Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I'm very much pro-life, very much anti-abortion, totally anti-satan,
    and hate how he has been successful in convincing people that the way
    to cover one sin is by comitting another.
    
    Sin is covered by the Blood of the Lamb (Jesus) - even abortion.
    
    I heard a preacher once talking about how he had ministered to a
    90-year old woman who told no one about her abortion as a teenager but
    had to get it out on her deathbed.
    
    To me, this demonstrates the utter vile-ness of the enemy (satan).
    
    First - the temptation to sin
    
    	"Oh - go ahead, we all have urges!  God created sex, didn't He?
    	 Sex isn't wrong - go ahead, you two love eachother - sex is God's
    	 way of helping people express that love.  Go ahead..."
    
    Next - fear
    
    	"Now you've done it.  Pregnant, not married - you've got no
    	 money, and besides, this kid will get in your way.  Worse than
    	 that, you're going to be ridiculed because you couldn't
    	 control yourself.  Be rid of it, it's just tissue, just a fetus,
    	 it's not murder if it's not a person yet."
    
    Next - the worst lie of all
    
    	"HA!  Murder!  You're guilty!  God *can't* love you now!  You'll
    	 burn in hell for this and you know it!  There's no escape!  It's
    	 been one sin after another!"
    
    I *hate* satan and all his putrid lies.
    
    Jesus said He is the Way the Truth and the Life.
    
    The Truth is that all temptations to sin can be resisted by the power
    of His Holy Spirit.  But even if we do make mistakes, the Truth is, we
    can come to Him seeking forgiveness.
    
    Mistakes can't be covered by another mistake.  Sin can't be corrected
    by more sin.
    
    It has to stop, and where does it stop?
    
    At the cross.
    
    That's the Truth.
    
    And I've said this in the other conference and will say it here, if
    *anyone* reading this has had an abortion, you need to know that God
    *loves* you.  Please, don't listen to the lies of the enemy any more. 
    Nothing is beyond God's capability or desire to forgive.
    
    That too is the Truth.
    
    God's peace,
    
    Steve
   

    As God has told us, "Even Before you were in your mother's womb, I knew
    you."

    God bless all those who have died through abortion. Only God knows
    them.

    Peace
    Jim

    The central issue for me around abortion is when does life begin.
    If at birth then abortion is ok. A matter of a woman dealing with
    part of her own body. The problem for me is that I believe that
    life starts sometime before birth. When I'm not sure. I believe
    that if a woman knows she is pregnant then life has started. Some
    believe it starts earlier still. I'm not sure.

    Some have said that it's life when the soul enters the body. Some
    make the assumption that that happens sometime around three months
    because so many fetus' never make it past then and that God would 
    not be wasteful of souls. I wonder though if those fetus' that 
    naturally abort do do because they don't have souls and not just
    for medical reasons that may or may not be obvious. It seems
    unreasonable for me to try and determine if God put a soul in yet.

    Once you assume that you are dealing with a living person you have
    to use the same criteria for abortion as you would with talking the
    life of a "born" person. This pretty much limits you to self defense.

    			Alfred

By any medical definition of the word, a fetus is a living human being.

    re .3:
    
    Is there any situation in which a pregnant woman might justly use
    self-defense as the basis for an abortion?
    
    Nancy

    
>    I can understand where the Rabid Right is coming from,
>    though few of them have little against taking life after
>    it gets here (war, capital punishment, etc.).

	There is a difference between the taking of a human life in
	war and as punishment for a crime as opposed to taking a human
	life because that life is inconvient. God himself ordered war
	at times.

>    One the other hand, I can't justify murdering pregnant women
>    with illegal, unsanitary, unprofessional conditions as an
>    acceptable alternative to unwanted pregnancy, which many
>    seem to have no conscience about.

	As far as I know no pro-life people advocate this. I have heard
	quite a few pro-choice people advocate this as preferable to
	carrying a baby to term. People who don't want abortions done
	in hospitals surely don't want abortions taking place in back
	allyways. Who exactly are you talking about in this note?

				Alfred

	RE: .5 Clearly if the continued pregnancy poses a threat to
	the life of the mother than an abortion is an act of self defense.
	This is the reason why no major pro-life group, that I know of,
	would take away the right to an abortion due to a real threat
	to the mother's life.

	Beyond that people have made cases for less direct threats to
	a woman's life (the trauma of carrying a baby from rape or
	incest for example) being just cause. I am not as clear on
	those in my own mind.

			Alfred

    re: .4
    
    By any definition?  I can think of a few that would at least
    temporarily exclude a fetus from "human being" status.  A lack of
    ability to exist on its own, is one.  The fact that the fetus is
    utterly dependent on its mother, means that the woman may find herself
    in situations where her own right to life takes precedence over any of
    the fetus's rights.  Once a fetus is able to exist on the outside, even
    though it is with help from an outside agency, and because that agency
    can be someone other than the mother, the fetus should now be
    protected.   
    
    Mike
        

    re: .6 (Thompson)

    Actually, many people who profess pro-life beliefs, want to eliminate
    ALL abortions.  As far as major pro-life groups are concerned, as I
    understand it, the Catholic Church is one.  At least that was their
    position in times past.

    Mike

These same requirements you mention for being declared a human *have* been
ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States (in the cases of
those at the end of life).

But actually, these have nothing to do with biology.  You can classify
a plant or animal based on the cells.  Fetuses have human cells.

You can classify whether something is living or dead rather easily as
well.

Fetuses, from a biological perspective, are living human beings.

Collis

    re: .9 (Jackson)
    
    Well, okay.  I'll bend to your point a bit and say that a fetus is,
    biologically speaking, a human being.  But I would like to add that a
    fetus belongs to a subset of "human being" set, called a "developing
    human being".   
    
    I don't see how we can have a coherent debate in two separate notes. 
    
    Mike

    RE: .10
    
    Would you please explain the difference, in your view, between 
    taking human life [which includes those who are innocent] in war 
    and abortion?
    
    I see the inconsistency in my own views (pro-choice but opposed to 
    capital punishment, for example) and in the views of *most* pro-life
    folks (opposed to abortion but not opposed to capital punishment or
    war).  
    
    The ones I stand in awe of are those who are consistently opposed to 
    all three:  abortion, capital punishment, and war!
    
    Nancy

RE: .11 
    
>>    I don't see how we can have a coherent debate in two separate notes. 
    
    The reason for *trying* is to avoid the effect that some debates have
    of folks trying to out-yell each other and win just by demanding and
    restating that *they* are *right*!  I find that being forced to
    *question* another's viewpoint -- and being challenged to answer
    questions on my own viewpoint -- requires more effort, more thought, 
    more chance to grow.
    
    However, it *is* an experiment and there are no guarantees it will
    work!  I'm not a moderator and I invite and urge the moderators to 
    overrule my request at any time!
    
    :)
    Nancy

    Hi Nancy,
    
    No overruling necessary that I see.  What may be helpful for people
    who wish to participate is to decide if they want to "debate",
    "discuss" or "support" pro-life/pro-choice views.
    
    If people wish to debate, then yes, it will be very difficult to do so
    in two seperate notes.  But a third note on this has been initiated.  
    If people wish to debate, or discuss, perhaps they can do so there.
    
    As was said earlier, this is an experiment.  Who knows what the 
    outcome will be or how "well" it will work?   Let's try and see.
    
    Karen 

    I should have added in my last note that my views were
    being stated as co-moderator of this file.
    
    Karen

Note 30.11

>    I don't see how we can have a coherent debate in two separate notes. 

Please see Note 31.0, which appears to have been created for the purposes
of debate.

Thank you,
Richard Jones-Christie
(co-)Moderator

    Okay.  I'll move my replies to note 31., if the person to whom I am
    responding will do the same.  Unless he doesn't mind if I do it for
    him.
    
    Mike

        Could we avoid use of phrases, such as "Rabid Right", which
        are more provocative than informative?

        Bob

>    Would you please explain the difference, in your view, between 
>    taking human life [which includes those who are innocent] in war 
>    and abortion?
 
	I'd rather not go into detail on war in this topic. I will say 
	that wars of agression are not supported by me. War in self
	defence is. Even in war though one has a duty to avoid hurting
	the innocent. Determining who is innocent is often hard and I'll
	leave that for an other time and an other topic.

	No contradiction with my opinion on abortion. The
	Bible nowhere to the best of what I know forbids all taking of
	life. The Biblical injunction "thou shalt not kill" is more properly
	translated "thou shalt not murder". This is based on the origional
	Hebrew word used. The Bible *does* however call for some things to
	be a capital crime. Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to
	live." just to give one example. But capital punishment should be
	an other topic.

			Alfred

    Barry
    
    In all those cases the fetus was quite well developed, i.e. it
    had reached the point of being able to make movements that the
    mother feels.
    
    I have no problem with believing that at this statge you are dealing
    with an living ensouled baby.
    
    *However* I have a great deal of trouble believing that a zygote
    (fertilize egg) has a soul, especially since over 40% of all
    fertilized eggs are lost before implantation. (At a conservative
    estimate).
    
    So I make a distinction between tissue that has the potential
    to become a person and have a soul and a person with a soul.
    Further I believe that the soul enters the body at about the
    time that the mind shows discernable brain waves around the same
    time that quickening is felt. After all, if we use cesation of
    brian waves for the end of life, why not the begining of same
    as a marker for the beginning of true human life, not just
    living tissue.
    
    I'm not sure which note in the abortion series this one should
    go in, the moderators have my permission to move it if, they
    so desire.
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie,
    	this two-track thing is difficult, but I think your reply belonged
    on the other track. However, those 40% of fertilized eggs which fail to
    implant - and all those that spontaneously abort or die in the womb or
    otherwise miscarry - are not really relevant here. Nobody did anything
    to cause the situation. Both birth control and abortion are acts of one
    or more people which are intended to CAUSE the same result. The result
    may seem the same but the course is quite different and it is the
    course which is the topic. 
    	I agree with you on the importance of the stage in life where
    things occur. Life no longer "begins", it is. When does an "individual
    life" begin? I say when something can exist more or less on its own. A
    suckling infant may not be self-sufficient but it is certainly not
    dependent on its mother's body for its existence. Others in this file
    have different opinions on the timing, I'm sure.

    :(  :(
    
    *Please* may we be considerate enough of each other to use the terms
    preferred by those on either side of this issue???  Those terms are
    "pro-choice" and "pro-life."  To start calling pro-choice people
    "pro-abortionists" just leaves the door open to an escalation of
    name-calling that has occurred in other conferences.  Pro-choice people
    can certainly find equally reprehensible and insulting names to call
    those who hold the right-to-life position.
    
    I also request of the author -- or the moderators -- to move note .23
    to the debate string where it rightly belongs.  It does not fit the
    guidelines requested -- and apparently agreed to otherwise -- of this
    string.
    
    Thank you,
    Nancy Smith

Folks,

    One reason that anti-abortionists hold the view that we do is because
    the early Church leaders clearly addressed and condemned the practice
    of abortion and upheld the sanctity of life.
     
You may hear otherwise from pro-abortionists.

The wholehearted consensus of the early Church was that abortion and infanticide
were in fact murder.  No ifs, ands, or buts about it.  On that all of the
patristics absolutely agreed.

The DIDACHE was a compilation of Apostolic moral teachings that appeared at
the end of the first century.  Among its many admonitions it asserted an
unwavering reverence for the sanctity of life: "Do not murder a child by
abortion or kill a newborn infant."

The EPISTLE OF BARNABAS was an early second-century theological tract that
was highly regarded by the first Christian communities.  Like the DIDACHE,
it laid down absolute strictures against abortion and infanticide: "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."

The second-century apologist Athenagoras in a letter to Emporer Marcus
Aurelius wrote, "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 therfore the object of God's care."

In the third century, Clement of Alexandria asserted that "our whole life
can proceed according to God's perfect plan only if we gain dominion over
our desires, practicing continence from the beginning instead of destroying
through perverse and pernicious arts human offspring, who are given birth
by Divine Providence.  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."

At about the same time Tertullian wrote in his APOLOGY that "murder is
forbidden once and for all.  We may not destroy even the fetus in the womb...
To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing.  Thus, 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."

In the fourth century, Basil the Great argued, "She who has deliberately
destroyed a fetus must bear the penalty for murder. ...Moreover, those who
give abortifacients for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb
are murderers themselves, along with those receiving the poisons."

Ambrose, bishop of Milan, condemned those who "deny in the very womb their
own progeny.  By use of paricidal mixtures they snuff out the fruit of their
wombs.  In this way life is taken before it is given...Who except man himself
has taught us ways of repudiating our own children?"

Likewise, Jerome wrote that those who "drink potions to ensure sterility are
guilty of rebuffing God's won blessings.  Some, when they learn that the
potions have failed and thus are with child through sin, practice abortion
by the use of still other potions.  They are then guilty of three crimes:
self-mutilation, adultery, and the murder of an unborn child."

Augustine condemned those whose "lustful cruelty" provoked women "to such
extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to ensure barrenness; or else,
if unsuccessful in this, to murder the unborn child."

Origin, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Methodius of Olympus, Chrysostom, Minucius Felix,
and Gregory Nazianzus all added their voices of affirmation as well.  Again
and again they decried the wickedness of abortion and infanticide.  Together
the affirmed the sanctity of life.

jeff

re Note 30.24 by ANKH::SMITH:

>     I also request of the author -- or the moderators -- to move note .23
>     to the debate string where it rightly belongs.  It does not fit the
>     guidelines requested -- and apparently agreed to otherwise -- of this
>     string.
  
        I don't understand -- note .23 sure looks pro-life to me.  My
        understanding of the guidelines is that this string is for
        notes which support the pro-life position, and that notes
        which attack the pro-life position are specifically directed
        elsewhere.

        Bob

    re:26
    
    Bob, thnakyou ! At least your consisitant.
    
    
    Jim

    To my embarrassment, you are absolutely right, Bob!  I misread the
    string as being the Pro-Choice string.  Although I think the discussion
    of early Church teachings is *more* appropriate as part of the debate
    (since it isn't exactly an atempt to explain individual religious
    views), it *is* appropriate here!
    
    I think I was *partly* "set off" by the use of the word
    "pro-abortionists" which I still strongly object to in that string (and
    in the subsequent one on the topic).  Nevertheless, you are certainly
    right that note .23 (and .25?) are appropriate here.
    
    Sorry!  ;-<
    Nancy

    	Another vote against "pro-abortionists". Please do not use that
    term unless you are refering to someone who favors the use of abortion.
    Many of us who are Pro-Choice are saddened by the use of abortion and
    accept it only as the least of several evils. Nearly every Pro-Lifer
    that I've heard from has been Anti-Abortion as well, and anti-choice,
    but the same unity of opinion does not hold among the Pro-Choicers.
    Many support a(nother) woman's right to choose but would never think
    about accepting that option for themselves.
    	I think we can all discuss this topic quite thouroughly without
    resorting to personal negativism - or we can get bogged down in that
    negativism and discuss nothing but each other's warts.

God has given each of us a "right" to make a choice.

God has also showed us which choice is "right" to make.

    
    I may have missed it, I haven't delved through all of the replies, but,
    where, in general, do you all stand on 
    
    1. Strict regulation of abortion facilities from a medical standpoint.
    A friend of mine is an ER doctor that sees 1 or 2 cases a week of
    near-fatal complications from 'safe, legal abortions'.
    
    2. Full medical disclosure to the patient include the odds of
    complication, sterility, post-abortion syndrome, fetal development, etc.
    
    3. Parental notification of minors who want an abortion.
    
    
    BTW, I work at a pregnancy center here in Colorado Springs. The
    question was asked: How do you love the woman? One example this week
    was a girl who came in for a test, was positive, went and had an
    abortion, came back the next day to join our post-abortion counseling
    class (all services are free, privately funded, including post-birth
    support)
    
    Jamey
    

    
    Bonnie,
    
    You seem to basing your positin on the time at which a living mass of
    tissue becomes a human being, complete with soul.
    
    For the moment, let's assume that it is just a mass of tissue (I don't
    buy that,but let's take that as an assumption), the question then
    becomes 'what is the value of the piece of tissue?'
    
    From a Biblical Christian perspective, it is God knitting this piece of
    tissue together. I can get a specific reference if you wish ( I am not
    assuming that you or anybody else holds to a biblical world-view). If
    this is so, then I also have to assume that God is not just wasting
    time until he can muster up the ooomph to plug in the soul. If God is
    spending his time knitting tissue, then that tissue has immeasurable
    value because of the hand doing the knitting. Regardless of how anybody
    else values what He is doing.
    
    Jamey
    

    in re .31
    
    so given that at a conservative estimate only 60% of all fertilized
    eggs come to term with a living baby, then the other 40% are living
    souls which die in their thousands daily with only the briefests
    earthly existance?

re Note 30.33 by WMOIS::B_REINKE:

>     so given that at a conservative estimate only 60% of all fertilized
>     eggs come to term with a living baby, then the other 40% are living
>     souls which die in their thousands daily with only the briefests
>     earthly existance?

        At this point we are dealing in speculation about things
        which are not, in any detailed way, covered in any part of
        Scripture.

        Bob

    re  .33
    
    Bonnie,
    
    You missed the premise. I said that even if it were *only* tissue, for
    the sake of discussion, it is God doing the knitting. Even if the fetal
    tissue were not ensouled, *God* is knitting something, presumably for a
    reason.
    
    Let's say that 40% *are* living souls that do not come to term. Is it not 
    presumption that they *die*? Perhaps they are spared the greatest pain of 
    entering this world and taken directly to heaven. Would *you* complain 
    about that? Not me! This temperol life is not what it is all about. It
    is where some are trained, but thousands die daily of old age. Should
    they then have been aborted to prevent this?
    
    
    Re .34
    
    I thought this conference did not hold scripture as a basis. What is
    your point.
    
    Jamey

re Note 30.35 by COOKIE::JANORDBY:

>     Re .34
>     
>     I thought this conference did not hold scripture as a basis. What is
>     your point.
  
        This conference, as a matter of policy, is neutral on the
        exact nature of Scriptural authority.  Any participant (and I
        was writing as a participant in .34, and not moderator) is
        free to use Scripture as a basis for what they write as they
        see fit.  We certainly do not discourage, prohibit or reject
        the use of Scripture.

        In Note 31.58, in the "Abortion Debate Note", WMOIS::B_REINKE
        responded and apparently got the point.

        My point is that the exact moment of "ensoulment" is not
        clearly defined in Scripture, and thus extended discussions
        stemming from an inference on this subject are similar to
        discussing "the number of angels on the head of a pin."

        Bob

    I'm not quite sure what point I was supposed to have gotten.
    
    and when it comes to abortion, I am still of the belief that
    it should be legal during the first trimester. I really don't
    think that any of the answers that I've gotten here really deal
    with the issue as I see it. So I guess I'll drop the discussion.
    
    Bonnie

    
    Let me say it again:
    
    1) You seem to base your support of first-trimester abortion on what
       you think is a reasonable timeframe, based upon theoretical
       ensoulment and/or brain waves.
    
    2) I was pointing out that the God, according to the bible confer 
       value to life from conception. Even if ensoulment did not happen
       until well after birth, this is not the point. Neither is brain waves.
       Nowhere in scripture is life associated with brainwaves.
    
    Sorry if I was not clear before. I am trying to put forward my view on
    the subject based upon a biblical view of life and to point out the
    discrepencies between your view and mine. We may both learn something
    and so might others.
    
    I hope you don't drop the discussion. It is fine that you believe in a
    first-trimester abortion. I just can't seem to figure out why? How do
    you view the bible? Perhaps that would help be better understand where
    you are coming from and how to address some of your issues. 
    
    I guess I have several questions:
    
    1. Why do you think a first-trimester abortion should be supported as
    'legal' from a christian perspective?
    2. Why do you think time of 'ensoulment' is crucial to the argument?
    I.e. how do you come to the conclusion that ensoulment adds/subtracts
    value to a live fetus?
    3. Why do you think that brain activity adds value from a live fetus?
    4. How does the bible play into developing this belief and life in
    general?
    5. How exactly do you see the issues surrounding abortion? How did you
    come to determining that these were the pivitol issues?
    
    Jamey
    
    
    

    Those are really great, thought-provoking questions!

    
    Hi Folks,
    
    When it comes to being pro-life (which includes anti-abortionist) I
    have very strong convictions!  And when I consider why I hold these
    convictions, at a glance, it seems like I am affirming  what is 
    overwhelmingly obvious. 
    
    What is overwhelmingly obvious to me is that Jesus Christ died a
    horrible death for *me* so that I might be reconciled to God.  He did
    it while I was dead.  He did it for me graciously and He knew that I
    needed His death to experience eternal life.  Out of my spiritual
    destitution and my previous righteous condemnation Jesus lifted me into
    righteousness and eternal life *by His sacrifice*!!!
    
    The day I trusted Jesus and the days after when I began to learn,
    accomodate and live in His love, I understood.  I understand the value
    of my life.  The value of my life is proven by the cost of God's
    sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the horrible cross.  
    
    God did not allow Jesus' death for me only, but for all people!  Out of
    this simple understanding of the value of my life and the belief in
    God's message to the world I derive the value of the unborn, the value
    of the elderly, the value of the handicapped, the value of the unloved,
    the poor, the ugly, the sick, the despairing.
    
    Being truly pro-life is a Christian quality only.  One cannot value
    another's life truly and go to bat for that life without valuing one's
    own life.  One cannot value their own life truly until another no less 
    great than God proves the value of one's life through supernatural love
    and sacrifice.
    
    I believe that the extent that pro-abortionists change to become
    pro-lifers is directly proportional to the extent that pro-abortionists
    experience the new birth, the new life in Jesus Christ!
    
    jeff

    Jeff .40,
    
    The moderators have issued a message requesting the terms
    xxxx-abortionist (anti or pro) not be used in these discussions.
    
    Please abide by this request.
    
    Thank you,
    
    Karen
    (Co-moderator) 

    Hi Everybody:
    I am brand new to this so I won't take too much of your time.  I have
    been flipping through all the replies to this note.  It appears that
    although many have brought up valid points, you are focusing on the
    symptoms of the problem and not the source.  Please don't get your
    feathers ruffled, I am only sating a viewpoint, one that has been
    proven fullproof since Adam and Eve.
    
    I believe abortion is wrong, but abortion is only the end result of the
    real problem...you got it...Sin.  I won't spiritualize too much, I
    promise.  Sin is simply a greek word which means "Missing the Mark"  It
    was a measurement they used in Archery.  The distance the arrow hit
    from the bullseye was called sin.  Anyway, we as a people are actively
    rebellious against God.  We miss the mark of God's perfect standard.
    
    Point of the story - Churches change points of view, but Gods word
    remains the same yesterday and today.  The Bible teaches that Adultery
    is sin.  Ending a life is humankinds answer to cover the act of sin.
    (I speak only in the case of adultery as most abortions are due to
    teenage premarital sex) Two verses then I'll let you go.
    
    "Shall I give my first born, the fruit of my body for the sin of my
    soul?"  (Was meant as a rhetorical question)  Book of Micah.
    
    "Before you were formed in the womb, I knew you"  Psalms
    
    If Gods word is true, this is proof enough for me as to whether or not
    the fetus has a soul.  Please, bring your children up to know and love
    the Lord.  My parents did and I was fortunate enough to stay out of
    trouble.
    
    Warmly,
    
    Jack

    
    Hi Jack,
    
    I appreciate you sharing your viewpoint on this issue, but I think
    it should go in the next string, Note 30.
    
    Oh, and welcome to C-P!
    
    Carole

    Carole,
    
    Thanks for pointing that out, I moved the note in question and your
    reply.
    
    Bonnie
    CP moderator

    Notes 30.45 through 30.57 have been moved to Note 31.
    
    Richard Jones-Christie
    CoModerator/CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE

I attended my first board of directors meeting of the
Nashua and Manchester Crisis Pregnancy Centers last
night.  It opened my eyes somewhat.

The CPCs are in direct conflict with other pregnancy
centers.  The booty in the war is twofold:  the hearts
of the pregnant women and the lives of the unborn children.

Apparently, the philosophy of local abortion clinics (and,
presumably, the vast majority of abortion clinics) is to
get the woman in for an abortion as quickly as possible
after a call is made.  The reason?  Given time, women
might (and do) change their minds.  Don't let them think.
Don't provide information.  Assure them that this is the
best course.  The reason?  Money.

The Manchester CPC is open on Friday's now because women
who called on Friday would not wait until Monday for an
appointment.  They would call somewhere else.  The would
often have an abortion performed or scheduled by Monday
and never call back.

The CPC provides full information about fetal devolopment
and abortion procedures.  The CPC deals up front with the
emotional (spiritual, physical, mental) consequences of
abortion - which then they deal with through an 8 week
program with women who have undergone abortion.  All, of
course, for free.

Clinics which encourage or provide abortion alternatives
rarely provide complete abortion information.  The local
clinics *desperately* do *not* want a woman to go to the
CPC.

Why?  Why don't they want a woman to have full knowledge?
Why do they want to restric the woman's options?  What are
they afraid of?

They are afraid that the woman may realize that this choice
is not simply of matter of controlling her own body.  They
are afraid that this woman may choose to put her faith in
God *despite* her circumstances.

This is a war.  It is not what I expected.  The rhetoric
of choice is simply that - rhetoric.  The agency that provides
informed choice is boycotted by the agency that proclaims
choice.  The agency that proclaims that life is an option
does all in its power to avoid associating with the agency
that says life is the babies right.

One agency cares for the woman, the baby, the LORD.  The
other agency cares for its ideological agenda and the woman.

I am saddened.

Collis

P.S.  No more than 2 minutes of the 4 hours were spent
referring to other clinics during the meeting.  But it took
very little to discover what the issue is all about.  I did
learn several weeks ago that a Planned Parenthood clinic
opened up very close to the CPC with the express intent of
getting the women to come to their clinics (with the resulting
increase in abortions) instead of the CPC.  May God forgive
us.

    Notes 30.46 through 30.55 have been moved to Note 31.
    
    Karen Berggren                    
    Co-Moderator/CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE

102nd Congress								S.25
1st Session			A   B I L L

To protect the reproductive rights of women, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled:

Section 1.  Short Title

	This act may be cited as the "Freedom of Choice Act of 1991".

Section 2.  Right to Choose

	(a) In General -- Except as provided in subsection (b), a State
    may not restrict the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy --
	    (1) before fetal viability; or
	    (2) at any time, if such termination is necessary to protect
	the life or health of the woman.

	(b) Medically Necessary Requirements -- A State may impose
    requirements medically necessary to protect the life or health of
    women referred to in subsection (a).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that's it.  No restrictions whatsoever, at any time during a pregnancy,
as long as a woman claims her health (not her life -- her health) needs to
be protected.  The courts have already held that health includes not just
physical health but also psychological and social health.

No parental notification restrictions, no informed consent restrictions, no
waiting periods, no nothing.  At any time during pregnancy.

Medically necessary requirements could include public financing, requirements
for hospitals which would not like to be part of the abortion business to
perform them in order to continue to receive federal payments including
Medicaid, and requirements for hospital employees to disobey their own
consciences and participate in the murder of innocent children.

The prime sponsor of the identical House version of the bill, H.R.25, says,
"The FOCA is explicit.  It provides for no exceptions -- no exceptions
whatsoever.  It is a classic one-sentence statute that says a state may not
restrict the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy -- and that is for
any reason."

   T r u t h   D o e s n ' t   K i l l .   A b o r t i o n   D o e s .

	"Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has
	been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea
	of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent.  The
	result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact,
	which everyone really knows, that human life begins at
	conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine
	until death.  The very considerable semantic gymnastics
	which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but
	taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not put
	forth under socially impeccable auspices."

				"A New Ethic for Medicine and Society"
				California Medicine (editorial)
				September 1970

	"Abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun."

				"Plan Your Children for Health and Happiness"
				Planned Parenthood Federation of America
				(pamphlet), 1963

	"We have reached a point in this particular technology where
	there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by
	the operator.  It is before one's eyes.  The sensations of
	dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current."

				Dr. Warren Hern, Director
				Boulder Abortion Clinic in Colorado
				at a Meeting of the
				Assoc. of Planned Parenthood Physicians
				San Diego, October 26, 1978

	"Paradoxically, I have angry feelings at myself for feeling
	good about ... doing a technically good procedure which
	destroys a fetus, kills a baby."

					New Mexico Abortionist
					American Medical News, July 12, 1993

	"Many times" (a clinic nurse said), "women who had just had
	abortions would lie in the recovery room and cry, `I've just
	killed my baby'... I don't know what to say to these women,"
	the nurse told the group.  "Part of me thinks, `Maybe they're
	right.'"

					Abortion Clinic Nurse
					American Medical News, July 12, 1993

	"Even if you're pro-choice, no one likes to see a dead fetus."

					Vilma Valdez, Education Director
					Planned Parenthood of Greater Miami
					The Miami Herald, October 24, 1992

                Pro-life advocates call abortion killing.
                        So do abortion advocates.
      Agreement of basic fact is the first step in reasoned dialog.

     A b o r t i o n   P o l i c y   M u s t   b e   D e b a t e d .

    W i t h o u t   V i o l e n c e .   B u t   w i t h   T r u t h .

                 National Conference of Catholic Bishops
                   Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities
                         3211 Fourth Street, N.E.
                         Washington, D. C. 20017


  Full page ads made possible by the generosity of the Knights of Columbus

                   Abortion: The Continuing Holocaust
                    by Presbytera Valerie M. Bockman
                              INTRODUCTION

     The American people are as divided over abortion as they were over
such historically divisive issues as slavery, the civil rights movement,
and the Vietnam War. The issue is emotional and volatile, in both camps.
Because of its interconnectedness with other popular movements, many
people fear that reversing the legality of abortion would also reverse
the progress that has been made in their favorite social movements.
Everyone is intent on preserving his rights as he perceives them.

     However, the heart of the issue is whether abortion is the willful
destruction of a living human person. Dr. R. C. Sproul, a Protestant
fundamentalist theologian, minister, professor, and author of an
excellent book on abortion frequently cited and paraphrased in this
paper, is vehemently opposed to abortion. Early in the book, however, he
makes this rather naive statement:

     I am convinced that if somehow it could be proven conclus-
     ively that the destruction of unborn babies is in fact the
     willful destruction of living human persons, the debate on
     abortion would be over, and the law of the land would as
     clearly prohibit abortion as it does all forms of homicide.
     (Sproul 1990, p. 16)

     The author seems to have forgotten about the advocates of infanti-
cide, euthanasia, and medically assisted suicide.

     He goes on to decry use of the term "murder," which he regards as a
polemicized word in the context of abortion. He feels that it merely
adds to the emotionalism and volatility of the issue, as he states:

     Pro-abortionists and pro-choice proponents are not advocat-
     ing murder. They are not endorsing the premeditated, with
     malice aforethought, willful destruction of human persons.
     Almost universally, the proponents of abortion act on the
     conviction that what is being aborted is less than a living
     human being. (Sproul 1990, p. 17)

     Use of the word "murder" in reference to abortion, however, is not
an invention by pro-lifers in the current debate over this issue. The
Holy Canons of the Orthodox Church, from the earliest times, unequivo-
cally and consistently refer to abortion as murder. It is difficult to
believe that Sproul really does not question the motives which incor-
rectly influence the consciences of, or lead to the rationalizations
used by, proponents of abortion--because almost immediately he begins to
"play hard ball":

     What is a fetus? . . . The fetus is either alive or not alive.
     The fetus is either human, or not human. The fetus is either a
     person, or not a person. _What I think the fetus is does not
     determine which of these it actually is._ If a fetus is a living
     human person but I do not believe or think that it is a living
     human person, my thoughts have no bearing on what a fetus actual-
     ly is. _By merely thinking or believing I cannot change what is
     personal into a nonperson, what is living into unliving, or
     what is human into the nonhuman_ [emphasis added]. (Sproul 1990,
     p. 17)

     He denounces the moral relativism of our time, which denies that
there are objective norms for what is right and wrong and supplants the
norms with personal preferences as a basis for making moral decisions.
In this misguided state, everyone seems to be very much aware of his own
perceived rights and oblivious to the rights of others.

     In order to protect ourselves from the unprincipled preferences of
others a system of laws had to be devised, and every law in the code
restricts someone's freedom in order to protect someone else's rights.
In our republican form of government, each person's rights have to be
protected from incursion by the majority. Unfortunately, unjust laws can
be passed which make moral rights illegal and immoral activities legal--
abortion laws being a case in point. And so-called natural law, the
common ground on which church and state could once co-exist peaceably,
has been eliminated as a foundation for societal law. Even the
Constitution is being eroded by moral relativism.

     Since many people no longer look to Holy Scripture for ethical
norms, and many others find natural law too vague as a moral guide, and
no one in his right mind would look to government today for ethical
guidance, right seems to be based on power alone. However, not power,
not the Constitution, and most surely not misguided ethics based on
moral relativism can or will determine when human life begins.

                               ABORTION:

                        THE CONTINUING HOLOCAUST

MORAL RELATIVISM IN OUR TIME bears closer scrutiny as the underpinning
of many, possibly all, of the movements which tear at the fabric of
American society. Moral relativism has permeated American thinking to
such an extent that nothing, not even theology, is sacrosanct or immune.

     Americans, in the spirit of moral relativism, redefine whatever
stands in the way of the attainment of their proud goals, whether those
goals be simply "happiness" and contentment (as they define them) or
perhaps recognition and renown. The common ground in all of these
redefinitions seems to be expediency and denial. The following are just
a few examples of redefinitions and their effects:

     *Pro-abortionists*, in their eagerness to avoid the consequences of
their sexual acts, deny not only the humanity and the personhood of the
human fetus, but even go so far as to deny that it is alive. Their
denials thus redefine life itself, as well as humanity and personhood.

     *Homosexuals*, in their insistence that society not merely accept
their behavior but approve of it, deny that there is a natural law, and
thus maintain that their homosexual acts are not "unnatural acts." In so
doing, they are redefining not only nature, but also manhood, womanhood,
marriage, and the family.

     *The medical community*, in its eagerness to maintain its supply of
live body parts for transplantation, has redefined death. It matters not
that some (though admittedly not many) people who have been declared
"brain dead" have recovered. That _some_ physicians would prostitute
their high calling and violate their Hippocratic Oath by actually
participating in the taking of human life in abortion, infanticide, and
euthanasia, is unconscionable. The Hippocratic Oath has been rendered so
irrelevant that some medical schools no longer administer it.

     *The Supreme Court*, in its eagerness to accommodate pro-abor-
tionists in _Roe v. Wade_, has redefined the Constitution. Under the
leadership of Justice Blackmun, it actually invented the constitutional
"right to privacy." Although explicit mention of such a right is nowhere
to be found in the Constitution, the Court claimed that it resides in
the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. In taking the position that the
fetus is not a person and is not alive, it has also redefined life and
personhood.

     *Ecumenists*, in their eagerness to unite all of the sects which
profess to believe in Christ and even some that don't, have redefined
His Church. Since the Church is the Body of Christ, they are redefining
not only Christ, as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, but also
the Trinity Itself. There are no limits--the redefiners presume to
redefine God Himself.

     Under the influence of moral relativism, Americans in general are
regressing in their character development toward a state of infantilism.
Two principal traits of maturity of personality and character are:

     (1) the ability to postpone the satisfaction of one's needs and
wants, and
     (2) acceptance of the consequences of one's own acts.

     Society fails to meet either criterion. Materialism and pursuit of
"the good life" show a very low tolerance for postponing the satisfac-
tion of needs and wants. The militant push for acceptance of sodomy as a
"lifestyle" and abortion as a means of retroactive birth control indi-
cates a refusal to accept the consequences of one's own acts. However,
the immature who care at all about maturity of character will probably
choose to redefine it so that they can no longer be portrayed as
immature.

     In the following discussion it will become abundantly evident that
these two common moral relativistic threads--(1) redefinition of what
doesn't permit the attainment of one's goals and (2) immaturity,
especially the failure to accept the consequences of one's own acts--run
through all of the pro-abortion arguments and all of the ethical stances
taken by pro-abortionists.

                          The Sanctity of Life

     Most people today, when they speak of the sanctity of life, mean
that life has some kind of special value. Because they have lost their
religious moorings, they no longer understand the terms "sanctity" and
"sacred" because such terms have their genesis in the realm of religion,
and our society is a secular one.

     When, if ever, have most people heard that mankind is created in
the image of God? that their human dignity comes from God? that it is
precisely this image of God that confers the human dignity that sets
them apart from all other creatures? Those who think about it at all
often think that man's Godgiven dignity and humanity were lost in the
Fall, but:

     In creation, man was given the ability and the responsibili-
     ty to mirror and reflect the holy character of God. Since
     the Fall, the mirror has been splotched by the grime of sin.
     We have lost our capacity for moral perfection, but with this
     ethical loss, we have not lost our humanity. Man may no longer
     be pure but he is still human . . . . We may no longer be wor-
     thy, but we still have worth. (Sproul 1990, p. 31)

     In this passage, Dr. Sproul's Protestant fundamentalist under-
standing of the Fall and its effects become theologically problematical
for Orthodox Christians. He fails to mention the regeneration brought
about by our Saviour's economy and he fails to take into account the
ongoing deification which can begin in this life with our spiritual
struggle (prayer, fasting, and almsgiving). He is correct, however, in
maintaining that we are still human and we still have worth.

     It is also the image of God in us that makes murder an assault
against God Himself, and an implicit attempt to murder God. Sproul
characterizes Genesis 9:6 as a divine mandate for punishment for murder:

     He that sheds man's blood, instead of that blood shall his
     own be shed, for in the image of God I made man. (Genesis 9:6
     Septuagint)

     Those who oppose capital punishment because of God's commandment
not to kill have not acquainted themselves with all of God's law. It is
precisely because of the value of the victim that the gravity of the
crime is so great that the murderer must be put to death:

     And if any man smite another and he die, let him be certain-
     ly put to death. (Exodus 21:12 Septuagint)

     Because of life's sacredness, the taking of it must be for just
cause.

     It is not sufficient, however, merely to refrain from the act of
murder. We are also prohibited from anger, slander, or anything else
that injures our neighbor. That is not to say that anger and slander are
just as serious a sin as murder, and it is not to say they should be
avoided just because of what they might lead to. They are prohibited
because of "the actual harm they do to the quality of life." (Sproul
1990, p. 36)

     Likewise, it is not sufficient merely to avoid sin: we are required
to engage in virtuous behavior. If adultery is a sin, we are required to
be chaste and pure. If murder is a sin, we are required not only to
avoid murder and all its related sins, but to promote life. And, "What-
ever else abortion does, it does not promote the life of the unborn
child." (Sproul 1990, p. 37)

                            The Natural Law

     G. K. Chesterton spoke of the modern tendency always to sacrifice
the normal to the abnormal as being a "morbid weakness" of his time and
society. Other authors have criticized our own penchant for a burgeoning
body of laws and rules to protect abnormal people, overlooking and thus
failing to provide the requisites for sustaining normal life. But "nor-
mal" and "natural" have become "no-no words," which have either been
redefined or completely denied by sexual revisionists.

     However Sproul, undaunted, flatly states: "Abortion--whatever else
it may be--is an act against nature" (Sproul 1990, p. 44), i.e., it
violates the natural law. Natural law has a number of different sources.
One is the laws of nations, where over the ages regular patterns become
apparent, such as the laws against murder. Another is in "first
principles," based in self-evident truths and a universal sense of the
way things ought to be. Yet another is in natural science, particularly
the universal biological law of self-preservation.

     It is not hard to see how the biological law of self-preservation
is set into motion in human reproduction. In each act of human sexual
intercourse, 30 to 60 million sperm are released to fertilize a single
egg. Numerically, not much is left to chance in this system designed to
ensure survival of the species.

     Once the egg is fertilized, it seeks to be implanted in the wall of
the womb. Sometimes fertilized eggs fail to achieve implantation, and,
even if implanted, some are lost through miscarriage. Then, after all
the self-preservation mechanisms of nature have produced a developing
human embryo, along comes the abortionist to frustrate nature's law.
"Humanity's greatest enemy . . . is humanity itself." (Sproul 1990, p.
44) When fetuses are not considered persons, they become things, and
things can be discarded. Fetuses, after all, have no names. Too many
people are no more concerned about what happens to "undifferentiated
blobs of protoplasm" or "biological parasites," as fetuses are sometimes
called, than they are about discarding a placenta.

     Yet even our Declaration of Independence affirms the right to life
as being self-evident, inalienable, and basic to all other human rights.
Also, the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution protects life, liberty,
and private property by due process of law. But the Supreme Court has
decided that the unborn are not persons (until they are able to survive
outside the womb) and are not alive, and therefore they are not
protected by the fifth or any other amendment.

     Historically nations have been inconsistent in their attitudes
toward and practices of abortion. The ancient Greek philosophers found
both abortion and infanticide acceptable if they furthered the interests
of the state, but their medical community opposed both, as exemplified
in the Hippocratic Oath. The ancient Romans, too, allowed abortions,
although their philosophers were not in agreement about it.

     The Jewish community, and later the early Christians, were notable
exceptions, in that they permitted neither abortion nor infanticide.
_The Didache_, a manual of early church discipline and codebook for
morality, contrasts two styles of living: the way of life and the way of
death. Probably written at the beginning of the second century, it
contains this exhortation:

     Do not murder; do not commit adultery; do not corrupt boys;
     do not fornicate; do not steal; do not practice magic; do
     not go in for sorcery; do not murder a child by abortion or
     kill a new-born infant. (Library of Christian Classics, cited
     by Sproul 1990, p. 48)

     In the Epistle of Barnabas is the commandment, "Thou shalt not
murder a child by abortion." (_Library of Christian Classics_, cited by
Sproul 1990, p. 48)

     Far more recently Hadley Arkes, Professor of Jurisprudence at
Amherst College, attempted to account for the position taken by Jews in
the confirmation hearings for Robert Bork's appointment to the Supreme
Court. He says:

     The teachings of Jewish law have been set quite emphatical-
     ly in opposition to abortion. On that point the Orthodox
     [Jews] have never suffered serious doubts, even though Jewish
     teaching has been far more equivocal and far more shaded with
     stray confusions than the teachings of Catholicism on this mat-
     ter. (Arkes 1991, p. 32)

     Where Jews and Christians were able to influence national policies,
sanctity of life protections were extended to the unborn. The number of
abortions among Jewish women is still the lowest of any of the major
religious groups. A 1988 study of women aged 15 to 44 who had abortions
in 1987 showed that 41.9 percent were Protestant, 31.5 percent were
Catholic, 1.4 percent were Jewish, 2.9 percent were grouped as "other,"
and 22.2 percent had no religious affiliation (Henshaw and Silverman
1988, p. 158). One would expect a lower proportion of Catholic women,
given that they belong to the church which has always gotten the credit
(or blame) for being most vehemently opposed to abortion.

                            When Life Begins

     The question of when life begins is closely tied to the mystery of
life itself. Holy Scripture does not contain any explicit statement of
when life begins, but it does contain several passages which assume life
and personhood, and, in the case of the Forerunner, even cognition and
emotion before birth.

     Psalm 138:13-15 shows that the continuity of life from before birth
is assumed in the Scriptures:

     For Thou hast possessed my reins; O Lord, Thou hast holpen
     me from my mother's Womb.

     I will confess Thee, for awesomely art Thou wondrous; marvel-
     lous are Thy works, and my soul knoweth it right well.

     My bone is not hid from Thee, which Thou madest in secret; nor
     my substance in the nethermost parts of the earth.

     My being while it was still unformed Thine eyes did see,
     and in Thy book shall all men be written; day by day they
     are formed, when as yet there be none of them. (_The Psalter_,
     p. 244)

     The psalmist clearly shows here that God is involved in the life of
his creatures from the time of conception, and even before conception.

     A passage from Isaiah shows that an unborn baby is not part of the
body of the mother but is a separate person, and also that God formed
the child Isaiah in the womb:

     And now, thus saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to
     be his own servant, to gather Jacob to him and Israel. I shall
     be gathered and glorified before the Lord, and my God shall be
     my strength. (Isaiah 49:5 Septuagint)

     A passage from Jeremiah makes a similar point about God's personal
knowledge of Jeremiah before he was born:

     The word of the Lord came to him, saying, "Before I formed
     thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth
     from the womb, I sanctified thee; I appointed thee a prophet
     to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:4-5 Septuagint)

     Not only is God's knowledge made clear, but also that Jeremiah was
treated by God as a personal being and was sanctified before birth.
Surely this indicates that the sanctity of human life and personhood
extend back to the time in the womb.

     From these passages, it can be concluded that "the Bible clearly
indicates that unborn babies are considered human living persons . . .
The weight of the biblical evidence is that life begins at conception."
(Sproul 1990, p. 59)

     Even though some would not draw this conclusion, they cannot deny
that development begins at conception. At only two weeks after concep-
tion there is a discernable heartbeat. The circulating blood is the
unborn baby's, not the mother's. At forty-three days brain waves are
detectable, and there is evidence that the fetus can perceive pain.
Since brain waves and heartbeat are considered "vital" signs, why are
some people so reluctant to admit vitality (life) before birth?

     Associate Professor Micheline M. Mathews-Roth of the Harvard
Medical School, a self-declared nonreligious person, takes issue with
those who maintain that determinations about when human life begins must
be based on religious and philosophical arguments. The following is part
of a letter she wrote to the _Boston Herald_:

     A letter on July 26 stated that the preamble to the "Missouri
     anti-choice legislation," declaring that human life begins at
     conception, "can only be based on religious or philosophical
     arguments" ("At 2 months, [the] fetus isn't `human'"). The
     statement is in conflict with the facts reported in embryolo-
     gy and genetics textbooks. Humans, like all other animals
     reproducing by sexual reproduction, start their existence as
     one cell, the zygote, which is formed by the union of egg and
     sperm during the process of fertilization.

     In addition, the laws of genetics state that like begets like--
     people make people, not horses or mice. Thus, a fetus conceived
     by a human female and a human male is a member of Homo Sapiens,
     the human species, from fertilization throughout its life. It
     is genetics that determines an individual's biological species,
     not the psychological traits it later develops. (Mathews-Roth 1989)

     It bears repeating that this is scientific (not religious)
testimony from a nonreligiously aligned scientist who felt strongly
enough about the scientific facts to correct fallacious statements by a
misguided advocate of abortion. She obviously has no ideological or
religious ax to grind.

     Independence is another of the criteria stipulated by pro-
abortionists for determining life, humanity, and personhood. By that
criterion, a child is not a living person even at birth, and for some
considerable time thereafter. Some of those who insist that the
independence criterion is a valid one use it as a justification for
infanticide.

                               Ensoulment

     Roman Catholic thinking about the beginning of human life has often
gotten bogged down in the complexities of when ensoulment takes place.
Father Patrick O'Mahoney, author of _A Question of Life: Its Beginning
and Transmission_, explores five categories of thought about when human
life and personhood begin: the genetic, the developmental, the relation-
al, the social consequences, and the potentiality schools. In each
category he explores the "body soul" question, as he calls it, and
admits that this question has "dominated much of Christian thinking"
about when life begins.

     He finally concludes that the question itself assumes a dualism
which sees the human being as a "union rather than a unity." He then
explores the question in light of recent scientific findings:

     . . . Whether in the context of immediate or delayed ensoul-
     ment, it is difficult to conceive of the "infusion of souls"
     by the Creator in the light of modern science. It seems more
     realistic to envisage the developing embryo as the human indivi-
     dual becoming what it already is . . .

     . . . Indeed it seems more in line with the new genetics to
     think of matter and spirit as two aspects of the one human unity
     . . . It would also seem reasonable to suggest that whenever this
     genetically unique organism is set in motion, . . . there is
     present a human unity with its own ongoing principle which could
     be described as a person at least in capacity and becoming, if
     not already in actuality. Accordingly as this unity develops,
     the individual would become capable of transcending the limita-
     tions inherent in its physical composition. It will then surpass,
     because of its spiritual dimension, the merely biological . . .
     (O'Mahoney 1990, p. 32)

     It would seem that Father O'Mahoney is making a valiant attempt to
rise above the traditional dualistic thought about ensoulment which has
its origins in the rationalism of Aristotle and Aquinas. But his newly
holistic train is still on a rationalistic track of two rails which he
thinks is a monorail. The very fact that Roman Catholic thought about
the matter has had to be revised to accommodate scientific findings
shows an ongoing inability to accept the mystery, and a continuing
compulsion to try to explain even the unexplainable.

                  Prejudice, Denial, and Irrationality

     The human fetus looks and acts like a living human person; has the
genetic makeup and vital signs of a living human person; and has sexu-
ality and movement. In the face of all this undeniable evidence, it has
to be because of prejudice that people resist the conclusion that the
fetus must therefore be a living human person. _Prejudice_ and _denial_
are both states of mind in which one lies to oneself. Rationality has no
place in either. As long as someone can convince himself that a fetus is
not a living human person until birth, he does not have to deal with the
enormity of the moral implications of killing it before birth.

     Even the term "stillborn" should be a clue to the prior vitality of
an unborn child. Babies referred to as stillborn are dead at "birth," or
the time at which they are expelled by the womb. A fetus might die in
the process of being delivered or from unknown or accidental causes at
some time before delivery. The point is that the term "stillborn" itself
implies a prior opposite condition. To have died, the fetus must have
been alive at some point. If it had not died, it would have been
"liveborn."

     The argument that a fetus is not a living human being, therefore,
is irrational--a denial which seeks to stifle the pangs of conscience of
those who would deliberately kill it by abortion before it can be
liveborn.

                Conscience and the Morality of Abortion

     Although the furor over abortion has gone on for almost twenty
years (ever since the radical reversal in public opinion in 1973
occasioned by the Supreme Court decision of _Roe v. Wade_), there are
many people who have not come to any conclusions about the matter, or
they vacillate. Unfortunately, there is a strong tendency for people to
accept civil law and what society condones as their guides in making
their moral decisions. One pitfall in this process is that people come
to accept the _argumentum ad populum_, that a majority vote determines
truth.

     Deciding how to act when one is honestly not sure of the moral
rightness of abortion is not as simple as making up one's mind intel-
lectually. The person who is honestly not sure that abortion is evil,
for instance, is required to act in good faith. In order to act in good
faith, he must avoid the option that he thinks is possibly evil or that
he isn't sure is right (i.e., abortion), and choose the option that he
knows to be right (i.e., refraining from abortion).

     The assumption that conscience is an infallible guide to moral
behavior is fraught with danger. Joseph Sobran, essayist for the _Human
Life Review_ and senior editor of _National Review_, remarks:

     How often we hear that abortion should be left to the indi-
     vidual conscience, as if we should presume that whatever
     choice is made reflects the triumph of conscience. (Sobran
     1983, p. 89)

     Though a person ignores his conscience at his own peril, he cannot
assume that his conscience will always guide him aright. Many proponents
of abortion claim that they are acting according to the dictates of
their conscience, but their conscience may be tainted by personal
preferences, expediency, civil law, or the desire for social acceptance.
In the twisted logic of the "doctrine of the unwanted child," for
instance, the decision to abort is disguised as responsible rather than
irresponsible (Sobran 1983, p. 89).

     To those who are still unsure, Dr. Sproul recommends sober thinking
and deep reflection--but fails to include possibly the most important
element of all, an active spiritual life, particularly prayer--when he
says:

     Before we choose to participate in abortion, we must give
     serious consideration to what God's _views_ in the _matter
     might be_. To ignore this is to ignore the call of conscience
     and to place ourselves in a perilous position. If an act a-
     gainst conscience is an act against God, then we can easily
     see how dangerous such an action is. (Sproul 1990, p. 76)

     It sounds strange to Orthodox Christian ears when someone speaks of
"what God's views in the matter might be." In American society we have
become so accustomed to speaking in egalitarian, supertolerant terms
that even "God's laws" become "God's views"--views being positions
taken, ways of thinking, or opinions that anyone is free to disagree
with. The phrase "might be" is far too tentative, it seems to me, given
that it is very clear what God's laws (not views) are (not might be), as
they apply to abortion. The points about conscience, nevertheless, are
well taken.

     Unfortunately, however, "conscience" has also become part of the
rhetoric of the debate. Those who call the most stridently for abortion
to be a matter for the individual conscience deny the same rights of
conscience to pro-lifers. They require that pro- lifers act as if they
approve of abortion even though they do not, and chide them for their
"divisiveness" when they speak out against it (Sobran 1983, p. 97).
Therefore the exercise of conscience is reserved to those who share
their pro-abortion views.

                   The Role of Government in Abortion

     Before a proper role for government in abortion can be identified,
one must consider why governments exist at all. Obviously legitimate
governments exist to make life and society possible. It is their right
and duty to enforce just laws. Legitimacy and justice, therefore, are
key words in any discussion of the general or specific role of
government.

     The secular society no longer recognizes that all legitimate autho-
rity comes from God, and that legitimate governments must therefore be
His gift to us. It has set itself up as the source of authority, and has
promulgated the idea that democracy and suffrage are what provide legi-
timacy and justice, and stamp out tyranny. Tyranny, however, is not
limited to the actions of dictators and unjust kings. A tyrant can be a
Supreme Court justice openly brokering pro-abortion laws among his
fellow justices, as Justice Blackmun did, or a democratic majority which
chooses to legislate unjust laws, or even an individual citizen voting
for an unjust vested interest.

     If Christians truly believe that God is love, and that out of love
He has gifted us with legitimate and just government, then of course we
must submit to its authority. St. Paul is very clear about that in his
epistle to the Romans:

     Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there
     is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

     Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordi-
     nance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves
     damnation.

     For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.
     Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is
     good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

     For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou
     do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword
     in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute
     wrath upon him that doeth evil.

     Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but
     also for conscience sake.

     For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's
     ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

     Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute
     is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to
     whom honour. (Romans 13:1-7 KJV)

     When it becomes evident, however, that civil authority commands us
to do what is forbidden by God's law, or forbids us to do what God
commands, we must exercise civil disobedience. In this system which
stems from God's love, we must take care that justice is established and
maintained, because injustice is opposed to love.

     If government exists to make life and society possible, as stated
above, its fundamental duty is to protect, sustain, and maintain human
life. It must protect people from being murdered--this is the very heart
of its mandate from God. It stands to reason, therefore, that those who
regard abortion as murder, as being opposed to love, and therefore as an
injustice, will call upon government to fulfill its duty to protect
life. Because most of the opposition to legalized abortion comes from
churches and their members, pro-abortionists regard this call as a
violation of the separation of church and state. At worst, this is a
ploy of warfare; at best, it is a misunderstanding of the concept of
separation.

     The constitutional prescript of separation of church and state was
written to ensure that there be no state-established church. It was
assumed that there would be interaction such as prayers at the convening
of Congress or at the inauguration of the President. It was never
anticipated that extrapolations from this principle would be utilized to
disenfranchise those whose moral judgments are based on their religious
beliefs, or to abolish prayer and all mention of God's name at public
functions.

     Separation of church and state involves a division of roles, with
neither infringing upon the other's. The church doesn't send troops to
the Persian Gulf, and President Bush doesn't administer the sacraments.
There is no power struggle--the state assures freedom of worship, and
the church is supportive of the proper activities of the state. This
symbiotic relationship does not preclude interaction when the situation
warrants, however. The state has the right and duty to step in, for
instance, if the church or its representatives are accused of misappro-
priation of funds (e.g., the Bakker case). Likewise, the church has the
right and duty to criticize and attempt to bring about change when the
state initiates, concurs in, or perpetuates unjust actions (e.g., the
_Roe v. Wade_ case).

     A number of years ago, possibly in the late sixties, I watched a
television interview of a Roman Catholic priest. The interviewer wanted
to ascertain the priest's reactions to one of the first cases of a state
having repealed its laws prohibiting abortion. He very coolly responded
that it didn't matter, because removing the illegality of abortion did
not make abortion morally right. In fact, he said, he supported repeal
of all laws prohibiting abortion because "you can't legislate morality."

     On their face, the priest's statements were true. Human behavior is
not automatically changed by the passage of a law. Nor do civil laws
change moral theology. But would he have all laws repealed that have a
bearing on morality? Would he be willing to endure the anarchy that
would result if the state abdicated completely from its duty to make
life and society possible? if it repealed all laws against murder and
theft and proper use of an automobile and proper concern for the
environment? What about the government's duty to protect the weak and
powerless against the strong and powerful? What about the fact that many
people take their moral cues from civil law and from what society
condones? The priest's fatuous remarks showed a remarkably limited
ability to project the ethical consequences of what even a non-
theologically trained news person saw as a significant event.

     Richard J. Neuhaus, editor-in-chief of _First Things_, has some
interesting things to say about the implications of the "legislation of
morality" argument and the rhetoric of church-state conflict:

     In response to the oft-heard claim that "you can't legis-
     late morality," it needs repeatedly to be said that, in
     fact, you can't legislate anything _except_ morality. Legis-
     lation is always based on _somebody's_ morality. That is to
     say, it is based on somebody's notion of what is right or
     wrong, just or unjust, fair or unfair--all of which are moral
     categories. The claim that we cannot legislate morality is
     verbal sleight of hand designed to exclude from the democratic
     process those citizens who frankly acknowledge that their
     motivation is moral in nature. If, in addition, they acknow-
     ledge that their moral judgment is religiously grounded, anoth-
     er exclusionary trick is in store. They are then told that their
     advocacy "violates the separation of church and state."

     . . . . Jefferson's separationist maxim will be trotted
     out in order to impose an exclusionary religious test for
     participation in the public arena. People may publicly advo-
     cate on the basis of moral judgments that they have taken off
     Marx, Freud, or a current television series, but the ACLU for-
     bid that they advocate on the basis of religious teaching . . . .
     (Neuhaus 1991a, p. 8)

     He goes on to point out that the "state" is not a particular
administration, government, or leader. In our country, it is the
constitutional order. Therefore a genuine church-state conflict would
occur only if a church or coalition of churches attempted to challenge
or overturn or replace the constitutional order.

     When the concept of state as constitutional order is understood,
pro-abortion strategy becomes quite transparent. The pro-abortionists'
opposition to strict construction and their efforts at Constitutional
amendment are clearly part of a brilliantly conceived program to revise
the constitutional order. In addition, it is clear that the rhetoric
about church-state conflict is designed to neutralize religious
influence and to disenfranchise those whose sense of morality is shaped
by it:

     . . . [T]alk about church-state conflict is a rhetorical
     device aimed at imposing a religious test upon the democrat-
     ic process. It is aimed at intimidating, or even excluding
     from that process, citizens whose moral judgments are shaped
     by religious teaching. Such aims _are_ in conflict with the
     state--the state being understood as the constitutional order
     of these United States. (Neuhaus 1991a, p. 9)

     So the accusers are themselves the offenders in the arena of their
own choosing. The pro-abortionists, while crying "foul" against reli-
gious influence of any kind on public policy, are themselves blatantly
tampering with the constitutional order. Sproul has this to say about
the magnitude of the upheaval in the constitutional order brought about
by the pro-abortion forces:

     The _Roe v. Wade_ decision has provoked the most serious
     ethical crisis in the history of the United States. This is
     the nadir in American jurisprudence, the moment of the state's
     greatest failure to be a state. (Sproul 1990, pp. 91-2)

                    A Woman's Right to Her Own Body

     Frequently pro-abortion rhetoric will affirm that a woman has a
right to her own body. The fact that there is partial truth in this
affirmation makes it a very appealing argument, especially in a rights-
conscious society. But where does this right come from? An Orthodox
Christian would take the position that indeed all living human beings,
male or female, are endowed with free will. Therefore, having free will,
a person may choose to use or even dispose of his or her own body in
ways which are consonant with or contrary to God's law. But free will
does not confer the "right" to break God's law.

                          The Right to Privacy

     Sobran makes the profoundly insightful observation that many
things, including ethics, health, nutrition, beauty, literature, and
music, are important to a society, but, in addition, there is at least
one more crucial element:

     Sex matters too, and . . . one sign of this is the grisly
     form it takes in war, where victors often mutilate their
     adversaries and rape the women, these abuses being the ulti-
     mate annihilations of the dignity and integrity of the defeat-
     ed: nothing could more horribly violate their dignity; death
     and agony do not suffice. This is a cross-cultural phenomenon,
     reflecting the universal perception that _sexual order is at
     the heart of social order_ [emphasis added]. (Sobran 1983, p. 37)

     Obviously, how the armed forces behave is not the compelling issue
here. Of concern is the social disorder of our society and its related-
ness to the sexual disorder in it--the sexual disorder ushered in by the
sexual revolution. The proponents of abortion, in seeking to perpetuate
the sexual revolution, are thereby aggravating the socio-sexual
disorder.

     The so-called "new morality" ushered in by the sexual revolution of
the sixties began with demands for the right to privacy in everything
from sexual activity "between consenting adults" to a tidal wave of
pornography, wherein sex became a spectator sport--the ultimate
stripping away of privacy. It soon became clear that neither sexual acts
nor pornography would be limited to "consenting adults." How ironic,
that on the one hand there was a clamor to obtain and preserve sexual
license which involved the stripping away of privacy from man, woman,
and child, and on the other, the invention of new privacy rights for
women.

     When pro-abortionists use the shibboleth of a woman's right to her
own body, they are very likely claiming a legal right based on the
"right to privacy" established by the Supreme Court in the _Roe v. Wade_
decision. Their position is that abortion legislation intrudes on the
privacy rights of individuals and families, and that it is none of the
state's business whether a woman chooses to abort or to carry to term.

     The right to privacy claimed in _Roe v. Wade_ is based on
Amendments IX and XIV, the relevant portions of which are as follows:

                          Amendment IX (1791)

     The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall
     not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
     people.

                          Amendment XIV (1868)

     Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States
     and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
     United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
     shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privile-
     ges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
     any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
     without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
     jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (U.S. Constitu-
     tion as cited by Sproul 1990, pp. 99-100)

     Nowhere in these two amendments (or in any of the rest of the
Constitution, for that matter) is there any explicit word about privacy
rights. They have literally been read into the Constitution, as
evidenced by this passage from the majority opinion in _Roe v. Wade_:

     This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth
     Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon
     state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court
     determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to
     the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision
     whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. (Sproul 1990, p. 100)

     While stretching the meaning of Amendment XIV, and declaring it to
be broad enough to encompass a previously nonexistent right, the Court
glosses over the most relevant and explicit part of Amendment XIV as it
applies to abortion: " . . . nor shall any State deprive any person of
life . . . without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Because the Court has
redefined life, humanity, and personhood so as to exclude the fetus, it
feels no compunction about ignoring the explicit language relevant to
the rights of the unborn while at the same time stretching the law so as
to be able to invent a new right for others.

     On September 11, 1990, Molly Yard, the prominent and vocal pro-
abortionist president of the National Organization for Women, appeared
at a rally to oppose the appointment of now-Justice Souter. She
speculated that Souter would interpret the Constitution as it is
written, not according to present conditions. When the Constitution was
written, women had no rights and were the property of men, she asserted.
This call for the Constitution not to be interpreted as written is an
admission, it seems to me, that the Constitution does not provide any
rights to privacy, and thus to abortion-on-demand. She and other pro-
abortionists want to _insert_ meaning into the Constitution to suit
their personal preferences.

     If the Constitution can be interpreted "according to present
conditions," why bother amending it at all? Why, for instance, has NOW
and other organizations sought an Equal Rights Amendment? Perhaps the
vagaries of this deceptively simple statement of rights already more
clearly stated in existing amendments was designed to provide further
opportunities for creative interpretation by the Supreme Court.

     Pro-abortionists apparently see this newly established legal right
to privacy as an absolute right, even though absolutes are not
consistent with an ethical system based on moral relativism. They deride
anti-abortionists as "fetal police" and "bedroom police" whose concerns
they perceive as intrusions into their most private relationships.

     If privacy were an absolute right, it would have to be God-given.
If so, there would be virtually nothing precluded from one's behavior as
long as it is done out of the public view. Not only would the usually
clandestine sins such as cheating, theft, adultery, fornication, and
murder be permitted, but the often overt sins such as blasphemy,
cursing, slander, anger, gluttony, and genocide would be permitted if
done covertly. Thoughts and desires would be completely outside the
moral realm. Anyone who has even a nodding acquaintance with God's law
knows that this cannot be.

     Another error made by pro-abortionists is related to the absolute
right issue. They regard the right to privacy as a higher and greater
right than the right to life. If this were true, one could kill anyone
who invaded one's privacy. Since the right to privacy, like the right to
vote, is a civil right--one granted by civil law--it is of a lower order
than the right to life, which is God-given. The same is true of the
"quality of life" issue. A mother who elects an abortion rather than
have a child which she foresees as degrading the quality of her future
life is placing her notion of what the quality of her life should be
above the unborn child's right to live. Such a notion would have to be
classified as a "personal preference," and therefore of a lower order
than any right, whether civil or God-given.

     Since the right to life transcends the right to privacy, the
Supreme Court erred in its _Roe v. Wade_ decision to allow the
destruction of a fetus in the application of the right to privacy
principle.

                         A Woman's Moral Rights

     Both women and men have any number of rights to their own bodies.
Examples of these rights are the right not to be violated sexually and
not to be subjected to malicious physical injury. In the abortion
controversy, however, pro-abortionists are claiming rights for women
that approach the absolute.

     If a woman had an absolute right to her own body, she would have
the moral right to do anything with it that she pleased: become a
prostitute or mutilate herself or commit suicide. It seems obvious that
these are choices she can make, but they are not moral rights, and
merely to say that they are doesn't make it so. One thing is certain:
they are not God-given rights.

     The assumption made about a woman's right to her own body in
relation to the abortion issue is that the fetus is a part of the
mother's body. This is an invalid assumption, a fallacy based on moral
relativism. The fetus is obviously contained within the mother's uterus,
and is connected to the placenta by an umbilical cord. Through this
umbilical cord it receives nourishment from the mother. Does this mean
that mother and fetus are _essentially_ the same? Since the fetus is
destined to leave the mother's body, the fetus must have an essence that
is distinct from the mother's. In addition, the fetus has a brain,
heart, blood, circulatory system, and genetic markers that are different
from the mother's. Every cell in the fetus has a distinct genetic
fingerprint which is different from that of the mother's cells,
indicating that the fetus is indeed a separate person, not a part of the
mother's body.

     Another consideration in the fetus-and-mother-are-one argument is
the contribution of the father. Even though he does not carry the fetus,
half of the substance that determines its genetic makeup comes from him.
He therefore has an interest in, and ensuing rights related to, the
fetus. Are his rights properly nullified by the mother's decisions about
"her own body"? Might her claimed rights to her own body not be rights
at all, but just personal preference? Whichever they are, the argument
does not justify abortion.

                         "Back-alley" Abortions

     A frequently-heard argument for the legalization of abortion is:
"If abortion is illegal, women will have dangerous back-alley abor-
tions." The argument assumes that when abortion is made illegal, women
will nevertheless continue to seek abortions, but, because of the
illegality factor, the procedures will no longer be available from
qualified physicians in aseptic surroundings. It implies that although
abortion might not be desirable, it is better than the alternative,
which is to place women seeking abortion into the hands of back-alley
butchers armed with coat hangers, and thus to increase their risk of
death.

     What is overlooked, and what anti-abortionists have not done a good
job of publicizing, is this:

     More women have died from abortions in the United States
     since abortion was legalized than in the preceding times
     of illegal abortion. This is due not to the incompetency
     of the physicians, but to the huge increase in the number
     of abortions performed. (Sproul 1990, p. 110)

     Nearly two decades have gone by since abortion was legalized in
this country. Before _Roe v. Wade_, 0.6 million babies were being
legally aborted every year. By 1976, three years after _Roe v. Wade_,
that number had nearly doubled. From 1980 to the present, the rate has
remained relatively stable at about 1.6 million per year in the United
States alone.

     In 1988, married women accounted for about 20 percent and single
women about 80 percent of legal abortions. White women (married and
single) accounted for 70 percent and nonwhite women 30 percent. The
highest abortion rates occurred in the District of Columbia, with 163.3
(up 17.4); California, with 45.9 (down 2.1); and New York with 43.3
(down 4.0). Rates are stated as the number of abortions per 1000 women
aged 15-44. The rates of increase or decrease (in parentheses) are for
the period 1985-1988. (Henshaw and VanVort 1990, p. 103)

     From the late 1960s to the present, almost thirty million abortions
have taken place--_five times the number of Jews killed in the Holo-
caust_. Thirty million is equal to the combined (1980 census) popula-
tions of fourteen of these United States: Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah,
Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa,
Missouri, Oklahoma, and Arizona. This monstrous fact is and must remain
the focal point of the debate over death by abortion. As Sproul points
out:

     For those convinced that abortion involves killing living
     human persons, the continuation of it to protect those
     who are having the abortions is ethically intolerable. The
     loss of a woman's life in abortion is a tragic thing; but
     if abortion is evil, then the life lost is that of the
     guilty party. The destruction of the unborn baby is the
     loss of the innocent party. Ideally, we should refrain
     from abortion altogether, because then neither the woman
     nor the baby would die.

     If the practice of abortion is unjust, then the protection
     of those who engage in the practice is not the duty of the
     state . . . . To protect the criminal in the course of commit-
     ting a crime is not the responsibility of government. (Sproul
     1990, pp. 110-11)

     The point is well taken and eloquently stated. However, it occurs
to me that this is not the only situation in which the state has stepped
in to protect the guilty from the consequences of their own immoral or
unethical behavior. Consider the "safe sex" instructions provided by a
government information pamphlet for sodomists, and the condoms
distributed by public high schools to their fornicating students, and
the "clean needle" programs for drug addicts. Whether or not it is the
state's duty to do so, the state _is_ stepping in.

     On April 2, 1991 a television news program showed a woman giving a
tearful speech to a pro-abortion group about the tragedy of her teenage
daughter dying after obtaining a "back-alley" abortion. The woman was
campaigning for the repeal of all legislation requiring parental consent
for underage children to have abortions. She said that at one time she
would have been opposed to such action, but since the loss of her own
daughter, who was afraid to inform her parents that she was pregnant,
she realized that she had forced her daughter into a back-alley abortion
and thus to her death.

     The mother related deathbed statements which, along with her own
tearfulness, moved her audience to sobs. Included in her account was
what I thought a strange observation which she did not interpret: she
said her daughter had never told them, even on her deathbed, that she
had had an abortion. The newscaster finished the story by saying that a
pro-life group had come forward with the information that an autopsy
revealed that the daughter had died of a spontaneous abortion. Could
that have been why she had not admitted, even on her deathbed, to an
abortion? Did the grieving mother lie about the back-alley abortion? We
don't know, of course, but the story forcefully illustrates the false
assumptions that prevail in the use of the back-alley abortion argument.

     Recently, the Population Council in Washington, D.C. conducted a
study of teen abortion discussion groups in 11 cities around the
country. Almost all of the groups, when asked the question "What comes
into your head when you hear the word abortion?" gave answers such as
"murder," "killing a baby," and "death." On the other hand, they say
abortion "should remain legal to keep it safe," and that no one should
"take away anyone's rights even though abortion is not right." (_Boston
Herald_ 1990, p. 3)

     The study concluded that teens "use pro-life vocabularies but take
pro-choice positions." That's a blatantly false conclusion. Calling
abortion murder is hardly taking a pro-choice position. Nor is it merely
using pro-life rhetoric. The teens are making a moral judgment. In
deciding that (1) a legal abortion is better than an illegal one because
the mother is safer, and (2) the mother's right to choose is a higher
and greater right than the baby's right to life, however, they have
merely bought into the logical fallacies propounded by their elders.
Given the generally biased press coverage of right-to-life issues, and
the excessive rights consciousness extant in our society, that is not
difficult to understand. What's amazing is that they see abortion itself
for what it is--a form of murder.

                              Men's Rights

     Another often-heard pro-abortion statement is: "Men shouldn't speak
on abortion because it's a women's issue." Sometimes, along with this
specious argument, cynical statements are made, such as: "If men had to
have the babies, there would never be more than one child in a family,"
or "If men had to carry babies in pregnancy, there would be no laws
against abortion." The assumption seems to be that the pro-life movement
consists of men and the pro-choice of women. This is far from true. It
also assumes that "since childbearing is exclusive to women, men have no
right to address the moral issues connected to it." (Sproul 1990, p.
112)

     These kinds of assertions trivialize the issues and might even be
characterized as "male-bashing." It is female chauvinism which, if
carried to its logical conclusion, would exclude from the discussion all
of the male Supreme Court justices who are responsible for inventing a
woman's right to privacy and for legalizing abortion--actions dear to
the hearts of pro-abortionists. _Argumentum ad hominem_, or attacking
the person who puts forward an argument rather than refuting the
argument itself, should be recognized for what it is, an unworthy debate
tactic.

     Sobran maintains that with the advent of pluralism and the primacy
of the individual as social values, such social units as race, tribe,
nation, and family decline in importance. That decline carries with it
the authority of fatherhood. With social services progressively taking
over the provision of the material needs of children, and with lineage
no longer conferring authority, fatherhood has been considerably
weakened. Convincing evidence of that weakening is that a woman no
longer has to have the consent of the father of her child before having
an abortion, even if she is married (Sobran 1983, p. 44).

     Pro-abortionists claim that a woman has a right to control her own
body, of which they say the fetus is a part. The father is permitted no
say in whether or not the child will be allowed to live. How is it,
then, that he is nevertheless expected to support the child if the
mother chooses to carry it to term? He has no rights, and his respon-
sibilities hinge upon the whim of the mother (Sobran 1983, p. 45).
He should have no more responsibilities than he has rights. Most
certainly, therefore, if his responsibilities are determined by someone
else's decision in which he is denied his right to participate, he is
being done an injustice.

     Are women to blame for this state of affairs? According to Sobran,
it is not the rise of women but the rise of the individual that is
destroying the once-strong social units that conferred authority through
lineage. By buying into the idea of the sovereign autonomy of the
individual, men are systematically abdicating their authority (Sobran
1983, p. 47).

                        The Pro-choice Position

     One benighted politician running for the Senate in the fall of 1990
announced in his political spot-ad that he wanted to guard poor women's
right to choose to have an abortion, because choice should not be
available only to the rich. First of all, this crass appeal to class
envy is outrageous. He wants to preserve choice in the matter of
abortion only. Does a poor woman have the right to a degree from
Radcliffe, or to live in a mansion, or even to see a good dentist once
in a while? Why is he not concerned about the rich/poor disparity in
these matters? Why is the legal right to choose to take her own child's
life more "sacred" than her right to other things that wealthy women can
choose?

     The "pro-choice" position was actually invented by the pro-
abortionists in their "divide and conquer" efforts of the 1970s.
Realizing that the most unyielding opposition would be from the Roman
Catholic Church, it sought the support of the mainline Protestants in
overcoming the long arm of Rome by offering them a middle-ground, less-
offensive position than pro-abortion. In addition, it linked the
movement to feminist issues, and succeeded in equating the terms "pro-
choice" and "pro-women." The pro-women forces in the various Protestant
denominations saw that they had to adopt the pro-choice position or
possibly lose ground in such matters as the ordination of women.

     On the secular front, pro-choice views were linked with feminism
and good old American freedom of choice. What could be more appealing?
(Certainly not apple pie and motherhood!) No one was encouraged to be an
out-and-out pro-abortionist. The standard statement to affirm each
person's inalienable right to choose was: "I'm personally not in favor
of abortion, but I don't want to impose my views on others. It's a
matter of individual liberty and private conscience." Pro-abortionists
used the statement to make themselves appear reasonable and moderate,
and politicians used it to appease the pro-lifers by paying lip service
to opposition to abortion, while actually taking a pro-choice position.
One still hears the statement in every political campaign for office,
from president to dog-catcher.

     Thus the side issues of women's rights, individual liberty, matters
of conscience, and freedom from the Catholic Church's morality obscured
the cardinal issue--the rights of the unborn. The pro-abortion strate-
gists succeeded in establishing a culturally, socially, and ethically
safe middle-ground position, but those standing on that middle ground
did not see how they were being manipulated. There is no difference
legally between the two positions. So long as the law does not _mandate_
abortion, but merely _allows_ it, a pro-choice vote is a pro-abortion
vote. Once their strategy had succeeded, the pro-abortionists co-opted
the pro-choice label.

     But what does it mean to be pro-choice? Is freedom of choice an
absolute freedom and the right to choose an absolute right? Hardly. The
freedom of choice ends where it infringes on another person's rights to
life and liberty. Therefore a woman's right to choose ends where it
infringes on her unborn baby's right to live. After the Gulf War we
often heard that it was safer to serve in the war than to be on the
streets of our American cities. It might be added that it is safer to be
on the streets of our cities than in a woman's womb. The statistics
prove it.

     In the summer of 1989, Dale Vree, a contributing editor to the
_National Catholic Register_, was invited to what he characterized "a
pre-planned living-room discussion on abortion which included six pro-
lifers, six or seven pro-choicers, and one or two undecideds." The pro-
choicers "wanted to find out what makes pro-lifers tick," but ended up
revealing what makes pro-choicers tick. The participants were intellec-
tual types and included some famous names.

     Vree expected that the heart of the pro-choice case would turn on
when life begins, but it didn't. (So much for Sproul's naive statement
quoted at the beginning of this article.) It didn't even turn on the
hard cases--rape and incest. A brief skirmish over the right to choice
quickly ended when a woman pro-lifer noted that "_the_ choice is made
when a woman agrees to have sex." The next skirmish was over political
classifications, with pro-choicers accusing the pro-lifers of being
rightists in such matters as the death penalty, handguns, and nuclear
weapons--even though none of these has anything to do with or justifies
abortion.

     Finally, one of the pro-choicers blurted out: "We're pro-sex and
you're anti-sex," meaning, according to Vree, that "they're for lots of
sex in lots of forms while we pro-lifers feel it should be limited to
heterosexual marriage." He explains further:

     They made it abundantly clear that they're committed to the
     sexual revolution, that that revolution will wither without
     the insurance which is abortion and that this is their bottom-
     line concern. (Vree 1989)

     So this is what makes pro-choicers tick. This is the crux of the
matter. This is what thirty million unborn babies have given their lives
for since the late sixties.

     By way of contrast, Sobran puts human sexuality into a context of
social responsibility. He says:

     . . . [T]he public must be encouraged to see clearly what
     most of them dimly and confusedly believe already: that a
     healthy society, however tolerant at the margins, must be
     based on the perception that sex is essentially procreative,
     with its proper locus in a loving family . . . [L]ove must
     be sustained by the will, with charity, patience, fidelity,
     devotion; a marriage vow is not a prediction that the flames
     will never die down, but a mutual consecration which humaniz-
     es sexuality by absorbing it, in the solemnest way, into the
     system of social responsibility . . . (Sobran 1983, p. 19)

     What Sobran is saying, in effect, is that those who use sex
frivolously are not being socially responsible, i.e., they are not
accepting responsibility for the consequences of their acts but are
demanding that somebody else bear those consequences. The same is true
of the right to choose. Though touted as the woman's ultimate right by
pro-choicers, it is never granted to the aborted child. Her right to
choose should be exercised before intercourse, not after the baby has
been conceived, when the baby has to bear the consequences of her choice
to abort. _She_ is the one who should bear the consequences of _her own_
acts.

     Although the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-women" have been linked,
to be anti-abortion does not mean to be anti-women. Being pro-life is
being pro-humanity, and it includes being both pro-men and pro-women.
Women have value and dignity because of their humanity, not because of
their gender. On the other hand, being either pro-abortion or pro-choice
demeans human dignity, the dignity of both men and women.

     A woman who is convinced that abortion is the wrongful taking of a
human life, but who still supports someone else's right to choose, is
making a serious ethical error. She is placing the right to choose,
which is not an absolute right, above the right to life, which is
absolute. Therefore no one should ever be deluded into taking the pro-
choice position on the grounds of moral uncertainty or on the grounds of
the right to choose. It is not a middle ground, because it puts one
squarely into the proabortion camp.

                          Unwanted Pregnancies

     Hedonism is a philosophy which causes people to seek maximum
pleasure along with maximum avoidance of pain. The fly in the ointment
is the paradox inherent in hedonism: if we don't achieve the pleasure we
are frustrated, but if we do we are bored. (Remember the song, "Is That
All There Is?") We're all conditioned by hedonism, whether or not we
realize it. Unless we have an emotional disorder, we do not enjoy pain,
so we seek ways to avoid or minimize it. The impulse to seek abortion is
so strong for that very reason. It's a means of escape.

     Since very few abortions are performed because of rape or incest,
and abortions to save the life of the mother are _extremely_ rare, the
real issue is abortion-on-demand for convenience or because the child is
unwanted. If not wanting a baby is just grounds for its destruction
before birth, it is also just grounds for its destruction afterwards. In
other words, it is no more unjust to kill a three-year-old unwanted
child than it is to kill a child after three months of gestation in the
womb.

     Some people think that if a child is destined to live in poverty or
with a severe physical handicap, it is better to destroy it before it is
born. Someone who has this mind-set could well consider whether he, as a
living human person, would honestly want someone else to decide that the
quality of his life is so bad that he should be destroyed. Neuhaus has
this to say about the quality of life criterion:

     . . . [W]e must ask whether we can speak about lives not
     worth living without remembering the phrase, _lebensunwertes
     Leben_? It means in German [sic], lives unworthy of life. It
     was used by the Nazis to justify the directly intended killing
     of the burdensome. Yes, I know . . . This is America, and we
     are motivated by kindness and compassion . . . The question is
     not intentions. The question is the thing itself. (Neuhaus
     1991b, p. 53)

     One of the early arguments used by pro-abortionists was that
abortion would permit women to avoid having unwanted children, the
implication being that unwanted children are unloved, neglected, and
abused. Therefore it was in the unwanted child's best interest to be
aborted if the mother chose to do so. With abortion-on-demand, they
reasoned, child abuse would be lessened, or perhaps even disappear.
Quite the opposite has happened. Even with 1.6 million unwanted babies
being killed by abortion every year in this country, child abuse is at
an epidemic level and rising at an ever-increasing rate.

     It seems clear that abortion-on-demand has not, and will not, cure
this social malady. What is also clear is that government has failed its
primary duty to protect the weak and the powerless--that children's
human rights are denied them both before and after their birth. As
sexual disorder grows, so does the social disorder. As Sobran so aptly
points out, "The real problem of our age is not unwanted children but
unwanted selves, and no surgery can correct the emptiness that comes of
the selfish refusal to love." (Sobran 1983, p. 99)

                                Adoption

     One of the most frequent fallacies occurring in pro-abortion
arguments is "the false dilemma" or the "either/or fallacy." It consists
of incorrectly reducing several options down to two. It is often joined
with the "lesser of two evils fallacy" to come up with the argument that
though abortion is not a desirable option, it is to be preferred to the
greater evil of having an unwanted or poverty-stricken or handicapped
child. Given this argument, abortion is found to be the lesser of the
evils. Other alternatives, such as adoption, are lost in the flawed
process and never considered. Adoption should be seen not only as a
viable option, but one which preserves justice, as well as the honor and
integrity of the mother.

                            Rape and Incest

     Abortions to end rape- and incest-caused pregnancies repre-
     sent a very small number of cases and should be dealt with
     separately from the broader question of legalized abortion.
     As in all issues of human need and suffering, this requires
     absolute compassion. It is a small consolation to a rape vic-
     tim who is impregnated that she represents a tiny minority.
     Her problem is real. (Sproul 1990, p. 132)

     Dr. Sproul thus expresses his compassion for a woman who finds
herself in such truly heart-rending circumstances. The moral dilemma
with respect to the child, given the intensity of the mitigating
circumstances and the complexity of the interrelated issues, would
probably propel her strongly toward abortion as a solution to her
problem. As Sproul appropriately points out, however, "to kill the
fetus, who is innocent of [any] offense, is to add insult to injury."
(Sproul 1990, p. 133) The child's right to continue living, as pointed
out earlier, is an absolute right, and must take precedence over the
mother's strong urge to seek a way out of her trauma-induced misery.

     This particular category of human tragedy evokes overwhelming
emotions about the injustice done to the victims. A fact that bears
repetition, however, is that very few abortions involve rape or incest.
A 1988 survey to determine the reasons why women seek abortions,
conducted in a facility in the North Central region of the United
States, revealed that only one of 1,900 women surveyed gave as a reason
that she was a victim of rape or incest (Torres and Forrest 1988, p.
170).

     Two factors stand out among the several explanations for the low
number of rape-related abortions. The first is that the pregnancy rate
in rape cases is lower than three percent--the approximate rate of
pregnancy in normal intercourse. Apparently the extreme trauma of the
situation tends to suppress ovulation. The second is that proper medical
treatment administered immediately following a rape is highly successful
in preventing pregnancy. A study of such medical treatment of 4,500 rape
cases over a ten-year period in a large urban area of the Midwest showed
that no pregnancies occurred.

     Another category involving very special circumstances is that of
therapeutic abortions (those done to save the life of the mother). Such
abortions are extremely rare (Sproul 1990, p. 129). I recall a talk
given by a medical doctor to students at the Newman Center when I was a
student at the University of Wisconsin. He said that never, in his
entire career as a physician (he was probably in his late fifties) had
he ever encountered a case where a decision had to be made between
saving the mother's and saving the child's life. Given the progress of
medical science during the decades since then, cases which might
occasion a therapeutic abortion are virtually nonexistent now.

     Given the rarity of therapeutic abortions, and the infrequency and
ethical complexity of rape- and incest-related abortion, these issues
should not be allowed to cloud the real issue, which is abortion for
convenience.

                        A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

     Arkes, H. 1991. Judaism and American public life: a symposium.
_First Things_, no. 11 (Mar.), pp. 31-3.

     _Boston Herald_. 1990. Study: teens oppose abortion, but want to
keep it legal. Oct. 5, p. 3.

     Demos, Rev. Dr. A. 1990. The abortion issue: another perspective.
_The Orthodox Observer_, Sept.

     _Encyclopaedia Britannica_. 1984. 15th ed., s.v. "birth control,"
vol. 2, pp. 1065-73.

     Grabbe, Protopresbyter G. 1970. Abortion: the Orthodox view. _The
True Vine_, pp. 14-16.

     Harakas, S. S. and Pehanich, E. 1986. _What the Orthodox Church
Says about Abortion_ (pamphlet). Minneapolis, Minn.: Light and Life
Publishing Company.

     Henshaw, S. K. and Silverman, J. 1988. The characteristics and
prior contraceptive use of U.S. abortion patients. _Family Planning
Perspectives_, vol. 20, no. 4 (July/Aug.), p. 158 ff.

     Henshaw, S. K. and VanVort, J. 1990. Abortion services in the
United States, 1987 and 1988. _Family Planning Perspectives_, vol. 22,
no. 3 (May/June).

     _Holy Bible_, King James version.

     _Library of Christian Classics_. 1951. Eds. Baille, J.; McNeill, J.
T.; and VanDusen, H. P. Vol. 1, _Early Christian Fathers_. Philadelphia,
Pa.: Westminster Press.

     Mathews-Roth, M. M. 1989. Letter to the _Boston Herald_, Aug. 2.
Reprinted in the _Orthodox Christian Witness_, vol. XXII, no. 49, p. 4.

     _NLRC (National Right to Life Committee) Convention Handbook_.
1989.

     Neuhaus, R. J. 1991a. When church-state conflicts aren't. _First
Things_, no. 11 (Mar.), pp. 7-9.

     ----1991b. The death watch. _First Things_, no. 11 (Mar.), p. 53.

     O'Mahoney, P. J. 1990. _A Question of Life: Its Beginning and
Transmission_. Westminster, Md.: Christian Classics, Inc.

     _Orthodox America_. 1985. Abortion: an Orthodox Christian
Perspective (pamphlet).

     _Orthodox Christians for Life_. 1989. Pamphlet, rev. 2.2.

     _The Psalter according to the Seventy_. 1974. Translated from the
Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. Boston, Mass.: Holy
Transfiguration Monastery.

     _The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church_. 1983 reprint. West
Brookfield, Mass.: The Orthodox Christian Educational Society.

     _The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English_. 1851
translation by L. C. Brenton. Zondervan Publishing House.

     Sobran, J. 1990. _Single Issues_. New York: The Human Life Press.

     Sproul, R. C. 1990. _Abortion: a Rational Look at an Emotional
Issue_. Colorado Springs, Colo.: Navpress.

     Torres, A. and Forrest, J. 1988. Why do women have abortions?
_Family Planning Perspectives_, vol. 20, no. 4 (July/Aug.).

     Vree, D. 1989. An argument for abortion. _National Catholic
Register_, June 4.

-     In creation, man was given the ability and the responsibili-
-     ty to mirror and reflect the holy character of God. Since
-     the Fall, the mirror has been splotched by the grime of sin.
-     We have lost our capacity for moral perfection, but with this
-     ethical loss, we have not lost our humanity. Man may no longer
-     be pure but he is still human . . . . We may no longer be wor-
-     thy, but we still have worth. (Sproul 1990, p. 31)

-     In this passage, Dr. Sproul's Protestant fundamentalist under-
-standing of the Fall and its effects become theologically problematical
-for Orthodox Christians. He fails to mention the regeneration brought
-about by our Saviour's economy and he fails to take into account the
-ongoing deification which can begin in this life with our spiritual
-struggle (prayer, fasting, and almsgiving). He is correct, however, in
-maintaining that we are still human and we still have worth.
    
    Regeneration brought about by Christ's economy does not preclude the
    continued existence of sin in the Christian, according to the Bible.
    He would most certainly take into account the Christian's ability by the 
    power of the indwelling Spirit to desire to become and actually become 
    more and more Christlike.

     
    jeff

    
    Great article, John.  Thanks for entering it!
    
    jeff

    In September 1993, Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse with 13
    years of experience, was assigned by her nursing agency to an abortion
    clinic.  Since Nurse Shafer considered herself "very pro-choice," she
    didn't think this assignment would be a problem.  She was wrong.  This
    is what Nurse Shafer saw:
    
    "I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a partial-birth
    abortion on a woman who was 6 months pregnant.  The baby's heartbeat
    was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen.  The doctor delivered the
    baby's body and arms, everything but his little head.  The baby's body
    was moving.  His little fingers were clasping together.  He was kicking
    his feet.  The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into
    the back of the baby's head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a
    flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he
    might fall.  Then the doctor opened the scissors up.  Then he stuck the
    high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains
    out.  Now the baby was completely limp.  I never went back to the
    clinic.  But I am still haunted by the face of that little boy.  It was
    the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen."
     
    {National Right To Life bulletin on the upcoming partial birth abortion
    veto override}