Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis

Medical Ethics and the Stewardship of Life

This article originally appeared in the December 15, 1978, issue of Christianity Today, three years before Koop, who died yesterday, was nominated to serve as U.S. Surgeon General.

C Everett Koop, chief surgeon of Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia, received much publicity in 1974 as head of the surgical team to successfully separate Siamese twins. Recently, in another operation on Siamese twins, he had to decide which twin should live and which should die; both would have died if they had remained attached. Such pressures are not unusual.

Koop gets up at six A.M. to have his daily devotions. He drives to the hospital, arriving at about 7:20. He checks the files of the patients that he will be operating on that day and begins surgery at 8; three days a Week he finishes by 10:30 or 11. By then he has performed or six operations. He sees ten to fifteen patients after that, usually with a medical student, teaching him as he examines patients. Koop carries a load of administrative as well as teaching duties—committee meetings with staff, rounds, and conferences with students. After he leaves the hospital at 6:30, he still has about three hours of paper work to do. Koop’s schedule has changed somewhat in the last few years. He now avoids long, tension-producing operations, leaving them to his younger colleagues, though he reserves Wednesday for his big cases.

When he first came to Chi1dren’s Hospital in 1946, Koop had to convince people that the surgery he wanted to do on children would work. He almost lived at the hospital, leaving “my remarkable wife” to carry much of the weight of raising their children. The divorce rate among surgeons, explains Koop, is astronomical.

Assistant editor Cheryl Forbes interviewed Dr. Koop in his office at Children’s Hospital. The following is an edited version of the transcript.

If you hold that the sanctity of life is more important than the problem, how do you choose between two lives? Which life then becomes more important to save?

Everybody has his own reasons for coming to a decision like that and remember that bona fide choices like that are exceedingly rare. If I were an obstetrician, which I am not, and you were my patient and you were pregnant, I would think that my major obligation was to you. It would be a tough moral decision if it ever had to be made. But even the director of Planned Parenthood—world population, the late Dr. Allen Gutttmacher, very proabortion, said that there is almost nothing mentally or physically that obstetricians cannot handle in reference to the pregnant mother. Therefore there is seldom need to sacrifice the fetus to save the mother’s life.

What are some other areas of concern in pregnancy ethics?

I have a great concern about the future, with the use of prostaglandins. Prostaglandins are substances that initiate the whole physiologic process of labor. They are used now and are available to hospitals and abortion clinics, marketed only by Upjohn. In the green sheet published for pharmacologists, prostin-E is listed ask an abortion-inducer. If we now have prostaglandins available for use by physicians to initiate labor, how long will it be before another variety of prostaglandin is marketed as a menses-inducer? It would be possible, for example, to purchase vaginal tampons for a woman to use once a month on the date that she expected to have her period. She would never know whether she was having a normal period or whether she was having a prostaglandin abortion. It could eliminate the whole problem of abortion as we discuss it now, because it would never be anything but a very private affair between a woman and her vaginal tampon.

In your book you cited statistics from other countries that show that rather than reducing the number of abortions, the availability of abortion increases it.

If you don’t have a last-ditch therapy such as abortion, then people pay a little bit more attention to their techniques of contraception. In places like Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Japan people have gotten less and less careful about true contraception because they know that if they do get pregnant they always have a way out in abortion.

How dangerous is abortion? A dilatation and curettage, which is sometimes used for abortion, is not dangerous.

A D&C is one type of abortion, and the one that’s used in the first trimester of pregnancy. Theoretically, if you want to be very erudite, when you are using that technique to extract a fetus, you call it a D&E, because it’s a dilatation and evacuation. The pregnant uterus presents more of a hazard than a nonpregnant uterus, if you are going to scrape its wall. The D&C so called has also been substituted by the suction machine. It sucks out the embryo by negative pressure rather than bringing it out with a little hoe. Statistics in this country about this form of abortion are hard to come by. Free-standing abortion clinics are not under the same kind of control and regulation as is a hospital. Our best comparative statistics come from another Anglo-Saxon country, namely England, where under their national medical service they have kept careful records. After a woman has had an abortion there is an increase in the incidence of sterility, of premature deliveries, of ectopic pregnancies, and of the inability to carry a pregnancy to term because of an incompetent cervix. All of these things increase after a woman has had an abortion. Dr. Matthew Bulfin in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, finds that very few women who have abortions have been counseled on what some of the subsequent dangers are.

What should you tell a woman who is contemplating abortion?

She should be shown photographs of exactly what she is aborting. She also needs some spiritual guidance. Many women early on in pregnancy go through a time of depression when they do not want the child. If they have only one kind of counseling available—to abort—women may live to regret it.

What about an unmarried, pregnant Christian?

That’s where we Christians are reprehensible. I’ve been involved for a long time and was instrumental in founding the Evangelical Child and Family service in Philadelphia largely because of my concern for Christian unwed mothers. One would expect that evangelical Christians, having understood the grace of God, would be most gracious under these circumstances. They are not. They are judgmental and it’s to our detriment that this can be said of us. My son and his wife took to live with them a Christian girl who was pregnant and carried her child to term. She knew she couldn’t raise the child, so I made arrangements for it to be adopted by a Christian couple who were on cloud nine at the prospect. I knew of another unwed pregnant woman who joined a very conservative, fundamentalist, independent church in the suburbs because she wanted to be in a Christian community when her child was born. I was afraid that the poor girl would get the cold shoulder. To my absolute amazement and delight, that congregation rallied around her. They provided her with babysitting and child care until she could finish her education to become a teacher. She is now raising that child herself. It could not have been possible without that church. Unfortunately, such experiences are exceptions.

Would you always recommend adoption?

In general, yes. There just aren’t many babies around to adopt these days. People are willing to adopt racially different babies, ethnically different babies, even handicapped children. I don’t think having a single parent is nearly as good for a child as the usual arrangement.

That might be a blessing sprung from the curse.

Oh, it’s a blessing, but many childless couples will not be able to have it. I wrote the introduction for a book published by Good News Press called Chosen Children. It’s the trials and tribulations of parents who adopted handicapped children and made it work. The outstanding emotional experiences in my pediatric surgical career have been to get to know parents who went out of their way to adopt handicapped children.

Explain the difference between birth control and contraception.

Birth control is a big umbrella that covers any kind of plan or procedure that prevents birth. Contraception is a form of birth control; abortion is a form of birth control. Many people use the terms contraception and birth control as if they were synonyms; they’re not. The morning-after pill is not a contraceptive, but it is a birth control medication. An IUD is not a contraceptive; it is something that’s effective in birth control.

And you would not approve of those two methods.

I would not. They affect the already fertilized egg.

Is there a problem with the use of the word fetus?

Fetus is a perfectly good Latin word for an unborn baby. It was used primarily in medical circles. I am convinced that we are using certain words to depersonalize the unborn baby. It doesn’t pose such a problem when you decide to kill it. It’s easier to kill a fetus than an unborn baby.

What other language problems are there?

You never see the term unborn baby used in proabortion circles. The most flagrant semantic fraud that has been carried out is one by obstetricians who changed the definition of pregnancy. The definition of pregnancy when I went to medical school and when you were born was that period of time between fertilization of the egg, or conception, and delivery of the baby. Now, pregnancy is called that period of time between implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall and the delivery of the baby. If pregnancy doesn’t begin until implantation, and you prevent implantation as with an IUD, the patient doesn’t have to face the fact that she is destroying a fertilized egg that could have become a baby. The IUD used to be called IUCD, interuterine contraceptive device, but the word contraceptive was removed long ago, because IUDs aren’t contraceptive. An IUD acts after the egg is fertilized by a sperm. The IUD sits in the uterus and prevents the egg from nestling onto the wall and getting its blood supply.

Are medical students different today?

In talking on rounds to medical students who have never known medicine when abortion was illegal, I find that they have an entirely different concept of the worth of human life—it’ cheap.

What do you tell these medical students?

I tell them that when I was in their place the very word abortionist was a loathsome thing; now the abortionist is likely to be the professor of obstetrics in the medical school. There was a time when everybody believed that it was wrong to destroy an unborn baby. Now a great many people feel that it is right to do that. Many people believe that what is legal is right. There are thousands of women who would never have an abortion, I am sure, if the law said it’s wrong.

What would you consider extreme measures to save an infant’s life?

Let’s say that a newborn has a situation where so much of his intestine is destroyed that there is not enough left to support life. It would be possible to put that child on total intravenous nutrition and keep him alive for many months but with the ultimate understanding that eventually one would run out of veins and the child would eventually die because you could no longer provide nutrition. To use that type of nutrition would be to me in that circumstance extraordinary care that I would elect not to use. Knowing that the situation was hopeless anyway, I would provide just the usual (not extraordinary) care and the youngster would therefore not live as long. However, no active step would be taken to shorten the child’s life and he would be treated with all the love and care and compassion that we had.

Do you differentiate between certain extraordinary means and others, then?

I’m best known for a series of operations on newborn babies, children born without a rectum, with intestinal obstruction, with no connection between throat and stomach, with their abdominal organs in the umbilical cord. It would not be possible for me to have achieved the survival statistics I have if I didn’t use extraordinary care. But even in that category there are patients that I know are not going to make it and in them I would taper the extraordinary care. There are three things that I must know to make a decision. I must know the patient, his disease, and how the patient responds to the disease. I’ve never killed anyone, but I have frequently been relieved when a child under my care has died. I have told the family that this is a blessing in disguise. But that doesn’t entitle me to distribute showers of blessings to other people by destroying their children, even though they have big hardships ahead of them.

How do you know when you go to a doctor that he is trustworthy?

When I retire I plan to write a book called How to Find Good Medical Care. You’ll need to wait till then for an answer.

You’re working on a film with Francis Schaeffer. What’s it about?

Francis Schaeffer and I have been working for about a year and a half now on a project called “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” There is a book manuscript written and we have already filmed forty-five-minute documentary movies. The first three of these cover the subject of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. The last two are Schaeffer’s alone and in them he presents his own Christian base and presents some authoritative answers based upon the Word of God to the problems we raise. We plan to take these films in the form of a two-day seminar in twenty cities in America, beginning in Philadelphia in the fall of 1979.

Dr. Koop.

C. Everett Koop

We take up for the prisoners that are tortured but what about unborn babies?

Related posts:

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE

Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis

Christianity and Scientific Concerns

Six evangelical scholars–including C. Everett Koop–in a panel discussion on technology and bioethics.

Carl F. H. Henry

[ posted 2/25/2013 8:01PM ]

AP

This conversation originally appeared in Christianity Today’s May 25, 1973, issue. We’re republishing it today because it was our magazine’s first significant interview with C. Everett Koop, who would later become Surgeon General of the United States. (Koop died today at age 96.) But the issues discussed here—including the environment, abortion, euthanasia, the dehumanizing effects of technology, genetic testing, and other concerns—remain highly relevant 40 years later.

Meeting in Philadelphia for a semi-annual board meeting, directors of the Institute for Advanced Christian Studies gathered in Tenth Presbyterian Church for an informal discussion on “Christianity and Scientific Concerns.” Taking part were V. Elving Anderson, professor of genetics and cell biology, University of Minnesota; Martin Buerger, institute professor emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and university professor, University of Connecticut; C. Everett Koop, professor of pediatric surgery, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania; Gordon Van Wylen, formerly dean of the School of Engineering, University of Michigan, and now president of Hope College; and Orville S. Walters, professor of health science and lecturer in psychology, University of Illinois. The moderator was Carl F. H. Henry, professor-at-large at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, president of the IFACS directors, and CT’s first editor.

Henry: Others say that the real problem facing us is not solely technology: man himself is the problem. The thought of the population explosion provides an opportunity to invite Dr. Koop to speak.

Dr. Koop: The population explosion is certainly an overwhelming problem and a Christian concern; we cannot turn our backs on it. I am convinced that abortion is not the answer. I have spent more than twenty-five years of my life preserving the lives of newborn babies, many of whom are defective, and since I have found this to be a rewarding scientific and Christian endeavor, I am not likely to succumb easily to propaganda that the way to stop producing too many people is to kill some just before they are born. From cover to cover the Word of God seems to me to say that life is precious to God. Now, we can argue about when life begins; I do not think it can be settled. Neither a sperm nor an egg can reproduce itself, but once an egg and a sperm have united and there is the proper number of chromosomes, it seems to me that there will be a human being with God-consciousness unless somebody interferes with that developing zygote. Now, I would not think of killing a baby that was born horribly defective, because it is murder, even if it is but one minute old. If I were to go back just one minute, to the actual moment of birth, I would not kill it then. If I were to go back one minute before that, I would not kill it then or one minute before that, or before that, or before that, right on back to the fertilized egg. Looking at life as though it were a cheap commodity will infiltrate other aspects of our attitude toward people, and eventually we might get to the point where we try to evaluate life on the basis of quality. There are a number of people in this audience who have a quality of life that other people would not consider up to their standard. If the day comes when we do not have enough food, you might be eliminated. If abortion had been practiced when your mothers were pregnant the way it is advocated now, at least 25 percent of you would not be here.

Koop: Dr. Buerger’s comment about wisdom brings up the dilemma of what might be called biological schizophrenia that a surgical specialist often faces, with respect to not only the right to life, which has already been mentioned, but also the right to die. There comes a place in my kind of a physician’s life where strict adherence to the sanctity of life conflicts with Christian compassion. Here the spiritually sensitive person who has to make decisions, is driven to seek answers in prayer. Life magazine recently published four case histories of people who would rather be dead than alive, or whose families would rather have them dead than alive; I think one now is dead because he chose to shut off his kidney dialysis machine. Just as some people are talking about the right of the newborn to live and the family’s right to condemn him to die, so some people are looking at the other end of the human lifespan and are discussing euthanasia. This word means different things to different people; to me euthanasia means terminating the life of someone whose quality of life does not come up to your standard of life. I do think that there is an area in Christian medicine where the withholding of extraordinary care is an act of Christian compassion. For example, if someone under my care lay dying of a malignant tumor and in great pain, yet could have his life preserved by the heroic measures of blood transfusion and X-ray therapy but without any hope of the preservation of productive or even half-productive life, I think the Christian physician has the right to withhold that kind of therapy. If I might classify it this way, I think there are several ways that you can approach the care of a medical patient. If I get appendicitis tonight, I hope that someone takes me to a good hospital and that I have a good anesthesiologist and a good surgeon and that my appendix is removed and that I recover. Now, if under anesthesia something were to go wrong, and I were deprived of oxygen for sufficient time to render me anoxic, so that when I recovered from anesthesia I would have to look forward to a life as a vegetable, then I would not want anyone to take the extraordinary measure of keeping my carcass artificially alive with a respirator and with blood transfusions just to say, “Koop did not die on the table or within thirty days of the operative procedure and therefore is not an ‘operative mortality.'” I do not think that is good medicine; it certainly is not Christian medicine.

__________

Over and over again you hear the argument that it is the woman’s body and she can do with it as she wishes. That is the issue touched on by the editorial cartoon below.

Dr. Koop.

C. Everett Koop

Related posts:

Remembering Dr. C. Everett Koop with pictures and quotes Part 4 (funny editorial cartoon too)

March 1, 2013 – 6:38 am

Dr. Koop Gary Brookings of the Richmond Times Dispatch did a very funny editorial cartoon about the time in 1988 when Dr. C. Everett Koop sent the unapproved mail  piece out to millions of homes about AIDS. There were many such cartoons at the time since everyone knew Dr. Koop got the mail piece out […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Tagged Dr. C. Everett Koop | Edit | Comments (0)

Remembering Dr. C. Everett Koop with pictures and quotes Part 3 ( three more editorial cartoons too)

February 28, 2013 – 6:46 am

Dr. Koop with Hillary Clinton In 1980 I really was influenced at my highschool by a teacher of mine named Mark Brink. He introduced me to the film series “Whatever happened to the human race?” by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop. In this  film series that came out in 1979 they dealt with […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Tagged Dr. C. Everett Koop | Edit | Comments (0)

Remembering Dr. C. Everett Koop with pictures and quotes Part 2 (Doonesbury cartoon by Gary Trudeau included)

February 27, 2013 – 7:38 am

Dr. Koop On 2-25-13 we lost a great man when we lost Dr. C. Everett Koop. I have written over and over the last few years quoting Dr. C. Everett Koop and his good friend Francis Schaeffer. They both came together for the first time in 1973 when Dr. Koop operated on Schaeffer’s daughter and […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Tagged Doonesbury cartoon, Dr. C. Everett Koop, Gary Trudeau | Edit | Comments (0)

Remembering Dr. C. Everett Koop with pictures and quotes Part 1

February 26, 2013 – 8:26 am

Dr. C. Everett Koop is pictured above. Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race” (Episode 1) ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis Dr. Koop On 2-25-13 we lost a great man when we lost Dr. C. Everett Koop. I have written over and over the last few years […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Francis Schaeffer, President Obama, Prolife | Tagged Dr. C. Everett Koop | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 232 B) Dr. C. Everett Koop and Reagan pictured together

February 7, 2013 – 7:16 am

Dr. C. Everett Koop with Ronald Reagan. Dr. Koop was delayed in his confirmation by Ted Kennedy because of his film Whatever Happened to the Human Race? President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, President Obama, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

“Sanctity of Life Saturday” Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop asked Reagan to issue pro-life proclamation in 1983 (includes video ABORTION OF THE HUMAN RACE)

February 2, 2013 – 8:22 am

In the film series “WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE?” the arguments are presented  against abortion (Episode 1),  infanticide (Episode 2),   euthenasia (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 […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Dr. C. Everett Koop on abortion’s 1973 Roe v. Wade impact on child abuse

January 17, 2013 – 2:35 pm

Dr. C. Everett Koop with Ronald Reagan. Dr. Koop was delayed in his confirmation by Ted Kennedy because of his film Whatever Happened to the Human Race? Watch the film below starting at the 19 minute mark and that will lead into a powerful question from Dr. C. Everett Koop. This 1979 film is WHATEVER […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 221 B) Dr. C. Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer rightly called abortion “the watershed issue of our era”

January 14, 2013 – 6:57 am

 Dr. Koop was delayed in his confirmation by Ted Kennedy because of his film Whatever Happened to the Human Race? Francis Schaeffer February 21, 1982 (Part 1) Uploaded by DeBunker7 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 […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, President Obama, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer and C. Everette Koop on the Hippocratic oath (March for Life January 20, 2013)

January 10, 2013 – 1:27 pm

Dr. C. Everett Koop was appointed to the Reagan administration but was held up in the Senate in his confirmation hearings by Ted Kennedy because of his work in pro-life causes. I was thinking about the March for Life that is coming up on Jan 20, 2013  and that is why I posted this today […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Cato Institute, Economist Dan Mitchell, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Tagged Elwood Ark Times Blogger | Edit | Comments (0)

Ronald Wilson Reagan pictured with Dr. C. Everett Koop

November 24, 2012 – 1:29 am

High resolution version (11,426,583 Bytes) Description: The photograph is signed by President Ronald Reagan with the inscription “To Chick Koop, With Best Wishes.” Chick, from chicken coop, was the nickname Koop gained will attending Dartmouth College in the mid-1930s. Koop maintained a cordial relationship with President Reagan, despite his disappointment over Reagan’s refusal to address […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Ronald Reagan | Edit | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were prophetic (jh29)

September 22, 2011 – 3:31 pm

Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were prophetic (jh29) What Ever Happened to the Human Race? I recently heard this Breakpoint Commentary by Chuck Colson and it just reminded me of how prophetic Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were in the late 1970′s with their book and film series “Whatever happened to the human […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Tagged carrying twins, chuck colson, richard john neuhaus, sanctity of life, vitro fertilization | Edit | Comments (0)

Should Michele Bachmann be punished for taking pro-life views from Schaeffer and Koop? (March for Life January 20, 2013)

January 15, 2013 – 12:34 am

  Dr. C. Everett Koop I was thinking about the March for Life that is coming up on Jan 20, 2013  and that is why I posted this today Secular leaps of faith 39 Comments Written by Janie B. Cheaney August 15, 2011, 2:17 PM I’m willing to cut Ryan Lizza some slack. His profile […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s own words concerning humanism and its bad results

February 24, 2013 – 1:23 am

Francis Schaeffer: “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” (Episode 2) SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS Published on Oct 6, 2012 by AdamMetropolis The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book  really helped develop my political views concerning […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

“Sanctity of Life Saturday”:Derek Melleby’s review of the book “Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life” (includes film THE BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY)

February 23, 2013 – 1:59 am

  I truly believe that many of the problems we have today in the USA are due to the advancement of humanism in the last few decades in our society. Ronald Reagan appointed the evangelical Dr. C. Everett Koop to the position of Surgeon General in his administration. He partnered with Dr. Francis Schaeffer in making […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Taking on Ark Times bloggers about abortion on the 40th anniversary date of Roe v. Wade (Part 5) “Slavery issue compared to rights of unborn child”

January 25, 2013 – 1:35 pm

The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop “Whatever happened to the human race?” 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 […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Current Events, Francis Schaeffer, Max Brantley, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Taking on Ark Times bloggers about abortion on the 40th anniversary date of Roe v. Wade (Part 4) “How do pro-lifers react to the movie THE CIDER HOUSE RULES?”

January 25, 2013 – 8:23 am

Francis Schaeffer pictured above._________ The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop “Whatever happened to the human race?” 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 […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Current Events, Prolife | Tagged the outlier | Edit | Comments (0)

Taking on Ark Times bloggers about abortion on the 40th anniversary date of Roe v. Wade (Part 3) “What should be the punishment for abortion doctors?”

January 25, 2013 – 7:44 am

The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop “Whatever happened to the human race?” 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 […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Current Events, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Tagged Carl Sagan | Edit | Comments (0)

Taking on Ark Times bloggers about abortion on the 40th anniversary date of Roe v. Wade (Part 2) “The pro-abortion child abuse argument destroyed here”

January 24, 2013 – 7:00 am

PHOTO BY STATON BREIDENTHAL from Pro-life march in Little Rock on 1-20-13. Tim Tebow on pro-life super bowl commercial. Over the years I have taken on the Ark Times liberal bloggers over and over and over concerning the issue of abortion. Here is another encounter below. On January 22, 2013 (on the 40th anniversary of the […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Taking on Ark Times bloggers about abortion on the 40th anniversary date of Roe v. Wade (Part 6) For many pro-abortionists ” …the problem is not determining when actual human life begins, but when the value of that life begins to out weigh other considerations”

January 28, 2013 – 6:30 pm

The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop “Whatever happened to the human race?” Francis Schaeffer pictured above._________ The 45 minute video above is from the film series created from Francis Schaeffer’s book “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” with Dr. C. Everett Koop. This book  really […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Tagged Vanessa | Edit | Comments (1)

Taking on Ark Times bloggers about abortion on the 40th anniversary date of Roe v. Wade (Part 7) “Poverty not good reason for abortion, why not give up for adoption?”

January 30, 2013 – 9:06 am

Dr Richard Land discusses abortion and slavery – 10/14/2004 – part 3 The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop “Whatever happened to the human race?” Over the years I have taken on the Ark Times liberal bloggers over and over and over concerning the issue […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Prolife | Tagged Elwood Ark Times Blogger, MountainGirl Ark Times Blogger | Edit | Comments (0)

Taking on Ark Times bloggers about abortion on the 40th anniversary date of Roe v. Wade (Part 1)

January 23, 2013 – 8:37 am

Dr Richard Land discusses abortion and slavery – 10/14/2004 – part 3 The best pro-life film I have ever seen below by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop “Whatever happened to the human race?” Over the years I have taken on the Ark Times liberal bloggers over and over and over concerning the issue […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Arkansas Times, Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)

Paul Greenberg became pro-life because we are all “endowed with certain unalienable rights”

January 22, 2013 – 4:16 pm

On January 20, 2013 I heard Paul Greenberg talk about the words of Thomas Jefferson that we are all “endowed with certain unalienable rights” and the most important one is the right to life. He mentioned this also in this speech below from 2011: Paul Greenberg Dinner Speech 2011 Fall 2011 Issue Some of you […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

How Pulitzer Prize-winning Paul Greenberg, one of the most respected and honored commentators in America, changed his mind about abortion and endorses now the pro-life view

January 22, 2013 – 7:03 am

It is not possible to know where the pro-life evangelicals are coming from unless you look at the work of the person who inspired them the most. That person was Francis Schaeffer.  I do care about economic issues but the pro-life issue is the most important to me. Several years ago Adrian Rogers (past president of […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer, Prolife | Edit | Comments (0)