Blogger puts up quotes from Francis A Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?”


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



Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR

PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 12:18 am
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 3:32 pm
Posts: 135
Location: Pennsylvania

“Just imagine that these events were to become known to the enemy! And were being exploited by them! In all probability, such propaganda would be ineffective simply because those hearing and reading it would not be prepared to believe it.”The Reichskommisar for the Ostland to the Reichminister for occupied Eastern territories June 18, 1943

The term Euthanasia was first used in modern times by Alfred Hoch and Karl Binding in their book “The Release of the Destruction of Life Devoid of Value” published in Germany in 1920. Euthanasia has become a respectable part of our vocabulary through the term “death with dignity.”

Hoche and Binding made euthanasia the motto of a movement to justify the legalized killing of a person whom they believed had a “right to the complete relief of an unbearable life.”

I boldly ask, “Unbearable by whose definition?”

“Passive euthanasia” is the term utilized for starving to death a newborn infant child that has a congenital defect. “Passive euthanasia” has become a more respectable acceptable means of taking the life of a newborn child than taking active steps to kill the child.

A physician may choose to withhold “extraordinary means” in the care and management of a patient. If there is justification for this decision, one must define the term “extraordinary means” when discussing medical care.

Things which are extraordinary today may not be extraordinary in the near future. The use of intravenous fluids, the administration of oxygen, respirators, pacemakers, and heart-lung machines were once considered to be “extraordinary means”.

The euthanasia movement among medical and paramedical personnel advocates directly killing a person or doing nothing to help a patient although circumstances may be difficult when help and support will result in life.

Abortion is the open door that leads to the devaluation of all human life. Infanticide of the unwanted, imperfect or socially embarrassing is the next step toward the wholesale destruction of human life. Euthanasia eventually leads the medical community down a path to practice the destruction of the senile, the infirm, retarded, the insane, and persons suffering from incontinence. One has then entered the realm of NAZI behavior which the Allies stood against during World War II. Essentially, the abortionist has no medical concern whether the unborn baby lives. Those babies are considered to a mere uneconomical embarrassing inconvenience. Today the abortionist practices death selection and genocide.

Joseph Fletcher, popularizer of ‘situation ethics’ presents the argument for euthanasia in a discussion of death with dignity published in American Journal of Nursing, 1973.

“It is ridiculous to give ethical approval to the positive ending of sub-human life in utero as we do in therapeutic abortions for reasons of mercy and compassion but refuse to approve of the positively ending of a subhuman life in extremis. If we are morally obliged to put and end to a pregnancy when an amniocentesis reveals a terrible defective fetus, we are equally obliged to put an end to a patient’s hopeless misery when a brain scan reveals that a patient with cancer has advanced brain metastases.”

Fletcher, without discussion, declares that ethical approval must be given to end the lives of babies out of “compassion.” He then puts highly questionable “ethical approval” in the form of a moral obligation to end the life of a patient who has cancer with advanced brain metastases.

Consequently, he believes that it is a moral obligation to end the child’s life out of compassion. Therefore, we are obliged to end the life of the cancer patient. Deplorable sentiments are presented in the guise of a humanitarian gesture. The Nazi’s argued that their victims were being sacrificed for the high end of the general good of society.

We are confronted with arbitrary sociological law of courts and legislators; a diabolical change in the attitude of medical profession, and a general selfish apathy which grasps for “rights” while in pursuit of a hedonistic lifestyle.

Several abnormal behavior patterns of mankind were concentrated in the Nazi regime of the Third Reich. Richard L. Rubenstein speaks of the Holocaust in his book, “The Cunning of History: Mass Death and the American Future.”

“The destruction process required the cooperation of every sector of German society. The bureaucrats drew the definitions and decrees, the churches gave evidence of Aryan descent, the postal authorities carried the messages of definition, expropriation, denaturalization and deportation. A place [of execution was] made available to the Gestapo and the SS by the Wehrmacht. To repeat, the operation required and received the participation of every major social and political and religious institution of the German Reich.”

The medical profession took a leading role in the planning of abortion and euthanasia. It is highly likely, that if the example and active role of German medical physicians stood in opposition to Hitler’s extermination program, the Holocaust could have been slowed and possibly stopped. Several doctors participated in the terror, genocide, and active barbaric experimentation extermination programs upon unfortunate minorities.

Boston physician, Leo Alexander was consultant to the Secretary of War in 1946-1947. Alexander was on duty with the office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes in Nuremberg. In 1949, he wrote about his concerns in his paper, “Medical Science under Dictatorship.”

“Irrespective of other ideological trappings, the guiding philosophic principle of recent dictatorships, including that of the Nazis, has been Hegelian in that what has been considered “rational unity” and corresponding doctrine and planning has replaced moral, ethical and religious values…”
“Medical science in Nazi Germany collaborated with this Hegelian trend particularly in the following enterprises: the massive extermination of the chronically sick in the interest of saving “useless” expenses to the community as a whole; the mass extermination of those considered socially disturbing or racially and ideologically unwanted; the individual, inconspicuous extermination of those considered disloyal within the ruling group; and the ruthless use of “human experimental material” for medico-military research…”
“It started with the acceptance of the attitude basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life nor worthy to be lived…”
“[Before Hitler came to power in 1933] a propaganda barrage was directed against the traditional, compassionate, nineteenth-century attitudes toward the chronically ill, and for the adoption of a utilitarian, Hegelian point of view. Sterilization and euthanasia of persons with chronic mental illness was discussed at a meeting of Bavarian psychiatrists in 1931.”

Consequently, many people including members of the medical community accepted principles that were eventually embraced by the Nazis before the rise of Adolf Hitler.

Leo Alexander declares that 275,000 people were exterminated “in these killing centers” by Hitler. These people became “the entering wedge for extermination…The methods used and the personnel trained in the killing centers for the chronically sick became the nucleus of much larger centers in the East, where the plan was to kill all Jews and Poles and to cut down the Russian population by 30,000,000.”

The first persons to be killed were defective children, the aged, the infirm, the senile and the mentally retarded. Epileptics were among the damned as World War II approached. World War I amputees, children with badly modeled ears and bed wetters were doomed.

Physicians took part in the destruction of human life, plans on matters of life and death, on utilitarian view to save society money. The motion picture, “I Accuse” was propaganda dealing with euthanasia aimed at adults. Leo Alexander comments on the film:

“This film depicts the life history of a woman suffering from multiple sclerosis. In it her husband, a doctor, finally kills her to the accompaniment of soft piano music rendered by a sympathetic colleague in an adjoining room. Acceptance of this ideology was implanted even in the children. A widely-used high school mathematics text, Mathematics in the Service of Political Education, Second Edition 1935, Third Edition 1936…includes problems stated in distorted terms of the cost of caring for and rehabilitating the chronically sick and crippled. One of the problems asked, for instance, is how many new housing units could be built and how many marriage-allowances loans could be given to newly- wed couples for the amount of money it cost the state to care for “the crippled and insane.”

Soon after Hitler came to power, the second and most widely used edition of the textbook was issued in 1935. Furthermore, Leo Alexander declares:

“The first direct order for euthanasia was issued by Hitler on Sept. 1, 1939…All state institutions were required to report on patients who had been ill for five years or more or who were unable to work, by filling out questionnaires giving name, race, marital status, nationality, next of kin, whether regularly visited and by whom, who bore financial responsibility and so forth. The decision regarding which patients should be killed was made entirely in the basis of this brief information by expert consultants, most of whom were professors of psychiatry in key universities. These consultants never saw the patients themselves.”

“Realm’s Committee for Scientific Approach to Severe Illness Due to Heredity and Constitution” was the name of the organization specifically for the killing of children. “The Charitable Transport Company for the Sick” was the euphemistic name of organization providing transportation to the killing centers. “The Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care” was the organization “in charge of collecting the cost of the killings from relatives without, however, informing them what the charges were for; in the death certificates the cause of death was falsified.”

Beneath the heading “The Early Change in Medical Attitudes” Alexander gives posterity a warning. All which I have declared began with the acceptance of an attitude which believed that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived.

This is exactly the attitude which is accepted today by movements beginning with sterilization, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.

Alexander adds, “But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which all this entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude towards the non-rehabilitable sick.” This “small wedge-in lever” is opening the door that that which was inconceivable. Ad Alexander declares, “It is therefore this subtle shift in emphasis of the physicians’’ attitude that one must thoroughly investigate.”

The Greek philosopher Protagoras is credited with declaring, “Man is the measure of all things.” This is the fundamental relativistic basis and foundation of our humanistic society. Consider how students in our universities regard Nazi rule. Dr. Richard M. Hunt, associate dean of Harvard University’s Graduate School of Arts and Science declares:

“I have taught courses at Harvard for many years, I used to teach these courses from a straight historical perspective. Recently, I tried a new approach and I call the course, “Moral Dilemma in a Repressive Society: Nazi Germany.” Through case studies of issues and personalities I try to present the Nazi phenomenon from the inside, so to speak, from the experience and testimony of those who lived through the period as victims, victimized, bystanders, true believers, and members of the resistance.”
“To make a long story short, I was greatly surprised with the reaction of the students. I had asked for personal interpretations of moral relevant dilemmas. In their end-of-term papers, it was not a matter of indifference to Nazi oppressions that I found. Nobody attempted to minimize or explain away Nazi excesses.”
“Rather what struck me most forcible were the depressing fatalistic conclusions about major moral dilemmas facing the German people of that particular place and time in history.”
“Comments like these were frequent. ‘And with the ever present threat of Gestapo terror, who would dare to speak out and resist? Would you? Would I? Probably not!’”
“Most disturbing of all to me was the end of the line of such arguments. This point was reached by a few students who seemed some how to realize the moral peril of such exculpatory judgments. Their way out was to lessen the responsibility of any individual person by dispersing the guilt among all.”
“Clearly some trends of our times seemed to be running towards a no-fault, that is, a guilt-free society. One might say that virtues of responsible choice, paying the penalty, taking the consequences, all appear at low ebb today.”
“Next time I teach this course, I hope to stress more strongly my own belief in the contingencies, the open-endedness of history. Somehow, I have got to convey the meaning of moral decisions and their relation to significant outcomes. Most important, I want to point out that single acts of individuals and strong stands of institutions at an early date do make a difference in the long run. I am through with teaching no-fault history.”
Dr. Francis A Schaeffer declares, “It is difficult to understanding what is going on in one’s own period of time with the same depth perception that one has while looking back on history – as these students do as they study Nazi Germany.”

Many people are attracted to the ‘beneficial aspects’ of the Euthanasia movement because they think it frees them from moral guilt and personal responsibility. They have not considered the ultimate destination of where this philosophic belief will lead. If the first step is immoral, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the second step will be moral.

Schaeffer declares, “Semantic legerdemain can prepare us for accepting a horror. When the World Conference on Population Control in 1974 can refer to abortion as “a retrospective method of fertility control,” we know that the euphemisms for infanticide and euthanasia can be many indeed! In England, some call starving a child with spina bifida (cleft spine) putting it on a ‘low calorie diet.’”!

Language is a powerful tool and a subtle indicator. Deliberate changes in language have been used to soften the impact of what is happening. Abortion becomes the “removal of fetal tissue,” or “discontinuing” or “termination” of pregnancy. Childless couples are now,“child-free” a subtle term which indicates that children are an unwanted burden.

“The Charitable Transport Company for the Sick” was the euphemism used for the company which transported people to the Nazi killing centers.

Gleaned and edited from Francis A Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” Various personal comments are my own.

Virtue, Liberty, and Independence


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)



Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: