Expansion on the '3 evils' :
Expanded Information on the ‘Three Evils' - by Paul Swope; Vitae Caring Foundation (USA)
The new research shows why the traditional approach has had so little effect, and what can be done to change things. The summary report of the study bears the intriguing title: ‘Abortion: The Least Of Three Evils – Understanding the Psychological Dynamics of How Women Feel About Abortion'.
The report suggests that women do not see any ‘good' resulting from an unplanned pregnancy. Instead they must weigh what they perceive as three ‘evils', namely, motherhood, adoption, and abortion.
Unplanned motherhood, according to the study, represents a threat so great to modern women that it is perceived as equivalent to a ‘death of self'. While the woman may rationally understand that it is not her own literal death, her emotional, subconscious reaction to carrying the child to term is that her life will be ‘over'.
This is because many young women of today have developed a self-identity that simply does not include being a mother. It may include going through college, getting a degree, obtaining a good job, even getting married someday; but the sudden intrusion of motherhood is perceived as a complete loss of control over their present and future selves.
It shatters their sense of who they are and will become, and thereby paralyses their ability to think more rationally or realistically. When these women evaluate the abortion decision, therefore, they do not, as a pro-lifer might, formulate the problem with the radically distinct options of either ‘I must endure an embarrassing pregnancy' or ‘I must destroy the life of an innocent child'. Instead, their perception of the choice is either ‘my life is over' or ‘the life of this new child is over.'
Given this perspective, the choice of abortion becomes one of self preservation, a much more defensible position, both to the woman deciding to abort and to those supporting her decision. Even those women who are likely to choose life rather than abortion do so not because they better understand foetology or have a greater love for children, but because they have a broader and less fragile sense of self, and they can better incorporate motherhood into their self-identity.
Adoption, unfortunately, is seen as the most ‘evil' of the three options, as it is perceived as a kind of double death. First, the death of self, as the woman would have to accept motherhood by carrying the baby to term. Further, not only would the woman be a mother, but she would perceive herself as a bad mother, one who gave her own child away to strangers. The second death is the death of the child ‘through abandonment'.
A woman worries about the chance of her child being abused. She is further haunted by the uncertainty of the child's future, and about the possibility of the child returning to intrude on her own life many years later. Basically, a woman desperately wants a sense of resolution to her crisis, and in her mind, adoption leaves the situation the most unresolved, with uncertainty and guilt as far as she can see for both herself and her child.
As much as we might like to see the slogan ‘Adoption, not Abortion' embraced by women, this study suggests that in pitting adoption against abortion, adoption will be the hands-down loser. The attitude of those women toward abortion is quite surprising. First, all of the scores of women involved in the study (none of whom were pro-life activists and all of whom called themselves ‘pro-choice') agreed that abortion is killing. While this is something that is no doubt ‘written on the human heart', credit for driving home the reality of abortion is also due to the persevering educational work of the pro-life movement.
Second, the women believe that abortion is wrong, an evil, and that God will punish a woman who makes that choice.
Third, however, these women feel that God will ultimately forgive the woman, because He is a forgiving God, because the woman did not intend to get pregnant, and finally, because a woman in such crisis has no real choice – again, the perception is that the woman's whole life is at stake.
In fact, while abortion itself is seen as something evil, the woman who has to make that choice is perceived as courageous, because she has made a difficult, costly, but necessary decision in order to get on with her life. Basically, abortion is considered the least of three evils because it is perceived as offering the greatest hope for a woman to preserve her own sense of self, her own life.
This is why women feel protective towards the abortive woman and her ‘right to choose', and deeply resentful towards the pro-life movement, which they perceive as uncaring and judgemental. Note that the primary concerns in any of the three options revolve around the woman, and not the unborn child. This helps to explain the appeal of the rhetoric of ‘choice'.
It offers the sense that women in crisis still have some control over their future, and it allows women who may dislike abortion themselves to still seem compassionate towards other women in crisis.
Return to the list of our services
No Good Causes? :
It is not true that there are no good causes — ending abortion is one
by PAUL JOHNSON
Abortion is the most difficult and important issue facing advanced societies today. It is the most difficult because the arguments on both sides are immensely strong and at the heart of them is an unresolved emotional and moral dilemma: should we listen to the pleas of a desperate, distraught woman or the unarticulated cries for mercy of an unborn child?
It is important for two reasons. First, there is the sheer scale of the killing, from which we try to avert our gaze, and the communal heartlessness it represents. The modern abortion culture is a frontal assault on the sacredness of human life. It is no accident that the first country to adopt it was Stalin's Soviet Union, where 30 million adults were also done to death in horrific circumstances. Doctors in the West, operating under the laws legalising abortion, have now killed more living human creatures than Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tse-tung put together.
One West Midlands abortionist, using a particularly brutal suction method, is said to have polished off more human creatures than did Eichmann. This last tale may be folklore. No one knows. In Britain, abortion is the least explored major activity today. ‘Investigative reporters' are not allowed to touch it.
Television, which gets its cameras into every other intimate secret, refuses to take them into the abortion clinics and the refuse bins and incinerators where the bodies of once living children are disposed of. Walls of euphemism surround the subject. Just as dispatching a Jew to a Nazi death-camp was officially termed ‘sending east', so today the house rules of some publishing houses do not allow authors to refer to an ‘unborn child' – the term ‘foetus' must be used.
So we are ignorant of modern abortion and meant to be ignorant and perhaps want to be ignorant. But in our hearts we know, just as ordinary Germans knew in the early 1940s, that something horrible is going on amongst us, on a colossal scale.
The second reason why abortion is the most important issue facing us is that it is a test case for all the moral problems which will arise in the 21st century as the new scientific revolution enables us, for the first time, to manipulate life. If we do not put the unborn child into a protective envelope which is morally sound and legally workable, then it seems unlikely that we will solve any of the far more complex dilemmas which advancing medical technology will shortly thrust upon us.
The life principle is too fundamental to be left to the medical profession. What doctors in Nazi Germany and psychiatrists in Soviet Russia were prepared to do, as a matter of routine, makes us realise that doctors, as a profession, cannot necessarily be trusted to do right. When the story of the aborted twin broke recently, it was frightening to hear the comments of some of the doctors, who seemed astonished at the fuss and did not appear to grasp that a moral issue had arisen.
The whole subject of medical ethics, and especially the philosophical principles which underlie them, is marginalised at universities. It is either not studied at all or tends to fall into the hands of lawyers and sociologists, who are as confused as the doctors about the moral issues. Yet abortion is essentially a moral issue, just as slavery was. Both revolve around the value we attach to human life.
Entire civilisations lived with slavery for centuries but ultimately its inescapable immorality had to be recognised and the political consequences accepted, whatever the cost. It is no accident that abortion is now the biggest single issue in American politics and will remain so until it is dealt with. For the United States, which is at bottom a highly moral and idealistic society, went through the same experience with slavery in the 19th century.
A powerful case for slavery could be, and was, made, and enforced by the huge special interests which had grown up around it. Time and again the subject bubbled up angrily and broke the political surface, and then subsided again as yet another compromise was thrown over it. It seemed in everyone's interest to avoid a showdown. But the issue was too morally important for that. It would not go away, and in the end it involved the United States in a war which killed a million people and destroyed a society and a way of life forever.
The price America had to pay was enormous, but Americans decided it had to be paid. Today, it is hard to find any American, even in the South, who would not agree that slavery had to be ended even at the cost of a civil war. The Americans will eventually prohibit abortion, just as they once prohibited slavery, and for the same reasons. Slavery was tolerable only when it was shrouded in ignorance, euphemism and deception.
The more you knew about its realities, the more its ugly facts were uncovered, the higher the gorge rose. The decisive moment in America came when Harriet Beecher Stowe, in Uncle Tom's Cabin, brought the horrible essence of slavery home to millions of readers in an emotional form they found irresistible. They had to read her novel, and they did. After that, everyone knew. They could no longer plead ignorance and sooner or later they were bound to act.
The case against abortion has yet to find its Harriet Beecher Stowe. But it will. Then the people will force politicians to move, whatever the lobbies say. It is notable that every time the truth about abortion breaks the surface, as it did in the case involving the killing of a twin, more and more people, including doctors, ask questions about the morality of the whole evil business. The first thing we need to do is break the habit of silence in the media.
We need to learn in print, and experience on our television screens, exactly what goes on in the abortion industry and what its ‘products' look like, in life as well as in death. We also need doctors, nurses and other people involved to confess frankly what they feel about their work and how they reconcile what they do with their consciences. None of this will happen unless individual men and women in the media show persistence and determination.
What is sure is that it is quite untrue to say that there are no good causes left.
Return to the list of our services
A Call to Christians:
A call to Christians:
Someone has said: ‘The height of selfishness is to know someone is dying, and to have it within your power to save them, but to choose not to'.
Martin Luther said: ‘If you see someone condemned to death innocently, and you do not save him, although you know ways and means to do so, you have killed him. It will do you no good to plead that you did not contribute to his death, for you have withheld your love from him and have robbed him of the service by which his life might have been saved.'
Martin Luther is also credited with saying:– ‘If I profess with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the World and the Devil are at this moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be confessing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battle-field besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point'.
The greatest indictment of selfishness in the Church, and therefore our contempt for the cross, is that we have chosen not to stop this holocaust against children. When most of the excuses for inactivity are boiled down they have self-preservation, and hence self-worship, at their base.
In some ways the Church's guilt is as bad as that of the abortionist. Why? Because the Church could have stopped this holocaust by now. We have the mandate, the manpower, and the money. We know who is doing the killing, we know where the killing is being done, we know when the killing is being done.
But because we lack the backbone and because of ignorant or cowardly leaders, the Church has done almost nothing for the children. We must understand that men and women have different ministries and callings. But in a time of crisis all are called to sacrifice. Our society is beaten, bleeding and dying in the ditch while millions of Christians do little or nothing to lift it out, dress its wounds, and work for its restoration.
In the Financial Year ended June 2002 in Queensland, the Government, under Medicare, paid out $2,481,838 of tax-payers' money for the killing of 14,581 children. (H.I.C.). The majority of these killings would have been in our area. (The south-east of the state). Nationally, the figures were: $10,637,006 to kill 76,844 children
Return to the list of our services
The Questions Most People Ask About Abortion:
The Questions Most People Ask About Abortion
Written and compiled by
In 1978 we first printed "Children - Things We Throw Away?" and since that time we have printed over nine million copies of it. It has been responsible for saving the lives of countless children (and we are ever so thankful to God for that!).We have been so encouraged by the response that we have decided to print the answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about abortion, along with some "random notes" on the subject. We hope this speaks to your heart as much as it spoke to ours.
Q: Does the Bible give a stand on a woman who’s pregnant and gets, say, German measles, and the baby she carries in her womb is most likely to be deformed or retarded? What can we do then?
A: The Scriptures don’t change just because a child might be born with a handicap. What about the deformities that aren’t detected before birth shall we just kill these children on the delivery table? If we can abort the defective unborn, why not just kill the defective newborn? The baby will be just as dead if killed six months before the delivery or six minutes after. What’s the difference? What if a ten-year-old gets a disease that leaves him deformed or blind... shall we kill him too? It is no less savage to abort a deformed child than to exterminate a retarded adult. Where do we draw the line? If we decide to eliminate those who are imperfect, we need to ask ourselves two important questions:
- Just how perfect does one need to be before he is allowed to live?
- Who will have the power to make these decisions?
Does anyone have the right to play God?
"Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?" (Exodus4:11)
|"I received a German measles shot two weeks before I got pregnant with my first child. I called three doctors, and none of them would accept me as a patient. They all wanted me to get an abortion. I went to a fourth doctor, and she also advised me to have an abortion, that my chance of having a healthy baby was 0%. When I told her no, she said, ‘Well then you will have a deformed baby, and you’d better tell your husband.’ I was in tears by this time. My husband said, ‘God loves all people the same. Then I asked God to have mercy on us, and heal my child. I told Jesus that if He didn’t, that would be okay, because I knew He would be in control. I would love my baby no matter what.
"I’m very happy to say that my baby girl, Angela, is perfectly healthy! While the doctor was stitching me up, she said I still should have had an abortion! Even my father-in-law thinks we should have aborted her! The day we came home from the hospital, my husband said, ‘I’m ready to turn my whole life over to God.’ Two miracles in one day!"
- Linda Serrano, Bakersfield, CA
Q: There is one thing I’m confused about, and that’s rape. I have never been raped, but if I had been and became pregnant, I would die at the thought of carrying a cruel, thoughtless stranger’s baby. If you did become pregnant by rape, what would God want you to do?
A: First of all, rape practically never results in pregnancy, due to the trauma involved. But if it should occur, what is needed is loving support and assistance for the mother - not added guilt for her already burdened heart. It’s a strange sort of justice that would kill an innocent child for the crime of its father. Two wrongs never make a right. One violent act does not condone another.
If this were to happen to you, I know God would help you to forgive the baby’s father, and give you a real love for the baby (whether you kept it or gave it up for adoption). After all, that baby would be half yours, no matter who the father was. Think about this: If you found out tomorrow that you were the product of a rape - would you wish that your mother had aborted you?
|"WELL, DOC... I JUST DON’T FEEL LIKE HAVING IT"
According to the Supreme Court, a baby’s viability (the ability to live outside the mother’s womb) is a consideration unless the mother’s life or health is threatened. The Court defined her "life or health" to mean her physical, psychological, or emotional health, her age, her marital status, or the infant’s prospects of distressful life and/or future.
Q: You have unfairly dramatized the issue of abortion by playing up the horrors. Let’s not become idol worshipers of a wad of cells that adhere to the wall of a uterus. Until those cells free themselves and become an independently functioning unit, they are hardly any different than any other tissue in the woman. Do we mourn over the loss of an appendix? A woman wanting an abortion has made a difficult decision. Let’s not become judgmental and deny her what she wants. Such a woman needs all the Christian love we can manifest.
A: How can you compare an unborn child to a mere appendix?? An appendix does not turn into a baby, it has no eternal soul... and it does not have the gift of life so generously bestowed by God. A baby is a different person with his or her own distinct set of chromosomes - different than any part of the mother. The child has its own blood supply that may even be a different type than the mother, and the child can be of the opposite sex. He or she is obviously a separate individual.
I am totally in favor of giving "all the Christian love we can manifest." The question is, what is Christian love? One of the problems facing Christians today is that we are afraid of people thinking we are "judging them" that we are reluctant to get involved in their lives. Instead, we just stand by and let our brothers and sisters fall into a pit without opening our mouth to stop them. We can’t continue to hide behind Cain’s sarcastic question, "Am I my brother’s keeper?" (Gen.4:9) Of course we are! Jesus taught that anyone in distress is our neighbor and we must come to his aid. (Luke 10:30-37) Let’s do all we can to help the mother without exterminating her baby. Complacency and failure to watch over each other spiritually is definitely the path of least resistance... but please, let’s not call it love... least of all, Christian love!
"Deliver those who are being taken away to death,
And those who are staggering to slaughter, O hold them back.
If you say, ‘See, we did not know this,’
Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts?
And does He not know it who keeps your soul?
And will He not render to man according to his work?"
Q: Don’t unwanted children usually end up being battered and abused children later on in life?
A: This is a totally false notion. Dr. Edward Lenoski, Professor of Pediatrics at U.S.C., showed in a recent study of 674 battered children that 91% were planned pregnancies and 90% were legitimate. Also, statistics show conclusively that since the legalization of abortion, child abuse has risen very sharply, along with illegitimate births, welfare, and an overall national increase in immorality that is reaching epidemic proportions. Abortions in the U.S. alone have killed 30 million children since 1973. The plain fact is, abortion is the ultimate in child abuse.
Q: Isn’t legally preventing a woman from having an abortion an invasion of her privacy?
A: Our laws are very funny. They allow police to enter the privacy of people’s homes to stop them from battering and abusing their children. Then they use the same force of law to guarantee the "privacy and right" of parents to dismember or poison their babies before birth. In fact, I think almost all crime is done in private (i.e., murder, theft, rape, kidnapping, etc.). Does this mean that if we know it’s going on, we turn our heads and look the other way, so as not to invade anyone’s right to privacy? Of course not! Abortion is murder and it cannot be tolerated any easier when committed behind closed doors than if it were performed on a street comer!
Q: Awhile back, one of my friends became pregnant. She asked me to drive her to the doctor’s office to get an abortion. Since I was the only person she trusted, I did all I could do to help. I now feel that I have become an accomplice to murder since I actively supported her in her decision. Am I as guilty as if I had an abortion myself?
A: I’m sure there are many mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and boyfriends who have either encouraged someone to get an abortion, or actually helped them to obtain one, as you did. You need to realize that since you assisted in that abortion, you are a partaker in that sin. By your actions you were saying, "Yes, I agree with what you are doing." Since you now see the wickedness of this, you need to immediately go to the Lord, and with your whole heart ask Him to forgive you. He will be quick to do so as long as you are completely sincere. I also think it would be best for you to go back to your friend and ask her forgiveness for your help in leading her astray. Even though she may still think you did her a great favor, you might have a chance to share with her what God has shown you, and how she, too, needs to repent and get right with Him.
THE LAST HOURS OF AN ABORTED BABY: Dr. Lawernce Lawn, of Cambridge University's Department of experimental Medicine, at work experimenting on a living, leagally aborted baby.
|Before it became publicly known, private abortion clinics in England sold live aborted babies for research. Dr. Lawn was quoted as saying, "We are only using something destined for the incinerator to benefit mankind…" Mr. Phillip Stanley, a spokesman for the clinic selling fetuses, said that they were "aged between 18 and 22 weeks" - that's 41/2 to 51/2 months! Mr. Stanley continued, "A fetus has to be 28 weeks to be legally viable. Earlier than that it is so much garbage."|
Baby Marcus Richardson, born at 20 weeks (4½ mos.) - shown here 10 weeks after birtih and again (insert) 10 mos. after birth.
(Handbook on Abortion, Hayes Publishing Co., Cincinati, OH, pp. 28, 131)
|No distinction is made in the Scriptures between babes in the womb and those already born. The word brephos, used to describe the baby in Elizabeth’s womb, is used interchangeably for both prenatal (Luke 1:41,44) and postnatal babies (Luke18:15-17). It means "an unborn child, embryo, fetus; a newborn child, an infant, brephos, a babe."(Thayers Greek English Lexicon, p.105)|
Q: Isn’t birth control just another form of abortion?
A. It depends on what you use. Some methods do cause abortions and should be avoided, such as the inter-uterine device (IUD) and most birth control pills.
When birth control pills were originally developed, they contained such high levels of estrogen that there was almost no chance of a woman releasing an egg for fertilization - starting a new life. However, most of today’s lower-estrogen-level pills are not as effective in preventing the release of an egg - so these pills also prevent pregnancies by affecting the lining of the womb in such a way that a fertilized egg has a difficult time attaching and growing. A new life trying to grow finds no place to take root. We encourage you and your spouse to draw your own conclusions what the Lord would have you do. True contraception will prevent new life from beginning, not abort that life once it has already begun.
Q: Since Adam was not alive until God breathed into him the breath of life, and since the baby does not breathe until he leaves the womb, isn’t it true that the unborn baby has no soul and therefore can be aborted without guilt?
A: There is no parallel here. Adam had no life until God breathed into him, but from the moment of conception the babe is alive and growing. James says that the body apart from the spirit is dead. (James 2:26) If the baby in the womb is not alive, there would be no one there to kill! A live baby not only has a soul - but an eternal spirit as well.
|"Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years of pediatric surgery, I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life. If toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, the doctor will either induce labor or perform a Caesarean section. His intention is to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby’s life is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger."- C. Everett Koop, MD, U.S. Surgeon General|
Q: Isn’t the age of viability (the ability for the baby to live outside the mother’s womb) one of the deciding factors in whether or not someone should have an abortion? It seems to me that that would be a pretty fair way to decide.
A: According to the courts, viability is a consideration, but in actual practice it doesn’t really seem to matter. There have been many babies prematurely born as early as the fourth month of pregnancy, weighing only one or two pounds, who have survived and grown into normal children because they were given intensive medical care. On the other hand, abortions are being performed on perfectly healthy babies much older than that (even up to the ninth month in some cases!) - and if they do happen to be born alive, they are usually left unattended to suffer and die. In the face of this, the whole viability question just doesn’t seem to make much sense.
Dr. Magda Denes says, "Abortion based on viability is as logical as maintaining that drowning a non-swimmer in a bathtub is permitted because he would have drowned anyway if he would have fallen into the sea." You also have to think about the many people on life-support systems, iron lungs, kidney dialysis machines, etc. Should we just pull the plug on anyone who cannot survive totally on his own?
Q: Is it fair to bring an "unwanted baby" into the world?
A: It’s too late to ask that question after a baby has been conceived. Whether you may personally think it’s fair or not doesn’t change the fact that the pre-born child has already been brought into this world and no one has the right to destroy his or her life. All people, born and unborn, have the same value in the eyes of God. God created each of us in His own image, and He knows each one of us by name - even when yet in the womb. "For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother’s womb...My frame was not hidden from Thee, when I was made in secret...Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Thy book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them." (Psalm 139:13-16)
Actually, the "unwanted baby" is a myth. There is no such thing. Due to shortages of newborn babies for adoption, there are thousands of couples who long night and day to hold and love the children so many mothers are throwing away. Those who say they are getting an abortion for the sake of their "unwanted child" are obviously not thinking of the child’s happiness and well-being... but of their own.
Nearly every major city has at least one helpline that provides positive assistance to anyone involved in a problem pregnancy. Phone "Information" and ask the operator for the nearest Christian Action Council/Crisis Pregnancy Center, Women Exploited By Abortion (WEBA), Bethany Christian Services, Save Our Babies (Southern U.S.),Crusade For Life (California), National Right to Life, or Birthright headquarters. They will be happy to assist you.
You can also contact us here at Last Days Ministries. You don’t have to go through your pregnancy alone and afraid. We know that God loves you and your baby equally, and so we will do our best to help both of you in whatever way we can. Call or write if you need help...or if you just want to talk to somebody who cares.
Q: If your parents and/or your pastor counsel you to get an abortion, what should you do?
A: I know of one girl who was really glad her parents were "making her get an abortion," so that she didn’t have to take the responsibility for the decision herself. However, God knows our hearts, and only through self deception do we think we can hide behind others and pretend "it was all their idea."
Even if you are a minor living in your parents’ home, there is nothing that can be done legally or spiritually to make you get an abortion against your will. Yes, we are to honor our parents and respect our spiritual authorities, but not if they are asking us to do something illegal, immoral, or unscriptural... that is where the line is drawn. Unfortunately, abortion is not illegal, but it is definitely immoral and unscriptural. We must honor God above all others - and we simply cannot break His commandments to please anyone, no matter who they are. This is not rebellion - but true submission to God’s authority in the face of possible persecution.
Unfortunately, many parents (even "Christian" ones) are uninformed or selfishly motivated, just as many pastors and counselors are giving tragic advice to those who are truly seeking a scriptural answer.
"It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble." (Luke 17:2)
|Two tiny infants, a boy and a girl, weighing approximately three pounds each, survived saline abortions at a Wilmington, Delaware hospital. The unwanted babies have both been signed over for adoption by their mothers, and have been referred to by the hospital staff there as Sal and Salina - a reference to the saline solution that failed to kill them.- "Voice For The Unborn" 8/79|
Q: Isn’t it true that before 1973 when abortion was made legal, that 5,000 - 10,000 women a year died from "back alley" abortions?
A: Dr. Bernard said that this figure is totally false, and he should know, since he was one of the several pro-abortionists who circulated this figure before the 1973 Supreme Court hearings. He now says the figure was closer to 500, and in 1972 (the year before abortion was made legal) only 39 deaths were recorded. He explains he circulated these false figures in order to bring about legal abortion. However, after presiding over 75,000 deaths as the head of the world’s largest abortion clinic, Dr. Nathanson came to believe that those infants in the womb were little people, and that he was murdering them. He has written the best seller, Aborting America, and even while involved in abortions, he could not understand how Christian clergymen could promote them when Christianity insists on protection for the weak.
|"Until birth, the fetus is invisible... if the abdominal wall of the pregnant woman were transparent, what kind of abortion laws might we have?" - Dr. Bernard Nathanson|
Q: If we make abortions illegal, they will still go on. The poor will suffer, and the rich will get them anyway - so what’s the point? At least if they are legal everyone will get good clean medical care.
A: I agree. They will still go on - but not in such high numbers. As for the rich, they have always been better able to afford their vices. It would be just as wise to buy abortions for the poor as it would be to buy them heroin. Yes, abortions will go on. Rape also goes on in spite of our laws - should it no longer be a crime? Or should we spend tax money to buy the rapist a good clean hotel room to commit his crime in...after all, "He’s going to rape people anyway!"
|"I’m a housewife and a registered nurse from Jacksonville. I worked the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift, and when we weren’t busy, I’d go out to help with the newborns. One night I saw a bassinet outside the nursery. There was a baby in this bassinet - a crying, perfectly formed baby - but there was a difference in this child. She had been scalded. She was the child of a saline abortion.
"This little girl looked as if she had been put in a pot of boiling water. No doctor, no nurse, no parent, to comfort this hurt, burned child. She was left alone to die in pain. They wouldn’t let her in the nursery - they didn’t even bother to cover her.
"I was ashamed of my profession that night! It’s hard to believe this can happen in our modern hospitals, but it does. It happens all the time. I thought a hospital was a place to heal the sick - not a place to kill.
"I asked a nurse at another hospital what they do with their babies that are aborted by saline. Unlike my hospital, where the baby was left alone struggling for breath, their hospital puts the infant in a bucket and puts the lid on. Suffocation! Death by suffocation!
"Another nurse said she had to stop helping with abortions. The little severed arms and legs from suction abortions were just too much for her to look at.
"Aren’t you happy our moms weren’t born in this generation? It could have been one of us in that lonely bassinet - or that ugly bucket." - Kathleen Malloy, Jacksonville, FL
Some Closing Comments
Abortion is not an issue that you can remain "neutral" on. You are either for it or against it. What would you do if you were walking down the street, and looking up, you saw a woman about to throw her three-month-old baby out the window? Would you turn and walk away saying, "Well, I wouldn’t do that, but I won’t interfere. It’s her decision - that baby’s probably messing up her life anyway."
Our laws give us absolute "rights and wrongs" (i.e., don’t speed, don’t shoplift, pay your taxes, etc.), and if our laws don’t, God certainly does. If you can’t tell someone "Don’t!" you might as well load them in a car and drive them to the abortion clinic yourself!
Many girls, through selfishness, have fallen into deep deception concerning God’s will. They say, "I have been praying about it, and I really feel God wants me to get an abortion," or "I know it’s wrong, but my pastor said God will forgive me afterwards." I have heard too many girls tell me they were counseled to get an abortion at their church. I am wondering just how these pastors and counselors are going to withstand the judgment of God for leading these sheep astray. (Luke 17:2)
The American Holocaust
The "final solution" to the Jewish problem of the Third Reich rested on the belief that it was not enough to simply be human to have the right to live. One had to have certain other qualities, and unfortunately, the Jews and Gypsies lacked them. Aren’t we doing the same things with our babies?
Each day in America over 4,400 babies are being put to death without benefit of due process - trial or defense. They are executed by techniques more cruel and inhumane than any horror movie has ever portrayed. This year, over two million will die in the U.S. alone, and it is estimated that up to 60 million abortions will be performed this year worldwide. In the face of this, Pharoah’s extermination of the Hebrew boys or the slaughter by Herod of the babes in Bethlehem pales in comparison.
Each day in America alone, over 4,400 babies are being put to death by abortion. That’s1 every 20 seconds (approx.) - 24 hours a day -365 days a year!
What You Can Do
We must take a stand... and not a silent one. I’m not saying we should all put on sandwich boards and picket our local abortion clinic... although it doesn’t sound like a bad idea. But we should take every opportunity to speak out and let our views be known. We should do everything we can to prevent someone from making a mistake they will always regret. We must offer all the help and support we can if we expect the unsure mother to carry her child to full term. Open your home to her, help pay her doctor bills... be her friend.
Too many times when an unwed mother does make the right choice, she is shunned and made to feel "dirty" by the Church. In an attempt to discourage promiscuity by penalizing the unwed mother, we have actually encouraged her to take the so-called "easy way out." Rather than endure the social stigma and persecution by those who claim to love Jesus, she heads for the friendly abortion clinic. How do you think Jesus would treat these, who, although they had made a serious mistake, were now willing to bear the shame, whispering, and humiliation to do the right thing? Can we do any less than He would?
I pray you take this to heart and and prayer and see what the Lord might have you do. Please, try to imagine God’s grief. He sees it all, you know. I wonder if He didn’t think a mother’s womb was the safest, most loving place in the world for a little baby to be nurtured and protected. Let’s do all we can to keep it that way! - Melody
Return to the list of our services
Abortion in Church History:
Abortion in the Bible and Church History by Randy Alcorn
There is a small but influential circle of prochoice advocates who claim to base their beliefs on the Bible. They maintain that "nowhere does the Bible prohibit abortion."  Yet the Bible clearly prohibits the killing of innocent people (Exodus 20:13). All that is necessary to prove a biblical prohibition of abortion is to demonstrate that the Bible considers the unborn to be human beings. Personhood in the Bible A number of ancient societies opposed abortion,  but the ancient Hebrew society had the clearest reasons for doing so because of its foundations in the scriptures.
The Bible teaches that men and women are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). As the climax of God's creation mankind has an intrinsic worth far greater than that of the animal kingdom placed under His care. Throughout the Scriptures, personhood is never measured by age, stage of development, or mental, physical, or social skills. Personhood is endowed by God at the moment of creation - before which there was not a human being and after which there is. That moment of creation can be nothing other than the moment of conception. The Hebrew word used in the Old Testament to refer to the unborn (Exodus 21:22-25) is yeled, a word that "generally indicates young children, but may refer to teens or even young adults." 
The Hebrews did not have or need a separate word for unborn children. They were just like any other children, only younger. In the Bible there are references to born children and unborn children, but there is no such thing as a potential, incipient, or "almost" child. Job graphically described the way God created him before he was born (Job 10:8-12). The person in the womb was not something that might become Job, but someone who was Job, just a younger version of the same man. To Isaiah, God says, "This is what the Lord says - he who made you, who formed you in the womb" (Isaiah 44:2). What each person is, not merely what he might become, was present in his mother's womb.
Psalm 139:13-16 paints a graphic picture of the intimate involvement of God with a preborn person. God created David's "inmost being," not at birth, but before birth. David says to his Creator, "You knit me together in my mother's womb." Each person, regardless of his parentage of handicap, has not been manufactured on a cosmic assembly line, but has been personally knitted together by God in the womb. All the days of his life have been planned out by God before any have come to be (Psalm 139:16). As a member of the human race that has rejected God, each person sinned "in Adam," and is therefore a sinner from his very beginning (Romans 5:12-19). David says, "Surely I was sinful at birth."
Then he goes back even further, back before birth to the actual beginning of his life, saying he was "sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51:5). Each person has a sinful nature from the point of conception. Who but an actual person can have a sinful nature? Rocks and trees and animals and human organs do not have moral natures, good or bad. Morality can be ascribed only to a person. That there is a sin nature at the point of conception demonstrates that there is a person present who is capable of having such a nature. Jacob was given prominence over his twin Esau "though not yet born" (Romans 9:11). When Rebekah was pregnant with Jacob and Esau, Scriptures says, "The babies jostled each other within her" (Genesis 25:22).
The unborn are regarded as "babies" in the full sense of the term. God tells Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you" (Jeremiah 1:5). He could not know Jeremiah in his mother's womb unless Jeremiah, the person, was present in his mother's womb. The Creator is involved in an intimate knowing relationship not only with born people, but with unborn people. In Luke 1:41,44 there are references to the unborn John the Baptist, who was at the end of his second trimester in the womb.
The word, translated baby, in these verses is the Greek word brephos. It is the same word used for the already born baby Jesus (Luke 2:12, 16) and for the babies brought to Jesus to receive His blessing (Luke 18:15-17). It is also the same word used in Acts 7:19 for the newborn babies killed by Pharaoh. To the writers of the New Testament, like the Old, whether born or unborn, a baby is simply a baby. It appears that the preborn John the Baptist responded to the presence of the preborn Jesus in His mother Mary when Jesus was probably no more than ten days beyond His conception (Luke 1:41). The angel Gabriel told Mary that she would be "with child and give birth to a son" (Luke 1:31).
In the first century, and in every century, to be pregnant is to be with child, not with that which might become a child. The Scriptures teach the psychosomatic unity of the whole person, body, soul, and spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:23). Wherever there is a genetically distinct living human being, there is a living soul and spirit. The Status of the Unborn One scholar states: "Looking at Old Testament law from a proper cultural and historical context, it is evident that the life of the unborn is put on the same par as the person outside the womb." 
When understood as a reference to miscarriage, Exodus 21:22-25 is sometimes used as evidence that the unborn is subhuman. But a proper understanding of the passage shows reference is not to a miscarriage, but to a premature birth, and that the "injury" referred to, which is to be compensated for like all other injuries, applies to the child as well as to his mother. This means that, "far from justifying permissive abortion, in fact grants the unborn child a status in the eyes of the law equal to the mother's."  Meredith Cline observes, "The most significant thing about abortion legislation in Biblical law is that there is none.
It was so unthinkable that an Israelite woman should desire an abortion that there was no need to mention this offense in the criminal code."  All that was necessary to prohibit an abortion was the command, "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). Every Israelite knew that the preborn child was indeed a child. Therefore, miscarriage was always viewed as the loss of a child and abortion as the killing of a child. Numbers 5:11-31 is an unusual passage of Scripture used to make a central argument in A Prochoice Bible Study, published by Episcopalians for Religious Freedom.  They cite the New English Bible's peculiar translation, which makes it sound as if God brings a miscarriage on a woman if she is unfaithful to her husband.
Other translations refer to a wasting of the thigh and swelling of her abdomen, but do not take it to mean pregnancy, which would presumably simply be called that directly if it were in mind. The woman could have been pregnant by her husband, assuming they had been having sex, which Hebrews couples normally did. It appears that God was expected to do some kind of miracle related to the bitter water, creating a dramatic physical reaction if adultery had been committed. The text gives no indication of either pregnancy of abortion.
Indeed, in the majority of cases of suspected adultery, there would be no pregnancy and therefore no child at risk. The Prochoice Bible Study that cites the NEB's unique translation suggests if God indeed causes miscarriage, it would therefore be an endorsements of people causing abortions. This is a huge stretch, since neither the wife, husband, nor priest made the decision to induce an abortion, nor would they have the right to do so. The passage does not seem to refer to a miscarriage at all; but even if it did, there is a certainly nothing to suggest any endorsement of human beings initiating an abortion. Child Sacrifice Child sacrifice is condemned throughout Scripture.
Only the most degraded societies tolerated such evil, and the worst of these defended and celebrated it as if it were a virtue. Ancient dumping grounds have been found filled with the bones of hundreds of dismembered infants. This is strikingly similar to discoveries of thousands of dead babies discarded by modern abortion clinics. One scholar of the ancient Near East refers to infant sacrifice as "the Canaanite counterpart to abortion."  Unlike the pagan sacrifices, however, with abortion, child killing need no longer be postponed till birth. Scripture condemns the shedding of innocent blood (Deuteronomy 19:10; Proverbs 6:17; Isaiah 1:15; Jeremiah 22:17).
While the killing of all innocent human beings is detestable, the Bible regards the killing of children as particularly heinous (Leviticus 18:21; 20:1-5; Deuteronomy 12:31). The prophets of Israel were outraged at the sacrifice of children by some of the Jews. They warned that it would result in the devastating judgment of God on their society (Jeremiah 7:30-34; Ezekiel 16:20-21, 36-38; 20:31; compare 2 Kings 21:2-6 and Jeremiah 15:3-4). Abortion and Church History Christians throughout church history have affirmed with a united the humanity of preborn child.  The second-century Epistle of Barnabas speaks of "killers of the child, who abort the mold of God."
It treats the unborn child as any other human "neighbor" by saying, "You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not slay a child by abortion. You shall not kill that which has already been generated" (Epistle of Barnabas 19:5). The Didache, a second-century catechism for young converts, states, "Do not murder a child by or abortion of kill a newborn infant" (Didache 2.2). Clement of Alexandria maintained that "those who use abortifacient medicines to hide their fornication cause not only the outright murder of the fetus, but of the whole human race as well" (Paedogus 2:10.96.1).
Defending Christians before Marcus Aurelius in A.D. 177, Athenagoras argued, "What reason would we have to commit murder when we say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God? ...The fetus in the womb is a living being and therefore the object of God's care" (A Plea for the Christians, 35.6). Tertullian said, "It does not matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. In both instances, destruction is murder" (Apology, 9.4). Basil the Great affirmed, "Those who give abortifacients for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers themselves, along with those receiving the poisons" (Canons, 188.2). Jerome called abortion "the murder of an unborn child" (Letter to Eustochium, 22.13).
Augustine warned against the terrible crime of "the murder of an unborn child" (On Marriage, 1.17.15). Origen, Cyprian, and Chrysotom were among the many other prominent theologians and church leaders who condemned abortion as the killing of children. New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger comments, "It is really remarkable how uniform and how pronounced was the early Christian opposition to abortion."  Throughout the centuries, Roman Catholic leaders have consistently upheld the sanctity of human life.
Likewise, Protestant reformer John Calvin followed both the Scriptures and the historical position of the church when he affirmed: The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, and it is a most monstrous 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 a 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. 
Modern theologians with a strong biblical orientation agree that abortion is the killing of a child. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who lost his life standing up against the murder of the innocent in Germany, argued that abortion is "nothing but murder."  Karl Barth stated, "The unborn child is from the very first a child... it is a man and not a thing, not a mere part of the mother's body...
Those who live by mercy will always be disposed to practice mercy, especially to a human being which is so dependent on the mercy of others as the unborn child."  In the last few decades it has become popular for certain theologians and ministers to be proabortion. The Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, for instance, has adopted the motto, "Prayerfully Prochoice," and prochoice advocates point to it as proof that conscientious Christians can be prochoice. Yet the arguments set forth by such advocates are shallow, inconsistent, and violate the most basic principles of biblical interpretation. Their arguments are clearly read into the biblical texts rather than derived from them. 
The "Christians" prochoice position is nothing more than an accommodation to modern secular beliefs, and it flies in the face of the Bible and the historical position of the church. If the church is to be the church, it must challenge and guide the morality of society, not mirror it. Conclusion: The Bible and the Children Even if church history were unclear on the matter, the Bible is very clear.
Every child in the womb has been created by God, and He has laid out a plan for that child's life. Furthermore, Christ loves that child and proved it by becoming like him - He spent nine months in His mother's womb. Finally, Christ died for that child, showing how precious He considers him to be. Christ's disciples failed to understand how valuable children were to Him, and they rebuked those who tried to bring them near Him (Luke 18:15-17). But Jesus called the children to Him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." He did not consider attention to children a distraction from His kingdom business, but an integral part of it.
The biblical view of children is that they are a blessing and a gift from the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5). Society is treating children more and more as liabilities. We must learn to see them as God does - "He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing" (Deuteronomy 10:18). Furthermore, we must act toward them as God commands us to act: Defend the cause of the weak and the fatherless; Maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them from the hand of the wicked (Psalm 82:3-4).
As we intervene on behalf of His littlest children, let's realize it is Christ Himself from whom we intervene (Matthew 25:40).
Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, "Reproductive Choice: Basic to Justice for Women,"
Christian Scholar's Review (March 1988), p. 291.
James Hoffmeier, Abortion: A Christian Understanding (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1987), pp. 46,50;
Eugene Quay, "Abortion: Medical and Legal Foundations," Georgetown Law Review (1967), pp. 395,420; Meridith G. Kline, "Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (September 1977), pp. 200-201.
Lawrence O. Richards, Expository Dictionary of Bible Words (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985), pp. 156-157.
James Hoffmeier, editor, Abortion: A Christian Understanding and Response (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 62.
John Jefferson Davis, Abortion and the Christian (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1984), p. 52.
Meridith G. Kline, "Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (September 1977), pp. 193.
Permissions: Feel free to reproduce and distribute any articles written by Randy Alcorn, in part or in whole, in any format, provided that you do not alter the wording in any way or charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. It is our desire to spread this information, not protect or restrict it. Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: by Randy Alcorn, Eternal Perspective Ministries, 2229 E. Burnside #23, Gresham, OR 97030, 503-663-6481, www.epm.org
©2004 Eternal Perspective Ministries. All rights reserved. Site designed and maintained by Kenny Kim Design
Return to the list of our services
Letters to the Editor:
Recent Letters to the Editor:
3D Ultrasound Terminate Politicians Wanted Backyard
Return to the list of our services
Does the Bible's prohibition on murder include abortion?:
From: "ChristianView Network" <firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent: Friday, 25 February 2005 5:38
Does the Bible's prohibition on murder include abortion?
Some argue that because the Bible does not give an explicit command against abortion, therefore we should not be too strict on the issue. Abortion is a category of murder and is just a special word referring to the age of the victim.
It is covered by the sixth commandment. The argument that there is no explicit scripture on murdering the unborn is insufficient.
A person like Bill Clinton could on the basis of such a twisted argument argue that oral sex with Monica Lewinsky was okay because there is no explicit scripture reference against oral sex.
The Bible does not need to list all the categories of deviant extra-marital sexual relations in order to prohibit them. Such behaviour is generally accepted as included in the prohibition: 'you shall not commit adultery'.
Likewise abortion is generally accepted (except in modern liberal churches) as part of the prohibition 'you shall not murder' and numerous other scriptures prohibiting the shedding of innocent blood.
Other scriptures referring to the humanity of the unborn support such interpretation of the commandments. This has been the position of the Christian church from the earliest manuscript evidence in the 2nd century through all the various splits between the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Protestants and numerous denominations up till very recently.
The only groups that do not take this position are those that do not recognise the Bible as the inspired Word of God. Unfortunately, however some modern Bible-believing Christians have been influenced by the liberal position and so adopted a middle of the road position - that abortion is a sin, but not quite as serious as murder. I hope this article will encourage such people to re-consider the Bible's teaching on the subject.
Say you have a murderer who kills a 21-year old adult. Then when accused, the murderers says that there is no scripture against the killing of 21-year old adults. You reply, that the Bible's prohibition covers all ages of victims. It does not need specifically to prohibit the killing of 21-year olds. Likewise, the Bibles prohibition on murder includes 19-year olds, 31-year olds, 52-year olds, 5-year olds, 65-year olds, 1-year olds and also those still in the womb.
Lest there be any doubt on the interpretation of this latter age group, there are numerous other scriptures indicating the humanity of the unborn. The word 'abortion' is an any case a euphemism for murder which used to mean a 'miscarriage' (and still does in the medical context). Just because the Bible doesn't use euphemistic words like 'queer', 'pink' and 'gay', does not then mean that we can now condone sodomy. Just because our modern culture uses such euphemisms, does not mean that the absence of euphemisms in the Bible means that the Bible does not prohibit such behaviour.
We should really preferably avoid the use of euphemisms. It is clearer to use the term 'unborn murder', rather than abortion. Maybe we would remove a lot of confusion if we did so. Ancient Roman pagan law at the time the Bible was written did allow fathers the right to kill their young unwanted children up till about age five.
Numerous pagan cultures practiced similar slaughter of unwanted born children (also in Africa, Asia, America and Europe) and continued to do so right up till the arrival of Christian missionaries in the 19th century. Now the Bible did not in response to Roman law and common Canaanite practice put in a special commandment not to kill children under five years old? No. The prohibition on murder in the six commandment covers it all. Likewise the probhition on murder includes the prohibition on abortion.
Furthermore, I would argue that the sin of murder is a very much more serious sin than either adultery or lying. The fact that the victim is very young does not lessen the sin, but rather increases it, because the child is innocent and defenceless.
The Bible does offer forgiveness for those who have been involved in such killing, who repent, but it does not treat it as any less serious than murder of an adult.
Return to the list of our services
Abortions - down 57%:
At a fundraising dinner in Ottawa May 27 2003, organized by Action Life Ottawa, Denise Neary (a fundraising consultant to the VCF and a member of the National Right to Life Committee in the U.S) said the abortion-to-live-birth ratio in Missouri has been reduced to half the national average through the TV commercials.
In Colorado, the rate was cut by 57 per cent between 1997 and 2000 as a result of the ads, she said.
As well, "In 1995, Wisconsin started using Vitae Caring Foundation ads and have completely reversed public opinion in their target audience of women 18-34," said Neary.
The pro-life commercials have been so successful because they focus on the "right brain," said Neary. "In order to change behaviour, we have to affect the right brain. Women are very right-brained (which involves) the feelings and the emotions. The left-brain is the logic, thinking side of the brain." Neary said four different polls in Wisconsin had shown that fetal development ads, such as "Abortion stops a beating heart," and "Unborn babies are people, too," were having "absolute opposite effect on public opinion" than hoped for.
Messages about saving unborn babies are fine for people who are already pro-life, said Neary. "But when we deal with saving unborn babies and we're talking to pro-choice women, they are going to turn us off immediately because their reaction is 'See that's all they care about. They only care about that baby. They don't care about me.'"
The advertisements are targeted at the "inconsistent middle" - adult women who are not strongly pro-life or pro-choice. "These are the people that we can most easily move on the issue of abortion," Neary said. Baseline polling in Ontario in 2001 showed the province has a 51 per cent "inconsistent middle," said Neary. "It is the highest we have ever found in any market. So this is a very, very moveable market and you should have tremendous success with this campaign."
Neary: "We can't afford not to use television advertising, It is the only way we are going to be able to shift the masses to a pro-life position."
If you would like to support this organisation and its objectives please consider becoming a member and/or giving a donation. Please visit the Donate Now page to do this.
Return to the list of our articles.