In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented  against abortion (Episode 1),  infanticide (Episode 2),   euthanasia (Episode 3), and then there is a discussion of the Christian versus Humanist worldview concerning the issue of “the basis for human dignity” in Episode 4 and then in the last episode a close look at the truth claims of the Bible.

Francis Schaeffer: How Should We Then Live? (Full-Length Documentary)

Francis Schaeffer Whatever Happened to the Human Race (Episode 1) ABORTION

Francis Schaeffer: What Ever Happened to the Human Race? (Full-Length Documentary)

Part 1 on abortion runs from 00:00 to 39:50, Part 2 on Infanticide runs from 39:50 to 1:21:30, Part 3 on Youth Euthanasia runs from 1:21:30 to 1:45:40, Part 4 on the basis of human dignity runs from 1:45:40 to 2:24:45 and Part 5 on the basis of truth runs from 2:24:45 to 3:00:04

Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro)

Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1)

Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of Truth & History (part 2)

On 1-24-13 I took on the child abuse argument put forth by Ark Times Blogger “Deathbyinches,” and the day before I pointed out that because the unborn baby has all the genetic code at  the time of conception that they will have for the rest of their life many scientists were pro-life.

Over the years I have taken on the Ark Times liberal bloggers over and over and over concerning the issue of abortion. I asked over and over again for one liberal blogger to come forward and tell me when they thought an unborn baby should be protected by our government and finally I got someone to do that. In fact, several stepped forward.

“Outlier” responded on 1-23-13:

 I’ll bite. Generally when the fetus is viable outside the womb. There are reasons for late term abortions though. When the fetus has some horrible defect which is not compatible with survival or when the life of the mother is threatened are just two, but there are others.

“TX-Travler” noted on1-23-13,  “…to answer your question; when the doctor recommends it or when the mother decides. It is none of your damn business. Lead your own life and stop trying to tell others what to do!”

Some other bloggers just ranted. Take a look at “Spunkrat”:

I am so sick and tired of your ridiculous ability to fit two completely different ideas into a head the size and consistency of, a baking pumpkin!

You people will kill and murder doctors and anyone who is pro choice to protect, in YOUR words, the “unborn (and by this word unhuman)” from being “murdered,” while your ilk arm as many in this country as you can, so they can “protect” themselves by murdering anyone who gets in their way, AND once they do, you’ll try and strap them to a gurney and execute/murder them, IF you can! The reasoning ability you people have is at best–at BEST, mentally stooped and decrepit.

Find an Ozark cliff and jump. Just jump! But before you do, set fire to your housetrailer so we can clean up the neighborhood!

________

On 1-23-13 right before I went to bed I wrote this quick response:

Thank you both Outlier and Tx-Travler for thoughtful responses. Carl Sagan wrote:

But third-trimester abortions provide a test of the limits of the pro-choice point of view. Does a woman’s “innate right to control her own body” encompass the right to kill a near-term fetus who is, for all intents and purposes, identical to a newborn child?

We believe that many supporters of reproductive freedom are troubled at least occasionally by this question. But they are reluctant to raise it because it is the beginning of a slippery slope. If it is impermissible to abort a pregnancy in the ninth month, what about the eighth, seventh, sixth … ?
——
I actually wrote Carl Sagan on the issue of abortion and some other subjects and he personally wrote me back.

Sagan’s own writings point out the “slippery slope” problem. However, I was very impressed that he took the time to right me back.

Carl Sagan was kind enough to send me a copy of an article he wrote on abortion that was carried by Parade Magazine. I responded back to him but his health took a turn for the worst and he never got back to me. He was a classy gentleman.

I answered Outlier with a fuller answer on 1-24-13:

Outlier you deserve an answer. You were kind enough to answer my question when very few other people were brave enough to do so and I will take on yours. YOU STATED:
Now, you tell me. Since you believe abortion is murder should the criminal charge be first degree murder for the mother and the attending physician? If you can’t say that, then you don’t believe it is murder. You can’t have it both ways.

I posed this question to you a couple of nights ago, but I guess you missed it.
_____________
1. The criminal charge for homicide is varied in our criminal code and very few charges require the death penalty.
2. We must be consistent in our laws and an abortion is a homicide or a taking of an innocent human life.
3. Currently there are many legal terms applied to each level of homicide and I am not a lawyer that is capable of determining which level each abortion should fall under but I will say that the third trimester should be considered for the death penalty (of course there are some medical exceptions).

Let me explain some. People now get the death penalty in some cases for purposely killing an unborn baby in acts of violence. In 28 states there are laws on the books that place fetal death under homicide statutes and this is the case in the liberal state of California too. Some other states say that pregnant women involved in drug use can be prosecuted on child endangerment charges.

We have to keep the main issue before us and that is we all support stiff punishments for homicide and we do need want those prosecuted that take innocent human lives and now we must look at the unborn child and decide if he or she are human. ISN’T THAT KEY ISSUE? Once we determine when in the 9 month period to provide legal protection then we should determine what punishments the doctors should face.

IF I WAS A LAWYER THEN I COULD ANSWER MORE FULLY, BUT I DID SPEND TIME LAST NIGHT AND THIS MORNING PUTTING THIS BETTER AND THIS IS THE BEST I COULD DO. Thank you Outlier for your question and again thank you to all the liberals on this blog who were willing to answer my tough question “When should we provide legal protection to the unborn child, 3mo, 6mo, etc?” ARE THERE ANY MORE WILLING TO ANSWER

Related posts: