BREAKING DOWN CARL SAGAN’S LOGIC ON ABORTION Part 91 “If killing a fetus is truly killing a human being, is it not the duty of the state to prevent it? Government [should] protect the weak from the strong” (My 1995 correspondence with Sagan) Adrian Rogers versus Carl Sagan (Rogers sums up many refutations to common pro-choice points)

_

We

Below is an excerpt from a paper by Carl Sagan on abortion followed by an excerpt from a sermon by Adrian Rogers.

Carl Sagan noted: “If killing a fetus is truly killing a human being, is it not the duty of the state to prevent it? Government [should] protect the weak from the strong…”

Sagan said this only to attempt to poke holes in this argument.

Adrian Rogers answers back with some logical points:


  • “I can do whatever I want with my body. A woman’s body is hers to do with as she wishes. She has freedom of choice.” 

No, you don’t have complete control over your own body. You don’t have a right to ingest crack cocaine or be a prostitute. You can’t even ride a motorcycle in this state without a helmet on. We don’t have an absolute right to our own bodies.

And the child is not merely “part of the mother’s body.” He or she is a new life, altogether different, with their own unique DNA, circulatory system, often a different blood type than the mother, and certainly their own unique fingerprints. The nucleus of a human cell has 46 chromosomes, 23 from the father and 23 from the mother. The child is is as much a part of the father as the mother. It is life, and it is life from God. The mother is carrying a completely different person. She does not have freedom of choice in God’s sight to kill another person, even if that person is living inside her body. The baby is in her body; the baby is not her body. I have no right to kill an unwanted guest in my home. They may cause me inconvenience, but I have no right to put them to death. 

  • “Without abortion, the poor will be overburdened.”

We’re told having a child overburdens the poor. But 53% of those getting abortions have no other children. Over 33% are going back for the second, third, and fourth abortion. In many instances they are professional women who do not want their profession interrupted, or have conceived through illicit sex, or just don’t want to be bothered with a child. 

  • “Life begins when the child begins to breathe.” The baby is already receiving oxygen through the umbilical cord.
  • “Abortion is sometimes necessary to save the mother’s life.” Only in the rarest instances. In fact, former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Coup said that with medical advances, abortion is never needed today to save the mother’s life: “With all that modern medicine has to offer, partial birth abortions are not needed to save the life of a mother.” Dr. Jerome LeJune, world famous geneticist, said he would set out to save the life of a mother, and if in the process the child dies, it would be tragic. “I would do everything I could to save the life of the mother, but I would never attack and kill an unborn child.” With today’s medicine, the need for an abortion to save a mother’s life is extremely rare. 
  • “What if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest?” Only one-tenth of 1% of today’s abortions are performed on babies conceived because of rape. This argument does not hold water. Of course, rape is a terrible, horrible, heinous crime, but the baby didn’t commit the crime. Ethel Waters, who is now in heaven, sang many times in the Billy Graham crusades. A great Gospel singer, she was born out of a pregnancy due to rape. Who would say Ethel Waters should not have been born to bless the world? Ruth, an ancestress of the Lord Jesus Christ, was a descendent of Moab, born out of an incestuous relationship. You can’t play God in cases like that. 

Let me ask a question. If there is a one month old baby in the crib, born to a victim of rape, would you kill the one month old baby? If you wouldn’t, don’t kill the baby when it is one month before being born. 

  • “There may be a danger of deformity.” There may be. Are we going to eliminate everyone we feel is defective or deformed? To be allowed to live, how perfect do you need to be? If we eliminate the deformed in the womb, why don’t we eliminate the deformed after birth? An eminent professor at Yale University now advocates just that: keep the baby for a while to decide whether or not you want the child to live (infanticide). If we are going to eliminate the deformed, who draws the line where we stop? 
  • “I’m personally against abortion myself, but I don’t want to take away someone’s right to choose.”You hear politicians use this as an “out” all the time. Let’s suppose we had been alive back in the days of Nazi Germany. Suppose people were saying Hitler ought not to be killing the Jews in the Holocaust. But suppose one of our politicians were to stand and say, “I am personally against killing Jews, but what somebody does in his own private gas chamber is his business.” Do you see the parallel with “I’m personally against abortion, but what somebody does with their own body is their business”? 
  • “I choose not to have this baby.” No, you already have a baby. Your choice is, are you going to choose a live baby or a dead one? You already have a baby; that’s the point.
  • “Unwanted babies are victims of child abuse.” Statistics prove children who were unplanned or unwanted when conceived are no more apt to be abused than others. And there are many loving couples standing in line saying, “Give us that baby. We will love and take care of it.” 
  • “We need to be concerned about the population explosion.” The old “population bomb” myth was put to rest years ago. In fact, many countries are below zero population growth now. There are childless couples wanting babies, begging for babies, wanting to adopt babies, and can’t get them. We may be eliminating the person who has the cure for cancer because we put them to death.

What Should Christians Be Doing?

1. Be informed. Do not continue with your head in the sand. 
2. Find out where the candidates stand on the issue of life.
3. Vote for pro-life senators and representatives. 
4. Work for a constitutional amendment banning abortion. 
5. Teach sexual morality at home and in the church. Parents and the Church—the voices who need to be speaking the most—are often the most silent.
6. Forget our self-righteousness and have compassion for the unwed mother so she is not afraid to come to us. Be filled with love, not a hypercritical spirit. 
7. Show the love and forgiveness of the Lord Jesus Christ for those who’ve had an abortion. There is mercy, forgiveness and grace with Almighty God. He removes the guilt. He may not remove the pain, but He will remove the guilt. 
8. Speak out clearly. Remember,
Cry aloud, and spare not...” Isaiah 58:1
If thou forbear…” Proverbs 24:11-12 
Speak up in the office, on the street, at the ball game, in the Sunday School class. Refuse to be swayed by high-sounding arguments of liberals, humanists, or social planners. They haven’t got a clue. 
9. Pray that God will give us time as a nation to repent! We are on the threshold of disaster. We need to bring this nation to God in repentance saying, “God have mercy on us for the shedding of innocent blood.” 

I believe we are making progress. The abortion rate is dropping. People are finally getting their eyes opened. But the battle is raging.

I’m not nearly so much afraid of what terrorists are going to do to us as I am what God is going to do to us in this country of ours. We’d better get right with God. But I thank God that the Bible still teaches in 2 Chronicles 7:14:

If My people who are called by My name shall humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked way, then will I hear from Heaven and will forgive their sin and” [hallelujah] “heal their land.” 

Do you know who’s failed, primarily? We preachers of the gospel have failed. The churches in America have failed. We once had a biblically based morality in the United States, but that is fast receding over the horizon, and today we’re living in a different society where it is “morality by majority,” and expedience rather than a fixed face of right or wrong. And I believe that there’s little wrong in America today that could not be changed radically, dramatically, and swiftly if we had a generation of preachers who would stand up in pulpits across America and say, “Thus saith the Lord. Thus saith the Lord.”

I’m living for that day when we have a revival of righteousness in America and I want to believe it’s coming, that God—not any preacher, not any president, but God—is going to do something in America. Oh, for God to do something! Lord, haste that day. Don’t you long for a burning, sweeping, glorious revival to blow across America?


Carl Sagan pictured below:

_________

Recently I have been revisiting my correspondence in 1995 with the famous astronomer Carl Sagan who I was introduced to when reading a book by Francis Schaeffer called HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT written in 1968. 

Image result for francis schaeffer

Francis Schaeffer

I was blessed with the opportunity to correspond with Dr. Sagan, and in his December 5, 1995 letter Dr. Sagan went on to tell me that he was enclosing his article “The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers”by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan. I am going to respond to several points made in that article. Here is a portion of Sagan’s article (here is a link to the whole article):

Image result for carl sagan ann

Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan pictured above

 “The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers”

by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan

For the complete text, including illustrations, introductory quote, footnotes, and commentary on the reaction to the originally published article see Billions and Billions.

Adrian Rogers (1931-2005) I shared my correspondence with Carl Sagan with Dr Rogers and the fact that many of my letters to Sagan contained material from Rogers.


The issue had been decided years ago. The court had chosen the middle ground. You’d think the fight was over. Instead, there are mass rallies, bombings and intimidation, murders of workers at abortion clinics, arrests, intense lobbying, legislative drama, Congressional hearings, Supreme Court decisions, major political parties almost defining themselves on the issue, and clerics threatening politicians with perdition. Partisans fling accusations of hypocrisy and murder. The intent of the Constitution and the will of God are equally invoked. Doubtful arguments are trotted out as certitudes. The contending factions call on science to bolster their positions. Families are divided, husbands and wives agree not to discuss it, old friends are no longer speaking. Politicians check the latest polls to discover the dictates of their consciences. Amid all the shouting, it is hard for the adversaries to hear one another. Opinions are polarized. Minds are closed.

 

Is it wrong to abort a pregnancy? Always? Sometimes? Never? How do we decide? We wrote this article to understand better what the contending views are and to see if we ourselves could find a position that would satisfy us both. Is there no middle ground? We had to weigh the arguments of both sides for consistency and to pose test cases, some of which are purely hypothetical. If in some of these tests we seem to go too far, we ask the reader to be patient with us–we’re trying to stress the various positions to the breaking point to see their weaknesses and where they fail.

In contemplative moments, nearly everyone recognizes that the issue is not wholly one-sided. Many partisans of differing views, we find, feel some disquiet, some unease when confronting what’s behind the opposing arguments. (This is partly why such confrontations are avoided.) And the issue surely touches on deep questions: What are our responses to one another? Should we permit the state to intrude into the most intimate and personal aspects of our lives? Where are the boundaries of freedom? What does it mean to be human?

Of the many actual points of view, it is widely held–especially in the media, which rarely have the time or the inclination to make fine distinctions–that there are only two: “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” This is what the two principal warring camps like to call themselves, and that’s what we’ll call them here. In the simplest characterization, a pro-choicer would hold that the decision to abort a pregnancy is to be made only by the woman; the state has no right to interfere. And a pro-lifer would hold that, from the moment of conception, the embryo or fetus is alive; that this life imposes on us a moral obligation to preserve it; and that abortion is tantamount to murder. Both names–pro-choice and pro-life–were picked with an eye toward influencing those whose minds are not yet made up: Few people wish to be counted either as being against freedom of choice or as opposed to life. Indeed, freedom and life are two of our most cherished values, and here they seem to be in fundamental conflict.

Let’s consider these two absolutist positions in turn. A newborn baby is surely the same being it was just before birth. There ‘s good evidence that a late-term fetus responds to sound–including music, but especially its mother’s voice. It can suck its thumb or do a somersault. Occasionally, it generates adult brain-wave patterns. Some people claim to remember being born, or even the uterine environment. Perhaps there is thought in the womb. It’s hard to maintain that a transformation to full personhood happens abruptly at the moment of birth. Why, then, should it be murder to kill an infant the day after it was born but not the day before?

As a practical matter, this isn’t very important: Less than 1 percent of all tabulated abortions in the United States are listed in the last three months of pregnancy (and, on closer investigation, most such reports turn out to be due to miscarriage or miscalculation). 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 … ? Once we acknowledge that the state can interfere at any time in the pregnancy, doesn’t it follow that the state can interfere at all times?

Abortion and the slippery slope argument above

This conjures up the specter of predominantly male, predominantly affluent legislators telling poor women they must bear and raise alone children they cannot afford to bring up; forcing teenagers to bear children they are not emotionally prepared to deal with; saying to women who wish for a career that they must give up their dreams, stay home, and bring up babies; and, worst of all, condemning victims of rape and incest to carry and nurture the offspring of their assailants. Legislative prohibitions on abortion arouse the suspicion that their real intent is to control the independence and sexuality of women…

And yet, by consensus, all of us think it proper that there be prohibitions against, and penalties exacted for, murder. It would be a flimsy defense if the murderer pleads that this is just between him and his victim and none of the government’s business. If killing a fetus is truly killing a human being, is it not the duty of the state to prevent it? Indeed, one of the chief functions of government is to protect the weak from the strong.

If we do not oppose abortion at some stage of pregnancy, is there not a danger of dismissing an entire category of human beings as unworthy of our protection and respect? And isn’t that dismissal the hallmark of sexism, racism, nationalism, and religious fanaticism? Shouldn’t those dedicated to fighting such injustices be scrupulously careful not to embrace another?

https://content.swncdn.com/zcast/oneplace/host-images/love-worth-finding/640×480.jpg?v=181220-090

For the complete text, including illustrations, introductory quote, footnotes, and commentary on the reaction to the originally published article see Billions and Billions.

Here is an excerpt of a message from Adrian Rogers on DOES CHARACTER COUNT?

Here’s a final trait of leadership that God requires. A leader must protect the weak and the helpless.

In Proverbs 31:8-9, God says to King Lemuel, “Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction. Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.”

A president, or any leader, must speak up for those who can’t speak up for themselves, those who are about to be destroyed. When a president is inaugurated, he takes a pledge to defend the nation. There are many defenseless people in America today, and they’re depending on the government to defend them. The President should be standing up for the unborn, the most defenseless of all those who cannot speak for themselves.

I once testified in Washington before a Senate committee dealing with abortion. After I left the room there at the Capitol, a female lawyer met me in the hall. “You don’t understand,” she said. “You’re a man, so you don’t understand what a trauma it is to have an unwanted pregnancy.”

I said to her, “Do I understand you to say that if somebody traumatizes you, you can eliminate them? Because you’re traumatizing me right now. What if I were to put both my thumbs on your windpipe and strangle you right now? At least you could scream or run. But a baby in its mother’s womb can’t do either.”

She just turned and walked off. I’m sure she told someone, “That Baptist preacher said he was going to strangle me!” But I only said, “What if?”

It’s the job of a ruler to speak up for the unborn! “Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction,” God commands the one in authority. Someone may say, “But Pastor Rogers, abortion is legal.” Then hear these verses: “Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood” (Ps. 94:20-21).

If a throne of iniquity is one that uses the law to commit evil, then what we have in America today is a throne of iniquity! Laws are passed to shed innocent blood. But NOTHING IS POLITICALLY RIGHT THAT IS MORALLY WRONG.

Jeremiah said concerning evil King Jehoiakim, “Thine eyes and thine heart are not but for thy covetousness, and for to shed innocent blood, and for oppression, and for violence, to do it” (22:17). The prophet Habakkuk warned, “Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and stablisheth a city by iniquity!” (2:12).

The king, the prince, the president, must be the protector of the helpless. This is the character that God requires.

Related posts:

Taking on Ark Times Bloggers on various issues Part F “Carl Sagan’s views on how God should try and contact us” includes film “The Basis for Human Dignity”

April 8, 2013 – 7:07 am

I have gone back and forth and back and forth with many liberals on the Arkansas Times Blog on many issues such as abortion, human rights, welfare, poverty, gun control  and issues dealing with popular culture. Here is another exchange I had with them a while back. My username at the Ark Times Blog is Saline […] By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis SchaefferProlife | Edit | Comments (0)

Carl Sagan v. Nancy Pearcey

March 18, 2013 – 9:11 am

On March 17, 2013 at our worship service at Fellowship Bible Church, Ben Parkinson who is one of our teaching pastors spoke on Genesis 1. He spoke about an issue that I was very interested in. Ben started the sermon by reading the following scripture: Genesis 1-2:3 English Standard Version (ESV) The Creation of the […] By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Adrian RogersAtheists ConfrontedCurrent Events | TaggedBen ParkinsonCarl Sagan | Edit | Comments (0)

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution)

May 24, 2012 – 1:47 am

Review of Carl Sagan book (Part 4 of series on Evolution) The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 5 of 6 Uploaded by FLIPWORLDUPSIDEDOWN3 on Aug 30, 2010 http://www.icr.org/ http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWA2http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=BLOWASGhttp://www.fliptheworldupsidedown.com/blog _______________________ I got this from a blogger in April of 2008 concerning candidate Obama’s view on evolution: Q: York County was recently in the news […] By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Atheists ConfrontedCurrent EventsPresident Obama | EditComments (0)

_

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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: