Category Archives: Prolife

Dred Scott case wrongly took away human rights just as we take them away from our unborn children today

June 7, 2012 – 5:48 am

Answering Those Who Are Only “Personally Pro-Life” – Quick Thought

Uploaded by on Apr 28, 2010

Ana Benderas of Live Action addresses those who are personally against abortion but believe that others should be able to take the life on unborn children. Learn more about Live Action at: http://LiveAction.org

_____________

When you look back at history in the USA and see court cases like the Dred Scott case then you will realize that humans must be given their rights. Blacks deserve them and so do the unborn children in their mother’s body. There is no way to say these cases are different.

abortion_baby Abortion and Human RightsGreg convincingly describes how the issue of abortion is truly no different than the issue of slavery. The issue to be considered is the issue of human rights.  By: Gregory Koukl
Let me ask you a question. Are you against slavery? Do you believe that the issue of slavery is a moral position? Are laws legislating that particular moral position appropriate? What you’ve said is that it’s appropriate to legislate certain moral issues and that you’d be in favor of that. The economic issue would actually be on the side of the South because slavery is what propped up the economic system of the South. When slaves were emancipated it gutted them of their economic force. Let’s remove the economic argument.Based solely on morality, are you willing to say that the moral issue of slavery should be enforced simply as a moral issue? This is a very important point. Many people have offered the objection that we should not force a particular morality in the issue of abortion. My questions are very pointed and leading, and they were simply to make the point that virtually everybody who makes that kind of objection actually does believe that there are cases in which morality should be legislated. We talked about the obvious issue of slavery because there is the human rights issue that is at stake.

divider

The question for us is whether the unborn child is a human being that has inalienable rights in the same way that a black is a human being that has inalienable rights.

divider

My encouragement to you and anyone else who would espouse the same position is to understand that the pro-life side is arguing this issue on the basis of human rights. The question for us is whether the unborn child is a human being that has inalienable rights in the same way that a black is a human being that has inalienable rights. If that is the case, it is just as appropriate for us to legislate on the abortion issue as it is in the slavery issue. It’s not just a casual parallel because in 1859 Judge Taney on the Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott decision that declared that black people were not human beings and did not deserve protection under the law. That was a Supreme Court decision that was later overturned by The Emancipation Proclamation.The point I’m making is that if you don’t address this issue on a human rights basis then you’re not addressing it on the basis that pro-lifers are addressing it. The questions should be asked about the appropriateness of abortion or about laws against abortion based on a human rights issue. To be honest with you, I and virtually every other pro-lifer will abandon the fight if the unborn child is not a human being worthy of being protected. We’re not interested in getting into people’s bedrooms and telling them how to have sex and how to live. We’re not interested in restricting choices because we are bigoted and want to make people’s lives miserable. We’re interested in human rights just like those who argued against slavery.

If you are to reject my position on abortion, that’s your prerogative. I respect your right to do that. But I would encourage you to engage intellectually the real critical issue: is the unborn child a human being? If you can answer for yourself with some rationality that there is no reason to believe that this is a human being, then I think you’ve justified your position. But I don’t think the simple objection that it’s not appropriate for one person to force their morality on someone else is ultimately legitimate. When questioned a little bit you acknowledge that that’s not a valid way of approaching human rights issues.

What about cases of rape and incest?

divider

During the slavery debate, both in this country and at the turn of the century in England, the issues were framed in the same way: choice, the government shouldn’t be in the position of legislating morality, the government shouldn’t tell us how to run our private lives. Yet there a human being clearly was at issue.

divider

I don’t say that it’s permissible in those cases. I think you’re pointing out an inconsistency in this discussion that is very valid. I agree entirely and this is why I do not hold that abortion should be allowed in those cases. This really demonstrates how important the question of the human rights of the child is because it compels us to certain conclusions. It removes from us the liberty of making ad hoc decisions based on our emotions. We must approach this in a disciplined way as a transcendent human rights issue. If we don’t do that we are not doing the issue justice.But what I don’t want anybody to do is to mistakenly frame this issue as one of choice. It is not an issue of choice any more than slavery was an issue of choice. It’s not an issue of what a woman can do with her body. Frankly, a woman can’t do what she wants with her own body and neither can men. Laws restrict those freedoms given the right set of circumstances.

The issue to be considered here is the issue of human rights. It’s unfortunate that the press and certain people arguing for one position have framed the question differently because they have missed the entire point. During the slavery debate, both in this country and at the turn of the century in England, the issues were framed in the same way: choice, the government shouldn’t be in the position of legislating morality, the government shouldn’t tell us how to run our private lives. Yet there a human being clearly was at issue. Even then when you had a living, breathing human being standing there staring back, they still could argue that way. I’m not a bit surprised that it could be done with an unseen infant that is growing out of sight in the womb of its mother.

Anyway that’s my personal challenge to you to rethink this issue in a different fashion.

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show“Stand to Reason,” with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1992 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Planned Parenthood up to some more tricks

June 6, 2012 – 6:53 am

It is really sad to me that abortion is so easy to get in the USA.

Ericka Andersen

May 30, 2012 at 3:03 pm

The War on Baby Girls: Part 1 – Undercover in Texas

Think sex-selective abortions—known as gendercide—happen only in China? Wrong. This week, Live Action films produced an undercover video of a Texas Planned Parenthood employee explaining to a patient how to easily obtain an abortion if her unborn child were a girl and not a boy. The employee also gave the patient guidance on committing Medicaid fraud while she waited to find out the baby’s sex—but that point deserves a separate discussion altogether.

Sex-selective abortions have been publicly debated recently due to forced abortion opponent and Chinese dissident Chen Guangchang. Guangcheng found himself in danger because of his opposition to China’s one-child policy that often perpetuates gendercide. It has caused a heated and necessary discussion of the issue worldwide.

Americans aren’t taking sex-selective abortion lightly. Tomorrow, a bill that would ban sex-selective abortions in the U.S. is up for a vote in the House. The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) would also punish doctors if they perform gendercide, which usually occurs in the second or third trimester, when the baby’s sex is clearly determined.

The option may seem rare, but the facts speak for themselves. For Chinese, Korean, and Indian parents having families and raising children in the U.S., researchers found that a firstborn girl often skews the sex ratio of the following children. For second births, the male-female ratio was 117 to 100, and for third births, it was 151 to 100 if the couple already had two girls.

Girls receive the brunt of gendercide due to cultural stigma, and that’s not going to change. Unless sex-selective abortion is outlawed, the human rights of unborn children, especially girls, will continue to be violated in the United States.

Earlier this year, Heritage reported a sobering statement from Steven W. Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute. In a congressional hearing, Mosher said that until recent negative publicity, “It was not unusual to find abortionists advertising the availability of sex-selective abortions in newspapers such as The New York Times.”

Thankfully, such publicity surfaced, and now America can debate this horrific practice in the light of day. Today, the world is missing more than 160 million women because of gendercide. While the U.S. can’t end the practice worldwide, it can restore human rights to unborn children in America.

The PRENDA bill is sponsored by Representative Trent Franks (R–AZ), who said, “As Americans, all of us know in our hearts that aborting a little baby because…she is a little girl instead of a little boy is fundamentally wrong, and represents a betrayal of the precious truth that all human beings are created equal.”

Pro-abortion feminist organizations like NARAL are claiming that PRENDA discriminates against women by interfering with their “choice” to abort female babies. It is hard to imagine a position more retrograde toward women than one that allows for their systematic elimination.

As Heritage’s Jennifer Marshall and Sarah Torre wrote recently, “If there is equality between women and men, it’s rooted in our nature and purpose as human beings. Denying that fundamental dignity inherent in all human life destroys the very basis of equality.”

On behalf of the millions of girls whose lives have been taken, let’s finally unite behind the clear and uncontroversial principle that gendercide is wrong and that America should do something to stop it.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

Hank Hanegraaff on the issue of abortion (Part 8)

June 6, 2012 – 6:52 am

Francis Schaeffer February 21, 1982 (Part 1)

Uploaded by on Feb 21, 2008

READ THIS FIRST: In decline of all civilizations we first see a war against the freedom of ideas. Discussion is limited or prohibited. Speakers at universities are shouted down. Corruption takes over city governments and towns as dishonesty and corruption expands. Small stores have to shut down because none are honest enough to run a cash register. The stock of stores is looted by employees and pilfered and shop owners flee. Stock markets are rife with manipulation and the plague of dishonesty. We have learned that sound and lasting civilized ideas are built upon very rare and special foundations. Frances Schaeffer is one guy who has sparked my own thinking and study. He has influenced my writing and prison ministry greatly. Humans must be convinced intellectually, historically and reasonably as well as through the Biblical teachings. Francis Shaeffer has helped all of us wade through this vast propaganda sewer to approach fundamental questions, one of which is: “Why do nations and empires decline?”

_______________

Francis Schaeffer February 21, 1982 (Part 2)

Francis Schaeffer rightly identified abortion as the key issue.

Have We Given Up on the Issue of Abortion?

By: Hank Hanegraaff

Imagine living in a country in which members of Congress would mandate researchers ‘either destroy embryos or risk imprisonment.’ Imagine a nation that not only permits the killing of the most vulnerable among us but mandates such mayhem for the purposes of research. Imagine no further—the day has arrived. As the former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork has well said, we have began inexorably “slouching toward Gomorrah.”[1]I’ll never forgot the words of George Will, when he said, “we are experiencing the slow motion barbarization of America.”

The founders of our Republic could only in their darkest nightmares have imagined relativism trumping objective moral standards in a free society. The rise of technology and the fall of ethical consensus have brought us to a society full of moral dilemmas. This stark reality was born out in 1973 when Christians quietly passed in a battle in the war against abortion.

The far reaching impact of that abdication is felt in the raging battle over embryonic stem cell research. In the wake of the current moral and ethical tsunami, it is incumbent upon Christians to not only provide relief but bring the rebuilding process. Nothing less than Western Civilization is at stake.

I’ll never forget what Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer said many years ago: abortion would be the watershed issue of our era. “Of all the subjects related to the erosion of the sanctity of human life abortion is the keystone.”[2] Of course, his warning tragically fell on deaf ears.

Consider the statements of some of the leading spiritual and secular leaders of our age. Beverly Harrison, a professor of Christian Ethics at Union Theological Seminary, “Infanticide is not a great wrong. I do not want to be construed as condemning women who under certain circumstances quietly put their infants to death.”[3]Esther Langston, Professor of Social Work at the University of Nevada, “What we are saying is that abortion becomes one of the choices and the person has the right to choose whatever it is that is… best for them in the situation in which they find themselves: be it abortion, keep the baby, adopt the baby, sell the baby, leave the baby in a dumpster, put it on your porch, whatever. It’s the person’s right to choose.”[4] Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who famously remarked “that the most merciful thing a large family can do for one of its infant members is to kill it.”[5]

Where does this slippery slope lead? Think only to the words of James Watson, the Nobel prize winner and the co-discover of the structure of DNA, “Because of the limitations of present detection methods most birth defects are not discovered until birth; however, if a child was not declared alive until three days after birth the doctor would allow the child to die if the parents so chose and save a lot of misery and suffering.”[6]

This is the epoch in which we find ourselves. In view of this reality, we should go back to the words of Scripture. “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps. 139:13). A song was written with those words in mind. It was haunting, not only to hear the music but to see the images. It was the first pro-life song by Cindee Martin Morgan, who is the daughter of the late Dr. Walter Martin, the founder and former president of CRI. It was recorded by her daughter Sharon at the tender age of seven. We featured that song on the Bible Answer Man broadcast and we lauded the fact that Cindee Martin Morgan and her husband Rick Morgan were vigilant in the battle against abortion.

The reason we did that is because the reality is today there are very few Christians who will put their lives on the line for this issue. Christians have become apathetic. There was a recent Pew Research Poll that found that among all respondents to the poll concern about the abortion issues has dropped. Only 15% of respondents said that abortion was a critical issue.[7] It’s an issue to which we have been anesthetized to. This does not mean that we shouldn’t be involved in the debate or the discussion. It’s a watershed issue of our era; we should be involved.

So Cindee and Rick have continued the battle, recognizing it’s not about whether we win or lose. It’s about being faithful with the platform that God gives us. They have now come out with a new pro-life song called, “Who will Save the Little Ones?” It’s a call to lawful action on behalf of the unborn. You can hear this at our Website (http://www.equip.org/site/savethelittleones). I also did an hour long interview with Cindee and Rick on October 6, 2009; this can be heard also at our Website (http://www.equip.org/broadcasts/who-will-save-the-little-ones-20090610). To visit their Website go to (http://www.MtMoriahMusic.com) Also to equip you in defending the Pro-Life position we recommend the book Whose Ethics? Whose Morals? available at our Website or by calling 1-888-7000-0274.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Francis Schaeffer | Comments (0)

Hank Hanegraaff on the issue of abortion (Part 7)

June 5, 2012 – 6:31 am

I am hoping that we start to respect the lives of the unborn in the USA in the future more than we have in the past.

The Bible and Abortion: A Biblical View of Abortion

 

THE BIBLE AND ABORTION- IntroductionAbortion (as a medical procedure) is never mentioned in the Bible. So that must mean that the Bible has nothing relevant to say on the subject, Right?  THE BIBLE AND ABORTION- What Does the Bible Say?Abortion is one of the most critical issues of our generation. Christians need to consider carefully what the Bible has to say on the subject.THE BIBLE AND ABORTION- The Bible Condemns MurderFirst of all, the Bible clearly condemns murder, and by murder I don’t mean all killing. The Bible obviously allows animals to be killed, accidental killing of human beings is not condemned, and human beings may, in fact, be deliberately killed if they’ve committed a capital offense. You see the real issue is murder not killing, and murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.THE BIBLE AND ABORTION- Is Abortion Murder?So once again the question, is abortion murder?  First of all, abortion certainly kills something: because obviously the fetus is a living organism, biologically distinct from the mother. The fetus also is certainly innocent — no one aborts a fetus because of something the fetus has supposedly done. And, with the exception of abortion to save the mother’s life, abortion is always done with the clear intent of killing the fetus. Therefore, the question of whether abortion is murder turns entirely on whether the fetus is or is not a human being.THE BIBLE AND ABORTION- A Fetus Is a Human BeingNumerous philosophers and scientists have shown conclusively that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. In addition, the Bible, which ought to be our first authority, supports the very same conclusion. For example, in Psalm 51 David confesses that he was a sinner by nature from his very conception in the womb (Psa. 51:5).THE BIBLE AND ABORTION- ConclusionThe conclusion is this: abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it has to be regarded as murder. The only exception, as I have already indicated, would be in cases where the child must be aborted or the mother will die.THE BIBLE AND ABORTION- Abortion is MurderIn short, while the Bible does not mention abortion specifically, it is clear by implication that abortion is murder. And don’t forget that Psalm 139 tells us that God created our inmost being, He knit us together in our mother’s womb and that all the days ordained for us were written in his book before even one of them came to be.On the Bible and abortion, that’s the CRI Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

March 17th, 2009 by CRI | Type: Standard

Filed Under: Current Events and Christianity, Perspectives

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Francis Schaeffer | Comments (0)

Hank Hanegraaff on the issue of abortion (Part 6)

June 4, 2012 – 6:34 am

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

We got to pray that pro-life judges will be appointed in the future.

The Pro-Life Argument: Is the Pro-Life Argument Unfair?

 

THE PRO-LIFE ARGUMENT- IntroductionThose who are pro-abortion or, as they prefer to be called, “pro-choice,” argue that the pro-life position on abortion is unfair. Is it really?THE PRO-LIFE ARGUMENT- Unfair Advantage to the RichPro-abortionists argue that if abortion were made illegal, it would become available only to the rich and not to the poor. The poor would become burdened with children they cannot afford to raise. Teenage girls who get pregnant would be forced to endure the emotional and physical ordeals of pregnancy and child-rearing even if they are not ready for them. Forcing women to bear children under these conditions, we are told, would simply be unfair to the women, and also to the children who would have to endure such poverty and unwantedness.THE PRO-LIFE ARGUMENT- A Very Important AssumptionThese arguments all make one very important assumption: that the unborn are not human beings. Should we allow parents who are too poor to take care of their children the right to kill them? If a teenage mother decides six months after giving birth that she doesn’t want her baby any more, should she be allowed to kill it? Of course not! But then, neither should parents of children who have not yet been born have the right to kill them. Thus the issue is not whether abortion is unfair, but whether the unborn are really human beings.THE PRO-LIFE ARGUMENT- Overlooked FactsThese arguments also overlook certain facts. For one thing, except in the case of women who are raped or who are victims of incest, no woman is “forced” to become pregnant or to give birth. And these hard cases account for only a small fraction of the abortions performed. Secondly, in the vast majority of cases adoption is still a very viable alternative to abortion. Children born to homeless mothers, to drug addicts, or to teenage mothers can be adopted into good homes with mature parents.THE PRO-LIFE ARGUMENT- Abortion Unfair to the UnbornMaking abortion a crime would not be unfair to anyone. However, abortion is deadly unfair to the unborn. In fact, we need to recognize one more time what an incredible privilege it is to have children — and to recognize that God, indeed, opens and closes the womb.On abortion and fairness, that’s the CRI Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

March 17th, 2009 by CRI | Type: Standard

Filed Under: Current Events and Christianity, Perspectives

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Francis Schaeffer | Comments (0)

Hank Hanegraaff on the issue of abortion (Part 5)

June 1, 2012 – 6:31 am

Francis Schaeffer

Uploaded by on Feb 7, 2012

Happy Birthday to someone who made a Big Difference. I’m John Stonestreet, and this is The Point. Visit http://www.thepointradio.org for more commentaries about life, culture, and current events.

______________

Francis Schaeffer, Part 2

We need pro-life judges to be appointed in the future.

What Is Abortion?

Article ID: DA375

By: Hank Hanegraaff

The following is an excerpt from article DA375 by Hank Hanegraaff. The full article can be found by following the link below the excerpt.

Those who continue to fight legislation restricting abortion are in reality not “pro-choice.” Rather, they are singularly “pro-murder.” While the rhetoric has served to camouflage the carnage, abortion is really nothing more than the painful killing of an innocent human being.

What Is Abortion?- Painful

It is painful because the methods employed to kill a preborn child involve burning, smothering, dismembering, and crushing. Dr. James Dobson offers a terrifying description of one method of abortion called Dilation and Extraction (D & X):

Over two days the cervix is dilated. Then an ultrasound device and forceps are used to reach in and grab the baby’s feet. The little body is pulled downward until just the head remains in the cervix. Next the abortionist grasps the nape of the neck and cuts open the back of the skull with blunt scissors. A device called a cannula is then inserted into the wound and the brain material is sucked out. If kidneys or other organs are desired, they are removed while the child is still partially in the vagina. Initially at least, these surgical procedures are performed on a live baby who has not specifically been anesthetized (although the mother’s medication may reduce some of the pain).9

Abortion is also performed by a procedure called Dilation and Curettage (D & C), in which a tiny hoe is used to chop the baby’s body to pieces. The body is then scraped off the wall of the uterus and subsequently reassembled to ensure that no remaining parts have been left behind. Other methods include:

• Saline Solution — a salt solution is injected into the amniotic fluid, burning the skin off the baby who, after thrashing in the uterus for a number of hours, is reduced to a shriveled corpse;

• Suction — presently two-thirds of all abortions in the United States and Canada are carried out using a suction tube, which tears the child apart and deposit the pieces into a jar;

• Hysterotomy — similar to a Caesarean section, except it is designed for the express purpose of killing rather than saving the baby;

• Prostaglandin — the injection of a chemical into the uterine muscle, causing it to react violently, thus expelling the preborn child (the few children who survive decapitation resulting from the violent contractions are exterminated after delivery).

What is Abortion?- Killing

Abortion involves killing because the zygote, which fulfills the criteria needed to establish the existence of biological life (including metabolism, development, the ability to react to stimuli, and cell reproduction), is indeed terminated.

What is Abortion?- Innocent

While it is true that everyone is conceived and born in sin, preborn children are innocent because they have done nothing wrong. They deserve protection, not capital punishment.

What is Abortion?- Human Being

The living baby in the mother’s womb is a human being because he or she is the product of human parents and has a totally distinct human genetic code. This truth that abortion terminates the life of a human being is substantiated by science:

• As Dr. Micheline Matthew-Roth, a principal research associate at Harvard Medical School’s Department of Medicine, puts it, “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception, when egg and sperm join to form the zygote, and this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of its life.”10

• French geneticist Jerome L. LeJeune bore eloquent testimony to the truth of Dr. Matthew-Roth’s remarks when he gave the following testimony to a United States Senate sub-committee: “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.”11

• Perhaps Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and a physician at the prestigious Mayo Clinic, best summarized the perspective of science when he said, “I think we can now also say that the question of the beginning of life — when life begins — is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.”12

Long before science substantiated the truth that abortion is the painful killing of an innocent human being, the psalmist summarized the view of sacred Scripture with these words:

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

Psalm 139:13-16

March 30th, 2009 by CRI | Type: Standard

Filed Under: Abortion, Articles Tags: , , ,

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Francis Schaeffer | Comments (0)

Hank Hanegraaff on the issue of abortion (Part 4)

May 31, 2012 – 7:37 am

Church History & Abortion

Uploaded by on Sep 30, 2010

This 10.5 minute Power Point presentation gives statements from Church leaders (early and late) regarding the Christian Church’s opposition to abortion.

__________________

I am hopeful that we will have some pro-life judges appointed in the future. Without that happening then abortion will continue to go up at a rapid pace.

Should abortions be permitted in the case of rape or incest?

 

When the subject of abortion comes up, rape and incest are often used as an emotional appeal designed to deflect serious consideration of the pro-life position: “How can anyone deny a hurting woman safe medical care and freedom from the terror of rape or incest by forcing her to maintain a pregnancy resulting from the cruel and criminal invasion of her body?” The emotion of the argument often precludes serious examination of its merits.

First, it is important to note that the incidence of pregnancy as a result of rape is rare, with studies estimating that approximately 1 percent to 4.7 percent of rapes result in pregnancy. Thus lobbying for abortion on the basis of rape and incest is like lobbying for the removal of red lights because you might have to run one in order to rescue someone who is about to commit suicide. Even if we had legislation restricting abortion for all reasons other than rape or incest, we would save the vast majority of the 1.8 million preborn babies who die annually in the United States through abortion.

Furthermore, one does not obviate the real pain of rape or incest by compounding it with the murder of an innocent preborn child. Two wrongs do not make a right. The very thing that makes rape evil also makes abortion evil. In both cases, an innocent human being is brutally dehumanized.

In both cases, an innocent human being is brutally dehumanized. Finally, the real question is whether abortion is the murder of an innocent human being. If so, abortion should be avoided at all costs. In an age of scientific enlightenment we now know that the embryo even at its earliest stages fulfills the criteria needed to establish the existence of biological life (including metabolism, development, the ability to react to stimuli, and cell reproduction); that a zygote is a living human being as demonstrated by its distinct genetic code; and that human personhood does not depend on size, location, or level of dependence. Thus, abortion should be avoided even in cases of rape and incest.

For further study, see Hank Hanegraaff, “Annihilating Abortion Arguments,” available through the Christian Research Institute (CRI) at http://www.equip.org.

Proverbs 17:15:
“Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent-the LORD detests them both.”

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Francis Schaeffer | Comments (0)

Loretta Ross’ son: A case for pro-life position

May 30, 2012 – 8:09 pm

Superbowl commercial with Tim Tebow and Mom.

In Little Rock on January 21, 2012 in front of 100 pro-choice advocates met next to the Capitol to hear Loretta Ross speak. In that talk she pointed out something about her own experience. (Below is from another speech in which she recounts some of the same details.)

Loretta Ross: Frankly, I’m a woman who at 14, became pregnant through incest. It was not voluntary at all, OK? At the time my son was born, and I had to carry that pregnancy to term, because it was pre-Roe. 1969. I had the option of giving my child up for adoption. I found I couldn’t do it. I took one look at his face and I couldn’t do it. So I ended up parenting that kid and I’m glad I had him. I’m glad I parented him. but at the same time, anyone who acts like it’s just so easy to carry a child to term, give birth and them just hand the baby over to somebody else obviously has never done it. And the women I’ve talked to who have done it, often regret having done it. Even more so than the so-called women who regret having abortions. So it’s a scheme designed to make black women feel guilty, it builds on the fantasy of adoption being easy and it ignores the fact that something like 4 out of 5 children in adoption agencies that are hard to place are African-American.

Notice her words: “I took one look at his face and I couldn’t do it. So I ended up parenting that kid and I’m glad I had him. I’m glad I parented him.”

Let me share a similar story. I used to write letters to the editor a whole lot back in the 1990’s.  I am pro-life and many times my letters would discuss current political debates, and I got to know several names of people that would often write in response letters to my published letters. One of those individuals was a Dr. William F. Harrison from Fayetteville. Later I found out from reading an article by David Sanders that Dr. Harrison was an abortionist. Dr Harrison died from leukemia on September 24, 2010. Here is a post from Jason Tolbert from July of 2010:

KFSM in Fayetteville is reporting that abortist William Harrison is closing the doors to his abortion clinic in nothwest Arkansas for health reasons. In an ABC News story a few year ago, Harrison said he had performed over 10,000 abortions and was comfortable with the taking of life.

I now write a column for Stephen Media in a spot once held by conservative David J. Sanders who is currently running for the Arkansas House of Representatives.  Sanders shadowed Harrison in his abortion clinic and wrote of series of columns on the experience.  I think these are prehaps Sanders’ best work…

Harrison is sure that what he does is right, but he confessed to the enormous costs that come in his line of work. There were threats against his wife and children and staff. He commented that if he “had known” everything – the threats, the risks – that would take place over the years, he might not have decided to provide abortions.

Some years ago, a 16-year-old daughter of a close friend of the family had gotten pregnant. “Their Baptist minister had advised her parents that she shouldn’t have an abortion and that (if she did) she would regret it the rest of her life. But had I had the choice, at the time, I would have advised (the mother of the teenager) to have that child aborted,” he said as he stared at his desktop.

“Well, she had her baby. She’s as smart as a whip,” he said. Now, years later, that baby is grown and about to finish her doctorate at the University of California at San Francisco.

I asked him if that sent chills up his spine. His response: “Absolutely.”

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Hank Hanegraaff on the issue of abortion (Part 3)

May 30, 2012 – 5:26 am

What Ever Happened to the Human Race?

We really need some prolife judges appointed soon  that will respect the sanctity of human life including that of unborn children.

The Abortion Holocaust

Article ID: DA375

By: Hank Hanegraaff

The following is an excerpt from article DA375 by Hank Hanegraaff. The full article can be found by following the link below the excerpt.

For hundreds of years the Lord had warned the Israelites through His prophets. Now it was too late! Darkness had descended upon the Promised Land. The people of Israel had become the slaves of the mighty Assyrians. Although the tribe of Judah to the south had miraculously survived the initial onslaught, they somehow blithely managed to ignore the lesson of history.

2 Kings tells us that Ahaz, king of Judah, “walked in the ways of the kings of Israel and even sacrificed his son in the fire, following the detestable ways of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites” (16:3).

The nation of Israel had indeed become a mirror reflection of the pagan culture by which they found themselves surrounded. True prophets continued to warn God’s people that their wickedness would inexorably lead to destruction, but their words fell on deaf ears. The rulers of the land had become so corrupt that they even hired false prophets to tell them what their itching ears wanted to hear.

Finally, the inevitable occurred. The ax of God’s judgment fell. Babylon leveled Jerusalem, and the people of Judah were driven from their land of promise.

Today America, like ancient Israel, is turning a deaf ear to the lesson of history. We have repeatedly violated God’s commands, as if we could do so with impunity. We have failed to heed the warnings of His prophets and have embraced the new paganism of our times. Indeed, our ways have become detestable to the Lord; we have forgotten His command: “When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord, and because of these detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the Lord your God” (Deut. 18:9-12; emphasis added).

Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer warned us that abortion would be the watershed issue of our era. He said, “Of all the subjects relating to the erosion of the sanctity of human life, abortion is the keystone. It is the first and crucial issue that has been overwhelming in changing attitudes toward the value of life in general.”1

Schaeffer’s warning has tragically fallen on deaf ears. For more than two decades we have sacrificed our children on the altars of hedonism. And even now, the ax of God’s judgment has been laid to the root.

Two thousand years ago Christ warned us that “the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed!’” (Luke 23:29). The present day abortion holocaust has driven those words home in dramatic fashion. Consider the statements of some of the spiritual and secular leaders of our age:

• Beverly Harrison (professor of Christian ethics at Union Theological Seminary) — “Infanticide is not a great wrong. I do not want to be construed as condemning women who, under certain circumstances, quietly put their infants to death” (emphasis in original).2

• Esther Langston (professor of social work at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas): “What we are saying is that abortion becomes one of the choices and the person has the right to choose whatever it is that is…best for them in the situation in which they find themselves, be it abortion, to keep the baby, to adopt it, to sell it, to leave it in a dumpster, to put it on your porch, whatever; it’s the person’s right to choose.”3

• Mary S. Calderone, M.D. (head of SIECUS — Sex Information and Education Council of the United States): “We have yet to beat our drums for birth control in the way we beat them for polio vaccine, we are still unable to put babies in the class of dangerous epidemics, even though this is the exact truth.”4

• Margaret Sanger (the late founder of Planned Parenthood): “The most merciful thing a large family can do for one of its infant members is to kill it.”5

• Nobel Prize laureate James Watson (co-discoverer of DNA) — “Because of the limitations of present detection methods, most birth defects are not discovered until birth. . . . However if a child was not declared alive until 3 days after birth . . . the doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering.”6

Perhaps most frightening of all, President Clinton signed into law the National Institute of Health Revitalization Act. As a direct result it is now legal not only to kill but also to carve up murdered babies and use them for fetal tissue research.7

While pondering this horrifying reality, remember that the present-day holocaust is government-funded. It means that you and I are footing the bill!8

Make no mistake: “Choice” advocates like Clinton, Congress, and the Courts are not the friends of children. America’s unthinking submission to their twisted arguments is moving us progressively toward social genocide of a magnitude eclipsing that of Hitler, Stalin, Somalia, and the Serb-Croate conflict.

The movement’s own label — “pro-choice” — is a twisted deception, covering up a nationally sanctioned holocaust in which the “right” to choose to kill a child reigns supreme over:

• the baby’s human rights;

• the rights of the parents of a pregnant minor;

• the rights of the preborn’s father;

• the mother’s right to accurate information about fetal development and the negative consequences of abortion;

• the rights of society to protect all its members — no matter what their social status, economic situation, or physical limitations.

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

The Dissatisfaction of Francis Schaeffer Part 4

May 29, 2012 – 6:12 am

Church History & Abortion

Uploaded by on Sep 30, 2010

This 10.5 minute Power Point presentation gives statements from Church leaders (early and late) regarding the Christian Church’s opposition to abortion.

________________

I learned so much from the books and films of Francis Schaeffer. He really got me excited about the pro-life movement. In order to understand where I am coming from it is best to take a look at where Schaeffer was coming from and his thought processes. Take a look at this article below that appeared 13 years after his death in Christianity Today.

Looking back it seems now that many of the things that Schaeffer saw coming in the future if secular man continued down this path of humanism have actually happened. Michael Hamilton has commented:

The conceptual centerpiece of Schaeffer’s historical view is the triumph of relativism in the modern post-Christian world: “Modern men, in the absence of absolutes, have polluted all aspects of morality, making standards completely hedonistic and relativistic.” He would not have been surprised by the advent of “postmodern” thought, which has built countless altars to relativism across the intellectual landscape. Nor would he have been surprised by the resultant moral vacuum that characterizes much contemporary academic thinking. In a recent issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education,anthropologist Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban agonized over the fact that her discipline’s prime directive—cultural relativism—left her with no rationale for opposing rape or racial genocide in other cultures. One can almost hear Francis Schaeffer saying, “I told you so.”

In particular, he appears to have been prescient on the issue of human life. In 1976 he observed that “in regard to the fetus, the courts have arbitrarily separated ‘aliveness’ from ‘personhood,’ and if this is so, why not arbitrarily do the same with the aged? So the steps move along, and euthanasia may well become increasingly acceptable. And if so, why not keep alive the bodies of … persons in whom the brain wave is flat to harvest from them body parts and blood?” Schaeffer’s bleak vision is now daily news. “Cadaver Jack” Kevorkian has already killed more people than Ted Bundy, but the state of Michigan cannot muster the political will to stop him. A federal court has forbidden the state of Washington to pass laws preventing doctors from killing their patients, while the University of Washington is permitted to scavenge and sell the body parts of thousands of aborted children every year.

Thirteen years after his death, Schaeffer’s vision and frustrations continue to haunt evangelicalism.
by Michael S. Hamilton | posted 3/03/1997 12:00AM
 

The meaning of Francis Schaeffer
By the end of his life, Francis Schaeffer had come full circle. A ministry born in the ecclesiastical battles of the early twentieth century now completed its course by urging evangelicals on to another round of internecine warfare. And when all was said and done, evangelicals still did not know what to make of him. Commentators struggling to characterize him adequately have tried to attach a number of labels—pastor, evangelist, pre-evangelist, apologist, missionary to intellectuals, guru to fundamentalists, philosopher, prophet.

There is an element of truth in all these labels; each, by itself, reduces him beyond recognition. Clearly he was evangelicalism’s most important public intellectual in the 20 years before his death. Ideas were to him literally matters of life and death. History, thought Schaeffer, taught that the intellectual base on which a people build their society will determine that society’s laws and character: “There is a flow to history and culture. This flow is rooted and has its wellspring in the thoughts of people.” His singular message was that a society cannot hope for righteousness and justice without thinking the thoughts of God from the bottom up.

Despite Schaeffer’s errors of detail, some critics have recently allowed that his big picture has proven durable. The conceptual centerpiece of Schaeffer’s historical view is the triumph of relativism in the modern post-Christian world: “Modern men, in the absence of absolutes, have polluted all aspects of morality, making standards completely hedonistic and relativistic.” He would not have been surprised by the advent of “postmodern” thought, which has built countless altars to relativism across the intellectual landscape. Nor would he have been surprised by the resultant moral vacuum that characterizes much contemporary academic thinking. In a recent issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, anthropologist Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban agonized over the fact that her discipline’s prime directive—cultural relativism—left her with no rationale for opposing rape or racial genocide in other cultures. One can almost hear Francis Schaeffer saying, “I told you so.”

In particular, he appears to have been prescient on the issue of human life. In 1976 he observed that “in regard to the fetus, the courts have arbitrarily separated ‘aliveness’ from ‘personhood,’ and if this is so, why not arbitrarily do the same with the aged? So the steps move along, and euthanasia may well become increasingly acceptable. And if so, why not keep alive the bodies of … persons in whom the brain wave is flat to harvest from them body parts and blood?” Schaeffer’s bleak vision is now daily news. “Cadaver Jack” Kevorkian has already killed more people than Ted Bundy, but the state of Michigan cannot muster the political will to stop him. A federal court has forbidden the state of Washington to pass laws preventing doctors from killing their patients, while the University of Washington is permitted to scavenge and sell the body parts of thousands of aborted children every year.

In Francis Schaeffer’s later years, he seemed to act as though the social order perhaps could be reformed from the top down, beginning with laws and proceeding toward intellectual foundations. This is almost certainly due to the fact that he was thoroughly radicalized by the merciless killing of millions of unborn children. If his later actions were inconsistent with his philosophy, they were certainly understandable. To echo pro-choice historian Garry Wills, if one really does think that abortion is the taking of innocent human life, surely Schaeffer’s response makes sense.

In trying to assess the meaning of Francis Schaeffer, it is instructive to compare him to Billy Graham. Both reached the peak of their influence at about the same time, and both had an immeasurable impact on American evangelicalism. Graham in many ways represents the moderate middle of evangelicalism—defusing controversy, wishing the best for everyone, friend of both Republicans and Democrats, slow to disturb middle-class conventions, willing to cooperate with anyone who will let him preach the gospel. As historian Grant Wacker once wrote, “When Graham spoke, middle America heard itself.” It was just as natural to see Graham and the President on the fairway together as to see Graham on a platform with a Bible in his hands.

But one can no more imagine Francis Schaeffer playing golf with the rich and famous than one can imagine Mother Teresa shopping for furs in I. Magnin. If Graham represents evangelicalism’s smooth center, Schaeffer represents its crushed-glass edges. Evangelicalism by its nature blurs denominational distinctions, but Schaeffer’s own version of Christianity was tightly sectarian. Graham lent his name widely and welcomed allies from all corners, but Schaeffer refused all alliances. Those who were not his followers but believed in his aims he categorized as cobelligerents in the war against the secularizing and dehumanizing trajectory of modern culture. While Graham appealed to the majority in the middle, Schaeffer attacked the middle for failing to see the direction it was headed. It is no accident that his strongest impact has been among those who have a bone to pick with the middle class—dropouts, intellectuals, and that remarkable recent phenomenon, formerly respectable citizens who have begun to perceive the American judiciary as a refuge for scoundrels.

In short, Francis Schaeffer represents that part of evangelical Christianity that has always been ill at ease with the world in which it finds itself. He once said, “In my teaching, I put a great deal of weight on the fact that we live in an abnormal world. I personally could not stand this world, if I did not understand it is abnormal—that it is not the way God made it.” Perhaps, then, this is his most enduring legacy—his crystalline vision of the vast difference between the world God designed and the world that is the work of our hands.

Michael S. Hamilton is coordinator of the Pew Scholars Programs and concurrent assistant professor of history, University of Notre Dame.

_____________

Francis Schaeffer February 21, 1982 (Part 1)

Uploaded by on Feb 21, 2008

READ THIS FIRST: In decline of all civilizations we first see a war against the freedom of ideas. Discussion is limited or prohibited. Speakers at universities are shouted down. Corruption takes over city governments and towns as dishonesty and corruption expands. Small stores have to shut down because none are honest enough to run a cash register. The stock of stores is looted by employees and pilfered and shop owners flee. Stock markets are rife with manipulation and the plague of dishonesty. We have learned that sound and lasting civilized ideas are built upon very rare and special foundations. Frances Schaeffer is one guy who has sparked my own thinking and study. He has influenced my writing and prison ministry greatly. Humans must be convinced intellectually, historically and reasonably as well as through the Biblical teachings. Francis Shaeffer has helped all of us wade through this vast propaganda sewer to approach fundamental questions, one of which is: “Why do nations and empires decline?”

_______________

Francis Schaeffer February 21, 1982 (Part 2)

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Francis Schaeffer | Comments (0)