Begin a Series on the Family and the first sermon deals with "Children who will never have a home." Wednesday marks the 24th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the decision used to legalize abortion.Fearfully and Wonderfully Made
Text: Jer. 1:5
Introduction:
Begin a Series on the Family and the first sermon deals with "Children who will never have a home." Wednesday marks the 24th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the decision used to legalize abortion.
Some will object to Preaching on Issues or Politics
Need For this type of sermon
OT prophets addressed the moral issues of their day
Paul used "politics" when he appealed to Rome
This is a MORAL issue that has become a political issue.
We do not need to be involved in political issues except in cases where they are also MORAL or religious issues
This message will have some parts that will be graphic in nature
Because the salt is so concentrated, it chemically burns human tissue. The child assaulted with saline looks as though he has succumbed to an attack with napalm. Much of the outer skin has simply been burned away.
No one can imagine how excruciating the pain is. We do know that physicians recognize immediately the effect of instilling saline into the woman's gut rather than the amniotic sac. The pain is so unbearable the client may throw herself off the table. This is exactly what the unborn child does in his mother's womb. In fact the mother can feel this. One woman, who had a saline abortion, described it this way:
". . . Once they put in the saline there is no way to reverse it. And for the next hour and a half I felt my daughter thrash around violently while she was being choked, poisoned, burned, and suffocated to death. I didn't know any of that was going to happen. And I remember talking to her and I remember telling her I didn't want to do this, I wished she could live. And yet she was dying and I remember her very last kick on her left side. She had no strength left. I delivered my daughter whose name is now Charmaine Marie. She was 14 inches long. She weighed over a pound and a half. She had a head of hair and her eyes were opening."
He gives details of each of these steps. For the fifth and six steps, he explains that an assistant will use ultrasound to determine which way the baby is facing and to find his feet ("lower extremities"). Then:
The surgeon introduces a large grasping forcep, such as Bierer or Hern, through the vaginal and cervical canals into the corpus of the uterus. Based upon his knowledge of fetal orientation, he moves the tip of the instrument carefully towards the fetal lower extremities. When the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity. The surgeon then ... pulls the extremity into the vagina.
With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities.
The skull lodges at the internal cervical os. Usually there is not enough dilation for it to pass through. The fetus is oriented dorsum, or spine up.
At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left hand along the back of the fetus and "hooks" the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down). Next he slides the tip of the middle finger along the spine towards the skull while applying traction to the shoulders and lower extremities. The middle finger lifts and pushes the anterior cervical lip out of the way.
While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.
Reassessing proper placement of the closed scissors tip and safe elevation of the cervix, the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.
The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.
A partial-birth abortion involves delivering a living, late-term baby, feet first, except for the head, and then puncturing the skull with scissors and suctioning out the brain. If the child were to be pulled out 3 more inches and then stabbed in the skull with scissors, the person responsible would be charged with homicide. But this child is only four-fifths of the way born, so it's called an abortion: a parial-birth abortion.
If you did this "procedure" to a dog in Ohio, you'd be jailed for cruelty. So how can President Clinton support it? How can even the most hardened pro-abortion groups lobby for it? With a campaign of misinformation, of course.
A reprint of an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer entitled "Abortion: The Dreaded Complication," reports:
Something happens in a very small number of abortions, performed relatively late in pregnancy, that no one wants to talk about. It horrifies many of the medical personnel who have encountered it.
What happens is that about once a day somewhere in the U.S., something goes wrong and an abortion results in a live baby.
"When a crying baby emerges instead of a lifeless fetus, doctors have a problem with no easy answer." Some examples:
From conception the child is a complex, dynamic, rapidly growing organism. By a natural and continuous process the single fertilized ovum will, over approximately nine months, develop into the trillions of cells of the newborn. The natural end of the sperm and ovum is death unless fertilization occurs. At fertilization a new and unique being is created which, although receiving one-half of its chromosomes from each parent, is really unlike either.
About seven to nine days after conception, when there are already several hundred cells of the new individual formed, contact with the uterus is made and implantation begins. Blood cells begin at 17 days and a heart as early as 18 days. This embryonic heart which begins as a simple tube starts regular pulsations at 24 days, which, in about one week, smooth into a rhythmic contraction and expansion.
Straus, et al. have shown that the ECG on a 23 mm embryo (7.5 weeks) presents the existence of a functionally complete cardiac system.... All the classic elements of the adult ECG were seen....
Commencing at 18 days the developmental emphasis is on the nervous system even though other vital organs, such as the heart, are commencing development at the same time. Such early development is necessary since the nervous system integrates the action of all other systems. By the end of the 20th day the foundation of the child's brain, spinal cord and entire nervous system will have been established. By the 6th week after conception this system will have developed so well that it is controlling movements of the baby's muscles, even though the woman may not be aware that she is pregnant. By the 33rd day the cerebral cortex, that part of the central nervous system that governs motor activity as well as intellect may be seen.
The baby's eyes begin to form at 19 days. By the end of the first month the foundation of the brain, spinal cord, nerves and sense organs is completely formed. By 28 days the embryo has the building blocks for 40 pairs of muscles situated from the base of its skull to the lower end of its spinal column. By the end of the first month the child has completed the period of relatively greatest size increase and the greatest physical change of a lifetime. He or she is ten thousand times larger than the fertilized egg and will increase its weight six billion times by birth, having in only the first month gone from the one cell state to millions of cells.
By the beginning of the second month the unborn child, small as it is, looks distinctly human. Yet, by this time the child's mother is not even aware that she is pregnant.
At the end of the first month the child is about 1/4 of an inch in length. At 30 days the primary brain is present and the eyes, ears and nasal organs have started to form. Although the heart is still incomplete, it is beating regularly and pumping blood cells through a closed vascular system. The child and mother do not exchange blood, the child having from a very early point in its development its own and complete vascular system.
Earliest reflexes begin as early as the 42nd day. The male penis begins to form. The child is almost 1/2 inch long and cartilage has begun to develop.
Even at 5 1/2 weeks the fetal heartbeat is essentially similar to that of an adult in general configuration.
By the end of the seventh week we see a well proportioned small scale baby. [Emphasis added.] In its seventh week, it bears the familiar external features and all the internal organs of the adult, even though it is less than an inch long and weighs only 1/30th of an ounce. The body has become nicely rounded, padded with muscles and covered by a thin skin. The arms are only as long as printed exclamation marks, and have hands with fingers and thumbs. The slower growing legs have recognizable knees, ankles and toes.
The new body not only exists, it also functions. The brain in configuration is already like the adult brain and sends out impulses that coordinate the function of the other organs. The brainwaves have been noted at 43 days. The heart beats sturdily. The stomach produces digestive juices. The liver manufactures blood cells and the kidneys begin to function by extracting uric acid from the child's blood. The muscles of the arms and body can already be set in motion.
After the eighth week no further primordia will form; everything is already present that will be found in the full term baby.1 As one author describes this period: "A human face with eyelids half closed as they are in someone who is about to fall asleep. Hands that soon will begin to grip, feet trying their first gentle kicks."
From this point until adulthood, when full growth is achieved somewhere between 25 and 27 years, the changes in the body will be mainly in dimension and in gradual refinement of the working parts.
The development of the child, while very rapid, is also very specific. The genetic pattern set down in the first day of life instructs the development of a specific anatomy. The ears are formed by seven weeks and are specific, and may resemble a family pattern. The lines in the hands start to be engraved by eight weeks and remain a distinctive feature of the individual.
The primitive skeletal system has completely developed by the end of six weeks. This marks the end of the child's embryonic (from Greek, to swell or teem within) period. From this point, the child will be called a fetus (Latin, young one or offspring).
In the third month, the child becomes very active. By the end of the month he can kick his legs, turn his feet, curl and fan his toes, make a fist, move his thumb, bend his wrist, turn his head, squint, frown, open his mouth, press his lips tightly together. He can swallow and drinks the amniotic fluid that surrounds him. Thumb sucking is first noted at this age. The first respiratory motions move fluid in and out of his lungs with inhaling and exhaling respiratory movements.
The prerequisites for motion are muscles and nerves. In the sixth to seventh weeks, nerves and muscles work together for the first time. If the area of the lips, the first to become sensitive to touch, is gently stroked, the child responds by bending the upper body to one side and making a quick backward motion with his arms. This is called a total pattern response because it involves most of the body, rather than a local part. Localized and more appropriate reactions such as swallowing follow in the third month. By the beginning of the ninth week, the baby moves spontaneously without being touched. Sometimes his whole body swings back and forth for a few moments. By eight and a half weeks the eyelids, and the palms of the hands become sensitive to touch. If the eyelid is stroked, the child squints. On stroking the palm, the fingers close into a small fist.
In the ninth and tenth weeks, the child's activity leaps ahead. Now if the forehead is touched, he may turn his head away and pucker up his brow and frown. He now has full use of his arms and can bend the elbow and wrist independently. In the same week, the entire body becomes sensitive to touch.
The twelfth week brings a whole new range of responses. The baby can now move his thumb in opposition to his fingers. He now swallows regularly. He can pull up his upper lip; the initial step in the development of the sucking reflex. By the end of the twelfth week, the quality of muscular response is altered. It is no longer marionette-like or mechanical - the movements are now graceful and fluid, as they are in the newborn. The child is active and the reflexes are becoming more vigorous. All this is before the mother feels any movement....
Every child shows a distinct individuality in his behavior by the end of the third month. This is because the actual structure of the muscles varies from baby to baby. The alignment of the muscles of the face, for example, follow an inherited pattern.
Further refinements are noted in the third month. The fingernails appear. The child's face becomes much prettier. His eyes, previously far apart, now move closer together. The eyelids close over the eyes. Sexual differentiation is apparent in both internal and external sex organs, and primitive eggs and sperm are formed. The vocal cords are completed. In the absence of air they cannot produce sound; the child cannot cry aloud until birth although he is capable of crying long before.
The taste buds and salivary glands develop in this month, as do the digestive glands in the stomach. When the baby swallows amniotic fluid, its contents are utilized by the child. The child starts to urinate.
From the twelfth to the sixteenth week, the child grows very rapidly. His weight increases six times, and he grows to eight to ten inches in height. For this incredible growth spurt the child needs oxygen and food. This he receives from his mother through the placental attachment - much like he receives food from her after he is born. His dependence does not end with expulsion into the external environment. We now know that the placenta belongs to the baby, not the mother, as was long thought.
In the fifth month, the baby gains two inches in height and ten ounces in weight. By the end of the month he will be about one foot tall and will weigh one pound. Fine baby hair begins to grow on his eyebrows and on his head and a fringe of eyelashes appear. Most of the skeleton hardens. The baby's muscles become much stronger, and as the child becomes larger his mother finally perceives his many activities. The child's mother comes to recognize the movement and can feel the baby's head, arms and legs. She may even perceive a rhythmic jolting movement - fifteen to thirty per minute. This is due to the child hiccoughing .... The doctor can already hear the heartbeat with his stethoscope.
The baby sleeps and wakes just as it will after birth. When he sleeps he invariably settles into his favorite position called his "lie". Each baby has a characteristic lie. When he awakens he moves about freely in the buoyant fluid turning from side to side, and frequently head over heel. Sometimes his head will be up and sometimes It will be down. He may sometimes be aroused from sleep by external vibrations. He may wake up from a loud tap on the tub when his mother is taking a bath. A loud concert or the vibrations of a washing machine may also stir him into activity. The child hears . . . his mother's voice before birth.
In the sixth month, the baby will grow about two more inches, to become fourteen inches tall. He will also begin to accumulate a little fat under his skin and will increase his weight to a pound and three-quarters. This month the permanent teeth buds come in high in the gums behind the milk teeth. Now his closed eyelids will open and close, and his eyes look up, down and sideways. Dr. Liley feels that the child may perceive light through the abdominal wall. Dr. Stiff has noted that electroencephalographic waves have been obtained in forty-three to forty-five day old fetuses, and so conscious experience is possible after this date.
In the sixth month, the child develops a strong muscular grip with his hands. He also starts to breathe regularly and can maintain respiratory response for twenty-four hours if bom prematurely. He may even have a slim chance of surviving in an incubator. The youngest children known to survive were between twenty to twenty-five weeks old .2
Note especially the statement: "By the end of the seventh week we see a well-proportioned small scale baby." This is before most abortions are performed. An abortion is not simply a medical procedure performed on a woman; it involves a "well-proportioned small scale baby."
the modern science of immunology has shown us that the unborn child is not a part of a woman's body in the same sense that her kidney or her heart is. Immunologic studies have demonstrated beyond cavil that when a pregnancy implants itself into the wall of the uterus at the eighth day following conception the defense mechanisms of the body, principally the white blood cells, sense that this creature now settling down for a lengthy stay is an intruder, an alien, and must be expelled. Therefore an intense immunological attack is mounted on the pregnancy by the white blood cell elements, and through an ingenious and extraordinarily efficient defense system the unborn child succeeds in repelling the attack. In ten percent or so of cases the defensive system fails and the pregnancy is lost as a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage.
"An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it." (Of course they weren't pro-abortion back then ...1967)
Randall Terry: "It's not a frog or a ferret that's being killed. It's a baby."
Faye Wattleton: "I a fully aware of that. I am fully aware of that."
First Month
conception: all human characteristics are present
heart muscle pulsates at three weeks
head, arms, and legs begin to appear
Second Month
brain waves can be detected (40-42 days)
nose, eyes, ears, and toes appear
heart beats and blood (her own type) flows
skeleton develops
unique fingerprints
sensitive to touch on lips and has reflexes
all bodily systems are present and functioning
Third Month
swallows, squints, and swims
grasps with hands, moves tongue
sucks thumb
feels organic pain (8 to 13 weeks)
Fourth Month
weight increases six times
grows up to eight to ten inches long
hears her mother's voice
Fifth Month (Viability)
skin, hair, and nails develop
dreams
can cry if air is present
can live outside the womb
OBJECTION: The fetus is part of the mother’s body and her right to privacy allows her to do with her body what she wants.
ANSWER: To begin, as we have shown, the baby is not part of her body. As Dr. Bernard Nathanson says, "the modern science of immunology has shown us that the unborn child is not a part of a woman's body in the same sense that her kidney or her heart is." From the moment of conception the baby is a unique individual, a separate person.
Second, a woman’s right to privacy is not greater than the child’s right to life. Since the child’s right to life supersedes her right to privacy, then it is wrong to kill the child. Everyone has certain rights. There are times, however, when rights clash. For example, a conflict occurs between my right to privacy and the public’s right to safety when I am being asked to submit to a drug test in order to get a job as a city bus driver. In this instance, one right has to take precedence over another right.
This situation occurs in pregnancy. There is a conflict between the woman’s right to do with her body as she chooses, and the child’s right to life. In this case, the "greater" right takes precedence over the "lesser" right. It is obvious that the right to life is greater than the right to choose.
If you doubt this, then consider the following. If my right to choose is greater than your right to life, then I can go ahead and kill those whom I choose to kill. The reason that I can’t is that their right to life is more important than my right to choose. For example, I am free to choose to do anything that I want with my fist as long as it does not infringe on your right. My right to do as I please with my fist ends where your nose begins. I cannot punch your nose without some other justifiable reason giving my right to use my fist priority over your right to live a peaceable life.
Third, what about the child's right over his body? If there is a right over one's body, then two very significant features pertain to it. One, it is a right everyone has; and two, it includes the right not to have one's body destroyed (e.g., by dismemberment), the right not to be killed. On both these counts, the appeal to a woman's right over her body as a justification for abortion backfires, and provides an argument against abortion. Thus if a woman has a right over her body, then the child has that right too. "For after all the child's body is the child's body, not the woman's.... The child, like his mother, has a ‘just prior claim to his own body,’ and abortion involves laying hands on, manipulating, that body."
Someone has said that "if the media were to show aborted children every evening for two weeks, legal abortion would be finished."
OBJECTION: The fetus is only a potential person and therefore does not have the rights that a person has.
ANSWER: Those who object on grounds of potentiality usually proffer one of the following four arguments to show that the fetus is only potentially human and not fully human. It should be noted that not one of these has any MORAL significance. I will deal with each argument.
Some have argued that the child is not a person because of his smaller size. This is absurd. Is a 300 lb. football player more of a person than a diminutive ballerina? Of course not! Size has nothing to do with being human. The fact that the pre-born baby is only a few pounds or ounces has no bearing on whether it is a person or not. In fact, because it is so helpless, we should feel obligated to help it!
Some have argued that because the fetus’ level of development is not advanced enough, that it is not yet human. Again, what difference does it make how developed the baby is? My two year old is not as developed as I am, but this does not make her a non-person. As one person stated, "It is false that the being in the womb is merely a potential person. He is not a potential person, but an actual person, a fully real person, the same person he will later be. He is only smaller, less developed, in a different environment, and more dependent, in comparison to a born baby. Just as the small born baby is not a potential person but an actual person, so too is the preborn baby, who is simply a baby at an earlier phase of development. Both the postborn baby and the preborn baby are persons with potential, which is true of older children, and to a large extent, of all adults. We are actual beings with varying potentials for growth and development (italics mine). In short, the child in the womb has potential, but he is an actual person, just like the rest of us."
Third, they may want to deny his personhood because he lives in a different environment. Again, what difference does environment make? What about a baby who needs the incubator to survive the first few months?
Finally, some have suggested that the fetus’ dependency on his mother make him only potentially human. Again, what relevance does that have to whether or not someone is a person. We are all dependent in some way or another. A new born is totally dependent on others. Should we kill them? If I am in an accident and incapacitated, I will be dependent on others. Are you going to kill me? (Some would suggest doing just that to relieve society of the burden)
Just because a fetus cannot be seen, is less developed, is smaller, and is dependent does not make it only a potential human being. There is a difference between functioning as a person and being a person. The child in the womb has the potential capacity to function fully as a person, but in terms of being, the preborn is an actual person. The greater the level of development, the greater the capacity to function as a person. Level of development is relevant only to functioning as a person not to being a person.
It is a person from the moment of conception. We will deal with this more in the next objection.
OBJECTION: The fetus is not human in the fullest sense because it does not have personality. Only those who are "persons" have a right to life.
ANSWER: Again, this is a confusion on the difference between being a person and operating as a person. In an argument for this theory, Mary Ann Warren examines "the traditional argument that since (1) it is wrong to kill innocent human beings, and (2) fetuses are innocent human beings, then (3) it is wrong to kill fetuses." This argument, she claims, is "fallacious," because "the term ‘human’ has two distinct, but not often distinguished, senses." She goes on to state, "Yes, a fetus is biologically human (human in the genetic sense), but that does not make it the kind of being who has a right to life. It is only persons (those who are human in the moral sense) who have such a right. It is wrong to kill persons, and if a human being is not also a person he does not have a right to life, and it is, or often can be, morally right to destroy him."
She then gives five criteria for being "morally" human: consciousness, reasoning, self-motivation, ability to communicate, self-awareness. It should be noted, that under this definition, BORN babies are not yet persons. Therefore, not only would abortion be justified, but so would infanticide. That is precisely why some have advocated infanticide.
For example, she says, "Killing a newborn infant isn't murder." Infanticide is wrong, according to Warren, only to the extent that the child is wanted, that there are couples who would like to adopt or keep him. "Thus, infanticide is wrong for reasons analogous to those which make it wrong to wantonly destroy natural resources, or great works of art."
Joseph Fletcher, the father of Situational Ethics said, "I would support the ... position ... that both abortion and infanticide can be justified if and when the good to be gained outweighs the evil - that neither abortion nor infanticide is as such immoral."
Michael Tooley has an essay entitled, "A Defense of Abortion and Infanticide." If the idea that killing babies is morally right is shocking to most people, Tooley replies in his essay that this is merely an emotional response, not a reasoned one. "The response, rather than appealing to carefully formulated moral principles, is primarily visceral," he says. And, "It is reasonable to suspect that one is dealing with a taboo rather than with a rational prohibition." His position is: "Since I do not believe human infants are persons. but only potential persons, and since I think that the destruction of potential persons is a morally neutral action, the correct conclusion seems to me to be that infanticide is in itself morally acceptable."
The truth is, there is a difference between personality and personhood. As Geisler states, "Arguing that the unborn are only potential persons because personality develops is a confusion of personality and personhood. Personality is a psychological concept; personhood is an ontological category." A person becomes a person at conception. In the words of Joyce, "a one celled person at conception is not a potential person, but an actual person with great potential for development and self-expression. That single-celled individual is just as actually a person as you and I."
The normal person deserves our reverence, our respect for his dignity, not because he is normal, not because of actual or potential achievements in functioning as a person, but simply because he is a person. And the non-normal person is equally a person, and deserves equal reverence. If you were to become a victim of a disease or accident that left you severely retarded, incapacitated, you would want your dignity respected just as before. You would still be yourself, the same person, hence a person, hence a being with the dignity of a person. Exactly the same applies to the severely retarded child, and to the preborn child, who is in many respects similar in his capabilities.
Consider the following:
In a 1973 issue of Newsweek magazine, the medical section carried an article entitled "Shall This Child Die?" It reported on the work of Drs. Raymond S. Duff and A. G. M. Campbell at the Yale-New Haven Hospital. These men permit babies born with birth defects to die by deliberately withholding vital medical treatments. The doctors are convincing the parents that these children would be a financial burden and that they had "little or no hope of achieving meaningful 'humanhood.’" The doctors understood that they were breaking the law by doing away with what they called "vegetables," but they believed the law should be changed to allow for such deaths.
Sondra Diamond, who is in private practice as a counseling psychologist and is currently completing her doctoral work, responded to the article in a letter to the editor of Newsweek...
"I'll wager . . . that you have never received a letter from a vegetable before this one, but much as I resent the term, I must confess that I fit the description of a 'vegetable' as defined in the article, ‘Shall This Child Die?'
Due to severe brain damage incurred at birth, I am unable to dress myself, toilet myself, or write: my secretary is typing this letter. Many thousands of dollars had to be spent on my rehabilitation and education in order for me to reach my present professional status as a counseling psychologist. My parents were also told, 35 years ago, that there was 'little or no hope of achieving meaningful humanhood' for their daughter. Have I reached 'humanhood'? Compared with Drs. Duff and Campbell I believe I have surpassed it!"21
OBJECTION: Late-term abortions are done rarely and only to save the life of the mother.
ANSWER: They are done more often than reported and rarely to save the mother’s life. In fact, most are elective abortions. Dr. James MeMahon, a proponent of the partial-birth abortion procedure said, "The Guttmacher Institute [an arm of Planned Parenthood] and the CDC estimate only about 100 3rd trimester abortions are done in the United States per year. In 1991, we performed 65. All 3rd trimester abortions are, of course, non-elective." If he did 65, then can we really believe that only 35 were done elsewhere. His rational behind for performing late term abortions is that the later you perform the abortion, the more time the fetus has to develop. This gives the parents longer to decide and more information as to whether the child is "deformed" or not. The reasoning being that the parents would elect to terminate a deformed child.
Next, consider the testimony of the man who "invented" the partial-birth abortion technique. "The author routinely performs this procedure on all patients 20 through 24 weeks LMP with certain exceptions. The author performs the procedure on selected patients 25 through 26 weeks LMP." (LMP means "since last menstrual period".) How many is this? "The author has performed over 700 of these procedures with a low rate of complications." This paper was written in 1992, so he’s probably done more since then.
So, is 26 weeks the latest this is done? Perhaps the inventor does not commit any abortions later than that, but he notes in a section entitled "Third Trimester:" "The author is aware of one other surgeon who uses a conceptually similar technique. He adds additional changes of Dilapan and/or lamineria in the 48 hour dilation period. Coupled with other refinements and a slower operating time, he performs these procedures up to 32 weeks or more."
Consider the following facts taken from John Wilkey of Ohio Right to Life. "First, the National Abortion Federation claimed the procedure didn't exist. Oops. The federation must have forgotten that this was featured at its own convention in 1992 by an Ohio abortionist who presented a written report. Once the child is delivered to the neck he said, ‘the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon ... introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents.’"
Darned NAF report.
Then the NAF, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, and Planned Parenthood claimed that such procedures were "so rare, they are almost never done."
Oops. The Ohio abortionist himself admitted to performing more than 1,000 of them in this state alone. And then The Record of Hackensack N.J., reported that a single clinic in that state performed 1,500 partial-birth abortions in one year alone -- three times as many as the NAF had said occur annually nationwide.
Then the infamous Ohio abortionist said, "They're done for medical necessity." He must have forgotten about his interview with the American Medical News in July 1993, in which he said, "80 percent are purely elective."
He denied saying it, insisting he'd been misquoted -- until the American Medical News informed him that the interview had been taped. Darned tape recorders.
What of those who keep screaming about "partial-birth abortions to save the life of the mother?" That exception is already in the bill, and they know it.
What about the "health of the mother" argument? Health, as the courts define it in the context of abortion, means virtually anything that has to do with a woman's overall "well-being." This includes such reasons as a woman's being "too young," "emotionally upset by pregnancy" or "unmarried." More than 300 doctors, including former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, have joined to state the medical fact that "partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect the health of a woman or her future fertility." The pro-abortion gang even tried to claim that the child was killed by the anesthesia, until the American Society of Anesthesiologists called them on that one, too. Darned experts.
NOTE: How does it save the life of the mother to deliver the baby part way and then kill it? It would seem that once you have delivered all of the baby but the head, removing the head is not going to cause any more harm to the mother than ha already been done!
Finally, the defenders of partial-birth abortion tried to discredit Brenda Pratt Shafer, a nurse who assisted with the procedure and told Congress what she witnessed. They said Shafer never worked for the Ohio abortionist -- until she delivered the canceled check and pay stub. Oops. (See a trend?)
If people are so extreme as to lobby for a procedure that most closely resembles infanticide -- a procedure appropriately referred to as a crime against humanity -- what makes us think they are not going to lie?
Shafer testified to law makers: "The baby's body was moving -- his little fingers 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 startled reaction, as a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor opened the scissors up ... and sucked the baby's brains out. I am still haunted by the face of that little boy. It was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen."
As Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill) put it on the House floor, "People who say, 'I feel your pain,' can't be referring to that little infant."
OBJECTION: No one can be sure when life begins
ANSWER: For the sake of argument, let's grant that there is really doubt about when human life begins. Let's accept for the moment the idea that we don't know for sure whether abortion is killing a person or not. How should we respond in cases of such uncertainty?
Suppose a hunter in the woods sees a rustling in the bushes, but he can't see what's there. He doesn't know if it's the deer he's hunting for, or another hunter. Should he go ahead and shoot? After all, he can't be sure it's a person, so if he does shoot and kill someone, it's unintentional. Surely we would say that anyone who did such a thing was grossly irresponsible if not guilty of a criminal act.
When in doubt, we must err on the side of protecting human life.
OBJECTION: It is a personal decision. Each person must decide for themselves. You cannot legislate morality.
ANSWER: Those who use this argument have switched the issue from whether abortion is right or wrong, to the question, "Who decides if it is right or wrong?" They will give nice speeches extolling personal freedoms and liberty. Then they will say, "If you’re opposed to abortion, then don’t get one, but don’t try to impose your morality on others."
This brings us to a question that is fundamental to our society. Where do our norms come from. Does everyone get to choose for himself or herself what is right or wrong? Or are there values, principles, laws that go beyond ourselves?
Let's try this thinking out on other issues. Suppose someone in 1850 said, "The question is not whether slavery is right or wrong, but, Who decides? The individual plantation owner, or the government? If you're opposed to slavery, then don't buy any slaves, but don't try to impose your morality on others. Slavery is a personal choice between a man and his slave-dealer." (By the way, this is exactly the argument that some supporters of slavery made.)
Or how about this: "The question is not whether rape is right or wrong, but, Who decides? The individual man, or the government? If you're opposed to rape, than don't rape anybody, but don't try to impose your morality on others. Rape is a personal choice between a man and his sex therapist."
Let’s let each mother decide if she wants to have a chainsaw massacre of her born kids. That type of death would be the equivalent of an abortion.
Americans have a great tradition of individual freedom. But there's an old saying: "You have the freedom to swing your arm back and forth all you like, but your freedom ends where my nose begins." Freedom does not include the right to deliberately harm innocent people. We do not allow each man to decide for himself whether he thinks rape is acceptable, because the woman he might choose to rape has rights too. Likewise, we should not allow each woman to decide for herself whether abortion is acceptable, because the child she might choose to abort has rights too.
OBJECTION: If you force her to have a baby, then you will be ruining her future. No unwanted child should be brought into this world.
ANSWER: This is the quality of life concept that abortionists like to use. It has many forms. Abortion is legitimate in order to protect the mother’s quality of life, or the family’s quality of life, or society’s quality of life (too great a financial burden), or the child’s quality of life. Kathy Spillar states, "What is at issue for women who have abortions is the quality of their lives. They are deciding how many children they will have, and how quickly after one child they will have another. They consider the financial support that they can provide. They weigh the risks to their health and life." She is promoting the idea that the woman’s quality of life is more important than the child’s right to life. Taken to its logical extreme, this means that I can kill my 7 year old child if at some point in time it interferes or adversely affects my quality of life.
For example, I have had the opportunity to talk with a couple of woman who were considering having an abortion. Usually they were being pressured into it because of a boyfriend, parents, or finances. If the woman already has kids I usually ask the facetious question, "Why not go ahead and kill your three year old and keep the baby?" She usually responds, "I could never kill my child." "Don’t you understand that you are considering killing a child in you?" They usually get the point.
Furthermore, I suggest that they bring to me their three year old. I will then take their three year old into another room and dismember it with a chainsaw, dispose of the body parts, and make it so that no one will ever question her on the disappearance of her child. Only she will know (or a few close friends). Of course, this is unspeakable. Yet it is analogous to an abortion. The baby is dismembered, disposed of, and no one says anything, and the only ones who know are the mother, the abortionist, and a few close friends. (This, by the way, does not remove or relieve guilt)
Barbara Bergmann is another example of this viewpoint. She writes, "My mother’s abortions (she had three) were performed half a century ago. Today’s abortions are very different, virtually painless and posing minimal risk. However, the reasons women choose abortion have not changed. It is still an operation that a woman chooses if she believes that it will improve her life.
"There is no doubt in my mind that those abortions did improve my mother’s life, and that the millions of abortions every year to married and unmarried women do improve the lives of those people in their own eyes."
Notice three problems with this. First, is it legitimate to improve my life at the expense of another? Or, put more forcefully, Can I improve my well being by killing another person? Again, can I kill my seven-year-old in order to improve my life? No, because he is a life protected by law. Now, if the fetus is a life, and science says it is, then it should be granted the same protections as the seven-year-old. If the fetus is a life, then killing it would be equivalent to killing any born life.
Second, I wonder how Barbara would have felt if she were the one aborted instead of her three siblings? Of course, we will never know. As Ronald Reagan said, "The only one’s who can argue for abortion are those who are have already been born!"
Third, notice the last phrase "improve the lives of those people in their own eyes." Does this mean that I am free to do whatever is right in my own eyes? Can I kill whenever it suits my purposes? Can I at any time do whatever is right in my own eyes? There are limits to this. I can’t do what is right in my own eyes if it involves breaking the law. Hitler, during the holocaust, was only doing what was right in his own eyes. Of course, the rest of the world looks back and condemns the holocaust. A woman, in her own eyes, may feel that there is nothing wrong with abortion. This, in itself, however, does not make it right. Just because she feels it is right does not make it right. Just because a child is unwanted by the mother does not make it completely unwanted. There are enough couples wanting to adopt to handle all of the aborted children. Taken to its logical conclusion, the argument of the unwanted child would lead to infanticide. what if, after having my child, I decide that I do not want it? Can I kill it then? No. I can give it up for adoption though.
Another consideration here also is that many "unwanted" pregnancies become "wanted" pregnancies once the mother realizes that the "thing" inside her is a child and not just some unwanted tissue interfering with her life. How many fretful women, upon seeing and holding the child, have changed their minds? Maternal instinct is a powerful force. Of course, we have many that are "without natural affection."
OBJECTION: Pro-lifers are hypocritical because they support the death penalty
ANSWER: To begin, this is a smoke screen argument. Capital punishment is a separate issue. Even if pro-lifers are hypocrites (which I do not think they are) on capital punishment, it does not mean their arguments about abortion are wrong.
Second, not all pro-lifers support capital punishment. But for arguments’ sake, let's take this objection at face value. "Abortion is killing of an innocent baby because his existence causes social problems to someone else. Capital punishment is killing a person who has been convicted of a serious crime, usually murder. There is a vast difference between killing an innocent person for one's personal convenience, and killing a guilty person as punishment for his crimes, or to deter others who might consider committing similar crimes.
Surely the far more puzzling case is those who support abortion but oppose capital punishment. Apparently they believe that it is acceptable to kill innocent babies, but murderers should be protected."
OBJECTION: Abortion is a complicated issue and the country is so divided over it that we should let everyone decide for themselves
ANSWER: Consider the following survey results.
Abortion should never be legal ........................ 9%
Abortion should be legal only when the life of the
mother is in danger ................................... 13%
Abortion should be legal only when the life of the
mother is in danger or in cases of rape and incest .... 21%
Abortion should be legal only when the life or physical
health of the mother is in danger, or in cases of rape,
incest, or fetal deformity ............................ 25%
Abortion should be legal for any reason during the first
three months of pregnancy ............................. 21%
Abortion should be legal for any reason during the first
six months of pregnancy ............................... 2%
Abortion should be legal for any reason at any time
during pregnancy ...................................... 8%
Don't know or refused to answer ....................... 1%
The country is not divided, it is pro-life. The country is not informed, however, or we would be even more pro-life. If the media would show an abortion during prime-time every night for two weeks, we’d come close to ending abortion in America.
OBJECTION: It is estimated that one-half of all pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion anyway. Why should we be so concerned about a few more chosen abortions?
ANSWER: This just circumvents the question of whether or not the fetus is a life. If it is a life, then it is wrong to willfully kill it. We are not morally responsible for spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) just as we are not morally responsible for deaths that are the result of other natural causes. Using this logic, it would be legitimate to kill cancer patients because some cancer patients die naturally from the cancer. There is a difference between death by natural causes and death by willful premeditation.
The fact that many pregnancies end in miscarriages does not justify killing a percentage of those which do not end in a miscarriage.
OBJECTION: Abortion should be allowed if the life of the mother is at stake.
ANSWER: Most everyone, including pro-lifers, agree with this statement. Only about 8% of the population think that abortion would be wrong under any circumstance.
The reason that I mention this as an objection is that many abortionists try to deflect the abortion argument away from the issue of life by focusing on the very few abortions in which the life of the mother is at stake. The truth is, the life of the mother is at stake in less than 1% of all abortions. The most common instances in which this is the case are tubal pregnancies and when a child is too young to give birth.
If the mother’s physical life is at stake, then the concept of self-defense allows us to defend our life. Realize, this situation is different from a normal abortion. In normal abortions, you are dealing with life vs. choice. In the case of the mother’s life being at stake, you are dealing with a life vs. life situation. There is a huge difference between the two.
OBJECTION: The developing fetus is not a child because during development it does not have all of the characteristics of a person. In fact, the developing fetus resembles animal development in its early stages. For example, in the early development the heart is two-chambered like a fish. Brain hemisphere development reaches "reptile-grade" during the fourth month and mammalian-grade during the sixth month. After five weeks there is a prominent yolk-sac visible, as if the embryo were that of a reptile developing. In the neck region there are prominent gill-clefts.
ANSWER: I am amazed that this argument is still used. For the uninitiated, this argument draws its information from the now discarded evolutionary theory of recapitulation. Evolutionists used to posit that the development of the human embryo went through stages resembling its evolutionary advances. Thus, it went through a reptilian stage, and amphibian stage, and a mammalian stage. This theory was called recapitulation.
No evolutionist, let alone a creationist, believes in recapitulation. It is a theory that has long been discarded by evolutionists because it was found to be totally false. The fetus is completely human from its conception. It does not have gills, a reptilian brain, or a fish heart. The resemblance is just that, only one of resemblance, but not one of essence. Some people’s facial features resemble bull-dogs, but that does not make them a bull-dog. They are still human. A developing fetus may resemble some animal in some aspects, but it is not that animal.
OBJECTION: Many teenage girls are too young to care for the baby. They do not have the financial resources, they probably are not married, and it will ruin, or at least place a big handicap, or the quality of their future. Therefore, abortion is the best alternative.
ANSWER: This is the quality of life argument couched in a heart-wrenching situation. The problems mentioned are very real. The answer, however, is not to kill an innocent baby. It is not the baby's fault that the girl is in this circumstance. The answer is to have her give the baby up for adoption. This gives that baby a chance to live in a good home where it will be cared for.
Suppose, for example, that a 17 year old has a baby and then realizes that she is unable to care for the child. She is unmarried, has no job, and can’t go to school because of caring for the child. Is the answer to kill this baby? No! The same is true of the unborn child. If it is a life, then it should not be killed.
OBJECTION: What about rape or incest?
ANSWER: This is another smoke screen used to get the argument away from the real issue. Two wrongs do not make a right. The truth is, most cases of rape and incest do not end up in pregnancies. Less than 2% of all abortions are for this reason. But if a person is pregnant from such a tragic incidence, it would be worse to add to this tragedy by killing the baby. Killing an innocent baby does not atone for the wrong done.
Also, let’s grant this exception, we could still stop over 98% of all abortions! But, like I said, this is just a smoke screen because pro-choice people would allow abortions only for rape and incest. This shows where there heart really is on the matter!
OBJECTION: Abortion is safer than childbirth
ANSWER: The truth is, abortion is not safer than child-birth, especially if done in the later stages of pregnancy. Abortion in the later stages is much more life threatening than actually giving birth. Also, one factor often neglected in this argument is not only death rates, but consequences after an abortion that do not lead to death. After abortion, a woman has a greater possibility of being sterile, needing a hysterectomy, and a host of other "women’s" medical problems.
In addition, it must be stressed that the popular assumption that legal abortions are safe (for the woman; they are obviously deadly for the child) while illegal abortions are dangerous does not stand up against the facts. Legal abortions kill women! Reardon reports that "though the odds of any particular woman suffering ill effects from an abortion have dropped, the total number of women who suffer and die from abortion is far greater than ever before." The myth of safe legal abortion persists largely because "the reported rate of deaths due to legal abortion is being deliberately kept low through selective underreporting."
Besides, abortion is not safer for the baby. It always dies!
OBJECTION: Identical twins show that life does not begin at conception because the "second" person did not come into being until a few days after conception when the zygote divided at segmentation. According to pro-lifers, this zygote was already a life before division into twins and it couldn’t have been two people at that time. Thus, life must begin sometime after conception, not at conception.
ANSWER: Even if we granted them their argument, life would still begin just a few days after conception, thus practically eliminating all abortions anyway.
However, we do not need to grant them their argument. The making of an identical twin is actually a non-sexual way of reproducing. Both fetuses still have their own genetic code and are distinctly their own persons. Also, it could be argued that they were two joined individuals who separated at segmentation. For example, Siamese twins are examples of two individual who did not completely separate.
OBJECTION: The fetus is not a life because it does not have self-consciousness.
ANSWER: NONE of us have self-consciousness when we are not awake and not in REM sleep. Thus, following the above logic, I could kill someone who is sleeping but not in REM sleep because they are not self-conscious at that moment.
OBJECTION: If an intruder came into my home, hooked himself up to me so that he was dependent upon me, then I have the right to disconnect myself even if it means the death of that person.
ANSWER: This is probably the most effective argument pro-choice people use. Yet the argument is really comparing apples to oranges. To begin, the baby is not an intruder. He is exactly where he is supposed to be. The woman willingly opened up her "home" when she consented to sexual intercourse. It is kind of like a business making a free offer that they really don’t expect anyone to take them up on. However, if someone does, the business must honor the agreement. So, too, the woman may not have expected to get a "guest" but she must honor the agreement once it has been taken.
Second, the argument presupposes that there are no other options. What if the argument was worded this way, "I found an intruder hooked up to me so that he was dependent on me for 2 weeks or for 9 months? Afterward I would be free to disconnect him." When you add this option, you change the force of the argument. Civil duty and love for my fellow man might cause me to sacrifice for awhile in order to insure his well-being. The baby, given a little time, will be disconnected and can then be adopted.
When defending your case before unbelievers save the Biblical arguments for last. The reason is twofold. First, many that you are trying to persuade do not hold to a biblical worldview. Therefore, they will not attach any weight to your biblical arguments. In fact, to these people, biblical arguments seem ridiculous. They look at religion as crutch for the weak or an illusion of the simple minded. So, it is best to save the biblical arguments for a Christian audience.
Be sure your statistics are correct and portray the information that you are setting out to do. Mark Twain was quoted as saying "There are truths, there are lies, and then there are statistics."
Begin with the scientific arguments. In our culture, though science is slowly being dethroned as deity, it is still the predominant way of thinking among the intellectual elite.
Use vivid stories that get your point across. A picture is worth a thousand words and an emotional story is worth a book of statistics. Jesus taught in parables because of the impact that stories have on us. Personally, the ideal way to treat a subject would be to give a story, some facts with stories mixed in, and then conclude with a story.
Keep a good disposition. We will not persuade people to accept our position by having a sour disposition. We will not defeat their intolerance and invective by using our own brand invective. Overcome evil with good.
Understand the semantic war (pro vs. Anti; fertilized egg vs. Individual)
Don't get caught up in the semantic debate. Proponents of abortion have tried to frame the argument so that the terms used are in their favor. They label themselves as "pro-choice" which sounds positive. It is always better to be for something, than to be against something. They label "pro-lifers" as anti-choice or anti-abortion. This give the negative designation to pro-lifers which puts you at a semantic disadvantage.
Discussions of these matters often use the term fertilized egg or fertilized ovum. This is a serious mistake, for the result of conception is not a certain kind of egg, namely a fertilized egg, but a new human person. After fertilization, the egg no longer exists, and is therefore not a kind of egg at all. To speak of unfertilized eggs and fertilized eggs is to suggest that there are two kinds of eggs, as there are, for example, two kinds of tomatoes, unripe and ripe.
Have sympathy and compassion for those who have had or are contemplating an abortion. Reardon emphasizes this fact again and again: "As we have seen in story after story, women choose abortion because they feel there is "no other option." They abort because it is the "easy way out." They abort because they feel abandoned by their lovers, friends, and families. Without the support to do the right thing, they yield to doing the "easy thing." In today's society, it does not take courage to abort: it takes courage to stand up against all the pressures and inconveniences which push towards abortion.
Remember, women are the second casualties of abortion
Volunteer at a local crisis pregnancy center
Donate items to these centers
Be open to adoption
Vote only for pro-life candidates
Sue abortionists for medical problems, raise their insurance rates and make it impossible for them to practice
Share information with as many people as possible
Hand out literature