History was one of my favorite subjects in College.  The famous quote from the Spanish Philosopher George Santayana, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” is one of my favorite historical quotes because it is valid not only for world history but also our own personal history.  I mention this because it is very appropriate when it comes to the history and popularity of abortion in our culture. There are 1.5 million average abortions per year in the United States. 

Abortion has strong historical ties to the Eugenics movement of the late 19^th and early 20^th Century.   Eugenics, Greek for “good birth,” is the study of methods to improve the human race by controlling reproduction.  Eugenics was a popular movement in the United States and Europe.  Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, coined “Eugenics” in 1883.  Galton developed Eugenics, based on the works of Charles Darwin, and specifically, “The Ascent of Man,” according to the new book “Darwin Day in America” by Dr. John G. West.  In “The Ascent of Man,” Darwin clearly reveals, in no uncertain terms, that evolution, acting on natural selection and “survival of the fittest,” meant that not all humans were equal.  The fact the Eugenics was developed after these works were published, and their almost universal acceptance, is no coincidence.  Eugenics was so popular in the United States from the 1890s to 1945 that most states had Eugenics laws on the books, meaning that people considered to be less equal could be forcibly sterilized. 

 Adolph Hitler was an ardent Darwinist and adopted a form of Eugenics in his “Final Solution” which resulted in six million Jews murdered in Nazi ovens. The State of Indiana passed the first forced sterilization law in 1907, then 30 states followed. The principal targets of the American program were the mentally retarded and the mentally ill, but also targeted under many state laws were the deaf, the blind, people with epilepsy, and the physically deformed.  Native Americans, as well as Afro-American women, were sterilized against their will in many states, often without their knowledge. 

In 1920 17 year-old Carrie Buck was forcibly sterilized under a Virginia law because she was declared feeble minded after exhibiting alleged hallucinations following being forcibly raped and becoming pregnant.  Carrie chose to have her baby.  After giving birth Carrie’s daughter was also considered feeble minded.  The young girl was enrolled in school and made the honor roll before dying of an infection at the age of eight. The forced sterilization case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927 (Buck vs. Bell), which ruled against her and Carrie was forcibly sterilized.  Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was quoted as saying that “three generations of imbeciles are enough,” according to John West.  Carrie lived a normal life and was considered to be no different than anyone else.  Her first marriage lasted for 25 years when her husband died.  She remarried and remained married to her second husband until her death in 1983.

Eugenics was supported by Ralph Waldo Emerson, Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation and the best minds of science in the United States.  In England Julian Huxley and George Bernard Shaw were ardent supporters of Eugenics. 

It was the Church that complained loudly against Eugenics, specifically the Catholic Church which condemned it.  Pope Pius XI condemned Eugenics in an encyclical in 1930.  The Catholic Church deserves the greatest credit for speaking out on Eugenics and being a force for its defeat.  Protestants Billy Sunday and William Jennings Bryan also spoke out forcibly against Eugenics according to “Darwin Day in America.”  The Unites States science community, however, believed that Eugenics was good science and defended it. 

 Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was clearly dedicated to Eugenics; she considered certain races such as blacks, inferior.  In 1939 Sanger created the “Negro Project.”  The aim of this project was to put a lid on the growth rate of the black population.  She was an advocate of sterilization, as well as abortion to eliminate the “unfit.”  Planned Parenthood clinics have been strategically located in proximity to black neighborhoods and schools. Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortion in the United States.  The United States government funds over one third of the yearly budget of Planned Parenthood, approximately $300 million dollars.  That is correct, your taxes.  According to an article in “The Weekly Standard” by Charlotte Allen, in the October 2007 issue, for fiscal year 2005-2006, total government aid to Planned Parenthood amounted to $305.3 million.  This same article reveals how Planned Parenthood willfully refuses to report any statutory rapes by adult men of young girls under 16.  This undercover YouTube video filmed at a Los Angeles Planned Parenthood office confirms it. 

Planned Parenthood’s targeting of blacks is totally ignored, not only by the general population, but also by blacks themselves.  It is estimated that the black population of the United States is 12%.  According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), in 2003 there were 839,713 abortions in the United States, EXCLUDING California, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Hampshire and West Virginia.  The average yearly abortion in the United States is believed to be around 1.5 million per year.  Of this total, 37% of all abortions were black babies – and no one ever complains.  Barack Obama, a black man, and the Democratic Presidential candidate of 2008, and possibly the next President, has clearly stated: "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act,” For more information on Obama’s stance on partial birth abortion see my last article on this blog called “I Will not Punish them With a Baby.” Dated May 8, 2008.  Clearly Eugenics is still winning, although we no longer called it that. 

How the black population of the United States can ignore their children being slaughtered at such a rate is beyond explanation.  When Rodney King was beaten by a couple of Los Angeles Police Officers in 1992, the entire black population of Los Angeles erupted into the most destructive riots in history.  At the time I was vacationing in Italy and saw the utter destruction of Los Angeles on Italian Television.  A subscript on the TV pictures stated:  “Los Angeles burns.”  One man gets beaten and millions of people riot, 14 million black babies have been murdered since 1973 and nobody complains.  The black presidential candidate states that he wants to make this type of killing a constitutional right.  What am I missing here?  Have I arrived at a different planet where there is a different logic and moral compass?  I guess so.  Abortion today is the same as Eugenics was in the first part of the 20^th Century.  Those of us who do care are portrayed as “one-issue” advocates by leftist Christians and “ultra conservative Catholics” as Fr. Richard McBrien, a Catholic Theologian at Notre Dame, called us in an article in the “Tidings” titled “Banned in Boston” In the January 6, 2006 issue.

“If they make a mistake, I don’t want to punish them with a baby.”  Senator Barack Obama uttered these words recently at a Democratic presidential campaign rally.  He was referring to his two young daughters, both under 10 years old.  I could not believe what I heard but was not surprised since Senator Obama has made it very clear that he is very pro-abortion.  Sean Hannity did a fine piece on  the Hannity & Colmes TV show.  Click here to see this YouTube video.  If you do not already know Obama’s position on abortion he is so pro-abortion that, as an Illinois state senator, he voted three times against a bill to protect babies who survive a partial birth abortion.  Let me say it again, because this is breathtaking, if a baby survives a partial birth abortion, that is, it is delivered alive, Senator Obama voted to kill it anyway.  Click here to read this amazing story.

Last Sunday, I held a newborn baby in my arms after visiting a good friend in the hospital who had just had a new baby.  My wife asked me if had ever held a newborn and I had to say that I could not remember that I had. If you’re a mother or a father, you can understand the wonder and awe when you look at that tiny little person.  I don’t know how to describe the feeling but you immediately think of God and the wonder of His creation. I could not help but reflect on what Senator Obama said “that he would not punish his daughter with a baby.”  What insanity! 

When it comes to abortion I often think that I must be from a different planet when I hear nonsense, such as described earlier by Senator Obama.  Good and intelligent people, in their right mind, do not see that an unborn is as human as you and me. Science sees it, the Christian Church sees it, Judaism and Islam see it, but they don’t. How can this be?  The logic is not there. I must be from a different planet.  In the Bible, the Prophet Jeremiah warns his people with these tragic words: “Hear this, you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear” Jer. 5:21.  Jeremiah also warns Israel of the impending doom if they fail to follow the Lord they would lose their country – and they did. The Babylonians conquered Israel and took the Israelites into exile in 587 BC during Jeremiah’s time. 

This year is an election year in the United States. We’re electing a new President.  The President will appoint judges.  If we elect Senator Obama we will get judges who have his philosophy on abortion – killing them at will, even if they survive a partial birth abortion. No one who is pro-life will even be considered for a judge.  A judge will be on the bench for up to 40 years or more.  Our fellow human babies lives are at stake.  Those of us who understand that the unborn is a precious, helpless human being with all the rights of a person must fight to protect them with all that we can do.  As a soldier in war, we fought to the death for the lives of our fellow soldiers.  We can do no less for the unborn. Our God expects no less.  One of the most important things we can do is to vote for candidates that are pro-life and will act to protect the unborn.  

To vote for a candidate, such as Senator Obama is to cooperate with murder and evil.  This is not such a spectacular claim.  The Catholic Church makes a very similar claim in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes” (2271). The Bible is also filled with prohibitions against killing the unborn: “Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed” (Deut. 19:10).  The influential Christian writings of the First Century AD, known as the Didache, specifically mentions the prohibition against killing of the unborn: “do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant.” 

In our legal system if you cooperate with a crime you are as guilty as the party committing the crime.  It is my opinion that God will hold us to the same standard when it comes to abortion.  I may be wrong but can you afford to take the chance that it is not?  Eternity is at stake.

A couple of weeks ago I was in Lake Arrowhead, California for a four-day rest and relaxation with my wife and six other friends.  This weekend has been a yearly event for the last 15 years.  We usually just relax and enjoy a few days away from home, reading, eating, enjoying nature, and chatting.  I read two books on this weekend; one of them was a very compelling book by Star Parker called Uncle Sam’s Plantation.  This is a story of a black woman who rose, like a phoenix, from the ashes of despair, poverty, abandonment, welfare, sex addiction, drug addiction and every thing else you could think of that is not good.  When you read stories such as these you expect that the next thing to happen is that the person will come to a violent end of some kind.  This is not the case with Star Parker.  Her story is one of the most compelling that I’ve ever heard of.  She recounts how she had no less than four abortions, countless sexual encounters and a life of crime.  She overcame all of these and is now a successful businesswoman, writer and speaker. 

The most compelling part is how, after she overcame all the odds she would tell her story to others in her own community and would be shouted down. On a TV interview with Oprah Winfrey, all the guests, including Ms. Winfrey, criticized her heavily for not toeing the victimhood line.  They would have none of her victory from being a “victim.”  If it was not that I’ve heard this type of reaction before, I would be stunned at the reaction she got.  I first heard Star Parker speak at the Values Voters Convention in Washington DC in October of 2007.  Her talk was so powerful and inspiring that she had over 2,600 people on their feet by the time she finished.  Uncle Sam’s Plantation is full of inspiring stories about the black experience and how one can overcome any odds.

One of the things most perplexing to me as I read this book was how, for hundreds of years, for example, an entire nation (the United States) could ignore an entire ethnic group such as Black Americans and call them less than human.  I kept scratching my head to try to enter into the psyche of these people.  The Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred Scott decision in 1857 ruled that blacks were not persons but property.  In the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision in 1896 the Supreme Court ruled that blacks were not on the same level as whites as persons and approved racial segregation.  In 1973 in Roe vs. Wade the Supreme Court struck again, saying that the unborn were not only not persons but had no legal rights. 

I often drive my wife nuts with how many times I bring to her attention how I cannot understand how our own friends who go to church with us and are decent and good Christian people can deny the same rights to the unborn, but they do without a blink.  They do this even though science has confirmed that life starts at conception, that the church has had this policy for over two thousand years.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church goes so far as to state that abortion is such a grave evil that anyone who cooperates with it should be excommunicated from the church.  Yet, these good and faithful Catholics ignore this as if they don’t see it.  Is anyone home?  Apparently not.

It is a sad state of the human condition that you can get used to whatever suits you at the time.  Slavery suited the American people for over 200 years.  Good Christians would regularly go to church and think nothing of having slaves or approving of slavery as if was just a common habit and not a dignity of life issue with deep moral consequences.  

In Biblical times when the Israelites were freed from their 400-year captivity in Egypt, God told them to go to the Promised Land and eliminate the Canaanites who practiced child sacrifices and other abominations.  God specifically told the Israelites that He was not giving them the Promised Land because they deserved it but because the Canaanites were so evil.  The Canaanites would throw living infants into the fire as a fertility rite, hoping that this would bring them a good harvest.  Apparently, this practice was justified in the minds of this culture.  The Canaanites were also idol worshipers who worshiped the pagan god Baal instead of the one true God.

I cannot understand, and I guess will never understand, how a human being can be so calloused as to look another human being and say either you are not human or we consider you less than human and we can kill you.  Is anybody home?  Apparently not.

Several years ago I gave a pro-life presentation to a group of friends that meets on a monthly basis to discuss spiritual matters.  I prepared the talk and gave it based on an outline of the important issues that we deal with everyday with abortion and the dignity of the unborn.  Since I knew all of these people, I felt comfortable giving the presentation.  Little did I know, however, of the very negative reaction I would get from most of my listeners.  One person (a close friend) had a look on her face that is still seared in my mind.  The look plainly meant: “I do not want to hear this message. Why are you forcing me to hear it?”  

Of the 12 people in this group, only three of us were clearly pro-life and the rest clearly pro-choice after this discussion.  What was most heartbreaking was not the negative reaction that I got, but the fact that these nine people, who were clearly pro-choice, were committed Catholics who regularly attend church.  Catholic Social Teaching clearly teaches that life begins at conception and the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is an evil that merits excommunication from the Church.  This, apparently, means nothing to these people. 

The dominant reason for being pro-choice for these people was an economic reason.  Most opined that they felt that if a person was not in an economic position to have a baby, then it was acceptable to have an abortion.  I argued the scientific basis for the humanity for the unborn but no one heard it nor did they consider it – the economic reason seemed to be the over-riding reason why an abortion would be considered acceptable. 

Is economics a good reason to kill a human life?  Well, I’ve never heard anyone say that we could kill living human beings if we cannot afford them. 

In my own family, my mother had seven children.  We lived in Sicily in the mid 1940s immediately after World War II.  My hometown was perhaps the poorest town in all of Sicily.  Everyone lived on a day-to-day basis.  No one had a paycheck. All lived as subsistence farmers.  No one had any possessions to speak of such as a radio, a car, a TV, a telephone, a bicycle or anything we now think of everyday possessions.  None of us children ever saw, let alone, have a toy.  When my parents got married in 1938 they could not afford to have any children because they had no resources to support them.  The same could be said of every other inhabitant of this little town of about 3,000 people.  No one could afford a child, not even one, yet the average family had five to seven children.  To make the case even more compelling was the fact that there was no government help of any kind.  No welfare, no food stamps – nothing. Everyone made it on their own.   No one ever went hungry; no one starved or died of starvation.  The town did not even have a doctor, a clinic or a hospital. 

These statements are not made to impress anybody, but to make a point:  Economics has nothing to do with the value of a human life. Yet, our modern American culture has adopted this falsehood as one “reason” to destroy an innocent unborn human life.  This is one of the most pernicious lies that the pro-choice side promotes shamelessly. 

The pro-choice side promotes this type of reasoning like it makes sense.  Even if you can’t afford a baby, is killing it the only solution or choice?  In California today, you can drop off an “un-wanted baby” in any fire station with no questions asked.  You can give the baby up for adoption.  The current hit movie “Juno” is about a young woman who gives up her baby for adoption. Why would you even consider killing an unborn baby because you cannot afford it?  Where is the logic? 

Here are some of the most contradictory positions that pro-choice people stand for: 

1. Abortion is a private matter or a “choice.”
2. It is up to the pregnant woman if the baby lives or dies
3. No one has the right to tell a woman what to do with her baby
4. Church teaching can be ignored at will
   
5. An unborn child can be aborted up to delivery - legally
6. An unborn is not a person
7. The unborn has no legal rights
8. The unborn is not a separate individual but part of the woman’s body
9. The unborn is not a baby until sometime after birth, as Senator Barbara Boxer, stated in a famous exchange with Senator Rick Santorum a few years ago. You have to read this to believe it.  Click on the hyperlink just noted.

 

Albert Einstein discovered the Theory of Relativity in the early 20^th Century which led to the discovery that the universe, contrary to what was believed up to that point, was not eternal, but had a beginning.  This was later referred to as “The Big Bang.”  Philosophers of religion such as William Lane Craig proposed, what he called the Kalam Cosmological Argument, to argue for the existence of God using arguments discovered by scientists following the discovery of the Big Bang.  The Kalam Cosmological Argument states as follows:

 “Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no ore worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.” 

It is often said that whoever controls the language in any debate controls the debate.  The pro-choice advocates won a crucial battle in the sixties and seventies when they convinced the modern culture to adopt a language that they carefully and strategically crafted in order conceal their real agenda and win others to their side.  I want to select some of the more common buzzwords or phrases that have been dominant on the pro-abortion side and analyze each of them. To answer the misinformation promoted by the other side, we must know how to clarify the language of the other side:

Choice.  You often hear this word from abortion defenders.  Some of the more common ways they use this word is with such statements as:  “I’m for a woman’s right to choose, or abortion is a personal choice between a woman and her doctor.”  Who could be against choice?  This is the brilliance of this word.  But, what does “choice” mean when speaking about abortion? 

Choice is fine if you are dealing with a personal preference such as what color do you like or do you prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream.  This is a subjective choice.  Abortion, however, is not a subjective choice, it is a moral issue.  Morals are not open to choice.  This is the key. The crucial question to ask is what is the unborn?  If the unborn is not a human life then choice is fine.  We know that life begins at conception, as science has confirmed, so abortion takes the life of a human being.  We do not have the choice to take a human life.  Abortion defenders completely ignore the fact that abortion kills a human life. They treat it as if the unborn was equivalent to removing your tonsils.

Abortion is a private matter.  As we pointed out earlier, abortion kills a human life.  Can we kill a human being as long as it is done privately?  Of course not.  Can your mother or father have killed you, say, at the age of two months, as long as it was done privately?  Suppose you’re a parent and your three year-old comes to you while you’re washing dishes and asks Mommy/Daddy can I kill this?  What do you need to know before you answer?  Again, the question is not privacy but what is the unborn? 

Don’t impose your view on me!  This is an often-heard challenge.  First of all this challenge is self-refuting and commits logical suicide.  What do I mean by that?  If a person says, “don’t force your view on me” or words to that effect, what have they just done?  They have just imposed their view on you.  So, by their own logic, they’ve just invalidated their own challenge to you.  Secondly, our society imposes morality on all of us all the time.  Try stealing your neighbor’s car.  When they protest say to them “don’t impose your view on me.”  Our government imposes their will on us when they have a law that if you kill someone, you will lose your freedom or life.

That is just you’re opinion.  Moral issues such as abortion are not simply personal opinions, they are moral issues.  When you come to the red stop light do you say, oh well, that is just their opinion, I’ll just do what I want to do and cross it.  There are issues that are personal opinions, such as what candidate do you like, or do you like Mexican food or Italian food.  These are legitimate personal opinions.  Moral issues are not and cannot be based on personal opinions or we would have total anarchy and our society would not survive.  A person that makes a statement such as “that is your personal opinion” is making the mistake of mixing subjective choices with objective issues.  This is very common with those who fail to analyze what they’re saying.  A moral issue cannot be a subjective choice.

I’m opposed to abortion but it should still be legal.  Another bizarre logical statement that you often hear is this one.  Whenever you hear such a contradictory statement, ask the person if you can repeat what you heard him/her say.  Ask the person who made this statement why they are opposed to abortion.  Usually they’ll say that abortion kills a baby.  Your response should be something such as this:  “Let me see if I heard you correctly, you’re opposed to abortion because it kills a baby, but it should still be legal to kill a baby?”  This will help this person analyze what they’ve said.  Most people make statements such as these without realizing what they’re saying.

Personhood.  Once you’ve debunked all the other myths and misstatements, the pro-abortion person will tell you that an unborn is not a person.  Well, when does a human being become a person?  And who decides when to confer personhood?  Personhood is not a status that is achieved by any measure other than being a human being.  Science has established that a human life begins at conception so personhood begins when human life begins.  To assign a random time when a human being becomes a person can only be arbitrary and not based on any standard other than what that person says it is.  A good question to ask is are there any human beings that are not a person, and if so, who and when?

In a television interview about abortion with actress Kathy Ireland, Alan Colmes of the popular daily program on the Fox News Channel, “Hannity and Colmes,” first stated his pro -choice position, which I think is a very typical pro-choice argument.  Colmes said: "Now I think I'm conservative on abortion because I think the government should not be involved and that this is not a governmental issue. It's a personal issue. So wouldn't I then have the conservative position here?"

 One problem with the debate over abortion is people tend to see abortion as a preference, like drinking or smoking, rather than a moral issue such as slavery, notes Francis J. Beckwith, associate professor of philosophy, culture, and law at Trinity International University, and author of Politically Correct Death and Abortion and the Sanctity of Human Life (College Press). To master the pro-life position, we must understand this is a key part of the pro-abortion position.

 First of all, whenever you defend the pro-life position never use the Bible as a reference.  The only exception would be if the person you’re talking to is a committed believer, but even then you need not mention Scripture at all.  Why? First of all the pro-life position can be defended by reason, logic, science and philosophy very well. Secondly, many people will be put-off by reference to Scripture on this subject, especially non-believers. Here are some suggestions on how to defend your pro-life position:

1. First Clarify the Issue:  The first and most important thing that you need to do is clarify the issue at hand.  Is abortion a private matter that anyone can simply decide on based on how they feel?  One of the most articulate defenders of the pro-life position is Scott Klusendorf.  On his web site, Life Training Institute, Klusendorf has a piece called “The 5-Minute Pro-Lifer,” where he explains how to clarify the issue: “Pro-life advocates contend that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being.  This simplifies the abortion controversy by focusing public attention on just one question: Is the unborn a member of the human family?  If so, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong.  It treats the distinct human being, with his or her own inherent moral worth, as nothing more than a disposable instrument.  Conversely, if the unborn are not human, killing them for any reason requires no more justification than having a tooth pulled.” 

2.  Point Out that science confirms the humanity of the unborn:  As pro-life advocates, we believe that an unborn is a human being from the point of conception.  This is not just a religious view but very much a scientific one. Embryology textbooks used in medical schools spell this out very clearly. The widely used medical textbook The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, Moore, Persaud, Saunders,1998, states at page 2 that "The intricate processes by which a baby develops from a single cell are miraculous .... This cell [the zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [egg] and sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being ...."At page 18 this theme is repeated: "Human development begins at fertilization[emphasis in original] "There is no longer any doubt that individual human life begins at conception." Dr. Landrum Shettles, the first scientist to achieve conception in a test tube, writes that conception not only confers life, it "defines" life.[i] 

3. Point out the logic of the Issue:  Based on what we’ve stated here, we can make a logical syllogism: 

                  a)  Human life should be protected by law

                  b)  The unborn is a human life from conception

                  c)  The unborn life should be protected by law 

4. Is the Unborn a Person?  One of the most common responses you will get from pro-choice advocates, even after hearing the evidence, is that the unborn is not a person and should not have any legal rights. The Roe v. Wade 1973 Supreme Court decision made this same argument - that the unborn has no legal rights.  Well, who determines when a human being starts to be a person and on what criteria?  Even better, ask the person making this statement what is the difference between a human being and a person?  Are there human beings that are not persons?  If so who? They will not be able to answer this.  Personhood is not a status that is conferred by man or by any stage of development, it is conferred by the essence of being a human being at the beginning of life - conception.  You cannot be a human being and not a person. 

5. Responding to “that is just your opinion or your view.”  You will often hear this response from pro-choice advocates.  This response ignores all we’ve talked about so far; it ignores that the unborn is a human being, it ignores that we see abortion as a moral issue not a subjective preference such as what color car do I like or I prefer chocolate ice cream.  This response confuses subjective choices and an objective moral claim.  Pro-life advocates claim that abortion is a moral claim that is not subject to a choice.  We do not have a choice to kill one of our children.  In the same way, we do not have the choice to an abortion because abortion kills a living human being; it is not a subjective view or an opinion. 

6. I dislike abortion but there should not be a law against it.  This is basically what pro-choice politicians such as Rudy Giuliani say.  A woman should decide for herself whether to have an abortion.  Again, this view ignores the fact that the unborn is a human life.  Our society has laws that no human being can take the life of another – we call it murder.  If you accept that an unborn is a human being there can be no other choice but to protect it in law.  To say that a woman can decide for herself whether to kill an unborn is the same as saying that she could also decide to kill her two week-old infant.  What’s the difference?  Both are human lives.  There is only a matter of location.  One is outside the womb; the other is in the womb.  Since when does location matter in deciding whether to kill a human life? 

There are many more arguments that can be used but I wanted to keep this list short.  Using these tactics will serve you well.

 

Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani?  My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?  Most Christians are familiar with this phrase; the last words of Jesus after his crucifixion.  For as long as I’ve been a Christian and studied the Bible, I’ve often wondered how it was that a man like Pontius Pilate, a powerful man in Roman occupied Palestine, could find Jesus innocent and yet condemn him to a brutal death. Pilate certainly had the power to do whatever he wanted, even if he found someone guilty.  He could have easily ordered Jesus to be released, taken him in for protection, or sent him out of the area.  But, he did not do it.  Why? 

You may be wondering where am I going with this since this is a blog on pro-life apologetics.  Well, I’ve come to realize that our current culture resembles, to a large extent, Pontius Pilate when it comes to defending or opposing abortion.  Like Pilate, we’ve found that the unborn is innocent and a human from conception (science confirms this - it is no longer just a religious claim), we know that the unborn is a baby, but we simply choose to ignore that he/she has any rights. We refer to abortion as “a woman’s health issue,” or “a woman’s choice to do with her body as she wants.” The Supreme Court in the Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973 claimed that the unborn had no legal rights.  Our politicians refer to abortion as a “Constitutional right” even though you will not find it anywhere in the Constitution. 

In a speech delivered in Atlanta over the weekend, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declared that banning abortion “would have a devastating impact on poor women.” Bader’s suggestion, that abortion is a solution to the problems of poor women, is on a par with Jonathan Swift’s long-ago solution to the Irish poverty problem in his essay, A Modest Proposal. But at least Swift was writing satire. 

Back to Pontius Pilate.  I asked the question earlier as to why Pilate refused to release Jesus even though he found him innocent of all charges.  The answer is that Pilate was a politically correct man and politics itself played a part in this bizarre decision.  Pilate wanted to please the masses; he wanted not to rock the boat.  If Pilate failed to condemn Jesus he would have had to face the wrath of the local people as well as to his superiors, if the local people rebeled.  So Pilate took the easy road and went with the flow – he condemned an innocent man for political expediency.  Pilate lacked the courage to act on what he believed.  The Jews of the day took advantage of this cowardice on Pilate's part by playing on his fear of his Roman superiors.  They taunted him by saying:  “If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar.”  Boy, that hurts. They played with Pilate as if he was a fine violin.  He was under their control. 

Pilate looks just like our current day culture.  He even looks like our own Christian brothers and sisters who are pro-choice or who just don’t want to “offend anyone” if they speak out on the fate of 1.5 million dead babies each year in the United States alone.  This is a hard statement and some of you may be offended by it.  It is not my intention to offend anyone.  My sole object in this blog is to speak to truth and reality. Some truth and some reality are hard.  If anything I say here are not true I would appreciate hearing from you and will correct any misstatements happily. 

Did Pilate’s strategy work with his superiors?  A few years after Jesus was crucified Pontius Pilate was recalled to Rome in disgrace.  Political correctness did not work for him.  

Reasonable people like our friends and neighbors are looking the other way.  They do not want to alienate others who think that an unborn has any rights or is not a human or not a person.  They look at the crowd and say, I better not “offend” any of these people or they will not vote for me next time or they may be mad at me for it.  I will keep the peace by saying nothing or going with the flow.  This is the biggest, most puzzling issue.  I understand why Pilate did what he did but I do not agree with it and think it is the cowardly thing to do.  But then, what do I know?  I’m sure that some of my pro-choice brothers and sisters are smarter than me.

Since the day I became pro-life in the early 1990s, I’ve continually asked a rhetorical question:  If the Church is really pro-life why is it that it does little or nothing to promote and defend the pro-life position?  By “Church” I mean the entire Christian Church, whether Catholic or Protestant.  What I write here is mainly influenced by my experience in both the Catholic and Protestant Church and our modern day culture.  I will discuss how the Catholic and the Protestant Church have failed in this respect and then I will provide, what I consider, the reason why.

 Some of you, after reading this introduction, will quickly object and question this statement.  After all, the Catholic Church is very strongly pro-life and has been since the beginning and so are many Protestant Churches. That is absolutely true.  The Catholic Church has written brilliantly and forcefully on the pro-life side.  There are many Protestant Churches and organizations, such as Focus on the Family, that are strongly pro-life.  No argument there.  So why do I say that Church does little or nothing to promote pro-life?  Let me begin with the Catholic Church.

If you look at the writings of the U.S. Catholic Bishops, for instance, you will find a plethora of brilliantly written and forcefully convincing writings defending and promoting the pro-life position - a wonderful apologetic on the dignity of life.  But here is the crux of the situation:  Although the Catholic Church teaches the pro-life message very strongly in its writings and by its bishops, you will rarely, if ever, hear this message proclaimed from the parish pulpit or promoted in the media, or for that matter, by Catholic Priests themselves. Most of these writings are unknown to regular Catholics; they are a well-kept secret, if you will.

My experience has been that most Catholic clergy treat the pro-life issue as if it was a modern-day leprosy – they will not touch it. There are a few who will speak out in church but these are rare indeed.     Many priests, as far as I know, are pro-life but few will dare speak out in church on this subject, or anywhere else.   One exception to this is, Fr. Frank Pavone, who is the Director of Priests for Life, a national organization out of Amarillo, Texas.  Fr. Pavone started a religious community called the Missionaries of the Gospel of Life whose sole mission is to preach the pro-life message.

If you look at a list of the most prominent pro-choice politicians, you will find many are Catholic: Democratic Senators Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Patrick Leahy, John Kerry - the list is endless.  These men are openly, and brazenly defiant toward the Church’s pro-life position.  I know of not one occasion when any of these men have ever been publicly rebuked by the Church for promoting liberal abortion policies such as partial birth abortion.  I keep asking myself why not?  Why is the Church afraid of publicly proclaiming and defending its teachings regarding the dignity of life?  On more than a few occasions, my pro-life friends and I have been told by pro-choice people that  “pro-lifers” are one-issue advocates and that there are more important things to consider such as poverty and the minimum wage.  This is the mantra of the religious left.  If you want confirmation of this you must read an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal published on October 16, 2007 by Steven Malanga, called "The Rise of the Religious Left."

In the war in Iraq we’ve lost about 1,000 men per year and the country is clamoring very publicly and loudly to end the war now and withdraw all troops; at this same time 1.5 million babies are killed each year in the United States alone and only a few are concerned about this death rate and most of the country could care less.  Poverty and the minimum wage are more important than this?  How many people died of poverty in the United States in one year?  Where is the logic?

The failure of the Church to rebuke these pro-choice Catholic politicians can only be considered a tacit approval of their position and an encouragement, or affirmation to pro-choice Catholics.  In the 1970s and 1980s a Catholic Jesuit Priest, Father Robert F. Drinan, served as a Congressman from Massachusetts and was openly pro-abortion, in open defiance of Church teaching. The Church never rebuked him for this.  Pope John Paul II ordered him to leave Congress, saying it was incompatible with being a priest – not for this pro-abortion position.   Fr. Drinan went so far as to defend President Clinton’s veto of a Partial Birth Abortion Ban law passed by Congress twice in his term.  The silence from the Church was, and is still today, deafening. 

Earlier this year Pope Benedict XVI, on a trip to Brazil, condemned the Mexico City politicians who voted to approve abortion through the third trimester, saying that such politicians have excommunicated themselves from the Church.  When the Vatican was pressed for a clarification on this later, they backed down and said that individual bishops may exclude such politicians from communion – no excommunication.  Again, why is the Church afraid to stand its ground on such clearly moral issues especially when its own Catechism calls for excommunication for such evil? If you have rules that are never enforced why have them? Again, where is the logic?  

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2272) plainly states that abortion is an evil that deserves excommunication from the Church.  But the Church, to my knowledge, has never excommunicated any pro-choice advocates, even when it is done openly, publicly and defiantly as the Senators mentioned earlier have done.  Many Catholic politicians sneer at the Church with reckless abandon and wear their pro-choice position as a badge of honor.  A prominent California Catholic politician, Fabian Nuñez, went so far as to say recently that he wanted to “challenge the Church” on euthanasia and co-sponsored a euthanasia bill in the California Legislature (AB 374), in defiance of the Church opposition to this measure.  Cardinal Roger Mahony, to his credit, came out in the media to denounce him on this.   The bill eventually died in committee.  One of the Democratic politicians who co-sponsored the bill commented later that the bill failed, in part, due to the opposition of the Catholic Church.  But this is a very rare example of the Church leaders actually challenging politicians on pro-choice matters.  Cardinal Mahony, as far as I know, has never made any statements to the media denouncing pro-abortion politicians, for instance.  Many of these same politicians are his closest friends, such as Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  On the contrary, he has made many public statements to the media defending illegal immigrants and illegal immigration in general. 

The Protestant Church has not been a strong supporter of pro-life issues either.  It was, mainly, through the efforts of Dr. James Dobson, the founder and leader of Focus on the Family, that more Protestants have had the courage to tackle the pro-life issue.  In eight years that I attended a Protestant Church, not once did I hear a pro-life message in any service.  A prominent Protestant Minister and best-selling author, Rick Warren, who has one of the largest churches in America, has even criticized Christians whom he says concentrate too much on pro-life issues instead of the poor.  I heard him on a TV interview making this statement and sent him an e-mail asking if he was pro-life.  A staff member responded that he was.  

If you watch the popular TBN television network or other Protestant preachers on television, you never hear any pro-life messages.  They also avoid this subject like the plague.  I’ve listened to Christian radio, KKLA FM in Los Angeles, for years.  I’ve never heard any pro-life messages, other than from Dr. Dobson.  An exception would be a program dedicated specifically to pro-life such as Fr. Frank Pavone’s radio show on Sundays at 3:00 PM on this station.  So, in summary, both Protestant and Catholic Churches have failed to proclaim and teach the pro-life message publicly. 

Why is the Church so afraid of the pro-life message?  The simple answer is that the Church has caved in and adopted the ways of our popular culture which embraces moral relativism, for the most part.  Priests and Ministers are afraid to “offend” the pro-choice crowd in their churches. They avoid anything that can be considered “controversial.”  Moral issues, apparently, can now be considered controversial too.  We have also embraced modern tolerance.   In an article called “The Intolerance of Tolerance” Greg Kokul hits the nail on the head on the modern definition of tolerance:  “The tolerant person allegedly occupies neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality where each person is permitted to decide for himself. No judgments allowed. No "forcing" personal views. That all views are equally valid is one of the most entrenched assumptions of a society committed to relativism. And it's a myth.” 

The decisive question today is not is it right or wrong, but “will it offend someone”?  This is the same as in our society today.  So a public school, for example, will not allow the word “Jesus” to be said at any time and in any context.  Why?  Because someone “may be offended by it".  

So, our modern day paradigm is no longer what is right or wrong, it is will it offend someone.  If this question can be answered yes, then the pro-life message will be muzzled.  Right and wrong no longer has any importance; political correctness rules the day. 

Another puzzling question is how did the other side come to hold virtual veto power over moral issues?  If a pro-life person, or a Christian, for example, were offended by something, they do not count, but if a pro-choice person or a non-Christian is offended then they have the power to shut down any discussion.  How did this come about?  You guessed it – popular culture rules. 

I started this article by asking myself a rhetorical question; if the Church is pro-life why does it do so little to defend it?  I end by asking another rhetorical question of the Church:  When it comes to defending life, whom do you want to please, man or God?

 In the course of a casual conversation at a dinner party the other day about an event thanking all the U.S. military veterans, a friend remarked that he thought abortion could be considered politics.  I was caught off-guard by the remark and quickly responded by vehemently denying that it was.  I challenged my friend as to why he would think that it was.  The better response would have been, “what do you mean by that”?  The word “politics” is one of those over-used words in conversations that can have multiple meanings.   The dictionary defines politics as:  “The science or art of political government (2) the practice or profession of conducting political affairs.” 

As I thought about it later, it occurred to me that this is an important question in the abortion debate.  I believe that there is more to this question than one can see on the surface.  Our culture has mastered the art of turning certain moral and ethical issues upside down, and in certain cases, such as abortion, turning a moral issue into a subjective reflection and personal choice.  

 When a person refers to an issue as “political” it means that there can be differences of opinion on that issue that would not necessarily mean that the issue is right or wrong or that the person making the assertion is right or wrong.  So, for example, if I say that the war in Iraq is justified and you say that it is not, neither one of us would, necessarily, be right or wrong.  We would just have a difference of opinion not based on any moral absolutes.  Our culture has turned abortion to this type of issue rather than the moral issue that it clearly is. 

Now, can one logically make the argument that if I’m against abortion and you’re for it, that we both have just “a difference of opinion” or that abortion can be considered “political” and we both could be right?  No, we cannot.  Abortion is a moral issue because it involves the killing of a human being and moral issues are not up to individuals to decide.  A moral issue is not relative.  A moral issue is based on an absolute truth. In general, absolute truth is whatever is always valid, regardless of parameters or context.  

The pro-choice advocate will argue that abortion is not a moral issue but a “personal choice.”  This argument falls apart upon examination, however.  A personal choice is subjective, such as my personal choice of color for a car is red, your personal choice may be blue; both are neither right nor wrong, they’re subjective personal choices.   Abortion is not a subjective choice because it deals with the taking of a human life and, accordingly, is a moral issue.  No one would argue that killing a human being is just a subjective choice or something wrong for you and right for me.  We would agree, that we cannot leave such issues to personal choices or we would not have any social order in our society.

One of the ways that our culture has been so effective in de-sensitizing the issue of abortion is to call it a “choice or a woman’s health issue.”  In other words, our culture has succeeded in transferring a moral issue into a subjective personal choice issue.  In this way people can be free of any guilt in approving of what is the killing of human life and calling it something other than what it is.  The pro-choice advocates have had a brilliant campaign for the past 50 or so years in changing the vocabulary related to abortion.  So, the brutal dismembering of a fully formed baby in the womb, ready to be delivered, can be killed legally by what is called partial birth abortion.  By changing the vocabulary of how we discuss this procedure we have removed it from the realm of morality and put it into the realm of subjective choice.  

In Biblical times, the Canaanites, the ancient people of Palestine, worshipped the god Baal and practiced child sacrifice.  The Baal worshipers would routinely offer up their children to him in hopes of getting a good harvest and fertility.  The children would be thrown into a fiery furnace and burned alive.  They saw no problem with this because they changed the meaning of what was a moral issue by calling it something else.  Can you imagine, for example, a smiling one-year old little girl being thrown into a fiery furnace to be burned alive?