Quote:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happyness." [3]

The question is: On what basis did the Supreme Court decide that the unborn were not entitled to life? [4] What right does society have to selectively deny this basic right to certain members of the human race? To help us understand how this twisted thinking developed, Young chose to illustrate this phenomenon by a reference to what happened prior to the Civil War, when each state had the liberty to decide to be counted among either the slave or the free states. When California was admitted to the Union, it did as a free state, but other states elected to be admitted as slave states, where blacks had no rights and were treated as property of their owners.

This created a serious problem, because certain slave owners moved from one state to another, and in doing so, suddenly their slaves theoretically acquired the right to claim a right to freedom. That is exactly what happened with Dred Scott, a black slave owned by an Army surgeon. Scott sued for freedom when his master relocated to Upper Louisiana where slavery was prohibited. Chief Justice Roger Taney argued that blacks were less than human, and consequently entitled to nothing:

Quote:

They had for more than a century been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his own benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. [5]

Tanney believed that granting freedom to slaves was unconstitutional because it deprived whites of their constitutional right to own property. Of course, many people, especially in the North, strongly disagreed with the opinion of Judge Tanney, including one named Abraham Lincoln, and this is how the Civil War started, which ended with a northern victory and the emancipation of black slaves. The result was the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which specifically forbade slavery, granted former slaves the right to vote, and declared that no “person” would be deprived of life without due process of law. The term “person” was designed to include all humans, and it was supposed to prevent any future attempt to deprive certain groups of people of their inalienable rights.

2. A Shameful Parallel

In Chapter two, Young described how what was not supposssed to happen ever again, did take place on January 22, 1973, when the U.S. Supreme court ruled in the Roe v. Wade decision that the unborn were not technically “persons,” and therefore outside of the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which declared that no person should be deprived of life without due process. This unconstitutional action by the High Court opened the door for elective abortion in all the territories of the United States. All the laws of individual states that prohibited the practice of abortion were voided with the stroke of a pen.

This action by the High Court transformed the moral attitude of individuals and institutions towards the sanctity of human life. [6] The American Medical Association’s strong opposition to abortion avaporated overnight and was trasformed into a determined support for the practice of abortion. The National Organization of Women [NOW] demanded a “total reproductive freedmom,” [7] and insisted not only on abortion on demand, but also that it should be provided at taxpayers’ expense under the “Equal Rights Amendment” umbrella. [8] The American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] joined hands with the feminist movement in the fight for the overturning of all laws against abortion, ignoring in the process the civil liberties of the unborn. Planned Parenthood, who in 1964 had printed a pamphlet which stated, “Abortion kills the life of a baby, once it had begun,” [9] suddenly reversed their attitude and argued that abortion would prevent the raising of unwanted children, and would help in population control. [10]

The 1973 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court succeeded in accomplishing what the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution was designed to prevent. By the stroke of a pen, a large group of human beings were declared less than humans, non-persons, entitled to no rights, not even the right to life. This action resulted in the creation of a new legal term: “potential life,” which had never been used before in the legal history of the United States, and it provided a “historic parallel to Chief Justice Taney’s assignment of blacks to an ‘inferior order.’” [11] The similarity between the Roe v. Wade and the Dred Scott became unmistakable: “Just as Taney decreed that ‘citizens’ in the Constitution did not include blacks, Blacknum decided ‘person’ is en exclusive term as well, applying to everyone except the unborn.” [12]

It is interesting to notice that that the 1973 decision included an acknowledgment that “If this suggestion of personhood is established . . . the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.” [13] By this admission, the court skirted the need to resolve the question of when does human life begin. Such action by the Supreme Court created a legal contradiction, because when the unborn is wanted and someone causes its death, then it is legally treated as murder, [14] but if the child is unwanted, then no crime has been committed. In other words, the same unborn child is treated as a person if the child is wanted, and as a non-person in the event it is unwanted. This means that the pregnant woman determines whether the unborn is or is not a person for legal purposes, and individual states are not required to protect the unborn even when the child is viable [able to survive outside the womb], since physicians have the power to determine that the abortion was necessary to preserve the “life or health” of the pregnant woman.

3. Strategy of Deceit

The new attitude towards the sanctity of human life, says Young in chapter three, required that the centuries old Hippocratic Oath be discarded, which mandated that “the doctor is never to approach the patient as executioner, [but] rather as healer and conforter.” [15] Said oath originated with the Pythagoreans, who revered their teacher as the Father of Medicine and considered the unborn as a member of the human race from the moment of conception, but said oath was accepted originally by a small segment of the Greek society; nevertheless, with the spread of Christianity, which had a high regard for the sanctity of human life, it became as the standard for the practice of medicine until the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the fetus was not really human, but rather potential human life.

This new outlook on the status of the unborn is rooted in the “quality-of-life ethic,” which is based on the false premise that humans’ moral obligation is cancelled when the objective is to “maximize pleasure and minimize pain.” [16] Such a humanistic approach to ethics rejects our duty to the Creator of life, and establishes our priority to look for our own pleasure instead. “It is essentially self-serving, cloaked in the terminology of personal fulfillment, human potential, and self-realization.” [17] If the child is unwanted, or if the eventual cost of protecting the unborn may be financially costly to society, then abortion should be provided to everybody at taxpayers’ expense. Individuals are free to determine whether their unborn child deserves to be granted the privilege to be born alive or dead, at the whim of the pregnant woman.

By pretending to ignore when human life begins, the court opened the door not only to the extermination of a large segment of the human race, but it also paved the way for the destruction of the handicapped fetuses, the handicapped newborns, the elderly, and the terminally ill. The effect of the High Court ruling is evidenced by the alarming increase in abortions since 1973. According to the Centers for Disease Control estimate, the number of abortions jumped from 586,760 in 1972 to 1,297,606 in 1980. The result is also evidenced by the fact that the U.S. became the nation with the highest number aof abortions among teenagers. A teenager, by the way, can have an abortion without the knowledge or consent of her parents, and a married woman can get the same without the legal consent of her husband. She has the legal right to destroy her half of the child they created and by doing so take the life of his half share of the same child.

4. The Sanctity of Human Life

In spite of what certain proponents of philosophical humanism suggest, Young argued in chapter four of his book, most Americans believe that the moral value of human beings exceeds that of rocks, trees, plants and animals, because they were created, according to Genesis, in the image of God. “No other creature can claim the distinction of being created in the image of God.” [18] This image was inherited by the children of the first man and woman, and thus transmitted to all future generations. This fact was recognized even by the pagan Greek poets, according to a statement made by the Apostle Paul:

Quote:

He [God] made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your poets have said, “For we also are His offspring.” Being then the offpring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art or thought of man. [19]

If we are God’s children or his offprings, this means that God is the Father of us all, including the handicapped, the senile, the terminally ill, and the unborn. He is the Father of the rich and the poor, the mighty and the defenseless, and as such he has promised to vindicate the rights of the weak, the destitute, and the fatherless. The Lord is concerned about the welfare of all his children, but he cares the most about the weakest members of humanity, and “no one is weaker or more defenseles than the unborn.” [20] We need to remember that in the final judgment, the destiny of every member of the human race will be determined by the way we have treated “the least of these.” [21]

Soon after the flood, which destroyed most of the old world inhabitants, the Lord pronounced a curse on those who would in the future engage in the murder of the innocents: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God has God made man.” [22] Notice that the stated reason for the capital punishment is shedding the blood of innocents, because in the Hebrew language, the term “murder” implies the killing of innocent human beings. The Bible is full of references to nations that oppressed and destroyed the lives of innocent people. Many of those nations have gone into oblivion. The Lord is patient and forgiving, but there is a limit even to God’s mercy towards the unrepentant murderers.

5. The Author of Life

The Bible is full of references to God as the author of life, stated Young in Chapter 5. One of those references is found in the book of Psalms. In talking about his origin, the Psalmist addressed God as follows: “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 eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” [23] This description matches what science has recently discovered about the genetic code. “Whenever we become aware that a human being has been conceived, whether planned by the parents or not, we may know God is the Author of that life, and humble gratitude is the proper response.” [24] Humans do make mistakes, but the baby is never a “mistake,” no matter the circumstances of conception.

Other biblical references to God’s activity connected with the development of the unborn following conception include the birth of Prophet Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” [25] This is also confirmed by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Galatians: “But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles.” [26] The same could be stated about the birth of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The experience of Mary, the mother of Jesus, represents a good example of how crisis pregnancy should be handled. Mary was single and poor at a time when single motherhood was considered to be a terrible stain for a woman. The lord took care of her needs and the needs of the baby she was carrying. Likewise, God took care of Hagar, Abraham’s concubine; who was sent away by Sarah, her mistress. The Lord sent his angel to comfort Hagar in the desert when she despaired of her life, and said heavenly messenger told her that God had already picked a name for her son. She might have thought that her pregnancy was a mistake, but the Lord had a plan both for her and her son: “You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the Lord has heard of your misery.” [27]

The earliest Christian document condemning the killing of the unborn is the Didache. It states: “Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion/destruction.” [28] This opposition to the practice of abortion is also found in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, one of the early Fathers of the Christian church: “For those who conceal sexual wantonness by taking stimulating drugs to bring on an abortion wholly lose their own humanity along with the fetus.” [29] And John Calvin, the Protestant Reformer, expressed his opinion about the killing of the unborn when he wrote the following commentary about a controversial Old Testament passage found in Exodus 21:22-24:

Quote:

The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being and it is almost a monstruous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in the field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light. [30]

6. The Experience of Abortion

Young deals with many arguments used in order to justify the killing of the unborn: A. Denying access to abortion is unloving and unkind. B. It is cheaper to abort the children of the poor than it is to provide welfare benefits to the pregnant women after birth. C. Abortion will secure the afection of boyfriends and husbands. All these arguments, according to Young, and many similar ones, have proved to be false. The kind action is to discourage women from seeking to kill their unborn children, because abortion creates more problems than the ones it solves. It has been demonstrated that abortion tends to split couples, whether they are married or not. Here is a testimony of one man following an abortion:

Quote:

I firmly believe the living Hell Diahnn and I went through was due to overwhelming guilt [over the abortion]. I started abusing Diahnn, physically and verbally, blaming her for the abortion. I resented her, she resented me for agreeing to the abortion, and we resented ourselves. I got into drugs and alcohol, she sank deeper into depression; our marriage was over. [31]

Young cites other similar cases to this one where an abortion, instead of firming up a relationship, had the opposite effect. He cited the opinion of Linda Bird, who discovered in her research about this topic that “almost every relationship between single people broke up either before or after the abortion.” [32] A young woman who had an abortion expressed her strong conviction that no woman should ever consider abortion as a solution to her dilemma. Another woman felt her hands were dirty after the abortion and developed the compulsory habit of washing her hands up to forty times a day. Finally her psychological condition worsened and she had to be institutionalized.

Strong and unavoidable feeling of guilt and depression are very commong among women who had gone through an abortion, sometimes popping up unexpectedly many years after the experience. One woman attempted to ease her pain by writing a letter entitled “An Apology to the Little Boy I Won’t Ever See” to the soon to be aborted baby:

One of the early arguments for the legalization of abortion was based on the premise that it would reduce the incidence of child abuse. Statistics have demonstrated, argued Young, that child abuse had increased following the court ruling that condoned the killing of the unborn. The truth is that violence tends to foment increased violence. One woman who had an abortion was eager to replace the aborted baby, and she became pregnant again. When the baby was born and the nurse handed the baby to her, she handed it right back to the nurse. She realized that the abortion had an adverse effect on her mind.

7. The Target of Abortion

Modern technology has progressed so much, stated Young, that today we can observe the developing baby in “his native environment, swimming, turning, sleeping, sucking his thumb, as well as engaging in other activites.” [34] Some women, after observing their unborn baby thanks to an ultrasound machine have stated: “I couldn’t have an abortion now.” [35] The development of a baby from the original single cell is so amazing that less than three weeks after conception the incipient heart has began to take form and it will start to beat up to 100,000 times a day. By the end of the third month, if aborted, the fetus may struggle to breathe, and during the fourth month the baby can be observed sucking its thumb. Medicine has advanced so much that the unborn babies can be treated even before they are born.

8. The Techniques of Abortion

All abortion techniques are based on the use of violence, affirmed Young, since the objective is killing the baby before birth. During the first trimested the most common method used by abortionists is suction. Two methods are available: suction and curettage and dilation and curettage. Both rely on the use of a tube connected to a vaccum machine. In the case of dilation and suction the machine utilized has twelve times the power of a household vacuum cleaner. This is the reason a number of undesirable complications take place.

The woman’s cervix can be damaged by the scraping, which may later on cause “miscarriages, premature births, or low birth weight babies beset with many health problems.” [36] Another potential complication is the perforation of the uterus, which may require surgery, and on many instances some women have bled to death. [37] In order to prevent infection, the body parts of the aborted fetus need to be reasembled in order to insure nothing has been left behind unaccounted for. Additional side effects of abortion could include sterility, ectopic pregnancies, which may threaten not only the life of future babies, but the life of the woman as well.

Second trimester abortion rely on a different technique. A portion of the amniotic fluid is withdrawn and replaced with a saline solution. The unborn child begins to hemorrhage and its tissues and organs are destroyed. Huge bruises appear over its body. Much of its skin is burned in the process. If the physician misses the mark and the saline solution hits the woman guts, the woman reacts with severe pain. It is a brutal way to kill a baby. The result is death, but occasionally the baby survives and will suffer the consequences of the failed abortion for the rest of its life. For the woman, there may be unwanted side effects as well. Infections might develop and a hysterectomy could be required to save the woman’s life. Because of these side effects, the government of Japan has outlawed this abortion procedure.

In the U.S. physicians have started using hormones for late abortions, but the incidence of unintended live births has increased. Such hormones are referred to as prostaglandins, and they cause violent contractions that sometimes result in damage to the uterus wall. Other side effects may include diarrhea, vomiting, and heavy blood loss. Quite often the physician is not present when the baby is expelled, and nurses are expected to take care of the patient, and many of them resent having to take care of the “dirty work.” There have been documented instances of revolts led by nurses, and “nursing personnel have reported nightmares, bouts of depression, and excessive drinking.” [38] It has been estimated that the annual incidence of live births resulting from this type of abortions oscilates between 400 and 500 cases. Precise figures are not available because abortionists have no incentive to report live births. It does not look good on their business!

Another abortion technique is dilation and evacuation [D and E]. After dilating the cervix, the physician inserts forceps resembling a pair of pliers, the live baby is methodically cut to pieces, and the baby’s head is crushed and removed. Side effects may include damage to the cervix and perforation of the uterus. Of course, there is another method equally effective which consists of delivering a live baby and then leaving the child unatended until it dies. There have been many documented cases of babies suffocated following a live birth. In the case of twins, if one of them is diagnosed as defective, doctors can insert a needle into the baby’s heart and cause its death by removing a large portion of the baby’s blood.

9. The Legacy of Abortion, Part 1: Fetal Experimentation

Once the legal protection of the unborn was removed, the bodies of aborted babies, and even the bodies of live babies schedulled for abortion, became the target of scientific experimentation. A Fetal Tissue Bank was created at London’s Marsden Hospital, because “virtually every organ or tissue from the destroyed fetus can be used--from the liver, lung, and nasal mucosa for virology studies to the gonads for studies in developmental biology; from pancreas, breast, and thymus for immunology studies to the muscle and brain for studies in cellular biology.” [39]

Of course, freshness of the product is extremely important, for which reason the removal of organs is sometimes initiated on aborted babies that are not dead yet. On other occasions the experiments have been carried on live infants after abortion. In one case the fetus lived for five hours while the experiment was being performed. The industry of cosmetics is also using the products of abortion for their business. “Many beauty establishments are prospering in France thanks to the use of living cells taken from the fetus. . . . Does the end justify the means? I suspect the victims would say no.” [40]

10. The Legacy of Abortion, Part 2: Infanticide

Before 1973, explained Young, “the term abortion was defined in Webster’s new World Dictionary as the ‘expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is viable,’” which means before it is likely to survive outside the womb. The idea of aborting a viable infant did not exist, since it was considered to be a crime equivalent to murder, or infanticide. The legalization of abortion has altered this definition to include any attempt at producing a dead baby prior to a complete birth. But that is not all, since “within months after the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing aborion, pediatricians began arguing for public acceptance of infanticide for newborns with birth defects or handicaps.” [41]

Since then, there have been many documented cases of infanticide where hadicapped infants were denied nutrition and water until they died. In sone instances physicians prescribed morphine and phenobarbital, which the parents disolved into the baby bottle, with the assurance from their doctor that he would sign the death certificate after the baby’s life was thus ended. In one documented instance the baby was starved to death over the course of twenty-three days. In another instance the starving process lasted thirty-one days, because some of the nurses would subrepticiously give some nourishment to the doomed baby when nobody was watching. Here is what Nobel laureate James D. Watson stated about infanticide:

Quote:

If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have. [42]

In the case of “Infant Doe” with a correctable birth defect, the baby died while the attorneys were making a last effort to have the judges’ order to starve reversed. There were ten families begging for the privilege of adopting the infant. One of said prospective adoptive parents declared: “I don’t feel I have the right to judge Family Doe for their inability to cope with their unborn . . . but I can, from having ‘been there,’ say that they had no right to take their child’s right to live away from him.” [43] This situation is rather serious in some states where it is legally permissible to do to a retarded baby what would be illegal and criminal if done to a dog or a cat.

Following the death of Infant Doe, President Reagan had the Human Services issue regulations requiring federally funded hospitals to post a notice asking for any person having knowledge of a baby being denied medical care to call the Handicapped Infant Hotline. The American Academy of Pediatricians initiated a lawsuit, and Judge Gerhard Gessell determined that said regulation was arbitrary and capricious, and affirmed that newborns could be stripped of all legal rights to life on the basis of the Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The American Medical Association offered its support for depriving handicapped infants of their rights. Here is what a renowned University professor stated about this issue:

Quote:

If we compare a severely defective human infant with a nonhuman animal, a dog or a pig, for example, we will often find nonhumans to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, selfconsciousness, communication, and anything else that can plausibly be considered morally significant. [44]

Of course, coming from a believer in philosophical humanism, this is not surprising. But how can someone explain the fact that a Seventh-day Adventist reputable scholar would write a book using the same argument fourteen years after the publication of Young’ book? The title of the book is What is a Person? [45] And the author is someone whose ethical opinions are held in high regard by the Loma Linda University community. Perhaps we should ask both scholars: Were animals created in the image of God like Adam and Eve? Is this image limited to the ability for self conciousness and rationality, or rather the ability to reflect God’s character and willingness to do his will? [46]

It is recognized, Young stated in his book, that the United States is the wealthiest nation [47] on earth and possessing advanced technology for the care of and rehabilitation of handicapped infants. Besides, it has been discovered that retardation and handicap is not a synonym with suffering and unhappyness. Actually most handicapped individuals reflect a high degree of happyness when compared with the general population. Consequently, the moral question is not whether those doomed to neglect, starvation, and death by our legal system have attained a high degree of self-conciousness and personhood, but rather whether those assigned to their care reflect the image of God?

11. The Legacy of Abortion, Part 3: Euthanasia

If society is willing to compromise on the unborn’s right to life, it should surprise nobody that a similar pressure for neglecting human beings is applied at the other spectrum of human existence: old age. “Currently, five people pay into Social Security for every one receiving benefits.” [48] Soon the “baby boom” generation will start drawing retirement benefits. If you add to this the effect of the abortion with its drop in birth rate, then the unavoidable conclusion is that the present retirement system will be facing serious trouble in the not so distant future. [49]

A few years before Roe v. Wade, the American Euthanasia society changed its name to the Society for the Right to Die, and they began to push the notion that opting for death was a cherished right. Almost two decades later, Richard Lamm, the governor of Colorado, suggested that dying was not only a right, but a duty as well: “Elderly people who are terminally ill have a duty to die and get out of the way,” because providing for their care would turn the United States into a “second-rate economic nation.” [50] Reacting to this ourageous statement, a lobbyist named Robert Robinson said: “To say that we have a duty to die and get out of the way brings me back forty years ego, when a person in Germany not only advocated that, but carried it through.” [51] Believe it or not, the reaction to Lamm’s statement by the New York Times, Time magazine, and Washington Post was favorable.

For this reason many individuals have been deprived of nutrition and water in order to speed their demise and thus save tax money. The same objective is behind the Living Wills program, where individuals document in advance that they do not want to be subjected to endless medical treatments to save their lives. Strictly speaking, patients already do have the right to refuse medical treatments. Besides, letting physicians decide when to stop efforts to save the life of a patient is risky, since there has been many documented cases where medical diagnoses have been in error. A classic example is that of Karen Ann Quinlan, whose respirator was ordered removed by the court, but she managed to suvive and continued to breathe on her own.

No doubt, the care of the infirm and old is expensive. “Twenty-five percent of Medicare expenditures are incurred by patients in the last year of life.” [52] Is this a good reason for neglecting the care of those who are weak and in great need? Should society refuse to provide nutrition and water to the infirm and the old just because we are already depriving the unborn of life at the opposite of life spectrum? In the last book written by Moses there is a warning towards the nation of Israel stating that if they were to neglect God’s laws, the Lord would allow a “ruthless nation, ‘a nation of fierce countenance who shall have no respect for the old, nor show favor to the young.’ Christians in America today must face the disturbing fact that this characterization comes far too close to describing their nation as well.” [53]

12-17. Overcoming the Violence [Plus]

Curt Young dedicated the last chapters of his book to topics dealing with the task of encouraging Christian churches to establish crisis pregnancy centers for the benefit of women who are searching for alternatives to the killing of the unborn. A few vignetes will be included here from said material. In the event the reader is interested in exploring said chapters more closely, here are the individual titles:

12. Overcoming the Violence

13. The Responsibility of the Church

14. Objections to Involvement Considered

15. Faith With Works, Part 1: What Your Church Can Do

16. Faith With Works, Part 2: Becoming a Pro-Life Activist

17. Conclusion [Followed by an Appendix]

One of the objectives of church involvement in the establishment of crisis pregnancy centers is to provide better alternatives for pregnant women facing what sometimes looks like a desperate situation with no way out except the abortion she is forced into by her dire circumstances. Such centers are designed as a temporary solution until the Roe v. Wade decision is either reversed, or an amendment to the U.S. Constitution succeeds in emancipating the unborn the way the Dred Scott ruling liberated the slaves from oppression and blacks were granted the right to be treated as members of the human race and entitled to the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The church needs to heed what Jesus implied when he stated: “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me,” [54] and Christians need to heed what Moses parting words were to the nation of Israel before his death: “This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.” [55] When confronted with the opportunity to establish a crisit pregnancy center, a church pastor replied: “Abortion is a serious problem in this country. But we can be grateful that no abortions are performed in our town.” True, there were no abortion clinics in this pastor’s town at that time, but one year later there were two of them in operation within sight of his church.

It is no coincidence that the legalization of abortion took place a few years following the sexual revolution. Women were promissed sexual freedom by feminists, but the net result has been the death of their children, followed by guilt, depression, and abandonment by those who promissed them an earthly paradise. Said paradise turned out to be a mere mirage. The church needs to remember that the liberation of slaves was not easy, and the amancipation of the unborn won’t be an easy task either. William Wilberforce, the celebrated member of the British Parliament, prayed with his small group of influential friends for decades before Great Britain decided to free the black slaves in his country.

The church needs to bear in mind that being faithful in a few little things won’t matter in the end if it ignores the major moral burdens it must carry. Hitler did succeed in rebuilding the German nation both economically and militarily. These accomplishments of his have been forgotten because he presided over the slaughter of six million Jews who were declared non-persons by his Nazi regime. In contrast, Abraham Lincoln presided over a nation beset by rampant inflation and a disastrous economy. In spite of this, he is remembered for liberating those whose rights as members of the human race had been denied by society. “Superb performance on secondary issues is no substitute for right performance on fundamental matters of justice. Ronadl Reagan understood this basic truth when he declared:

Quote:

Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the trascendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning. [56]

The author of Proverbs affirmed the following: “Speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.” [57] This verse was quoted by Dietrich Bonhoeffer when he opposed Hitler’s extermination of the Jews. When the war was over, Martin Niemoeller summed up the German’s response to Bonhoeffer desperate call with the following poignant words: [58]

Quote:

In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’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 was not 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 no one was left to speak up. [59]

It is interesting to notice that Dr. Alan Guttmacher, one of the most vocal advocates of elective abortions, admitted that “abortion is virtually never indicated to prevent the death of a woman.” [60] In fact, experience has demonstrated that “abortion does not unrape a woman,” and it “promises only to compound the trauma of rape with another experience of violence.” [61] Young relates the experience of a rape victim who had recently quit her job, was without health insurance, and she was low in finances. It was the worst time for her to be pregnant. She decided to trust in God’s providence. A physician offered free health care services to her, she secured temporary housing, and she later found employment with health benefits.

Another woman named Ethel testified that her mother was raped when her mom was merely twelve years old, but she refused to have an abortion. She raised her daughter, who eventually became a singer, and a regular participant in the evangelistic crusades of Billy Graham. Ethel was grateful for her mother’s decision to choose life for her instead of death. Some defenders of abortion argue that in the event Roe v. Wade was overturned, then women having abortions would be criminally prosecuted. Studies have shown that this is untrue. No woman has ever been prosecuted for having an abortion, because women have been typically treated as victims.Those performing abortions have been the target of prosecutorial activity instead.

Pregnant women who are unable to raise their babies do have a better alternative. It has been estimated that the number of couples desiring to adopt a child number close to half a million in the United States alone. Another false argument justifying abortion is that if abortion becomes illegal, back alley abortion will increase greatly. Actually, the opposite is true. Back alley abortions have actually increased since the legalization of abortion. Besides, many women have died as a result of “safe” legal abortions, other women have suffered the loss of the ability to bear children, and some women who were not even pregnant have been subjected to fake abortions.

The abortion industry is a muli-million dollar business, one physician is reported to have earned $800,000 in Medicaid reimbursements from abortions in a single year. Dishonest practices and false claims are not uncommon. Prior to the legalization of abortion a proponent of abortion on demand claimed that 10,000 women were dying from illegal abortion every year. The official report by the government placed those figures at 39 in 1972. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the cofounder of Abortion Rights Action League, admitted that he was aware that those inflated figures were false, but did nothing to correct the misinformation.

*Curt Young’s position on abortion: Pro-Life.

Endnotes

[1]Curt Young. The Least of These: What Everyone Should Know About Abortion (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1983), 1-220.

[2]Matthew 25: 40 NIV.

[3]Ibid., 1.

[4]Common sense would suggest that if all “men” are created equal, and entitled to life; then this right to life should include the unborn, because the term “men” is a generic term for humans, and includes women and children. Besides, the term “created” seems to imply development which starts at conception.

[5]Ibid., 7.

[6]Would SDAs, who generously labeled themselves as God’s Remnant on earth, keeping God’s commandments, remain immune to this downgrading of morality and respect for human life? Keep reading to discover the answer to this question.

[7]Ibid., 13.

[8]This meant, of course, that all those who were pro-life, were required to also pay for the killing of the unborn.

[9]Ibid., 14.

[10]The same argument (population control) was used by Neal Wilson, then president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, to justify the provision of abortion services in SDA hospitals.

[11]Ibid., 15.

[12]Ibid., 16.

[13]Ibid.

[14]This was clearly illustrated in the recent case of Scott Peterson, who was sentenced for the double murder of both his wife and his unborn child.

[15]Young, 22.

[16]Ibid., 24.

[17]Ibid.

[18]Ibid., 34.

[19]Ibid., 35. Quoted from Acts 17:26-29.

[20]Young, 36.

[21]Matt. 25: 31-46 NIV.

[22]Gen. 9:6 NIV.

[23]Psalms 139:13-16 NIV.

[24]Young, 42.

[25]Jer. 1:5 NIV. The question for the defenders of abortion is: Would God have appointed a non-person as his prophet?

[26]Gal. 1:15.

[27]Gen. 16:11 NIV. Abraham and Sarah might have made a mistake in asking Hagar to bear a child for them, but Hagar’s baby was no mistake for the Lord.

[28]Young, 50.

[29]Ibid.

[30]Ibid., 50-51.

[31]Ibid., 54-55.

[32]Ibid., 56.

[33]Ibid., 64.

[34]Ibid., 72.

[35]Ibid., 73.

[36]Ibid., 86.

[37]For additional information about the serious complications connected with the practice of abortion, see Mark Crutcher, Lime 5: Exploited by Choice (Denton, Texas: Life dynamics, Incorporated, 1996), 1-281.

[38]Young., 93.

[39]Ibid., 102.

[40]Ibid., 107.

[41]Ibid., 110.

[42]Ibid., 113. Dr. Watson probably never heard about the adoption program. There are loving couples willing to adopt even handicapped babies.

[43]Ibid., 116.

[44]Ibid., 119.

[45]See Chapter X of this study.

[46]This paragraph represents, no doubt, Nic Samojluk’s personal reaction to Dr. Peter Singer’s statement quoted above instead of being material selected from Young’s book.

[47]The fact that the richest nation on earth is the one neglecting to provide the care needed by the weakest members of humanity speaks volumes about how low have we morally fallen.

[48]Young, 124.

[49]Common sense dictates that in order to prevent catastrophic measures to save the retirement system, the government should encourage an increase in the birth rate, and offer incentives, perhaps, for women willing to bear children. Instead the government is subsidizing the death of those who, if allowed to live, would add their number to the workers needed to support the fast increasing number of retirees! This fact illustrates the lack of vision of those who pushed for the legalization of abortion.

[50]Young, 124.

[51]Ibid., 125.

[52]Ibid., 133.

[53]Ibid., 134. In the case of Israel of old, foreigners would neglect the young and the old; in our case we are inflicting this abuse and neglect on our young and our old ourselves.

[54]Matt. 25:40 NIV.

[55]Deut. 30:19 NIV.

[56]Young, 189-190.

[57]Prov. 31:8 NIV.

[58]We need to bear in mind that the Seventh-day Adventist Church, along with other Christian organizations, did cooperate with Hitler, and kept silent while the extermination of the Jews was taking place. SDA scholar Fritz Guy wrote the following: “Adventist Christians in Germany in the 1930s who accommodated National Socialism in the interest of denominational security and survival ended up more Nazi than Adventist or Christian; however, unwittingly, they became accomplices in the extermination of the Jews.” [See Fritz Guy. Thinking Theologically. (Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press, 1999), 236.] It looks like the SDA church is doomed to repeat the same mistake today!

[59]Young, 199.

[60]Ibid., 206.

[61]Ibid.