abortion can be nothing less thanpremeditated murder, planning an abortion would be conspiracy to commit murder,and having an abortion would be a felony that results in the unlawful death of another.Wherever there is a felony murder rule, a law that declares people guilty of murderwhenever a felony they commit results in an unlawful death, all women who haveabortions would be guilty of murder.Any lesser treatment of abortion would show unwarranted disrespect for fetal people.One purpose of punishing murderers is to express the community’s condemnation ofmurder. If fetuses are people with equal status, their murder should be condemned asemphatically as anyone else’s. Another purpose of punishing murderers is to deterpotential murderers, thereby saving the lives of potential victims. The only way to givefetuses equal protection of the laws is to punish abortion with the same severity asother murders. To do less would like punishing those who murder blacks lessseverely than those who murder whites. This would obviously be unconstitutional.Thus, if personhood begins at fertilization, the implication is not that abortioncould be treated as murder, but that it would have to be treated as murder.”42I fully agree with the logic of Wenz’s argumentation. The only thing I disagree with is thatsuch a practice is “frightening.” Why shouldn’t murder be treated as murder and murderers asmurderers? What is really frightening is that people get away with murder! And this is happening inepidemic proportions whether in the case of the born or the unborn. When a society and culture

77becomes too sophisticated to punish wrongdoers it eventually ends up in chaos. Abortion is one ofthe greatest contributors of such chaos as it allows murderers to go free and even applauds theirefforts, especially if they wear white coats.Wenz is right, “The only way to give fetuses equal protection of the laws is to punishabortion with the same severity as other murders.”43 Such treatment would bring back justice to theindividual and society, and respect and dignity to the unborn.He continues by pointing out that if such treatment of the perpetrators of abortion wereenacted it would be in sharp contrast with any treatment previously known in our system:“The typical statue, such as the one invalidated in Roe vs. Wade, was directed solelyat the person who performed the abortion. The woman who requested, planned,and voluntarily submitted to the abortion was not considered an accessory, as shewould have to be if abortion were murder. Nor was the doctor subject to penaltiesanything like those that Texas associated with murder. This was true everywhereand at all times in our legal tradition. As Justice Tom C. Clark wrote after hisretirement from the Supreme Court, ‘no prosecutor has ever returned a murderindictment charging the taking of the life of a fetus. This would not be the case ifthe fetus constituted a human life.’”44The fact that a murder indictment has never been meted out to someone charged with takingthe life of a fetus says nothing about the status of that fetus except in the eyes of the beholder. Wenzmakes a good point that our country has historically been inconsistent on this issue. Either legallyforbid abortion or punish it with the same severity as you punish any homicide, or legalize it.Like many issues in our society, abortion has suffered because of the lack of reflection on thepart of the people as they have not really thought through carefully the implications of what it reallymeans to kill a fetus. Pro-lifers have also been guilty of such lack of reflection, but I believe prolifersas a whole would support the full enforcement of the law in case of abortionists.From what I understand, it is also true that no rich person has ever been executed in ourcountry and the proportion of Afro-American people executed for killing white people far surpassesthe execution of white people for killing Afro-American people. Only the most prejudiced wouldbase the status or inherent value of people on whether they have been treated fairly in our courts oflaw or by the police.Carl Sagan, the creator of the “cosmos” television series, asks the typical questions of proabortionadvocates: “Why should legislators have any right at all to tell women what to do with theirbodies?”45 He then adds, “To be deprived of reproductive freedom is demeaning. Women, are fedup with being pushed around.”46 Yet Sagan himself understands the critical issue as he is aware ofthe limits of tolerance:

78“And yet, by consensus, all of us think it proper that there be prohibitions against, andpenalties exacted for, murder. It would be a flimsy defense if the murderer pleads thatthis is just between him and his victim and none of the government’s business. If killinga fetus is truly killing a human being, is it not the duty of the state to prevent it? Indeed,one of the chief functions of government is to protect the weak from the strong.”47Moral judgment is not a private affair! If the fetus is a human being, then he is a victim. Andif he is a victim—a dead victim—the so-called “pro-choice” philosophy loses all validity.ContraceptionsWenz goes on to the issue of contraceptions:“The implications of treating fertilized eggs as human beings are more ominous wherecontraception is concerned, because some contraceptives are actually abortifacients.The IUD is the most prominent among these. It prevents fertilized eggs fromimplanting on the uterine wall, thereby depriving the zygote of the nutrition it requiresfor further development. The zygote is then expelled in the menstrual flow. If fertilizedeggs are human beings, this is murder by starvation and exposure, and would have to bedealt with accordingly if all people are to be given equal protection of the laws.A major distinction would have to be made among hormonal contraceptives. Those, like‘the pill,’ which prevents fertilization, would be blameless. But any intervention, wouldhave to be made strictly illegal. Since, unlike abortions, morning after pills are selfadministered,the woman taking them would herself be guilty of murder (if a zygotewas actually killed) or attempted murder or reckless endangerment (if there was nofertilized egg). Finding a woman in possession of such a pill would constitute probablecause for an investigation that would have to include collection and inspection of hernext menstrual flow to determine whether or not a fertilized egg was present. Surelythe difference between murder and either attempted murder or reckless endangermentis serious enough to warrant such inspections. The imposition on privacy an theexpenditures of police time involved in these inspections are justified by theseriousness of the criminal activity in question. The equal protection of zygotesrequire as much.”48The pro-life movement has always been against the use of IUDs or the “morning after” pillwhich clearly are abortifacients (forms of abortion). Wenz’s argument that a woman who uses suchmethods would be guilty of murder (if a zygote was actually killed), attempted murder, or recklessendangerment (if there was no fertilized egg) is correct. But then he goes on and suggests that therewould be probable cause for investigation which would become ludicrous in that it would require aninspection of her next menstrual flow to determine whether or not a fertilized egg was present. “Theimposition on privacy and the expenditures of police time” as well as medical time involved in suchinspections, says Wenz, would make it unreasonable and thus absurd.

79Wenz plays the old trick of pushing anything to its logical conclusion and thus negate itslegitimacy. Just as we do not presently invade people’s lives to check up on them in case they arecommitting some kind of crime unless we have “probable cause,” neither would that be the case ofwomen using IUDs or “morning after” pills. The suggestion itself is absurd. Because society isunable and unwilling to go to every length to investigate the possibility of crimes does not mean thatthe crimes once found out are not considered crimes and will not be passed over just because theywere committed in the past. The same holds for this situation that Wenz has described for us.Wenz ends this section by saying that his preceding arguments have shown that SupremeCourt Justice Byron White was wrong in suggesting that “arbitrary lines” had been drawn in Roe vs.Wade between a fetus and a “fully” human being. His point is that “both law and common sensesometimes require that (partly) arbitrary divisions be made in matters that, like the gestationalprocess, involve continua.49 He reasons:“Since newborns, at the end of the gestational process, are uncontroversially accordedthe status of persons in our law, whereas absurdities follow from the same attributionto zygotes, at the beginning of the process, we conclude that gestational developmentis one of those continuums where one or more lines of division must be drawn. Inother words, practical reason requires that we decide to accord significance todifferences between one gestational stage and another because this is the only way toavoid absurdities.Furthermore, to avoid absurdities, these differences must be considered relevant to theacquisition of personhood and its attendant rights. So Justice Douglas was perfectlyjustified in his concurring argument in Doe vs. Bolton (1973) when he declared a Georgiastatue to be “overboard because it equates the value of embryonic life immediately afterconception with the worth of life immediately before birth.’”50Is Similarity the Best Criterion for Personhood?Then Wenz argues that the most important line to be drawn between “the similarity of theunborn to the newborn.”Wenz does admit that White correctly notes the issue of where in the gestational process tomark the acquisition of personhood affects “the State’s interest. . . . In the fetus as an entity initself.”51 Thus the issue is whether and when this entity has in itself rights that the state has a duty toprotect.In the Roe vs. Wade decision the Supreme Court defined viability and subsequent cases inrelation to the possibility of the survival of the newborn infant when separated from his mother. Aswe have already seen, part of the problem with such a criterion is that the possibility varies withmedical technology. After all, fertilization has already been accomplished in vitro (outside awoman).

80Wenz goes on and Hypothesizes about future technology as he thinks of the possibility of thedevelopment of an artificial placenta would enable such zygote to gestate fully outside any humanbody. Although such a technological breakthrough may not imminent, this by no means that it isimpossible. If such a breakthrough would occur zygotes would be viable, making the viabilitycriterion obsolete. He points to White as being right in rejecting the Court’s viability criterion andjustified in maintaining that “the possibility of fetal survival is contingent on the state of medicalpractice and technology, factors that are in essence morally and constitutionally irrelevant.”52Wenz then proposes the criterion for personhood as being “the current nature of the fetus.”53He argues that such a criterion is as legitimate as “the relevant factor in according many other rightsis the current state of the right holder.”54 He illustrates this by pointing out that five year olds arenot given the right to drive a car even though they are potential seventeen year olds with adequatedriving skills. Their rights are geared to their current state of being. Similarly, the high schoolbiology student does not have the right to practice medicine, even though he is potentially aphysician. Therefore, says Wenz, “the fetus’s right to life is simply geared to its current state(current at the time leaves the being with the possession of a human genetic code insufficient forsuch consideration.Since Wenz argues that the most accurate criterion is similarity between the fetus and thenewborn baby, therefore he views an eighth month fetus as a full human being. Why? Why an eighthmonth fetus? Because unlike the being that simply has a genetic code, an eighth month fetus is “justlike newborns except in location.” Therefore such a highly developed fetus should be accorded thesame right to life as newborns (and other human beings).Wenz admitted that the exact time of personhood should be left to the experts:“I cannot say exactly where between twenty and twenty-eight weeks the matter offetal personhood becomes secular. Those more expert than I must determine whenthe fetus differs from the newborns in no more than location, temporary dependencydiffers from healthy newborns in no more than these four ways. Expert opinionsmay range from twenty to twenty-six weeks.It is important to avoid confusing this issue with one about viability, which turnson the technological ability to foster the development of a fetus outside its mother.Even if such fetuses become viability, which turns on the technological ability tofoster the development of a fetus outside its mother. Even if such fetuses becomeviable, then, they are not considered persons on purely secular grounds.”56UncertaintyWhat does Wenz mean by “secular grounds”? That fetuses twenty weeks and younger cannotbe classified as persons on secular grounds because of uncertainty: “secular concepts do not sufficeto decide the matter one way or the other. On the epistemological standard, undecided-ability makesa matter religious.”57 He then acknowledges that the objection to abortion is that if we cannotdecide on secular grounds how to classify young fetuses that we must exercise caution. He reasons,

81“Feeling of uncertainty about whether abortions early in pregnancy kill a person(the fetus) should lead us to refrain from such abortions, just as uncertainty aboutwhether a movement in the bushes is caused by a person or a deer should lead ahunter to refrain from shooting.”58He then dismisses this argument by claiming that “the existence of the danger . . . exists onlybecause of uncertainty about the truth of a religious claim. To say that the young fetus may be aperson is to say that this religious belief may be true.”59Wenz appeals to religious rather than biological (“secular”) grounds to circumvent hisdilemma. The problem is that Wenz simply has not given compelling evidence to show that the fetusis not a person. Thus it flies in the face of scientific (biological) evidence.Wenz points to the fact that government often protects people where uncertainty leads tograve dangers. He then acknowledges the objection to abortion on the grounds that if thegovernment is involved in protecting the people by regulating airline and nuclear power industries,for example, then it is most reasonable that government should be involved in protecting “thepremature death of a healthy young person.”60He objects to such reasoning by saying that it “fails to appreciate that religious freedomcould be suppressed entirely if legislation could be justified by dangers whose existence depends onuncertainty about the truth of religious claims.”61 He then goes to religious issues such as baptism,the role of women, homosexuality, contraceptives, and the suppression of the theory of evolution toillustrate his point.What about the Amish? They have protection of their lifestyle due to their beliefs (religiousfreedom). The state does not usually interfere.The illustrations used by Wenz are wholly unwarranted since they are purely religious issues.He is comparing apples with oranges. No one questions that baptism or any of the other issues arereligious issues. However, scientists, as well as religionists, believe that whether a fetus is a personor not is primarily a scientific (biological) issue. Only secondarily does it become a religious issue asthe Bible clearly and overwhelmingly supports the contention that the fetus is a person. As we havealready seen in a previous chapter (PERSONHOOD—chapter IV), apart from what the Bible says(see APPENDIX), the scientific data itself compels us to recognize the fetus as a human being.LocationWenz correctly argues that it is “a well-established principle that, other things being equal,the right to life does not differ with mere location.”61 My right to life is not affected by whether Iam at home, at work, or in another country. Since an eighth month fetus can be removed and simplysurvive with ordinary care it qualifies for the right to life.

82DependencyAnother difference is dependency—how air and nutrition is received. The eighth monthfetus is literally attached to its mother, from whom it receives oxygen and nutrition, whereas ahealthy newborn breaths to extract oxygen from the air. Whereas the fetus extracts air indirectly, thenewborn receives it directly. The same would be true in terms of its nutrients.But this last difference is not really very different from the differentiation between howhealthy and ill people receive air and nutrition.A person who is in a hospital and receives oxygen by a respirator and nutrition byintravenous feeding in no way “diminishes such a person from the right to life, especially when theyare capable immediately of breathing and eating normally.”62 Therefore the eighth month fetus’sdependency which can be ended by his removal from his mother’s womb should not deny to such afetus the same right to life accorded to a newborn.Notice Wenz hesitating qualifier: “especially when they are capable immediately ofbreathing and eating normally.”63 This again shows the quantitative and thus qualitative factorwith those who propose death to the unborn (in the case of Wenz, death to the unborn fromconception through the seventh month). The implication is obvious: those who quickly get on theirown deserve life.What about younger fetuses? Why is the eighth month so significant in terms of personhood?Wenz points out that zygotes and embryos do not have the organs or the sensitivities of newborns.He points out that except for the genetic code, embryos can be frozen for later implantation, andargues that this shows that they are more like simpler organisms than infants. Therefore “zygotes andembryos lack the right to life because they are so unlike newborns and other human beings.”64Since Wenz does not attribute personhood to a fetus until the eighth month, does this meanthat seven or even sixth month fetuses are simple organisms? Hardly, as the charts show on pages52-54 and 62-65. Basic biology and human anatomy classes make it clear that by four weeks anembryo has a heart beat and by six weeks he has brain waves. Hardly a simple organism! Suchignorance about the basics of human development and such simplistic thinking in this regard isastounding, for such an otherwise intelligent person who proposes the right to annihilate any fetusesless than eighth month in development.Biological ComplexityWenz continues by arguing from the standpoint of biological complexity:“The current state of being is biologically much more primitive than that of birdsand mammals, which lack the right to life in our law, but do have a right to be freeof needless cruelty. Unlike birds and mammals, however, embryos cannot feel pain,as they have no central nervous system, making cruelty to them no more possible

83than cruelty of plants. These facts would not be altered by the development of anartificial placenta that enables embryos to develop into infants outside a human mother.As long as an embryo is still an embryo (has not yet developed further), its rights arethe same as those of other comparably simple organisms. In short, it has no rightsat all because its degree of biological complexity is similar to that of insects to whomwe ascribe no rights at all. In one respect, however, an embryo is like an eight notAn in-between case. But whereas an eighth month fetus clearly has all the rights ofa newborn (other things being equal), an embryo clearly has none of these rights.”65Wenz argues that fetuses less than eight months old are “biologically much more primitivethan that of birds and mammals.”66 This simply is not true unless what is meant is biologicalindependence. Most animals are biologically more independent than human beings. At birth, or closethereafter, most animals are able to walk, swim, or fly, whereas a newborn infant only lays therecrying for attention and food. Yet elephants and giraffes tend to their young for years. They are notindependent at birth.Wenz claims that the unborn cannot feel pain. This is not so. Refer to chapter IV where thisis countered.Since when did we ever make such biological independence the criterion of biologicalcomplexity?Is it legitimate to argue as Wenz does that a fetus should gain a right to life as its current stateof being resembles that of a newborn?In the Roe vs. Wade decision fetuses that were viable in that they could “live outside themother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid,”67 were in their general nature considered to be“substantially similar to a baby.”68 This shows that the Supreme Court used this argumentation ofsimilarity.One of the problems with such an argument is that as Supreme Court Justice Byron Whiteput it, “. . . medical practice and technology . . . are in essence morally and constitutionallyirrelevant.”69 Wenz admits that this makes the criterion used by the Supreme Court—viability—irrelevant. It is his proposal, therefore, to suggest a new criterion: the similarity of fetuses tonewborns. He believes that such a criterion, unlike the criterion of viability, is “immune totechnological change, and is morally and legally relevant.”70 Thus “eighth month fetuses normallyhave the rights of newborns, whereas zygotes and embryos do not.”71Wenz’s decision that eight months is the significant time when a fetus becomes a person andshould therefore be protected by our laws, is purely arbitrary. Is an eighth month fetus significantlydifferent from a fetus that is seven and a half or seven or six and a half or six months old? Suchquestions lead to the foolishness and absurdities that Wenz hoped to get away from. For he has comefull circle.

84In trying to ward off what he considered the absurdities of the pro-life movement, he endedup with the absurdities of the pro-death movement! No matter how much he may argue against this,he cannot successfully extract himself from such a judgment.Zygotes and embryos must have all the rights of infants because the developmental process isa continuum in which all cutoff points are arbitrary.Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop reasons:“The logical approach is to go back to the sperm and the egg. A sperm has 23chromosomes and though it is alive and can fertilize an egg it can never makeanother sperm. An egg also has 23 chromosomes and it can never make anotheregg. So we have eggs that cannot reproduce and we have sperm that cannotreproduce. Once there is the union of sperm and egg, and the 23 chromosomes ofeach are brought together into one cell that has 46 one cell with its 46 chromosomeshas all of the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), the whole genetic code that will, if notinterrupted, make a human being just like you with the potential for God-consciousness.I do not know anyone among my medical conferees, no matter how pro-abortion theymight be, who would kill a newborn baby the minute he was born. My question tomy pro-abortion friend who will not kill a newborn baby is this: ‘Would you kill thisinfant a minute before he was born, or a minute before that, or a minute before that,or a minute before that?’ . . . At what minute can one consider life to be worthlessand the next minute consider that same life to be precious?”72At what minute does a fetus become a person? Wenz claims at the eighth month. Butat what minute? Or at what hour? Or at what day? Or at what week? Are such questions silly? Not atall since human life is at stake.Where a person arbitrarily draws that line where somehow a nonperson fetus becomes aperson determines whether that fetus lives or dies.It should have become obvious by now, arbitrariness is the name of the game of the prodeathmovement!In this chapter we have seen the futility of trying to assess when a fetus becomes a person. Itall depended on whom you ask. Everyone differs? Why? Because there is no way to make such adetermination. The reason such a determination is impossible is because it is a contrived dilemma.The only answer that protects fully developed, is a human being (person) from the time ofconception. Any other answer is contrived.

85Biology and PersonhoodDo facts of biology have any bearing on the definition of personhood? The pro-deathmovement claims it does not. Why not? Can it be legitimately argued that the question of whenhuman life begins is a biological question? Can it therefore be claimed that to speak of a humanbeing with biological life being a person with rights is an unwarranted leap from science to moraljudgment since such a statement is based solely on biological facts?Greek DualismSince the time of Plato to the present, Western society has viewed man in a dualistic way.Greek dualism, not Hebrew unity, has ruled our society’s concept of man. For Plato, the body was“the prison house of the soul,” the unfit bearer of the soul. Thus Aristotle defined man as “a rationalanimal” in which the rational soul was infused in the body at the fortieth day for males and theninetieth day for females.Such thinking paved the way for Gnosticism, the most serious threat to the Early Church.This heresy, like Eastern religions and Eastern mysticism, bifurcated the world of the mind and thespirit as good and the world into the world of the mind and the spirit as good and the world of thematerial, earthly as evil. This means the physical body is evil since it belongs to the material, theearthly, and it sees the material world ultimately as an illusion. Redemption meant man being setfree from the evil body as it will one day be discarded.This dualistic distinction is prevalent in the mindset of the pro-death movement. JosephFletcher, the father of situation ethics, identifies rationality as the central criterion of personhood andargues that we cannot adequately understand the issue of abortion unless we are able to separatebiological life from personhood.The controversy over the timing of the infusion of the soul into the body shows this dualisticmind-set in the church. For this is assuming a dualistic framework which reflects Greek thoughtrather than the Hebrew thought of the world of the Bible.People who talk of "it's just the body" at funerals show this same Greek thought. The Judeo-Christian understanding is not that man is a soul or spirit and has a body, but that man is spirit, souland body or soul (including the spirit) and body.Biological life is an essential part of a person’s being. Even though the soul and the body arenot synonymous, there is not the radical separation that Greek thinking purports. The body is anintegral part of man rather than an accidental and temporary place of being.

86Biologically DeterminedSuch overwhelming biblical evidence of the sacredness of the body and the unity of man assoul and body should forever cure anyone of seeing biological life as relevant to a definition of thepersonhood of man. Once this is clearly seen the idea of development toward personhood becomesnonsensical. The facts of biology themselves determine humanness.This is why the issue of abortion is primarily a scientific, specifically a biological issue. Yetthe pro-death camp try to make it a religious issue; for by doing so, they can argue that the definitionand determination of humanness and personhood all depends upon one's religious viewpoint.In an interview published in Crisis (January, 1995), a neo-conservative journal of layCatholic opinion, leftist columnist Christopher Hitchens voices his opposition to abortion in spite ofhis liberal ideology. In fact, he calls for the reversal of Roe vs. Wade as he argues that feminists andhumanists must not allow their “woman’s right to choose” contradict humanism.Hitchens acknowledges that the “pro-life” forces are overwhelmingly female and frommiddle-income groups that traditionally voted Democratic. He rightly points out that “We don’thave bodies,” “We are bodies” and then he appeals to the theory of evolution to support his stanceas he believes evolution “establishes beyond reasonable doubt that life is a continuum that begins atconception because it can’t begin anywhere else.”73A fetus is a human being irrespective of religion! A fact is a fact!Unlike art, beauty is not always in the eye of the beholder. Human existence simply will notyield to human opinion or perception. It simply is.If not a Person, What?Joseph Fletcher argues, "An acorn is not an oak tree, even if it has sprouts; and no one in hisright mind would equate crushing an acorn with cutting down an oak tree."74 He also says that tosay that the potential is the actual is like saying a promise is its fulfillment or a blueprint is a house.As Paul Fowler points out, a sapling becoming an oak would be a more accurate analogythan an acorn since a sapling is living and growing like the zygote whereas an acorn is dormant.Also the analogy of the blueprint and house shows a mechanistic view of life since a promise is inthe realm of ideas and is only as real as the integrity of the one who promised.The mechanistic viewpoint is seen in that first comes the blueprint, then the foundation, thenthe walls, the windows and doors, and finally the house. Whereas a blueprint never becomes part ofa house, zygotes contain in themselves all that goes into the maturation of a human being. As JohnWilke, said, "In truth we did not come from a single cell. Rather, each of us once was a single cell;and all we have done since then has been to grow up."75

87A human being does not develop like a clock which is not fully a clock until, part by part, itis completed and is functioning. In fact, until that point, a clock is worthless. Thus Fletcher seems toview a human being as though he is not fully human until all the component parts are fully formingand functioning. The problem with this mechanistic view is that a human being is more than the sumtotal of his parts—organs plus muscles plus bones plus heart plus brain matter, etc.76Ethicist Robert Royce points out that there is a confusion of two kinds of potentiality: "thepotency to cause something to come into existence is improperly identified with the potency for thisnew being to become fully what it is."77 The sperm and the ovum are not potential life but as PaulFowler puts it, "potential causes of individual human life."78 Although they have the potential tocause an individual to come into existence, the zygote has the potential to become what it alreadyin essence is.This means "that there is no such thing as a potentially living organism. Every living thing isactual, with more or less potentiality."79 Therefore when we are looking at this issue of personhood,we are dealing with an actual person with potential, not a potential person.Dr. E. Blechschmidt argues for belief in the personhood of young fetuses:“A human being does not become a human being but rather is such from theinstant of fertilization. During the entire ontogenesis, no single break can bedemonstrated, either in the sense of a leap from the lifeless to the live, or of atransition from the vegetative to the instinctive or to characteristically humanbehavior. It may be considered today a fundamental law of human ontogenesis. . . that only the appearance of the individual being changes in thecourse of its ontogenesis.”80Wenz claims that such a claim is inconclusive. He says that this view is defended by a“fallacious form of reasoning” as it argues that the zygote is a person because the newborn is aperson, and the newborn develops from the zygote by a continuous process. He argues that this isfallacious “because according to our secular forms of reasoning, continuous processes of change canalter fundamentally what is undergoing change, so that what exists at the end is not the same sort ofbeing as existed at the beginning.”81 He then uses the acorn to illustrate this as it develops through acontinuous process into oak trees, and yet we do not conclude that “acorn” and “oak tree” aredifferent words for the same thing. Thus, Wenz argues, “the possibility of fundamental changecannot be ruled out in the case of the transition from fertilized ovum to newborn child.”82Contrary to what Wenz claims, gradual change does not produce a change in essence. In fact,his illustration is a case in point. The acorn that changes (develops or grows) into a tree is not achange in essence. Try to grow anything but an acorn and see if you end up with an oak tree.Blechshmidt similarly argues:

88“Why does a human ovum always results in a human being, while any other ovumalways results in another organism? For instance, no human being originates froma duck’s egg. The answer is because in each ovum the essence has already beenfixed; only the appearance changes in development. It is characteristic for everyontogenesis that only that develops which is essentially already there.”83 (Emphasis added)To argue as Wenz does that “what is present from the beginning in the fertilized ovum’sgenetic code may be the potentiality for the development of a person, not the essence ofpersonhood”84 is nonsense. If this were true, then there could be a change in essence, which no onehas been able to show.Even if it could be shown to be true in the case of other things, it would not necessarily betrue of human beings since they are unique to everything else in creation.Wenz goes on and argues that “those who agree completely on the scientific details ofontogenesis” (which they must if they are true scientists) may nevertheless “disagree about theessence of the newly fertilized egg.”85 Then again he hides behind “the religious argument” as hestates:“This is characteristic of disagreements about matters of fact in areas of religiousbelief. All relevant secular fact of science and common sense can be held incommon by people whose attitudes differ and who can justify their differentattitudes by appeal to ‘facts’ of some other kind. One ‘sees’ the essence ofpersonhood in the fertilized ovum, while the other ‘sees’ merely the potentialfor personhood.”86 (Emphasis added)Wenz then argues by identifying personhood with the presence of a human genetic codedrawn from medicine and science fiction. First he a argues from the standpoint of science fiction:“Consider, first, what I call the common sense of science fiction. Beings who lacka human genetic code are presented in science fiction as persons. They include atthe moment Mr. Spock, E.T., and Alf. Common sense accepts these characters aspersons, suggesting that, according to our normal concept, the essence of personhoodrests on what persons can do, not on what they are biochemically composedof. More specifically, the public acceptance of these characters as persons suggeststhat a human genetic code is not necessary for personhood.”87 (Emphasis added)This is absurd since Spock, E.T. and Alf are fictional characters!It is telling that Wenz uses science fiction since it is a precursor of what eventually becomesacceptable in society.While he may be correct in his analysis of the place of science fiction in society as he pointsto its utilitarian mentality seeing man purely in functional terms, what does that have to do withwhat is right and wrong? Science fiction more often than not shows us the most debased values ofsociety. Are those the values we should imitate?

89Wenz continues with his functional reasoning as he creates a false dichotomy betweennecessity and sufficiency. He does this by using the vegetative stage of a dying person:“The fetus has a human genetic code, and the issue is whether the presence ofthat code is sufficient, not whether it is necessary, the make the fetus a person.This is where people in a persistent vegetative state come in. They have afunctioning spinal cord and brain stem, but not a functioning cortex. Apartfrom fictional examples, cortical activity is (believed) necessary for all thedistinctively human abilities of thought, imagination, and will. So people in apersistent vegetative state, though they are alive and have a human geneticcode, lack all distinctively human abilities. If, as the science fiction casesshow, such abilities are sufficient for personhood, perhaps they are necessaryas well.”88He then points out that “the necessary of such abilities for personhood is implied in thetreatment of those in a persistent vegetative state” since “life-threatening infections and coronaryproblems that it would be literally criminal to leave untreated in patients with normally functioningbrains are often left untreated precisely so that the patient can be allowed to die.”89Wenz argues that few people are troubled by the fact that patients in a persistent vegetativestate are not accorded the right to life that normally accompanies personhood since they are left tostarve.He then compares fetuses to such vegetative patients because they are “similarly incapable ofthe activities that distinguish persons from others.”90 As he points out, “Despite their human geneticcode, they should be denied the status of personhood and the accompanying right to life.”91Wenz acknowledges the objections that “nothing is proven by the fact that few people aretroubled by common medical practices that violate the right to live of permanently vegetativeindividuals.”92 Indifference toward the lives of those in a persistent vegetative state should becondemned just as indifference toward fetal life should be condemned. Neither is proof of moralacceptability. If this were true, our treatment as a country of the Native Americans, the slaves beforethe Civil War and the mentally challenged, the Gypsies and the Jews of Nazi Germany would also beproof of moral acceptability since they also experienced widespread acceptability.He then acknowledges that “even if indifference were acceptable in the case of persistentvegetative individuals, the same would not follow for the fetus.”93 Why? Unlike the person in apersistent vegetative state whose state is sometimes permanent, the fetus’ lack of distinctive humanactivities is only temporary. The fetus only needs time to be allowed to develop and its activities willbe distinctively human. This means that a fetus is more like a person who is temporarily unconsciousthan one who is persistently vegetative. And since “we do not deny personhood and the right to lifeto the temporarily unconscious, we should not deny personhood and the right to life to thetemporarily immature.”94

90Wenz points out that critics of fetal personhood object to the analogy between young fetusesand normal, but unconscious, children and adults:“The latter have already engaged in characteristically human activities and are able,typically, to resume such activities at a moment’s notice. They are in whatAristotle calls the state of second potentiality. They have already developed anddisplayed their abilities, but happen not to be displaying them at the moment. Theyare like car mechanics who are not currently fixing cars. We call on car mechanicsin honor of the abilities that they have developed and displayed, ignoring the factthat they are temporarily asleep or on lunch break.”95He argues that, in contrast to children and adults, the young fetus has never displayed theabilities distinctive of human beings.According to Wenz, since the young fetus needs to develop further before it can act like aperson it should not have the rights associated with the state of being for which they are in a state offirst potentiality. This point is illustrated by the medical profession in that those who are not fullytrained as doctors may not act as doctors, even those who, because they could acquire such training,are in a state of first potentiality for a medical degree.This is a ludicrous analogy since the fetal potential for personhood is different from a youngperson’s potential for a medical degree. One has to do with the issue of life and the other the issue ofa career. For one, the young person does not have to become a physician to life. All kinds of careerpaths are possible. Conversely, the young fetus has no alternative but death to the development ofdistinctively human traits and activities.Secondly, become a physician has to do with one’s conscious choices of how ability, timeand energy is expended whereas the young fetus develops into “full” personhood automatically.Thus the potentiality is based, not on achievement, but on actuality as it flows naturally from thatactuality. Therefore the potentiality of a fetus is his actuality in that only time (if not interfered with)is required for his manifestation of that actuality.97Wenz then refers to Robert Joyce who argues, “the potential of a human conceptus to thinkand talk is an actuality.”98 He illustrates this with the statement, “A woman’s potential to give birthto a baby is an actuality that a man does not have.”99 Wenz then makes the point that such anillustration shows that potentiality and actuality are not the same thing.Although a woman’s uterus is a part of her actuality that underlies her potential for givingbirth, a uterus and a birth are different. Wenz reasons that an actuality that underlies a potentiality(as the uterus is an actuality that underlies the potential for giving birth) is different from theactuality that fulfills the potentiality (in this case, giving birth).

91Similarly he argues:“The genetic code is an actuality that underlies the young fetus’s potential forpersonhood, but for that very reason it is not the fulfillment or that potentiality.Furthermore, it is logically impossible for the same thing to be at the same timeand in the same respect both a potential and actual. So if the young fetus is apotential person, it cannot be at the same time and in the same respect an actualperson.”100There is no argument with that point. No one is saying that a young fetus’s potential forpersonhood is the same as his fulfillment of that potentiality. What is argued is that a person’sactuality determines how he will develop.For instance, a person with a uterus is defined as being of the female gender. Even if thatuterus does not function as it should in giving birth, which is part of its reason for existence, thisdoes not mean that she is not a female. It is not the defect but the actuality—the possession of auterus—that determines whether that person is a female rather than a male. In this sense potentialityis actuality.Similarly, a fetus is not a born baby. But a fetus is an unborn baby because he/she has theessential ingredients (DNA) of becoming a human being.Wenz operates by a functional model and therefore does not agree to such reasoning. Hetypically refers to “the current ability to engage in distinctively human pursuits.”101 He thencontinues to argue that in the eighth month (or at least in the twentieth week) fetuses qualify for lifebecause they are more functional. He understandably uses different times in determiningfunctionality in his book and thus illustrates the impossible effort in determining when a fetusbecomes a person if not at conception.To define living beings functionally rather than essentially is to reduce them to the sumtotal of their parts which brings all human beings to the bar of human evaluation as certain humanbeings (e.g. adults) stand in judgment of other human beings.In such a case who qualifies to play such a God-like role? The scientific/medical community?The legal community? The governmental/political community? The philosophical community? Thetheological/religious community?And who determines who qualifies? And who determines who is qualified to determine whois qualified, etc.?Wenz then points out the dilemma of deciding when a fetus becomes a person and concludesthat this is a religious question since people logically punch and counterpunch without anyagreement. And he likens it to debates about the existence of God. This is unwarranted since theabortion debate is clearly a biological/medical issue as a fetus is a biological creature that has the

92essential stuff of which human beings are made: DNA. To consign this to religion is a clever way tocircumvent the issue at hand and relegate it to the sacred doctrine of privacy which guarantees eachmother the decision to determine who live and who dies.Defining the fetus in terms of potentiality is key since values lie not in the potential ofsomething but in the actual possession of it, there is no reason to demand that someone who will oneday be a person must be treated as one now. This is why the pro-death movement feels justified inmurdering "merely potential human life."Such argumentation is a reminder of the statement, "She is a little bit pregnant." This is anuntenable position. Either a woman is or is not pregnant. The same is true of personhood. Either thatfetus is or is not a person.What exactly is a fetus? John Stott answers this as well as anyone:"The fetus is not a growth in the mother's body (which can be removed as readily asher tonsils or appendix), nor even a potential human being, but a human life who,though not yet mature, has the potentiality to grow into the fullness of thehumanity he already possesses."103 (Emphasis added)As early as the end of the second century Tertullian expressed the "already" and the "not yet"tension between what a person is and what a person will become:"He also is a man who is about to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed."104Lewis Smedes calls this tension "the deep ontological ambiguity—the ambiguity of not beingsomething yet and at the same time having the makings of what it will be.104 Scottish scientifictheologian Thomas Torrance has clarified this tension: "the potentiality concerned is not that ofbecoming something else but of becoming what it essentially is."105The Bible simply does not allow for a separation between those who are merely "biologicallyalive" and those who are fully "persons." The womb is holy ground because God is at work bringinga human life into increasing fullness of the humanity he already possesses. And this continues as heis born into this world until the day he dies.Size, age, development has nothing to do with the sacredness of life. A tiny, undevelopedunborn baby is as sacred as any large, older, fully developed person. Dr. Seuss, in his wonderfulfable, Horton Hears a Who, states the issue clearly:“. . . a person’s a person, no matter how small.”106

938. FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS

94THE BURDEN OF PROOFTo argue that abortion is permissible if we do not know exactly when the fetus becomes aliving soul in utero is fallacious. If a hunter is out looking for deer and sees something movingamong the trees, he won't think it's either a deer or a human being and shoot. It's up to him to be sureit's a deer before he shoots, or he'll end up in court for manslaughter.Isn't it logical that if we don't know exactly when a fetus becomes a living soul, a humanbeing, we have no right to terminate its life on the assumption that it may not be human yet? Theburden of proof is upon the abortionists to show clearly and unequivocally that a fetus is not ahuman being. Such a feat has not been demonstrated.With our increasing medical technology such a position is not only evil, but alsointellectually bankrupt.Abortion then strikes at the very heart of civilization. When the battle for life is lost in thisarena, all other life-related arenas come up for grabs.However, it is not the physical fact of the genetic uniqueness of human fetal tissue thatmakes abortion questionable, for the same uniqueness prevails in the animal world. Rather, the issueis that human fetal tissue, left unmolested, will develop into a more mature human being. Thereis something about a human being that demands an attitude of reverential respect for his life andconcern for his wellbeing.BIOLOGICAL ARGUMENTIs the fetus just another organ in the mother’s body? Such a belief is a speciousrationalization that is woefully short on reasoning logic. The answer should be obvious to anyone.A woman can be a whole woman, complete with all her parts and organs, before she becomespregnant. In the case of a fetus in the womb, this is not the case since it is the body of the mother thatcontributes to the functioning and well-being of the baby.What also seems often to be a forgotten fact is that the father also has a part—as vital as the motherinitially—in her pregnancy.ETHICAL ARGUMENTSA Violation of the Law of LoveAbortion is a violation of the Christian teaching on love. Love, said Jesus, "is thefulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:10). Love capsulizes the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22).Loving our neighbor—fellow human being—is the second commandment that summarizes the lawand the prophets (Matthew 19:18-19; Romans 13:8-10).

95As Christians we are exhorted to live a life of love:"Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love,just as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us as a fragrant offering andsacrifice to God" (Ephesians 5:1-2).Abortion runs counter to anything called "sacrifice." Therefore it runs counter to love whichis by nature sacrificial. The love that Jesus propagates knows no boundaries:"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,that you may be sons of your Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:43-45).The kind of love Jesus talks about goes beyond our natural, selfish inclinations. Instead oflove being situational as proposed by Joseph Fletcher in his "situation ethics" in which we are to dowhat love demands in a given situation which may not be what the Bible commands, love fulfills thelaw by obeying it. This is why Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will obey what I command" (John14:15).Thus love and law are not opposites.Living by the law of love not only means that we dare not maliciously and chillingly("surgically") destroy life, but we must defend, safeguard and preserve it even if it means sacrificeto ourselves.Man then is not man because of what he does or what he accomplishes. He is man becauseGod made him. Though the little child engages in only a limited range of human activities, Jesusused him as the model for the Kingdom (Matthew 18:1-6; 19:13-15), evidently because, as one ofthe "weak things of this world that confound the wise," he illustrates God's grace rather than humanworks or merit.Potentiality vs. ActualityAs we have already seen, various ethical arguments have been set forth to justify abortion.One of those is potentiality versus actuality. While we have partially looked at this already, a fewmore thoughts may be helpful.On what basis can anyone make the ethical distinction between the prevention of life that iscoming into being and the killing of life that has come into being?A potential human being, it would seem, is not an actual human being. If we are going torefer to a fetus as a potential human being then potentiality is not unique to the fetus. What about anewborn baby? What about a boy on his way to kindergarten? What about the medical student whojust received his M.D.? Are these all fully actualized human beings?

96In the way that the word “potential” is being used, potential humanity is the best any of uscan claim. Where is the line to be drawn? Does a fetus, at some miraculous moment, spring fromsheer potentiality to fulfillment of his actual humanity? We do not know. But we do know thatwhen we abort a fetus we are destroying what no one has demonstrated to be a mere thing.Since human life is a continuum, a constant mixture of potentiality and actuality, ought we not toassume that this combination is present from its conception—unless it can be proven otherwise?If it cannot be proven otherwise, have we a right to destroy what we must assume to be ahuman life?We are all potential human beings in the process of becoming what we are called to be.Nothing that is not human life has the potential of becoming human life, and nothing that has thepotential of becoming human life is not human life. This is so because only what is human canbecome human, if we will let it be.Self-ConsciousnessA further word on the issue of self-consciousness that was partly dealt with in the previouschapter on PERSONHOOD (chapter VII). Some argue that abortion is justified on the basis that thephenomena of self-consciousness—that rational, ethical, and religious experience of the human"I"—are not in evidence prior to birth; but to say they do not exist, even in the earliest stages of fetaldevelopment, is to say more than we know.A person who is sleeping or unconscious continues to be regarded as a person though hegives no express evidence of it. So it is with the fetus. We do not judge that a person who is in acoma has ceased to be a person.If we have doubts about terminating the life of one who has lost the ability to live and act as ahuman subject because he may still be a human subject, should we not hesitate just as much toterminate the life of one who does not yet have the ability to live and act as a human subject? Infact, it would seem that ability lost, thus a "human vegetable" can make less claim to respect andreverence than ability in prospect, the human fetus.The dynamic and unpredictable way that physical and spiritual life waxes and wanes betweenpotentiality and actuality suggests a continuous line of humanity leading back to the moment ofconception. Any other conclusion hardly can be proven.VisibilityPerhaps the crucial difference between a fetus and a child after birth is its visibility—andtherefore a difference primarily in the eyes and heart of the beholder. Since we cannot see a fetusand hold it in our arms, we do not feel the same way about a fetus that we do about a visible child.Especially in the early stages, a pregnant woman can abort a child without ever sensing that it is real,her own real child.

97Isn't abortion then in a class with our feelings about the death of a Chinese peasant, old andfeeble, away off in some obscure village, in the remote interior of China? We don't feel moved,offended, hurt, and bereaved by his death; but our feelings have nothing at all to do with his right tolife.LEGAL PROTECTIONExodus 21:22-25 is a passage that is often found among a number of legal procedures givenfor the early Hebrew society."If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurelybut there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman'shusband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury you are totake life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burnfor burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."This particular statute refers to an induced abortion resulting when a pregnant women isinjured when she gets into the way of men in a fight with each other. If a miscarriage withoutserious consequences follows the woman's involvement, the one who caused the injury had only topay a fine determined by the woman's husband and the courts. However, if serious harm occurs,then a harsher penalty must be extracted, corresponding to the severity of the injury.The question is: To whom does the harm apply? Some translators may lead us to theconclusion that only the woman is considered because they translate the literal expression "so thather fruit depart" as "miscarriage." Most translations, including the New International Version,translate this "premature birth." Old Testament scholars Keil and Delitzch forcefully argue that theword "fruit" in Hebrew clearly means "child." Any other interpretation, they argue, is arbitrary.The meaning of this passage then is that if a pregnant woman is injured during a fightbetween others to the extent that she goes into labor prematurely and gives birth to a sound baby,then only a fine is to be levied against the perpetrator. However, if the injury causes permanentdamage, either to the mother or her premature child, a punishment fitting the severity of the injuryshall be extracted. If the mother or baby dies, the perpetrator must forfeit his life.Thus the fetus is accorded all the legal protection for life and limb in God's law that the adulthad. He had life that could not be taken from him without a just penalty.The distinctions that our so-called "progressive" society makes between the killing of anunborn baby and one that has already been born is eradicated by this ancient law of God for theHebrew nation. God has always asked that His people recognize the right of, care for, defend, andhelp the poor, the innocent and the defenseless. Who has any less defense or rights than the unborn?Who is any more innocent? Who is the most vulnerable of all?

98Those who argue that we should not "impose" our "morality" on others are ignorant of thefact that all laws impose a morality of one kind or another. Laws against child abuse, drug abuse,stealing, bigamous marriages, etc. impose a morality on those who desire to do these acts. In thesame way laws allowing abortion impose their "morality" on unborn human beings.Lewis Smedes lists five arguments in favor of abortion and then perceptively points out theirfallacies:A pluralistic society should not prevent individuals from doing what their religiousprinciples allow.A free society should not invade the privacy of a woman's body.A just society should not pass laws whose execution inevitably creates unfairness.A merciful society should not make laws that force terrible handicaps on children.A wise society will not pass laws that it cannot, and perhaps does not have thewill to enforce.1Smedes concedes that these arguments are good as long as one accepts the all-importantpresumption that a fetus is definitely not a human being and therefore not entitled to protectionagainst the assault on its life. If, however, one believes a fetus is a human being, or at least deservesto be given the legal status of a human being, "none of the arguments is convincing."61 He puts it:"A pluralistic society does not allow people to follow their consciences if theirconsciences lead them to kill an innocent human being.A free society will invade a person's privacy if it is certain that she is privately aboutto kill an innocent human being.A just society may well pass laws whose execution leads to unfairness to some peopleif not to pass them causes a greater unfairness, the killing of innocent human beings.A merciful society may well make laws that burden children if not to make themencourages the killing of innocent, unborn children.A wise society may well make laws it does not have the will to enforce if not to passthem makes killing human beings legal.In sum, all of the arguments are based on what good a society will or will not do fail at thefrontier of the rights of a fetus to live.2

99PRACTICAL ARGUMENTS“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant membersis to kill it.”3--Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood of AmericaAs mentioned earlier, in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision of the Supreme Court,Justice Harry Blackmun introduced the concept of "useful life." The argument introduced was that toend a life that is not "useful" may not only be permissible but actually mandatory for the ethicallysensitive person. The key issue is said to be the "quality of life," not the "sanctity of life."Such logic is evidence of the devolution from naturalism which viewed man as a mereanimal to humanism which made man's autonomous reason the sole basis for value judgments toduty-to-self ethic which puts the individual's self-interest at the top of all values.4It was only a short step then to see abortion in terms of the self-interest of the mother as theonly reasonable choice when "rights" become an issue.Once the notion of "quality of life" is accepted, the life of human beings in general are ingrave danger. Why? Because such a utilitarian consideration and subjective determination open upthe dyke for any and every nonsensical argument. This we have already witnessed as euthanasia andthe killing of older people ("letting them die") have become topics for heated discussion.One of the most ominous court decisions of this century, and perhaps, as some constitutionalscholars have pointed out, the most important ruling in the history of the Supreme Court decisions ofthis century, and perhaps, as some constitutional scholars have pointed out, the most importantruling in the history of the Supreme Court, was the Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision of 1992.Why is this so? Although it was ruled in the Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973 that majority of thejustices ruled in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey guaranteed within the 14 th Amendment?5This decision made the right to abortion concrete. When such a right is judged to be“explicit” within the Constitution, it is extremely difficult to ever overturn. This means that for allpractical purposes only a constitutional amendment could protect.Another implication of the Casey decision is that as Americans we now have the right tomake our own rules, to decide individually what is right and wrong under the law.6 By abandoningthe historic concept of “natural law” which assumes there is a Law-Giver (God) who has given amoral framework on which all our statues are based, we are now free to choose.Thomas Jefferson assumed a divine presence and absolute truth in the Declaration ofIndependence when he wrote that we as human beings are “endowed by their Creator with certainunalienable Rights . . .” Since July 4, 1776 it was believed that human dignity and equal protectionunder the law were gifts from the Creator, but with this decision it becomes clear that such rights areto be determined by man—our government or some other human institution.

100Supreme Court Justices O’ Connor, Kennedy and Souter tragically wrote in the Caseydecision: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, ofthe universe, and of the mystery of human life.”7This is in stark contrast to this nation’s historic acknowledgement of God as Creator andLaw-Giver.Such a decision is unprecedented. Chuck Colson, President of Prison Fellowship, has perceptpointed out:“In other words now it’s nobody’s business but yours if you want to put a gun to yourhead. With Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the Supreme Court opened a Pandora’sBox, something Justice Antonin Scalia recognized in his dissent. Scalia warned,‘Liberty defined under Casey, could include ‘homosexual sodomy, polygamy, adultincest and suicide.’Scalia was being optimistic. Theoretically, under Casey, a citizen could marry histoaster if he wanted to. There’s no limit to what someone could deem essential tohis personal sense of ‘dignity’ and ‘autonomy.’ That is why Casey is a recipe forchaos.It effectively tells people that they have a right to shake their fist at the law andsay, don’t tell me what to do. As Catholic University’s Russell Hittenger put it,“Casey granted citizens a “private franchise over matters of life and death.’We need to help our neighbors understand why Casey decision has taken us farbeyond the issue of abortion. With this ruling the Supreme Court has created ajudicial Tyrannosaurus Rexone that threatens to consume our very ability togovern ourselves.”8The slippery slope argument that used to be disdained is now in full operation. Euthanasia isaround the corner as several cases are presently being tried in the courts. It will not be long beforewe join the Netherlands where 2,300 people die every year with the assistance of a doctor.9 In fact,the Dutch Supreme Court has ruled that a doctor may assist in the suicide of a patient even if such apatient is not suffering physical pain, much less terminal illness.10 Furthermore one physician wasacquitted after assisting in the death of a woman who wasn’t even ill.11 Is it any wonder that lastyear a physician in the Netherlands was acquitted after killing a spina bifida infant at the patient’srequest?12It is estimated that as many as 1,000 Dutch citizens die each year of “involuntary euthanasia”at the hands of their physicians.13 This means that the doctor can kill a patient on his own initiativeor at the request of a family member.The Mental Health of a MotherThere is a definite emotional cost in having an abortion. The following is the testimony of awoman who shares her anguish and guilt from having an abortion:

101“I am angry at Billy Jean King and Gloria Steinem and every woman who ever had anabortion and didn’t tell me about this kind of pain. There is a conspiracy among thesisterhood not to tell each other about guilt and self-hatred and terror. Having anabortion is not like having a wart removed or your nails done or your hair cut, andanyone who tells you it is a liar or worse. To decide to have an abortion is to makea life-and-death decision. A part of me is dying too.”14Judith Fogel as a psychiatrist-obstetrician performed many abortions and she has testified:“I think every woman . . . has a trauma at destroying a pregnancy . . . she is destroyingherself . . . a psychological price is paid . . . it may be alienation, it may be a pushingaway from human warmth, perhaps a hardening of the maternal instinct. Somethinghappens on the deepest level of a woman’s consciousness when she destroys apregnancy. I know that as a psychiatrist.”15While at the conscious level women who have had abortions may show only a relatively milddegree of anxiety and depression, at the unconscious level there is often quilt, remorse, and sadnessas mothers know instinctively that they have taken the life of their baby.Helmut Thielicke says concerning the gift of human life:“The status of parenthood means that the ‘office’ of fatherhood and motherhood hasbeen entrusted to the parents and they are now enclosed in that circle of duties whichobligates them to preserve that which has been committed to them, but also endowedwith a blessing which is to be received in gratitude and trust—even though it may bea gratitude expressed with trembling and a trust that is won through struggles.”16The question here is not whether a proffered gift can be responsibly accepted, but ratherwhether an already-bestowed gift can be spurned, that is, whether one dares to brush aside the arm ofGod after this arm has been outstretched.Mother Teresa speaks to the arrogance of terminating human life and thus playing God:“. . . only God can decide life and death . . . That is why abortion is such a terrible sin.You are not only killing life, but putting self before God; yet people decide who hasto live and who has to die. They want to take the power of God in their own hands.They want to say, ‘I can do without God, I can decide.’ That is the most devilish thingthat a human can do . . .”17 (Emphasis added).

102Economic & Social Well-BeingEven though adoption is an option, an abortion seems quicker and easier since the family’sreaction maybe e hostile and since pregnancy counselors typically encourage abortion. Abortionalso serves face since pregnancy involves nine months of carrying a baby, and even in our sexuallyliberated generation, pregnancy out of wedlock is still accompanied to some extent by social stigma.Abortion takes care of such thoughts as “How am I going to tell my parents?” “This will be toopainful for my parents.” “If I keep the baby for adoption, everyone will know.” “What will myfriends think?”Abortion also saves a mother from what she considers bad results. Many reasons, “I don’twant this man to be my child’s father. If I abort now I can marry the right man and have childrenwith him.” After all, shouldn’t we have children with people we love and respect? The answer is:Shouldn’t we have sex with people we love and respect?Discrimination Against the PoorSome have argued that a law against abortion would discriminate against the poor. Afterall, rich people will always be able to get an abortion, even if it is illegal. Also, the rich are betterable to care for unplanned children.Does it make sense to argue that the superior ability of one class of people to break a lawshould determine whether we should have such a law? This makes as much sense as to argue thatsince professional accountants are more likely to get away with tax evasion then tax laws should berepealed since they discriminate against those who are not accountants.It is foolish to refuse to protect the unborn because some wealthy people may get an abortionanyway.Too often such “social justice” arguments show a certain aspect of contempt for the poor.And since African-Americans in general are poorer than whites, it also contains a certain hint ofracism. On what basis? Because the implicit point of the argument is that poor people should haveabortions because they are not capable of making sacrifices and maintaining strong families.Many people have expressed satisfaction that poor women who have abortions helps toreduce the welfare costs. Racists also take pleasure that since African-Americans and Hispanics aregenerally poorer than whites, abortions reduce our African-American and Hispanics are still greaterthan the white population. Without the abortions, of course, that disparity would be even greater).Thus some who pretend to be friends of the poor are anything but, rather in their argumentthey betray their contempt and thus their feelings of superiority.Many who think of themselves as being rich are much poorer than what we consider as beingpoor. Poor people in general seems to have a clearer perspective on what constitutes a life worthliving.

103It is ironic that so many people who claim to speak for the poor have no idea how the poorreally live and what they really think. Too often the war on poverty has become a war against thepoor.Since the dawn of human history, the way to reduce poverty is to reduce the number of poorpeople.Since we dare not kill grown people, the pest next thing is to cut off future poverty by killingthe unborn of poor people.”Doctors, hardly known for their poverty, thus “surrender their vocation to healing andbecome servants of the industry of death.”18People Will Do It AnywayThere are people who support abortion based upon the argument, “If people are going to dosomething anyway, it should be legal.” This philosophy is a surrender to the lowest commondenominator. This means that behavior determines which laws are moral or immoral, and not theother way around.Many say that abortion should be legal because it has “always been around.” If suchreasoning is legitimate, then it could as easily be argued that since assault, theft, perjury, child abuse,misuse of drugs, rape, murder, etc. have always been around that they also should be legalized toprevent their being done in secret. In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis remarked: “The moral law isas hard as nails. It demands that you do the right thing, and it does not seem to care howdifficult, dangerous or painful that might be.”19Since when were laws and principles made for times when they are easy to obey? Rather,they are made for “the times when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigor.” 20 The morallaw is not subject to majority opinion. The fact that a large number of people choose to violate aprinciple as basic as the respect for people choose to violate a principle as basic as the respect for thedevelopment of human life in no way legitimizes the legalization of such murderous disrespect asabortion.The Mental Health of the Mother“Abortion has a painful aftermath, regardless of the woman’s religious beliefs,or how positive she may have felt beforehand about her decision to abort.”21--Vincent Rue, PsychologistThose who hail the mental health of the mother as a reason for abortion fail to realize thatdetermining with certainty that a mental condition requires an abortion is extremely difficult, or thatthe operation actually will relieve the mental condition. Furthermore studies show approximatelythe same percentage of women requiring mental health services for guilt feelings following abortionas those who carry through an unwanted pregnancy

104A five-year study shows that 25% of women who have had abortions sought out psychiatriccare, versus just 3% of women who have not had abortion.22 Furthermore, numerous studies revealthat women who have had an abortion experience a high incident of depression, stress, low selfesteem,suicidal feelings, and substance abuse.23 Thus in saving babies from abortion mothers arealso being emotionally and mentally saved.Many proponents for liberalizing abortion laws cite unwanted pregnancies (often due toeconomic and social reasons), deformity and suffering and therefore unhappiness of the offspringas justification for abortionThis argument is specious for it cannot be justified to deprive a human being of his right tolife on the ground that, in someone else's opinion, the amount of happiness he is likely to endure inliving will probably be greater than the amount of unhappiness. No human being has the right tomake any such judgment about another human being. Even if one had the right, making a correctdecision never could be guaranteed. Furthermore, suffering cannot be equated withunhappiness, as though the two were equivalent.Rape & IncestMost people in U. S., including many evangelicals, believe that rape and incest are legitimatereasons for a mother to abort her unborn baby. In the first place, pregnancy resulting from rape isextremely rare (ca. 06%).24 While no one can deny that rape and incest are horrible, traumaticexperiences, that in no way legitimizes abortion. Is the solution for one wrong to be corrected byanother wrong? Is one act of violence to be solved by the committal of another act of violence?Rape followed by pregnancy followed by abortion leaves us with three victims: the womanwho was traumatized initially by the rape; the unborn child who is traumatized as he is killed by theabortion; and, for the second time, the woman who is traumatized by her decision and act of havingan abortion.Abortion is an extremely violent act. Anyone familiar with its methods know the physicalviolence that is done to the unborn baby. We also know that physically, abortion is a health risk tothe mother, especially if she is a teenager. Abortions result in incompetent cervixes, infections, orother complications that may keep them from ever bearing children again.25How can the fact that intercourse that took place outside of the marriage relationship, nomatter how horrifying, be used as the moral basis for justifying killing the unborn? Such reasoningwould lead us to believe that only those babies conceived in a marriage relationship are sacred. Ifso, should all babies conceived outside marriage (80% of all abortions) be aborted? If not, why not?In the case of rape or incest most argue that an unwanted child should not be born.Sociologists reason that an unwanted child will most likely suffer psychological damage. Thereforethe solution—"the most loving thing to do"—is that every unwanted child should be aborted.

105To reason that love is more compatible with the taking of another person's life than withletting it live is breathtaking. Since it is crystal clear that the fetus is a human being, by the samekind of logic we could reason concerning the already born child, "No parent should be forced to rearan unwanted child."Before the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalized abortion many advocates for abortionargued that unwanted children will more likely be abused. Yet during the first decade following thatdecision, even though 15 million unwanted children were aborted, child abuse climbed nearly 400%.In fact, one study showed that 90% of battered children came from planned pregnancies.The naked truth is that abortion is the ultimate child abuse as its violence against the unborncreates an atmosphere in which violence to the already born is less abhorrent.32 There are many whosee this issue as a case of the lesser of two evils. They argue that while they see abortion as an evil,in the case of an unwanted baby, having it is an even greater evil.What strange logic to argue that the consignment of death to a human being is less than thepossible consignment of being unwanted and thus unhappy. Death leaves no possibility forhappiness whereas life, even a difficult life, does. Also, since when has God appointed anyone elseto choose such an arbitrary decision for the unborn baby?If we are to use such an arbitrary standard for whether a human being should live or die, wewould end up with a very small population since a majority number of people—young and old—feelanything but wanted.Is the child of rape or incest any less a person just because the "father" happens to be animmoral, depraved human being? There have been numerous healthy and productive people born towomen who were raped. A case in point would be Ethel Waters whose African-American mother atthe age of twelve was raped by a white boy. Even though Ethel's life was anything but easy, she wasmarvelously used by God as she touched millions through her singing in the Billy Graham crusades.Even where there is not a happy ending, such as in the case of Ethel Waters, that has nothingto do with whether abortion is justified in such cases. The crucial issue is whether the unborn arehuman beings!To sacrifice a human being for the mental and emotional torture of another eludes logic.Abortion for rape and incest hardly makes sense in that it is the unborn baby that is executed,not the attacker. What semblance of justice is this? Both victims—the mother and the baby—areeither violated or killed while the attacker typically gets away with murder!The answer for the mother to the pain of going through a traumatic pregnancy is not abortion,but seeking help so she may even grow in love for the human being developing inside her. Manyunwanted children, upon birth, become very much wanted. But if the mother is unable to get to thatpoint of wanting the baby and providing love and nurture, there is a long list of people who wish toadopt, whose slogan is, "There are no unwanted children, only misplaced ones."26

106In her book, Who Broke The Baby? Jean Garton correctly points out that the statement, "Achild is unwanted," says absolutely nothing about the child. It merely reflects the state of the mind ofthe mother and possibly others. It is very much like the phrase "an illegitimate child."27 The fact is,it is not the child who is illegitimate, it is the parents who are illegitimate.Economic & Social Well-Being“Just to be is a blessing; just to live is holy.”28--Rabbi Abraham HeschelThe most trivial reason for violating the right to life of another human being is economic andsocial well-being. In all probability, this is the most common reason for abortion. The profile of thepro-death activist is the following: well-educated, well-off financially, non-religious, white, andworks outside the home (94% of the women).The desire for an affluent lifestyle and the freedom from the limitations of parenting are themain driving forces behind the pro-death movement. In third world countries, however, the drivingforce is the alleviation of poverty rather than affluence. The irony, however, is that it is not the poorpeople who are the primary abortion activists. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, India, whose life is givento the poor, sees abortion not as a solution to poverty, but the greatest kind of poverty—the povertyof soul:"It is a very, very great poverty to decide that a child must die that you may live asyou wish."29A woman’s happiness ahead of her children’s life! This is the quintessence of selfishness andself-centeredness!The Right to Choose: The God of United StatesIf choice—a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body—is really the issue,why are not pro-abortionists lobbying for a woman to have the right to be a prostitute? Why are not“pro-choicers” yelling and screaming for women to have the right to use crack cocaine?Clearly they don’t feel Klux Klan or anti-Semite have “right to pro-choice in expressing andacting on their” principles.Why are not advocates of choice aggressively lobbying to have similar law as that restrict theright of women to choose what to do with their bodies eradicated just as much as laws limitingabortion? What happened t this dedication to choice in those cases? Why are pro-abortionists soextremely selective?Why is it that the people who claim to be so concerned with “choice” are so mute inproviding choices that are available to pregnant women in addition to abortion?

107There are many people, including people who consider themselves evangelicals and RomanCatholics, who reason, "Although I am personally opposed to abortion, I must support the right ofothers to choose abortion since we live in a free country. After all, I have no right to impose myreligious and/or moral convictions on others."Is the ability to choose the highest virtue? Is abortion an issue of privacy? Is abortion rightsanother way of protecting privacy against the encroachment of government?Freedom! Abortion is a manifestation of freedom! Paul Fowler shares that when heparticipated in a panel discussion on abortion, a message was secretly attached to his table whichread:What the world needs:1. More fun;2. More sex;3. More contraception;4. More sex education;5. More wanted babies;6. Fewer abortions (but because of 3-5);7. Fewer moral bigots telling women how to run their lives;8. Fewer mouths to feed;9. And a lot of other thins you folks find offensive;10. You to leave us alone.30Freedom without boundaries! Man is a law unto himself. He therefore determines the ethicalnorms since there are no absolute norms. These same people who argue that there are no absolutesdo believe in at least one absolute, that is, FREEDOM.Number 7 says that what this world needs is "fewer moral bigots telling women how to runtheir lives." But does this world need "immoral bigots" who arbitrarily decide who lives and whodies?The statement, "While I personally am opposed to abortion, I support others with the right tochoose abortion" makes as much sense as saying, "I am personally opposed to shooting at passingcars, but I support the right of others to choose to do so."Can government afford to grant "freedom of choice" where fundamental principles of justiceare involved? Obviously not! This is true whether we are talking about primary issues such as lifeand death or secondary issues such as taxation. How long could our government function if weallowed people to choose whether they wanted to pay taxes or not? What would happen to ourstreets and highways if people were free to choose to drive any way they preferred? How long wouldwe live in relative safety if our government no longer insisted that people do not have the right tosteal, rape, and murder?

108Freedom of choice dare not mean the justification to take what does not belong to us whetherit is in the form of possessions or innocent human life.The choice a couple have was made in the bedroom. After that choice, both partners mustresponsibly live with the consequences of that choice.The argument that we have no right to impose moral restraints flies in the face of civilizedgovernment. One person's freedom cannot infringe on the freedom of others. By definition, theright to life is fundamental to all other freedoms. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness becomenonsensical categories if there is no life. Life underlies and sustains every other right.There is no greater oppression than the claim of one person to decide whether or not anothershall be given the right to live. As Harold Brown put it:"Freedom of choice has all the boldness and simplicity of a totalitarian final solution."31Freedom of choice must be subject to limitations arising from society's obligations to protectand defend human life.THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONWhat is the right course of action when a mother's life is at stake? In the first place, thisfetus-life versus mother-life is virtually a moot issue since this dilemma is extraordinarily rare. Yetthe vast majority of abortions-on-demand are done under this "therapeutic" umbrella as over 95% ofall abortions are labeled such. Protestantism, unlike Roman Catholicism, has historically justified the"tragic moral choice" of the life of the unborn when a continued pregnancy would put the life of themother in jeopardy.Is therapeutic abortion justified? It is commonly pleaded that therapeutic abortion ismotivated by a lofty purpose, that of saving the life of a belabored mother. The plea, however,proves to be a specious one. For an action that is evil by its very nature cannot be divested of itsevil by any amount of good intentions. To say, "I do not mean to kill the child, I merely want to savethe mother," does not in the least acquit therapeutic abortion of its specific character of being a directkilling. The end does not justify the means.Unjust AggressorMany attempt to justify abortion by pleading that, in extreme cases when the only way tosave the mother's life is to terminate pregnancy, such a course would be permissible on the groundsthat the fetus is a materially unjust aggressor. This argument is unsound for the child is making noattempt upon its mother's life; it is only in the process of being born, and it is only by a naturalconcourse of circumstances that this effort becomes a cause of death to the mother. The child,therefore, is not an aggressor, and much less an unjust aggressor.

109Conflict of RightsThe principle of the conflict of rights is another argument used to justify therapeuticabortion. The mother, it is claimed, has the prior and stronger right to life; therefore, when bothcannot be saved the fetus should be sacrificed. Here, however, the question is not one of a conflict ofrights. Rather the question of two innocent human beings with each one having an equal and cleartitle to life. They say that when faced with two evils, the doctor must choose the lesser, for it is alesser evil to sacrifice the child than to have both mother and child die. This plea amounts to theerroneous belief that it is a lesser evil to murder one person than to permit the deaths of twopersons.The only time where "abortion" is justified is in situations prior to viability when apregnancy-related condition precludes the child's survival within the womb, such as with an ectopicpregnancy. In such an extremely rare occasion the only moral option open to the doctor at that pointis to save the mother or lose both mother and child.Certainly the moral evil of murdering the fetus is far greater than the mere physical evilinvolved in the unavoidable death of both mother and child. Trying to save the life of both motherand child is the only moral alternative a doctor has.32 Once the principle of the sanctity of life isabandoned, there can be no criterion of the right to life, except that of personal taste.THE SHAMEFUL SILENCE OF PROTESTANTISMEvangelical Dilemma: Forked Tongue“Not only for every word but for every idle silence must man render an account.”33--Saint Ambrose“Evangelicals are a lot like jellyfish. They float with the tides. They do not directtheir own course. Sometimes the current of the sea beaches them. Then they meltin the sun on the sand. Later they disappear altogether. The jelly dries and notrace is left. The tide goes out, the wind moans softly and no one notices.”34--Francis SchaefferEvangelicals, who claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, have spoken withforked tongue on this most crucial issue. In 1845 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Churchin the United States summed up the consensus of all the churches:“[We regard] the destruction by parents of their own offspring, before birth, withabhorrence, as a crime against God and against nature; and as the frequency ofsuch murders can no longer be concealed, we hereby warn those that are guiltyof this crime that, except they repent, they cannot inherit eternal life.”35What new evidence has been marshaled that justifies the abandonment of that positionamong Protestant denominations?

110Theologian Carl Henry, for many years the dean of evangelical theologians in U.S., whosebook An Uneasy Conscience of Fundamentalism propelled a renewed concern among evangelicalsfor the social dimension of the gospel of Christ. Although his concern for the poor, the active pursuitof peace in the world, and the sanctity of life have been welcomed by the pro-life movement,nevertheless he finds himself caught by a less than absolute ("absolutist") position on this subject.Even though he calls abortion-on-demand "the most horrendous in-justice" of this generation and"the ready sacrifice of fetal life as a means of sexual gratification and of birth control is monstrous,"yet goes on to say:"When childbirth would endanger the mother's life abortion can be morallyjustifiable. The fetus seems less than human, moreover, in cases of extremedeformity in which rational and moral capacities integral to the imago Dei areclearly lacking. The scriptural correlation of sexual intercourse with marriageand the family, furthermore, implies an ethical basis for voluntary abortion incases of incest and rape."36 (Emphasis added)This statement leaves open the possibility of aborting not only the unborn but alsohandicapped children. To what extent should a child measure up to "the rational and moral"standards to qualify for the imago dei?Ethicist Lewis Smedes whose balanced writings on moral ambiguities in ethics has enhancedevangelicals in their ethical decision-making, like Carl Henry, fudges on abortion. Even though hecalls the unborn fetus "a sacred person among all other valuable living creatures"37 he confuses theissue of personhood by talking about "the sacredness of persons"38 rather than "the sanctity of life"and wants to be known as being "pro-person" rather than "pro-life":"We are inclined to think of becoming a person as a process. But the hypothesisthat the fetus gradually develops into the fullness of what a person is deprivesus of clear-cut positions and certain absolutes. We eliminate the absoluteanti-abortionism of people who believe a fetus is a person the instant an eggis fertilized. We eliminate the absolutism of pro-abortionists who believe thata fetus becomes a person only after it is born. The premise that fetal life isperson-becoming life imposes on us the moral burden of protecting fetal life;we will be anti-abortion as a state of mind."39Smedes along with other evangelicals such as Henry makes the false distinction betweenperson and human life. They see the developing human life not quite as a person. It is the ambiguityof not being something yet and at the same time having the markings of what it will be. They view afetus as "only potential" life which means to them that it is not yet a person. Their argument is in linewith Joseph Fletcher who argues, “An acorn is not an oak tree, even if it has sprouts; and no one inhis right mind would equate crushing an acorn with cutting down an oak tree.”40 This argument hasalready been addressed in the chapter on PERSONHOOD (chapter 7).

111Such argumentation reminds me of the statement, “She is a little bit pregnant.” This is anuntenable position. Either a woman is or is not pregnant. The same is true of personhood. Either thatfetus is or is not a person.Smedes, along with evangelicalism as a whole, falls into the ditch of assigning himself asjudge and jury as he argues that we have to make the decision as to whether "a sacred person isactually present in the life that is in my hands."41Since when were we as fellow human beings given that arrogant decision? And how wouldwe recognize a person when we see him? On what basis would such a decision be based?Certainly the moral evil of murdering the fetus is far greater than the mere physical evilinvolved in the unavoidable death of both mother and child. Trying to save the life of both motherand child is the only moral alternative a doctor has.42 Once the principle of the sanctity of life isabandoned, there can be no criterion of the right to life, except that of personal taste.

1129. NATURAL LAW, ETHICS & THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

113Mad Hatter: "Where do you want to go?"Alice: "I don't know."Mad Hatter: "Then any direction will do."l--Lewis Carroll in Alice in WonderlandThe crucial issue in this debate is whether man is or is not the measure of all things? If theonly source of value is the individual "conscience" then we really have no basis to condemnanything do we?Could it be that pro-choicers have already made up their minds and use argument asnaturalization only? Clearly the self and freedom are the gods of our culture. Individualism thatmakes self-interest of the individual the highest value marks our secular culture.NATURAL LAWIn the early part of our history as a nation, our legal system acknowledged that rights arevalued only to the extent that they originate from the "natural law." The natural law is that system ofrules and legal principles which are of divine origin and are discovered by the rational intelligence ofman."2The precepts of the natural law then are derived from God. C. S. Lewis wrote of the naturallaw (which he called the "Tao"):"It is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If anyvalue is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of valuein its place is self-contradictory. There never has been, and never will be, a radicallynew judgment of value in the history of the world. What purport to be new systemsor (as they now call them) 'ideologies,' all consist of fragments from the Tao itself,arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness intheir isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it alone such validity as they possess."3According to Lewis the natural law is:". . . the reality beyond all predicates. . . . It is Nature, it is the Way, the Road. It isthe Way in which the universe goes on, the Way in which things everlastingly emerge,stilly and tranquilly, into space and time. . . . It is the doctrine of objective value, thebelief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thingthe universe is and the kind of things we are. Those who know the Tao can hold thatto call children delightful or old men venerable is not simply to record a psychologicalfact about our own parental or filial emotions at the moment, but to recognize a qualitywhich demands a certain response from us whether we make it or not."4

114Eighteenth century English jurist and commentator Sir William Blackstone wrote extensivelyconcerning the legal perspective of the natural law in volume one of his Commentaries on the Lawsof England. He argues that mankind is created in the image of God and is therefore subject to thelaws of the universe set up by the Creator. He sees these laws as being both physical and moral. Allman-made laws, therefore, derive their legitimacy from the natural law. All civilizations are thussubject to the moral laws which are derived from God and are therefore just as the Creator is just.Blackstone argued that these moral principles are discoverable by reason and through the Scriptureswhich he called "the revealed law" of God.5Natural law then is that body of objective truth to which all creation is subject. Ifgovernments ignore the natural law and pass man-made laws that are contrary to the natural law,those laws are morally invalid and they become destructive to the society which makes them.Blackstone states that among the absolute rights stemming from the natural law is the rightto life which originates inside the mother's womb. 6 This right to life, according to Blackstone,cannot be destroyed merely upon the discretion of another and ". . . whenever the constitution of astate vests in any man, or body of men, a power of destroying at pleasure, without the direction oflaws, the lives or members of the subject, such constitution is in the highest degree tyrannical."7Therefore the "legal personhood" of an infant in utero was unquestioned by Blackstone. Inaddition to the right to life, the unborn infant enjoys other rights as well, such as inheritance rights.Thus the unborn child is to enjoy all the basic legal rights which are given by those born.Seventeenth century political philosopher John Locke was influential in shaping theviewpoints of the founding fathers of the American Republic toward the nature of law andgovernment.9In his essay, "Of Civil-Government" Locke speaks of the natural law with its premises andthe right to life as being divinely ordained:"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: Andreason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that beingall equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty,or possessions. For men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, aninfinitely wise Maker: all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the worldby his order, and about his business, they are his property, whose workmanship theyare, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: And being furnished with likefaculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any suchsubordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we weremade for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Everyoneas he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station willfully, so by the likereason, when his own preservation come not in competition, ought he, as much as hecan, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not unless it be to do justice on anoffender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life,the liberty, health, limb or goods of another."10

115Both Blackstone and Locke give persuasive evidence that the right to life, since itcommences in the womb, is a necessary maxim of the natural law.11 Thus any government thatdenies such an absolute right is, as Blackstone calls it, "tyrannical."The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision which allows for the destruction of unborn humanlife for any reason comes under such judgment. The right to life given by the Creator and understoodthrough the natural law cannot be jettisoned by a decision of nine mortal and thus fallible humanbeings. Since such a decision violates the natural law of God it is illegitimate.12Who is at the center of the universe? A Supreme Being or a mere man? Our approach tomoral and ethical issues are ultimately related to how we answer that question?The dignity and worth of every human being—born or unborn-flows from natural or morallaw, not human decision. Thus man's essential humanity does not emanate from governmentalresolutions, social interaction, self-actualization, or legal fiats (i.e. the United States Supreme Court).Pro-choice proponents who deny God's existence contradict themselves for if freedom ofchoice is a fundamental right and the removal of it is wrong then there must be a moral code of rightand wrong. If there is a moral code of right and wrong, then there must be a Law-Giver (God).WHY IS GOD'S EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE IMPORTANT?William James reasoned that a philosophical question is meaningless if it makes no difference toanything in our experience, either past or future. It is, therefore, important to ask this question of every ideabefore spending time with it (since such time could be totally wasteful).Kreeft suggests that there are at least three possible answers to the question of "Does it makea difference" or "How big a difference does it make?"1. Identity—There seems to be a relationship between the question of God'sexistence and the question of our own identity. Either God created us in Hisimage, or we created Him in ours, or both. God created us in His image andwe in turn created Him in ours. Yet the existence of God and human identity areintimately related in that for the atheist, if God does not exist, then we as humanbeings must be emancipated to become our true selves (that is, autonomousindividuals) which can only happen when we are freed from intellectual andmoral slavery to the myth of subservience to God.132. For the theist, God's nature as Person or Self (" I AM") is the paradigm orarchetype for our own nature as persons. Only when we commit ourselves toHim in loving adoration and service as our Creator, Savior and Lord do weexperience the exhilarating freedom of living as we were meant to live, ascreatures made in His image and likeness who bring glory and honor toHim.143. Eschatologically and Thanatologically—At the end of our lives, at death, asPascal perceived his famous "Wager," we shall all face either God ornothingness. Thus it concerns us to know ahead of time which is the case just

116as it concerns a person falling from a building whether there will be a safetynet below or not. Thus God's existence and the question of immortality is tiedtogether. 154. Morality—God mayor may not make a difference to morality. The relationshipbetween God and morality can move in different ways as shown and explainedbelow.5.GODNO GODNO GODGODGODNO GODNONONOMORALITYMORALITYMORALITYMORALITYMORALITYMORALITY(3)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)NewmanKaramazov;Mead;(No One)PaganCamusLewis(MoralSartre(ExistentialistBenedict(SociologicalReligions(Humanism)16Argument)Atheism)Atheism)1. The moral argument for the existence of God argues that if there is a real, objectivemorality, there must be a real, objective God. C. S. Lewis, following CardinalNewman, uses this argument at the beginning of his book Mere Christianitv.12. The atheist sometimes perceives the same time between God and morality butargues in the opposite direction: there is no God, therefore there is no objectivemorality. As Ivan Karamazov and Jean-Paul Sartre contend,"If God does not exist, everything is permissible."183. Many atheists, especially anthropologists like Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead,argue that there is no objective or universal morality, therefore there is no single,objective, and universal God.19

1174. Many theists try to persuade people to obey moral laws on the basis that these lawsstem from God, but I know of no one who tries to deduce the existence of moralityfrom the existence of God and this or a good reason: We do not argue from the lesserknownco the better known. None can deduce from the nature of God (how well doesanyone know that, we will act, what He will, and so forth.205. All four positions above see a package deal" relationship between God andmorality. One denial of such a relationship comes from ancient pagan Gentilereligions, which, unlike Judaism, often did not believe that their gods instituted amoral law at ll. Gentiles got their morality from one source (such a$ sociallegislators) and their religion from another (as shamans). Jews united the two.216. The other denial of the "package deal" is the position of the humanist like Camus'Dr. Riaux in his book The Plagyg, who agonizes over the question,"How can one be a saint without God?"22He knows one must be a saint (practice a high and binding moral ideal), yet he does notbelieve there is a God; and he wonders whether this is possible in logic or in life.23IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?What is the origin of the idea of God in the human mind? No one really knows. If the idea istrue, it originated either from human reasoning, or from the experiences of the mystics or nonmysticsof the past. According to the Bible it is more likely that the idea of God comes by divine revelationas Adam, the first human being created in God's image and likeness, experienced a supernaturalencounter with his Maker and lived in intimacy with Him in Eden. If the idea is false, then itoriginated in either fantasy, fallacy, folly, or fear—or all four or any combination of the four.Atheists have explained the origin of the idea of God without a God psychologically as fearand wishful thinking. Voltaire puts it succinctly:"If God does not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him."24The tables could easily be turned. A psychological explanation can also be given as to whyVoltaire and other atheists and agnostics do not believe in a God. In either case we are looking at asubjective origin to determine whether an idea is objectively true. This kind of reasoning has beencalled "genetic fallacy." It is faulty for its answer is irrelevant to the truthfulness or falsehood ofthe claim being made. As Kreeft points out,"If Hitler had discovered Einsteinian relativity theory and used it, not out of any loveof truth, but only out of a mad desire to conquer the world through nuclear weapons,that would not have made E not equal to mc2."25

118Fact or FantasyThe idea of God is either a fact, like rocks, or a fantasy, like Santa Claus. If it is a fantasy, amere human invention, it is the greatest invention in all of human history. Why? Because of thecentral role it has played in human history.Peter Kreeft put it:"Measure it against all the other inventions, mental or physical. Put on one side of thescale the control of fire, the domestication of animals, and the cultivation of wheat; thewheel, the ship, and the rocket ship; baseball, the symphony orchestra, and anestheticsand a million other similarly great and wonderful things. Then put on the other side ofthe scale a single idea: the idea of a being that is actual, absolute, perfect, eternal, one,and personal; all-knowing, all-loving, all-just, uncompromising, and unchangeable; acosmic creator, designer, redeemer, and provider; cosmic artist, musician, scientist, andsage; the infinite abyss of the pure Being who is yet a person, a self, an 'I.' It is disputablewhether such a being is a fact or a fantasy, but it is indisputable that if it is a fantasy, it isby far the greatest fantasy in history. If it is humanity's invention, it is humanity'smasterpiece.The idea of God has guided or deluded more lives, changed more history, inspired moremusic and poetry and philosophy than anything else, real or imagined. It has made moreof a difference to human life on this planet, both individually and collectively, thananything else ever has. To see this clearly for yourself, just try this thought experiment:suppose no one in history had ever conceived the idea of God. Now, rewrite historyfollowing that premise. The task daunts and staggers the imagination. From the earliesthuman remains—religious funeral artifacts--to the most recent wars in the Mideast,religion—belief in a God or gods—has been the mainspring of the whole watch thatis human history."26There are only two possibilities to the question of God's existence: either He is or He is not.This means that either believers or unbelievers have been basing their entire lives on the mostfundamental illusion that has ever cursed humanity. Sigmund Freud said that if religion is anillusion, it is the greatest of illusions, in fact, a species of collective insanity, like the imaginaryfriend of a child who never grew up. The same is true of atheism, of course. If theism is true theatheist is the child's denial of the parent's existence. In the case of the agnostic, it is the child'signorance of the parent's existence.27Probably the most baffling of all things, whether in the case of "believer" (those whomentally assent to such a notion) and unbeliever, is indifference to such a fundamental question.As Peter Kreeft reasons, after all, if God is no more real than Santa Claus, who in his rightmind would want to believe in such a myth for all his life? And if God is the heavenly Fatherportrayed in the Bible, who in his right mind would want to disbelieve in or be indifferent to such anawesome and wonderful father?28

119The Definition of the QuestionIn examining the question of the "proofs" for or against the existence of God, Kreeft suggestsfive different questions which are often confused and which we can ask about God or anything else:the questions of existence, knowledge, proof, and method.291. Does X (e.g. God or gods) really exist?2. If it (or He) does, can I know that it or He exists? (A thing can obviously existwithout my knowing it exists: for example, a pink rock on the other side of themoon.)3. If I know X exists, is that knowledge certain? (Much or most of our knowledge isonly probable, not certain: for example, that I do not have cancer).4. If I can be certain X exists, is there a proof, a demonstration of my right to certainty?(I can be certain of some things without being able to give a proof of them to othersso that others can share my certainty, or at least share it to as deep a level as Iexperience it: for example, that I experience a very intimate relationship with afriend, or that my wife's inner being is beautiful) .5. If there is such a proof, is it a scientific proof in the modern sense of "scientific"—that is, according to the rules of the "scientific method"? Are the premises reducibleto evidence that is either empirical or logical or mathematical? (Not only thearguments both for and against the existence of God, but most arguments inphilosophy that claim to be proofs are not "scientific" in this sense: for instance,Plato's demonstration in the Republic that "justice is more profitable than injustice.")30Atheists answer all five of these questions about God in the negative. They insist that allproofs should be scientific; that all certainty requires proof; that all real knowledge requirescertainty; and that all reality must be humanly knowable.31Agnostics claim not to know the answer to Question 1 and therefore do not to know theanswers to all the subsequent questions either.32Theists answer the first two questions yes, but differ on the other three. Most traditionaltheists answer questions 1 through 4 yes and 5 no.33Christians believe the Bible presupposes belief in God:":In the beginning God. . . created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).The Bible assumes, and never argues, God's existence. The Bible teaches that althougheverything else had a beginning, God has always been (Psalm 90:2).

120Belief in God is a rational intuition—intuitively believed.An intuition is not something written on the soul prior to consciousness or an idea in aninfant that has the power of self-development apart from observation or experience. Rather it isknowledge apart from observation and experience. Intuitive belief is innate, inherent in the verybeing of a person. This is why belief in the existence of God is intuitively believed.Missionaries have found uncivilized people all over the world who believe in a SupremeBeing. They have never had Bibles, have not been able to read or write, have not had any contactwith the outside (civilized) world, and yet they believe in a god or God.Where did this belief come from? All people everywhere know by intuition that there is somegreat Being on whom they are dependent and to whom they are accountable.It simply is not true that civilization must precede evangelization. Missionaries have foundthat they can elicit the ideas or concepts of God, the soul, sin and guilt more readily than they cancomprehend the concepts found in philosophy and mathematics.Christians believe that intuitive belief is possible because God has set "eternity" in thehearts of people (Ecclesiastes 3:11). This accounts for the religious or spiritual nature of man.Because of this, human beings are never quite satisfied with the temporal. They have a sense thatthere must be more to life than "bread and circuses."Each person has a "God-shaped vacuum" that can only be filled by God (Pascal)."Each person is restless until he finds his rest in God." (St. Augustine)Because God has set "eternity" in the hearts of people, wherever anthropologists have foundtraces of man they have found traces of worship.Moral Law & ConscienceIntuitive belief is possible because there is a moral law and conscience within each person.The moral law within is the sense of transcendence, a sense of "oughtness," a sense of "right andwrong" whereas conscience within is the moral monitor which monitors our obedience ordisobedience based on our moral standard.C. S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity begins with the observation that when peopleargue with one another, an angry person almost always appeals to some basic standard of behaviorthat the other person is assumed to recognize:"They say things like this: 'How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?' ‘That'smy seat, I was there first’ ‘Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm'—'Whyshould you shove in first?'—'Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine' –'Come on, you promised.' People say things like that every day, educated people aswell as the uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups."34

121The point Lewis is making is that people who make such statements are not merely sayingthat the other person's attitude and behavior simply does not suit them, but rather that the attitudeand behavior of the other person is wrong:"The man who makes [these remarks] . . . is appealing to some kind of standard ofbehavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man veryseldom replies, 'To hell with your standard.' Nearly always he tries to make out thatwhat he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does thereis some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular casewhy the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quitedifferent when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up whichlets him off from keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties hadin mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality orwhatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they hadnot, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the humansense of the word. Quarreling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong.And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort ofagreement as to what 'Right' and 'Wrong' are, just as there would be no sense in sayingthat a football player had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about therules of football."35This "Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality" that Lewis refers to is whatPaul is saying in Romans 2:14-15. He makes the point that while the Gentiles did not have the lawthat the Jews had, they had a law within, a law that did not merely say that some kinds of attitudesand behavior seem to work better than others or produce better responses from other people(utilitarian concern), instead he went far beyond that either to accuse or excuse them fromwrongdoing.Some object to a universal moral law by pointing out that some people do not seem to beaware of it or they point to the fact that moral standards vary among different races and cultures.Such objections are not valid for the simple reason that while it is true that there are people, such asthe insane, who do not seem to be aware of moral standards, the very fact that we call such persons"insane" shows that we nevertheless recognize and want to adhere to the standards, regardless ofwhat the problem may be in the individual's case.The point is, when an insane person commits a crime we usually excuse him, but when anormal person commits a crime, we do not excuse him. Why? Because the problem is the person, notthe standard.While there are obvious differences in the way various races and cultures view morals, thereis, however, far more agreement than we might acknowledge. No matter what race or culture, thereis a general regard for life, honor, courage, honesty, selflessness, etc. This is why the codes of lawand moral treatises of ancient cultures were so similar to our own.

122If there is no universal moral law, then why, as Lewis points out, do people object when theyperceive that they have been mistreated? To speak of "unfair treatment" is to know the Moral Law orthe Law of Nature.36The conscience which Paul refers to as "also bearing witness" (Romans 2:15) is differentfrom the moral law, in that while the moral law provides an objective standard, the conscienceinvolves knowledge of "right." It is a monitor which tells us whether we are following the dictates ofthe moral law. Therefore our conscience constantly either approves or condemns based on ourobedience or disobedience to the moral law as we understand it.Memory seems to be another prosecuting witness in man. Paul seems to refer to it when hesays “their thoughts [are] now accusing, now even defending them" (v. 15). The memory isimportant because it is something within man that can condemn him without an external word fromGod.Faith & ReasonThe relation of faith and reason is often discussed in terms of whether God's existence can beproved, and whether such proof would be adequate to bring a nonbeliever to faith. The generalconsensus is that, although reason alone does not bring individuals to faith in God, there are rationalreasons for belief in God.An atheist insisted, "Show me tangible evidence of God's existence." The theist asked, "Is ittrue that you only believe in the existence of things you can see, touch and feel?" "Absolutely!" theatheist insisted. He then challenged the theist, Name one thing that exists, which cannot bephysically proven?" The theist responded, "Logic."It is intellectually impossible to be an atheist. It would require total knowledge to be ableto intellectually claim that there is no God. For unless we have 100% total knowledge it is possiblethat God exists outside that knowledge that we do not have.To argue that God does not exist because it does not make sense to you, or because youyourself have not experienced this Supreme Being, says nothing about the existence of such a Being.Such an argument only shows that you have not been satisfied with the arguments of Hisexistence or that you have not experienced Him existentially. And since we are all very ignorant ofknowledge in its totality, we must all confess that the existence of God is possible outside our ownframe of reference, or outside the scope of our own limited knowledge and understanding ofuniversal truth. To do otherwise is the quintessence of arrogance. According to the Bible:"The fool has determined in his heart there is no God" (Psalm 14:1).The atheist who says, "There is no God" and the agnostic who says, "I don't know if there isa God" are both "fools" because they are intellectually dishonest and/or morally wicked since theBible makes it very clear that God's existence is evident and that several attributes of God are also

123evident. In addition, as we have already seen, man has a sense of transcendence ("eternity in theheart") and the moral law, conscience and memory—all which makes him capable of discerningcertain basic truths about a Higher Being and his own accountability to such a Being.Can you prove there is a God? It is not possible to put God in a test tube and prove Him bythe usual scientific method. In order for something to be proved by the scientific method it has to berepeatable and measurable.Yet history by its very nature, while cyclical, is repeatable. And it is used as iron cladevidence authenticity or reality of events.The scientific method is useful only with measurable things. No one has ever seen 3 feet oflove or 2 pounds of justice. Science has its limitations!Charles Hodge put "tests" in perspective when he said:"Historical truth requires historical evidence; empirical truth the testimony ofexperience; mathematical truth, mathematical evidence, moral truth, moralevidence; and 'the things of the spirit,' the demonstration of the Spirit."37What is an adequate proof of the God hypothesis? The scientific method is clearly the correctmethod for observing the natural world. But it requires the experiment to be repeatable in acontrolled environment so it can be observed. History by its very nature is unrepeatable. Thus itdoes not lend itself to the scientific method. Neither do beauty, love, aesthetic values, etc. How thendo you prove something that is a one-time event?The answer is simple: the legal method. This method is used with our system of courts,lawyers (prosecutors and defense attorneys), judges and juries. A case of evidence is presented bythe prosecution and the defense concerning a certain issue being tried. It is the responsibility andduty of the judge or jury to weigh the evidence and make a "reasonable" decision concerning theinnocence or guilt of the party or parties involved.This "rational" approach of gathering the data and weighing its validity is the way toapproach various philosophical and historical issues. Thus you, the observer, must be both the judgeand the jury of the evidence presented. Impassioned desire to know the truth, conscientiousness,honesty and objectivity are crucial qualities in weighing such evidence.There is a humorous story about a dishonest skeptic who announced to his family, neighborsand coworkers that he was dead. When his wife took him to the psychiatrist he was given the task ofresearching the medical school journals until he had a firm conviction on the question, "Do deadpeople bleed?"38After weeks of reading he returned the verdict that the evidence was overwhelming—"deadpeople do not bleed." The psychiatrist amusingly grabbed a pin he had set aside for this occasion. Hepricked the man's finger and waited for the man's response as several drops of blood dripped fromhis finger. Then he turned white and cried out, "Amazing! Dead people do bleed after all!"39

124Unless people are honest and objective (and sane) in their search for truth no amount ofevidence will suffice to satisfy such people. If their attitude is, "Don't confuse me with the facts, mymind is already made up" no "evidence" will be adequate or convincing. 40ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GODThe following are some of the arguments for the existence of God.1. The Argument from "common consent," or human authority either quantitative (mostpeople believe) or qualitative (most sages believe).2. The argument from the reliability of the Bible.3. The argument from (ordinary) religious experience.4. The argument from mystical experiences.5. The argument from miracles, especially the resurrection of Jesus.6. The argument from history: martyrs, saints, the survival of the Church.7. The argument from Jesus: like Son, like Father (John 14:8-9).8. Anselm’s ontological argument” from the idea of God as including all perfections toincluding the perfection of actual existence.9. Decartes' psychological version of Anselm's argument: from the perfection of theidea of God to the equal perfection of its cause.10. The moral argument from conscience: room an absolute moral law to the idea ofGod to the equal perfection of its cause.11. The moral argument of the need for the moral ideal of perfection to be actual orinstantiated (Immanuel Kant).12. The moral argument from the consequences of atheism ("IF God did not exist,everything would be permissible" –Dostoyevski).13. The epistemological argument from the eternity of truth to the existence of an eternalMind (Augustine).14. The Aesthetic argument: "There is the music of Bach, therefore there must be a God."15. The existential argument of the need for an ultimate meaning to life(Soren Kierkegaard).16. Pascal's Wager: Your only chance of winning eternal happiness is believing andyour only chance of losing it is not believing.17. C. S. Lewis's Argument from Desire: Every innate desire corresponds to a real object,and there is an innate desire for God.18. The design argument from nature: watchmaker (Paley).19. The design argument from the human brain: Does it make sense to trust a computer thatwas programmed by chance, not by God? (J. B. S. Haldane).20. The cosmological argument from motion to a First, Unmoved Mover.21. The cosmological "First Cause" argument from second (caused) causes to a first(uncaused) cause of existence (a self-existing being).22. The cosmological argument from contingent and mortal beings to a necessary andimmortal being (otherwise all things would eventually perish) .

12523. The cosmological argument from degrees of perfection to a Most Perfect Being(arguments 20-23 and 18 are Thomas Aquinas' "five ways").24. The cosmological "kalam" (time) argument from the impossibility of arriving at thepresent moment if time past is infinite and beginning-less (uncreated) (medieval Muslimphilosophers).25. The metaphysical argument from the existence of beings whose essence does notcontain existence, and which therefore need a cause for their existence, to the existenceof a being whose essence is existence, and which therefore has no cause (ThomasAquinas in De Ente et Essentia).41Aquinas was quick to point out that belief in God can never be the result of logicalargumentation. But he added that this does not mean that there are no valid arguments for God'sexistence. It only means that we must assign the proper place to such arguments and accept them attheir true, though limited, value.Logical argumentation must not be regarded as sufficient in and of themselves todemonstrate the existence of God, but merely (though importantly) as corroboratina our intuitivebelief in His existence.Aquinas' third (The Anthropological Argument) and fourth "ways" (The Moral/AestheticArgument) impinge directly on the discussion of natural law and morality.THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARGUMENTThe second aspect to The Anthropological Argument is the personal nature of the necessaryCause or Creator. The logic is as follows:Logic IIMan has an intellectual, volitional, and moral nature.Like begets like.The impersonal cannot produce the personal.Therefore man's Creator must possess an intellectual,volitional, emotional, and moral nature, that is,He must be a Person.Therefore material and unconscious forces cannotproduce such a nature. only a Person could create another person. Therefore only a personal Godcould bethe creator of persons.THE MORAL/AESTHETIC ARGUMENTThe fourth way is very similar to the previous argument as it begins its argumentation withhuman values such as truth, goodness, nobility, and beauty. The question is, "Where do these comefrom? What causes them?" People in general agree that these are values highly regarded by allsocieties. Al though societies may differ on some of the emphases of importance on such values,nevertheless in that all societies hold some or all such values becomes self-evident.

126Physicalism holds that the only things which exists is matter and thus a human being is onlya physical system. There is no conscious mind or soul, only a brain and central nervous system.42 Ifthe cosmos is merely material, then how did values come to be? It is highly illogical that values, bytheir very definition, would spring from that which is only material. These are opposing categories—oxymorons.LogicThere must be something which is in itself true,good, and noble.This brings into being our ideas of truth, goodness,and nobility.Therefore the origin of these ideas is God.RATIONAL OPTIONS?Apart from the existence of God, how can such realities be accounted for? Is it possible thatman has been deceived and thus blinded by his own heart? Could it be that man has been taken inby human philosophy which either ignores or denies God's existence and thus fails toacknowledge any responsibility to Him? If so, man becomes the center, the measure of all things.

12710. THE SILENT, HIDDEN (MEDICAL) HOLOCAUST

128

129"Although every holocaust ever perpetrated is an unprecedented event in it sownright, this should not detract from what all holocausts share in common . . . thesystematic and wide-spread destruction of millions looked upon as indiscriminatemasses of subhuman expendables.The cultural environment for a human holocaust is present whenever any societyCan be misled into defining individuals as less than human and therefore devoidof value and respect."lAbortion & EuthanasiaThe scope and intensity of the abortion and euthanasia movements' growth in ourcountry is a reminder of the so-called "mercy-killing" of Nazi Germany. To dismiss the parallelsof these movements with what happened in Nazi Germany is unwarranted.Is it alarmist to predict the logical progression from abortion to euthanasia to thewidespread killing of the aged and the handicapped?To call such logic alarmist is absurd since we have already seen this progression. In fact,Joseph Fletcher has called abortion "prenatal euthanasia" and euthanasia has been called"postnatal abortion."2Was it an Aberration?Was the mass euthanasia program of Hitler an aberration? No! Instead of thismovement being the manifestation of fanaticism by S5 troops, it was rather the culmination of anintellectual movement which dates back to 1920 with the publication of The Release of theDestruction of Life Devoid of Value, by psychiatrist Alfred Hoche and jurist Karl Binding. It wasthey who developed the idea of "absolutely worthless human beings" and advocated the "killingof those who cannot be rescued and whose death is urgently necessary."3Cost-effectiveness also became an issue as the economic burden of keeping patientsalive was too great. F. LaGard smith in his book, When Choice Becomes God, shares that he hasa picture on his desk of a German poster, produced by the Reichsnahrstand, showing a healthyAryan man weighed down by a crossbar that he carries on his shoulder. On either side of him sittwo inmates of a mental institution representing an obvious burden to the otherwise strongGerman citizen. The caption reads, "You Are Sharing the Load!"The copy beneath the caption explains: "A genetically ill individual costs approximately50,000 Reichsmarks by the age of sixty."4

130In all probability, neither Dr. Hoche nor jurist Binding had ever heard of Hitler nor is itlikely that Hitler ever read their book. This book in advocating the concept of "life devoid ofvalue" helped to set the intellectual stage for the Fuehrer's career. According to FredericWertham, "This little book influenced, or at least crystallized, the thinking of a wholegeneration."5 Similarly Paul Marx in his book on mercy killing also commented on this book,"The German atrocities began as the voluntary deeds of eminent scientists notas the reluctant response to a mad despot's commands."6Small Beginnings: A Subtle ShiftDr. Leo Alexander, chief Counsel at the Nuremburg trials sums up the basic course of theGerman experience:"Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all whoinvestigated them that they had started from small beginnings. The beginning at firstwas merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It startedwith the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is sucha thing as a life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itselfmerely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually the sphere of those to beincluded in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, theideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted, and finally all non-Germans. But it isimportant to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which this entiretrend of mind received its impetus was the attitude toward the nonrehabilitable sick. "7A PrecursorThere is strong evidence that abortion was a precursor to the other atrocities of the ThirdReich. It is estimated that the abortion movement in Germany began about 1900 and it had thesignificant support of intellectuals in that country by 1911. Then the concern for over-populationalso came into play. After the defeat in World War I there was a collapse of social and moralvalues in Germany, and abortion, although still illegal, became rampant and the euthanasiamovement was launched about 1920 against "worthless" people. As Hitler came on the scene thestage was set as physicians suggested the value of euthanasia. His first program in mass killingwas able to take place only because abortion had become an accepted thing.First Victims: The Frail, the Infirm, the Handicapped, and the RetardedHitler's first extermination of 275,000 people was not directed against Jews, but ratherthe frail, the infirm, the handicapped, and the retarded. As World War II approached amputeesfrom World War I were eliminated since they were of no service to the Reich. Thus instead ofHitler, it was the medical profession—for social reasons"—that initially launched this horrificmovement of death.

131Compulsory SterilizationIn 1933 the Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseases provided for compulsorysterilization to prevent the propagation of "serious hereditary diseases," such as hereditaryimbecility, insanity, epilepsy, deafness, blindness, and alcoholism. As late as 1938 Dr. ArthurGuett, one of the architects of the programs at the head of the National Hygiene Department,offered the reassurance that "stringent regulations have been issued to prevent any misuse."8As World War II broke out just a year later 375,000 persons, including workers who hadlost limbs in industrial accidents, had been sterilized.9Wertham points out that "The compulsory sterilization law was the forerunner of themass killing of psychiatric patients."10A Utilitarian Medical EthicThe German professionals were greatly influenced by a utilitarian medical ethic in whichthe consequences alone determined whether an act was right or wrong. Michael LaChat in hisarticle, "utilitarian Reasoning in Nazi Medical Policy" points out that such reasoning". . . often rests upon a rejection of any concept of a natural order imposing absolutevalues, an acceptance of the doctrine that the control of life is a proper function ofsociety rightly influenced by factors such as the population explosion and anemphasis on the needs of the community."11National & Racial PurityThe Germans saw national and racial purity as a "biological imperative." Thus theindividual person was subordinated to the eugenic ideal of "the master race"—the perfect Aryanman. Ernst Haeckl argued that infanticide should not be regarded as murder, but rather as "apractice of advantage both to the infants destroyed and to the community."12 He also advocatedthe establishment of a commission which would determine questions of life or death as costbenefitanalyses were carefully made to justify such new measures.Mercy-KillingThe top medical minds of Germany gave support to the evolving program of mercykilling.Germain Grisez in his book Abortion: The Myths, the Realities, and the Argumentsdeclares that ". . . this murderous project was not initiated by Nazi officials but by the medicalprofession itself; in fact no law ever gave it formal sanction. "13 Then Grisez goes on and makesthis assessment, "The vast majority of the participants in the affair were no less sane and no lessupright than the members of any modern nation's medical profession."14

132The Central Role of the Medical ProfessionThe claim that doctors did not participate in the slaughter is simply not legitimate forseveral physicians who openly refused to participate were never punished. Wertham puts it,"From its very inception the euthanasia program was guided in all importantmatters, including concrete details, by psychiatrists. . . No mental patientswere ever killed without psychiatrists being involved."l5Thus these killers". . . had all the hallmarks of civic and scientific respectability. They were not Nazipuppets but had made their careers and reputations as psychiatrists long beforeHitler came to power. . . . Most of the names read like a roster of prominentpsychiatrists. . . . They are still quoted in international psychiatric literature."16The application of this utilitarian medical philosophy resulted in the deaths of 250,000men, women, and children in what was described in the aseptic, conscience-dulling euphemismsof the medical community such as "mercy-deaths," "mercy-killings, "help for the dying," or"destruction of life devoid of value."17 In just seven years (1939 to 1946) the mental patientpopulation declined from 300,000 to 40,000.18Other Victims: ChildrenChildren were killed in pediatric hospitals and psychiatric institutions. In the beginning itwas only the "severely retarded" or "deformed children" who were killed, but shortly thereafterchildren with "badly modeled ears," "bed wetters" and those who were simply "difficult to train"were also killed.19Many infants were killed by the injection of iodine which caused them to die inconvulsions, while others were simply allowed to starve to death.The list of those considered "useless" grew so greatly that many who were merely weakand old were killed as well.Psychiatrists and nurses watched mental patients who were "gassed to death, gasping forbreath, their faces contorted with fear."20 Relatives were informed that the death of their familymembers or loved ones were the result of "natural causes."Preparation for AcceptanceIn preparing the public for the acceptance of euthanasia, the Nazis offered the idea ofsterilization and euthanasia as "acts of kindness and mercy." Dr. Guett reflects this with hisstatement:

133". . . mistaken sense of charity which leads people to commit acts of ruthlesscruelty against those being racially inferior or suffering from an incurabledisease by not killing them."21A German Protestant minister named Braune called for the immediate cessation of theprogram which, he claimed, "strikes sharply at the moral fiber of the nation as a whole. Theinviolability of human life is a pillar of every social order."22 In August 1941, Catholic BishopClemens Von Galen denounced the killing of these "innocents" and there was a growing publicoutcry which forced the program to go underground, at least for a period of time.The widespread nature of these killings are attributed to the initiative of the doctorsthemselves. The only relevant document from Hitler had to do with restricted authority after "amost critical diagnosis for patients to be accorded a mercy death,"23 which is a far cry from anydirect order for mass killing.The precursor to the horrifying, authoritarian, brutal acts of Fascism was the calculating,deliberate consensus of the German medical community. The devilish face that was expectedfrom the Nazi soldiers was too often found in vagueness yet definite resemblance among thedoctors of the Third Reich.The Hegelian PrincipleDr. Leo Alexander, director, Neurobiologic Unit, Division of Psychiatric Research,Boston State Hospital who formerly served with the Office of the Chief of Counsel for WarCrimes, Nuremberg, documents the horrific development of medical thought in Germanybetween the Great Wars:"The guiding philosophic principle . . . of the Nazis, was Hegelian in that whatwas considered 'rational utility' (what is useful?) and corresponding doctrine andplanning had replaced moral, ethical, and religious values. Medical science inNazi Germany collaborated with this Hegelian trend particularly in the followingenterprises: the mass extermination of the chronically sick in the interest in saving'useless' expenses to the community as a whole; the mass extermination of thoseconsidered socially disturbing or racially and ideologically unwanted; the individual,inconspicuous extermination of those considered disloyal to the ruling group; andthe ruthless use of 'human experimental material' in medico-medical research.Remember, physicians took part in this planning. . . . This was all before Hitler.And it was all in the hands of the medical profession."24The Hegelian Principle—"only what is useful is good"—prevailed in Nazi Germany andsimilarly our pro-choice generation has applied this same principle to unborn children. Carried toits full potential, this could lead to legalized mercy-killing in cases of terminal illness, old age,etc. The end result of this principle, of course, is the loss of the sanctity of human life.

134Personal rights have become paramount in the hierarchy of what is sacred in our currentday secular thinking.Modern CounterpartIn 1969 a bill was introduced in the Florida legislature stipulating that "life shall not beprolonged beyond the point of meaningful existence" in whatever way "meaningful existence"might be defined. Under the terms of the bill, relatives could authorize the killing of a patient, orin the case of a patient without relatives, three doctors could sign the death warrant. The authorof the bill, Dr. Walter Sackett, has gone so far as to propose that 90% of the patients in Floridahospitals for the mentally retarded be allowed to die. Again he uses the utilitarian economicargument that "five billion dollars could be saved in the next half century if the state'smongoloids" were permitted to die.25Echoing the German eugenic position, a scientist of the eminence of Dr. Philips Handler,president of the U.S. National academy of Science, expresses concern over the "dreadfulprospect of serious damage to the human gene pool."26Another, like Dr. Y. Edward Hsia, a Yale geneticist, favors compulsory abortion forunborn babies ascertained to be deformed. 27Dr. H. Tristram Engelhardt, of the University of Texas, has even developed the idea of"wrongful life" in which a person may be legally liable for committing a tort or injury againstanother by not killing them by keeping them alive.28 This is a concept which, if it is accepted,will exert great pressure on all of us to become "mercy-killers."In addition, the killing of the aged could be expedited by the adoption of a proposal madein New Zealand that up to 43,750 be paid by the government to dependents of anyone who diesbefore the age of sixty-five.29On March 27, 1984 then Governor Richard Lamm of Colorado suggested in a publicspeech that terminally ill elderly persons have "a duty to die and get out of the way."30These are the experts, the doctors. But, as Dr. Rene Dubos observed in Reason Awake:"A society that blindly accepts the decision of experts is a sick society on its way to death."31Bernard Haring , author of the book, Medical Ethics, asks perceptively if the "discussionof positive euthanasia unmasks the horrifying situation of a humanity that has lost itsunderstanding of life and death?" He declares that the doctors "are unquestionably marked bythat attitude which led Hitler to distinguish between 'fit' and 'unfit' life."32In 1971 the nation was shocked when it became known that a mongoloid baby at JohnsHopkins Hospital was deliberately allowed to starve to death, taking fifteen days to die.33

135In 1975 in Mesa, Arizona, the parents of an infant with meningitis allowed it to starve fornine days before he finally died.34 No legal action was taken in either case. Such chilling eventsled Cardinal Patrick O'Boyle of Washington to predict: "Infanticide will be proposed for hardcases, but eventually any case will be accepted as hard enough."35A speaker at a recent Oxford University pro-choice debate, Dr. David Baum, related thatwhen a baby is born "under 1000 grams, we don't resuscitate. But if the baby is a nice baby, Isometimes put my hand on the scale."36 His comments in context were given to show thatdoctors are sensitive to the lives they hold in their hands. Taken from another more personalview, the doctor's choice at that moment in time, could become very arbitrary if the babybelonged to someone the doctor did not like. Thus the gruesome truth is that life or death ofanyone's child would hinge on the doctor's definition of "nice."37In contrast, the writings of Dr. Thomas Elkins:"We look at our own child, Ginny, who has Down's syndrome, and see our ownlimitedness. She shows us love even when we, at first, were not totally acceptingof her. These kids love us until we begin to love them back. And by loving them,we learn a whole new definition of love-something very akin to grace.In our country, we have been very much aware of physical attributes and theirimportance in being successful. But with a child like Ginny, we learn that loveis deeper. It's love because of the personal qualities of that child and because ofsomething of the spirit of God that's within that child—what we term personhood."38Dr. Phillip Ney testified at a medical symposium at Loyola University that there has beena horrific rise in battered children and points to the relatedness of abortion to it:"Abortion decreases an individual's instinctual restraint against occasional ragefelt toward dependents while simultaneously diminishing the social taboo againstattacking the defenseless. An aborting society devalues unborn children. Personswho abort also increase their guilt and self-hatred, which may be taken out onother children. The mothering capacity of a mother for future children is alsodiminished by previous abortions."39One example of this was a woman who killed her three-year-old son just one day afterobtaining an abortion. Because the psychiatrist testified that she was under "the influence ofextreme mental and emotional disturbance" the jury recommended imprisonment rather than thedeath penalty.40

136The spiral of violence seen in the last thirty years is alarming. Is it mere coincidence thatsuch violence is occurring increasingly since the liberalization of abortion? Battered children,battered spouses, battered parents, and the abuse of the elderly and the handicapped is takingplace at an unprecedented rate. Is it any wonder? As Mother Teresa said when she received the1979 Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway:"If a mother can take the child in her womb, what is it for me to take you or foryou to take me?"41A society that becomes ambivalent toward the value of innocent human life soonbecomes antagonistic and eventually deadly toward such vulnerable life.A couple of decades ago the musical duo "The Carpenters" released the song which alsobecame a movie entitled "Bless the Beasts and the Children." The song contains these words:"Bless the beasts and the children,For in this world they have no voice,They have no choice."42The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled by a 6 to 1 margin that a man could not awardgoldfish as prizes in games of chance because such practices "dull the humanitarian feeling"43 ofprize winners.The ironic, oxymoronic thing is that that same court made Medicaid funding of abortionsmandatory throughout the state.Precursors of the Philosophy and Practices of the Third ReichThere is no doubt but that abortion rights are tied in to, infanticide, euthanasia andsuicide. It's the ripple-in-the-pond effect. The Society for the Right to Die, Concern for Dying,and the Hemlock Society have emphasized education as key to changing the attitudes andbehavior of people. They have rightly assessed the situation as legislation is unrealistic unless thewill of the people is behind the legislation.How far has civilization advanced when we see the precursors of the philosophy andpractices of the Third Reich all around us? Just like fifty years ago in Germany, most of theproponents of death come from the prestigious universities and medical institutions. Too hard tobelieve? That's what they said during the atrocities of Hitler and his henchmen.West Germany keeps Dachau open as a memorial to the six million people who died indeath camps during World War II. Why? So that when people see it there may be the hope thatwhat happened there may never happen again in the course of human history. The sign over thegate of the death camp reads,

137"Never again!"Will we fall into this darkness again? We already have! After all, the death camps werenot set up for the Jews—not at first. They were set up for "the unwanted" life of Germany—thecrippled, the blemished, the unproductive life.The German Nazis had strict anti-abortion policies—for Aryans!In Judgment at Nuremberg, the condemned German said,"But we didn't think it would go that far."The American answered,"It went that far the very first time you condemned an innocent human being."44When No One Was TherePastor Martin Neimoller shares the dilemma of the person who cowardly refuses to standup for life:When they came for the Jews, I did not speak up . . .“In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because Iwasn’t a Communist.Then they came for the Jews,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.Then they came for the Trade Unionists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Trade Unionist.Then they came for the Catholics,and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.Then they came for me . . .and by that time there was no one left to speak up."45The first time we knowingly kill an innocent person for reasons of expediency (so oftenreferred to as "the public good") we begin a process whose pattern we have already established,but whose end we cannot control.

13811. THE SLIPPERY SLOPE

139"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a partof the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as ifa promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or thy own were. Everyman's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and thereforenever send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."1--John Donne"No Man Is An Island"How can the pro-abortionists be so naive as not to see the interconnection of violence?How is it that pro-death advocates cannot see the relation of one kind of violence—abortion—and other kinds of violence?If we were honest we would have to admit that we all know at heart whatAlbert Schweitzer once stated,"If a man loses reverence for any part of life, he will lose his reverence for allof life."2Ethicist Paul Ramsey of Princeton University wonders why we are so surprised at thenew epidemic of child abuse. To see the connection between what we can do to a baby in thefirst nine months of life and to a child thereafter, is obvious. Thus the Supreme Court of WestGermany, in its 1975 decision to ban abortion-on-demand during the first twelve weeks ofpregnancy stated: "We cannot ignore the educational impact of abortion on the respect for life."3The Court was fully aware that what could happen to the fetus before birth might have an effecton how the baby is treated after birth.Is it unreasonable to see abortion as "the slippery slope"? Is it not logical that once westart down that hill, it is so slippery that we will be pushed along by the logic of the firstaccepted premise? Is it unreasonable to see the logical and inevitable progression (orregression) between the Old Ethic of unconditional respect for life and the New Ethic whichinsists upon the quality of life?The New Ethic respects life only after admission tests are taken and passed. Thus theNew Ethic lays its human sacrifices on the altar of "quality existence" to insure the creationof a people "worthy" of life. Is it not reasonable to see that once we rationalize and legalize thekilling of the unborn, that there will be no stemming the tides of death? Could it be that we aresetting off a chain reaction that may eventually make us the victim?Why would not our children kill us if we permitted the killing of their unborn brothersand sisters? Could it be that our children will kill us because they will not want to support us inour old age? Could it be that they may kill us for our homes and estates? If a doctor will takemoney for killing the innocent in the womb, why will he not kill us with a needle when paid byour children? Is such a terrible nightmare what we are creating for the future?

140Could it be that the various forms of torture and slaughter that take place in humanhistory is all-too-often winked at because this situation or these so-called "people" are different"?Isn't this why Christians, Armenians, Slavs, Gypsies, Indians, Blacks, Croatians, Jews, etc. . . .and the unborn have been subjected to unimaginable torture and slaughter?Mother Teresa provides a stark contrast to this utilitarian philosophy. On her acceptance ofthe Nobel Peace Prize, she said:"I am very grateful to receive [the Nobel Peace Prize] in the name of the hungry,the naked, the homeless; of the crippled, of the blind, of the lepers, of all thosepeople who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared [for] throughout society; people whohave become a burden to society and are shunned by everyone."4The "Useless & Unfit"From obliterating deformity it is only a short step to snuffing out the diseased. This maybe done in the first place to save them from pain. But it is only a short step further, once theprinciple of sanctity of every individual life is abandoned, to getting rid of the diseased becausethey are a burden to the state.Once one has reached that stage, what is there to stop the elimination of anyone whoseracial and religious characteristics are considered a threat? The "thin end of the wedge" argumentis sometimes ridiculed, and it is certainly liable to exaggeration, but as far as euthanasia isconcerned the history of Nazi Germany provides a grim illustration of what can happen, once theprinciple of the right to life is denied.5Faced with the problem of pain and suffering, society can either obliterate it (in this casethe useless, the unfit people) or attempt to relieve it. Since the beginning of the Christian era thesecond course has been preferred.The choice which heals and cares for deformity is superior morally and socially to theone which merely attempts to blot it out. One's duty is to relieve suffering—but not at any price.Suffering is seen by the Christian mainly as a material evil which is morally neutral and while itsexistence creates a moral duty to relieve it, it is only to be done by those means which arethemselves moral.The PoorTo judge "the quality of life" of other human beings is the most arrogant of alljudgments. The poor are of great worth in God's eye; He provides for them and defends them(Deuteronomy 15:118); His own Son was so poor that He had no place of His own to lay Hishead (Matthew 8:20; II Corinthians 8:9). And it was to the poor that He came to preach thegospel (Isaiah 61:1f.; Matthew 11:5), and thus He called them "blessed" (Matthew 5:3; Luke6:20).

141In fact, in the Old Testament certain laws were provided by God to give the opportunityto start a new life every seventh or fiftieth year so the poor could break out of their cycle ofpoverty. In light of Scripture, is abortion a legitimate "solution" to the poverty problem?The HandicappedAs Jesus envisioned a future messianic banquet the guests turned out to be "the poor, thecrippled, the blind and the lame" (Luke 14:21) and because of such a prospect, Jesuscommanded His disciples in this age to "invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind" (v.13). Only then would they be "blessed" (v. 14).When John the Baptist was perplexed about the identity of Jesus, whether He really wasthe Messiah, Jesus sent the following message to him:"Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, thelame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead areraised, and the good news is preached to the poor" (Matthew 11:4-5).The mark of Jesus' ministry was that He reached out to the poor, the maimed—thehandicapped—and healed them. His solution was healing, not destruction and death.The ElderlyIt is the philosophy of the euthanasia movement that some people are better off dead. Theelderly, along with unborn babies, the poor and the hand capped are a target of those who setthem measure society's degree of civilization by the amount of effort and vigilance it imposes onitself out of pure respect for life."6Not only is it immoral, but also unwise, to kill the so-called "unfit." Not only do we nothave the authority to kill the unfit, but we also do not have the intelligence and foresight as wecould make terrible mistakes. Maurice Baring illustrates this in his question:"About the termination of a pregnancy, I want your opinion. The father wassyphilitic, the mother had tuberculosis. Of the four children born, the first wasblind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, the fourth had tuberculosis.What would you have done? 'I would have ended the pregnancy.' Then youwould have murdered Beethoven."7Faced with the problem of pain and suffering, Father George Tribou stated:"To have destroyed the defective infant, Helen Keller, would have been to destroyalso the teacher-humanitarian who was Anne Sullivan. In countless casesthroughout the world a defective child has not been an expensive, heart-rendingburden but a priceless gift that has brought out the hidden strengths of a father, a

142mother and sisters and brothers. . . . How foolish that we condemn the 'Me-Generation' and then are tempted to remove from them the defective childrenwho offer them the opportunity to forget the me and to remember the others. . . .We will never know how many Helen Kellers and Beethovens are destroyedeach year in America's abortion mills, or how many Anne Sullivans are leftwithout the challenge that makes an Anne Sullivan.We climb a mountain because it is there and calls us. We solve a problembecause it is there and challenges us. How terrible if someone leveled all themountains and removed all the problems. How little opportunity would beleft for human beings to become both really human and really Godlike."8Although relieving suffering is clearly our duty, it must not be done so at any price. Forsuffering in the Christian tradition is considered a material evil which is morally neutral.Therefore, while the existence of suffering creates a moral duty to relieve it, it is only to be doneby those means which are themselves moral.If the developing fetus is shown to be a human being there is no need for a specificcommand against feticide (abortion) any more than we need something specific againstinfanticide, uxoricide, genocide or suicide. The general commandment against killing covers allother forms of taking innocent human life.Thus the humanity of the unborn is crucial to the ultimate determination of feticide. InRoe v. Wade the Supreme Court stated that the humanity of the unborn child need not beresolved in order to determine the legality of abortion. Appalling! This is what the SupremeCourt was forced to say because if the unborn child is a human being, then the issue is resolved;a civilized society cannot tolerate the intentional killing of helpless innocent humanbeings. By shifting to personhood, the Court argued that the only relevant issue to the Court waswhether such a child, irrespective of its humanity, is a "person" and thus has value under theConstitution.

14312. SLAVERY, ABORTION & RACISM

144ARE THERE PARALLELS BETWEEN SLAVERY AND ABORTION?"Never, never will we desist till we . . . extinguish every trace of this bloodytraffic[in slavery], of which our posterity, looking back to the history of thoseenlightened times, will scarce believe that it has been suffered to exist so longa disgrace and dishonor to this country."1--William Wilberforce1792 Speech, House of Commons, EnglandIt is my contention not only that the issues of slavery and abortion are historicallyanalogous, but in essence, the same issue. Both are particular cases of the recurring challenge tothe first principles of the American Revolution, which forbid the violation of the God-givenrights of any person, no matter how convenient such a violation might be for some powerfulindividual, faction, or even the majority.2 The inalienable right to life is not, for America, asingle issue, but an amendment of the constitution, a self-evident truth established at itsFounding.Only one other shameful institution in our country has been treated as evasively asabortion, and that is slavery. Like abortion, this institution was also nurtured and protected bythe government during the first 87 years of our nation's existence.It is ironic that the very men who drafted the Constitution included representatives fromslave states who were determined to protect their states' interests. Yet at the same time they wereloud proponents of human liberty.SEMANTIC CAMOUFLAGEIs there any way to reconcile liberty with slavery? These men did it by semanticcamouflage—by producing a document that referred to slavery in three different places withoutonce mentioning it. Sounds familiar?Slaves were referred to as "persons" or "other persons" in contrast to "free persons." Theslave trade, which the Constitution did not prohibit Congress from banning until 1808, wasreferred to as "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existingshall think proper to admit."3 Free states were required to return slaves who were fugitives fromtheir masters in the slave states, but in that clause a slave was a "person held to Service orLabour" and a master was "the party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."4The founders of our nation at least recognized the humanity of slaves by referring to themas "persons." Yet in the following generation the status of slaves, and blacks in general,continued to decline so that by the end of the 1820s slaves were reduced to a species of propertyto be bought and sold like other property.

145Even Thomas Jefferson, who in 1776 had tried to insert into the Declaration ofIndependence a denunciation of the King for keeping open "a market where MEN should bebought and sold," ended up practically mute on the subject as he agonized only in private. All hehad the courage to say on the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration (the last year of his life) wasthat the progress of enlightenment had vindicated the "palpable truth, that the mass of mankindhas not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready toride them legitimately, but the grace of God," and then vaguely adding at the end, "these aregrounds of hope for others."5Moral CowardsIt is telling that men who did not normally shy away from public controversy, the mostoutspoken political leaders of the early nineteenth century, would suddenly become mora1cowards as they would become strangely quiet and timid when the conversation turned toslavery.In leaving office in 1837 Andrew Jackson blamed the secession threats toward the Southon those Northeners who insisted on talking about "the most delicate and exciting topics, topicsupon which it is impossible that a large portion of the Union can ever speak without strongemotion."6 He claimed that such talk assaulted "the feelings and rights" of southerners and "theirinstitutions." In his last presidential address, Jackson refrained from using such words as"abolitionist" and "slavery."An Issue of RightsWhen slavery was discussed it was usually in terms of "rights"—that is, the sovereignrights of states and the property rights of slaveholders. In fact, that was the very grounds whichSenator Daniel Webster defended in 1850 in his support for a tough law for fugitive-slaves. Hisreasoning was that what right did his fellow Northeners have to try to get around the Constitutionor to embarrass those who exercise the rights provided by the Constitution to the persons whoseslaves escape from then?Webster supported the compromise of 1850 which attempted to settle the question ofslavery in the territories acquired from Mexico by admitting California as a free state and Utahand New Mexico "with or without slavery as their constitution may provide at the time of theiradmission."8Stephen Douglas, the "little giant" of the Democratic Party made this last principle thebasis of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which he pushed through Congress in 1854 which nullifiedthe Missouri compromise of 1820 and thus opened the remaining territories to slavery as long asthe people in them voted for it.Douglas's rationale was "popular sovereignty," which was a logical extension of states'rights in that any institution a state wanted to have, it should have, so long as that did not conflictwith the Constitution.

146He further argued that since the Constitution not only did not conflict with slavery, butactually protected it, it was only reasonable that each state had "a right to do as it pleases on thesubject of slavery," and the same principle then should logically apply to the territories.Douglas was shrewd; for his appeal here was not to the rednecks in the south whoinsisted that slavery was morally right, but to the great majority in the North who felt"uncomfortable talking about the subject."9 Douglas assured these Northnerers that they did nothave to talk about it but they could leave it up to the democratic process. Their option was beforethem: "If they want slavery, they shall have it, but if they prohibit it, it shall be prohibited."10An Issue that Belongs to Moralists and TheologiansBut what about the slaves? What about their rights? Such rights, said Douglas, did notbelong in the political or legal realm but were one of those issues that should be left to themoralists and theologians.Sound familiar?Like the Supreme Court argumentation for the Roe vs. Wade decision in which theyargued that what constitutes a "person" belongs to the moralists and theologians. Yet the Courtwent on and argued that the unborn are not "persons"!In 1857 the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Dred Scott Decision by a 7-2 vote whichruled that African-Americans were not "legal persons," that they were therefore the "property" ofthe slave owner. Abolitionists who protested were met with the all—too—common answer:"We understand you oppose slavery and find it morally offensive. That is yourprivilege. You don't have to own a slave if you don't want to. But, don't imposeyour morality on the slave owner. He has the constitutionally protected right tochoose to own a slave."11To the issue of the right to own slaves, Douglas said:"I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religiousrights. I do not discuss the morals of the people of Missouri, but let them settlethat matter for themselves. I hold that the people of the slave-holding states arecivilized men as well as ourselves, that they bear consciences as well as we,and that they are accountable to God and their posterity and not to us. It is forthem to decide therefore the moral and religious right of the slavery question forthemselves within their own limits."12

147Modern CounterpartOne hundred thirty seven years later as we look back on Douglas's words, we see howsophisticated, shrewd, and "modern" his words were. The morality of slavery was ruled out carteblance. After all, that was a "religious" question. It therefore had no place in the constitutionaldebate and thus we had no right to judge other people in such terms.In one of his debates with Lincoln in 1858, Douglas went so far as to scold his opponentLincoln for telling the people in the slave states that their institution violated the law of God. Heput it, "Better for him to adopt the doctrine of 'judge not lest ye be judged."'13The abortion debate today sounds extremely similar to the slavery debate almost acentury and a half ago. Not only the same notions, but even the same words are being used.In the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973 Justice Harry Blackmun observed thatphilosophers and theologians have been arguing about abortion for centuries without reachingany firm conclusions about its morality. All "seemingly absolute convictions" about it areprimarily the result of subjective factors such as a person's philosophy, religious training,"attitudes toward life and family," and their values. Blackmun claimed that he and his colleagueshad the duty to put aside all such subjective considerations and "resolve the issue byconstitutional measurement free of emotion and of predilection."14After the Catholic bishops and evangelicals entered into the public arena in the 1970s, asthe debate intensified, the word "religion" was used by the pro-death advocates to paint theiropponents into a corner. It is interesting how they have used exactly the same tactic as Douglasdid in the slavery debate as he accused the anti-slavery advocates of being "subjective,""personal," and therefore "arbitrary."This is the reductionist trick whereby religion is reduced down to mere a matter of taste.Therefore for the religionist to impose his views on others is unreasonable and irrational as wellas repressive since he is in reality only imposing his taste upon others. Philosopher RonaldDworkian illustrates this in his book Life Dominion (1993) as he argues that what the prolifeopposition to abortion is at heart is an attempt "to impose a controversial view on an essentiallyreligious issue on people who reject it."15Democratic politicians have used this same tactic in their attempt to reconcile their party'splatform and ideology with their religious views.Mario Cuomo, while governor of New York, during the 1984 presidential campaignpresented himself at the University of Notre Dame as an "old-fashioned" Catholic who acceptshis church's position on abortion as he accepts the church's position on birth control and divorce.

148But then he poses the question, "Must I insist you do?" By linking abortion with birthcontrol and divorce Cuomo relegated abortion to a Church teaching which would obviously onlyapply to Catholics. Who would argue that it would be presumptuous for a Catholic politician toattempt to prevent non-Catholics from practicing birth control, divorce, or abortion.To link abortion with birth control and divorce is nonsense. Abortion is totally differentfrom birth control and divorce or other teachings of the church because it involves a nonconsentingparty—an unborn child.It does not take a logician to quickly see the irrationality of linking the two together.Could it be that political survival so blinds otherwise intelligent people as to attempt such a leapof logic, or is it old, plain insincerity?A cartoon illustrates such insincerity as it depicts a politician saying, "I'm opposed toabortion except in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the candidate."Even Cuomo in this speech acknowledged that there was another entity as he claimed,"As Catholics my wife and I were enjoined never to use abortion to destroy the life we created,and we never have,"16 and he then added that "a fetus is different from an appendix or a set oftonsils."17Such admission put Cuomo in the corner, but he attempted to sneak out by quicklyadding, "But not everyone in our society agrees with me and Matilda." This is another way ofsaying, "If you happen to disagree with our opinion or thought on this, that's all right. No bigdeal."This was an obvious contradiction to what Cardinal John O'Connor of New York hadrelentlessly emphasized the unequivocal moral condemnation of abortion by the Roman CatholicChurch. Such a nonsensical argument has become the standard argument among religious peoplewho find their party's political positions to contradict their supposedly religious views.Senator Daniel Moynihan of New York would be another example of one who hasargued similarly as a pro-death Roman Catholic. This is purely oxymoronic! Yet the Clintons,the American civil Liberties Union, celebrity lawyer Alan Dershowitz and others, whoseposition, like Cuomo's, are religious or private, argue for their position in basically the same veinand thus see no place for the debate in the public forum.Anti-abortionists have been pushed to the "radical right" by the media which alwaysscream "Murder!" to prove their point that such people are just "fanatics."This rhetorical outburst seems ironic in light of the fact that during the time that 35million unborn babies have been slaughtered in the last twenty-four years only a couple ofabortionists have been killed. This is distortion to the nth degree!

149But how can the pro-death and pro-life camps talk? How is this possible since the issue islife and death? How can there be civil dialogue in which reason is allowed when there isjustifiably so much anger, fervor, and a sense of urgency?Lincoln/Douglas Debates as a ParadigmGeorge Mc Kenna in his article "On Abortion: a Lincolnian Position," The AtlanticMonthlv proposes the Lincoln/Douglas debates as a paradigm. By 1854 Abraham Lincoln hadalmost retired after having failed in his attempts to have a position in the administration ofZachary Taylor. Then the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed in which Stephen Douglassuccessfully argued that there should be the extension of slavery into the territories. Lincoln wasshocked by this since he viewed slavery as a cancer (what he ref erred to as a "wen"). InLincoln's mind the only way to eliminate slavery was first to contain it.This is why the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act was so deadly as it stimulated thismenace to spread allover into new territories because it invited slave-owning "squatters" to settlein these new territories thus creating an electoral majority which led these new territories tobecome slave states.18Douglas pointed to the Kansas-Nebraska Act as evidence of furthering democracy in thatit left the decision of whether to adopt slavery or not to the people in those territories. Whatbetter evidence for true democracy! Lincoln saw through the inherent weakness of such anargument for "self-government" and thus he responded:"When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when hegoverns himself and also governs another man, that is more than selfgovernment—thatis despotism."19Despotism? Yes. Unless, of course, the slaves were not fully human! Lincoln put it,"That is to say, inasmuch as you do not object to my taking my hog to Nebraska,therefore I must not object to you taking your slave. This is perfectly logical, ifthere is no difference between hogs and negroes."20The Humanity of the SlavesThe humanity of the slaves was central to Lincoln in his debates. And, of course, this isthe question that Douglas kept ruling out of bounds as essentially "religious." Lincoln counteredby claiming that everyone knew, even the people in the south, that slaves were human beings. Ifthis were not so, argued Lincoln, then why did they join together in banning the internationalslave trade, even making it a capital offense? Lincoln also pointed to their inconsistency as heargued that if dealing in human flesh was no different from dealing in hogs or cattle, why werethe slave-dealers regarded with revulsion throughout the South?

150“You despise him utterly. You do not recognize him as a friend, or even asan honest man. Your children must not play with his; they may frollickfreely with the little negroes, but not with the ‘slave-dealers’ children. Ifyou are obliged to deal with him, you try to get through the job withoutso much as touching him.”21Moral IntuitionLincoln's point is that the moral intuition of the people simply could not be repressed.Lincoln was on the lookout for the unexpected ways in which people's moral intuitions wouldresurface whether in winces, unguarded expressions, euphemisms, or slips of the tongue and hewould use these to force his opponents to acknowledge their significance. He challenged them:"Repeal the Missouri compromise—repeal all compromises—repeal theDeclaration of Independence—repeal all past history, you still can not repealhuman nature. It will still be the abundance of man's heart, that slaveryextension is wrong; and out of the abundance of his heart, his mouth willcontinue to speak."22It is telling that Douglas, in his attempt to evade the force of Lincoln's observations,argued that what was important was that people had the freedom to choose, not what choicethey made. In fact, Douglas at one point suggested that God placed good and evil before man inthe Garden of Eden in order to give him the right to choose. Lincoln was outraged at such atheological spin and facetiously responded:"God did not place good and evil before man, telling him to make his choice. Onthe contrary, he did tell him there was one tree, of the fruit of which, he shouldnot eat, upon pain of certain death. I should scarcely wish so strong a prohibitionagainst slavery in Nebraska."23The depiction of slavery as a moral cancer became the central theme in Lincoln's debatesduring the rest of the 1850s. This was the warning that filtered through all his speeches, whetherit was in his "House divided" speech, his seven debates with Douglas in 1858, or in the series ofspeeches that culminated in the 1860 presidential campaign.The theme of choice without reference to the object of choice was morally empty. WhileLincoln would agree that each state ought to choose the kind of laws it wanted when it came tomatters of moral indifference such as the regulation and protection of commerce, but when itcame to moral issues such as slavery it was a different story: "I ask if there is any parallelbetween these things and this institution of slavery."24Lincoln put the issue this way:

151"The real issue in this controversy—the one pressing upon every mind—isthe sentiment on the part of one class that looks upon the institution ofslavery as a wrong, and of another class that does not look upon it as awrong. The sentiment that contemplates the institution of slavery in thiscountry as a wrong is the sentiment of the Republican party."25Lincoln as Moral CompromiserLincoln has correctly been portrayed as a moral compromiser in that while he hoped thatslavery would eventually be abolished, he had no intention of totally abolishing it in theimmediate future. Although in his famous "House Divided" speech of 1858 he stated, "thisgovernment cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free."26 Yet he made it clear notonly in that speech, but in subsequent speeches and writings, that his intention was not to abolishslavery as much as to "arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall restin the belief that it is in course of ultimateextinction. . . ."27In his desperate effort to keep the South in the Union, he toyed with the idea of possiblysupporting a constitutional amendment to protect slavery in the existing states against abolitionby the federal government. In fact, in the following year he reversed an order by one of hisgenerals that would have freed slaves in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.Lincoln's overarching concern ("paramount objective") was to save the Union which wason the brink of collapse. In his often quoted Horace Greeley statement he said that his primaryconcern was not to free slaves but to save the Union and that if he had to save the Union withoutemancipating a single slave, that he would do so.Yet when it came to his commitment in the 1850s he stubbornly insisted that slavery wasan evil that must not be allowed to expand. Lincoln continued to struggle with realization of thatprinciple, and how to put it into effect practically. Shortly after his election when he waschallenged by a correspondent who urged him to temper his position on slavery, he responded:"On the territorial question, I am inflexible. . . . You think slavery is right andought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted."28A Modern Version of Lincolnian Abortion ProposalGeorge McKenna plays the part of a modern equivalent to Lincoln where the issue isabortion rather than slavery. In such a case he would probably state his campaign in thefollowing terms:"According to the Supreme Court, the right to choose abortion is legallyprotected. That does not change the fact that abortion is morally wrong. Itviolates the very first of the inalienable rights guaranteed in the Declaration of

152Independence—the right to life. Even many who would protect and extend theright to choose abortion admit that abortion is wrong, and that killing 1.5 millionunborn children a year is, in the understated words of one, 'a bad thing.' Yet,illogically, they denounce all attempts to restrain it or even to speak out againstit.In this campaign I will speak out against it. I will say what is in all our hearts: thatabortion is an evil that needs to be restricted and discouraged. If elected, 'I will nottry to abolish an institution that the Supreme Court has ruled to be constitutionallyprotected, but I will do everything in my power to arrest its further spread andplace it where the public can rest in the belief that it is becoming increasingly rare.I take very seriously the imperative, often expressed by abortion supporters, thatabortion should be rare. Therefore, if I am elected, I will seek to end all publicsubsidies for abortion, for abortion advocacy, and for experiments on abortedchildren. I will support all reasonable abortion restrictions that pass muster withthe Supreme Court, and I will encourage those who provide alternatives to abortion.Above all, I mean to treat it as a wrong. I will use the forum provided by myoffice to speak out against abortion and related practices, such as euthanasia, thatviolate or undermine the most fundamental of the rights enshrined in this nation'sfounding charter."29This position proposed by McKenna permits abortion while at the same time it restrictsand discourages it. McKenna advocates this position as being both pro-life and pro-choice. Heexplains by carefully pointing out that it does not merely say, "I am personally opposed toabortion," but that "abortion is evil."30 "Yet," McKenna argues, "in its own way it is prochoice."31How is this so?First, in that such a position does not demand an immediate end to abortion. LikeLincoln's position on slavery, it admits that all those who oppose abortion, now and in theimmediate future, can only contain the moral cancer so it does not spread. This way itacknowledges the present legal status of "choice" even while it makes an appeal to Americans tochoose life.It is also pro-choice in that it supports the quest for alternatives to abortion since itwidens the range of choices open to women in crisis pregnancies.Studies show conclusively that women who have had abortions did not really make aninformed "choice" but were often confused and uninformed at the time of their decision. Prochoicecertainly fits with re-examining the range of choices actually available to women.

153What about supporting only pro-life nominees to the Supreme Court? Lincoln's reactionto the Dred Scott vs. Sanford decision in which Congress had no right to outlaw slavery in theterritories is again pro-life and pro-choice. Although Lincoln condemned the decision, he did notpromise to reverse it by putting justices who were sure to oppose slavery on the Supreme Court.Rather he accepted the ruling while at the same time he "denied its authority as a bindingprecedent for policymaking by the other branches of the federal government."32Shortly before his debates with Douglas, Lincoln said that if he were in Congress hewould support legislation which would outlaw slavery in the territories in spite of the Dred Scottdecision. What was Lincoln's rationale? He argued that although it was the job of the SupremeCourt to decide cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, its decisionswere to serve as durable precedents and thus be free of obvious bias. Such decisions were to bebased upon accurate information and be consistent with "legal public expectation" andestablished practice, or at least with long-standing precedent.Since Lincoln did not believe Dred Scott lived up to such responsibilities, he believed itshould be reversed. He said that he would do whatever he could to reverse such an unfairdecision, but he would not try to fill the Court with new "catechized" justices (a process to whichhe thought Douglas had used on the Illinois state bench). Instead it was his intention to seek topersuade the Court of its error and thus hope that it would reverse itself. But how would he dosuch a seemingly impossible thing? By conducting his argument in a public forum before all theAmerican people. To Lincoln "public sentiment" was "everything":"With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds publicsentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicialdecisions. He makes possible the enforcement of these, else impossible."33Thus McKenna argues that pro-lifers should follow in Lincoln's footsteps by looking formodest, competent justices who are relatively free of ideological bias and who keep their eyes onthe real prize: "public sentiment." He warns against the dangers of trying to fill the SupremeCourt with "catechized" justices as such a strategy is sure to backfire.34Lincoln's confidence in the sentiment of the public was confirmed as Dred Scott wasoverturned within a decade by the civil War. Yet Plessv vs. Ferquson, the ruling in 1896 whichvalidated state-imposed racial segregation continued for fifty-eight years before it wasoverturned in Brown vs. Board of Education. Key to eventually winning this war againstsegregation was the barrage of civil-rights advocates who heralded their message in forums,University classrooms, law journals, churches, political conventions, and marches. Suchrelentless work paid off as their legal case was reversed and a new moral consensus wasforged.35

154The Difficulty of the Proposal: Always an Issue of Life & DeathWhat makes this issue of abortion, this moral cancer even more difficult than slavery isthat it is always an issue of life and death. Choice in practical terms means death to the unborn.The issue of slavery was primarily an issue of rights. Even though slaves were killed at times,such actions were at least frowned upon. In the case of abortion, once it is decided in theaffirmative there is no room for compromise—it always results in death.This "final solution" makes discourse very difficult. It is a little like attempting to have acivil discourse with Hitler and his henchmen. To compromise with such butchers would mean acertain death. To compromise with abortionists and abortion advocates also means a certaindeath, the only question is "How many?" containment means fewer deaths, but still deaths.The Possible Inevitability of the Abortion ProposalIronically, pro-lifers have no choice but to compromise. While they should continuetheir efforts in stopping those people who have not already fully decided on aborting their baby,they must be realistic enough to know that compromise, though it only limits the amount ofunborn babies that will die, will nevertheless save some lives.Public discourse, therefore, is the best arena in dealing with such a sensitive issue. Toooften in the past there has been more heat than light generated between the opposing movements.Although this is unfortunate, it is understandable since feelings on the subject are so strong.After all, we are dealing with an issue of life and death!In 1831, in the heat of the battle for moral truths, William Lloyd Garrison, "theLiberator" of slaves, spoke for many pro-life advocates when he proclaimed:"I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there notcause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising asjustice. On this subject I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, withmoderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderatealarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher;tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it hasfallen—but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am inearnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a singleinch—AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to makeevery statue leap from its pedestal and to hasten the resurrection of the dead."36Reasoned, though passionate, discourse in which both the prolife and pro-choicecamps address this issue is vital if ever there is to be any consensus without consensus the nationwill not be able to survive for long. And that seems to be the way we are heading. While such anend may be inevitable, we can buy some time at least, by taking some steps of compromise.

15513. PLANNED PARENTHOOD & THE BUSINESS OF ABORTION

156"The blood-dimmed tide is loosed and everywhere a ceremony of innocencewas drowned."l--YeatsAN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVEMargaret Sanger founded in 1917 The American Birth Control League which in 1942became known as Planned Parenthood. The newsletter of The American Birth Control League,which was edited by Sanger, was called The Birth Control Review and had as its stated goal thelowering of the birth rate for people they considered inferior such as Slavs, Latins, Gypsies, poorwhites, Jews, African-Americans, the feebleminded, and immigrants. These Sanger classified as"human weeds." In fact, the masthead of The Birth Control Review had the motto:"Birth Control: To create a race of thoroughbreds."2In her book, pivot of Civilization, she opposed capitalism on the basis that it provided toomuch food and money to what she called "the unfit socially destructive, sub-sub human types."3These were considered to be no more than sexual barbarians whose food would only lead to theirproducing another of their "hopeless kind."4In 1934 Sanger wrote an article for the American Week Iv Magazine which was entitled:''A License for Mothers to Have Babies."5 In it she included her eight point proposal for the U.S.government to implement. It was called:"CODE TO STOP THE OVERPRODUCTION OF CHILDREN"6ARTICLE 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a betterdistribution of babies, to assist couples who wish to prevent overproduction of offspring and thusto reduce the4 burdens of charity and taxation for public relief, and to protect society against thepropagation and increase of the unfit.ARTICLE 2. Birth control clinics shall be permitted to function as services ofgovernment health departments or under the support of charity, or as non-profit, self-sustainingagencies, subject to inspection and control by public authorities.ARTICLE 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to acommon household and not the right to parenthood.ARTICLE 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, no man shall have theright to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.

157ARTICLE 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued by government authorities to marriedcouples upon application, providing the parents are financially able to support the expected child,have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, andon the woman's part no indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury toher health.ARTICLE 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.ARTICLE 7. Every country shall be assisted administratively by the state in the effort tomaintain a direct ratio between the county birth rate and its index of child welfare. When thecounty records show an unfavorable variation from this ratio the county shall be taxed by theState. . . . The revenues thus obtained shall be expended by the state within the given county ingiving financial support to birth control clinics.ARTICLE 8. Feeble-minded persons, habitual congenital criminals, those afflicted withinheritable diseases, and others found biologically unfit should be sterilized or in cases of doubtshould be isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding.7As we have already seen, by the 1940' Adolph Hitler's policies of racial populationcontrol had caused people to recognize the whole eugenics movement for the disgrace it was. Itbecame evident that Hitler was implementing the very policies which people like MargaretSanger had espoused for years. Therefore the public became uncomfortable suddenly with termslike "birth control" and phrases like "a race of thoroughbreads."8In 1942, when The American Birth Control League changed its name to PLANNEDPARENTHOOD, Sanger admitted that its goal was the same as that of The American BirthControl League. The following memo which was written by Fredrick s. Jaffe, Vice President ofPlanned Parenthood/World Population, on March 11, 1969, provides proof of this. It wasentitled: "Examples of Proposed Measures to Reduce U.S. Fertility by Universality or Selectivityof Impact."9 Its purpose was clear:institute a substantial marriage tax;provide a bonus for delayed marriages and childbearing;require women to work and provide few child care facilities;reduce or eliminate all maternity leave or benefits;limit or eliminate public financed medical care, scholarships, housing, loans, andsubsidies to families with more than a certain number of children;compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies;stock certificate-type of permits for children;payments to encourage contraception;payments to encourage sterilization;payments to encourage abortions; andcompulsory sterilization for those who have had two children. 10

158Defenders of Planned Parenthood now claim that this purpose was never seriouslyproposed. Even if that were true, the fact that it was written by a senior member of the PlannedParenthood staff shows the spirit and mentality of Margaret Sanger, the Founder. Some membersof Planned Parenthood also claim that such a proposal could not be implemented without thepolitical approval of the American people, but that simply is not true since abortion-on-demandbecame law without the approval of the American people.11Pamela Maraldo, president of Planned Parenthood, was quoted in the news as saying,"Abortion is where the rubber hits the road, the line in the sand for women tobecome fully equal citizens."12This implies that "liberated" women now can have the same sexual freedom granted tomen because if they become pregnant, they can simply abort the child. Women become "free" bykilling their children!THE BIG DECEPTIONDr. Bernard Nathanson has been a central figure in the American abortion tragedy as he,with others, have organized the repeal of abortion laws. Dr. Nathanson supervised the Center forReproductive and Sexual Health in New York City, the largest and busiest abortion mill in theworld. He claims that over 60,000 abortions were performed in the first year and a half of histenure. This "deeply troubled" him as he realized he had presided over so many deaths. Shortlythereafter he totally reversed his position on abortion.As a "resolute atheist" Dr. Nathanson was convinced by science as he looked at theexpanding knowledge of conception (fertilization) and fetal life and thus became convinced thatwhen abortion is performed "a human life is at stake."13 He claims that "biology requires anycivilized society to react with revulsion at the Supreme Court's policy of abortion on request forany reason; when the embryo or fetus is there—alive—an inescapable part of the humancommunity."14The following account is an address given at the National Right to Life Convention in1980 by Dr. Nathanson in which he narrates the part he personally played in the rationalizationand legalization of abortion."I want to take you back some twelve years to 1968 at which time I, and later BettyFriedan and Carol Grietzer, organized a political action group known as the NationalAssociation for Repeal of Abortion Laws. We organized it as a tight, well-structuredand dynamic little cadre. It was the right time. Feminism was on the move, thevietnam war was raging, authority was being destroyed everywhere and, veryimportant to all of us here, there was no organization which opposed abortion.

159There was only silence from the opposition. We fed a line of deceit, of dishonesty,of fabrication of statistics and figures; we coddled, caressed, and stroked the press.We cadged money from various sources and we, in one short year, succeeded instriking down the abortion laws of New York state and in one fell swoop establishedthe city of New York as the abortion capital of the world. We were calling ourselvespro-abortionists and pro-choice. In fact that's what we were abortifiers: those wholike abortion.Let me digress and speak for a moment on the question of "pro-choice" as theyeuphemistically call themselves now.I reject that phrase, that euphemism. It is misleading. It is dishonest. It implies thatin the issue of abortion there is an ethical choice whether to have an abortion orwhether not to have an abortion; and how can you be against choice? Of course,the joker in that deck is that abortion is not an ethical choice, and therefore that isnot an ethical choice at all, and therefore there is no such thing as pro-choice inabortions. . . .In February of 1971, having completed the house-keeping details on breaking the lawin New York State, I organized and ran the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health,another amusing euphemism for an abortion clinic. It was not just an abortion clinic. Itwas the abortion clinic. It was in New York City and curiously, ladies and gentlemen, itwas established and fed by the Clergy Consultation Service, an organization of twelvehundred Protestant ministers and Jewish rabbis who took it upon themselves to funnelthrough sixty thousand young women in the space of nineteen months that I ran it. TheClergy Consultation Service—I'd never known that clergymen were actively involvedin abortion before, but my eyes were really opened. The clinic functioned on a twelvehour,sometimes a sixteen-hour day: 8 a.m. to midnight, 120 abortions a day, Sundaysincluded. It was a $5-million-a-year business, a $5-million-a-year business! Think, thinknow how many handicapped children could be helped, how much cancer research couldbe done, how many operations of a decent sort could be carried out on poor people withthat kind of money!15I was up to my knees and elbows in blood in that place. When I took it over, there wasa staff of thirty-five physicians who were really an incredible band of ruffians, bandits,rogues, and literally fugitives from the FBI. . . . I stayed there and ran that operation fornineteen months. In the words of Yeats, the great Irish poet, 'The blood-dimmed tide isloosed and everywhere a ceremony of innocence was drowned."'16Why did I change my mind? Well, to begin with, it was not from religious conviction,because as I have stated on many occasions in front of many of you, as I have stated inthis book [Abortinq America] which is public record, I am an atheist, quite frankly. . . .In any case, the change of mind began with the realization, the inescapable reality that

160the fetus, that embryo, is a person, is a protectable human life. The change also beganon the basis of my own secular belief in the golden rule: If you would not have yourown life taken away from you, you must not take someone else's life.The discussion . . . has been muddled by a resort to a particularly vicious brand of anti-Catholicism, as many of you know, in the press. There have been ongoing attempts topaint this movement [the Pro-Life movement] as a Catholic movement, and there havebeen almost heartbreaking lies and libel in the press on this score. If you ever substitutedfor the word Catholic, in many of these publications, the word Jewish or black, youwould be immediately castigated. The press would destroy you. However, because theword Catholic is used, it appears to be allowable.My opinion, my feeling, is this regarding the anti-Catholic issue and the religious issue:the anti-abortion conviction is no more a religious position than the civil rights issuewas. . . . Let me remind you that the civil rights movement in this country was led by aProtestant clergyman, the Rev. Martin Luther King, and it was preached from a greatmany pulpits across this land. Yet I cannot recall the press or the media in those yearsdenigrating or dismissing the civil rights movement as merely a religious issue oraccusing those who supported the movement of violating the first amendment rightsof others, as the Honorable Judge Dooling has done in Brooklyn in the McRae case."17Dr. Nathanson then quotes from his editorial published in the New England Journal ofMedicine (1974) which was entitled, "Deeper into Abortion." In it Dr. Nathanson reflected on hischange of mind as his conscience became "deeply troubled":". . . I am deeply troubled by my own increasing certainty that I had, in fact,presided over sixty thousand deaths. There is no longer serious doubt in my mindthat human life exists within the womb, from the very onset of pregnancy. . . . Tothose who cry that nothing can be human life that cannot exist independently, I ask:Is the patient who is totally dependent for his life on treatments by the artificial kidneytwice weekly, is he alive? Is the person with chronic cardiac disease solely dependentfor his life on the tiny batteries in his pacemaker—alive? Would my life be safe inthis city without my eyeglasses? Life is an interdependent phenomenon for us all. It isa continuous spectrum. that begins in the uterus and that ends at death. . . . Abortionmust be seen as the interruption of a process which would otherwise have produced acitizen of the world. Denial of this reality is the crassest kind of moral evasiveness. "18Then Dr. Nathanson comments on the reaction to that editorial piece:"The vicious letters, the telephone calls, the threats that received were simplyinnumerable and obscene. Of course, we were socially outcast from our friends,our previous friends in the abortifier movement. In fact, I was summoned to a

161kangaroo court of the Committee of the National Association for Repeal ofAbortion Laws to explain and justify what I had done and, of course, declinedgracefully the invitation."19Such a reaction is typical of pro-abortionists. Those of us who have personally beeninvolved in demonstrating in pro-life chains have found pro-abortionists to be the most rude,disgraceful, and hateful group of people a person will ever encounter. This should be no surprisesince once a person is willing to kill for the sake of inconvenience, why would such a person notshow disrespect in other ways?Dr. Nathanson ends his address with the following challenge:“Francis Bacon once said, 'If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts.But if he will be content to begin with doubts, he will end with certainties.' I thinkthis really sums up my intellectual odyssey on this question.So now I am joined with you [pro-Life people] irrevocably in this cause. That we haveendured a succession of setbacks is undeniable. But we must not flag or fail. Each oneof us, even the smallest and the most insignificant, is essential to the continued strugglefor this cause. Remember one person with courage is a majority. This fight must go onto eradicate the evil of abortion in this land. As Abraham Lincoln once said, 'No policythat does not rest on decent public opinion can be permanently maintained.'What is our task? To make this country a place for decent people to live in! What is ourend? To call an immediate halt to the senseless destruction of our greatest naturalresource, our children! In closing, let me leave you with this admonition, again spokenin the words of the great Edmund Burke, but still as relevant and as important as it wastwo hundred years ago, 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for goodmen to do nothing."'20Dr. Nathanson's and Richard Ostling's book, Aborting America is an expose of the proabortionmovement which was "systematically suppressed" and "totally blacked out" in NewYork City as The New York Times refused to review it on five occasions.21 So much forliberalism! After all, is not a true liberal one who is open to all options? Instead we have seen the"liberal" press act in the most authoritarian, totalitarian, narrow way in doing everything it can toblack out any ideas that may not fit their intellectual and political correctness.BIG BUSINESSLike slavery, abortion is not only a deceptive practice; it is also big business!Carol Everett was involved in the abortion industry in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas areafrom 1977 until 1983. As director of four clinics, owner of two, Ms. Everett was responsible forthe clinic's daily operation. Everett, who had an abortion soon after it became legal in 1973, nowspeaks out about this most profitable business.

162INTERVIEW WITH A FORMER CLINIC DIRECTORThe following is an interview with Carol Everett.What is the governing force behind the abortion industry?Money. It is a very lucrative business. It is the largest unregulated industry in our nation.Most of the clinics are run in chains because it is so profitable.How much money were you making in the abortion industry before you quit?I was getting a commission of $25.00 on every abortion I "sold." In 1983, the year I gotout, I would have pocketed approximately $250,000. But, in 1984 we expected to be operatingfive clinics, terminating about 40,000 pregnancies, and with that project I planned to net $1million. Money, Money, Money—that's where my heart was.Why do you refer to "selling" abortions?The product, abortion, is skillfully marketed and sold to the woman at the crisis time inher life. She buys the product, finds it defective and wants to return it for a refund. But, it's toolate. Her baby is dead.In what way is the woman deceived?In two ways--the clinic personnel and the marketers must deny the personhood of thechild and the pain caused by the procedure. Every woman has two questions, "Is it a baby?" and"Does it hurt?" The abortionist must answer "NO." He/she must lie to secure the consent of thewoman and the collection of the clinic's fee. The women were told that we were dealing with a"product of conception" or a "glob of tissue." They were told that there would be only slightcramping, whereas, in reality, an abortion is excruciatingly painful.What method of abortion did your clinics use?For the most part, the abortion industry stopped using saline and prostaglandinprocedures because of the number of live births. A live birth means you have to let the baby die,or dispose of it in some distasteful way. Most second and third trimester abortionists use the D &E (dilation and evacuation) method. The abortionist uses large forceps to crush the baby insidethe mother's uterus and remove it in pieces. The side effects of live births and the mother goingthrough labor are avoided. But it is a horrible procedure in which the baby must be reconstructedoutside the uterus to be certain all the parts have been removed.

163How do you dispose of an aborted baby?In our clinics, we put them down the garbage disposal. We used the heavy duty model.Some second and third trimester babies' muscle structure is so strong that the baby will not comeapart, so they must be disposed of through trash receptacles.Abortion is supposed to be a "safe" experience.What complications did you witness?We were doing a one-day traumatic dilation, which has a higher rate of complication. Inthe last 18 months I was in the business, we were completing over 500 abortions monthly andkilling or maiming one woman out of 500. Common complications that take place areperforation or tears in the uterus. Many of those result in hysterectomies. The doctor might cut orharm the urinary tract, which then requires surgical repair. A complication that is rarelypublicized is one in which the doctor perforates the uterus and pulls the bowels through thevagina, resulting in colostomy. Some of those can be reversed, some must live with thecolostomy for the remainder of their lives.How did you keep these complications and deaths from the public?The woman would be loaded into my car (an ambulance outside an abortion clinic isterrible advertising) and transported to a hospital that would protect the doctor and the abortionclinic's reputation. The concern is not with the patient only in keeping an unblemishedreputation. You have a built-in cover-up with the patient's family. They are dealing with theirguilt and emotions over the situation and do not want to deal with the added pressure of exposingthe truth through the media.Why did you get out of the abortion business?Two things came into play at about the same time. I experienced a profoundly religioustransformation—a conversion. At about the same time I was having second thoughts a Dallastelevision station did an expose disclosing the abortions performed at my clinic on non-pregnantwomen—all for money? I finally realized, we weren't helping women—we were destroyingthem—and their children." By then my transformation was complete and I knew that I not onlyhad to stop being involved with abortions but I had to help promote the truth.22The Abortion IndustryPlanned Parenthood takes pride in being the world's oldest, largest, and best organizedprovider of abortion and birth control services. 23 Time notes, Planned Parenthood is the"premier institution providing abortions around the country" and The New York Times stated:"In the simple equation of public image, Planned Parenthood equals abortionrights."24

164By the late 1980's Planned Parenthood had 170 affiliates, 21,000 volunteers and staff,over 800 clinics in the United states, and a multibillion dollar international conglomerate withprograms and activities in120 nations around the world. It is the financial giant of a $500 milliona year abortion industry in the United states alone,25 and an estimated $10 billion a year industryworld wide.26 During the twelve years of Republican administrations, funding for PlannedParenthood Title X programs tripled. 27How can this organization claim to be a privately funded organization with all that moneyfloating around? Not only that but money from our own pockets totaling in the millions ("taxdollars") annually goes to the support of Planned Parenthood's programs.There is no question but that Planned Parenthood is the enemy of motherhood. In hisbook Grand Illusions: The Legacv of Planned Parenthood (1992), George Grant documents theunprecedented flow of public money to Planned Parenthood. He points out that through the TitleX appropriations of the Public Health Service Act ($142.5 million in 1987 divided among some5000 health service providers, in 1991 $124 million and in 1992 it topped $200 million), PlannedParenthood receives tens of millions of our tax dollars. In addition to the appropriations fromTitle X, Planned Parenthood receives additional millions of dollars from federal, state, and localmeasures that authorize public expenditures for "family planning" programs.28According to George Grant's careful, well-documented, in-depth expose of PlannedParenthood:“. . . those Title X appropriations represent only a small proportion of PlannedParenthood's taxpayer largess. There are some eighteen additional federal statutes,as well as hundreds of state and local measures, that authorize public expendituresand support for 'family planning' programs, policies, and procedures. So, forinstance, even during the 'pro-life' Republican administrations, Planned Parenthoodclinics, affiliates, and chapters received annual federal funding under the seventeenmilliondollar Title V provision of the Social security Maternal and Child HealthProgram. Each year they received federal funding under the nine-million dollarMedicaid appropriations bill. In addition, those clinics, affiliates, and chaptersbenefited each year from the government's eight-million-dollar contraceptivedevelopment splurge, its three-million dollar expenditure for a contraceptiveevaluation project, its sixty-million-dollar spending spree for 'reproductive sciences,'its fourteen million dollars spent on demographic and behavioral research, and itstwenty-seven million dollars budgeted for community services block grants.Internationally, Planned Parenthood agencies have been able to skim the cream offvirtually every united states foreign aid package. This includes a lion's share of themore than two hundred million dollars in International population Assistance funds,and the more than one hundred million dollars in contraceptive and abortifacientresearch appropriations. Additionally, Planned Parenthood gets a larger part of theuntold billions in grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements of the UnitedNations Fund for population Activities, the World Bank, and the Agency forInternational Development."29

165The statistics are sobering when one considers how the money is used!Thus it is sheer hypocrisy for Planned Parenthood to relentlessly insist that no federalmoney is used to fund abortions. The only way they can do this is through the deceptivedistinction made between the reception desk and the back room. The federally funded familyplanning clinics of Planned Parenthood serve as a channel through which pregnant women aretaken into medical clinics where the abortions are actually performed.Abortion is such an integral—central—part of Planned Parenthood that if they were tosuddenly cease, Planned Parenthood would actually lose much of its purpose to exist.The amount of public funding for abortion globally reaches astronomical proportions.George Grant reports that"Internationally, various Planned Parenthood agencies have been able to skim thecream off virtually every united states foreign aid package. . . . Additionally,Planned Parenthood gets a larger part of the untold billions in grants, contracts,and cooperative agreements of the united Nations Fund for population Activities,the World Bank, and the Agency for International Development."30Yet what is truly alarming is not just the vast amounts of money flowing withminimal accountability into a single multinational collective, but the end productof it all: the highly organized, carefully planned deaths of millions of unbornchildren.Isn't it ironic that while children cannot get aspirin from the school nurse or their earspierced without parental permission, Planned Parenthood can give children birth controlinformation and products, perform abortions and teach behavior that could kill them (e.g. as pastpresident of Planned Parenthood Faye Wattleton claimed in her book, How To Talk to YourChild About Sexualitv: "using a condom gives effective protection against STDs—sexuallytransmissible diseases—to both partners") all without the knowledge of the parents?"31The promotion of "safe" or "protected" sex by Planned Parenthood is astounding in lightof the fact that the Surgeon General Task Force (February 12, 1986) reported that the failure ratefor condoms in pregnancy is 10% to 30%. While a female can get pregnant 3 to 5 days in amonth, she can get AIDS 365 days a year! Furthermore, the HIV virus that causes AIDS is 450times smaller than a sperm and 600 times smaller than the average flaw in the condom.32According to the Journal of the American Medical Association in February, 1987, nearly1 in 3 people will contract AIDS from an infected sexual partner when a condom is used. Thustelling kids that using condoms is "safe" is like telling them to play "safe" Russian Roulette bygiving them a gun with bullets in two of the six chambers.33

166Planned Parenthood has had great influence in foisting the illusion whereby our societyhas come to see categorical selfishness as merely an issue of "choice," a "fetus" as disposabletissue and "education" as learning how to live and act in shameless immorality (which isreally amorality) without suffering any consequences.In the October issue of The New Republic, Naomi Wolf, a feminist and pro-choice writer,warned that when pro-choice people draw little distinction between life and death they "riskbecoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casuallydestructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life."34 She then argues thatthe "fetus means nothing" position of the pro-choice movement is refuted by common currentpractices of parents-to-be such as framing sonogram photos in their homes. Even though theseyounger parents are solidly pro-choice, they belie their position as they enjoy watching theirunborn babies on sonograms responding to outside stimuli and read The Well Babv Book whichstates: "Increasing knowledge is increasing the awe and respect we have for the unborn babyand is causing us to regard the unborn baby as a real person long before birth."35 When Wolfargued for keeping abortion legal but treating it with great moral gravity because "grief andrespect are the proper tones for all discussion about choosing to endanger or destroy amanifestation of life"36 Jane Johnson, interim president of Planned Parenthood, denounced herfor her view "that there are good and bad reasons for abortion."37 Such a retort shows thefanaticism of the radical left.Each year across the globe, Planned Parenthood is responsible, either institutionally ormore indirectly through its highly respected influences, for the main share of the many millionsof world wide abortions. Typical of Planned Parenthood's attitude toward the global desecrationof human life is the fact that China has been cited by Planned Parenthood officials as a "model ofefficiency,"38 despite the nearly 100 million abortions, mandatory sterilizations, and coerciveinfanticides thus far performed.Instead of promoting motherhood, Planned Parenthood promotes worldwide genocide.If "genocide" is thought to be an over statement, what other term could be used to accuratelydescribe the wholesale elimination of an unrepresented class? The phrase "crimes againsthumanity" seems most appropriate in describing the horrific actions of Planned Parenthood.In helping girls and women to "save their lives" figuratively, Planned Parenthood hasassisted them in killing their children literally. Planned Parenthood has to answer for much ofthe responsibility in greedily promoting slaughter-on-demand to a generation caught up in the"pro-choice" mentality that is blind to the deaths of hundreds of millions of children around theworld.There is a bumper sticker that says it all:"Life begins at conception and ends at Planned Parenthood!"

16714. A FOREBODING FUTURE

168“With the striking down of the New York Law, and following it, three yearslater, the Supreme Courts, infamous decision, we had effected a socialrevolution, perhaps more profoundly than any single political act of its timein America. That act, permissive abortion, was and is a singular specimen ofthat special brand of twentieth-century madness.”1--Dr. Bernard Nathanson“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”--Isaiah 5:20One of the clearest rationalizations for killing was given at the Nuremberg trials byDr. Karl Brandt, who had been responsible for the Nazi regime’s Aktions T-4 euthanasiaprogram. His defense he stated:“when I said ‘yes’ to euthanasia I did so with the deepest conviction, just asit is my conviction today, that it was right. Death can mean deliverance.Death is life.”2 (Emphasis added)According to the Scriptures of Judaism and Christianity, there are six things which Godhates, seven which are "an abomination" or are "detestable" to Him:"haughty eyes,a lying tongue,hands that shed blood,a heart that devices wicked schemes,feet that are quick to rush into evil,a false witness who pours out liesand a man who stirs up dissension among brothers" (Proverbs 6:16-19).God says He hates "hands that shed innocent blood" (v. 17). Can you think of anyonemore innocent than an unborn baby?God also said,"And from each man, I will demandan accounting for the life of his fellow man.'Whoever shed the blood of man,by man shall his blood be shed;for in the image of God has God made man'" (Genesis 9:6).God warned what would happen it God's standard were violated:

169"'Do not pollute the land. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonementcannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by theblood of the one who shed it. Do not defile the land where you live andwhere I dwell, for I, the Lord dwell among the Israelites'" (Numbers 35:33-34).God warned the Israelies before they entered the Promised Land:"Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited outits inhabitants. But you must keep My decrees and My laws. The native-bornand the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, forall these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, andthe land became defiled. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as itvomited out the nations that were before you.'Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must becut off from their people. Keep My requirements and do not follow any ofthe detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do notdefile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God'" (Leviticus 18:25-30).The shedding of blood pollutes or defiles the land. Abortion has polluted and defiled ourland. Scripture is clear that no atonement can be made for the land except by the shedding ofblood. Although the blood of Christ can cleanse any pollution or defilement of individuals whohave had abortions and even doctors who have performed them—if they humbly ask Jesus forforgiveness and repent of their evil deeds. But the books of Numbers and Leviticus make clearlystate that abortion—the shedding of innocent blood—calls into jeopardy the future of ournation.Detestable PracticesOur national spirit of individual independence with its ethos of self-expressiondemands self-indulgence. Such a society becomes impatient with anything that interferes withpersonal convenience. Anything and anyone who gets in the way of such hedonism is quicklyremoved. Thus a fetus is easily dismissed.Once religion, morality and law are removed from the practical life of a cultureunrestrained individualism reigns supreme. Such a culture is easily obsessed with technologysince it will serve personal convenience. Consumerism and every imaginable kind ofentertainment is the result as sensations need to be increasingly intensified to keep boredom atbay.3Modern religion is domesticated by the culture as it “eschew[s] proscriptions andcommandments and turns to counseling and therapeutic sermons; as morality is relativized; andlaw, particularly criminal law, becomes soft and uncertain.”4 Twenty-five years ago theologianRichard Niebuhr bitingly described emerging Protestantism:

170“A God without wrath [brings] men without sin into a kingdom withoutjudgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.” 5Such a domesticated religion has been emasculated and thus lost its prophetic voice.Where will the relentless march of technology stop? Technology, like many other things,is a double-edged sword. It can be used for good or evil. History tells us that the human sins ofpride, self-interest, and malice have polluted the stream of scientific advancement. Therefore theprospect of the potential for reshaping human beings through genetic science is horrifying. Theunquenchable thirst of scientist to push technology to its limits will only increase the moral andspiritual pollution of the land. The “twentieth-century madness” that Dr. Nathanson refers to ashaving begun with unrestrained abortions will play itself out in as having begun withunrestrained abortions will play itself out in lawlessness with its varying degrading practices.The result will be unrestrained sex with its various deviant behaviors, massive drug use,uncontrollable crime, infanticide, euthanasia, and suicide. All in the name of freedom andscience!Does the liberty of some justify the denial of liberty to others? While liberty isimpossible apart from life, “unless liberty is devoted to the defense of life, neither life nor libertycan survive.”6It is the business of just government to see that the liberty of the strong is checked bythe rights of the weak. Thus, as Richard John Neuhaus puts it, “The first and must urgentbusiness of government is the protection of human life.”7Roman Catholics have appropriately called the horrors of abortion, “The SilentHolocaust.” As we have already seen, much of the silent holocaust is the medical holocaust.Earlier we also saw that abortion is a hidden holocaust since only technological instruments willenable us to see the baby. This, of course, is a great advance from previous years when thissimply was not possible. Yet today, the unborn remains hidden and thus we under-estimate theirvalue.It is a sad commentary that Protestantism as a whole, and evangelicals in particular, havenot spoken out against the silent and hidden holocaust of abortion with a unified voice. Such lackof a prophetic voice among Protestants and ”Bible-Believing Christians” is a deadly reminder ofthe anemic, sluggish, indifferent, deceived Church during the Nazi era.The worship of many gods was common in biblical times. According to the Bible, thesewere all pseudo gods. But false gods could mean either that they were mere figments of theimagination or real spirits (evil spirits or demons) who falsely claimed the worship due to Godalone.

171In ancient times probably the most popular of these evil spirits was called "Moloch."Moloch demanded worship through the sacrifice of the bodies of little babies. His hellishappetite consisted of feasting on the bodies of babies, or sometimes the hearts of babies. In aflaming holocaust Moloch would devour his prized possession—infants. Abortion is the modernequivalent of Moloch.

17215. CAN MORALITY BE LEGISLATED?

173"The pro-life struggle is a contest over the meaning of America. . . . By this issuewe define the America that we will pass on to our children and to children whoclaim a place in the community that is rightfully theirs."1--Richard John NeuhausAll governments presuppose some moral basis. If this were not so, there would be nostandard for measuring justice and thus preserving the life of the community. The question thenis not whether there are moral laws, but which moral laws form the basis of civil government.In his landmark book, The Closing of the American Mind, Alan Bloom carefully showedthe epidemic rise of moral relativism. Thus ethics was reduced to personal preference asobjective norms were jettisoned as a basis for determining what is right and wrong.Early in this century (1930) John Dewey and other influential Americans opted forhuman law by signing the Human Manifesto that stated that "the nature of the universe depictedby modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human value."2Later they added, "Values derive their source from human experience. Ethics isautonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanctions."3Situational ethicist Joseph Fletcher was one of those who signed the Humanist ManifestoII (1973) arguing that "only the end justifies the means: nothing else,"4 and all "decisions aremade situationally, not prescriptively."5Thus Fletcher rejected all ethical norms as he insisted that all absolutes should be avoidedlike the plague.6 Such moral relativism resulted in the approval of abortion, euthanasia, andsuicide as it commends euthanasia and suicide as a means of human extermination.7Fletcher insists that we should never use the word "never" in reference to moral actions.Thus in denying moral absolutes he sets up his own absolute: moral laws are relative. Heseems unaware that as he "wields [his] sword to behead the monster of absolutism [he]decapitates his own relativism on the back swing."8 Therefore, as Norman Geisler puts it,"Relativism self-destructs in its vain attempt to destroy all absolutes."9Friedrich Nietzsche, the nineteenth-century philosopher, unlike others who rejectedreligion, logically faced up to the consequences of that rejection. Therefore his scorn wasdirected not at the religious person who philosophically affirmed moral truth for though he maybe wrong, at least he was coherent. What made Nietzsche most contemptuous were those peoplewho claimed to have abandoned an objective grounding of truth and morality, yet "chatteredabout truth and morality" (e.g. Joseph Flecher). He is relentlessly consistent in his insistence thatman is merely a species whose origin and existence can be explained in terms of mechanicalnecessity and chance, living on a planet which also is explained is such terms. If this is true, thenwhat requires human beings to live together according to the principles of equal justice?Nietzsche logically answered: Nothing, absolutely nothing at all.

174The existential writer Jean-Paul Sartre similarly put it, "[Without God] all activities areequivalent. . . . Thus it amounts to the same thing whether one gets drunk alone, or is a leader ofnations."10 It therefore does not matter whether when you see an old woman trying to cross thestreet whether you stop the car and help her across the street, or whether you simply run her over.In the end it really makes no difference whether you are Florence Nightingale or Al Caponesince all activities are equivalent without God.Thus Nietzsche and Sartre correctly saw the abyss of their own philosophical reasoningwhich left them with a world in which people cannot seriously discuss moral truths but mustonly count moral opinions. Thus all opinions count equally.COMMON NATURAL OR MORAL LAWWithout some common natural or moral law there can be no objective moraljudgments. C. S. Lewis put it:"This thing which I have called for convenience the Tao, and which others may callNatural Law . . . is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is thesole source of all value judgment. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any valueis retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value inits place is self-contradictory. "11Without some common moral law there is no ultimate guarantee of human rights. Merelya human law basis for government means that government can do that which is right in its owneyes and thus man becomes his own law.Natural law as seen earlier in chapter IX is the basis for our national birth certificateunder the rubric of "Nature's laws" and "unalienable" or "inalienable" "rights" such as "the rightto life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."12The belief in natural law is virtually universal. Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, theChinese and the writings of the Greeks all acknowledge natural law. Before Socrates, the Greekphilosopher Heraclitus believed in an unchanging Logos (Reason) behind the "changing flux ofhuman experience."13 Plato believed in moral absolutes and the stoics developed natural lawtheories before the time of Christ.Natural law is described in the Bible as that which human beings "do by nature" (Romans2:14). It is the law "written in the hearts" of all people (Romans 2:15). According to Paul, thosewho disobey natural law go against nature (1:27). The natural law condemns such things as"wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity." The actions opposed to it are "envy, murder, strife,deceit, and malice" (vv. 29-31).

175Thomas Aquinas viewed natural law as "nothing else than the rational creature'sparticipation in eternal law."14 Law is seen as "an ordinance of reason made for the commongood. . . ."15 While Eternal Law is the divine reason by which God governs the universe, naturallaw is the human participation in this eternal law.16Aquinas made the distinction between divine law and natural law in that divine law isonly to be imposed upon believers (the church) for his eternal good, whereas natural law iscommon to all rational creatures as it is directed toward man's temporal good. Thus natural law isfor society as a whole as it forms the basis for human law.The roots of natural law which formed the thinking of our forefathers derived from JohnLocke.17 Locke who did not align with Christianity nevertheless believed that the "laws ofNature" teach us that "being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life,health, liberty, or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent andinfinitely wise Maker. . . ."18 Thomas Jefferson, hardly aligned with historic Christianity,similarly wrote in the Declaration of Independence (1776):"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all menare created equal, that they are endowed by theirCreator with certain unalienable rights, that amongthese are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (Emphasis added)These "unalienable rights" are rooted in "Nature's Laws" according to Jefferson, andultimately are derived from "Nature's God."19 On the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C.are inscribed his own words:"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secured when wehave removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"This does not mean that the America that Jefferson envisioned was a Christian America,but it was an America that acknowledged God and whose concept of inalienable rights aregrounded in "Nature's Laws."20The Inner and outer Nature of Natural LawNatural law is manifested inwardly on the human heart and outwardly in human actions.This is, as Jefferson put it, "self-evident." Because of the kind of creature man is, he knows thisintuitively, instinctively. Man's own inclination makes him aware of this before it is known bycognition.

176The Golden RuleBoth Confucius and Jesus summarized the moral or natural law by the Golden Rule:"Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you."--Confucius"In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you."--Jesus Christ (Matthew 7:12)Although the natural law is simple to understand, it is difficult to practice. There is noquestion: We all know what we want or do not want others to do to us, even when we do notalways want or do not want to do the same to them.Seneca is a good example of a person who did not practice this Golden Rule as hisculture taught his mother that abortion was justified, yet he himself thanked his mother for notaborting him.21 Thus what we "do by nature" shows the moral law "written on our hearts."22ETHICS & RELIGIONAl though pragmatism (whatever works is right or good) has always been the basicphilosophy of our country, our leaders have never dismissed religion outright from theconsciousness of our nation. Religion has always played an important role in the shaping of thiscontinent. It is only recently that secular humanism has successfully replaced religion--at leastthe Judeo-Christian ethic—as central to the mindset of the American people.James Michener, an avowed humanist, has stated:"If you want to charge me with being the most virulent kind--a secular humanist—I accept the accusation. . . . I am a humanist, because I think humanity can, withconstant moral guidance, create reasonably decent societies. "23Michener fails to give any examples of "reasonably decent societies" based on the "moralguidance" of a humanistic philosophy. One of the leading historians of the twentieth century,Will Durant, who is also a humanist, confessed in the Humanist Magazine (1977):"Moreover, we shall find it no easy task to mold a natural ethic strong enough tomaintain moral restraint and social order without the support of supernaturalconsolations, hopes and fears. . . . There is no significant example in history,before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aidof religion."24

177Napoleon said that the French Revolution showed him what happens to people when theydo not believe in God. His solution for such people who have descended to the level of the beastsis death: "One does not govern such men; he shoots them down."25In the last three decades of our country God has been increasingly banished from thepublic square as man has taken center stage. What has happened to morality and ethics asreligions has become increasingly absent? Pollster George M. Gallup appraises the situation andgives the following prescription:"The United States is facing a 'moral and ethical crisis of the first dimension' andneeds to find spiritual answers to deal with the situation."26 (Emphasis added)Could it possibly be that Gallup is correct in his analysis and prescription?If there are no spiritual realities, then are we not left with nothing but matter in motion?THE RIGHT TO LIVE: IS IT GOD-GIVEN?According to our Founding Fathers the right to live is a God-given right that governmentscannot give nor take away. This right to life was to be extended to the unborn since the Englishcommon law tradition, from which our laws come, embraced laws against abortion. 27 Also, thisis so because the moral law (natural law) tradition from which Thomas Jefferson came (referredto by him with the phrase "Nature's Laws") included laws against abortion. Furthermore, duringthe time of our Founding Fathers, the dictionaries described "an unborn" as "a child in thewomb" and defined an unborn as "a very young person."28 In fact, as early as 1716, sixty yearsbefore the American Independence, the Common Council of New York passed a law forbiddingmidwives to perform abortions.29Our Bill of Rights includes the Fifth Amendment (1791) which reads: "Nor shall [anyperson] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Thus not only doeseveryone have the right to life, liberty, and property, but also the right to due process of law inregard to being deprived of these rights. Therefore, as Geisler points out, "Abortion is a violationof the Fifth Amendment both because it deprives the unborn of life and because it does soarbitrarily.30 He summarizes it:"The unborn are accused, pronounced guilty, and given capital punishment for nocrime, with no lawyer, before no jury."31Thus the Supreme Court overthrew the common law of centuries and the statue law offifty states and authorized abortion on demand, and thereby severed the child-about-to-be bornfrom the Declaration of Independence which our Founding Fathers proclaimed the self-evidenttruths of our fundamental moral and constitutional law. The monstrous result is that thepopulation of two Canadas has been buried.

178The Constitution & the Fourteenth AmendmentThe Supreme Court justices in the Roe vs. Wade decision conveniently circumvented thisflagrant violation of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment by changing the meaningof the unborn. No longer was it considered a "person" but merely a "human being."Why was such an action not warranted?The legal references to the unborn as a "child" during the time when theFourteenth Amendment was written makes such an action a clear violation.The dictionaries of that day defined a fetus as a "child in the womb."The killing of the unborn at that time was called "manslaughter."At that time all abortions were prohibited, except when the life of the mother wasat stake.At that time they exacted the same range of punishments for killing the unbornbaby as for killing the mother.The punishment was greater when it was shown that it was an abortion rather thansomething else that killed the baby.Some of the congressmen who voted for and helped draft the FourteenthAmendment also approved of strong anti-abortion laws."The most direct piece of federal legislation relating to abortion in this period wasenacted by Congress in 1873, five years after the Fourteenth Amendment wasproposed." This legislation prohibited the selling, lending, or giving away of "anyarticle . . . for causing unlawful abortion"32 as defined by the criminal law of thestate in which the federal headquarters was located.There were laws in all states prohibiting abortion, unless the mother's life wasendangered, just six years before the Supreme Court legalized abortion (1973).Some states followed by making exceptions for "hard cases" such as pregnancyin the case of rape or incest. In 1967 New York state legalized abortion fordifficult cases.The Fourteenth Amendment was not meant to embrace the right to abortion andexclude the unborn from legal protection since it was completely unknown tothose who were chiefly responsible for the Amendment.33

179Such a "right of privacy" was created by merely judicial fiat. Even Justice HarryBlackmun, in writing the majority opinion for Roe vs. Wade virtually concedes this:"This right to privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment'sconcept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is,or, as District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation ofrights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decisionwhether or not to terminate her pregnancy."34Doesn't it seem strange that the Court did not even feel obligated to settle the question ofwhere the right of privacy and thus the resultant right to abort is to be found in the text of theConstitution? Rather the Court considers such a question a matter of technicality. Could it be thatthat is so because such a right is alien to the intent of the Constitution as it "does not come out ofthe Constitution but is forced into it"?35Dissenting Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist put it:"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court'sjudgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional rightfor pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action,invests that with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortionstatutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 states areconstitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continuedexistence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against the spectrum ofpossible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicialpower, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but in my viewits judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicialreview that the Constitution extends to this Court."36Thus the debate on the legal and judicial front continues to, rage.The trend in American politics has been to exclude moral and religious questions whichultimately impinge on philosophical struggles. "The usual arguments about viability, intelligencepain, quickening, meaningful life, or unwanted children are as irrelevant as earlier arguments thatthe poor, black slaves were better off under the rule of a benevolent master."37 Just as SenatorStephen Douglas, Lincoln's opponent, who held that the Kansas-Nebraska and the Dred Scottdecision (1857) made the black man forever a slave in America, they hold that the SupremeCourt can and has settled forever the abortion issue. They argue with Supreme Court Justice JohnPaul Stevens, that only "secular interests" are fit subjects of national debate.Our sophisticated pragmatists see the resurgence of religion and moral issues as a passingfad in American politics as weightier matters such as wealth and weaponry take center stage.

180The Legal Definition of PersonhoodIn Roe vs. Wade the Court went to great lengths to demonstrate that most references to"persons" in the Constitution had solely a postnatal connotation. However, this begs the questionas to what a "person" means in the Fourteenth Amendment since most constitutional referencesto persons only dealt with adults, and in the original intent of the document, only white males.Does this mean that neither women, black adults nor black children have no rights? Clearly, theFourteenth Amendment has been used to vindicate the right of black children as well as adults,and it has subsequently been applied to protect the rights of women as well as men. Therefore,there is no basis in history, jurisprudence, or simple logic to justify exempting the unborn fromthe scope of the Amendment.Furthermore, the unborn qualify for the constitutional definition of "person" which wasmade by Justice Douglas in I: & YY vs. Louisiana (1968) as he successfully argued thatillegitimate children are "persons," on the grounds that "They are humans, live, and have theirbeing. They are clearly 'persons' within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."38Does anyone question that unborn children are human, that they do live, and have theirbeing, as Justice Douglas defined a "person"? Although an unborn child has as little control overits status as an illegitimate child, and is far more vulnerable, they are considered "persons" underthe Constitution. There is no rational basis whatsoever for creating an arbitrary or scholasticdistinction so as to exclude them.Another critical distinction which the Roe Court ignored was the differentiation betweencitizenship and personhood made in the Fourteenth Amendment:"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges orimmunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive anyperson of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny toany person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law."39According to the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, citizenship relates to politicalrights whereas personhood deals with the more basic rights inherent to all human beings.Personhood encompasses both citizens and noncitizens. Thus all citizens are person, but not allpersons are citizens. Even the dreadful 1857 Dred Scott vs. Sanford (60 U.S. 19 How. 393)decision conceded that slaves were persons under the Constitution even though slaves weredenied the privileges of citizenship.The many references to "persons" cited by the Roe Court in the attempt to support itsfinding that application only applied to postnatal human beings actually was referring to personswho were also citizens. The references to "persons" relied upon by the Roe Court were made inthe context of politics since it had to do with the eligibility to vote, holding political office, etc.

181Such considerations would obviously preclude anyone under a certain age, whether born or not.By such strict textual interpretation the Court ignored the historical meaning and context andrendered a decision which is devoid of constitutional justification.40The historic morality which forms the foundation of American constitutional thought isfirmly rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. That tradition has unambiguously recognized thatlife begins at conception, and that abortion is murder until the Court reaffirms the moral, social,and legal recognition of the value of unborn human life our nation will be doomed.C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General warns us about what lies ahead:"One could say without hesitation that we are at the crossroads of the corruption ofmedicine with the corruption of law. Corruption of law came first in this countrywith the U.S. Supreme Court abortion decision of 1973. The corruption of medicinefollowed. In Germany in the 1930s the corruption of medicine came first. But theHolocaust could not have come about with the corruption of medicine alone. It tookthe corruption of law to make euthanasia legal.There is no doubt that if the doctors in Germany had stood for the right to life ofevery individual, the Holocaust at the very least would have been slowed downand minimized. "41LIFE & LIBERTYAre life and liberty enemies? If so, what has happened to the belief that every person hasan "inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?About one century ago Abraham Lincoln expressed at Gettysburg the resolve "that thesedead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom;and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."Did such liberty of some justify the denial of liberty to others? Will our nation whichclaimed from her historic founding that "all men are created equal" endure? Can such a nationsurvive if she denies, rather than reclaims, liberty for the defense of life?It is obvious that unless there is life there can be no experience of liberty. Unless libertyis devoted to the defense of life, neither life, nor eventually liberty, can survive.The Supreme Court's infamous Roe vs. Wade abortion ruling of 1973 is in every respectas wrong as was the 1857 ruling that affirmed the legitimacy of slavery. Both dehumanized aclass of people."The American experience is premised upon the promise of freedom."42

182Supposedly everyone has the right to pursue that promise. In spite of the Roe vs. Wadedecision, "the existence of that right does not depend upon the power to exercise that right."43As Richard John Neuhaus puts it:"It is the business of just government to see that the liberty of the strong ischecked by the rights of the weak. Ours in not a movement against governmentbut a movement demanding that government attend to its proper business. Thefirst and most urgent business of government is the protection of human life."44A well known statement "morality cannot be legislated," is quite agreed upon in oursociety. One person's view of morality must be respected by others with opposing views. Theobvious thing being overlooked by this statement is that almost all other laws have to do withmorality. Judge Robert Bork has said is succinctly, "Indeed . . . we legislate little else."45Whether we are discussing segregation, slavery, or rape, we are making moral judgmentcalls. We have laws that make these acts, and others, illegal. We decide that a man cannot takeadvantage sexually of a girl under eighteen years of age in some states, and in others, fourteenyears of age. Whatever the age, or the illegal act, it has that element of morality in decisionsmade regarding what human acts are permissible.If one person's moral judgment is as good as another person's it would be impossible toenact any law. "After all, one person's larceny is another's just distribution of goods."46 What ifa person decided to raise kittens for the sole purpose of torturing them to death. Whether wewitness such actions or not, we then would have no moral right to enact legislation against suchsick conduct.A woman may have a "right of privacy," but the killing of an innocent life is never aprivate matter. In the death of innocent human life, the killing is public because killing humanlife is always a matter of morality—public morality.47THE BASIS AND PURPOSE OF LAWAlthough it is true that love cannot be fully enforced by law, the works or manifestationsof love can. Thus morality is the basis and purpose of law. Laws exist to implementmanifestations of love as they are given to help people by protecting values that lead to a healthyperson and society.JUSTICE & LOVEJustice and love must be intertwined in a relationship of mutual support. Justice needslove for its motivation and love may require justice for its exercise. Several years ago manypeople who opposed civil rights legislation would typically say, "You cannot legislate morality."Martin Luther King responded, "It is true, the law cannot make a white man love me, but it candiscourage him from lynching me." If a person is lynched there will never be a chance to lovehim.

183It is critical that the law is sustained by a common conscience of a people. Unsuccessfullaws must not be repealed for the law is given not just to transform people, but to declare what isright and proper and to publicly disavow what we believe to be unfair and damaging. Thus lawsare part of our public confession of justice since they are what a people are willing to publiclypromise to each other.48James T. Burtchaell makes the point: "You probably cannot tell the moral character of apeople by reading their laws. But you can learn something about a people's character byobserving what laws they lack."49 What about the moral character of America? A nation thatdoes not forbid the killing of their own children!At times the law runs ahead of public opinion as in the case of Brown v. Board ofEducation where the Supreme Court boldly led the way to racial justice. Law encouraged us todo the right thing when as a nation we did not have the courage of our "convictions." In the caseof Roe vs. Wade the Supreme Court allowed our worst impulses. Thus we have ended up, as F.LaGard smith puts it, "with a pro-choice Court leading a pro-choice generation wherever it wantsto go."50LAW & MORALITYJust as love and justice are intertwined, so law and morality need one another. Instead ofimposing our morality upon others, our goal must be to restore the legitimacy of law bybringing law back into democratic conversation with the values and beliefs of the Americanpeople.In this way the pro-life movement is the continuation of the civil rights movement since itchampions the most elementary civil right, that is, human right—the right to be.51If "religious extremists" must not be allowed to impose their narrow beliefs, why shouldsecular extremists?"52LIBERTY & LIFERichard John Neuhaus asks the searching question of America:"will it be an America that is inclusive, embracing the stranger and giving refuge to thehomeless? Or will it be an exclusive America in which we grasp what we have forourselves and beat off those who call us to share? will it be a caring America, nurturingthe helpless and protecting the vulnerable? Or will it be a cruel America, discarding theundeveloped, destroying the uninvited, and disguising its cruelty of life as concern forquality of life? Will it be a hopeful America, open to a future of high peril and yethigher promise, welcoming every would-be pilgrim to our company of faith? Or will itbe a fearful America, hunkering down, guarding against intruders, the cave in which weseek security but find only a prison? will it be a democratic America, trusting once again

184the competence of ordinary people to our public life in harmony with their dreams, theirvalues and, yes, their religious beliefs? Or will it be a controlled America, handed overto experts in courts and classrooms who too often show contempt for the convictions ofthose whom they are to serve?"53The choice is clear: "Inclusive or exclusive? Caring or cruel? Hopeful or despairing?Democratic or controlled by those who would relieve us of the burden of our freedom?"54Liberty must not be pitted against life. Such an approach is "alien to those who believethat every person has an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."55

18516. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

186"We do not want, as the newspapers say, a church that will move with the world.We want a church that will move the world."1--G. K. ChestertonWhat should those who are convinced that abortion is murder do? Is civil disobedienceever legitimate?EXAMPLESThe early Christians did not hesitate to go against governmental authorities when theyconsidered those authorities to be unlawful and unfair in applying justice. When the Sanhedrin(the closest equivalent to our Supreme Court) forbid the apostles to preach, Peter and the apostlesreplied:"We must obey God rather than men!" (Acts 5:29; see also 5:27-32)2:4).Moses' parents disobeyed the Pharaoh's command to kill all baby boys (Exodus 2:2; 1:15-Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were commanded to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar'sgolden image. They chose to disobey this evil law and thus be thrown into the fiery furnace(Daniel 3:1-30).Daniel was commanded to stop praying to God for 30 days. He correctly chose the lions'den rather than obey an unrighteous law (6:1-28).Civil disobedience!As citizens of a country we are to be subject to those in authority (Romans 13:1-7). Suchdisobedience, therefore, is only legitimate when we are asked or commanded to do somethingthat clearly violates Scripture (Acts 5:29) or our conscience (Romans 14:22-23).WHAT ABOUT TRESPASSING ABORTION CLINICS WHEN LIFE IS AT STAKE?A "rescue" is a peaceful, nonviolent act in which Christian people physically intervene torescue unborn babies from being killed at an abortion clinic.A group of people sit in front of an abortion clinic entrance, praying and worshiping. Thephysical blockade stops entry to the clinic and buys time for the sidewalk counselors who areprepared to plead with mothers and fathers, urging them to reconsider the decision to let theirbabies be killed.John Piper, theologian and pastor gives the following aim of his participation in rescueefforts through clinic blockades:

187To authenticate my heart's conviction that the unborn are human beings created inthe image of God.To repent of years of apathy toward the killing of the unborn.To save babies' lives and mothers' hearts.To inspire my church to action.To awaken a lumbering society to the atrocity of child killing.To testify with my life and honor that Christ cares for the innocent helplessTo glorify God the Creator who has sole rights to give and to take life and tocommand everyone everywhere, "thou shalt not kill."2Proverbs 24:11 says,COMMANDED TO RESCUE HELPLESS INNOCENTS"Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering towardslaughter."This is a general statement with no specifics given. No illustrations. Therefore it is notlegitimate to limit it to one group of humans and try to leave out another group. We must notlimit it to Jews, Blacks, Indians or white people or healthy people or rich people or intelligentpeople. Since it is not specific it must have general application.What does it teach us to do? It teaches us this: "If a group of humans is being taken awayto death who ought not be taken away to death, the people who fear God in the vicinity ought totry to rescue them."3 What is being commanded here is some kind of intervention from us whenwe become aware of neighbors being killed who ought not to be killed.In this study we have seen that the unborn are human beings who are not disqualifiedfrom the command issued by God in Proverbs 24: 11. When the Bible says, "Rescue those beingled away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter" (v. 11), we have noprecedence to relegate the unborn into a subhuman class that therefore does not qualify for ourrescue. It is our Christian duty to rescue as many as possible.This verse about rescue is followed by another verse that asks three questions:"If you say, 'But we knew nothing about this,' does not He who weighs the heartperceive it? Does not He who guards your life know it? Will He not repay each person accordingto what he has done?" (v. 12).

188In other words, "You can't fool God!" Our lame excuses will be seen for what they are—rationalizations.Rescue efforts that involve trespassing are legitimate biblically when they involve agreater good: saving lives.Although this is not the only way to apply the command of Proverbs 24:11, it is one waythat is required by some as their consciences are sensitive to the leadership of the Holy Spirit.Testimonialclinic.Pastor John Piper gives the following testimony after his arrest for blocking an abortion"When I was arraigned in Ramsey County Court the first time January 6, 1989, I wasgiven an opportunity to address the court. This is what I said to Judge James Campbell:'Suppose I lived next door to a very mean-spirited man who was so hostile that he put up 'Do NotTrespass' signs allover the fence around his house mainly to keep me out. One day I heardchildren screaming from his backyard. I run to the fence and notice a little child choking onsomething. Instinctively I jump the fence and try to save the child. I'm too late.After a few days this mean-spirited man seeks a warrant for my arrest. I go into court andthe judge, for reasons beyond his control, finds me guilty of trespassing and fines me $50. WouldI be disrespectful of the law if I refused to pay?Judge Campbell answered, 'In that case you should appeal the decision, because of aspecial legal reality called the law of necessity. But there are distinguishing facts between thatcase and this one.'So I asked if he would be willing to tell me what facts. He paused and said, 'The SupremeCourt has ruled in Roe v. Wade that abortion is not a crime. "'4Is Judge Campbell right? If we follow Campbell's argumentation that piper's rescue wasnot legitimate "because of distinguishing facts," that is, because abortion is "not a crime," thennot helping—rescuing—a child choking is also not a crime. Not helping someone in need is not acrime according to our law. It could be argued, however, that it is a crime against love. But thereis no prosecution against laws against love.Judge Campbell said to Pastor Piper that he should appeal the sentence if he were foundguilty of trespassing to save the life of a child. In such case Piper would not be guilty because of"the law of necessity." This means that we are not guilty of crime when we trespass to save life.This aligns with the voice of conscience for most people.

189The question is, if this is so, then why are the people who trespass at abortion clinicsarrested and found guilty? As Piper points out,"It is not really because of the trespass law. Every judge in this country wouldignore the trespass law when saving life is at stake. This is not the law that issending hundreds to jail. The reason I got arrested is not the trespass law; it isRoe vs. Wade."5The Supreme Court decision, Roe vs. Wade, stripped the unborn of their humanity, theirpersonhood, and thus made saving their lives a crime rather than the violation of "the law ofnecessity," which is excusable and even commended. Thus trespassing on behalf of the unborn isnot really a violation of trespassing, but a violation against Roe vs. Wade.Some argue that the Bible only condones breaking a law that "requires an act which iscontrary to God's Word" or which "prohibits an act which is consistent with God's Word."Therefore, since the trespass law is a good law and does neither, it is not right to break it.Furthermore, it is argued, there are simply no biblical examples of civil disobedience that aresimilar to the rescues of the unborn.In the first place, Roe vs. Wade does "prohibit an act which is consistent with God'sWord" in that it violates the legal protection of children. The violation is a "legal" violation sinceJudge Campbell spoke of "the law of necessity" as legitimate reason to violate the trespass law aslong it is for the purpose of saving human lives.Roe vs. Wade is a law that violates that which is consistent with God's Word since it triesto stop people from rescuing the unborn by stripping them of their humanity. This makes suchlaw not only indefensible, but evil. Any law that strips human beings of their humanity shouldnever be obeyed, whether it is the case of Black slaves in the sordid history of our country or thecase of Jews during the holocaust. Any law that prohibits the saving of human life should beviolated!An exact parallel to breaking the trespass law by blockading abortion clinics would be ifa prophet under the authority of an idolatrous king had tried to deny a mother access to the altarof Molech where she planned to sacrifice a child.Does this mean that there are no biblical parallels in Scripture for the rescue of theunborn by such methods? No, for there are parallels in principle. The Book of Esther tells aboutKing Ahasuerus who sanctions the unjust killing of Jews throughout his kingdom. Mordecaiurges Esther, the Queen, to intervene. She does so as she points out that it is against the law toapproach the king without being summoned (Esther 4:11). Even though such a violation ispunishable by death (v. 11), Mordecai urges the queen to break this law. Esther, being thewoman of God that she is, does so and thus risks her life. She confessed:

190". . . I will go to the king, even though it isagainst the law. And if I perish, I perish" (v. 16).Esther did not hesitate to break a royal trespass law to save those whose murder had beenunjustly sanctioned by the king.Another parallel would be in the case of the king of Jericho who sanctioned the capture ofJewish spies. In fact, few if any would argue that it was not even a bad law that spies should beturned over to the authorities. After all, without such a law it would be difficult to protect one'scountry. In the same way, most trespass laws are good laws in that they protect people andproperty. Yet Rahab, a harlot, violated this law which in and of itself was a good law, because bydoing so she would be able to rescue the spies. Even though Rahab was commanded to stopinterfering with the arrest of the spies (Joshua 2:3), she resolutely refused as she harbored themand helped them escape from Jericho.The Book of Obadiah provides yet another parallel to the rescue of the unborn. AlthoughQueen Jezebel sanctioned the slaying of the prophets of the Lord, Obadiah, the prophet,intervened. By doing so he risked his life and was successful in rescuing a hundred of theprophets (I Kings 18:4,13).Jehosheba gave the royal son Joash secret refuge from Queen Athaliah (II Kings 11:1-3;II Chronicles 22:10-12).Just as we are not commanded to have abortions, neither were Rahab and Obadiahcommanded to harm prophets or spies. Rather, just as we are prohibited to physically interfere orintervene in abortion, so they were prohibited to physically rescue those who were endangeredby legal sanctions.6Isn't it interesting how quick people who claim to believe the Bible are in trying to findloopholes—legal technicalities—to prove that abortion resources are biblically illegal? Could itbe that by finding such loopholes they feel more comfortable in not getting involved in rescue?Is it possible that we really do not believe that what we claim to believe? That is, that a fetus is ahuman being. If doctors were allowed to kill born infants, would Christians stand by and say,"The law is the law and we must respect it"? If not, then the only logical conclusion why we usethat same argument is that fetuses are, after all, subhuman.It is clear biblically and legally that it is not illegal to trespass to save innocent life.Scripture provides us parallels to "rescuing those being led away to death" by violating thetrespass law in the case of Queen Esther, who saved Jews, prophet Obadiah, who saved prophets,and former prostitute Rahab, who saved spies. Similarly, Corrie ten Boom disobeyed the ordersof the Third Reich to save Jewish refugees. All such brave souls "bear witness to the truth thateven in a pluralistic society there is a limit beyond which government may not violate the law ofGod without physical resistance."7

191Proverbs 24:11-12 is undoubtedly God's Word today on the issue of the slaughter ofabortion. This text is a clear call to action (see also Psalm 82:3-4; Isaiah 58:6-7; James 1:27;2:14-17; I John 3:16-17).THE CONSCIENCE OF SOCIETYMartin Luther has pointed out that the church is "the conscience" of society. She alone,because she is separate-"called out," has a God-given prophetic ministry.Theologian Karl Barth has pointed out that "the church with no great anguish on its hearthas no great music on its lips."8"The burden of the Lord" was evident in the life, ministry and mission of the early churchwhich showed great passion for God and compassion for people. Paul and his followers did notsound the prophetic voice without the compassionate tears. Tough love characterized theirministry and mission.Charles Colson, a prophet for our times, has stated:"The church does not draw people in; it send them out. It does not settle into acomfortable niche, taking its place alongside the Rotary, the Elks, and the countryclub. Rather, the church is to be society uncomfortable. Like yeast, it unsettles themass around it, changing it from within. Like salt, it flavors and preserves thatinto which it vanishes."9There is grave danger lurking for the believer and the congregation that begins to getinvolved with the state in some measure. Perhaps no theologian in recent years has wrestled withthe mission of the church more seriously than Swiss theologian Karl Barth. As a pastor inSafenwil, Switzerland, before his teaching career, he came to know and identify with the needsof the working people in his region. As a result he began to be involved in addressing issues ofhis day and of his own community.Barth broke with many of his friends in the religious social movement because of hisconviction that humanity cannot build the kingdom of God on earth. He warned against allowingthe Gospel to be changed or transposed into any plan for saving people by the solution ofpolitical, economic or social problems.When Barth speaks of the "political mission" and "political responsibility" of the churchhe means that the church must be willing, in her proclamation, to speak out against social evilswithout necessarily aligning herself with any political or social platform. Theology, he said, mustnot be "politicized nor politics theologized."10German theologian Emil Brunner was similarly warned:

192"It is not the primary . . . task of the Church to create, to change, to improve thesocial order. The task of the Church lies beyond any social order, because itstask is to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Kingdom of God whichtranscends all social orders, the good and bad alike."11The church dare not mimic or merely reflect the world or she will have nothing to offer tothe world. Only when she stands out in stark contrast to the prevailing values, standard, andopinions of the world will she command respect. Only when the church transcends culture canshe transform it. Historically, reforms have not originated from the state but from thosecommunities which have remained uncompromising in a compromising age. 'COUNTER-CULTURE REVOLUTIONThe early church was a counter-culture revolution. These early believers were differentfrom both the nominal church that has been so prevalent in our times and from the secular world.They were different from both the religious and the irreligious. Their value-system, ethicalstandard, religious devotion, attitude toward money, ambition, lifestyle and relationships were atcomplete variance with those in the non-Christian world. They were a kingdom people who livedunder the reign or rule of God. Thus they stood out like lights and beacons in a dark, despairing,and lost world.Prophets (seers) such as Jeremiah, Amos, and John the Baptist clearly saw what God sawand thundered warnings of impending doom against evil and misguided leaders and unjust andabusive governmental structures provide a paradigm for the community of God. God's peoplehave not been called to be mealy-mouthed cowards who lie down like doormats when confrontedby secular people and/or authorities. God calls His people to lovingly, but also courageously,proclaim with their lives and lips what it means to follow and obey God and what awaits thosewho refuse to do so.The mark of the messianic age was Christ's preaching of the gospel to the poor, theoppressed, the captive. The prophetic call to a community or nation is not a substitute for thepreaching of the gospel and the calling to Christian decision; but neither is Christianproclamation a substitute for a fervent concern for love and justice expressed concretely inthunderous warnings, tough rebukes, helpful words, compassionate deeds and even in thoughtfulvotes.In spite of all her weaknesses, historically the church has always been a force, a powerfulinfluence in keeping back, in arresting unrestrained corruption of society. As "salt" in society thechurch has hindered the total corruption of society. Historian J. Edwin Orr observed:"The greatest achievements of the (19th) century—the abolition of the slave trade,reform of prisons, emancipation of slaves, care of the sick, education of the young,protection of workers and the like-were made . . . by enlightened individuals whowere enlightened by Jesus Christ and their voluntary supporters."12

193History testifies to the fact that Christianity in Great Britain and the United States movedcontrary to the winds of public thought and spoke out against slavery and other abuses.The prophetic community is one that not only provides the conscience in speakingagainst the evils of society, but also provides a helping hand in alleviating those very evils fromsociety. Such is the testimony of the church as a whole!"I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine,you did for Me" (Matthew 25:40) .--Jesus Christ

19417. ALTERNATIVES

195“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”1--Edmund BurkeINVOLVEMENTProbably the earliest scholarly study of the issue of abortion was done by RaffaeloBaestrini in 1888 when he wrote about ancient society:“Abortion, elevated to the degree of a social custom, is in sum nothing butthe apparent manifestation of a state of decadence of a people, which has verydeep roots and which can only be cured with far-reaching remedies, notwith the attempt to suppress the manifestations itself.”3 (Emphasis added)Far-reaching remedies point to a new mindset. Such a mind-set is possible onlythrough extensive education.Although it is vital to criticize and point out the fallacy of the proabortion position, wemust also set out a pro-life position that includes the born and the unborn.Furthermore, it is crucial that those of us who are convinced of the evil of abortionprovide viable alternatives. Love for the unborn and the mothers who find themselves in verydifficult circumstances due to their pregnancy demands involvement. In some cases this meanscostly involvement.Developing a pro-life outlook begins at home. As parents we need to thoroughly andconsistently teach the value, the sacredness, of human life. As Lewis Smedes points out:"We must see every person as someone who lives each moment in relationshipwith God. We need to see the religious connection if we want to recognize theessence of human sacredness. The concrete person, beautiful or ugly, productiveor idle, smart or stupid, is the one whom God made, whom God loves, whoselife is in God's hands, and for whom his Son died on the cross. This is the personwho walks humbly on the earth as the image and likeness to the Creator whomade him. We do not have to agree about what part or feature marks him asGod's image—intellect creativity, or maybe sexuality. In any case, he is, withall his gifts and in spite of all his sins, the sacred person among all other valuableliving creatures."4Programs & ServicesOur religious institutions are also key in developing a sacred viewpoint toward life ingeneral, and human life in particular. Education programs will discourage adolescent sexualactivity by teaching personal maturity and social responsibility.

196Churches need to provide counseling for disturbed mothers who are about to have a babyor who have had a baby. As agents of reconciliation, churches must also provide counseling forwomen who have had abortions and the men who have encouraged it, helping them to see the sinand evil of their deed and then leading them to the forgiveness Christ alone can provide. Thismeans showing them Christ's boundless love and praying for them.Another way to help is to provide homes for pregnant women who find themselvesalone, rejected and sometimes abused. What better application of God's injunction in the Biblethat we should "practice hospitality" (Romans 12:13; Hebrews 13:2; I Peter 4:9)!Crisis Pregnancy Centers are developing quite rapidly in our nation to help women withcrisis pregnancies. If we urge women to carry their babies to full term, then we must be preparedto minister to them after the babies are born.Monetary benefit should be given to pro-life as it is to prochoice. The most costeffectiveand efficient method would be a government approved tax deduction for contributions.Ronald J. Sider, in his book, Completely Pro-Life, gives an extensive list of ways that wecan help mothers."The integrity of the pro-life movement depends on its vigorously supporting changesin public policy that give women and families additional meaningful alternatives. Thefollowing are especially important: expanded research on nonabortive, reliable, safemethods of family planning; assistance for programs supporting women who carrychildren to term; vigorous prosecution of sexual violence against women; expandedservices and schooling for disabled children; support for programs to makeavailable better opportunities in education, jobs and housing to poor people so thatthey no longer feel they have to choose between desperate poverty and abortion.Male responsibility for children must increase . . . We could foster increased maleresponsibility in many ways. Making paternity suits more accessible to women . . .child support enforcement and tighter divorce laws . . . Women, not men havebeen the economic losers with no fault divorce laws. . . .Funding should increase for crisis centers, adoption agencies, prenatal and teenhealth clinics, and agencies that teach parental skills and prevent pre-maturity. . . .Adoption needs to become a more attractive option. We should modernize adoptionlaws which arbitrate and advocate the rights, needs and concerns of birth parents,adoptive parents and adoptive children. Educational efforts to remove the stigmaattached to adoption are needed. Adoption is a loving act for the child and awonderful way to build families. We also need to encourage people to adopt acrosstraditional barriers.”5

197JustLife, a prolife political action committee, after stating its vigorous stand againstabortion, continues its Statement of Philosophy:“JustLife believes with equal conviction that government should support programsthat offer meaningful alternatives to abortion for pregnant women and their families.The readily available option of abortion as a tool of social policy encourages societyto evade its obligation to attack the unjust structures and conditions that encouragesome to seek abortion: poverty, sexism, lack of adequate health care, sexualabuse, and ignorance about birth control information. Many women have noreasonable choice.JustLife demands that society provide other options than either the trauma ofabortion or motherhood without adequate support. JustLife therefore believes thata consistent pro-life stance will insist that government should promote programsthat offer adequate health care, needed child care, economic support, assistance forthe families of disabled children, and adoption alternatives. Women must be ableto make a responsible decision against abortion without losing all opportunity forfulfilled lives. Only when government policy truly promotes this goal is itgenuinely and consistently pro-life.”6

19818. THE CHALLENGE

199Involvement is a must for any Christian! Involvement in voicing opposition to the evilsof abortion is essential since the Church is to be the conscience of society and involvement inproviding alternatives to abortion since the Church is called by God to work for the welfare, thewellbeing of society.A TESTIMONIALIn 1951 when my mother went to the doctor and found out for sure she was pregnant forthe fourth time she was told firmly and vehemently that she'd better abort the "fetus." She wasvery ill and was told by her personal doctor, and later other doctors, that her own life was atstake if she did not abort. She resolutely refused believing that her life was no more importantthan the life in her womb. She and my father said that they would trust God for the outcome andfound peace in their decision.She reasoned that if she were not to live through this birth then so be it—that would beGod's appointed time for her to go and be with Him (Ecclesiastes 3:2). She wanted the gift of lifein her womb to have a chance to live.My younger brother was born and my mother made it through a very difficult birth. Shehas since passed away but my brother is now 49 years old.The sanctity of life! Without life there is nothing else! Life makes everything elsepossible. My parents, especially my mother, since it was her life at stake, made life possible formy brother.Such values, such a loving, sacrificial, parental consideration is rare today whereabortions are performed for the most trivial of reasons: interference with the lifestyle of theparent, inconvenience to their way of life, distress to the mental health of the mother, etc.A RICH HERITAGEAt the New York harbor there rises a universally known landmark which stands as anenduring witness to the noble American tradition of welcoming the stranger, and which is tellingof the kind of nation America has aspired to be. It is the Statue of Liberty, with its celebratedpoem:“Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free.The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempesttossed,to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”Although that inscription has not been a seismic shift in the philosophy of ourcivilization. The value of life has become subjective. Life or death is a matter of whether “I”want “you” or whether “we” want “them” to live. Life in and of itself is no longer seen as havingintrinsic worth. This is a wholesale retreat from the Hippocratic code which one would think it

200would be difficult for people, and especially physicians, to stomach. Not so! Is it any wonder thatpresent day America has become less sensitive, less caring towards the poor, the weak, thestranger, the needy?Our history has been amplified by historic grievances and has increasingly beenexacerbated by the manipulations of the unscrupulous which has led to a denial of humanity tothe most vulnerable of all—the unborn. The result is that as a society we have fallen into a cycleof violence in which no one is spared, not even the children.Is the analogy between the unborn and the immigrant strained? The painful answer isthat it is not since the logic that has led to abortion has surreptitiously slivered itself into everydimension of our common life. When there is no goal higher than self-satisfaction, like thelogic of the ominous Dred Scott decision (in which slaves were not given the same freedoms andrights of the white people) a century earlier, “others” possess no rights, no claims, which we arebound to respect. This is the logic of narcissism—an abnormal love and admiration foroneself—articulated by the highest court of the land—The Supreme Court.MOTHER THERESA’S LOGICAt a National Prayer Breakfast in Washington D. C. this last year Mother Teresa said thatAmerica, once known for generosity to the world has become selfish. And she said that thegreatest proof of that selfishness is abortion. She tied abortion to the growing violence andmurder in the streets and said,"If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell otherpeople not to kill each other? . . . Any country that accepts abortion is notteaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want."1She ended her comments with these words:"Many people are very, very concerned with children in India, with the childrenof Africa, where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are alsoconcerned about all the violence in this great country of the United States.These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concernedwith the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their ownmothers. And this is what is the greater destroyer of peace today—abortion,which brings people to such blindness."90 (Emphasis added)Even as we stand on the threshold of a new millennium in which we are witnessing anextraordinary global acceleration of that quest for freedom which is one of the greatest dynamicsof human history, we see the door of freedom shut tightly to those not considered “worthy” oflife itself, much less freedom.

201Man, unless he was of Aryan descent, became meat at Ypres, Verdun, Dresden,Auschwitz. Man, unless bowed to the atheistic demands of Stalin, became meat at the Gulag. Is itnot ironic that this century, which is distinguished for humanism and science is alsodistinguished for war and totalitarianism, and is the dawn of the abortion age?Swedish philosopher Gunnar Myrdal, in his eightieth year in 1979, spoke to aninterviewer about the lifetime of collaboration between himself and his wife. He said,“Alva and I have always been Enlightenment philosophers. Now we see thatthe world is going to hell, now that we’re going to die.”3It is a paradoxical that the period we call “modernity” in which man has self-confidentlyclaimed to have “come of age” is also the time that man has become increasingly fearful. He hasbecome fearful of humanity as he thinks of what man might be capable. With the threat ofnuclear war looming on the sky humanity has become uncertain about the very likelihood of afuture.Francis Schaeffer and Everett Koop dedicated their book and film Whatever Happened toHuman Race? “To those who were robbed of life, the unborn, the weak, the sick, the old, duringthe dark ages of madness, selfishness, lust and greed for which the last decade of the twentiethcentury are remembered.”4Is it accurate and fair to describe “Western civilization” in its last decade of the 20 thcentury as “the dark ages”? The only inaccuracy that I see is that “the dark ages” would moreaptly describe the last three decades, rather than just the last decade, of the 20 th century since itwas the advent of the massive, deliberate murder of innocent human beings on demand.Jean Garton Staker has truthfully and painfully pointed out:“The church , instead of acting, is being acted upon. Public opinion increasinglyshapes its Witness and molds its ministry. The church has become the rearguard instead of the vanguard. The Christian, instead of serving as a pilot,leading the way, has become a Pilate, the classic example of a man who didnot want to get involved. Pathetic Pilate, unwilling to do what was wrong—condemn the innocent to death—was also unwilling to do what was right—touse his voice to save Him who was condemned. So he washed his hands ofthe whole matter and chose personal immunity over public responsibility.”5Who are responsible for abortion? The aborting mother. The husband or boyfriend whoencouraged, and maybe even insisted upon, the abortion. The abortionist. The nurse assistingthe abortionist. The clinic or hospital that promotes the killing. And all of us who are silent andindifferent, who sit and merely watch, who are numb and unresponsive as we, like the priest andLevite in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, “pass by on the other side.” As bystanders ourinaction contradicts our “beliefs” as people of conscience, conviction, integrity, and compassion.

202BOTH/ANDAs civilized human beings we must be committed to human life period. This meanscommitment both in defending its sanctity—its transcendent nature—and in promoting itsquality of life. As Louise Summerhill, founder of “Birthright” stated,“We help rather than abort, we believe in making a better world for babies tocome into, rather than killing them.”6If we claim to be pro-life it is of utmost importance that we become involved. We mustaggressively and consistently work hard to stop the evil of abortion, personally reach out to thosein need and encourage programs designed to enhance quality of life to the already living. Moralintegrity demands that we fight evil and promote good."The primary aspiration of the pro-life movement should not be that of changingThe laws but of creating a world that welcomes and finds a place for all of ussimply because we—and the unborn—share a common humanity."7--James R. Kelly

203APPENDIX A

204“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of thetruth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil areat the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may beprofessing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier isproved.”1--Martin LutherTHE BIBLICAL BASISSince philosophy and theology are so closely interwoven, some readers may have anacademic interest in this issue from a Biblical and Theological framework. I have consideredarguments along these lines in the appendix.Another reason for addressing this issue Biblically and Theologically is to show thosewho claim to believe the Bible that it is totally inconsistent to hold a pro-choice position in lightof Scriptural revelation.As mentioned earlier (CHAPTER 3), it is estimated that more than 17% of all abortions inthe United States is done by women who claim to be “born again” or Evangelical” Christians.This would mean that about 11million unborn babies have been killed by mothers who claim tobelieve in Jesus, the Author of life. This means that women who claim to be Christians havekilled almost twice as many unborn babies as Hitler and his henchmen killed Jews. This isreprehensible!Some have argued that since the Bible does not deal specifically with abortion that wecannot be dogmatic about the issue. To use the same line of argumentation I would point out thatthe Bible does not deal with infanticide (the killing of babies), uxoricide (the killing of one'swife), genocide (the killing of a whole race), nor even suicide (the killing of oneself). Does thatmean that such hideous acts are biblically sanctioned?There are specific provisions against homicide—the deliberate taking of human life. TheTen Commandments are clear:"You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13).This passage makes it clear that an individual exists prenatally. Job said that if he had notbeen born it would be “as though” he “had never come into being.” He was not saying that if hehad not been born he would never have existed, as some claim, but that if he had been stillborn itwould be as though he had never existed, he still existed. Simple logic dictates that one cannotuse “as though” unless one “is.”2The Hebrew word translated “boy” and specifically applied to the unborn since it is usuallyused to describe potential humans and typically translated “male,” “man,” or “husband” (Psalm34:8; 52:7; 94:12; Proverbs 6:34).3

205This fifth commandment forms the basis for all other commands against the killing ofinnocent human life. And Scripture is replete with prohibitions against the taking of innocenthuman life.If the developing fetus is shown to be a human being there is no need for a specificcommand against feticide (abortion) any more than we need something specific againstinfanticide, uxoricide, genocide or suicide. The general commandment against killing covers allother forms of taking innocent human life.Thus the humanity of the unborn is crucial to the ultimate determination of feticide. In Roe v.Wade the Supreme Court stated that the humanity of the unborn child need not be resolved inorder to determine the legality of abortion. Appalling! This is what the Supreme Court had to do.For if the unborn child is a human being, then the issue is resolved since a civilized societycannot tolerate the intentional killing of helpless innocent human beings. By shifting topersonhood, the Court argued that the only relevant issue to the Court was whether such a child,irrespective of its humanity, is a "person" and thus has value under the Constitution.ETYMOLOGICAL EVIDENCEPersonal Language Applied to the Unborn From ConceptionGenesis 4:1 applies personal language to the unborn from conception: “Adam lay withhis wife Eve, and she became pregnant (conceived) and gave birth to Cain.” The writer’sinterest in Cain extends back beyond his conception. That is the time when his personal historybegins. The individual conceived and the individual born are one and the same, that is, Cain.Job said, “May the day of my birth perish, and the night it was said, ‘A boy is born!’” (Job 3:3)The phrase “A boy is born!” is literally “A boy is conceived!” This verse thereby connects theindividual born and the individual conceived for Job traces his personal history back beyond hisbirth to “the night of conception.”Similarly Job complains:“Why then did you bring me out of the womb?I wish I had dies before any eye saw me.If only I had never come into being,or had been carried straightfrom the womb to the grave!” (10:18-19)The irony is that today the womb is the grave for more than a quarter of all unbornchildren in our nation!This passage makes it clear that an individual exists prenatally. Job said that if he had notbeen born it would be “as though” he “had never come into being.” He was not saying that if hehad not been born he would never have existed, as some claim, but that it would be as though hehad never existed. When Job claimed that if he had been stillborn it would be as though he hadnever existed. Simple logic dictates that one cannot use “as though” unless one “Is.”2

206The Hebrew word translated “boy” and specifically applied to the unborn since it isusually used to describe postnatal humans and typically translated “boy” and specifically appliedto the unborn since it is usually used to describe postnatal humans and typically translated“male,” “man,” “man,” or “husband.” (Psalm 34:8; 52:7; 94:12; Proverbs 6:34).3The Hebrew word yeled, used of children generally, is also used of children in the womb inExodus 21:22.The Unborn are Called “Children”One of the most common Greek words used in the New Testament for an infant is brephos.It is used a total of six times by Luke and once by Peter and Paul. Peter used it in a metaphoricalsense as he instructed the believers to desire the sincere milk of the Word "like newborn babies"(I Peter 2:1). By using the adjective "newborn" in connection with "babies" (brephos) Peteremphasizes the earliest stages of infancy. Paul used it in a literal sense referring to Timothy'sinstruction in the Holy Scriptures since "infancy" (II Timothy 3:15).Luke, the physician, used brephos to denote Jesus at His birth as well and the babies Hetouched during His ministry (Luke 2:12,16; 18:15). Luke records Stephen as using the word inreference to all the Hebrew males who were, by Pharaoh's decree, under the sentence of death assoon as they were born (Acts 7:19; also Exodus 1:15-22). These examples show that brephosrefers to newborn infants who cannot do much besides breathing and nursing. In classical Greekliterature the poet, Homer, likewise used brephos to denote a newborn baby.It is significant that the one gospel writer who had medical training, Luke, "the doctor"(Colossians 4:14), not only used brephos in reference to an infant, but also denoting an "unborn"child."When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby [brephos] leaped in her womb, andElizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit . . . As soon as the sound of your greetingreached my ears, the baby [brephos] in my womb leaped for joy" (Luke 1:41,44).Luke, the physician, used brephos to describe the condition of John the Baptist while he wasstill in his mother's womb. The word brephos therefore, is used to mean an "embryo or unbornchild" as well as "an infant."Common OriginJob contemplated the common origin he had with his servants for whom he is accountable:"Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one formus both within our mothers?" (Job 31:15).

207Called by God Prior to BirthIsaiah, the prophet, said:"The word of the Lord came to me saying, 'Before I was born the Lordcalled me; from my birth He has made mention of my name'" (Isaiah 49:1).Similarly Jeremiah, the prophet, said:"The word of the Lord came to me saying, 'Before I was born the Lord calledme; from my birth he has made mention of my name'" (Jeremiah 1:4-5).David testified:"Yet You brought me out of the womb; You made me trust in You even at mymother's breast. From birth I was cast upon You; from my mother's wombYou have been God" (Psalm 22:9-10).As David sees himself in the womb he also sees himself as coming from it as a being who isanswerable to God who created him and developed him during the nine months he was withinthe womb.Paul, the apostle, also made the same point:"But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by His grace . . ."(Galatians 1:15)These people along with John the Baptist show that very early in development, if not atconception, an individual takes on the characteristics of a human being.The Unborn are Known by God in a Personal WayLewis Smedes argues that Scripture does not offer direct teaching on the question of theparticipation of the fetus in the divine image. Perhaps the nearest thing to a Scriptural statementon our problem is found in Psalm 139:13-15:"For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb.I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works arewonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I wasmade in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,Your eyes saw my unformed body, all the days ordained for me were written inYour book before one of them came to be."

208It should be pointed out that the phrase, "the depths of the earth" is a Hebrew expression todescribe the interior of the womb.While the psalmist here is primarily concerned to confess the divine omniscience, the fact isthat even before he knew God, God knew him. Even before his eyes opened on the light of day,while he was still being marvelously formed in the womb, God was there.“The angel of the Lord appeared to her and said, ‘You are sterile and childless,but you are going to conceive and have a son.’ . . . Then the woman went toher husband and told him, ‘A man of God came to me. He looked like an angelof God, very awesome. I didn’t ask him where he came from, and he didn’t tellme his name. But he said to me, ‘You will conceive and give birth to a son.Now then drink no wine or other fermented drink and do not eat anythingunclean, because the boy will be a Nazarite of God from birth until the day ofhis death.’” (Judges 13:3,6-7)Some scholars have questioned the use of such a passage (as well as similar passages) toestablish the full humanity of the individuals not only before birth but before conception . . . andso they are not really to the point.”4This does not mean that these passages claim that the person in question existed beforetheir conception. Rather, God know them or had plans for them before conception. This ispossible since God is eternal and omniscient (all-knowing). This means He knows all thingssimultaneously (Job 28:24; Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 41:21-24; 46:10) and is bound by neither timenor space (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 40:28; 43:12-13; 57:15) since He is the Creator of time and space(Acts 17:25; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 11:3; Revelation 4:11). Therefore it is possible forHim to know every person before he or she is conceived.5Foreknowledge prior to conception, however, cannot be used to explain away personalexistence being attributed to prenatal life when certain passages specifically state that a certainindividual either has personally existed from conception (e.g. Genesis 4:1) or has personallyexisted before birth (e.g. Jeremiah 1:5; Psalm 139:13-16; Luke 1:41-44).6The word “conception” or “conceived” implies a beginning since we typically use suchphrases as “I just conceived of this idea . . .” If that were not so, the statement becomes nonsensical.When Scripture refers to God knowing a person before conception, it is making anepistemological claim (a knowledge claim) rather than an ontological claim (a being—essence—claim).

209CreationIn this section the psalmist uses three words that sum up the different stages of hisexistence. First, creation is seen in his likening God to a potter who "formed" his inmost beingand to a weaver who "knit him together" in his mother's womb (v. 13). Here is clear affirmationthat the growth of the fetus is neither haphazard nor automatic but a work of divine skill.ContinuityContinuity is another word that describes what David is saying about his own existenceand development. He surveys his life in four stages: past (v.1), present (vv. 2-6), future (vv. 7-12), and before birth (vv. 13-16). In all four of these stages he refers to himself as "I."Although the thrust of the passage is principally to confess the truth about God, it alsoconfesses a truth about the psalmist, namely, that he regards himself as having been a self evenbefore he was conscious of himself. While this does not give us precise information about thefetus, the psalmist did not think of his humanity as uniquely tied to the moment of birth. Theevents leading up to birth are a kind of primal history of the self. Here, David, as a full-grownman, is giving us the same personal identity as the fetus in his mother's womb. There is,therefore, a direct continuity between his antenatal and postnatal being.Personal IdentityMoreover, the Bible regards personal identity as beginning with conception and one'sinvolvement in the sinful human situation as commencing at that very point:"Surely I [not 'it'] was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceivedme" (Psalm 51:5).Who but an actual person can have a sinful nature? A moral nature can be ascribed onlyto a person. Here David relates his sinfulness to the time of conception and acknowledges thatalready in his fetal state the moral law which resides in him.Some argue that what David is saying is that his birth was sinful in that it was the resultof sexual intercourse. But as Old Testament scholar Edward R. Dalglish points out:“In Psalm 51:5, the psalmist is relating his sinfulness to the very inception of life;He traces his development beyond his birth . . . to the genesis of his being in hismother’s womb—even to the very hour of conception.”7As a member of the human race that has rejected God, each person sinned “in Adam” andis therefore a sinner from his very beginning (Romans 5:12-19).

210Jacob was given prominence over his twin Esau “before the twins were born” (Romans9:11). When Rebekah was pregnant with Jacob and Esau, Scripture states, “The babies jostledeach other within her” (Genesis 25:22). There is no question that the unborn are regarded asbabies in the full sense of the term.David’s personal existence can be traced back to conception, since he asserts that he (“I”)was conceived. The being at conception is the same person who will become the infant, thechild, the adolescent, the adult. It is clear that this passage describes a person who is in theprocess of becoming, not a thing that is in the process of becoming a person.8It seems that for the biblical writers personhood in the most genuine sense begins not laterthan conception. Subsequent human acts illustrate personhood, they do not create it. Man doesbecause he is (not the reverse) and he is because God brought about his physical existence in themiracle of conception.9RelationshipThe third word that expresses David's affirmation in Psalm 139 is relationship. Here is themost clear and forceful statement in the Old Testament of God's personal relationship to theindividual. David uses personal and possessive pronouns profusely. "I," "me," "my" are used 46times and "you," "yours" are used 32 times. We see that the basis on which God knows us sointimately (vv. 1-7) and attaches Himself to us so that we cannot escape from Him (vv. 7-12) isthat He formed us in the womb and established His relationship with us at that time (vv. 13-16).10Isaiah, the prophet, shows the relationship—whether good or bad—between a mother andher child:“Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the childshe has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you!” (Isaiah 49:15)The phrase “the child she has borne” is literally “the child of her womb” in Hebrew (atranslation used for this phrase by many Bibles such as the KJV, RSV, etc.).The fetus, then, is not a growth in the mother's body, nor even a potential human being, but ahuman being who, though not yet mature, has the inherent ability to grow into the fullnessand completeness of the humanity he already possesses.11“Breath”Some have argued that since Adam became a living soul when God “breathed into hisnostrils the breath of life” (Genesis 2:7), that birth is the obvious time at which a child becomes aliving being. It is simply not true that the unborn from conception do not breathe in a truebiological sense. Although breathing in the usual way does not begin until birth, the process of

211respiration in the more technical biological sense begins at conception. There is living organismoccurs from the time of conception. Therefore, it is mere the mode, not the fact of this transferof oxygen which changes at birth. Therefore the “breath of life” exists from the very moment ofconception.12Imago DeiA crucial watershed in the abortion debate is the nature of man. The Christian view isthat man was made in God’s image and likeness (imago dei—Genesis 1:26-27).While animals share with man in the mystery of life and therefore are capable of aconscious response to the environment, something about man makes his response to hisenvironment unique. This life that he has from God, though like that of animals, is at the sametime qualitatively different. Unlike the beasts he is copied from his Maker and thus reflects theCreator’s image and likeness.In the light of man’s superiority over lower orders, man alone lives in the realm ofresponsibility, knowing the commendation of a good conscience and the condemnation of an evilone. Luther spoke of man in his highest and noblest part as being qualified to lay hold of theincomprehensible, invisible, and eternal God thus becoming the house where faith and God’sWord are at home.Is he, or is he not, a man while still in his mother’s womb? If we take away the life of thefetus, is this, or is this not, an affront to the divine image?13But what does the imago dei mean? Nowhere does Scripture describe the image of Godin a clear way. While some have sought to locate God’s image in some substantial “faculty” ofman, such as the size of his brain, his reason, will or imagination, others have interpreted it interms of man’s relation to God. Theologian Emil Brunner combined these two concepts byreferring to a “formal” imago dei which has to do with his God-given capacities such as reason,emotion and will and the “material” imago dei which refers to man’s relationship with God.14The most logical approach is to see the image of God as encompassing man as a whole,rather than simply a combination of parts or faculties. This means that we see man primarily interms of his moral and spiritual relationship to his Maker. Thus God’s image belongs to man asman by nature.This is true not only in man’s creation, but even in his fallenness. Man is man becauseGod made him that way. After all, God’s image is portrayed in Scripture as designating theessential nature of man, something that is inherent or intrinsic in his being. This is why, evenafter the fall, man did not lose this image; to do so would mean that he would cease to be man.

212Some argue that the imago dei refers primarily to “God-like attributes” such as the abilityto think, reason, communicate, relate, make choices, possess self-awareness, and to desire lovingand meaningful relationships. In so doing they are arguing that a baby is a fetus who is only a“potential person” until in time it “demonstrates” these characteristics of “personhood.”Is it biblical for man to be judged by functional categories? Is his dignity at stakedepending on his ability to “demonstrate” personhood?Such thinking is totally foreign to a biblical mindset. Nowhere is man spoken of in termsof becoming or attaining God’s image. Man, because he is man, bears God’s image. No one isexcluded in Scripture because of his functional powers. This is true whether we are referring tosomeone handicapped like Mephibosheth who was cared for and valued by David, or even in thecase of the madman “Legion,” who was demonized by a host of evil spirits and who receivedcompassion from Jesus.Christian ethicist Paul Ramsey notes that man’s dignity is “an overflow of God’s dealingwith him.”15 The dignity of man, therefore, comes from the value God has placed upon him andnowhere else. To speak of “degrees” of relative worth” for human beings is ludicrous.16.Since Scripture does not reveal what the constitution of the image of God may be, we canonly draw conclusions from its portrayal of what the image does for man. What is clear from thebiblical account of the creation of man is that he was set apart from the rest of creation and giveninherent dignity and status:“Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them ruleover the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle andover all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”(Genesis 1:26)In the phrase “made in God’s image and likeness” some scholars have debated whetherimage (tselem) and likeness (demuth) are referring to the same concept or to two different ideas.The most natural interpretation is to see these terms as referring to the same concept because ofthe prevalence of Hebrew parallelism.In this verse we see that not only is man set apart from the rest of creation, but he is givendominion as he is set over it by God. Both man’s creation in God’s image and man’s dominionover the lower creation is stated in this verse. But there is a qualitative difference since man iscopied from His Creator in contrast to the fish, birds, and beasts which are mandated only topropagate after their kind in a form that is their own and bears no image of God. Thus he is ahigher form of animal life (biologically speaking) with a greater capacity to reason and with theability to relate meaningfully to his maker.

213Yet it is true that man and the rest of the animal creation has much in common. Both areanimated beings as both owe their life to the Spirit of God (Genesis 6:17; 7:15;22; Psalm 104:30;Ecclesiastes 3:19, 21; Isaiah 31:3). Both may be spoken of as “souls” (Hebrew nephesh—Genesis 1:24). And both are blessed by God to produce offspring (vv. 22-24; 8:17; Deuteronomy7:12ff).There is a qualitative difference, however, since man, in contrast to the fish, birds, andbeasts, which are mandated only to propagate after their kind in a form that is their own andbears no image of God is copied from His Creator. Because of this sacred mandate man isgiven many other mandates in Scripture such asKnowing God through his spirit (Romans 8:15-16).Having His heart sincere and pure (Matthew 5:8; Hebrews 10:22).Having his mind set on things of the Spirit (Romans 8:6; Colossians 3:2). .Having his soul thirst after God (Psalm 62:1).Having his soul wait in silence for Him (63:1).Presenting his body as a living and holy sacrifice to God (Romans 12:1).Such mandates reveal the huge chasm between man and the rest of the animal kingdom.Man is here pictured as the immediate creation of God. He is the object—Subject—ofGod’s special attention and care. This same contrast is also seen in Genesis 2 as animals areformed out of the ground by God (Genesis 2:9), whereas man is uniquely made as God Himself“formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, andman became a living being” (v. 7).How did the fall affect the imago dei? It fractured his original relationship as it broughtevil, sin, death, sickness, suffering, and alienation into a perfect universe (Genesis 3:16-24). YetGod allowed man to continue to bear that which separates man from the rest of the animalkingdom—God’s image (1 Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9). Genesis makes this clear as it shows usthat God still recognizes man’s uniqueness, even in a fallen world of sin;“Who shed the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the imageof God has God made man” (9:6).Here is hardly a functional definition of personhood! It is simply by virtue of man’sintrinsic nature (the image deo) and his exalted position apart from and over creation that humanbeings possess value as persons. Surely David understood this elevated position as thecontemplated the vast expanse of the heavens:

214“When I consider the heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars,which you have set in place, what is man that You are mindful of him, the sonof man that you care for him?You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned himwith glory and honor.You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything underhis feet:All flocks and herds, and the beasts of the air, and the fish of the sea; all thatswim the paths of the seas” (Psalm 8:3-9).Can anyone question the awe and thus value of man expressed here? Every life is valuedwhether young or old, handicapped or perfectly formed, weak or strong, poor or rich, black orwhite or yellow or red, male or female.Man is valued for who and what he is. Nothing more and nothing less!Psychosomatic UnityThe Bible is clear that man is a psychosomatic unity:“Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed intohis nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being [soul]” (Genesis 2:7).Man (Hebrew, adam) is formed by God from “the dust from the ground” (Hebrew,adamah). According to scholars we are not sure whether the words for man and ground comefrom the same root, but what is clear is that the single clause made up of “ground” (adamah) and“man” (adam) are placed in juxtaposition. This is further reinforced in Genesis 3:19 where manis identified as “dust”:“. . . until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust youare and to dust you will return.”Man then is a combination of dust and breath—dust from the ground and the breathfrom God. God formed the dust and breathed into it His life-giving breath which resulted in a“living being” or “soul.” This sees man as a body that is animated by the breath of God.Man, therefore, was not merely formed as an extension of nature and of the animalkingdom. God breathes directly into his physical form made of dust (specifically his newlyformed nostrils) and he becomes a living being.

215To radically separate the body and the soul, therefore, is foolhardy. Such separation leadsto the unbiblical notion of the separation of biological life from personhood. Biblical scholarGeorge Ladd put it:“Body and the divine breath together make the vital, active nephesh (soul).The word [soul] is then extended from the life principle to include thefeelings, passions, will, and even the mentality of man. It then comes to beused as a synonym for man himself. Families were numbered as so manysouls (Genesis 12:5; 46:27). Incorporeal life for the nephesh is nevervisualized. Death afflicted the nephesh (Numbers 23:10 as well as thebody.”17Even at death, God does not leave us as disembodied spirits forever, but assures us thatHis intention is to restore the essential body-soul oneness through the resurrection of the body atChrist’s Second Coming (I Corinthians 15:35-55).In the meantime, as we in death await the Lord’s return, it seems that we find ourselves inan unnatural state (“naked”) since we are without the clothing of a body. This is only atemporary state since the earthly “tent-dwelling” (body) has been dismantled by death. It is anintermediate state between death and resurrection and, apparently, a disembodied state; but itis not a limbo of oblivion, for the believer who has died is at home with his Lord, whichaccording to Paul, is preferable to our present life in the body (Philippians 1:23).This shows us the high view Christianity holds regarding the physical body. Its absence isreferred to as “nakedness” and because of its importance it will be reunited with the soul at theeschaton (end time) when man will live with God forever and ever.The incarnation of Christ and His bodily resurrection has “sealed human nature with acertificate of value whose validity cannot be disputed.”18In spite of what the Gnostic teach, Jesus did come to this earth as a man (Philippians 2:6-8) and ascended to the right hand of God without resigning his manhood. He lives forever asGod-Man—fully God and fully Man.In Scripture we are continually commanded to serve God with our bodies:“the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord; and the Lord is for the body.”(II Corinthians 4:10)“. . . the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit . . . therefore glorify God inyour body” (I Corinthians 6:13,19-20).. . . present your members [members of your body] as instruments of righteousnessto God” (Romans 6:12-14).

216“. . . present your bodies as a living sacrifice to God, holy and pleasing toGod—this is your spiritual act of worship” (12:1).Bodily worship and service is part of God’s design for a full spiritual life.This sacred view of the body is also the reason why Judaism and Christianity frown oncreation. In contrast to Eastern religions which practice cremation by burning the body as aworthless carcass, Judaism and Christianity respectfully bury the body.Alien DignityThe genesis of human life is a sacrosanct domain which we dare not invade by humanhands nor “rationalize,” that is, subject it to utilitarian considerations. This inviolability whichis over and set against any pragmatic intervention follows not only from the order of creation, themiracle which has actualized itself and the violation of which must be atoned for, but also fromthe order of redemption.Christ has bought man “with a price” and bestows upon him an “alien dignity.” This aliendignity expresses the fact that it is not man’s own worth—his value for producing good works,his functional proficiency, his pragmatic utility—that gives him his dignity, but rather what Godhas given him, the sacrificial love which God has invested in him (Deuteronomy 7:7).Therefore this alien dignity actualizes itself at the point where man’s own value hasBecome questionable, the point where his functional value is no longer listed on society’s stockmarket and he is perhaps declared to be “unfit to live.”19This actualization of man’s alien dignity exists at that point where man is still a fetus andhas no pragmatic value and may be regarded as a burdensome disturbing “enemy” (unjustaggressor).20SUMMARY OF THE BIBLICAL SUPPORT THAT A FETUS IS A PERSONThe following points in summarizing the biblical support that a human embryo is fullyhuman:1. The unborn are created by God (Psalm 139:13), just as God created Adam and Eve inhis image (Genesis 1:26-27).2. Man is a combination of dust and breath—dust from the ground and the breath ofGod. God formed the dust and breathed directly into it His-life giving breath which resulted in a“living being” or “soul” (2:7). The process of respiration (the transfer of oxygen) begins atconception. Therefore, the “breath of life” exists from the very moment of conception.

2173. The image of God includes male and female (1:26-27), but it is a scientific fact thatgender (i.e., “maleness” or “femaleness”) is determined at the moment of conception.4. The life of the unborn is protected by the same punishment for the injury or death(Exodus 21:22) as that of an adult (9:6).5. Jesus Christ was human (the God-Man) from the time He was conceived in Mary’swomb (Matthew 1:20-21; Luke 1:26f).6. Unborn babies are called “children,” the same word used of infants and youngchildren (Exodus 1:15-22; 21:22; Luke 1:41-44; 2:12-16; 18:15; Acts 7:19; II Timothy 3:15, andsometimes even of adults (I Kings 3:17).Unborn babies share a common origin with adults (Job 31:15).The growth of the fetus is neither haphazard nor automatic but a work of divine skill.David Likens God to a “potter” who “knit him together” in his mother’s womb (Psalm 139:13).9. God not only formed us in the womb but established His relationship with us at thattime (51:13-16; Isaiah 49:15).10. The unborn are known by God in a personal way (Judges 13:3,6-7; Psalm 139:15-16;Jeremiah 1:5).11. People were called by God prior to their birth (Psalm 22:9-10; Isaiah 49:1; Jeremiah1:5; Galatians 1:15).12. Jacob was given prominence over his twin Esau “before the twins were born”(Romans 9:11).13. David surveyed his life in four stages: past (Psalm 139:1), present (Psalm 139:2-6),future (vv. 7-12), and before birth (vv. 13-16). In all four of these stages he refers to himself as“I.”14. Unborn children possess personal characteristics such as sin (51:5), struggle (Genesis25:22) and joy (Luke 1:44) that are distinctive of human persons and even spiritualcharacteristics such as being “filled with the Holy Spirit” (v. 41).2115. Christ, in His sacrificial love, has bought man “with a price” (His life) and given himan “alien dignity” which exists at the point where man is still a fetus and has no pragmatic value(Deuteronomy 7:7).

218THE GIFT OF HUMAN LIFEHelmut Thielicke says concerning the gift of human life:"The status of parenthood means that the 'office' of fatherhood andmotherhood has been entrusted to the parents and they are nowenclosed in that circle of duties which obligates them to preserve thatwhich has been committed to them, but also endowed with a blessingwhich is to be received in gratitude and trust—even though it may bea gratitude expressed with trembling and a trust that is won throughstruggle."22The question here is not whether a proffered gift can be responsibly accepted, but ratherwhether an already-bestowed gift can be spurned, that is, whether one dares to brush aside thearm of God after this arm has been outstretched.Mother Teresa speaks to the arrogance of terminating human life and thus playing God:". . . only God can decide life and death . . . That is why abortion is such aterrible sin. You are not only killing life, but putting self before God; yetpeople decide who has to live and who has to die. They want to take thepower of God in their hands. They want to say, 'I can do without God, I candecide.' That is the most devilish thing that a human can do . . ."23 (Emphasis added)Who can fail to exercise compassion for pregnant women suffering mental and physicalstrain, particularly those in poverty and unmarried? Who can deny that there are times, when amother's life is at stake, that the taking of life appears to be the only sensible course? However,the unborn child warrants consideration too. All of us were at one time at the mercy of would-beabortionists. Most of us are glad we're here, and thankful that the persons "most concerned" didnot terminate our existence at an early stage.ABORTION AND CHILD SACRIFICEChild sacrifice is condemned throughout the Bible. In fact, societies that tolerated suchevil were considered degraded. Some even defended and celebrated such a practice as if it were avirtue just as our own nation considers its tolerance of abortion as a sign of having "come ofage."The ancient dumping grounds that have been found filled with the bones of hundreds ofdismembered infants are similar to discoveries of thousands of dead babies discarded by modernabortion clinics. There is no doubt but that infant sacrifice is the Canaanite counterpart toabortion. The difference is that with abortion child-killing does not need to be postponed untilbirth.

219Scripture is clear in its condemnation of the shedding of innocent blood (Deuteronomy19:10; Proverbs 6:17; Isaiah 1:15; Jeremiah 22:17). Although the killing of all innocent humanbeings is detestable, Scripture considers the killing of children as particularly heinous (Leviticus18:21; 20:1-5; Deuteronomy 12:31). The prophets of Israel were outraged at the sacrifice ofchildren by some of the Jews and thus warned that such a heinous practice would result in God'sjudgment on their society (II Kings 21:2-6; Jeremiah 7:30-34; 15:3-4; Ezekiel 16:20-21,36-38;20:31).IDOLATRY AND THE OCCULTThe worship of many gods was common in biblical times. According to the Bible, thesewere all pseudo gods. But false gods could mean either that they were mere figments of theimagination or real spirits (evil spirits or demons) who falsely claimed the worship due to Godalone.In ancient times probably the most popular of these evil spirits was called "Moloch."Moloch demanded worship through the sacrifice of the bodies of little babies. His hellishappetite consisted of feasting on the bodies of babies, or sometimes the hearts of babies.Flaming holocaust Moloch would devour his prized possession—infants. Abortion is themodern equivalent of Moloch.THE DIVINE STRATEGYThe war on the unborn through abortion shows us that this fight is not just political andethical, but supernatural. As Paul put it:"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood [human beings], but againstthe rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark worldand against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Ephesians 6:12).The real enemies are not the human beings who have been duped by the enemy of oursouls, but Satan and his minions whose strategy is "to steal and kill and destroy" (John 10:10).In addition to philosophical arguments and moral activism, we must look primarily tothe spiritual weapons of faith, hope, and love—divine love—which is self-sacrificing (seeII Corinthians 10:3-6).Roman Catholics have appropriately called the horrors of abortion, "The Silent Holocaust"(abortion: the Silent Holocaust is also the title of a book on abortion by John Powell, S.J.). In his bookJohn Powell quotes William Brennan from his book, Medical Holocaust:"Although every holocaust ever perpetrated is an unprecedented event in its ownright, this should not detract from what all holocausts share in common . . . thesystematic and widespread destruction of million looked upon as indiscriminate

220masses of subhuman expendables. . . . The cultural environment for a humanholocaust is present whenever any society can be misled into definingindividuals as less than human and therefore devoid of value and respect."24It is a sad commentary that Protestantism as a whole, and evangelicals in particular, havenot spoken out against the silent and hidden holocaust of abortion with a unified voice. Suchlack of a prophetic voice among Protestants and "Bible-believing Christians" is a deadlyreminder of the anemic, sluggish, indifferent, deceived Church during the Nazi era.The results of the silence of abortion have been disastrous: disastrous in terms of lostlives and disastrous in terms of congregations as members, especially the young people, aregiven no guidance about what to do should a problem pregnancy arise. The congregation’senergies thus have not been enlisted to aid those with problem pregnancies. Numerous womenwho have had abortions have said that if they had known there was someone to help them, theywould never have aborted their child. The Christian church is called to offer that help.The silence of the church has also been disastrous to those women who have hadabortions and who are silently wrestling with their burden of guilt are left with no spiritual helpin dealing with that guilt. Only when the sin of abortion is faced can the forgiveness of Christ beoffered. Therefore preachers who will not even deal with the problem of abortion cannot offerhealing grace to women bound in guilt.The question facing the church is not, “Should this child be born?” but “What can we doto preserve and foster this life that God has created?” After all, we are our “brother’s keeper”(Genesis 4:9), called to love our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 22:39; Mark 12:31). Amongthose for whom we are responsible are the 1.2 million babies who otherwise, every year, end upin plastic bags as “medical waste,” to be hauled off to the incinerator.Being pro-life means being involved. It means educating ourselves until we have agood understanding of the issues involved and what Scripture teaches on the subject. Beinginvolved also means speaking out against death and speaking for life.There has been much discussion about civility by evangelicals in approaching this subjectas they have often been critical of “the radical fringe” who have been aggressive in their attemptto rescue the unborn. Such concern for civility may be a manifestation of confusion, indifferenceand apathy toward the subject of abortion than a genuine concern for civility. After all, where isthere concern for lack of passion among people who claim to believe the Bible? Should theChristians during the time of Hitler and his henchmen with civility or that they would have thecourage and passion to fight for the survival of innocent human beings who were beingslaughtered like cattle?

221For Christians hatred toward other people is never justified, even in the case of those whokill the unborn. While hatred for the cause of abortion is legitimate, such hatred for the peopleinvolved in abortion is never justified. Therefore we should be civil in our approach to anysubject. However it is equally vital that we feel passionate about a subject that has to do with lifeand death, whether in the physical or the spiritual realm.The savagery of abortion must be attacked aggressively and consistently while theperpetrators of abortion should be approached in a firm but loving way. All those who claim tobe pro-life must personally and sacrificially reach out to those in need and support programs thatstrengthen the quality of life for all.Both Numbers and Leviticus point out that abortion calls into jeopardy the future of anentire nation since the shedding of innocent blood defiles the land.Moral integrity and spiritual devotion requires that we fervently fight the evil that leads tobarbarism and promote the good that brings peace and harmony to all people. Although we cando more than pray, we dare not neglect prayer, for our battle against abortion is spiritual warfare.We must not war according to the flesh:"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood [human beings], but against therulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and againstthe spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Ephesians 6:12).In addition to marching, we must fast and pray. While demonstrations can get theattention of a nation, it will take fasting and prayer to turn the evil tide of spiritual anarchy that issweeping this nation to ebb.In our aggressive efforts to stop the slaughter of the innocent we as Christians must becareful about what methodology we choose, "for though we live in the world, we do not wagewar as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On thecontrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds" (II Corinthians 10:3).It is not enough to become militant in waging war on the perpetrators of abortion, wemust fight spiritual battles that get at the root of the problem—Satan and his minions. Althoughour nation may have gone to the point of no return because she has been defiled by the blood ofinnocent unborn babies (Numbers 35:33-34), individuals can still be reached.No one has the right to speak out in favor or more strict laws against abortion unless he iswilling to provide support for those babies that would have otherwise have been born.

222Righteousness, not restrictive laws, is the ultimate solution to abortion. Until—if ever—our nation becomes righteous we need to speak up and let people know where we stand. Thismeans making our views known by writing to our state representatives because, until this nationreturns to God, more restrictive laws are the only hope for the unborn.William Wilberforce's struggle to abolish slavery in the British empire provides aparadigm for every Christian in fighting the evil of abortion. Although he was harassed,maligned, ridiculed, and slandered he faithfully and courageously persevered. Sharp criticismwas hurled at Wilberforce for raising religious objections against the slave trade. In fact on oneoccasion Lord Melbourne objected, "Things have come to a petty pass when religion is allowedto invade public life."25 Sounds similar to today's newspapers in our own country!In the heat of his battle against slavery, Wilberforce received a letter from John Wesleythat brought great encouragement:"My dear sir,Unless the Divine power has raised you up as Athanasius contra mundum, I donot see how you can go through your glorious enterprise in opposing thatexecrable villainy, which is the scandal of religion, of England, and of humannature. Unless God has raised you up for this very thing, you will be worn outby the opposition of men and devils, but if God is for you who can be againstyou? Are all of them together stronger than God" Oh, be not weary of welldoing.Go in the name of God, and in the power of His might, till evenAmerican slavery, the vilest that ever saw the sun, shall vanish away before it.That He that has guided you from your youth up may continue to strengthen inthis and all things, is the prayer of Your affectionate servant,John Wesley"26William Wilberforce died on July 29th, 1833—three days after the Bill For the Abolitionof Slavery passed its second reading in the House of Commons, thus ending slavery.On his deathbed Wilberforce whispered,“Thank God that I should have lived to witness a day in which England wasWilling to give twenty million sterling for the abolition of slavery.”27The unspeakable chain of slavery was broken. But the cost was great as it was when thehorror of the Holocaust in Nazi Germany finally ended. People such as German theologianDietrich Bonhoeffer gave their lives in speaking out on behalf of the perishing Jews.

223The slaughter of the innocent unborn babies also need a voice. John the Baptist was “avoice crying in the wilderness.” Few heeded his warning! Like Bonhoeffer, he paid with his life.Yet both of these men were faithful to their calling.A chorus of protest is needed on behalf of the most vulnerable of society—the unborn.Although such a chorus may not end the evil atrocity of abortion, it will stand as a witnessagainst a decaying and dying culture.

224NOTESINTRODUCTION1Planned Parenthood Pamphlet, 1981.2Laurence H. Tribe, Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes (New York: W. W. Norton Press,1992), 5.3Planned Parenthood Pamphlet, 1981.4Planned Parenthood Pamphlet, 1947.5Planned Parenthood Pamphlet, 1964 cited also in George F. Will, “The Case of theUnborn Patient,” Newsweek (January 22, 1981).6Charles Colson, “The Case of Moral Aids,” Who Speaks For God? (Westchester, IL:Crossway Books, 1985), 68.CHAPTER 11Journal of California Medicine (1970) cited in “The Right to Live, “C. Everett Koopalso cited in The Zero People edited by Jeff Lane Hensley (Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1983),59.2Max Huhner, Shakespeare’s hamlet (New York: Farrar, Strauss, 1950), 79.3Ronald Reagan, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation (Nashville, TN: ThomasNelson Publishers, 1984)), p. 11 cited in Robertson McQuilkin, Biblical Ethics (Wheaton, IL:Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 319.4Mother Teresa, Press Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 1982 cited in F. LaGard Smith,When Choice Becomes God (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, Inc., 1989), 225.5Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Vol. III, Pt. 4 (Edinburg: T. and T. Clark, 1961), 419.6F. LaGard Smith, When Choice Becomes God (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers,1990), 21.7Nigel M. de S. Cameron, The New Medicine: Life and Death After Hippocrates(Crossway Publishers, 1995) cited in Christianity Today, “Doctors Under Oath,” (October 23,1995), 15.8Congdon, “You Say Choice, I Say Murder,” Christianity Today (June 24, 1991), 20.

2259Ibid.10Ibid11Ibid.,20.12George F. Will, “The Killing Will Not Stop,” The Zero People, edited by Jeff LaneHensley, The Zero People (Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1983), 203.13Ibid., 10.14Ibid., 8.15Ibid.16Ibid., 9.17Ibid.18Ibid.19“When Words Cheapen Life,” The New York Times (Tuesday, January 10, 1995),Editorial Page.CHAPTER 21Woodward & Armstrong, The Brethren Inside the Supreme Court (1979), 238 cited byBernard Scwartz, History of the Supreme Court (New York: Oxford Book, Press, 1993), 337.2Mother Teresa, Press Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 1982 cited in Smith, When ChoiceBecomes God, 95.3Smith, When Choice Becomes God, 95.4New York Times (August 21, 1995).5Adapted from Charles Swindoll, Sanctity of Life (Dallas: Word Publishing), 14.6Robert R. Reilly, “The Culture of Vice,” National Review (November 25, 1996), 61.7Ibid.8Ibid.

2269Ibid., 60.10Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, III/4 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1961), 419.CHAPTER 31Michael Gorman, Abortion and the Early Church (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1982),25.2Plato, The Republic, 5.9 cited in Gorman, Abortion and the Early Church, 11.3Gorman, Abortion and the Early Church, 25.4Ibid., 20-21.5James B. Prichard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950), 184.6Ibid., 20-21.7Norman St. John Stevas, The Right to Life (Chicago: Holt, Rinehart & Winston), 1964,37.8Paul K. Jewett, “The Relationship of the Soul to the Fetus,” Christianity Today, Vol.XIII, NO. 3 (November 8, 1968), 8.9Gorman, Abortion in the Early Church, 27.10Ibid.11Ibid., 27. Tertullian points out: “In Africa infants used to be sacrificed to Saturn, andquite openly, down to the proconsulate of Tiberius, who took the priests themselves and on thevery tree of their temple, under whose shadow their cries had been committed, hung them alivelike votive offerings on crosses. . . . Yes, and to this day that holy crime persists in secret.”Terullian Apology9, 2-3 cited in Andreas Lindemann, “Do not let a Woman Destroy the UnbornBabe in her Belly,” Abortion in Ancient Judaism and Christianity cited in Studia Theologica,Scandinavian Journal of Theology (Uppsala, Sweden, 1995), 270.12Ibid.13Ibid.14William C. Wantland, “Church History and Abortion,” The Living Church, n. d., 14.

22715Minucius Felix Octavius, chapter 30,2 with an English translation by Gerald H.Rendall, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984) cited in Andreas Lindemann,“Do not let a Woman Destroy the Unborn Babe in her Belly,” Abortion in Ancient Judaism andChristianity, 270.16Ibid.17Touchstone, Journal of Ecumenical Orthodoxy, Vol. 5.2 edited by James MarkKushiner (Chicago: The Fellowship of St. James, Spring, 1992).18Ibid.19Gorman, Abortion in the Early Church,28.20Ibid.21Ibid.22Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, English ed. Trans. By Geoffrey Bromily and T. F.Torrance (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1961), Vol. 3, The Doctrine of Creation,” 415 ff.23Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, trans. By Neville Horton Smith (New York: MacmillanPublishing Co., 1955), 131. See also Emil Brunner, The Divine Imperative, trans. By OliveWyon.24Paul Fowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus (Portland, OR: MultnomahPress, 1987), 209.25John Stott, Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today (Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell,1984), 311.26Ibid.27A study by The Alan Guttmacher Institute cited in USA TODAY, (September, 1995).C. Everett Koop in his article, “Deception-On-Demand,” Moody (May 19, 1980), 24states that “Abortions in the United States for rape, incest, to protect the life of the mother, or tovoid a defective fetus comprise less then five percent of all abortions. The rest are performedjust for convenience.”Also see John Stott, Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today, 311 cited in RichardWinter, Choose Life, “A Christian Perspective on Abortion and Embryo Experimentation”(Marshall Pickering, 1988), 8.28Ibid.

22829Ibid.30Ibid.31Ibid.32Ibid.33Intercessors for America Newsletter (January, 1989).34Ibid.35Ibid.36Robert H. Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah (New York: Regan Books, 1996), 181-181 cited in Aida Torres and Jacqueline Darroch Forrest, “Why Do Women Have Abortions?”Family Planning Perspective (July/August, 1988), 169-170.37James R. Kelly, “Abortion: What America Really Think and the Catholic Challenge inAmerica,” Vol. 165, No. 13 (November 2, 1991).38Mark Twain, Christian Science (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1907), 359-361 citedin In Search of a National Morality,128.39Intercessors for America Newsletter (January, 1989), n. p.40John Sanko, “400 Protest Tribute to Abortion Doctor,” Rocky Mountain News, Feb. 8,1995, 4A cited in James Dobson Newsletter (September), 1995).41Mother Teresa, Press Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 1982 cited in Smith, When ChoiceBecomes God, 225.C. Everett Koop, “Deception-On-Demand, “Moody (May 19, 1980), 24 states that“Abortions in the United States for rape, incest, to protect the life of the mother, or to void adefective fetus comprise less then five percent of all abortions. The rest are performed just forconvenience.”29John Stott, p. 311 cited in Richard Winter, Choose Life, “A Christian Perspective onAbortion and Embryo Experimentation” (Marshall Pickering, 1988), 8.CHAPTER 41Smith, When Choice Becomes God, III.

2292John T. Noonan Jr., “The Experience of Pain by the Unborn,” Jeff Hensley, The ZeroPeople, 147.3A. William Lieley, “The Foetus as Personality,” Australia and New Zealand Journal ofPsychiatry 6.99, 1972 cited in Hensley, The Zero People, 147.4A. William Lieley, “Experiments with Uterine and Fetal Instrumentation,” inIntrauterine Fetal Visualization, edited by Michael M. Kuback and Carlo Valenti (Oxford:Excepta Medica: New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co., 1976), 75 cited in Hensley, TheZero People, 147.5P. S. Timiras, Developmental Physiology and Aging (New York: The MacMillanCompany, 1972), 153 cited in Hensley, The Zero People, 148.6Lieley, “The Foetus as Personality,” Intrauterine Feal Visualization, 102 cited inNoonan, Jr., “The Experience of Pain by the Unborn,” cited in Hensley, The Zero People, 148.7Trypena Humphrey, “The Development of Human Fetal Activity and Its Relation toPostnatal Behavior,” in Advances in Child Development and Behavior, edited by Hayane W.Reese and Lewis P. Lipsitt (New York: Academy Press, 1973), 12, 19 cited in Hensley, 148.8Geoffrey S. Dawes, Fetal and Neonatal Physiology (Chicago: Year Book MedicalPublishers, 1968), 126 cited in Hensley, The Zero People, 148.9Ronald Melzack, The Puzzle of Pain (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 28 cited inHensley, The Zero People, 148.10Lieley, “Experiments with Uterine and Fetal Instrumentation,” Intrauterine FetalVisualization, cited in Hensley, The Zero People, 148-149.11Mortimer Rose, “The Secret Brain: Learning Before Birth,” Harper’s (April, 1978), 46cited in Hensley, The Zero People, 149.12Ibid.13Timiras, Developmental Physiology and Aging, 149 cited in Hensley, The Zero People,149.14Paul Mussen, John Congar, and Jerome Kagan, Child Development and Personality, 2 nded. (New York: Harper and Row, 1963), 65 cited in Hensley, The Zero People, 149.15Ibid.

23016John T. Noonan, Jr., “The Experience of Pain by the Unborn,” Hensley, The ZeroPeople, 149-150.17George F. Will, “Abortion Painful for the Aborted,” The Washington Post (November5, 1981).18Freedom Alert (December, 1991), 2.19“New ‘improved’ late term abortion technique,” Christianity & Society Today (January,1994), 2.20National Right to Life Bulletin (Fall, 1996), 4.21Robert Reilly, “The Culture of Vice” cited in National Review (1996), 61.22Life or Death Pamplet (Cincinnatti, OH: Hayes Publishing Co. Inc.), 2-3.23Ibid.24USA TODAY (September 12, 1996).25Keith Fournier, “RU-486: A BITTER PILL,” Faith & Culture (1994), 6.26USA TODAY (August 31, 1995).27Noonan, “The Experience of Pain by the Unborn,” 147-150 cited in Hensley, The ZeroPeople, 152.28Reilly, “The Culture of Vice,” 61.CHAPTER 51Norman Geisler, “The Natural Right,” In Search of a National Morality (Grand Rapids:Baker Book House, 1992), 120.2Ibid.3Ibid.4Ibid.5Ibid.

2316Ibid.7Ibid.8Ibid.9Ibid.10John Powell, Abortion: The Silent Holocaust (Allen, Texas: Argus Communications,1981), 68,69.11Ibid., 70.12Ibid., 70-71.13Ibid., 71.14Ibid. 72.15Ibid.16Ibid.17Ibid., 74.18Ibid.19George F. Will, “The Case of the Unborn Patient,” The Washington Post, 92.20Ibid.21C. Everett Koop, “The Right to Live,” The Zero People, ed. by Jeff Lane Hensley (AnnArbor: Servant Books, 1983), 59.CHAPTER 61David C. Thompson, Poem: “What Might Have Been,” Alliance Life (January 18,1984).2Paul E. Rockwell, “Month 2" When You Were Formed in Secret by Gary Bergel, 1980.3Lennart Nilsson, “Drama of Life Before Birth,” Life (April 30, 1965) cited in F. LaGardSmith, 127.

2324Smith, When Choice Becomes God, 131.5Ibid.6Nilsson, “Drama of Life Before Birth,” Life, 127.7Ibid.8Ibid.9Smith, When Choice Becomes God, 129.10Ibid.11Nilsson, “Drama of Life Before Birth,” Life, 127.12Smith, When Choice Becomes God, 129.13Nilsson, Life, 127.14Smith, When Choice Becomes God, 131.CHAPTER 71R. C. Sproul, Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue (Colorado Springs:NavPress, 1990), 89.2Leon R. Kass, “Making Babies—The New Biology and the ‘Old Morality,’” The PublicInterest (Winter, 1972), 53 cited in John Powell, Abortion: The Silent Holocaust, 40.3Sproul, Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue, 97.4Archibald Cox, The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government (New York:Oxford Press, 1976), 52.5Ibid. A full description and discussion of the Roe vs. Wade case may be found in DeathBefore Birth by Harold O. J. Brown (Thomas Nelson, 1977), 73-96.6Beverly Harrison, Our Right to Choose (Boston: Beacon, 1983), 193.7Ibid., 63.8Sproul, Abortion: A Rational Look At An Emotional Issue, 63.

2339Vidy Metsker, “Legalized Murder: The Horror of Abortion,” Psychology for Living(November, 1984), 7.10James Gustafson, The Contribution of Theology to Medical Ethics (Milwaukee:Marquette University, 1975), 60 cited in Fowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus(Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1987), 34.11Francis Crick, Nature 200 (2 November, 1968), 429,430 cited by Bill Crouse,“Abortion and Human Value,” Insight (Dallas: Probe Ministries International, 1979), 2 cited inFowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus, 34.12Ashley Montague, Sex, Man and Society (New York: G. P. Putnam and Sons, 1967)cited in Fowler, Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue, 35.13Joshua Lederberg, “A Geneticist Looks at Contraception and Abortion,” Annals ofInternal Medicine 67 (September, 1967), 26f. cited in Fowler, Abortion: Toward an EvangelicalConsensu, 35.14Michael Tooley “Abortion and Infanticide,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 2 (Fall,1972), 63 cited in Fowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus, 35.15Ibid., 65.16Rudolph Ehrensing, “When Is It Really Abortion?” The National Catholic Reporter(25 May, 1966), 4 cited in Fowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus, 36.17Roy Schenk, “Let’s Think About Abortion,” The Catholic World, (April, 1968), 16cited in Fowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus, 36.18Joseph Fletcher, “indicators of Humanhood: A Tentative Profile of Man,” The HastingsCenter Report 2 (November, 1972), 1 cited in Fowler, 36. “Fletcher’s fifteen positive criteriaincluded: minimal intelligence, self-awareness, self-control, a past (memory), the capability torelate to others, concern for others, ability to communicate, control of one’s existence, curiosity,the capacity to change, a balance of rationality and feeling, idiosyncrasy, and neocorticalfunction (the “cardinal indicator”). Fletcher’s five negative criteria included: man is not non - oranti-artificial, man is not essentially sexual, man is not a bundle of rights, and man is not aworshiper” cited in Paul B. Fowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus, 62.John Jefferson Davis Abortion and the Christian: What Every Believer Should Know[Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing House, 1984], 36-37) writes: “Man, asimago Dei, possessing inalienable dignity and worth, is to be understood not primarily in termsof innate capacities of faculties—whether intellectual, moral, or spiritual—but in terms of hisunique relationship to his transcendent Creator and covenant Lord. It is not intrinsic powers of

234speech, imagination, and rational thought that lend transcendent worth to human nature, butman’s unique calling to live in loving fellowship with the triune God for all eternity. Thus thereis no place for . . . such criteria as self-awareness, memory, a sense of futurity and time, and acertain minimum I.Q.” as Joseph Fletcher has suggested.19Peter Singer, “Sanctity of Life or Quality of Life,” Pediatrics 72 (July, 1983), 129 citedin Fowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus, 36.20Winston L. Duke, “The New Biology,” Reason (August, 1972) cited in Fowler,Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus, 36.21Mary Ann Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” The Monist (January,1973), 55f. cited in Fowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus, 37.22Ibid., 55f. cited in Fowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus, 37.23Joseph Fletcher, “Four Indicators of Humanhood—The Enquiry Matures,” The HastingsCenter Report 4 (December, 1974), 4-7.24Sproul, Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue, 67.25Norman L. Geisler, “The Arguments for Abortion Are Strong If . . .” Moody Monthly(September, 1986), 89-90.26Glanville Williams, “The Legalization of Medical Abortion,” The Eugenics Review 56(April 1964), 20-21.27Fowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Issue, 49.28Peter Wenz, Abortion Rights As Religious Freedom (Philadelphia: Temple UniversityPress, 1992), 60.29Ibid., 60-61.30Ibid., 60.31Ibid.32Mother Teresa, Press Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 1982 cited in Smith, 22.33Wenz, Abortion Rights As Religious Freedom, 61.34Sproul, Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue, 61.35Ibid., 61-62.

36Ibid., 62.37Ibid.38Wenz, Abortion Rights As Religious Freedom, 61-62.39Ibid., 62.40Ibid.41Ibid.42Ibid., 63.43Ibid.44Ibid.45Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, “Is It Possible To Be Pro-Life and Pro-Choice?” ParadeMagazine (April 22, 1989) cited in F. LaGard Smith, When CHOICE Becomes God, 236.46Ibid.47Ibid.48Wenz, Abortion Rights As Religious Freedom, 64.49Ibid.50Ibid., 64-65.51Ibid., 65.52Ibid.53Ibid.54Ibid.55Ibid.56Ibid., 180-18157Ibid., 181.235

23658Ibid.59Ibid.60Ibid., 18261Ibid.62Ibid., 66.63Ibid.64Ibid65Ibid., 66-6766Ibid., 66.67Ibid., 67.68Ibid.69Rubenfeld, “Right of Privacy,” 790 cited in Wenz, Abortion Rights As ReligiousFreedom, 67.70Wenz, Abortion Rights As Religious Freedom, 67.71Ibid., 66.72C. Everett Koop, “The Right to Live,” Hensley, 49-50.73David Neff, “Left Face, About Face,” Christianity Today74Fowler, Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue, 45.75John Willke, National Right to Life News (June 29, 1981), 5 cited in Fowler, Abortion: ARational Look at an Emotional Issue, 51.76Ibid.77Robert E. Joyce, “When does a Person Begin?” New Perspectives on Human Abortion,edited by T. W. Hilgers, D. J. Horan, and D. Mall (Frederick, MD: Aletheia Books, 1981), 353cited in Fowler, 51-52.

23778Ibid.79Ibid.80E. Blechschmidt, “Human from the First,” in Hilgers, Horan, and Mall, ed., NewPerspectives on Human Abortion (Frederick, MD: University Publishers of Amercia, 1981), 12-13 cited in Peter S. Wenz, Abortion Rights As Religious Freedom (Philadelphia: TempleUniversity Press, 1992), 171.81Wenz, Abortion Rights As Religious Freedom, 171.82Ibid.83Blechschmidt, New Perspectives on Human Abortion,12-13 cited in Wenz, AbortionRights As Religious Freedom, 171.84Ibid.85Ibid.86Ibid.87Ibid., 172.88Ibid., 172.89Ibid.90Ibid.91Ibid.92Ibid.93Ibid.94Ibid., 173.95Ibid.96Ibid.97Ibid.98Ibid.

23899Robert Joyce, “When does a Person Begin?” In Hilgers, Perspectives, 348 cited in Wenz,Abortion Rights As Religious Freedom, 173.100Ibid., 174.101Ibid.102John R. W. Stott, “Does Life Begins Before Birth?” Christianity Today (September 5,1980), 50f.103Tertullian, Apology, chapter ix cited in Gorman, 54.104C. S. Lewis Mere Morality (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983), 129.105Quoted in the Church of Scotland’s Board of Social Responsibility, 1985 report to theGeneral Assembly. See also Professor Torrance’s booklet Test-Tube Babies (Scottish AcademicPress 1984) by Stott, Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today, 334.106Dr. Seuss, Horton Hears a Who (New York: Random House, 1954), 18.CHAPTER 81Lewis B. Smedes, “Abortion,” The Reformed Journal, Vol, XX, No. 6 (July-Aug., 1970),5.2Ibid.3Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race cited in Smith, 197.4Report on the Committee on the “Operation of the Abortion Law,” p. 321, Ottawa, 1977.5Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania V. Robert P. Casey, et al., Nos. 91-744 and 91-902, June 29, 1992 cited in James Dobson, “Focus on the Family Newsletter”(Colorado Springs, CO: July, 1996), 2.6112 S. C. at 2807 Planned Parenthood V. Casey (1992) cited in Dobson, “Focus on theFamily Newsletter,” 2.7Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992 Nos. 91-744 and 91-902, June 29, 1992 cited inDobson, “Focus on the Family Newsletter,” 2.8Chuck Colson, “Pandora’s Box,” Breakpoint, March 11, 1996 cited in Dobson, “Focuson the Family Newsletter,” 2-3.

2399P. J. van der Mass, J. J. M. van Delden and L. Pijenbrong Euthanasia and Other MedicalDecisions Concerning the End of Life: an Investigation Performed Upon the Request of theCommission of Inquiry Into the Medical Practice Concerning Euthanasia” (Amsterdam:Elsevier Science Publishers, 1992), 178 cited in Dobson, “Focus on the Family Newsletter,” 3.10“Doctor Unpunished for Dutch Suicide,” New York Times June 22, 1994, 10A cited inDobson, “Focus on the Family Newsletter,” 3.11Ibid.12“Doctor Freed in ‘Justified’ Mercy Killing,” Chicago Tribune, April 27, 1994, p. N21cited in Dobson, “Focus on the Family Newsletter,” 3.13van der Mass, 1992, 181 cited in Dobson, “Focus on the Family Newsletter,” 3.14Vincent M. Rue, “The Psychological Realities of Induced Abortion,” Post-MortemAftermath: A Comprehensive Consideration, Michael T. Mannion, editor, Sheed & Ward, 1994,5-43.See also Beverly Harrison, Our Right to Choose, 16 cited in Ronald J. Sider, CompletelyPro-Life (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 40.Scientific American (June, 1980), 42 cited in Ronald Sider, Completely Pro-Life(Downers Grove, ILL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 40. For a series of articles addressing both thephysical and psychological complications following abortions, see New perspectives on HumanAbortion, ed. Thomas W. Hilgers, Dennis J. Horan, and David Mall (Frederick, MD: UniversityPublications of America, Inc., 1981), 69-163. Another valuable document was done by TheNational Committee for Human Life Amendment, Inc., 1980 Labor-HEW Appropriations Bill,”FF1-20. Possible medical complications from abortions include: “hemorrhage/blood clots,fever/peritonitis, infection, sterility, premature births, miscarriages, tubal pregnancy, and lowbirth weight in future pregnancies. Some of the most common psychological reactionsvictimized, feelings of low self-worth, guilt, anger, depression, grief, regret, loss, preoccupationwith aborted child, frequent crying, and suicidal tendencies,” cited in Fowler, Abortion: Towardan Evangelical Consensus,188.15Judith Fogel, Los Angeles Times (7 March, 1971) cited in Fowler, 196.16Helmut Thielicke, The Ethics of Sex (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 231.17Desmond Doig, Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work (London: Collins, 1976),162.18Ibid.19Peter Kreeft, Making Choices (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1990), 123.

24020“Zero Pregnancies in 3500 Rapes, The Educator (September, 1970); B. M. Sims, “ADistrict Attorney Looks at Abortion,” Child and Family (Spring, 1969), 176-180.21“Legalized Abortion and Public Health,” Institute of Medicine: National Academy ofSciences (May, 1975), 62.22Stott, Biblical Ethics, 325.23Fowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus,162.24Stott, Biblical Ethics, 324.25C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 128.26http://www.helium.com/items/483766-how-to-introduce-a-foster-child-to-his-new-family27Jean Garton, Who Broke the Baby? (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1979), 30 cited in Fowler,Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus,162-163.28Richard John Neuhaus, “A New Birth of Freedom,” cited in Hensley, The Zero People,290.29Kristin Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia, 1984), 195.30Fowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus,175.31Harold Brown, “The First Amendment and the Question of Justice in Light of theAbortion Issue,” New Perspectives on Human Abortion, 298-299.32Fowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus,188.33Sproul, R. C. Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue (Colorado Springs:NavPress, 1990), 147.34Ibid., 67.35Achtemeier, Pulpit Digest, 80-81.36Carl F. H. Henry, The Christian Mindset in a Secular Society: Promoting EvangelicalRenewal and National Righteousness (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1984), 102-103.37Lewis B. Smedes, Mere Morality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 106.38Ibid.

24139Ibid.40Ibid., 105.41Ibid., 107.42John R. Cavbanaugh, Foundational Marriage Counseling (Milwaukee: The BrucePublishing Company, 1960), 354.CHAPTER 91Smith, When CHOICE Becomes God, 233.2Thomas A. Glessner, Achieving an Abortion-Free America by 2001 (Portland:Multnomah, 1990), 63.3C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: Macmillan, 1974), 56.4Ibid., 136.5William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Birmingham, AL: TheLegal Classics Library, 1983), 39-41.6Glessner, Achieving Abortion-Free America by 2001, 64.7Ibid., 64-65.8Ibid., 65.9The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America, ed. Verna M.Hall (San Francisco: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1980), cited in Glessner,Achieving Abortion-Free America by 2001, 65.10John Locke, “Of Civil Government, Book II,” quoted in Christian History, 58 cited inGlessner, Achieving Abortion-Free America by 2001, 82.11Ibid.12Ibid.13J. R. Moreland and Kai Nielsen, Does God Exist? (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books,1993), 18-19.

14Ibid., 19.15Ibid.16Ibid., 20.17Ibid., 19.18Ibid.19Ibid.20Ibid.21Ibid., 21.22Ibid.23Ibid.24Ibid., 23.25Ibid., 24.26Ibid.27Ibid.28Ibid.29Ibid., 13.30Ibid., 14.31Ibid.32Ibid.33Ibid.34Lewis, Mere Christianity, 144.35Ibid.36Ibid., 146.242

24337Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. I (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 53.38Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Cambridge: Blackwell,1994), 130.39Ibid.40Ibid.41Moreland and Nielsen, Does God Exist? 27-28.42Paul Davies, God and the New Physics, 189 cited in Moreland and Nielsen, Does GodExist? 35.CHAPTER 101William Brennan, Medical Holocaust (Nordland Publishing, 1980), n. p.2Geisler, “The Arguments for Abortion are Strong, If . . .” 90.3Marx, O.S.B. Rev. Paul, Death Without Dignity: Killing for Mercy (Minneapolis: ForLife, Inc., 1975), 29 cited in Hensley, The Zero People, 160.4F. LaGard Smith, When CHOICE Becomes God (Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers,1990), 173.5Frederick Wertham, A Sign for Cain (New York: Warner Paperback Library, 1969), 159.6Marx, Death Without Dignity: Killing for Mercy, 29.7Michael La Chat, “Utilitarian Reasoning in Nazi Medical Policy: Some PreliminaryInvestigation,” Linacre Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 1, February, 1975), 19 cited in Jeff LaneHensley, The Zero People, 164.8Arthur Guett, “Population Policy,” in German Speaks, ed. by Joachim von Ribbentrop(London: Thornton Butterworth Ltd., 1938), 53 cited in Hensley, The Zero People, 160.9Richard Grunberger, The 12-Year Reich: A Social History of Nazi Germany: 1933-1945(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971), 225 cited in Hensley, The Zero People, 160.10Wertham, A Sign for Cain, 159.

24411LaChat, Linacre Quarterly, 18.12Ibid.13Germaine Grisez, Abortion: the Myths, the Realities, and the Arguments (New York:Corpus Books, 1972), 203 cited in Hensley, The Zero People, 161.14Ibid.15Wertham, A Sign for Cain, 161,163 cited in Hensley, The Zero People, 161-162.16Ibid., 167 cited in Hensley, The Zero People, 162.17Ibid.18Ibid., 150 cited the Nuremburg Documents, Vol. I, 247 cited in Hensley, The ZeroPeople, 162.19Ibid., 176.20Ibid.21Guett, German Speaks, 57 cited in Hensley, The Zero People, 162.22LaChat, Linacre Quarterly, 25 cited in Hensley, The Zero People, 163.23Nuremburg Documents, Vol. IV, 55 cited in Wertham, A Sign for Cain, 162.24Leo Alexander, The New England Journal of Medicine (14 July, 1949) cited inMcQuilken, Biblical Ethics, 316.25Marx, Death Without Dignity: Killing for Mercy, 17-18 cited in Hensley, The ZeroPeople, 170.26Ibid., 30 cited in Hensley, The Zero People, 170.27Ibid.28Tristram Englehardt, “Euthanasia and Chidren, the Inquiry of Continued Existence,”Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 83 (July, 1973) 170 cited in Hensley, The Zero People, 170.29Marx, Death Without Dignity: Killing for Mercy, 28 cited in Hensley, The Zero People,170.

24530Denver Post (28 March, 1984) cited in Sider, 39.31Marx, Death Without Dignity: Killing for Mercy, 31-32 cited in Hensley, The ZeroPeople, 170.32Bernard Hering, Medical Ethics (Notre Dame: Fides, 1973), 150 cited in Hensley, TheZero People, 170.33Daniel Maguire, “Death Legal and Illegal,” Atlantic, Vol. 233 (February, 1973), 60 citedin Hensley, The Zero People, 169.34Teletype AP Bulletin, Mesa, Arizona (1975) cited in Hensley, The Zero People, 169.35Marx, Death Without Dignity: Killing for Mercy, 13 cited in Hensley, The Zero People,169.36Ibid.37Ibid.38Ibid., 256.39Phillip G. Ney, “Symposium on the Psychological Aspects of Abortion,” Stritch Schoolof Medicine of Loyola University (October 13,1983), 12 cited in Paul B. Fowler, Abortion:Toward an Evangelical Consensus (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1987), 202.40“Women Kills three-year-old,” National Right to Life News (October 13, 1983), 12 citedin Fowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus, 202.41An excerpt from an unofficial transcript of Mother Teresa’s remarks on accepting the1979 Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway cited in Fowler, Abortion: Toward an EvangelicalConsensus, 202.42Fowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus, 203.43“Court Votes Pro-Fish,” National Fight to Life News (September 28, 1983) cited inFowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus, 204.44John Powell, Abortion: The Silent Holocaust (Allen Texas: Argus Communications,1981), 29.45Ibid., 30.

246CHAPTER 111John Donne, “No Man Is an Island” cited in Powell, Abortion: The Silent Holocaust, 1.2Powell, Abortion: The Silent Holocaust cited in Hensley, The Zero People, 9.3Paul Ramsey, “The Morality of Abortion,” Life or Death: Ethics and Opinions (Seattle:The University of Washington Press, 1968), 72f.4Mother Teresa’s remarks on accepting the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway citedin Fowler, Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus, 202.5Norman St. John Stevas, The Right to Life (Chicago: Holt, Rinehard & Winston, 1964),33.6Quoted from his book, Humanly Possible by C. Everett Koop at the beginning of his TheRight to Live: The Right to Life (Holder & Stoughton, 1963), 20 cited in John Stott, "Does LifeBegin Before Birth?" Christianity Today (September 5, 1980), 34.7John R. Stott, Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today (Grand Rapids: Fleming H.Revell, 1984), 330 cited in Stevas, The Right to Life, 20.8Powell, Abortion: The Silent Holocaust, 129.CHAPTER 121Lewis E. Lehrman, “Abortion: The Slavery Issue Continues,” NFD Journal (January,1987), 6.2George McKenna, “On Abortion: A Lincolnian Position,” The Atlantic Monthly, Vol.276, No. 3 (September, 1995), 54.3Ibid.4Ibid., 54-55.5Ibid., 56.6Ibid.7Ibid.8Ibid.

9Ibid.10Ibid.11Ibid.12Ibid., 58.13Ibid.14Ibid.15Ibid., 59.16Ibid.17Ibid.18Ibid.19Ibid.20Ibid.21Ibid.22Ibid., 60.23Ibid.24Ibid.25Ibid.26Ibid.27Ibid.28Ibid.29Ibid.30Ibid.247

24831Ibid.32Ibid.33Ibid., 61.34Ibid., 66.35Ibid.36First Things, Number 67 edited by Richard John Neuhaus (November, 1996), 42.CHAPTER 131Powell, Abortion: the Silent Holocaust, 86.2The Life Activist Seminar WORKBOOK (Chicago: Life Dynamics, Inc., n. d.), 212.3Ibid.4Ibid.5Ibid.6Ibid., 212-213.7Ibid.8Ibid.9Ibid., 213.10Ibid.11D. James Kennedy, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? (Nashville: Thomas Nelson,1994), 229.12Elizabeth Achtemeier, Pulpit Digest, 82.13Powell, Abortion: the Silent Holocaust, 83.14Chicago Sun Times (December 11, 1979) cited in Powell, Abortion: the Silent Holocaust,83.

24915Ibid., 84.16Ibid., 85-86.17Ibid., 86-87.18Ibid., 87.19Ibid.20Ibid., 88.21Ibid.22Carol Everett, “What I Saw in the American Industry,” Freedom Alert (December, 1991),2.23“Celebrating Seventy Years of Service,” in 1986 Annual Report of Planned ParenthoodFederation of America, 23,32 cited in Smith, When CHOICE Becomes God, 199.24LeBeth Myers, Women Around the Globe: International Status Report (London: GuyonSocial Resources Center, 1986), 137 cited in Smith, When CHOICE Becomes God, 199.25Curt Young, The Least of These (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), 30 cited in Smith, WhenCHOICE Becomes God, 199.26Smith, When CHOICE Becomes God, 199.27Ibid.28Ibid.29George Grant, Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood (Brentwood, TN:Wolgemuth & Hyatt) cited in Smith, When CHOICE Becomes God, 200.30Ibid.31Stephen Mosher, Broken Earth (New York: Free Press, 1985) and Michael Weiskopf,“Abortion Policy Tears at China’s Society,” (January 7, 1985) cited in Smith, When CHOICEBecomes God, 200.32Planned Parenthood: It’s not what you think! Pamphlet (Snowflake, AZ: HeritageHouse, 1976).33Ibid.

25034George F. Will, “Fanatics for Choice,” Newsweek (December 11, 1995), 90.35Ibid.36Ibid.37Ibid.38Ibid.CHAPTER 14193.1Powell, Abortion: the Silent Holocaust, 84.2Reilly, “The Culture of Vice,” 1.3Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah (New York: Regan Books, 1996), 9.4Ibid.5H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America (New York: Willett Clark, 1937),6Neuhaus, “A New Birth of Freedom,” cited in Hensley, The Zero People, 284.7Ibid.CHAPTER 151Ibid., 281.2Human Manifestos One and Two edited by Paul Kurtz (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1973),8 cited in Norman L. Geisler, “The Natural Right,” In Search of a National Morality (GrandRapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 112.3Ibid., 17.4Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics: The New Morality (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966),120 cited in Geisler, In Search of a National Morality, 112.5Ibid., 134.

2516Ibid., 43-44 cited in Geisler, In Search of a National Morality, 113.7Kurtz, Human Manifestos One and Two, 18-19 cited in Geisler, In Search of a NationalMorality, 113.8Ibid.9Ibid.10Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, trans. by Hazel E. Barnes (New York:Washington Square, 1965), 627 cited in D. James Kennedy, What If Jesus Had Never BeenBorn? 229.11C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: Macmillan, 1973), 56.12Michael Kinsley, “Judges, Democracy and Natural Law,” Time (August 12, 1991), 68cited in Geisler, In Search of a National Morality, 115.13Ibid.14Thomas Aquinas, 1-2 Summa Theological, 90.4 in Basic Writings of Saint ThomasAquinas, ed. by Anton Pegis (New York: Random House, 1944), 750 cited in Geisler, In Searchof a National Morality, 116.15Ibid.16Ibid.17An Essay, 2.6 in The Great Books, Vol. 35 (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 26cited in Geisler, In Search of a National Morality, 117,267 and Richard Hooker, Of the Laws ofEcclesiastical Polity, 4 Vols. (1594,1597) cited in Geisler, In Search of a National Morality,117,267.18Ibid., 117.19Ibid.20Ibid.21Seneca, as cited by John T. Noonan, ed., The Morality of Abortion: Legal and HistoricalPerspectives (Cambridge: Harvard, 1970), 7 cited in Geisler, In Search of a National Morality,118.22Ibid.

25223Cal Thomas, Radio Show: “Commentary” (Washington, D.C.: November 26, 1991)cited in Kennedy, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? 228.24Will Durant, The Humanist (February, 1977), 26 cited in Kennedy, What If Jesus HadNever Been Born? 229.25Kennedy, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? 229.26William Thorkelson, RNS Correspondent (April 22, 1987), “Gallup Poll Says US FacingMoral Crisis of First Dimenson.” Reproduced in The Christian News (St. Louis, MO: May 4,1987), 1,24 cited in Kennedy, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? 229.27Geisler, In Search of a National Morality,122.28Ibid., 123.29Ibid.30Ibid.31Ibid., 118-119.32Ibid., 123.33Ibid.34Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America (New York: The Free Press, 1990), 14.35Ibid.36Ibid., 115.37Lewis E. Lehman, “Abortion and the Future,” cited in Melody Green and SharonBennett, “The Crime of Being Alive,” Pamphlet (Last Days Ministries, 1984).38Touchstone, 5.2 (Spring, 1992), 19.39Ibid.40Ibid.41Koop, “Abortion and the Future,” cited in Green and Bennett, “The Crime of BeingAlive,” Pamphlet.

25342Hensley, The Zero People, 284.43Ibid.44Ibid.45Ibid.46Smith, When CHOICE Becomes God, 256-257.47Ibid., 260.48Ibid., 261.49Ibid.50Ibid., 262-263.51Ibid., 288.52Ibid., 258.53Neuhaus, “A New Birth of Freedom,” 285.54Ibid., 283.55Ibid.CHAPTER 161Hensley, The Zero People, 292.2John Piper, “Rescue Those Being Led Away to Death,” The Standard (Way, 1989), 27.3Ibid.4New York Times (October 6, 1995), B10.5Ibid.6Stott, Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today (Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell,1984), 330-331.

2547Ibid., 332. See also The Story of Birthright: The Alternatives to Abortion by LouiseSummerhill (Prow Books, Kenosha, 1973).8James R. Kelly, “Abortion: What Americans Really Think and the Catholic Challenge,”1.9Charles Colson, The Body (Dallas: Word, 1995), 235.10Karl Barth, The Word of God and the Word of Man, 276. Also see Karl Barth, Against theStream, ed. by Ronald Smith (London: SCM Press, 1954), 151.11Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, trans. by OliveWyon (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1952), 75-78.12J. Edwin Orr, The Eager Feet: Evangelical Awakenings 1790-1830 (Chicago: MoodyPress, 1975), 171.CHAPTER 171Charles Colson, Kingdoms in Conflict (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 101 cited inSproul, 147.2Powell, Abortion: the Silent Holocaust, 159.3Raffaelo Balestrini, Jurisprudence: The Philosophy and Method of the Law, rev. ed.(Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1974 cited in Harold O. J. Brown, “The Decline of Morality,” InSearch of a National Morality ed. by William Bentley Ball, 69.4Lewis B. Smedes, "Abortion." The Reformed Journal, Vol. XX, No. 6 (July-August),106.5Ronald J. Sider, Completely Pro-Life (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 69-70.6Ibid.CHAPTER 181Mother Teresa, Press Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 1984 cited in Smith, When CHOICEBecomes God, 225.2Ibid., 225-226.

2553Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1983), 82.4Francis Schaeffer and Everett Koop, Whatever Happened to the Human Race? 326.5Jean Staker Garton, Who Broke the Baby? (Bethany House, 1998), 95.6Louise Summerhill, Abortion: the Personal Dilemma (New York: Paternoster Press,1972), 276 cited in Stott, “Issues Facing Christians Today,” 335.7Kelly, “Abortion: What Americans Really Think and the Catholic Challenge,” 1.APPENDIX1Mark Anderson and Marjorie Young, A Mighty Fortress Is Our God, Illustrations andMeditations from the Life of Martin Luther cited in Charles Swindoll, The Sanctity of Life(Dallas: Word Publishing, 1990), 98.2Francis J. Beckwith, “A Critical Appraisal of Theological Arguments for AbortionRights,” Bibliotheca Sacra (July-September, 1991), 351.3Ibid., 33.6Ibid., 340.5Ibid.6Ibid.7Bruce Waltke, “Abortion,” Christian Medical & Dental Society Journal, Vol. VII, 341.8Beckwith, “A Critical Appraisal of Theological Arguments for Abortion Rights,”Bibliotheca Sacra, 341.9John R. Stott, “Does Life Begin Before Birth?” Christianity Today (September 5, 1980),50.10Ibid.11Beckwith, A Critical Appraisal of Theological Arguments for Abortion Rights,”Bibliotheca Sacra, 348-349.12Stott, “Does Life Begin Before Birth?” Christianity Today, 50.13Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 75-78.

25614Paul Ramsey, “The Morality of Abortion,” Life or Death: Ethics and Options (Seattle:University of Washington Press, 1968), 72ff.15Ibid.16Ibid.17George E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974).Other scholars that hold that man is not a dualistic being, but primarily a unity:Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. by Kendrick Grobel (London: SCMPress LTD, 1968) 1:209; D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of St. Paul (Oxford: Basil Blackwell,1970), 31-44; Berkouwer, Man, 200-204; D. R. G. Owen, “Body and Soul in the NewTestament,” Man’s Need and God’s Gift, ed. by Millard J. Erickson (Grand Rapids: Baker,1976), 96.18E. L. Mascall, The Importance of Being Human (London: OUP, 1959), 22ff.19Helmut Thielicke, The Ethics of Sex (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 231.20Ibid.21Norman L. Geisler in his article, “The Natural Right,” In Search of a National Morality,119,267.22Thielicke, The Ethics of Sex, 227.23Desmond Doig, Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work (London: Collins, 1976),162.24Powell, Abortion: the Silent Holocaust, n. p.25Colson, Kingdoms in Conflict, 101.26Ibid., 105.27Ibid., 108.

257BIBLIOGRAPHYAchtmeier, “The Strange Silence from the Pulpit about Abortion,” Pulpit Digesthttp://www.ppl.org/srmintro.html (10/7/2011.Alcorn, Randy. ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments. Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1992.Alexander, Leo. The New England Journal of Medicine. 14 July, 1949.Alsobrook, David. The Bible Truth on Abortion. Paducah, KY: David Alsobrook Ministries,1985.Anderson, Ann Kimmel. And With the Gift Came Laughter. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House,1987.Ankerberg, John and John Weldon. When Does Life Begin? Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth &Hyatt, 1989.Aquinas, Thomas. 1-2 Summa Theolgica, 90.4, in Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, ed.Anton Pegis. New York: Random House, 1944.Baker, Don. Beyond Choice: The Abortion Story No One Is Telling. Portland, OR: MultnomahPress, 1985.Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Volume 3, Pt. 4. Edinburg: T. & T. Clark, 1961._________. The Doctrine of Creation. Edinburg: T. & T. Clarke, n. d.Beckwith, Francis J. "A Critical Appraisal of Theological Arguments for Abortion Rights,'Bibliotheca Sacra. July - September, 1991.Bejema, Clifford E. Abortion and the Meaning of Personhood. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker BookHouse, 1974.Berkouwer, G. C. and Erickson, Millard. Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976.Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Birmingham, Alabama: The LegalClassics Library, 1983.Blechschmidt, E. "Human From the First," in Hilgers, Horan, and Mall, ed. New Perspectives onHuman Abortion. Frederick, MD: University Publishers of America, 1981.Boice, James M. Romans, Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991.Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics. English ed. trans. by Geoffrey Bromiley. New York: MacMillanPublishers, 1955.Bork, Robert H. Slouching Towards Gomorrah. New York: Regan Books, 1996.__________. The Tempting of America. New York: The Free Press, 1990.Brennan, William. The Abortion Holocaust. St. Louis: Landmark Press, 1983.Brown, Harold. "The First Amendment and the Question of Justice in Light of the AbortionIssue," New Perspectives on Human Abortion.Brumbaugh, John. "Abortion and Genetic Defects: A Dilemma," Good News Broadcaster.March 1982.Brunner, Emil. The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption. Trans. by Olive Wyon.Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1952.Brunner, Emil. The Divine Imperative, trans. by Olive Wyon. Philadelphia: Westminster Press,1947.Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. Trans. by Kendrick Grobel. London:SCM Press LTD, 1968), 1:209.

258Callahan, Daniel. Abortion: Law, Choice and Morality. London: The Macmillan Company,1970.Calvin, John. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, trans.Ross MacKenzie. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1973.Carol, Lewis. Alice in Wonderland.Cavanaugh, John R. Fundamental Marriage Counseling. Milwaukee: The Bruce PublishingCompany, 1960.Congdon, Guy M. "You Say Choice, I Say Murder," Christianity Today. June 24, 1991.Colson, Charles. "The Case of Moral Aids." The Christian Reader.__________. Kingdoms in Conflict. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987.Cochrane, Linda. Women in Rama: A Postabortion Bible Study. Falls Church, VA: ChristianAction Council, 1987.Congdon, "You Say Choice, I Say Murder," Christianity Today. June 24, 1991.Cottrell, Jack W. "Abortion and the Mosaic Law. Christianity Today. March 16, 1973.Cox, Archibald. The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government. New York: OxfordPress, 1976.Crick, Francis. Nature 200. 2 November, 1968. cited by Bill Crouse, "Abortion and HumanValue," Insight. Dallas: Probe Ministries International, 1979.Davis, John Jefferson. Abortion and the Christian. New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed,1984.__________. "When Does Personhood Begin?" The Church Herald (December 12, 1980).Dawes, Geoffrey S. Fetal and Neonatal Physiology. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers,1968.Dobson, James. Focus on the Family Newsletter, July, 1996.__________. Newsletter. September, 1995.Doig, Desmond. Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work. London: Collins, 1976.Dollar, Truman. "The Abortion Debate," Fundamentalist Journal.Donnelly, Douglas. A Guide to Adoption. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family, 1988.Duke, Winston L. "The New Biology," Reason. August, 1972.Ehrensing, Rudolf. "When Is It Really Abortion?" The National Catholic Reporter’ 25 May,1966.Engelhardt, Tristram. "Euthanasia and Children, the Inquiry of Continued Existence," Journalof Pediatrics, Vol. 83 (July, 1983).Erickson, Millard. Man's Need and God's Gift. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976.Everett, Carol. "What I Saw in the Abortion Industry," Freedom Alert. December, 1991.Fletcher, Joseph. "Indicators of Humanhood: A Tentative Profile of Man," The Hastings CenterReport 2. November, 1972.Fletcher, Joseph. "Indicators of Humanhood—the Enquiry Matures," The Hastings CenterReport 4 (December, 1974)._____. Situation Etics: The New Morality. Philadephia: Westminster, 1966.Fowler, Paul B. Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus. Portland: Multnomah Press,1987.Garton, Jean. Who Broke the Baby? Bethany House, 1998.

259Geisler, Norman L. "The Arguments for Abortion Are Strong If . . ." Moody Monthly(September, 1986)._______________. "The Natural Right," In Search of a National Morality. Grand Rapids:Baker Book House, 1992.Glessner, Thomas A. Achieving an Abortion-Free America by 2001. Portland: Multnomah,1990.Gorman, Michael J. Abortion and the Early Church. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1982.Granfield, David. The Abortion Decision. New York: Doubleday and Company, n. d.Gardener, R. F. R. Abortion. Grand Rapids, MI: 1972.Grant, George. Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood. Brentwood, TN:Wolgemuth & Hyatt, n. d.Greenberg, Paul. "Brave New Word: American Way of Death," AFA Journal. November/December, 1994.Grisez, Germaine. Abortion: The Myths, the Realities, and the Arguments. New York: CorpusBooks, 1972.Grunberger, Richard. The 12-Year Reich: A Social History of Nazi Germany: 1833-1945. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971.Guett, Arthur. "Population Policy," in German Speaks, ed. by Joachim von Ribbentrop.London: Thornton Butterworth, Ltd., 1938.Gustafson, James. The Contribution of Theology to Medical Ethics. Milwaukee: MarquetteUniversity, 1975.Haas, John M. "Editorial" New York Times. Friday, February 9, 1990.Haring, Bernard. Medical Ethics. Notre Dame: Fides, 1973.Harrison, Beverly. Our Right to Choose. Boston: Beacon, 1983.Henry, Carl F. H. "The Christian Mindset in a Secular Society: Promoting Evangelical Renewaland National Righteousness.” Portland: Multnomah Press, 1984.Hensley, Jeff Lane. The Zero People. Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1983.Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. I. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans PublishingCompany, 1970.Hoffmeier, James, ed., Abortion: A Christian Understanding and Response. Grand Rapids: MI:Baker Book House, 1987.Huhner, Max. Shakespear's Hamlet. New York: Farrar, Strauss, 1950.Humphrey, Trypena. "The Development of Human Fetal Activity and Its Relation to PostnatalBehavior," Advances in Child Development and Behavior ed. Hayane W. Reese andLewis P. Lipsitt. New York: Academy Press, 1973.Jewett, Paul K. "The Relationship of the Soul to the Fetus" Christianity Today, Vol. XIII, No. 3(November 8, 1968).Joyce, Robert. "When Does a Person Begin?" in Hilgers, Perspectives, n. d.Kantzer, Kenneth. "Is Every Life Worth Living?" Christianity Today. March 19, 1982.Kass, Leon R. "Making Babies—The New Biology and the 'Old Morality,'" The Public Interest.Winter, 1972.Kelly, James R. "Abortion: What Americans Rally Think and the Catholic Challenge," AmericaNovember 2, 1991, Col. 165, No. 13.

260Kennedy, D. James. Abortion: A Cry of Reality. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge Ministries,1989.Kienel, Paul A. and White, Raymond E. "Abortion—The Ultimate Form of Child Abuse."Kinsley, Michael. "Judges, Democracy and Natural Law," Time. August, 12, 1991.Kline, Meredith. "Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus," Journal of The Evangelical TheologicalSociety. n. d.Koop, C. Everett. "Deception-on-Demand," Christianity Today. May, 1980.__________. The Right to Live; The Right to Life. Hodder & Staughton,__________ & Schaeffer, Frances A. Whatever Happened to the Human Race? Westchester,IL: Crossway Books, 1969.__________. "The Right to Live," The Zero People. Ed. by Jeff Lane Hensley. Ann Arbor:Servant Books, 1983.__________. & Johnson, Timothy. Let's Talk. Grand Rapids: Zondervan PublishingCompany, 1992.Koerbel, Pam. Abortion's Second Victim. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1986.Kreeft, Peter. Making Choices. Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1990.Kurtz, Paul. ed., Human Manifestos One and Two. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1973.LaChat, Michael. 'Utilitarian Reasoning in NAZI Medical Policy: Some PremliminaryInvestigations," Linacre Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 1, February, 1975.Ladd, Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1974.Lader, Lawrence. Abortion. Boston: Beacon Press, 1966.Lederberg, Joshua. "A Geneticist Looks at Contraception and Abortion," Annals of InternalMedicine 67. September, 1967.Lehrman, Lewis E. "Abortion: the Slavery Issue Continues" NFD Journal (January, 1987).Lewis, C. S. The Abolition of Man. New York: Macmillan, 1974._________. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1952.Lieley, William A. "The Foetus as Personality," Australian and New Zealand Journal ofPsychiatry. 1972.__________. "Experiments with Uterine and Fetal Instrumentation," Intrauterine FetalVisualization. Ed. by Michael Kuback and Carlo Valenti. Oxford: Excepta Medica,1976.Lindeman, Andreas. "Do Not Let A Woman Destroy the Unborn Babe in her Belly," StudiaTheologica. Uppsala, Sweden, 1995.Locke, John. "Of Civil Government, Book II," quoted in Christian History.Luker, Kristin. Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkley: University of California,1984.Mace, David R. Abortion The Agonizing Decision. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972.Maguire, Daniel. "Death Legal and Illegal," Atlantic, Vol. 233. February, 1974.Mannion, Michael. Abortion and Healing. Kansas City, MO: Sheed and Ward, 1986.Marx, O. S. B. Rev. Paul. Death Without Dignity: Killing For Mercy. Minneapolis: ForLife, Inc., 1975.Mascall, E. L. The Importance of Being Human. London: OUP, 1959.Mavrodes, George I. "Abortion and Its Arguments." Perspectives. January, 1992.McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1994.

261McKenna, George. "On Abortion: A Lincolnian Position," The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 276,No. 3. September, 1995.Metzker, Vidy. "Legalized Murder: The Horror of Abortion," Psychology for Living.November, 1984.Meyers, LeBeth. Woman Around the Globe: International Status Report. London: GuyonSocial Resources Center, 1986.Montague, Ashley. Sex, Man and Society. New York: G. P. Putnam and Sons, 1967.Montgomery, John Warwick. Slaughter of the Innocents. Westchester, ILL: InterVarsity Press,1987.Moreland, J. R. & Nielsen, Kai. Does God Exist? Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1993.Mosher, Stephen. Broken Earth. New York: Free Press, 1985.Nathanson, Bernard. Aborting America. New York: Doubleday, 1979.__________. The Hand of God. New York: Doubleday, 1996.National Committee on Adoption. The Adoption Fact Book. Washington, D.C.: NCA, 1989.Neff, David. "Left Face, About Face," Christianity Today. January, 1995.Neuhaus, Richard John. "A New Birth of Freedom," The Zero People. Ann Arbor: ServantBooks, 1983.__________. "Nietsche's Truth," Christianity Today. January, 1987.Newton, Courtland. "Christians Are Not Called To Violence." Paper. January 18, 1996.Ney, Phillip G. "Symposiums on the Psychological Aspects of Abortion," Stritch School ofMedicine of Loyola University, October 31-November 1, 1975.Niebuhr, Richard H. The Kingdom of God in America. New York: Willett Clark, 1937.Nigel, M. de S. Cameron. The New Medicine: Life and Death After Hippocrates. Westchester,IL: Crossway Books, 1995.Nilsson, Lennart. "Drama of Life Before Birth," in Life. April, 30, 1965.Noonan, Jr., John T. "The Experience of Pain by the Unborn," The Zero People. Ed. byHensley. 1983.Olasky, Marvin. Abortion Rites. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1992.Orr, J. Edwin. The Eager Feet Evangelical Awakenings, 1790-1830. Chicago, IL: Moody Press,1975.Peretti, Frank. Tilly. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988.Pierard, Richard V. "On Being Pro-Life," The Reformed Journal. Vol. 31, No. 10October 1981.Ponnuru, Ramesh. "Aborting History," National Review. Vol. XLVII, No. 20.October 23, 1995.Pope John Paul II. The Gospel of Life. New York: Times Books/Random House, 1995.__________. "Pope Challenges Youth at Denver Meeting." Christian Century. August 25 –September 1, 1993.Powell, John. Abortion: The Silent Holocaust. Allen Texas: Argus Communications, 1981.Prichard, James B. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press, 1950.Project Share. The Adoption Option: A Guidebook for Pregnancy Counselors. Rockville, MD:Project Share, 1986.

262Ramsey, Paul. "The Morality of Abortion." Life or Death: Ethics and Options. Seattle:University of Washington Press, 1968.Randall, Terry. Accessories to Murder. Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1990.Reagan, Ronald. Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation. Nashville, TN: Thomas NelsonPublishers, 1984.Reardon, David. Aborted Women: Silent No More. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1987.Reese, Connie. The War Against the Unborn. International Christian Media, 1985.Reilly, Robert. “The Culture of Vice” cited in National Review (1996).Reisser, Teri and Paul, Help for the Post-Abortion Woman. Grand Rapids: MI: ZondervanPublishing House, 1989.Rice, Charles E. "In Defense of the Rescuers," AFA Journal. October 1991.Ryken, Leland. Worldly Saints. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.Rue, Vincent M. "The Psychological Realities of Induced Abortion," Post-Mortem Aftermath: AComprehensive Consideration, Michael T. Mannion, ed. Sheed & Ward, 1994.Sagan, Carl and Ann Druyan. "Is It Possible to Be Pro-Life and Pro-Choice?" Parade MagazineApril 22, 1989.Sanko, John. "400 Protest Tribute to Abortion Doctor," Rocky Mountain News (February 8,1995).Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness. trans. by Hazel E. Barnes. New York: WashingtonSquare, 1965.Schenk, Roy. "Let's Think About Abortion," The Catholic World. April, 1968.Schettles, Landrum and David Rorvik. Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life BeforeBirth. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983.Schlossberg, Herbert. Idols for Destruction. Nashville/Camden/New York: Thomas NelsonPublishers, 1983.Scott, Graham A. D. "Abortion and the Incarnation," Journal of The Evangelical TheologicalSociety. n. d.Scwartz, Bernard. History of the Supreme Court. New York: Oxford Book Press, 1993.Selby, Terry. The Morning After. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990.Seuss, Dr. Horton Hears a Who. New York: Random House, 1954.Sider, Ronald J. Completely Pro-Life. Downers Grove, Illinois. InterVarsity Press, 1987.Singer, Peter. "Sanctity of Life or Quality of Life," Pediatrics 72. July, 1983.Smedes, Lewis B. "Abortion." The Reformed Journal, Vol. XX, No. 6. July-August.Smedes, Lewis B. Mere Morality. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,1983.Smeta, Judithg G. Concepts of Self and Morality. New York: Praeger, 1982.Smith, F. LaGard. When CHOICE Becomes God. Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 1990.Smith, Harold B. "What Is Life Worth?" Christianity Today. March 3, 1989.Speckhard, Anne. Postabortion Counseling: A Manual for Christian Counselors. Falls Church,VA: Christian Action Council, n. d.Sproul, R. C. Abortion: A Rational Look At An Emotional Issue. Colorado Springs: NavPress,1990.Stenfels, Peter. "New Voice, Same Words on Abortion," New York Times. November 20,1990.

263Stevas, Norman St. John. The Right to Life. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964.Stott, John R. "Does Life Begin Before Birth?" Christianity Today. September 5, 1980.__________. Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today. Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell,1984.Summerhill, Louise. Abortion: the Personal Dilemma, New York: Paternoster Press, 1972.Swindoll, Charles. The Sanctity of Life. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1990.Thielicke, Helmut. The Ethics of Sex. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1964.Thomas, Cal. Radio Show: "Commentary." Washington, D.C. November 25, 1991.Thorkelson, Willimar. RNS Correspondent. April 22, 1987. "Gallup Poll Says U.S. FacingMoral Crisis of First Dimension." Reproduced in The Christian News. St. Louis: MO.May 4, 1987.Tooley, Michael. Abortion and Infanticide. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.__________. "Abortion and Infanticide, " Philosophy and Public Affairs 2. Fall, 1972.Torrance, T. F. The Doctrine of Creation, Vol. 3. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1961.Tribe, Laurence H. Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes. New York: W. W. Norton Press, 1990.Trimble, Holly. Healing Post Abortion Trauma. Stafford, VA: American Life League, 1989.Wantland, "Church History and Abortion," The Living Church, n. d.Warren, Mary Ann. "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion," The Monist. January, 1973.Wennberg, Robert N. Life in the Balance. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans PublishingCompany, 1985.Wenz, Peter S. Abortion Rights As Religious Freedom. Philadelphia: Temple University Press,1992.Wertham, Frederic. A Sign for Cain. New York: Warner Paperback Library, 1969.Wertham, citing the Nuremburg Documents, Vol. 1. cited in Hensley, The Zero People.Wiesel, Elie. Souls On Fire. New York: Summit Books, 1972.Will, George F. "Abortion Painful for the Aborted," The Washington Post. November 6, 1981.__________. "The Case of the Unborn Patient," Newsweek. June, 22, 1981.Williams, Glanville. "The Legalization of Medical Abortion," The Eugenics Review 56. April,1964.Willke, Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Abortion Questions and Answers.Cincinnati, Ohio: Hayes Publishing Company, Inc. Revised, 1988.Winter, Richard. Choose Life. "A Christian Perspective on Abortion and EmbryoExperimentation." New York: Marshall Pickering, 1988.Young, Cort. The Last of These. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.Articles & Pamphlets___________. Alliance Life. January 18, 1984.___________. "The America We Seek," National Review. March 25, 1996.___________. A Study by The Alan Gluttmacher Institute cited in USA Today (September,1995).___________. Intercessors for America Newsletter. Jan., 1989.___________. "Legalized Abortion and Public Health." Institute of Medicine: NationalAcademy of Sciences. May, 1975.

264___________. Report on the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law. Ottawa, 1977.___________. "The First Amendment and the Question of Justice in Light of the AbortionIssue." New Perspectives on Human Abortion.___________. "Report on the Human Life Bill – S. 158. Committee on the Judiciary," UnitedStates Senate. December 1981.___________. Touchstone, Vol. 5.2. Journal of Ecumenical Orthodoxy. Spring, 1992.___________. "When Words Cheapen Life," The New York Times. Tuesday, January 10,1995. Editorial page.___________. "Zero Pregnancies in 3500 Rapes," The Educator. September, 1970.___________. The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America. ed.Verna M. Hall. San Francisco: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1980.___________. Teletype AP Bulletin, Mesa, Arizona, 1975.___________. "Woman Kills Three-Year-Old," National Right to Life News. October 13, 1983.___________. "Court Votes Pro-fish," National Right to Life News, September 28, 1981.___________. The Life Activist Seminar WORKBOOK. Chicago: Life Dynamics, Inc. n. d.___________. "Celebrating Seventy Years of Service," in 1986 Annual Report of PlannedParenthood Federation of America.___________. Planned Parenthood: It's not what you think! Snowflake, AZ: Heritage House,1976.___________. An Essay, 2.6, in The Great Books, Vol. 35, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica,1952.___________. Abortion, Mediine, and the Law. Fourth Edition, Completely Revised. Editedby J. Douglas Butler and David F. Walbert. New York/Oxford: Facts on File, 1992.___________. Abortion. Edited by Janet Podell. The Reference Shelf, Volume 62, Number 4.New York: The H. W. Wilson Company, 1990.___________. Abortion Understanding Differences. Edited by Sidney and Daniel Callahan.New York/London: Plenum Press, 1984.___________. The Abortion Papers: Inside the Abortion Mentality. New York: Frederick Fell,1983.___________. "A Case For Adoption." Newsletter. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on theFamily, 1991.

265