Sanctity even in the quality of human life?

On the third Sunday in January, churches throughout the nation observe “Sanctity of Human Life Sunday.” They do this partly as a protest against the 1973 Supreme Court decision (Roe vs. Wade) which legalized abortion on demand. Thirty-five years and some fifty million aborted babies later concerned citizens continue to oppose the bloodshed. If you oppose the war in Iraq consider that since its beginning more than 6 million American children have died from abortion 

More importantly however, participating churches are positively endorsing the sanctity of human life. Recognizing that God has made man in His own image (Gen. 9:6), they take seriously the words of our Declaration of Independence, “… all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” 

This position assumes the life of the fetus is more than a “product” of conception. The occupant of the mother’s womb is a human life with the potential of becoming a mature human being.  In a decision for abortion, a woman does not only choose to terminate her pregnancy; she equally chooses to terminate the life of her baby.  The historic Christian position says, “induced abortion is feticide — the deliberate destruction of an unborn child — the shedding of innocent blood.” (John R.W. Stott) 

Abortion advocates will sometimes say that the issue in abortion is not always the sanctity of life but the quality of it. Severely handicapped persons, it is argued, will not have a life worth living.  On this basis, detection of abnormalities in the fetus (through procedures like amniocentesis) often leads to abortion. Why? Because it is concluded, as one handicapped person said, “that certain people are better off dead, and may therefore be killed for their own good.” 

Obviously, there are great dangers in this line of reasoning. Leading Christian ethicist, John Feinberg suggested that, “A utopian society is a tricky one. It immediately raises the question, whose utopia? One must be careful not to ticket oneself for termination in the process.” One must also call to mind the ominous historical familiarity — to attempts such as those of Hitler’s Third Reich. 

Feinberg goes on to offer a sober warning: “While methods for detecting disabilities in unborn infants are constantly improving, there are still cases of false positives and false negatives. The former leads to the abortion of perfectly healthy infants, while the latter raise the question as to whether those who escape detection pre-natally ought to be euthanized post-natally. After all, if expectant parents tried to determine whether their unborn child had some handicap and the tests failed to reveal the difficulty, why should they be burdened with a child they did not want?” 

Unfortunately, those who support eliminating the handicapped will carelessly appeal to rare exceptions. They say, “what about the anencephalic baby (one born without a brain)?” “What about people unable to live independently of artificial life support?” These rare exceptions must be handled with great care, but they must not be used as a basis for removing the rule forbidding man to determine whose life is or is not worth living. 

“Society in general and family and friends in particular must deal compassionately with any parent called upon to take up the added burden of caring for a handicapped child.”  “…many testify that just such a child has been an incredible blessing, even drawing the family closer together and to the Lord” (Feinberg).  

In a dialogue between God and Moses, the Lord clearly teaches that His authority extends to the quality of life. God said: “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind?  Is it not I, the Lord?”  (Ex. 4:11; cf John 9:1-3). Evidently there is sanctity in the quality of human life. 

Steve Cornell          

Abortion talk: A false dilemma exposed

A false dilemma lies at the heart of abortion talk. It goes like this: Oppose abortion and you side with politics; support abortion and you side with the health and safety of women. Is it possible that the exact opposite of this is true? Perhaps those who oppose abortion side with the health and safety of women. What do the facts substantiate?  

The medical effects of abortion and post-abortion stress disorder clearly indicate that abortion is rarely a good health decision for a woman. In a congressional hearing on the impact of abortion, psychologist Wanda Franz stated, “Women who report negative after-effects from abortion know exactly what their problem is. They report horrible nightmares of children calling them from trash cans, of body parts, and blood. When they are reminded of the abortion, the women re-experienced it with terrible psychological pain … They feel worthless and victimized because they failed at the most natural of human activities — the role of being a mother.”  

Many women battle long term emotional and psychological damage because of profound regret about their abortion. Abortion proponents, who attribute these effects to induced guilt from religion and pro-life activists, trivialize the actual trauma these women endure. As a result, it is not surprising that the greatest measures of support for women facing post-abortion stress disorder comes from pro-life ministries. These ministries treat seriously the feelings of women rather than trivializing them.  

How long will we be duped by politically motivated deceptions? Defending abortion is not about protecting a women’s health. Should it bother us when an organization like Planned Parenthood (while prospering on the abortion industry) intentionally deceives people about the traumatic effects of abortion? The irrefutable fact is that abortion, as a procedure, and in its after effects, is not about the health and safety of women. It’s more about a culture of convenience, self-absorption and money.  

It’s frightening that a person’s “being wanted or planned” is the criterion of her right to life. Yet here is another source of blatant deception. Is the life of the fetus no more than a product of conception? When a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy is she actually terminating the life of her baby? Why do we have laws related to fetal homicide? Why do Doctor’s perform fetal surgery on a baby in the womb? Consider the following facts: 

“Scientifically we are human beings by virtue of our genetic makeup. The human code in the chromosomes is there from the start. We are utterly different from monkeys or rats or elephants as soon as the chromosomes of egg and sperm meet.”

“At eight weeks, all the organs are present - brain functioning, heart pumping, liver making blood cells, kidney cleaning the fluids, fingerprints formed, etc. Yet almost all abortions happen later than this date.”

“Ultrasound has given a stunning window on the womb that shows the unborn at eight weeks sucking a thumb, recoiling from pricking, responding to sound. We can see the amazing pictures in Life Magazine or various books or Web pages.”

“There is a principle of justice that, when two legitimate rights conflict - say the woman’s right not to be pregnant, and the baby’s right not to be killed - the right that should be limited is the one that would do the most harm.” (Above facts from John Piper)

We must enact laws that would compassionately protect both the women facing unplanned pregnancies and their babies. But, until we accept the truth that induced abortion is both detrimental to the physical, emotional and psychological health of women and the deliberate destruction of an unborn child, such laws will be considered extremist.   

Steven W. Cornell

Senior Pastor

Millersville Bible Church

58 West Frederick Street

Millersville, PA. 17551

s.cornell@millersvillebiblechurch.org,

Further evidence and research, contact me for an additional resource.